It pretty much goes without saying that the Nikon D3x is an incredibly good camera, with the kind of performance, rugged reliability, versatility and most importantly image quality demanded by the top professionals. It is big, heavy and quite breathtakingly expensive, but if you're the sort of photographer who needs to have the very best then ask the picture agency you work for to buy you one.Read full review
I went to a photography degree show a few months back, and the pictures drawing the largest crowd and praise were shot using an "inferior" four thirds Olympus E-420, and the worst, a series of badly shot, cliqued still lifes was shot using.. You guessed it, a D3X..
Had a good chuckle to myself when I left in the way only camera nerds can..
Having been fortunate to either own or use most high end DSLR's one question I get asked most often is "is it really worth the money?" The answer is most certainly YES! When I upgraded from a 30D to a 1D MKIIn a few years ago I couldn't believe the difference in image quality, bearing in mind they are the same resolution. I thought things may have changed over recent times until I tried a friends new 50D. The 50D was so incredibly noisy at 200 ISO ultimate IQ was not really any better than my old 30D. My advice is: if you are going to spend a chunk of money on a mid-range SLR, buy a two or three year old pro body instead. Something like a D2X, 1D MKII or a 5D. You won't regret it and it will be worth more at resale time.
It's very true about the class structure with cameras. When I'm walking around Central London, there a loads of SLR users. You can see people drooling over cameras like sports cars.
"I swear I heard a small, strangled yelp from the 40D owner as his previous status was reversed in an instant, because he knew, and he knew that I knew, that in the world of DSLR cameras the D3x is Top Dog, the alpha male of the social order, and I couldn't have injured his pride any more painfully if I'd peed in his camera bag."
Nice body but way too expensive. The D3 is much cheaper and just as good, unless you have to print billboard-size blowouts of your pictures. I'm a Canon user myself, and I got both a 5D MKII (FF + quality) and a 1D MKIII (1.3x + 10FPS) for less than the price of the D3X; lenses for these beasts cost a lot of money.
Unless you are a professional who knows exactly why you need such a beast, save your money and buy a D700 and a quality lens or two. The results will look exactly the same but you won't look like such a tw*t with it hanging round your neck.
of course as well as billboard size enlargements, you could also crop your photos more aggressively whilst remaining within an acceptable output resolution. If sensor technology develops far enough, all we would need would be one very high resolution wideangle prime lens - the zooming could all be done by cropping.
@ Martin Daler - To an extent yes, but in reality it would be both highly impractical and time consuming, especially for professionals. You also seem to be forgetting the effect focal length has on visual perspective; do a YouTube search for "dolly zoom" to see this same effect used in film, although it applies to still photography as well and is a useful compositional tool, especially where portraits are concerned.
We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.
Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.
Comments
User reviews
There are currently no reviews for this product.
Read more reviews >
To add your own review log in or sign up