photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
All Cameras >> Nikon >> Nikon D3X

Nikon D3X SLR Digital Camera Sample Photos

107458719.2gcb7l6Q.jpg107458723.pCzYniS2.jpg
Marketed: 01-Dec-2008
Megapixels: 24.5
Random Nikon D3X Samples from 29846 available Photos more
t2%2f16%2f1073416%2f4%2f148108004.PMfETcMi.jpg t3%2f45%2f321145%2f4%2f120022152.egOHRZci.jpg t1%2f79%2f76779%2f4%2f127765389.y6RR1Yt2.jpg t9%2f99%2f758199%2f4%2f154482314.6Jbhd5Rb.jpg
t2%2f16%2f1073416%2f4%2f148140471.85tgt5pD.jpg t3%2f35%2f737335%2f4%2f122514463.wwKOCKZA.jpg t4%2f65%2f45565%2f4%2f145243949.oyyxKcnO.jpg t4%2f09%2f587009%2f4%2f136089583.2dyZTNK4.jpg
t4%2f49%2f599049%2f4%2f133355979.LwL1Z4j3.jpg t4%2f30%2f590730%2f4%2f134632524.0wGsciTM.jpg t2%2f49%2f599049%2f4%2f147539018.zhNDAPpF.jpg t3%2f23%2f546423%2f4%2f113066835.3U8kavfY.jpg


Comments
chas30-Jan-2012 00:11
I THINK LESS TALK MORE ACTION BY THAT I MEAN PUT UP BETTER SHOTS LANDSCAPE ONES , SHOT I'V SEEN HERE WOULD NOT MAKE ME RUN OUT AND BUY ' THIS PRICE .
Thang23-Dec-2011 20:17
to Melissa - "way overpriced" comparing to what? To your budget, probably yes. But when you compare it to competitor, it's right there with the 1ds3, at least at the introductory price! $2k for a d3x will probably another few years...
shahoff18-Nov-2009 01:26
Best ever Nikon for making money. Superb resolution , DR, sensitivity, autofocus, speed and etc and etc. Working great together with my Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and D700.
You can check few samples
http://gallery.virtualireland.ru/v/Andrew+Shahoff/
shahoff18-Nov-2009 01:25
Best ever Nikon for making money. Superb resolution , DR, sensitivity, autofocus, speed and etc and etc. Working great together with my Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and D700.
You can check few samples
http://gallery.virtualireland.ru/v/Andrew+Shahoff/
Melissa18-May-2009 06:04
I am going to jump in and be a complainer and say like so many other people have already. This camera is way over priced. Nikon I guess is looking to make up for any monies they lost during the recession. I believe they made a price decision just as they were starting to lose from the recession knowing that times will be tough in 2008. I truly believe they were intending to charge a decent price until bad economics took over the world.

I look forward to hopefully be able to afford this in about 5 yrs when the price comes down considerably or to 2000.00 whichever comes first.
Pierre Rousseau06-May-2009 19:38
I agree with you, Lou. Digital photography is refluxing with pathological over-consumption and pandemic dollar psychosis. "Cool" is a cult. I will keep on buying low-mileage Nikon D70s' after my D50 is dead, until there is an FX, ccd version of the Nikon FM.
Lou Giroud14-Apr-2009 00:30
You are sure about too many things and try to defend what is not defendable. I told you before that you don't need to use any cameras to talk about it. All cameras on market do same thing, there specs speak for the use they are made for and yourself as a owner of many pro equipment knows what I talk about. If you defend a D3X as a sports camera then you are beside of reality or you shoot apsc format to gain speed and here you don't need a D3X then, nor do you need that basic picture size, or do you. And, using a specific camera is not a problem, I can rent one around the corner if ever I think I want to try one I never used. Note that the buddy I usually shoot with uses the D3 and I have it my hands quiet often. From there to buy one, or even a D700 is a choice of reason and needs, not just to tell people I ow one. You better give up as you said, the D3X is and remains an excellent camera that is far over-priced and here all what you might say about it or other do will not change that.
The SB Image09-Mar-2009 21:09
Now your giving advice on sports shooting and the D3 (I am sure its another camera you have never used)?

