Nikon D3x DSLR preview roundup

You've heard the rumours and the tales of hacked firmware, and you've seen the glamor shots -- and now that the Nikon D3x has hit the streets, we've got some significant previewage for you to check out. The reaction was overwhelmingly positive -- as you would expect from a 24.5-megapixel, $8,000 camera. Trusted Reviews was impressed not only by the quality of the pictures and the bright, clear viewfinder, but by the overall build of the camera as well, stating that it felt "extremely well-balanced in the hand even with heavy lenses. And ... the D3x's controls were surprisingly easy to operate and use, with everything laid out very intuitively." CNET pointed out that the camera "shares similar dimensions with its sibling, the D3, so this means accessories produced for the latter can be used on the new camera." One omission that the review pointed out was the Nikon's inability to capture 1080p full HD video, making Canon's EOS 5D Mark II your only option if that's what you're after. But don't take our word for it -- check out the reviews below for more info.

Read - CNET: "[O]ne beast of a camera... raises the Japanese company's benchmark for future product development."
Read - Trusted Reviews: "It looks big, I agree, but it doesn't feel it..."
Read - MegaWhat TV (video review): "The 24.5-megapixel CMOS sensor puts it above all of the other models in the FX lineup."

[lowdef @ Dec 5th 2008 2:48PM]

Dear Lord.

[lars @ Dec 5th 2008 3:17PM]

HD video isn't really an omission on this camera - the target market couldn't care less.

[StalematE @ Dec 5th 2008 3:19PM]

I could...

[Frankenstein Black @ Dec 5th 2008 4:44PM]

As soon as they correct the "panning wobble" issue on the D90 (or on whatever updated hardware they make, D90x, D100?) I will be first in line to jump on it. 720p (or better 1080p) with interchangeable lenses? What not to like?

Especially with all of that available (used and new) Nikon (we haven't changed the bayonet mount since day 2) glass out there? Sheeeit! NO other mainstream SLR manufacture can make this claim/boast period! And hey Nikon, this (new SLR/HD video supporting body with access to azz load of available glass) is how you fend of interlopers like Red. Just sayin...

[GhostDoggy @ Dec 5th 2008 3:06PM]

GM's CEO Wagoner could buy 3 million of these if the Feds gave him the money. To better put it into perspective, the US$700 Billion bailout could have bough 116 million of these (probably one for every household in America).

[ironman @ Dec 5th 2008 4:36PM]

You'd probably get a discount for buying in bulk too

[a @ Dec 5th 2008 5:02PM]

the 5D is a pro level camera in many ways.

I've sold large prints and shot weddings with it. The output it produces is remarkable. The D700 and A900 are also pro level cameras. Not "top of the line" but professional none the less.

Basically if you can live without some of the "high level" features of the DX3 you can get similar quality out of the canon 5D II and the sony A900 for about half the price of the 20+ mega pixel Canon 1 DS MKIII and this new nikon.

The 5D II samples are not soft, but excellent (If you ignore canons PR site...You would figure they'd have good pictures there, but you'd be mistaken.)

[GETYOID @ Dec 5th 2008 4:58PM]

GM's CEO can suck my you know what. That idiot doesnt need my money to prop up his failing company. He needs to step down. He needs to also take the top 20% of his executive staff and fire them too. The nation printed money and gave it to the banks and they did WHAT with that money? NOTHING. They are sitting on it. AND, on top of that, they have laid off even more workers.

So....... time to start saying NO. Canada can step in and pay its share too, you know. Chrysler is owned by a conglomerate of companies which Canada is part of. Also, the majority of PARTS for these crappy cars are made everywhere but the USA. Why are WE bailing them out?

And dont give me this garbage about it not being a bailout, rather its a loan. Bullshit. Thats about as absurd as Clinton asking what the definition of IS is.

There's going to be another revolution in the USA and for those who forgot their history (our government and our idiot corporate "leaders"), its going to come hard and fast. You'd think that they would have learned their lesson about our founders/ancestors getting pissed off about taxing TEA!

[dd_nvidia @ Dec 5th 2008 3:08PM]

And yeah...I'll still be more than happy to shoot weddings with my 5DMkII than this.

Although I await with bated breath Canons answer to this.

People fail to realise, Nikon has only JUST caught up with Canon - the D3x is already a generation behind whatever Canons next camera is, this is only taking on the 1DsMkIII and the A900.

4 more MP doesn't make any difference. Its just shown how rubish both Sony and Nikon are at the high end of the MP scale in terms of controlling noise; I'd say personally the 5DMkII is really on par with the D3 and D700 if only slightly worse, with almost 50% more pixels!!!


But Really. 5DMkII - Lets get serious here unless your going into a warzone and need something thats gonna be bulletproof; It's the Daddy.

[Something4u @ Dec 5th 2008 3:24PM]

Both Nikon and Canon are the top two DSLR companies in the world and but have feature rich equipment in their lineup which suits the taste of different people. If Nikon has just caught up to Canon, where is our built-in wireless flash system which Nikon has had for such a long time? Love my 50D but looking at a comparison chart you got to love what Nikon brings to their custoemrs.

[vqro @ Dec 5th 2008 4:10PM]

Plain stupid. The 5DII is not a professional-level camera. The 1DsIII is. And please show me just ONE sample picture with the 5DII that is actually sharp. Not in the same league by any means. And have you seen all the problems with the black spots the 5DII is having? No? Well go to the dpreview.com forums.

Canon's playing the megapixel race but Nikon is not. It puts out quality cameras when they're actually ready.

[Tom @ Dec 5th 2008 4:52PM]

@vqro:
Umm.... hi, got my 5DII on Tuesday, and have been shooting with it in my studio since that night. I will tell you that it is just as sharp as one would expect it to be - it's about the lenses you use. I have no issues with the sensor whatsoever, and the build quality is superb. What you're saying about it not being a professional's camera is rubbish - I wouldn't be caught dead spending $8k on a studio cam unless I forked out a bit more for a digital back for my Mamiya or Hasselblad systems.

And trust me - Canon isn't playing the MP race. The 5DII is a studio cam that will likely be used to produce large prints (I'm starting a set of 24x36" prints using mine), so MP matters. And there's 21.1 million really well made pixels in there - it wasn't rushed. It's a quality cam that you're simply dismissing because you like to read blogs rather than use the equipment. I have nothing to say on Nikon's part since I haven't shot a Nikon digital in over 4 years, but I have nothing but good things to say about Canon's new sensor.

[Bladey @ Dec 5th 2008 5:11PM]

@dd_nvidia

you sir, are an ass

I use both Nikon and Canon professionally, and to say Nikon is playing catch up is just spewing useless fanboi cr@p

The D3 has won loads of awards... for a reason

But you are right about one thing, I do look forward to the EOS 1DsMkIV AND the D4X

[kcmanuel @ Dec 5th 2008 10:50PM]

@dd_nvidia

You're quite the ignorant fanboy aren't you. The whole "catch up" argument is what canon fanboys like to throw out on the table. Nikon and Canon both excel and stumble in different aspects of photography. If you continue to doubt Nikon's great releases with the D300, D700, D3 and now the D3x, then you're just stuck being biased towards Canon and there is no point in having a discussion with you.

The D3x's main focus is Studio work, with a base ISO of 100, and Lo setting of 50, that's quite obvious. This is meant to compete with Canon 1Ds line. Yes, the new gen 1Ds is only month's away, and I'm sure it'll be better than the former 1Ds or else what's the point of releasing it. As far as it being better than the D3x, well it might be, but that's the great thing about these two companies, they go back and forth with each other, and that motivates progress and innovation for both.

With that said, no, you do not specifically need a camera like the 1Ds or the D3x for studio work. Having a studio makes it easier to control light, actually you have full control of lighting, so even non pro cameras can perform well. At the end of the day, you'll notice it's more about the lenses and the human that pushes the shutter button than it is about the body.

