*** Official Nikon D3X Discussion Thread ***

Nope, nothing really to write home about for me... I guess after seeing 1DS shots and even D3 shots you are really going to have to convince me the thing represents something amazing.

As far as I can see, the only real advantage is to be able to crop a 8Mp picture out of it by throwing away two thirds of your shot. Which strikes me as kinda lazy, but then again I could get away with using a 24-70 for pretty much everything I guess!
 
desantnik said:
I think a lot of people don't understand the REAL differences enough between the D300, D700 and D3 as it stands today...
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Whilst the D3x might not add a lot of new technology to the D3/700, people seem to be missing the point about it's combination of pro-level body, mixed with leading edge sensor. Neither of these are either cheap, or easy to do.
For people who don't get the difference on a pro-body, go to your local store and have a play with either the existing D3, or a Canon 1D, both of which are pretty similar in feel (if not operation). Both of these cameras make their non-pro brothers feel like toys in comparison.
At the end of the day, these bodies are NOT aimed at your average plebs in the street (ie. most of us), they're aimed at the pros who need to get the job done with a reliable piece of kit.
 
If you read Nikon Pro magazine and the sort of photographers they are targeting (studio or landscape) I would argue that you don't need a "Pro" body for these, and most of the features that - while excellent for the D3's target market (ie AF, weather seals, build quality) - won't be required by most Pro's shooting in a studio or out in the field doing landscape. Neither require any particular robustness.

My gut feeling is that Nikon have mis-judged this horribly, the price is much much higher than I think anyone expected, and compared to a D3,you are paying £3 more for that sensor.

Will the D3X allow you to get enough of an advantage over a Canon 5D MKII shooter to justify the £3k difference? Or the D3?
 
puddleduck said:
Will the D3X allow you to get enough of an advantage over a Canon 5D MKII shooter to justify the £3k difference? Or the D3?
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. The comment "pros will buy it regardless", seems a bit short sighted. Professional or not, saving THREE thousand pounds on a purchase is a massive amount, which could get the pro the new 60" plasma they're after, or a holiday with the partner.

Don't assume pro's pay anything because it's their profession.
 
This post is much eloquent than I ever can be, so I'll quote it here

Should the D3X be compared against the 5DII and A900, or against the 1DsIII? This is one of the questions that has been preoccupying this forum lately. There's another thread with a similar theme, and I could have posted this there, but I decided to post this seperately. My apologies for the redundancy, and for continuing to beat a dead horse, but I think this is important. I personally think the D3X should be compared against the 5DII and A900. And based on this comparison, I also think the D3X pricing is a mistake on Nikon's part. Here's why:

It's simple really. A lot of people who will consider the D3X will also consider the 5DII and A900. All three cameras serve the same market (studio and landscape work). So like it or not, that puts them in direct competition with each other. That's just a fact of life. No amount of positioning by Nikon will save them from having to face these two cameras in the marketplace.

While the D3X may have been designed as a 1DsIII killer (and it is, I think), the marketplace has moved on. Canon has rendered their 1DsIII virtually obsolete by introducing the 5DII. And Sony has added to that with the A900. The harsh fact is that the 5DII and A900 are now the price leaders in the studio and landscape camera space. Which makes Nikon's D3X pricing, and Canon's 1DsIII pricing, no longer tenable, except in very small quantities for those applications that need the ultimate in ruggedness, or for those who need the bling factor.

Does the D3X have advantages over the 5DII and A900? Absolutely. The AF is better and the construction is better. The weather sealing is better. Image quality is still an unknown. We have high hopes the D3X image quality will be better, but as of yet, we just don't know.

Do the 5DII and A900 have advantages over the D3X (and 1DsIII)? Absolutely. First and foremost, they are much, much, much more affordable ($5000 to $5300 more affordable). They are both smaller and lighter. The 5DII has a dust buster and video (whether you like these features or not is irrelevant - the marketplace likes these features, and THEY DO play a role in a buyers purchase decision). The A900 also has a dust buster, and in-camera VR. Again, whether you like these features is irrelevant, for the same reasons listed above.

It doesn't matter if people on this forum compare the D3X to the 5DII or A900 or not. We are irrelevant. Like it or not, the marketplace IS comparing them. You can wish this or that, and say the D3X only competes with the 1DsIII all day until you are blue in the face, but you still won't change the fact that photographers making purchasing decisions will choose between the D3X, 1DsIII, 5DII and A900. And the 1DsIII and D3X will come out on the short end of those decisions in most cases. Why will they come out on the short end - because of the unrealistic pricing of the D3X and 1DsIII relative to their new competitors. All of the D3X's and 1DsIII's better build quality and superior AF is great, but most studio and landscape applications simply don't need those features.

