#1 John R. Spurr

I am happy to see some photos from this body.
Things that I note is that all of the shots are exposed poorly. Why is that. In the model shots I would have expected that the dof would have changed progressively from #1 - #6 assuming that flash were being used but that didn't happen. Focus was very haphazzared to say the least with the 3200 and 6400 not looking as good as some of the smaller framed dslrs. I was hopint for more. Plus that added grain was like using the old Konica 3200 film. What did we gain? I am not sure. Plus Plus blown out highlights to boot. Was it the metering?

7:56 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#2 Dominique Dierick

How can one make such bad images with such a camera I wonder, motion blur, too slow shutter, underexposed and wrong focus points. Really :(

9:21 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#3 Chunky

Who cares what the camera is - who is the woman?

:-)

9:26 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#4 Rasmus

detail amazing!
but who is the photografer omg he did something wrong whahaaaaaaahahahah
seldom i seen so bad pictures and so less understanding of a camera huahuahuahu

9:27 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#5 Horrible

These are terrible.The exif data is mucked also....Troll

9:39 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#6 teila

I too am curious why so many photographs that are taken to show off a camera, are so poorly taken. If the photographs were of a truck for sale, I couldn't care less about under exposed, poorly focused photos because the features of the t-r-u-c-k ( as opposed to the camera's ability) would be the point of the photographs.

.. In this case, we have dimly lit, out of focus photos that were taken with the pure intention of showing off a $8,000 camera to photographers who shoot architecture, fashion, glamour, and wildlife.. and on that front, these photos have greatly failed (in general) to quench the mental thirst about Nikon's newest offering. That said, I (and many others) appreciate you taking the time out to post the photos that you did! Respectfully, Teila

9:44 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#7 alex

how can you underexpose that much?

beginner?

10:28 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#8 James

I have the D3, i think this camera is great, but what the ###### happent to pictures here??
whom in the world would use theese pictures at all, they are for the trash can, this must be aa joke seriusly, i think they ##### them up on purspose..
to get a reaction and then get the real pictures on later when they show the camera for the puplic..

11:44 pm - Monday, December 1, 2008

#9 Jack

The 200 ISO picture is not in focus. The 400 ISO is better. I know u can do better than this with a tripod and an 85mm lens. I would have appreciated minimal shooting data. It's an amazing camera. I don't know if I would want to invest in one of these only to have it superseded in 12-18 months. Thank you.

8:04 am - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#10 Mark Goldstein

Just to clarify a few things...

These images were taken at today's UK press launch. There were 50 photographers, 5 D3xs, and approx a 1 hour shoot. I had about 3 minutes shooting time in total, using whatever settings the camera had when it was handed over. I thought you'd be interested in at least being able to see the ISO performance...

10:11 am - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#11 Alessandro

This is the real way to test a camera, just "on the road". I mean in a way similar to real situations occurring to professionals. Just takin pictures. Just shooting... Professionals often don't have time enough to control every particular when shooting. How do you think a professional move in a wedding location? Runnin' all the time and for the entire day. It's not easy. Do you think every picture comes razor-sharp in Sport shooting?

Friends, don't think photography is an official sample image... Photography is in life, and life is not always perfect!

3:11 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#12 Soren Rasmussen

Those shots can't possibly be representative of the new camera. I own and a use a Nikon D300 and I could produce just as good a result, but not as large I admit.

By the way, the shots of the female needs loads of photoshopping.. She has bad nails and generally bad skin. The detail is amazing however.
Please post more refined shots later if you get the chance, and thanks for posting in the first place :-)

-SR from Denmark.

3:26 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#13 Jan Hansen

I'm with Mark and Alessandro,..

I'm an editor and photographer on a danish pro photo-magazine, and of course I also go to the press-releases,..and as Mark is explaining,
You've got a few minutes to do all adjustments on camera, settings, and shoot some different images, while everybody is pushing around. Lights usually sucks, mostly dark rooms, since you also watch presentation and other stuff.

Its not like bringning the camera home for a review, shooting, tweaking stuff playing around.theres no time for that. Just write an article, shoot a few images and go back to work.

3:27 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#14 Abel

To Alessandro at 02:11pm on Tuesday, December 02, 2008
omg how can u say this???
ITS A STUDIO camera ffs it is not supose to be on the road, and if u cant shoot wedding pictures then u cant do nothing, u have all, and it is not supose to do sport shooting.
but seriusly how can anyone take Mark Goldstein at 09:11am on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 seirusly ofcause he would defend this with Ohh there was 100 people and bad lighting and pff, i woulden use theese pictures officially if it was the last pictures inthe worl.
gives u a bad rep..

