Jump to content


Photo

Your thoughts about the D3X.


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Ron W

Ron W

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7083 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Parrish, FL

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:55 PM

It was announced today. $8,000.00 ! Pretty steep price. Ken Rockwell seemed underwhelmed. I am starting to tire of the "new gotta have camera every two years rat race". The D3X might just convince me that the D3 is the camera for me.

www.ronwooldridgephotography.com

 

 

 

 


#2 Old Dog New Tricks

Old Dog New Tricks

    Eon Timewave Hero Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8358 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central New York
  • Interests:Scenic & Nature Photography, Travel, Cooking, Kayaking, Grandson and Granddaughter.

Posted 01 December 2008 - 08:38 PM

It's all about marketing, telling us that we really need something that we don't. It keeps people employed until it comes to a point where no one has money left to spend like that. My wife watches the home improvement channels...UGH... Some of the remodeling that is done is obscene. Marble counter tops are nice but you can do the same thing with Formica (I know I'm showing my age). You just need something to set other stuff on, not make a fashion statement. I love to cook and am better at that than photography, but in the resturant where I work we make darn good food on stainless steel. And the expensive "outdoor kitchens". It's all about keeping ahead of the Joneses... Enough ranting. I am sure that there are some useful benifits to the D3X, but why didn't we skip the D3 and jump up the pixels to the X.... Oh yea, sell more cameras. ODNT
Posted Image

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

Shooting with
Film Nikon N60, N70(2), EM, Mamiya C-330, C-33, RB67
Digital Nikon D7100 D7000, Nikon D200(RIP), Fuji S3Pro(Retired)

#3 mule_patterson

mule_patterson

    Galactic Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knoxville, Tennessee USA
  • Interests:Digital Photography! Graphic Design! Print Media! Displays and Exhibits! Signage! 865.310.9040

Posted 01 December 2008 - 09:00 PM

Yeah, Ron - the D3x is the ultimate cure for NAS. I get nauseated just thinking about a camera that looks a lot my D300 and costs five times as much. Fortunately, I don't need this body...

Thank goodness we have the D700 to honestly lust for - it should steal the serious DSLR sales from even the D90 over time. It splits the performance margin between the very capable D300 and very luscious D3 - with a few essential features to boot. An obvious choice to me...

Mule
Brian "Mule" Patterson
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
www.brianrpatterson.com

DSLRs Nikon D300 w/ MB-D10 | Nikon D40
DX Optics 10.5/2.8 DX Fisheye | 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR DX Nikkor
FX Optics 14-24/2.8 Nikkor | 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor | 70-200/2.8 VR Nikkor | 85/1.4 Rokinon | 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor | 55/2.8 1:1 Vivitar Macro | Kenko 1.4X TC
Support Bogen 3221 w/ Markins M20 & RRS B2 LR II| Bogen 681B Monopod/Gtai Ballhead | Induro C014 CF/Gtai Ballhead | Nodal Ninja 180 Pano Head
Software Adobe Lightroom | Adobe Photoshop CS | Nikon Capture NX | Photomatix HDR
Lighting (2) Nikon SB-800 | (4) Sunpak 422/433 | (2) Lester Dine Ringlights

#4 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 01 December 2008 - 10:11 PM

All in all I am not a fan of Ken Rockwell(this is the guy who thinks you should shoot the D3 in JPEG Normal mode and he makes this statement "THe D3X only costs Nikon about $200 extra in parts over the D3, which translates to $1,000 higher price at retail", how does he know what the price of the new chip costs and the R&D cost are always figured into the intial price, hmm another Ken guess) and to be honest the price is super steep but I suspected it would be priced like the canon 1D mkIII around $8000 and the Nikon is faster, newer and higher MP than the Canon. Ofcoarse that is MSRP and I am sure it will drop some after the first few months of sales how far I can't tell you.

I do know that several other top reviewers are lambasting Nikon on the price and deep down I think Nikon should have come in around $6500 but who am I the market will dictate what it should sell for. I see the D3 keeps dropping.

Now for me the next step is really a D700 that is what my 12 month goal is and I can also see a suped up D700x come out in a year with the 24mp sensor after Nikon sets the market with the D3x.

I would say this is for the very rich hobbiest and the professional that truly needs the 24mp . So the studio and landscape guys now have the D3x, the sports and news guys the D3.

Jim



One more crazy Ken idea "Do you really want to pay a $3,800 premium over the D3 for a mere 42% improvement in linear resolution? Why not buy a D3 for speed and low light, and buy a Canon 5D Mark II for high-resolution full-frame shots for $2,700, and pocket the leftover $1,100 to go party? " Ofcoarse that does not include buying a whole new lens lineup hmm 1100 to party with exception that to get top quality L glass for the Canon is going to cost you over $2500 for two basic lens ie the 24-70 IS L and the wide angle lens needed for landscape shots and new barkets for your tripod etc and not to mention software if you use NX2 etc. Ken cracks me up sometimes but he is entertaining.

Oh and don't forget his plug to feed his family, not that I don't want anyone to make money but his site is not an information site it is an advertisment and money maker. DD's site is a true educational site and DD's reviews are from someone who actually uses the gear.

God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!



Nikon P900 Nikon P330

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

 



Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#5 mule_patterson

mule_patterson

    Galactic Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knoxville, Tennessee USA
  • Interests:Digital Photography! Graphic Design! Print Media! Displays and Exhibits! Signage! 865.310.9040

Posted 01 December 2008 - 10:39 PM

James, I understand your frustration with dear, old Ken but he fills a need with his braggadocio and unreserved enthusiasm. A fraction of his commentary is rather astute and he is a consumer advocate, not a Nikon hardliner. Just try to enjoy his California personality and don't worry about his family too much. Read the copy he has on the cars he owns - no shortage of capital for his site maintenance, to be sure! And then laugh... everybody has something to learn. Mule
Brian "Mule" Patterson
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
www.brianrpatterson.com

DSLRs Nikon D300 w/ MB-D10 | Nikon D40
DX Optics 10.5/2.8 DX Fisheye | 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR DX Nikkor
FX Optics 14-24/2.8 Nikkor | 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor | 70-200/2.8 VR Nikkor | 85/1.4 Rokinon | 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor | 55/2.8 1:1 Vivitar Macro | Kenko 1.4X TC
Support Bogen 3221 w/ Markins M20 & RRS B2 LR II| Bogen 681B Monopod/Gtai Ballhead | Induro C014 CF/Gtai Ballhead | Nodal Ninja 180 Pano Head
Software Adobe Lightroom | Adobe Photoshop CS | Nikon Capture NX | Photomatix HDR
Lighting (2) Nikon SB-800 | (4) Sunpak 422/433 | (2) Lester Dine Ringlights

#6 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 01 December 2008 - 10:50 PM

Yea your right he just for some reason gives me a headache as someone new to DSLR's and photography think this really is the way to go ie do not shoot RAW. I was lucky I had you and DD to help me with the RAW thing. But he is entertaining and does have more gear than I can ever hope to have. Plus I wouldn't mind shooting some of the calanders he has done. :P Jim

God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!



Nikon P900 Nikon P330

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

 



Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#7 Dennis

Dennis

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Photography, music, hiking (part of photography).

Posted 01 December 2008 - 11:33 PM

Well... Thom (we have a post on this somewhere) is also less than luke warm on the D3X. Ron.... you have the D300 already... Thom states if your doing landscapes, you would not go over ISO 100, so your D300 is right where you want to be. However, for your wild life, FX will give you better DOF, or at least what you would expect, DX cuts that. If your going to shoot over ISO 800 (I forget Thom's breakdown, but my opionion) with the big lenses (your 400 +), then, these two might say you might want to D3X. But then, is frame speed more important than ISO? If so, D3 is the one, or D700. Right now, I am not sure what the heck Nikon is doing. As for the pro's, I am sure the D3X is not all that they wanted, at least not for 8k. If you had a D200, then the jump maybe justifiable, but then when you consider what your shooting, the D700 would be the thing. I "think" the D700 is the F100+, so that would make it pretty close to the F5/F6 body.

Thanks, Dennis.

Photography: 100 percent art, 100 percent technical. It takes a photographer to blend them into an image.

​Film: That tangible image that you can see and hold.

My Web Site.
My 500px page.

My Instagram.
Member; Colorado Springs Creative Photography Group, NPS member.

Nikon Z7 (My wifes, but I'm allowed to use it once a quarter), Z6, D4, D850, D200, Fm2, FM, Mamiya RB67.
 


#8 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:12 AM

Plus FX makes wide wide again. I guess my wonder is all I heard is when is the D3 going to get the high MP sensor and when it happens it seems everyone is screaming. I read Thom's post his disappointment was more with the way Nikon released the D3x and the price. Again canon's D1mkIII is not nearly as good as the D3x and it is in the same price range. I am sure that the cost to R&D a high MP FX chip is huge. Look at the MF digital cameras they run in the 10's of thousands and they are slow with slow AF systems. Plus the complaint that the D3x dropped from 9 fps to 5 fps we are talking double the MP. One other thing is in the DX mode it is now a 12mp. I guess we need to see how good this sensor is and I like it goes to ISO 50. There is no such thing as a free lunch and as the MP go up there has to be some give ie high ISO and some speed yet the D3x is not slow just not as fast as the D3. I guess people wanted a cheaper price. Jim

God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!



Nikon P900 Nikon P330

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

 



Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#9 Dave Whiteley

Dave Whiteley

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Plant, close-up and macrophotography.

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:18 AM

I think we do basically know what Nikon's 24 Megapixel sensor costs to produce Jim since Sony stuck virtually the same chip in it's A900 24 Megapixel camera. This sells body only in the UK for £1652.86 (=$2,448.01) versus the DX3 £5499.00 (=$8,142.91) body only.

Now the extra's on the Nikon would not cost £3846.14 more to manufacture than the Sony, since some who have actually previously pulled the chips out and compared them even claim Nikon's Exspeed processing engine is only a slightly modified and re-badged version of Sony's Bionz one anyway! I am afraid Nikon is just matching Canon for high professional camera prices since there are still idiots around who will pay it. But they could both burn their fingers by allowing Sony to come "up on the rails" and steal their market.

