Nikon D3x reviewed: unmatched image quality, steep price tag

While all of the Nikon D3x previews from December largely heaped praise on the camera, Thomas Hogan's recent review is decidedly more evenhanded. Though lauded for what he calls the best image quality of any DSLR on the market, its $8000 price tag receives some harsh criticism. Compared to its D3 predecessor, he says you're paying a $3600 premium for what is essentially just twice the pixel count (12.1 megapixels vs. 24.4). If you're the kind of person who needs the higher resolution, this is the camera for you. For everyone else, it might be worth a pass. Hit up the read link for an exhaustive analysis.

[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]

[Magnulus @ Jan 14th 2009 1:00PM]

I could understand it if it was double the width and height rather than double the pixels. This is just silly, though.

[deanosaur @ Jan 14th 2009 1:06PM]

Has anyone done a comparison with the 1Ds Mark III yet?

[superhobo @ Jan 14th 2009 1:12PM]

$8000

Someone will soon appear justifying buying this anyway.

[dd_nvidia @ Jan 14th 2009 1:12PM]

Studio - Hassleblad H3DII

Location - Canon 5DmkII

Sports - Canon 1DmkIII or Nikon D3


This camera just doesnt seem justifiable, unless you have a serious investment in Nikon glass and dont want/cant afford to jum to digital MF.

Canon 5DmkII in the studio gives great results, I'm sure the extra 3MP is a deal breaker.

[Markarian @ Jan 14th 2009 4:34PM]

I'm new to photography, and own a lowly XTi (using better than kit glass at least). But can someone politely explain to me why the 5D Mark II isn't the best SLR on the market? Also, why would anyone by the 1DsMarkIII now that the new 5D is out at half the price?

[Temple @ Jan 14th 2009 5:57PM]

If you're going on location you minus well use the the 1DMkIII, D3 or even the 1Ds and D3x. The 5DII's AF isn't really up to any professional standards if you have a moving model or subject- but are great for still subjects and landscapes.

Also, 1DsIII and D3x are more then enough for most studio work. Its only when you need high-sync speed that medium-format digitals become useful with their leaf-shutter, increasingly more pros have been moving to high end dSLRs because they are more flexible and offer better ISO range. In fact, its the Hasselblad's that are increasingly pointless; even Obama's presidential portrait is using a mere 5DII and not a $50k Hasselblad H3D.

[jordan turpentine @ Jan 14th 2009 6:54PM]

yeah it's because the a900 is the best dslr on the market. it is basically a d3x for under half the price.

[Oleg @ Jan 14th 2009 11:05PM]

Markarian:

1Ds series have much more sensitive focusing sensors. I've heard 3x more precise than the ones in 5D series.

[Josh @ Jan 31st 2009 3:35AM]

If I am not mistaken, the 1D and 1Ds are both waterproof, have better auto focus sensors, and are generally of higher standards unless I am mistaken.

[Giga @ Jan 14th 2009 1:18PM]

Way too expensive.

[vqro @ Jan 14th 2009 1:22PM]

Whether you like the price or not, this IS the best DLSR out there. This has been confirmed by the likes of Lloyd Chambers, Thom Hogan, and other world-class photographers without allegiances to any particular brand. When DXO Labs finally gets around to publishing the specs for this camera I think everyone will see why it costs so much.

[ADAM @ Jan 14th 2009 3:26PM]

At 5fps and a max iso of 6400 this is NOT the best DSLR for everyone. Best is a loaded term and none of your resources used it.

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 1:32PM]

The Canon 1Ds Mark III isn't that much less then the D3x. Each started at the $7999 price point and the Nikon sensor is 3MP larger. I could see the Nikon matching the Mark III price point this year. It's very feasible.

I personally haven't shot with the D3x yet. The D700 and D3 are the best cameras out there in my opinion. Paired the the new 12-24mm and 24-70mm lenses, Canon can't even compare.

Nikon's flashes have always been better than Canon's. Nikon's new glass is far superior than what Canon is putting out right now. HD video is MF isn't worth the switch.

[macjonny @ Jan 14th 2009 1:52PM]

Nikon and Canon both have excellent optics and cameras that are very comparable....my little Nikon fanboi.

Now, go and give mama her camera back you have homework to do.

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 2:02PM]

I work for a pro camera dealer so my "homework" is done mac. I take home this kind of gear on a regular basis so all of my opinions come from experience.

[Ian @ Jan 14th 2009 2:13PM]

I'd agree with you if Canon never released the 5D MkII. For all practical purposes, Canon's 1Ds MkIII, 5D Mk II, Sony A900, and this Nikon D3x have an equivalent number of pixels. The differences will come out in the jpeg output, and perhaps in the RAW file if it's slightly tinkered with, as in many Sonys.

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 2:29PM]

@ Ian-

I don't see your logic when comparing RAW files. The only variable when comparing RAW files between the 5 FF cameras will be the glass in front. RAW means the image is completely unmanipulated/ untouched by the processor. With JPEG, yes there will be a difference. And wasn't there a problem with the 5D MII where some files were getting weird artifacts??

With the 5D MII issue and focus issue with the high speed 1D MIII, it's tough for me to back pro Canon gear. Trust me, I love their point-and-shoots over Nikon and the original 5D was my former favorite before the new Nikons.

[macjonny @ Jan 14th 2009 2:41PM]

Ok pixel peepers here is your evidence:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml

All three are great cameras and each have some pros and cons.

Bryan, I own the 5DII and although mine never had the blackdot issue there was a fast firmware fix. There was never a JPEG issue it was an sRAW banding issue and it was fixed too. They (Canon) didn't handle the 1dMIII issue well I'll give you that. The 14-24 and 24-70 Nikons are great lenses but when you look at the big picture both are great systems and only going to the extreme peeperage level you will never tell a difference on an equivalently priced system from each manufacturer. My point was that each has it's pros and cons and if you disagree then that is just pure fanboism.

[WhyFi @ Jan 14th 2009 2:59PM]

"all of my opinions come from experience."
"And wasn't there a problem with the 5D MII where some files were getting weird artifacts??"
Yeah, sounds like you've got lots of experience and knowledge on the Canon side of the fence...

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 3:01PM]

@ macjonny-

I ain't going to disagree with you there. The bodies are pretty equal. But the lenses are what make the difference these days. The glass is what you're suppose to be investing in anyways.

Find the Ken Rockwell review of the new Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. He says the zoom lens is sharper than Canon's primes in that range.

Congrats on the purchase btw!

[maffyoo @ Jan 14th 2009 3:03PM]

@Bryan

id be surprised if you are working for a pro dealer if you are making comments like that because if you've ever worked with both systems and any pro shooters, you'd have a slightly different perspective on what makes a good system and who offers the best. The differences between the top cameras, especially shot RAW are minimal, although, knowing the market place Bryan youll know that most photo-journo's shoot jpeg and prefer larger pixel sites and faster shooting. I'm amazed you say that Canon can't compete though, The D3 was a revolutionary camera admitted, it showed for the first time that Nikon were serious about the pro market which is dominated by Canon, along came the D700 which is arguable even better, then they threw a spanner in the works with the D3x, it has a marginal advantage over Canon in the resolution department but nothing that would urge someone to switch systems, it has average Hi ISO performance (but its not really aimed at that market is it?) it shares the same sensor (but not pipeline) as the Sony (which is a lot cheaper) and its F*****ng expensive, especially when you can get a 5DII for less than half the price, dont forget Pro's arent fanboys, they make a living out of a trade which is increasingly being pinched by The wide availability and relatively low price of pro kit. Choosing a system has as much to do with cost as it does anything else, and when the differences are marginal money talks.

What amazes me most, is that you pick Admittedly Nikons finest lens ever (which is actually a 14-24 not 12-24 as you stated) and a flawed mid-zoom (i assume you are familiary with its penchant for barrel distortion) and then declare Nikon hands down winners. I think you need to spend some time looking at the systems as a pro the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L, an image stabilized version not far away by all accounts, it is cheaper and arguably better than the nikon equivalent. Yes the 14-24 is amazing but its not a bread and butter lens for a pro. Look at the other options, Fast primes,... canon wins hands down.. long zooms canon again. and in the DX arena Canon are even further ahead, offering a huge array of lenses but again you have to be in the real position of trying to build a working system with both brands to realise this, and not just spray your load at a handful of admittedly excellent products. Personally, I dont see many Pro shooters moving away from Canon and for the semi pro (weddings, club events etc) the 5DII is a killer product, great hi ISO and very good video in the right hands. im sure it will and is popular in this market. at the end of the day, people will make their choice, Me.. i shoot Nikon but when you regularly work with people on different systems you begin to see what is important, and its not pixel peeping

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 3:05PM]

@WhyFi

That was my way of reminding people of the issue with compressed RAW files. I forgots sarcasm doesn't come through as well over the interwebs.

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 3:24PM]

@maffyoo

Be surprised then. But realize you and I aren't in the store I work in and I am not trying to sell you a camera. Any good salesperson knows not not let their own biases get in the way of what the customer wants/ needs. Which is why I prefaced my statement IMO.

Wanna know what my favorite lens is btw? It's Canon's 85mm 1.2 II. And I wish there was a Nikon equivalent.

I don't see the huge deal about the number people swithing from one manufacturer to the other. Why shooters toss their entire investments to the better camera that year is crazy. But replacing the aging D2x/ D2xs was a must for Nikon, even if it wasn't going to draw a millions switchers to Nikon.

[maffyoo @ Jan 14th 2009 5:58PM]

@Bryan, i didnt realise we were 12 year olds, personally i dont have a favourite lens, it sort of needs a cam to go with it the 85 f1.2 II is a nice lens but again, its not bread and butter is it, bread and butter is Canon 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 (probably the best overall lens ever) Nikon ... its not so clear, 17-55 DX was clearly a winner but hamstrung by being a DX lens i dont like the 18-200 but for me it epitomises the issues nikon have offering a system, you need a lot of variety and Nikon are a long way behind canon for that. Ive owned lots of Canon and lots of Nikon in my time, call me a glutton owning a Nikon now, but im not a pro and my photography is a hobby, i dont forget the frustration of wanting lenses from the canon line up for my Nikon when i found myself able to make the choice again. the 85 f1.8 is a bargain though but its just like the canon 85 f1.8 best camera in the last year for me though, on pure image quality and film like results has to be the sigma DP1 but that probably just proves that im odd

[bandigolo @ Jan 14th 2009 1:36PM]

so if the only difference between this and the D3 is 2x pixels, does that mean the D3 has the best image quality on the market too (resolution not withstanding)?

if so, I'm keeping my eyes out for cheap D3's.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 15th 2009 1:42AM]

D3x doesn't have as good ISO performance, but then again generally you don't shoot too much low-light in medium-format anyways.

[joe @ Jan 14th 2009 1:37PM]

Those that bitch and moan about the price are clearly not the intended market. If you are worried about price go buy a D40 if you want the best of the best there is a premium to pay.

[jon @ Jan 14th 2009 1:38PM]

If $8000 seems like too much, then it's not for you. Are you a top photojournalist, pro fashion shooter or shooting for national geographic? No? Then why get upset about the price... Most people using these are making more than enough to pay for them, or they are getting the equipment from someone who is paying for it.

It's not like there aren't good options for around $1000 or so, including Nikon options for the rest of us.

[Enhance Your Calm @ Jan 14th 2009 4:05PM]

Out of the three sub-professions you mentioned - photojournalist, fashion, natgeo - only one of those really has the out and out potential to bring in the boku cashish. For the other two, $8K+ is definitely NOT a no-brainer.

[Jason @ Jan 14th 2009 1:58PM]

Camera Envy....

[tgold @ Jan 14th 2009 2:08PM]

While this is all well and good, where is my D400 with 1080 24p video and no jello effect?

[chispito @ Jan 14th 2009 4:06PM]

The "jello effect" never seemed noticeable or bothersome to me from the videos I've seen. It seems like something that you would need to be trying hard to achieve, and trying harder to notice.

[Denver_80203 @ Jan 14th 2009 2:13PM]

What's spooky is prices are GOING UP on lenses Nikon has offered for years. they are already higher over seas and the new price model is not looking good for the US according to Nikonrumors.com
Not small jumps in price either. Odd thing to do in a slowing economy.

[rawhead @ Jan 14th 2009 2:40PM]

It's not just Nikon. Pentax recently announced they are upping the MSRP of a lot of their lenses (in fact, all their current lenses that aren't "Open Price"); some, like the fabulous FA 31mm F1.8 Limited is going up nearly $300 in MSRP next month. Manufacturing costs are definitely going up, not down, especially with quality optics.

[Sebastian @ Jan 14th 2009 2:24PM]

PLEASE! Someone make this MegaPixel crap stop! I hate that every tiny little camera has 10+ Megapixel. The challenge is not resolution (and by the way show me the lenses that manage to transport the 24+ Megapixel) but the NOISE. And more megapixel = smaller sensor receptors = more noise in low-light situations.

I would like to hear about ISO, lens quality and noise! I hate to hear about Megapixel. In most cases there is just no justification for having more megapixel.

[JK @ Jan 14th 2009 2:31PM]

Yeah, except this isn't a tiny camera. Go read the full review link.

[Bryan @ Jan 14th 2009 2:37PM]

Guess you've never held the D3x cause it's not a tiny camera and neither is the sensor.

I do feel your pain cause the megapixel race is mega-overhyped. I would rather have the extended range to ISO 6400 than the 24MP. But pro shooters need the extra pixels. No everyone makes 4x6's.