6:09 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#15 Andy Innes

I frankly couldn´t give a toss about the lack of skill by the photographer.
What seems evident to me is the catastrophic noise problem from 400iso and up. This I am sure is due to the Sony chip set, the Alpha 900 shows the same problems. At 100 the sharpness and noise are tiptop (forget about the wrong shutter speed and the exposure and focus point)
And would be a great landscape camera, as long as you can bolt it down to something.
But as far as an all rounder, forget it. And at that price the Canon 1DS Mk 3 suddenly looks good value!
I would be prepared to bet money, that when we see the first tests against the new 5D mk2 and the Sony Alpha 900 and the Nikon D3x and the old D3 the 5D mk 2 will wipe the floor with them all.
Only in image quality mind you and not in build quality. But who cares at a third the price I know what I will be going for. Nikon, why oh why didn´t you get this right like the D3. You would have had my money ready and waiting if.

1) it was the right price. €7700 is a joke, even if we wait for the price to settle it will still be €5000 which is at least €1000-1500 too much.
2) It could shoot noise free up to at least 1600iso

I will go away and cry now. After waiting so long.

Andy

8:09 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#16 Alessandro

Abel, I just wanted to say that it is inappropriate to judge a camera (and especially the photographer) on a few shots in adverse conditions. Look at the shots of the car. It seems like the photographer made a better job thanks to a quieter situation.
I think almost every camera could be a "studio camera", and of course a "wedding camera" or a "reportage camera". It depends on your skills and the destination of use. Of course I didn't mean that D3X has been created for sports... But I just believe in one truth: do not judge a camera on official samples. They have been done in controlled light (even on high ISO) but mostly at low ISO settings (100 - 200). It's too easy to get amazing pictures! So let's wait for some deep test.

10:48 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#17 Jose Artigas

These pictures doesn't demostrate the camera quality bacause the samples are overexpose or underexpose, so I can't say if the sensor is bad or wherever.

why not shoot with excellent exposure, white balance, in different light conditions to determine and give a better oppinion?

11:14 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#18 frank williams

Looking at these images and owning a D3 I think these should be deleted. Come one, These images are not good to be put on any website. Put it this way would you pay thousands for a camera if the images look like these. NO NO NO. Or is it the photographer that does not know how to take a picture.

11:32 pm - Tuesday, December 2, 2008

#19 Marshal

Thanks for posting those pics. The D3X has amazing potential; too bad Nikon chose to put it out of reach of most photographers with that $8K price. Especially in this tough economy.

Anyway, you have a beautiful model, but most of the pics need some work. I downloaded ISO 100, 200, 400 & 800 pics and of those, here's what I did to fix them:

In Photoshop CS4, I first went to Image & went down to Auto Tone to clean up the color and automatically adjust the levels a bit. In most cases the photos looked overexposed & washed out. So AutoTone and then afterwards, a Levels adjustment on the black side of 10-12% helped there. Some might think it needs more than that.

And then, because the pics(ISO 200-800)looked a bit soft in focus, at least her eyes, I went to Filter>SmartSharpen and set the following values. Amount 110%, Radius 1 Pixel, Remove Gaussian Blur and More Accurate checked. Those last 3 are default settings.

If 110% seems to oversharpen the rest of the photo besides her eye, don't worry. It'll look just right. Remember that in a portrait, with humans or animal close ups, you need to get the eyes in sharp focus if nothing else. Without good focus on the eyes, it's no good. At the higher ISOs, 110% is really as high as you should go on USM, without the noise becoming a problem.

All of the adjustments above helped put some snap or impact into the photographs and brought the model to life in front of my eyes. I then got her # and we're going out this Friday night. ;-)

The first pic, the 100 ISO shot was actually a bit dark, so I went to Image>Brightness and cranked it up around 25%. Maybe a little more than that. And then went to Adjustments>Shadow/Highlights and used a minimal amount under Amount. Maybe 10-12%.

And because this was a 100 ISO shot, I knew I could get away with giving it more sharpening. I boosted the Amount in SmartSharpen to 165%. At a magnification of 100% on a 24" LCD monitor(HP w2408)it looks just right.

