How would you change Nikon's D3x DSLR?
By Darren Murph 
posted Jan 30th 2009 10:42PM
posted Jan 30th 2009 10:42PM
posted Jan 30th 2009 10:42PM
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.
First post? Make it cheaper, for one..
Yeah, that price tag has to come down. Awesome specs though.
Honestly its a camera there is heaps of competition so you could always just buy a different brand. Something with teh Leica or Carl Zeiss lens (Panasonic/Sony) am i rite? or am i RIGHT?
Dave, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go away.
make it heavier, cuz otherwise it would be lighter, and who wants that?
Then you got Sonys Alpha 900, which uses the same sensor and can be found for a fraction of the price. The d3x has the edge in image quality, but ofcourse at a extraordinary high extra price.
pretty much nothing to improve on other than cost, i have a D70 and could only dream of having one of these!
Lower the price, DUH!
1. Lower cost
2. Higher ISO sensitivity (D3 range or better)
3. Video
4. See #1
You should read all the previous comments.
#1:
"It's funny how this camera spec-wise tops Canon's flagship camera, yet nobody complains about that camera's $8,000 price tag.
It isn't even really worth asking this question of prosumers, who don't spend this kind of cash on a camera unless they are independently wealthy. For actual professionals, though, this camera is not only the best one for their needs, it's also competitively priced." - Andy Anonymous
#2:
"ISO performance is right where it should be. Sensors are designed for a specific ISO range, doing a 200-6400 base ISO like the D3 would suffer performance on the low-ISO side. The D3x is designed for studio work, hence is focused on the lower end. The early reviews have said the D3x is really unparalleled in the dSLR range and even rivals some medium-format digitals for image quality. The camera isn't meant to be the jack-of-all trades, rather its an ace of one." - Temple
#3:
"It doesn't need video. This isn't a photojournalist's camera, it's a top-tier pro shooter's camera. It's intended to serve as a sort of "35mm Medium Format" camera if you will. Video is unnecessary and would just add price and more chances of something going wrong (personally I'm against any "feature" in a dSLR that heats up the sensor so much so that it needs to shut off for fear of overheating).
Video works for the lighter cameras -- 5d2, d400, d90, etc.. It has no justifiable place on something like the d3x." -Mike
#4:
"You're an idiot." - Me
I would like it to stop being to goddamn awesome so I can quit wanting one :)
It's obvious, but: add video.
And autofocus during video.
It doesn't need video. This isn't a photojournalist's camera, it's a top-tier pro shooter's camera. It's intended to serve as a sort of "35mm Medium Format" camera if you will. Video is unnecessary and would just add price and more chances of something going wrong (personally I'm against any "feature" in a dSLR that heats up the sensor so much so that it needs to shut off for fear of overheating).
Video works for the lighter cameras -- 5d2, d400, d90, etc.. It has no justifiable place on something like the d3x.
Also obvious buy a camcorder if you want video DUH
I have a Nikon F5, and the only thing I would buy to "replace" it would be one of these.
@mike: Why not video? For journalists that feature would come in handy. For (indie-)filmmakers too. As long as it doesn't disturb the actual intention of the camera I see no problem with that feature at all.
It's not a top-tier proshooter's camera, it's a baseline proshooter's camera. It's a top-tier wedding photographer's camera such as if someone wanted to be able to use the same camera for formals and candids. Proshooters usually opt for Phase One or Leaf backs, not just for the 39 Megapixels-lets face it most fashion shoots don't even need 24.5MP--but more for the true 16-bit capture.
Adding on to the non existent owner of the D3x, I too think the price change will be nice. On the other hand I'm awaiting for my online order of the d90 coming its way within the next week or so >_<
Your going to love the D90, absolutely amazing!!!!
It's funny how this camera spec-wise tops Canon's flagship camera, yet nobody complains about that camera's $8,000 price tag.
It isn't even really worth asking this question of prosumers, who don't spend this kind of cash on a camera unless they are independently wealthy. For actual professionals, though, this camera is not only the best one for their needs, it's also competitively priced.
Just to clarify, by "this question" I actually meant the price question.
You don't read the Canon forums! LOTS of people complain about the price on the 1Ds Mark III. You can see it reflected in what this camera currently demands new -- $6600 (source: B&H). Used it is closer to the $5K mark. I think Nikon definitely overpriced the D3x. A $6K D3x would have been represented enormous pressure on Canon, more so than it does as is. I shoot a 1Ds Mark II btw, and there's lots I can be jealous of with the new Nikon. ;-]
The 1Ds Mark III is a year and a half old... of course the price has dropped. The D3x will too over time. Look, this camera isn't being marketing to me-- I shoot with a D90-- but rather high end commercial and fashion photographers who would otherwise be shooting with a $20,000 Hasselblad. From that vantage point, it's actually a bargain.
Better high ISO performance. At least on par with the D3/D700.
Built in Geo tagging
Higher resolution OLED screen (800x600 minimum)
Autofocus points to the edge of the frame
Video
Built in 802.11n Wifi
That would make the perfect camera. Additional resolution would be wasted because the glass has trouble resolving details beyond 25MP
Might as well add phone + web browser feature, FM radio, a solar panel and built-in swiss knife? How bout toasting?
Toaster would be pretty sweet
ISO performance is right where it should be. Sensors are designed for a specific ISO range, doing a 200-6400 base ISO like the D3 would suffer performance on the low-ISO side. The D3x is designed for studio work, hence is focused on the lower end. The early reviews have said the D3x is really unparalleled in the dSLR range and even rivals some medium-format digitals for image quality. The camera isn't meant to be the jack-of-all trades, rather its an ace of one.
