El_Pickerel said:
If so many lenses are showing their limits on the D800's pixels....

The answer to that is None. I have 40-50 year old lenses that I have used on my D800 and another 16 that range in price from $150 to $2,000 and 2 to 20 years old. None of them are any worse, or show anything more, than they do with film, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, and yes, even 36mp sensors. Dull lenses are dull, mediocre lenses are mediocre and razor sharp are razor sharp.

Many for some reason have been beating the drum of "outresolve" lenses since 10mp sensors were released and for some reason, have doubled down now - and they will continue to be proven wrong. It reminds me of the "climate change is a hoax" crowd.

WaterEngineer said:
I really don't understand comparing a high density (high pixel count) 35mm DSLR format camera to MF. IMHO that is just wishful thinking. MF is so much more than being able to "print big."

I couldn't agree more. Color depth is another reason MF outshines FX any day. 35mm sensors will have to hit the 16bit color depth before they should be considered contenders with MF.

I'm just waiting for the day people realize a camera, is more than a sensor.

Oh, I agree with you, Tommie. I was referring to the debate on another thread about whether the D800 was a studio camera or not. It's not just a studio camera, but it does a great job as one. As you say, D400 before D4x (and hopefully before D7100).

@ jonnyapple My apologies... but, with a camera with "only" 16 MP which does this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8010775815/sizes/o/in/photostream/

I seem to not see the need for more MP in the field. Of course, having said this, I may end up getting a D800 if Nikon does not get busy and announce a D400 before the end of the year.

I cannot imagine the benefit in an overall sense of a D4X. If I am not mistaken the high resolution camera is the D800 and it can work in all areas as has been so ably demonstrated by the posts to PAD. Thus, I would be very very shocked if Nikon were to bring out a D4X, and especially at a time when a lot of us are waiting for the D400. First things first!

If so many lenses are showing their limits on the D800's pixels, how much more advantage will you gain from moving to an even denser sensor? Sure your resolution will still increase with 54mp over 36mp, but you're also showing the imperfections even more clearly. If you really need the pixel density, go for one of the 24mp crop sensors (assuming the D7100, D400, and others will use the sensor of the D3200 or something similar). If you need the pixels, go for the D800 and one of the lenses that will resolve well on the corners of that sensor.

msmoto said:
D800.....for studio,...

Don't let's start that again! ;-)

Gosh, i may be missing the point, but I think the D800 filled the lotsa pixels thing. The DOF and ultimate resolution with the DOF is what MF is about, I think. For all the other Hi ISO, portability, long telephotos, etc. this is the 35mm format's advantage.

And, yes, the cost of medium format is high, so much so that only a very few amateurs can afford to go the route. But, for 95% of all photographs... 35mm will do as well. D800.....for studio, D4 for the paparazzi.

I think you missed the point Water Engineer, I was comparing the cost factor between a Nikon High Megapixel cameras and a Digital MF cameras. It will interesting to see what new technology in sensor development will arrive. If I was a MF manufacture I would be very concerned, When you look at the big names in MF, none of them have the resources compared to Nikon/Canon.
Professional photographers are always looking for that extra edge, and perhaps in the future MF?LF may not be King

I really don't understand comparing a high density (high pixel count) 35mm DSLR format camera to MF. IMHO that is just wishful thinking. MF is so much more than being able to "print big." Also, the pixel resolution of 35mm based DSLRs does not match the quality of MF at the pixel level. Yes, I know what DxO says but go make two prints - big prints - compare them - and then get back to me.

MF is about DOF, the "look", having big files coming from great pixels and not having to increase the dimensions as much to get to a print size as compared to 35mm format.

My frustration is on the other side. Why does MF cost as much as it does" Why is a digital back $20K, why isn't the sync speed and shutter speed higher on MF systems?

Yes, I know there are not as many digital backs made/sold as 35mm based DSLRs but in this age the prices are stupid.

Oh, and in the MF community as reported and commonly quoted on two of that communities forums, 35mm based format will not compete with MF until 35mm format based sensors are at 80Mpix.

Shame about the Hoax , I am sure some D3x owners would love such a camera, needless to say, i am sure the price would be more than stated, but compared to medium format cameras it could stand an increase
Hope somebody at Nikon is watching your Forum

I went for the D4 myself as I was sold on the build of it as I can find myself shooting in harsh cold weather as well the shutter life is rated twice as much as the D800. But the biggest thing is my clients can't handle the images that I could give them from the D800 as they are bitching at me if I gave them a JPEG file bigger then 5mb. go figure. One Client I had to put the images on CDR as they could not read DVD so you can imagine how old their computer is.

But for Fashion Shots it can shine as they love big images :)

Yes Tao, I see people trying to get 4 or 5k for their D3x on eBay but the ones I see getting bids start in the $2,500 to $3,000 range. Time will tell how much the price falls. I don't see a D3x being worth more than a new D800.

I also think Nikon is very likely to produce a D4s in 2 years because sports photographers will buy it. However, I think it much less likely that Nikon will produce a D4x because they didn't sell many of the D3x bodies in the past. Sports photographers don't need the increased resolution and landscape photographers don't need that heavy D4 body. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Nikon put their highest resolution FX sensor into the D800 body as a D800x or D810, etc. If Nikon produces a 50 or 60 megapixel FX sensor in a D800 body for $4,000 they will sell a lot of them. If Nikon produces a 50 or 60 megapixel sensor in a D4 body for $8,000 (highest mp sensor in the highest priced body as they tried to do with the D3x) they will sell few of them.

donaldejose said:
...So it seems to me in six months or so used D3x bodies will sell for about $2,500 (must sell for a few hundred dollars below a new D800) in order to get anyone to buy them.

As one who plays the ebay game, I don't see that happening for a couple of years. D2xs are still going for $1,200-1,800 and the D300 smacked them in almost every spec. Used one's are hovering around $5k. I saw one at $4k with no reserve and no one even bid on it. I think the D3x will go down in the Nikon annuals as the oops like the Nikon Pronea.

I'm going out on a limb and will guess that there will not be another D3x or in the way it was done this last time. In many ways, the D3x was the oddball, outside the norm for Nikon in the pro realm. I think they listened and heard the audience say, We want the MP but we are not paying that much of a premium for it - hence we have a D800. I think they will go back to modest updates like we saw with the D3/D3s.

after using d800 for more than 2 months already my only complain is the small speed of transferring pictures from camera to memory card as I often find myself waiting to use the camera which is really annoying (using 45MB/s and 60MB/s cards - I guess it's time to change them into 90MB/s).

For someone needing a hi-res camera to be used in harsh conditions, the D3x might still make the most sense. ... As well as the D800 is built, it is not up to the build quality and weather proofing of the D3X or a D4.

The D3X in its time produced the highest quality images available in a DSLR format...I expect that Nikon will introduce a D4x which will set the new standard in IQ. As an example, take the D3200 sensor, upgrade it a bit, expand it to FX and you suddenly have a 58.3mp DSLR in a full pro body. Toss in a pair of XQD cards. No AA filter. You get the picture.

The D3200 seems like a great vehicle for exploring the opportunities available with this pixel pitch.

From a marketing perspective, I would imagine that Nikon would like to hold on to the position of having the highest IQ sensors. So I don't think there is any way that Nikon can not introduce a D4x. Expectations will be high however, and a 58mp body with great dynamic range and color depth might meet those expectations. And of course the price tag would be stratospheric for a DSLR...but it doesn't need to be the largest seller, it just needs to be the best.

Well . . . . there have been plenty of people complaining that the D800 has too many megapixels and will produce files that are too large. Many people have said something around 20 megapixels would be enough. If those people had a choice between the D800 and a D3x for the same price perhaps some of them would choose the D3x. Sure the D4 would be the best choice for them but it would be twice the cost. So it seems to me in six months or so used D3x bodies will sell for about $2,500 (must sell for a few hundred dollars below a new D800) in order to get anyone to buy them. At that time the D400 (24 megapixels) should be out for less than #2,000 and will likely almost match the D3x IQ at low ISO and may even exceed it at high ISO. So that D3x is going to be an "orphan" camera body.

@sevencrossing...Oh, thank you for answering my question.....

sevencrossing + 1 :) LOL

I imagine people like Ren Crockwell how don't like the D800,s new focus switch will snap them up

IMHO there's no explanation why someone would buy d3x over d800. I'm with Nikon for the last 10-11 years and never seen such a great camera like d800. it is rugged, produces excellent snaps - I even noticed I'm using it more than my d3s due to better files, even though I love the d3s speed. as for d3x, IMHO they would need to put the price even lover for ppl to buy it.

I don't think there is any good reason to pay the high price of the D3X anymore (if there every was). I would think its price used would drop to less than $3,000 because for $3,000 people would just buy a new D800 and add a battery grip. Sure the D3x is more rugged but very few people should need that added ruggedness. Perhaps I am wrong. Can anyone here explain why a D3x would be better (worth more) than a D800 with battery grip?

If you shoot sports (or other fast moving or low light subjects) I think your ideal combination is an FX D4 and a DX D400 (maybe a D4 and D600?). If you shoot landscapes or primarily stationary subjects (including wildlife) I think your best combination is an FX D800 and a DX D400 (maybe /D899 and either D600 or D3x?). A good combo is the top FX camera tuned to your needs plus the top DX camera which should offer both maximum DX resolution and maximum DX FPS speed. The D400 should sell in great numbers because it nicely pairs with all FX bodies.

Just a question that came to mind with the 'reduction' of the D3X to 'only' $7300.00 USD. It appears to me, the D800 outperforms the D3X in almost every area. And the D4 crushes it except for the pixel count which is more likely than not, inconsequential. Can anyone tell me why one would spend the money on a D3X over a D800 or D4? Maybe I am missing something?

It would seem to me, the D3X should be selling for $4999.00 USD at the most. But, if there is an explanation, I am curious to know what it is. And on eBay_ they are starting at $2500 used.....

closing this as there are already d3200 and 28/1.8 topics

The new 28mm 1.8G might be worth a go for DX shooters?

It's not all that expensive either...

tcole1983 said:

The 28 f1.8 might be neat, but doesn't find any use in my kit. I rarely shoot at that focal length...although I know it is fx and probably makes a little more sense there. Wonder why it wasn't a 24 f1.8 though?
. They must hate telephoto/super telephoto focal lengths

20mm f/1.8G.... Re: Super telephotos..... too much $$$ is my guess.... unless a 600mm f/5.6G???? Let's see, 1.4 x 600 = 840mm. Oh, not much different than 400 x 2 = 800. Oh well....

I would like the 20mm though... the f/2.8 needs updating.

It sounds like a neat camera, but for anyone that already owns a dslr there isn't much appeal to the d3200.

The 28 f1.8 might be neat, but doesn't find any use in my kit. I rarely shoot at that focal length...although I know it is fx and probably makes a little more sense there. Wonder why it wasn't a 24 f1.8 though?

I like the f1.8 lenses, but I was really hoping we would see an update of some of the much needed older versions of lenses. We haven't seen an updated zoom in a long time now and so many old lenses could use af-s and vr. They must hate telephoto/super telephoto focal lengths :-( the 18-200 focal length is saturated with zooms and primes.