This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
p.7 #1Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
pass... don't need a 36mp sensor camera.
Nov 23, 2011 at 01:35 PM
p.7 #2Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Perhaps you were looking for the Nikon 1 thread? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The rumored D800 is said to have dimensions that, according to current speculation, are supposed to be almost identical to those of the D700.
Actually, some say that it is substantially smaller.
ulrikft2 wrote
The question is how much smaller.The rumored D800 is said to have dimensions that, according to current speculation, are supposed to be almost identical to those of the D700.
Actually, some say that it is substantially smaller.
Nov 23, 2011 at 02:13 PM
p.7 #3Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
The rumored D800 is said to have dimensions that, according to current speculation, are supposed to be almost identical to those of the D700.
ulrikft2 wrote:
Actually, some say that it is substantially smaller.
Link, or source, please?
The rumored D800 is said to have dimensions that, according to current speculation, are supposed to be almost identical to those of the D700.
ulrikft2 wrote:
Actually, some say that it is substantially smaller.
Link, or source, please?
Nov 23, 2011 at 02:30 PM
p.7 #4Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Perhaps you were looking for the Nikon 1 thread? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The rumored D800 is said to have dimensions that, according to current speculation, are supposed to be almost identical to those of the D700.
Nah, it is rumored that the D800 will have shape shifting qualities that will fit perfectly on any one that holds it. This is called variable size enlarger or VSE. So stop bickering on the size. It is 99.9999% true.
ulrikft2 wrote
The question is how much smaller.The rumored D800 is said to have dimensions that, according to current speculation, are supposed to be almost identical to those of the D700.
Nah, it is rumored that the D800 will have shape shifting qualities that will fit perfectly on any one that holds it. This is called variable size enlarger or VSE. So stop bickering on the size. It is 99.9999% true.
Nov 23, 2011 at 05:50 PM
p.7 #5Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
patriot wrote:
A true successor to the D700 will not be solely about MP's, and low light/high ISO performance, which defined the D700, will be a big factor in a D800.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
There will be no "true successor" to anything. Do you have the faintest idea of how business works? What you'll see from Nikon is the "next camera in the $XXXX bracket for the YYYY market segment". Though you say that personal opinion has nothing to do with it, all of your pronouncements about what will or will not be a big factor in the next camera are based entirely on your personal opinion and preference.
Thanks for setting me straight on that, since I've been involved in "business" for the last 30 years, working in consumer products, in brand management, with categories and products that share, at least I had thought, many similarities with camera gear. Such as high brand loyalty, trade up, model segmentation, and forums like this with endless debates about which brand is better, etc. In some categories and products, my competitors include some of the Japanese companies that also market cameras. Over the years I've had the pleasure to be involved with, or manage, more than a few billion dollar brands, most of which are international market leaders with the #1 or #2 share in their respective categories. Dumb luck I guess ...
Your insights are remarkable, however, and could revolutionize modern brand management as we know it. With no successors, and such breathtakingly simple segmentation strategies as "next camera in the $XXXX bracket for the YYYY market segment", we could save tens of millions of dollars annually on research, developing brand positioning, model strategies and evolution, marketing, etc. Brilliant!
Here I was, thinking Nikon might be applying some of the same methodology commonly used in brand planning, feebly trying to consider what other like Japanese companies do, and looking at what Nikon has done historically ... when in reality, all I was really doing was presenting my "personal opinion and preference".
The D700 was a small-form-factor D3, a fully-professional camera with all the bells and whistles, plus a removable grip. It had the weathersealing, the AF engine, the sensor, and everything else from the D3 except 1 FPS, but it cost half as much. It was a new camera segment for Nikon. That you can oversimply all of that into something as basic as "low light/high ISO performance [...] defined the D700" is simply amazing, and should tell you that you're clearly missing something.
