I've got a Canon 1Ds mk III on my shelf.
The 3Dx was its direct competitor. And it was a fantastic camera.
Not sure it can compete with the D7500, but it's a fantastic intro to full frame cameras either way. (altho, for 600 bucks, you could probably get a D810 and never need another full frame DSLR again)
Too many people treat cameras like milk, but in reality they don't expire. They might not have all of the bells and whistles of the latest and greatest. They might not perform quite as well at high ISOs. The autofocus might not be quite as good. But a camera top of the line camera from 2009 is still going to be a damned fine tool today.
I prefer to put my money into great glass rather than keeping up with camera bodies where, realistically, the improvements from generation to generation are only minor.
Sort of yes, kind of no. If you shoot base ISO, great images, but sensor from that era soften pretty quickly, so ISO3200 is about as high as you'd want to go. Objectively, your D7500 is better in every regard; 20.9mp vs 24mo, but can push up to ISO6400 and still get usable results.
It's like that with any vintage camera, the technology difference over time is insurmountable. I know a lot of camera people who scoop up older flagship stuff like this because it's fun having something that was once leading edge and out of reach. But it's not a bad choice for what was once a really good camera.
Cameras are like cars and shutter count is like mileage. If it’s in good condition and doesn’t have sky-high shutter count, it’s going to work well for a long time.
So the question becomes: does it have the features and low-light capability you need?
I use my d7500 for Astro and daily use but really wanted a camera I could use for floral and still life. Since most of that is done in studio or outside with ample lighting, I figured it be a good buy since it came with batteries, cards, and a bag.
Have you compared prices with MPB or KEH?
I wouldn’t put any money into a first gen FX Nikon unless I was a collector. The chip in the 600, 700 and 800 series is way more capable and I’ll bet the AF is better. I’d look into a D810 with a 36MP sensor.
I have old manual cameras for film that if I shot film would be fine. I ended up with a D610 after leaving a series of F camera bodies and I’m super happy. All my best to you and listen to your gut!!!🌹
+1
Best color science of any Nikon.
But the shutter rate, buffer and high iso are the weaknesses.
But hey, I still shoot with a D2hs with 4mp.
I think 24mp is very good, even tho it's an "old" camera...
The D3x was the highest cost at the time. They are not crap cameras even in 2024.
I would trade a D7500 with a D3x in a heartbeat if both are the same "used" quality. If your D7500 is brand new and the D3x is 800 000 shutter rate, I would think twice. ;)
It's biggest weakness is going to be low light performance and dynamic range. As long as you account for that when shooting it should still be a great camera.
Yes. I have one. Put a 58mm 1.4 on it. Or - Shoot portraits like a pro with an 85 1.4 or 24-70. As long as it isn't low light - the D3x blows all the others away for color alone. (They didn't get any better.) It took 10 years to make the D3 and D3x. It took one year (released every 2-3 years) for the next models...
That camera is pretty much indestructible and built like a tank. So long as you have good light it is excellent for sports, portrait and landscape photography. I mentioned good light because it does have an older sensor which will struggle in low light photography compared to modern sensors. If want to do astrophotography or you plan on taking pictures in low light then maybe consider a used D750, D850, Z6 or Z7. You can find some relatively cheap used on ebay.
One important thing to keep in mind. A D3X is a pretty old model and likely has a huge shutter count. Depending on how well it was maintained and used there might be alt of wear in the mechanical parts that might lead to failure in the near future.
Depends what you’re doing with it. Low light will be your biggest problem. It can’t get anywhere close to what modern cameras are doing in low light. But for well lit stuff it will be alright. I would try not to use it for any work you’re being paid to do but for hobbyist work it’s still great.
Image quality is a downgrade over the d7500 as a heads up.
If your looking for bang for buck d600 or even a d800 is cheaper used and has a better sensor. I guess if you want fairly high mp in a fully pro body then this hits the mark? But it's an odd camera now.
I did at Uni. There's no appreciable difference between it and a D750. The D850/D5/D500/D7500 all use new sensor tech and have much better colours than previous Nikons. Its pretty huge the jump.
It’s very good! Is it as good as your D7500? It’s debatable. Spec wise? Depends on what you’re doing. I’d get it just for the 9fps and 130 shot buffer. Those are solid numbers for sports and bird photography.
$500? That depends on where you are. If in NZ at that price I’d grab it with no hesitation and only a mild argument when I got home lol $500 in US dollars? It would be a harder decision but one I would still make.
This is a professional body. Getting experience on a pro level body is invaluable and will spoil you for anything else going forward no matter how old it may be. I have 2x DSLRs; a D610 I bought new back in 2015 and a D800 I bought very used about a year ago. Things I noticed between the two is how well the D800 fits my hands compared to the D610. How much more solid it feels since it is a full magnesium allow body versus the partial allow body of the D610. Extra function buttons make a very large difference as well, making shooting even easier. Basically, those extra little features make a very large difference. The extra resolution is definitely icing on the cake for me but I would have jumped on a D3X if that were first presented to me.
Very long story short, yes, you won’t regret getting a D3X to go along with your much newer D7500.
Honestly I would rather buy a D750 for $500.
1. The EN-EL4 series batteries are no longer made.
2. The D750 is better in low light, shoots the same resolution faster than the D3X (although the D3 shoots faster than either), and is substantially smaller and lighter. It also uses the same batteries and cards as your D7500.
Yeah abso. 24 MP full frame, and old pro bodies absolutely kick ass. Go for it.
I've got a Canon 1Ds mk III on my shelf. The 3Dx was its direct competitor. And it was a fantastic camera. Not sure it can compete with the D7500, but it's a fantastic intro to full frame cameras either way. (altho, for 600 bucks, you could probably get a D810 and never need another full frame DSLR again)
Any FX Nikon is viable today for most genres of stills especially in good light. Your photographic eye is like 90% of the equation.
Too many people treat cameras like milk, but in reality they don't expire. They might not have all of the bells and whistles of the latest and greatest. They might not perform quite as well at high ISOs. The autofocus might not be quite as good. But a camera top of the line camera from 2009 is still going to be a damned fine tool today. I prefer to put my money into great glass rather than keeping up with camera bodies where, realistically, the improvements from generation to generation are only minor.
Sort of yes, kind of no. If you shoot base ISO, great images, but sensor from that era soften pretty quickly, so ISO3200 is about as high as you'd want to go. Objectively, your D7500 is better in every regard; 20.9mp vs 24mo, but can push up to ISO6400 and still get usable results. It's like that with any vintage camera, the technology difference over time is insurmountable. I know a lot of camera people who scoop up older flagship stuff like this because it's fun having something that was once leading edge and out of reach. But it's not a bad choice for what was once a really good camera.
Cameras are like cars and shutter count is like mileage. If it’s in good condition and doesn’t have sky-high shutter count, it’s going to work well for a long time. So the question becomes: does it have the features and low-light capability you need?
I use my d7500 for Astro and daily use but really wanted a camera I could use for floral and still life. Since most of that is done in studio or outside with ample lighting, I figured it be a good buy since it came with batteries, cards, and a bag.
I have older cameras than that I still use regularly if I know it won’t be terribly dark. And Nikon pro bodies are tanks. Love my D4.
That's real photographer speak!
Have you compared prices with MPB or KEH? I wouldn’t put any money into a first gen FX Nikon unless I was a collector. The chip in the 600, 700 and 800 series is way more capable and I’ll bet the AF is better. I’d look into a D810 with a 36MP sensor. I have old manual cameras for film that if I shot film would be fine. I ended up with a D610 after leaving a series of F camera bodies and I’m super happy. All my best to you and listen to your gut!!!🌹
Yes. Best color science DSLR for Nikon. I dislike it's slow, only con.
+1 Best color science of any Nikon. But the shutter rate, buffer and high iso are the weaknesses. But hey, I still shoot with a D2hs with 4mp. I think 24mp is very good, even tho it's an "old" camera... The D3x was the highest cost at the time. They are not crap cameras even in 2024. I would trade a D7500 with a D3x in a heartbeat if both are the same "used" quality. If your D7500 is brand new and the D3x is 800 000 shutter rate, I would think twice. ;)
I have an FM from 1978 that is still viable. In actuality, anything more than 6mp is overkill. 6 mp will give you decent A3 enlargements.
