Fortunately we are not saddled with the desperate defenses I have seen on other photo Forums dissecting the D3x and arguing that the D300/A700 and the D3x/A900 can't possibly be the same sensors as Nikon would never do that.
There is no doubt the A900 is MUCH better built than any of you are allowing. It is also a fact that the A900 100% viewfinder is better than anything from Canon OR Nikon. But don't take my word for it. Wait until Phil or Ken or Thom or Dave say the same thing and then it will be real.
I'm really a little surprised at how upset some Nikon users have become just because I stated the obvious. I have said several times recently that I believed the $8000 camera was dead - killed by Sony and Canon themselves. For Nikon to then launch a Sony-sensor 24.5 MP version of the D3 is a
true surprise pricing move.
Wes, Thom is already ripping into this camera, the price, and the question of who might be interested in buying it.
Nikon claims that the sensor is "unique", and is theirs. But how true is that, really? The belief, not only for Thom, but others in the industry, is that this is basically a Sony sensor, possibly with Nikon designed lenses, color filter and low cut filter module.
Here, please read this from Thom, and then comment on it:
I think Wes has a distain for Nikon in general. In comments he tends to read things that aren't really there, and goes on an anti-Nikon supporter / Nikon itself campaign. I'm aware that he recommended the Nikon D90, but I can just imagine him being in the office seething about it (or uses it to say 'hey I recommended a Nikon body, I can't be biased!'). If you say something positive about another manufacturer he'll let it go - say something positive about Nikon and he'll jump on you for being a Nikon fanboy. Not sure why. I can appreciate an amateur being biased, since often its the bells and whistles that matter more than the end result (photo), but a pro journalist should be detatched and try to avoid internal biases; rising above the rabble like us moaning about things :p
However, I still think Sony in the long-run could provide stiff competition if they keep up their efforts. They definitely need more quality lenses, just rebranding Tamron lenses won't cut it for anything but budget users.
Camera brand choice is one of those "holy war" topics where everyone accuses every author of bias all the time. Phil and Simon over at DPR are regularly accused of bias. Ken Rockwell has always been considered Nikon-biased (probably true) and Michael Reichmann is generally thought of as a Canon fanboi, even though last I knew he was using both Canon and Nikon systems extensively and was very happy with the D3.
Personally I think Wes gives too much credit to the G1 (only thing I'd consider possibly revolutionary is the fast contrast-detect AF); but as I am clearly not the target market of the camera and have not actually used one I won't go around the forums proclaiming that it sucks.
Definitely. Considering that Sony now seem to be separating out their consumer / pro bodies so that the pro bodies work how a pro expects, and consumer bodies do more hand-hondling for the consumer. Basically if Sony can put enough effort into the bodies themselves (i.e image quality, processing time) to come close to Nikon - competition will heat up fast. Of course this relies on more CZ lenses coming out, Nikon and Canon have far more lenses across a wide range of focal lengths and max apertures. Nikon could be in for a tough time. Pentax & Samsung have teamed up on their sensors, Canon make their own, this leaves Nikon as the only major player without easy manufacturing of sensors. Of course I could be wrong and Nikon & Sony work closely on their sensors too - but I doubt it. Then again who's to say Nikon can't just design in-house and get a 3rd party fab (like Sony with the D3/D700 sensor) to manufacture it.
Of course you could argue that the D3x is built to a much greater standard than the A900. Does it really warrant the extra cost?
Sony don't (yet) have any officially Pro bodies.
There is a fair amount of evidence that they are getting ready to launch a Pro support programme though.
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
Wesley Fink - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Fortunately we are not saddled with the desperate defenses I have seen on other photo Forums dissecting the D3x and arguing that the D300/A700 and the D3x/A900 can't possibly be the same sensors as Nikon would never do that.There is no doubt the A900 is MUCH better built than any of you are allowing. It is also a fact that the A900 100% viewfinder is better than anything from Canon OR Nikon. But don't take my word for it. Wait until Phil or Ken or Thom or Dave say the same thing and then it will be real.
I'm really a little surprised at how upset some Nikon users have become just because I stated the obvious. I have said several times recently that I believed the $8000 camera was dead - killed by Sony and Canon themselves. For Nikon to then launch a Sony-sensor 24.5 MP version of the D3 is a
true surprise pricing move.
melgross - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Wes, Thom is already ripping into this camera, the price, and the question of who might be interested in buying it.Nikon claims that the sensor is "unique", and is theirs. But how true is that, really? The belief, not only for Thom, but others in the industry, is that this is basically a Sony sensor, possibly with Nikon designed lenses, color filter and low cut filter module.
Here, please read this from Thom, and then comment on it:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm
boogle - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
I think Wes has a distain for Nikon in general. In comments he tends to read things that aren't really there, and goes on an anti-Nikon supporter / Nikon itself campaign. I'm aware that he recommended the Nikon D90, but I can just imagine him being in the office seething about it (or uses it to say 'hey I recommended a Nikon body, I can't be biased!'). If you say something positive about another manufacturer he'll let it go - say something positive about Nikon and he'll jump on you for being a Nikon fanboy. Not sure why. I can appreciate an amateur being biased, since often its the bells and whistles that matter more than the end result (photo), but a pro journalist should be detatched and try to avoid internal biases; rising above the rabble like us moaning about things :pHowever, I still think Sony in the long-run could provide stiff competition if they keep up their efforts. They definitely need more quality lenses, just rebranding Tamron lenses won't cut it for anything but budget users.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Camera brand choice is one of those "holy war" topics where everyone accuses every author of bias all the time. Phil and Simon over at DPR are regularly accused of bias. Ken Rockwell has always been considered Nikon-biased (probably true) and Michael Reichmann is generally thought of as a Canon fanboi, even though last I knew he was using both Canon and Nikon systems extensively and was very happy with the D3.Personally I think Wes gives too much credit to the G1 (only thing I'd consider possibly revolutionary is the fast contrast-detect AF); but as I am clearly not the target market of the camera and have not actually used one I won't go around the forums proclaiming that it sucks.
boogle - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Definitely. Considering that Sony now seem to be separating out their consumer / pro bodies so that the pro bodies work how a pro expects, and consumer bodies do more hand-hondling for the consumer. Basically if Sony can put enough effort into the bodies themselves (i.e image quality, processing time) to come close to Nikon - competition will heat up fast. Of course this relies on more CZ lenses coming out, Nikon and Canon have far more lenses across a wide range of focal lengths and max apertures. Nikon could be in for a tough time. Pentax & Samsung have teamed up on their sensors, Canon make their own, this leaves Nikon as the only major player without easy manufacturing of sensors. Of course I could be wrong and Nikon & Sony work closely on their sensors too - but I doubt it. Then again who's to say Nikon can't just design in-house and get a 3rd party fab (like Sony with the D3/D700 sensor) to manufacture it.Of course you could argue that the D3x is built to a much greater standard than the A900. Does it really warrant the extra cost?
Heidfirst - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Sony don't (yet) have any officially Pro bodies.There is a fair amount of evidence that they are getting ready to launch a Pro support programme though.
Wesley Fink - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
"The larger question will be how image quality of the A900 and D3x will compare." Obviously the comparison would be the A900 to the D3x.