the new Nikon D2X and Fuji S3 Pro both appear to be very high quality 12MP+ pro user level cameras. Indeed they share about 85% of common components and for the most part were co developed along with Kodak and Olympus. The Fuji even uses Nikon lenses and other peripherals and in general there is very little to choose between the two.

except the price.

I did a little shopping around and typical prices for the camera bodies are £1334.50 for the Fuji versus a whopping £3059.99 for the Nikon. A 130% mark up is a lot to swallow for a brand name especially when Fuji isnt exactly an unknown in the digital SLR field.

There are several differences between the two, ones that make the D2X far more appealing, despite the higher price. The D2X has a top continuous speed of 8 fps (5 fps at full resolution), the S3 is only 2.5 fps The S3's flash sync is only 1/180, while I have not been able to find the D2X's sync speed, I am assuming it's around 1/250. The D2X is built like the F5/D1/D1H/D1X/D2H cameras, and boasts a magnesium alloy shell, not a plastic one like the S3. These differences alone would sway me towards the Nikon, as they are pretty important omissions on the S3's part.

While I think Nikon had good intentions with the D2X, Canon has once again eclipsed them completely with the new 16.7MP, full frame 1Ds Mark II.

The problem with the Fuji S3 is that the CCD is a true 6.2 but extrapolated to the higher MGP level which is common with the Fuji systems. And I agree with brphoto. The Nikons have a high durability level, as the Olympus and the Canons. I have a E20. And have done every thing but drop it in water and it has held up well. My D100 has also held up well. But I say my F4 is the tops that darn thing has been banged, dropped and soaked, and been on many a snow hike in the California mountains and has held up quit well,

The D2X's Flash Sync is 1/250 and it has a slightly smaller ISO range than the Fuji. also the S3 body is moulded polycarbonate - still plastic i grant you but not exactly a cheap alternative as Fuji says this is for usability reasons with the S3 body coming in at almost half the weight of the D2X. As I understand it Fuji's twin 6.17MP Super CCD technology works in a completely different way to the Nikon with different shape and size pixels to attain their figures so I guess it would be hard to attain a direct on paper comparison with them.

I guess what i'm saying is that these differences still dont add up to the big mark up here as the Nikon's functions appear to be limited by its resolution. more investigation may be required. whilst I'm sure the Nikon is a better camera on some levels, is the end product more than 130% better than the Fuji? not so much I think :-)

Another option would be to mortgage the house and go for a Creo (Scitex) Alteo Digital camera who's true 22MP technology fairly blows the rest - even the Canon - firmly out of the water. but thats just silly.

Agreed, if you look at it from an end result/image quality perspective the differences become less evident, however, I feel that the functionality and quality of the actual hardware is almost important as the resulting image. If you botch an otherwise excellent shot due to a consumer-level flash sync speed (1/180 is unacceptable for a pro level body), image quality doesn’t matter...

I havent actually seen any results from an S3 yet but I have seen a landscape shot taken with a D2X and to be fair the level of detail capture was astounding. I must admit to being pretty ignorant to the higher end technical issues of camera technology as it's not what I do so I tend to look at things in a very black and white fashion so it's good to get some feedback from someone who obviously knows what they are talking about :-)

Take a look at Canon's images from their new 1Ds MkII, they are absolutly stunning!

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II website

stunning they are but at almost twice the price of the Nikon they'd have to be! :-)

Wow. That looks like one heck of a camera... now if only I could win the money someplace to buy me one ;)