Nikon D3X - Anybody else disappointed?

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I guess I'm going to save my money....

Winky,

I think that Nikon should try to save their sanity. There is no justification for the crazy asking price ($8000) for the D3X which is not even a new camera. The D3 & D700 are much better choices.

I loved your prey bird. I hope that you did not get too close to that sharp beak.

Regards,
Haim

I have really not been disapointed by my new 5D MKII.

quote:

Originally posted by Manu:
I have really not been disapointed by my new 5D MKII.

Fair enough...

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I have to say I'm quite disappointed by the Nikon's new D3X. The pixels are up to 24MP+, but the ISO speeds and FPS rates are down. Everything else is pretty much as per the D3. I can't see how they justify charging double the price. The only thing it would be better for is big images of static, or slow moving subjects. There are better options out there for that.

Surprised you are dissappointed with the D3X, as its really not for you/me anyway. The only reason for the X over the D3 is if you are making big prints (and selling them?).

For everyone but the Pro's the D3/700 is ways more camera than they can handle ( me especially).

Canon sells their big gun for $8k list, so why shouldn't Nikon do the same? The concensus seems to be it will be available for the same street price, about $6.3k in 6 months so save the money till then.

quote:

Originally posted by Manu:
I have really not been disapointed by my new 5D MKII.

Its apparently a very good camera. Especially if you like black-spotted blown highlights

Not such a good choice if you have a stack of Nikon lenses though.

Not a different camera? It's a completely different camera.

Winky, if you start talking bollocks, Adam will erase this thread in Photoshop.

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:
Not a different camera? It's a completely different camera.

I could hardly call it a new camera when the D3X has the same body and the same controls of the D3. The only differences that I see are that the D3X has a larger sensor,a slower frame rate and a smaller ISO range, all that for extra $3000.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm

Colin,

I concur that I/we aren't really the target audience. I wasn't planning on buying one anyway, but was just disappointed that they couldn't move it forward in every area. It's the engineer in me that was disappointed, not the photographer.

I think Nikon have failed (like they did with the excellent D700) to match the camera to a healthy market. It only betters the D3 in one area. For the extra $3000 I think few would bother. Professionals doing big landscapes have plenty of other choices.

I've used Nikons for years (love them) and will likely do so for the foreseeable future. I'm just a little surprised that the D3X wasn't a better spec (especially for the $$). This is not to say it is not a great camera. Just not that different (in good and bad ways) and much more expensive.


Count d.

I agree with what Haim says - it is a virtually identical camera to D3. 1 plus (MegaPixels) and 3 minuses (FPS,ISO and $$$). Other changes are trivial.


Happy Snappys

Winky

Colin,
It was a joke at Winky.

My 5D does not have this black dot issue.

I'm loaded with expensive pro lenses from Canon, so i stay with them as long as they suit my needs. It could have been Nikon as well.

Manu,

No worries. Like you I think the lenses define the system and like you with Canon, I've no ambitions of changing from Nikon because of the glass accumulated.

To paraphrase

"bodies are temporary, but glass is permanent"

Here is image comparison between the Nikon D3x & Canon 5D MK II:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison-5d-mark-ii.htm

D2X is still good enough for my pro studio work

For proper photography, I prefer M8 and M6

Interesting thread. I have a 5D and thought I would go to the 5D mkII when I could afford one. Not so sure now , not that much to choose between them.

To me what would be much more interesting would be studio shots taken 100 ISO and then enlarged. This is how I use the 5D, don't think I've ever used it above 200 ISO.

It would be interesting to know what lenses people are using with these high-res cameras.

I *assume* you are being sensible and using top flight prime lenses, not nasty zoomarama nonsense with all the sharpness of a flat balloon?

For example I'm using 60mm Micronikkor on the D2X almost exclusively.

quote:

Originally posted by jon honeyball:
It would be interesting to know what lenses people are using with these high-res cameras.

I *assume* you are being sensible and using top flight prime lenses, not nasty zoomarama nonsense with all the sharpness of a flat balloon?


For example I'm using 60mm Micronikkor on the D2X almost exclusively.

+1 ,well put Jon

quote:

Originally posted by jon honeyball:
It would be interesting to know what lenses people are using with these high-res cameras.

I *assume* you are being sensible and using top flight prime lenses, not nasty zoomarama nonsense with all the sharpness of a flat balloon?

Jon, I have some of my test pics of the Nikkor 14-24mmf2.8 v Nikkor 14mm f2.8 on my computer somewhere to show how you can't make statements like that. I could do the same with the Nikkor 70-200vr f2.8 v 180f2.8 (we'll ignore the 70-200 vignetting on full frame!)

Think of photography as complex as tweaking with hifi, airplugs or Microsoft programmes.

P.S. Please everyone, don't give the sites like Ken Rockwell 5 mins of your time. I genuinely haven't read so much bollocks for years.

I take Ken Rockwell's site for what it is - a highly subjective and opinionated "rant". He makes no other claims himself. I do find it rather amusing at times. For actual information on things photograhpic, I tend to like dpreview. They don't do a lot of lenses, though.

I have to agree with coun.d on on the 14mm-24mm f2.8 Nikkor. Stunning lens (Ken agrees, btw.)

