24.4 megapixel Nikon D3X DSLR in the works?
By Paul Miller 
posted Apr 15th 2008 10:19PM
posted Apr 15th 2008 10:19PM
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Here's to the guys who drop thousands of dollars on cameras...
no. tens of thousands.
Personally... I'd prefer a new car.
Photographers that are likely to drop "tens of thousands" and need lots of megapixels, will probably be more likely to buy a digital medium format camera (Mamiya or Hasselblad with digital back) that has a much larger sensor and offers more megapixels then a dSLR. Not to say that these high-megapixel dSLRs don't have their place. But it'll be interesting to see what Nikon charges for this camera (hopefully not as much as a 1Ds).
the 5mp camera in my phone blows my mind ( K850.. i'm not a N95 wank )
24.4mp.. really? didnt we establish that mp don't matter anymore..
a bit like megahertz..
"24.4mp.. really? didnt we establish that mp don't matter anymore..
a bit like megahertz.."
Not at all if you plan to print your photos, however the quality of the pixels, noise level, etc is far more important. There is a big difference between a picture taken by a point and shoot with a tiny plastic lens and a picture taken by an SLR with a nice piece of glass.
Pixels are information. More is always better as long as the more is signal and not noise. Getting 7 MP out of a tiny sensor is lame and not really worth it. Getting 24 MP from an ultra low noise, high accuracy full frame sensor is something altogether different.
However, if you are just going to look at your pictures on a 1680 x 1050 monitor then stick with the 3MP...
Isn't it a bit silly to say that personally you'd prefer a new car? If you're a carpenter, you need hammers. If you're a racecar driver, you need a fast car. And if you're a photographer, you need a camera. If you take your profession seriously, then you get serious equipment. If you're just a hobbyist, then you get whatever suits your needs at your price points. So if you don't care about photography, then why not just move on?
This almost makes me reconsider getting a d300 - almost. But since right now I sub out most of my photo work, the d300 will meet my needs for a hobby/fun camera.
AutoCon,
Megapixels are only unimportant in consumer (non-SLR) photography. A few megapixels is more than enough for the average consumer and consumer camera. (Bad lenses can't take advantage of high megapixels.) But with SLRs it's a completely different story. :)
But for the most part you got it right... Megapixels usually aren't important. (Only for those of us weirdo who are hobbyist prosumers or professionals.)
But, dang... 24.4 megapixels? That's still crazy!
"24.4mp.. really? didnt we establish that mp don't matter anymore..
a bit like megahertz..""
An A3 sized print (16.5 x 11.7 inches) at 300dpi is around 17.5 megapixels ((300 * 11.75) = 3525 pixels x (16.5 * 300) = 4950 pixels); so this camera will give you enough latitude to spare for cropping for an A3 size print. A2@300dpi is closer to 32 megapixels. The camera will be more relevant as you go to larger prints.
You can get decent images at 200 dpi or even less, however, this is a professional camera designed primarily for studio photographers that want the best possible quality, and there are many applications print sizes that are larger then A4.
And yet 35mm cameras cost less, and fine-grain (slow) 35mm film still has more megapixels...
@autotom
The k850 camera is a good camera for a phone, but is far from beeing a good camera compared to digital cameras and espesially to slrs. I have both the k850, a film slr and a digital slr (alpha 100). The k850 is the one i use the most, since I always have it with me though.
@Jesse S
As much as I love film, digital has now better resolution. But there are still areas where film still shines. Like long exposures. So I would have gone back to film if the amazing Kodak Royal Gold 25 came back. Best print film i ever used.
@Jesse S
Film people love to throw that one at every new camera. Since film is analog it can be scanned at any resolution. You could scan 35mm at 100megapixels and some nut out there would try to tell us that 35mm is 100megapixels as a result. But the actual image would be mostly grain.
The final result of 35mm typically falls in the 7-12megapixel range depending on a lot of factors like: was the camera moving or locked down, was the mirror locked up, what type of film is used, how was the film scanned/printed/exposed, ect.
A good modern DSLR matches/beats film in resolution.Film only has the upper hand in tonal quality at the moment. But ask yourself 'Where are my pictures going?" and if it's any kind of digital distribution you're better off just starting on digital to begin with.
Considering that many of those who drop heavy amounts of green for these camera are earning their living with them, the investment is worth it to keep their edge.
~007
oh man! me want if its true....
Nikon makes quality cameras, sony will have to step up there game.
Sony and Nikon are in cahoots. The Sony Alpha900 is most likely going to be a prosumer camera geared more toward the Canon 5D replacement and hence be much cheaper. This D3x, with the exact same sensor sans image stabilization, will be more a Canon 1Ds Mark III competitor and be priced closer to $8k most likely.
Has Nikon ever broke $5,000 for their top-of-the-line?
I doubt they will anytime soon.
Nikon has been using Sony image sensors for years
Hopefully Nikon will update their pro 70-200mm f/2.8 lens soon (its been almost five years) to further their full frame lens lineup; perhaps with nano-crystal coating and VRII. Their recent 12-24mm f/2.8 (shown in the picture above) and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses released in conjunction with the D3 are absolutely stunning and incredibly sharp. Nikon really is on a roll.
This D3x would be a great alternative to studio/landscape photographers that want detail/resolution rather then speed that the D3 offers.
That's a 14-24, the 12-24 f/4 is a piece of crap. But you're right, the 14-24, and 24-70 are gorgeous, and the D3 is a wonderful toy to have.
The 70-200 2.8 really doesn't need a major update. It's solid as it is, and is already full frame. The wider lenses got a boost because of newer tech and coatings that improved wide angel performance, minimizing distortion and vignetting. Telephotos were already ahead of the game. VR-II might be nice, but I still say it's fine lens and doesn't need to be screwed with.
I was 2mm of on the wide lens. My bad. But clearly I wasn't talking about the f/4. The current 70-200mm is certainly still a good lens (as is even still the older 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses). However, I'm sure that during this half-a-decade there are advances that can be made to the lens besides N-coating and VRII, and Nikon has clearly shown some great glass with their newest FX glass.
Now we're talking. This is the camera I've been waiting for.
I just want a simple SLR like the Pentax K200D or Canon Digital Rebel XSi, maybe a Pentax K20D if the price drops enough!
I heart my D3.
I don't care about more megapixels.
I've been shooting concerts at 6400 and loving it.
Interestingly, the D3x will probably have crappier noise than the D3 so you have the right camera for the job even if this gets released.
Same size (FX) sensor with fewer pixels = more sensitivity per pixel = lower noise. I have a D200, looking to go to the D300, but I'd take a D3 in a heartbeat for that crazy clear ISO 6400...
I suspect there will be a high speed crop mode at 12mpx that will have similar characteristics to D3, but likely to 'only' go up to 6400ISO. D3X or FX or whatever its gonna be called will most likely exceed 1DsIII in everything, so Canon will have to work super hard to keep its photographers from changing ship.
This article title question need not be asked.
Of course Nikon is working on the D3X! Of course it will be 24MP!
This is not news to anyone that follows Nikon DSLRs.
The real question is when.
I wish they would fix the focusing on the D3 first... especially vertical focusing on darker objects.
Vertical focusing? What are you talking about...?
new firmware came out today. Might deal with that. It's a minor issue at best which only occurs in limited situations.
use the D3 in vertical mode and try to shoot someone with a black shirt on.
it's a no-go.
Higgs Boson-inducing? detecting? huh?
再来设置一次.™
what's the best prosumer camera out there? sub $1500
Canon EOS 40D, in my opinion.
Ex-Nikon user and I love mine :-)
I'd also probably recommend the Canon 40D. The Nikon D300 is also great, but a bit closer to professional and is going to be a bit over your price point. The important thing is don't skimp on the glass. There is a world of difference between a $100 lens, a $400 lens. You don't need to get a $1,000 lens, but shelling out a little more for something a step up from the basic kit lens will be worth it.
another vote for the 40D.
Nikon F6
Also take a look at the Sony Alpha 700. Probably not the one to win the popular contest since Canon has such a strong place in the marked, but it have been voted by some magazines as the better camera based on features and quality for the price. Doesn't compete with Canons range of professional lenses, but unless you are one the pricetag they carry might want you to reconsider your needs. In the consumer and prosumer range you will find that Sony own range and their ties to the well renowned Carl Zeiss and the resulting range from there can compete well with the Canon.
Furthermore, you get image stabilization on every lens from the first autofocus lenses made for Minolta in the mid eighties until now. Which opens up for some real bargins on the second hand marked on old gems from the Minolta AF range.
But as my avatar shows, I am biased. But not anymore than the ones suggesting 40d is biased towards Canon.
Mark my words... this camera (if produced) will NOT have as good high ISO performance as the D3 does. They're cramming too many photosites into the chip.
When I want a studio camera with higher MP, I go to Phase One, Leaf, Sinar, or Hasselblad, not only are the chips bigger, but the lenses have been made for better resolving power. I really don't want a PJ/Sports camera with a huge chip in it when doing studio work, I can see some use in fashion work, depending on the photographer's style. This is definitely not the first choice for still life or landscape.
This thing (if produced) is going to run somewhere between $8-10k. Much more of a niche market.
If the D3x is 24.4 megapixels on a full-frame sensor then its relative pixel density is around 10-pixels relative to a APS-C(DX) sensor. So in reality the photo sites should be larger then that of post cameras (including Nikon's D300).
Clearly you won't be getting anything near the low-light sensitivity or speed that the D3 does (but then again there really isn't any camera that does). But they are totally for different applications.
As for the digital medium formats, they are clearly in a different league. The reality is the cost of the D3x won't even buy you a low-end digital back. For the blad H3D you'll be paying between $25-35 depending on what back you get. The fact is, these dSLRs are getting awful close to a lot of the medium formats for a fraction of the price, without the restrictions that restriction that digital medium formats bring (the Hasselblad H3D-31 can only shoot at a maximum of ISO800 at a speed of 1.2fps)
kb2zuz, this Nikon camera won't be $10,000. The Sony with the 24.6MP is being projected to be around $3000, and that price, along with autofocus Zeiss lenses, is sure to make a stir in medium format circles. I shoot Hasselblad with both film and Leaf, and I've begun collecting the Sony Zeiss lenses for the upcoming fullframe, and I can say that the IQ of these lenses is on par with my Hasselblad stuff, and that's just testing them on the APS-C A700. As a medium format digital user, take notice of the Sony. It won't have all the bells and whistles of the D3x (52 point autofocus, a million fps, etc.) but you aren't used to those with medium format cams anyway, and the Zeiss lenses are the real deal.
Nikon? Is it true? Are you really making a comeback after being behind for 4-5 years?
- bitter D200 user
Have you not met the D3?
@ Hibiki:
Why on earth would you be a bitter D200 user? It's still a fantastic camera and it will still allow you to capture wonderful images. I loved my D70s when I had it and my D200 was even better. My D300 is better still, but there was (and still is) nothing wrong with either of the older cameras I had. Don't be a glass half empty type and just enjoy the wonderful piece of equipment you have. And if you really can't stand it, tighten your belt and pony up for something better.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the D200 -- love it, was a fantastic upgrade to the 100. It's just that I've been a loyal Nikon user since their film cameras and I just hate to see them always having to catch up with Canon in terms of technology. All of my photog friends are either shooting on Canon now or seriously consider switching
I have been considering the D3 but at this point I believe it may be a bit too pricey for me unfortunately. Plus it would mean I'd have to swap out my DX lenses for FX. D300 looks killer and seems like it would help out with my D200 noise issues when shooting concerts (my site -- danboczarski.com -- shameless plug!). Might be picking it up soon!
As soon as Sony announced the full-frame 24 MP sensor back at the beginning of this year, you knew the bar just got raised. So no surprise here to learn Nikon will follow suit. What will be interesting to watch is the price of the FX sensors. For the same megapixel count, the only physical difference in the camera between a FX and DX dSLR is the size of the mirror box. So when the FX sensors get cheap enough, there is the hope at least that FX could surplant DX throughout the lineup.
did you hear that??
that was the sound of millions of Nikon fanboys wetting themselves.
the amount of ignorance on engadget and gizmodo re: photography is ASTOUNDING. stick to point and shoots, people. there is way too much misinformation floating around these comments.
24MP .. yea like ill be blowing up my pics 24168123x123657123 to fit like a skyscraper -_____-"
10MP dslr is enough seriously =]
Yeah, 10mp is enough for someone who only see the "MP" on the specification of a camera and nothing else.
I won't be surprised if in the near future you will prefer a 12MP Camera Phone over a 10MP DSLR.
oh my.. if you think the 70-200 doesn't need an update, then you haven't played with it on the D3. Vignetting up the wazzo! chasing my puppy around the beach and all the corners are darkened.
It does the same thing on my SLR/n
Do not want.
NEED!!!!!
deli, now serving SPYWARE at dede8.com!!!!
What would the raw image size be for one of these photos?
I can only imagine.....
um. about 24-25mb......
Simple and SLR really don't go together in the same sentence.
i can honestly say that at this point in my life i am more towards a D300, but if i were fortunate enough to have 6,000 Bucks to drop on a camera i would do it.
ps. im a photographer
thanks for sticking up for me Chicksta!
I love my D3 so much. I still have my D2x and D2h (miss their fast focusing), D100 and D70, and my kodak SLR/n. I have had to force myself to pull out the other cameras since the D3 hasn't left my hands since the beginning of the year.
and that's with a ton of hot pixels, AF problems, etc...
The D3/D300 are completely different bodies/software. instead of just S,A,ISO, AF you have to basically make photoshop like settings before shooting. it's amazing and amazingly complex.
@Jesse S
You will find that a 6 megapixel dslr will give a better 20x30 inch print than 35mm film. 12 megapixel will give you better than medium format at the same size.
On paper the 35mm is supposed to have more megapixels but not in real world practice.
I believe that such test are done by comparing a pixel to grain in film. a grain will hold a color with no tonal variations whereas a pixel will hold up to 45 different tones within one pixel. That is why digital looks so smooth.
Christ almighty, I can easily print at 20X30" with my "old" D200 with no problems. 24mp is NOT necessary. What is necessary is a reduction in the size of these cameras. Please make an FM sized camera NIKON without the ability to pilot a jet by remote control. I highly doubt any of you are National Geo quality photograpers (In fact I know you're not because you're posting on this board) and they are plenty happy to receive 6mp files from their photographers.
24MP is necessary when Delta, or Coka~Cola, or whoever else has hired you says it is. You do what the want and how they want it or you don't work for them, and they remember it too. Your "old" D200 (I have one too) can't really print to that resolution without a bit of interpolation (adding like pixels next to existing pixels) and that's not because of the quality of our cameras, it's the quality of the image editing software or the printer driver making those calculations, and they do do a fine job.
I happen to know National Geographic staff photographers shoot Canon 1DsMkII (16MP) and 1DsMkIII (21MP) bodies and they shoot with very expensive glass.
Look. I'm in the market for a new camera. I'm a photography student. The camera I need is something that will be versatile and have the resolution for print ads. Those MF backs are expensive and not very versatile. I was looking at getting a Mamiya 645 AFDII with a Leaf Aptus65 (28MP) back. But since I won't only be shooting product or banners I cannot sink my eggs into something like that. A MF and back is useless at, say sports, and most are too slow for fashion. A 5D or the D3 give plenty of resolution needed for full print spreads in magazines. All the MPs refer to is resolution, it's a good starting point when looking for a camera. After that one would look at sensor size (DSLRs are WAY bigger than P&Ss), lens selection / quality, noise, and then whatever you may need for your field. If you ever have a need for a MF back, just rent it. Those costs are carried by the client anyway, not the photographer, ($400/day gets you 39MP in Atlanta). BTW, 35mm film is said to be rated around 24MP but at a different bit depth (varies on film (C41/E6).
