D3X announced!

[jorgemonkey]

Here is the link for the Nikon USA site

A few of the goodies included:

*
Extreme resolution 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor
Large 5.49µm pixels capture astonishing detail and subtleties with outstanding dynamic range for demanding commercial applications.
*
Nikon EXPEED image processing technologies
EXPEED extends and assures breathtakingly rich image fidelity and reduces noise, even at high ISOs.
*
138 MB (approximate) Processed NEF (RAW) 12 or 14 bit image files
Selectable bit depths of 12-bit (4,096 tones) or 14-bit (16,384 tones), both yielding incredible image quality through a 16-bit processing pipeline, for smoother tonal gradations.
*
Low noise ISO sensitivity from 100 to 1600
Added ISO settings of Lo-1 ISO 50, Hi-1 ISO 3200 and Hi-2 ISO 6400 extend versatility.
*
Two Live View shooting modes
Two Live View modes add flexibility, and up to 27x magnification in the Tripod Mode, acute focusing accuracy is easily confirmed.
*
Continuous shooting at up to 5 fps at full FX-format resolution
Commercial image quality teams with speed and handling to create new shooting possibilities—in the studio or on location.
*
Fast, accurate 51-point AF system
AF system features 4 Dynamic AF modes, including 3D Focus Tracking, for autofocus precision and razor sharpness.
*
1,005-Pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System
Two Nikon-exclusive technologies provide intelligent auto exposure capabilities, along with refined auto white balance detection and faster, more accurate AF performance.
*
3-inch super-density 920,000-dot VGA LCD monitor
Individual factory calibration assures the color accuracy of each D3X monitor for critical image review.
*
100% viewfinder coverage
*
Nikon Picture Control
Four preset options: Standard, Neutral, Vivid and Monochrome, and 9 customizable settings provide advanced, personalized color control.
*
Rugged, durable and precise magnesium-alloy construction
Effectively protected from invasive dust, moisture and electromagnetic interference with a self-diagnostic shutter mechanism tested to 300,000 cycles.
*
Dual CF card slots with overflow, backup and copy options
*
Virtual Horizon Graphic Indicator
*
Up to 4,400 images per battery charge

[deckcadet]

A few things to note:
1) the 138MB is if you convert a 14-bit raw file to 16-bit RGB TIFF. Normal file sizes will be more manageable.
2) The files from this camera look fantastic. I have spent the last few hours looking at both the Nikon samples and a few others that have popped up on flickr from a camera running pre-production firmware v. 0.66. Medium ISO (560) looks much better than the D300, and high ISO (1400/1600) looks mighty nice, too. Low ISO is just masterful. The amount of detail visible is shocking, even at defaults (where sharpening is, IMHO, too low). If you download any of the Nikon sample photos and apply a very light unsharp mask the detail you get is absolutely insane. When you can tell the model in a brightly lit portrait is wearing contacts, that's a lot of detail.

The price is a little disappointing, but I think it won't stay that high for long. It may well start selling below $8000 at this point, and within a few months I expect it to be similarly priced to the Canon 1Ds mark III (around $6700).

I certainly don't plan on getting one. A D700 is the only body in my future for a while. For my needs this sort of resolution isn't necessary most of the time. Given its availability dates, however, if I continue to be impressed by its output at ISO 800-1600 and even 3200, I may try and secure a rental for the Gators' bowl game. With my lenses I'll be using for that game it would work even for a nighttime kickoff.

[Franglais]

I certainly don't plan on getting one. A D700 is the only body in my future for a while. For my needs this sort of resolution isn't necessary most of the time.

What about a D800? No sorry I'm starting rumours..

But if Canon have produced the 5DMk2 with 21Mpix for $2700 then Nikon might be tempted to put the new sensor in the D700 body. One day.

[deckcadet]

At least 6 months from now. Probably around the 1-year mark for the D700. D700 prices are down- about $2400 right now depending on where you buy.

[shootme]

Is the price differential from the D3 really worth it? Outside of the extra pixels what does it give you, certainly slower fps. I was hoping it wouldn't be priced more than $1,000 - 1,500 above the D3. At a price of approx. 8k I'd be happy to look at the New Sony 900 and pick up a couple of great lenses.

[Old Timer]

24.5 MP!! How many of us actually need that? I'm still blown away with the D700. I think I'll stick with it for a while. I got it the grip, extra battery, Nikon 24-120 VR lens, 8 Gig card and other goodies for under 3K the original price of the D700 alone.

[AgingEyes]

24.5 MP!! How many of us actually need that?

It's not about who needs that, but who wants that. Now that's a lot of people we're talking about here

[v1s1g0th]

Is that the Sony sensor? 8K is a little much, they are tracking pre-order prices here

http://www.unwir3d.com/887268/where-pre-order-nikon-d3x

They are all still 8K though. I can't imagine that price not coming down soon.

[deckcadet]

It is most likely a custom variant of the Sony sensor. The 14-bit ADC is an add-on piece, if i'm not mistaken, just like the D300 has, and the low pass filter is different. Then there's the whole different processing engine.

Between this and the lower prices, I just picked up a D700 today.

[Old Timer]

That D700 will be a perfect compliment to your D3. Add the grip and bump it up to 8fps and you got a great second sports camera.

[rongarrett]

I really don't understand Nikon's thinking. Evidently they just want a camera equally priced to the Canon IDs Mark III. Aside from the sensor and related parts, this camera is in essence a D3. I would not be surprised if the two cameras were the same on the assembly line, the D3x taking a detour for the different sensor.

If Canon's 5D Mark II comes close to same image quality, they will blow the D3x out of the water. Some will buy the camera just because they want the prestige of having the most expensive. Few pros will ever be able to make enough added revenue from having one to make it pay for itself.

I too will look at the Sony A900 before even thinking of buying such an expensive camera. Question is, if Sony can produce something that matches {at least in specs} for $5000.00 less, do you really think Nikon has that much more invested? Nikons name isn't worth that much in my opinion.

There is a move on in the photographic circle to shun this camera until the price becomes competitive. The dropping price on the IDs Mark III is proof that super high camera prices have a tough time making it in the USA.

[Speed]

24.5 mp has to equal insane image detail.
But there are always compromises.
Price - $8000 vs $4200 for the D3
Smaller pixels = lower ISO range than the D3
More megapixles = lower fps than the D3

I don't four grand for the D3, so I certainly don't have eight grand for the D3X.
But if I win the lottery, I may pick up one of each.
The D3 for weddings, the D3X for landscapes.
Hey, a guy can dream....

[rongarrett]

Huuummmnnn. Just read that if the D3x is set to the 14 bit option, frame rate is a stunning 1.8 fps !! maybe Nikon needs dual processors like the A900?

[deckcadet]

I'm pretty sure the A900 is 12-bit only.

[deckcadet]

rongarrett, I've noticed a trend of extremely negative posts from you. I think you'd be a bit less negative if you understood the technology behind 12-bit vs. 14-bit better in the case of this sensor.

[rongarrett]

Thinking more about it, I think that 1.8 frame rate goes back to the 80's?

[Frog]

Send me 8 grand and I'll be glad to test it for all of you~

[rongarrett]

Deckcadet, my reason for the seeming negativity is that I expect a lot from a $8000.00 camera that is susposed to be the latest and greatest from a company like Nikon. If a company asks top, and I stress top level money for their product, then they need to deliver top level performance. You are right that I don't understand the full differences between 12 bit and 14 bit. I also see that Canon has somehow manged to keep their top level cameras from slowing down to a snails pace when delivering 14 bit processing.

Having said that, Nikon is my main camera line, has been for some time. I own three of them. Lots of lenses too. Doesn't keep me from trying to look at each camera offering with an open mind.

I would appreciate it if you can educate me on the 12 bit vs 14 bit issue. Please explain why Nikon seemingly has a problem with the difference slowing the camera down and some manufacturers have found an answer for it? Not being a smart aleck, just genuinely interested in learning all I can about digital photography.

I am looking to buy my first full frame camera. I cannot afford to make a mistake and put out the money required for something that is not the best performing camera, regardless of brand. I feel that if a camera withstands my critique, it may just be that "best".

I refuse to blindly be a "brand loyal" photographer. My money deserves the best IMHO.

Thanks, Ron

[Franglais]

14-bit means that each of the three primary colours of each pixel recorded in the RAW file is coded in 14 bits (rather than the usual 12 bits). The extra 2 bits allow the RAW file to record 4 times more lighting levels. However this is only useful in scenes with EXTREME contrast. Look at the histogram on most scenes and you'll see that most of the time you haven't used up all the possible levels even on 12 bits.

The Sony can't do 12 bits, neither can the Canon 1DSMk3. The only FX format cameras that can do 14-bits are the Nikon D3, D3X, D700 and the Canon 5DMk2.

The problem with a 14 bit file is that it is 4 times bigger than a 12-bit one. The frame rate is slower because the processor has 4 times more work to do than on a 12-bit file, the file is 4 times bigger, etc.

[deckcadet]

The biggest issue is that the cameras using the Sony sensors (D300, D3x), have to offload the data from the sensor to a supplemental Analog to Digital Converter that does the 14-bit processing. This isn't capable of performing at the same speed as the 12-bit mode, so the frame rate drops dramatically. The Nikon-designed sensors in the D3 and D700, and the Canon sensors in the 5DmkII, 1DmkIII, and 1DsIII are all designed with 14-bit processing as the standard at full speed, and the primary ADC does all the work.

I do agree that it's far from ideal, but the need to use Sony-designed sensors in this case has predicated the drop in speed for 14-bit. Whether or not you need the 14-bit mode in this case is another thing- I've been seeing some good stuff out of the 12-bit A900 as far as dynamic range goes.

Whatever the case, I probably won't be going for one of these because I can't afford to have that sort of speed hit.

[AgingEyes]

I think Nikon was late into this 14-bit game. Fujifilm S5 Pro, with a D200 body, is a 14-bit all along. Many may be surprised by the slow frame rate of D300 when shooting 14-bit raw file. but it's just processing it at the same speed the S5 is. I'm not surprised that many main brand users don't know about that, though.

[rongarrett]

Then it's just simply a design thing? If so. for $8000.00 I expect anyones camera to be just as fast as another similarly priced one. Did Sony realize this when they priced the A900? I surely think maybe I could do with the 12 bit images vs 14 bit ones for $5000.00 less? This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry if that sounded negative.

I have so too much invested in Nikon equipment to just switch to anything else. However I do own and use some Canon and Sony cameras. I am satisfied with them for the use I bought them for.

At this point I will not be adding to the Nikon collection with the D3x unless it is so stunning in some form or fashion over the lower priced A900 or Canon 5D Mark II to make me forget that $5000.00 difference and the 14 bit speed thing.

I'm gonna wait until some actual users post their opinions on all three.

Thanks for the 12 bit vs 14 bit explanation, which by the way was pretty much like I understood it.

[blazing fire]

14-bit means that each of the three primary colours of each pixel recorded in the RAW file is coded in 14 bits (rather than the usual 12 bits). The extra 2 bits allow the RAW file to record 4 times more lighting levels. However this is only useful in scenes with EXTREME contrast. Look at the histogram on most scenes and you'll see that most of the time you haven't used up all the possible levels even on 12 bits.

The Sony can't do 12 bits, neither can the Canon 1DSMk3. The only FX format cameras that can do 14-bits are the Nikon D3, D3X, D700 and the Canon 5DMk2.

The problem with a 14 bit file is that it is 4 times bigger than a 12-bit one. The frame rate is slower because the processor has 4 times more work to do than on a 12-bit file, the file is 4 times bigger, etc.

I have some questions to ask!

1) Is the canon 1d(s) mark 3 the flag ship model?
2) What is the difference between 5dmk2 and the 1d(s) mk 3?

Thanks!