I keep hearing from a friend (nikon rep) that Nikon will have a new X series camera (released) in February. i am interested if anyone else knows of this and any specs. My concern is in purchasing the D3 only to find that a newer X series is introduced shortly after.
I'm interested to hear details on the D4X. We picked up two D2X's in the last year, and I doubt we will find any compelling reason to dump them before we wear them out. That puts us 3-4 years down the road, so give me a head's up when your sources start talking about the D3X replacement.
Posted by David Prichard on December 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I too have heard well founded rumours of a new X. However I have also been reading about new sensor and electronic improvements. The sensor development, by Eastman Kodak, is not due to go into production until late spring\summer of 2008. I'll side with Hank, and wait a bit unless there is some major compelling reason to upgrade.
Posted by Bill Chambers on December 19, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Full Frame and the huge noise improvement aren't compelling reasons??? For my shooting style, those two issues are MAJOR. As far as the new X series vs the regular D3, I'm having second thoughts however. I'm just wondering how much better it can be, or needs to be than the D3. If it's just an increase in MPs, I don't see a compelling reason to choose an X version over the regular D3, unless the price point is VERY close to one another, which I kinda doubt it will be.
No big rush for me though as I don't plan on picking up a D3 until next September anyway. After Canon's royal debacle with their MkIII, I want to be sure the D3 doesn't have any hidden issues as well.
Posted by David Bostedo on December 19, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Well, Bill - not only will you get an increase in MPs, but you'll probably get a decrease in high ISO performance. Unless Nikon (or anyone, really) has finally figured out how to get the same noise performance out of smaller pixels. So even if the price point was close, you'd have to decide which you wanted - better ISO performance, or more megapixels?
Posted by David Prichard on December 19, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Bill,
In today's technical environment, no they are not. Granted it may be to some whose business model can support it, my local conditions do not.
As one of those who had focus problems when the D2X first came out I'm somewhat shy about being an early adaptor of new hardware. For my current needs the D2x serves quite well and should the announced developments in technology prove to be true, why buy a new camera in four months if there will be even a better one in eight?
As your post indicates a bit of a wait and see regarding new developments you may, for different reasons, share my caution in rapidly changing technology.
Posted by David Bostedo on December 19, 2007 at 5:31 PM
David - The only problem I see with "why buy a new camera in four months if there will be even a better one in eight?", is that the argument goes on forever. There will always be a "better" camera coming.
At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and actually buy something. (I'm going through this right now myself with regard to my first SLR and lenses, wondering how long I should wait given the investment I'm going to make. So far, I've been waiting since about August, when I "decided" it was time to get an SLR. I haven't been able to pull the trigger though.)
Posted by David Prichard on December 19, 2007 at 8:52 PM
David,
You may recall Bill Gates famous words "who needs more than 640K of memory?" or "the Internet is just a fad."
I compare digital photography, from a technical point of view, to what computing was ten to fifteen years ago. Everybody was getting the latest and greatest hardware and software. It hit a plateau several years ago IMO. While there have been a lot of introductions of new software and hardware many people and firms are not upgrading like they did in the past as what they have serves their current needs compared to costs.
Rates in my isolated location are abysmal. One amateur here informed me he just sold two pictures to our major magazine for $30 each. I can't justify buying a new back every time one is released with rates like that. There may be those whose business allows them to trade up when this happens, fair enough.
Full frame and better high ISO resolution are desirable but as Mr. Gates admirably demonstrated, nobody really knows where the future is headed. It is an individual choice, but as long as the D2X meets my needs, if there is the promise of a major technical jump shortly down the road, I'll hang tough and see what it actually delivers.
Posted by Bill Chambers on December 20, 2007 at 12:16 AM
David (Bostedo) - Agreed 100% on your mention of increased MP leading to increased noise. MP alone would never be a reason to upgrade to the X version. If the noise levels of the D3 are indeed as low as they appear to be, even an increase in noise might still be within very acceptable limits (ie, still much better than the D2X). Even then, it's borderline at best in my mind if that would justify an upgrade. Will just have to wait and see what Nikon comes out with.
If the D3 is all it's cracked up to be (and the reviews thus far have all been stellar), it seems like a camera that can be used for many years without need of additional upgrade. I love my D2X, but must admit the lack of FF and the large amount of noise (as compared to the 5D) are quite bothersome to me personally. I am not one to upgrade a camera body just for the sake of upgrading, but the D3 offers a quantum leap IMO.
Discussion
9 replieshttp://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-future.html
No big rush for me though as I don't plan on picking up a D3 until next September anyway. After Canon's royal debacle with their MkIII, I want to be sure the D3 doesn't have any hidden issues as well.
In today's technical environment, no they are not. Granted it may be to some whose business model can support it, my local conditions do not.
As one of those who had focus problems when the D2X first came out I'm somewhat shy about being an early adaptor of new hardware. For my current needs the D2x serves quite well and should the announced developments in technology prove to be true, why buy a new camera in four months if there will be even a better one in eight?
As your post indicates a bit of a wait and see regarding new developments you may, for different reasons, share my caution in rapidly changing technology.
At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and actually buy something. (I'm going through this right now myself with regard to my first SLR and lenses, wondering how long I should wait given the investment I'm going to make. So far, I've been waiting since about August, when I "decided" it was time to get an SLR. I haven't been able to pull the trigger though.)
You may recall Bill Gates famous words "who needs more than 640K of memory?" or "the Internet is just a fad."
I compare digital photography, from a technical point of view, to what computing was ten to fifteen years ago. Everybody was getting the latest and greatest hardware and software. It hit a plateau several years ago IMO. While there have been a lot of introductions of new software and hardware many people and firms are not upgrading like they did in the past as what they have serves their current needs compared to costs.
Rates in my isolated location are abysmal. One amateur here informed me he just sold two pictures to our major magazine for $30 each. I can't justify buying a new back every time one is released with rates like that. There may be those whose business allows them to trade up when this happens, fair enough.
Full frame and better high ISO resolution are desirable but as Mr. Gates admirably demonstrated, nobody really knows where the future is headed. It is an individual choice, but as long as the D2X meets my needs, if there is the promise of a major technical jump shortly down the road, I'll hang tough and see what it actually delivers.
If the D3 is all it's cracked up to be (and the reviews thus far have all been stellar), it seems like a camera that can be used for many years without need of additional upgrade. I love my D2X, but must admit the lack of FF and the large amount of noise (as compared to the 5D) are quite bothersome to me personally. I am not one to upgrade a camera body just for the sake of upgrading, but the D3 offers a quantum leap IMO.