Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"  (Read 85343 times)
Slough
Guest
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2009, 03:00:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
But Nikon seem to ignoring the changed/changing market, which is why people questioned their sanity. It seems to be just the fanbois that don't think the pricing is abit daft/arrogant.

I don't know how often this has to be repeated, but they are not ignoring the changing market. The Canon 1Ds3 has about the same RRP and targets the same market. Or are Canon arrogant too? Once demand slows (assuming it ever picked up), the price will drop as per the 1Ds3.

Camera makers have to make decisions years in advance. Many Canon users were angry at Canon when they saw the Nikon D3 appear. You can't please everyone. Wait a while, and you'll get your 'D700x'. You are going to buy one aren't you? Or are you just whining about a camera you would never buy anyway?

Anyway, how many people would buy a D700x (or whatever)? Not many is my guess. Apparently in Japan the best selling FX class camera is the Nikon D700 with 1% of the market. Yup, a whopping 1%. The real money is to be made on DX.

As for me, I'll upgrade when I can see a worthwhile advantage ...

BTW it is probably in Chambers' interest to write striking prose in his free 'blog'. That way he'll get people signing up to his paid site. After all, if he said "Well, I've reviewed Camera X, and pooey, it's pants" how many would sign up?
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2009, 03:30:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Anyway, how many people would buy a D700x (or whatever)? Not many is my guess. Apparently in Japan the best selling FX class camera is the Nikon D700 with 1% of the market. Yup, a whopping 1%. The real money is to be made on DX.

That would depend on the price.  In US dollars, lots of people would buy a "D700x" at $2000, a significant number of pros and enthusiasts wouldn't hesitate at $3000, and I and a few others would willingly fork out about $4000.  I wonder what your 1% of the market is based on, only DSLRs or does it include P&S cameras?  When I asked how much a "D700x" would be worth to people in the D3 and D300 forums at DPR, the respondents that had a number (typically around $3000) was about 54% compared to the 46% who said they were not interested at any price.  Regardless of the percentage, there are tens of thousands that want a reasonably priced "D700x" from Nikon, and there's money and market share being left on the table, and the potential to lose converts to the other brands if Nikon doesn't redress this hole in their DSLR line-up.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 619


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2009, 03:52:25 PM »
ReplyReply

How many photographers can afford to change entire systems because one manufacturer has a new camera model with an incremental improvement? If I had unlimited money, I might change to a Sony rig now, because I like Zeiss glass. But I don't, so I have to prioritize my resources. That means I'm sticking with Canons for the forseeable future. Not because I think Canon is far superior to any other company, but because I started buying Canon stuff back in the early 80s, and now I have a lot of it. If Nikon came out with a new camera tomorrow that had 25MP, fantastic noise characteristics, and cost $1,000, I still wouldn't buy one, because I'd have to spend many thousands on new lenses, batteries, flashes, etc., etc.

It seems to me that this sort of debate is primarily useful to certain kinds of people:

1. People that don't own any digital system right now, and are looking to step into the DSLR world completely fresh
2. People who have some very specific imaging need and absolutely require the best currently available tool for that purpose
3. Those who can afford to buy expensive things they don't need
4. Those who make a living (at least partially) evaluating different kinds of camera gear (i.e. Michael)

A friend brough me a Nikon DSLR last week because she couldn't get it to work. It was a fine camera, but I was suprised at how different it feels from my Canons. I can't imagine wanting to inflict that kind of learning curve on myself. I'd hate to be in the field and screw up a great shot because I forgot that Nikon lenses turn the opposite direction or something. (And I did get that Nikon to work, by the way - just changed the battery and refreshed it to default settings.)

I'm not saying the reviews aren't worthwhile; in fact, I think it's fatastic that they're available. And I don't believe someone would be wrong to go after a different sytem than I did - I'm in the mirror lockup mafia after all. But I think cross-brand DLSR comparisons are pretty silly if you aren't in one of the 4 categories above. Anyone have reasoned diagreement with that?

Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2009, 03:54:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
...

Here's my considered opinion. The differences are mouse nuts. What are mouse nuts, you ask? Very, very very small, I reply.

...
Michael


Funniest thing I've read online in a while.  
Logged

Slough
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2009, 03:58:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
That would depend on the price.

