Let's Assume $8,000 Is Acceptable

[Brooks]

Jeff,

The 139mb Tiff file is from a 14 bit uncompressed NEF converted to a 16 bit TIFF using NX2. Unfortunately Adobe doesn't yet have an ACR plugin for Photoshop that will read these new NEF files. NX2 works but it's pretty slow.

Remember when 100mb Zip disks were HUGE ?

Joves,

You're right, for me the D3X will be used mostly as a location camera or in the studio when I need a double page spread without rezing up my old Kodak ProBack Plus. Or whenever I need a really wide-angle or long telephoto lens that's not readily available for the smaller chip size of a MF digital back on my RZ II.

I'll see how the DX3 does on real jobs. It might end up being more than just a back-up camera.

[Gary Mayo]

It is going to be landscape and architecture that make the most use of the 42% linear increase in resolution. I agree.

However, if you are shopping for a 24 MP camera, is a landscape photographer going to pass by the Sony camera at ruffly one third the cost?

Nikon, it is 1929 all over again. Smell the roses! Sony has the pulse of what the customers need and what the customers will spend in our current economy.

Nikon, your x version of the D3 should cost little more. What were you thinking?

It is slower. It has much reduced usable ISO capability, with a 42% linear resolution increase. 10% more at tops. Anything above that is gravy that's not in the boat.

Nikon: Have you sold ten copies yet? The Omaha market has yet to order a single copy that I know of. D3's sold. D700's sell. D300's sell. Not D3x's. No value for the retail price. I am in when Nikon comes to their senses and reduces the cost of the D3 by a thousand dollars and reduces the D3x by three thousand dollars.

The D3 should be selling for $3995.99 and the D3x should be selling for $4995.99

Sober up Nikon!

Originally Posted by JDArt

I disagree. It's the close-up shots that, to my eye, benefit the least from a tad extra resolution. Landscapes--in which lots of details is lost in lower-resolution captures--are helped the most.

[Joves]

I dont have NX2 but yeah Nikon needs to do some tweaking of that program to make it less of a resource hog. Or make it where you have the option to shoot in DNG. In which case Adobe can then be used.

[Brooks]

Here's another sample photo from the D3X. Hope it's better than the last one.

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by Gary Mayo

Nikon: Have you sold ten copies yet? The Omaha market has yet to order a single copy that I know of. D3's sold. D700's sell. D300's sell. Not D3x's. No value for the retail price.

Gary,

Here in Tampa, the local camera store that caters to professionals has 8 people on their waiting list for the D3X. Calumet had the camera in stock while B&H didn't. For commercial studio shooters like myself, 100 ISO or even 50 ISO is much more useful than anything over 400 ISO. One thing this D3X does have is very little if any noise up to ISO 400. Thankfully I'm not shooting weddings or events so I don't need that kind of "speed".

Jove,

I agree, all new Digital cameras should be able to shoot DNG files. Adobe will have an ACR for the D3X soon but it will only work with Photoshop CS4.

[Gary Mayo]

Originally Posted by Brooks

Gary,

Thankfully I'm not shooting weddings or events so I don't need that kind of "speed".

Speed, or ISO, or noise is not the issue. The issue is a D3 (last years model) with just a different sensor in it. It has less of many of the critical numbers, but it does have 42% better linear resolution. For that they are charging double of what D3's are selling for?

Every automaker except Subaru is in the tank. Home sales are all but stopped. The unemployment not counting the military is at 10%. It will be at 14% by the time I submit this reply.

It is not about the camera, it is about the timing of this offering. This camera needs to be offered somewhat like the band playing on the deck of the Titanic: No tip jar present.

How many of us can justify an $8,000.00 expenditure with the economy like it is?

How many of us think the D300 chip is a Sony, but think the D3x is not? Sony chip or not, Sony has an offering to almost exactly match the D3x and it is about $5,000.00 less! Five grand less!

I just think my voice and hundreds of voices like mine should be getting through to Nikon and they had better realize the world financial markets do not justify an offering like this one at this time.

The Hitler parody on you tube is right about one thing. If 12MP does not cut it, go back to film till Nikon offers this at a reasonable figure for the times we are living in.

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by Gary Mayo

If 12MP does not cut it, go back to film till Nikon offers this at a reasonable figure for the times we are living in.

I don't think Nikon cares whether I go back to film to protest their pricing of the D3X. They know that as a professional I don't have that choice.

Here's the problem, Gary. There are many times when 12mp doesn't cut it for my work. And.... my clients don't want film. They don't want the slow workflow that film requires and they don't want the inconvenience of the film shooting experience.

They don't want to wait while Polaroids are being processed (Fuji-roids now) and they don't want to try to scale their layouts down to the size of 600 series Polaroid tests. We used to shoot so much 8x10 and even 4x5 film where you could actually scale layouts to those sizes to check on composition and type placement. Talk about expensive. We used to shoot $1200 worth of 8x10 film in one day. Makes the digital capture look positively cheap, which of course it is.

My clients also don't want to deal with an additional effort, delay and expense of scanning film. And they don't want to catalog and store processed film anymore. If an image isn't on their servers then they can't find or use it.

And I don't want to have to try to move exposed medium format film through airports and I don't want to have to find a lab out of state that still processes E6 film because the one competent professional lab here is town no longer does. I don't want to have to inventory and store film. I don't want to always have to use a color meter and color filters to balance the light on location shoots and I want the client to leave the studio with the finished shoot in their hands, not have to deliver it a day or more later.

For me, in my work, $8,000 is a good deal for the quality and size of the files the D3X offers. Sure I would rather it cost $5,000 instead of $8,000. I imagine the cost will be down closer to $5,000 in a year or so but in that time I will have billed many more times that amount of money. So for me, the D3X will pay for itself sooner rather than later and in the meantime I'll have an alternative to the MF digital back that I've used for the last 5 years. And I'll have the use of many more lenses than my Mamiya RZ has.

So $8,000 is a "reasonable" cost for what the D3X provides.

[Jeff Perry]

Brooks, on a lighter note, I bet you were referring to North Tampa Photography on W. Busch Blvd. in your previous post. One of my favorite stops (and what could be the best shop in the State) when I'm in Tampa.

Funny, I always seem to walk out of there with less money in my wallet.

Jeff

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by Jeff Perry

Brooks, on a lighter note, I bet you were referring to North Tampa Photography on W. Busch Blvd. in your previous post. One of my favorite stops (and what could be the best shop in the State) when I'm in Tampa.

Funny, I always seem to walk out of there with less money in my wallet.

Jeff

Jeff,

You're absolutely right. North Tampa Photo is a great store and now it's the only store in the Tampa area that caters to professional and amateur photographers. They still sell BW chemicals and paper. They also sell Avenger and Matthews grip equipment. I have trouble getting out of there alive too!

I sometimes get down to the BMW/Ducati/Triumph dealership and the Bass Pro Store in Ft. Meyers and my wife and I go past your area on the way to the Keys for diving several times a year. Next time you're up near Tampa, let me know and maybe we can get together.

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by Brooks

NEF Uncompressed 14-bit............50.5mb

not to bad so if the rumors are right, i am looking at a 70mb raf file