This is why people are up in arms over the D3X pricing. It's not that we don't like the camera. We do. It's just that its pricing is unrealistic given the current market realities. This decision by Nikon is bad for them, and bad for their loyal studio and landscape photographers, who have been waiting a long time for a high MP Nikon body, and who will now have to wait even longer, or else have to seriously consider other brands to satisfy their needs.

See:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30212788

Agree with ever word. I've added bold where I feel he's making a really good point.
 
Its irrelevant and I dunno why people waste their time banging on about it. It will either sell at £X or it won't. If it sells, well done Nikon. If it fails to sell, then Silly boy Nikon. They will reduce the cost.

Who cares? Yawn.
 
I'm not entirely convinced the majority of people will be picking between a 5Dmk2, 1Dsmk3, A900 or D3X.

In fact, you could go so far as to say that I think that is an entirely stupid notion.
 
puddleduck said:
Well Gary, this is a discussion thread.

You cared enough to post, and clearly people DO care, even if you don't :bonk:
Click to expand...


I'm not dissing the discussion, I am dissing the how ANGRY people are getting over a price! Its just silly. You have three choices. Buy it up front and get stung, wait, or jump ship. No point in getting upset.
 
I guess it just depends on your personal view as to what the equivalents are of the various manufacturers models. It is quite clear that none of them try to head to head it, they all offer something slightly different in an attempt to differeniate (sp?) their product from the rest of the market.

I think its quite bloody obvious that Nikon have loaded more stuff onto their D3X than either their own range or that of their competitors and all those extras do add up in cost. Plus of course a flagship product can and does command a premium price, no two ways about that.

But anyway, the 5D MkII has destroyed the 1DS MkIII? Really... Again, that's one person's perception only I suggest.
 
Imagine if they hadn't put the VAT rate down to 15%... presumably theD3X would be on sale at £5618.85 instead........ Wouldn't it.......? :cautious:
 
A d700x will doubtless appear. This camera is aimed more at fashion, studio and ad pros for my money and Nikon haven't had a 1DS 3 competitor for too long. It's a move they had to make. The price is what it is. Buy or vote with your wallet.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I'm not dissing the discussion, I am dissing the how ANGRY people are getting over a price! Its just silly. You have three choices. Buy it up front and get stung, wait, or jump ship. No point in getting upset.
Click to expand...

Well I'm personally not upset, because I never intended to buy it - I don't like big bodies, so regardless of price it wasn't on my radar. So my Canon 5D MKII will stay on pre-order.

However given the pricing here, I'm not confident that the D700x / D800 won't suddenly be much more than we expected in July 2009 either. That does worry me.

A lot of people are angry because they've been waiting for ages, and Nikon haven't delivered on expectations. This isn't just Internet whiners here, read Thom Hogan or Michael Richemann or others. Its floored a lot of people here.

I'm not angry, just surprised. And so are a LOT of people. I actually can't recall so much backlash regarding this than anything else Nikon have done tbh.
 
puddleduck said:
Well I'm personally not upset, because I never intended to buy it - I don't like big bodies, so regardless of price it wasn't on my radar. So my Canon 5D MKII will stay on pre-order.

However given the pricing here, I'm not confident that the D700x / D800 won't suddenly be much more than we expected in July 2009 either. That does worry me.

A lot of people are angry because they've been waiting for ages, and Nikon haven't delivered on expectations. This isn't just Internet whiners here, read Thom Hogan or Michael Richemann or others. Its floored a lot of people here.

I'm not angry, just surprised. And so are a LOT of people. I actually can't recall so much backlash regarding this than anything else Nikon have done tbh.
Click to expand...


Is the price official yet? If not, where did it originate?
 
puddleduck said:
Well I'm personally not upset, because I never intended to buy it - I don't like big bodies, so regardless of price it wasn't on my radar. So my Canon 5D MKII will stay on pre-order.

However given the pricing here, I'm not confident that the D700x / D800 won't suddenly be much more than we expected in July 2009 either. That does worry me.

A lot of people are angry because they've been waiting for ages, and Nikon haven't delivered on expectations. This isn't just Internet whiners here, read Thom Hogan or Michael Richemann or others. Its floored a lot of people here.

I'm not angry, just surprised. And so are a LOT of people. I actually can't recall so much backlash regarding this than anything else Nikon have done tbh.
Click to expand...