No shit Sherlock! Let's suggest a sensible price. In which case the price would be no less than for a D700, almost certainly higher.

Quote from: Tony Beach
I wonder what your 1% of the market is based on


I believe it to be DSLRs. Consumer DX cameras sell in much bigger quantities than pro-grade cameras. And for most amateurs the D700 is expensive.
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2009, 06:56:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I am still every bit as enthused about the D3x after another week of shooting as I was when I wrote the initial post Leping quotes. One interesting fact I notice is that most of the most positive remarks I see about the D3x are from actual D3x users, while a lot of the negative comments are from folks who haven't actually used one. To be fair to the competition, I haven't shot the 1Ds mkIII extensively, nor the Alpha 900 (a few shots on each at PhotoPlus in lousy conditions at high ISO), so I cannot fairly compare my D3x to those two cameras (having seen large sample prints from the A900, it seems to have a bit more shadow noise than the D3x, but that could be the particular prints). I do have 10,000+ images on the 1Ds mkII (I switched to Nikon, rather than moving to the mkIII, in large part due to handling considerations - I have one hand, and Nikons are easier for me to use, so when Nikon made a high-resolution body, I switched), and can say with confidence that the D3x is in a completely different league with nearly twice (by eye) the total resolved detail of the mkII. 1.5x, I would expect from the increase in resolution alone, but the additional increase is from something different in the design, perhaps the low-pass filter, which Nikon has been boasting about.  The only number I have on resolution is that Imaging Resource has published their test chart (although they haven't put a review out), and I can read about 3200 lines of strong detail (a little better than the Alpha and 1Ds III, which are around 2900, and a lot better than the 1Ds mkII at 2200 - which corroborates my eyeball estimate of twice the detail on paper - 3/2 the resolution in each direction would be 2.25x the total detail on a print, and 3200/2200 is a tiny bit under 3/2). I haven't yet seen any formal dynamic range numbers for the D3x, but I am seeing on the monitor and in print over a stop above what the 1Ds mkII could do in similar conditions - this would put it at least in the Alpha 900/D3 class of the best DSLRs made, possibly even half a stop better than that.
    I've managed two more landscape shoots in the past week, in which the camera performed very well, as I expected. Perhaps the most exciting test I've performed was to borrow a 24x36 inch printer (HP Z3100) and make a print from a D3x image to that size. It held up beautifully to that extreme degree of enlargement, and my next major investment will be to move my maximum print size from 16x24 on a 17 inch printer up to 24x36. My figure of "roughly twice the print detail of a 1Ds mkII" comes from comparing the 24x36 inch D3x print at close range to a 16x24 1Ds mkII print and finding that the detail per square inch on the page is about the same (the D3x is actually a tiny bit better, which may come from superior tonality and DR), when the D3x is printing twice as large. Anyway, I'm as comfortable with 24x36 on the D3x as I was with 16x24 from the 1Ds mkII.
     In addition to the 1Ds mkII and various lower resolution DSLRs, the other meaningful comparison I can make is to different sizes of scanned film. The D3x hugely eclipses 35mm Velvia scanned with any scanner I've ever used, but this is hardly a surprise - 6-10mp DSLRs routinely returned images that were superior to 35mm film scans, and the 1Ds mkII is certainly far superior to any 35mm scan I've ever seen. I am also quite clear that the D3x surpasses even medium-format scanned film (645 and 6x6). In pure detail, 6x9 cm Velvia scanned on a  Super Coolscan 9000 is a very close comparison, but the grainless nature and superb tonality of the D3x image at ISO 100 would lead me to choose the D3x image as the better overall in almost every case. 4x5 film still has a visible advantage over the D3x, which is unsurprising given the huge difference in area.
      The one caveat I have about the D3x is that, to get its full performance, you need to treat it as a 6x9 cm camera (since that is its film equivalent). Would you shoot 6x9 cm (or print 24x36 inches, no matter what the image originated on) without a tripod? The D3x sans tripod will perform at least as well as any lesser DSLR without a tripod (24.5 mp blurred by handholding is still better than 12 or 16 mp also blurred by handholding), but its full performance is achieved by handling it as a 6x9 camera - tripod-mounted, released with a cable or the self-timer, very carefully focused. Its depth of field is narrow (because the sharpest parts of the frame are so sharp, small differences in other areas are noticeable), and I will probably purchase a PC-E lens or two eventually to give myself another tool to increase DOF (the superb LCD and flexible live view will serve as a near equivalent to a ground glass).



