For those of you who are complete idiots and can’t already guess that a D3X would be a D3 with a high-res sensor at a reduced frame rate and lowered ISO capability, well, it’s as good as official.
The D3X is a D3 body with nothing changed other than a higher resolution sensor, and therefore a slower throughput speed and lessened ISO rating.
24.5 megapixels, some sort of new low-pass filter system for better per-pixel resolution…
ISO 100-1600, with ISO 50 and 6400 expandable.
5 frames per second, with 7 in DX crop mode. (10 megapixels)
Other than that, it’s a D3.
I guess really the only thing that most people will complain about is the lack of HD video. Hardly a quibble for me, though. If I wanna shoot video and stills at the same event, I’ll get a cheaper camera for the video, thank you very much. No reason to shoot video on your main, flagship body…
Personally, I am sad about three things: 1.) Same rubber grips, apparently. Ugh. 2.) Same AF module which, although stunningly fast, should have it’s cross-type AF points more spread out over the frame instead of clumped in the center. 3.) Possible lack of intermediate size RAW capture.
The Canon 5D mk2 on the other hand, well, Canon doesn’t have a rubber grip problem, and they DID debut intermediate RAW capture. Still, NO FULL-FRAME CAMERA has good focus point spread, period. So I’ll take the Nikon flagship autofocus such as it is and the general body design / quality over the 5D mk2, for most of what I do. If I got into landscape photography full time RIGHT NOW, I’d probably get a 5D mk2 and 17-40 f/4 L + 70-200 f/4 L, a setup Nikon still can’t really touch.
But for the work I do right now the Nikon system is my choice, and I know that in the long run Nikon will have a 24 megapixel sensor in a D700 body, or something similar…
Take care all,
=Matt=
Recent Comments