Board index Equipment Digital Cameras NIKON D3X

Digital Cameras


Posts: 22


Post Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:24 pm

Hi everyone
Anyone out there laid out a large sum of money for the Ninon D3X. If so what's the feeling on it - Is it worth the money.

Posts: 662


Post Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:19 pm

Scuttlebutt I hear is that even most pros are still passing on it. I just finished covering a pro cycling race and the only full frame digital I saw in use was a D700. The top two guys covering domestic cycling were there. One shot Nikon and the other Canon. The predominant Nikon bodies in the mix were D-90's, D-200's, and 300's. In that arena, unless flash sync speeds go faster than 1/250, I don't guess any of these guys will be shelling out big $$ for full frame gear.

Posts: 440


Post Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:10 pm

It's not surprising you won't see a D3x at a sporting event! It's designed for fashion & landscape uses (Nikon's own stipulation). Sporting events are the preserve of D700/D3.

The well moneyed amateurs may be passing on the d3x following the sting us D3 users got when Nikon put out the D700. We're all expecting a D700x body, although some rumours suggest it's not immediately forthcoming. We'll see.

But there are a lot of pros using the D3x, but for the reasons it's intended for, not PJ & Sport

Posts: 13


Post Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:22 am

Don't be fooled- many photographers that need more resolution than 12mp (no matter how you slice it, 12mp is NOT a lot of resolution for large high quality detailed photo prints..) and who either can't afford the high price of medium format camera, back, plus lenses costing $4,000 each, have purchased the D3x. Expensive? The answer to that question would be relative to what? Relative to a medium format system (camera, lens, and digital back) then the D3x is a much cheaper alternative, especially since most pros already have the bread and butter lenses already in their possession...

Hmm.. doing a little basic math tells us that the typical professional Nikon shooter actually spends less money buying the D3x, and gets a better camera, compared to establishing a new kit with the Canon 5d2.

Let's put things into perspective, the 1ds3 is still over $6,000 while its younger sibling (5d mark 2) is less than half that price. Justified? To those that feel a more robust body and more capable and dependable focus system is "worth it".. then it's worth it. When the D3x debuted, it seems people forgot that the Canon 1ds3 was about $7,000.

I think if (many) photographers complaining about the price did a cost to (short term) return-on-investment analysis, the D3x winds up not being as expensive as one may think at first glance.

.. Of course if you're not printing large landscapes, fashion/glamour/beauty, portraits, etc.. then the price of the D3x is merely moot chatter and not a serious concern. ;)

Best in photography to everyone

Posts: 4


Post Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 am

The D3X is a total no-big-deal. It's not even 24.4MP; Nikon is playing a psychological ploy by accidentally mis-stating the resolution as 24.5MP. Multiply 6,048 x 4,032 and see how many pixels you get.

Posts: 1


Post Thu May 13, 2010 3:23 am

Love it!

Posts: 159


Post Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:58 pm

Any rumours that some newer full frame Nikon top end gear might come out? both D700 and D3x are a bit old now, so what does the aspiring "professional" photographer do? Shoot film?
IS there any fair of some importance soon, wher eNikon might unveil new stuff? I am sick and tired of cranking my S5Pro/D80 to ISO3200 and getting a snowstorm.

Board index Equipment Digital Cameras NIKON D3X

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest