Nikon D3x - what do we have so far (1 Viewer)

[Gentoo]

Few days left until the potential release date. This is what we have so far:

* Everything started with a D3 firmware update back in April that revealed a new 6048×4032 24.4 MP option (source).
* Nikon has scheduled several events world wide for December 1st (see here, here and here).
* Few weeks ago Nikon Germany created a placeholder on their web site called Nikon D3_2. After we reported it, the folder was promptly removed.
* Then we have leaks/hints from a Nikon tester, Thom Hogan and jeff-c and Iliah Borg.
* The price of Nikon D3 dropped significantly to $4,200. There was also a rumor that retailers could not place D3 orders anymore.
* In the past few months we had a bunch of products “designed” for D3x: Delkin, Sea& Sea, SanDisk and a HoodCap (yes! - what should we do without it). Maybe this is all just sloppy marketing.

I also received about a dozen of emails from around the world about the D3x coming on December 1st (mainly from retailers). That’s all we have for now. Nothing solid, but sufficient for me to still believe that there is a 90% chance we will see a D3x on December 1st (hopefully with a Kodak sensor - this is my own speculation).

Now the latest rumor from dpreview:

“D3x is what’s expected, but also to be announced:

80-400 AF-S version

35mm 1.8 AF-S

135mm 1.8 AF-S”

And now… RED again:
Red is suppose to have an even bigger announcement on December 3rd - the only reason I am mentioning this is because Red cameras can also be used with Nikon lenses. Red called their last announcement “insignificant”. If they come up with a DSLR-like camera and a reasonable price tag, Nikon (and every other big DSLR manufacturer will be in serious trouble). Via PhotographyBay.

http://nikonrumors.com/

 

[ikw101]

The lenses look more interesting than a 24.4 mp camera. 80-400 AF-S version sounds like a step in the right direction however I'd prefer AF-S on a 400mm f5.6 c/w with VR II or even VR II on the 300/4. The 135mm 1.8 could be an interesting macro lens. Although I welcome it sticking an AF-S motor on the 80-400 isn't exactly innovative. If the decision has been made to stick with zooms isn't it about time Nikon looked at the 500mm zoom market?

At the moment a 24.4 mp camera doesn't interest me - unless it comes with a new top spec pc and a massively improved Capture NX! The thought of processing or even browsing files of this size in Capture NX makes it a non-starter. Perhaps it's one for landscape professionals ?

 

[Gentoo]

The lenses look more interesting than a 24.4 mp camera. 80-400 AF-S version sounds like a step in the right direction however I'd prefer AF-S on a 400mm f5.6 c/w with VR II or even VR II on the 300/4. The 135mm 1.8 could be an interesting macro lens. Although I welcome it sticking an AF-S motor on the 80-400 isn't exactly innovative. If the decision has been made to stick with zooms isn't it about time Nikon looked at the 500mm zoom market?

At the moment a 24.4 mp camera doesn't interest me - unless it comes with a new top spec pc and a massively improved Capture NX! The thought of processing or even browsing files of this size in Capture NX makes it a non-starter. Perhaps it's one for landscape professionals ?

That's exactly what it would be to compete with the 5D MKII. Nikon has to answer that before the end of the year or Canon will corner that market.

 

[pe'rigin]

If we get one and it's FF, then the DX3 will be a pro camera, aimed at the studio and professional outlooks. It will be pricey, but it will sell in large numbers. It will isolate the D3, and make the D700 more appealing for those on a lesser budget.

It will make Nikons product range top heavy with FF cameras.

I think a few newer lenses might be more of interest, than a huge camera spec.

 

[Gentoo]

If we get one and it's FF, then the DX3 will be a pro camera, aimed at the studio and professional outlooks. It will be pricey, but it will sell in large numbers. It will isolate the D3, and make the D700 more appealing for those on a lesser budget.

It will make Nikons product range top heavy with FF cameras.

I think a few newer lenses might be more of interest, than a huge camera spec.

Most definitely agree. We need lenses badly. However this is how Nikon does things. They create new niches for cameras. Canon has three niches, Nikon has five. The price that's paid is lower number of lenses. Next year will most likely see the replacement for the D300, this niche is replaced every two years or so. I'd rather see them hold off a bit and release a 400mm 5.6 or better yet an F4 if they really want to compete. Yes they have the 200-400mm but for those of us without kids, we don't have a college fund we can plunder to get it lol.

 

[pduxon]

the problems is that the rumour is an 80-400 afs. is this the current 80-400 with afs or an improved 80-400.

birders want long lenses. landscapers want fast primes!!

from a birding point of view a 400 f5.6 with afs and VR would be desirable or a 300f4 with the same.

hey ho

oh and apparently all Nikon europe sites are down......

 

[Gentoo]

the problems is that the rumour is an 80-400 afs. is this the current 80-400 with afs or an improved 80-400.

birders want long lenses. landscapers want fast primes!!

from a birding point of view a 400 f5.6 with afs and VR would be desirable or a 300f4 with the same.

hey ho

oh and apparently all Nikon europe sites are down......

Not sure if they're just adding AF-S to the current one or overhauling it completely. The current one from what I hear is pretty good optically so if the overhaul it, one could only imagine it would get even better. If this were to happen, expect a significant price increase as well.

 

[pduxon]

http://sebrogers.typepad.com/seb_rogers_blog/2008/11/official-nikon-d3x-specs-its-here-folks.html

 

[Phil Bishop]

Reading the specs in my copy of Nikon Pro that arrived today, looks like the general rumours were about right. One thing that is of interest is that the basic iso only goes to 1600, which I suppose is to be expected with the smaller pixel density.
As I use the D2x, I liked the idea of the D3 going up to iso 6400, especially as a lot of my birding photography seems to be done in poor lighting conditions, and putting a 2x converter on a big tele only makes it worse.
So the question that interests me then is whether the D3 dynamic range, or the D3x resolution is more important. Will be interesting to see test images, when they are published and whether the 2 stop iso boost is of any use.

 

[Gentoo]

Overall I am disappointed with these specs. Not that I want a fully pro camera but if I did, that ISO range would really put me off. If you need low light, even the D300's ISO goes to 3200 without a boost. I suppose if a full frame high resolution sensor is vital to your needs then the D3x is your camera.

I still have to look more into this but I think 2008 will be Canon's year. So far, I don't see the D3x out competing the 5D mkII.

 

[griffin]

from a birding point of view a 400 f5.6 with afs and VR would be desirable or a 300f4 with the same.....

No, we don't want the buggers bringing out a 300f4 VR having just received a 300f4 the other day ! Actually, given the speeds I have been getting VR may not be essential anyway ( but I'd rather have it if I could ! )

Lindsay

 

[pduxon]

No, we don't want the buggers bringing out a 300f4 VR having just received a 300f4 the other day ! Actually, given the speeds I have been getting VR may not be essential anyway ( but I'd rather have it if I could ! )

Lindsay

guffaw