Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: image66 on December 01, 2008, 12:57:18 pm
-
Isn't the D3X announced price the same as the 1DsMk3? What gives? Why the outburst against Nikon and not against Canon? How about Phase One?
Frankly, all along, I thought that Canon's pricing was the epitome of arrogance, but that didn't seem to bother anybody before. Now Nikon offers what we were asking for--a higher pixel count D3 to match the 1DsMk3. Did you actually think that Nikon was going to give them away? If Canon is going to charge $8000, why not Nikon? Frankly, the Nikon is the better camera.
And to compare this camera to the Sony or the 5Dmk2 (which we've never seen yet and might be a dog for all we know) is incompatible with common sense. This is no different than back in the film days saying that a EOS Rebel was just as good as a EOS 1V. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. (Until I see a Sony A900 image that isn't smeared from too high Noise-Reduction... The Sony, as good as it is, ain't no Nikon or Canon).
Michael, your rant should not be aimed at Nikon, but at the entire industry that continues to find some justification for these excessive equipment prices. And you are as much to blame as anybody because you've been the poster-child of the camera buyer that must have the "latest-greatest" at any price. After all, you had a standing pre-order on a camera that nobody has ever seen nor had any proven track-record one way or the other.
Ken
-
Right now list on 1DSMKIII is $7750 Canadian at Camera Canada. D3X is about 2k more.
-
Isn't the Canon more like $6500 these days?
-
The D3x has the same SRP as the 1Ds Mark III - USD 7999. I would be surprised if the the street price doesn't level out in the coming months.
-
Ken....
I don't follow the Canon series, but when the 5DMKII was announced; was it only a MP upgrade? By and large, that's what the D3x is; simply more megapixels; some would even say they have lost a bit of dynamic range due to the lower hi-iso.
Also, I do think that Nikon should have taken into consideration the current economic conditions when pricing this product. By pricing this the way they have, they clearly have targeted the highly professional market; and perhaps do compete in the Hassy area.
We'll see if the market that they targeted is actually interested enough in buying enough of these to make profit/loss sense for Nikon; time will tell. Thom Hogans thoughts were spot on in my opinion (and his opinion counts for a lot more than mine does!).
I think if Nikon releases the same sensor in a D700 body for about $4-$5k; they'll have a much better run at it.
Think of it....Michael is able to buy gear just because he can, and HE cancelled his order for this one. If someone REALLY needs this than they will buy it; I guess if someone was really waiting for these pixels, might they not have jumped ship already?
Just my .01.
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
Very Happy Nikon D700 abuser
Isn't the D3X announced price the same as the 1DsMk3? What gives? Why the outburst against Nikon and not against Canon? How about Phase One?
Frankly, all along, I thought that Canon's pricing was the epitome of arrogance, but that didn't seem to bother anybody before. Now Nikon offers what we were asking for--a higher pixel count D3 to match the 1DsMk3. Did you actually think that Nikon was going to give them away? If Canon is going to charge $8000, why not Nikon? Frankly, the Nikon is the better camera.
And to compare this camera to the Sony or the 5Dmk2 (which we've never seen yet and might be a dog for all we know) is incompatible with common sense. This is no different than back in the film days saying that a EOS Rebel was just as good as a EOS 1V. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. (Until I see a Sony A900 image that isn't smeared from too high Noise-Reduction... The Sony, as good as it is, ain't no Nikon or Canon).
Michael, your rant should not be aimed at Nikon, but at the entire industry that continues to find some justification for these excessive equipment prices. And you are as much to blame as anybody because you've been the poster-child of the camera buyer that must have the "latest-greatest" at any price. After all, you had a standing pre-order on a camera that nobody has ever seen nor had any proven track-record one way or the other.
Ken
-
The D3x has the same SRP as the 1Ds Mark III - USD 7999. I would be surprised if the the street price doesn't level out in the coming months.
B&H quotes $ 6,679.95 as the sales price for the 1DsMKIII today (Dec 1).
B&H states today for the sales price of the D3 "Please note the lower price for the Nikon D3 SLR Digital Camera (Camera Body) is $4,198.95".
-
Sounds like Nikon is overdoing what economists call price discrimination. There are certain people who require the new body, and others who are just fine with the old, or a D700 or whatever. Nikon has a portfolio of cameras, and I think it is a prudent decision to put the flagship at a higher price point than the others to avoid cannibalizing their own portfolio of earlier cameras still in production, and lower-spec cousins.
Having said that, it appears that Canon's pricing strategy is undermining this effort, and that some Nikon's customers think the differentiation in price is too high to justify for the differentiation in features.
-
This very topic of course will be debated ad infinum for the next few months.....sounds like fun!
I think it will be interesting and perhaps telling to see when Nikon releases the new sensor at a lower price point; sooner *may* indicate a pricing blunder with the D3x.
Fun straight ahead!
Cheers...
Todd in Chicago
Sounds like Nikon is overdoing what economists call price discrimination. There are certain people who require the new body, and others who are just fine with the old, or a D700 or whatever. Nikon has a portfolio of cameras, and I think it is a prudent decision to put the flagship at a higher price point than the others to avoid cannibalizing their own portfolio of earlier cameras still in production, and lower-spec cousins.
Having said that, it appears that Canon's pricing strategy is undermining this effort, and that some Nikon's customers think the differentiation in price is too high to justify for the differentiation in features.
-
Canon of course has an alternative offering for pixel starved photographers short on greenbacks, it's called the EOS 5DII. For my part I'm interested in Sony, as I have a lot of pretty good Minolta lenses.
Erik
Sounds like Nikon is overdoing what economists call price discrimination. There are certain people who require the new body, and others who are just fine with the old, or a D700 or whatever. Nikon has a portfolio of cameras, and I think it is a prudent decision to put the flagship at a higher price point than the others to avoid cannibalizing their own portfolio of earlier cameras still in production, and lower-spec cousins.
Having said that, it appears that Canon's pricing strategy is undermining this effort, and that some Nikon's customers think the differentiation in price is too high to justify for the differentiation in features.
-
Thing is that neither of the sectors that TH recommends this camera for, landscape and studio, need a D3X over a 5D mkII or even A900 with zeiss glass (should you hate canon glass). Neither class of photographer have dual card backup, pro water proofing, etc with their MFDB's, neither particularly need world class AI Servo AF. As MR's experience in Antartica showed, you use a rain cover even with your super 1 series bodies.
How many people need a 1Ds mkIII for the megapixels where the 5D mkII wouldn't be good enough? A very tiny niche methinks and Nikon have just stepped up to that mark with a camera that at street will still be double the price of two of it's megapixel competitors.
As a wedding photographer I want a pro body, but I don't need 24 megapixels, a couple of D700's far better fits the bill. A studio photographer/commercial photographer would most likely be more than happy with a 5DmkII/A900, the Journalist wants a D3 and there are very few landscape photographers with the commercial need of such a high spec body.
The 1Ds mkIII was the only one of its kind at the time, you paid for a 21 megapixel FF chip. Since then I can't see that there is room for that kind of pricing except as a niche camera. Nikon so far have offered more value for more money but how do they compete for same value (possibly, max iso 1600?), same money, in such a tiny market?
So who is it aimed at? If you needed that kind of resolution you either already have a 1Ds mkIII or have MFDB's with a 5D mkII already on order. If you're a hobbyist or dentist then this is exactly the wrong time to market an overpriced camera to them. Most pros don't need it, so who the heck is going to buy it?
-
While I agree it would be very 'nice' to have everything at very low prices, if you are a pro / business and can justify the cutting edge equipment then it can also be an advantage that the whole world does not replace it's camera equipment with D3x's overnight because it's price point is so inviting! I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but for some people / business's it is important to be able to define a difference.
I'm very happy with the D3 / D700 option for a great deal of my work, especially natural and low light. In fact I'm still working through a whole load of D2x files - that some people may be surprised to hear still makes excellent images! Yes the D3x will certainly move the bar but for more serious landscapes etc I've decided to investigate MF film options where items are less likely to go out of date in a few months. I can purchase equipment for a project knowing that most of the depreciation has occurred!
Steven
-
Pom...
I think you basically just nailed it.
This is designed for a very small niche market; period. Those high end pro's who'll stop at nothing to get the highest quality possible. Very small market.
The community in general is up in arms over this, because Nikon didn't come out with something for them. Everyone wants more; it's just the way people are.
