Pixel Perfect wrote:
If say the D700x is released with around 24MP, and true HD video, etc for $2999, the 5D would no longer have the show to itself and I'll bet the sales imbalance evens up considerably.
The way Nikon pricing is going, I'd be shocked if a 24mp D700x with HD is under $4000, let alone under $3000.
Nikon's "problem" is that unlike Canon they set limits to how much they'll compromise build and AF quality on their cameras over $2000.
That can be a very good thing, but it also means that Nikon is unlikely to sell a pro-build and pro-AF D3x-with-HD for $5000 less than the D3x.
There are multiple ways that the D700x (if it happens) is likely to compare favorably to the 5D2, but I don't think the D700x will put much pricing pressure on the 5D2.
RalphJ wrote:
The way Nikon pricing is going, I'd be shocked if a 24mp D700x with HD is under $4000, let alone under $3000.
Nikon's "problem" is that unlike Canon they set limits to how much they'll compromise build and AF quality on their cameras over $2000.
That can be a very good thing, but it also means that Nikon is unlikely to sell a pro-build and pro-AF D3x-with-HD for $5000 less than the D3x.
There are multiple ways that the D700x (if it happens) is likely to compare favorably to the 5D2, but I don't think the D700x will put much pricing pressure on the 5D2. ...Show more →
I'd say you are right, but don't forget the 600lb gorilla in Sony. They will be adding a $2K (or less) a850 at some time and while it might not have video (who cares) it ticks most of the boxes. Also it's hard to see any correlation between the pro model pricing and consumer versions at all IMO. Nikon may sit on it's high horse, but if the 5D II and Sony a850 and a950 (exmoor version) are creaming it in sales, they will have to wake up and smell the coffee sooner or later. They can't afford to sell a D700x for $4K. IMO it would be worth a most $3.3K.
Nikon's "problem" is that unlike Canon they set limits to how much they'll compromise build and AF quality on their cameras over $2000.
That can be a very good thing, but it also means that Nikon is unlikely to sell a pro-build and pro-AF D3x-with-HD for $5000 less than the D3x.
That's just straight manufacturing economics. "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." People like to talk about Canon "intentionally crippling" the 5D2, but they're just making the necessary compromise to get one particular characteristic down to a particular price point.
The 5D2 is not a 1DsIV, but the 5D2 is a doggoned fine camera that kicks Mamiya butt all day long.
A dog is not a "crippled" horse. The only real "cripple" Canon ever did was the 300D, which had the same firmware as the 10D with certain features merely REMed out. The Russian hack only had to turn them back on and --- voila!---the 300D became a near 10D.
That's just straight manufacturing economics. "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." People like to talk about Canon "intentionally crippling" the 5D2, but they're just making the necessary compromise to get one particular characteristic down to a particular price point.
I don't believe that manufacturing cost have a direct correlation with retail prices. Canon will always try and get as much for a new model as the market will tolerate, and I'm certain that they would water down a product to encourage you spend the extra money to buy a 1-series.
I don't believe that manufacturing cost have a direct correlation with retail prices.
Manufacturing costs (or rather, "cost of sales") establish a floor below which is "unprofitability."
I have manufacturing costs to produce the wall portraits and other products I sell. My large sizes do cost me more to produce than my smaller portraits. The difference in my prices between them are not in direct proportion to the difference in my cost to produce them, but the difference in my cost to produce them does establish the floor for each.
Canon will always try and get as much for a new model as the market will tolerate, and I'm certain that they would water down a product to encourage you spend the extra money to buy a 1-series.
That makes less sense than you think it does.
I think it starts with a misconception that if a rancher sells both horses and dogs, he cripples his horses to produce his dogs.
I sell both large and small wall portraits. Because I understand the artistic relationship between head size and format size, my small wall portrait is not simply my large wall portrait with less enlargement, and it's certainly not a large portrait with part of the print lopped off (it's not a "crippled" large portrait). I actually frame and pose differently when I know the end product is to be small. I do not do a full-length portrait in 16x20; my full-length portraits are done in a minimum of 24x36. By the same token, I don't enlarge a headshot to 30x40--my headshots will not be larger than 16x20.
