Hooo-eeee! The D3X price has been announced

The internets are on fire with the official MSRP of the D3x

$7,995.95 ESTIMATED STREET

Ouch.

Holy crap.... I expected perhaps $6800 max!

OK - so who is going to own up to placing an order.

Hint: It ain't going to be me!

Alex ?

Paul C

Ouch is the word.... I agree.

Had hoped it would land around the 5k mark. 8k in this financial climate....

Wait three years and get one cheap? or sell the house?

Wait.

Espen :-)

Interestingly this does not appear to use the Sony A900 sensor, having a slightly smaller pixel pitch. Still the camera costs more than twice as much as the Sony. I'm not sure why everyone expected it to be much cheaper than the 1DS MKIII introductory price, both about $8K, and less on the street.

At least those with D3 housings will not need a housing upgrade.

Interestingly this does not appear to use the Sony A900 sensor, having a slightly smaller pixel pitch. Still the camera costs more than twice as much as the Sony. I'm not sure why everyone expected it to be much cheaper than the 1DS MKIII introductory price, both about $8K and less on the street.

You are indeed correct Loftus. I do not monitor the price of the Canons being a Nikon shooter..... If Canon's already available 1Ds MkIII is around that price, no reason why Nikon's shouldn't be. The question I have now is whether the body and layout is exactly the same as the D3 and hence able to use current housings?

$7995.00 USD converted to AUD inc taxes = $12995.00 - double ouch.

At least I already have the housing.

Interestingly this does not appear to use the Sony A900 sensor, having a slightly smaller pixel pitch.

It has a modified version of the sony sensor. The pictures published are clearly showed this. Small improvements can be expected but nothing serious for the UW-folks.

People already invested to D3-housing may consider it but a cheaper d700x would be a better option many people wish for.

Me as a sony user I wish for an a900 housing (if I would win on lottery).

Ouch. That is quite high, and I can see what Thom Hogan was referring to when he said there would be a major backlash (but couldn't say why because of NDA).

Well - Nikon has always said they could do a high megapixel FF camera but that it would be prohibitively expensive - I guess this proves it.

On a higher note though - maybe the pressure will drop the price down to the same level as Canon's 1DsmkIII - which I think would be competitive.

Cheers

James

The question I have now is whether the body and layout is exactly the same as the D3 and hence able to use current housings?

Apparently the D3 and D3x are identical bodies

I'll wait some more time. D3 is okay for the moment

not the upgrade from my D70 i was hoping for

unless someone wants to buy a used d70 and housing for 8K?

Mike you could always sell some surplus organs?

(maybe not the liver as we have seen the pictures ).

Paul C

i thought the going rate for a kidney was 10k? that wont cover the camera and housing...

Seems like a lot of money. Hmmm.

Too bad Sony didn't make a -N model with a Nikon mount.

I also read Nikon discontinued the 17-35mm. This is sad for those of you who don't own this lens. I almost sold mine. It's a wonderful lens and now has a new lease on life with the return of FF.

Oh well, so much for downward pressure on the D3 and D700. We must now wait for the D800 24mp model.

I know Thom Hogan and all these guys complain etc, etc, but it seems to me when all is said and done, Nikon now has 2 'professional' type cameras designed to compete with the 1DS and 1D respectively, and which arguably have a slight edge over Canon in terms of their respective sensors. In the long run though I am not confident that Nikon will be successful against Canon, particularly as Canon have economies of scale that Nikon simply cannot match. This is evident in the 5DSMkII which will obviously be far more successful than it's direct Nikon competitor, the D700.

I also read Nikon discontinued the 17-35mm. This is sad for those of you who don't own this lens. I almost sold mine. It's a wonderful lens and now has a new lease on life with the return of FF.

Yes this will be sad, particularly for the underwater crowd. Topside it makes sense, as we have the 14-24 and 24-70, but underwater, if the 14-24 is not a viable wide angle option, we'll be SOOL for a FF rectilinear wide underwater.

Good point Jeff - Nikon now has an almost "complete" lineup. They can eventually put the 24mpix sensor into the D700 for a D700x to compete w/ the 5DII - but that's an economic decision only.

The difference I see is that Nikon's cameras come out after the corresponding Canon, but at a higher cost. This is a pretty big issue if you also have to wait for and pay for an underwater housing.

Cheers

James

They can eventually put the 24mpix sensor into the D700 for a D700x to compete w/ the 5DII - but that's an economic decision only.

Cheers

James

I'm not sure that would really be a great move, because I think the D700 will then take a hit against the 5DII in terms of ISO and frame rate as well. It will be interesting to see whether the RAW noise performance of the 5DMkII is as good as the 700. If that's the case, Nikon really has a problem.

It's actually quite funny to see all the whining about the price point of the D3x. People have been holding back and waiting for the D3x for quite some time - especially after the firmware slip-up they made earlier in the year. But for underwater shooters, what does the D3x bring to the table that the D3 doesn't already have? If purely for the want of more pixels, then yes, however, after looking at some D3x high ISO samples, I think the D3 still has the edge on high ISO performance. I moved to a D3 because of the high ISO capabilities. A D3x wouldn't make much difference to me.