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

Started Dec 2, 2008 | Discussions
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/

nikonjohn
nikonjohn Senior Member • Posts: 1,474
Very well stated - I couldn't agree with you more -

this is not a good approach for Nikon to take.

Lsiv New Member • Posts: 21
Re: D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?
-- hide signature --

Hi Hans,

Very very well written!

I took the decision to sell of my D700, and buy the Canon 5D MKII with a couple of L-glass. There is no way I ever pay $8.400 for the D3X.

Btw.. I’m no troll

My current gear:
NikonD3
Nikon D700
Nikon 14-24/2,8
Nikon 24-70/2,8
Nikon 70-200/2,8
Nikon 50mm/1,4
2 pcs. SB-900
2 pcs. SB-800
1 pcs. SB-600
1 pcs. SU-800
1 pcs. R1C1

Cheeers Lars

 Lsiv's gear list:Lsiv's gear list
Sony a7R II Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8
Priaptor
Priaptor Senior Member • Posts: 2,069
Hans, you have to excuse me but this logic really is for

the person who wants to rationalize why not to fork over the 8K because he/she has no use for the difference in build quality.

The D3X is NOT meant to be compared to a 5DMKII or AS900, unless of course you want to, then go right ahead.

Canon did not make the 1DsMKIII obsolete with the 5dKII-but they did make the 5D obsolete.

As I have said in other posts, the consumer is rewarded per $ increase in price in a law of diminishing returns-just like with cars, watches, furniture, computers or anything else you want to analogize. If you never take your camera into a cold, windy, rainy, snowy and/or dirty environment and don't need the extra quality and weather sealing build the D3X and 1DsMKIII give then you are right.

On the other hand, if you are taking, like I do, a 1DsMKIII and 400 DO out into the forest all day, I wouldn't trade it for any of the cameras you list, possibly the D3X if a 400 DO variant were available.

For the casual user or serious photographer, the cameras you list are definitely great alternatives and are even a great second body for someone who has either a D3X or 1DsMKIII, but it is not just about marketing.

There are useful differences.

 Priaptor's gear list:Priaptor's gear list
Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GF 63mm F2.8 Leica APO-Summicron-SL 35mm F2 ASPH
ThomL Junior Member • Posts: 34
Re: D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?

Hans Giersberg wrote:

Canon has rendered their 1DsIII
virtually obsolete by introducing the 5DII.

For studio work and landscape: probably yes. For sports and PJ: Certainly not.

There's only one competitor for the D3x and that is the 1DsIII. And I doubt that Nikon made a wise move in making the D3x more expensive than the 1DsIII. We'll see ...

The next step Nikon has to (and certainly will) make is a D700x with the same sensor. That'll be the competiton for the A900 and the D5II.

Thomas

OP Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,953
It's Not Me That Matters

The D3X is NOT meant to be compared to a 5DMKII or AS900, unless of course you want to, then go right ahead.

It doesn't matter what I want to do, or what Nikon intended this camera to compete against. Regardless of what you, or I, or Nikon wants, the marketplace IS comparing the D3X against the 5DII and A900. IT'S A DONE DEAL. There are lots of Michael Reichman's all over the world that are looking at these three cameras, and making decisions. Michael decided against the D3X. He won't be the only one.

-- hide signature --

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

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

rospotte Contributing Member • Posts: 562
Re: Very well stated - I couldn't agree with you more -

The comparison with the a900 on IQ is justified because they capture raw files at 6048x4032.Comparision with the canon mark 3ds because of the built in battery grip.

Until sony releases their top of the line the a900 is the only sony option.

For my style of shooting I prefer the lightness of the a900.The smaller lighter version of the D3x would be nice.At what price only nikon knows.
--
jeff

OP Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,953
You're Talking About The 1DIII

For studio work and landscape: probably yes. For sports and PJ: Certainly not.

I think you're talking about the 1DIII; I was talking about the 1DsIII. I don't see the 5DII having much impact on the 1DIII. That still goes head to head with the D3, and is a whole different subject.

-- hide signature --

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

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

nikonjohn
nikonjohn Senior Member • Posts: 1,474
Priapton - Even the 1 Ds Mark III goes for $6,700 now. I wonder if

Canon will list the update to this camera at $7,999 like they did last time?

VadimOm Senior Member • Posts: 1,903
Re: It's Not Me That Matters

Hans, it sounds like neither you nor Michael have the actual need for this camera, but for some reason it feels like you're on a mission to convince the rest of the world that nobody else needs it? Do you sincerely/honestly believe nobody will buy D3X ?

