I will add my .01 cents but i'm a relatively new member so be nice
. Great discussion on the D3x and it's competitors. I have had a D3x since the day before it was officially shipped and have been using it side-by-side on many projects with H3DII-39, D3 and 1Ds3 (a few M8 comparisons as well). I have been a long-time Canon user, F1 and digital from D30 onward and a long-time Nikon user since the F2. I am pretty neutral on gear and easily switch platforms as needs arise.
I do like the ergonomics of the Nikon bodies a lot better than the Canon, I have never been able to warm up to the Canon EOS UI (yet the F1 was an extension of my hand and eye in it's day). Using the D3x is very similar to the D3, however it is slower, albeit faster handling than the H3, but not by much (as others have already posted). One area where Nikon really went backwards with the D3 and D3x is they changed the beautiful large histogram display they used to have on the D2 and earlier cameras.
Image quality is first rate, the D3x is probably the best IQ right out of the camera of any 35mm DSLR currently in production, clients like it a lot more than the 1Ds3 (this is subjective for sure but hey, they pay for the gear really so what they think is reality
This is a small sample since most clients do not really seem to care these days
but i was surprised that it was consistent.
After a lot of scientific and subjective evaluation under a range of conditions I have to say the 1Ds3 and the D3x are very close - with an edge to the D3x. The 14-bit DR of the D3x at 100 or 200 ISO is better than the 1Ds3 by at least a stop, at 400 ISO and above they match up closely. At higher ISO they both start losing DR and color fidelity. We have had access to multiple 1Ds3 and D3x bodies via work and have tested color response in gory detail, the 1Ds3 bodies have uneven color performance but this is easily fixed in post processing, not to start an argument since they are both really good but the scientific tests show some issues for Canon, green response seems typically weak. The D3x and D3 with the default settings seem to over-saturate reds, this is easily fixed with camera settings. The H3 still leads the pack on every IQ measure except noise. I have been doing my own pixel binning (as recently announced by Phase in their P45 Sensor+) in black and white and color for years now and it can make a significant improvement in noise at higher ISO, clearly this technology is going to migrate into future generations of Canon and Nikon high end cameras so that we will not have to decide between a D3 and a D3x. Binning has been used in astrophotography for decades and yes it is hard to get it right and the Phase solution seems very clever.
With respect to sensor innovation that is a complex subject (I used to be in the semiconductor industry - so i know enough to be really really dangerous
. Canon does not make all of their own sensors and neither does Nikon. The Nikon sensor is not the Sony sensor although it is made on the same fab and it is a common photosite design, the die and the lithography for both are different although clearly Sony and Nikon collaborated on the two designs. Nikon also uses two other companies for their fabrication as does Canon. The next Nikon sensor could just as well come from the Renesas fab or the Sony fab or even a third-party. There are a lot of older lines that could be easily repurposed for making CMOS image sensors. I have seen a Nikon stepper at all of the major production fabs - Nikon, Canon and ASML are the leaders in the lithography field and they now have steppers that can cover the size of full-frame 35mm CMOS sensors in one pass with no stitching.
CMOS image sensors are built on older fab lines so they are very profitable, even with a 200mm (8 inch) die you get 20 full frame sensors per die, which might seem low, but the die are relatively small and thus relatively inexpensive, the geometries are pretty relaxed as well (meaning the features or transistors are not very small relative to what is needed to make memory chips or microprocessors), what all this means is that even a 21- or 24-megapixel sensor is no where near the state-of-the-art in semiconductor fabrication. They are very profitable chips for a chip manufacturer to produce! I know of a few independent fab lines that are retooling to make full-frame CMOS image sensors. My bet is that we are going to see some significant price drops in APS-C or DX as well as full frame CMOS image sensors in the next year, especially in the full frame, 12- to 18-megapixel range.
I have visited both cmpanies and they are similar in capability, both companies get a lot of hard core research design work done at US universities. I would say Canon has a slight edge in the image processing pipeline and they have been able to integrate more functions into larger processing chip. Both companies use DSP engine pipelines designed by outside sources. Nikon has a smaller engineering team than Canon. The Canon team designs a lot more camera sensors. There is some amazing work being done by both teams and their research partners.
I like the ergonomic consistency of the Canon L-glass more than the Nikon high-end glass, you get used to it but the Canon lens ergonomics seem better while the Nikon camera body ergonomics seem better - for me.
The performance of the Nikon 14-24 is currently ahead of the Canon wides (prime or zoom). The Canon 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 are both excellent with a slight edge to the Nikon (real MTF tests using Imatest). The Canon 70-200 is superior to the Nikon 70-200, i guess no surprise there
. The Nikon 200-400 is going to be one of the great lenses of all time.
The Canon line up is more rounded out and Nikon needs to address good fast primes as well as a new 70-200. The D3x taxes all lenses that are put in front of it and as others have already said your shooting technique must be careful and steady. I find the same issue with the 1Ds3 but it is a bit more forgiving. My experience is that the D3x needs a sturdy tripod and head, mirror lock up and a cable release or steadier hands than i now have.
How sturdy for the D3x is interesting. I started out using my Gitzo 5540 with an Arca Swiss Z1. I have since switched to a Gitzo 3530 with either a Novaflex ball head (Classic 5) or the "evil" Multiflex Arca Swiss cube knock off. What i found was that the Z1 was the culprit for transmitting vibration and not the tripod, this was a quite a surprise. We did extensive testing with a laser pointer and a precision target. There was virtually no difference between the 5540 and the 3530 with the Novaflex or Multiflex heads, although the 5540 might fare better in high winds. The other finding was that the 4-section 3540 did not do as well as the 3-section 3530.
I know i need to get off my rear and get some photos posted - i'll learn how to do that soon i promise
I have been meaning to post some images to the "fun with x" threads.
Competition is good and we now have a "real" race between Canon and Nikon - that is good for everyone in both user communities; just like we've had with the race between Phase and Hasselblad. Where it sorts out for me is that i do not use the 1Ds3. The D3x and D3 have nudged out the H3 but by a slim margin and it is still just about 50-50.
The D3x is worth every penny and i believe it has pretty much paid for itself in productivity and sheer joy of use. The images have a magic to them that is hard to describe, different than the D3 or D700. That magic can be seen in either Lightroom or Aperture but i like the RAW conversions in Aperture better this week (this changes as new versions emerge). The images sharpen well and print large will little effort, ISO 200 is the sweet spot of course. As a point of reference for my comments my work with the D3x is either landscape "fine art - if i may be allowed to use that term", "commercial" product or scientific "documentary". I know little about fashion, weddings or portrait (although i have done post processing work for others in those fields). I also love street photography but for me that is rangefinder land.
The 1Ds3 is a fantastic camera and it was also close to $8K when it first came out. For ultimate IQ the MF systems still win by a safe margin, but if i were just starting out the D3x and D3 might be a better path than MF to start, but if one wants the best IQ i suspect one would still end up with a MF Phase or Hasselblad if finances permit. The A900 and 5D2 are excellent values. Nikon clearly needs a D700x in the market soon, my guess is mid- to late-2010 at the same price point as the A900 and 5D2 will be at that time. It is interesting that the 24-mp sensor R&D will likely be well amortized in that same time-frame.
I can't wait to see what the Leica S2 will do to- and in-the-market.
YMMV and i hope my comments add to the discourse in a positive way and my apologies for the length of this post.
-g
Surprised i am not seeing any reports of the D3x here.