Airlija Nikon :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0

02 December 2008, Tuesday

D3X Boycott Broken?

I was talking to Adorama, and they told me that they already had backorders for the D3X. Someone broke the boycott!

Well, if someone else can can do it, I have to do it (just a little) to order one to test for you folks, so I just ordered a D3X. Lame excuse, yes, but I always put your needs ahead of my own.

I don't know if it counts as a boycott-break until I actually decide to buy and keep it.

I'll compare it to the original D3, 5D and 5D Mk II , so we all can sort this out once and for all. Is the X-factor really worth $3,800? Probably only if you're loaded.

In spite of my whining, you know I want a D3X, but no one is happy about the price (except maybe rich guys who once again have a Nikon model that they won't see every other amateur carrying at every national park overlook). Nikon has been like this for decades; no one used to be able to afford the top Nikon up until recently when everyone drank some sort of LSD-laced Kool-Aid and thinks nothing of dumping thousands of dollars every year on the latest digital disposable like the D3X (the D4 is on track for 2011 announcement, or in less than three years).

Know why I want a D3X (at $5,500)? Not for making photos, since a $250 Canon SD880 does all I need for scenic shots and the $410 Nikon D40 does most of what I need for everything else, and I shoot the real stuff on film. My real interest in the D3X is to see more in the course of doing all my lens tests.

I'm sure the 5D Mk II has exactly the same or better image quality, but the far superior ergonomics of Nikon makes my Nikon always the first SLR I grab.

.

.

.

Nikon D3X Worldwide Boycott Spreading

Whoa, news travels fast. I wrote up the Nikon D3X information last night when it came out, and went to bed astonished that Nikon dared ask $8,000 for a $5,500 camera that is the same thing as the $4,200 D3.

I wake up this morning, and discover the rest of the world has already started what I was going to suggest: boycotting the D3X until the price is corrected.

Let's face it: the original D3 is a better camera for most uses. No one really needs a D3X, and everyone has realized that if no one buys it, the price will stabilize where it belongs: $5,500, and dropping further later.

Nikon is playing with us at $8,000. Nikon knows that the top segment of the economy is flying high, and there are so many more rich guys today who don't care about price that Nikon can sell a few container loads to the Leica clique while pros wait in the sidelines. For instance, makers of megayachts (100 feet/30 meters or larger) can't crank them out fast enough today as the market for them continues grow out of control.

Therefore, photographers have banded together to just say no. Give it a couple of months, and Nikon will announce some fake breakthrough that allows them to drop the price, probably to $6,500 in February 2009.

Don't bite. The price is $5,500, or no deal. If we all stand firm, and it seems everyone is, we ought to have the D3X at $5,500 by March or April 2009.

It only costs Nikon about $200 more in parts to make the D3X over the D3, and with scales of economy and tricks learned with 18 months of D3 production, the D3X most likely costs less to produce today than the D3 did back in 2007.

We'll know anyone seen with a D3X around his neck before March is just a pencil-pushing desk-job amateur with too much cash to burn, since photographers are waiting this one out.

It's easy to fake a D3X file. Take a file from your D3, D700 or D90 (or any camera actually), resize to 6,048 x 4,032 in Photoshop, and save the file. If you really want to be complete, edit the EXIF data in a text editor to change the camera model to D3X. I'm not kidding: I've done this before and photo clients never noticed, so long as the base image is sharp.

The D3X is Nikon's greatest camera ever; it's just not worth $8,000, except to suckers.

By Ken Rockwell.

Ne mislam da go preveduvam zatoa sto mozebi kje zgresam nesto.