Nikon D3x

Zitat: Pro: + Excellent resolution Contra: - AWB Below competitors

Zitat: Das 24-Megapixel-Schwestermodell der D3s wird bei der Auflösung von der neuen D800 überboten. Dieser hat sie allerdings immer noch das etwas robuste Gehäuse mit integriertem Hochformatauslöser und längerer Akkulaufzeit voraus.

Zitat: Die D3X ist anders als die D3s ganz auf hohe Auflösung getrimmt, dafür fällt das Rauschen in den hohen ISO-Werten etwas stärker aus.

Zitat: Pros: + Moving towards Medium Format Country. Yes, the extra pixels perform. I´m pretty comfortable saying this is the best image quality of any 35mm-sized DSLR. + It´s a D3. Lots of control, lots of customization, lots of performance, and robust. + Surprisingly decent high ISO. Up to ISO 1600 is very usable. And noise tends to be film like with little of that false color thing digital usually adds. Cons: - You´re paying for pixels. You´re paying 3 cents for every 100 pixel gain. That´s the highest premium I could find anywhere. - Frame rates went backward. If you´re trying to get every bit of performance by shooting 14bits, the frame rates are a real step backwards (1.8 fps), but even a 12bits this isn´t a sequence shooter (5 fps). - Missing elements. No sensor cleaning and no video, for example. The tech base of the camera feels a little dated because of that. This will be a controversial rating, to say the least. It really all boils down to value. If you need the extra pixels and have clients that´ll pay for it, you assess the value differently and the D3x will make the cut. But for most users, the presence of the A900 and 5DII and the lower cost of the 1DsIII make the D3x not only the premium-priced player, but one that´s currently too far out the margin in terms of value. Yes, I know the A900 and 5DII aren´t necessarily the same body quality or even quite the same image quality, but the issue really boils down to this: you´re paying for pixels (otherwise the D3 would be more expensive). Are the pixels "good enough" to justify the big price differential? No, not for most shooters. That doesn´t mean that they aren´t good, arguably even better than the competition. But the pixel differential isn´t enough to justify the cost differential. Nikon needs to put this sensor into a reasonably-priced D700x, and soon. Otherwise, the enthusiast market will likely consider migrating away from the F mount if it decides it wants more pixels. Ironically, that, too, will make the value proposition of the D3x much less attractive, just as the D700 made the D3 much less attractive to the larger segment of the market.