Professional cameras are sold in smaller numbers so are more expensive to produce, but Sony has shown they are nothing like as expensive to produce as they are presently being sold to the few "must haves" and those who want to display their conspicuous wealth.

The same situation exists with the D3 and D700. Again we are always told the sensor is the expensive part but within a short time of introducing the D3, the D700 with the same sensor was introduced, Certainly not long enough for sensor prices to have fallen to that degree to justify the extra cost of the D3's extras to manufacture:-

http://www.nikond700...-d700-compared/

In the UK the D3 is offered at £2541.58 (=$3,762.56) and the D700 £1481 ($2,193.89). The £1060.58 difference cannot be justified in terms of the extra manufacturing costs. They are just being priced to "milk" the marketing segment they think will pay through the nose for them. If Nikon and Canon's professional camera sales stall at these high prices, just watch their prices drop dramatically to something more in line with what the extra features over the Sony and the D700 actually cost to manufacture.

Dave Whiteley
Nikon D200
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
70mm-180mm AF ED f4.5-f5.6 D Micro-Nikkor
Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)
Nikon PB6 belows, Nikon Tubes.
2X Nikon SB600 flash guns
Manfrotto dual flash bracket

#10 Black Pearl

Black Pearl

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5342 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Whitburn UK

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:48 AM

The price is irrelevant. To a professional photographer a camera is simply a tool and if they need that tool they will buy it. Nikon are aiming this camera at the medium format sector and as such it is not expensive. A Blad system with lenses will set a studio back tens and tens of thousands so the Nikon is actually cheap. You also have to realise that the cost will be written off against tax at the end of the financial year so again it’s irrelevant. I would liken it to the old saying “If you have to ask the price you can’t afford it”
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

#11 José

José

    Galactic Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Metairie, Louisiana
  • Interests:Photography, Computers, and Music

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:33 AM

Interesting comments by all. Here is an interesting article posted on Kelby's site that addresses this subject:

http://www.scottkelb...8/archives/2463
José

”There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”
- Ansel Adams

#12 Dave Whiteley

Dave Whiteley

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Plant, close-up and macrophotography.

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:09 AM

I am not decrying overcharging if you can find people stupid enough to overpay for a product. But we don't all go to work in Ferrari's if something much cheaper will get us there just as fast on normal roads.

The SLR type medium format market will be catered for by cameras like the Leica, and maybe the rumored medium format Nikon, not the FX range. Whilst Nikon and Canon had the professional market to themselves they could charge what they liked, but it will not even escape professionals that they are paying far over the odds to get a Sony 24 Megapixel sensor in a camera costing way above what you can get it in a Sony for. Plus if the D700 is anything to go by, hang on a year and the same sensor will probably be in the D800 at a fraction of the cost. It is the sensor that takes the picture and the processing engine that processes it, everything else surrounding that is simply "bells and whistles" the professionals managed without for years but still took equally good pictures.

Add to that more amateurs are now taking pictures they would have hired a professional to do before, such as weddings for instance, so there is likely to be less Pro's in business in the future, and that is before the deep recession coming which will in turn put a lot more out of business and make the existing think twice if they even need new equipment and if so whether they can get by with something cheaper.

Camera sales are likely to fall in the coming years due to money being tighter and people having greater priorities to spend it on. Just as with computers whose sales mushroomed until most had one and then fell off to a far lower level. The same is likely to happen with digital cameras. People must have the latest initially, but if you keep bringing out new models too quickly people decide it is too expensive to keep changing and loose interest, often quitting the hobby itself, yet again affecting future camera sales.

There is always a market for high priced luxury goods, but it is a very limited one and cameras are luxury goods for the masses. It is usually the mass market that subsidises any flagship products. If the accountants see that volumes do not justify production they will expect either reductions in price to increase sales, or that the factory space be turned over to something making greater profits.

Note over the years how the designers "look what we can do" vanity lenses have disappeared from most camera makers catalogues since the accountants took over in the 1970's-80's, and only lenses that made a profit were retained. Some lenses were discontinued for a new version, but some more exotic ones were killed off as their sales did not justify their production:-

http://www.europe-ni.../broad/257.html

http://www.mir.com.m.../12001700mm.htm

Remember nobody owes either Canon or Nikon the professional market. The Pro's jumped ship from Nikon to Canon, and some jumped back again recently so if their products are overpriced could equally jump to Sony, particularly if they are using the same sensor at a fraction of the price. Time will tell if both Nikon and Canon have shot themselves in the foot by overpricing their Pro cameras. I think you will find though that Nikon's high price is simply initial rationing for "the must have firsts" and then will drop rapidly to more sensible levels for the mass Pro market, particularly in the severe recession coming.

Dave Whiteley
Nikon D200
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
70mm-180mm AF ED f4.5-f5.6 D Micro-Nikkor
Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)
Nikon PB6 belows, Nikon Tubes.
2X Nikon SB600 flash guns
Manfrotto dual flash bracket

#13 Rebel

Rebel

    Planet Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:42 PM

Some people like high prices. Being able to pay a high price for a commodity shows your spending power and that you are a true pro <_< . Now that D40s can be picked up for less money than some P&S cameras (£215.35 with a kit lens) there's no snob value in having a DSLR any more. The D3X will appeal to those with money to spend and set them apart from the common herd, just as the top Canon model does. For many pros the cost of a D3X isn't all that relevant when it's added into the business budget with other items that need constant upgrading like computers and vehicles. For photographers on a shoe string budget like me who has to charge what he can get on the other hand, I'll be lucky if I can upgrade to a D700 and the lens that go with it. :( Like Dave said too, photogs at the lower end of the market are going to suffer. People will use a guy they know who buys a D40 and offers to photograph their child's christening for 20 quid and a pint of beer. The price of the D40 with lens is less than a pro would charge for full coverage of a christening. Very few people, possibly myself included, are going to be able to tell the difference between a group shot at a wedding taken with a D40 & kit lens to the same one taken with a D3X and an AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens when we are looking at the final print. Of course the D3X and other pro cameras offer way more versatility and you can get shots that you couldn't get with a D40 but for general shooting the extra features are irrelevant and the quality difference won't be noticed.
Who we are, shapes what we see ~ Chris Orwig

Ask yourself what makes you come alive and go and do that. For what the world needs, is people who have come fully alive ~ Gil Bailie

#14 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 02 December 2008 - 03:13 PM

I think we do basically know what Nikon's 24 Megapixel sensor costs to produce Jim since Sony stuck virtually the same chip in it's A900 24 Megapixel camera. This sells body only in the UK for £1652.86 (=$2,448.01) versus the DX3 £5499.00 (=$8,142.91) body only.

Now the extra's on the Nikon would not cost £3846.14 more to manufacture than the Sony, since some who have actually previously pulled the chips out and compared them even claim Nikon's Exspeed processing engine is only a slightly modified and re-badged version of Sony's Bionz one anyway! I am afraid Nikon is just matching Canon for high professional camera prices since there are still idiots around who will pay it. But they could both burn their fingers by allowing Sony to come "up on the rails" and steal their market.

Professional cameras are sold in smaller numbers so are more expensive to produce, but Sony has shown they are nothing like as expensive to produce as they are presently being sold to the few "must haves" and those who want to display their conspicuous wealth.

The same situation exists with the D3 and D700. Again we are always told the sensor is the expensive part but within a short time of introducing the D3, the D700 with the same sensor was introduced, Certainly not long enough for sensor prices to have fallen to that degree to justify the extra cost of the D3's extras to manufacture:-

http://www.nikond700...-d700-compared/

In the UK the D3 is offered at £2541.58 (=$3,762.56) and the D700 £1481 ($2,193.89). The £1060.58 difference cannot be justified in terms of the extra manufacturing costs. They are just being priced to "milk" the marketing segment they think will pay through the nose for them. If Nikon and Canon's professional camera sales stall at these high prices, just watch their prices drop dramatically to something more in line with what the extra features over the Sony and the D700 actually cost to manufacture.

Dave Whiteley





The Sony and Nikon are worlds apart in speed and from reports on the web IQ. They maybe the same basic chip but one is a Chevy the other is a Cadillac. There are differences and I am sure Sony passes the lions share of the R&D on to Nikon then Nikon needs to R&D to intergrate the chip into its speed and system.



Plus the Sony A700 is not a D3 camera I am sure Nikon will have a D700x or something close that will be close to the sony price in the future after they reap the sales of the D3x and D3. Thom who is not overly joyed with the D3x is fairly sure Sony and Nikon do not use the same exact chip and I am sure no one is going to tell.



But again Canon set the price for this type of camera and Nikon will ride it if they can. As others have said if the marklet can not bear the price it will drop.



Jim

God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!



Nikon P900 Nikon P330

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

 



Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#15 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 02 December 2008 - 03:26 PM

Interesting comments by all. Here is an interesting article posted on Kelby's site that addresses this subject:

http://www.scottkelb...8/archives/2463





That is a great story and my point and black pearls point this is aimed at a different client not the masses of D300 users even though I know some D300 users will get one this is a major tool and investment. Now if I had the choice for my style of shooting the D700 or D3 fits better than the D3x but if someone gave me one he he nice thought.



I guess I have just read to many people going nuts over a camera and they haven't even held one yet.



Jim

God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!



Nikon P900 Nikon P330

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

 



Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#16 D50Michael

D50Michael

    Planet Guardian Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Photography And Trout Fishing

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:26 PM

Evidently Mr. Rockwell boycot did not last too long. he ordered the D3x a little while ago. Michael

Edited by D50Michael, 03 December 2008 - 07:10 AM.

Michael

Nikon D200 w/ MB-D200 Grip
Nikon Lenses: 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 60mm Macro,
16-85 mm vr zoom, 70-300mm vr zoom
SB 600 flash, manf. 190 xpro w/Markins Ballhead

#17 Black Pearl

Black Pearl

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5342 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Whitburn UK

Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:59 PM

I agree that the price is on the high side when compared to the similarly chipped Sony but honestly what Pro in their right mind is going to buy a Sony? I can't think of a single press image anywhere in the world where in the huge field of cameras being pointed at xxx I have seen a Sony. Now I have seen a vast field of Canon 1D cameras in these images and if you were to then compare the D3x to one of those then the price is very close. Yes you can get a 1Ds Mk III for less but it has been around for a while and the price has settled, the Nikon will do the same. If we go back a few years then you could put a roll of Velvia 50 in a F50 (N50) and the same film in a F5 and get exactly the same image quality. It was five times more expensive yet no one would have said the F5 was overpriced bacause the camera had more features and was better built. A camera, like every other mechanical object is more than a sum of its parts.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

#18 Dennis

Dennis

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Photography, music, hiking (part of photography).

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:54 PM

Wow! Out side of; the price, sony/canon/nikon comparisons, I guess the real question is one of need for it. Will there be a difference in a 20x30 print from 12mp to 24mp? If one is going to just post to a net, well what is the purpose of 24mp anyway? So, until we see samples and field reports, we can talk for a long time. The real questions is what will 24mp achieve, and how will one use it? Will the tonal graduations be better at 24mp printed on 20x30 than 12? I guess, one has to consider target output or all this is really academic. One could say that, that for portraits, lets say, a hassy film body was a top performer because the larger negative meant less of an enlargement factor than a 35mm given an 11x14 or 16x20 print. I think this is the real question here, what will someone do with this extra MP and is it really better to the naked eye when one prints large?

Thanks, Dennis.

Photography: 100 percent art, 100 percent technical. It takes a photographer to blend them into an image.

​Film: That tangible image that you can see and hold.

My Web Site.
My 500px page.

My Instagram.
Member; Colorado Springs Creative Photography Group, NPS member.

Nikon Z7 (My wifes, but I'm allowed to use it once a quarter), Z6, D4, D850, D200, Fm2, FM, Mamiya RB67.
 


#19 Dave Whiteley

Dave Whiteley

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Plant, close-up and macrophotography.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:15 AM

Many people, including Pro's, claim they can tell what camera make or format was used, but in the very few proper scientific "blind tests" using quality equipment I read about which have been done, with all images printed out to the same size with no clue as to format or make, hardly any ever did, and the few isolated instances they correctly identified one print can be put down purely to chance rather than knowledge. Most reviewers and viewers know what camera is being reviewed and it's format so view the image from a biased standpoint. A proper scientific "blind" test requires the viewer to have no knowledge of the equipment taking the picture and all prints to be printed to the same conventional print size that will be normally used and viewed side by side under the same lighting conditions, something seldom ever done. DaveW
Nikon D200
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
70mm-180mm AF ED f4.5-f5.6 D Micro-Nikkor
Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)
Nikon PB6 belows, Nikon Tubes.
2X Nikon SB600 flash guns
Manfrotto dual flash bracket

#20 photojazz

photojazz

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philly
  • Interests:Photography, Photography, , More Photography, More Photography and now the Philadelphia Eagles.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:06 AM

As usual, I am very glad to read the responses from my PN family. :) Not like on other forums where people are in most cases upset about the pricing and discussing all the aspects (pros/cons) and haven't even held it. :( Thanks family! :rolleyes:

PhotoJazz - Just Capturing Life
PlanetNikon Member 141

 

I photo-shoot with film, digital and medium format cameras, which includes the following:
Nikon D605, D200, F4E, F5, FE2 (Black & Silver), EM
Mamiya C330 Professional, M645 1000s, RB67
Bronica ETRSI

iPhone 8+
And I have some lenses.

 

Additional: Video editing with Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro X 10.4 and LumaFusion

C&C Is Always Welcome!!
 


#21 Luis V.

Luis V.

    Planet Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1813 posts
  • Location:Miami, Florida

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:52 AM

OK.... First a couple of comments on what's been said so far and then I'll give you my take on the D3X which, after all, was the point of the thread..... I think the only legitimate comparison we can make for the D3X is the Canon Mark III. Realistically, the Sony is a not a comparison, in my opinion. There are so many factors at play here. Amongst them, build, ergonimics, lens options, speed, AF system, battery, options and accessories, speedlight system, 3rd party support from other vendors both hardware and software, vertical shutter release, shutter life, dual memory slots, etc. etc. etc. Each of those has a cost. Some might be more obvious than others. Remember there is more cost to manufacturing a product than merely the cost of the components. There are design costs, re-tooling costs, marketing, sales, etc. etc. Let's not be so hasty to crucify Nikon for the price point. They are definately making a profit. In fact, a steep profit. However, that is the case with any product. The highest margins are always on the high end product because the volume is lower. Nikon is not a charity....... it's a business. They will sell plenty of D3X's My bottom line point is, a sensor alone cannot be your point of comparison. As was mentioned above, a Nikon 4004 (F401) and the F4 took IDENTICAL pictures using the same film. Not a stitch of difference. Yet the 4004 was a fraction of the cost. Did they sell fewer F4's? Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it. Now to my opinion on the D3X...... I too feel it is too steep for my blood. At least for now. I have said many times here that I would upgrade given the chance assuming the price was close to what the D2X was when new. ($5K US) However at nearly $8K this body is out of my budget right now given the quality I get from the D2X. So for the record, $8K for the body is expensive, but I don't have a complaint for Nikon with that. They do what they need to do to sell. I wish I could buy one, just like I wish I could buy Porsche 911 Turbo. 24.5MP FX....... NICE. This is a lower pixel density than the D2X which should mean better noise performance. 14bit color means better tonality. Full frame, for me, is a plus, but not a deal maker since, as a portrait photographer, I live in the mid to high end focal range anyway. Wide Angles are fun but useless for me for 90% of my photography. The added DOF effect would be nice though...... ISO 100. Excellent to see they kept that on the high res body. ISO 50 option is sweet. I would love to see the shots.... Metering is the same as I have now....... wonderful so I am good there. Flash Synch is the same..... I would like to see faster...... but, hey, 1/250s is fine. AF System is vastly improved from the D2X even though the D2X was very good. Excellent. Viewfinder..... same Display now at 3". Beautiful! The bigger the better. Essentially it comes down to resolution and AF system. There was a question about 12MP vs. 24MP at 20x30. I am of the firm opinion that more resolution is always a plus, assuming they can keep noise down and color quality. In short, I am 100% certain that the 24.5 MP sensor will do that just as the D3 did it with the 12MP FX. The bottom line.... while I would easily have made the move at $5 to $6K for the body, at $8K it's a bit rich for me personally. I do fall into the "business" purchase group. The question is how fast would the return be with the $8K price tag. 12MP is more than sufficient for my work and I print at 24x36 without issue. This body while wonderful has created more questions for me....... is it better to go with the D3 FX 12MP and get the new AF or wait on the D3X. ........ I then also ask....... would it be better to go with a pair of D700s? Better yet, get my hands on a used D2X and have two beasts? I work great with the D2X now......... I have far more need for a second body than I have for a new body to replace camera #1. Hmmmmmmmmm. Thanks Nikon...... More NAS....... it's just a question of where.... lol.
Luis V.Nikon D800/D2X/D200/D100Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS | 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS | 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR-II | 200-400mm f/4 AFS | 50mm f/1.4D | 85mm f/1.4D | 105mm f/2.8 Macro

#22 Dave Whiteley

Dave Whiteley

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Plant, close-up and macrophotography.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:35 PM

With any camera a Pro uses Luis it all comes down to if the customers cannot tell the difference between it and a lesser model, do you need the more expensive one? We go into business to make money, so sensibly would only buy the tools we need to satisfy the market and maximise returns, not to indulge ourselves like a hobby. We can then use the extra profit for a better lifestyle and to indulge our hobbies, but if we loose sight of the fact that a business is started to maximise profits we loose the plot. I see quite a few builders in the UK running around in the most inappropriate fancy pick up trucks complete with chrome rollover bars which are way over the top for a building site and throwing hardcore or sand in. They treat them as though they were Ferrari's and don't want to dirty or scratch them, so they are completely unsuited to the task in hand where a cheap but substantial more utilitarian vehicle would be more appropriate and the extra money saved could be better used on a better private car. A pick up truck was designed to haul commercial goods, not be a personal transport car substitute. To fancify such a machine is as stupid as the old UK joke where a labourer won the lottery and bought himself a JCB GT (a back acting mechanical digger!) The equipment would be over elaborate for it's required purpose. The point I am making is in business you use the appropriate tool for the job that most economically serves that purpose. You don't need a chromium plated shovel to dig sand, or Gucci boots to get into a trench! Dave Whiteley
Nikon D200
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
70mm-180mm AF ED f4.5-f5.6 D Micro-Nikkor
Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)
Nikon PB6 belows, Nikon Tubes.
2X Nikon SB600 flash guns
Manfrotto dual flash bracket

#23 D50Michael

D50Michael

    Planet Guardian Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Photography And Trout Fishing

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:38 PM

Perhaps some of the professional photographers can answer this question for me. Do your customers inquire or care what equipment you use? Furthermore, do you find the type of equipment you use to be a selling point to potential customers? Just wondering... As to the initial cost to to a working pro, I know the initial cash outlay is high ,but most states now have the Investment Tax Credit which in this case would be an immediate $800.00 credit (not a deduction, a dollar for dollar credit against taxes owed). If you then factor in the depreciation( as 3 year property) you would recoup $8800.00 on your $8000.00 investment. Just thinking out loud... Michael
Michael

Nikon D200 w/ MB-D200 Grip
Nikon Lenses: 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 60mm Macro,
16-85 mm vr zoom, 70-300mm vr zoom
SB 600 flash, manf. 190 xpro w/Markins Ballhead

#24 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:34 PM

There are some agencies who require certain type and size files. I read on the web where one agency would not accept the files from a D3 because their native size was not large enough. They required at that time the Canon 1DmkIII or medium format, now I would say the D3x and new Canon 5DII would also qualify along with Leice's new MF digital camera. Other than this speed and high ISO might be required and in this case the D3 would be better. But in the end I think most pros already know what they need and use what is best for them. Jim

God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!



