I am just curious how many of our readers are planning to buy the new Nikon D3x. Here is the poll:
Admin stuff:
NikonRumors server went down for 15 minutes this morning – sorry about that, it was out of my control (MediaTemple had some issues). I will also start to selectively moderate the comments section – I will be deleting (without a warning) everything that is not related to the discussed topic and contains abusive language (I have been doing that already but now it’s official).
I was planning on buying one as well, expected a bit of a price bump but this is way out of my range. Will probably just buy the D700 instead since there’s not a major difference between it and the D3 and will have the sensor cleaning. IMHO Nikon is making a huge mistake with this price point.
8k is a lot of dough for what it offers. I’d easily take 2x D3’s at about 4 grand each than one D3x. or…4k on a D3 and the balance on lenses, which is where the smart money should go anyway. The ‘new’ D3x today will be yestarday’s ‘get what you can’ on ebay. These things depreciate SO fast.
I’m a recent switcher from Canon – Bought a D3 back in May, and I’ve been blown away by this camera.
I’m now considering selling my Canon kit (quite a bit of) and buying a D3X, one thing that worries me (apart from the cost) is that if it is the same sensor that is used in Sony’s A9, that the image quality won’t be up to scratch, as I’ve read a few poor reviews of that camera – I suppose time will tell as people get their hands on the new Nikon – Has anyone got any other views on this?
I heard it will not be Sony’s sensor. They won’t sell it and if the Sony is so bad, nikon will not buy it. Nikon never really cared for MP, they focus on image quality. That’s why they still have 6 MP d40 in the range.
I think the sensor will have to be very good considering image quality. Why else would they reduce iso-sensitivity so much? Probably because they want to be able to deliver good images at slightly lower iso.
Personally I have no interest in 24MP… yet…. But if I need them, I would trust Nikon (at least at the moment) to deliver good image quality in contrast to the Sony A900.
wait to see full reviews or at least full size images from D3x (not just those useless flash-presentations posted in Nikon website)
Wait to get full detailed specs images, in raw format, with detailed lens specs used to take them.
Then you can really check the quality.
Nobody (so far) knows what sensor is in the D3x, nobody can tell if it’s Sony’s or not.
Just remind that so high res will demand (to achieve the wanted results) best quality lenses…
D3x is a great camera for studios and portrait with all the conditions like light and everything…D3 is the choice of wildlife and sports shooters because the high iso performence and frames per seconde… i’m no to interested in the 24Mp and i prefer a camera more versatil like D3 we can shoot sports in situation with low light we can do studio works if we don’t need the extra pixels and have great results… so i vot no .i’m thinking in D3 or other with better performence in low light
For $8000 they could have come up with something with better ISO range. 100-1600 is almost exactly the same as the D40. Even it’s Hi1 is the same as the D40. If I were to buy a full frame camera, one of the things that would get me to get one is the ISO being much better than a DX camera. Not this time, this is lamost a step backwards.
Increasing ISO would detract from initial ISO speeds. The D3x is there to challenge medium format ranges of cameras, e.g. Leica S2, and ultimately, Hasselblads, Phase One and Leaf. Those medium format cameras max out at ISO 800 or 1600 at the most, as the companies focus on the lower ISOs. Others, such as photojournalists and sports photographers, will be perfectly content with the D3.
I think Nikon is making a mistake by setting a list price close to the Canon 1Ds, even assuming that the images are better. D3 vs. 1D pricing worked fine, but the D3x is a year later than the D3. The price leaves too much options for Canon for the next round. Nikon should have continued it’s aggressive behaviour in order to get larger market shares on the last Canon bastion.
agree too but i think if nikon releasse thi camera 1mounth after the release of the 1DS the price was right but canono will upgrade that camera soon and they will stay in fronto of sails… if the D3x was only more 1000$than D3 nikon would have much more buyrs
Too expensive for my blood as what I have works great 99.44% of time. The additional capabilities come with too high of an investment. Unless you NEED this capability, for that price, the ROI stinks.
I was all set to buy one and willing to spend up to about $6500 on it. I’ve been a Nikon shooter for 30 years and have never had a moment to gripe. Until now. There is no way that camera is worth that kind of money. I understand it being new and being an early adopter etc. But I do not believe I will sell any additional work just because I can squeeze a little more detail into my images. I had been waiting on with my little pile of dollars since the summer for it, and instead had the wind taken out of my sails.
Time to suck it up and keep working with what I have. Somehow Edsel comes to mind.
People have been expecting the D3x to be low price, etc., but this is simply not the market it is aiming for. It is clearly targeted at the potential Leica S2 market, at professionals who want the best image quality yet in a portable form. It is a studio camera, designed to challenge medium format.
I had my name on the list, but took it off this morning and ordered the D3. I was finally making the switch for my portrait business from b&w film to digital and was very excited with the prospects of the D3X. Not anymore though for a $9500 Canadian price tag.
I can’t really afford one but wouldn’t buy one even if I could. I do not like the large pro SLRs with permanently attached vertical grips/battery packs. I own a D300 and recently bought a D90. I have yet to buy a full frame DSLR but am seriously considering buying a Canon 5D Mark II which is more my style of camera than the Nikon D3 or D3X. If it had been available to buy in the last week or two I would almost certainly have bought one. As it is I blew my money on the Nikon D90, a bunch of interesting used lenses, a couple of used flashes, and even a couple of “obsolete” DSLRs (i.e. a Konica-Minolta 7D and a Canon 20D). I may wait and see what Nikon offers in terms of a DX00 version of the D3X but the Canon 5D is still very tempting, especially since it allows me to use old non-AI Nikkor lenses with an EOS-Nikon adapter which no Nikon DSLR does. . .
This camera is not for regular users of the D3 and the 12 MP and under crowd it is to compete with Hassleblads and Phase One’s digital backs. If the resolution is as good, the price point is a steal compared to those systems.
No. I bought a D2x in mid-2005 for GBP 3,500 (about US$6,000 at the time?). Soon after, the D200 came out for a lot less, and the D2x wassoon retailing at about GBP 2.2K. There’s no way I’m going to get stung like that again!
