Comments on: Nikon D3x image

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:25:56 +0000

it wouldn’t be black if it was converted, it would be grey

By: MrSoul

MrSoul — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:43:47 +0000

“Update: this one got busted, clearly a fake as many readers have pointed out. To prove it, a reader submitted this D3x picture that he created in 5 minutes with Photoshop.”

You can view it in HD on : http://forum.nikonlovers.net/viewtopic.php?p=76757#p76757

By: kaefpe

kaefpe — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:23:01 +0000

Probably fake but will be nice to see D3X with 22-24Mpix sensor but not Sony!

By: cbp

cbp — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:05:17 +0000

fake or not, the specs sound reasonable. but i guess that s pretty much what a potential D3x would be reasonable, but higher res

By: Arie

Arie — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:46:53 +0000

Yeah looks same as the original D3 press pics.

Comments on the need for a red swoosh are of though. Know its antique now but my 5 year old D1x has a grey swoosh, and trust me, it is real.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:54:03 +0000

fake – check the lens reflection

By: Boris

Boris — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:21:55 +0000

nobody thought it was possible to put that high iso sensitivity into a 12 mp sensor BEFORE they launched d3… and it’s about 18 months ago… so i hope they made things better in the meantime.

By: Laurence

Laurence — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:49:52 +0000

Yeah I agree with the remark about the spatter. The D3 text has been squeezed to the left, and the plastic markings are shrunk in the exact same ratio.

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:44:28 +0000

I’m not saying that the Sony sensor in itself is a dog. But if we’re comparing the 12 Mpix sensor of a D3/D700, which is mind blowing up to ISO 6400, to a proposed 24 Mpix sensor, we should see something like this:
The photosites of a 24 Mpix sensor, whith dimensions of 24×36 mm², have a pitch of 6 µm (micrometers), while the photosites of the D3′s sensor have a pitch of roughly 8.45 µm.
So that means, the Sony alpha900 sensor’s pixels have roughly 70% of the distance of the pixels on the D3. Which should ultimately lead to about 50% light sensitivity (70% squared). And in my book that means the Sony sensor should be absolutely astonishing up to about ISO 3200.
And that’s just not the case.

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:16:37 +0000

I’m not so keen about the Sony sensor, too. And I’d believe Nikon isn’t either. That’s why I would vote for ‘fake’ regarding the information about the new camera. The picture might be photoshopped, but I wouldn’t care too much about that one, since a D3x would exactly look like a D3 from the outside.

Regarding high ISO performance: The D3x will not give the same high ISO performance than a D3, regardless if the Sony sensor is used or not. I mean we all agree that a D3x would have to have a higher megapixel count than a D3. Right? Otherwise, what’s the point of it. So, if it really has a higher resolution, that’ll mean more photosites on the same area. Which again means the photosites need to be smaller. Which means worse signal to noise ratio. And so on. I think you get the picture.
Still, I think if Nikon will not use the Sony sensor, a D3x will be an awesome high ISO performer considering it’s resolution.

The text “Sony sensor” should mean “manufactured by Sony”. It really could be a Nikon design. I think that’s very likely, since the sensor of the D3 is a Nikon design (if I’m not mistaken).

By: Ric

Ric — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:00:21 +0000

How in the name of God can they make it 20mp+ and have _the same_ high iso capabilities? You’re dreaming, at least for now. Maybe in 2010?

By: Ghung

Ghung — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:46:06 +0000

Anyone who says they “don’t like” the Sony sensor haven’t shot with it yet. It’s truly mind blowing at ISO 100-800, and, in RAW not processed with Adobe (which most of the reviews ignore,) it’s decent at higher ISO, considering the pixel difference between it and the D700. Nikon would fare well with this sensor, as then they would have a great sports/PJ option and a great landscape/studio option.

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:13:59 +0000

Admin, can you re-title this with “busted”? Gives you back a little lost cred if you do.

By: Ernst

Ernst — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:52:20 +0000

Well, yeah; the photoshopped part is the “D3x” bit. But otherwise it’s the same picture of the same camera.

This one is a no-brainer. We have the original photo; why hasn’t this been listed as a fake on the front page?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:35:03 +0000

lol…Very well. I guess if you don’t post things like this, there would be no content to cover. Then, what would be the point of Nikon Rumors?

Even if this is real, I am such a broke bastard that I’d never get a D3x. I’m holding out for a D400 though

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:29:27 +0000

Fake – the texture in the rubber is identical – which would be impossible.

By: DNHJR

DNHJR — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:27:44 +0000

Old one. If you look is says, 1:1.4D. A new one would be a G lens.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:12:38 +0000

Chris, no offense taken. Look at the poll – I am not the only one that thought this is real… maybe I just wanted to be real

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:08:58 +0000

P.S. No offense to him…but come on!

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:58:31 +0000

I can’t believe [NR] admin thinks there’s even a slight possibility that this image is real. Sorry, but he must be a noob.