thedigitalbean wrote: artsupreme wrote: surf monkey wrote:
Why would anyone want to spend twice as much?
And maybe I\'m mistaken, but didn\'t the D700 cannibalize the sales of the D3, even with less FPS than the D3.
There are many reasons but I give up. And no, the D3 sold just fine with many D3 owners buying a D700 for a backup.
Not according to several dealers I spoke to after the D700 release. By their account the D700 eviscerated D3 sales. According to them, its what prompted Nikon to release the D3s a year later (with its one stop high ISO advantage) while skipping a D700 upgrade.
He said she said? I heard differently and see plenty of D3\'s in the field. D3s was released 2 years later BTW.....Anyway, I shoot with a couple guys who still use them believe it or not and they both have D700\'s for a backup. I guess only Nikon knows. Regardless, Nikon didn\'t lose out on the sale to another manufacturer, money in their pockets.
thedigitalbean wrote: artsupreme wrote: surf monkey wrote:
Why would anyone want to spend twice as much?
And maybe I\'m mistaken, but didn\'t the D700 cannibalize the sales of the D3, even with less FPS than the D3.
There are many reasons but I give up. And no, the D3 sold just fine with many D3 owners buying a D700 for a backup.
Not according to several dealers I spoke to after the D700 release. By their account the D700 eviscerated D3 sales. According to them, its what prompted Nikon to release the D3s a year later (with its one stop high ISO advantage) while skipping a D700 upgrade.
He said she said? I heard differently and see plenty of D3\'s in the field. I shoot with a couple guys who still use them believe it or not and they both have D700\'s for a backup. I guess only Nikon knows. Regardless, Nikon didn\'t lose out on the sale to another manufacturer, money in their pockets.
