Nikon Intro’s New D3X
Dec. 1
11:11 am
Although the word slipped out late last week, now it’s official; Nikon has announced its 24.5-megapixel monster (and in mean that in a good way); the Nikon D3X (photo above courtesy of Nikon).
For all the details (beyond sheer megapixels), click here.
What do you think Scott? Is this model for you?
I’m sure the images it produces are outstanding. However, I would not pay $8K for a 35mm format camera. I would go medium format for that kind of investment. -John
Thank you Scott. As always you keep your readers well informed.
I really like it if you could one day speak to Dynamic Range vs. Megapixels. I think the camera mfr’s are really playing the MP story up a lot when there comes a point where that is moot to most photographers unless your shooting big billboards, large fashion photography or building hangings. The same with Large galleries. The depth of dynamic range to me at least and the ability to capture the contrast of highlights and shadows in greater detail, far outways the MP bandwagon. FWIW.
All that for only…. $8,000.
Let’s see. Last November it was a D300 backup body. And last week a couple of SB-900s, not to mention the photographic nic-naks at $50 here. $100 there. And geez, Kelby puts out a couple of books a year… and I can’t live without my KelbyTraining monthly fix.
I’m not going to spend one dime on gear in 2009. I think I’ll save a little money and acquire a nice crack habit or invest in improving my photography rather than improving my gear.
Later,
Ziv
Are they kidding, 8K for this, I think they may see a lot of people defect and buy the 5D Mark II before this for so much less. You could buy two and have lots of cash leftover. As much as I love Nikon and my D300, this seems to be a huge cash grab and what horrible timing, economy wise. I can’t see this being a success at this price.
To Rob, this camera isn’t in the same market as the 5D. Its competing against the 1DS Mark III that also costs 8k. If you want a competitor to the 5D then buy a D700 for $2700.
I think Rob is right.
For that kind of money you could buy 5D MII, a couple of pieces of nice L glass, a flight to the Virgin iIslands and still have money for rum drinks.
This is obviously not the camera for everyone, but I can see those who specialize in landscape or high end studio work will love having the 24+ megapixels.
I for one am very happy with my D700 and love the low light capabilities so this camera has very little interest to me. What I do hope is that the D3X causes the price to drop on the D700 and the D3.
The only thing that bothers me is the name. D3X.. I don’t really see this as an updated D3.
Hi Scott,
Are you going to be joining the boycott of the D3X until the price is corrected like Ken Rockwell?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm
Just curious, when are enough pixels – really enough?
Is this marketing or is the image quality noticeably better.
The D3X does seems bit underwhelming for the cost. I know it has more pixels, but I think few need more pixels and I can’t imagine paying more for less ISO.
Still I suppose it will be perfect for special applications… Gav
After a lifetime with Nikon, the Canon’s were starting to look good to me even before this. Good movies and pictures in the same box seems WAY more forward thinking.
Quit Whining!
Buy one, don’t buy one. Nikon makes cameras…they are making them better and better for this digital revolutionary war. If my client said, “Shoot this. It’s for a billboard (that gets put up tomorrow),” and it paid $10k, I’d have an D3x overnighted to me for the job.
Now excuse me, but I have to stand by the phone. I’m waiting for a client to call. “Hello, hello, can you hear now?”
Folks are just sharing their personal perspective. I sense no whining here.
John
Nikon has officially gone off the reservation with this one. How dare they ask $8,000 for a camera that is the same as the $4,200 D3. I suggest boycotting the D3X until the price is corrected. Nikon is joking with us with a $8,000 price tag. They are taking advantage of the problems in the economy, and marketing themselves to those who have enough money that they are not feeling the crunch, leaving the pros to wait on the sidelines. Don’t bite. The price will just drop if no ones buys this camera. Anyone seen with a D3X around their neck we’ll be easy to spot as the amateur with just way too much cash to burn. I, for one, will be waiting this one out. The D3X might be Nikon’s greatest camera ever, but it’s just not worth $8,000, except to suckers.
Ok wow! Here is how it happened. I was reading Scott’s post, a bit latter than usual, enjoyed it as always, clicked the link saw the price tag of $7,999.95 and almost fell out my chair! I would have had to sue Nikon for a heart attack if I got one when I saw that price. I guess they said lets save 5 cent and not make it 8k so everyone gets happy.
