http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/

24.4mp.. really? didnt we establish that mp don't matter anymore..
a bit like megahertz.. ]]>Apr 15th 2008 10:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/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...]]>Apr 15th 2008 11:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/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.]]>Apr 15th 2008 11:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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!]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/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.]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 2:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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.]]>Apr 16th 2008 5:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/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. ]]>Apr 16th 2008 10:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/~007]]>Apr 20th 2008 7:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
I doubt they will anytime soon.]]>Apr 16th 2008 2:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 10:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
This D3x would be a great alternative to studio/landscape photographers that want detail/resolution rather then speed that the D3 offers.]]>Apr 15th 2008 10:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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.]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 12:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 11:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/I don't care about more megapixels.
I've been shooting concerts at 6400 and loving it.]]>Apr 15th 2008 10:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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...]]>Apr 16th 2008 1:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 10:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/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.]]>Apr 15th 2008 10:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 11:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 11:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 11:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/it's a no-go.]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 11:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 11:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 15th 2008 11:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
Ex-Nikon user and I love mine :-)]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 12:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 1:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 2:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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. ]]>Apr 16th 2008 5:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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.]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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)]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 1:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
- bitter D200 user]]>Apr 16th 2008 1:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 2:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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.]]>Apr 16th 2008 2:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
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!]]>Apr 16th 2008 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 1:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/that was the sound of millions of Nikon fanboys wetting themselves.]]>Apr 16th 2008 1:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/Apr 16th 2008 4:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/24-4-megapixel-nikon-d3x-dslr-in-the-works/
10MP dslr is enough seriously =]]]>Apr 16th 2008 6:58AM