Egad! Lad! You took this with a 6 MP camera!
I’ve seen a number of places on the web where a number of people say that they are going to boycott the Nikon D3x because of the price. Hmmmm. I wonder if boycott is the right word, but it does fit. It means to abstain from buying or using something. So, I guess that all of us who do not use the D3x are boycotting it, in some form or fashion.
If one seriously wants to move up to 24 mega pixels, then more power to you! If you read Earl’s post, you’ll see what that entails. Basically, a lot more time and more drive space for, IMHO, little or no gain in image quality. Also, seeing what else is available and how much less it costs, makes me wonder how very brand loyal you have to be to pay a premium of $5000 more.
Mind you, I am aware that the cost of the camera, if you own another brand, is not simply the cost of the camera, but the cost of switching over, but I’m just comparing simple apples to apples. You could get a Sony A900 for $2999 and have 24.6 MP. Or you could opt for the Canon 5D MkII for about $2700 and get about 22 MP. Of course, if you are heavily invested in Nikon lenses, etc. then your only way to get to into the MP race is to dump $8,000 into Nikon’s pocket right now or wait for a while for the little brother model that’s bound to appear, or just let sanity have it’s way with you and don’t join in on the pixel orgy.
When it gets down to it. How many pixels do you need? I’ve gotten some really nice 13 x 19 prints out of my ‘lowly’ 6 MP D40.
Well, we do live in a capitalistic society. We’ll see what the market will tell Nikon about the price of their new flagship camera. It will be interesting to watch …