Hooo-eeee! The D3X price has been announced

Sounds like price skimming to me.

Not necessarily.

Let's hope for really good sensor yields

And there is the kicker - if the fab yields can be made good then this sensor will propagate right through the pack - eventually.

If it can't (and its not a job I would relish) then this will remain an expensive option.

Paul C

From what I gather the 5DMkII is arousing a GREAT deal of interest. Its spec. & price are very acceptable. Some people will/can pay prices like the D3X's predicted one, but that given the differences are not earth shattering, I'd say that Canon has a potential winner in the 5D MkII. To be absolutely honest, I see little absolute gain in a D3X over a 5DII for the VAST majority of users. Certainly underwater the D3X has the main advantage of an existing Nikon orientated user base. If you think about it anything over 10MPixel is as good as if not better than 35mm (IMHO based on numerous comparable images that I've taken) then any application or usage which 35mm would have fulfilled can now be dealt with by a 10MPixel camera - so for many usages 24MPixel is irrelevant and for underwater images, quality will still be limited by the optics in any case!

From what I gather the 5DMkII is arousing a GREAT deal of interest. Its spec. & price are very acceptable. Some people will/can pay prices like the D3X's predicted one, but that given the differences are not earth shattering, I'd say that Canon has a potential winner in the 5D MkII. To be absolutely honest, I see little absolute gain in a D3X over a 5DII for the VAST majority of users. Certainly underwater the D3X has the main advantage of an existing Nikon orientated user base. If you think about it anything over 10MPixel is as good as if not better than 35mm (IMHO based on numerous comparable images that I've taken) then any application or usage which 35mm would have fulfilled can now be dealt with by a 10MPixel camera - so for many usages 24MPixel is irrelevant and for underwater images, quality will still be limited by the optics in any case!

This is true for people like myself looking into the possibility of going full frame from DX. 3/4 of my lenses are now DX only. I would have to (or want to) sell them all anyway. The 5DMkII has the edge over the D700 IMHO (with much more research still pending). However, after the last few recent releases, I have decided to sit back a while longer and wait till the dust settles. I have also dug myself deeper into the Nikon trench though as I am about to acquire their 70-200VR F2.8 (an FX/DX usable lens) and a SB900 flash.....

This is true for people like myself looking into the possibility of going full frame from DX. 3/4 of my lenses are now DX only. I would have to (or want to) sell them all anyway. The 5DMkII has the edge over the D700 IMHO (with much more research still pending). However, after the last few recent releases, I have decided to sit back a while longer and wait till the dust settles. I have also dug myself deeper into the Nikon trench though as I am about to acquire their 70-200VR F2.8 (an FX/DX usable lens) and a SB900 flash.....

I do think the 5DMkII is a great camera, but if one reads some of the more balanced reviews, which Craig mentions, all is not roses with this camera, and in a number of respects falls short against the D700. These include speed, built in flash, quite likely not as good high ISO noise performance, weather sealing, ability to use DX lenses (minor), autofocus, EV bracketing spread (important for someone like me playing with HDR), some differences in Auto WB abilities etc. There are even some reviews that complain of sub 1000 noise issues in the 5D MkII. What it comes down to is, if you need MP and video, get the MkII, otherwise the D700 is probably still a better all round camera.

BTW, came across a neat technique to run the D700 at 8fps without the drive.

Now that my D700 housing is about to arrive, the vaporware disease raises it's ugly head. A D700x that fits in the same housing, shooting DX at 10MP. Nice; no housing conversions needed to hold onto my beloved Tokina 10-17. Same res as my present D200. So why did I need anything more than my D200?