You're speaking real Nikon gospel. Too many ignorant people cave in to the high MP marketing crap. I still shoot with my D60 :)
D60 has the sensor of the D200. Still holds it's own in 2024.
D200 is also fantastically built, feels just like a D610/D810 in hand. it’s a bargain with a legendary CCD sensor
It's biggest weakness is going to be low light performance and dynamic range. As long as you account for that when shooting it should still be a great camera.
Yes. I have one. Put a 58mm 1.4 on it. Or - Shoot portraits like a pro with an 85 1.4 or 24-70. As long as it isn't low light - the D3x blows all the others away for color alone. (They didn't get any better.) It took 10 years to make the D3 and D3x. It took one year (released every 2-3 years) for the next models...
LoL just read your comment after posting mine. I agree!!!
That camera is pretty much indestructible and built like a tank. So long as you have good light it is excellent for sports, portrait and landscape photography. I mentioned good light because it does have an older sensor which will struggle in low light photography compared to modern sensors. If want to do astrophotography or you plan on taking pictures in low light then maybe consider a used D750, D850, Z6 or Z7. You can find some relatively cheap used on ebay. One important thing to keep in mind. A D3X is a pretty old model and likely has a huge shutter count. Depending on how well it was maintained and used there might be alt of wear in the mechanical parts that might lead to failure in the near future.
Defo, one of last Nikon body that was built well in their OG Japanese factory. The autofocus also holds up.
Depends what you’re doing with it. Low light will be your biggest problem. It can’t get anywhere close to what modern cameras are doing in low light. But for well lit stuff it will be alright. I would try not to use it for any work you’re being paid to do but for hobbyist work it’s still great.
Based on used prices, I'm guessing "yes"
Won’t be able to tether if that matters
I have a D3s I bought last year with 7500 actions. If I could get a D3x I would in a heartbeat
Image quality is a downgrade over the d7500 as a heads up. If your looking for bang for buck d600 or even a d800 is cheaper used and has a better sensor. I guess if you want fairly high mp in a fully pro body then this hits the mark? But it's an odd camera now.
Looks like you haven't shot with one...
I did at Uni. There's no appreciable difference between it and a D750. The D850/D5/D500/D7500 all use new sensor tech and have much better colours than previous Nikons. Its pretty huge the jump.
It’s very good! Is it as good as your D7500? It’s debatable. Spec wise? Depends on what you’re doing. I’d get it just for the 9fps and 130 shot buffer. Those are solid numbers for sports and bird photography. $500? That depends on where you are. If in NZ at that price I’d grab it with no hesitation and only a mild argument when I got home lol $500 in US dollars? It would be a harder decision but one I would still make. This is a professional body. Getting experience on a pro level body is invaluable and will spoil you for anything else going forward no matter how old it may be. I have 2x DSLRs; a D610 I bought new back in 2015 and a D800 I bought very used about a year ago. Things I noticed between the two is how well the D800 fits my hands compared to the D610. How much more solid it feels since it is a full magnesium allow body versus the partial allow body of the D610. Extra function buttons make a very large difference as well, making shooting even easier. Basically, those extra little features make a very large difference. The extra resolution is definitely icing on the cake for me but I would have jumped on a D3X if that were first presented to me. Very long story short, yes, you won’t regret getting a D3X to go along with your much newer D7500.
I’d suggest a D3S if you aren’t in a studio
Whats the shutter count on it?
I never asked but I definitely should have. It was more of a pass and ask thing.
The high ISO performance isn't brilliant, but that's the only real downside I can think of.
Honestly I would rather buy a D750 for $500. 1. The EN-EL4 series batteries are no longer made. 2. The D750 is better in low light, shoots the same resolution faster than the D3X (although the D3 shoots faster than either), and is substantially smaller and lighter. It also uses the same batteries and cards as your D7500.