M635_Guy wrote:
I wouldn't buy a D800. That is certain. The only barrier for me buying a new D700 would be the "old technology" thing to some extent, but more the prices of low-click used ones.
If someone offered me a choice of either for free (stipulating I couldn't sell it), I'd choose the D700 and not look back. I can't afford all the other upgrading as a hobby photographer. If you can write it off on your taxes as a pro/semi-pro, the story is a little different...
I don't think you understand what it takes to introduce a technology product to the marketplace. It isn't just about assembling the pieces. You're alluding to a D800s or something like that, but...
Also, where are the D3/D700 sales figures? Seriously - that information would be fascinating....Show more →
I have been working in R&D for past 12 years as Engineer. Also I understand the vision of the industry and feedback from market based on which we set targets. So I know the difficulties associated with new product design and launch successfully in market.
I am sorry I don't have sales figure and solid evidence. Based on my self assessment on D800/D4 and D700/D3 I came to the conclusion. If I find something I will update..
"It's time to kill the engineers and go into production." The d800 is clearly not everyone's idea of an appropriate replacement for the D700. So they aren't jumping on the bandwagon. Nikon isn't helping themselves by not being more upfront about other cameras in the pipeline.
There is a feature/function gap for the fast/action shooters at the $2700-$3000 point. There's a gap at the D400 point as well. While a significant number of users probably can't afford to switch systems, it doesn't cost anything to stand pat and not buy either D800. That they have two versions and one very tightly tailored would suggest they know (or think they know) the market interests pretty well.
So where are the D400 and the fast "small" ff? Neither the flood nor the earthquake require Nikon to be as tight-lipped as they are (and as Sony and Canon are as well, of course). Given the reported delivery delays and even the reported production numbers, a lot of potential buyers know they have to wait. So why not provide a little light? N
clickmepp wrote:
I have been working in R&D for past 12 years as Engineer. Also I understand the vision of the industry and feedback from market based on which we set targets. So I know the difficulties associated with new product design and launch successfully in market.
I am sorry I don't have sales figure and solid evidence. Based on my self assessment on D800/D4 and D700/D3 I came to the conclusion. If I find something I will update..
I'm not trying to pick nits here, but the engineering isn't the point. It is the cost of tooling, the supplier commitments, the technical testing (compatibility w/ SW, HW, etc., not to mention the base functions you put in the camera itself), the costs and processes of certifications and other regulatory hurdles, the costs of marketing samples, launches, etc. And that is just scratching the surface (I've been in product management for nearly 20 years).
As far as volumes, I'm just looking for any factual indicators from a source that would have the information. If we're speculating, let's say that up front - I keep hearing people throw around references to volumes/sales impacts, etc. with absolutely nothing more than impressions and opinions to back it up. It is fine to have an opinion, let's just make it clear that is what it is...
A company the size of Nikon has very long processes to launch a product, and they are very careful about what they do. I don't buy for one second that the D700 significantly hurt D3 sales, and I'd certainly make the case that they made more money overall. They had little choice in any case, they couldn't fail to have something to compete with the 5D MkII.
All that said, I'm still saying that Nikon has an opportunity to deliver a different FX camera to fill an area that the D800 doesn't. Call it a Prosumer FX if you like. A D400 isn't going to fill that void for a large set of shooters, and a Prosumer FX won't fill the needs the D400 crowd is looking for either. There is volume in both of these platforms and I think it wouldn't be hard to differentiate the entry FX to keep the right (i.e. Pro) eyes on the D800/D4.
If Thom Hogan is right, the D400 would already have been announced if it weren't for the two disasters in Asia. Recovering from that has not only delayed the D400 and the D800/D4, but likely put a big dent in any hope of them looking at an incremental platform any time soon - from what I gather it has been all hands on deck just to preserve what they have now.
Maybe they'll cost-reduce the D700 and keep it around a while. I think that would be smart.
M635_Guy wrote:
I'm not trying to pick nits here, but the engineering isn't the point. It is the cost of tooling, the supplier commitments, the technical testing (compatibility w/ SW, HW, etc., not to mention the base functions you put in the camera itself), the costs and processes of certifications and other regulatory hurdles, the costs of marketing samples, launches, etc. And that is just scratching the surface (I've been in product management for nearly 20 years).