Anyway, my clients are very happy with the results from a D300 – when I offered to ship NEFs to one corporate comms director for a brochure (a long story) he complained he’d never want anything of that high a quality. I also shoot stock, which is probably what the D3x is aimed at, but I only need to up-res about 15% from 12.3MP to meet the requirements of the agencies. In a couple of years, I might get a D700x, when it’s retailing below $1,000 – and it will.
I get more megapixels scanning film from my F5’s than I get from my D3, but the D3x is probably going to outdo my scans, assuming the color is good. I’ll probably retire my F5’s for everything except making art. The dollars per megapixel is about what I expected, and I don’t need any features that the D3 doesn’t have.
I’m buying one now, and if it works out, I’ll buy a second.
I like your poll to find out how popular that price point is … but if you added a couple of more choices to the survey… it would really show how much Nikon is off the mark with their pricing.
eg. another question to ask may be: Will you buy it at XXXX ( ) YYYY ( ) ZZZZ ( )
This will truly show what photographers arre willing to pay to acquire that body.
Maybe like this: “What do you think is a fair price for the Nikon D3X?”
And then giving 8000, 7500, 7000, 6500, 6000, 5500 and 5000 as clickable price points (only one click possible).
I’m with most of these guys, I can’t justify the price right now, especially not with tax season looming out there on the not so distant horizon.
I’ll get a D3 and start saving up again. In-between I’ll swap out my 12-24 and 28-70 to match up with my 70-200. Then I’ll throw a new 50 on there and still end up spending less while being able to afford better glass.
I’m doing mostly magazine work right now anyhow, so 12mp is alright, if I need more I’ll rent.
Next year I’ll get one, it’ll just keep me drooling until then.
-peter
Too expensive for most people who don’t make their living photoing. For me, I have the D300 & the D80 which serve my needs. They were more than just “good” in Europe this year and certainly provide all the sharpness that one needs as most photos are either shown on screen or up to 11 x 14. I don’t know of anyone who uses 16 x 20 on a regular basis on their walls. 99% of my photos are either at 8 x 10 or less for framing or in an album (4 x 5) which also holds photos my wife took with a Canon A1Is. A wonderful camera that we also used in Europe for the video portion of our trip.
I will say that I am impressed with Canon and had some difficult decisions to make when I was in the market for purchasing. Even today I am more impressed with the quality one gets from the new 5Dmkll from Canon than I am with any of the Nikons if I were to consider again. I truely think that Nikon just doesn’t see what the consumer wants. Look at the reviews even with the point and shoots….Canon is usually in the first or second spot and Nikon is not.
I also think that most of us have a bad habit of chasing our techno’ tail in trying to keep up instead of “being there” and getting the shot even if it is with a camera phone. My wife has taken some great shots with the D80 while I was using the D300 and has even taken some goods one with the A1IS while I had the D300. From the view on the screen and from a print of 5 x 7 or so, I dare anyone to tell which camera was used!
You can argue about pixals and film and all the rest of it with our good friend,”Ken”, and at the end of the day ask your self, “Did I get the shot?”, or am I more interested in what camera I own.
Although the asking price wouldn´t be a problem for me, I think it is crazy – for me. It may be different for pros, who have to earn their money with that thing. The budget for a hobby is limited to a certain point. For that money I could get a car, even new (from Romania). For stock photography the D700 is good enough – and for travel, family etc. too. This one will be my next one, or a Canon D5 II with adaptor for my Nikon glass or a Sony A900. But it could be, that Nikon comes out with a smaller body (like D700) after some months as they did after the D3 launch.
No, I won’t buy it, I don’t need it. I’m using a D80, maybe I will upgrade to D300 or D400 (if it’s released during the coming months). 10 MP is already enough for what I need, so I really don’t need 24 MP.
I’ll certainly buy one if they rerelease it as a D800. Of course by then we will be watching for the D4 that can take 1/2000 second images by candle light. (who knows what’s next?)
I suppose it’s all what you are comparing to. If you are looking for medium format quality with ISO 1600 or need that detail in a lighter package, then the D3x is a bargain. Most of us, however, are comparing that to a $5300 (Cdn) D3. Is there 4 grand worth of differences? No. But people will always find justification for something if they really want it. I am very surprised that it broke the $8000 price point. If Nikon were first to the finish line with a FX sensor, I could see the price being what it is. You pay for technology, exclusivity, and their R&D fees. But they are 3rd place in the 20+ full frame mp race. They shouldn’t be charging 1st place pricing.
No, won’t buy it. Won’t even buy a D3 althouth prices are constantly dropping. I’ll get my hands on a D700 (now under €2.000 here in Germany), since I’m doing a lot of event & theater photography (me needy ISO, me needy hight fps). I also do a lot of studio work (portrait), but since I was quite happy with my old, ooooold D200 till now, fiddeling around with D700 will be heaven (and no need to rent the D3 anymore, for theater and stuff) At this price the D3x does not even EXIST to me! And IF I need a bigger gun I’ll rent a Hasselblad H3D whicht costs me €200 a day. If it drops to 5.000 – 6.000 ….. I still wouldn’t buy it since I do not NEED it, but it will be a nice feeling that I COULD!
I make my living with a 4×5 camera, and have been dreaming of this for a long time – a lightweight (compared to 4×5) solution with results (hopefully) comparable to medium – large format film. 8 grand is hard to stomach though – I hope the discussion now turns to the D800 or whatever it will be called. I hope Nikon introduces this product soon to compete with Canons 5D.
This kind of nonsense baffles me. Newsflash: 25 megapixels isn’t going to be comparable to large-format film. I get 200 high-quality megapixels from a quality 4×5 chrome.
I will reply to that – I completely agree that a 4×5 chrome represents the highest quality print possible. What it boils down to is the best tool for the job – whether you want to carry a massive backpack for days in the Colorado rockies, or a small and light camera that enables you to shoot places impossible with a 4×5 camera. What baffles me is how quickly people become aggressive over something as innocuous as photography. Why on earth would you call my comment nonsense? Hope you enjoy shooting your 4×5 camera.
