The Most Desirable Cameras on the Planet: Number 10

A year and a half ago I sat at a sushi bar next to a big-time commercial pro who was in town to do some shooting for Harley-Davidson. He was transitioning from medium-format digital backs to a DSLR—a Nikon D3x. He'd had it for a month but hadn't had time even to open the box.

Hunka hunka burnin' hunk: Chunky D3x is for when IQ comes first

Since there have been Nikon SLRs there have always been amateurs who demanded the prestige of the top model, and who were not put off by the size and weight of the biggest pro cameras. My great-uncle owned a complete Nikon F system, purchased in Japan. I remember talking to one smug '90s lawyer in Washington D.C. who I saw on the street carrying a Nikon F5. He was happy to regale me with all the shortcomings of the top amateur Nikon of the era, the F100. But the very high price of the D3x, in addition to its size and weight, has upset a lot of people and helped to keep even prestige-seeking amateurs away.

The D3x, which has intermittently been unobtanium since the tsunami, is overkill even for some full-time professionals. It's not Nikon's speed champ, for either type of "speed": frame rates or high-ISO performance. It doesn't have video. And Sony offers 24 megapixels (in fact, probably the same basic sensor) for more than $5,000 less (granted, outside of the rest of the Nikon system—pros buy systems, not cameras).

The D3x really is a tool for pros. But the top pro Nikon, offering Nikon's absolute best image quality when conditions and technique are optimized, remains a powerful draw for many, even if it represents a sort of Valhalla that many are aware of and think about but that few mortals are familiar with firsthand.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Lou Doench: "'Tis a humongous beastie indeed. A fitting followup to the original D1x, which I, as exactly the kind of amateur you described, bought for $4500 when it was new...I'm a much more circumspect Pentaxian now.... ;-)"

Featured Comment by Jorit Aust: "I bought that D3x in early 2009 and since then stopped using the medium format system (digital or film-based). Picture quality is superb—never had any discussion with clients (museums, advertising agencies); handling is easy—Nikon did every aspect of that camera right. But it's just another fast-vanishing digitool; it never gives me that special feeling which I have since today, every time when I take one of my F2's. Just put a roll of film in and start making pictures. That's the real McCoy."

Mike replies: That's in impressive client list, Jorit—

Comments

[John Caradimas]

Heh, heh, heh, I still have my F2A! LoRL

[D.C. Wells]

"Mount Fuji"?

[Oskar Ojala]

Despite being a Nikon user, I have to say that in the picture accompanying the blog post, the D3x looks ugly. Most modern cameras look really bland...

From a photographer's perspective I'd be inclined to favor yesterday's Phase One over this Nikon; the Phase One just has more IQ and the D3x starts to fall apart around ISO 1600 anyway. But this is all just theoretical -- I'm not in the position to spend on either camera.

[Roger Botting]

I have to keep telling my wife that some people (like her sister) have more cheques in their chequebook than we do.
I guess the D3X, except for those who really do use it, is just like that extra expensive watch or sports car or big diamond. Just to say, I have more than you do.
In 2 years, it will be just another obsolete bauble.

[Patrick Snook]

Mike,

How about Valhalla, for a home of the gods?

It resonates with the Harley reference above (and might even bring to mind a turntable from yore).

Patrick

[David Dyer-Bennet]

You know, I don't think I actually want to be so busy that I don't have time to open a new, very shiny toy in my main line of business for an entire month.

Or maybe it's different; maybe it's that I'm never going to be that successful, because I don't have the discipline to focus so much on real essentials for so long.

[Mike Johnston]

Patrick,
That works better! Thanks for the help.

Mike

[Mike Johnston]

David,
I think the issue was that he knew "opening the camera" involved an intensive few days of learning exhaustively how to use it. That's what he was waiting to make time for.

Mike

[John Krumm]

Of course, if you did the same car comparison as yesterday, even this mighty beast would be just about the Kelly Blue Book resale value of my 2004 Honda Accord. A jump from unobtainium to something we could buy if we really, really wanted it.

[Chuck Holst]

My F3 is prettier and lighter, but I haven't used it in years. My FM2 is even lighter, smaller, and less battery-dependent, and for those reasons it was the only camera I used for wilderness trips.

Back then, the F3 was my "big" camera.

[K]

"He was happy to regale me with all the shortcomings of the top amateur Nikon of the era, the F100. "

Funny, that was the most enjoyable camera I've ever owned, my current D7000 included, and the only one I ever regretted selling. So I finally gave in and bought a used one a couple of weeks ago. It works like a charm. Absolutely wonderful for those who still like shooting this thing called... film. :)

[Mike Begley]

So, unobtainium comes in many forms! [ for mortal humans ] And even if you do manage to 'obtain' the unobtainium you still are unable 'operate' it as it contains the contaminant unoperable [ time to.....]. Great.
Adieu
Mike B.

[Crabby Umbo]

...one of the things that sold me on Nikon is that all the top line cameras: 300, 700, probably this as well, shoot .tiff. I like testing cameras so I know what they can do, setting .tiff, shooting a job, and just burning it off and giving it to the client, just like I used to do with transparencies! No shooting RAW, and opening it up and setting everything I could have done in the camera, and then storing it off as .tiff in the end...very helpful in markets where you can't charge for post processing!

[Rob Atkins]

"I think the issue was... involved an intensive few days of learning exhaustively how to use it."

Mike, yes. My copy of David Busch's D3S/D3X Guide is 547 pages.

[The Lazy Aussie]

It is a fairly hideous looking thing.

[Pascal Sauvé]

My D700 was the smartest way to get into FX lenses and as the saying goes : The smart money is always on the lenses.

[Kurt]

I just don't understand this "since I'm not a pro I should not have a pro camera"?
I love to take pictures as a hobby, I have a great job that allows me to buy what I want. So I got a 1Ds Mark III. I am sure most of your readers could take a better photo than I will with much less of a camera. But I take a better shot with my 1Ds than with my 7D and that is what counts.

[Steve Biro]

There's no question Nikon's DSLRs are big, heavy machines - at least above the D70/80/90/7000 level. After decades using film SLRs, I tried a D200 for a week in 2008. I brought it back to Adorama and traded it for a Pentax K200D. Much more my style, despite the Nikon's quality.

Meanwhile, I can relate to the photographer who didn't have time to check out his new camera for a month. I treated myself to a brand-new K-5 (again from Adorama) late last month. But this weekend will be my first opportunity to play with it. I'm not a pro photographer, but I am in the news business. There's got to be a better way.

[Chris]

Mike,
seems you brought yourself into a dilemma already at #10 - if you bring in a Canon camera further up in the list the Nikon fans will cry foul. And if you don't ...

Concerning D3x vs IQ180 - this turns up the question if something more within your reach tends to be more desirable. Quite a lot of people try to refrain from desiring things that are beyond their reach anyway.

And by the way my guess for #1: it could be the camera used for the #1 in your Ten Great Photographs list. OTOH you restricted this list to cameras 'on the planet'... ;-)

[Weng Ho]

Ha, I saw that camera with the 12-24mm attached and found them downright repulsive. I now work with both and they actually felt right and light. I just avoid looking into the mirror when holding them.

[Chuck Kimmerle]

The D3x is not for everybody. It was never intended to be. It's for a niche audience who needs a high pixel count, a good selection of top-quality lenses, and prefers working with a standard, 35mm-style, handheld camera.

As for it's styling...whether or not it's an attractive camera is completely irrelevant. I don't buy cameras because they're pretty, I but them because they work.

[Mark]

Don't forget that the reason cameras like this are so big, beastly, and heavy is because everything is built in. A Nikon F3 or F2AS is at least as heavy and bulky once the requisite motor drive is fitted and all that gets you is automated frame advance. Sophisticated metering and exposure modes didn't exist nor did autofocus.

Did you ever handle a F3AF?

Now that was an ugly, massive, and heavy beast even before you fitted one of the 3 lenses they made for it.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/f3afbasic/index.htm

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Me, I try to avoid desiring things that are within my reach. Because those things pose a clear and present danger (to my bank balance). Desiring a D3x is merely frustrating, not actually dangerous.

[DerekL]

Chuck, I feel the same way - my camera is a tool, not fashion bling. If it feels right in the hand and does the tasks required of it, its styling is irrelevant.

[Robert Burnham]

The D3 is a lame joke in my view, and the D700 is too large as well.