I didn't work on any of the car pics. No focus or sharpness problems there, but parts of the car appeared too hot or overexposed where the lights hit it directly. Larger softboxes would probably help or a huge light bank overhead at about 45 degrees. How did you get a shoot with a Lamborghini? :)
The next time, you should get the model posing alongside the car and/or in the car in a slinky black dress. Or maybe a red dress. Brunettes really look good in red.

12:33 am - Wednesday, December 3, 2008

#20 Marshal

I also did a little touch up work with the cloning tool, though nothing major.

12:37 am - Wednesday, December 3, 2008

#21 Giorgio Niro

I was very interested to see some images from this camera. I have been using a 1DsIII for over a year now. I downloaded the 100 ISO image and made some adjustments, it looks good.

Thank you for posting.

The one point that I would like to make is that if Nikon had truly addressed the market for this camera the native ISO range would be 25 - 800 ISO and that would clinch the deal for me. Too bad, even a true 50 ISO would help a lot. The simple fact is the D3 exists, why not achieve a real studio camera with the D3x?

I'll be looking more closely in the future,

Ciao,
Giorgio

1:09 am - Wednesday, December 3, 2008

#22 Norton reisly

OMG, i dont care what to photograoha hads to say about the time and the place these pictures are hilarius..
truly shows that if u give a person who does not know how to use it then u get REALLY REALLY bad pictures..
but it looks promising.
except price of cause not really worth the camera..

2:58 am - Wednesday, December 3, 2008

#23 Ahtu

horrible ! now i go back to canon :(

12:00 pm - Wednesday, December 3, 2008

#24 Andy Innes

I totally accept all the comments listed up here. It indeed does show that even the best tool in the wrong hands can not perform miracles.
One of the main problems with these photos are that we don´t know how much post production has been applied (If any)
If we had the same image shot correctly and focused at the same focus point we could make a better judgment. But even with all of that aside. I have little doubt that this camera produces more noise than my HiFi system.
I read a previous comment that the true iso range should be somewhere between 25-800. Well I could not agree more.
I think that Nikon has been under pressure to keep up with Canon and actually produced something that has gone beyond its design limits.
I know it is far to early to say for sure, and I hope I am wrong. But I think this Camera is not going to cut the mustard with most pros. I am opting for the 5D mk 2 at a third the price, and I reckon as near as damn it, the same quality. I am waiting for the Luminous Landscape review in a few days between the Alpha 900, The canon 5D, canon 5D MK2, the Nikon D3X and the Canon 1DS Mk 3. Check the link.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/
I was so hoping Nikon would make a D3X with the Same stunning performance of the D3, Lets hope I am wrong.

Andy

12:10 pm - Wednesday, December 3, 2008

#25 CAT Productions

ISO 100 shot is great. Love the detail!

12:57 am - Thursday, December 4, 2008

#26 Nic Voutsas

Excelent colour accuracy.
Noise problem over 1600 iso.

8:46 am - Thursday, December 4, 2008

#27 att

Some serious camera shake in these samples...

9:50 am - Thursday, December 4, 2008

#28 Göran Säll

Thanks for the pics.
After waiting so long Nikon comes up with this.
When so expensive it has to be better pics quality.
Today I own a D2x with dx-lenses so I have to upgrade to fulframe lenses
so I can easily switch to Canon, its
roughly the same cost.

Nikon is a disappointment , first they deliver D40 and after a few months D40x which is a better camera.
Then D3 is in the shops (for a lot of money), and after say 10 months the cheaper D700 arrives.
If I buy a D3x they sure will let me down with a D700x.

I have own some Nikon cameras:
F3, F4, D1, D100, D2x
but I think it will stop here.

I only say:
NIKON take CARE of your customers.

And for god say deliver DNG-pics

/Göran
Sweden

12:43 pm - Thursday, December 4, 2008

#29 Alex

There is somethnig called white balance
and light meternig you know!!!
Why all the samples of D3X are so crapy?

3:04 pm - Thursday, December 4, 2008

#30 Darell

Hi guys and 1st of all, i am from malaysia..

was really looking forward to seeing results from the new D3x as comparing to the D3... It seems that noise and noise all over the place... D3 itself have or can say almost being noise free from the same ISO settings... I've own a D300 and was happy enough to see better results... I think the main reason for those noise was the sensor itself... It heats up to fast plus with a higher density pixels for that matter... Higher mega pixels leads to more noise... The D3 has the similar Mega pixels as the D300 but due to the lower pixel count on the D3, the sensor handles the heat nicely...

