We also know RB's take on charging ...
Anonymous on
Aperture 3 Free HDR Preset
Who the Hell Needs More Megapixels?
There has been a ton of talk about the Nikon D3x of late. Like how expensive it is – who the hell do those Nikon people think they are charging eight freaking thousand dollars for a camera? – and such. Well I guess they think they are sort of like one of those Canon 1Ds guys or maybe a little bit less than those Phase One dudes or dudettes but a whole lot less than the mighty leaf people.
I find it hilarious that most folk even comment on this. Especially those that have never shot 4×5 or larger film. Now that is expensive to do it justice and not just shoot it willy nilly and produce random crap in the name of “art”. What is even more laughable is those that spend a ton on lenses and bodies that then spend copious time in PS to get rid of the detail they so cherish in just such a special way.
Hey – give me two D3x’s to go – I cannot wait to get my hands on them in about  a month or two. Bye bye leaf – you may have extracted your last dollar out of me. I wonder if I will hear a bunch from the you don’t understand crowd, sounding similar to the but film is so wonderful in it’s wonderful artful random properties crowd.
Hey I know film – inside and out – welcome D3x – good bye slow obsolete leaf.
RB
Ps. Tag screen shot was a 10 or 12 mpix image with no sharpening and really bad makeup. I hate spending time in PS but I do love properly focused images with great color.
Look who got up on the wrong side of the bed today, lol
RB,
It does feel a bit like you’ve been saving this one up for a while ; )
I see both sides of this one, Nikon has the right to charge whatever they want for their cameras, and if you need the resolution you pay the price. Nikon is on a roll right now and I think they priced the D3x aggressively, given that there are no added features from the D3–not even sensor cleaning. Those who have rationally “complained” generally point out that at double the cost of the D3 it is difficult to justify that difference on the incremental cost of the sensor. And that the cost of Full Frame sensor cameras has been dropping.
This will all die down as the quality of the files becomes more widely known. I’ve not handled one yet but from all I’ve read the files are superb, and as you point out the handling and iso performance will run rings around Medium format digital. There will still be folks who need the difference that 60 mpxls provides, just fewer of them.
I was a Nikon/Hasselblad/Deardorf shooter for many years. I still have all of it. A few years ago when I decided to try Digital my choice was between a plastic D70 and a metal bodied Canon 20D I went with the Canon and a couple of L lenses, for reasons of ruggedness and because I was convinced that the world would go to full frame sensors. This was at the time Nikon was saying stuff like full frame wasn’t necessary.
I’ve since upgraded to a 40D and then a 1DsIII the moment it came out. I paid the full 8k and am thrilled with the quality.(Although it’s $6500 now)
Now 14 months later the D3x is here and will produce even better files than my 1DsIII. I’m thrilled, the rising tide lifts all the boats. It will be interesting to see where Canon & Nikon go next, and to see if their offerings are more or less than 8k. Five years ago the Advertising guys would have paid 20 k for this quality.
I understand Michael, but i think RB got a point there.
Is the price diference between D3 and D3x justified.
No.
FF?
Of course not. 5d Mark ii is full frame and much less expensive.
Pedro and Mike,
My only point was – A: If you need the current state of the art in any format you will pay a premium. B: If you don’t need it and there are alternatives that are less costly or you already have – what the hell does anybody care how much it costs. C: Medium format niche digital companies charge far far more with arguably less functionality at a similar quality level – If I can get really close to Leaf quality with better handling and features that actually help me make better images I am in. Why is there so much negative chatter out there regarding the D3x and never a peep regarding Leaf/Phase One/Etc costs – probably from those that never plan to acquire either.
RB
RB
To take your points in order:
A, we both said the same thing, if you need the quality, you pay the price.
B, If you don’t need it, or are happy with less expensive alternatives, why bother to comment on price at all.
Well this is what I call forum disease, often the most vocal comments are from folks who don’t own the equipment that is the subject of their rants. You have only to ask what how many photographers have actually paid $8k for a camera body, and how many comments are there about the price of the Nikon. The comments are another way of saying that they WISH it were more affordable. And the endless debate on some forums serve only to move their focus away from photography.
I was actually surprised that you would bother to raise the issue.
C, why do medium format systems get a pass on all the ire? That’s easy, only two groups of people buy MF digital, Pro’s who absolutely need the last ounce of quality and have the clients and business to support them, and well healed amateurs who want them and can afford them. Both of those groups completely understand your first point that if you need/want that level of quality you pay the price.To that extent they are spared the fanboy debate.
Now those groups ARE getting smaller and MF companies are struggling precisely because more folks like yourself who have used both systems are saying 8k is a bargain for quality that nearly matches and convenience that far surpasses.
And finally, to Pedro’s point about the Canon 5D II being full frame and much less expensive. The 5d is a very nice camera, with great features, but it is not in the same league as a 1DsIII or D3 or D3x. It does not have a pro level autofocus system, and it has no weather sealing.
On a recent Antarctic trip (Luminous Landscape) nearly a third of the 5D II’s ceased to operate because of humidity/rain. That is one of the things that you pay extra for if you need it, (I do).
Anyway, enough of this , lets talk about photography ; )
Michael,
Who could possibly argue with that? I sure can’t – I was looking for an argument, damn looks like I can’t even provoke an argument – Oh, almost forgot – the 5DmkII is absolutely a respectable piece of equipment that make really good images but in my hands it feels a lot like that little tiny lumix thing-a-magigie, so I couldn’t possibly use it gotta have me some meat to grab onto.
RB
RB,
When Canon originally offered the 5D it was a brilliant idea and a new class of camera. It easily set the standard for high ISO image quality and set the original “large pixel” 12 MPXL standard. It changed photography because it could be reliably used at iso 1600 and 3200. It provided light weight and lower price which was exactly what many news, event, and serious amateur photographers wanted.
What was greatly under-appreciated by nearly everyone, (except ironically, Nikon) was that 12 mpxls is a “tipping point” in camera resolution. On a high quality sensor, 12 mpxls and good lenses is enough resolution for almost everything.
In a world obsessed with mpxls it took unbelievable courage for Nikon to release their first full frame camera at a then unremarkable 12 mpxls, and even more to simultaneously release the D300 at the same resolution as the flagship D3. And now the D700 is a better 5D.
They changed the game on Canon, they understood it was about the quality of the files, at least as much as resolution. As you know the D3 can produce surprisingly useable files at 6400. This is a turning point in the way we can use our cameras.
My Daughter shoots events with Nikon D300′s. The files are gorgeous and more resolution would only slow down the editing process for thousands of files.
In my opinion, Canon would have been wiser to go with 16 mpxls and better high ISO performance and to have tweaked Autofocus performance and weather sealing.
Their first shot at HD video is amazing and will only get better.
Now for me, resolution matters more which is why I bought the 1DsIII. I get great files up to 1600 but more often shoot at 200 with a tripod. The files are awesome. I shoot landscapes, seascapes, architecture, as well as some food, tabletop and people. I really appreciate the sensor cleaning, and the many fast prime lenses. For tabletop the 90 mm T/S is as sharp a lens as I have ever used.
If Canon offers a 1Ds IV next year, I’ll probably upgrade because digital gear does not age gracefully. But my hope is that it will be in the 30-32 mpxl range rather than the speculated 35-39, and keep the creamy quality of the files and still allow the occasional bump to 1600.
That’s my take, what do you think.
As one that made the change from film to digital, I’m a little amused to hear all the talk about equipment. Seems like little has changed among this group. The bottom line is that you need skill to make good photographs consistently. Better equipment can and should increase the quality of your output. I’ve shot with everything from 8X10 to 35 mm and can say that bigger is better much of the time. I doubt that many would choose 8X10 to shoot a tennis match though…
Bottom line is you use the best you can for the task at hand. A D3x would certainly be a welcome addition to my stable of equipment. If I could justify the cost I would have one. My D200 would probably become a backup and only be used if I were in fear of damaging the camera on an assignment!
brunyan,
funny name. anyway…
My point exactly – if you need it great – if you can use it great. Why in the ever accelerating better->cheaper world do so many folks complain so bitterly that the next best “greatness” is out of their budget? I really really do not get it.
RB
Ps. to all – nuclear weapons are out of the budget, private jets are out of the budget, so are a bunch of things. So why oh why has the D3x been so horrifically demonized?
Let’s ask a few questions – all can answer but as you answer no you fall out of the list.
1)Have you ever ever ever bought the most expensive camera in the line up of any company?
2)Have you ever spent more than $10,000 on film/processing inside one year?
3)Can you actually explain and demonstrate where film has served you better than digital in a rational way?
4)Have you evaluated phase one, leaf, hasselblad, etc offerings?
5)Live and in color – for real not just reading to the question above?
6)Yes the same shit will cost $5 a couple of years from now.
7)So what
RB
Hooray,
The D3x finally works completely in Aperture. Amazing now I can finally justify maybe buying one just because of this.
Amazing
RB