Well, for all your brilliance, we can see that reading comprehension is not a strong point. But all geniuses have a few minor "opportunities", as they say. Let me help you, if one so plebeian at myself may be so bold. You have nicely tallied up the key attributes that defined the D700 ... one of which I had highlighted for the point of discussion: high ISO performance. (Hint: it would indeed have been oversimplification if I has said "only" defining attribute.)
So let us stipulate that your list is the ipso facto definitive list of defining attributes that made the D700 successful. Notice something missing? Of course you do: high resolution. This is the point I was making, so please help me here as this thought hurts my brain to ponder: If the D700 does not have high resolution as a defining key attribute, and yet tens of thousands of people bought them, continue to buy them, and sing its praise, would having the maximum available MP's on a successor .. oops ... ah ... random body that could for appearance sake only occupy the D700's space in a brand line up .... be the one significant, defining attribute Nikon chooses to enhance to the utmost possible degree?
You see, all my experience and training, all of course which has been proven wrong by you, erroneously led me to believe that, based on what appeared to time honored model segmentation strategies Nikon had been following, the replacement (sorry) for the D700 would place emphasis on clear evolutionary development in the key attributes you so cleverly detailed above ... What the poster I was responding to seemed to be suggesting was that Nikon could instead make a revolutionary change in one attribute that did not define the D700, high resolution, while not enhancing, or even possibly taking a step backwards, on all the key attributes that did define the D700.
Whether Nikon emphasizes more MP, higher ISO, or more-recyclable materials in the next $3000-class FX camera is up to Nikon. I will bet money, though, that you get more MP than the D700 and higher ISO performance when printed at the same size. Either one alone is progress, whether you like it or not. Getting both is a dream come true.
Again, brilliant! Others may say your stating the obvious, but we know better, don't we? My money is on the table ... more MP's and improved high ISO performance! I'll take 2!
Which leads back to the point I was making, which you so kindly responded to: how high will Nikon go on MP's, and at what expense to those other pesky defining attributes you listed? Is it 18? 24? 36? The other poster seemed suggest that 36 is the way to go, damn the rest, and that, and only that, is progress.
My mind keeps wondering back to what I know ... er, knew, to be on how these things are (had been?) done. Following that flawed thinking, I saw Nikon doing the old fashioned (thanks to you) boring methodical conservative approach: emphasis on those attributes that defined the D700, and then another model for those with ubber-MP needs. You see, in the now old way of thinking, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to attract, convert, and maintain customers in the franchise. We keep them in the franchise through model evolution, giving them more of what they want, and less of what they don't want. If we can do it all in one package, great. But that plays in the $$$$ thing you detailed above. "All in one" usually means higher cost to manufacture, resulting in more $$$ for the customer, which can mean less $$$ for the manufacturer, depending on competitive choices and pricing. More models ... now that can mean more $$$ for me, and a better product for you (jack of all trades, master if none ring a bell?).
What do think it would cost at retail for a D800 that advanced all the key attributes you defined, and at the same time offered the ultimate in resolution, 36 Mp's? What a minute ... it's coming to me ... maybe THAT is why Canon's 5D uses an entry level AF and consumer grade body! I guess Nikon is to smart to do that, eh?
A true successor to the D700 will not be solely about MP's, and low light/high ISO performance, which defined the D700, will be a big factor in a D800.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
There will be no "true successor" to anything. Do you have the faintest idea of how business works? What you'll see from Nikon is the "next camera in the $XXXX bracket for the YYYY market segment". Though you say that personal opinion has nothing to do with it, all of your pronouncements about what will or will not be a big factor in the next camera are based entirely on your personal opinion and preference.
Thanks for setting me straight on that, since I've been involved in "business" for the last 30 years, working in consumer products, in brand management, with categories and products that share, at least I had thought, many similarities with camera gear. Such as high brand loyalty, trade up, model segmentation, and forums like this with endless debates about which brand is better, etc. In some categories and products, my competitors include some of the Japanese companies that also market cameras. Over the years I've had the pleasure to be involved with, or manage, more than a few billion dollar brands, most of which are international market leaders with the #1 or #2 share in their respective categories. Dumb luck I guess ...
Your insights are remarkable, however, and could revolutionize modern brand management as we know it. With no successors, and such breathtakingly simple segmentation strategies as "next camera in the $XXXX bracket for the YYYY market segment", we could save tens of millions of dollars annually on research, developing brand positioning, model strategies and evolution, marketing, etc. Brilliant!
Here I was, thinking Nikon might be applying some of the same methodology commonly used in brand planning, feebly trying to consider what other like Japanese companies do, and looking at what Nikon has done historically ... when in reality, all I was really doing was presenting my "personal opinion and preference".
The D700 was a small-form-factor D3, a fully-professional camera with all the bells and whistles, plus a removable grip. It had the weathersealing, the AF engine, the sensor, and everything else from the D3 except 1 FPS, but it cost half as much. It was a new camera segment for Nikon. That you can oversimply all of that into something as basic as "low light/high ISO performance [...] defined the D700" is simply amazing, and should tell you that you're clearly missing something.
Well, for all your brilliance, we can see that reading comprehension is not a strong point. But all geniuses have a few minor "opportunities", as they say. Let me help you, if one so plebeian at myself may be so bold. You have nicely tallied up the key attributes that defined the D700 ... one of which I had highlighted for the point of discussion: high ISO performance. (Hint: it would indeed have been oversimplification if I has said "only" defining attribute.)
So let us stipulate that your list is the ipso facto definitive list of defining attributes that made the D700 successful. Notice something missing? Of course you do: high resolution. This is the point I was making, so please help me here as this thought hurts my brain to ponder: If the D700 does not have high resolution as a defining key attribute, and yet tens of thousands of people bought them, continue to buy them, and sing its praise, would having the maximum available MP's on a successor .. oops ... ah ... random body that could for appearance sake only occupy the D700's space in a brand line up .... be the one significant, defining attribute Nikon chooses to enhance to the utmost possible degree?
You see, all my experience and training, all of course which has been proven wrong by you, erroneously led me to believe that, based on what appeared to time honored model segmentation strategies Nikon had been following, the replacement (sorry) for the D700 would place emphasis on clear evolutionary development in the key attributes you so cleverly detailed above ... What the poster I was responding to seemed to be suggesting was that Nikon could instead make a revolutionary change in one attribute that did not define the D700, high resolution, while not enhancing, or even possibly taking a step backwards, on all the key attributes that did define the D700.
Whether Nikon emphasizes more MP, higher ISO, or more-recyclable materials in the next $3000-class FX camera is up to Nikon. I will bet money, though, that you get more MP than the D700 and higher ISO performance when printed at the same size. Either one alone is progress, whether you like it or not. Getting both is a dream come true.
Again, brilliant! Others may say your stating the obvious, but we know better, don't we? My money is on the table ... more MP's and improved high ISO performance! I'll take 2!
Which leads back to the point I was making, which you so kindly responded to: how high will Nikon go on MP's, and at what expense to those other pesky defining attributes you listed? Is it 18? 24? 36? The other poster seemed suggest that 36 is the way to go, damn the rest, and that, and only that, is progress.
My mind keeps wondering back to what I know ... er, knew, to be on how these things are (had been?) done. Following that flawed thinking, I saw Nikon doing the old fashioned (thanks to you) boring methodical conservative approach: emphasis on those attributes that defined the D700, and then another model for those with ubber-MP needs. You see, in the now old way of thinking, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to attract, convert, and maintain customers in the franchise. We keep them in the franchise through model evolution, giving them more of what they want, and less of what they don't want. If we can do it all in one package, great. But that plays in the $$$$ thing you detailed above. "All in one" usually means higher cost to manufacture, resulting in more $$$ for the customer, which can mean less $$$ for the manufacturer, depending on competitive choices and pricing. More models ... now that can mean more $$$ for me, and a better product for you (jack of all trades, master if none ring a bell?).