Nikon P900 Nikon P330

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

 



Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#25 Black Pearl

Black Pearl

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5342 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Whitburn UK

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:57 PM

As to the initial cost to to a working pro, I know the initial cash outlay is high ,but most states now have the Investment Tax Credit which in this case would be an immediate $800.00 credit (not a deduction, a dollar for dollar credit against taxes owed). If you then factor in the depreciation( as 3 year property) you would recoup $8800.00 on your $8000.00 investment.


I have been using an argument like this here and else where and you have nailed an exact figures down, thank you.

The cost does not matter to the people who Nikon are aiming the camera at. If you feel it is too much for your business plan then it is not the camera for you. If, like me, you are a keen amateur and think that it is overpriced then sorry but tough. I would love a D3 - D3x - 14-20mm f2.8 - 24-70mm f2.8 - 70-200mm f2.8 - 200-400mm f4 - AF-S 50mm f1.4 - 105mm f2.8 Micro and a missus who wouldn't just bugger off every time I get the camera out leaving me to play catch up but life does not always play out the way we would like.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

#26 D50Michael

D50Michael

    Planet Guardian Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Photography And Trout Fishing

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:35 PM

Thnksa BP, the point of my post was not a pro or con for the camera as there are far better informed and experienced members than I to make this case, but to just show the cost can be amortized into a professionals business if need be. The ITC and depreciation were created for business owners to be able to acquire new equipment and to remain competitive in the marketplace when they decide the need exists. michael

Edited by D50Michael, 03 December 2008 - 06:35 PM.

Michael

Nikon D200 w/ MB-D200 Grip
Nikon Lenses: 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 60mm Macro,
16-85 mm vr zoom, 70-300mm vr zoom
SB 600 flash, manf. 190 xpro w/Markins Ballhead

#27 mule_patterson

mule_patterson

    Galactic Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knoxville, Tennessee USA
  • Interests:Digital Photography! Graphic Design! Print Media! Displays and Exhibits! Signage! 865.310.9040

Posted 03 December 2008 - 09:06 PM

I assure you there aren't a lot of pros out there who can justify this body - high end commercial and fashion shooters who bill more than the cost of this body a week will have no difficulty amortizing the D3x. But even many heroes of the mainstream photography world won't be looking to own of these uberDSLRs in their lifetime - for most mere mortals a D3 or D700 will do just fine!

I wonder how long it will be before I even see one of them! Besides, wouldn't you really rather have a favorite pro piece of glass on your current body instead? That's where my money's going...

Mule
Brian "Mule" Patterson
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
www.brianrpatterson.com

DSLRs Nikon D300 w/ MB-D10 | Nikon D40
DX Optics 10.5/2.8 DX Fisheye | 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR DX Nikkor
FX Optics 14-24/2.8 Nikkor | 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor | 70-200/2.8 VR Nikkor | 85/1.4 Rokinon | 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor | 55/2.8 1:1 Vivitar Macro | Kenko 1.4X TC
Support Bogen 3221 w/ Markins M20 & RRS B2 LR II| Bogen 681B Monopod/Gtai Ballhead | Induro C014 CF/Gtai Ballhead | Nodal Ninja 180 Pano Head
Software Adobe Lightroom | Adobe Photoshop CS | Nikon Capture NX | Photomatix HDR
Lighting (2) Nikon SB-800 | (4) Sunpak 422/433 | (2) Lester Dine Ringlights

#28 Luis V.

Luis V.

    Planet Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1813 posts
  • Location:Miami, Florida

Posted 03 December 2008 - 10:16 PM

With any camera a Pro uses Luis it all comes down to if the customers cannot tell the difference between it and a lesser model, do you need the more expensive one? We go into business to make money, so sensibly would only buy the tools we need to satisfy the market and maximise returns, not to indulge ourselves like a hobby. We can then use the extra profit for a better lifestyle and to indulge our hobbies, but if we loose sight of the fact that a business is started to maximise profits we loose the plot.


This is oversimplifying the issue. No, clearly, if the customer can't tell the difference if I shoot with a $99.00 point-and-shoot or a D2X, it makes no difference. However, I think we can agree it's more complex than that. The lenses are not the same, in my opinion. The body and comfort in my hands, shooting many thousands of frames a month, is not the same. 3rd Party support, as mentioned, in hardware and software, is not the same. I can go on and on.

As for the quality of the prints..... It is not just a question of whether the customer can tell.....it's a question of whether I can tell. I don't want to produce satisfactory work... I won't to rock thier world and be proud to display my work 24x36 in the studio!

It is also a question of how the tool works for me. While this is a hobby it is also a money making endeavor. More expensive equipment might be more outlay, but how much does it save me in time and effort. Again.... it's more complex than $1,500 vs. $5,000 and average pictures the common "Joe" will be happy with.

Perhaps some of the professional photographers can answer this question for me. Do your customers inquire or care what equipment you use? Furthermore, do you find the type of equipment you use to be a selling point to potential customers? Just wondering...


No...customers do not ask what I use. No... they can't tell if it's a pro body or not. No...I do not get more customers solely on the brand and model of the camera......... However, there are jobs I simply could not do unless I had the high end gear. So, in that sense, yes..... the gear does make me more money.

