Reading mode: Light Dark

Eight thousand dollars?!

Go to last post
That's the only imaginable way I could ever see the MSRP being reasonable.

Will be interesting to see if the D3x flies off dealers' shelves. :-)
 
Please let us know how you're liking your new Nikon D3x, so we can vicariously enjoy the experience through you.
 
I'll be interested to see some detailed reviews on the images produced by this camera. If I was strictly a portrait or landscape photographer who made a living from my images I'd be seriously considering this body, after some objective reviews. As an action photographer I'll hold off until until we see the action shooter version of this camera (if that's even possible in the next year with 24MP)

The D3 was (is) a revoluntionary product. Not sure the D3x will make as big an impact.

--
Gary Jones
http://www.TheWinningShot.com
 
This is obviously a camera for a working pro. Not someone who once in a while shoots a wedding for a few hundred dollars or who does a few senior portraits here and there - but someone who has a seriously going concern (not me, for instance).

If you prorate the cost of the camera over just one year, we're talking $153 a week.

While I'm not saying that it's not overpriced, for a true working pro who needs the resolution, $153 a week is not a lot of money. And we're not really talking about that much because we're talking about the difference between this and another body: so we're really talking about an incremental $67 a week as compared with buying another D3 body assuming the body has zero value at the end of the 1st year.

If you can't bill an extra $14 a day by delivering the quality that this body appears to deliver, then you don't need the camera. If you can bill an extra $20 a day, then the camera has delivered a 43% return on investment as compared with just buying another D3, again assuming 0 value at the end of the 1st year.
 
The economy is bad, fewer buyers in a market for a body that would already be smaller than the market for the d3. Smaller market means no economy of scale. They have to charge more per body without economy of scale, or lose money.

If the files and performance are excellent, there will be buyers. Then next year, they can put out the d700x for $5k, to help amortize the cost of the sensor.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Thanks to the MSRP, it should be fairly easy to take delivery of a D3x in very short order. :-) (For those who wants one.)

Dealers might not even have a waiting list. Just walk in, hand over money, and walk home with the D3x, just like that!

I look forward to seeing pet shots taken with such an outrageously priced camera.
 
For the first time in my life, I'm in a complete state of denial.

$8,000?

Naaaaah. That must be a typo. They'll fix it tomorrow. I'm sure. I hope.

Is that Canon i hear laughing in the background?
 
Price is shocking.

Go line by line through the specs, it's a D3 with a higher rez sensor, everything else is identical (except it's 20g lighter, and gets an extra 100 shots per battery charge).

Street price on a D3 is $4,200 today. Grey market is $3,700. So that makes it about a $4k premium over the D3 just for the new sensor (which Sony seems to have packaged a derivative of into a camera for $3k total!)
--
Steve Denton

Web Site: http://www.dentonimages.com/
Travel Blog: http://megasteve.blogspot.com/
 
If you were a farmer, how much would you pay for a tractor?
A fisherman, for a boat?
A truckie for a truck?

It is just a professional tool...

Regards,
Negus

P.S: A friend of mine X-ray operator, bought a scanner for $one million...
 
still be substantially less costly than the downsized D3X. I don't think that Sony or Canon are going to feel much competition from the D3X.
 
Just because most people can't afford it, doesn't mean the price it too high. Most people can't afford the new Ferrari convertible but it's sold out for the next couple of years. The type of photographers which the 3Dx is aimed at will be able to afford it, it's not a camera for soccer moms or high school geography teachers. That said, nobody thinks anything about paying a lot more for a stupid car which involves a lot of secondary costs. So, take the bus in the future and get a 3Dx!
 
...very much money if it's only for a hobby.

I'm sure Nikon will release VERY soon an upgraded D700 alike camera with video function and hig MP. Possible with another sensor of 18-21Mp not to upset people who bought the first D3Xes. Nikon has to, to compete with the D5Mk II...
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/
 
If Nikon weren't so stupid, I'm sure they would have hired you as their CEO as it's obvious that you know much more about everything than they do.
 
Fred Ferkel said:
Most people can't afford the new Ferrari convertible but
it's sold out for the next couple of years.
Click to expand...
--

That comparison does not fly. Do you think a Ferrari produces the same number of cars per year as Toyota? Have the same number of dealers globally?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top