Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: MatthewCromer on November 30, 2008, 11:30:13 pm
-
$8000?!
Nikon execs must have missed the memo: the global economy is collapsing, people have seen their net worth slashed in half, commercial studios are bleeding, and you think you can charge $8000 when Sony is selling a comparable camera for less than half that, with Canon selling something close enough for $2700.
This camera should have been introduced for $5000 and the D3 lowered to $4000. It is now absolutely critical that Nikon get the D700x / D800 out as soon as possible for under $3000. The days of milking high end photo customers are OVER with the Alpha 900 and 5D2 on the market.
What a disaster for Nikon!!!
-
I sure hope that's a misprint......
Will have to wait a few months to see if the price drops to a reasonable range. Hopefully lack of sales (due strictly to price) will force Nikon to drop it a notch or two.
-
It makes me wonder what a "D700x" (or whatever they choose to call the next camera body with the D3x sensor in it) will cost. I might decide to switch systems if Nikon doesn't make the next camera's price competitive.
-
I sure hope that's a misprint......
Will have to wait a few months to see if the price drops to a reasonable range. Hopefully lack of sales (due strictly to price) will force Nikon to drop it a notch or two.
I would not mind paying 5000 for something like that. For a thousand dollars more I could get a medium format Phase one at 9K! This is not competitive and reeks of greed to me. Very disappointed.
-
Yes, they are. The street price in Tokyo appears to be around 800.000 Yen, that's indeed at least 30% too expensive.
The A900 appears to be more tempting every day that passes by.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
they probably justify the price over the sony and 5dmk2 because it has better autofocus i.e. 51 point autofocus and yadda yadda and "bulletproof"contruction sorta i dunno i had the 5dmk2 in my hands and the sony didnt feel like chopped liver but it didnt feel like my d300 either as for me the only thing im investing in in the coming year is lenses or maybe just 1 lens .. i can see eventually the 5dmk2 and/or the sony falling in price a lot and making it more enticing to buy 1 and going to a 2 brand setup for different purposes ..as far as d3x and a d700x or whatever they will call it those who need ultra mega pixels will find a way to pay for it
-
they probably justify the price over the sony and 5dmk2 because it has better autofocus i.e. 51 point autofocus and yadda yadda and "bulletproof"contruction sorta i dunno i had the 5dmk2 in my hands and the sony didnt feel like chopped liver but it didnt feel like my d300 either as for me the only thing im investing in in the coming year is lenses or maybe just 1 lens .. i can see eventually the 5dmk2 and/or the sony falling in price a lot and making it more enticing to buy 1 and going to a 2 brand setup for different purposes ..as far as d3x and a d700x or whatever they will call it those who need ultra mega pixels will find a way to pay for it
As long as they are not convincing me of their value offering, I seriously doubt that they will suceed to convince a significant amount of Nikon shooters, especially considering the current economic turmoil.
We all know that they can produce the D3 pretty cheap now, the sensor appears to be Sony made and is probably worth about the same as the D3 sensor. I am personnally not willing to let them get away with this kind of pricing/margins. How much is the next one going to cost?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder how many of you guys have a sense of corporate business and pricing. Cost of production is usually a minor factor when we're talking about Pro and niche products. Could anybody tell me what the official price of the 1DsMkIII is? Ah! I thought so.. Who's going to buy the D3X? The same kind of people who are buying the 1DsMkIII.
No manufacturer is going to price their product at introduction too aggressively against their immediate competition unless they are ready to engage in a price war which they think they could win and re-define a market. And Nikon has showed up till now that they do not want to engage in a price war with Canon.
Everybody is mentioning the 5DII and the A900 as if those were the D3X's competitors. Well, I'm sorry, but they aren't. Not in Nikon's mind, and it shouldn't be in your minds either since the only thing that we currently know they have in common is sensor resolution.
I guess what everybody wants to say is that a D700x is sorely missing from the Nikon line-up. To this I have to agree. I would expect Nikon not to wait too long before introducing the D700x. But to expect of Nikon to engage in a catastrophic (for them) price war with Canon at this stage is absurd business wise.
The 1DsMkIII's price has slipped and will slip more now that there's competition around, and I'm sure that Nikon have built enough margin in the D3x's official price to follow suit (and to compete in those special bids we all know take place in the pro market..). But this is a wholly different matter than engaging in a full scale price war on introduction, and that's what would have happened if Nikon had priced the D3x at $5000-$6000 as people seem to propose. Who would have won? Nobody, of course (but the consumer) with Canon emerging in a much better state than Nikon due to their size and the fact that they should have amortized much of the development cost by now.
The $7K-$8K price range at introduction still makes sense for cameras that claim to challenge MF backs in what they deliver to the pro. Target audience: A couple of Pro niches (+ the dentists) as it has always been with the 1Ds series.
So wishful thinking is one thing, realistic thinking is another... Who's on crack now?
-
Perhaps Nikon don't expect to sell many due to the reasons above - if it is not meant to challenge any specific market level (which are all becoming more saturated with every passing year) then sales will be lower and you need to charge more. So the high price becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The people who will buy it are those who (a) have a sort of 'completist collector' approach and like to get the latest and the best of a specific brand or ( those who want the very specific things that the model gives them.
-
I guess every rent in the pro world will buy a couple of those. A lot of pros including myself who always shot nikon back in the film days and had to switch to canon because nikon's lineup was just not good enough in the last years will consider the D3x. I was really lookin forward to this camera, ok, the price tag is high but it will come done a bit.
What the real bummer is (and I know I will get lynched for that): NO VIDEO!!! Hello Nikon, are you sleeping (or really on crack)? I was expecting 1080p with variable framerates (and maybe even raw video)... Now I will not even consider this cam but place an order for the 5D Mk II.
cheers
-
any info on the date of availability?
-
any info on the date of availability?
Late December. This year
-
Everybody is mentioning the 5DII and the A900 as if those were the D3X's competitors. Well, I'm sorry, but they aren't. Not in Nikon's mind, and it shouldn't be in your minds either since the only thing that we currently know they have in common is sensor resolution.
And for many people that will be why they bought them. The 1Ds is often used as a studio camera and a MF replcement, so the Sony A900 and the 5DII are indeed it's competitors now.
The $7K-$8K price range at introduction still makes sense for cameras that claim to challenge MF backs in what they deliver to the pro. Target audience: A couple of Pro niches (+ the dentists) as it has always been with the 1Ds series.
and like pros bopught the 1Ds instead of MF cameras, some will now buy 5DII/Sony A900s instead of the 1Ds.
So wishful thinking is one thing, realistic thinking is another... Who's on crack now?
Nikon fanbois it would appear!
If Nikon had introduced this when the 1DSII appeared, I doubt there would have been so much of a fuss, but it appears to be a little lacking by today's standards/competition. And as $8000 usually translates into £8000 over here, I doubt many of them will sell in UK if that is the case, as most photographers [all over the world] who wanted high-res 35mm kit will have switched to Canon a long time ago.
If however the image quality is way, way better than the Canon, then they would have an advantage. But is it too little to late for that part of the market - advertising or studio photographers.
-
It's GBP 5499 according to the announcement. So you're lucky you just saved 2.5K pounds.
You think that trying to put some things under business perspective rather than let everyone moan about why a ferrari or a lorry is much more expensive than their average car makes me a fanboy then? Surely a strange way of thinking.
Yes, some / many people will use 5DIIs, A900s and D700x (when they materlialize) instead of the top level cameras. Manufacturers know that, I suppose. What do you think is the percentage of those people buying such cameras that would have bought the very expensive ones if they didn't have an alternative? The manufacturers seem to think that it's small...otherwise they wouldn't have introduced the cheaper cameras in the first place. Remember it was Canon who did that at a time when their 1Ds was the only high res camera out there. Have they been suicidal?
As I said before, nobody would have been moaning about the D3x price if the D700x had been introduced at the same time. Their perspective would have changed comparing apples to apples.
And a last thing. It's Canon who have defined the price range in this market. If Canon responds with lowering their price substanstially, I'm sure Nikon have built in the margins to reply appropriately. Nikon's problem is not the D3x price. It is the non existence of the D700x.
-
You think that trying to put some things under business perspective rather than let everyone moan about why a ferrari or a lorry is much more expensive than their average car makes me a fanboy then? Surely a strange way of thinking.
I don't know what bussines perespective do they have, but IMO there's something wrong with it:
D1 - 5500$
D1H - 3100$
D1X - 3900$
D2H - 3200$
D2Hs - 3500$
D2X - 5000$
D2Xs - 4700$
D3 - 5000$
D3X -8000$!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't know what bussines perespective do they have, but IMO there's something wrong with it:
D1 - 5500$
D1H - 3100$
D1X - 3900$
D2H - 3200$
D2Hs - 3500$
D2X - 5000$
D2Xs - 4700$
D3 - 5000$
D3X -8000$!!!!!!!!!!!
Get the D3 then. Still current AFAIK. Pls. check RRP prices for Canon 1DMkIII vs 1DsMkIII.
Why is it so difficult to understand that you can't underprice your product against a direct competitor light heartedly, especially when you want to argue that it's a better product. You don't have to like Nikon's pricing. Just try to understand how pricing works.
-
Get the D3 then. Still current AFAIK. Pls. check RRP prices for Canon 1DMkIII vs 1DsMkIII.
Why is it so difficult to understand that you can't underprice your product against a direct competitor light heartedly, especially when you want to argue that it's a better product. You don't have to like Nikon's pricing. Just try to understand how pricing works.
1DsMk3 was introduced 1,5 yrs ago. And it didn't have any direct competitor at that time.
-
1DsMk3 was introduced 1,5 yrs ago. And it didn't have any direct competitor at that time.
For Pete's sake. It's a current model with the same official price. I'm sure the D3x will follow its price slip soon enough.
Do BMW introduce a model competitive to a Mercedes model at a vastly reduced price? Why should they? To start a price war? Street prices are slipping, but people should understand that introducing a new model at an official price in line with the competition and let it slip is very different than introducing a model at a significantly reduced price.
Quoting Bjorn Rorslett from nikongear.com:
'The market segment addressed by this model might not be big enough to drive the price down quickly. When I talked to a senior executive at Nikon Nordic, he estimated the projected sale of D3X to be less than 1/3 of the D3 in terms of units, however, the positive side effects of Nikon's encroachment into the studio arena were perceived to be huge.'
Never mind. I'm done with all this.
-
Do BMW introduce a model competitive to a Mercedes model at a vastly reduced price? Why should they? To start a price war? Street prices are slipping, but people should understand that introducing a new model at an official price in line with the competition and let it slip is very different than introducing a model at a significantly reduced price.
Yes, it is. On the other hand, Nikon is clearly the challenger here.
But I agree with you, only future will tell whether Nikon picked the right price point or not.
You are saying that you understand their pricing policy, I understand too why they might have done it, but I strongly believe that they have made their biggest mistake so far with this.
The only reason why it migth not be a mistake is if they are facing some production issues that prevent them from building too many D3x anyway.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think they are having any production issues but then that's only my uneducated guess.
I believe the proof of the pudding will be based on the following two things:
1. Market perception of D3x IQ (since the rest is given). Does it noticeably surpass the 1Ds, the 5DII and the Sony? Does it challenge low-end MF?
2. Time and price of D700x introduction (that will indirectly also give an answer to your speculation about production issues).
-
The natural price comparison for the D3x is clearly the Canon 1Ds MkIII, not the lower spec 5DMkII or A900. Features other than the sensor have a lot to do with the cost and fair market value of an SLR, as shown by the great variation in the prices of 35mm film SLR bodies, all of which use the same "sensors".
The 1DsMkIII (and indeed all 1Ds models) have come to market at exactly the US$8,000 price that Nikon has announced for the D3x. But the 1DsMkIII is now down to about US$6,700, so the question is whether Nikon can sustain that $1,300 price premium. My guess it that it can initially, due to pent-up demand for a high end, high resolution 35mm format D-SLR body from owners of substantial Nikon lens collections. But hopeful, D3X prices will come down after that initial spike of demand is satisfied, just as they have with the 1DsMkIII. Unit cost should be no higher than for the D3, but if there is inherently less demand for the D3x than from all the sports/PJ types getting the D3, the D3x price may have to stay somewhat higher, like the roughly $1000 gap that Nikon had between its earlier "h" and "x" models.
Maybe another comparison is to the low end of MF bodies and sensors, 22MP to 31MP, with which the D3x is also intended to compete. The D3x price looks good in that comparison!
-
The $8000 price band is not going to be left empty. That cannot be done. You cannot have dSLRs topping out at 5-6K and then a huge gap to the low-end MF. Price voids get quickly filled in marketing. So unless someone can demonstrate that there is a better product in that price band, D3x's introductory price is justified. It doesn't matter if some people think that some cheaper products can offer 80-90 or 95% of the dearer product's qualities. You have to make yourself that cheaper product (i.e. D700x) not bring down the price of your top product. Bringing down the price of your new top product just because you don't have a product in the middle leaves you both with narrower margins than your competition (which is a very very bad thing) and lowers the perceived value of your product.
-
I bought the D3 at a time when I was shooting with a Canon D40 and this all resulted in a costly system switch.
I love the camera and I am happy with the photos but . . , my biggest beef is the sensor dust issue. Apparently many D3 shooters are having the same problem.
So I was curious about the D3x, but now see that other than enhanced pixels, there's not much difference between the two.
Since I use a D300 as a back up, I will wait to see if they come out with a D700X.
$8000 is just plain stupid.
-
I did a Michael this morning. I was top of the queue for a new D3x at my local dealer until I read the price. After a double-take, I canceled.
I now have an A900 / 24-70mm Zeiss ordered in its place. In many respects this will suit me better - lower weight, in-camera stabilization, great Zeiss lenses that I miss from my days as a Contax user. Maybe the D3x edges it on image quality, but I have no reservations about the A900 from the samples I have seen, and Sony won't be resting on their laurels.
Quentin
-
I'm not entirely surprised by Nikon's strategy regarding D3x pricing. Expecting anything other than a 1Ds Mark III in specification and price was unrealistic. If there is an issue here it's that Nikon didn't announce or hint at a closer competitor to the 5D Mk II.
I posted an article from the Japan Times (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21943&st=0#entry163180) last December:
"Nikon President Michio Kariya said in a separate interview Dec. 13 his Tokyo-based company has no intention of competing head-on with Canon in the fast-growing global market for digital SLR cameras."
Not so great for consumers but neither company want to go head to head and enter in to an aggressive price war over a low volume product like the 1Ds Mark III and D3x.
-
Bringing down the price of your new top product just because you don't have a product in the middle leaves you both with narrower margins than your competition (which is a very very bad thing) and lowers the perceived value of your product.
Only an idiot judges the value of something, simply based on the price. Mind you the amount of people willing to buy clothes simply because they have a 'label' on them which means it costs 5-10 times what the identical garment would without it, shows there are an awful lot of idiots out there.
RED cameras have produced kit that vastly undercuts their competition's prices, yet their gear is well regarded and also thought of as a very high quality product. Price point marketing is just a way to fleece customers.
Plus selling say ten times the amount with a lower profit margin can make you more money then lower numbers with a higher profit margin. Not to mention the extra lenses you will sell if you tempt those who gave up on Nikon and now have Canon gear.
-
..as far as d3x and a d700x or whatever they will call it those who need ultra mega pixels will find a way to pay for it
Simple answer for me: buy an A900.
Nikon's problem is not the D3x price. It is the non existence of the D700x.
I agree, but we currently have no way of knowing when a "D700x" will be available or how much it will cost.
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this topic; but so are a lot of us. It might be useful to stop repeating our points.
-
Only an idiot judges the value of something, simply based on the price. Mind you the amount of people willing to buy clothes simply because they have a 'label' on them which means it costs 5-10 times what the identical garment would without it, shows there are an awful lot of idiots out there.
RED cameras have produced kit that vastly undercuts their competition's prices, yet their gear is well regarded and also thought of as a very high quality product. Price point marketing is just a way to fleece customers.
Plus selling say ten times the amount with a lower profit margin can make you more money then lower numbers with a higher profit margin. Not to mention the extra lenses you will sell if you tempt those who gave up on Nikon and now have Canon gear.
You seem to be a marketing expert. So a D3x or a 1Ds can be a high volume product if priced 'right' in your opinion. I wonder why Nikon or Canon don't think this way...
BTW Price point marketing as you call it is the rule in non comoditized products and you'll be surprised to know not only in the consumer section. The RED is an example of a market changing product in the sense I have expressed it in a previous post and in the same sense that the Canon D30 was back in the old days.
-
You seem to be a marketing expert. So a D3x or a 1Ds can be a high volume product if priced 'right' in your opinion. I wonder why Nikon or Canon don't think this way...
Why didn't Nikon price the D3 at 8000 US$ then? In many ways, it is a camera that is more game changing than the d3x isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why didn't Nikon price the D3 at 8000 US$ then? In many ways, it is a camera that is more game changing than the d3x isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
No it isn't a market changing camera. It is just a very good one. D3's direct competition has always been the 1DIII and that's what it wa priced against. Why didn't you complain about it's price relative to the 5D? BTW the 5D was a market changing camera as was original 1Ds, the Canon D30 and to a lesser extend the Nikon D40.
-
No it isn't a market changing camera. It is just a very good one. D3's direct competition has always been the 1DIII and that's what it wa priced against. Why didn't you complain about it's price relative to the 5D? BTW the 5D was a market changing camera as was original 1Ds, the Canon D30 and to a lesser extend the Nikon D40.
The D3 is the body that convinced Michael Reichman to move back to Nikon. There isn't more game changing than that.
I didn't complain about its price because it was in line with prevous Nikon high end releases and it did offer good value compared to the competition. As i mentioned, I would not be complaining about the D3x price if it were around 6000 US$, which is significantly more expensive than the A900/5DII still.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No it [the D3] isn't a market changing camera. It is just a very good one.
It was the first FX camera; that's ground breaking since there was no 135 format Nikon DSLR before that. There was a flood of photographers that switched to Nikon from Canon after the introduction of the D3, and its ground breaking ISO was a big reason.
D3's direct competition has always been the 1DIII and that's what it was priced against.
Yes, the 1DIII is in direct competition with the D3, but it is equally credible to argue that the price of the D3 is consistent with what Nikon charged for their previous flagship DSLR which was the D2xs.
Why didn't you complain about it's price relative to the 5D?
Its price relative to the 5D is clearly justifiable because it has a built-in vertical grip, more rugged body, faster fps, larger buffer, better AF, dual CF cards slots, newer technology, etc. What is to complain about? BTW, Nikon's D700 has a lot of those same advantages over the 5D, but the D700 differences from the D3 quantifies the value of the extra features and performance the D3 offers.
BTW the 5D was a market changing camera as was original 1Ds, the Canon D30 and to a lesser extend the Nikon D40.
Yes, but the D3x is not, at least not in a positive sense. It has the same price and nearly the same specs as the 1DsIII, but the 1DsIII is now selling on the street for $1300 less than the D3. Judging by the number of people who are not lining up to buy the D3x (in stark contrast to what happened when the D3 was announced), the most memorable thing about this release will be how badly it was handled. Lets face it, from what I'm seeing right now, the D3x announcement has driven more people away from Nikon than towards it -- I haven't read one person in the last two days say they were switching to Nikon, I have heard some say quite the opposite -- so perversely, perhaps the D3x is a market changing camera.
-
It's all comes down to personal economics, and what is the right tool for the job. Although I like film and use it for personal artsy stuff and landscapes, I did not hesitate to purchase a 1Ds in lieu of a fast paced, same day turning around corporate job. You can't have small purse thinking. $8000 is nothing to a busy studio when you can realize ROI within a week.