So Nikon developed a "Technical Proof of Concept"; akin to a 220 mph concept car shown at an autoshow. Yes, you will be able to purchase them (if you really want.....or...um...can afford), but perhaps the intent here is a bit of chest-thumping bravado.
"Ah ha! Look Canon! Look what we the might Nikon can do! Our camera has more pixels than yours AND better image quality!"
I believe it is very doubtful that Nikon will make a profit on the D3x and that it is simply a technical proof of concept/bravado to show off their technical chops.
Once they put this sensor in reasonably priced bodies, that's when they'll start to reap the benefits from profit/loss perspective.
Just my opinion.
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
Thing is that neither of the sectors that TH recommends this camera for, landscape and studio, need a D3X over a 5D mkII or even A900 with zeiss glass (should you hate canon glass). Neither class of photographer have dual card backup, pro water proofing, etc with their MFDB's, neither particularly need world class AI Servo AF. As MR's experience in Antartica showed, you use a rain cover even with your super 1 series bodies.
How many people need a 1Ds mkIII for the megapixels where the 5D mkII wouldn't be good enough? A very tiny niche methinks and Nikon have just stepped up to that mark with a camera that at street will still be double the price of two of it's megapixel competitors.
As a wedding photographer I want a pro body, but I don't need 24 megapixels, a couple of D700's far better fits the bill. A studio photographer/commercial photographer would most likely be more than happy with a 5DmkII/A900, the Journalist wants a D3 and there are very few landscape photographers with the commercial need of such a high spec body.
The 1Ds mkIII was the only one of its kind at the time, you paid for a 21 megapixel FF chip. Since then I can't see that there is room for that kind of pricing except as a niche camera. Nikon so far have offered more value for more money but how do they compete for same value (possibly, max iso 1600?), same money, in such a tiny market?
So who is it aimed at? If you needed that kind of resolution you either already have a 1Ds mkIII or have MFDB's with a 5D mkII already on order. If you're a hobbyist or dentist then this is exactly the wrong time to market an overpriced camera to them. Most pros don't need it, so who the heck is going to buy it?
-
and:
2 CF slots
DX crop option @ 7fps
High-end lenses that can autofocus (Zeiss/Leica/Nikon/Oly/Voigt lenses don't AF on the 1Ds)
I've been drooling over the D3 for quite some time now, and now you tell me that I can get AF with Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Voigtlander lenses with the D3x?
I didn't even know that Leica and Zeiss made AF lenses for Nikon, and as far as I knew, the Nikon mount compatible lenses made (ZF) don't even necessarily allow automatic aperture control (like they do for the EF mount, ZE). Is it with some adapter, or perhaps an adapter for the Sony (ZA) lenses with AF?
-
High-end lenses that can autofocus (Zeiss/Leica/Nikon/Oly/Voigt lenses don't AF on the 1Ds)
To nitpick a bit, the Zeiss lenses are manual focus even for Nikons.
As for the pricing, I think what's got some folks up in arms was Nikon's practice of pricing it's top-shelf DSLR at a respectable $5000 (D1, D1x, D2x, D3). There was an expectation, however irrational, that this much anticipated camera would follow a similar pricing structure. Stay tuned, though. I've got to believe that a more affordable version is on the way similar to the D700 counterpart to the D3. Nikon needs this to compete against the 5Dmk2. Perhaps the D700x?
Chuck
-
Hi Jan....
I think this poster was indicating that with those lenses on the 1Ds you don't get autofocus; and that the D3x provides a wealth of great AF lenses to choose from.
I've downloaded the 10mb+ jpg's from Nikons site and have reviewed the images and they certainly are breathtaking. I mean the amount of detail and quality is FIERCE; frightening almost.
As I've said before, for those that want the absolute best in a 35mm digital format, this is probably it (I'll defer to Thom Hogan, or Michael, or one of these other guys when the reviews start coming out).
But I think that the question that remains is the pricing; I simply feel that this camera was created for a niche market and to show technical superiority; and I believe Nikon has completely suceeded in that.
The web is currently on fire with rantings about this Nikon release and everyone will have their opinion. I think what most likely will not be argued is the *technical* quality of the images produced by the device (don't forget...ya still need a good photographer!).
Eventually Nikon will move this technology into a body at a price point that will make sense for the larger community (which is currently aflame) wanting this technical quality; and wow....those images are scary good.
This will be my last post on this thread as this is one of those ones which can easily get into the "7 page" range....
Peace....
Todd in Chicago
P.S. If I had $8000 sitting around and spending that amount of money on a camera didn't really bother me, I'd put my name on the list now!
I've been drooling over the D3 for quite some time now, and now you tell me that I can get AF with Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Voigtlander lenses with the D3x?
I didn't even know that Leica and Zeiss made AF lenses for Nikon, and as far as I knew, the Nikon mount compatible lenses made (ZF) don't even necessarily allow automatic aperture control (like they do for the EF mount, ZE). Is it with some adapter, or perhaps an adapter for the Sony (ZA) lenses with AF?
-
I think the problem is, when you compare the price of the normal 12mp D3..and the new D3X.
If I am not mistaken, same body..just the higher res sensor. That's a huge premium for a sensor alone, crazy really. Look, I will be dead honest, some of us just have nowhere near the funds to shell out that much, and nope...I don't need it, I guess most people could work without it too. All those who do splash the cash, good luck to you ;-) But even if I were cashed up to the eyes, I would have to say, it's still a silly price tag.
-
B&H quotes $ 6,679.95 as the sales price for the 1DsMKIII today (Dec 1).
B&H states today for the sales price of the D3 "Please note the lower price for the Nikon D3 SLR Digital Camera (Camera Body) is $4,198.95".
That's exactly my point. Based on today's B&H photo prices the D3 has fallen 16% and the 1Ds Mark III 16.5% since launch. I expect the D3x will be no different in 12 months.
People can argue about which is the best product but what is clear is that both Nikon and Canon are offering very similar products at identical starting prices for a relatively small market. Thom Hogan's article implies a third of the already lowish volume D3.
-
The Canon 1Ds series could've been even more expensive than $8,000 at release, because no one else had anything to compete with it! (35mm DSLRs, not medium format).
But now, Nikon releasing the D3x at 24MP at that price is a little over the top. It should be $6,499.99.
Also, 24MP is not exactly that special right now, and they shouldn't compare it to medium format, since that sector is in the 56/60MP range right now. 24MP? Pshhhht.
I'm tired of these "pro bodies" from Canon and Nikon. What are we paying for? $6,000 - $8,000 for weather sealing? A freakin' vertical grip? A big brick of a camera? The ability to drop the camera out of a window? Run over it with your car? You can shoot a 20D in the rain without a problem.
-
I'm another guy who could afford a D3x, but won't get it; it's not the money so much as the sense of being gouged.
It was what? -- seven or eight months between the D3 and the D700? The same may well be true with the D3x, because, let's face it, Nikon needs a high-res camera to compete with the A900 and the 5DII...
Unless...unless Nikon has something spectacular up their sleeve -- and I'm talking about hands-down 39mp MF quality. If that should be the case, then maybe...
JC
-
The range of Nikon pricing is what surprises me, along with the fact that Nikon created a lot of the current market place expectations when they put their top-of-the-line features out there for an intro price of $2999.
When the D700 was announced this summer, I was surprised at how much Nikon was offering for so little (compared to others at the time). On the Canon discussion website, Photography-on-the.net, there was no shortage of folks writing posts that were prayers to Canon: can we have almost all the features of a 1 Series for $2999 too? Many hoped the 5DII would be a digital body that resembled the 1V more than the original 5D. On this site, Michael posted his essay regarding the pricing of the D700 - what could Nikon be thinking to price so much for so little especially given the small differences between it and the D3. Were they crazy, the essay posited, or had Nikon figured out a brilliant product / pricing path designed to eat the other guy's lunch? In my case, it was a winning price / product: everything I'd wanted at a price that wasn't too crazy. Mine came to me on the first day of product shipping.
Now comes the D3x and it's surprising for being so expensive relative to expectations. What's interesting to me is that Nikon's D700 has a lot to do with those price expectations. A year ago $7999 for this camera I think would have been accepted with a "Wow!", but also the resigned "that's what these things cost" that went along with the IDs MK II / III. The D700 pushed expectations for Nikon top features (D3 AF, super build, metering, full frame, etc.) and very little compromise to a much lower price point. The industry followed. The expectations are thus more along what Michael outlined in his "What's New" coverage. If the D700 was $2999 at launch - now $2500; if D3s are going for $4300, with the Sony out there at $3.000, perhaps a $5000 or a $5,500 body is where Nikon will strike and again strike a value contrast with the competition. But alas.
Who knows, maybe we'll see a D700x in 6 months for $3500 and Michael can dust off the "are they crazy or brilliant" essay. If anything, the pricing does feel erratic.
-
Suppose for a moment that Nikon's view about the pent-up demand for the D3x (1/3 of the current demand for the D3, from a small well identified group of Nikon pros and studios) at the current introductory price, which does not enter them in a price war with Canon, is right. So they can sell all the bodies they can produce in their first batches at that inflated price. Suppose also that the camera's IQ gets recognised as the best there is in the dSLR sector. What will have happened? Nikon will have met their initial sales targets, avoided a price war with Canon and created a big fuss about this wonderful IQ camera made of unobtainium.
Then the obvious thing to do is let the camera price slip to 1Ds levels and at the same time introduce the D700x at a price competitive to the 5DII and the A900 to fulfill all the demand the fuss about the D3x had created.
This sees to me to be a reasonable scenario that might produce a hat-trick if of course the above assumptions prove correct and competition does not respond with a better product in the projected time period.. Now, would a lower introductory price for the D3x have improved this scenario for Nikon or not? I tend to think not.
The coin has always 2 sides and, at this early moment in time, it would not be prudent to suppose that Nikon has made the wrong choice.
PS. To Michael: I hope your reasonable choice not to buy a D3x at its introductory price will not hold you from reviewing the camera. Also, why do I have this feeling you're going to buy one in the end?
-
I'm another guy who could afford a D3x, but won't get it; it's not the money so much as the sense of being gouged.
I'm sorry, but how long did it take you to get to this point of recognizing that we're being gouged? For those of us struggling to make ends meet and who watch and stretch every dollar to the limit, we've never been able to afford these cameras which Michael and others are buying just so they can be on the cutting edge. Michael (and others like Thom Hogan, etc) are grousing because they SUDDENLY FEEL RIPPED OFF! HELLO????
So, let me understand this. The people griping have spent $100,000+ on digital cameras, lenses and accessories and seem to have no problem buying Phase One backs but will not buy a D3X because it is $1500 higher than what they WANTED to spend? I think the venom towards Nikon is misplaced.
Frankly, I think that targeting a high-end camera towards "landscape photographers" is a lost cause, anyway. It's obvious that the 5DmkII will be the landscape camera of choice for 2009 no matter what Nikon brings to the table. But is anybody complaining about spending the approximately $3000 for a throwaway camera that is really no more than a fancy Digital Rebel in a metal box? Take the current digital rebel, add $100 for the metal case, another $100 for the larger sensor. Now try to justify the fact that Canon is ripping us off for another $2000. Camera companies charge what they can charge because they know that we will get sucked in and pay whatever they want for the right to be the best dressed photographer at the next workshop. I really can't imagine Michael or Thom showing up at their next workshop with a three-year-old digital camera. Mostly because this is their gig--to be on the cutting edge. I suppose the cutting edge no longer applies once they finally feel ripped off by one company. I suppose Michael is going to go off in a hissy fit now and sell all his Nikon gear.
And then what is really over-the-top is to blame Nikon for misjudging the economy. This one really gets me. A photographer who is struggling due to the economy isn't going to buy an $8000 camera. Nor will they buy a $5000 camera! Unless they are in a lease, they aren't going to be buying ANY camera in 2009. If a photographer is able to buy a $5000 camera, chances are they can afford the $8000 camera.
In the end, how is this any different than us charging $2000 for a color inkjet print that cost us $75 to make? Aren't we gouging the market ourselves? I'm sure we'll come up with various excuses for our own pricing, but fail to give the same right to a camera company to price equipment in a similar fashion.
Ken
-
Hi,
I think that everyone expected Nikon to come out with the 3DX at a slightly higher price than the 3D. The manufacturing cost on on the 3D and the 3DX are the same, as they share the chassis. The sensor may be possibly more expensive, but not by very much. Pixels are free, square millimeters cost.Nikon used to have a tradition to have a reasonable premium on the X-models but this no more seems to be the case.
The point is also that Nikon does not have a lower price alternative to the 3DX, and the D700 is not competitive with the Alpha 900 and the 5DII regarding resolution. I don't think that the 5DII is a throw away camera, on the contrary I'm pretty confident that it's picture taking ability is at the same level as the 3DX or the 1DsIII. It is also weather sealed, AFAIK. The 3DX can certainly take more punishment but you get three 5DII-s for the price of one D3X or Canon 1DsIII.
Now, Nikon may set any price they want, but with the present price and the competition in the market they may just loose the market share they gained with the 3D and 700D.
Erik
I'm sorry, but how long did it take you to get to this point of recognizing that we're being gouged? For those of us struggling to make ends meet and who watch and stretch every dollar to the limit, we've never been able to afford these cameras which Michael and others are buying just so they can be on the cutting edge. Michael (and others like Thom Hogan, etc) are grousing because they SUDDENLY FEEL RIPPED OFF! HELLO????
So, let me understand this. The people griping have spent $100,000+ on digital cameras, lenses and accessories and seem to have no problem buying Phase One backs but will not buy a D3X because it is $1500 higher than what they WANTED to spend? I think the venom towards Nikon is misplaced.
Frankly, I think that targeting a high-end camera towards "landscape photographers" is a lost cause, anyway. It's obvious that the 5DmkII will be the landscape camera of choice for 2009 no matter what Nikon brings to the table. But is anybody complaining about spending the approximately $3000 for a throwaway camera that is really no more than a fancy Digital Rebel in a metal box? Take the current digital rebel, add $100 for the metal case, another $100 for the larger sensor. Now try to justify the fact that Canon is ripping us off for another $2000. Camera companies charge what they can charge because they know that we will get sucked in and pay whatever they want for the right to be the best dressed photographer at the next workshop. I really can't imagine Michael or Thom showing up at their next workshop with a three-year-old digital camera. Mostly because this is their gig--to be on the cutting edge. I suppose the cutting edge no longer applies once they finally feel ripped off by one company. I suppose Michael is going to go off in a hissy fit now and sell all his Nikon gear.
And then what is really over-the-top is to blame Nikon for misjudging the economy. This one really gets me. A photographer who is struggling due to the economy isn't going to buy an $8000 camera. Nor will they buy a $5000 camera! Unless they are in a lease, they aren't going to be buying ANY camera in 2009. If a photographer is able to buy a $5000 camera, chances are they can afford the $8000 camera.
In the end, how is this any different than us charging $2000 for a color inkjet print that cost us $75 to make? Aren't we gouging the market ourselves? I'm sure we'll come up with various excuses for our own pricing, but fail to give the same right to a camera company to price equipment in a similar fashion.
Ken
-
Isn't the D3X announced price the same as the 1DsMk3? What gives? Why the outburst against Nikon and not against Canon? How about Phase One?
Fair comment.
The very frustrating thing for Nikon shooters though is that we have been waiting for years for Nikon to regain an credible position as far as high end goes, and when they do they make the body difficult to purchase because of a high price tag.
The conclusion is pretty obvious, being a Nikon shooter means that you'll basically always be one year behind the curve and will have to spend a lot of cash not to be a full 2 years behind.
Their offering might be 20% better during the few months they stay on top, but you will end up being 20% behind during the 1.5 years it will take them to catch up after the competition releases a newer flagship... you end up paying more and getting less average.
The perception is clearly that when you are late to the party you should have the humility to first apologize, and then bring with you a good bottle of wine for your hosts. The message Nikon is sending with the D3x is clearly "you should be happy that we come to the party at all, and please serve the champain quick".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ken,
Speculation as to why Thom or I (and I can actually only speak for myself) buy and sell the equipment that we do is uncalled for and totally speculative. My situation is unlike that of anyone else. Though I accept short term loans of gear from major manufacturers for testing (especially pre and early production models), these are always returned within days, rarely held for longer than a week or at most two.
Because I believe in long term and field testing (and that's one of the things that makes my reports different that those of other reviewers) I buy the cameras and lenses that I use. Then, every year or two I sell them to free up capital for new purchases.
It means that I can test and use a wide range of equipment over extended periods. When something especially appeals to me I hang onto it it for a long time. I have several cameras that are in that category. Others come in and out in just months, or a year at most, being replaced by the latest model for use and testing. This is my business model. This is why a million people a month visit this site, to read my reports and reviews. It works for me.