http://www.dpnotes.com/nikon/nikond700/tips.php

loftus

Without wanting to worry you, I'd hazard a guess and suggest that the D700 might be short lived in production run terms. Nikon are being outclassed in the (admittedly pointless) specification stakes by Canon. To compete effectively in a specification driven market Nikon will need to release an update of the D700 before too long. We seem to have arrived at an odd time in digital SLR evolution with specifications, especially MPixel) still increasing despite lenses being the probable limiting factor on image quality. Whilst no camera is, nor ever will be, perfect, the latest generation are getting rather esoteric in as much as their specifications may well exceed needs for the majority of users/uses. I'm still using both 1DS and 5D cameras and in all honesty they still work well and deliver images of sufficient quality to fulfill the very vast majority of my image requirements - I'm also using a Leica M8 which at 10MPixel is hardly a heavily specified camera today, but it does deliver perfectly usable results too and in a very small package. Personally I'm now more interested in lenses and their abilities that camera bodies, although the 5DMkII is interesting due to its HD video possibilities underwater.

loftus

 

Without wanting to worry you, I'd hazard a guess and suggest that the D700 might be short lived in production run terms. Nikon are being outclassed in the (admittedly pointless) specification stakes by Canon. To compete effectively in a specification driven market Nikon will need to release an update of the D700 before too long. We seem to have arrived at an odd time in digital SLR evolution with specifications, especially MPixel) still increasing despite lenses being the probable limiting factor on image quality. Whilst no camera is, nor ever will be, perfect, the latest generation are getting rather esoteric in as much as their specifications may well exceed needs for the majority of users/uses. I'm still using both 1DS and 5D cameras and in all honesty they still work well and deliver images of sufficient quality to fulfill the very vast majority of my image requirements - I'm also using a Leica M8 which at 10MPixel is hardly a heavily specified camera today, but it does deliver perfectly usable results too and in a very small package. Personally I'm now more interested in lenses and their abilities that camera bodies, although the 5DMkII is interesting due to its HD video possibilities underwater.

I agree with you. The reality is I'm extremely happy with my D700. (frankly even my D200 does fine for most things) If I do make the transition to FX only underwater, and I ever get to a 2 body situation like I presently have with my D200; the concept of a D700x and D700 bodies fitting in the same housing, especially if the D700x adds video and the ability to still effectively use the 10-17, is about as sweet a combination as I can imagine right now. It's really hard to imagine anything I have ever tried or thought of doing in the past with film or digital, that I could not do with this combination.

Lenses yes, a 15-25mm FX fisheye zoom is my request.

I do think the 5DMkII is a great camera, but if one reads some of the more balanced reviews, which Craig mentions, all is not roses with this camera, and in a number of respects falls short against the D700. These include speed, built in flash, quite likely not as good high ISO noise performance, weather sealing, ability to use DX lenses (minor), autofocus, EV bracketing spread (important for someone like me playing with HDR), some differences in Auto WB abilities etc.

If I was invested heavily in Canon glass, the 5DMkII would be one I would definitely be considering. However, the autofocus issue would be a big stumbling block as it uses the same system as the 5DMkI, which has it's issues. As well, with HDR, high frame rate is important to me as it allows me some options to do handheld HDR. And for the rare underwater HDR that I've done, it would be virtually impossible without the high frame rate of 9 fps at full resolution.

WETPIXEL MEMBERS COMPLAINING ABOUT PRICE?

I never thought I would see this day. When I joined, I thought you needed to be an heir(ess) or hedge fund manager. After all, many spend top dollar on cameras, housings, lenses, ports, strobes and such. Then there is the $2000 viewfinder. I'm not even talking about that $6,000 trip to some isolated part of Indonesia or Papua New Guinea.

So what's another couple thousand going to do? Just trying to put things into perspective. Nikon somehow feels the market will bear the $8000 price. Manufacturers have been doing this for years. Aside from profit taking, it assured their professional and wealthy customers that the average Joe couldn't compete. Now I'm reminiscing about the days when David Doubiliet would travel with huge cases filled with Aquatica housings and assistants who would load film. How could anyone compete with a guy who's equipment and resources outclassed everyone else's.

To sum it up, I agree that the price is artificially high. I just don't see why it's such a surprise.

If I was invested heavily in Canon glass, the 5DMkII would be one I would definitely be considering...

I am invested in NIKON glass but for the DX3 price I would buy a 5DmkII, sigma 15mm, 17-40, 100mm and a 2x.

