Nikon D3X by Kenrockwell

If you're making mural-sized gallery prints, the Nikon D3X has the world's highest image quality of any Oriental digital camera. Not only does it have more resolution than anything else, it has better quality in JPG than Canon's very best shooting in raw.
For normal use, like printing images merely several feet (meters) wide, the D3 is a better camera because it runs twice as fast, allows ISOs four times higher, and costs half as much. Otherwise, the D3 and D3X are identical cameras.
Since I don't shoot sports, I'd love to trade my D3 for a D3X because the D3X gives sharper images at least as clean as the D3 at any resolution and ISO up through ISO 6,400, but since the difference is minor, and the price of the D3X is double, I'll have nothing to do with the D3X.
The $8,000 price of the D3X is a rip off. It's the same camera as the D3, with a slightly different sensor that merely divides the light into a few more buckets more slowly than the D3. It's the same thing, and since the D3X is only worth about $5,200, you won't see me paying $8,000 for it.
The D3X is a total no-big-deal. It's not even 24.4MP; Nikon is playing a psychological ploy by accidentally mis-stating the resolution as 24.5MP. Multiply 6,048 x 4,032 and see how many pixels you get.
The D3X is exactly the same as the Nikon D3, just with more pixels and much slower frame rates and ISOs. Want to know everything else? See my D3 review; I'll spare you from repeating everything again here.
The D3X is exactly as my 2-year-old predicted back in 2007, except that Nikon goofed on the price.
Nikon wants eight grand for this $5,200 camera, based solely on image quality, however the D3X' image quality ought to be about the same as (maybe worse than) the $2,700 Canon 5D Mark II. The D3X ergonomics are far superior to Canon, but the D3 has the same ergonomics as the D3X, but for half the price and with twice the frame rate and four times the ISO of the D3X.
So it goes.
As we all knew a year ago, the old D3 remains the top choice for news, action, low-light and sports, while the D3X is Nikon's first digital camera ever that may have enough resolution to be a suitable camera for serious landscape and nature photography.
Heck, this is the first time since Canon entered the DSLR game behind Nikon that any Nikon has had more pixels than anything from Canon, although we'll wait to see until Nikon can actually start shipping these to real customers.
The only thing new in the D3X, besides more pixels, optional reversed text in the menu system and a slower frame rate and ISO range, is an AUTO position for ADR (Automatic Dynamic Range). With the D3, I simply left ADR set to Normal, but with the D3X, just like the D700, I'd use Auto.
Everything else is exactly the same. Boring!
What really is a big pile of suck is that the ergonomics are left over from 2007. Nothing has been improved over the old D3, as it has on newer cameras like the D90 and D700. The D90 and D700 have dedicated INFO buttons and smarter firmware which let me get to things, like Picture Controls, faster than I can on the D3X. Poo!
Let me reiterate why this is poo. For the past 60 years that Nikon's been making cameras, every time Nikon introduces a new camera, even though it's often a cheaper model than the one before, there are always one or two clever new minor features which add greatly to the usefulness of the new camera.
The dedicated INFO buttons of the D90 and D700 over the older D3 and D300 are the latest examples of this. Today, the D3X offers no improvements over the D3, in fact, it's worse than the D700 and D90 since it still is the same as the older D3. I was at least hoping Nikon would add the better controls of the D90 and D700 in the D3X, but they totally missed this boat. 

data from : http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm