D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?

Started Dec 2, 2008 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,953
D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?

Should the D3X be compared against the 5DII and A900, or against the 1DsIII? This is one of the questions that has been preoccupying this forum lately. There's another thread with a similar theme, and I could have posted this there, but I decided to post this seperately. My apologies for the redundancy, and for continuing to beat a dead horse, but I think this is important. I personally think the D3X should be compared against the 5DII and A900. And based on this comparison, I also think the D3X pricing is a mistake on Nikon's part. Here's why:

It's simple really. A lot of people who will consider the D3X will also consider the 5DII and A900. All three cameras serve the same market (studio and landscape work). So like it or not, that puts them in direct competition with each other. That's just a fact of life. No amount of positioning by Nikon will save them from having to face these two cameras in the marketplace.

While the D3X may have been designed as a 1DsIII killer (and it is, I think), the marketplace has moved on. Canon has rendered their 1DsIII virtually obsolete by introducing the 5DII. And Sony has added to that with the A900. The harsh fact is that the 5DII and A900 are now the price leaders in the studio and landscape camera space. Which makes Nikon's D3X pricing, and Canon's 1DsIII pricing, no longer tenable, except in very small quantities for those applications that need the ultimate in ruggedness, or for those who need the bling factor.

Does the D3X have advantages over the 5DII and A900? Absolutely. The AF is better and the construction is better. The weather sealing is better. Image quality is still an unknown. We have high hopes the D3X image quality will be better, but as of yet, we just don't know.

Do the 5DII and A900 have advantages over the D3X (and 1DsIII)? Absolutely. First and foremost, they are much, much, much more affordable ($5000 to $5300 more affordable). They are both smaller and lighter. The 5DII has a dust buster and video (whether you like these features or not is irrelevant - the marketplace likes these features, and THEY DO play a role in a buyers purchase decision). The A900 also has a dust buster, and in-camera VR. Again, whether you like these features is irrelevant, for the same reasons listed above.

It doesn't matter if people on this forum compare the D3X to the 5DII or A900 or not. We are irrelevant. Like it or not, the marketplace IS comparing them. You can wish this or that, and say the D3X only competes with the 1DsIII all day until you are blue in the face, but you still won't change the fact that photographers making purchasing decisions will choose between the D3X, 1DsIII, 5DII and A900. And the 1DsIII and D3X will come out on the short end of those decisions in most cases. Why will they come out on the short end - because of the unrealistic pricing of the D3X and 1DsIII relative to their new competitors. All of the D3X's and 1DsIII's better build quality and superior AF is great, but most studio and landscape applications simply don't need those features.

This is why people are up in arms over the D3X pricing. It's not that we don't like the camera. We do. It's just that its pricing is unrealistic given the current market realities. This decision by Nikon is bad for them, and bad for their loyal studio and landscape photographers, who have been waiting a long time for a high MP Nikon body, and who will now have to wait even longer, or else have to seriously consider other brands to satisfy their needs.

-- hide signature --

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

Web Site - http://www.hgiersberg.com/

Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow