I can believe a D3X coming out, but i don't believe that it'll be 9fps and "faster high-speed for sports". The D3 is effectively the high speed camera for sports that replaces the D2H, the D3X should be the high resolution landscape and studio camera that replaces the D2X.
If the jeff-c comment is true about Nikon rejecting the Sony sensor and working designing a new one, thus holding the D3X from the Photokina show, I wouldn't see why this wouldn't be a good time frame to get the issue solved like the sensor. If we dont see it this year, we could see the D3x at WPPI along with that "big" release.
Does Nikon have a video camera line? What if they release a video camera that shoots stills as well as the D3? Wouldn't that be pretty big ? They just released that video headset. But a video camera using Nikon 35mm lenses and other ones too.
It doesn't make any sense. So you are paying $2,000 more for double the megapixel? And what would a sport photographer do with a 24.4 mp sensor? I guess it might be useful to be used as a 12.2 mp crop camera
I will be thankful if it is $6,499. Maybe the D3 would not take so much crap on the used market. I am having to list mine at $3,600 and I am still getting low ball offers in the 3K range.
I was thinking that the $6499 price was a steal to tell you the truth. Canon's answer is $8000!
In addition, this would replace both my D3 and D300 in one fell swoop. Even if the alleged 9FPS was in crop mode, that's still pretty close to the D300 in resolution, so I'm good with that. To me, this would be the ultimate all around camera and the first time I can say, OK, I think I'm done for awhile! (Of course, the D4 would up the MP slightly and - more importantly - probably have huge dynamic range, but I'm getting ahead of myself :-)
Chris Langer wrote:
Does Nikon have a video camera line? What if they release a video camera that shoots stills as well as the D3? Wouldn't that be pretty big ? They just released that video headset. But a video camera using Nikon 35mm lenses and other ones too.
Chris
in the late 80's early 90's nikon had a few 8mm camcorders, but were actually sony's with a nikon logo. There has always been a relationship between nikon & sony. Who knows really?
tuannie wrote:
It doesn't make any sense. So you are paying $2,000 more for double the megapixel? And what would a sport photographer do with a 24.4 mp sensor? I guess it might be useful to be used as a 12.2 mp crop camera
I will be thankful if it is $6,499. Maybe the D3 would not take so much crap on the used market. I am having to list mine at $3,600 and I am still getting low ball offers in the 3K range.
I on the other hand am patiently waiting for the D3 to fall bellow 3K
Steve Perry wrote:
I was thinking that the $6499 price was a steal to tell you the truth. Canon's answer is $8000!
In addition, this would replace both my D3 and D300 in one fell swoop. Even if the alleged 9FPS was in crop mode, that's still pretty close to the D300 in resolution, so I'm good with that. To me, this would be the ultimate all around camera and the first time I can say, OK, I think I'm done for awhile! (Of course, the D4 would up the MP slightly and - more importantly - probably have huge dynamic range, but I'm getting ahead of myself :-)
+1 Steve. The only thing that stops me getting the D3 is the lack of reach of the FX sensor over the D300. To effectively get both in 1 body would be the answer to my prayers. But then again, I already have the D300, I could get the D3 as a 2nd body once the prices drop on the release of the D3X.
D300 for sports and wildlife, D3 for portraits, high ISO stuff. Both for weddings etc.
firewireguy wrote:
Also, wouldn't that mean 137MB+ files! Do you have a beowulf cluster of Crays or something? my thoughts exactly!!! That is the curse of the Digital Revolution tho...
A D3X will fill a 2TB NAS pronto
cadman342001 wrote:
+1 Steve. The only thing that stops me getting the D3 is the lack of reach of the FX sensor over the D300. To effectively get both in 1 body would be the answer to my prayers. But then again, I already have the D300, I could get the D3 as a 2nd body once the prices drop on the release of the D3X.
D300 for sports and wildlife, D3 for portraits, high ISO stuff. Both for weddings etc.
Hmmmmmmmm......a cunning plan my lord !
Andy
The reach loss bothered me for a while when i was trying to decide which one to get next the D2x or the D3. And the high iso would suffer with the D2x vs a D300w/grip for the same reach.
Conclusion i came to was a D3 and a 1.4x for when the reach is critical. The D3(if i can find one used for under 3k after christmas) and the 300 f/4 + a 1.4x Will still give better performance than My D80 with my 70-300 and most likely. Or a 1Dmk3 and a 400 5.6 since nikon doesn't make a 400 5.6
But for the reasons i want a new body I think the reach is the only thing that was holding me back from a D3(that and the cost) and for those shots a 1.4x can cure it i believe.
Funny how one of the greatest things when I went digital was the free reach my lenses got over film, and now loosing that reach again. But I would get my wides back ...
well at least a few of you here see what i'm getting at. the gotta have it for the sake of having it and can't do a thing with it group is alive and well.