What do think it would cost at retail for a D800 that advanced all the key attributes you defined, and at the same time offered the ultimate in resolution, 36 Mp's? What a minute ... it's coming to me ... maybe THAT is why Canon's 5D uses an entry level AF and consumer grade body! I guess Nikon is to smart to do that, eh?
Nov 24, 2011 at 09:16 AM
p.7 #6Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Considering that:
(a) the D700 cost more to make than the 5D Mark II;
(b) sold for the same price as the 5D Mark II;
(c) sold in fewer numbers than the 5D Mark II; and
(d) hurt high-end Nikon sales more than the 5D Mark II hurt high-end Canon sales,
I think there's a good argument to be made that the D700 successor will adopt a slightly different tack. Specifically, a high-res sensor and less emphasis on costly flat-out performance.
Canon's autofocus and body quality in the 5D Mark II are far from entry-level, but even if you think that, those things weren't traded off because the sensor costs more. Higher resolution sensors don't cost appreciably more to manufacture than lower resolution sensors of the same size. Instead, Canon traded off those features because they knew they could out-sell the D700 regardless of those features, since they could offer higher resolution and video.
The 5D Mark II was an unprecedented success for Canon. Nikon would be daft to ignore that success.
(a) the D700 cost more to make than the 5D Mark II;
(b) sold for the same price as the 5D Mark II;
(c) sold in fewer numbers than the 5D Mark II; and
(d) hurt high-end Nikon sales more than the 5D Mark II hurt high-end Canon sales,
I think there's a good argument to be made that the D700 successor will adopt a slightly different tack. Specifically, a high-res sensor and less emphasis on costly flat-out performance.
Canon's autofocus and body quality in the 5D Mark II are far from entry-level, but even if you think that, those things weren't traded off because the sensor costs more. Higher resolution sensors don't cost appreciably more to manufacture than lower resolution sensors of the same size. Instead, Canon traded off those features because they knew they could out-sell the D700 regardless of those features, since they could offer higher resolution and video.
The 5D Mark II was an unprecedented success for Canon. Nikon would be daft to ignore that success.
Nov 24, 2011 at 10:10 AM
p.7 #7Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
lxdesign wrote:
pass... don't need a 36mp sensor camera.
I can always consider that step once I master my D7k
In the meantime I will concentrate on developing my skills. Plenty of room for improvement there
Tim
pass... don't need a 36mp sensor camera.
I can always consider that step once I master my D7k
In the meantime I will concentrate on developing my skills. Plenty of room for improvement there
Tim
Nov 24, 2011 at 03:45 PM
p.7 #8Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
I'd rather have the 36 MP and crop down to 16 (or something in between) when needed, especially if the body is the nice D700 size.
EBH
EBH
Nov 24, 2011 at 04:41 PM
p.7 #9Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
EB-1 wrote:
I'd rather have the 36 MP and crop down to 16 (or something in between) when needed, especially if the body is the nice D700 size.
EBH
+1. This is what I love about the D3x.
I'd rather have the 36 MP and crop down to 16 (or something in between) when needed, especially if the body is the nice D700 size.
EBH
+1. This is what I love about the D3x.
Nov 24, 2011 at 04:45 PM
p.7 #10Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Specularist wrote:
Considering that:
(a) the D700 cost more to make than the 5D Mark II;
(b) sold for the same price as the 5D Mark II;
(c) sold in fewer numbers than the 5D Mark II; and
(d) hurt high-end Nikon sales more than the 5D Mark II hurt high-end Canon sales,
out-sell the D700 regardless of those features, since they could offer higher resolution and video.
What is your source for the data above?
Considering that:
(a) the D700 cost more to make than the 5D Mark II;
(b) sold for the same price as the 5D Mark II;
(c) sold in fewer numbers than the 5D Mark II; and
(d) hurt high-end Nikon sales more than the 5D Mark II hurt high-end Canon sales,
out-sell the D700 regardless of those features, since they could offer higher resolution and video.
