"Nikon is proud to announce the new 24.5 megapixel FX-format (35.9x24.0mm) D3x digital SLR...Orders for the D3x are being accepted...shipments...scheduled to begin late December...".
I suspect that most of us that needed more resolution have more on by now.
But anyway I wish Nikon well.
The D3x will not be a "replacement" for many photographers but will be bought in addition to their D3.
We will need to see production pix from D3x compared against D3 before we will really know the answer to whether or not the D3x could be a "replacement" for the D3 for some photogs (perhaps the ones for whom color depth is more relevant than super-high ISO performance).
D3 = 14-bit .nef
D3x = 16-bit .nef
BUT…
The D3 can be used right up to 6400 ISO and still produce reproduction-quality images (even up to 25,600 ISO when getting an image at all costs is paramount — noise be damned!)
The D3x tops out at 1600 ISO … and we have yet to see how usable that will be.
For journalists, sports photographers, travel and general shooting: the D3 would be the natural choice.
The D3x would seem to come into its own for studio and tripod-mounted location work and when enlargements above 20" x 12" is required.
You probably will need to buy BOTH of them?!
...sensitivity range of 100 to 1600 (with Lo1, 50 and Hi 2 up to 6400)
I don't understand the definition...
The "Lo1, 50 and Hi 2 up to 6400" refers to pixel-boosting using some sort of "Analog Gain" (the sort of thing that you can do on a scanner to drag detail from hopelessly under-exposed transparencies.
In comparison, the D3 offers "Lo1 = 100 and Hi 2 up to 25,600 ISO".
The Hi2 of the D3 at 25,600 ISO is noisy but still usable at a pinch — with noise rather like Tri X grain with pushed development.
We have not yet been shown samples of images shot at high ISO speeds with the D3x (in fact nothing above 200 ISO) … and can only guess why that is!
Gary,
The pixel elements in the D3x are much smaller than in the D3 - 5.49 microns across. That's what is limiting the noise performance at higher ISO settings. Any ISO setting above the base setting is pushing the analog gain of the system. Past a certain point (apparently 1600 here) and the noise starts to get obtrusive.
Whether or not it's too noisy for you depends on your needs. I shoot a ton of great images at 3200 on my 1DsMK3 Canon, and my guess is, according to some here, they would be unacceptable for "reproduction" grade images, whatever the hell that means.
Remember when we all used to shoot Agfa 1000 and T-Max3200 BECAUSE of the grain. It can actually be a good thing. Somewhere along the way the notion that great images can only be noiseless got a little too popular. There's a reason many of our eyes are drawn to the grain and texture of film, and grainy film at that, for specific imagery.
Yes, I shot a great deal with Agfa Isopan Rekord in the 1960s, even pushed it occasionally. If I were still generating income, I'd buy a D3 tomorrow.
Just my two [greatly devalued] cents.
Kind of nice.
Somewhere along the way the notion that great images can only be noiseless
got a little too popular.
This has been one of my pet peeves ever since the advent of digital capture. "Noiseless" capture has been held up as an absolute virtue. More often than not, I end up introducing subtle texture to the medium in order to give the image something for the eye to hold onto. Even when we were shooting Panatomic-X developed in HC-110, there was still texture.
Digital noise is plain obnoxious.
As with everything, that depends.
I processed the RAW images and added a bit of noise ninja - and the client loved the 8 X 12 inch prints. The noise at 1600 with my D300 is better than my D2x at ISO 400.
I'm eager to try the Nikon D3x.