I also have what are for me is an "economy" package designed specifically for a particular market that values my particular technique of art but can't easily afford it. I cater to them because they love exactly what I most love to do. They gush over it, they appreciate it highly, and they make me feel good. I don't take a high-end package and "cripple" it to make the economy package. My economy package is designed from ground up to give them the most "bang for the buck" and is, in fact, a wholly different kind of package.
For instance, because the economy package is photographic paper, it will be matted and glazed in the frame rather than merely framed as my higher-end canvas package will be. The economy package actually costs me more in labor than the higher-end package (which costs so substantially more in materials that it significantly overcomes the lower labor cost).
Canon Inc (that is, Canon Japan) has said that the 5D was created specifically for a particular market: Japanese "enthusiasts" who were still wedded to film (read: Elan users). The 5D is not a "crippled" 1-series, nor is it a "watered down" 1-Series. It's designed with the features that provide the best bang for the buck for that particular market--to get an Elan user to switch to digital.
n0b0 wrote:
I really don't think the D700x is going to be 24MP. If they do that, they might as well rebadge the D3x to D700x or stop selling it altogether.
I'm not saying people won't buy the D3x at all should there be a 24MP D700x, but it'll be enough to make it redundant.
they did that with D3/D700
and making a new sensor might cost more than using same one
RDKirk wrote:
Manufacturing costs (or rather, "cost of sales") establish a floor below which is "unprofitability."
I have manufacturing costs to produce the wall portraits and other products I sell. My large sizes do cost me more to produce than my smaller portraits. The difference in my prices between them are not in direct proportion to the difference in my cost to produce them, but the difference in my cost to produce them does establish the floor for each.
That makes less sense than you think it does.
I think it starts with a misconception that if a rancher sells both horses and dogs, he cripples his horses to produce his dogs.
I sell both large and small wall portraits. Because I understand the artistic relationship between head size and format size, my small wall portrait is not simply my large wall portrait with less enlargement, and it's certainly not a large portrait with part of the print lopped off (it's not a "crippled" large portrait). I actually frame and pose differently when I know the end product is to be small. I do not do a full-length portrait in 16x20; my full-length portraits are done in a minimum of 24x36. By the same token, I don't enlarge a headshot to 30x40--my headshots will not be larger than 16x20.
I also have what are for me is an "economy" package designed specifically for a particular market that values my particular technique of art but can't easily afford it. I cater to them because they love exactly what I most love to do. They gush over it, they appreciate it highly, and they make me feel good. I don't take a high-end package and "cripple" it to make the economy package. My economy package is designed from ground up to give them the most "bang for the buck" and is, in fact, a wholly different kind of package.
For instance, because the economy package is photographic paper, it will be matted and glazed in the frame rather than merely framed as my higher-end canvas package will be. The economy package actually costs me more in labor than the higher-end package (which costs so substantially more in materials that it significantly overcomes the lower labor cost).
Canon Inc (that is, Canon Japan) has said that the 5D was created specifically for a particular market: Japanese "enthusiasts" who were still wedded to film (read: Elan users). The 5D is not a "crippled" 1-series, nor is it a "watered down" 1-Series. It's designed with the features that provide the best bang for the buck for that particular market--to get an Elan user to switch to digital.
aside that you forget that many of the little extra canon leaves out are nothing more firmware or literally $2 parts in some cases so they very much cripple their horses to produce their dogs.
aside that you forget that many of the little extra canon leaves out are nothing more firmware or literally $2 parts in some cases so they very much cripple their horses to produce their dogs.
A two dollar part is a quite significant cost factor in the economics of mass production.
Which 1-Series features would be merely a matter of firmware to introduce into the 5D2?
n0b0 wrote:
I really don't think the D700x is going to be 24MP. If they do that, they might as well rebadge the D3x to D700x or stop selling it altogether.
I'm not saying people won't buy the D3x at all should there be a 24MP D700x, but it'll be enough to make it redundant.
