UPDATE: This was rumor, but It’s now official. You can see the Nikon press release here. I’ve updated details in the post to reflect released stats.
The D3X (ultra high resolution version of the Nikon D3) has been in the chatter for awhile. Here’s some rumor details over on Nikon watch. These come from the pages of a Nikon Pro magazine. Looks like the D3X is mainly a D3, but with a few changes. Still no video capability, though that should not bother most photographers… Should it?
Details: (Updated)
- Full frame 24.5 megapixel FX sensor
- 5fps full res, or 7fps at 10 megapixels
- Expanded ISO 50-6400 (No super high ISO shooting like the D3)
- A new Active-D lighting mode
- Cost will be about $8000 USD
- Available in December 2008
Most of you readers know I’m a Canon shooter, but I have nothing against Nikon at all. My observation is that this does not offer much advantage over the current Nikon D3 other than megapixels, and will cost more. It also has less ISO range. Are any of you readers planning on picking one up? Do most of us need more pixels? Your thoughts?
From what I’ve been reading in many places the ISO is actually a bit different.
They opted with going a stop down.
so now it’s 50-6400 instead of 100-12/25k
All in all this camera seems to be designed with the studio and landscape photographer in mind.
Therefore not having video makes sense i suppose
So for me it’s not a match as I love the High ISO of the D700 and I’m envious of the goof around capabilities of the video on the 5DII and D90
But i guess until it comes right from the horses mouth we still might be suprised with what comes out.
just what me need more megapixels, when will it end!
To me this is a low cost alternative to a medium format camera, just like the Canon 1Ds Mark III would be. If Nikon was going to put video in a higher end camera I could see them putting it in the D700 line not in the D3, just like I don’t see Canon putting video in the 1D’s.
I have been shooting the Nikon D3 for a while now. It has been the first DSLR that for me truly surpassed the The Nikon F5 film camera. The real question is there even a need for medium format. Nikon and Canon cameras with their lens system and multicoating actually have higher resolution than a digital Medium format and so even if there are megapixels with a medium format that does not equal resolution. This not like the film days where larger film area gives you less grain (noise).
And really it take about four times of megapixels to double a print size. So when you look at the size of image difference between a Medium digital format 64 megapixel and a 24 megapixel FX DSLR the size is what 1.5x. Then add in the higher quality of Nikon or Canon glass and the low noise of the sensor is there a need for $20000 Medium format when a $5000 DSLR is in the same neighborhood.
@ Ralph
You’ve given some great stats but the proof is always in the pudding, as g’ma used to say. The level of depth you get from a mf DSLR far exceeds that of 35mm DSLR’s. Also, the perception of a photographer holding a $35,000 Hassy is of belonging to the elite of photography. As far as glass goes, I love my Nikon glass, my wife loves her Canon glass but I would kill to get my Leica camera and glass back that I shot in the 80’s. Even today, there is no comparison to the razor sharpness and contrast you achieve with those lens’. As far as being a wedding photographer goes, no, I don’t think there is a need to have mf camera’s…..except if your looking to separate yourself from the pack. We know there is this stupid megapixel race but the general public believes more is better, bigger is better, and more expensive is better. So I do believe we will come full circle soon, as more and more wedding photographers try to differentiate themselves, not just from each other but from uncle bob, we’ll start to see more mf cameras at weddings.