Mass psychology has taken over to pronounce the $7999 24.5MP Nikon D3x HDOA (half-dead on arrival). Witness Thom Hogan’s commentary and the piling on by other sites. Guys shooting $40,000 digital backs are complaining that the D3x is $8000! What’s wrong with this picture? Isn’t a D3x 80% of a MF digital back? Food for thought.
Yes, the D3x is indeed priced to not sell, but remember that the year-old Canon 1Ds Mark III sits at about $6500 street price. Medium format (Mamiya 28MP DL28) sits at $15K. And we don’t know what the D3x street price will be in 2-3 months.
Why is it so in favor to bash Nikon’s pricing when the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is not very far off? Because it’s new? What if the D3x turns out to have superior image quality? (ignoring the "noise" of the extra 3.4MP).
Comparing a D3x or D3 or Canon 1 series to a Sony A900 or EOS 5D Mark II makes perfect sense from an image quality standpoint. Heck, it makes perfect sense from a neck standpoint! But one doesn’t buy the 1 series or D3 series just for image quality; these cameras do tend to be more durable and responsive, and when shooting other than sporadically, I much prefer the mass of the larger cameras, especially for low light shooting.
Well, the D3x is too much money to spend for me, but I do hope to have one available through LensRentals.com. And I’m not going to gripe about the price until it’s clear how the camera performs. One thing is certain— high prices cure high prices! The D3x may yet prove itself, and anyone is free to buy a Canon 5D Mark II or Sony A900 if it meets their needs better. Nikon will be forced to respond accordingly.
Nikon’s only substantive mistake with the D3x is in not producing a $4000 D700x so as to make the lineup comparable to Canon.