But, even if buying cameras wasn't a business expense, as it is for me and many pros, and even if one can afford something, that doesn't mean that it's good value. May late fatherinlaw was a wealthy man. But, he'd drive two miles out of his way to buy gas for 2 cents a gallon less than at the station across the street. When I asked why, his reply was simply that it was the principle of it.
That's something of what I feel about the D3x and why I cancelled my order. Yes, I can afford it, but I simply find it to represent poor value. After testing the 24MP Sony A900 (which I purchased for less than the equivalent of US $2,500 here in Toronto last month) the thought of paying US $8,000 for a camera that that has the same resolution, the same frame rates, etc, etc, just seemed to me to be a bad value. The Canon 5DII is also well under $3,000 as another alternative in a full-frame 20+ MP camera.
With the value represented by the Nikon D700 as compared to the D3, and Canon 5DII as compared to the 1Ds MKIII, I feel that the days of the mega-pro DSLR are numbered. As Bernard wrote above, Nikon has just come late to the game, but the game is changing.
Cameras like the Leica S2 and forthcoming Nikon MX are, in my view, going to take their place for many photographers seeking a new high end. Yes, there will be some that buy the D3x, just as there are still those that buy the wonderful Nikon F5 film camera. Nikon is known for fighting rear-guard actions and doing so well.
So, I'm sure that Nikon will still sell some D3's and D3x's, and Canon some 1DMKIII's and 1DsMKIIIs, but I now believe that the days of these cameras as mainstream are passing, as much lower cost and competent alternatives become available.
That was the reasoning behind my cancellation of my D3x – simply the acceptance that an era has passed and that value wasn't there (for me) at that price point. It might be for others though.
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for long explanation. So you think that the Nikon MX is for real?
Looking forward to your evaluation of the Alpha 900.
Best regards
Erik
Ken,
Speculation as to why Thom or I (and I can actually only speak for myself) buy and sell the equipment that we do is uncalled for and totally speculative. My situation is unlike that of anyone else. Though I accept short term loans of gear from major manufacturers for testing (especially pre and early production models), these are always returned within days, rarely held for longer than a week or at most two.
Because I believe in long term and field testing (and that's one of the things that makes my reports different that those of other reviewers) I buy the cameras and lenses that I use. Then, every year or two I sell them to free up capital for new purchases.
It means that I can test and use a wide range of equipment over extended periods. When something especially appeals to me I hang onto it it for a long time. I have several cameras that are in that category. Others come in and out in just months, or a year at most, being replaced by the latest model for use and testing. This is my business model. This is why a million people a month visit this site, to read my reports and reviews. It works for me.
But, even if buying cameras wasn't a business expense, as it is for me and many pros, and even if one can afford something, that doesn't mean that it's good value. May late fatherinlaw was a wealthy man. But, he'd drive two miles out of his way to buy gas for 2 cents a gallon less than at the station across the street. When I asked why, his reply was simply that it was the principle of it.
That's something of what I feel about the D3x and why I cancelled my order. Yes, I can afford it, but I simply find it to represent poor value. After testing the 24MP Sony A900 (which I purchased for less than the equivalent of US $2,500 here in Toronto last month) the thought of paying US $8,000 for a camera that that has the same resolution, the same frame rates, etc, etc, just seemed to me to be a bad value. The Canon 5DII is also well under $3,000 as another alternative in a full-frame 20+ MP camera.
With the value represented by the Nikon D700 as compared to the D3, and Canon 5DII as compared to the 1Ds MKIII, I feel that the days of the mega-pro DSLR are numbered. As Bernard wrote above, Nikon has just come late to the game, but the game is changing.
Cameras like the Leica S2 and forthcoming Nikon MX are, in my view, going to take their place for many photographers seeking a new high end. Yes, there will be some that buy the D3x, just as there are still those that buy the wonderful Nikon F5 film camera. Nikon is known for fighting rear-guard actions and doing so well.
So, I'm sure that Nikon will still sell some D3's and D3x's, and Canon some 1DMKIII's and 1DsMKIIIs, but I now believe that the days of these cameras as mainstream are passing, as much lower cost and competent alternatives become available.
That was the reasoning behind my cancellation of my D3x – simply the acceptance that an era has passed and that value wasn't there (for me) at that price point. It might be for others though.
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
As is often the case, the arguments by intelligent people on both sides of this issue make sense. I think the continuous stream of financial gloom shoveled out by the news media is in large measure responsible for those of us who reacted with disappointment to the $8000 price tag. I switched from Nikon film cameras to the 1Ds, then 1D2 and 1Ds2, and my memory of the 1Ds2 is only how much I loved the image quality, and not about feeling any resentment over the price. I bought a D3 last fall because the AF tracking was markedly better for me than the Canons, and I absolutely love the camera. I kept all of my Canon gear so I would have a choice of camera bodies in the future, and while I absolutely understand your reasoning, I had looked forward to your comparison of the available higher resolution camera bodies. Any chance of this happening?
Thanks,
Bill
-
I'm sorry, but how long did it take you to get to this point of recognizing that we're being gouged? For those of us struggling to make ends meet and who watch and stretch every dollar to the limit, we've never been able to afford these cameras which Michael and others are buying just so they can be on the cutting edge. Michael (and others like Thom Hogan, etc) are grousing because they SUDDENLY FEEL RIPPED OFF! HELLO????
Ken
Great! So if you have some money, you're not entitled to complain about being overcharged. Truly a unique argument.
Quentin
-
I wonder if Nikon might be pricing this camera in anticipation of large price increases of all that goes into making the camera. A world wide, severe recession coupled with currency devaluation (here in the US, for sure) could change our perception of pricing drastically in the future.
Sure hope I'm wrong, but between borrowing from others and printing currency as fast as we can, I have fear and trepidation going forward.
-
With prices for full frames dropping, I can see no rationalization for the price point of the D3X. The money would be best spent on good glass for a D700 or 5DMkII. And Sony isn't far behind either. Faux pas, Nikon.
-
Fair comment.
The very frustrating thing for Nikon shooters though is that we have been waiting for years for Nikon to regain an credible position as far as high end goes, and when they do they make the body difficult to purchase because of a high price tag.
The conclusion is pretty obvious, being a Nikon shooter means that you'll basically always be one year behind the curve and will have to spend a lot of cash not to be a full 2 years behind.
Their offering might be 20% better during the few months they stay on top, but you will end up being 20% behind during the 1.5 years it will take them to catch up after the competition releases a newer flagship... you end up paying more and getting less average.
The perception is clearly that when you are late to the party you should have the humility to first apologize, and then bring with you a good bottle of wine for your hosts. The message Nikon is sending with the D3x is clearly "you should be happy that we come to the party at all, and please serve the champain quick".
Cheers,
Bernard
Over the last 12 months Nikon has caught and overtaken Canon's DSLR market share lead in major markets. To what extent do you think Nikon's hubris is due to this emboldened position?
My view is that Nikon believes it is now the market leader, who in this case is offering: more resolution; a better AF system; and a more complete pro lens line-up. Rather than following, I suspect this is driving Nikon to lead on pricing.
The D3x could be a fantastic camera, albeit an expensive one. The risk for Nikon is that their message is lost in a swirl of negative headlines and discussion. Will their confidence prove to be optimistic?
-
Over the last 12 months Nikon has caught and overtaken Canon's DSLR market share lead in major markets. To what extent do you think Nikon's hubris is due to this emboldened position?
My view is that Nikon believes it is now the market leader, who in this case is offering: more resolution; a better AF system; and a more complete pro lens line-up. Rather than following, I suspect this is driving Nikon to lead on pricing.
The D3x could be a fantastic camera, albeit an expensive one. The risk for Nikon is that their message is lost in a swirl of negative headlines and discussion. Will their confidence prove to be optimistic?
That could very well be.
I don't doubt that the D3x is probably best in class as a 35 mm DSLR, although I don't believe that the gap is significant with the other 20+ MP offerings from Canon and Sony.
Priced 2000 US$ lower it would have been such an exciting release...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But is anybody complaining about spending the approximately $3000 for a throwaway camera that is really no more than a fancy Digital Rebel in a metal box? Take the current digital rebel, add $100 for the metal case, another $100 for the larger sensor. Now try to justify the fact that Canon is ripping us off for another $2000. Camera companies charge what they can charge because they know that we will get sucked in and pay whatever they want for the right to be the best dressed photographer at the next workshop. I really can't imagine Michael or Thom showing up at their next workshop with a three-year-old digital camera. Mostly because this is their gig--to be on the cutting edge. I suppose the cutting edge no longer applies once they finally feel ripped off by one company. I suppose Michael is going to go off in a hissy fit now and sell all his Nikon gear.