FYI, if it is a Sony sensor, it's only a Sony "made" sensor, with Nikon's Design and Specs. Sony makes sensors for many other camera manufacturers, I believe they even make sensors for Canon's P&S cameras. Nikon is a much smaller company than Sony or Canon, and it's a normal practice to outsource the manufacturing of a sensor. Also, I'm sure Nikon's processing makes a big difference in image quality.

[Jonny @ Dec 5th 2008 3:22PM]

Does it capture people's souls?

http://www.applegeeks.com/lite/strips/aglite389.jpg

[BrettA @ Dec 5th 2008 3:24PM]

Lars: A large part of of the target market - reporters and similar - do indeed care and have repeatedly asked for this. But now we have to see what the sensor actually does - if it's unexpectedly good, I might even buy - I look forward to many images, plus DxO Mark's assessment.

[Tyler Willis @ Dec 5th 2008 3:24PM]

But will it take pictures of somebody playing Crysis?

[StalematE @ Dec 5th 2008 3:26PM]

No.

[jefffaucher @ Dec 5th 2008 3:28PM]

What a douchebag. Even my 3 year old niece realizes that a joke is no longer funny after the second time.

You're probably the same guy that calls "Epic Fail" on every minor mistake.

[Bretta @ Dec 5th 2008 3:34PM]

Dear Jonny; No. Only a mythical camera can (mythically) capture mythical items.

[Mike @ Dec 5th 2008 4:03PM]

I am confused... Why no mention of the a900. While not a "Pro" body, the sensor, at least, should be taken into comparison. I mean, the thing costs $5000 more, I would be interested to see what (besides driving nails, weathering a downpour, excellent customer service, an awesome lens line-up, etc) that $5000 extra gets me.

[Note:] I am aware of the Nikon, Canon domination right now, I get it, so lets hold the flames, its just a question.

[viclauyyc @ Dec 5th 2008 10:22PM]

I am sure the a900 is a very good camera. But Sony/Minolta are lack of some pro glass. Also, a900's noise is rather upsetting. I think the D3x's ISO1600 sample is ok and useable. And a900's iso 400 is useable. Also, Nikon/Canon's accessories are way more than Sony/Minolta. That is what makes a pro system.

Seriously, $8000USD is way too much. But it is always easy to lower the retail price than make it higher.

If you keep track the record, Nikon's body is almost always cost more than Canon's.

[a @ Dec 5th 2008 5:05PM]

I agree. The Sony is in the same class (20 + megapixel cameras).

Interestingly Sony makes Nikon sensors, so a comparison between the 2 will be even more interesting.

[FOREX @ Dec 5th 2008 5:25PM]

Sony is not in the same class as Nikon and Cannon. Sony does not have the glass.

That's not to flame you but rather to say that in the end the body dosen't matter all that much. What really makes the difference is the lenses. Back in the last days of film you could spend $5K on a nikon F5 body or $300 on an FM2 and get equally good pictures if you used the same lenses. You get similar qualith and capability in Nikon, Cannon, and probably Sony bodys but the real difference is in the lenses.

[TRLK @ Dec 5th 2008 8:10PM]

It wasn't quite the same in digital when you say that there's no difference between f5 and fm2
Film cameras were just boxes where you put your film in. Now, however, the bodies do matter just as much because of their sensors
Also, you cannot simply say that Nikon's sensor manufacturer is Sony, since Nikon themselves added a lot of their own stuff on top of the sensor as well (aa filter etc.)

[Mike @ Dec 5th 2008 9:41PM]

Wait... Sony doesn't have the glass? I said it is for want of an "awesome" lens line-up. I didn't say Sony doesn't have the glass, because they do.

Sony lacks: Tilt-Shift, Perspective Correction, a prime for every conceivable focal-length, 30 white lenses.

Sony does, however, have: Zeiss glass (there is contention here, Zeiss doesn't "make" the lenses, but they are made to exacting Zeiss specifications, which is the whole point), STF lenses (look it up), Minolta glass (stop bellyaching, this glass is some of the best, do your homework), "enough" primes. Oh, and in-body stabilization, which, while not "tailored to the lens" like Canon's IS and Nikon's VR (which, based on the algorithms that drive the tech, they actually are) is effectively future-proof, as the algorithms and hardware get updated and refreshed with each body (meaning, not only is all your glass IS, it also gets updated every time you upgrade your body [and there's one less thing to break in your lens]).

Sony's lens line up isn't as thorough, but what is there is excellent quality, and more than capable of resolving a +24mp sensor.

So, lenses and lens resolving resolutions out of it, as well as everything else that distinguishes CaNikon fron Sony, how do the D3x and a900 sensors compare?

[Jazz @ Dec 5th 2008 6:11PM]

Next time I need to print out a billboard and have $8k to burn I'll keep this camera in mind.

In the meantime a D3/D700 should do the job - and if resolution was actually an issue why not take the 5DMKII? Even for those with Nikon gear the price difference should give you enough to buy a couple nice lenses and still come in well under $8k.

I guess one good thing about this camera is when the price of this thing starts dropping it will take the D3 down with it.

[Yem @ Dec 5th 2008 6:48PM]

Since you can get a similar sensor, minus NPS and ne plus ultra build, for about 1/3rd the price in the Sony A900, perhaps this is the first pro camera that is actually really seriously FOR professional photographers and not wealthy wannabes.

[Eric @ Dec 5th 2008 10:45PM]

I think all the reviewers missed the point. The point that's right here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm

Thanks Ken Rockwell. Now if only everyone was just a common-sense oriented as you.

[Razor @ Dec 6th 2008 1:39AM]

Ken Rockwell is an idiot, end of story. His reviews are laughable, and hardly well informed. The irony is that he has become the "measurebator" that he claims he despises. I've long ago stopped reading his crap.

Just check out his Mac vs PC article where he calls Unix a programming language. The guy talks about way too much shit that he knows nothing about.

[DoDo @ Dec 7th 2008 4:46AM]

I agree with you and with most of what Ken Rockwell says on his site. In all reality the majority of people posting on the Nikon D3x are not professionals no matter what they say. They will never purchase this product... I myself am amazed at how sophisticated this machine is but in all reality I will never own one. Way too much money for my blood... I am more interested in purchasing quality glass to put in front of my camera (Nikon of course). Hopefully in the future, full frame (FX) sensors will trickle down to the level of the commoners such as myself.

[vqro @ Dec 8th 2008 10:51AM]

You're kidding right. Ken Rockwell? He's the laughingstock of photographers. If you're going to look for professional opinions on camera equipment, you might be better off reading Galbraith, Hogan, Roslett, Reichmann and others of that caliber.

Ken Rockwell! That is funny.

[dave @ Dec 6th 2008 8:22AM]

I think it's unfortunate that Nikon chose to place the D3X in exactly the price bracket that full time studio photographers would start to consider filling with a MF system. 8k for a D3 with more pixels and a smaller usable ISO range is what it is. I shoot Nikon professionally so I'm not trying to be a "fanboy" (god how i hate that term), just realistic.

[Ender @ Dec 6th 2008 4:14PM]

Pro-level - schmo level. Digital photography is so good that you can use practically any DSLR that Canon or Nikon makes for quality work. I'm shooting better senior portraits and weddings than the "pros" in my town with my old Rebel XTi and making tack sharp 16x20 prints for my clients from a 10mp camera at ISO 100. The camera doesn't make the photographer people. If you want a full frame sensor that bad, then shoot 35mm or medium format.

[WRBWRXMAX @ Dec 7th 2008 5:31PM]

What's with all the form-factor talk in the reviews? It's a D3 with a new sensor and processor, and not much else. Externally, it's 99% identical to the D3 that's been out for a year, which was 90% identical to the D2 that came before it.

[Shift2 @ Dec 8th 2008 11:44AM]

I call dibs if you guys ever put it up as a give away!