My favorite Nikon? The FE. And that size of camera — i.e., a classic film SLR — has become imprinted on me, surely forever, as being the only proper size for any kind of SLR.

For a DSLR I have a D40, and while I note that it's light in the hand, it's just too big. (And then there are those menus and thumbwheels...)

What I'm hoping for — and firmly expect never to live to see — is a "digital FE." An F-mount DSLR that reads AI lenses, has the FE's capabilities and controls (and no additional ones), and all fits in a package no larger than a D40, preferably smaller.

Leica's done it. What's the holdup with Nikon?

[adrian]

Its not the camera, its the pearson behind the camera. You take the Nikon FA FM2 FM Lieca and the Fuji S2 pro Takes some beating thease oldtimers

[Bruno Masset]

The fact that it's quite possible to rank, in terms of desirability, a Nikon D3X above a PhaseOne IQ180 demonstrates the complex and multi-dimensional interplay of objective parameters — e.g. sensor size, resolution — and other, more abstract product attributes — e.g. usability, reliability, versatility — which ultimately coalesce into a single "desirability" metric.

One can thus draw parallels between cameras and other products with multi-dimensional attributes — e.g. cars; one certainly doesn't expect a strict dependency to exist between engine displacement and a car's desirability or price tag.
Similarly, it would be simplistic to expect or demand that a small-sensor camera — e.g. the Nikon V1 — be always priced below a "higher-rank" camera — e.g. an entry-level DSLR like the Nikon D3100, or to decree e.g. that the fact that the Leica M9-P is priced above the large-sensor Pentax 645D defies marketing "logic".

Let's thus imagine correspondences between the somewhat complex market positioning of some cameras and car models, in terms e.g. of intended audience, features, price, performance, image etc.

An illustrative, obviously totally subjective mapping could look something like this:

• Nikon D3X — Hummer H1
• Nikon D3100 - a solid and reasonable people mover of Asian manufacture that doesn't tickle the senses
• Sony NEX-7 — Audi S4 Avant
• M4/3 — Volkswagen Golf / Audi A3
• Nikon V1 - Mini Cooper S
• Pentax 645D — Mercedes G-class
• Leica S2 — Lamborghini LM-002
• Leica M9-P — Morgan Plus 4
• Phase One IQ180 — Rolls Royce Phantom
• 8x10 view camera — semi-trailer truck
• Compact digital cameras — Kei cars

The Nikon V1 has:

• a magnesium body shell with presumably good haptics — e.g. a solid feel and a nice surface finish. Entry-level DSLRs like the Nikon D3100, OTOH, tend to have plasticky bodies
• hi-res 921K-dot LCD with tempered glass cover — just like the Nikon D3 series. Entry-level DSLRs tend to have lower-resolution LCDs with easier to scratch plastic cover panels
• an Expeed 3 image processing engine that is more powerful than any other current Nikon camera's, D3X included
• autofocus that is at least as fast, if not faster than any Nikon DSLR
• one 2-Gbit Samsung and two 4Gbit Elpida memory chips, for a total RAM capacity equalling or even exceeding that available on the Nikon D3 with the buffer upgrade or the D3s
• a hi-res LCD EVF that is at least as good as any available on a M4/3 camera, and possibly nicer than Panasonic's "sequential" LCD EVF that can suffer from DLP-like "color breaking" with mobile subjects
• advanced CMOS image sensor with built-in phase detection AF, hi-speed on-chip A/D converters, fast and wide fully digital output channels.

I'm thus classifying the Nikon V1 as a "small, but premium" product targeting a market segment that is less price-sensitive, hence the likening to a Mini Cooper S.

I'm pretty sure your ranking of the 10 most desirable cameras could inspire a multitude of automobile correspondences among TOP's readership.

[juze]

God, I want one of these. Wantwantwant. Need? Probably not.

(Note that I'd be perfectly happy with a lesser body with the same sensor, as my shooting has recently shifted from taking pictures of black cats in coal mines to taking pictures of rather lovely people of the female persuasion in bright daylight.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

The Nikon D700 is a HUGE step up from the Fuji S2 pro for me. The S2 pro was already better than film for the work I did.

Technical improvements don't make me a better photographer, no. But they make my photographs better anyway.