Nikon's D3X DSLR hits the scene in official fashion
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted December 1st 2008 12:21AM
posted December 1st 2008 12:21AM
posted December 1st 2008 12:21AM
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.
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/