There is a very sharp divide, both in price and in operational philosophy, between the "compromise" prosumer DSLRs and the "no compromise" top tier professional DSLRs.
Its difficult to pick up from glancing at a spec sheet, but in actual usage, these cameras are vastly different. For working professionals who demand the performance and durability that the professional body provides, the prosumer bodies really aren't an option - period. However for the shooters who demand image quality but don't really need the speed or ruggedness, the prosumer bodies work well.
Although they have similar resolutions, they are not direct competitors to one another. As for the A900, sure you could buy that and a couple of lenses for the price of a D3x, but you could also buy a 5DII and a couple lenses for the price of a D3x as well. The only question to ask yourself there is which would you rather be saddled with - Sony's lens lineup or Canon's lens lineup.
Because of that the D3x vs A900 comparison is fun for trivia purposes, but of little interest otherwise. Its like calling a $40,000 Corvette a rival to a $200,000 Ferrari just because they have the same horsepower. In reality, people considering $40k Corvettes arent even thinking about $200k Ferraris - and vice versa.
As for the sensors, they are similar, but the Nikon has been heavily tweaked. The resolution is the roughly same, but the pixel pitch is slightly different. In addition, the Nikon has gapless microlenses and a lower base ISO than the Sony (ISO 100 vs ISO 200 for the Sony). Every indication hints that the sensor in the Nikon will be superior for the market Nikon is targeting. Those who need to shoot at uber high ISO can still pick up a D3 or D700 (or 5DII for that matter).
Now, with all of that said, even though the list price of the D3x is $8000, I fully expect the street price to settle in at roughly $6500. This is the street price of its main competitor - the Canon 1Ds III.
As far as being "saddled " with Canon's lens lineup compared to Nikon's, I think that is a disingenuous question.
While Some of Nikon's lenses are better than some of Canon's, it's true the other way around as well. Nikons nasty 70 to 200 comes to mind immediately.
And, if course, there are hardly any modern Sony lenses at all. The Zeiss lenses, while mostly pretty good, are hardly "professional" as none of them are weather proofed in any way. You must buy an adapter to even get lens mount to camera mount sealing.
What good is it for the camera to have a pretty good weather proofing when its the lenses that stick out in the rain and dust?
The pixel pitch is EXACTLY the same. It's been shown that the 4 and the 9 have been transposed in error.
As the D3 sales are poor, according to Thom who usually knows these things, it's even selling BELOW dealer cost at a number of places. Not too good.
So, it's possible that the camera will sell for less than list, simply because it won't sell well at all. The Canon 1Ds mkIII has had a street price of about $7,300. Though with the advent of the new 5D mkII, and the fact that the 1Ds mkIII is expected to be replaced by March, it's not surprising for the price to begin dropping from that.
But, the D3x won't appear until December 25th. If the price dropes by $1,500 at the start, that's bad news indeed!
This is hardly a breakthrough camera.
While the lack if the now becoming required video is acceptable, I suppose, the lack of sensor cleaning is a real questionmark.
The sensor in the Nikon is certainly a variant rather than identical to the A900's, the pixel pitch is the same however.
& no doubt Nikon's image processing (certainly their jpeg engine) will be better for the moment (don't rule out firmware improvements for the A900).
& for the market that this is intended for Sony's lens line up is more than OK just now & only going to get better.
If you have all kinds of amazing Nikon glass why would you want to torture yourself by buying a really nice new body that you can't use with your best lenses? For Pros it is a business and you know you just have to pony-up the extra bucks for the business.
Even for the young professional that is just starting. Would you really want to buy into a standard that does not have the depth of product and support that CaNikon offer? I actually bought a Pentax K10D two years ago based upon your advice Wes. It has been a great camera, but there isn't much to grow on. I can work with what I have, but the best lenses are just not available in non-CaNikon fomrats. Equipment in the computer world is relatively interchangeable and heavily based upon price/performance for discrete tasks, but photography is far more about choosing a system. That should always be mentioned up-front.
Well I think the K10D is a fine camera for what it does and the Pentax lense selection too. You did not however pay think all the details through.
I do not agree with Wesley mostly, but except the 4/3 Olympus obsession, I can generaly live with his recommendations. You have to keep in mind that AT has a specific reader base where the high pro photo category is mostly absent. Maybe some wealthy amateurs with more money than brains (if they have money to buy 3SLI setups and such :-)). The prople are mostly picky about quality and price/performance ratio, but photography is not the main or even long term interest.
As for the D3x, well was about time. The FX/DX SLR market is slowly approaching physical limits on sensor density and body construction does not progress since film era much (compare F5/F6 with D3/D3x). So there is nothing much to build on except brand loyalty and system options.
If you bought a camera on Wes's advice, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'll also share you the secret of a great wealth to be claimed, but first I need money to secure it. Please wire me money and we will share the fortune 60/40.
The advice Wes gave was not bad, rather it was incomplete. I read other reviews that were favorable to the K10D and I also still own two film SLRs from Pentax. I thought I might still be able to make some use of older equipment. I was wrong. I also underestimate the upgrade path.
I think it would be best to review WoW for the Max and recommend the Apple platform for someone who enjoys games. Yes, a Mac will play WoW just fine, but the options for gaming on a Mac are somewhat limited. This is the same situation for cameras.
Check out www.kenrockwell.com or www.dpreview.com.
However, Ken does tend to be fickle towards flavor of the month. Perfect examples; the D700 and D90. Prior to working with them, he downplayed both bodies. After using them, he proclaimed they were the best things Nikon has ever put out.
Poor D300, it used to be Ken's favorite amatuer camera. Now I bet it sits on the shelf unloved.
His know-it-all attitude, combined with his inability to do thorough and cited research, combined with anandtech's lack of testing capability, make for some pretty worthless conclusions.
Wes, thanks for your opinion on a press release! that's front page news.. the guy is an amateur, but that would be okay if he wasn't also an arrogant, defensive jerk. i think the hostility in his article comments are simply the result of most readers not respecting him.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
28 Comments
View All Comments
d33pblue - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Thats not exactly how things work.There is a very sharp divide, both in price and in operational philosophy, between the "compromise" prosumer DSLRs and the "no compromise" top tier professional DSLRs.
Its difficult to pick up from glancing at a spec sheet, but in actual usage, these cameras are vastly different. For working professionals who demand the performance and durability that the professional body provides, the prosumer bodies really aren't an option - period. However for the shooters who demand image quality but don't really need the speed or ruggedness, the prosumer bodies work well.
Although they have similar resolutions, they are not direct competitors to one another. As for the A900, sure you could buy that and a couple of lenses for the price of a D3x, but you could also buy a 5DII and a couple lenses for the price of a D3x as well. The only question to ask yourself there is which would you rather be saddled with - Sony's lens lineup or Canon's lens lineup.
Because of that the D3x vs A900 comparison is fun for trivia purposes, but of little interest otherwise. Its like calling a $40,000 Corvette a rival to a $200,000 Ferrari just because they have the same horsepower. In reality, people considering $40k Corvettes arent even thinking about $200k Ferraris - and vice versa.
As for the sensors, they are similar, but the Nikon has been heavily tweaked. The resolution is the roughly same, but the pixel pitch is slightly different. In addition, the Nikon has gapless microlenses and a lower base ISO than the Sony (ISO 100 vs ISO 200 for the Sony). Every indication hints that the sensor in the Nikon will be superior for the market Nikon is targeting. Those who need to shoot at uber high ISO can still pick up a D3 or D700 (or 5DII for that matter).
Now, with all of that said, even though the list price of the D3x is $8000, I fully expect the street price to settle in at roughly $6500. This is the street price of its main competitor - the Canon 1Ds III.
melgross - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
As far as being "saddled " with Canon's lens lineup compared to Nikon's, I think that is a disingenuous question.While Some of Nikon's lenses are better than some of Canon's, it's true the other way around as well. Nikons nasty 70 to 200 comes to mind immediately.
And, if course, there are hardly any modern Sony lenses at all. The Zeiss lenses, while mostly pretty good, are hardly "professional" as none of them are weather proofed in any way. You must buy an adapter to even get lens mount to camera mount sealing.
What good is it for the camera to have a pretty good weather proofing when its the lenses that stick out in the rain and dust?
The pixel pitch is EXACTLY the same. It's been shown that the 4 and the 9 have been transposed in error.
As the D3 sales are poor, according to Thom who usually knows these things, it's even selling BELOW dealer cost at a number of places. Not too good.
So, it's possible that the camera will sell for less than list, simply because it won't sell well at all. The Canon 1Ds mkIII has had a street price of about $7,300. Though with the advent of the new 5D mkII, and the fact that the 1Ds mkIII is expected to be replaced by March, it's not surprising for the price to begin dropping from that.
But, the D3x won't appear until December 25th. If the price dropes by $1,500 at the start, that's bad news indeed!
This is hardly a breakthrough camera.
While the lack if the now becoming required video is acceptable, I suppose, the lack of sensor cleaning is a real questionmark.
Heidfirst - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
The sensor in the Nikon is certainly a variant rather than identical to the A900's, the pixel pitch is the same however.& no doubt Nikon's image processing (certainly their jpeg engine) will be better for the moment (don't rule out firmware improvements for the A900).
& for the market that this is intended for Sony's lens line up is more than OK just now & only going to get better.
strikeback03 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Also is reasonably likely that this sensor will show up in a relative of the D700 in 6-8 months, after they have made good money on the D3x.Did they really use gapless microlenses? Be interesting to see what they did about the corners, as this would not allow for offset microlenses.
mcnabney - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
But Pros don't really do that.If you have all kinds of amazing Nikon glass why would you want to torture yourself by buying a really nice new body that you can't use with your best lenses? For Pros it is a business and you know you just have to pony-up the extra bucks for the business.
Even for the young professional that is just starting. Would you really want to buy into a standard that does not have the depth of product and support that CaNikon offer? I actually bought a Pentax K10D two years ago based upon your advice Wes. It has been a great camera, but there isn't much to grow on. I can work with what I have, but the best lenses are just not available in non-CaNikon fomrats. Equipment in the computer world is relatively interchangeable and heavily based upon price/performance for discrete tasks, but photography is far more about choosing a system. That should always be mentioned up-front.
haplo602 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Well I think the K10D is a fine camera for what it does and the Pentax lense selection too. You did not however pay think all the details through.I do not agree with Wesley mostly, but except the 4/3 Olympus obsession, I can generaly live with his recommendations. You have to keep in mind that AT has a specific reader base where the high pro photo category is mostly absent. Maybe some wealthy amateurs with more money than brains (if they have money to buy 3SLI setups and such :-)). The prople are mostly picky about quality and price/performance ratio, but photography is not the main or even long term interest.
As for the D3x, well was about time. The FX/DX SLR market is slowly approaching physical limits on sensor density and body construction does not progress since film era much (compare F5/F6 with D3/D3x). So there is nothing much to build on except brand loyalty and system options.
Lord 666 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
If you bought a camera on Wes's advice, then I have a bridge to sell you.I'll also share you the secret of a great wealth to be claimed, but first I need money to secure it. Please wire me money and we will share the fortune 60/40.
Hope this reaches you in good health...
mcnabney - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
The advice Wes gave was not bad, rather it was incomplete. I read other reviews that were favorable to the K10D and I also still own two film SLRs from Pentax. I thought I might still be able to make some use of older equipment. I was wrong. I also underestimate the upgrade path.I think it would be best to review WoW for the Max and recommend the Apple platform for someone who enjoys games. Yes, a Mac will play WoW just fine, but the options for gaming on a Mac are somewhat limited. This is the same situation for cameras.
Lord 666 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Check out www.kenrockwell.com or www.dpreview.com.However, Ken does tend to be fickle towards flavor of the month. Perfect examples; the D700 and D90. Prior to working with them, he downplayed both bodies. After using them, he proclaimed they were the best things Nikon has ever put out.
Poor D300, it used to be Ken's favorite amatuer camera. Now I bet it sits on the shelf unloved.
shinpickle - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
I love ripping on Wesley too.. I'll addHis know-it-all attitude, combined with his inability to do thorough and cited research, combined with anandtech's lack of testing capability, make for some pretty worthless conclusions.
Wes, thanks for your opinion on a press release! that's front page news.. the guy is an amateur, but that would be okay if he wasn't also an arrogant, defensive jerk. i think the hostility in his article comments are simply the result of most readers not respecting him.