I do tend to get hungry while out taking pictures...
will it play doom?
almost read hungry as horny...but for all the pedophiles and voyeurs out there a build in fleshlight may make this the perfect choice for them.
"Additional resolution would be wasted because the glass has trouble resolving details beyond 25MP"
I don;t think that is true. I've shot 4x5 before, and I can tell you that the effective resolution of high grade ASA 32 film is well over 25 megapixels. Of course the distance from the lens to the negative has something to do with it, but I think that the professional grade lenses would be more than capable of utilizing a higher density sensor.
With printer resolutions reaching (accurately) 2400 DPI, storage pennies per MB, transfer rates measured in gigabytes per second, and removable storage media in the 32+GB range, more pixels are practical, and desirable.
Personally I like to print 19X13 prints for framing, and I'd like to print (or have printed) larger sizes.
Unfortunately I cannot currently afford the D3x, and If I could I'd probably buy glass instead. I'll probably wait until the next generation after the D700. Hopefully something in the 20MP range for under $2000...
@CraigJ
"'Additional resolution would be wasted because the glass has trouble resolving details beyond 25MP'"
"I don;t think that is true. I've shot 4x5 before, and I can tell you that the effective resolution of high grade ASA 32 film is well over 25 megapixels. Of course the distance from the lens to the negative has something to do with it"
Uhhh, the size of the sensor? You're comparing the effective resolution of a format with an image size more than 10 times greater than 35mm.
"glass has trouble resolving details beyond 25MP'"
get it?
Even a good lens has trouble to give 100 lines per mm for the whole area. So for a standard 24x36mm film that would make 8 640 000 pixels, and if you use the 2x2 color cell to get a color it'll become about 25Mpixels.
This gives perspektive to the compact camera megapixel race, especially if you consider that their zoom lenses cant be considered as good.
D3x just have AF edge to edge.. just use live view..
the only issue i have is 1.8 FPS for 14bit/FX. whilst 12bit/FX is 5FPS.
at nearly 2fps it took me some getting use it after usign D3. now D3 is the my backup and the main camera is D3x.
the price tag? nope. it's actually quite cheap..
canon's 1ds used to be even more expensive. i didnt had to think twice getting D3x. think about it.. what is the nearest 24.5mp camera with good lenses? mamiya? phaseone? exclude sony. it's more expensive than D3x.
The best fine-grain/low speed B&W film had a resolution equivalant to 200 pixels/mm (~5080 pixels/inch) High quality lenses are usually tested to at least that resolution, if not higher. That 200p/mm is completely independent of format 110, 35mm, 120, 4x5, 20x24, doesn't matter. 200pixels/mm at the sensor equates to about 70MP for 36x49mm Medium Format sensors, 13.3MP for APS-C sized sensors, and 34.5MP for "Full-Frame" 35mm sensors.
I did a little math:
Camera: Pixels/mm -- pixel pitch in microns:
PhaseOne P45+ (39MP): 147p/mm -- 6.8 micron
PhaseOne P65+ (60MP): 166p/mm -- 6 micron
Canon 50D (15MP): 213p/mm -- 4.69 micron
Canon 5D Mk II/1DsMkIII (21MP): 156p/mm -- 6.4 micron
Canon 1D Mk III (10MP): 135p/mm -- 7.38 micron
Nikon D3/D700 (12MP): 118p/mm -- 8.46 micron
Nikon D90 (12.2MP): 181p/mm -- 5.5 micron
Nikon D3X (24.4MP): 168.46p/mm -- 5.9 micron
Looking at the list, the 15MP Canon 50D pushes the resolution limit of a lens a lot further than the 24MP D3x, or even a 60MP medium format digital back does. It's not just the MP it's the size of the sensor and how many pixels are packed into it. A "Full-Frame" 35mm digital camera could be 38MP before it has the same pixels per millimeter of the Canon 50D (Before anyone goes off on me, I know this is not accounting for corner/edge softness because the sensor is bigger, but that's another story.)
Best thing to do with the D3x? Skip it and buy a D700 with 3 or four VERY nice lenses. The D700 is perfect for "everybody else". Go compare specs and for the differences, ask yourself if you have EVER used them more than once (if ever).
To be fair, the rumor mill is floating a D800 now which should make the decision even harder....
Steve
I, Josh Ladella, use an Olympus E-500 body with a bundled 18-180mm lens. I, Josh Ladella, have been unsatisfied and have wanted a Nikon ever since I understood the meaning of ISO.
Josh Ladella
I, Josh Ladella, use an Olympus E-500 body with a bundled 18-180mm lens. I, Josh Ladella, have been unsatisfied and have wanted a Nikon ever since I understood the meaning of ISO.
Josh Ladella
You're annoying even when you're not talking about Apple.
Add the Gigapan Epic imager:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/30/gigapan-epic-imager-released-your-party-photos-will-never-be-th/
Just to set things straight, a diffraction limited f/0.95 lens can do 0.86 Gigapixels.
The 50 mm f/1.4 NIKKOR for the F1 could do 0.62 Gigapixels.
Plus X could support 200 lp/mm or 0.14 Gigapixels.
i cant figure out where to put the film in on this thing
stupid nikon
spend 8000 bucks and cant even load my
35mm
stupid.
I cant figure out where teh ubs cable fits in my disposable camera.
stupid walgreens.
spent 5 bucks and cant even stick my
ubs
stupid.
cant get my ubs to work with my smart media card reader
i'll just go back to my zip drive now
I know it's a professional photo camera, which I would never buy, BUT if you add at least 1080p video, then I'd buy it on the spot just so that I can take advantage of the sensor low-light sensitivity and interchangeable lens system.
Ugh, stupid commenting system. That was supposed to be a reply to Steve.
Josh Ladella
make it free :P
Make it pocket size!