However, Nikon is not asking everyone to buy it; they made clear “engineered for professionals whose work demands extreme resolution, file size and image fidelity”. That was not to say I agree on the price, I still think it’s over priced. I feel as if Nikon is saying hey if you care about your images this is the price and this is the product- if your clients care about the images they get tell them this is the price and this is the product my camera can do this so your images will be the best.
Now after all of that I can’t afford a Nikon D3x..being broke and in college that camera can pay for one quarter. I am barely able to get my D300 I am so happy about.
(Sorry the comment was so long I had taken aback!)
Don’t be surprise when Nikon sees a big Donate button on my site in Jan 09 if not before then!
Dwayne.D.C.Tucker II
Nassau, Bahamas
http://DwayneTucker.com
I just don’t suppose that the mps are worth the $. I really agree with what tom said. I just don’t see this camera being for too many people. I think it would only be worth it’s price if it had the ISOs of the D3. This probably should have been called the D4, it really is a whole new camera.
Dear Santa,
Let me explain……
Seems a bit overpriced indeed.
We’ll just have to wait for testresult to see if reviewers think it might be worth it. Personally I think this won’t sell that hard..
Looks like Nikon is taking the Leica road with their pricing. On the other hand, you don’t hear many people boycott 1DSIII for being 8k. So, I say cut Nikon some slack but still push them to sell the camera at 5500.00. As far as I am concerned, I am waiting for the D700 version of the D3x. After shooting Leica M’s for so many years, I sold my D3 and opted for the D700 due to it’s size.
By the way, where can I send an email to Scott for a great topic he could discuss that will be really beneficial to many photographers?
Thanks
I don’t see anything wrong with Nikon selling this for 8K. They’re clearly marketing this camera for the professional who needs the right tool for the right job. It’s not a camera for someone who just wants a new toy with bigger specs just to say “Hey look what I just bought”. Of course there will be people who will buy it for that reason as with anything. I’m no professional and I’ve been a Canon user for a long time, but I never thought of buying the 1Ds Mark II or III because I didn’t need that much camera and I’m not landing jobs that would justify paying for one either, not to mention my workstation would need a serious upgrade to handle files that size! Heck look at the prices of the Hasselblads, you could get a low end model of a Mercedes Benz for that price, but they’re use by professionals who need the right tool for the job. Thanks for the news of this Scott…although I’ll never buy one I like to keep up with what’s being put out there.
Thom Hogan says it best:
“Anyone else see the problem with this picture? Nikon is asking us to pay more for the equivalent. I say equivalent because you can look at it this way: you can buy the same camera with either high ISO and dynamic range improvements, or you can have it with more pixels. For some reason, more pixels costs US$3000. Really?”
The D3 and D3x are an even trade — low noise or lots of pixels. Why should the high pixels version cost 3.8k more? Ken Rockwell is right to boycott this and I’ll bet it will cost significantly less in 6 months. Unless one has a job in the next few months that would justify the high cost of an immediate purchase, I’d steer clear for a while, lest you over pay.
I also humbly feel this camera is not 3x better than an 5D MK II, like it’s price.
I thought I was the only one struggling to even decide where best to invest my few dollars to improve my fine art photography. But now I see I am in good company. This camera is truly mind boggling and would be overkill for most of us who never have to consider billboard size prints. It will be a sad day when photography becomes the exclusive realm of millionaires.
Scott-
I was really surprised by the sharp bite of the feedback. Nikon glass is not cheap either, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much–is anger the word?–over a recent Nikon product introduction. Perhaps what is shattering for many is the dream of owning Nikon’s finest as it is now definitely out of their reach. There’s no law that says Nikon (or Canon, or Hasselblad or Panasonic) can’t make a camera with a narrow market focus. Consider Nikon’s marketing challenge–they need to keep up with the 500-lb gorrilla (Canon) and leap-frog them where possible in order to maintain, or gain market share. WIth the Sony A900 taking bites our of the big megapixel pie, I don’t think Nikon had a choice. One thing’s likely true, the D3x won’t cannibalize sales of the D300/D700 or much of the D3. This is new territory. I say give Nikon room to roam!