Before you changed the subject to “the right tool for the job,” you talked about the D3x possibly producing results comparable to 4×5 film. This is what I refer to as “nonsense” — nothing personal.
I was watching this 3Dx as the future base for a D800… But I guess I was completely wrong
Now that is announced I don’t know what to think.
Will Nikon release a D800 double the price of a D700 ?
Will Nikon just upgrade the sensor without any extra improvement and no new feature?
Will Nikon ignore Movie/Video in HD professional implementation?
If the D3x was at USD 5.500, then I’ wouldn’t wonder so much. But at 8.000, that makes me wonder what they are thinking of, and what their strategy is…
And more important to customers: what is the future of Nikon FX cameras (in terms of specs/performance, features and prices)
Was waiting for announcement just to see specs, Have been on the fence between D3 and D700 with grip. The price is real deal breaker. I could see $1500 more than D3 but not any more. Nikon’s release images do not provide any revelations that could not have come from any camera in their line. So unless wall size prints with no resizing rethink options and buy glass.
Although I’m excited about breaking the 24M-Pix barrier, but I’m not buying this monster. Aside from the pri$e, I’ve never liked the bulky “pro” body. For the time being I’m satisfied with what I have (D700/300), but the next few months should be interesting.
Speaking of which, how about some new glass? I wish Nikon would slow down a little bit with the bodies and release some lenses :-/
Not getting one. Too many pixel gaps to spend any amount of money on. If they achieve the resolution by skipping pixels in a defined pattern it also doesn’t count as 25mp. More like 17.
Nikon have to be kidding themselves, At 9.5K for a body that is slow and noisy compared to the D3 and D700 you either really need to crop a lot or plan to do a mural on a large building to even think about justifying this price.
Personally, I find the price an insult to loyal Nikon users, Too Late, Too Slow, Too Expensive. For the same price I could start to switch to Canon.
where is the new 70-200mm VR II+ Nano Coated lens…..
Why the big price 8000$ ????
i think nikon make a mistake , because if the price lower than canon D1s Mark III OR MARK IV , can cause to many CANON 1Ds OWNER MIGRATE TO NIKON D3x
Short answer – no. $8,000 would pay off my car! I’m saving for a D700 instead, already have plenty of glass. The D700 will make a nice companion to my D300, replacing my F4 for full-frame shots. The D3x would … make prints bigger than the walls of my humble graduate student apartment. Even if I could afford it, I don’t think I need it, it’s that simple; certainly not at that price point.
Assuming that the (so far) 146 Nikon Rumors blog readers who have stated that they will be buying a Nikon D3x shell out about $8000 each for their body, Nikon will sell well over a million dollars worth of D3x cameras to the readership of this blog alone.
I think Nikon are doing themselves a disfavor here. They could win a large market share with a more reasonable price, in the $5k – $6k range. All of this stuff is based on sales volume – why not set the price to achieve that…overwhelm us. Please!
Personally I don’t need the D3/D3x features, but I would like the 24.5MP full frame sensor in a D700x-type body – but not if it’s more than $2.5 – $3k.
I am completely baffled by all these comments regarding the price of the D3x. I imagine most of the complainers shoot with D80’s, D40’s or less and want the world for the price of a peanut. Perhaps you should also photo Lamborghini and complain that 500 grand is too much for the new murcielago. Maybe you should tell them that there aren’t enough cupholders and the trunk is too small. If you want the car, you spend the money. If you want the camera you spend the money. I’m sure Nikon doesn’t want every bonehead with a VISA walking around with their new flagship or they would have offered it at $250. The bottom line is that the people who can afford it and need it will buy it and the people who can’t won’t. Buy what you can and stop whining.
I don’t think the debate is on the level you claim it to be. This is not about people shooting instamatics thinking a 1,000 bucks for a camera is insane. It’s people knowing and accepting the price of the D3, thinking the price increase to the D3x is insane. People who would have considered buying the D3x if the price increase was justified – which it’s not. As somebode was saying – 2 x D3 – that’s over the top any way you look at it.
I agree with your sentiment on you get what you pay for, but not in the D3x case. Nikon are bleeding the pro shooters here as much as anyone else. The D3x is a D3 with new sensor and software. about $200 in parts plus R&D.
This should equate to something circa 6K to 6.5 K max given the fx rates.
My gut feel is that Nikon knows they have to ramp up supply and rather than have D3’s on the shelves with backorders for D3x’s, they have priced the D3x for the “gotta have”" group with either more Dollars than Sense or a genuine high Megapixel need.
once supply and demand balances expect the D3x to drop to closer to D3 prices.
Yes, you get medium format levels of MP, however, you can’t duplicate the DOF of medium format on a 35mm sensor size.
However, for those that need near medium format quality in a more convenient and affordable package. Go nuts. It’s like a commercial catalog studio I know that switched from Mamiya to Canon a number of years ago because of cost, convenience, and the fact that medium format was super overkill for web. 16.7MP on the Canon is still overkill, but you get the idea.
As an amateur, I would be crazy to buy one, but it sure looks like a nice high-res high-speed 24×36 camera.
I rather bought a film MF 6×7 system for less than a 1k$.
Considering D3X’s price-tag : congratulations guys, you have just started realizing that it is crazy to pay so much for DSLR. Just feel sorry there has to be an economic crisis for you all to figure that out.
In my view, if you have some budget for photo equipment, always take the lenses as priority, as the lenses will not depreciate while at the same period, a certain DSLR that you prefers will drop significantly and will sooner or later come to a price level that you can afford to. For example, I still own my D70 bought in 2004, and have no plan to upgrade it till that desired time arrives. In contrast to chasing the new machines, I have done my best to upgrade my lenses, bought 70-200mm/2.8,24-70mm/2.8,14-24mm/2.8,and 85mm/1.4, for nearly $7000. 3 years later, I will probably see Dx00 version of full frame DSLR with 2.4MB drop to $2k or even less, while my lenses still keep their value. This is the rule of the game. Right?