Hans Giersberg wrote:

The D3X is NOT meant to be compared to a 5DMKII or AS900, unless of course you want to, then go right ahead.

It doesn't matter what I want to do, or what Nikon intended this
camera to compete against. Regardless of what you, or I, or Nikon
wants, the marketplace IS comparing the D3X against the 5DII and
A900. IT'S A DONE DEAL. There are lots of Michael Reichman's all over
the world that are looking at these three cameras, and making
decisions. Michael decided against the D3X. He won't be the only one.

-- hide signature --
PeterGlaso Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?

I agree. It doesn't matter in the least what camera the D3X is 'supposed' to compete against. I'm not buying any more Nikon glass ( like i planned ) for my D700, because i see myself buying a Sony or a Canon high MP camera next instead of the long awaited Nikon. The image quality of the D3X is probably superb - but so is the IQ from the 5DmII, no doubt about that. Nikon might attract a small number of new 'pro' customers - and lose a huge number of 'hobbyists', who also spend a lot on camera gear. I might not know a whole lot about marketing, but i sure get the feeling that Nikon has screwed this one up on an epic scale.

-- hide signature --

'These are my principles - if you don't like them, i have others!'

  • Groucho Marx

jonny1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,277
Many forgot that they need also a bakp camera

if you shoot in a studio for clients that wan big printing you don' need one d3x

but at least 2

so

14000 euro or 18000 dollar is the initial investment.

A sport shooters can buy a d3 and a cheaper camera with the same mp, just in case...but if yu use 24 mp and need them,you need the same camera as a back up.

Two canon or sony are 6000 dollar.

 jonny1976's gear list:jonny1976's gear list
Nikon D2X
OP Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,953
You Have No Clue What You're Talking About

Hans, it sounds like neither you nor Michael have the actual need for this camera, but for some reason it feels like you're on a mission to convince the rest of the world that nobody else needs it?

I have every desire for this camera, as did Michael. We just think pricing is insane. I have said in numerous places that I like the camera. I HAVE ONE ON ORDER!!! (I've had it on order for 5 months, well before I knew what the price would be). I'm not sure I'll get it now. If I don't get it, it won't be because I can't afford it. I can. But I just don't like paying extortion prices for anything.

I like Nikon. I want them to be successful. I'm complaining about the D3X pricing because I think Nikon is making a mistake. I think in the long run it will hurt them, not help them. I think when Nikon does something good, we should praise them, and when the do something boneheaded, we should criticize them. This fan boy aversion to criticizing Nikon when they deserve it is really a joke.

-- hide signature --

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

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

nicram Regular Member • Posts: 305
To OP

Hans is correct.

The marketplace decides what to do in the real world, not Nikon.

The only X factor now is:

Will the D3X prove to have noticeably, measurably, better optimal IQ than ALL of the other 35mm's in the marketplace. That is the only measure of the justification of the very high price. If it only matches the 1D MII or the !DsMIII or the Sony a900 it will be a disaster for Nikon and they will have to lower the price.

Unless of course, they just stuck a Sony sensor in a D3 just to shut everyone up, and really don't care about the high end market at all.

VadimOm Senior Member • Posts: 1,903
Re: You Have No Clue What You're Talking About

Can you explain why you want/need this camera? Is it just the 24mp that you find attractive ? Wouldn't you be better off with D700x/D800 (which most likely will be priced similar to 5DII and have at least 24Mp sensor) ? Or you think that will never happen?

Hans Giersberg wrote:

Hans, it sounds like neither you nor Michael have the actual need for this camera, but for some reason it feels like you're on a mission to convince the rest of the world that nobody else needs it?

I have every desire for this camera, as did Michael. We just think
pricing is insane. I have said in numerous places that I like the
camera. I HAVE ONE ON ORDER!!! (I've had it on order for 5 months,
well before I knew what the price would be). I'm not sure I'll get it
now. If I don't get it, it won't be because I can't afford it. I can.
But I just don't like paying extortion prices for anything.

I like Nikon. I want them to be successful. I'm complaining about the
D3X pricing because I think Nikon is making a mistake. I think in the
long run it will hurt them, not help them. I think when Nikon does
something good, we should praise them, and when the do something
boneheaded, we should criticize them. This fan boy aversion to
criticizing Nikon when they deserve it is really a joke.

-- hide signature --
VadimOm Senior Member • Posts: 1,903
Re: D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?

