Both the Luminous Landscape and Nikon blogger Thom Hogan have weighed in on the new Nikon D3x -- the 24mpx DSLR that Nikon has aimed at pulling in the medium format market -- and Michael Reichmann and Hogan have concluded that the market positioning for this $8000 ticket item isn't there.

Hogan writes:

The Price
Bottom line: 12 million more pixels will set you back US$3000.

We can't talk about the D3x without talking about the D3 and pricing. D3 prices have been collapsing for some time. That's despite the fact that Nikon has not lowered the price to dealers (at least here in the US; not 100% sure about the rest of the world). That's a sign of very weak demand, as in at least one advertised price I could find, the dealer was selling below what they paid for the product. Now we get a camera that is really only different in the sensor (and FX sensors cost basically the same to manufacturer, no matter what the pixel count on them [yes, there's probably a modest yield difference, but not enough to justify much of a price change]), yet we have a substantive price increase. Anyone else see the problem with this picture? Nikon's asking us to pay more for the equivalent. I say equivalent because you can look at it this way: you can buy the same camera with either high ISO and dynamic range improvements, or you can have it with more pixels. For some reason, more pixels costs US$3000. Really?

Read:

• Thom Hogan: The D3x Commentary
• Luminous Landscape: Nikon D3 Announced : Pricing Comment Update Added