That said, I can’t wait until Scott’s review. I love his candid evals and read them twice before I bought by D300.
I am not sure what all the gripe is about?
I recently sold all my Canon stuff to switch to Nikon. I sold my 2 x 1DSMKIII’s, 1DmkIII, 600mm, 300mm, 70-200,24-70,16-35,15mmfish, 2×58-exII’s and lots more.
I have never seen ANY Canon users talk about boycotting because the 1DSMKIII is 8k. These bodies are aimed at one market and if it is out of your market then, move on to a body that meets your requirements and be happy.
Nikon as a heck of a camera here and there are people who will welcome this marvell with open arms
I am now thinking about RMA’ing my 1 week old D3 back to B&H and ordering one of these beauties.
I would love to have this camera, but will wait it out for awhile…
Seems to be a pattern with Nikon….Soon after I bought the D1X years ago, Nikon came out with the D100….then, after I bought the D2X, came the D200,…I didn’t jump on the D3, but bought the D300 when it came out (which I am currently using and love), and then Nikon came out with the D700….arrrgh…decisions, decisions.
Now the D3X. Will it be followed by the D800 or something? I say, wait it out….Nikon will surely come out with a camera with high megapixels and most of the same features of the D3x, at a much lower price that we can all afford….I hope, anyway.
Scotty Graham
Jakarta, Indonesia
It’s sad to see people griping because they can’t afford to buy the latest and greatest camera on the market. I’d love to own a Ferrari but it is out of my wallet’s reach. I certainly don’t whine about that fact nor do I resent those that can afford to own one. I also don’t challenge Ferrari’s right to make and price their vehicles as they deem appropriate. Ken Rockwell’s boycott of the D3X is simply puerile. How can anyone take him or anyone jumping on his bandwagon seriously… As the song goes: “Ya can’t always get what you want…â€
I´m sure that the D3x is a great camera for the experienced photo professional as well as advanced amateur. If Nikon can show the competition how to make good cameras for $8k or less we will all benefit over time as it keeps the competition alive. Lower prices, more bells and whistles combined with outstanding image quality for less money. Who would have thougtht that we could buy a Nikon D700 Fx camera for the price we pay today just a couple of years ago?
I´m very happy with my D300 and D700, they will keep me going for quite a while.
Ben
How about a D300X, 24 megapixel for $1900?
Does anyone really need this thing to take great pictures with? Just take a look at McNallys pics or Dave Blacks pics. It really all comes down to lighting and composition anyway. $8000.00 is not going to make you take better pictures. It’s as simple as that.
That’s funny – I was complaining the the price of a camera that I want is a bit low and worried that everyone is going to have that camera while I want to be set aside as a professional.
I understand that 8k is pretty steep, but I am sure it’ll drop in time. But on a great note, my husband is quite excited that I am not interested in a camera that expensive – yet.
Wow, I wish people would just pipe down and understand this is ANOTHER OPTION IN THE NIKON LINE!!
Honestly, I could care less whether you guys buy this camera and your reasons for not buying it. Use whatever you have and take the best photos you can.
Also to the person who mentioned billboard sized photos. If you knew anything about printing, you’d realize for something as large as a billboard, you need less dpi than if you were printing something more reasonable like a 20×24.
For everyone else, this camera is for a niche market compared to something like the D300.
Finally, someone mentioned Ken Rockwell boycotting this? ahahaha…sorry, can’t stop laughing at that one. Again, who cares.
Here’s to good shooting!
Wow, I’m really surprised with all the hating going on. I hope Nikon posts all of their R&D costs to date that lead to the D3X, that should give the haters some perspective.
I’ve got the cash for a D3X and then some but do I need it? No. Will I buy it? No. I’m more than happy honing my craft with my D300 and waiting for the D700 to drop in price. It’s a totally different feeling to have the cash for something and making a choice of whether or not to spend it.
Hate on that
What is the fuss here guys? Wasn’t the 1DSmkIII the same price when it came out?
I’m sure those that need this camera will buy it and enjoy it. Nikon wasn’t going after the prosumer or advanced amateur here – professionals who purchase this camera for business use will just write it off over its expected useful life
Its funny to read the points here, if you need this camera the price is not the issue, if you want this camera, you might not need it…
Just go check out these photos: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3x/sample.htm
It doesn’t look like much, but if you open the images up and look at them 1:1, then you’ll note that you can make out so much detail. I cannot believe that you can count the model’s eye brows on the first photo!
Nikon can certainly sell any product they want, and I’m tempted to buy the D3X. But I do wish they’d continue pushing more in the D3/amazing low light performance direction rather than trying to keep up with the megapixel race. The D3 was a game changer, at least for my photography. I was really proud that my favorite camera company chose to resist the megapixel pressure and push for better high-ISO performance rather than smaller and smaller photo-sites on the same-sized chip. Oh, well. At least I have my D3 and D700 for taking into real-world shooting conditions.
Some of these comments really make me laugh. I gave up film 15 years ago when we had to pay $40,000 for cameras that only had a 4 mega-pixel image. We should all be grateful that it costs only $8,000. The top of the line camera body is not for everyone. That’s why they make point and shoot cameras at $150. There is a digital camera availble for every price range. If you want the best that is available, you have to pay for it. If you make you living in photography, top of the line Nikons and Canons for $8,000 are very fair for all that goes into them….
Jim DiVitale
yeah, what he said…
I think the frustration that is being seen is a missed expectation from Nikon by many Nikon system users. You can say its invalid, but you can’t argue that expectations were missed at a higher level then what we have seen with the D2x introduction.
I was an early D2x adopter, and having invested in Nikon lenses and gear, I have certain cost / technology expectations from Nikon to provide me an upgrade path. As a landscape shooter I do like megapixels, and after waiting several years, I am disappointed that Nikon set the price bar so high that I am unwilling to pay $8k to go above 12MP.
Nikon is certainly free to pursue the MF market, but I hope that they also provide a REASONABLE upgrade path for DSLR shooters that want to see technological megapixel improvements made available to them without the proverbial breaking the bank.
I think the point that “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is weak. At the end of the day, there is a lot of expressed disapointment, meaning, missed expectations. You can’t argue that expectations were missed. I’ve been happy for many years with my D2x, but I do look forward to new technology, and simply put, the D3x is not priced appropriately to reward most Nikon users who have waited for an opportunity to move beyond 12MP.
I will vote with my wallet. I’m not angry, it’s just that for $6k I probably would have bought a 3dx, but at $8k, I won’t because the value proposition is not there for many of us.
Simple analogy for those complaining on the price: All new technology starts out expensive for early adopters…PERIOD. People who can now afford a 50″ plasma TV couldn’t even qualify for the loan that would have been required to buy it just three years ago.
Everyone needs to quit their whining and just go out and take photographs. I am lusting after a D700, or even to upgrade my D200 to a D300, but it is out of my budget to upgrade yet and I can’t pay for it with revenue if I just whine about how much the new camera costs and not spend my time actually trying to take good photographs.
anti-Rant over.
Scott, Moose, everyone else,
I think you’ve misread the comments here and in the blogosphere. It’s not exactly “Hatin’ ” or whining as others have called it- it’s an observation that Nikon has seriously misjudged their market, and this price point is simply not justified. This has been observed by Thom Hogan (referenced earlier in this thread) http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm and Michael Reichman http://www.luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/
Those are some pretty big heavyweights for whom price is not necessarily a huge issue if the product is worth it. That is the fundamental question here – is it worth it? The answer from many pros and pundits seems to be a resounding no. Fact of the matter is, this is the same body that shipped a year ago. Only the sensor has been replaced. Ken Rockwell was actually dead-on when he said that it’s one of the first times that Nikon introduced a body that showed no technology improvements from previous bodies. Including a feature that should have already been there – sensor cleaning – and still is missing.
I’m a Nikon shooter and resolution has been a problem for me. I shoot for a living. I make big prints. I take landscape photographs. I need the pixels. I usually buy the Nikon pro camera as soon as it comes out. I had the D1x and D2x. At $5000, my name would be on a list right now. At $8000, I’m not going to buy this camera, simple as that. And that’s the point here – Nikon has miscalculated, and a lot of pros are going to take a pass on this camera. Especially after what happened with the quick introduction of the D700 after the D3. There is bound to be another camera in the pipeline.
