Nikon D3x on the way...

[rG-tom]

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

ah yes, sorry....Nikon have said it "may or may not" be made by Sony but have stressed it is not the same sensor as the A900, it has a SMALLER pixel pitch that doesn't bode well.

 

[Tooks]

Because it's a five-and-a-half year old camera, and five-and-a-half years is a long time in the digital camera world?

True, but don't take it too personally!

 

[Tooks]

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

I've seen a lot of rumour and conjecture around the D3x, not least one that stated the D3 had the same 24MP sensor as the D3x, just with half of it disabled...

But, I keep reading coflicting information regarding the D3x sensor. Most seem to say it's designed by Nikon, but manufactured by Sony?

There's no doubt that Sony/Nikon have had a long working relationship around Nikon DSLR sensors.

If it turns out that Sony have had nothing to do with it, then I'm encouraged, as the Alpha 900 is getting mixed reviews.

Mind you, if the D3x is pitched at studio/MF type work, then High ISO performance isn't really an issue is it.

 

[BUFF]

It certainly seems that the only difference between the D3 & D3X is the sensor (& associated processing), it hasn't even inherited some of the extra features that the D700 got.
The D3x sensor is a Sony & whilst not identical to the A900's is very, very closely related.

The A900 is fine upto ~ISO1600 (it too is heavily biased to studio/landscape so high ISO isn't a concern for it's target market) if you shoot RAW (forget JPEG as Sony's JPEG engine is poor, similarly ACR isn't the best RAW converter for Sony RAW).
& there is always room for improvement via firmware (look at what V4 did for the A700).

& having spoken this week to a well known UK camera reviewer who is currently testing a 5DMk2 he's not impressed by some of it's aspects - the perfect camera doesn't exist yet.
I think that the reality is that the A900, D700 & 5DMk2 are all different beasts optimised for different things & we may well see more people running multi-systems if they can afford it.

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

regardless where the cameras is aimed at. If its got a price tag of £5500 then low noise ISO performance is a must. You say it may be designed for studio but it clearly isn't as it features high fps at crop modes so your gonna want leading brand ISO performance then.

 

[BUFF]

If its got a price tag of £5500 then low noise ISO performance is a must.

only where you need/want it.
reading from the forums very few professional landscape/studio photogs etc. seem to go over 400 let alone 800 on any sort of regular basis & they are far more concerned about performance in the lower ISO area.

 

[SDK^]

wrong, there is no room for just studio cameras in this sector anymore imo.

Who else is going to drop £5.5k($8k) on the D3X then?

 

[rG-tom]

Who else is going to drop £5.5k($8k) on the D3X then?

the same kind of people that dropped £5.5k on a 1DSmk3 and use it for natural light portrait, wildlife and weddings (look at V-Spec on here he lives at quite high iso with the 1DSmk3). Studio isnt the only place that needs quality.

 

[SDK^]

the same kind of people that dropped £5.5k on a 1DSmk3 and use it for natural light portrait, wildlife and weddings (look at V-Spec on here he lives at quite high iso with the 1DSmk3). Studio isnt the only place that needs quality.

The D3x is clearly not going to match the high ISO performance of the 1DSM3, so stop comparing the market of the 1DS3 to the market D3X.
Wildlife and wedding photog’s need high ISO performance so they won't buy it.

The D3x is a studio camera

 

[Adrianr]

The D3x is clearly not going to match the high ISO performance of the 1DSM3, so stop comparing the market of the 1DS3 to the market D3X.
Wildlife and wedding photog’s need high ISO performance so they won't buy it.

The D3x is a studio camera

The 1DSMK3 is a studio camera

I think what Tom is trying to say, is all the people who would likely have needed this camera, brought a 1DSMK3 15 months ago. And if they didn't they most likely shoot digital Medium format anyway and wouldn't be in the slightest bit impressed with the D3X.

 

[V-Spec]

I'm not really that fussed about bonkers ISO capability, I like to take shots in good/dramatic light most of the time so I have no need for going over 800 most of the time... I imagine the only people who really need high ISO are people like the press, chasing people around in the dark in and out of cars and entrances to the ritz etc - which is fair enough..

I think the D3x will be a good camera, I wouldn't worry too much about it being a sony sensor, I think most of Nikon's other sensors are made by Sony anyway, so I'm not sure why people are worried about the one coming from the 24MP Sony camera, i'm sure it'll be very good..

But it does put Nikon around a year behind Canon, and if the quality of the files of my 1DS M3 are anything to go by, I do not honestly see how its possible to get much better quality... It just opens Nikon up to people who like huge files!

 

[rG-tom]

The D3x is clearly not going to match the high ISO performance of the 1DSM3, so stop comparing the market of the 1DS3 to the market D3X.

eh? how can you say "don't compare Canon's £6k high resolution weather sealed top end dSLR with Nikon's £5.5k high resolution weather sealed top end dSLR they've got different markets" that's like saying the d700 and the 5dmk2 have different markets?

 

[Bluelion]

The D3x is clearly not going to match the high ISO performance of the 1DSM3, so stop comparing the market of the 1DS3 to the market D3X.

Isn't it a little early to be making that assertion? I'll be surprised myself if it does given the reviews of the A900 which may or may not use a derivative of the same sensor, but I would hope the D3x and 1DSmkIII are at least in the same ball park.

 

[Bluelion]

Someone else thought the D3x was a bit expensive

That didn't take someone long!

 

[V-Spec]

Someone else thought the D3x was a bit expensive

That didn't take someone long!

That sir, is epic

One of the best Parody's ever!

"There there, he only shoots JPG"

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

That sir, is epic

One of the best Parody's ever!

"There there, he only shoots JPG"

My fave bit too

 

[robmiller]

ah yes, sorry....Nikon have said it "may or may not" be made by Sony but have stressed it is not the same sensor as the A900, it has a SMALLER pixel pitch that doesn't bode well.

It has an identical pixel pitch, they're both 5.94µm. It's almost certainly pretty closely related to the Sony sensor, but to say it's the same sensor is wrong (and not just in a pedantic way).

 

[BUFF]

It's not identical but it's definitely Sony fabbed & very, very closely related to the A900's.

 

[D.P.]

A lot of camera available around the world for people to test. General opinion seems to be the high ISO performance is surprisingly good, massively better than the A900 and probably better than the 1dmk3.
the resolution is also excellent as expected (so no noise removal reducing the effective resolution),. And another surpise is the 16bit dynamic range truly surpasses the D3's 14bit DR, again also a sign that noise is not an issue.


If true, this quite clearly explains the pricing.