Pro camera
-ultra fast focusing : the A900, 5DmkII simply do not have the focusing speed/ accuracy of the Pro cameras
-dual memory cards that work as you expect. I hear the A900 implementation is a bit crappy
-full weather sealing : priceless
-extreme durability and tank like build
-hugely better shutter (admittedly, you can get 2-3x pro sumers for an 8k camera!)
Thats what the extra 5k buys you. If the above doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't make sense to spend that much extra for one. Much like most pro type things in life (racing parts for a car, pro mechanic tools, pro studio equipment). They are a lot more expensive then normal prosumer stuff. If it doesn't matter to you then it's not worth it.
Sure in most settings the 3k prosumers will perform practically identical to the pro cameras, but when you get in to challenging situations thats where your pro camera does the business.
Most pros would not buy a camera if it didn't have 2 memory card slots for real work. The risk is too much for them.
D3/D700 speed demon and low noise, not the greatest res
5DmkII : resolution, low iso, not a fast camera and action shorts will be harder to get, limited focusing
A900 : resolution, 5fps, not the best high iso as the rest
So depending what you shoot pic one :D
I want a canon with D700 build (flash included :) and video. Not fussed about MP as 12MP is fine for me. Or a Red Scarlet depending how it actually turns out
As a response to the audiophile article we had yesterday, I said there are getting to be too many articles on cameras and other non-pc-related topics.
You guys can do what you want, it's your show... But if this continues, I'm just going to stop coming here every day.
Nice review by the way. But I don't think the vast majority of people come here for camera reviews.
Those familiar with Nikon will know that Nikon frequently produces different versions of a camera for specific work. The D3x is clearly focused for studio work, clearly seen with Base ISO of 100 and available ISO of 50 in Lo settings. This is mean to compete with Canon's 1Ds camera.
I agree, those professional photographers with enormous amounts of cash vested in Nikon glass will most likely willingly/want to purchase this camera for studio work. This is the market this camera is intended for.
Nikon makes no claims of High ISO Low noise performance, in my mind that is what the Nikon D3 is for. If you want High ISO low noise performance, get the D3. If you have full control of lighting, as you would in studio work, you want to get as low ISO as you can, and this is what the D3x is aimed for.
As far as Sony dilemma, there has been no claim made from both Nikon or Sony if the same sensor from the A900 is being used. Although Nikon has used Sony sensors in the past, Nikon does design/spec their own sensors. Regardless, for the most part, Nikon cameras using Sony made sensors, ISO and Noise performance has always been better than what Sony can do in their own cameras. I'm sure Nikon's processing has a lot to do with the end result of the image. So even if the sensor is the same, the processing done makes a difference. For example, if the sensor in the D3(which I think is NOT speced/designed by Sony), D300, and D700 is sony made, from what I read when I was in the market for a DSLR body, no Sony camera had comparable ISO/Noise performance, processing makes the difference.
FYI, its not far from normal for manufacturers to outsource manufacturing to another company. Nikon is not as big as Sony or even Canon for that matter, and they most likely outsource the manufacturing, but the design and spec are most likely all Nikon
This may very well be intended to compete with Canon's 1Ds mkIII. But that will be a short competition indeed. Canon is expected to replace that camera with a newer one in March or so.
Considering that the 5D mkII uses an improved version of the 1Ds mkIII sensor (actually, the same base sensor, but with new gapless micro lenses, and newly computer optimized color filters and anti-aliasing filter), and the new Digix 4 processing chip, the 1Ds mkIII has already been bettered.
What will Nikon therefore be competing with come spring?
The sensor is suspected to be the Sony sensor, but just like Canon re-did the lens and filters module for the new 5DmkII, it's believed that Nikon supplied a new module for the base sensor as well, and that's what they meant when they said that it was "unique", without actually saying that it was their own "sensor" design.