As Skibum5 says they've already shown a willingness to go down that road with the D3 & D700, there are enough body features between the two to differentiate them. The real question in my mind is will they include the features found in the D300s (dual cards & video) and will we in effect see a D700sx before we see a D700x. I have a feeling they will, they need to roll out 1080p video ASAP to please the crowd looking for it.
regarding "crippling" it's sad that canon has it's zealots convinced into thinking things like the "5D AF is not crippled" as if it's a positive and good thing to have a 4 year old AF system that was totally inadequate upon initial release nevermind in late 2008
noone expects a $6500 1DsMkII lite for $2500 but anyone with a marketing brain (and their head not up canon's backside) would have put in an improved AF system (at least as good as the 50D, preferably much, much better) in the mkII. The camera would then have no glaring holes, flaws or oversights as it does now.
regarding "crippling" it's sad that canon has it's zealots convinced into thinking things like the "5D AF is not crippled" as if it's a positive and good thing to have a 4 year old AF system that was totally inadequate upon initial release nevermind in late 2008
I love these comments. If you should happen to agree with some things, or diagree with others, you are marked as a zealot, which somehow negates your thoughts and opinions to some lower level. Rather than battering people, or throwing names around, it might be more usefiul to change or open minds by force of argument.
From my perspective, which is based on the uses to which I put my 5d, the autofocus has been utterly effective. Plenty of professionals seem to feel the same. Awesome photographs are made, livings and reputations are enhanced.
I really don't think there's a 'costs' case for keeping FF prices where they are. I think they are selling at a price point they think the market will bear.
I wanted around Best Buy a couple of weeks ago. About fourish years ago I bought a 32-inch wide-screen TV. It's now a third to a quarter of the price.
In a similar time period full-frame DSLRs have remained at basically the same price point.
I know there aren't the same volumes involved, or the number of manufacturers, but surely we're going to see the market hotting up sometime soon.
For me, the 5D's autofocus has been "adequate for most uses." I would not buy a 5D because of its autofocus system, and so instead I bought it for the image quality and full frame sensor vs. xxD series. The 5D's AF system (accuracy issues and average speed) frustrates me at least once during each of many of my wedding shoots, but I can't afford better.
I have never been enthusiastic about any of my cameras' AF systems, except when compared to the previous model in that series, when I was enthused about how much better and faster the 40D focused than the 20D under more difficult conditions.
I have only tried 1D series cameras at a PMA convention; I know how responsive a camera can be, and the 40D comes close in some regards, but even the newer 5D really lags behind in all aspects of speed. I also dislike the delay in dim light between pressing the AF system and actually having the AF start to work; I think the 1D series also had that, but I hear that Nikon does not.
I would rather have 5 good AF points than 8 very limited ones and 1 good one.
n0b0 wrote:
I really don't think the D700x is going to be 24MP. If they do that, they might as well rebadge the D3x to D700x or stop selling it altogether.
I'm not saying people won't buy the D3x at all should there be a 24MP D700x, but it'll be enough to make it redundant.
Jammy Straub wrote:
As Skibum5 says they've already shown a willingness to go down that road with the D3 & D700, there are enough body features between the two to differentiate them. The real question in my mind is will they include the features found in the D300s (dual cards & video) and will we in effect see a D700sx before we see a D700x. I have a feeling they will, they need to roll out 1080p video ASAP to please the crowd looking for it.
If I were Nikon, I would release a D750, with 16.5MP, HD video, 97% VF, dual card slots, 6fps, and a few other tweaks (improved noise maybe), but everything else the same as the D700. No need for 24.6MP and this could easily sell at $5D II money.
Glen_C wrote:
regarding "crippling" it's sad that canon has it's zealots convinced into thinking things like the "5D AF is not crippled" as if it's a positive and good thing to have a 4 year old AF system that was totally inadequate upon initial release nevermind in late 2008
noone expects a $6500 1DsMkII lite for $2500 but anyone with a marketing brain (and their head not up canon's backside) would have put in an improved AF system (at least as good as the 50D, preferably much, much better) in the mkII. The camera would then have no glaring holes, flaws or oversights as it does now....Show more →
Sorry Glen around here as soon as you mention better AF the fanboys immediately say you want a 1Ds III for 5D II money. Every single time; there's no middle ground, it's black or white. Quite ludicrous and probably how Canon gets away with it, having implicit support.
