| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
D3X 24.5 for 8,000.00
Steve Mitchell, Photographer
|
Tom Knier, Photographer
 |
Lancaster | PA | USA | Posted: 11:42 PM on 11.30.08 |
| ->> I think that's what I payed for a year of college. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 11:57 PM on 11.30.08 |
| ->> That is 2.7x what I paid for my Volvo wagon |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:26 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> so does nikon have any understanding of what we (photographers) get paid?
I seriously think (and hope) they may take a big bath on this camera.
for eight grand that puppy better wash my truck every week.
and tom, if you learned to spell paid as "payed" maybe you really got ripped off by whatever college you attended. |
|
Tom Knier, Photographer
|
Lancaster | PA | USA | Posted: 12:34 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Oh, wow!
I'm usually good about those things.
That's what happens when I type and delete, type and delete...
I need a message board editor! |
|
Walter Tychnowicz, Photographer
 |
Edmonton | Alberta | Canada | Posted: 12:39 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> So is it supposed to be better than the D3?? I may have missed something but it just seems to be a tweak on a Already very good D3 ? Or is the D3H going to be a lesser sibling to the D3X ?? Why does Nikon do this. Oh and I guess video will be another 2 years behind Canon again?? |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 12:40 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> im a canon user but im always interested in what both companies put out.
at first glance im seeing about a 4grand jump between this and the D3 and really only seeing the megapixel jump.
what are the other major differences?
i guess they are targeting commercial photographers who are currently being forced to use medium format digital systems. |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 12:44 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> isn't it the same price range as the 1DS MK III??? no different than what canon has been doing with the 1d and 1ds models.
to be honest the d3x seems to be more "do it all" camera than the canon 1ds mk III.
perfect for commercial/weddings/portraits, which can handle sports as well. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 12:49 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> So, uh, who wants to buy me one?
I'm surprised Capture NX doesn't come with it. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 12:58 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> Also, I'll take those used D3's off the hands of any cat that is getting a D3X. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:42 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> no...I'm serious...eight grand? you gotta be kidding me. I mean I cringe at the five grand price on the markIII's but what are these camera companies thinking? how many clients out there are demanding file sizes these cameras provide? and honestly, is the quality any better? I dare to say there aren't many. I mean let's get real. most magazines wouldn't accept digital files years ago....but HELLO...most everyone is shooting digital now and the mags use it. has the quality suffered? ah...that would be a no. can you or a potential client tell the difference? hmmmmm...maybe you can but I sure as hell haven't seen the difference in a digital file and film in years.....so paying EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS for a camera? guess maybe nikon is relying on the old adage "a sucker is born every minute" they just hope the "suckers" out there have the money and are stupid enough to part with it! |
|
Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 3:14 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Chuck,
We get it $8,000 Dollars. Yes, its a lot of money and maybe the camera wasn't made for you! |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 3:22 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> I suspect they are after the medium-format market. A Phase-One back is a lot more than $8K. Yes, that back has an even higher MB count, but for the average shooter going after medium format quality, 23MB-ish is probably fine.
But, yes, I'm also baffled by the cost vs. the minor bump in image size.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have to process 60MB files. Even 20MB+ files are a PITA no matter what sort of computer you have simply because they rapidly consume all available space - and scale down a bunch of 'em to show on the web or for slide shows? Come on getouddahere?! |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 3:28 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Eight grand is not that much for a just released state of the art latest model etc...
I don't think Nikon is targeting the photojournalist with this particular item.
If you want it you need to work it into your yearly equipment budget.
Plan out what it will take to get you what you want.
Those that are staffers I suspect will have a harder time as you all tend to have a set salary.
freelancers tend to have more flexibilty.
successful freelancers will plan accordingly and purchase the equipment they need.
The D3X is now at the top of my want list.
I currently have everything I need. perhaps this time next year the price will come down, a year goes by very quickly.
The price of a top of the line Rolex seems outrageous to those that can not afford it. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 3:45 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> I don't see what the problem is here. When the Canon 1Ds Mk III was announced, it too had a price tag of $8000. Today you can pick one up for around the $6.5K mark.
Both the Canon and the D3X are aiming to take a chunk out of the MF market - both in terms of photographers who shoot using MF and their clients who want or need (or at least *think* they do) the large files that MF kit can output. |
|
Daniel Celvi, Student/Intern
|
Carbondale | IL | | Posted: 4:01 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> In the files on the Japanese site Michael linked to, I think in the first photograph you can see the silhouette of the photographer in her eye, at least it may be. Regardless, you can see her contact lens. That's pretty crazy awesome.
Though what I'm curious about now is what Nikon will do next. I've heard a couple of rumors about a medium format rangefinder, but obviously those were just rumors. I'm more curious if they're going to release something like a D700x—hasn't really been their fashion, but you never know. Anyone heard anything? |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:33 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Daniel,
I think a D700x will be a while in coming; you don't release a product like the D3x and then kill potential early adopter sales with a near-identical product that occupies a lower price bracket.
