Nikon D3x on the way...

In case his website goes down under the strain:

- same body design, AF, metering and main functions as D3
- 24.5mp FX sensor
- 5:4 and DX crops
- 5fps at full resolution; DX crop shoots 10mp images at up to 7fps
- ISO 100-1600, extendable down to 50 and up to 6400
- 16 bit EXPEED processor
Click to expand...

Will be very interesting to see the price. Its a smaller ISO range than the D3, which I suppose is to be expected but still something of a dissapointment. The proof will be in the picture pudding I suppose :)
 
Last edited:
They seem to have gone down the Canon route with the D3x, ie turned a 1d MkIII into the 1d MkIIIs?

I'm keen to see what it can do, and according to the article it should be launched in December, so hopefully they do actually exist and the usual review sites will have them soon.
 
I'm sure it'll be pretty darn good... If the D3 is anything to go by.

The only real criticism that i've read is that its a bit on the late side, - Canon have had the 1DS M3 out for a year already now.
 
hmmmm...

Not sure I'm convinced by this one...mighty fine camera but over priced IMO. I do have my name on a waiting list but I got put on before the official announcememnt. As I am mainly in to my wildlife I think the D300 makes more sense as a backup to my D3 as it's higher res and faster (with grip) than the crop of the D3x. When your subject fills the frame though I have no doubt the files are spectacular out of the new beast!!
 
Was the $8000 rrp which our friend Ken Rockwell was saying it was going to cost true then? If so I agree - if it had come in at ~£3.5k->£4k that would have opened the market up considerably. Oh well, roll on the D4.
 
£5,500 list in the UK.
& it uses a variant of the sensor in the £2200 list (£1700 street) Sony A900.

Whilst the D3/D3X body certainly has features that the A900 has I can't believe that the sensor is costing them even 1/2 the price difference (over £2000) between the D3 & D3X list prices.
 
But, that's assuming all that's different between the D3X and the Sony A900 is the sensor?

Surely, if that's the only criteria for rating a camera, then the D700 and D3 would be the same, but we all know they aren't.

Remember when everybody said a D3 with 'only' its 12 MP sensor couldn't possibly be worth having as it wasn't high enough resolution?

I'm eager to see the D3X tested, and see what Nikon have done to justify the cash. It'll be down to £4.5k street within months anyway I think.
 
The very important factor for me (not that im going to be buying one this decade, but nevermind) is the ISO performance. Id love to see if the high ISO performance is much better than the D300, considering the pixel density should be similar (afaik).
 
It's a studio camera where ISO performance doesn't really matter.


That sensor sure needs to perform beyond expectations for it to be worth the extra over other similar cameras in Nikon's and Sony's lineup.
 
Last edited:
Doing a rough sensor cell density comparison of the D3, D3x and the D300, we have:

D300: 4,288 × 2,848 in a 23.6x15.8mm package --> 32751 cells/mm^2 (crikey I hadn't appreciated how tightly packed in these things are :o )

D3: 4,256 x 2,832 in a 36.0x23.9mm package --> 14009 cells/mm^2

D3x: 6048 x 4032 in a 35.9x24mm package --> 28303 cells/mm^2

so the D3x has the potential to have better high-ISO noise control than the D300. Some of the A900 haven't been that glowing so far though, will be interesting to see how much this is the sensors fault compared to the rest of the camera.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
It's a studio camera where ISO performance doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...


wrong, there is no room for just studio cameras in this sector anymore imo. The 1DSmk3 for example is far from just a studio camera and produces far better results at high iso's than is dreamable from the alpha 900 (the sensor is frankly awful for noise from the half an hour I spent playing with it, i cant see how nikon could do much to fix it)

From my experimentation, even at iso 800 the noise was such that it was destroying skin tones. They can't afford to be releasing a camera like that into todays market where the 1DSmk3 which is a year older tech, and now the 5Dmk2 are producing absolutely AMAZING results at much higher isos and nearly the same resolution.

Let's hope nikon have something incredible in the processor, it's going to have to be else it's gonna bring nothing to the table Canon didn't bring a year ago. a shame really after the astonishingly good D700 and D3 ;/
 
Interesting comments rG-tom, having also had a play with the Alpha 900, I hope it isn't the same.

At the risk of repeating my earlier post though, there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor. I'd be amazed if Nikon hadn't benchmarked the 1dsIII when they were screwing the D3x together, so I'm still hopeful high ISO noise will be sorted. Having said that, some very early pics floating around the net don't encourage me too much!

Nikon haven't really made a stinker of a camera for a long time though, so fingers crossed that the boffins have stuck enough gubbins in it to produce something exceptional.

If not though, a D3 will do me very nicely, so I won't cry too much! :)
 
Tooks said:
Interesting comments rG-tom, having also had a play with the Alpha 900, I hope it isn't the same.

At the risk of repeating my earlier post though, there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor. I'd be amazed if Nikon hadn't benchmarked the 1dsIII when they were screwing the D3x together, so I'm still hopeful high ISO noise will be sorted. Having said that, some very early pics floating around the net don't encourage me too much!

Nikon haven't really made a stinker of a camera for a long time though, so fingers crossed that the boffins have stuck enough gubbins in it to produce something exceptional.

If not though, a D3 will do me very nicely, so I won't cry too much! :)
Click to expand...

The D2H was a bit of a shocker :p that was only last gen. Also this is the first camera that hasnt used a nikon sensor since they've turned themselves around
 
I wondered why D2H's were so cheap in all the second hand camera websites!

I'm hoping that it's Sony who've taken a great sensor and messed the other bits up, rather than the sensor being pants... :D
 
rG-tom said:
The D2H was a bit of a shocker :p that was only last gen. Also this is the first camera that hasnt used a nikon sensor since they've turned themselves around
Click to expand...

Hasn't used a Nikon sensor? The D3x's sensor is Nikon designed/manufactured/etc., the rumours of it using a Sony sensor were just rumours (based on it being the same dimensions and resolution). They might well have a common ancestor somewhere back down the line, but it's a Nikon sensor whichever way you look at it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom