Nikon's D3X DSLR hits the scene in official fashion

After a quick outting in its own mag, Nikon has gone and gotten all officially official on the D3X. The big boy DSLR sports a bone-crushing 24.5-megapixel CMOS FX format sensor, full resolution shooting at 5 FPS, ISO from 100-1600 (expandable to 50-6400), TIFF, JPEG or NEF (RAW) file formats up to 138MB, and a newly updated EXPEED image processing system. The top-tier digicam won't come super cheap, hitting shelves at $7,999.95 -- but if you need something like this, money probably isn't much of an issue. The camera goes on sale this December, so you might want to get the piggy banks out. Check the gallery below for a full look at the magic.

Gallery: Nikon announces D3x

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Tohe @ Dec 1st 2008 12:27AM]

Is this fate? or am I just around here way too much? Either way I dig this camera and its expandable ISO.

[Mehul @ Dec 1st 2008 9:53AM]

I actually think the expandable ISO kinda sucks on this. I mean, the 5D Mark II has expandable ISO of 25000 and its half the price!

I'm kinda disappointed. This is matching the 1Ds Mark III's specs. However, a Mark IV is due next year. I wonder how thats going to be....

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 12:34PM]

the ISO is intentionally set low for the studio. The base ISO for the D3 is 200, the D3x is 100(50@Lo1).

Sample photos:
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3x/sample.htm
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d3/d3x-sp/en/

[Evan @ Dec 1st 2008 12:30AM]

yum

[Tony @ Dec 1st 2008 12:33AM]

So this is the expensive version of the sony a900?
I'm not seeing any real difference between the two (pretty sure they use the same sony-made sensor too) other than price (5000 dollars difference??)

[Jesse S @ Dec 1st 2008 12:42AM]

Aside from the pro-level body (withstands lots of abuse), the F-mount, the flash exposure system, etc.

[dahveed @ Dec 1st 2008 1:06AM]

Also the lens family. As with any SLR, the lens available for it are a significant part of the purchasing decision. It seems that camera bodies are like computers these days. Use one for 5 years and its almost obsolete. The lens, however still last for many years beyond that.

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 2:06AM]

The Nikon also has pro-AF/metering (51-points AF/1005-point metering) compared to the A900(or the 5DII which is 9-points). But $8k is obviously aimed at the Canon 1DsMkIII; which spec-wise is comparable.

[kb2zuz @ Dec 1st 2008 11:11AM]

Advantages over the A900:
-Much better performance at high-ISO (IF they do use the same sensor, Nikon's figured out how to process it better)
-Ability to shoot 7fps at DX crop
-More rugged/better sealed body
-Better battery life
-Faster, more sophisticated 51-point autofocus (compared to 9 point)
-Better metering
-More customizable settings (up to 9 shot brackets, 48 custom settings)
-Live View
-Compatibility with practically all Nikon lenses going back over 40 years
-2 CF card slots (instead of 1 CF and 1 Memory Stick)
-This is undocumented, but I believe the D3x will have a larger buffer and allow more frames captured in a burst (and a 12-bit option for smaller RAW files and quicker buffer-flushing)

Before anyone calls me a fan-boy, I don't own a Nikon I own the Sony

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 12:25PM]

@kb2zuz

The A900 ISO range is set at 200-3200 native versus 100-1600 native in the D3x. The change is obviously to help the Nikon in studio lighting, however, low-light capabilities of the A900 should theoretically be better. However, Sony's NR algorithms haven't hitherto been as sophisticated as Nikons.

The AF/metering is the real important difference. Since getting every possible shot as sharp as possible, and exposed correctly, is important for a high-MP camera.

[vqro @ Dec 1st 2008 12:44PM]

Same Sony sensor? Who told you that? Sony states that the sensor in their A900 is a "Sony exclusive". The samples are excellent:
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/sample.htm

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 2:34PM]

@vqro

Sony announced at PMA 2008 that they would be selling their full-frame sensor to third-parties. It should also be mentioned that they called their IMX021 in the A700 an exclusive as well, but it is also in the Nikon D300. They usually are referring to 'exclusive' due to the fact it has image-stabilization on the sensor. With the exception of the D3/D700 all of the sensors in Nikon's cameras (including p&s) are supplied by Sony (they do make great sensors).

[macwise @ Dec 2nd 2008 2:57AM]

@kb2zuz:

Don't forget that Canon and Sony both employ very heavy handed luminance noise reduction, which heavily degrades sharpness and overall image quality, while Nikon leans more to the side of chroma noise reduction, therefore leaving a more natural "film-like" grain in the images. I have seen the Canon 1dsMKII AND the 5D BOTH display horrific noise - and worse - banding in dark gray regions even at ISO100, in studio, perfectly exposed.

