Nikon D3x price expected to be around £5,500

According to this UK retailer the D3x price is expected to be around £5,500=US$8,466 (they even take pre-order deposits of £20). Expect the US price to be lower (the US price is not determined by direct rate conversion).

Check back here on Tuesday, December 2nd for pre-order details in the US.

This entry was posted in Nikon D3x. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • I personally expect a price of $6000 USD. That’s just me though. What do the rest of you guys think?

    • Mike

      Ken Rockwell probably bought his for $500 less. His full hands-on-review will be on his site this time tomorrow. (summary: it’s not as good as his D40).

      • Haha. Good one, Mike. And I think everything you just said is true. Ken will get his dirt cheap from one of his site’s sponsor links. Ken will talk about how nobody needs anything more than a D40. Then he’ll talk about how his laptop is super old. And how his wife’s iPod Touch is the best computer available. Then he’ll continue to think that his own personal values should be the only values the world adopts.

        But, to get back on topic, I really do expect a price around $6000. Maybe $6500. Maybe $5500. But I can’t say I expect anything less than $5500.

  • Al

    £5.5k is speculation, I have a contact in an informed position who has said that Nikon have not released the price to any dealer in the UK as it’s under embargo until Monday. Nikon Pro may have let slip on the camera but they’re keeping quiet about the price till Monday.

    • yes – speculation, expected price, no firm evidence for now.

    • sperera

      £5.5k… definately aint worth this on the spec……not value for money at all….Nikon wont sell many of these i think…..we’ll see

  • Dan

    The UK price in £ will be more than the US price in $. Again.
    This seriously has to stop.

    It’s cheaper to fly to NY, buy this and fly home – even on BA – then to buy it in the uk. But then who want’s to fly to the USA nowadays?

    Europe will get it cheaper than the UK by 20% easily.

    It’s like Adobe claiming UK prices are higher as the cost of doing business here is higher. It’s only higher as companies like Adobe charge stupid amounts for the same items.

    That said, I’ll get one after the initial price drops a little.

    • David Olsen

      stop complaining norway we pay even more than you ;-(

      over here the price is roughly :
      D300 – 1000 pound ( 9000 KR )
      D700 – 2000 pound ( 18 000 kr )
      D3 – 3000 pound ( 30 000 kr )

      D3x should be around 4000 pound or 40 000 kr .. expect to pay 15-25% more than that in the first three months

      but that is just speculation

      • Pablov

        To give you all an idea:

        In South America the prices are about:

        D3: USD 7,200
        D700: USD 4,200
        D300: USD 2,700
        (all new with only 1 year warranty)

        Buying any of these cameras is cheaper to fly to USA, buy it and come back.

        The only problem is about warranty (most, or all, are not internationally warranted, as opposed to lenses wich have 5 years international warranty..)

        BTW, here they rarely (or never) sell warranty extentions, so probably you get only 1 year if you buy it locally

        Prices sucks…… about 80% higher than US’s (that applies to Nikon lenses too) due to customs duties, taxes, etc…

        — NIKON SHOULD sell their products at lower prices to these 3rd world countries, so the final price is more similar to US’s and european’s.

        • It isn’t Nikon’s responsibility to take hits on profits because of South Africa’s high price level and high inflation rates. Don’t complain about Nikon, complain about your country’s government and their ‘customs duties, taxes, etc…’

          • paul

            did you even read the above post before you started bashing his country? he didn’t say south africa, he said south america.

            • I did misread the place he was referring to. But even with that misstep on my part aside, he’s implying that a corporation take hits on profit margins to compensate for a country or countries’ poor economy. It is not Nikon’s responsibility. And my sentiment still holds true; complain about why the prices are high where you live, not that a company isn’t doing a charity business where you live.

            • Pablov

              I didn’t complain about Nikon
              I said “Nikon Should”.

              Take it as a strong suggestion.

              Some (few) software companies, for instance, take in account “emerging economies” and offer lower prices to them (compared to 1st world countries).

              I think that is a good way to help people to get access to different working tools.

              In these countries Everything is much more expensive. Maybe you don’t have an idea, or maybe you do, doesn’t matter, just explaining my post.

              Those companies giving discounts and more affordable prices, not only increase sales (that are Very small compared to 1st world) to these countries, but also help the people to work. So the benefit is for BOTH.

              That is a kind of circle, tending to expand.

              The opposite is a circle tending to compress. (what today is happening worldwide by different reasons). Each company choose what and how to do.

              Today (but also since many years ago) there is only 1 (one) Nikon official distributor and service for almost the entire South America: udenio dot com
              And they have 1 (one) only store and service center in some countries (…!!!)

              more than pathetic, it is sad…. at least to me who loves photography and Nikon gear.

            • I can see what you’re saying, and maybe sometime soon Nikon will take what you’re suggesting and run with it. Hopefully for your sake and those in your area they will.

            • NikonMan

              Software companies have a very different cost structure to Nikon.
              Once it has been devolped software is very cheap to produce individual units. This is not the same for Nikon, the cameras are not cheap to manufacture.
              The software companies can afford to give discounts to citizens of emerging economies because they are still making a profit on each licence.

            • Pablov

              yes, you are right on that point.

              But maybe there could be any lower price for distributor of the “emerging” economies, still keeping a profit for Nikon. I don’t know the costs and profit margins, but probably there could be something to do.

        • rhlpetrus

          Here in Brazil if you pay import taxes at entry the official Nikon reps will warrant it. From B&H in NY you can buy an international warranty, they’ll pay for repair in Brazil or you send it to them for repair.

          • That’s good of B&H. They tend to have really good customer relations and support. And Nikon is even offering warranty if you pay entry import taxes; good on their part as well. I wonder if the other countries in South America operate similarly.

          • Pablov

            I didn’t know that B&H sells that international warranty for DSLRs.
            I will ask them details about that.

            BTW, we share the same official distributor and service.

            The reason of high prices here is because high custom duties, high taxes, etc. Not because high distributor’s profit

            • Right, but they have to keep prices high to keep the same profits as they do in other regions of the world. It’s a shame, because nobody really wins and the consumer loses. It’s terrible. I hope for your sake, and everyone else there, that things change so that you guys can be paying around what us Americans or Europeans pay. :]

  • I think the D3x will be priced at around 5,500 $ introduced – all nikon top DSLRs at this price when introduced

  • hulk

    I think no one knows yet. It may be more expensive than D3… but also maybe not. So just let us wait till monday.

  • I.T

    i heard it would be around $5-6K USD
    just a little bit more than the D3, and yeah they forgot to mention the noise reduction,
    all i can say about that is, i’m assuming it’s practically noiseless at 6400 aswell, because if that is true then the 5D mk2 is officially whiped off its 2 week throne

    • David Olsen

      ISO 6400 is H2 ..ISO 1600 should be on par with D3 i hope but do not expect anything from H1 or H2 ..maybe the same as H1 H2 on the D3 ( iso 12 800 and 25 600 )

      • rhlpetrus

        Since base ISO is 100 and 1600 is highest, I’d expect ISO 1600 in D3x similar to ISO 6400 in D3. The less sensitivity probably comes to stronger CFA and microlenses not 100% coverage (better color and better detail).

  • PHB

    How much of the information here is real and how much is recycled rumors from the net? If Nikon isn’t telling the salesmen they are likely reading sites like this one or hearing from people who have.

    I would recon that the UK list price will be a minimum of 17.5% more than the US price because the UK has a sales tax that must by law be quoted in list prices. If the US price is $5500, that would be a minimum of GBP 4200.

    But the list price is not going to be the selling price for very long. There are going to be a small number of folk who pay absolute top dollar to be the first with the new toy and then prices will drop. The list price in different countries will depend on what the traditional discounts are amongst other things.

    I don’t think it is very likely that we will see continued production of the D3 (sale yes, production, no) which is in any case under price pressure from the D700. So I would expect the D3x to be selling at round about the $5000 point before tax in most markets at some point next year. That point may be reached much sooner in some countries than others though.

    Nikon are not just about selling the bodies, they want to be selling the lenses. Now we know that demand for all electronics goods from retailers and wholesalers is down. That would be the case even if consumer demand was still high. The Bush fiscal crisis means that there is no credit. We also know that a lot of contractor staff were laid off in Thailand.

    My guess would be that we will see an increased rollout of new designs as a result.

    The logic for this is that the big cost in bringing out a new lens design is downtime at your manufacturing plant. I think you are going to be seeing more professional grade lenses being production engineered for mass production in the Thai facility. Now is the time to take the downtime for re-tooling, not when the factories are maxed out trying to make production numbers.

    I suspect that the downturn may also have killed off prospects for the MX format for a while.

    • David Olsen

      ” don’t think it is very likely that we will see continued production of the D3 (sale yes, production, no) which is in any case under price pressure from the D700″

      The D3 is still the top sports/reporter camera and the D3x does nothing to change that ..Nikon have come with a camera that supplements it and covers the high definition do not compete and to say the D3 will no longer be produced is niave..
      how many sports photographers do you think will swap ISO 6400 for ISO 1600 ?


    • Do you know anything about economics? The Bush fiscal crisis? What are you talking about? Because I want to keep my reply relatively on topic, I’ll keep this brief:
      Bush is not responsible for the economic issues (which aren’t even close to crisis-level yet). The root of the problem is the American middle-class spending outside of its limits and the media taking a tiny bit of an issue and turning into a huge issue thereby creating a panic. And a panic means less spending, whether there is an actual problem or not. This less spending then creates an economic downturn. The economic downturn has its roots in the ignorant American public being steered into the land of fear of expenditures by an even more ignorant liberal media.