Examples:

If someone approaches me to shoot a sporting event, I can't do as good a job with a 3fps body as I would with an 8fps body. Let's face it, I will get more shots with the faster body. Try shooting a motorcycle/bike zipping by at 100+ MPH with a 3 fps camera..... it will be far more difficult than if I had the 8fps (or 11fps) camera.

Can I shoot it with a $99 70-300mm lens... sure, if the light is good and the focus is fixed. However, if I have a night game, indoor game or a badly overcast day, I need the f/2.8 lens. If it is fast paced action on the wider apertures, I need a lens whose AF motor can keep up b/c DoF becomes an issue. That means a big dollar f/2.8 AFS zoom.

On the portraiture side..... Can I get the butter soft bokeh (out-of-focus rendition) that a 85mm f/1.4 lens gives me with a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5? Nope......

Customers don't ask what I use....... They don't need to. They are paying me because I have the right equipment to produce the results. To put it blunty I don't come to a gun fight with a knife...... I come with a 50mm Machine Gun loaded with armor piercing rounds...... B)


Guys........ I really don't mean to be conflictive....... I am simply saying that there is a place for tools of all levels. Do I absolutely need the glass and bodies I use.......no. Sure I could "make due" with less. However, I won't be satisfied with the results..... again...... it's more than a B&W (forgive the pun) issue of $1,500 vs. $5,000 or $8,000 body.
Luis V.Nikon D800/D2X/D200/D100Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS | 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS | 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR-II | 200-400mm f/4 AFS | 50mm f/1.4D | 85mm f/1.4D | 105mm f/2.8 Macro

#29 Dave Whiteley

Dave Whiteley

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • Interests:Plant, close-up and macrophotography.

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:23 AM

There eventually comes a point Luis where the equipment is over specified for the commercial job it is intended to do, and usually therefore overpriced too. You were quite happy with the D2X a few years ago, and so were your customers, so why in all truth would you feel a need to go to a D3X unless it's price falls drastically (which I predict it will in a couple of years just before the D4 comes out) since your intended market will probably not notice any difference in the results. Whether you personally do is immaterial for the market you are selling into. That is just indulging yourself in having the top of the present range equipment, whether it caters for the customers needs is evidently irrelevant? I agree, there used to be some kudos by using top of the range equipment to impress some customers Jim. But in studio or location work that was using a Hasselblad not a Nikon DSLR, be it Dx, FX or previous SLR 35mm film cameras. It used to be said years ago if you purchased the pukka Hasselblad lens shade which made the camera look far more impressive and professional, a Pro could add $1000 to the bill. But again that all depends on the customer, or their representatives, being there at the shoot to see it. If your studio work is done in private then what equipment is used is immaterial. If Luis wants to really go up market and visually impress clients with the equipment he uses he would be using top of the range digital Hasselblad's for portraiture, not Nikon's, be they DX or FX even though the customers could probably not see any difference in the finished product. If Michael is correct under your Investment Tax Credit regime he could claim his Hasselblad initial cost as a tax allowance and recoup more than it's cost and so eventually make a profit! Evidently the dearer the camera is under that scheme the bigger tax profit you would subsequently make? It used to be said in the film days people would always change to a new camera every few years for the latest "neck jewelry", but would have the same enlarger for decades since nobody saw that in their darkroom so "one upmanship" was lost on such a hidden purchase and it made as good prints now as when it was bought. We all hanker after the latest equipment, the point is in business do we always need it to maximise profits? If it turns out work twice as fast and increases our profit margins compared to it's extra cost, well and good. But if it is simply an extra cost that does not increase profits, then it is more of an indulgence rather than an asset. No doubt setting equipment off against tax varies country to country so if it pays to have the latest, taking into account tax benefits do so, but if in other tax regimes it does not think twice before the purchase. You also have to weigh up if taking out the money you would spend on over specified equipment as personal drawings would be more financially rewarding for you than using the tax allowance, since obviously you don't pay 100% tax on your wages. You are in business to make money, if not call it what it is, a semi professional hobby! Dave Whiteley
Nikon D200
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
70mm-180mm AF ED f4.5-f5.6 D Micro-Nikkor
Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)
Nikon PB6 belows, Nikon Tubes.
2X Nikon SB600 flash guns
Manfrotto dual flash bracket

#30 Old Dog New Tricks

Old Dog New Tricks

    Eon Timewave Hero Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8358 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central New York
  • Interests:Scenic & Nature Photography, Travel, Cooking, Kayaking, Grandson and Granddaughter.

Posted 04 December 2008 - 07:31 AM

This same discussion is going on across the net. My take is that there are a lot of people who are truly suffering from terminal NAS and they are upset that the D3X is outside their reach.

Scott Kelby has a post this morning that gives a very simplied spin on it. http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/

For me I have more than enough camera to get the pictures I want. If somebody else feels they need that camera, then they need to start eating baloney sandwiches for lunch to save money. :lol:

ODNT
Posted Image

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

Shooting with
Film Nikon N60, N70(2), EM, Mamiya C-330, C-33, RB67
Digital Nikon D7100 D7000, Nikon D200(RIP), Fuji S3Pro(Retired)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users