Anyone considering purchasing a new professional DSLR of this quality is not shopping between brands. Real SLR photographers are going to have tens of thousands of dollars of lenses of their chosen brand (generally, Canon or Nikon) and will purchase new camera bodies to go with their lenses. Nikon is charging this much because they can. When you are already invested in the expensive lenses you aren't going to bat an eyes at a couple thousand dollars in price difference between a Sony (Minolta) and Nikon digital body.
Several Professionals have commented on Forums that they can buy a Sony A900 and several Carl Zeiss Pro lenses for the Sony for less than the price of the D3x. It will matter to some Pros. I do agree a couple of thousand will not sway a Pro invested in a particular system, but 3 times the price for the same sensor is certainly reason to at least pause and consider.
It took Sony to v4 firmware to get the A700 image quality in the same league with the Nikon D300. The larger question will be how image quality of the A900 and D2x will compare.
It is known that Nikon has typically purchased sensors from Sony in the past, though they did have one of their own design back in the D1 days IIRC. As sensors of this size are expensive to design and manufacture, and as Nikon would no doubt be heavily marketing the origin of the sensor if it were their design, then it is a good bet that the sensor is at least somewhat related to the Sony.
the physical size, Mp & dotpitch all match.
if you've seen a picture of it it looks like a Sony package & I believe that in 1 of the press conferences that Nikon admitted that it's sourced from Sony.
Note that we aren't saying that the A900 & D3X sensors are identical just very, very closely related.
There is a very sharp divide, both in price and in operational philosophy, between the "compromise" prosumer DSLRs and the "no compromise" top tier professional DSLRs.
Its difficult to pick up from glancing at a spec sheet, but in actual usage, these cameras are vastly different. For working professionals who demand the performance and durability that the professional body provides, the prosumer bodies really aren't an option - period. However for the shooters who demand image quality but don't really need the speed or ruggedness, the prosumer bodies work well.
Although they have similar resolutions, they are not direct competitors to one another. As for the A900, sure you could buy that and a couple of lenses for the price of a D3x, but you could also buy a 5DII and a couple lenses for the price of a D3x as well. The only question to ask yourself there is which would you rather be saddled with - Sony's lens lineup or Canon's lens lineup.
Because of that the D3x vs A900 comparison is fun for trivia purposes, but of little interest otherwise. Its like calling a $40,000 Corvette a rival to a $200,000 Ferrari just because they have the same horsepower. In reality, people considering $40k Corvettes arent even thinking about $200k Ferraris - and vice versa.
As for the sensors, they are similar, but the Nikon has been heavily tweaked. The resolution is the roughly same, but the pixel pitch is slightly different. In addition, the Nikon has gapless microlenses and a lower base ISO than the Sony (ISO 100 vs ISO 200 for the Sony). Every indication hints that the sensor in the Nikon will be superior for the market Nikon is targeting. Those who need to shoot at uber high ISO can still pick up a D3 or D700 (or 5DII for that matter).
Now, with all of that said, even though the list price of the D3x is $8000, I fully expect the street price to settle in at roughly $6500. This is the street price of its main competitor - the Canon 1Ds III.
As far as being "saddled " with Canon's lens lineup compared to Nikon's, I think that is a disingenuous question.
While Some of Nikon's lenses are better than some of Canon's, it's true the other way around as well. Nikons nasty 70 to 200 comes to mind immediately.
And, if course, there are hardly any modern Sony lenses at all. The Zeiss lenses, while mostly pretty good, are hardly "professional" as none of them are weather proofed in any way. You must buy an adapter to even get lens mount to camera mount sealing.
What good is it for the camera to have a pretty good weather proofing when its the lenses that stick out in the rain and dust?
The pixel pitch is EXACTLY the same. It's been shown that the 4 and the 9 have been transposed in error.
As the D3 sales are poor, according to Thom who usually knows these things, it's even selling BELOW dealer cost at a number of places. Not too good.
So, it's possible that the camera will sell for less than list, simply because it won't sell well at all. The Canon 1Ds mkIII has had a street price of about $7,300. Though with the advent of the new 5D mkII, and the fact that the 1Ds mkIII is expected to be replaced by March, it's not surprising for the price to begin dropping from that.
But, the D3x won't appear until December 25th. If the price dropes by $1,500 at the start, that's bad news indeed!
This is hardly a breakthrough camera.
While the lack if the now becoming required video is acceptable, I suppose, the lack of sensor cleaning is a real questionmark.
The sensor in the Nikon is certainly a variant rather than identical to the A900's, the pixel pitch is the same however.
& no doubt Nikon's image processing (certainly their jpeg engine) will be better for the moment (don't rule out firmware improvements for the A900).
& for the market that this is intended for Sony's lens line up is more than OK just now & only going to get better.
If you have all kinds of amazing Nikon glass why would you want to torture yourself by buying a really nice new body that you can't use with your best lenses? For Pros it is a business and you know you just have to pony-up the extra bucks for the business.
Even for the young professional that is just starting. Would you really want to buy into a standard that does not have the depth of product and support that CaNikon offer? I actually bought a Pentax K10D two years ago based upon your advice Wes. It has been a great camera, but there isn't much to grow on. I can work with what I have, but the best lenses are just not available in non-CaNikon fomrats. Equipment in the computer world is relatively interchangeable and heavily based upon price/performance for discrete tasks, but photography is far more about choosing a system. That should always be mentioned up-front.
Well I think the K10D is a fine camera for what it does and the Pentax lense selection too. You did not however pay think all the details through.
I do not agree with Wesley mostly, but except the 4/3 Olympus obsession, I can generaly live with his recommendations. You have to keep in mind that AT has a specific reader base where the high pro photo category is mostly absent. Maybe some wealthy amateurs with more money than brains (if they have money to buy 3SLI setups and such :-)). The prople are mostly picky about quality and price/performance ratio, but photography is not the main or even long term interest.
As for the D3x, well was about time. The FX/DX SLR market is slowly approaching physical limits on sensor density and body construction does not progress since film era much (compare F5/F6 with D3/D3x). So there is nothing much to build on except brand loyalty and system options.
If you bought a camera on Wes's advice, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'll also share you the secret of a great wealth to be claimed, but first I need money to secure it. Please wire me money and we will share the fortune 60/40.
The advice Wes gave was not bad, rather it was incomplete. I read other reviews that were favorable to the K10D and I also still own two film SLRs from Pentax. I thought I might still be able to make some use of older equipment. I was wrong. I also underestimate the upgrade path.
I think it would be best to review WoW for the Max and recommend the Apple platform for someone who enjoys games. Yes, a Mac will play WoW just fine, but the options for gaming on a Mac are somewhat limited. This is the same situation for cameras.
Check out www.kenrockwell.com or www.dpreview.com.
However, Ken does tend to be fickle towards flavor of the month. Perfect examples; the D700 and D90. Prior to working with them, he downplayed both bodies. After using them, he proclaimed they were the best things Nikon has ever put out.
Poor D300, it used to be Ken's favorite amatuer camera. Now I bet it sits on the shelf unloved.
His know-it-all attitude, combined with his inability to do thorough and cited research, combined with anandtech's lack of testing capability, make for some pretty worthless conclusions.
Wes, thanks for your opinion on a press release! that's front page news.. the guy is an amateur, but that would be okay if he wasn't also an arrogant, defensive jerk. i think the hostility in his article comments are simply the result of most readers not respecting him.
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
Back to Article
Koing - Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - link
Pro camera-ultra fast focusing : the A900, 5DmkII simply do not have the focusing speed/ accuracy of the Pro cameras
-dual memory cards that work as you expect. I hear the A900 implementation is a bit crappy
-full weather sealing : priceless
-extreme durability and tank like build
-hugely better shutter (admittedly, you can get 2-3x pro sumers for an 8k camera!)
