Who will buy the new D3x

[Leen Koper]

Who is gonna buy the D3x?
Yes, it is a Nikon. But the main characteristics of the Sony are almost the same. Most photographers will never notice the differences between these two cameras; ok, it is different, but not that much. If you don't own ten thousands of Nikon glass, I don't see any important reason to pay 8000 euros instead of 2450 euros. It should be 5500 euros better than the Sony and I think that is hard to believe, especially if one has some nice Minolta glass lying around.

[James]

I'm hoping it brings the price of the D3 down further.

I love the high iso and repsonsiveness of that camera (I would prefer it to the D700, but can see why some people prefer that one) but EVEN that is too much for me at the moment. I only have the D300 because the insurance company gave me that when I dropped the D200.

If I wanted to experiment on studio photography I could get a lot of medium format film gear for a lot less and if I wanted to take higher resolution landscape pictures I could speak to my father and grab his view camera and some film and then get a much bigger sensor (5x4 film) and have moevement control with all of the lenses.


But if I was a studio pro and had lots of Nikon lenses I can see that it would make sense.

I get the feeling people are going to wait for the D700 format version.

[Guy Van Hooveld]

I think it is not fair to compare to the A900. Based on a few samples, IQ seems to be better with the Nikon, and the Nikon is based on a pro-body (in fact it is a D3).
A better comparison to show the pricing nonsense is D3=3600EUR, A900=2600 EUR D3+A900=6200 and D3x=7500EUR (street price). This shows that the price is just absurd...

[BrianSmith]

My feeling is that Nikon know exactly how the price ticket will go down and they have good reason for this position right now. It may be supply problems, D3 stock situation or the D700x timescale but $8000 is not likely to be where they see the price in a year's time. It will change.

[pam.meier]

I guess a lot of people will skip the D3X and wait for the D700X.
For landscape photographers a compact body would be much handier to drag around in the field ;)

Can´t wait for side-by-side comparisons D3X, A900 and 5DII, then people will be able to pick the camera system that suites them best.

[aclphoto]

Here's my plan:

when the 3x comes out... start searching for ealry adoptors who are dumping thier D3's and buying the 3x... I'll buy a good used D3 to back up my current D3 and then (maybe) sell my D300.

THEN in Spring of next year I may get the 3x. However even at this time the D3 is a much better camera for me. I shoot allot of sports in low light... If my studio keeps getting bigger then I will certainly get a 3x.

Two different cameras two different rolls...

On the other hand...

The assumption that people are having about the 3x and the A900 being "basiclly the same camera" is completely incorrect. IMO the only thing simalar is the MP.... yes sony did MAKE the sensor... BUT it is NOT a sony desighn... it's nikon. Af speed, the expeed process... build etc etc... the list can go on and on...

As the OP said... I am one of those people that owns about $25,000 US in nikon glass... I've been shooting nikon all of my pro life and will never switch sides... If the 3x is $8 grand then that's what I'll pay... IF its the right camera for the job...

so thats just my 2 cents.

[DavidLake]

What you get that is better with the Nikon:
2 CF slots - I'm sold already, as a wedding shooter... well, you know - that's why I primarily use a pair of D3's. Oh wait the Sony offers CF and Memstick - yippie two formats to carry around
Wicked 51 point AF - Now it's a bargain really. Try shooting with the A900 in low light - manual focus is fun isn't it :)
Pro Body - built in grip, built like a tank (US military going to release new D3 model tank using Nikon technology), 2nd rear LCD info, extra buttons to access features without menus, etc. etc. etc.
Nikon CLS and flash features - no contest, even if you don't use CLS, the Nikon flash system is unrivaled (I've used Canon & Pentax also)
1005 pixel light meter - Sony uses 40 segment, survey says...
A few more MP - helps with cropping, likely not much gained in print
ISO50 - it's fake, but in the bright sun, sometimes you just can't stop the aperture down far enough to stay at 1/250 flash sync
More than 12 full sized images in a burst - can't find the specs around...


What you get that is better with the Sony:
Sensor based IS - which makes all of yours lenses anti-shake. Though nearly every test shows that lens based IS is superior to sensor shift, so it might be good for those lenses that normally don't offer it (ex. Nikkor 24-70), but not as good for lenses that do (ex. Nikkor 70-200)

OK, I'm getting bored, and you get the picture I think...

[pam.meier]

I totally agree that the A900 is not a wedding photographer´s preferred tool, unless he uses it for studio shots.
It´s too easy to blur images with camera shake and high ISO performance is so much better with the D3.
Low light focussing is surprisingly good, yet nothing compared again to the D3 ...