Yesterday Nikon formally announced the much-rumored D3X. The D3X is basically just a D3 with more megapixels. Or is it? The D3X has 24.5 megapixels while the D3 has 12.3. However, the D3X frame rate is 5 FPS while the D3 is 10 FPS. Apparently, doubling the megapixels halves the frame rate. Why? It appears that the D3X is exactly the same physically as the D3, though I have no way of knowing for sure. Assuming this is true though, the D3X should be physically able to shoot at 10 FPS. Why then is the frame rate only 5 FPS? There must be some other limiting factor. I can only assume that it’s the write speed of the camera from the sensor to the buffer. Since there is double the information (twice the pixels), the D3X can’t process the image as fast as the D3 can (assuming both cameras use the same processor). So it looks like Nikon just took a D3, slapped a new sensor in it, and made a “new” camera without improving anything else in the camera.  

You’re probably wondering what my point is. My point is that I think Nikon is not doing a good job differentiating their products. Before the D3X, what was the compelling reason to get a D3 over a D700? They both have the same sensor and the D700 actually has some ergonomic improvements over the D3. So the only reason to get a D3 over a D700 is speed. The D3 is twice as fast, which is great for journalists and sports shooters, and justifies the extra $2,000. Now we have the D3X which is (supposedly) an upgrade to the D3. However, the frame rate is cut in half. So if you have a D3 and are considering moving to the D3X, you have to downgrade your FPS significantly in order to upgrade your megapixels, and you get to pay $4,000 for this privilege. If speed matters to you, the D3X doesn’t cut it. Since the only market for the D3 after the release of the D700 was speed shooters and the speed shooters won’t consider the D3X, is there any market for the D3X? Basically the choice is between the D700 and the D3X, not between the D3 and the D3X. If that’s the case, you get to pay $5,500 more for the D3X to get more megapixels and a bigger, heavier body. But if you are going to spend that much money on megapixels, why not just go all the way to medium format digital backs whose quality will blow away the D3X? As you can see, there doesn’t appear to be any compelling reason to spend $8,000 on a D3X. My advice: skip the D3X.