What is your source for the data above?
Nov 24, 2011 at 07:39 PM
p.7 #12Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Specularist wrote:
Considering that:
(a) the D700 cost more to make than the 5D Mark II;
(b) sold for the same price as the 5D Mark II;
(c) sold in fewer numbers than the 5D Mark II; and
(d) hurt high-end Nikon sales more than the 5D Mark II hurt high-end Canon sales,
Makes sense that the D700 would cost more to make, given it's build quality, components, and smaller production run. As for cost, can't remember where they started out, but the D700 is $2,700 to the 5D's $2,300 at B&H. The 5D has more mass consumer appeal than the D700, IHO, because the high MP's. As DSLR's have grown in popularity among the general public, I have seen a fair number of 5D's in the hands of soccer moms and dads, while never seeing a D700, for example. Purely anecdotal of course. As for your last point, I have no idea on that. Do you? On a limited set of data points, it seems to me that many D3 owners also own D700's, while the 1Ds MkIII is not nearly as much a topic for posts here and on FM. Not disputing your point, just making an observation that perhaps the 5D did indeed have a big impact on the 1Ds.
I think there's a good argument to be made that the D700 successor will adopt a slightly different tack. Specifically, a high-res sensor and less emphasis on costly flat-out performance.
Very possible. My POV is that would be a model strategy blunder, akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nikon, in MHO should and can easily launch a new body model to complete with the 5D next gen, AND also update the D700 and thus satisfy the current user group. Best of both worlds, as I see it. And they could do that now. If it were me, I'd have wanted to get it our for Christmas, and then the D3 replacement for the Olympics next summer, with a D800 to follow.
Canon's autofocus and body quality in the 5D Mark II are far from entry-level, but even if you think that, those things weren't traded off because the sensor costs more. Higher resolution sensors don't cost appreciably more to manufacture than lower resolution sensors of the same size. Instead, Canon traded off those features because they knew they could out-sell the D700 regardless of those features, since they could offer higher resolution and video.
Well, the original 5D had the same AF as the 20D. When the MkII came out, the techie types on the Canon board debated the AF in detail, and I recall the conclusion was that it was the same system as the original, right down the shutter lag. At that time, even the XXXD AF was more advanced, as I recall. The MkII had some performance gains from the updated processor. I know many former Canon shooters for whom this was the last straw, and they switched to Nikon as a result. Myself included. I met someone who worked for Canon, just prior to the release of the MkII, and discussed the 5D and D700 at length. One clear take away I had from that conversation was that Canon was not considering the D700 at all in where they were taking the MkII, and aiming for a different, and larger, market. I didn't see the video thing at all, which in retrospect was a hugh miss read on my part. And so I'd say Canon didn't trade off any features with out-selling the D700 in mind, but rather had a clear objective for the MkII that had nothing to do with the D700.
The 5D Mark II was an unprecedented success for Canon. Nikon would be daft to ignore that success.
Yes, I agree, the 5D has been a tremendous success for Canon. But, although it sold few copies than the 5D, I'd have to say the D700 was a tremendous success for Nikon. Just a guess, but I suspect Nikon's brand plan never called for the D700 to sell anywhere near the same number of units as the 5D. I'd also suspect they were not aiming it at the same shooters.
And yes, Nikon would indeed be daft to ignore the success if the 5D. Nikon would be equally daft to address that by ignoring the success of the D700, IMHO. I have no doubt they can address both opportunities, and would be surprised if they did not. I'm not so sure, however, that they can, or should, try to do it all on one body. But who knows?