......
In the end, how is this any different than us charging $2000 for a color inkjet print that cost us $75 to make? Aren't we gouging the market ourselves? I'm sure we'll come up with various excuses for our own pricing, but fail to give the same right to a camera company to price equipment in a similar fashion.
Ken
Well, at best your assumptions about manufacturing costs are uninformed. Sensor yield drops dramatically for the larger sizes, you are closer to a 10X shortfall in your cost estimate than you are correct. And, there's a lot more to making a FF camera work at decent frame rates than just upgrading the sensor. Try putting a Lamborghini engine block inside a Volkswagen Golf. By the way, how many millions are spent just to reduce the mfg costs to the amount you decry?
Another way of looking at it: say it really only cost $75 to mfg a $2000 print. How many prints do you sell at this price per year? What are the travel, education, equipment, living...well you know where I am going. Frankly, your post seems to be ignoring the most basic principle driving commerce:
TANSTAAFL!
-
I think the problem with the $8K price is that it's out of step with the market and the timing of the release. If the D3x had been announced before the 1DsMk3 (or even around the same time), I could maybe see the $8K price; although I think the price would have come down by now, just as the 1DsMk3 has. The only reason people paid $8K for the Canon offering is because it was the only option available.
But the D3x is not the first on the market, or even the 2nd. It's the FOURTH 20+mp DSLR to be released. Now you can argue that it will also be the best (and I think that's probably true, although just exactly how good the image quality is compared to the Canon/Sony bodies remains to be seen). But the D3x is a "peer" with the 1DsMk3, and a late-arriving one at that. Given that the 1DsMk3 is selling for $6600, pricing the D3x at $8K seems irrational and out of touch with reality.
Yeah sure, there will be a certain number of people ready to buy at $8K. But how many more customers would they have gotten at $6500? Quite a lot more IMHO. In fact this seems like such a bad move that I have to wonder if there's more to it than just arrogance on their part. Maybe they just don't have the sensor yields yet to meet the demand that a lower price would have generated. So given a fixed quantity that they can actually shipped they've decided to milk it for all they can.
There's also the matter of what this does to an eventual D700x release. I really don't see how they can release a D700x in the next year without ticking off even more people. With the 5DII and a900 both selling for under $3K already (who knows how much they'll have dropped by next summer/fall?), I don't see any way that Nikon could get away with charging more than $4K for a D700x. And that would make absolutely no sense with the D3x still priced at $8K, so they either have to drop the price on the D3x substantially and tick off the early adopters, or price the D700x such that it can't possibly compete against the Sony and Canon cameras.
Nikon has done a great job in the last couple years of building momentum in the pro and semi-pro market segments, and if they could have priced the D3x more competitively it would have built on that. But with the D3x priced as a small niche product, and no offering to compete with the semi-pro 20+mp DSLR's, I think Nikon will likely lose some of that momentum.
-
Will someone please explain to me who exactly the target market is for this camera? Being a little more specific than "high end pros" might help as well....
As far as I can tell, there is not a single group of working photographers who still shoot exclusively Nikon that can be overwhelmingly happy with this camera and its (as yet unproven) abilities considering the other current alternatives in the marketplace (5dmkII, 1dsmkIII, a900). It's a shame too for Nikon, because coming in at around $6,000 or so and this body would have sounded the death knell for the 1dsmkIII (though the 5dmkII has done much of that as well). Though Canon will probably update that sooner than later, leaving Nikon to play catch-up AGAIN.
If the d3x is indeed a "concept camera" meant as a symbolic gesture to the rest of the market that Nikon is king of the hill....I submit to you the US auto industry and it's wave of new concept muscle cars/full size trucks.
Bottom line: The proof will be in the raw files. They're gonna have to be spectacular.....
-
Don't buy this camera if you don't need it. Why the complaints? The D3x's price will drop in time, just as Canon's 1Ds3 did. Maybe all this price angst is a by-product of the economic down turn. I'm surprised this pricing caught everybody off guard. I thought it was a given. Michael makes a good point that the day of the high priced mega-pixel monsters has passed. Time will tell.
-
Don't buy this camera if you don't need it. Why the complaints?
This is exactly my question....At this price point, who needs this camera?
I'm not complaining so much as I am confused as to why Nikon would create such a camera that doesn't seem to suit the needs of any market.
-
The one aspect that could make all of this argument pointless is IQ -- image quality. Sample photos look excellent, but I'm not sure if any of the samples really push the envelope out of the 1DsIII range. If image quality is spectacular -- I mean really out of sight compared to the 1DsIII/5DII chips -- then Nikon may have something. I'm skeptical. I don't see that happening. But it's not impossible. We just don't *know* yet. But, that could be a game changer.
JC
-
Since when does the price charged have anything to do with the cost of production? It shouldn't. Nikon may not be getting the yields to ship camera in mass to everyone who wants one at the anticipated $5k price point (what I expected). Since those who use the camera productively want to put them to use asap, they should get first bite and at a price that gives them first opportunity without the 6 month wait if the masses were in the game.
This is just how business works. When the pipeline fills,the price will be lowered to allow production capacity to meet demand.
I too am disappointed and canceled my order with Midwest. To me the camera is a component of my hobby. I can see how it adds to the capability of someone who earns with the camera.
Why isn't anyone unhappy with Apple, best margins in the computer industry. We all pay up for ipods, iphones, imacs and Mac Pros with no complaint.
Marketing 101
bob
-
Why isn't anyone unhappy with Apple, best margins in the computer industry. We all pay up for ipods, iphones, imacs and Mac Pros with no complaint.
Because my Mac pro was cheaper than a comparable Dell workstation when I purchased it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Because my Mac pro was cheaper than a comparable Dell workstation when I purchased it.
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually you've hit the one area where that Apple is very competitive. We're running 8 core Apples in our dev dept with Vista 64 for rendering videos. Except for Apple memory of course.
Bob
-
Actually you've hit the one area where that Apple is very competitive. We're running 8 core Apples in our dev dept with Vista 64 for rendering videos. Except for Apple memory of course.
Bought my 16 GB from OWC.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Because my Mac pro was cheaper than a comparable Dell workstation when I purchased it.
Cheers,
Bernard
This point really hits to the crux of the issue for me as well. When Phase announced the P65+ I also asked (as did many) "who is the target market for such a camera?" In Phase's case, however, they already had an entire line of backs at different price points to compete with other manufacturers. They could afford to beat their chests a bit.
With Nikon, this is not the case. "Marketing 101" you say? - Apple aced it a while ago. Not sure Nikon's marketing dept has taken that course yet ;-).
My guess is they'll be coming out with a D700x or whatever you want to call it real quick....
-
I’ve read Michael’s recent essay on “Judging Value” and agree with just about everything stated. If you already have (in this case) a camera that has almost the identical specifications as one costing many thousands more the question is why not cancel the order; reminds me of the old saying “If it isn’t broke why fix it”.
We need to remember that this is money coming out of Michael’s pocket and he has every right to spend it how he sees fit; we also need to remember that more than likely the gear Michael buys today will be sold at a loss within the next 12-18 months.
Forget brand loyalty start thinking financial loyalty – you own.
Good reasoning Michael
don
-
I think that pricing of new models can be critical.
12 months ago I sold all of my good quality Nikon gear and bought an a700 and CZ auto focus lenses.
At that time the a700 was available for NZ$800 less than the D300 and I really wanted the Zeiss lenses. The body price advantage helped in making the decision, and I was impressed by the Luminous Landscape Field report and other reviews on the a700.
I certainly had no hesitation in buying the a900 recently and regard it as a bargain buy currently in New Zealand at NZ$4,500 (US$2,400).
I now have a selection of AF CZ lenses, all IMAGE STABILISED on the a700 and a900 bodies, and am happy with the, relatively, minimal outlay.
Price does matter.
Max.
-
After noting yesterday in this thread that Nikon's price seemed a surprise given the expectations that Nikon had helped to create with the price / features of the D700, I spent a little time on a Canon forum that now has a fair number of Nikon users looking through a thread on the D3x. That thread provided me with a bit of perspective. On it, there were two studio photographers who could not be more excited about the D3x. Their vantage was that they were going to get additional resolution in a body with much better handling than a Phase One MF box. From that point of view, $8000 may well seem a welcome price.
Now, I wouldn't be buying a D3x in any event - $5000 or $8000 or really any price - it's not the right camera for me in terms of a feature set. As has been noted, the studio folks or landscape folks who will use this are the low ISO, high resolution, 5FPS is lighting fast crowd. So my view was purely holding forth on my impressions of the market and value and how all of this works or doesn't for Nikon as a business model. But reading the comments of a few of that target crowd made me reassess that perhaps I was looking at this too much from a consumer point of view rather than how the intended users for this camera may view it. In other words, my filter or mindset looks at it one way and folks who have needs for high resolution and have been waiting or hoping for that high resolution in a Nikon package and have spent much more on equipment that they find to be less nimble may welcome the body as a tool with an acceptable or even reasonable - again depending on the inputs of their analysis, which are different than mine - price.
-
It seems to me that unlike almost any camera release I can remember the D3X is being based on purely it's price and not capabilities. Normally the camera goes through a review cycle in the press/web where it's technical capabilities are assessed and once there's been a decent appraisal of the camera's capabilities it is then also assessed for 'value for money' whatever that means. We seem to have skipped all this sanity and just jumped in to focus on the price differential.
I must admit though that Nikon's marketing department really missed the mark this time around. Generally release of a new camera creates a positive buzz and if it's expensive (think MF digital) there's at least an aspirational buzz amongst photographers. Someone seriously screwed up and really missed the emotional measure of the camera market this time around I think.
On a personal note, I'll probably end up getting the camera at some point but I suspect that the market will drive the price down significantly by the time the camera ships in any quantity. If cameras are gathering dust in dealers storerooms at $8k in six months then I'll wager that we'll see much closer price parity on the street to Canon. I almost find it ironic that Nikon is now being perceived as the 'gouger' after years of Canon 1Ds I/II/III releases at exactly the same price point.
Do you think that anyone at Nikon will fall on their sword and that they'll reassess the market and announce an adjustment to say $6999? Other than the embarrassment it wouldn't be too late since nobody has a camera yet.
-
On a side note, this is one of the main reasons why I always liked LuLa as a main source on photography and industry information. No BS and just straight forward opinion from someone who is dedicated to the practise rather than paper specs. I bet my bottom dollar that this article and thread here is discussed in Nikon headquarters. Michael does not hesitate to call a spade a spade, this has gained him the respect of many. He does not hesitate to ruffle feathers when it makes perfect sense.
As for the pricing of this latest NIKON offer, and this is my own assumption, the file quality as important as it is for many, simply can not outperform other offers such as the mentioned 5DMKII or A900 to justify this pricetag. Then again, we all make errors of judgement once in a while, and I would not be astonished to see NIKON correcting this rather sooner than later.
I have very little doubts, this will be a very nice camera in deed, but we approach 2009 and this year will put our markets and social economical structures to the test, everybody will feel the pinch, and in my opinion Nikon can simply not afford to produce a top of the range camera that will be ignored by a substantial share of possible adopters.
I was discussing +20MP options over breakfast in a greasy spoon with Michael last october. You know that the coffee is somewhat substandard when your tommy starts to make a funny sound, telling you to stay clear of it, and hey, it made the same sound when I heard about the 8K pricetag.
Best wishes
Georg
Oceanviewstudio-Ireland
-
As an amateur at almost everything including photography I usually take my photo's when on holiday and then either do nothing with them or if I'm really bored print them at maximum size of A3 and try and find somewhere to put them. I have also had a web account with Zenfolio for some time and have managed to put four pictures on it. http://www.kuckoophoto.com (http://www.kuckoophoto.com)
I started off digital with a Minolta Dimage 5 which I managed to carry most places and took a lot of pictures, I was then seduced by the concept of owning a DSLR with it's separate lenses and purchased a Canon Rebel which I did not like so I sold it and bought a Nikon D70 which I liked but sold it and bought a Nikon D80 which I liked but sold it and bought a Nikon D300 I then decided my lenses were not good enough and sold them and bought some new ones. Do you think I should sell the D300 and buy a Nikon D3X?
As an aside the picture shown in my profile is not a true representation of me, I don't have a green jumper.
Frank
-
Will someone please explain to me who exactly the target market is for this camera? Being a little more specific than "high end pros" might help as well....
Nikon high end pros and amateurs who want 24MP and have 8K burning a hole in their pocket. I don't think it's complex. The better quetion is just how many people fit the description. Perhaps Nikon is more interested in photojournalists and generalists to whom the D3 or D700 is very appealing. Not forgetting of course the low end where they have some competitive offerings like the D60.
Either way you question is a good one, but it's all guesswork until a Nikon executive tells us what they had in mind when pricing the D3x.
-
Nikon high end pros and amateurs who want 24MP and have 8K burning a hole in their pocket. I don't think it's complex. The better quetion is just how many people fit the description. Perhaps Nikon is more interested in photojournalists and generalists to whom the D3 or D700 is very appealing. Not forgetting of course the low end where they have some competitive offerings like the D60.
Either way you question is a good one, but it's all guesswork until a Nikon executive tells us what they had in mind when pricing the D3x.
Why people don't pose this question to Canon also? They have set the price target for this niche first, and they continue to defend it with every new iteration of the 1Ds. The fact that after one year the street price of the camera has fallen to $6500 does not change the fact that the camera's RRP is $7999. People who should know maintain that most of the current discount is coming out of the reseller's pockets and not those of Canon.
Asking Nikon to introduce a newer, possibly better, competitor to the 1Ds at a significantly reduced price, amounts to asking Nikon to enter into a price war with Canon. Which I'm sure they can't win. That's why they won't. Period.
Whichever way you look at it, Nikon is just following the pricing set by Canon. Price at introduction: Same . Price difference between the high resolution pro body and the high speed pro body, both at introduction and current street price: Similar. I will guess that their estimates about their break even volumes are similar too: Low.
So whoevers needs the expensive cameras and can afford them buys them. Otherwise just waits or goes for the cheaper body alternatives. As simple as that.
Nikon's problem is not D3x pricing. That's the photographer's problem. Nikon's problem is one and only: Where's the D700x?????
-
It seems to me that unlike almost any camera release I can remember the D3X is being based on purely it's price and not capabilities. Normally the camera goes through a review cycle in the press/web where it's technical capabilities are assessed and once there's been a decent appraisal of the camera's capabilities it is then also assessed for 'value for money' whatever that means. We seem to have skipped all this sanity and just jumped in to focus on the price differential.
That's because everybody is taking it for granted that the D3x will be amazing... if it ends up not being that amazing, the complaints on pricing will further inflate.
I almost find it ironic that Nikon is now being perceived as the 'gouger' after years of Canon 1Ds I/II/III releases at exactly the same price point.
Well, that's the difference one year and 2 much cheaper bodies makes...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's because everybody is taking it for granted that the D3x will be amazing... if it ends up not being that amazing, the complaints on pricing will further inflate.
Well, one thing that's bound to make matters worse is when people realize that the max. frame rates are quoted for 12-bit shooting and the frame rates for 14-bit shooting are reportedly much less though not officially quoted (both for FX and DX crop), lending credibility to the assumption that this is the Sony chip packaged with external ADCs and supporting circuits and with different Bayer and AA filters. Regardless if 12 bit vs 14 bit makes any distinguishable difference at all, the comparison to the 1DsMkIII is inevitable to raise some eyebrows.
-
Well, one thing that's bound to make matters worse is when people realize that the max. frame rates are quoted for 12-bit shooting and the frame rates for 14-bit shooting are reportedly much less though not officially quoted (both for FX and DX crop). Regardless if 12 bit vs 14 bit makes any distinguishable difference at all, the comparison to the 1DsMkIII is inevitable to raise some eyebrows.
Yes, indeed. Not sure where the truth lies on that one though. The D3 is for sure able to maintain the same throughput in 12 and 14 bits, but the D300 cannot.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, one thing that's bound to make matters worse is when people realize that the max. frame rates are quoted for 12-bit shooting and the frame rates for 14-bit shooting are reportedly much less though not officially quoted (both for FX and DX crop), lending credibility to the assumption that this is the Sony chip packaged with external ADCs and supporting circuits and with different Bayer and AA filters. Regardless if 12 bit vs 14 bit makes any distinguishable difference at all, the comparison to the 1DsMkIII is inevitable to raise some eyebrows.
Recognize that having the Nikon image processing chain different downstream of the sensor is precisely what makes the difference in terms of image quality, color rendition, noise characteristics, DR etc. It's the one area where Nikon have shown their mastery over the years and particularly with the D300/D3/D700 and their XPEED processor. There's also the obvious other aspect of the image chain - the RAW convertor too; another area where Nikon have excelled for rendering,even from their slow as molasses original Nikon Capture days. It's not just about the chip.
Nikon has a tough job these days because the image quality bar is so high with much more affordable cameras. However, as is shown in the medium format digital market, people are prepared to pay a substantial premium for the ultimate quality.
As regards pricing - consider 'want' vs 'need'. I'm not a pro but if I were and I thought I needed the extra capabilities of the D3X to maintain my competitiveness and differentiate my work from others for the available business, I'd get the D3X in a heartbeat. As a non-pro I'm in the 'want' category ... I shoot Leica these days so my cost/value equation may be a little skewed.
-
Yes, indeed. Not sure where the truth lies on that one though. The D3 is for sure able to maintain the same throughput in 12 and 14 bits, but the D300 cannot.
Hello Bernard. There's some fairly convincing evidence that the lower frame rate at 14-bits is true (someone actually got their hands on a D3X and tried it - it worked out to around 2 frames/sec in 14-bit mode).
The thing that I wonder about is what this tells us about whether the D3X uses the Sony sensor's on-chip A/Ds (in a Nikon-exclusive 14-bit mode) or hgher quality external A/Ds. There's been much speculation as to whether the D3X was using high quality external A/Ds instead of the A/Ds that are on the Sony chip. In fact, many have claimed that the D3X will have superior image quality because it's using these external A/Ds. But if this is just like the D300, then I'm starting to think the D3X is using the same on-chip A/Ds as the A900 is using. So I wonder - how do people expect the D3X image quality to be any better than the A900?
-
Hello Bernard. There's some fairly convincing evidence that the lower frame rate at 14-bits is true (someone actually got their hands on a D3X and tried it - it worked out to around 2 frames/sec in 14-bit mode).
The thing that I wonder about is what this tells us about whether the D3X uses the Sony sensor's on-chip A/Ds (in a Nikon-exclusive 14-bit mode) or hgher quality external A/Ds. There's been much speculation as to whether the D3X was using high quality external A/Ds instead of the A/Ds that are on the Sony chip. In fact, many have claimed that the D3X will have superior image quality because it's using these external A/Ds. But if this is just like the D300, then I'm starting to think the D3X is using the same on-chip A/Ds as the A900 is using. So I wonder - how do people expect the D3X image quality to be any better than the A900?
Yep, that is indeed troubling.
As far as I am concerned, 2 fps would not be an issue, but those shooting fashion might find this to be a problem.
Maybe that's what Nikon meant when comparing the D3x to a MFDB, "as slow as one"...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon's problem is not D3x pricing. That's the photographer's problem. Nikon's problem is one and only: Where's the D700x?????
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.
-
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.
What bothers most of us here is that Nikon could very well have decided to release the D700x before the D3x. Nikon has become a very agile company, what we have here is a clear commercial choice that, coupled with the high price point of the D3x, makes it difficult for faithful Nikon customers to access higher resolutions quickly enough.
Nobody complained when they did the same thing with the D3 because the D3 had a more reasonable price point, this time around it looks like customer milking at its worst.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.
How can they possibly release a D700x at $3500 and keep the list price of the D3x at $8000? IMHO people who don't mind the D3x price because they're expecting a D700x in 7 months for $3000 or even $3500 are engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. To think that you could purchase a D3 and a D700x for the price of a D3x seems pretty ridiculous. The D700 released at $2K below the D3, or maybe it was $2.5K I can't remember. But either way, that's a much smaller price differential than people seem to be expecting between the D3x and D700x (or whatever it ends up being called). I really don't see how Nikon can release a D700x for under $5K without lowering the price of the D3x to keep things in line, which I don't think they're going to want to do so soon after release.
-
We won't see them release a lower-spec body (D700/x) and a high-spec body (D3/x) with the same sensor at the same time, it will always be high-end first, lower model second. I seriously doubt that Nikon is planning on recovering their 24MP sensor costs with just the D3x.
People here act like Canon is surprised when the 5D "undercuts" 1Ds sales, that Nikon is surprised when people buy D700s instead of D3, D200 instead of D2x, D100 instead of D1x, F100 instead of F5... Maybe, just maybe, it's part of the plan all along?
Yes, of course. I might not have been clear but that is exactly what I meant to say. Nikon is of course free to plan all they want, but there comes a point where the value proposition for their customers isn't appealing anymore.
Early adopters & those with real need will pay "any" price. Masses will wait patiently for a "bargain".
Regarding the price, if the difference between $5000-$8000 is a problem for a professional tool that will be competitive for at least 2-3 years, I think you have other problems. Boycotting it on principle? Well, OK, good for you.
Is the D3x really going to stay competitve for 2-3 years? Unless Canon has really given up on investing in DSLRs, they should be coming up with a new flagship within a year, hopefully with competitive physical features.
As far as the price goes, we are indeed discussing more about principles here. But principles do matter because those who don't react this time around shouldn't complain when Canon and Nikon release their next high end 35 MP flagship at 12.000 US$ on the grounds that it is even more of a threat for MF...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not sure how much this means, but a good friend of mine had over 300 orders for the 5Dii, compared with a whopping nine for the D3x as of this morning. With the number of Nikon shooters out there, that seems telling.
- N.
-
Not sure how much this means, but a good friend of mine had over 300 orders for the 5Dii, compared with a whopping nine for the D3x as of this morning. With the number of Nikon shooters out there, that seems telling.
- N.
Nothing much, rest assured.
How many orders for the 1DsMkIII did he have?
I guess this will never stop until Nikon releases a D700x... People feel the need to report that the BMW 3-series sells more than the Merc S-Class implying that Merc should do something about it.
People have elevated comparing apples to oranges to an art.
-
Hi,
Look here, Nikon is simply trying to skim the market. They introduce the D3X at a very high price at which only those having plenty of greenback buy. The price will than erode to the level slightly above the price of the D3. Initial earnings on the D3x will be very good, especially as development costs are relatively small.
Camera is almost identical to D3
The chip used in the D3X is almost certainly very similar to the one in the 300D
So Nikon will earn a lot of money on the first batch of cameras. Everyone is going to be happy. Canon is going to be happy, Sony is going to be happy. Some Nikon users will not be happy, namely those starved for pixels but without truckloads of greenbacks.
My personal guess is that Nikon's decision was not a very smart one. For a long time Canon has dominated in the professional area of photography, due to having full frame. With the D3 Nikon reestablished itself as a leading vendor for sports and action type photography. The risk for Nikon is now that they will loose a lot of momentum in the Landscape/Studio market.
My guess BTW is that Canon has also a 3D on the shelf, essentially a 5D with 6-7 FPS and the autofocus from the 50D. The 5DII is probably intended to be a bit lame compared with the 1DsIII. So I guess that the 3D will be unveiled when Nikon introduces the D700X or if Alpha 900 hurts 5DII sales.
Best regards
Erik
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.
-
Two reasons:
1) They are quite competitive with similarly equipped PC-s, it seems.
2) They simple work
That said, I would gladly send my iMac to pasture if:
Lightroom was available for Linux
There was a decent color calibration support for Linux
Printing would work correctly with Linux
Adobe would release Photoshop for Linux
Why? Because I could build a Linux computer 4 CPU-s and 16 Gbyte memory for perhaps 600 USD (using existing parts). Also I actually think that Linux is far better than Darwin, the OS below the Mac interface. The interface itself is to my liking. It simply works and looks pretty nice.
Regarding Windows I won't use that peace of crap if I can avoid it. Unfortunately I cannot, I have it at work and also as a multimedia computer at home. I truly hate Windows but reality forces me to use it anyway. So I know both worlds.
Erik
Since when does the price charged have anything to do with the cost of production? It shouldn't. Nikon may not be getting the yields to ship camera in mass to everyone who wants one at the anticipated $5k price point (what I expected). Since those who use the camera productively want to put them to use asap, they should get first bite and at a price that gives them first opportunity without the 6 month wait if the masses were in the game.
This is just how business works. When the pipeline fills,the price will be lowered to allow production capacity to meet demand.
I too am disappointed and canceled my order with Midwest. To me the camera is a component of my hobby. I can see how it adds to the capability of someone who earns with the camera.
