Nikon's D3X DSLR hits the scene in official fashion
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Dec 1st 2008 12:21AM
posted Dec 1st 2008 12:21AM
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.
poor ISO performance will make this useless outside the studio
and so will the fact that 25 megapixels is pretty much MADE for studio use.
Not only is this for studio use, it is the same price as the Canon studio 1Ds series camera. I doubt both had similar production costs.
M
Just shoot at 10mm w/ VR @ 1.8 and crop what you need. Pretty much awesome outside of the studio.
You might remember something called film. Classic Kodachrome was rated at an ISO of anywhere from 16-64 and was the most popular color film for a good part of the 20th century. People weren't just using it indoors in a studio.
This obsession with high ISO abilities is so completely overblown that it has become ridiculous. If you want to shoot at 6400, buy a D3. If you want more resolution, buy a D3x. It's simple.
Is this fate? or am I just around here way too much? Either way I dig this camera and its expandable ISO.
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....
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/
yum
I dont know what I would want to photograph with this thing...!
One day our digital cameras will work as travelling electron(ic) microscopes..!!
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??)
Aside from the pro-level body (withstands lots of abuse), the F-mount, the flash exposure system, etc.
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.
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.
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
@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.
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
@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).
@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
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.
Oh shut up. Y'all take shitty pictures.
Joe, your mom would beg to differ.
OHHH this shit just got real son
Let's not forget that the 5DII costs $2700 and this costs $8000. That hardly seems comparable.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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...
iPhone
My god thats a beast! However I'll be getting the D90 soon. Fits my purpose perfectly!
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.
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.
good info
thank
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.
Add "photographer" to your list too. It's what makes a camera 'pro'. :)
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.
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.
Awesome name on the camera..my DJ name is D3X so i guess...i should have heard the ever popular rumors.
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.
It was posted later, but look at kb2zuz's comment. D3x and A900 aren't as comparable as you suggested.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
NICE!!
I have bought 2xD100, D70, D2H, D2X, and D3, but I don't need this camera.
Wait. A single RAW file can be 138MB?? That's overkill and a crap load of data for one image.
It's not overkill if you need it...
"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.
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.
$8000? Who has money for that these days? And I thought the D3 was expensive.
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.
Not sure if it's been posted yet but here's the D3X Brochure in PDF:
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/pdf/d3x_28p.pdf
HOLY SHAT!! I wanted one of these ever since I started hearing rumors and to be honest nikon did not let down on this camera. I am a poor pro photog and I can get the same (essential) camera for almost $5k less buy getting an α900. I priced it out and for about $7k I can the α900, 5 new sony lenses, 2 flashes, battery grip and spare battery. While the α900 is the next best equivalent to the D3x it still cant compete with the phenomenal nikon lenses, very wide iso spectrum, up to 11FPS shooting, and the bragging rights that comes with such an awesome prosumer camera.
You can get an A900 for much less of course. But many (presumably) pro photographers have had very different reactions to the sample pictures from the A900, 5DMII and this new camera. The relevant threads at dpreview.com are multiplying like rabbits!!
The a900 isn't necessarily lower spec'd than the D3x, and in some cases are 'different'. Some advantages of the a900 are:
- In-body IS (obviously)
- More sensitive center AF point, center dual cross with f2.8 strip. None of the 51 Nikon AF sensors are as precise as this, and for many people, 90% of their AF use is with the center point. AF is also fast, especially with SSM lenses (CZ24-70 is ultra-fast, moreso than Nikon 24-70).
- Great metering. I don't understand why people think Nikon metering automatically means good; I mean, I've used a D80 and it always over-exposes, while my a700 always gets it right. Metering is at most even between the two.
- Way cheaper, stabilized fast primes (and for $8k you can get an a900 and all the Zeiss lenses with it).
- Shoot in RAW and image quality will be identical to D3X, just like how a700 and D300 produce identical IQ in RAW.
I am not sure I have seen anything that says the dual cross center point makes things any better and with metering you are comparing a D80 with a A700, the A700 is more along the lines of a D300.
I do not have metering problems with the D80 myself but as some people have said it is qirky and Nikon does not tell you the best methods for its use.
Otherwise yea it would be great to have in body IS but I was looking at Pentax for that Sony has some lousy egonomics for me and I am am not interested in buying new memory cards I have plenty of SD cards.
For the people saying OMG its $8000 whos going to buy it? Well google the Hasselblad H3D-II, which is around $40,000 and 50megapixels. The people who use these cameras are photographers who are product or fashion photographers who need files which you can blow up to the size of billboards and don't need super high ISO capabilities. The D3 is more aimed towards sports/photojournalistic photographers.
Nikon is rocking
http://www.zahipedia.com/2008/12/04/nikon-d3x-245-megapixel-digital-slr-out-now/
good info
http://www.pricedeals.co.cc/