lexdiamonnyc wrote:
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here, but...........
Nikon would come out with such camera because they've done just that before! Go back a few years to when the D700 was announce, it was the same BS..." why would Nikon offer a mini-D3?.......it's going to hurt D3 sales!.........what a stupid idea, why would they do that!!!"...........and how did that move turn out??
now, what didn't "they" do??............they never made a "mini-D3x", did they?? so why do you think they'd do it now??
"they" already have a proven formula...........a D4x "The Flahship" body, D4 the best Sports/Wildlife/PJ/Pro camera, D800 "90% D4" at a lower price for the prosumer/serious photo enthusiast....... why would they move away from a formula that worked so well in the past?
The lineups have not been around long enough. People expect a pattern to continue when there hasn't been a long enough history for any pattern to be sufficiently established. The D700 surely hurt the sales of the D3. A 36mp D800 would not be a mini D3x. The D3x was new in 2008. It is 2012. It needs to be replaced at some point. A 36mp D800 is no different than a D7000. The feasibility is there and clearly it would not be out of this world price wise.
They would move away from the previous lineup formula because technology has moved forward. A D4x at the same price point as a D3x does not make sense given the capabilities of the D7000. The options for those wanting resolution are not there. There is only one. How many options do you need for iso performance? Like I said, a D3s is cheap compared to a D3x. If you want D3s performance then buy a D3s.
Really, despite my wanting Nikon to make a direct replacement of the D700 (i.e., NOT 36MP), they will do in the end what they think will make them more $$. Perhaps they felt the D700 cost them total profit in the end and won't have that kind of strategy again.
raboof wrote:
I just bought a D700 a few days ago. Wondering how much it will cost me for not waiting for a couple of months.
Nothing as you can start making some money with D700 right now, instead not doing that and waiting for D800.
Plus I think that if D800 will be 36 mpix sensor, original D700 users wont switch, cause they wont like loosing that low-light performance. If you bought it because its high ISO capability, you wont switch to D800.
There's this part of me which hopes/feels that nikon will keep the d700 in the lineup cause the price gap between the d800 and the d300 series cameras is too big. Then release the D4/D3s sensor in the D700 in Sept/Oct (after the Olympics) or end December (like the D3x?) or January, a year after the D4. The D800 is definitely exciting, not because of the 36mp because there's no way in hell i'd pay the premium for the 36mp i won't use, but the new metering systems, improved AF and whatever else nikon throws in will be insight into whats to come from nikon over the next few months, even years.
Right now i'm deliberating with myself whether to give up my D300 for a D700..I've been dying to move to fx but since there probably won't be a direct replacement to the D700 i'm more or less keen to move right away. In my area there were 3 dirt cheap deals - between $1150-$1300 but i moved too slow. The condition of the cameras weren't too great though (rubber grips falling apart, etc, but nothing too extreme).
allstarimaging wrote:
Nikon made a bit of a mistake with the D700 and D3 sensor being the same. D700 sales cut into D3 sales I would assume. Perhaps Nikon has a strategy in place to make cameras for specific markets:
I always wonder about statements like:
"a professional photographer",
"a professional camera",
"a prosumer camera"
and "a point and shoot camera".
Now a days any photographer can call themselves a professional photographer because they do get paid for doing photography, but not all of these photographers produce good results.
Professional photographers use all sort of cameras for their jobs, they use professional cameras, prosumer cameras, and point and shoot cameras.
The first two catagories will not cause any doubts, but the last one do.
Haven't one seen a reporter carrying a point and shoot camera to do their interviews for their programs? I would said that happens very, very often here in Asia for articles on our press that sold millions of copies.
So what can truely classify as a professional camera?
My answer is anything that can take photos that produce works that can be publish and broadcast in private or in public to bring in income.
And who can really be classify as a professional photographer?
Anyone who can really take good pictures and their photos are well like by others, doesn't have to be a press or sports photographer, they can even be an artist or a documentary writer who's works might not be publish while they were alive.
I think there is a large number of landscape photographers who would love 36 mega pixels, I know I would. I don’t need a camera that will machine gun a bunch of photos in the dark.
It wasn’t that long ago I felt like I was limited to 100 iso to get the quality I wanted.
Dennis
Antonio Tiki wrote:
No it didnt.
The D700 gave me access to FF at a price I could afford. The chance of me buying a D3 was equal to the chance of the lottery drawing the RIGHT 6 numbers, namely mine. I bought the D700 and skipped a bunch of tickets. The features missing in the D700 compared to the D3? What missing features? So far, I haven't found myself wishing the camera did "more."
The other night I got out my old (circa 1957) Petri "Color-Corrected Super" f1.9 rangefinder and got reminded of just how complicated cameras have become.
Now, why on earth would Nikon go to 36mp? They're obviously not competing with Canon because Canon's only goes to 21mp. Who's asking for 36mp, that's going to shoot with a D800. I really hope they're wrong about that and it's more like 18 or 21.
I agree, that it doesn't make sense for the D800 to be 36mp. In doing so, wouldn't they undermine the sales of the D3x? Especially at a lower price.
runamuck wrote:
The D700 gave me access to FF at a price I could afford. The chance of me buying a D3 was equal to the chance of the lottery drawing the RIGHT 6 numbers, namely mine. I bought the D700 and skipped a bunch of tickets. The features missing in the D700 compared to the D3? What missing features? So far, I haven't found myself wishing the camera did "more."
The other night I got out my old (circa 1957) Petri "Color-Corrected Super" f1.9 rangefinder and got reminded of just how complicated cameras have become.
This is the point. Only a tiny percentage of people would have puchased a D3.
The D700 opened up a door they wouldn't have been able to afford to do so.
You can't undermine sales of something people had no intention of buying (except in their dreams ).
Also the amount of pro's who have D3's that also purchased a D700 as a second unit is extra ordinarily high. So far from cutting sales.
In fact, if one looks at the average number of camera bodies per customer figure in recent surveys, they'll see a slight increase.
People will get sick of me hearing this say this (above), but I'm not letting it go.
nikt wrote:
This is the point. Only a tiny percentage of people would have puchased a D3.
The D700 opened up a door they wouldn't have been able to afford to do so.
You can't undermine sales of something people had no intention of buying (except in their dreams ).
Also the amount of pro's who have D3's that also purchased a D700 as a second unit is extra ordinarily high. So far from cutting sales.
In fact, if one looks at the average number of camera bodies per customer figure in recent surveys, they'll see a slight increase.
People will get sick of me hearing this say this (above), but I'm not letting it go....Show more →
+100
I agree...the D700 did not cut into any of the D3 series sales. I'm amazed at how a keyboard connected to the internet makes everyone an expert on so many subjects, including Nikon's development and marketing strategy.
Bringing out the D700 was pure genius and filled a niche that needed filling.
What cut into Nikon sales in a big way was the Canon 5dII. I believe this is the market the D800 wants to go after. I know lots of people that jumped over to Canon when the 5dII came out.
Nikon, bring on the D800 but don't over price it or the 5dIII might just eat your lunch again!
While there was some reduction in D3 sales due to the D700, Nikon sold substantially more D700s. If that product wasn't available, a large number of people would not of moved to FX, and Nikon would of lost revenue overall. There will be a replacement for the D700; it may take a year to see a smaller FX body with the D4 sensor at a $3K price point. Whatever is announced next month will have 24-32 MP and not have the same high ISO performance of the D3S / D4.