      That wasn’t as brief as I had hoped. But seriously, don’t talk about politics this and politics that when the topic of discussion is the price of the upcoming D3x. It’s not supposed be political, it’s supposed to be economical.

      Now let’s all be friends.

      • paul

        another moronic post from you. the problem was the way the financial system traded highly leveraged derivatives on the bad mortgages, not the mortgages themselves… the fault of traders and a lack of regulation, not the middle class spending beyond its limits, and not the fault of the media, liberal or otherwise.

        then you end your post saying we should all be friends after calling the american public ignorant?

        • You think a lack of regulation has put the American economy in a slump? How very Keynesian of you. The American public increased its credit spending and now all of us in America are gonna have to pay for it. If people would not have spent outside of their limits, there probably wouldn’t be a problem. But, we have to keep our standard of living up even when the economy hits a natural decline. *sigh*

          • And Paul, I’m getting kind of tired of discussing this and we are both going to have our own views regardless of what the other one says. We are simply not going to come into agreement as we clearly have different views on economics and politics. I apologize if I offended you. I will keep my economic knowledge and political views to myself from now on.

            • Anonymous

              ooooh, Jeremy’s “economic knowledge!”

            • More knowledge than most people have. The general public is pretty uneducated in even basic economics. Oh, and I didn’t have an exclamation point in my statement, therefore it shouldn’t be quoted.

            • Pablov

              guess both Jeremy and Paul are right on their statements.

              I think the economical crisis is more than just economical, and also not only because of few reasons…

              And (sorry for the comment, completely out of topic) Bush (and US gov, thus politics) do have something to do with it too, I refer (as an example) to the tremendous waste of money in an unjustifiable war. That hit the US economy in one way or another
              Sorry, will avoid to write about that again.

              BTW it’s very interesting to see how people from different parts of the world have differents views, strongly based on their culture, education, media, knowledge and way of living.
              But also in the same town we have different perspectives..

            • Jacques

              True, that awful and illegal wars cost the USA a lot of money, and still does. The USA military budget for a year is more than the proposed ‘bail-out’ money of USD700Bn.

              Due to all the war expenses and endless creation of dollars in the market, the dollar is currently tremendously inflated, and after the Christmas spending boom, the dollar’s inflation will show with a remarkable drop in value and the price of gold and silver will surge, setting off alarm bells.

              So, with the near-collapsing, or collapsing, US dollar, the price for a new top-end camera would surely not have the same structure as before, it would cost many more US dollars, because the US dollars are worth less. Perhaps even cost between USD 9,000 and 12,000 due to the currency inflation.

      • PHB

        It is going to be called the Bush fiscal crisis because at this point it suits absolutely everyone, Republicans included to blame Bush.

        Bush has been responsible for the personnel at treasury and the Fed for eight years now. He has had every opportunity to respond to the housing bubble, there was no shortage of warnings, none. You could read Krugman warning of a credit problem in the New York Times for years.

        If there had been competent appointees at Treasury at least one of them would have run the numbers and realized that the system was unstable. But they had a bunch of folk there who were cronies appointed for their ideological views rather than their expertise. They did start off with a somewhat competent Treasury Secretary but sacked him for pointing out that wars do cost money.

        People are not responsible, people do borrow more than they afford, greedy lenders do lend it to them and cook their books to conceal the risk. That is precisely why regulation and vigilance are necessary. During the Clinton years they cut back on certain depression era regulations that make little sense today. But during the Bush era they stopped enforcement entirely.

        Case in point being naked shorts, it is still illegal but the SEC decided to make it impossible to enforce. Oh and there is $2 Trillion in failed bond trades that nobody has bothered much to enforce, which is pusing up government borrowing costs. And then there is the $500 billion in unpaid oil and gas royalties that the administration has corruptly failed to collect.

        You know, when a Ponzi scheme collapses there are always the investors who think that its the regulators who are to blame for closing the scheme down before they could pull their money out.

        If Bush had had his way, your Social Security fund would now be invested in the markets as well.

        • maybe I should add a political section in NR…

          • Pablov


            don’t do it… Politics is based on people.
            We (people) are too defective and have many different opinions, so never going to agree in many things. Thus… (because of the wrong way we act) that ends in discussions (when not in fights, or wars)

            Better we keep talking about Nikon and photography, don’t you think? 🙂

        • Jacques

          Exactly PHB.

          Have you perhaps seen the videos of Max Keiser on Youtube about the US economy? That guy holds no punches and mentions how the good folk in the US are being flushed down the toilet, taking with them other countries dependant on their consumption. Have a look at his videos, also Peter Schifff’s, that is really informative.

          See the video ‘Peter Schiff was right’; that is entertaining.

  • Ralf

    With the economy the way it is I cant see a release premium for it and to compete with the Canon 5D MkII and Sony 900 it had better be sharply priced.

    I’ve always had Nikon but most of my latest lenses are cropped with FF lenses mainly manual focus. Since I need to do a major lens spend on this I will be considering Canon – manual lenses can be made to fit well and they have a couple of lenses I much prefer over Nikon – namely the f4 series – I dont need f2.8 nor the weight that comes with it.

    Be a turning point for me.

  • Can we get off of political economics and back to our groundless speculation about D3x prices?

    — The Canon EOS-1Ds Mk III currently sells for about US$ 6700, and I can’t imagine Nikon would want to price the D3x at much less than that. I can imagine them pricing it slightly above that on the argument that it has a more sophisticated meter/AF system or whatever, but I can’t imagine they could get away with a price premium of more than about 10%. That means my guess is that it will sell (to those who can afford it) for about US$ 7000 – 7500.

    — I think the D3 will stay at about $4,500 – $5,000 and sell to people who need the high ISOs and framing speed more than they need 20+ megapixels.

    — For those who want the FX format in a “prosumer” body, Canon has the 5D Mk II selling at around $2,700. I can imagine Nikon would like to combat that with a future “D700x” priced at around $2,800 – 3,200. This also would compete nicely with the $3,000 Sony A900.

    — If that happens, I would guess the D700 would drift down around $2,500 – 2,700, again aiming to sell to the person who needs low-light performance more than high pixel count. (In all cases, the price premium for the high-megapixel versions reflects the lower yield rate for that type of sensor chip.)

    Eventually this would all shake out to a fairly orderly price/feature tier structure for all three makers of FX-format cameras, although not every maker would offer a camera in every tier:

    — Heavy-duty professional “high megapixel” body — around $6,500 – 7,000
    — Heavy-duty professional “high speed” body — around $4,500 – 5,000
    — Prosumer “high megapixel” body — $2,700 – 3,200
    — Prosumer “high speed” body — $2,300 – 2,700

    ALL of which would be out of my price range, so it looks as if I’m going to be shooting DX format for the foreseeable future! But at least this would be a structure that makes sense from a marketing point of view…

    • GT

      Some good and valid points here…..

    • PHB

      I don’t see so many FX bodies being feasible when they are supporting a parallel DX line.

      Sure there is a demand for a high speed rather than high resolution camera. That is why there is this dial thingy that you can turn to reduce the number of pixels captured.

      And guess what, when you reduce the number of pixels by averaging across two pixel cells, your noise drops. Its like getting another ISO stop.

      It is much easier to make the D3x handle like a D3 than you might imagine. And the high number of megapixels means that you can also do the DX trick of extending the effective focal length. So the D3x will also be equivalent to being a 10MP DX camera.

      The D3 is certainly not going to disappear from the catalog for a few years. And even when it does there will be dealers selling old stock for ages. But I really cannot see Nikon manufacturing any more. They will have anticipated the residual demand and made as many as they think they will need before switching over to D3x.

      Most professionals who want a D3 will have one already. And any residual demand for new D3s is going to be reduced by the flood of second hand models being sold by people trading up to D3x.

      I still think you will see a list price premium on entry because Nikon are going to want to avoid running out. Demand may be depressed due to the Bush fiscal crisis, but that makes running out more, not less likely as Nikon are going to be much more cautious about production runs.

      I would suspect we will see a large list price that is quickly discounted by dealers.

  • Nina Myers

    If the D3x hits at 5,500 USD, then Ken Rockwell would… have made a correct guess.
    oh noes!

    • And then Ken would have an entire page devoted to how he was right.

    • Pablov


      hey !! like to read Ken’s reviews anyway.
      I find interesting data in everyone’s reviews.

      There is no one perfect review or report that tells everything in every possible situation from every point of view

      cheers to Ken, Joe and Jack (the plumber) 😛

      • Nina Myers

        Oh don’t get me wrong, Ken’s reviews help me a lot to find little nuances of my camera, and that are explained in plain-peoples english. I like 🙂
        Sometimes, though… lol

        • Pablov

          I understand it well.
          Cheers for Ken 🙂

          • Yeah, I mean, I use Ken’s site for useful information from time to time. But mostly I just laugh at how much he loves himself. He definitely has some good stuff on his site. But with almost any site, the good stuff has bad stuff sprinkled in.

  • Pricing will be in the interval between D3 and 1DsIII. This will hold true in all markets.

  • André

    UK price for the 1Ds III is currently £4500 and should go further down with the coming of the D3x.
    £5500 is not a very smart option for a newcomer in that range.

  • Back to top