Has this camera touched a sensitive nerve, or what??? Obviously Nikon is targeting the D3x at the potential Leica/MF shooter, but the consesus here is that Nikon has clearly mis-calculated,…big-time. On top of the fact that there’s a serious world-wide economic downturn (that ain’t over yet). There’s already the 5D-MKII, and the A900, in the $3000 ballpark, and it’s looking like the Canon is producing some very decent files; it’s just too bad they didn’t improve the rest of the camera while they were at it. But the fact is that the Canon’s going to sell like hotcakes.
Usually, I enjoy reading Rockwell’s updates for his skewered and entertaining comments, but I have to say that his current summary on the D3x pricing strategy, hits the nail right on the head. I’ll be buying a D700 in the coming months, and won’t regret it in the least.
It leaves one to wonder, just how Nikon plans to position the upcoming D800? Do they expect to be able to price it out above the D3? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
I shoot daily and this is still an absolutely ridiculous price for a body. Canon is offering a very similar camera for seven thousand less. The Nikon brand changed alot of people over with the D3, but it sure as hell isn’t going keep people by having a body priced so high.
I bought the D2X the day it was available (#629) and I have been waiting for the D3X for years but at $7999 it is not an option. I was ready to buy at the $5000 level, but Nikon has totally priced me out of the market this time. I am very disappointed in Nikon on the basis of price alone with the world economy today. They missed the mark. They not only missed the mark they have chapped me off. Take a body that now sells for $4200 (D3)and take a sensor from a camera that sells for $2999 (Sony 900 put them togeather and charge $7999 does not add up. I have been a diehard nikon supporter for over forty years. But they lost my loyality on this one. I needed two upper end point and shoots for my wife and daughter for Christmas this year. I ordered two Canons this morning ( better value, forget the loyality now). Nikon has missed the mark one too many times.
Using the d3 since it’s release.. and love it for my weddings ( i shoot two a weekend on avg ) .. but.. I was looking forward to a high mp rig .. the d3 already paid for it’s self in a month.. but business slowed down months ago.. it’ll take me like 12 months to ROI with a D3x at list price.. I’m based in Australia and it’ll hit here at like $12-13k.. I paid $6950 when the D3 came out.. above rrp cos i just had to have it. I worked out yesterdays A900 pricing, with five of their best cz glass would come in at just under $14k. The quality is just under the d3x, and I’m betting the clients wont notice the jump from 12 to 24mp in any case.. so what to do.. go sony and carry twice the weight ( but gain a backup with glass if any of my glass ever packs it in – i’m doubtful though ) – my d3 rig already weighs a ton and hurts my back after a full days shooting or just add a body and get to use my same glass ( if only sony had the 14-24 2.8 it would be a easy choice ! or an adapter to use nikon glass on it ! ) and batteries etc etc and i know the d3 inside out.. geez nikon you made it hard for us to decide!.. I would of happly paid $7k aust for a d700 body with high mp for a second rig though, less weight would of been welcomed. What to do what to do ?!
Well working as a photojournalist for the past 30-yrs and now stringing for the past 7 I have to buy all my own stuff ,, yuck! I was about to get a couple d700’s when someone told me about the nikon rumors site about 7-wks ago and I thought that since film bodies used to come out every 8-yrs and digees have a reputation of every 1.5-yrs or less and all the rumors floating about I think I’ll wait, but I am really disappointed in the d3x’s specs for what I use it for and at $8K a pop givin todays economic standards of the print media and its new habit of infrequently using stringers and its financial future but mostly MINE, I kinda find it hard to believe that even the wires or let alone SI will buy any of them, well maybe SI nikon shooters for studio stuff but even most of them are now canon-heads and the nikon-clan will possibly wait for a d3h version. It seems to me that nikon x’s are designed for studio heads and the h’s are more for us street shooters. But I’m almost afraid to get a d700 now since it may have a new-cousin waiting right around the new yr ?? to pop its head out to replace it. I could be wrong but the d3x isn’t for me. That’s my story and I’m stickin to it, and it’s worth what your paying for it ,, nothing. But I do need to up-grade from the d2hs and soon!! I’m down from 4 to 2 bodies and they need a rest before I’m down to 1 or worst!!! Looks to me like the d700 is to the d3 of what the 8008 was to the f3hp just before the f4 hit the street. If you can remember that 1 then ,, well ,,, you didn’t buy the dx lenses either did you ,,,, smart move fellow dinosaurs of the film-age!!
Besides if I’m going to drop $8k on something I’ll get some new long glass since my 400/2.8 is starting to grow shrooms between its elements from shooting sports in the rain!!
82 Comments
I was planning to buy one and had my name on the pre-order list but $9500 is WAY too much when I don’t make a living at photography.
I was planning on buying one as well, expected a bit of a price bump but this is way out of my range. Will probably just buy the D700 instead since there’s not a major difference between it and the D3 and will have the sensor cleaning. IMHO Nikon is making a huge mistake with this price point.
8k is a lot of dough for what it offers. I’d easily take 2x D3’s at about 4 grand each than one D3x. or…4k on a D3 and the balance on lenses, which is where the smart money should go anyway. The ‘new’ D3x today will be yestarday’s ‘get what you can’ on ebay. These things depreciate SO fast.
I’m a recent switcher from Canon – Bought a D3 back in May, and I’ve been blown away by this camera.
I’m now considering selling my Canon kit (quite a bit of) and buying a D3X, one thing that worries me (apart from the cost) is that if it is the same sensor that is used in Sony’s A9, that the image quality won’t be up to scratch, as I’ve read a few poor reviews of that camera – I suppose time will tell as people get their hands on the new Nikon – Has anyone got any other views on this?
I heard it will not be Sony’s sensor. They won’t sell it and if the Sony is so bad, nikon will not buy it. Nikon never really cared for MP, they focus on image quality. That’s why they still have 6 MP d40 in the range.
I think the sensor will have to be very good considering image quality. Why else would they reduce iso-sensitivity so much? Probably because they want to be able to deliver good images at slightly lower iso.