As far as volumes, I'm just looking for any factual indicators from a source that would have the information. If we're speculating, let's say that up front - I keep hearing people throw around references to volumes/sales impacts, etc. with absolutely nothing more than impressions and opinions to back it up. It is fine to have an opinion, let's just make it clear that is what it is...
A company the size of Nikon has very long processes to launch a product, and they are very careful about what they do. I don't buy for one second that the D700 significantly hurt D3 sales, and I'd certainly make the case that they made more money overall. They had little choice in any case, they couldn't fail to have something to compete with the 5D MkII.
All that said, I'm still saying that Nikon has an opportunity to deliver a different FX camera to fill an area that the D800 doesn't. Call it a Prosumer FX if you like. A D400 isn't going to fill that void for a large set of shooters, and a Prosumer FX won't fill the needs the D400 crowd is looking for either. There is volume in both of these platforms and I think it wouldn't be hard to differentiate the entry FX to keep the right (i.e. Pro) eyes on the D800/D4.
If Thom Hogan is right, the D400 would already have been announced if it weren't for the two disasters in Asia. Recovering from that has not only delayed the D400 and the D800/D4, but likely put a big dent in any hope of them looking at an incremental platform any time soon - from what I gather it has been all hands on deck just to preserve what they have now.
Maybe they'll cost-reduce the D700 and keep it around a while. I think that would be smart.
[edit -apologies for the long, wandering post ] ...Show more →
The most sensible post in this thread so far.
I think it's hilarious to see critics write about Nikon's product placement and sales strategy (particularly the D3 and D700) as being poor in the dSLR market. Nikon and just about every corporation out there are all about the bottom line and long term profitability. If Nikon sees a way to make profitability by introducing pro features in bodies that are cheaper alternative to the pro bodies for high sales volume, they will certainly do it. Look at widespread interest in the D800 which has a whopping 36 megapixels -- does anything think Nikon would scratch that product just to protect their D3x sales?
Nikon have been able to deliver a product in the D800 that even Canon owners are talking about defecting over to the Nikon brand. They have put in attractive features in the D800 and they have priced it to make it affordable for serious photographers.
The great chase is off again.... and what will be new next year?
I'll be sticking with my D700. I'm spending my money on good glass and workshops for improving my skills. I have a friend that is a pro concert photographer, he has had his work printed in Rolling Stone and makes a great living off selling his prints. Some of his best work was shot with a D70s, he now shoots a D300. He always tells me it's more about the photographic skills. The glass is the next most important and then the camera body. The D700 is superb in most all ways, a few more mp like 18 would be nice. More mp isn't priority or necessary for everybody. I have to ask myself what is the largest print I have ever sold or what is the largest print I have hanging in my home?
Cheers!
Hutch3531 wrote:
.... Some of his best work was shot with a D70s, he now shoots a D300. He always tells me it's more about the photographic skills, then the glass and then the body. The D700 is superb in all ways. I also ask myself what is the largest print I have ever sold or what is the largest print I have hanging in my home?
Cheers!
There is still hope for the D700. Just saw this on Galbraith's site about Nikon planning to continue to manufacture the D700. It is my hope that a lot of people were really upset at the 3x MP increase with the D800 and maybe, just maybe it made Nikon decide to keep making the D700 until they figure out what to do. Come on Nikon, bring on the D700s
I have not read all comments so apologies if I cover already discussed issues.
I have a D300s and D700. The D700 was bought as a full frame Nikon after my shift from Canon and the 5D.
I will be buying 2 bodies this year. The D4 to replace my D700 and the D800E as a faux MF landscape camera.
I certainly do not consider the D800 an equivalent body to the D700, in some areas yes but as a general body no.
Would I have bought a D3, only if there was no alternative FX body. However, as I now have a lot of money tied up in lenses I continue with full frame Nikons.
