Mel Gross
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.168 #1 · Canon 5D Mark II master thread | |
skibum5 wrote:
Mel Gross wrote:
lexvo wrote:
Mel Gross wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
There is a preview/commentary from Thom Hogan:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm
RDKirk wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't seen at least one basic review by some site as yet, now that the camera is available. It's hard to believe that they haven't had a sample for some time.
They would have had pre-production cameras, so those results would not have been reliable. DPReview, Galbraith, and others have confirmed in the past that Canon doesn't get production cameras to them any more quickly than real customers get them.
I posted an earlier piece from him, but hadn't seen this one yet.
WELL!
He's not too happy, is he? He says almost exactly what I've been saying all along, in a more general way.
People here should really read this. not to value MY views, but because for those who think that Canon has screwed the pooth, it can be seen that Nikon has done so, but even more often, and worse.
Things are really getting interesting, aren't they?
This means that whatever Canon does do will be mitigated by the reaction to the D3x, which from this article, doesn't look as though it will be good. Also, it's interesting to have confirmed what my old clients have been telling me, which is that the D3 ain't doing too well.
That's a very interesting article of Thom Hogan indeed.
Like you said, it confirms "the grass is always greener".
And what suprised me most was that the D3 isn't doing very well in sales. Is he (Thom) right about this? With all the discussions here on the Canon forums I got the impression the D3 was doing very well.
I keep in touch with a number of my old clients from when I ran my lab. No, it doesn't seem to be doing too well. I've been told by more than one, that they were disappointed in the resolution of the D2, and that the D700 suits the needs of most pro's.
With all the criticism of Canon's pricing and feature policies, it seems that Nikon's way of doing it with the D3/700 is hurting them badly.
I know that some people want top features in a much less expensive body, but it's not a good way to market a line. Too many D700 sales are killing the sales of the D3, which isn't a good thing. it just hurts the bottom line of the company, which impacts their R&D as well as future models.
Now, they are trying to make up for it with this high pricing. Considering that the only difference is a higher pixel count sensor, with poorer specs in the noise and dynamic departments (otherwise, why would the ISO limits be so much less?), as well as in the fps specs, what are photogs getting for $3000 more? Thom is wondering about that with no good answer. That's why it's a bad idea to have the same bodies at wildly different pricing, or the same specs at wildly different pricing.
Canon will be looking at this very closely, we can be sure. As the 5D mkII pre-sales are so much higher than they expected, they can now relax.
I think we can too.
unless the D700 sales and the migration it helped to attract and then the attendant extra lens sales ends up more than making up for the loss to the D3, which MIGHT be the case.
That's always possible, but I doubt it. It assumes that photogs would be buying a much cheaper body, and then buying more lenses than they would otherwise. Why could that be assumed?
If they were trying to save money in the first place, and they know what they need, why would they buy more?
|
