Nikon D3x Body Best Prices, Compare, Reviews

Friday, November 20th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Nikon D3x Body Best Prices, Compare, Reviews.

Product: Nikon D3x Body

List Price: No List Price Available
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Click Here To See Amazon Sale Price
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Owned a D3 for one and a half years and traded in for the D3x after trying out the recent model for a day. My review is not about ticket - for the picture I assume Nikon stretched the barrier on the mark point for this which I am not cheerful about - but as far as performance goes I am cheerful. The D3x results is are perceptibly friendly for landscape and macro photography - which is what I typically shoot - even on honest A3+ prints.... so I can imagine that the results would be that considerable better for larger sizes. Impartial as many of you, I have also read arguments on the glean re the megapixel account ad nauseam and was half convinced about it but nothing speaks as clearly as prints (and I'm comparing studio shots of the same subject taken with the two different cameras) .

Have not tried the D3x for sports photography yet but I suspect that unless you are shooting either motor-sports or winter sports, the moderately slower 5fps in tall FX mode compared with the 7fps for the D3 is not going to be an exclaim.

I also spent a day with the Sony Alpha-900 given that is the only other player in a similar mega-pixel category. The output was all suitable but overall fair not in the same league as the D3x in terms of handling, acquire quality etc etc (I'm probably biased as I am very familiar with Nikon controls - fair found the Sony too 'fiddly' and 'plasticky' and couldn't search for myself spending hours with it without getting irritated) .

Early days with the camera but so far it feels like one of the best DSLR's I have dilapidated especially when the medium format alternatives would involve rendering my vast pile of Nikon lenses useless and the replacement cost would be prohibitive. As mentioned earlier the D3x pricing is a different bid altogether and I reflect that the suitable label point would have been around $2K lower......will update if and when I peer any shortfalls or glitches.

A dinky context...I've shot a lot with a D200, even more with a D3, and most recently with the D3x. Most of my work is in fashion, with a limited bit of commercial product work here and there.

I must say - the images this camera produces are truly splendid. Paired with a first-rate lens, the detail is astonishing...and other qualities, the more subjective ones like incompatibility and color, are hard to relate but are genuine and for my work, exceed the D3's already safe capabilities.

But all the detail in the world can't succor you if you can't count on the camera to remark the shot...and that's where handling comes into play. The D3 is, IMHO, the best-handling DSLR body in the world - a combination of the autofocus system and the camera controls (and the metering system, but I'm usually shooting in manual so don't rely on it often) . The D3x handles identically to the D3x (set for the frame rate), which is exactly what I would have hoped for.

I exercise this camera mostly at ISO 100; the files delivered are amazingly noise-free. Obvious, any camera can protest at its unsuitable ISO...but you truly need to ogle these files to really understand the cleanliness and enlargement potential.

All in all, this is exactly what I hoped Nikon would snarl. Determined, I'd rather it was cheaper...but if you want the best image quality in digital 35mm format that money can consume, this is it.

$8000 is not a runt stack of money especially in today's economy. So how dare Nikon can set aside up such a mark label? Does they drop into a crack and totally out of the reality?

So far all the reviews on Amazon.com are from the notice complainers who would not lift a D3x. However, let's first face the fact that the Canon's flagship, the 1Ds Imprint III, also retails at $8000 although they are routinely sold at discount since it has been on the market for a while. But when it came out the mark was the same so we can hardly say Nikon is too crazy.

Then there begin to merge rave reviews, mostly from pros who have extensive experiences with the Canon 1DsIII. All these reviews seem point to the same observations: the D3x RAW files area a note modern standard for a DSLR and has far passed the 1DsIII quality level.

Let's first survey at the professional review plot of Lloyd Chambers who has on going exhaustive D3x tests including comparisons with the 1DsIII, D3, A700, and with both the Nikon and the Carl Zeiss lenses:

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

Yes the right reviews on his DAP ("Diglloyd's Advanced Photography") is not free, but from my concept the $29.99 fee is well deserved. You can also find the DAP and his extensive Zeiss lens review free of charge, if you order a D3x through his links to Amazon, B&H, and Adorama online stores.

Here let us view what Lloyd have found and assign out today (all quote from his free blog pages) :

"And so I'll declare what I've stated before: the Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen. The online bitching and moaning about the mark won't change that fact--I don't like it either. But if you need or want the very best DSLR available today, the Nikon D3x is your camera. In fact, I have zero desire to shoot my Canon 1Ds Trace III any more. None at all. It's not about resolution: it's about exquisite image quality."

"How well do D3x images scale? The nick below is sincere pixels after scaling to 97.5 megapixels (12096 X 8064), using RAW Developer. It has been sharpened during RAW conversion and also in Photoshop CS4. Probably those versed in the finer points of image scaling could do even better, and sometime soon I'll be exploring how well PhotoZoom Pro and Superior Fractals do scaling of D3x images.

You don't need "faith" with the Nikon D3x: it's offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen."

"In perhaps my most spicy findings yet on the D3x, I've explored color and noise with the Nikon D3x and Nikon D3 side-by-side, using my reference lens, the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro.

The slice below is from the D3x at ISO 1600, downsampled to D3 actual-pixels resolution. Noise? "

Is Lloyd, who reviews photographic products from all the makers, biased or simply over-excited? Let's checkout an independent review on the Shining Landscapes forum, again from a long time 1DsIII user. The title of the blog was titled "Nikon is NOT on crack - Initial D3x image quality is Wonderful!":

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php? showtopic=30658

where we can gather the following quotes:

"I impartial got out for about 4 hours of serious (landscape and macro) shooting with the D3x this morning, and have been looking at the files for most of the afternoon. The easiest comparison I can develop is to the 1Ds mk II (note: NOT mk III), as that is the highest-resolution camera I have a lot of experience with (other than the D3x) . I am comparing at ISO 100, converting from 14-bit NEFs (in Nikon Buy NX2) and viewing at 100% on cloak (unfortunately, my printer is 180 miles away suitable now, and I'm on my laptop monitor, NOT my calibrated work monitor, because I am visiting my parents for the holidays) . There are two apparent differences - first is the wonderful sharpness of the D3x. When I've nailed the focus, the D3x looks very darned engrossing at 100% without applying any sharpening - because of the AA filter, the Canon never did that. It would PRINT very titillating, but 100% on shroud always revealed a diminutive blur. There is absolutely no noise in an ISO 100 D3x file, even at 100%, which adds to the impression of sharpness - very petite shadow noise in the Canon files adds a shrimp haze to sunless ones - that is simply not there in a D3x file. The second contrast is the dynamic range - the D3x has about a terminate more range in the highlights, plus at least an extra cessation in the shadows, maybe even 1.5 stops extra in the shadows, all of it very well-organized. This camera, properly handled, should print 24x36 inches with ease from its gross ISO of 100 (I find 16x24 out of the Canon, but don't like to go larger than that) .

ISO 400 on the D3x is very usable - it looks roughly like an ISO 100 file from a 1Ds mk II in terms of noise - it may have extra dynamic range, which I wouldn't have seen because my ISO 400 tests were on a very dull, grey day and would have fit easily within the DR of the 1Ds mk II) . This is comparing on a per-pixel basis, so the D3x file quiet has 3/2 the detail in it, due to the increased resolution... I have even fooled around a bit with ISO 3200 (HI 1.0), which looks unpleasant on shroud (although quite qualified considering that it's ISO 3200 - powerful better than any ISO 3200 film ever looked), but will produce a delicate decent 8x10 print with no inconvenience, and should even print 11x17 with some careful handling. I didn't capture the camera to shoot at ISO 3200, but it's nice to know the capability is there should it be needed. Those incredible ISO 100 files are what I bought the camera for, and it is certainly worth its effect for its low-ISO performance! There is something highly novel in the imaging chain of the D3x to catch these results - the sensor may NOT be stock Alpha 900 squawk (I suspect it isn't - I don't have a lot of Alpha experience, but the test files I've seen are not anywhere approach as elegant, even at outrageous ISOs) , and if it is, the AA filter in the D3x is extremely unique, probably made out of pure unobtainium.

Add that performance to a excellent rugged and ergonomic camera body with class-leading AF and metering, and the result is a powerful machine. Yes, it's expensive, but the only intention to regain better files is three times as expensive and not nearly as rugged.

-Dan"

"Things like microlenses and AA filters are getting better - the D3x seems to have an AA filter that few if any cameras can match (the amount of detail per pixel is remarkably high) . I've ragged a variety of digital setups and film formats over the years (from the unusual Canon D30 - not 30D, the recent 3 MP D30!) to the D3x for the past couple of weeks. My serious photographic work is fairly conventional landscapes, including quite a bit of work worthy closer in than many landscape photographers work.

Subjectively, here's how a list of cameras I know well approach out (when I say rude ISO film, I mean Velvia, Extachrome 100, Tmax 100, etc - not Tech Pan or other exotic ultra-fine definition films) . When I'm comparing film to a digital setup, I'm referring to film scanned at 4000 DPI on a Nikon 5000 or 9000 (a consumer flatbed wlll have significantly less resolution, and an Imacon may do somewhat better, although the Nikons manage to scan grain, so an Imacon can't be that great better, except perhaps in dynamic range and other non-resolution factors) . I shoot everything serious in RAW at maximum bit depth at or arrive snide ISO, and I have rarely extinct any film faster than ISO 100. This is a rather random sampling of cameras I have owned or primitive extensively over the years.

Canon D30 (3 mp) - less resolution than low-iso 35mm film, but noise less than grain on 35mm film (overall IQ fairly similar to pleasant 35mm film) - prints 6x9 inches very comfortably, 8x12 in a stretch. Dynamic range of low-DR traipse film at 5-6 stops (nail exposures and be careful with subjects) .

Sony 6 mp CCD (was in a ton of DSLRs for a while, level-headed in Nikon D40) - resolution more or less equivalent to 35mm, prints a slight bigger than I've ever been comfortable with from 35mm due to noise advantage, especially in its newer incarnations (8x12 easily, 11x17 possible) . Dynamic range better than most saunter films, not terminate to print film (in the range of 7 generous stops) .

Nikon D200 (10 mp) - resolution significantly better than 35mm (between 35mm and 645) . Overall image quality approaching 645 (which I'd say detached has the edge) . Prints 11x17 easily, but 16x24 is a astronomical stretch (I've done it, am not terribly tickled with the results) . Dynamic range similar to 6 mp sensor.

Canon EOS 1Ds mkII (16.7 mp) - resolution nearly equivalent to 645 film, with overall image quality probably slightly to somewhat ahead of 645. The first digital camera I have archaic that really plays in medium format (film) territory. Dynamic range improved over any previous digital camera I had veteran by at least a close (8 or more really expedient stops in a raw file) . Prints 16x24 fairly easily, but gives up before 24x36.

Nikon D3x (24.4 mp) - resolution well into medium-format territory, finish to 6x9 cm scanned film (considerable sharper per pixel than 1Ds mkII due to improvements in sensor/AA technology) . Overall image quality significantly better than scanned 6x9 cm Velvia! Dynamic range appears to be over 9 stops, maybe 10, while remaining completely noiseless. The only files I've seen that are definitively better are scans from large-format film. Prints 24x36 inches (a 25x enlargement) very comfortably, even examining the print from a few inches away. Files appear consuming and detailed on shroud at 100%

I'm positive that MF digital is even better than the D3x (although I'd be surprised if the 30ish mp variety were a titanic jump) . 60+ MP MF digital would be approaching well-scanned 4x5 film image quality very closely, if it carries at least the same amount of information per pixel as the D3x. The few Hasselblad H3D II/31 files I've seen are in a similar league to D3x files, with the Hasselblad's edge being roughly the resolution disagreement (20%) . I have not seen a Hasselblad file with enough subject dynamic range to create a meaningful DR comparison (it's certainly not less than the D3x, and could be significantly more) .

-Dan"

So, if someone thinks the D3x designate is too high, probably he or she does not need the tool of such caliber. Let's end rumbling with empty hands and wait for some staunch Amazon D3x users to scream their findings.

Share and Enjoy: