Posted by Mark Windom on November 30, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Geez, only $8,000. You first, Mark H.
Posted by Jack Graham on December 1, 2008 at 1:31 AM
The D700 is looking like quite a good value
JG
Posted by Darren White on December 1, 2008 at 2:25 AM
I can buy 3 5D MK II's or 1 D3x.......Nikon just lost a customer!!!
Posted by Rick Dunn on December 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Nice rig, but that price seems downright silly.
I'll have to seriously think about selling my D2X and moving over to Canon. A 5D II, a 24" Epson 7880, a year's worth of ink and paper and I'd still have a couple grand left over to travel somewhere exotic.
This is a peculiar price strategy. I'd be very reluctant to shell out $8k for this. Aside from it just not being a good value, I'd expect a price drop assuming they don't move many at this price. At the very least, a lot of people will be waiting for a D700 replacement that offers similar specs (at 1/3 the price).
Posted by Matt Anderson on December 1, 2008 at 10:36 AM
D700x would carry a premium price as well.
One could argue the sensor upgrade is costing $3000, putting a D700x at $5,999.
Nikon has dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by Younes Bounhar on December 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Talk about a royal screw-up!!! I am seriously considering dumping my Nikon gear.
Posted by Mark Hudon on December 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Well, that takes the pressure off of having to think about saving up money for it, I simply won't do it. My D2x is looking better and better these days.
Posted by Kevin Pieper on December 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I guess the price won't be dropping on the 1DsIV when it comes...
Those hoping for the end of the 8k camera (everyone) are disappointed for sure. Canons replacement for their 1DsM3 will surely be in that range again. No pressure to change their pricing now.
Posted by Rick Lamb on December 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I'm not a Nikon shooter so my depth of knowledge on all things Nikon is not as deep so this helped me bunches to get the full picture of how the D3X fits (or not...) into the Nikon world.
Dang sad to see Nikon making these choices.
Posted by Marc Adamus on December 1, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I, for one, will never again make the mistake of buying an $8k camera, no matter how much change I have lying around.
Posted by Kosta Koeman on December 1, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I'm a Canon guy, but I do like to see innovation from Nikon (such as less noisier sensors, better color fidelity) as it pushes Canon and that benefits all of us. I am a bit surprised at the price. Hopefully Nikon will readjust based on the popularity of the Canon 5D Mark II (of which I am waiting for mine to get shipped out). Competition is healthy (as long as it doesn't result in products being rushed/not sufficiently debugged).
Posted by Philip Kuglin on December 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I, for one, will never again make the mistake of buying an $8k camera, no matter how much change I have lying around.
Your opinion may change over time Marc so "never" may prove difficult to do. Based on your value system today you would not nor would I, but depending on your changes in your life and how successful you are that may change. Some spend even more for a camera - MFDB's...
First thing I thought when I read the price tag is that Nikon must have some balls to pull a reverse 1Ds MK-III on people. The camera doesn't really appear to be too much of a step from the D3 other than the pixel count. I'd rather pay $5400 less for the 5D MK2 if I needed the pixel count and use that cash for L glass. I'll upgrade to at least a D300 but I have the D700 in my sights. I just don't want to have to switch systems and haggle over the cost of my gear to buy new gear.
I'm curious to how much of the Sony A900 is integrated with this sensor, or of it is a different sensor. I don't think Nikon made a good move with this camera. It's quite a price tax for the different sensor, especially when the D3 is a fine camera as it is but too rich for my blood. Even the D700 is a bit of a stretch. I'm poor, lol.
Posted by Nancy Lamb on December 2, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Price matters! Nancy
Posted by Mark Hudon on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM
If the photos from the D3x are just out of this world good, like something we've never seen before, just freaking unbelievably good, taking digital photography to a new level (maybe true 4x5 quality) then I guess the camera would be worth eight grand. If they are a bit better than what we have now, then it's not worth it.
I've seen the files presented on the web but I don't really trust those. Anything can be made to look good on the web. I want to hear it from Riechmann, Gilbrath, Hogan, DPreview and all the others. It'll need to be sung from the rooftops.
I'm bummed that my camera company made such an apparent blunder. BUT, I can't call them stupid since the D3 was such an awesome camera. I'm wondering if there will be some infill in the camera lineup that will make everyone happy. We'll see.
As for me, my camera, my lenses, for what I do, for what my market is, for the present state of the economy, I'm a happy camper.
Posted by Erik Lundh on December 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Mark,
Aren't you glad you didn't use your D2x as a door stop? I'm glad I didn't.
Posted by Edward Thomas on December 2, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Back in the film days, something like 90% of pros used Nikon and Nikon as a company was not very nice to deal with. They really had an attitude. A few years ago, when Nikon was 2nd fiddle, they became a lot nicer and customer oriented. I guess since the success of the D300/D700 they're falling back to their old arrogant ways.
I'm hoping that in some magical way the D3x really sets new standards and people start saying yea, it's worth the $8,000. But I really doubt whether a tweaked Sony a900 sensor in a D3 is going to set the world on fire at an $8,000 price point.
Canon should be selling an extra boatload of those 5DII's after Nikon's announcement.
Having said all that, I am very satisfied with the output from the D700, and the 14-24 would be a hard lens to replace, so I'm staying put for a while. The jury is still out on these high MP 35mm based cameras anyway, as far as I'm concerned. In the DX format, it's becoming pretty clear 12MP's is really the point of diminishing returns, I'm curious where that point is in FX. Might be 14-18MP, maybe more. We'll see.
My wife seems to be of the mindset that we need it for the larger file size.....I cant swallow the price. In discussions on other boards, the point has been made that the market will drive down the price (whitness the 1DsMKIII....MSRP = 8,000, street price = $6,800) I am sure Nikon will feel the sting of their decision.
I will probably wait for a bit....see if a D700X is offered in the next 1/2 of 2009, if not, I will probably bite the bullet as the price will have adjusted by then. I have been playing with the example files, and I am quite impressed with the detail, and plan on renting one when it comes available so at least I know what my path is.
If reality dosnt sink in I will have to make my decision then to either go to Canon, or if business is good.....maybe even go with a MF rig that isnt priced into the oblivion, (like maybe a P25 or P30 back) Always liked the Horseman SW-DII Pro......even a nice P25+ at 22MP might be a decent option.....MF is going under its own re-genisis lately with prices dropping.
Discussion
19 repliesNikon D3X
JG
I'll have to seriously think about selling my D2X and moving over to Canon. A 5D II, a 24" Epson 7880, a year's worth of ink and paper and I'd still have a couple grand left over to travel somewhere exotic.
This is a peculiar price strategy. I'd be very reluctant to shell out $8k for this. Aside from it just not being a good value, I'd expect a price drop assuming they don't move many at this price. At the very least, a lot of people will be waiting for a D700 replacement that offers similar specs (at 1/3 the price).
One could argue the sensor upgrade is costing $3000, putting a D700x at $5,999.
Nikon has dropped the ball on this one.
http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm
I'm not a Nikon shooter so my depth of knowledge on all things Nikon is not as deep so this helped me bunches to get the full picture of how the D3X fits (or not...) into the Nikon world.
Dang sad to see Nikon making these choices.
Your opinion may change over time Marc so "never" may prove difficult to do. Based on your value system today you would not nor would I, but depending on your changes in your life and how successful you are that may change. Some spend even more for a camera - MFDB's...
It is all relative.
I'm curious to how much of the Sony A900 is integrated with this sensor, or of it is a different sensor. I don't think Nikon made a good move with this camera. It's quite a price tax for the different sensor, especially when the D3 is a fine camera as it is but too rich for my blood. Even the D700 is a bit of a stretch. I'm poor, lol.
I've seen the files presented on the web but I don't really trust those. Anything can be made to look good on the web. I want to hear it from Riechmann, Gilbrath, Hogan, DPreview and all the others. It'll need to be sung from the rooftops.
I'm bummed that my camera company made such an apparent blunder. BUT, I can't call them stupid since the D3 was such an awesome camera. I'm wondering if there will be some infill in the camera lineup that will make everyone happy. We'll see.
As for me, my camera, my lenses, for what I do, for what my market is, for the present state of the economy, I'm a happy camper.
Aren't you glad you didn't use your D2x as a door stop? I'm glad I didn't.
I'm hoping that in some magical way the D3x really sets new standards and people start saying yea, it's worth the $8,000. But I really doubt whether a tweaked Sony a900 sensor in a D3 is going to set the world on fire at an $8,000 price point.
Canon should be selling an extra boatload of those 5DII's after Nikon's announcement.
Having said all that, I am very satisfied with the output from the D700, and the 14-24 would be a hard lens to replace, so I'm staying put for a while. The jury is still out on these high MP 35mm based cameras anyway, as far as I'm concerned. In the DX format, it's becoming pretty clear 12MP's is really the point of diminishing returns, I'm curious where that point is in FX. Might be 14-18MP, maybe more. We'll see.
I will probably wait for a bit....see if a D700X is offered in the next 1/2 of 2009, if not, I will probably bite the bullet as the price will have adjusted by then. I have been playing with the example files, and I am quite impressed with the detail, and plan on renting one when it comes available so at least I know what my path is.
If reality dosnt sink in I will have to make my decision then to either go to Canon, or if business is good.....maybe even go with a MF rig that isnt priced into the oblivion, (like maybe a P25 or P30 back) Always liked the Horseman SW-DII Pro......even a nice P25+ at 22MP might be a decent option.....MF is going under its own re-genisis lately with prices dropping.
Roman