Nikon D3x

I'd like to upgrade camera body from D2X to D3X.
Users reviews need.

For starters...The D3x is a full-frame rather than a 1.5x crop-body like the D2x, D300 and previous DSLRs from Nikon. The D3x is a 24mp sensor and shoots at up to 5 frames per second in it's native "FX" format. It will go to 7 frames per second on the old "DX" format. The D3s features a 51 point autofocus system, dual CF slots and is a giant leap foward of the D2x in general. The BIG downside is Nikon decide to adopt the Canon pricing model and stuck an $8000 price tag on the camera. If you are a studio photographer and or need a great deal of latitude with respect to cropping/enlarging your photos, the camera may be worth it.

Alternately, there is the otherwise identical D3. The D3 is also a full-frame and entered the market in 2007 at the original price of your D2x., around $5000. The primary difference between the D3 and D3x is the the D3 is "only" a 12mp camera that shoots 9 frames per second in FX format or 11 frames per second in DX format while allowing you to shoot at up to ISO 25600. The D3x "only" goes up to ISO 6400. Beyond that, the cameras are largely identical.

By all accounts, the D3 was designed to, and succeeded at yanking Canon's sports photography and high ISO performance crowns from the 1D Mark III. The D3x on the other hand, is meant to dethrone the 1Ds Mark III for resolution in the studio...Again, I think Nikon has scored a major coup and Canon has been caught asleep at the wheel for camera developement.

As if to add insult to injury, Nikon also introduced two very seductive lenses in the AF-s 14-24mm and 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms that are both scary sharp and specifically designed for the D3 and D3x. If it weren't for the huge investments buyers at this level typically have in their lenses, we'd probably be seeing a huge exodus from the Canon system to Nikon. If Canon doesn't get it's act together, we may still see that exodus...I know I've been thinking about it.

2009-09-09 07:15:53 by eddieda!

***THE ORIGINAL!!*** Hitler is raving mad at Nikon, and lets his cohorts know about it! I authored this piece; don't be fooled by others ...

Doesn't it annoy you when someone who knows nothing about photography asks a question they have no intention of fulfilling?
It's like they are asking questions for the heck of it.

It annoys me more than many want to be a photographer and so ask what DSLR should they get -- because they enjoy taking pictures and take a lot and their friends all love their photos... far apart from the fact that they may not get into a photography course or actually don't take as 'nice' pictures as they think, and that photography is so easy and rewarding...

But I deal with it. I deal with it.

It's the internet. You just have to deal with it.

2009-10-16 14:11:47 by NGPhoto

12.1-megapixel, FX-format CMOS sensor; 720p HD video capture
Body only; lenses sold separately
Dual CF card slots with overflow, backup and copy options (CF card not included); up to 4,300 images per battery charge

What is the resolution of a Raw or Large picture? I'm curious to know because of the 24mp sensor.

6048x4032

2009-12-07 18:08:32 by .trevor`~

3.0-inch, super density 920,000-dot VGA color monitor , 170-degree wide-angle viewing and tempered-glass protection
Capture images to CF I/II cards
Fast, accurate 51-point AF with 3D Focus Tracking

I really had my mind set on the mkii 5d but then i read some reviews showing that the nikon or even the sony a900 might be a better choice but then i noticed i cannot put a pocket wizard on the a900 without an adapter. so now the choices are between the nikon and the canon please give me legitimate reasons not fan based opinions

Studio photographers use medium format cameras from the likes of Hasselblad and Mamiya. But those costs well into the ten thousands.

Like what everybody said, go for the Canon, and save the remainder for lenses and accessories. A $8000 camera loaded with crap lenses is just not going to do it justice.

If you don't mind about megapixels, the 12 megapixel Nikon D3 works even better than both the D3X and 5D overall. It's 9 frames per second burst rate, along with superior high iso performance, makes it the better camera on the field. Studio performance may lag behind a tiny bit... but to be honest, you won't be able to see any differences until you zoom in at 400%

2009-04-11 09:39:40 by dinom829

i'm in digital image heaven when holding my D3x. i cant explain the joy and greatness I feel when working with it. it is shear beauty. nothing comes close to it. I photograph mainly weddings. as a hobby I capture landscapes.

2009-07-22 07:01:06 by Mere Mortal