Canon does a great job at processing the images, but they are not God-like as so many Canon users have come to believe. That hype went away almost overnight when a true low noise player came on the field - the D3. Only by running extensive tests yourself and really analyzing the details with an open mind will you see the pros and cons to each system. They do exists, on both sides.

I am a Nikon shooter, and have been shooting the D2x for about three years now. While I have some limitations in higher ISO's, there is no reason that this camera can't and won't perform miracles for me every time I shoot. It's a phenomenal piece of equipment, and surely is not merely a paperweight due to it's few limitations. I found a system that works for me and my personal shooting style.

I cannot stand how the Canon FF's cause heavy blurring on wide angle lenses toward the edges, but some of my colleagues gladly tradeoff a little sharpness for a bit less noise. That's fine, to each their own. True pros choose the tools that best fit their own personal needs and don't make decisions on the hype.

http://www.iamron.com

[pradeep @ Dec 1st 2008 12:34AM]

I dont know what I would want to photograph with this thing...!
One day our digital cameras will work as travelling electron(ic) microscopes..!!

[Nikon @ Dec 1st 2008 12:37AM]

Canon is SOOOOOOOOOOOO going down with this one. It's taken them 3 months to get out their 5D Mark II, and guess what? It's barely even out. The D3X is just about OUT.

If you compare the specs, the 5D Mark II absolutely SUCKS. It's destroyed. The D3x uses the same high performance lithium-ion battery (EN-EL4a) as the D3. The 5D2 uses a pathetic new battery format that costs hundreds.

Canon is going DOWWWWWWWWWNN.

[Joe @ Dec 1st 2008 12:40AM]

Oh shut up. Y'all take shitty pictures.

[)ROFL( @ Dec 1st 2008 12:44AM]

Joe, your mom would beg to differ.

[poematik14 @ Dec 1st 2008 12:48AM]

OHHH this shit just got real son

[DBrim @ Dec 1st 2008 12:48AM]

Let's not forget that the 5DII costs $2700 and this costs $8000. That hardly seems comparable.

[cmaceachen @ Dec 1st 2008 12:58AM]

I think not. Only established professionals will be buying either of these cameras. Established pros already have much more invested in glass than the cost of either of these cameras and therefore won't be switching under any circumstances.

[ohfreak @ Dec 1st 2008 1:07AM]

You'd have a point if the D3X was competing against the 5DMkII. It's not - it's competing against the 1DsMkIII. You could buy 3 5DMkIIs for the price of 1 D3X.

Neither of these companies are going "DOWWWWWWWWN."

When will the world be rid of idjit fanboys?

[holto @ Dec 1st 2008 3:24AM]

You're kinda of an f-ing fanboy retard.

The 5D, not even being the flagship camera, does 95 percent of what this camera does for several thousand less, AND has a higher expandable ISO range. oh wait... it only shoots 4fps instead of 5 and is 21MP instead of 24MP.

Canons third tier product does nearly everything the brand new NIkon flagship does, and you scream that Canon is going down?

Wow.

Neither company will go anywhere because they already have established base users.

This will be a great camera for Nikon shooters and the Canon cameras will remain just that for the Canon shooters...

[kb2zuz @ Dec 1st 2008 11:23AM]

Ummm... hate to break it to you, the 1Ds Mk III is Canon's full-frame pro body, not the 5D Mk II. Why don't you compare the D3x to that? After you do that think about how the 1Ds Mk III has been out for over a year (not some 3 month difference you're talking about.) Both companies have been making some amazing cameras the past few years, so knock off this stupid fan-boy crap.

[Johan S @ Dec 1st 2008 12:50AM]

The 3 inch display at the back is VGA resolution .. super crisp. Nice.

The only thing I wish this camera had was a high FPS mode even if it would only work at low resolutions.

Of course if they made their sensors have a range higher than 14 bit that would be nice too (human eye is about 20 bit) .. that too i wouldn't mind losing resolution in favor of.

[I.Az @ Dec 1st 2008 11:36AM]

7 FPS in DX mode is okay I guess. When you half the resolution in sRaw mode in the 5d MkII, the file sizes still turn out to be between 65-70% of the original raw file @21mp. So and increase from 5 to 7FPS in DX mode is quite reasonable IMO. The file sizes are going to be insane. 5d MkII averages less than 200 Raws on an 8GB card. Thank goodness there's sRAW for less important shots. Nikon's statement claims this camera will make up to 50MB raw files...

[tigertown @ Dec 1st 2008 12:51AM]

iPhone

[holycow @ Dec 1st 2008 12:59AM]

My god thats a beast! However I'll be getting the D90 soon. Fits my purpose perfectly!