All this comment about a D4 in D700 clothing is a reflection of modern society. I want this at this price and I don't care whether you stay in business or not. I was lucky last time so maybe lightning will strike twice.
clickmepp wrote:
When D700 was launched it killed D3 sale..So Nikon does not want to make same mistake of killing D4 sale with low pixel count. That is why Nikon very strategically introduced for 2 different bodies for 2 different target segments..Probably after 15-18 months once they achieve the target you may see D800 with D4 sensor with latest ( at that time ) ISO performance and FPS count and some more flexible/enhanced video options keeping same price point of $2999..This may make lots of DX user to jump to FX wagon and may be a nice compliment or Backup body for the D800 user ...Show more →
I'm curious now what the D700 replacement would be? It would be nice a few more mega pixels and better high iso and video..Actually what I would really want is a high flash sync like MF cameras being able to sync 1/1000 would be nice.
i don't think you will see a traditional d700 replacement niikon has decided to offer up two choices for fx--the d800 and the d4...and i think that will be it. smart move on nikon's part, especially with the huge price gap between the high resolution d800 and the flagship d4. i think it will force more photographers to spend more money to get what they want, which is good for nikon. i'm not complaining, just observing what i think their positioning strategy is. for someone like me, i will likely be 'forced' to buy a d4 at some point because i don't want or need the extreme resolution of the d800 and i want a faster speed camera...so for now i stick with my d3 and save my pennies for the overpriced mint d4 that will have my name on it in a year or so....
I would love to see an 18mp D700. That would be great for me anyway. Don't know if that will happen though because of how close the price is between the D800 & D700 right now. It would be a good choice for people that really don't want 36mp anyway.
Hi Cohenfive, I think you're right, but if Canon does come out with their rumored 22MP 61point AF body and it sells really well, then it may make Nikon change it's mind about that.
I feel each of us should care more about what types of photos we wish to shoot and then buy the approriate camera for the task at hand.
I bounce around all the time between sports, portrait and landscape and have enjoyed the D3s fitting everything I needed. I am looking forward to getting the D4 and D800 as I find myself wanting a little more performance in each of the areas... but I can tell you that I prob would be pretty happy with just the D4 for all the above.
Trakl wrote:
You make a great point. We all know we've got to think in terms of system cost, not camera body cost, and your computer is part of your system. All the hand-wringing over processing power necessary for D800 NEF's is making me wonder -- what kinds of computers are people working on out there? For $2K you can get a brand new top of the line 3.1GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 iMac with 4GB of RAM. Upgrade that RAM to 8GB for a measly extra $200, and your system will chew up 75MB image files no problem. As for storage, you could put 28,000 75MB image files on a $138 2TB drive. Storage might be an issue for professionals who shoot 28,000 images a month; as a hobbyist, I shoot about 5000 images a YEAR.
There's nothing wrong, at all, with using a five year old camera and a five year old computer system. Plenty of people do and make great images! But if you want the newest camera, you shouldn't be surprised to learn you're going to need a current computer system, too! ...Show more →
I'm just catching up with this thread (still on page 3), but I figured this comment was worth quoting and adding to. I just got a new computer for $2200: six-core 3.2GHz AMD Phenom CPU, 16GB RAM, a 180GB SSD for the system drive (275 MBps), and a 2TB drive for data, all attached to two Asus PA246 24" 1920x1200 monitors with P-IPS panels (wide-gamut!). The actual computer was only $1200, and the two monitors were $500 each. I'm now seeing some NEC 23" monitors with IPS panels for $275, so the hardware costs they are a-droppin'.
And to correct wjmeyer and others: using lossless compressed 14-bit RAW, you get files that are about 10MB for every 12MP. My D300/D3s bodies averaged 9.8MB files over 100K clicks or so, and my D3x averaged 19.8MB over 60K clicks or so. Enough of a sample size, I think. There is no reason to expect that lossless-compressed RAW files from the D800 will exceed 30MB. Not 50MB as suggested on page 1, and not 75MB as suggested on page 2.
The only numbers I had seen before this were the uncompressed RAW which is around 75MB so that is what I was quoting. If you finish reading the thread you'll see we've already figured this out. I would use 14-bit lossless compressed and you can see above that is just over 40MB per file on average which is still a pretty hefty bump over the D700 but much better than the 75MB that was originally quoted.
pr4photos wrote:
People that print big are a very small minority of the people that have bought the D700. Nikon know this. You have to admit that the vast majority of people don't print at all, let alone big.
Really? Can you cite any source for this "knowledge"? My personal guess is that most people overall don't print, but that most people with D700-class-or-better cameras do print quite a bit. However, I am not aware of anywhere that I can get hard data to back up my opinion, or any other on this matter. So it's a guess, nothing more.
Unless you can prove otherwise, all of your statements are guesses too. Nikon knows something about this issue... but neither you nor I do.
]