There is no need to shoot 11fps for a handbag in the studio and there's no reason to have 1.2fps at the SuperBowl. All these different models have different purposes and uses, some even blur the lines. So getting a camera, either the upcoming a900, D3x, or the Canon 1DsMkIII that may help get into some gray crossover area gives photographers more flexibility and marketability. So after MPs, speed, output resolution, glass, and flexibility are all important factors. And when you are looking at a photographer making $1600/day and up (WAY UP) just to show up, yes that's not a single image taken (those are sold separately and usually have a year or two lease), are these possible asking prices too far beyond expectation and scope of reason? For the average shooter these cameras are pure fantasy machines but for the working photographer they are necessities.
gregnoblin.com
How does anyone figure MP don't matter?? Sure they do and if you know anything about files and printing you will realize the bigger the file the better the print when printing large 60" inkjet prints. Retouching the bigger files also come into play getting way into your files and when shooting agency jobs many clients will not work with you unless you have a certain size file delivered to them...period! So yes, MP do matter and rent a Hasselblad H3D2 one weekend that has a 39MP file and you tell me what you would rather look at when getting that "shot".
Anyone know of a firmware hack to the D3 to keep the mirror up? Alternatively, can anyone recommend a hacker who might be able to do it?
If nikon were to come out with a 24.4 megapixel Nikon D3X DSLR camera, that would be wonderful news, indeed. Hopefully, the pictures shot in low light with high iso would still be acceptable.
Breaking news Nikon have dropped a boo boo by letting slip their replacement for the D3 despite the D3 only being several months old. This happened with the new firmware release which includes options for a D3x in the new menus as part of the new firmware release.
Nikon are refusing to comment but I can confirm the new Nikon is going to be their flagship model not a replacement for the D3 and it is based around wait for it! 24.4 megapixel CMOS processor using the same EXPEED processor but this has been upgraded to a newer version EXPEED II and yes increased ISO performance over the existing D3 and increased frame rate at both 12 million pixels now going up to 13 frames per second and at the full resolution of 24.4 million pixels a class leading 9 frames per second now taking away Cannon's 1Ds Mark III performance benchmark due to image buffer memory also being upgraded to cope with the increase in resolution.
Another major snippet for you too is that DX lense users will be able to shoot at the old D3 pixel count of just over 12 million pixels with Nikons new range of lenses taking advantage of the full 24.4 million pixels.
Also speed increase in the 51 point autofocus provided by the Multi-CAM3500 chip and an increase in 14-bit analog-to-digital converter now 16-bit analog-to-digital convertor to work alongside the existing 16 bit image processor.
Also Nikon Active D Lighting has also been further refinded to increase capturing of high and low lights with a manual mode for setting user defined personal settings.
And finally Nikons CLS and Commander mode has also been tweaked unconfirmed release date for the new D3x is for November 2008 price is set to rise above the existing D3 again unconfirmed £3,500 - £4,000 with a price drop for the existing D3 Also to be confirmed Nikon has already shipped over 40 prototypes for early testing in the field more info on this to come.
Also to be confirmed Nikon has already shipped over 40 prototypes for early testing in the field.
dudes, this a a top of the line pro camera for perople who earn a living off of their photos or super, rich ass doctors:) and yes, when you shoot for magazines and high end publications or galleries, resolution matters. after this dense of distrubition of pixels on the x model Nikon may have to make a slightly larger format and lenses that project bigger images circles or go with a modular system like the medium format companies. either way I'm getting the d700 with ultra iso capabilty. (not more pixels -better pixels) exciting times to be snapping photos, my brothers. BTW, has anyone actually picked up a sony DSLR- they feel like liquid shit.