Pictured: The very recently introduced Nikon D3X. Compared to other high-end DSLR cameras, this one is all photo and no video (something I personally agree with – pro photo cameras should just do photos).
So how many megapixels do you get with this one? 24.5 to be exact. And it’s big, as in literally big – and it does the full frame FX format. Camera fans know what that means (and yes it’s important).
And yes, this beast is 8000 US dollars. It is the flagship model, after all.
For that kind of cash, it should not only take the best photos possible but also do my laundry and feed my fish.
And you thought Macs were expensive… 
[Source: DVICE]
![Jarte, The Ultimate Lightweight Word Processor? [Video]](/videothumbs/jarte.jpg)
Good call on the lack of video, a camera like this shouldn’t do anything but stills. Not that it matters to most normal folk who can only dream of things this sweet. Of course, a good shot can be made with a much less expensive camera, with the right person behind the lens.
You’re going to get some disagreement from “pro” photogs on whether video belongs in high-end cams. Witness the growing popularity of video on websites. Media delivery is changing, and digital video is quickly becoming more commonplace. Why carry a still cam AND a video cam if one unit will do the job of two? Take a look at the new Canon 5D Mark II–HD video AND 21 megapixel stills from the same cam–list price $2,699 USD for the body only.
I do agree that few will be buying the Nikon for the price they’re trying to get. One look at the Canon I just described and its price is evidence enough that Nikon’s price point is way out of line.
I dunno might still be a better deal than a mac.
lol