Regarding the Canon comparison, the fact is that Nikon is horribly late to the high megapixel party. Canon surpassed the 12MP mark FOUR years ago with the 1DsII, and the 1DsIII has been shipping for over a year now. Canon could justify charging 8K for that much resolution in their pro bodies, because no-one else was even in their league. Now you can buy a 21MP camera from Canon or a 24MP camera from Sony for under $3K. Canon’s next Ds body will probably be 30+MP. Nikon is not in a position to be charging a $3000 premium right now when they’re playing catch-up. Not to mention that the economy is horrible, and that’s being felt by pro photographers (who the D3x is aimed at) as much as anyone else.
Also on Canon – there is more to differentiate the 1D and the 1Ds. If you want true full-frame, you need to get the Ds or the 5D. The 1D has a 1.3 crop. Not saying that’s a good or a bad thing, but it does differentiate their product line more than the D3 and D3x.
For all the people (including Scott) saying, “don’t buy it if you don’t want to pay that much,” . . . yes, you’re right. We won’t be buying it. But is that really going to help Nikon, or ourselves as Nikon shooters? Thom Hogan wisely pointed out that the argument that Nikon needs to recover their R&D costs is nonsense. They aren’t going to recover their costs if no-one buys this camera. And that isn’t going to help anyone.
I think it’s pretty hypocritical for people that can pass their costs onto others to be defending these absurd prices from Nikon. I’ve owned very expensive top of the line equipment that has given good service over decades. But I never was put in a position of just tipping the company an extra several thousand because they figured some of us had deep pockets. Prices were fair for their good equipment. “Just don’t buy it” is a pretty weak cop-out from you so called professional camera writers.
Speaking of late to the party . . . so Nikon finally updated their long lenses this year to include VR, introducing the 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm. This after Canon shooters have been enjoying IS at those focal lengths for years (a major factor in addition to the resolution problem that pros were switching to Canon).
Not only are these lenses impossible to get as they’re back-ordered everywhere (typical Nikon production issues), but has anyone noticed that they are anywhere from $1000 to $2000 more expensive to their Canon equivalents!! This is a huge “Nikon tax” that already had me contemplating switching to Canon. I’ve been using the 200-400VR which is a wonderful lens with no Canon equivalent, but just doesn’t have the reach to photograph the kind of subject matter I’m after these days. It’s pretty hard to justify spending that much more for Nikon glass. The difference on the 500mm would almost pay for a 5DMKII body.
Let’s see, yeah 8K its ridiculous and I agree… but tell you what…. maybe in 6 months or less we’ll see a D700x or D800 with 24 Mega… to compete with the Canon
If you think some people are slamming this camera you should see what Hitler thinks about it. Mad about the D3X
I just have to add my 2 cents. Let me first say that I have been a Nikon only diehard for 15 years now. I’ve never wanted to buy anything else and I was willing to pay a bit more for my lenses and accessories than Canon’s…because Nikon in my mind was awesome!
But $8,000 for a D3x is rediculous and unfounded. Sony’s DSLR-A900 is $2999, for the entire camera which by the way houses the exact same chip that they manufacture for Nikon’s D3x. So let me figure this out… Nikon has a complete camera (D3) that sells for $4,200. They take out the chip that is in that camera, they replace it with a chip that costs slightly more, and then they charge $3,800 more for it when you can buy a complete camera with that same resoloution and identical chip for $2,999!! I don’t care weather Canon’s top offerring is $8,000 either. I think the big two are pulling the wool over they eyes of many because they almost have a shared monopoly in this business and they are driving the prices up on us all. Seriously $8,000? For $10,000 I can get a Mamiya medium format digital and blow it out of the water… and that comes with a lens!
Combine that with Nikon’s several hundred dollar price increases on all of their pro lenses and I’m looking at other lines. Sony may just make my new camera. Sorry Nikon, but pull your heads out of your butts! In a time of slow economy, you need rebates and price decreases to stimulate sales. Nikon may just price themselves into the poor house. The problem is, as long as their are fools to pay it, they will keep the prices high. I will no longer be that fool!
p.s. Just a thought, but how come the flagship F5 only cost $1700 and it was awesome? I know technology changes, but digital cameras don’t have motor drives for film either. Inflation isn’t that high!