[basroil @ Dec 1st 2008 1:54AM]

I'm actually very disappointed in nikon... They have had a full year to beat the 1dsmkiii and this is all they come up with. Considering there is a 12bit option, 5FPS will only be available in 12bit mode, likely dropping to 3.5 or 3 for 14bit. The screen is newer, but no video to speak of, something that will end up rearing it's head on all future cameras, and may actually change independent films more than photography. The lack of iso 12800 means that the noise at 1600 will be significantly higher than a D3 even at iso3200. Hopefully future releases will expand on these concerns, as right now the D3x seems to be a glorified A900 with less noise reduction.

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 2:16AM]

err-what!? The D3 can shoot 9 and 11fps at 14-bit. The D3x should have no problems hitting 5fps at 14-bit.

Also, this isn't a high-ISO camera, its designed for studio shooting and best performance in strobe light conditions. It isn't designed to overlap capabilities with the D3. If you want low-light capability you have the D3 for half the price. This is designed for magazine and fashion photography.

For instance, the $40,000+ Hasselblad H3D-39M can only go to 400ISO natively, 800ISO extended. The reason is that its designed to be the best in Studio conditions. It would be silly to design a studio camera to perform at high-ISO, the D3 is 200ISO base, the D3x is 100, with 50ISO Lo1 extended. There is a huge difference that you are missing the point of.

[del @ Dec 1st 2008 2:03AM]

good info
thank

[Eric @ Dec 1st 2008 2:18AM]

Wow, a lot of people don't seem to understand pro vs prosumer cameras. The 5D Mark II competes with the D700 - which costs $2,600. The D3 competes with the 1D Mark III. And the D3X competes with the 1Ds Mark III. (I shoot with a 1Ds Mark II at work).

There are plenty of reasons why the 1Ds Mark III costs almost as much as the D3x will cost. The way they are built. The 100 percent viewfinder.

And no, it's not a Sony sensors. The D3 and D700 are built in-house with no Sony input. Got that information directly from Nikon. There's no reason to assume this is the same sensor as the A900 - let alone noting the fact that the D3x is 24.5 while the A900 is 24.6 megapixels.

Pros use pro tools. The Sony is not a professional camera in the same league as the Nikon or Canon pro cameras. There's a whale of a lot more to a pro camera as the megapixels. There's the integrated system, including flash, cables, wireless, lenses (most important) and the other accessories that make a camera a true professional tool.

Not to mention the ruggedness, water sealing, and the ergonomics and ease of use when shooting in tough situations. The full frame sensor which requires a bigger viewfinder makes it easier on the eyes.

I could go on, but take it from a pro who's shot for over 20 years with Nikons, Canons and Leicas. There are pro tools and there are prosumer cameras that pros can use. There's a difference.

[Cunthor @ Dec 1st 2008 3:02AM]

Add "photographer" to your list too. It's what makes a camera 'pro'. :)

[Geir E @ Dec 1st 2008 6:16AM]

The d3 and d700 sensor is Nikon design, that is correct. But if you take a look at the d3x sensor, and then the a900 sensor. You'll see they are either twins or siblings. Nothing wrong is that, Nikon have most likely put their knowhow into making their sensor variant and/or the electronics surrounding to suit more the price tag this camera is set for. Just as they have done for other models in the past which uses sensors from Sony.

"Pros use pro tools. The Sony is not a professional camera in the same league as the Nikon or Canon pro cameras."

Sony have been in the dslr industry for just a couple of years, if they had the same leauge of professional service and offers Nikon or Canon have had to done something terrible wrong. It takes a lot more time to build up something compared to that. But giving Sonys position in other professional markets I'm quite sure in due time they will.

It is in the end the images that count, and no camera or sensor can give you what talent and experience gives you. So you'll be able to shoot just as great photos with a top end camera no matter if it is sony, canon or nikon. They are just the tools.

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 12:19PM]

The D3 sensor is an evolution of Nikon's JFET LBCAST sensors, so yes they are designed by Nikon, but they are fabricated by Sony in Fab1 in Kyushu.

The D3x sensor IS a Sony sensor, just like how the D2x used a Sony sensor. Its the same sensor that in the SonyA900. Just like the rest of Nikon's line-up from the D40, D60,D90, D300, etc is using Sony sensor. Sensor pixel differences are due to how "effective" megapixel are calculated. The differences in calculation is also apparent on the D300/A700.

Nikon however uses their own proprietary noise-reduction algorithms, and processing so there are differences in actual output, however, we cannot marginalize Sony's input in Nikon's cameras.

[ratmdex @ Dec 1st 2008 3:57AM]

Awesome name on the camera..my DJ name is D3X so i guess...i should have heard the ever popular rumors.

[arash @ Dec 1st 2008 5:54AM]

you now i now this is nikon,nikon mount,nikon quality made,nikon name,nikon class but is this really made it 5000 dollar more than sony a900? they have same sensor,same technology just a900 lacks grip and nikon name/mount. i prefer sony on that price.for sony entire camera is self made:sensor,lcd,processor and this fact made camera cheaper for sony.

