D3X announced (sort of) - professional-level 24 mp full frame camera

[Hmac]

Worst-kept secret of the photo industry - the D3X was (prematurely) announced in Nikon Pro magazine, about 3 days ahead of Nikon's official announcement.

The downside is that, although many/most of the specs are known, pricing and some other details aren't, leading to rampant speculation about value etc. The end result is that, on a lot of the forums like DPR, the camera is taking more of a bashing than it otherwise would if Nikon had been able to contol the information release commensurate with the camera's flagship status. Nikon Inc. has great engineering, but bottom line, this is yet another example of the rest of the company stepping on their own foot again. What an amazing company. Very interesting that they've been able to stay on top of the camera industry despite the general incompetence of their marketing department over these past 5 years.

As to the camera -- 24.5 megapixels in an otherwise unchanged D3 body. 5FPS in FX, DX crop mode at 10mp and 7 FPS.

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nikon-d3x-front-2-1.jpg
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/scan-081128-0003.jpg

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/scan-081128-0006.jpg

[termina3]

Thanks for the heads-up. Please make the images smaller though…

It's a shame that Nikon Marketing isn't what Apple's is.

[jessica.]

Wow very nice. But dude I gotta agree with the above poster, use TIMG tags asap.

I wonder if the price point will be where the D3 is at now, thus dropping the price of the D3 a few hundred bucks or more. Hopefully. :)

[Hmac]

Yeah, sorry. I just direct-linked them, never really saw the original size. My bad.

[Hmac]

Wow very nice. But dude I gotta agree with the above poster, use TIMG tags asap.

I wonder if the price point will be where the D3 is at now, thus dropping the price of the D3 a few hundred bucks or more. Hopefully. :)

My guess is that's what's going on -- drop the price of the D3 to make room for a $5500 - $6000 price point for the D3X. We've already been seeing the D3 coming down (MSRP $5000 vs $4200 at B&H). I don't know if the D3X will come in at $5000 (inclined to doubt it) but we'll know tonight at midnight.

[wheelhot]

Well this is similar to what happen in the 3rd Gen Nano (not to forget, fatboy nano) right? The design is leaked out, the features is leaked out, and when the announcement of the actual product is shown, it lacks the hooray feeling. And instead before the product is even release, you get pages and pages of bashing from a product that's not even released yet.

[Hmac]

Formal announcement is Dec 1 on this side of the IDL. Midnight EST if previous press announcments are any indication.

The camera rounds out Nikon's lineup. I doubt this will be a big-market item.

[Agurri]

According to this UK retailer the D3x price is expected to be around £5,500=US$8,466 (they even take pre-order deposits of £20). Expect the US price to be lower (the US price is not determined by direct rate conversion).

Taken from www.nikonrumors.com

[alphaod]

Won't be buying it, so I won't even bother looking.

[Hmac]

Won't be buying it, so I won't even bother looking.

No, I agree. But it's an interesting phenomenon. Not the camera itself...but the effect on photography gearheads around the world, especially over at DPR. The drums are beating loudly over there and the natives are getting themselves pretty worked up in advance of the formal announcement and pricing.

[Hmac]

ROTFLMAO!

$8000 Estimated Street Price for the D3X. The cognoscenti over at DPR are going wild.

A usual, this camera was massively overhyped by forum speculation to the point where it couldn't possibly live up to the fantasy expectations laid out for it by those guys. Then the preannouncement debacle.

It's OK though. Soon the seething will settle down and the D3X will become what it was meant to be....not the savior of all photography, but rather a competent high-res full-frame competitor to the 1DsMkIII.

Image samples here (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/sample.htm)....pretty impressive.



/

[JoeG4]

Let me get this straight:

Nikon released info on their new flagship camera a few days before they had intended to...

Thus photographers are mad at them? WTF?! That's like if Apple released a Mac Pro 3 days before MWSF.. that'd be awesome!

[Hmac]

Let me get this straight:

Nikon released info on their new flagship camera a few days before they had intended to...

Thus photographers are mad at them? WTF?! That's like if Apple released a Mac Pro 3 days before MWSF.. that'd be awesome!

Nah. Nikon didn't release the info, it came out in a third-party non-Nikon-owned magazine aimed at Nikon professional photographers about 3 days in advance of the actual release date. The article didn't have all the details (including pricing) so the result was intense, wild, and in many cases unrealistic expectations for the camera. People aren't mad at Nikon for the premature release, they're mad because (among other things)
it costs $8000
it doesn't have video
it only does 5 FPS
it's in a big, heavy D3 body (I think many would have preferred a D700X
it will only go to (native) ISO 1600


The three days between the teaser and the actual announcement only served to amplify the intense speculation setting them up for more disappointment.

The whole introduction was botched in the opinion of some, including the hacked firmware discovery (someone found D3X coding in firmware months ago), several missed expected announcement dates, and now this magazine thing. All-in-all, a rather botched new-product introduction, especially for their new flagship camera.

Bottom line IMHO, they're mad because they were expecting their fantasy camera and choked on the hard dose of reality that Nikon dished out this morning.

As to Apple, the same thing happens, although product launches are usually handled better, and expectations managed better. The rumors etc start building a new Apple computer up, it gets introduced, followed immediately by significant bashing of the new computer here on MacRumors when people find out that their computer fantasies weren't met.

[Digital Skunk]

Anyone that truly needs one will know that it's a great camera. It's the perfect high res backup for the D3 IMHO, and will server photogs that need speed on day and high resolution the next.

If I have the budget, I'd have one of them and either a D3 or D700 in my bag on a regular basis. The 8000 is a bit much, and since I don't have the cash would prefer a dual D700 kit or single D3 kit with SB-900/800 strobes and 14-24 and 24-70.

It is safe to say that Nikon has finally matched Canon blow for blow in terms of body offerings. The "cut them off at the knees" strategy for Nikon is at an end, and Nikon is making face blows.

For a body like that, with that resolution and price, I'd expect 5fps and ISO 50-3200 instead of a super hi res and super fast shutter speed. Nikon could have left off high speed crop IMO since no one in their right mind would spend $8000 and not have FX glass, or want a 24.5MP camera so they can shoot in a lower resolution.

[66217]

It's the perfect high res backup for the D3 IMHO...


I envy whoever uses a D3x as backup.:p

[MacNoobie]

*yawn*

Makes me wonder what Canon will do for the 1Ds Mark IV honestly since Nikon seems to still be playing catch up, maybe not to the extent they were years ago but they are playing catch up.

The 1Ds Mark III was announced August of 2007 - 21.1MP @ 5FPS 16-bit TIFF's etc and NOW December 1st 2008 we get Nikons answer..

I'm glad to see Nikon trying to give Canon a run for their money especially with the d300/d700/d3 offerings but its still too little too late..

[termina3]

I'm glad to see Nikon trying to give Canon a run for their money especially with the d300/d700/d3 offerings but its still too little too late..[bold added]

Don't feed the trolls... Nikon shooters, no need to respond, we know he's wrong.

[alphaod]

No, I agree. But it's an interesting phenomenon. Not the camera itself...but the effect on photography gearheads around the world, especially over at DPR. The drums are beating loudly over there and the natives are getting themselves pretty worked up in advance of the formal announcement and pricing.

The thing is I just bought a D700.

[Digital Skunk]

Don't feed the trolls... REAL shooters, no need to respond, we know he's wrong.

Fixed that for you termina3....

Only the immature shooters need to beef up their poor shooting skills and knowledge with such sick statements.

[Hmac]

The thing is I just bought a D700.Great camera. You won't regret that.

[Hmac]

Anyone that truly needs one will know that it's a great camera. It's the perfect high res backup for the D3 IMHO, and will server photogs that need speed on day and high resolution the next.

If I have the budget, I'd have one of them and either a D3 or D700 in my bag on a regular basis. The 8000 is a bit much, and since I don't have the cash would prefer a dual D700 kit or single D3 kit with SB-900/800 strobes and 14-24 and 24-70.

It is safe to say that Nikon has finally matched Canon blow for blow in terms of body offerings. The "cut them off at the knees" strategy for Nikon is at an end, and Nikon is making face blows.

For a body like that, with that resolution and price, I'd expect 5fps and ISO 50-3200 instead of a super hi res and super fast shutter speed. Nikon could have left off high speed crop IMO since no one in their right mind would spend $8000 and not have FX glass, or want a 24.5MP camera so they can shoot in a lower resolution.


Hard to believe that the D3X would stay at $8000 for long. The body and all of it's associated parts are paid for.

[luminosity]

Great camera. You won't regret that.

Ditto that. Great camera, and one I wish I had (and I say that as someone with a D300).

[Digital Skunk]

Hard to believe that the D3X would stay at $8000 for long. The body and all of it's associated parts are paid for.

Very true, which is why like many, I think Nikon botched the launch. But I see it being at $8000 for a decent 3-6 months before the price comes down a bit either by Nikon rebate or Nikon easing up off the dealers.

The big questions I have are.... 1) When a D700x @ $4500, and 2)What is Nikon's projected number of unit sales. I am sure that the $8000 is primarily a sensor and minor firmware thing for Nikon, and most shooters may not see the huge benefit in shooting at that res outside of the studio or for fine art/high end weddings.

Also, at that price point, as I mentioned in another thread, the freelancer may have a better bargain with a 35FF Scarlet and Nikon mount if he/she is pulling double duty.

[peskaa]

It's a silly upgrade for Nikon. Why?

It has marginal megapixel increase over the massively cheaper EOS 5DII, though it does have the build/body of the D3/1D series. However, is that really going to be worth thousands? Probably not. Same goes for the 1Ds, but at least the 1Ds price isn't as high. Hell, the Sony has the same sensor (it seems), and costs way less.

The base specifications are roughly the same as the 1Ds3 and processing power is barely increased over the D3 (in terms of megabytes/sec), despite there being a significant time gap between the releases. Where's the progress? The ISO range is lower than the D3, which is a step backwards.

I was hoping for something better - say the same megapixels, but able to shoot at 7-8fps and a 12-15mpx DX mode. Cheaper too, the price is just insane. The D3x is equalising with the 1Ds3 with maybe a handful of very minor improvements - but a year and a bit later. I'm sure Canon will release the IV sometime, and yet again go "one better" (as is the way with cameras...).

Nikon shooters are better off with a D700 for full frame, and a D3 if they really want. If they're willing to hop to Canon, they can pick up a 5DII and a 1D3. All of this for less, and with the advantages of double bodies. Or even just pick one and spend the rest on lenses.

[Digital Skunk]

......

Very good opinion.

But the autofocus in the D3x is enough of a deal breaker for many, me included. It's hands down the better autofocusing engine in either the 1DIII or the 5DII which carried over the four year old AF engine of the 5D.

It pains me to see shooters still not understanding the differences between high res and high speed bodies. There is no way the D3x would have been able to do anything near 7 or 8 fps at full resolution. Comparing it to the Sony A900 is a mistake only in the sense that there is a lot more that goes in to the chip other than the pixels. The AA filter I know is different and the image processing will be the deciding factor.

I would have to say that the price is a bit un-Nikon but I can also see the price of it dropping fast as not too many Nikon shooters may pick up a camera that charges an extra $3000 for a 24.5MP sensor.

BUT, if the body produces the IQ of the D3/D700 at all ISOs, and factually NOISELESS ISO 50, and has the hybrid performance of a high speed camera with DX crop then it will be a better choice than the 1DsIII on those merits alone. Then add the better AF, to step it up another notch, then the gimmicky but useful features like dual CF slots and much better live view shooting and LCD.

Nikon should have priced it at around $6000 instead, like they have been doing to Canon for a while, and really made the body a contender. But if there are Nikon shooters out there needing 24.5MP in a ultra professional body there it is.

[OreoCookie]

I think they only wanted something to compete with the 1Ds Mark III so that people don't have to go Canon if they want/need high-res pictures. I don't share the point of view that this is a `bad' camera or a `disappointing' upgrade. The specs have been anticipated (by leaked sample images or hidden in software updates, for example), so none of this is a big surprise. I think it's a good camera, although not nearly as appealing to me as a D700 (if I had the cash to pay even for the `cheap' D700, hehe).

[compuwar]

It's a silly upgrade for Nikon. Why?

It has marginal megapixel increase over the massively cheaper EOS 5DII, though it does have the build/body of the D3/1D series. However, is that really going to be worth thousands? Probably not. Same goes for the 1Ds, but at least the 1Ds price isn't as high. Hell, the Sony has the same sensor (it seems), and costs way less.



Um, the 1DsIII came out at the same price point. This isn't a 5D competitor, that'd be a D700x if one is released. The camera competes directly with the 1DsIII, and it's priced and featured accordingly. The sensor base is the same, but it appears that the Sony's native performance didn't meet Nikon's standards, compare the noise characteristics once official samples are out and I doubt anyone would pick the Sony images as better... plus you don't have anywhere near the lens range with Sony at the moment. I'd not only lose 25% of my reach at the long end, I'd lose way more than the difference between an A900 and a D3x if I had to switch all my glass to Sony.