[Trevor @ Jan 14th 2009 2:40PM]

more pixels in cellphones and other small sensor applications: Bad
More pixels in full size DSLRs: Fucking awesome.


That is all

[iKurt @ Jan 14th 2009 9:28PM]

You should whine to the people who bring you 108" 4k (4x1080p) LCD displays at consumer electronic trade shows.

[Jon @ Jan 14th 2009 3:55PM]

Bryan, I absolutely, thoroughly enjoyed your insistence that you are experienced and work for a pro dealer, yet you quote Ken Rockwell.

Seriously, thanks for the laugh!


- Jon

(Nikon + Mac Fanboy)

[al @ Jan 15th 2009 6:04AM]

For that money I would rather have a Leica.

[Mike V @ Jan 15th 2009 5:29PM]

I don't get why people keep moaning about the price?

Try checking on the price of a professional video camera.

$8K doesn't even get you the viewfinder.

[Darrin VanGorder @ Jan 15th 2009 8:50PM]

First I don't believe Bryan knows what he is talking about. As far as Ken Rockwell, he is not to be trusted. He use to have on his website 3 pictures he claimed to be taken 20 minutes apart, trying to teach how different light affects the photo, well one big problem ken, they were all the same photo just tweaked differently in photoshop. The waves were identicle in all three. I emailed him about it, but never got a response. So I don't beleive a word he says, besides his photography is just a poor copy of others work. As far as Nikon verse Canon. Nikon does have better wide glass, just marginally better, they do have a better flash system. But there is a good reason why 90% of professional photographers shoot Canon. Including myself. Canon has better lenses period! Better digital color output, and better overall tonality. The race is getting closer, and in some respects Nikon wins, but overall Canon is still king right now.

[[e-mail] @ Jan 21st 2009 9:40PM]

i use a Nikon D700 awesome camera , if i want more resolution i'll stich a couple of images together or use photoacute so a D3x is not worth it for me but i guess if Canon can charge big bucks for the 1ds markIII then so can Nikon for the D3x it is after all a better camera.
check out the dxomark score it wins by a big margin & is top in the different catogories except for low light iso where it is third behind the D3/D700.
Dxo mark also shows that nikon cameras have a big lead over Canon in dynamic range with 5 cameras in the top ten .
lloyd chambers over at http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html seems to like the D3x a whole lot.
Nikon has the best flash system & the lens line up is comparable to Canons for quality the latest Nikon lens releases have been great.
I think the Canon 5D mark II is a very good camera excellent for landscapes but Canon have made sure that it cannot compete with the
1Ds mark III apart from IQ & resolution in comparison the D700 compares very well to the D3.
Nikon will probably release a cut down D3X later this year ( a D700X with HD video?)
Canon is going to have to raise their game to compete with Nikon i'm sure that they hate being in number 2 spot in the DSLR market so i expect they will rise to the challenge.

[Tyler @ Jan 29th 2009 8:42PM]

I shoot with Canon right now but I do follow Ken Rockwell. He said that the price for this camera was way too high, right from launch day! (which after his explanation I agree with) So yes it's great there is a full review, but people have realized the outrageous price a long while back. (yeah I just started taking pictures so I'm cheap, but that doesn't overrule the fact that this is a great camera with a price that is too high for what you get IMHO)

[eric @ Jan 31st 2009 7:25AM]

I'll probably be sorry bringing this up, but if you really need the extra megapixels that badly, then you aren't going to be shooting a DSLR in the first place. The real use of a DSLR is convenience and flexibility.
For important work my MF camera gets several HUNDRED megapixel resolution, with no noise and far better tonal range and color saturation than any CCD or CMOS.

For everything else a Sony Alpha or Pentax K20D does more than adequately, more flexibly and more durably than the new Nikon, and can actually be used under field conditions because - and this is important - CAMERAS GET DESTROYED when properly used as tools and you can't be afraid of breaking them. This means you have to be able to not only afford to be replacing them, but also of having a backup body handy at all times. At 8 grand per body you are not going to get the good shots if you are terrified of breaking it, climbing over rocks and streams with it, or getting it full of sand.

[Gtommy @ Feb 13th 2009 1:48AM]

Nikon d3x this that I really superlative. Must accept. You can see other details that. http://www.onlineblogshopping.com/nikon-d3x-245mp-fx-digital-slr-body-only/

[chris @ Mar 13th 2009 11:51AM]

http://www.prophotohome.com/canon-can-win-me-back-again-1dmark4?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_content=PPH+Full+List+Main+Week+3+-+March+Madness