Obama beat Clinton AND won the election AND Nikon brought out a D3X so my March 2008 bet came through and the wife, being a woman of her word, will pay up. This is a problem as I have a D300 and a D3. Can I justify the D3X?
The D3 is £2500, the D3X £5500 - WOW!
I am a sucker for acuity, only shoot RAW, am bit of an arty farmer (crop madly), and I paper the house with A3 prints of portraits and city/land-scapes.
But But But - £5500?
Is the D3X really that good?
Despite my luck I am struggling with this, £5500! I am currently thinking the answer is 'NO', it is over-priced.
If you need the high resolution of the D3X then it's the only game in town unless you are willing to switch brands. I suppose you could wait to see if a Dx00 high res body came out. The way Nikon is cranking out new bodies is dizzying to me. I would guess we should see one or two Dx's or Dx00's next year. An alternative would be to sell the D300 and get a D700 and some nice lenses.
>An alternative would be to sell the D300 and get a D700 and some nice lenses.
Your comment puzzles me, and this all probably belongs in a different forum save for my comments on the D2Xs and D2Hs, below. You've suggested that the gentleman sell an apple so he can buy an orange. It would seem that many FX enthusiasts feel that this is the only way to go as if everyone should only be interested in wide angle, indoor or high ISO, low noise photography, in general.
Personally, I have absolutely no interest in FX. I probably spend 90% of my energies focused on "telephotography" and for that pusuit, there's nothing better than the DX format. For example, I regularly shoot a 200-400 AF-S and a TC-17 on a D300, D2Xs or D2Hs. If need be, that gives me an "effective" 1,020mm on tap should I need it (or 1,360mm with the D2Xs in the High Speed Crop mode.) Try that with a D3 or D700...it can't be done and you can't even come close.
The D700 and D3 are both terrific bodies and a real value for the money, but are they a "replacement" for a D300? I don't think so... A second and different body for different applications...yes...but a replacement...I'm sorry, but not in my book.
Many thanks for your thoughts and all best wishes...
Dick The Long Ranger A Telephoto Lovin' Nikonian
"There are none so blind as those who would not see..."
I'd say look at some other things, as the D3 likely has more res than most of us will need. Could do the D700, if you need it. Or a new lens or two. Or, with the current economy, you could take some photo classes or workshops, (we all have room to grow and learn, right?) or a nice holiday, or a combination there of.
Since you have a D300 and a D3 already, you should give me the D3 so you won't feel bad about getting yet another FF camera body. That way you'll have the D300 as a light-weight travel DX and the D3x for those 'special' shoots. (I'll put the D3 to good use, I promise!)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Despite my good fortune I am unsure that the insertion of what appears to be a modified Sony chip in a D3 warrants such a huge price ramp. To be honest, I thought it was a £3000ish bet, not £5500. I will definitely wait to see exactly how good it is before deciding. Having been stung by the D700’s arrival, so soon after I purchased the D3, I am also nervous about the prospect of a 24.5mp D700x turning up at a fraction of the price. If that happened I could take it on holiday and invite the wife to join us!
I say keep your D3. I have a D300 and am starting to lean towards FX. Money aside, I would choose the D3 over the D3x just for the fact that the D3x probably won't be able to compete in the high ISO/low light category--which is important because I like night photography.
I would take an IOU from your wife instead (unless you've got money to burn). It's only a matter of time before Nikon rolls out a new model (maybe the D4 or D5) that you'll really really want. And you'll have the leverage to get it when the time is ripe. In the interim, enjoy the amazing D3.
“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.” ~Tolstoy
Iceman - LOL! Actually, we live in a financially undemarcated household so yes, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch here but winning bets also comes with a price tag. My problem is more to do with the camera and the price.
It is one hell of a jump up for a D3 body so it would have to be one hell of an improvement on the D300/D3's acuity. Pre-sale it is already being reduced by £500 below list. The recession > slump > depression / deflation, stag-deflation outlook we are being scared by may hit prices even harder. I am not sure current glass is up to it - see posts by others.
Sounds as if you should wait a bit to see if you really want the D3X and what collecting on the bet would do to your domestic bliss. Alternatively, you could settle for a reduced payoff to keep peace in the family and get some new glass for your D3.
Martin, thank you for that observation. The D300 has slightly finer resolution than the D3X and already produces fine detail at A3. I think of the D3X as 'effectively' a full sized D300 chip and this has its advantages when it comes to wide angle, heavy cropping and when playing around with converging verticals, all of which I do. I am also hoping to buy a refurbished A2 printer. It is for those reasons I am considering the D3X.
I agree 100% with you about the bet, which is why I am hesitating but my wife does not want to set a precedent as I lose 99% of our bets and always pay up! I am currently negotiating for an IOU on a D700X which would be both more practical and cheaper (?).
I'm thinking if it takes more than 25 posts to answer this question, and you still haven't pulled the trigger on a D3x, you already know what's right for you. The IOU might make for provocative badinage between you and the wife, without diminishing your ultimate outcome.