I am hopeful that the D3x will ultimately lower the price of the D3, but I'm not betting on it.
I don't shoot much material where 24+ megapixels would do me any good. And while drive space is cheap, dealing with huge files has its disadvantages beyond how much space the files occupy.
Unless the price is too tempting to pass up, I think I'd rather have another D3. And I suspect this D3x will be upwards of $7K for the body only.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I used to think that 12 to 15 MP was more than enough and I've probably posted that here a few times.
I'm definitely seeing the other side now and would be happier to have 20 or more. There have been a number of times in the past few weeks when I've spent extra time coaxing more out of a 40D image. Yes, it's plenty if you have a perfect image, but if you've got an action shot and you need to crop the heck out of it, it's not to my standards. On Sat. I shot a B&G wedding sequence in front of a fireplace in an old hotel without flash. 1600 ISO, wide open @ 1/20 on a tripod. I was still underexposed by a few stops. Yup, I can pull it up from RAW but I would rather have had more MP and more ISO range that I consider safe. The more features that go into the top of the line cameras, the more that go into the mid-range ones that I can justify replacing every 2 years.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
If you shoot $1200 bodies and work a lot it's not a problem to justify upgrading bodies. A little planning and it can be pretty cheap to do so (I upgraded my oldest, a 30D ot a used 40D - total cost difference was $250)
If you must have the latest and greatest then you'll pay a bit more. I am struggling with this now as I want a 5D2 - $2700, right? What exaclty will it to do increase my bottom line that a 40D or even a 50D at half the price won't do?
We all love gadgets and the newest body/lens (it's why we're in this field right? ) but an item has a cost to it in money, time to shop/buy/learn it and maybe more (bigger files means slower DL/editing times, more HS space needed, etc).
So I can shoot ISO3200 or 6400 where i can't now. I can get real fisheye effects, shallower DOF and video. Will this increase my bottom line or save me money or give me some other TANGIBLE benefit?
The largest print i've sold was a 16x20 and I do portraiture/weddings/T&I where super detail isn't an issue. I got along fine with a 30D in most cases. The 40 made shooting and getting 'the' image easier, but can't say it's had a tangible benefit over earlier bodies. 14 bit RAW is nice, but the RAW files are 40% larger than on a 30D so I had to get larger CF cards and am filling my drives faster, backups take more time and space, etc.
It may be more a matter of keeping up with studio down the street than anything else. If I can get images he cant, or vice versa, then one of us as a competetive advantage in the marketplace. But some of that might depend on your market - T&I it won't make a difference, nor will it in studio portraiture. Weddings, probably.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
A lot of you have commented that you do not need more resolution, and I really don't need any more myself. What I could really use is better high ISO performance. My D300 is far superior to my D70s, but I could really use a D700. The reason I brought up the release of the D3X is simply because I like to see the new technology and discuss it. In all honesty I would love to have the 50 mega pixel Hasselblad but I digress. I won't be buying a D3X but I am a little excited by it because as the technology evolves, we benefit when we do upgrade.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I'm thinking that the D3X noise will necessarily be worse than the D3/D700. With more photosites crammed into the same space, noise becomes an issue.
For me, the reason to have a D3X is file size. Right now, I can't really hang with the Dallas/Ft. Worth food shooters because they use Phase One P25's or whatever is the latest they can rent. I have one client, an ad agency, who has client who owns three restaurant chains, and they get their food photography done in Fort Worth. The food shooter there uses a P25 and for POP backlit displays, the ~95mp files are just barely big enough.
If I could get anywhere close to that, along with the 45TS-E lens, I might be able to shoot more food. I can't justify a medium format back because I wouldn't need the resolution that often in a year, but they are getting cheaper!
Bring on the megapixels!!!!
Mark S.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I see the D3x as a nature/landscape camera - possibly fashion/ad work, as a cheap competitor to the 30-60 mpixel MF backs.
The 8k price is gouging. Yeah Nikon claims it's not the same chip as the A900 - but the specs are so close it's silly - so Sony can do it for 3k, the D3x is nothing but a D3 with a different sensor and maybe an upgraded processor - for for an extra 3500 over the D3? for 5k over the Sony?
I've been sort of please to see Canon users switching to Nikon since the D3 came out - but I doubt we'll see any Canon users coming over for the D3X - that price in this market was a mistake. $5,500 maybe $6,000 but even that's too high.
I've spent a lot of time thinking this though because I've been waiting for the D3X since the D3 was announced.
I've been looking at the lenses I want / need (slight difference) and the price - the only thing that keeps me from getting a Sony today is ... well - it's a Sony, and even though they have dreams of attacking the pro market - they don't have the mind set yet. Try and find real info about the A900 and lenses on their site - sad, very sad. I was looking at the remote control page- the specifications included the Dimensions - that's it - no info about IR or RF, no range, no control info, no battery info, useless. Very sad.
So now I'm thinking if I have to spend that kind of money on the Nikon maybe i"ll just bite the bullet and get a PhaseOne P45+ (and yes I print large at times - 40x50 - panoramics 30x90 so the pixels are important for me. If I were where a photo journalist, wedding/portrait photographer - I'd get a D3 and not even think about another camera.
There's still questions about the D3X image quality and they won't be resolved until a fair number of people have their hands on the camera. But if I based the decision just on features I'd go with the Sony. Unfortunately for me - there a bit more to the decision, like service. On the other hand - you can have 2 A900's and a Zeiss zoom for the price of one D3X.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
) but an item has a cost to it in money, time to shop/buy/learn it and maybe more (bigger files means slower DL/editing times, more HS space needed, etc).
Linear Mode
