I'm perfectly happy with my D700 and its 12MP. I'll be curious to see the noise performance of the D3X versus the D3/D700 - high ISO performance was one of the main determining factors when I was deciding between a D700 and a D300.

One of the strangest things to me is that Canon has had $8k cameras in the lineup for... what, 7-8 years now? Yes, everyone thought they were expensive, but it was the best camera you could get for the money. Then they made the 5D, but still nobody was stunned to find the 1Ds3 still coming out at $8k. Nikon does almost exactly the same thing, and suddenly the world is tilting and there is an uproar about a camera coming in at around $8k with the same rough specs as a 1ds3. It's almost like there's some kind of REASON that the cameras at the top end are about that much money. Just sayin'...

Let's do the math:
3000,- A900
699,- Sony SAL-1680Z 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T
1699,- Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM Lens
or
1499,- Sony SAL70400G 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM

both cases 50% cheaper than the body. Room for some additional fixed focal length.
At least that's my plan in the next 2-3 months.

Canon has had a high priced megapixel camera (about same res & same price) for a while now, I don't remember this much hand wringing and complaining about that, maybe Canon shooters are used to it and Nikon shooters just weren't paying attention.

I am surprised to see the many comparisons to the Sony, there are quite a few distinctions between the cameras that don't have anything to do with the sensor, most are on the plus side for Nikon though Sony has in-body IS. I just don't see Sony being a contender, I'd much rather go Canon 5DII than Sony A900.

Anyone who bought a D3 and is surprised/annoyed that Nikon quickly brought out the D3x, was simply not paying attention to the market. When the D3 hit, I believe the 24 MP from Canon was out and Sony had one announced. So obviously Nikon was working on it too.

About the price: This thing might just be competing with Hasselblad now. A fantastic medium format camera at similar/higher prices, that can not take pictures anywhere near the speed of the Nikon D3x. Of course, Hasselblad has a 50 MP sensor too.... :-)

I'd like either one of the three, but if I had to justify or even explain why exactly, I couldn't. I do like my D300 a lot in the meantime. No new camera for me until 2010. No new camera for me before 2010. No new camera for me before 2010. (repeat mantra)

Interesting times.
Jonas

Imho, the line drawn in the sand, about which Steve is talking about is really the printed dimension of a high quality print someone needs. I use a d300 and print with a Epson R2880 and print 12" x 18" at a very good quality, at least not less than my earlier cibachrome. I don't need to print images greater than these, so I shall admit that I don't need a D3x.
Of course, during the next months, I will do everything in my power to need to print larger frames and so I will have a very good alibi to justify a D3x; but this is another story :-)

regards,
mauro

This is exactly why I bought the 30D just as it was going out of fashion: I don't need most of those pixels. Pixels slow everything down.

It will be interesting to see what the DSLR/Medium format landscape will look like in five years time. As an experienced and passionate photographer since my childhood, i really have no idea what it will look like. SS

I haven't seen the specs on this particular sensor, but something to consider with these denser pixels is noise. I won't go into the engineering aspect, but as it stands now, the smaller your pixels are, the more noise you're going to get from heat and plain-old sensor error. When you start getting under 7 nanometers in pixel width, most sensors have to deal with a lot more noise issues when working with less-than-ideal lighting.

As for the complaint about needing more storage space and computing power, that's always going to be the case. Think on Elliot Ness- ...he goes for a knife, you pull a gun... When it comes to high end photography, as in who's getting paid the most, they're always going to want more pixels for bigger output. Just look at fashion and Hasselblads. There you've got an ungodly number of pixel on those medium format backs. They may not always use all of those pixel when printing, but when you need to do a billboard or a giant banner for the side of a building, you've got all that you need.

As other posters have said, Canon has been in this larger cost/output sensor market for a while. People buy cameras at that pricepoint, or even the $50k-$75k pricepoint when the want 40 megapixels in a medium format camera. They're just different markets with different needs.

The only reason I can come up with for people complaining about the $8k pricetag here is that they wanted the ego-boost of saying they have the best body of what a the brand offers. There's a darn good reason the body costs that much, and you're paying for a sensor that takes a lot of time, effort, energy, l and materials to create, not to mention design and market.

If you really want to understand, take a look at this:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

Commercial photographers want as many pixels and as much color depth available. They shoot big digital backs because they produce big files. When you are manipulating images to the existent that magazines and advertisement do, the more pixels the better to avoid over degradation of the final image. the D3X is doing what even the D1s Mark II did, and that is creating an alternative to digital backs. I own a hasselblad digital system and for what I paid for it 8k is a steal. Only if the files size and quality is comparable. If so it would add way more versatility to what you are capable of with the big digital back systems.
in conclusion I think nikon is targeting a very specific type of photographer and although we'd all love to have it, not too many of us really need it.

In the main some nice civilised, measured comments here iro of the D3X - unlike many other forums. Some of the comments I have read elsewhere have been typically hysterical, inaccurate and inane.

This camera is clearly aimed at the high end niche market. Nikon Pro Mag. :-
"The D3X was designed with medium format photographic applications in mind." Further:- "the D3X is aimed at photographers whose work requires the ultimate in detail and output quality. Where skin tones, fabric texture, crisp edges and foliage are paramount -in the fashion, commercial and landscape area."

This is not a camera aimed at the enthusiast and is almost certainly the finest DSLR ever seen in its class.

Well done Nikon!

In terms of marketing impact, megapixels will trump noise/high ISO performance every time - bigger is better, in the eye of the average consumer, and pixels are perfectly quantifiable in a way that the other measures are not (at least not in a way that is commonly understood by the lay person).

I suspect the frustration over the D3X pricing (before we really know whether it outperforms any other SLR on the market or not) actually reflects disappointment that Nikon will be last to market with a ~$3k high resolution model (per the A900 and 5D Mk2). Despite it's outperformance in so many areas, 12MP may be starting to feel inadequate to some.

Need (for the D3X's 24MP) probably doesn't come into it so much for those who are complaining the loudest.

It's still a lot of money though, isn't it?!

I shoot a 40D and recently purchased a G10 to bridge the gap between my 40D and ultra-compact point and shoot cameras. My G10 has more megapixels than my 40D. Crazy. I, like basically everyone else, wish the G10 had a fewer megapixels, or at least stayed where the G9 was at. Overall, the noise level in the G10 is just fine, but I just find it crazy that megapixels sell cameras, as opposed to image quality.

I read through the net that the D3X Sensor was the same sensor used in the D3 some say it was only the firmware that restricted the D3 in terms of Mega Pixels that actually Nikon could of released the D3x a Year ago.

I like my D3 and as long is it keeps firing I will keep using it but the D700 looked like a better deal all round and the D3X a complete rip off from what I can see.