I have a mix of prime and zoom. I rate my 105mm f2.8 micro nikkor (old non-VR one), my 400mm f2.8 AFS VR Nikkor and the aforementioned 14mm-24mm f2.8 AFS Nikkor as A-grade. My 2X convertor on the 400mm brings it back to B+, but it is still much better than the eqivalent pixel crop - I have a 12MP D300 - the convertor may not be a better option on a 25MP sensor....feeling....urge...to....shop....for.....600mm....Nikkor............ Oh, the urge has passed. I feel better now.

My 70mm - 200mm f2.8 AFS Nikkor (old one - not the VR) I rate "B+" , and my 28mm-70mm f2.8 AFS Nikkor (old one) I rate "B-grade" for sharpness. I actually avoid using it. Interestingly, Ken asserts that his 28mm-70mm had a systematic focus offest error that he corrects in his cameras - I have been planning to experiment.

I am considering the new 50mm f1.4 AFS Nikkor. It is relatively inexpensive and I think would largely (wholly) replace the 28mm-70mm for me. I'm waiting to see what Ken says .

I'm with Jon 100% on the generally poor quality of the wide-range "consumer" zooms. I think a lot of people's photos never see light outside of their computers and phones these days, though. This makes it less of an issue. A better investment for a lot of these epople would be an evening lesson in the use of basic image-editing software, rather than a bunch of pro glass.

At the end of the day it has nothing to do with the hardware, really. It is the ability to "see" the images you want (and the willingness to put in the effort to go after them). Just thinking about the composition before you press the shutter release makes more difference than all the pro lenses and ultra-pixels in the world.

count.d -- I wasnt referring to the top flight glass that nikon does sell. I was referring to the sad reality that many people seem to end up with an expensive body and cheap lenses.

I would rather have great lens and a consumer 500 quid digital body than a D3X and lower end glass. And yes, there are people out there making that mistake.

And how many mount their D3X on a sturdy tripod? Calculate the LPI for handheld, and its not pretty :-)

Agree with all the points - I was being provocative about a particular but worryingly large subsection of the photographers out there.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

At the end of the day it has nothing to do with the hardware, really. It is the ability to "see" the images you want (and the willingness to put in the effort to go after them). Just thinking about the composition before you press the shutter release makes more difference than all the pro lenses and ultra-pixels in the world.

Which is why i treasure the M6 and M8s -- seeing outside the image is, for me, an irreplacable facility.

Jon,

Your point about "mullet" camera/lens combinations is well made.

Camera bodies come and go, but the laws of optics don't change. Spend the cash on the glass.

From the ken rockwell site:

"If you have the cash, by all means go get a D3X, but realize that the only time you'll notice the resolution difference is printing 20x30" (50 x 75cm) and larger, and then only if you have almost perfect lenses and really know how to use them."

Good points. I have the STUNNING Epson 4880 A2 printer, the output of which is eye popping.

Nice primes?

35 1.4
45 2.8
50 1.8
55 2.8
85 1.8
200 F2

Oh, and a 24-70 2.8. These, I hope, will last me a lifetime.

Jon, I've read that the Epson is good - really need to look at one to get the images onto the wall and off the screen.

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:
P.S. Please everyone, don't give the sites like Ken Rockwell 5 mins of your time. I genuinely haven't read so much bollocks for years.

For some reason, photographic websites and blogs suffer even more than Hi-Fi ones in only talking in extreme terms - things are either "Crap", "Rubbish" "Dross" or "Fan-Bloody-Tastically wonderful", and have the unerring ability to jump from one extreme to anther when describing the same thing!

Said Mr Rockwell's site is a prime example - how can you take such stuff seriously one wonders?

I'm on the point of replacing my venerable old Canon EOS 300D with a 5D Mk II. I considered a Nikon 700D, but when I tried one in the camera shop I found it rather heavy & didn't like the controls. The main reason for sticking with the Canon is that I've got some very good lenses left over from my 35mm period which will work a treat with the 5D and whose potential's been unrealised stuck on the end of the 300D.

However, reading some of the opinions on some of these photographic blogs etc., well, I might as well be selling my soul to Satan!

When it comes to dig, stick to Canon, simple. The list of pro friends and colleagues using Canon is so long it says it all....

Mind you, I say that as a lifelong Leica M user who wouldn't go near a dig body if I was paid, which is probably why my editorial work dried up..!

Actually, you raise an interesting point tonym re photography websites & blogs, I agree very much, but wonder to myself if HiFi equivalents are that much different ?....Perhaps it's simply perspective. I mean, I know a little bit about HiFi, but not much, and come on here and other sites fairly fresh and open to the debate and discussions at hand, taking most of it in and do find myself guided by some of the more senior voices as to what is good, poor, advised or frowned upon....But with photography and the associated businesses, because I'm a lot more personally experienced plus have a network of colleagues etc that I can dip into, I hardly go near such websites, and if I do for whatever reason, I can quickly digest what I need and filter out a lot of the crap this way or that way....But I do often think, my god do people read this and end up influenced ?!

Perhaps photography and particularly digital is somewhat more accessible and leads to this situation ? I don't know, I'm just talking out loud here...

By the way, one photo website I occasionally glance at if I want some technical reviews or comparisons, that's generally not too bad, is Luminous Landscape - I've used it a bit for inkjet stock reviews.