D3X: let the armchair critics loose!

It's here. Really, this time. (And do I need to say I told you so?).

Predictably, everyone has an opinion about a camera they've never seen, let alone handled, and the web is awash with under-informed commentary. But what the heck - here's my contribution:

1. Price

Wow. $8000 in the US and 7000 Euros in Europe. Nikon UK doesn't appear to have released pricing information yet, but that would put it at around £5500 - or around £2000 more on RRP than the D3, for a few more pixels. Hmmm.

I was expecting Nikon to try to shake up the market with a price that dramatically undercut its 1DSIII competitor, but it looks as though they've gone for a small undercut on RRP (in the UK at least), which means it'll be a while before the street price matches the direct competition. Good for Nikon's margins in the short term, I'm sure. But given that many Canon pros have held off buying the 1DSIII because they think it's too expensive (and that those same pros are now eyeing up the 5DII as a more realistic alternative), is it really such a good move? 

Um, probably not.

2. Bit depth

That 16-bit Expeed processor had a bunch of people hypothesising that Nikon had found a way to nudge (a lot) more data around than the competition.  They haven't. RAW files from the D3X are 12 or 14 bit. And car photographer Tim Andrew's comment in one of the D3X microsite's gallery sections that he 'completed the static shots and switched to 12-bit mode for the action shots' suggests strongly that the D3X's 14 bit mode may carry a similar speed penalty to the D300's.

So we're back to the fact that the D3X doesn't offer much more (crop modes, a few more pixels) than the established competition...

3. Will I buy one?

Here's something I should be able to comment on with some authority (although, given that I decided originally that the D3 was too big, heavy and expensive for my needs before relenting and realising that, in fact, it was just the camera I'd been looking for apart from the size, weight and price, my comments here ought perhaps to be taken with a large pinch of salt).

In a word: no.

If my clients were clamouring for bigger files, I'd find a way to scrape together the money. But 12mp has served me well so far, including some pretty large POS (that's 'point of sale', not the alternative acronym) banners, cropped double trucks and more covers than you can shake a stick at. More importantly, the D3's super-clean high ISO really has got me out of some scrapes recently. I'm sure the D3X's 1600 is fine, but those extra pixels do come at a price.

Give me a D800 (or a D700X) with the same sensor in a smaller body at a price closer to the 5DII, on the other hand, and I might (just might, mind you) be interested. Oh, wait... that means there'll be thousands of people like me who won't buy the D3X partly because we'll be waiting for the inevitable D3X junior.

But that, I think sums the D3X up. I'm sure it'll produce lovely files. But really it's too little, too late, and above all waaaay too spendy.

Update: for some well-informed commentary on the new camera, read what Thom Hogan has to say. Summary: 'Nikon has a big problem with the D3x, I think. It's last to the market (FX, high resolution), with everything riding solely on the sensor. And they're asking a huge price for it. At US$4999 the risk of failure wouldn't have been very large. At its US$7999 price, it really needs to perform beyond expectations for it to shore up the top side of Nikon's lineup.'

Comments

[meatling]

One big issue hasn't even been mentioned yet: Look at the specs and you'll find there's no sensor cleaning system. Instead, you're offered to buy (!) additional Software from Nikon to interpolate away any dust specs that might be there. So basically they charge you extra bucks to compensate for what might be considerd a design flaw in these days.

For me, it's a total show stopper, and I wonder what drugs they've been on when launching this thing.

[Seb Rogers]

Fair enough. But in Nikon's defence I'd simply point out that sensor cleaning systems are - how shall I put this? - more hype than substance. I should know - I've got a D300. I still have to wet clean the sensor, and so will anyone who's fussy about their results - particularly on a high-res sensor.

When Nikon incorporated sensor cleaning on the D700, the resulting intrusion into the mirror box area meant taking a hit on viewfinder coverage. Most pros would, I think, prefer to have 100% coverage over sensor cleaning.

No, I don't think that's even close to being a show-stopper for most buyers (though your mileage clearly varies!). It's the price.