                                                       -Dan
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 06:59:17 PM by Dan Wells » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2009, 08:14:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
I don't know how often this has to be repeated, but they are not ignoring the changing market. The Canon 1Ds3 has about the same RRP and targets the same market. Or are Canon arrogant too? Once demand slows (assuming it ever picked up), the price will drop as per the 1Ds3.
The RRP of the canon is not the issue as it was for when it first came out, which was a while ago.The current price of the 1DsII is - at present in the UK, the Nikon is about 25% more, which is a very big difference! And as the 5dII is as god as the 1DsIII and is even cheaper, demand and prices for the 1DsII will drop further. Also I'm not sure who the 3Dx's market is, as those photographers who needed high res cameras would have bought a Canon and lenses a while back. I'm guessing it's aimed more at dentists and lawyers who buy cameras and like Nikon.

Quote
Many Canon users were angry at Canon when they saw the Nikon D3 appear.
Why? it was far more expensive than the 5D and there was very little in it, most testers put them on level pegging on image quality. There wer obviously other differences. My and I think of many other's particulary Canon users' view was positive that Nikon had finally produced a camera to rival Canon's kit. As this meant the price of theirs would come down and now one finally had a choice if buying a full frame camera and didn't want ot use Canon.

Quote
Wait a while, and you'll get your 'D700x'. You are going to buy one aren't you? Or are you just whining about a camera you would never buy anyway?
Whether I intend to buy one or not is irrelevant to my thinking it's somewhat expensive. Michael Reichman who can easily afford one as part of this site's business, cancelled his order as he thought Nikon were simply extracting the urine. If I want a big bulky high res camera, I probably buy a Hasselblad rather than a 1DsIII or D3x.

Quote
Anyway, how many people would buy a D700x (or whatever)? Not many is my guess. Apparently in Japan the best selling FX class camera is the Nikon D700 with 1% of the market. Yup, a whopping 1%. The real money is to be made on DX.
Again, simply not relevant to price of D3x.
Plus 1% may not seem a lot, but in many markets that's a good percentage if you consider the no of items in the market. There are probably hundreds of cameras in the market place and the D700 is near the top of the DSLR market in price terms, so is obviously going to sell in small quantities compared to much cheaper cameras.


Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2009, 08:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Wells
(24.5 mp blurred by handholding is still better than 12 or 16 mp also blurred by handholding)
Somehow I doubt that, as the factor limiting detail will be the amount of blur, not the resolution. You just get more pixels in your blur!  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7872



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2009, 08:23:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
The RRP of the canon is not the issue as it was for when it first came out, which was a while ago.The current price of the 1DsII is - at present in the UK, the Nikon is about 25% more which is a very big difference!

Now they are within 10% of each other here in Japan.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2009, 08:35:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Shows the RRP was somewhat optimistic.
I imagine the price will also drop quickly here once they become properly available.
If any are sold at all in the current economic cimate!  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7872



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2009, 08:40:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
This leaves the Nikon essentially with no market.  Pros are using better equipment and home users can't afford it the software, printers, and other goodies to realize the quality of the D3x.  Not when the camera itself blows their entire budget.

My god, I don't exist.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
tedchoi11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2009, 09:24:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Here's my considered opinion. The differences are mouse nuts. What are mouse nuts, you ask? Very, very very small, I reply.


FINALLY! A topic I actually know something about! Mouse nuts are about the size of a pea in a weanling (3 weeks old) and about the size of a small jelly bean in an adult (8 weeks or older) male. So... compared to a pixel on a 50D sensor, or even the size of the buttons on the top of my aging 20D, mouse nuts are much much larger. hardly small at all, really. Also, the average mouse 'event' delivers about 1/10th the number of sperm as a human 'event', which is pretty impressive for an animal that weighs an ounce.

OK, back to pixels and raw converters and 12 vs 14 bits...

Ted

[attachment=10764:mousenut.jpg]
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2009, 09:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tedchoi11
FINALLY! A topic I actually know something about! Mouse nuts are about the size of a pea in a weanling (3 weeks old) and about the size of a small jelly bean in an adult (8 weeks or older) male. So... compared to a pixel on a 50D sensor, or even the size of the buttons on the top of my aging 20D, mouse nuts are much much larger. hardly small at all, really. Also, the average mouse 'event' delivers about 1/10th the number of sperm as a human 'event', which is pretty impressive for an animal that weighs an ounce.

OK, back to pixels and raw converters and 12 vs 14 bits...

Ted

[attachment=10764:mousenut.jpg]

Thank you.
Logged
canmiya
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2009, 10:02:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
This leaves the Nikon essentially with no market.  Pros are using better equipment and home users can't afford it the software, printers, and other goodies to realize the quality of the D3x.  Not when the camera itself blows their entire budget.
pros are using better equipment?  
 

Logged
mhecker*
Contributor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2009, 11:12:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I have two D3x bodies sitting here in front of me that I've been testing along side a 5Dmk2 and a 1Dsmk3.

I've shot them all at ISO 100, in RAW mode on a tripod with mirror lockup.
I convert the Nikon RAW's in ViewNX and the Canon RAW's in Lightroom 2.2.
I then apply optimum sharpening in Photoshop for printing.

At print sizes up to 24"x36" you can see almost no difference between any of these cameras with proper technique.
This includes viewing the prints at a hypercritical distance of 10"-12".
The colors are a tad different, but I could match that in Photoshop if I care to.

I even went so far is to use the same Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 lens on all three to level the playing field.

If anyone is seeing a difference, IMO it is because the Nikkor optics are slightly better the the Canon optics.

I've seen claims that the new super RAW converters, which make ACR and Lightroom obsolete.
At low ISO, {100-200} on close examination I find some of the new boys must be adding a little sharpening in the conversion, even when the sharpen slider is set to zero. Add about USM 50-80, 0.3, 1 in Photoshop to the softer conversions and it all equals out.

I think any of these cameras properly used can replace 6x9 film.

Am I a qualified judge?  The several hundred fine art prints I made for my fine art clients, sold last year in
galleries for somewhere in the six figure range in US dollars.

Yes, I even have  degrees in both engineering and science, and I know mouse nuts when I see them, PHD not required.    


Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2009, 11:38:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
No shit Sherlock! Let's suggest a sensible price. In which case the price would be no less than for a D700, almost certainly higher.

That would be $2400 ($2320 last time I looked at B&H) and dropping here in the United States.  

Quote
I believe it to be DSLRs. Consumer DX cameras sell in much bigger quantities than pro-grade cameras. And for most amateurs the D700 is expensive.

Why don't you post the actual numbers and what they are based on?  What is the percentage of the leading DSLR?  Is it 10%, or perhaps less.   P&S cameras sell in much greater quantities than DSLRs, but that doesn't mean companies should just stop producing DSLRs (which is what your "logic" would lead us to), just as they should not stop producing FX format, or stall producing a reasonably priced high MP DSLR.  A company like Nikon which wants to be competitive in all areas should be particularly concerned with the gaping hole they leave for Sony and Canon to fill, so I would say the reasonable price for a "D700x" would be $3000.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2009, 01:16:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
That would be $2400 ($2320 last time I looked at B&H) and dropping here in the United States.  



Why don't you post the actual numbers and what they are based on?  What is the percentage of the leading DSLR?  Is it 10%, or perhaps less.

I believe the numbers are taken from here http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/31/not-done-yet.aspx. The numbers should be taken in context of the country (Japan) and time period vs. camera introduction and availability (whole of 2008). Nevertheless they are telling of an obvious fact: Cheap cameras dominate the sales by a huge factor. Don't know about the reliability of these numbers, but people frequenting photo forums, be that LL or stuff like dpr, tend to forget that they are in a minority amongst camera users (even dSLR users).


Now regarding the D3x, any price discussion should take into consideration an assumption about what the manufacturer thinks the initial target (latent demand) market for the camera is for an expected miniscule market share (see above). I will tend to believe that Nikon have priced the camera at a price where they think they could sell to fulfill their perceived latent demand. Demand for a high resolution, high end dSLR. That's high-end pros and studios. Judging from the comments starting to surface on the net from high end pros, Nikon have done a good job at that.

Price is already dropping in various markets where initial demand has been fulfilled and the camera will stabilise for some time at the 1DSIII price levels. I expect this reduction is initially coming off retailers margins rather than Nikon themselves. $6000-$8000 is the natural price range for such cameras at this time, if you think about how much the lesser (body wise if nothing else) 5DII and A900 go for and how much an entry level MFDB goes for.

Why don't people complain about the price of MFDBs by the way? Do $30000 buy you that much more than $8000?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 01:41:24 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7323


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2009, 02:05:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would say that around 3000 USD would be OK for the D700x. Nikon tradition was that the X-models were slightly more expensive than the "non-X" models.

Regarding the prices we need to keep in mind that Nikon like almost any other company is in business for profit. The objective is to earn money, pay your employees and keep your shareholders happy. Keeping your customers happy is just a way to achieve the former.

If Nikon can sell all D3X they build at the present prices they simply maximize profits, nothing wrong with that. Problem is that your customers can be alienated when the competition offers similar technology at a significant lower price. There is a certain "customer lock in" situation as the customer normally owns a system, not just a camera.

My suggestion is that Nikon needs to get that D700X or what it will be called to the market ASAP, else there is a significant risk that they will loose customers.

Of course there may be other realities we are not aware of. Supply of the Sony FF-sensors may be low, some technology used in the D3X may be very expensive, or need extensive cooling, for instance.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Tony Beach
That would be $2400 ($2320 last time I looked at B&H) and dropping here in the United States.  



Why don't you post the actual numbers and what they are based on?  What is the percentage of the leading DSLR?  Is it 10%, or perhaps less.   P&S cameras sell in much greater quantities than DSLRs, but that doesn't mean companies should just stop producing DSLRs (which is what your "logic" would lead us to), just as they should not stop producing FX format, or stall producing a reasonably priced high MP DSLR.  A company like Nikon which wants to be competitive in all areas should be particularly concerned with the gaping hole they leave for Sony and Canon to fill, so I would say the reasonable price for a "D700x" would be $3000.
Logged

inissila
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2009, 02:55:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
Considering how much printing lags behind camera resolution these days, exactly WHY do you need a 25MP camera?     This is the question I ask my friends when they are shopping for the latest toy.  With a typical 8 X 12 print in a normal Epson or similar printer, anything over about 10MP is just wasted pixels.

Right, but if you aim to make gallery sized prints - i.e. A3, A2, A1 then the higher pixel count is immediately obvious.

Anyway, the differences in image quality between the high MP DSLR cameras may be relatively small to some (just as the difference between a G10 compact digital camera and a Hasselblad with digital back is to the owner of this site), and not at all to others.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2009, 03:45:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I just want to say that my original post was not personal to you Leping.

I can see why you would be excited about the technical aspects of the review, with your background, and for sure they have their place and should be done. I like the technology too. However, there are reasons I posted the caustic post that I did. I won't go over them because as you can see, the rest of the posters pretty much covered it.

True, there isn't anything wrong buying technical reviews, if you're you or Micheal. But there are other things more important after the fact of white paper analysis. 24MP out resolves 23.99MP, yeah duh?  I think Micheal's post underlines this point, but I would exchange "mouse nuts" with "tick terds." What maters is the end result, or the possible end result.

Are you saying that the reviews are showing that no matter what post processing you do, the D3X files will be "better."

I also think it's a fallacy--and I'm not saying you made this mistake--to say that the "camera" is superior. It's not the camera, it's the electronics (CPU) in it  + the lens used + post processing, which is the software after the fact. If the review states that JPG quality is "better" and here is why, x, y, z (e.g., w/o any post processing) then that is saying something.

Again, I respect your academic achievements and do not discount them (My parents were both highly educated and I've always respected intellectuals, not because they are intellectual, but because dammit they have something to say that most people don't, and they say it for a reason!).  I also respect your photographic ability, not because other people say it's great, but because I have enough brain power to immediately see where I stand in comparison to what I call "real" professionals, which has nothing to do with income generation.

And I can see you were excited about the "physics" which is to say science of the review, and you were just passing that exuberance along.

For me the initial post was annoying, but I can now see where you are coming from for sure, which is not to say I agree with some of your post explanations--and I'm not taking to tasks any of the good physics that are in the reviews, they is what they is.

Your initial post It struck me as spam, again, for the reasons covered well enough by the posters.

Let's be friends!  
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 03:51:22 AM by dwdallam » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad