Had my D3X now for a month after one extremely impulsive moment, yes it was a huge amount of cash and yes I am only intermediate at best, is it heavy yes, do I regret it NO, this camera has transformed my love of photography sold my D700 and went out around the cliffs in cornwall UK with the 80-400 and now my family think's I am a professional, for pixel peepers this camera with good glass, I have the 14-24, 24-70 and the 50 1.4 in addition to the 80-400, is amazing. I intend to ask the wife to move into the spare room I have another use for her pillow.
Nah, I don't think you were stupid in acquiring one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) and cutting edge DSLR cameras on the market just as long you feel good about it . For me, I'm more into acquiring pro glass. It may take me a while but I am longing for a 200-400mm lens. Wishful thinking on my part. But I think a good collection of lenses will outlast camera body technology. Long after my D300 has bit the dust, I'm sure my lenses will still be in use on the next new technology camera body.
Fri 12-Jun-09 07:32 AM | edited Fri 12-Jun-09 07:33 AM by Johnno
>Good point about the the short life of camera body >technology. My recommendation to the OP is to keep the wife >and put the D3x in the spare room. > > ---------------- A lot of wives would put their husbands in the spare room after buying a D3X Now excuse me while I put a post in the D40/D50/D60 forum about how great my D300 is...
>>>and now my family think's I am a professional >> >>????? > >I think that they might have thought that the D700 doesn't >look professional!
No, this is the phenomena of bigger camera = professional.
I don't understand that notion either. I get asked that a lot even with my D700 because it is a big camera (to say nothing about it when I'm out with my LF gear). I've been asked on more than one occasion if my LF camera is digital. That would be sweet to have an 8x10 inch digital.
Not all. One of the best photographic advice I ever got was: "Get the best you can" although I had to add "without the kids going hungry" Congratulations. Enjoy! I may have to settle with a D3 or a D700 with grip.
There are virtues with both. I'm married to a blonde, but like brunettes, too. Similarly, even with the D3X's great image quality, my D3 and D700 get just as much use (if not more) due to their own attributes: lower noise levels, and the more compact size of the D700. It's nice having options, although I don't think my wife would appreciate the same concept applied to blondes and brunettes.
Sun 14-Jun-09 05:33 PM | edited Sun 14-Jun-09 05:33 PM by coreyography
"I intend to ask the wife to move into the spare room I have another use for her pillow."
At least you both are still talking
The D3x is cool, no doubt. I think I was most impressed by an image a D3x owner on here took, an expansive landscape scene of a road going off into some hills behind. There was a small dot on one of the hills, which at 100% crop could be clearly identified as some drunk/fugitive/thrill-seeker who was getting in a little free-climbing. If you are happy with it, and as someone else commented, the family did not do without, then go ahead and revel in its awesomeness.
I personally am still in awe of what my D700 produces when I don't screw it up. I think I will have this camera for awhile, putting further money toward glass and accessories (already I have spent more on glass since buying it than on the body). If I do upgrade, it will be to a model that shoots video as well (a la D90 or Canon 5DII) so at least I can justify the purchase by saving the cost/space/carry weight of a good camcorder.
No! When I acquired my F5Anniversary some ten years ago and the F100 came out later, I doubted myself for only a minute or two! To this day that F5 has been one of my best Nikon investments. I'm sure that your D3X will be one of your best Nikon investments too.
"Great things are not done by impulse but by a series of small things brought together." Vincent Van Gogh
Congrats on the D3X. Maybe my next purchase, we will wait and see what is next from Nikon before making the leap as the D700 is probably more camera than i need but hey...why not if you have it..go for it...you only live once.
Good luck and thanks for the thought. The wife will enjoy the spare room as she will be less disturbed with your camera playing.
Certainly not stupid if you can afford it but all those who say they would "love" to have a D3x, wait about 18 months and you'll be fine. I know there are great cameras out there today but the D200 is a wonderful, ground-breaking camera and you can have all you want for $250. Everyone who says to spend the money on the glass is correct.
I am not sure how old this formum is, but I was interested in your post. I have a D-700 and a D-300. I read one article about the D-700 was the Queen of Nikons and the D-3 was the King. The D-300 was the Prince. That being said, do you feel that you conbined the 300 and 700 into one camera now. Kenta
I have the D3X and my other camera is a D700 for low light, high speed & walkabout use.
However, they are different families of cameras. The D3x is definitely D3/D2x/D1x/D1 lineage as far as controls and interoperability, just with more pixels & full frame. The D700 is similarly the pinnacle of the D100/D200/D300/D700 family in terms of similar handling and controls plus obviously it's kick *** image quality and overall versatility. I could find a place in my camera bag for a D300/grip for shooting birds etc where reach is needed - I thought that that the D3x/D700 combo would address that but I miss the DX pixel density/performance at times which the D3x in crop mode doesn't fully match.
In summary, the D3x doesn't really feel like it combines D300/D700 capabilities in a higher pixel camera - there's still a place for both if your NAS can accommodate it.
>How serious do you take Ken Rockwell and his reviews. He had >rather negative comments on the D-3x. He was right about a >lens issue that led me to buy a 24-70 nikkor 2.8, but he is >rather opinionated.
Ken wasn't negative on the D3x...he was negative on the price. His review indicates that the D3x is the most sophisticated and advanced digital camera FOR IT'S INTENDED USE. If you read closely, he still likes the D3 for speed and high ISO performance. I don't agree with everything that Ken says but he's usually pretty good advice from a truly unbiased viewpoint. He does like Nikon alot but, as with anything, that is strictly personal preference.
>>How serious do you take Ken Rockwell and his reviews. He >had >>rather negative comments on the D-3x. He was right about >a >>lens issue that led me to buy a 24-70 nikkor 2.8, but he >is >>rather opinionated. > >Ken wasn't negative on the D3x...he was negative on the price. >His review indicates that the D3x is the most sophisticated >and advanced digital camera FOR IT'S INTENDED USE. If you read >closely, he still likes the D3 for speed and high ISO >performance. I don't agree with everything that Ken says but >he's usually pretty good advice from a truly unbiased >viewpoint. He does like Nikon alot but, as with anything, that >is strictly personal preference.
How can you trust a person that one moment says the D40 is as good as the D3, and the next says he shoots jpg because RAW doesn't matter etc?