I am invested in NIKON glass but for the DX3 price I would buy a 5DmkII, sigma 15mm, 17-40, 100mm and a 2x.

And then you can trade it all back in when the D700x comes out.

And then you can trade it all back in when the D700x comes out.

But I am serious (short of...): If right now I had the need/desire of a high mpx FF camera I would be better prepared for future changes with a dual nikon/canon equipment than just with a more expensive (it would be more expensive a nikon D3X plus housing than a 5DmkII + 3 lenses + housing) only nikon one. As underwater photographers there is a short list of lenses needed for the whole life so once you have a 15mm, a 17-40mm and a 100mm you are into canon for a long time with no really a need for any other lens.

You may be right, and I know this topic is not about the 5DMkII, but one of the biggest complaints I've heard about the 5D from underwater photographers is the autofocus, something Alex pointed out as well in his D700 review. 5DMkII apparently has the same autofocus as the MkI, which may be a little bit of a disappointment to prospective users of the new 5D underwater.

Why would anyone buy a 1Ds3? The 5D2 has a better sensor, is smaller, and is $5000 cheaper. Answer that and you'll have an answer for why people will buy the D3x. Nikon isn't competing with the 5D2 with this announcement.

If someone wanted to buy into a new full frame system today, from scratch, the 5D2 would be an obvious choice. Still, there would be those that would want the better features of Canon's pro body. For those people, Nikon offers an alternative. If and when Nikon adds the 24MP sensor to the D700 body, they will have a 5D2 competitor but with better AF and 2nd curtain sync.

If Nikon never introduces the D700x, the D3x would still be a fine choice underwater. 1Ds and D2x users have never said that their cameras are too big to use. The small body is better but it's not a deal breaker.

I agree the list of manufacturer-specific pieces is short but not quite that short. People feel an unjustified loyalty to camera brand. Switching brands isn't that big a deal. Frankly, I care more about the lenses than the bodies.

People feel an unjustified loyalty to camera brand.

I'm not sure brand loyalty is always unjustified. I've owned four brands of SLR cameras (besides P&S) over the last 40 years. My first SLR was a Topcon Uni, then a series of Olympus, Nikon and Canons. I continue to be loyal to Nikon for two main reasons, ergonomics and ruggedness / reliability. I loved the ergonomics of my Olympus cameras, but they were always having pieces fall off and a couple of OM-1's and 2's eventually seized up on me. I have to admit I don't baby my equipment. My Nikons on the other hand, F, F2N, Nikkormat, N90s, D40,D200 x2 and now D700( I frikkin dropped the thing from about 4 feet onto concrete about a month ago), I've been unable to destroy or even temporarily disable despite my best efforts. The most maintenance ever done on any of my Nikons was a cleaning. Similarly with multiple Nikon strobes. Canons have never done it for me ergonomically and 2 Powershot Pro and 1 20D that I use at work (because of software tethering) have died and required repair, as well as 520 (I think that's the number) strobes dying about every 6 months and requiring repair. Now I know this is just my experience, and others may have had similar experiences that make them loyal to their brands, but I have good reason to like the Nikon brand that go beyond the feature set of the camera.

A D700x that fits in the same housing, shooting DX at 10MP. Nice; no housing conversions needed to hold onto my beloved Tokina 10-17. Same res as my present D200. So why did I need anything more than my D200?

Street cred? Okay, better answer: great performance at high ISO, and a great viewfinder. At least that's how it looks to me.

The D3x does not have 14 bit converters; like the D300 it resorts to 4x sampling to achieve a 14 bit result. It's frame rate at 14 bit is apparently 7/4 fps rather than 5.

Imagine flooding one on your test dive! You would need to invent a whole new swear-word.

Alex

Imagine flooding one on your test dive! You would need to invent a whole new swear-word.

 

Alex

Imagine? Sounds like a nightmare!

Imagine flooding one on your test dive! You would need to invent a whole new swear-word.

 

Alex

I think you might be speechless!

If I were shooting a D3 underwater now, it would be a no brainer..... You are already saving thousands on having to buy a new housing. $8000 for the camera starts to look much cheaper.....