Considering that:
(a) the D700 cost more to make than the 5D Mark II;
(b) sold for the same price as the 5D Mark II;
(c) sold in fewer numbers than the 5D Mark II; and
(d) hurt high-end Nikon sales more than the 5D Mark II hurt high-end Canon sales,
Makes sense that the D700 would cost more to make, given it's build quality, components, and smaller production run. As for cost, can't remember where they started out, but the D700 is $2,700 to the 5D's $2,300 at B&H. The 5D has more mass consumer appeal than the D700, IHO, because the high MP's. As DSLR's have grown in popularity among the general public, I have seen a fair number of 5D's in the hands of soccer moms and dads, while never seeing a D700, for example. Purely anecdotal of course. As for your last point, I have no idea on that. Do you? On a limited set of data points, it seems to me that many D3 owners also own D700's, while the 1Ds MkIII is not nearly as much a topic for posts here and on FM. Not disputing your point, just making an observation that perhaps the 5D did indeed have a big impact on the 1Ds.
I think there's a good argument to be made that the D700 successor will adopt a slightly different tack. Specifically, a high-res sensor and less emphasis on costly flat-out performance.
Very possible. My POV is that would be a model strategy blunder, akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nikon, in MHO should and can easily launch a new body model to complete with the 5D next gen, AND also update the D700 and thus satisfy the current user group. Best of both worlds, as I see it. And they could do that now. If it were me, I'd have wanted to get it our for Christmas, and then the D3 replacement for the Olympics next summer, with a D800 to follow.
Canon's autofocus and body quality in the 5D Mark II are far from entry-level, but even if you think that, those things weren't traded off because the sensor costs more. Higher resolution sensors don't cost appreciably more to manufacture than lower resolution sensors of the same size. Instead, Canon traded off those features because they knew they could out-sell the D700 regardless of those features, since they could offer higher resolution and video.
Well, the original 5D had the same AF as the 20D. When the MkII came out, the techie types on the Canon board debated the AF in detail, and I recall the conclusion was that it was the same system as the original, right down the shutter lag. At that time, even the XXXD AF was more advanced, as I recall. The MkII had some performance gains from the updated processor. I know many former Canon shooters for whom this was the last straw, and they switched to Nikon as a result. Myself included. I met someone who worked for Canon, just prior to the release of the MkII, and discussed the 5D and D700 at length. One clear take away I had from that conversation was that Canon was not considering the D700 at all in where they were taking the MkII, and aiming for a different, and larger, market. I didn't see the video thing at all, which in retrospect was a hugh miss read on my part. And so I'd say Canon didn't trade off any features with out-selling the D700 in mind, but rather had a clear objective for the MkII that had nothing to do with the D700.
The 5D Mark II was an unprecedented success for Canon. Nikon would be daft to ignore that success.
Yes, I agree, the 5D has been a tremendous success for Canon. But, although it sold few copies than the 5D, I'd have to say the D700 was a tremendous success for Nikon. Just a guess, but I suspect Nikon's brand plan never called for the D700 to sell anywhere near the same number of units as the 5D. I'd also suspect they were not aiming it at the same shooters.
And yes, Nikon would indeed be daft to ignore the success if the 5D. Nikon would be equally daft to address that by ignoring the success of the D700, IMHO. I have no doubt they can address both opportunities, and would be surprised if they did not. I'm not so sure, however, that they can, or should, try to do it all on one body. But who knows?
Nov 25, 2011 at 07:27 PM
p.7 #13Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
I really can't believe it will be 36mp as they will alienate their largest potential market. I could only believe it would be 36mp if they also released a D700s, but my money is on an 18mp D800 with incredible low light capabilities.
Nov 27, 2011 at 10:56 AM
p.7 #14Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
ct8282 wrote:
I really can't believe it will be 36mp as they will alienate their largest potential market. I could only believe it would be 36mp if they also released a D700s, but my money is on an 18mp D800 with incredible low light capabilities.
Buy a D3s.
I really can't believe it will be 36mp as they will alienate their largest potential market. I could only believe it would be 36mp if they also released a D700s, but my money is on an 18mp D800 with incredible low light capabilities.
Buy a D3s.