Thats what the extra 5k buys you. If the above doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't make sense to spend that much extra for one. Much like most pro type things in life (racing parts for a car, pro mechanic tools, pro studio equipment). They are a lot more expensive then normal prosumer stuff. If it doesn't matter to you then it's not worth it.
Sure in most settings the 3k prosumers will perform practically identical to the pro cameras, but when you get in to challenging situations thats where your pro camera does the business.
Most pros would not buy a camera if it didn't have 2 memory card slots for real work. The risk is too much for them.
D3/D700 speed demon and low noise, not the greatest res
5DmkII : resolution, low iso, not a fast camera and action shorts will be harder to get, limited focusing
A900 : resolution, 5fps, not the best high iso as the rest
So depending what you shoot pic one :D
I want a canon with D700 build (flash included :) and video. Not fussed about MP as 12MP is fine for me. Or a Red Scarlet depending how it actually turns out
Servant of Shodan - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
As a response to the audiophile article we had yesterday, I said there are getting to be too many articles on cameras and other non-pc-related topics.You guys can do what you want, it's your show... But if this continues, I'm just going to stop coming here every day.
Nice review by the way. But I don't think the vast majority of people come here for camera reviews.
Kahlil - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Those familiar with Nikon will know that Nikon frequently produces different versions of a camera for specific work. The D3x is clearly focused for studio work, clearly seen with Base ISO of 100 and available ISO of 50 in Lo settings. This is mean to compete with Canon's 1Ds camera.I agree, those professional photographers with enormous amounts of cash vested in Nikon glass will most likely willingly/want to purchase this camera for studio work. This is the market this camera is intended for.
Nikon makes no claims of High ISO Low noise performance, in my mind that is what the Nikon D3 is for. If you want High ISO low noise performance, get the D3. If you have full control of lighting, as you would in studio work, you want to get as low ISO as you can, and this is what the D3x is aimed for.
As far as Sony dilemma, there has been no claim made from both Nikon or Sony if the same sensor from the A900 is being used. Although Nikon has used Sony sensors in the past, Nikon does design/spec their own sensors. Regardless, for the most part, Nikon cameras using Sony made sensors, ISO and Noise performance has always been better than what Sony can do in their own cameras. I'm sure Nikon's processing has a lot to do with the end result of the image. So even if the sensor is the same, the processing done makes a difference. For example, if the sensor in the D3(which I think is NOT speced/designed by Sony), D300, and D700 is sony made, from what I read when I was in the market for a DSLR body, no Sony camera had comparable ISO/Noise performance, processing makes the difference.
FYI, its not far from normal for manufacturers to outsource manufacturing to another company. Nikon is not as big as Sony or even Canon for that matter, and they most likely outsource the manufacturing, but the design and spec are most likely all Nikon
Just my .02 cents
melgross - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - link
This may very well be intended to compete with Canon's 1Ds mkIII. But that will be a short competition indeed. Canon is expected to replace that camera with a newer one in March or so.Considering that the 5D mkII uses an improved version of the 1Ds mkIII sensor (actually, the same base sensor, but with new gapless micro lenses, and newly computer optimized color filters and anti-aliasing filter), and the new Digix 4 processing chip, the 1Ds mkIII has already been bettered.
What will Nikon therefore be competing with come spring?
The sensor is suspected to be the Sony sensor, but just like Canon re-did the lens and filters module for the new 5DmkII, it's believed that Nikon supplied a new module for the base sensor as well, and that's what they meant when they said that it was "unique", without actually saying that it was their own "sensor" design.
mcnabney - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Anyone considering purchasing a new professional DSLR of this quality is not shopping between brands. Real SLR photographers are going to have tens of thousands of dollars of lenses of their chosen brand (generally, Canon or Nikon) and will purchase new camera bodies to go with their lenses. Nikon is charging this much because they can. When you are already invested in the expensive lenses you aren't going to bat an eyes at a couple thousand dollars in price difference between a Sony (Minolta) and Nikon digital body.Wesley Fink - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Several Professionals have commented on Forums that they can buy a Sony A900 and several Carl Zeiss Pro lenses for the Sony for less than the price of the D3x. It will matter to some Pros. I do agree a couple of thousand will not sway a Pro invested in a particular system, but 3 times the price for the same sensor is certainly reason to at least pause and consider.It took Sony to v4 firmware to get the A700 image quality in the same league with the Nikon D300. The larger question will be how image quality of the A900 and D2x will compare.
spazmedia - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
How do you know its the same sensor?strikeback03 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
It is known that Nikon has typically purchased sensors from Sony in the past, though they did have one of their own design back in the D1 days IIRC. As sensors of this size are expensive to design and manufacture, and as Nikon would no doubt be heavily marketing the origin of the sensor if it were their design, then it is a good bet that the sensor is at least somewhat related to the Sony.spazmedia - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
How do you know its the same sensor?Its not just a question of the same megapixels.
Heidfirst - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
the physical size, Mp & dotpitch all match.if you've seen a picture of it it looks like a Sony package & I believe that in 1 of the press conferences that Nikon admitted that it's sourced from Sony.
Note that we aren't saying that the A900 & D3X sensors are identical just very, very closely related.
d33pblue - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Thats not exactly how things work.There is a very sharp divide, both in price and in operational philosophy, between the "compromise" prosumer DSLRs and the "no compromise" top tier professional DSLRs.
Its difficult to pick up from glancing at a spec sheet, but in actual usage, these cameras are vastly different. For working professionals who demand the performance and durability that the professional body provides, the prosumer bodies really aren't an option - period. However for the shooters who demand image quality but don't really need the speed or ruggedness, the prosumer bodies work well.
Although they have similar resolutions, they are not direct competitors to one another. As for the A900, sure you could buy that and a couple of lenses for the price of a D3x, but you could also buy a 5DII and a couple lenses for the price of a D3x as well. The only question to ask yourself there is which would you rather be saddled with - Sony's lens lineup or Canon's lens lineup.
Because of that the D3x vs A900 comparison is fun for trivia purposes, but of little interest otherwise. Its like calling a $40,000 Corvette a rival to a $200,000 Ferrari just because they have the same horsepower. In reality, people considering $40k Corvettes arent even thinking about $200k Ferraris - and vice versa.
As for the sensors, they are similar, but the Nikon has been heavily tweaked. The resolution is the roughly same, but the pixel pitch is slightly different. In addition, the Nikon has gapless microlenses and a lower base ISO than the Sony (ISO 100 vs ISO 200 for the Sony). Every indication hints that the sensor in the Nikon will be superior for the market Nikon is targeting. Those who need to shoot at uber high ISO can still pick up a D3 or D700 (or 5DII for that matter).
Now, with all of that said, even though the list price of the D3x is $8000, I fully expect the street price to settle in at roughly $6500. This is the street price of its main competitor - the Canon 1Ds III.
melgross - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
As far as being "saddled " with Canon's lens lineup compared to Nikon's, I think that is a disingenuous question.While Some of Nikon's lenses are better than some of Canon's, it's true the other way around as well. Nikons nasty 70 to 200 comes to mind immediately.
And, if course, there are hardly any modern Sony lenses at all. The Zeiss lenses, while mostly pretty good, are hardly "professional" as none of them are weather proofed in any way. You must buy an adapter to even get lens mount to camera mount sealing.
What good is it for the camera to have a pretty good weather proofing when its the lenses that stick out in the rain and dust?
The pixel pitch is EXACTLY the same. It's been shown that the 4 and the 9 have been transposed in error.
As the D3 sales are poor, according to Thom who usually knows these things, it's even selling BELOW dealer cost at a number of places. Not too good.
So, it's possible that the camera will sell for less than list, simply because it won't sell well at all. The Canon 1Ds mkIII has had a street price of about $7,300. Though with the advent of the new 5D mkII, and the fact that the 1Ds mkIII is expected to be replaced by March, it's not surprising for the price to begin dropping from that.
But, the D3x won't appear until December 25th. If the price dropes by $1,500 at the start, that's bad news indeed!
This is hardly a breakthrough camera.
While the lack if the now becoming required video is acceptable, I suppose, the lack of sensor cleaning is a real questionmark.
Heidfirst - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
The sensor in the Nikon is certainly a variant rather than identical to the A900's, the pixel pitch is the same however.& no doubt Nikon's image processing (certainly their jpeg engine) will be better for the moment (don't rule out firmware improvements for the A900).
& for the market that this is intended for Sony's lens line up is more than OK just now & only going to get better.
strikeback03 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Also is reasonably likely that this sensor will show up in a relative of the D700 in 6-8 months, after they have made good money on the D3x.Did they really use gapless microlenses? Be interesting to see what they did about the corners, as this would not allow for offset microlenses.
mcnabney - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
But Pros don't really do that.If you have all kinds of amazing Nikon glass why would you want to torture yourself by buying a really nice new body that you can't use with your best lenses? For Pros it is a business and you know you just have to pony-up the extra bucks for the business.
Even for the young professional that is just starting. Would you really want to buy into a standard that does not have the depth of product and support that CaNikon offer? I actually bought a Pentax K10D two years ago based upon your advice Wes. It has been a great camera, but there isn't much to grow on. I can work with what I have, but the best lenses are just not available in non-CaNikon fomrats. Equipment in the computer world is relatively interchangeable and heavily based upon price/performance for discrete tasks, but photography is far more about choosing a system. That should always be mentioned up-front.
haplo602 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Well I think the K10D is a fine camera for what it does and the Pentax lense selection too. You did not however pay think all the details through.I do not agree with Wesley mostly, but except the 4/3 Olympus obsession, I can generaly live with his recommendations. You have to keep in mind that AT has a specific reader base where the high pro photo category is mostly absent. Maybe some wealthy amateurs with more money than brains (if they have money to buy 3SLI setups and such :-)). The prople are mostly picky about quality and price/performance ratio, but photography is not the main or even long term interest.
As for the D3x, well was about time. The FX/DX SLR market is slowly approaching physical limits on sensor density and body construction does not progress since film era much (compare F5/F6 with D3/D3x). So there is nothing much to build on except brand loyalty and system options.
Lord 666 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
If you bought a camera on Wes's advice, then I have a bridge to sell you.I'll also share you the secret of a great wealth to be claimed, but first I need money to secure it. Please wire me money and we will share the fortune 60/40.
Hope this reaches you in good health...
mcnabney - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
The advice Wes gave was not bad, rather it was incomplete. I read other reviews that were favorable to the K10D and I also still own two film SLRs from Pentax. I thought I might still be able to make some use of older equipment. I was wrong. I also underestimate the upgrade path.I think it would be best to review WoW for the Max and recommend the Apple platform for someone who enjoys games. Yes, a Mac will play WoW just fine, but the options for gaming on a Mac are somewhat limited. This is the same situation for cameras.
Lord 666 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Check out www.kenrockwell.com or www.dpreview.com.However, Ken does tend to be fickle towards flavor of the month. Perfect examples; the D700 and D90. Prior to working with them, he downplayed both bodies. After using them, he proclaimed they were the best things Nikon has ever put out.
Poor D300, it used to be Ken's favorite amatuer camera. Now I bet it sits on the shelf unloved.
shinpickle - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
I love ripping on Wesley too.. I'll addHis know-it-all attitude, combined with his inability to do thorough and cited research, combined with anandtech's lack of testing capability, make for some pretty worthless conclusions.
Wes, thanks for your opinion on a press release! that's front page news.. the guy is an amateur, but that would be okay if he wasn't also an arrogant, defensive jerk. i think the hostility in his article comments are simply the result of most readers not respecting him.
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.