Does the D3x still have any reason to be in Nikon's lineup?

SkintBrit

Not sure if we've covered this one already, but I can't believe that some UK retailers are asking £5000 for a new D3x. To me that seems like madness, not only because the D4 can be bought for £1000 less (I know they're not directly comparable), but also because £5K would buy you 2 D800e's, so whether you want resolution or FPS, there are two awfully good much cheaper alternatives. How long does the D3x have left?

sevencrossing

The most likely customers are those who have, know and like the D3x
and need a replacement or a spare

Msmoto

While the pixel count of the D3x is higher than the D4, has anyone ever looked at the actual sensor performance in terms of resolution. The difference in the technology in manufacturing sensors would potentially suggest the D3x sensor is no sharper than a D4. In looking at Dpreview results the D3x at ISO 3200 is less sharp than the D4 and the noise is higher.At 200 the D4 still looks sharper. My opinion only, but with no apparent advantage of a D3x over a D4 the question is an interesting one.

adamz

tommie - there is a difference, both in MPx and price. You can get used d3x for a little bit more than d800 and it has the "pro" body and support for easily available el-el3 batts. as much as I like my d800, the ergonomics of d3s are superior to it in almost every aspect.
looking at the sensor only, d3x was developed to perform at iso up to 400 - that's where it get's it max DR so comparing it at iso higher than this is not fair
will I buy it over d4... well, it all depends on price, needs and background. as a d3s user, I would love to have the same batt and accessories (i.e. arca-swiss plate), not to mention same button layout. as a d800 user, I see that there's no other camera on the market (35mm) that gives You such extraordinary results, and I love the MPx from D800 and the ability to recompose from horizontal to vertical and still having over 20MPx - if needed.

Elvishefer

I still like the D3x for what it is, but the pricing seems out of whack in today's product lineup. It's still a solid pro-body landscape camera, amongst other things.

donaldejose

I suggest it is not worth more than about $3,000 today. If you are spending $6,000 get the superior D4. If you are spending $3,500 get the superior D800 plus battery grip. Hence the correct price point for a D3x today is about $3,000 at which point you trade off the increased resolution of the D800 (and technological sensor improvements) for a more rugged one piece body. Anyway, that is how I see it. I don't expect hardly any new ones to sell and I expect used prices on ebay to drop to around $3,000-$3,500. Spending more than that is a mistake.

Msmoto

I can certainly see a used D3x....it was the extra $1000 I was questioning....and for it to try and compare with the D800 as far as sensor resolution...this would be why I would choose the D800. But ergonomics are very important and having batteries which one could change out quickly, this is good as well. I will see what comes along and then evaluate how Nikon is doing with getting things up to speed without the problems existing for the current pro and pro-sumer bodies.

haroldp

I have a D700, a D3x and a D800e.

My ' go to ' camera is the D3x for reasons articulated above, and others.

... Harold

Golf007sd

The price could use an adjusted in my book, given the introduction of the D4. The D3x has a home for many photographers that are in the market for a second body. If Nikon's sales department is seeing consumers still buying them at their current price, then as a business man...keep the price where it is at till you see sales go flat.

donaldejose

I would think sales would be about dead now, well beyond flat. Why pay $2,000 more than a D4?

spraynpray

OK, if it were suddenly reduced to $2999 - would you buy one at that price?

Elvishefer

I'd consider it for the body, which leads to the D4x discussion.

Msmoto

@ spraynpray Probably Yes! The ergonomics and the smaller files are very attractive....

donaldejose

I might get one at $2999. Image an $8,000 camera for $5,000 off just four years later. Seems about right to me. On second thought that's not such a deal: more than half off in 4 years. I think it should be more like $2,000 today. Then I would surely take a second look at it and that price would breath new life into the camera.

SkintBrit

OK, if it were suddenly reduced to $2999 - would you buy one at that price?

No, because I need the FPS and ISO abilities of the D3s. Give me the option of a NEW one of those for $3000, and I'd buy one in a heartbeat! That's probably why they don't.