Nov 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM
p.7 #15Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
ct8282 wrote:
I really can't believe it will be 36mp as they will alienate their largest potential market.
And what market would that be?
From my vantage point they've got their largest market well covered with the D3100, D5100, and D7000. All of the advanced cameras are relatively niche products. For every 1 D700/D300s/D3/D3x I see I see at least 10 people with consumer bodies, probably more.
My experience in the advanced amateur or dabbling professional arena tells me there are more folks out there concerned with the absolute resolution their camera can deliver than the best possible high ISO quality. IMO Nikon would be right on the money to get into an previously untapped realm for them with a 36mp $3500 body.
That of course doesn't mean they shouldn't release a D700s as welll!
I really can't believe it will be 36mp as they will alienate their largest potential market.
And what market would that be?
From my vantage point they've got their largest market well covered with the D3100, D5100, and D7000. All of the advanced cameras are relatively niche products. For every 1 D700/D300s/D3/D3x I see I see at least 10 people with consumer bodies, probably more.
My experience in the advanced amateur or dabbling professional arena tells me there are more folks out there concerned with the absolute resolution their camera can deliver than the best possible high ISO quality. IMO Nikon would be right on the money to get into an previously untapped realm for them with a 36mp $3500 body.
That of course doesn't mean they shouldn't release a D700s as welll!
Nov 27, 2011 at 11:09 AM
p.7 #16Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Anyone know or can make an educated guess as to the margins that Nikon has on their consumer bodies (D3100, D5100, D7000) vs. their professional bodies (D300, D700, D3, etc.)? I've always wondered how much $$ they make in each segment - i.e., even if they sell 10 D5100s for each D3 do they have 10x more margin on the D3?
Nikon is going to do whatever will make them the most $$ and it may not be what some of us want them to do.
Personally, I'd be happy to have a D700s with 18MP that has even more DR and weaker AA filter than the D700. I doubt I would be able to buy a 36MP body any time soon, but a (hopefully) cheaper 18MP FX body a definite maybe.
Nikon is going to do whatever will make them the most $$ and it may not be what some of us want them to do.
Personally, I'd be happy to have a D700s with 18MP that has even more DR and weaker AA filter than the D700. I doubt I would be able to buy a 36MP body any time soon, but a (hopefully) cheaper 18MP FX body a definite maybe.
Nov 27, 2011 at 11:44 AM
p.7 #17Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
jhinkey wrote:
I've always wondered how much $$ they make in each segment - i.e., even if they sell 10 D5100s for each D3 do they have 10x more margin on the D3?
Let me guess that they sell more like ~100 D5100:s per D3 and that the relative margin is way higher for the consumer cameras.
I've always wondered how much $$ they make in each segment - i.e., even if they sell 10 D5100s for each D3 do they have 10x more margin on the D3?
Let me guess that they sell more like ~100 D5100:s per D3 and that the relative margin is way higher for the consumer cameras.
Nov 27, 2011 at 01:36 PM
p.7 #18Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
"i really can't believe it will be 36mp as they will alienate their largest potential market."
it's been mentioned, but a pixel binning function (i.e., to allow for 36MP, 12MP and even possibly 6MP RAW output) would de-alienate these people you speak of.
edit: quotation marks added.
it's been mentioned, but a pixel binning function (i.e., to allow for 36MP, 12MP and even possibly 6MP RAW output) would de-alienate these people you speak of.
edit: quotation marks added.
Nov 27, 2011 at 02:17 PM
p.7 #19Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Price will likely be the largest factor that determines who gets alienated from a 36MP body.
Nov 27, 2011 at 02:57 PM
p.7 #20Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
The way I am starting to look at it, is that I could have a full frame camera that is 36 mp for huge prints. It will probably have an option to create a smaller file, hopefully in the 16-20 range. And if it has atleast 8 fps like the d700 then I could use it in DX mode for sports and not have to buy a longer lens.
Hopefully that is all true.
Hopefully that is all true.
Nov 27, 2011 at 08:41 PM