3:09 pm - Saturday, December 6, 2008

#31 Carlos Pratas

Excelent quality and resolution. Good noise control until 3200 Iso! At 6400 Iso the noise is out of control! But i like this first full frame high megapixel Nikon experience!
Carlos.

2:10 am - Monday, December 8, 2008

#32 Robbie

I am frequently quite amazed at comments on photo forum sites. Thankfully I don't get to see them that often, just when I'm interested in a certain topic. So often the replies are rude, ignorant and so so pointless. Get a life, stop tapping away at your computers, stop talking about cameras, Canon v Nikon etc... blah blah... Go out now and take some photos. Few people here have included any links to their own web sites, so how can we qualify these comment about how bad these pics are. A few of you are pretty good at moaning, that's for sure.

9:57 pm - Monday, December 15, 2008

#33 Mel Gross

I'm also surprised at the exposure variations, but I suppose the harried time was partly at fault, though I would have put exposure at manual for the flash.

I see noise even at 200. The dress shows much more than I expected. Look to areas that are not too dark, in the folds, and you will see green/red noise splotches. The lack of sharpness seems due to noise reduction. Yo can see an area that is fairly sharp, and next too it will be an area of no detail. That usually indicates noise reduction.

For the picture of the car, the larger one, there is noise as well. Look to the side window, and you will also see splotches of red/green.

But there is an even worse problem. There seems to be a gradation problem! This is most surprising, and I can't understand why.

If again, you look to the side window, you will see it easily, just look closely. It's there as swaths of again, green/red, but is strongly defined. This is not noise!

It looks as though the image was fiddled with too much in photoshop, and has lost a number of levels in the shadows. Was the image manipulated to bring up the dark window? Or is it a problem with the camera?

8:30 am - Tuesday, December 16, 2008

#34 David

Thank you for taking the time to experiment. I think the ISO 100 shots have the greatest resolution but not as good as might be expected. Would you consider shooting another at ISO 50 and 25 or is 100 the slowest?

5:14 am - Thursday, December 18, 2008

#35 neo morpheus nabucondonosor

Probably the worst pictures ever made with an $8000 dlls camera... should delete them.

10:35 pm - Friday, December 19, 2008

#36 Wild Bill

check out this website and you tube on the d3x.

http://www.digitalpixels.net/2008/12/the-web/nikon-d3x-price-satire-spoof-video/

4:09 am - Sunday, December 21, 2008

#37 David

One shouldn`t blame Mark for the images taken as the situation and fenzy that accompanies these launches are usually in the category of Paparrazi at best. Nikon blew it not the photographer. You want to showcase your new product and you get caught up in your marketing/media hype when you should be showcasing what the camera can do in a timely/professional manner.

10:02 pm - Sunday, December 28, 2008

#38 Andy Innes

This is true, and I totally agree David, And in actual fact Nikon should have been the first to have the test images available to check out. Had they produced a proper set of test shots to show what the camera can do, we wouldn´t be having this conversation.
But I still think that this camera is vastly over priced, and suffers with noise above 400 ASA.
I don´t think I will be jumping ship for this model. I think for the money I will still stay with the Canon 5d MK2.

10:36 am - Monday, December 29, 2008

#39 Nick Smith

I won't pile on the critisism of the photographer as it's the equipment that is under review. However why oh why did Nikon chase the mistakes of Cannon by increasing the amount of pixels on the chip. The D3 wins out by offering outstanding performance in low light conditions. I would not consider the D3x in view of the obvious problems on noise on both the Nikon and Cannon bank breakers. The D3 fits the bill for a long while yet, bring on the real compettion!

6:15 pm - Sunday, January 11, 2009

#40 Mel Gross

Canon made no mistake. The IQ of the 5D mkII is higher than that of the D700 and the D3, that's pretty clear.

Any tiny advantage that Nikon may have with the noise in those cameras at the highest ISO's is negated by the much higher resolution.

It's always the case that when one camera has much higher resolution than another with approximately the same noise, it will look as though it has much less noise at the same print size.

It's already been shown that when the 5D mkII is rezzed down to the same number of pixels as the D3/D700, not only is there less noise, but it's noticably sharper as well.

9:05 pm - Sunday, January 11, 2009

#41 Christopher

I don't know what you were doing here, but these are not good samples. Maybe you were in a hurry or whatever, but the exposure variations are very sloppy and you missed the focus entirely on the iso6400 shot. The iso800 shot is so overexposed as to not be comparable. How about replacing these with some new samples for those of us interested in the camera. Thanks.

8:22 pm - Wednesday, January 28, 2009