Think 1Ds Mk III vs. 5D Mk II; how many people out there *absolutely need* the more robust 1 series body features when they're mostly concerned about the high-MP files? |
|
Fj Hughes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 7:10 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> I think Nikon deserves a little bit of a break here. This camera is obviously meant to compete with the 1Ds MkIII. Which as mentioned above was originally priced at $8,000. They will have plenty of orders at that price(got to pay for the r&d while you can)from people who have to have the camera first, Many of these cameras will be sold to enthusiasts with disposable incomes. The price will have to quickly drop to be competitive with the Canon. I agree that this camera isn't really meant for the photo journalist. Big files with longer image processing times for an increase in pixel count that won't benefit an image intended for newsprint.
Since a medium format back is by far out of my price range, I for one am pretty excited for this camera. Those sample files look great. If it was only 16 bit! |
|
Fj Hughes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 7:14 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> Oooops, I meant true 16 bit capture. |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 7:37 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> i want one...5 family portrait sessions would easily pay for one. now is just need to book some..:)
boy, chuck i wonder what you think about people that purchase these beauties...
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/ |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Daniel Brayack, Photographer
|
Charleston | WV | USA | Posted: 8:05 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> Just a thought - isn't 24 MP pushing most lenses pretty hard? |
|
Jon Gardiner, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:19 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Hey Fish. It's 5x what I paid for my Volvo wagon and I bet we'll both still be using them when the D3x is surpassed with the next version.
-J |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 9:07 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> It's got an $8K price tag!?!? OMG! WTH! What's the 1Ds M3 cost? Oh yeah, ~$8K.
Folks, this camera isn't replacing the D3. It's not really a camera aimed at the average newspaper/sports photographer.
It's a less-expensive alternative to a medium format digital system that works with your existing Nikon glass. I don't think they think they're going to sell a billion of these.
One more thing, it's roughly 5 times what my parents paid for my braces. On the other hand, it's 1/2 the price of a Hasselblad H3. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 9:09 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Such the bargain.
In a few years you'll get the same quality in a D500 with video.
Top advertising and catalog photographer will see $8K a bargain over shooting Medium Format digital. It's just we sports shooters who are slacking by giving our photography away too cheaply. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:15 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Yawn. It's an update only a pixel peeper could love. No real bump other than a higher MP count. True 16-bit would have been something. Video would have been something. All this looks like is a really poorly thought out "me too" of the 1DsMkIII. Nikon is just proud of the fact that they can make a chip this big, so they put a big price on it.
Even if you're a Nikon shooter, why in the world would you buy this camera with the 5DMkII sitting out there? Even if you didn't have a single bit of Canon gear, $8,000 would buy a 5DMkII and a bunch of lenses. If you stayed with midrange primes, you'd have cash left over.
A 5DMkII kit would give you an over 20MP resolution AND the cool video stuff to play with, and you'd have a lens kit to use with Canon gear if you wanted to play both sides of the fence.
A dumb release. They really should have rethought this after the 5DMkII. |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> I'm curious. How many actuations is a 5D Mk2's shutter designed to withstand? Anybody? |
|
TD Paulius, Photographer
|
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> I bet those mail order houses in brooklyn have it cheaper! |
|
Bill Ross, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 9:32 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> I kind of wonder about the price myself but hey, it's Nikon and lately they've been surprising many of us. I'd rather spend 8K on some "Divorce" glass. |
|
Greg Francis, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:34 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> I wonder if the Kahuna or Robert Beck used this camera sensor in any of the outdoor Olympic venues during the summer, or the last 12 daylight NFL weekends?
I'd have to guess the resolution couldn't hurt when cropping is needed, such as a glossy publication like Sports Illustrated. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:35 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> How many actuations is a 5D Mk2's shutter designed to withstand? Anybody?
According to DPReview, 150,000.
The last time I had a shutter replaced in one of my Canon bodies it was $300. Not a major cost item, grand scheme of things. |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 9:40 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> One other thing.
It's actually a good thing that there isn't anything - aside from the resolution - that's new.
The D3X is essentially a D3. And guess what...the D3 has, by now, been thoroughly field tested and it works. The autofocus works. The build quality is excellent. The battery life is great. There are very few (if any?) complaints.
A dumb release? I'm not sure. A lot of fashion guys have been opting for the 1Ds Mk3 over medium format systems because of its ease of handling. Rental houses will buy some D3X bodies for those guys and then we'll all be able to rent one when we need the resolution. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:55 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> A lot of fashion guys have been opting for the 1Ds Mk3 over medium format systems because of its ease of handling.
...and they'd have gone with the 5DMk2 if it had been available because they can do some cool zoomy video at the same time. :-) |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 9:59 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> "The price of a top of the line Rolex seems outrageous to those that can not afford it."
And to those like me that don't need anything more than a $50 Casio to tell time!! Heck, I haven't worn a watch in over 3 years, my cell has a Clock!!
Y |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 10:03 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> David:
Surely you jest. Surely. |
|
Jason Frizzelle, Photographer
|
Wilmington | NC | USA | Posted: 10:12 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Chuck,
If Nikon is working on a sucker born every minute then they should make $11,520,000 in the first 24 hours.I think they'll get by. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> The chip size is what is pushing the price up alone. Just look at the price difference for both Nikon and Canon's larger format.
The smaller chip sized sensors are cheaper to produce and in general are about $1,500 less expensive.
To produce a flawless 24.5-megapixel chip usually means a few chips that must be scrapped, thus the expensive per chip cost.
What I am curious about is where the magic megapixel number is for the 35mm lens. When do you surpass the resolving power of the lens? Have we maximized this present format?
I noticed the D3 seems to have the sweet ISO 200 - 6400 with extended range which the photojournalist should prefer over the D3X ISO. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 10:28 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> " no different than what canon has been doing with the 1d and 1ds models. "
The Canon 1D is a 1.3x crop.
The Canon 1Ds is a full-frame.
The draw for many photogs to the 1Ds is the full-frame. |
|
Fj Hughes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 11:03 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> "Yawn. It's an update only a pixel peeper could love."
Hey, I work as a digital tech. I get paid to pixel peep. :-) |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:10 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> Sony has a new camera out for $3k and 24.6 megapixels |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> $8k in itself isn't a shocking price, since after all its what all of the Canon 1Ds models have always sold for. Its also what a new 400 2.8 VR cost. No one ever said photography was cheap.
What is rather shocking, at least to me, is that Nikon priced the D3x at $8k as we are 30 days away from 2009.
By the time it wills start shipping what else will we see from the competition price wise ?
A 2009 that has a 21 meg Canon 5D mkII for around the $3k mark
A 2009 that has the 24 Sony A900 for just under the $3k mark
A 2009 that has the already excellent (and probably all you need lol) D3 going for under the $4k mark
A 2009 that has the Canon 1Ds mkIII seeing the $6k mark
Thats whats shocking. The D3 is the best camera I've ever used. The D3x will no doubt be every bit as great and with higher resolution to boot, but the price sure seems darn steep compared to what the rest of the market is offering.
I'm not saying the Sony A900 is as good as a D3x should be, but still, when you can get a full frame 24meg camera for around $3k, or the Canon 5D mkII for just over $3k, how the Nikon D3x seems "worth" an extra $5000 I don't know
While this is just speculation, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Nikon D700x sooner or later as well. Same 24meg sensor in a smaller body with a few less features for probably $4k or less.
That coming out would certainly frustate me as a D3x buyer and make me feel like I "wasted" probably $4000 I could of saved had I just waited 6 months.
As I said, D3x is no doubt Nikon's best camera IQ wise ever, and built on the already great D3 (worlds perfect camera IMHO) should be a pleasure to use, but its just a year late to be charging $8k
If they introduced this last year they could of charged $8k and had preorder lines a mile long. But a lot has changed in the course of a year and theres a lot of competition in the FF 21+ meg market as we enter 2009.
So for 2009 I'm happily going to keep shooting with my D3 and if/when we see a D700x for under $4k, I'd certainly buy one, but until til then its thanks but no thanks Nikon |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 11:41 AM on 12.01.08 |
->> Stanley
To answer your question about resolving power: the D3x has 7.112MP per cubic inch of sensor space, whereas the D90 has 8.382MP per cubic inch.
It's safe to say that, even at 24.5MP, the D3X sits well within the current known limits of sensor vs. lens resolving capacity.
And as to the other part... well, I think a 28MP dSLR would be right on the line of what we deem as acceptable these days (think a D90 scaled to full frame) |
|
Tom Knier, Photographer
|
Lancaster | PA | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> Wow. Just attempting to open one of those image files spiked the processor use on my MBP... Can't even imagine what a RAW file would be like. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 12:10 PM on 12.01.08 |
->> As has been stated several times, this camera isn't for photojournalists; it's aimed at commercial/portrait/wedding photographers - you know - the parts of photography that actually make money. When you look at a Digital 'blad system that cost $34,000, $8K seems like a deal.
Another way to look at it is this way: The medium format manufacturers have been squeezed by the high megapixel DSLR manufacturers. The D3X, like the Canon piece, will continue to pressure them.
There are photographers on here that do shoot medium format; it would be interesting to hear their take on this product. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 2:45 PM on 12.01.08 |
->> "Sony has a new camera out for $3k and 24.6 megapixels"
Who makes the glass that goes in front of it? Forget the megapixels, I'm more concerned about the lenses. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 3:37 PM on 12.01.08 |
->> Personally, I'm waiting for a black silicon DSLR. Virtually unlimited ISO, no noise, I mean NONE, and dynamic range approaching the human eye.
http://tinyurl.com/5r8hnn |
|
Albert McCracken, Photographer
|
East Amherst | NY | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 12.01.08 |
| ->> Hey: Steve you are wrong, it's only $7,999.95!!! |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|