Why isn't anyone unhappy with Apple, best margins in the computer industry. We all pay up for ipods, iphones, imacs and Mac Pros with no complaint.
Marketing 101
bob
-
I guess this will never stop until Nikon releases a D700x... People feel the need to report that the BMW 3-series sells more than the Merc S-Class implying that Merc should do something about it.
People have elevated comparing apples to oranges to an art.
Nikos,
I could argue that your camera to car comparison is just that, isn't it? Apple to oranges.
But if you want to go there, a better example would be an Imprezza WRC relative to a BMW M3. Similar performance but very different price point. The difference with cameras being that people buy cars to show off, while cameras are mostly used to take pictures.
Anyway, our respective takes on this issue are clear by now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikos,
I could argue that your camera to car comparison is just that, isn't it? Apple to oranges.
But if you want to go there, a better example would be an Imprezza WRC relative to a BMW M3. Similar performance but very different price point. The difference with cameras being that people buy cars to show off, while cameras are mostly used to take pictures.
Anyway, our respective takes on this issue are clear by now.
Cheers,
Bernard
It depends how you define performance. In camera world is it only IQ that interests you? In the car world is ii only HP that interests you? That's why I gave the 3-series vs S-class example which I think is clearer. You can get similar HP cars in each of the lines but there the similarity ends...
-
Nothing much, rest assured.
How many orders for the 1DsMkIII did he have?
I guess this will never stop until Nikon releases a D700x... People feel the need to report that the BMW 3-series sells more than the Merc S-Class implying that Merc should do something about it.
People have elevated comparing apples to oranges to an art.
Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Canonites have had a meaningful, high-res, FF, MF-rivalling camera solution since the 1DsII came out in the late Paleozoic period (4!#^? years ago). They sold zillions of them. Nikon lost phalanxes of pros to Canon. Then, Canon upped the ante with the 1DsIII. The elation was more muted, since it was a mere upgrade. However, they have still sold boatloads of them, too.
Nikonites, on the other hand, have waited for ever and ever to have a camera in the same class. The D3/D700 are both spectacular image-engines, but they are not in the same 'class'. Let me be specific: this is not a normative description. In many instances the D3/D700 are *better* than the "MF League" Canons (and now A900). However, they do not rival the 1dsIII (or 5Dii or A900 or MFDB) because they do not perform the same function for the types of photography where the utmost resolution is of serious importance.
More ink (or bits) has been spilled by Nikonites pining for and predicting the high-res Nikon FF camera than on virtually any other topic over the years.
And now, it's HERE!! In all probability, it's an absolutely brilliant camera. AND, because of the brilliance of the D3 & D700, there are once again legions of Nikon shooters out there with great glass just itching to be unleashed on the D3x.
And the D3x drops and...............it's like a pebble hitting the water. Huh?? In one major city of a million people, the leading photo retailer has 300 5D2s on order and 9 D3xs ??!?!?!?
Two possibilities: (i) no one shooting the sort of work you need 20+Mps for still shoots Nikon. This is highly unlikely, since a clear majority of the 5D2 buyers are rich amateurs. Or, (ii) everyone is waiting for the price to drop to where the price for 20+Mp dslrs currently sits. Even at $5900 they'd sell container-loads of them.
But at $8K, only the really rich or really devoted or really impatient are biting. Sure, these are the fat, slow, Wildebeast of the photo-veld, and Nikon will feast mightily off them, but they are few and far between.
In the meantime, a lot of potential customers probably have the money to pick up a 5D2 or an A900 just to play around with it. Letting your customers 'see other people' until you decide to put out......that's a bad business model
So no, it's not apples and oranges. It's apples, and $10 a pound organic designer apples.....going stale on the shelf.
- N.
-
I note that Marcus Bell has some Australian fashion images up from the D3x (and the 50 AF-S). There are crops and larger versions of the photos can be seen by clicking on them. Something for folks to divert themselves with as they ponder MSRPs. The link: http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.co...-sample-images/ (http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/2008/11/nikon-d3x-sample-images/)
-
Isn't the D3X announced price the same as the 1DsMk3? What gives? Why the outburst against Nikon and not against Canon? How about Phase One?
Frankly, all along, I thought that Canon's pricing was the epitome of arrogance, but that didn't seem to bother anybody before. Now Nikon offers what we were asking for--a higher pixel count D3 to match the 1DsMk3. Did you actually think that Nikon was going to give them away? If Canon is going to charge $8000, why not Nikon? Frankly, the Nikon is the better camera.
And to compare this camera to the Sony or the 5Dmk2 (which we've never seen yet and might be a dog for all we know) is incompatible with common sense. This is no different than back in the film days saying that a EOS Rebel was just as good as a EOS 1V. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. (Until I see a Sony A900 image that isn't smeared from too high Noise-Reduction... The Sony, as good as it is, ain't no Nikon or Canon).
Michael, your rant should not be aimed at Nikon, but at the entire industry that continues to find some justification for these excessive equipment prices. And you are as much to blame as anybody because you've been the poster-child of the camera buyer that must have the "latest-greatest" at any price. After all, you had a standing pre-order on a camera that nobody has ever seen nor had any proven track-record one way or the other.
Ken
Ken,
Michael's latest "What's New" addresses most of your post.
The only thing I would add is that manufacturers can do what they want and consumers can do what they want. That's what a market is all about. Frankly, from my perspective, especially in this economic environment, releasing such a camera at this time and at that price point is just plain nuts. But ther market will tell us more about that one way or another not too long after it ships.
Mark
-
Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Canonites have had a meaningful, high-res, FF, MF-rivalling camera solution since the 1DsII came out in the late Paleozoic period (4!#^? years ago). They sold zillions of them. Nikon lost phalanxes of pros to Canon. Then, Canon upped the ante with the 1DsIII. The elation was more muted, since it was a mere upgrade. However, they have still sold boatloads of them, too.
Nikonites, on the other hand, have waited for ever and ever to have a camera in the same class. The D3/D700 are both spectacular image-engines, but they are not in the same 'class'. Let me be specific: this is not a normative description. In many instances the D3/D700 are *better* than the "MF League" Canons (and now A900). However, they do not rival the 1dsIII (or 5Dii or A900 or MFDB) because they do not perform the same function for the types of photography where the utmost resolution is of serious importance.
More ink (or bits) has been spilled by Nikonites pining for and predicting the high-res Nikon FF camera than on virtually any other topic over the years.
And now, it's HERE!! In all probability, it's an absolutely brilliant camera. AND, because of the brilliance of the D3 & D700, there are once again legions of Nikon shooters out there with great glass just itching to be unleashed on the D3x.
And the D3x drops and...............it's like a pebble hitting the water. Huh?? In one major city of a million people, the leading photo retailer has 300 5D2s on order and 9 D3xs ??!?!?!?
Two possibilities: (i) no one shooting the sort of work you need 20+Mps for still shoots Nikon. This is highly unlikely, since a clear majority of the 5D2 buyers are rich amateurs. Or, (ii) everyone is waiting for the price to drop to where the price for 20+Mp dslrs currently sits. Even at $5900 they'd sell container-loads of them.
But at $8K, only the really rich or really devoted or really impatient are biting. Sure, these are the fat, slow, Wildebeast of the photo-veld, and Nikon will feast mightily off them, but they are few and far between.
In the meantime, a lot of potential customers probably have the money to pick up a 5D2 or an A900 just to play around with it. Letting your customers 'see other people' until you decide to put out......that's a bad business model
So no, it's not apples and oranges. It's apples, and $10 a pound organic designer apples.....going stale on the shelf.
- N.
You write a long post just to argue what? What I already supposed you were. You're asking for a D700x (rightly so) and in the meantime you're comparing the D3x to the 5DII. That's an apples to oranges comparison if I ever saw one.
-
Somebody has been devoting a bit of time to this issue...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, thanks for sharing - made my Sunday morning.
-
Thanks for the pointer Bernard.
Absolute genius. Funniest thing I've seen in a very long time.
-
That's hilarious, Bernard. I enjoyed that immensely .
-
Somebody has been devoting a bit of time to this issue...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0)
This probably qualifies as a case of Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) which i suppose means everyone should stop lamenting and get back out and actually take pictures with their overpriced (or not) cameras...
Greetings,
-
I'm going out to shoot some snaps with my Holga this weekend - which interestingly, at $28, many people are saying is WAY overpriced. Amusing. Often I think this of site as camera equipment porn. Anyone ever question why it's 99% men on this site?
Regards, rt.