[JeffDM @ Dec 1st 2008 12:05PM]

It was posted later, but look at kb2zuz's comment. D3x and A900 aren't as comparable as you suggested.

[arash @ Dec 1st 2008 6:07AM]

@ Eric
sorry i dont read your comment at first,
dont believe that such of propaganda(24.6vs 24.5).
this is sony sensor,who else made cmos's? dalsa?24.5 mp cmos! no, kodak? no,texas idus?no, now we have just canon:)) that's some kind of joke.
we know that nikon dont made sensors by it self.
so thats just sony, look at continues fps rates: same 5
maybe processors is same too.

[Mikeo @ Dec 1st 2008 6:35AM]

You grossly UNDERESTIMATED Nikon's ability to make chips.

Sure, the sensor might be Sony this round, since development costs are astronomical. Who knows, I suspect the same. BUT dismissing their ability to make chips is well, idiotic.

Nikon, along with ASML, is one of the world's leading suppliers of foundry/fab equipment, which is what companies like Intel/TSMC/Chartered and such use to make their chips.

[datafox @ Dec 2nd 2008 8:08AM]

Seeing as the D700/D3 sensors are Nikon designed but they lack a fab they probably had some one else do the work. Renesas is the name most often mentioned as the people who are fabbing those chips.

You are guessing at what could be the case. Nikon does design chips of their own they just lack a foundry for them. So you are mixing up two different things the ability to design and the ability to manufacture.

Now the D3x people think has Sony underpinnings, read Thom Hogan for more but other aspects of it have a Nikon design to it like what sits on top of the pixels.

[arash @ Dec 1st 2008 6:55AM]

there's a big difference between making high end optical systems for chip making and making chip,in your view zeiss must a big chip manufacturer even bigger than samsung, i dont ever heard about samsung making professional optical accessories but they are biggest chip manufacturer. i know that 5fps continues could be sensor limit and d3x and a900 could have different chips but nikon dont make its camera processor.
i believe in nikon ability in making chip but just their ability.(surely whit a big money injection)

[Karl Hackswell @ Dec 1st 2008 9:19AM]

Wow Nikon. You never cease to amaze. I knew I loved you for a reason. I also know I will never be able to afford this camera, but I can still bask in its glory as I continue to STILL shoot amazing pictures with my D100 and D50. I love nikon, and always will.

[david @ Dec 1st 2008 12:33PM]

NICE!!

[revaaron @ Dec 1st 2008 12:57PM]

I have bought 2xD100, D70, D2H, D2X, and D3, but I don't need this camera.

[VampireHunter Z @ Dec 1st 2008 1:24PM]

Wait. A single RAW file can be 138MB?? That's overkill and a crap load of data for one image.

[eric f. @ Dec 1st 2008 2:32PM]

It's not overkill if you need it...

[macwise @ Dec 2nd 2008 2:44AM]

"Wait. A single RAW file can be 138MB?? That's overkill and a crap load of data for one image"

I'm guessing that this is for the full 16-bit tiff file output, not any raw file. At least I've not read any of the literature that indicates that the 138mb filesize is for a RAW.

By the way, as a working pro, if you said I could have the OPTION for a 140mb RAW file (even at 12mp) I would take it, and there are no doubt times that I would use it. Not always, mind you - probably rarely. But nevertheless I would take it. It is very difficult to maintain smooth gradations in the different channels (with digi) without artifacting.

[rollie flex @ Dec 6th 2008 7:37PM]

yo vampyhunter!

back in the day you had 35mm, 2 1/4 and some slightly bigger formats. 4 x 5 or even 20 x 24.

so when your client needed a huge print of their latest million dollar invention for the display in las vegas at the sales convention,
we had a few choices....either do a boatload of inter-negs to make the print bigger or shoot with the largest format we could afford.

so how with a huge file size as discussed here..... the client get what he needs.

that is why it's worth some photogs to pay the price of this camera, it delivers in many ways.

if the price tag is to high then you are not a real professional for two reasons.

1. you would write-off the expense if you were.

2. you would be making the money back of this expense within one paid shoot for a national client.

i know that some pros can get the same results out of a d50 with the right lens but they couldn't justify changing the rates that they do.

the same reason that the lawn care professional bring the right mower for the job so they don't have to stay longer than they need to or have to come back.

as the old adage goes, "film is cheap, re-shoots are not."

good luck in your career.

[Cassini @ Dec 1st 2008 2:07PM]

$8000? Who has money for that these days? And I thought the D3 was expensive.

[Temple @ Dec 1st 2008 2:28PM]

they are meant for professionals that generate income from the purchase. If you consider it as a business expense it isn't that much, consider how expensive say a company car is.