Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #6 · I took one more shot at this. |
I admit I haven't seen your threads at Dpreview, but I know it can be a brutal place to voice an opinion because there are a lot of them. The read at your site did provoke a few thoughts for me.
Regarding cost of sensor. Fewer sensors come off of a single wafer-> Each is going to cost more. Not a difficult concept. But the price difference between DX and FX bodies goes far beyond more expensive sensors. Unfortunately, Nikon's goal isn't to bring consumers the most camera for the dollar. Their goal is to make the highest profit. If they can make more $ selling 8,000,000 bodies at a $325/per net profit, rather than 600,000 bodies for $4000/per net, we'll get a cheaper price. If at $4000 profit, they project they can move 750,000 units, they would take that route. This is an extreme example, but in reality, they research the market and set the price where they project it will net them the greatest profit, while keeping the prices aligned in their product line up.
A good friend of mine had a sensor issue in his D3. Nikon replaced his sensor. It was out of warranty and cost him $475. That covered parts/labor/cleaning/calibration/return shipping. So, we don't know how much was the price of the sensor. But the sensor certainly doesn't cost enough justify a $2000(or much more) difference in bodies.
Regarding the price point of the D3x... Is it really worth $3000 over the D3s or $5000 over the D700. The D3x has spent 2 years or so without a peer at the top of the DSLR world. Without a real competitor, Nikon has been able to set the price for that segment of the market.
When the D300 rolled out, it stole the show from the D2x/D2xs. Very nice D2x bodies literally went from $2500 to $1200 in a matter of weeks due to the specs/price of a lower tier body. I would be suprised if D3x bodies were to tumble in value so dramatically due to the D800/E. One can hope though.