Personally I have no interest in 24MP… yet…. But if I need them, I would trust Nikon (at least at the moment) to deliver good image quality in contrast to the Sony A900.
wait to see full reviews or at least full size images from D3x (not just those useless flash-presentations posted in Nikon website)
Wait to get full detailed specs images, in raw format, with detailed lens specs used to take them.
Then you can really check the quality.
Nobody (so far) knows what sensor is in the D3x, nobody can tell if it’s Sony’s or not.
Just remind that so high res will demand (to achieve the wanted results) best quality lenses…
D3x is a great camera for studios and portrait with all the conditions like light and everything…D3 is the choice of wildlife and sports shooters because the high iso performence and frames per seconde… i’m no to interested in the 24Mp and i prefer a camera more versatil like D3 we can shoot sports in situation with low light we can do studio works if we don’t need the extra pixels and have great results… so i vot no .i’m thinking in D3 or other with better performence in low light
You should have asked also, How many of you, wish they could afford it?
out of my price range.
For $8000 they could have come up with something with better ISO range. 100-1600 is almost exactly the same as the D40. Even it’s Hi1 is the same as the D40. If I were to buy a full frame camera, one of the things that would get me to get one is the ISO being much better than a DX camera. Not this time, this is lamost a step backwards.
Increasing ISO would detract from initial ISO speeds. The D3x is there to challenge medium format ranges of cameras, e.g. Leica S2, and ultimately, Hasselblads, Phase One and Leaf. Those medium format cameras max out at ISO 800 or 1600 at the most, as the companies focus on the lower ISOs. Others, such as photojournalists and sports photographers, will be perfectly content with the D3.
I think Nikon is making a mistake by setting a list price close to the Canon 1Ds, even assuming that the images are better. D3 vs. 1D pricing worked fine, but the D3x is a year later than the D3. The price leaves too much options for Canon for the next round. Nikon should have continued it’s aggressive behaviour in order to get larger market shares on the last Canon bastion.
completely agree
agree too but i think if nikon releasse thi camera 1mounth after the release of the 1DS the price was right but canono will upgrade that camera soon and they will stay in fronto of sails… if the D3x was only more 1000$than D3 nikon would have much more buyrs
Too expensive for my blood as what I have works great 99.44% of time. The additional capabilities come with too high of an investment. Unless you NEED this capability, for that price, the ROI stinks.
I was all set to buy one and willing to spend up to about $6500 on it. I’ve been a Nikon shooter for 30 years and have never had a moment to gripe. Until now. There is no way that camera is worth that kind of money. I understand it being new and being an early adopter etc. But I do not believe I will sell any additional work just because I can squeeze a little more detail into my images. I had been waiting on with my little pile of dollars since the summer for it, and instead had the wind taken out of my sails.
Time to suck it up and keep working with what I have. Somehow Edsel comes to mind.
People have been expecting the D3x to be low price, etc., but this is simply not the market it is aiming for. It is clearly targeted at the potential Leica S2 market, at professionals who want the best image quality yet in a portable form. It is a studio camera, designed to challenge medium format.
I had my name on the list, but took it off this morning and ordered the D3. I was finally making the switch for my portrait business from b&w film to digital and was very excited with the prospects of the D3X. Not anymore though for a $9500 Canadian price tag.
I want the best, so I’ll buy him !
But not now……… over a few month’s as the price is better
I can’t really afford one but wouldn’t buy one even if I could. I do not like the large pro SLRs with permanently attached vertical grips/battery packs. I own a D300 and recently bought a D90. I have yet to buy a full frame DSLR but am seriously considering buying a Canon 5D Mark II which is more my style of camera than the Nikon D3 or D3X. If it had been available to buy in the last week or two I would almost certainly have bought one. As it is I blew my money on the Nikon D90, a bunch of interesting used lenses, a couple of used flashes, and even a couple of “obsolete” DSLRs (i.e. a Konica-Minolta 7D and a Canon 20D). I may wait and see what Nikon offers in terms of a DX00 version of the D3X but the Canon 5D is still very tempting, especially since it allows me to use old non-AI Nikkor lenses with an EOS-Nikon adapter which no Nikon DSLR does. . .
This camera is not for regular users of the D3 and the 12 MP and under crowd it is to compete with Hassleblads and Phase One’s digital backs. If the resolution is as good, the price point is a steal compared to those systems.
No. I bought a D2x in mid-2005 for GBP 3,500 (about US$6,000 at the time?). Soon after, the D200 came out for a lot less, and the D2x wassoon retailing at about GBP 2.2K. There’s no way I’m going to get stung like that again!
Anyway, my clients are very happy with the results from a D300 – when I offered to ship NEFs to one corporate comms director for a brochure (a long story) he complained he’d never want anything of that high a quality. I also shoot stock, which is probably what the D3x is aimed at, but I only need to up-res about 15% from 12.3MP to meet the requirements of the agencies. In a couple of years, I might get a D700x, when it’s retailing below $1,000 – and it will.
Sorry, I meant “when it’s retailing below GBP1,000 (US$2,000) – and it will.
Just wait a little while. The D700 lost 25% of its RRP in a few months.
Some dealers may go bust soon, so be careful where you get one from.
I get more megapixels scanning film from my F5’s than I get from my D3, but the D3x is probably going to outdo my scans, assuming the color is good. I’ll probably retire my F5’s for everything except making art. The dollars per megapixel is about what I expected, and I don’t need any features that the D3 doesn’t have.
I’m buying one now, and if it works out, I’ll buy a second.
I like your poll to find out how popular that price point is … but if you added a couple of more choices to the survey… it would really show how much Nikon is off the mark with their pricing.
eg. another question to ask may be: Will you buy it at XXXX ( ) YYYY ( ) ZZZZ ( )
This will truly show what photographers arre willing to pay to acquire that body.
Thanks, HSP
Yes, good idea.
Maybe like this: “What do you think is a fair price for the Nikon D3X?”
And then giving 8000, 7500, 7000, 6500, 6000, 5500 and 5000 as clickable price points (only one click possible).
I think that could get really interesting!
Good idea. I will post another poll shortly.
I’m with most of these guys, I can’t justify the price right now, especially not with tax season looming out there on the not so distant horizon.
I’ll get a D3 and start saving up again. In-between I’ll swap out my 12-24 and 28-70 to match up with my 70-200. Then I’ll throw a new 50 on there and still end up spending less while being able to afford better glass.
I’m doing mostly magazine work right now anyhow, so 12mp is alright, if I need more I’ll rent.
Next year I’ll get one, it’ll just keep me drooling until then.
-peter
And I knew it was going to be expensive, I just had held out hope, haha
-peter
Too expensive for most people who don’t make their living photoing. For me, I have the D300 & the D80 which serve my needs. They were more than just “good” in Europe this year and certainly provide all the sharpness that one needs as most photos are either shown on screen or up to 11 x 14. I don’t know of anyone who uses 16 x 20 on a regular basis on their walls. 99% of my photos are either at 8 x 10 or less for framing or in an album (4 x 5) which also holds photos my wife took with a Canon A1Is. A wonderful camera that we also used in Europe for the video portion of our trip.
I will say that I am impressed with Canon and had some difficult decisions to make when I was in the market for purchasing. Even today I am more impressed with the quality one gets from the new 5Dmkll from Canon than I am with any of the Nikons if I were to consider again. I truely think that Nikon just doesn’t see what the consumer wants. Look at the reviews even with the point and shoots….Canon is usually in the first or second spot and Nikon is not.
I also think that most of us have a bad habit of chasing our techno’ tail in trying to keep up instead of “being there” and getting the shot even if it is with a camera phone. My wife has taken some great shots with the D80 while I was using the D300 and has even taken some goods one with the A1IS while I had the D300. From the view on the screen and from a print of 5 x 7 or so, I dare anyone to tell which camera was used!
You can argue about pixals and film and all the rest of it with our good friend,”Ken”, and at the end of the day ask your self, “Did I get the shot?”, or am I more interested in what camera I own.
Although the asking price wouldn´t be a problem for me, I think it is crazy – for me. It may be different for pros, who have to earn their money with that thing. The budget for a hobby is limited to a certain point. For that money I could get a car, even new (from Romania). For stock photography the D700 is good enough – and for travel, family etc. too. This one will be my next one, or a Canon D5 II with adaptor for my Nikon glass or a Sony A900. But it could be, that Nikon comes out with a smaller body (like D700) after some months as they did after the D3 launch.
Still hesitating between a phase one back and the D3x…
If I really needed MF, I would consider the modular options of some MF cameras, that Nikon doesn’t have.
And seems nobody has noticed either…
Also an interesting post by Chuck here:
http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/01/nikon-d3x-announcement.aspx
And if the budget is not a problem for you, then you may also consider the upcoming RED’s digital camera (with modular system)
I like Nikon a lot, but this camera is overpriced, with the excuse that is aimed to MF pros.
Excellent camera (I bet!) – but too expensive.
I prefer my D50 and D200
No, I won’t buy it, I don’t need it. I’m using a D80, maybe I will upgrade to D300 or D400 (if it’s released during the coming months). 10 MP is already enough for what I need, so I really don’t need 24 MP.
I’ll certainly buy one if they rerelease it as a D800. Of course by then we will be watching for the D4 that can take 1/2000 second images by candle light. (who knows what’s next?)
I suppose it’s all what you are comparing to. If you are looking for medium format quality with ISO 1600 or need that detail in a lighter package, then the D3x is a bargain. Most of us, however, are comparing that to a $5300 (Cdn) D3. Is there 4 grand worth of differences? No. But people will always find justification for something if they really want it. I am very surprised that it broke the $8000 price point. If Nikon were first to the finish line with a FX sensor, I could see the price being what it is. You pay for technology, exclusivity, and their R&D fees. But they are 3rd place in the 20+ full frame mp race. They shouldn’t be charging 1st place pricing.
No, won’t buy it. Won’t even buy a D3 althouth prices are constantly dropping. I’ll get my hands on a D700 (now under €2.000 here in Germany), since I’m doing a lot of event & theater photography (me needy ISO, me needy hight fps). I also do a lot of studio work (portrait), but since I was quite happy with my old, ooooold D200 till now, fiddeling around with D700 will be heaven (and no need to rent the D3 anymore, for theater and stuff) At this price the D3x does not even EXIST to me! And IF I need a bigger gun I’ll rent a Hasselblad H3D whicht costs me €200 a day. If it drops to 5.000 – 6.000 ….. I still wouldn’t buy it since I do not NEED it, but it will be a nice feeling that I COULD!
For that price tag it really needs more ISO sensitivity, well have to see how good the 1600 images are..
I make my living with a 4×5 camera, and have been dreaming of this for a long time – a lightweight (compared to 4×5) solution with results (hopefully) comparable to medium – large format film. 8 grand is hard to stomach though – I hope the discussion now turns to the D800 or whatever it will be called. I hope Nikon introduces this product soon to compete with Canons 5D.
This kind of nonsense baffles me. Newsflash: 25 megapixels isn’t going to be comparable to large-format film. I get 200 high-quality megapixels from a quality 4×5 chrome.
I will reply to that – I completely agree that a 4×5 chrome represents the highest quality print possible. What it boils down to is the best tool for the job – whether you want to carry a massive backpack for days in the Colorado rockies, or a small and light camera that enables you to shoot places impossible with a 4×5 camera. What baffles me is how quickly people become aggressive over something as innocuous as photography. Why on earth would you call my comment nonsense? Hope you enjoy shooting your 4×5 camera.
Before you changed the subject to “the right tool for the job,” you talked about the D3x possibly producing results comparable to 4×5 film. This is what I refer to as “nonsense” — nothing personal.
I was watching this 3Dx as the future base for a D800… But I guess I was completely wrong
Now that is announced I don’t know what to think.
Will Nikon release a D800 double the price of a D700 ?
Will Nikon just upgrade the sensor without any extra improvement and no new feature?
Will Nikon ignore Movie/Video in HD professional implementation?
If the D3x was at USD 5.500, then I’ wouldn’t wonder so much. But at 8.000, that makes me wonder what they are thinking of, and what their strategy is…
And more important to customers: what is the future of Nikon FX cameras (in terms of specs/performance, features and prices)
Was waiting for announcement just to see specs, Have been on the fence between D3 and D700 with grip. The price is real deal breaker. I could see $1500 more than D3 but not any more. Nikon’s release images do not provide any revelations that could not have come from any camera in their line. So unless wall size prints with no resizing rethink options and buy glass.
Although I’m excited about breaking the 24M-Pix barrier, but I’m not buying this monster. Aside from the pri$e, I’ve never liked the bulky “pro” body. For the time being I’m satisfied with what I have (D700/300), but the next few months should be interesting.
Speaking of which, how about some new glass? I wish Nikon would slow down a little bit with the bodies and release some lenses :-/
Yes, first in line to pick one up
How can 1 x D3X = 2 x D3 ?
UK Prices:
D3 £2574.03 (high street price)
D3X £5500.00
I’m confused . . . the D3X was going to be my next camera to add to my D2X . . maybe at £3500 but not at £5500 . . .
In Germany Nikon list price for the D3X is 6.999 Euro. The D3 sells for ca. 3.999 (reputable dealers, non-greymarket, includes 19 percent VAT).
I’m not going to get one, and never planned to either. I don’t need 25 MP, the 12 in my D3 is more than enough.
Give us some new primes, Nikon, and I’ll buy them.
Not getting one. Too many pixel gaps to spend any amount of money on. If they achieve the resolution by skipping pixels in a defined pattern it also doesn’t count as 25mp. More like 17.
Nikon have to be kidding themselves, At 9.5K for a body that is slow and noisy compared to the D3 and D700 you either really need to crop a lot or plan to do a mural on a large building to even think about justifying this price.
Personally, I find the price an insult to loyal Nikon users, Too Late, Too Slow, Too Expensive. For the same price I could start to switch to Canon.
where is the new 70-200mm VR II+ Nano Coated lens…..
Elkwatcher..
For the price, you could get both a D3 and a D700 and still have change!
Why the big price 8000$ ????
i think nikon make a mistake , because if the price lower than canon D1s Mark III OR MARK IV , can cause to many CANON 1Ds OWNER MIGRATE TO NIKON D3x
i think so
Short answer – no. $8,000 would pay off my car! I’m saving for a D700 instead, already have plenty of glass. The D700 will make a nice companion to my D300, replacing my F4 for full-frame shots. The D3x would … make prints bigger than the walls of my humble graduate student apartment. Even if I could afford it, I don’t think I need it, it’s that simple; certainly not at that price point.
“The D3x would … make prints bigger than the walls of my humble graduate student apartment”
Assuming your ceilings are 10 feet high, that’s a ~33ppi print at full D3x resolution. Sounds pretty ugly.
True… still, you get the idea. I usually print 6×9 inches; if I get ambitious, I go up to 12×18. I simply DON’T NEED 24 megapixels.
I’m gonna say he was exaggerating for effect.
Well. . .
Assuming that the (so far) 146 Nikon Rumors blog readers who have stated that they will be buying a Nikon D3x shell out about $8000 each for their body, Nikon will sell well over a million dollars worth of D3x cameras to the readership of this blog alone.
I think Nikon are doing themselves a disfavor here. They could win a large market share with a more reasonable price, in the $5k – $6k range. All of this stuff is based on sales volume – why not set the price to achieve that…overwhelm us. Please!
Personally I don’t need the D3/D3x features, but I would like the 24.5MP full frame sensor in a D700x-type body – but not if it’s more than $2.5 – $3k.
I am completely baffled by all these comments regarding the price of the D3x. I imagine most of the complainers shoot with D80’s, D40’s or less and want the world for the price of a peanut. Perhaps you should also photo Lamborghini and complain that 500 grand is too much for the new murcielago. Maybe you should tell them that there aren’t enough cupholders and the trunk is too small. If you want the car, you spend the money. If you want the camera you spend the money. I’m sure Nikon doesn’t want every bonehead with a VISA walking around with their new flagship or they would have offered it at $250. The bottom line is that the people who can afford it and need it will buy it and the people who can’t won’t. Buy what you can and stop whining.
You said it all. Thanks.
I don’t think the debate is on the level you claim it to be. This is not about people shooting instamatics thinking a 1,000 bucks for a camera is insane. It’s people knowing and accepting the price of the D3, thinking the price increase to the D3x is insane. People who would have considered buying the D3x if the price increase was justified – which it’s not. As somebode was saying – 2 x D3 – that’s over the top any way you look at it.
The 1Ds Mark III was announced at $8000. What’s “insane” about Nikon introducing the D3x at the same price???
It sounds like most people here were expecting the D3x to be the D800.
Nothing like insult to injury, B&H now has the Canon 1DSMkIII for $6700. Coincidence, I don’t think so.
Peter,
I agree with your sentiment on you get what you pay for, but not in the D3x case. Nikon are bleeding the pro shooters here as much as anyone else. The D3x is a D3 with new sensor and software. about $200 in parts plus R&D.
This should equate to something circa 6K to 6.5 K max given the fx rates.
My gut feel is that Nikon knows they have to ramp up supply and rather than have D3’s on the shelves with backorders for D3x’s, they have priced the D3x for the “gotta have”" group with either more Dollars than Sense or a genuine high Megapixel need.
once supply and demand balances expect the D3x to drop to closer to D3 prices.
IMHO of course…..
Yes, you get medium format levels of MP, however, you can’t duplicate the DOF of medium format on a 35mm sensor size.
However, for those that need near medium format quality in a more convenient and affordable package. Go nuts. It’s like a commercial catalog studio I know that switched from Mamiya to Canon a number of years ago because of cost, convenience, and the fact that medium format was super overkill for web. 16.7MP on the Canon is still overkill, but you get the idea.
Personally, the D700 is good enough for me.
As an amateur, I would be crazy to buy one, but it sure looks like a nice high-res high-speed 24×36 camera.
I rather bought a film MF 6×7 system for less than a 1k$.
Considering D3X’s price-tag : congratulations guys, you have just started realizing that it is crazy to pay so much for DSLR. Just feel sorry there has to be an economic crisis for you all to figure that out.
I don’t if Nikon will sell a lot of D3x … but it seems it is going to boost the sales of D3 and D700 as they look like a bargain now
Sure I’ll buy one in addition to D3. It will be good to cover both ways. The Fast and Big
I won’t even consider it until the 70-200mm VR is refreshed. How Nikon can leave this hole in their line up open for so long is beyond me.
In my view, if you have some budget for photo equipment, always take the lenses as priority, as the lenses will not depreciate while at the same period, a certain DSLR that you prefers will drop significantly and will sooner or later come to a price level that you can afford to. For example, I still own my D70 bought in 2004, and have no plan to upgrade it till that desired time arrives. In contrast to chasing the new machines, I have done my best to upgrade my lenses, bought 70-200mm/2.8,24-70mm/2.8,14-24mm/2.8,and 85mm/1.4, for nearly $7000. 3 years later, I will probably see Dx00 version of full frame DSLR with 2.4MB drop to $2k or even less, while my lenses still keep their value. This is the rule of the game. Right?
Over 84% @ 2,000 votes say NO… eeek! Isnt it like 1,000 voices represents 10,000 people?
I hope nikon gets this pole.
Has this camera touched a sensitive nerve, or what??? Obviously Nikon is targeting the D3x at the potential Leica/MF shooter, but the consesus here is that Nikon has clearly mis-calculated,…big-time. On top of the fact that there’s a serious world-wide economic downturn (that ain’t over yet). There’s already the 5D-MKII, and the A900, in the $3000 ballpark, and it’s looking like the Canon is producing some very decent files; it’s just too bad they didn’t improve the rest of the camera while they were at it. But the fact is that the Canon’s going to sell like hotcakes.
Usually, I enjoy reading Rockwell’s updates for his skewered and entertaining comments, but I have to say that his current summary on the D3x pricing strategy, hits the nail right on the head. I’ll be buying a D700 in the coming months, and won’t regret it in the least.
It leaves one to wonder, just how Nikon plans to position the upcoming D800? Do they expect to be able to price it out above the D3? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Nikon,…DOH.
I shoot daily and this is still an absolutely ridiculous price for a body. Canon is offering a very similar camera for seven thousand less. The Nikon brand changed alot of people over with the D3, but it sure as hell isn’t going keep people by having a body priced so high.
I bought the D2X the day it was available (#629) and I have been waiting for the D3X for years but at $7999 it is not an option. I was ready to buy at the $5000 level, but Nikon has totally priced me out of the market this time. I am very disappointed in Nikon on the basis of price alone with the world economy today. They missed the mark. They not only missed the mark they have chapped me off. Take a body that now sells for $4200 (D3)and take a sensor from a camera that sells for $2999 (Sony 900 put them togeather and charge $7999 does not add up. I have been a diehard nikon supporter for over forty years. But they lost my loyality on this one. I needed two upper end point and shoots for my wife and daughter for Christmas this year. I ordered two Canons this morning ( better value, forget the loyality now). Nikon has missed the mark one too many times.
Sorry, I am not a rich fool. $8000? Give me a break.
Using the d3 since it’s release.. and love it for my weddings ( i shoot two a weekend on avg ) .. but.. I was looking forward to a high mp rig .. the d3 already paid for it’s self in a month.. but business slowed down months ago.. it’ll take me like 12 months to ROI with a D3x at list price.. I’m based in Australia and it’ll hit here at like $12-13k.. I paid $6950 when the D3 came out.. above rrp cos i just had to have it. I worked out yesterdays A900 pricing, with five of their best cz glass would come in at just under $14k. The quality is just under the d3x, and I’m betting the clients wont notice the jump from 12 to 24mp in any case.. so what to do.. go sony and carry twice the weight ( but gain a backup with glass if any of my glass ever packs it in – i’m doubtful though ) – my d3 rig already weighs a ton and hurts my back after a full days shooting or just add a body and get to use my same glass ( if only sony had the 14-24 2.8 it would be a easy choice ! or an adapter to use nikon glass on it ! ) and batteries etc etc and i know the d3 inside out.. geez nikon you made it hard for us to decide!.. I would of happly paid $7k aust for a d700 body with high mp for a second rig though, less weight would of been welcomed. What to do what to do ?!
How about just hanging in there a bit for the DX00 version of the Nikon D3x?
Presumably it will come out some time next year.
Well working as a photojournalist for the past 30-yrs and now stringing for the past 7 I have to buy all my own stuff ,, yuck! I was about to get a couple d700’s when someone told me about the nikon rumors site about 7-wks ago and I thought that since film bodies used to come out every 8-yrs and digees have a reputation of every 1.5-yrs or less and all the rumors floating about I think I’ll wait, but I am really disappointed in the d3x’s specs for what I use it for and at $8K a pop givin todays economic standards of the print media and its new habit of infrequently using stringers and its financial future but mostly MINE, I kinda find it hard to believe that even the wires or let alone SI will buy any of them, well maybe SI nikon shooters for studio stuff but even most of them are now canon-heads and the nikon-clan will possibly wait for a d3h version. It seems to me that nikon x’s are designed for studio heads and the h’s are more for us street shooters. But I’m almost afraid to get a d700 now since it may have a new-cousin waiting right around the new yr ?? to pop its head out to replace it. I could be wrong but the d3x isn’t for me. That’s my story and I’m stickin to it, and it’s worth what your paying for it ,, nothing. But I do need to up-grade from the d2hs and soon!! I’m down from 4 to 2 bodies and they need a rest before I’m down to 1 or worst!!! Looks to me like the d700 is to the d3 of what the 8008 was to the f3hp just before the f4 hit the street. If you can remember that 1 then ,, well ,,, you didn’t buy the dx lenses either did you ,,,, smart move fellow dinosaurs of the film-age!!
Besides if I’m going to drop $8k on something I’ll get some new long glass since my 400/2.8 is starting to grow shrooms between its elements from shooting sports in the rain!!