Get our Emails!
Usually ships in 1-2 business days|
|Only 1 left in stock, order soon!|
|Product Length:||6.3 inches|
|Product Width:||6.2 inches|
|Product Height:||3.4 inches|
|Product Weight:||2.7 pounds|
|Package Length:||11.1 inches|
|Package Width:||8.4 inches|
|Package Height:||6.3 inches|
|Package Weight:||7.1 pounds|
|Average Customer Rating:|| based on 31 reviews|
|Used and New|
|Average Customer Review: ( 31 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
162 of 171 found the following review helpful:
Not much to complain about (except the price).... Dec 29, 2008
By Low Hounds
Owned a D3 for one and a half years and traded in for the D3x after trying out the new model for a day. My review is not about price - for the record I think Nikon stretched the barrier on the price point for this which I am not happy about - but as far as performance goes I am happy. The D3x results is are perceptibly superior for landscape and macro photography - which is what I typically shoot - even on just A3+ prints.... so I can imagine that the results would be that much better for larger sizes. Just as many of you, I have also read arguments on the net re the megapixel myth ad nauseam and was half convinced about it but nothing speaks as clearly as prints (and I'm comparing studio shots of the same subject taken with the two different cameras).
Have not tried the D3x for sports photography yet but I suspect that unless you are shooting either motor-sports or winter sports, the moderately slower 5fps in large FX mode compared with the 7fps for the D3 is not going to be an issue.
I also spent a day with the Sony Alpha-900 given that is the only other player in a similar mega-pixel category. The output was all right but overall just not in the same league as the D3x in terms of handling, build quality etc etc (I'm probably biased as I am very familiar with Nikon controls - just found the Sony too 'fiddly' and 'plasticky' and couldn't see myself spending hours with it without getting irritated).
Early days with the camera but so far it feels like one of the best DSLR's I have used especially when the medium format alternatives would involve rendering my large pile of Nikon lenses useless and the replacement cost would be prohibitive. As mentioned earlier the D3x pricing is a different issue altogether and I think that the right price point would have been around $2K lower......will update if and when I discover any shortfalls or glitches.
56 of 60 found the following review helpful:
Truly remarkable. Mar 10, 2009
A little context...I've shot a lot with a D200, even more with a D3, and most recently with the D3x. Most of my work is in fashion, with a small bit of commercial product work here and there.
I must say - the images this camera produces are truly stunning. Paired with a suitable lens, the detail is amazing...and other qualities, the more subjective ones like contrast and color, are hard to describe but are excellent and for my work, exceed the D3's already excellent capabilities.
But all the detail in the world can't help you if you can't count on the camera to deliver the shot...and that's where handling comes into play. The D3 is, IMHO, the best-handling DSLR body in the world - a combination of the autofocus system and the camera controls (and the metering system, but I'm usually shooting in manual so don't rely on it often). The D3x handles identically to the D3x (save for the frame rate), which is exactly what I would have hoped for.
I use this camera mostly at ISO 100; the files delivered are amazingly noise-free. Sure, any camera can deliver at its base ISO...but you truly need to study these files to really understand the cleanliness and enlargement potential.
All in all, this is exactly what I hoped Nikon would deliver. Sure, I'd rather it was cheaper...but if you want the best image quality in digital 35mm format that money can buy, this is it.
46 of 49 found the following review helpful:
The Best Yet Jul 25, 2009
By G. Patrick Byers
"Show and Tell"
I purchased and reviewed the Nikon D3 earlier and decided to keep it when I purchased the D3X. The reason I kept the D3 is that I shoot sports, low light, outdoors etc. The capability of shooting with such high ISO settings, high frame rate is what persuaded me to not trade it in. I did not realize just how much more detail the D3X would result in. I also had been almost convinced that higher megapixels is a waste over kill etc. It most certainly isn't unless you are dealing with small prints, snapshots, presenting just on internet along this line, then it would be a waste. If however you are like me, a want to be professional, larger the image the better, with extreme clarity, detail, conatrast, in a word stunning, then you must try to test out the D3X. I question my decision to keep the D3 but found at recent Zoo outing that both cameras came in handy. I had the Nikon 200mm F/2 lens on the D3X to shoot at greater distance and for the close intight shots, and had the 24mm to 70mm Nikon zoom on the D3. I was able to take about 150 shots on each camera, and found a few I liked because of the composition of my shots, not because of either camera, both are amazing. I found when you view a picture at 100% size from the D3X, I shoot in RAW in both cameras, the results are simply amazing. I could literally see seperate eye lashes of a camel, and elephant, even the lion shots some at a good distance convinced me that if I make it as a photographer it will be in large part of Nikon D3X, D3 and lenses. I love the build of both the D3 amd D3X, sturdy, heavy to some, solid to me. I lugged both cameras around with the above mentioned lenses, along with 2 extra lenses for 7 hours at the Denver Zoo. I spent maybe an hour all day with periodic rest stops. I would do it again and I'll be 60 in a few months. I love the controls and layout of both cameras which if you like one you'll like the other they are identical as far as I can tell, I have not closely examend each menu item. I am glad I kept both cameras now because of the changing lens issue, for me it is worth it and love the shots I took with both, but the D3X resolution would make it the choice if I had to choose between it and the D3. I know Nikon will come up with bigger and better in a few years they always do, but for now hard to imagine, how to better the D3X.
22 of 24 found the following review helpful:
The High ISO tests against the 5D2 & D700 Jan 26, 2010
By Alister Benn
"Available Light Images"
I bought a D3x this week and the first thing I wanted to do was compare it to the two other bodies in our household: my wife's Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D700. I have written a full article on my website and linked full-sized image galleries from there also that people can download and review on their own computers.
[...] For a camera of this resolution and detail, the performance at higher ISO is spectacular. I previously used a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P45+ and with that I don't think I ever shot it above ISO 100 and it is a very very slow camera back. The D3x is the pinnacle of the DSLR hierarchy right now, a fabulous tool... Highly recommended.
11 of 11 found the following review helpful:
Amazing camera Jul 18, 2010
By Julian Trejos Zelaya
Forgive my very poor english... It's been only 10 days since I have this amazing camera, so I'm not really aware of what it can do, but I have already taken pictures for two asingments. The first one I already delivered it, and the client (a huge hotel downtown San Jose Costa Rica) was so impressed by the results, he even called me to congratulate me. They have been my clients since 4 years. I used to shoot with a Nikon d2x and I made up my mind and decided to invest in this piece of wonder. The quality of the image surpasses by far my expectations (and my client's as well): The photos are much more detailed than anything I had seen, maybe only comparable to pictures shot by my film Hasselblad. Even if you tak photos at a high ISO, like 1250, they come out very detailed, so that gives you a lot of freedom. The files are really big, so you need a fast computer to work on them (I have a 24" iMac that I bought a year ago, that works perfectly well). The tonal gradation is fantastic. If you shoot in "raw" you then have the possibility to make other decisions like fine tuning on the color temperature of the pictures, or make a curve on them. I like the D-Lighting option, but not that much when taking pictures of people, the skin tones come out a bit unrealistic. Something that I love is that the photos have a wider dynamic range than its predecessor, the D2x, so when you open the photos in photoshop (when shot as raw files) you have much more information than before, let's say, more details on the shadows and highlights; this is very convenient, specially when you take pictures of architecture. When you shoot in "raw" you have the option of compressing bit the files with no quality loss, this is very usefull, I tried it and it works very well. So in average they would weigh about 25 MB each one. I guess this is not the best camera to shoot sports since it's not as fast as the D3s, but for what I do (architecture, weddings, products, people, fashion, food, tourism) it works very well. Once you have it in your hands, and you shoot the first photos and look at the amazing quality, then you forget about the high price you paid for it...
I'm still learning how to use this camera, so I may update this later.
See all 31 customer reviews on Amazon.com
You may also like ...