The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
DxOmark scores for D3X released
- Thread starter Amin
- Start date
etrigan63
Active member
Pricing is all relative. I am certain that they are going to repeat their recently discovered formula for success: take the top-end sensor and plant it in a lower-cost, more compact body. I eagerly await the D700x (D800?) for landscape and portrait work. Plus market forces will drive the prices down.
My day job supervisor has an excellent management theorem:
"Anything is possible with enough time and money."
My corollary to it is:
"Substitute copious amounts of one for lack of the other." In other words cash and patience are interchangeable.
My day job supervisor has an excellent management theorem:
"Anything is possible with enough time and money."
My corollary to it is:
"Substitute copious amounts of one for lack of the other." In other words cash and patience are interchangeable.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I'm not sure I understand why so many think the D3X is too expensive. It's apparently better than the A900 and the 5DII in all areas, in some areas much better, in image quality as well as body functionality (unless you prefer a body without built in grip). It's around the same price level as the 1DsIII, and is probably better than that camera in most areas as well.
Should I feel a strong need to buy a 20MP plus camera and change to Sony, I would have to buy new lenses costing as much as the price difference between an A900 and a D3X. Add to that a backup body or two, and it starts to get really expensive.
Yes, the D3X is expensive, but too expensive? Probably not. The best was always much more expensive than the second best.
There obviously will be a D700X or D800 or whatever some time in the future, but that will be after Nikon believes that the market for the D3X is saturated. If I could afford to buy the D3X now, I would have, just like photographers bought the D3 and the D2X and the D1X and the D1 and the F5 and the F4 and so on in the past. They were rather costly cameras too, remember?
Should I feel a strong need to buy a 20MP plus camera and change to Sony, I would have to buy new lenses costing as much as the price difference between an A900 and a D3X. Add to that a backup body or two, and it starts to get really expensive.
Yes, the D3X is expensive, but too expensive? Probably not. The best was always much more expensive than the second best.
There obviously will be a D700X or D800 or whatever some time in the future, but that will be after Nikon believes that the market for the D3X is saturated. If I could afford to buy the D3X now, I would have, just like photographers bought the D3 and the D2X and the D1X and the D1 and the F5 and the F4 and so on in the past. They were rather costly cameras too, remember?
Well, this is very good news for Nikon ... news that THEY should have been touting more strongly themselves to better justify their pricing.
Pricing IS realtive ... I thought nothing of dropping 7-8K on a Canon 1DsXXX ... three times. It was the price of doing business. Just like 25K for a MFD camera was the price of doing business. If you need a pro spec body with high meg output, the field narrows very quickly. Canon or Nikon ... all the remaining cameras are Prosumer.
My main application for these type bodies is shooting high resolution images to two CF cards at once. One single failure of a CF card anywhere in the image chain could cost me the equivlant of a pile of D3Xs.
Seems from this report that the perfect 2 camera system would be a D3X for high resolution work up to ISO 640/800, and a D700 for low light candid work from ISO 500 and up.
Pricing IS realtive ... I thought nothing of dropping 7-8K on a Canon 1DsXXX ... three times. It was the price of doing business. Just like 25K for a MFD camera was the price of doing business. If you need a pro spec body with high meg output, the field narrows very quickly. Canon or Nikon ... all the remaining cameras are Prosumer.
My main application for these type bodies is shooting high resolution images to two CF cards at once. One single failure of a CF card anywhere in the image chain could cost me the equivlant of a pile of D3Xs.
Seems from this report that the perfect 2 camera system would be a D3X for high resolution work up to ISO 640/800, and a D700 for low light candid work from ISO 500 and up.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Exactly my thought as well. Two cards, sometimes with two different formats, would make my life so much easier, not to speak about safer. Nikon knows what they're doing by reserving a feature like that for the top models.
D3X plus D700 would be a perfect combination, exactly as you describe it. That's only 5,500 per camera in average
P
pphuang
Guest
When you look at the scores for dynamic range, the D3X gets a 13.7 while the S5 Pro gets a 13.5. Yet, when you look at the actual graphs, the EV range for the S5 Pro is 13.7 EV to 7.09 EV while the EV range for the D3X is 12.84 to 7.43.
Obviously, there's something going on with the dynamic range ranking that I don't understand
. Anybody have an explanation? It will be interesting to see the graphs on DP review when the full review is published.