D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

Started Jan 26, 2009 | Discussions thread
Gil Evans Regular Member • Posts: 122
Re: The difference..

Yeah, they are out of their minds. Which is fine. If you have money to waste, waste it. If you're interested in image quality...when go medium or large format, film or digital. The D3x is an odd duck, in my opinion. At 8K, you're limited by 35mm lenses and an anti aliasing filter. Doesn't make much sense when for third of the price you can get 5D2 and get the same limitations and damned near the same image quality. Yeah, the D3x is better, the best SLR...but it's not 3 times better, it's maybe 10% better.

And for 8K you can buy both a 4x5 view camera and a medium format film camera with lenses. All of which will produce better image quality...if that's what your going for. Hell, you could even go 8x10. For 15k, you can step into digital medium format.

So I guess I don't really understand the market for the D3x. It's a professional camera, but what professional would use it over a medium format and, say, a 39 meg back? Maybe for certain location applications where portability is important, but still, even then, that's what god made assistants for.

The D3 I understand, the ultimate sports and photojournalist camera, but what niche is the D3x best for? Not studio. Not landscape. Not Fine Art. Not Sports. Not photojournalism. I suspect this is why Nikon priced it so high...it's more a status symbol for the company, and perhaps the owners, than a serious tool.

Maybe a case can be made for it as an entry level pro studio camera...but still, why not go medium format, where there still a lot of upside currently available, should you want to go there.

Anyway...

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