I shoot for a living, I shoot a ton of sports, I actually use this stuff.... and I think the D3x is a great camera but I give up.
Lou Giroud31-Jan-2009 13:15
just add something: the Sony shoots as fast as the D3x and the stop advantage in noise ratio is taken over by the built in steady shot. And, for sports, stick to the D3, believe me, you make a better actor on that scene with a D3 anyway.
Minolta high quality G lenses are same priced as Nikon's if we think big guns for sport and quality matches and some are even better.
For the rest, you can get huge Minolta lenses for low prices and beside of many of them, Nikon glass is a poor competitor, especially in low priced ones.
Lou Giroud31-Jan-2009 12:49
It makes me just laugh when you talk about "giving comments about cameras you never used".
I think that once you used a camera, any dslr or slr, the game is to aim trough a viewfinder, frame a shot and take a picture. Here, there is no difference and as an old shooter who knows the difference between the trigger resistance of a Glock compared to a Colt ACP, I could until today not find any difference in pushing the button of any camera so far. I am in relation with many shops and can test just any camera at any time.
So, being so smart about differences of using cameras, tell me what makes the D3X different in use to a D200/700/2x/3 and so on. Except the menu settings and the crap you pay for and do not use like live view, artificial horizon for example and the one you get and do not need like face tracking, automatic dynamic tracking and other things, there is nothing a D3X does more or is different to handle and use. In exception of speed or sensitivity for certain specific kind of photography I do not see the need to shoot a camera to give my opinion about the picture quality it does. What counts is the result, and for that all you need is raw examples you can rework on different software to see what's about and that is not hard to find, online or at friends. The D3X is a huge tool, but compared to the A900 from Sony, what does it more when you consider the result. It has no live view, no horizon, no Nikon d-lighting, no 51 point AF and is a camera only, not a walk around computer. If you compare the both, just tell me what makes a D3X then 5000* higher in price. As I said, there is price you pay for what you get and this price must be in relation to what you get and worth to pay it.
In the case "D3X", you pay the price just to have one. For sure, it is a stop better in noise handling then an A900, for sure it has a stop advantage in color dynamic due to the fact it shoots 14 bit and the A900 "only" in 12 bit. Note by the way, (dxo labs tests confirm it) that none of the both is able to match the color dynamic range of a Fuji S5 up to 800 iso. So, this said, it is a fact that nikon made an excellent camera and that the picture rendering and quality is top at this moment compared to what the market offers and nobody, including me will ever say anything different. Only thing I criticize is Nikon's pricing policy in this matter and on this I stick to my opinion that a D3X is overpriced and not worth that money. End of that chapter.
Now, concerning Ken Rockwell and some others, there site and statements are just like any religion and only those who believe will get sanctified. In this context I need to tell you that I talked quite often to Ken and even if on many things we have different opinions
he remains a good photographer and most of what he tested an relates to material on his site matches quiet well what I found out myself.
So, enjoy your D3X if you have one, I will not be among those to buy one, at least not at this state of pricing. If I double the price I can get a mid format camera with 30 and more pixels (the last phase one 645 is at 60 mpix now)and once my house is finished that will certainly be the direction I aim at.
SzPiNaK.OrG Photography30-Jan-2009 21:38
it's just a superb tank ... if you really know what 4 U have it :)
if you need to print an A2-A0 printout's ... go ahead :)

samples ?

here U go:http://sandra.szpinak.org

Cheers,. J.
The SB Image18-Jan-2009 09:34
I admit I pretty much skimmed your reply, but from what I read you have tried the D3 and D700 cameras for a couple days and never a D3x.....and thats pretty much was what I was saying, if you have not used it what would poses you to post your "opinion" on it?

Oh no did you really use Ken Rockwell to validate your point? thats just funny, no other way to say it but since you are into e-search google the dudes name... several of his "reviews" are also done without using the stuff he writes about

Oh well, over the next few months there will be many many more images floating around from the D3x and this will not be worth talking about

But like you said its the final image that counts, sadly many of my subjects tend to move very fast and I only get one chance to get them and many of my shots do get printed so I dont think I will be going 5D or Sony


Lou Giroud11-Jan-2009 13:06
In answer to SB Image.
Between can afford and want to afford is 2 worlds. I always scale things first and if I was really thinking that it was worth the money, I would go that way. I have tried the A900, I have had the D3 and D700 for a couple of days as well. I handle D200, 300, 700, 40, 90 and Fuji S5 almost every day and for sure, I have not had in my hands a D3X yet since it is not any among my friends that has one now. No, for sure I have not tested myself a Canon 5Dmk2 yet and all you need is download anyway pictures in full size to make yourself an opinion and on the other side, there are enough people reporting and testing, no need to invest money to be one more. I have nef files from d3x and raw from many other cameras. I just compare what is comparable.
I have studied the principles of resolution and the game companies play with "more pixels", a game that is stupid and pure non sense. One can give opinions about what a camera draws or does, even not using it. On the end is the result that counts, the picture you get only and there is no need to compare objectivity with hate. People like Ken Rockwell stay objective and say there opinion about what they think about a camera, Ken made the same statements as me and despite of that he has D3X and has a Canon 5Dmk2 and he can afford it. I do not think in any moment that people who make objections to a pricing policy compared to what you get are doing this just because, as you said, can not afford it or have hate in mind. Note that I am retired and building a house on a property that I recently bought, this costs money and if you say that I can not afford it, you are dam right, One needs to make a choice in life and my house counts more then cameras. Despite of that I have acquired 3 new bodies recently and think to buy a lens and a body more next month.
So, enjoy your day and stay objective and remember that many people do much more with a D70 then others with a D3X or A900. What counts is the result only and here again, the D3X is much too expensive for not getting a better shot on the end. At least I stick to this opinion until you prove me that it's not true, just doubt you can .....
The SB Image09-Jan-2009 21:51
Lou not trying to be rude or anything but clearly its not the camera for you, and its weird to see not one but 2 posts about a camera you never used ?? (I am going to assume you have not used the Sony or 5d either or you would not make such wild claims)

I am no luminous/DPre-spew tester chart poster but the first thing is that AF system CRUSHES the 5DII... no need to go farther if it aint in focus there is no need to debate IQ, next whats another couple grand when I can keep using my existing $ worth of lenses?

Seems most of the hate comes from people who cant afford the thing or would not really use it very well anyway
Lou Giroud09-Jan-2009 04:48
you can do the same with a Sony A900 or a Canon 5Dmk2 and buy just a double or triple amount of that beasts for the same price. If you buy a couple you can buy a few huge lenses with it for the same price. What concerns drops in the buckets, cameras a re not intended to serve people for whom it are drops in buckets, cameras are manufactured to be sold to just anyone and in the case of the D3X it does not seems as if Nikon was going that way. Give God what you ow to god and to Caesar what you ow to Caesar is a historic speech.
I always stay objective and if there was for 3000 bucks more picture and technology in a D3X then in an A900 I would certainly not criticize the price that Nikon applies and in the present case i am, fortunately, not the only one. Michael Reichmann could not ether and all he found out was that a D3X performs better at 800+ iso range equaly together with the 5Dmk2 and for the 3000 bucks he could not find any reason or explaining as well.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three-5.shtml
Guest 01-Jan-2009 04:16
I own two of these magnificent beasts, and if you make your living as a professional photographer, the cost is merely a drop in the bucket, and no more offensive than a $5 coffee, an $8 sandwich or a $2000 prostitute.
Lou Giroud29-Dec-2008 00:32
a lot of money to pay for live view and 51 point af in an old overdue body with same sensor as the Sony A900 that is 4000$ cheeper. SHAME on Nikon for playing peoples ball in that way.
2500$ more compared to the D3, just for the sensor and less content with a resolution same as the D200.
Nikon could not do a better publicity for the Sony A900 .......

All photos are copyrighted and may not be used without permission from the photographer.
These photos are are a guide to what these cameras are capable of, but may not fully represent the camera due to post-processing, scanning, or photographic technique.
All brands are trademarked by their owners.
These pages are not sponsored or approved by the manufacturers.
Other content Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006, pbase.com LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Contact cameras@pbase.com to contribute data or photos of cameras.