And what were those expectations that Nikon failed to deliver on - namely the deliverance of a 1Ds III competitor (that'll probably exceed the performance of that body) for less than £3000? IIRC those weren't expectations that Nikon ever set, but they are the same expectations that expected the 5D II to come in at £1200 new (by some people).

The 5DII is probably a better bet for you - the Canon ergonomics shouldn't be a problem because as you've said before, you just want the ability to set aperture, exposure, shutter speed etc. The 16-35/2.8II is a fine lens and that shouldn't be a barrier. You need resolution and not speed, so again it looks that the Canon wins out here.

You weren't ever going to buy the D3x because of the size, so would you buy a D700x at £2800? Let's assume that's the price for the moment......RGB are already offering the D3x for £4699 and I'll bet the yen/pound exchange rate isn't helping right now anyway.

Put it this way - the people that this camera (and not the D700x) is aimed at - the high-end studio, fashion and ad pros looking at MF alternatives - will doubt look seriously at this. I know of 2 wedding pros who also shoot high-end fine-art/architecture and who have had this body for a few weeks who've ordered 2 each.
 
You weren't ever going to buy the D3x because of the size, so would you buy a D700x at £2800?

Good question - because I have very decent glass.. a tentative probably.

I suspect it'll be priced higher than the D3, not lower.
 
So you'd probably stretch to £3000 if need be (and the IQ was there) which will be around £1200 more than a 5D II by then, and £1600-1700 more than than a D700.

Stick that £1700 on a D3 now and you're not that far away from a D3x....
 
This is like driving around in my van and reading about a Ferrari but what goes into top end stuff today goes into consumer stuff later. I wanted a full frame camera as the D200 replacement but with DX lenses I will loose too many pixels. I want a D800 with the same pixel count on DX as my D200 (or thereabouts) so I can pass the D200 to Mrs Cowasaki. Hopefully the D800 will have around 10Mp in DX ! But isn't summer 2009 a bit early for it? I will have to start saving though as Mrs C will have to get a Macbook Air before I can spend that much money on a new body especially as I would like a really decent full frame general purpose lens for it when I buy it.

Which of my lenses will work full frame ?
 
But isn't summer 2009 a bit early for it?

No. D3 shipped end of November 07
D700 came along July 08

No. D3X shipped end of December 08
D700x should came along July / August 09
 
puddleduck said:
Well I'm personally not upset, because I never intended to buy it - I don't like big bodies, so regardless of price it wasn't on my radar.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right...:LOL:
For someone who doesn't care one way or the other, you have an awful lot to say about pricing.
Nobody on Earth is more upset than you :)

ere, I'm not smiling cos you're upset, I'm upset, its expensive just like I'm upset that pioneer 50 inch LCD tv is expensive, its gonna have to be a Beko...:LOL:

This camera will be the best machine at the moment for the job it was created, the cost really isn't high enough for use in the professional arena it is intended, to be a factor.
In any other area of business, be it electrical, pharmaceutical, medical whatever, if you want the best equipment, it costs what it costs, the caveat is building a business plan that accounts for equipment costs, just like everything else.
If the cost can't be justified and a business can get by with a 5D, buy a 5D.
Now if you want to say its not better than the competition, that's different, but its far too early to say anything, maybe in a few months when its had seven shades of pro **** kicked out of it, someone will be in a position to make a definitive call.
Gawd it ain't two minutes since the 5D 2 was judged the downest upgrade that ever lived, now its a replacement for a 5k D3X that's been out 5 days..:cautious:
 
I think several thousand posters on DRPReview are more upset than me - have a look:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1021

Call me a liar if you wish, but I was always planning to get a smaller body. I didn't buy a D3 for the same reason, and sold my D2X for the size reason too.

I don't use grips on my bodies either, for that reason.
 
Keep yer knickers on Doris, nobody's calling anybody a liar.
The official price and body shape was released on the same day, ok there were a few leaks but nobody really knows anything for sure till the day.
I you say you've never been interested in it...I believe you :)

DP is just a load of internet hermit lip flapping, nobody knows anything, the camera has been out 5 days, its the usual doom and gloomers that tossed the 5d 2 over their shoulder after reading the spec sheet wasn't what they were hoping for.
 
Meh, I was quite excited at the prospect of he D3x and had one pre-ordered before it was officially announced. Now I've seen the spec (and more importantly, the price!) I don't have the desire for it...waaaay over priced. I'll stick with my D3 and may even get myself a D300 as a backup, having just got back from two weeks in Florida having had great success shooting with a D3 & D300 combo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top