The base specifications are roughly the same as the 1Ds3 and processing power is barely increased over the D3 (in terms of megabytes/sec), despite there being a significant time gap between the releases. Where's the progress? The ISO range is lower than the D3, which is a step backwards.


Of *course* the ISO range is lower, you get low noise or high resolution, it's the same physics for the same generation of sensor. The progress is in resolution, not everyone wants the uber-high ISO. Many folks need the resolution- this is not a general purpose camera, it's not aimed at the prosumer market- if you don't need it specifically then Nikon doesn't expect you to buy it.

As far as performance, the D3 is a sports shooter's camera, this isn't. Why anyone would expect it to outperform a sports camera is puzzling.

Are all of you such bad shooters that you can't time a shot and need to machine-gun through a zillion frames to get what you expect? I shot battling Eagles last weekend, and I got great shots without holding down the shutter button for 3-4 seconds- I can't imagine many situations that are as dynamic as two Eagles locked talon to talon spiraling through the air- what are you all shooting that needs maniacal frame rates?


I was hoping for something better - say the same megapixels, but able to shoot at 7-8fps and a 12-15mpx DX mode. Cheaper too, the price is just insane. The D3x is equalising with the 1Ds3 with maybe a handful of very minor improvements - but a year and a bit later. I'm sure Canon will release the IV sometime, and yet again go "one better" (as is the way with cameras...).


The DX crop is a function of area against the overall resolution- you can't get the same megapixels and a higher DX crop. If you own Nikon glass and you need to compete where the D3x is placed, then it's a very welcome body.


Nikon shooters are better off with a D700 for full frame, and a D3 if they really want. If they're willing to hop to Canon, they can pick up a 5DII and a 1D3. All of this for less, and with the advantages of double bodies. Or even just pick one and spend the rest on lenses.

Again, it depends on what you're shooting and for what reasons. Blanket statements on professional tools are idiotic- a D700 doesn't give the same resolution, and if your client needs a higher resolution image, then guess what? Nikon didn't stop making the D3 when they started making the D700, and the same argument applies there...

As for "hopping" between manufacturers, that's a sure way to lose your ROI numbers. Depending on the job, you can sometimes justify adding a system, but switching when you've got tens of thousands tied up in glass, brackets and other equipment is almost always a losing proposition, in fact it's normally stupid[1.]

For me, the ability to crop makes the D3x much, much more attractive than the D3- though I expect that with the global economy Nikon will start rebating sooner rather than later at this price point, and I'll wait and see.

I've got an advertising shoot tomorrow afternoon, and I can hands-down say a D3 or D700 wouldn't give me one iota of advantage over my D2x, but a D3x would.

If I did a lot more frequent advertising work, I'd be in line even at the current price- because the dual CF card and high-resolution combination make total sense from a business perspective (I've been waiting for a week for the client to set up for the shoot, losing a shot to a bad CF card costs, tying up people, products and space for a re-shoot costs.) Shooting on multiple cards without having to stop and switch cards and remember to switch back is a very good feature in terms of the time to shoot and the "flow" of the shoot.

A lot of people made the "Why would you pay $2500 more for a D2x when you could get a D200?" argument. I tried that argument and my D200 didn't last 30 days before it got traded in (with a pile o' money) for a D2x.

If you don't need the difference, you likely won't understand- because it's not a law of averages type issue, like with most tools you pay a hyper-premium for the last 5% performance difference. You can buy a $5 hammer every 5 years, or a $40 hammer once- but only the craftsman can say which path is right for them.

Canon hasn't stopped making the 1DsIII because the 5DII is out- and they're not likely to- because some photographers need the differences, and Canon is going to cater to that crowd (who'll pay a premium because they're looking for a niche product.) You can make the same argument about the 1DsIII vs 5DII- and the same people will tell you the same thing- if they need the more expensive tool, that's the one they'll get.

A pro body is good for ~5 years- a $600/year premium for one body is hardly worth switching systems for even if we assume the list price is going to hold for six months. Follow that by the fact that you have no idea what the next Sony or Canon body you'd get in 5 years is going to be priced like and all the hullabaloo over price is really silly.

Here's my prediction: The D3x will come down in price just like the 1DsIII did- but more quickly. Folks who need it to compete now will pay the extra new camera premium and be glad to have it. Folks who think it will give them a slight long-term advantage will wait for the price to come down some. Folks who think they (or worse-yet other people) should switch systems because of a price point for a single body will lose a lot of money if they do, but probably won't do anything because they're mostly not the doing type, or they're more interested in numbers than photographs so they'll just waste money going back and forth like the high-ISO folks keep doing[2.]

[1] There are times when you need a feature set or need to get out of a manufacturer who's going in a direction that doesn't suit you, but for the price of a single body it's almost always about as dumb as you can get.

[2] There are folks who absolutely need high ISO performance, and there are folks who need to learn to expose properly- DPR is full of the latter as far as I can tell, the former can make an ROI case immediately for a switch that costs ~$5-10,000- the latter can just complain when the next manufacture leaps into the lead.

[ChrisA]

You guys are all comparing this Nikon to Canon. But many photographers concidering buying a new camera aren't just thinking Niokn v. Canon. Many of them are thinking of jumping to medium format now that it is reasonably affordable again. Seriously you can buy a 32 or 48 megapixel camera for the price of a Toyota. I think Nikon has targeted this at those who might jump ship to Mamiya or Hasselblad by offering a camera that is almost as good but at 1/3rd the price. Canon is not Nikon's only competitor.

10 or 15 years ago I was there in the same place but with film. I wanted more than Nikon could offer in terms of IQ. So I jumped ship for a while.
People who sell to high end clients need to compete with other photographers and for many of them shooting with a D700 just does not make them stand out, so they think if they had 48MP zero-noise files to toss at art directors they'd look good. But the $100K cost has untill now held them back so they stuck with Nikon. But now for $18K they can get back into medium format again. So Nikon offers them a 24MP FX body for $10K less and many of them stay with Nikon

Thi camera is not aimed at the sports photog. But if I were shooting plates of food for the menu-sign of the local Chinese restaurant I'd really want this new Nikon (or maybe a Sinar with digital back)

[Digital Skunk]

.....

Everything is well said and quoted for truth.

As a D2xs users I understand the advertising clients bit Comp. I myself have never had a client that needed a resolution that high, but the D3/D700 won't give you the res you need. The D3x will, and it's a body not made for the type of work most PJs do.

I agree ChrisA, it's been that way since Canon's 1Ds debuted. I still think the res and IQ of a MF body will top the D3x and 1DsIII, but as one very old article said, "Is it $10K better?"

[compuwar]

You guys are all comparing this Nikon to Canon. But many photographers concidering buying a new camera aren't just thinking Niokn v. Canon. Many of them are thinking of jumping to medium format now that it is reasonably affordable again. Seriously you can buy a 32 or 48 megapixel camera for the price of a Toyota.


Medium format is all but dead- I doubt Hassy will survive much longer- but if you need 40MP, then 25 isn't going to do it- and if you don't, then 25 is plenty good enough. This is as much about pushing the technology for a flagship product as anything. From a business standpoint, the more it has in common with the D3 the better the margins on a high-margin product.


Thi camera is not aimed at the sports photog. But if I were shooting plates of food for the menu-sign of the local Chinese restaurant I'd really want this new Nikon (or maybe a Sinar with digital back)

A good scanning back on any 4x5 with some Schneider-Kreuznach glass will win every time movement isn't involved.

What we have in this release is a bunch of brand fans who have suddenly realized they can't even pretend to afford the latest toy. Most of them are the same sort of folks who swore up and down they were going to switch to Canon if Nikon didn't come out with a "full frame" camera, and most of them *still* don't own one. Even whiny poseurs like Ken "Happy to evaluate anything I haven't touched" Rockwell grudgingly admit this is the best Nikon camera body ever.

This is the first time I've had a major disagreement with Thom Hogan too- I don't think that Nikon missed the ball on pricing, I think they stuck to their time-proven formula, and I think it'll get them the early adopters they want and that once the pros have started working with the camera they'll be able to discount something seen as the best 35mm equivalent body- it may cost them some poseur volume, but frankly the world needs fewer poorly shot high-resolution images not more ;)

[Padaung]

...

Well said, I couldn't have put it better...
I think the D3x is a well specced camera for the job it is meant for (fashion, advertising, landscapes etc), I don't understand what all the bashing is about. If you want to shoot sport, use a D3 - the old mantra of using the right tool for the job.

The Canon 1DsIII came out at the same price. Anyhow, this is not meant as a home use, happy snapping camera - the fact of which is reflected in the price. People will buy it at this price as it fills what was a large gap in Nikon's line up of cameras. Once it drops by a few hundred quid then it will become more competitive price wise, and that will come with time. On the same front, the Canon 1DsIII is now over a year old, a veritable grandfather now ;)