24.4 megapixel Nikon D3X DSLR in the works?

Some entirely too ingenious hackers have found a reference to the rumored D3X deep within the bowels of Nikon's D3 firmware. The reference includes a list of resolutions available to the upcoming shooter, and it's apparently set to max out at a potentially Higgs Boson-inducing 24.4 megapixels. Word has it that this sensor is likely a variant of the megapixel monster behind Sony's upcoming A900, but since this is all being extrapolated from a few numbers hidden in some firmware, we're going to try not to get too ahead of ourselves at this point.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[Ignatius @ Apr 15th 2008 10:22PM]

Here's to the guys who drop thousands of dollars on cameras...

[austin @ Apr 15th 2008 10:28PM]

no. tens of thousands.

[Ignatius @ Apr 15th 2008 10:34PM]

Personally... I'd prefer a new car.

[Temple @ Apr 15th 2008 10:39PM]

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).

[AutoTom @ Apr 15th 2008 10:41PM]

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..

[CraigJ @ Apr 15th 2008 11:00PM]

"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...

[Chicksta @ Apr 15th 2008 11:13PM]

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.

[User @ Apr 16th 2008 12:16AM]

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!

[Temple @ Apr 16th 2008 12:35AM]

"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.

[Jesse S @ Apr 16th 2008 2:07AM]

And yet 35mm cameras cost less, and fine-grain (slow) 35mm film still has more megapixels...

[Geir E @ Apr 16th 2008 5:32AM]

@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.

[Michael @ Apr 16th 2008 10:38AM]

@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.

[reviewer007 @ Apr 20th 2008 7:14PM]

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

[JOSE @ Apr 15th 2008 10:23PM]

oh man! me want if its true....

[kuade @ Apr 15th 2008 10:27PM]

Nikon makes quality cameras, sony will have to step up there game.

[Temple @ Apr 15th 2008 10:33PM]

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.

[Jesse S @ Apr 16th 2008 2:08AM]

Has Nikon ever broke $5,000 for their top-of-the-line?

I doubt they will anytime soon.

[Nate @ Apr 16th 2008 10:25AM]

Nikon has been using Sony image sensors for years

[Temple @ Apr 15th 2008 10:29PM]

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.

[kb2zuz @ Apr 16th 2008 12:37AM]

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.

[Temple @ Apr 16th 2008 12:57AM]

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.

[Kris S. @ Apr 15th 2008 10:44PM]

I just want a simple SLR like the Pentax K200D or Canon Digital Rebel XSi, maybe a Pentax K20D if the price drops enough!

[revaaron @ Apr 15th 2008 10:46PM]

I heart my D3.
I don't care about more megapixels.
I've been shooting concerts at 6400 and loving it.

[Josh Warner @ Apr 16th 2008 1:14AM]

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...

[Cunthor @ Apr 15th 2008 10:57PM]

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.

[Paul @ Apr 15th 2008 10:58PM]

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.

[revaaron @ Apr 15th 2008 11:08PM]

I wish they would fix the focusing on the D3 first... especially vertical focusing on darker objects.

[Cunthor @ Apr 15th 2008 11:11PM]

Vertical focusing? What are you talking about...?

[Denver_80203 @ Apr 15th 2008 11:41PM]

new firmware came out today. Might deal with that. It's a minor issue at best which only occurs in limited situations.

[revaaron @ Apr 16th 2008 12:35AM]

use the D3 in vertical mode and try to shoot someone with a black shirt on.
it's a no-go.

[rutsy5 @ Apr 15th 2008 11:23PM]

Higgs Boson-inducing? detecting? huh?

[Satan_L5 @ Apr 15th 2008 11:24PM]

再来设置一次.™

[Mark @ Apr 15th 2008 11:41PM]

what's the best prosumer camera out there? sub $1500

[Alan @ Apr 16th 2008 12:33AM]

Canon EOS 40D, in my opinion.

Ex-Nikon user and I love mine :-)

[kb2zuz @ Apr 16th 2008 12:50AM]

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.

[DavidEckmier @ Apr 16th 2008 1:24AM]

another vote for the 40D.

[Jesse S @ Apr 16th 2008 2:10AM]

Nikon F6

[Geir E @ Apr 16th 2008 5:46AM]

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.

[kb2zuz @ Apr 16th 2008 12:29AM]

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.

[Temple @ Apr 16th 2008 12:48AM]

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)

[Doug F @ Apr 16th 2008 1:27PM]

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.

[Hibiki Rush @ Apr 16th 2008 1:23AM]

Nikon? Is it true? Are you really making a comeback after being behind for 4-5 years?

- bitter D200 user

[Jesse S @ Apr 16th 2008 2:11AM]

Have you not met the D3?

[VayVay @ Apr 16th 2008 2:46AM]

@ 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.

[Hibiki Rush @ Apr 16th 2008 12:56PM]

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!

[bebop @ Apr 16th 2008 1:23AM]

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.

[DavidEckmier @ Apr 16th 2008 1:30AM]

did you hear that??
that was the sound of millions of Nikon fanboys wetting themselves.

[slackercow @ Apr 16th 2008 4:27AM]

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.

[Anthony @ Apr 16th 2008 6:58AM]

24MP .. yea like ill be blowing up my pics 24168123x123657123 to fit like a skyscraper -_____-"

10MP dslr is enough seriously =]

[xValentine @ Apr 17th 2008 7:31AM]

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.