It's a matter of positioning and of targeted audience. A product is defined as much by its specifications as by the way it is perceived. And the way a product is perceived results from the intend of its designers. This is more than marketing.
Some here see DX as less than FX... but it could be argued that with the right sensor DX is more than FX for tele work. And therefore wildlife, in particular bird in flight photography.
The D500 was not a successor of the D300 in terms of positioning, not at all. The D300 was a high end DX camera for the many folks still shooting DX. The D500 was a complement to the D5 for people looking for more reach.
The pricing is strongly influenced by this. A high end DX camera can't sell for more than 2,000 US$ because you compare it to FX and it has to be cheaper. A niche camera complementing the z9II can sell for more than that. But again, Nikon wouldn't need to make much money from such a camera. It would first have to prevent a dent in the public perception of their line up as the reference wildlife line up. If Canon had a high end APS-C camera and Nikon not, think of how effectively the viral marketing war machine at Canon would flood forums with every day folks boasting about the amazing bird images they shot with their APS-C Canon... We've been through that many times.
the most difficult thing for Nikon might be to decide on a name for it. Z90 or Z900...
It's a matter of positioning and of targeted audience. A product is defined as much by its specifications as by the way it is perceived. And the way a product is perceived results from the intend of its designers. This is more than marketing.
Some here see DX as less than FX... but it could be argued that with the right sensor DX is more than FX for tele work. And therefore wildlife, in particular bird in flight photography.
The D500 was not a successor of the D300 in terms of positioning, not at all. The D300 was a high end DX camera for the many folks still shooting DX. The D500 was a complement to the D5 for people looking for more reach.
The pricing is strongly influenced by this. A high end DX camera can't sell for more than 2,000 US$ because you compare it to FX and it has to be cheaper. A niche camera complementing the z9II can sell for more than that. But again, Nikon wouldn't need to make much money from such a camera. It would first have to prevent a dent in the public perception of their line up as the reference wildlife line up. If Canon had a high end APS-C camera and Nikon not, think of how effectively the viral marketing war machine at Canon would flood forums with every day folks boasting about the amazing bird images they shot with their APS-C Canon... We've been through that many times.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sep 03, 2025 at 01:14 AM
Previous versions of bernardl's message #16883348 « Is a Z500 coming? »