PeterGlaso wrote:

I might not know a whole lot about
marketing, but i sure get the feeling that Nikon has screwed this one
up on an epic scale.

wow... D700 was out for a year, light years better than 5D, Canonites full of envy waited and waited for 5D successer, some switched... Finally they get the 5DMKII, which is arguably better than D700 (more MP, weaker AF?), which just about hit the shelves, and I bet Nikon will come out with something even better in not so distant future, and this is what you call "screwing us on epic scale" ?

-- hide signature --
bikinchris
bikinchris Forum Pro • Posts: 21,637
comparing cameras

Trying to compare D3X, D3, A900, 5dmkii cameras has an analogy with many things.
Try to compare:
A cheap Timex and a Breitling watch-- they both tell time, why not?
A 18 wheel truck and pinto--they both have four wheels, why not?
A Piper cub and luxury jet--they both fly, why not?
A D3X and a 5DmkII they both take photos why not?

Well for one, they are made for completely different markets and different uses. The D3X is meant for professional shooters who have a heavy schedule and a wide variety of subject needs. it is not intedned for amateurs.

The 5DMKII is a price point camera that is intended for poor professionals and amateurs.
--
Chris, Broussard, LA

 bikinchris's gear list:bikinchris's gear list
Nikon D4S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF VR +1 more
Thom Hogan
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,661
Re: D3X Vs 5DII And A900....Why Not?

Lsiv wrote:

I took the decision to sell of my D700, and buy the Canon 5D MKII
with a couple of L-glass. There is no way I ever pay $8.400 for the
D3X.

First of all, this was the kind of reaction I was worried about as I learned the details on the D3x before the launch. We haven't had this "I'm switching" kind of tone since the D2h debacle. And it's surprising just how little it takes to generate this kind of reaction one direction or the other. That's why I'd prefer (; ) that Nikon really get its act together in terms of both marketing and laying out their basic product matrix.

However, while I've been critical of Nikon's handling of the launch, you'll note that I haven't said anything about the camera. And I won't until I have a way to assess where it really stands in the scheme of things. But I have to say, a reaction such as yours doesn't make sense to me. You've got Nikon glass that should bring out the best in whatever high resolution cameras Nikon produces. You're talking about moving to L glass on a Canon. In my mind, you're going to sacrifice some optical performance at the wide end in doing that. So you're essentially saying that "no matter what the image quality performance Nikon manages with the D3x and any subsequent camera, I'm willing to give up some performance just to get the lower price." And yet, we don't know that Nikon won't produce a D700x at a reasonably price level.

This is the danger with Nikon's problematic launch. It sets a tone for the reaction that makes people make less-than-fully-logical leaps. Unfortunately, I suspect that until Nikon eventually gets around to the lower-priced camera with that sensor, there isn't a lot they can do to turn those minds around.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

OP Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,953
You're Right

You're right - I would much rather have a D700X, or a 5DII, or an A900, because of the size and weight. Why do I want a higher MP camera? Because I want to print bigger. It's that simple. And don't tell me I can do that with a D3 or a D700. I know what my needs are, and what the D3/D700 capabilities are (I currently have a D3). As things stand now, I will either wait for the D700X, or I will get a 5DII (most likely the former).

My motives on this whole issue are clearly stated in my first post to this thread.

-- hide signature --

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

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

echelon2004 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,128
Because we have nikkors...

Hans Giersberg wrote:

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.

If you start from scratch, sure. Most of us are invested in a system already.

Even at 8k it's cheaper to buy a D3x than add a complete set of stuff from another brand.

The target group are not those that want a high megapixel camera, the target group is those who wants or need more pixels in their nikon system. The other cameras is absolutely wortless in that regard.

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.

Have you even looked at images from the Sony or the 5DmkII? They aint leading anything except the league for fooling people into believing what they wnat to believe.

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.

Trust me, it is.

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.

Don't be silly. We ARE the marketplace. We and the other forums, plus those who simply buys the cameras and shoots.

Seriously, If I had been shooting all the time I've spent on thinking on if I should buy the darn thing or not, it would've been paid for by now...

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.

You ever shot in a "studio"?

Shot babies? Shot animals?, Shot models?

I hate every second of every shoot which requires me to use digital backs, they are sooooo stoneage

I have a 5D, and the Af on that camera, which is the same as the 5DmkII is just laughable! Shoot animals or kids with a 5D and you'll have to focus manually or depend on luck, or spray and pray... at 3 fps...

And yes, it is off course a well established fact that nature photographers (and fashion photographers) just take the limo out to the protected place of the shoot ...

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.

Nikon isn't wal-mart or any other low price outlet.

-- hide signature --

Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads