24.4 megapixel Nikon D3X DSLR in the works?
By Paul Miller 
posted April 15th 2008 10:19PM
posted April 15th 2008 10:19PM
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
posted April 15th 2008 10:19PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.