-
It's all comes down to personal economics, and what is the right tool for the job. Although I like film and use it for personal artsy stuff and landscapes, I did not hesitate to purchase a 1Ds in lieu of a fast paced, same day turning around corporate job. You can't have small purse thinking. $8000 is nothing to a busy studio when you can realize ROI within a week.
$8000 is still $5000 more than $3000, regardless of whether the ROI is one week or one year.
The fact is that for most studio usage, the 5DII and A900 will do just as well as the D3x, but save the photographer enough money to buy a new high end Mac Pro workstation and screen.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You can't have small purse thinking. $8000 is nothing to a busy studio when you can realize ROI within a week.
Earning $1 would be ROI. Do you mean profit? You would have $5000 more profit with 5DII or A900.
-
I would have got my D3x on Dec 20 here in Austria but i cancelled my order when I heard the price which is 6999.-€. I could afford it without problems, but I think Nikon got a little too greedy. I love my D3 and while it is a wonderful camera, it is far from perfect. For example the 51 AF sensor sounds great, but it is not that much better (Hit rate) than other cams from Canon. The ergonomics are much better than Canon for my kind of taste, and I have worked with Canon for a couple of years. But take a look at the custom functions of the new Canon bodies (40d, 50d, 5dmkII) which you can use to switch from "tripod mode" to "sport mode" in a second. With the Nikon you need to press some buttons to get there (it is the same with the Canon 1Ds Mk to be fair). I like the more mechanical approach of the Nikon, but it has its drawbacks. And the dust issue is certainly annoying with the D3, my sensor brush is in constant use. For me no image stabilizer and no video is not a big issue, but if you look at the competition in some aspects the Canon or the Sony are more advanced than the Nikon. The problem for Nikon is that the game has changed in the last year. There is not only the 1dsmkII as competition any more and that the Canon and Sony are only semi pro bodys is not only a drawback, as the are lighter for example.
I ordered myself a thinking pause and I will look very closely at the quality of the files of the new D3x. If it delivers I will buy it anyway, but if it is the same like the Canon or Sony in a more rugged and heavier body with some extra functions (Gps) as a bonus, than I might just buy a couple of adapters, take my beloved manual Nikon lenses and use them on the Canon 5dmkII.
-
You seem to be a marketing expert. So a D3x or a 1Ds can be a high volume product if priced 'right' in your opinion. I wonder why Nikon or Canon don't think this way...
That's not what I said. Trying reading posts more carefully. Higher volume is not high volume. Plus seeing as the Canon 5DII is potentially as good as the 1DsIII, then Canon are in a sense selling the best quality at a lower price. Also when Canon Launched the 1DsIII, it had no competition bar way more expensive MFDB cameras and could charge a premium. That is not the case anymore and this is the salient fact you seem to be blind to. The 1DsIII has dropped in price and it appears many people are going to be buying 5DIIs instead now despite that.
BTW Price point marketing as you call it is the rule in non comoditized products and you'll be surprised to know not only in the consumer section.
Gosh, really? Business people get screwed too!! I would never have guessed that. Other than that as a rule, the fact they get ripped off even more, particularly in travel, tends to give that away.
The RED is an example of a market changing product in the sense I have expressed it in a previous post and in the same sense that the Canon D30 was back in the old days.
No, the RED is far more a marketing changing product. A very, very important distinction. How and why it is being sold is far more important than the actual product. It's creation is partially due to moronic price pointed equipment with the lower priced kit being crippled in varying amounts to hit predetermined various market segments. If RED kit was to be sold/marketed traditionally, it would not have generated the interest and support it has, after all there are other high end video cameras out there used to make features. How many people not involved in films know of them, let alone could name them, compared to RED?
-
Unbelievable !! I was waiting for the D3X but will now consider switching to Canon for the 5DM2. I've come to realize that despite a few good hits, Nikon is always a day late and a dollar short in providing state of the art equipment... witness their long standing resistance to full frame. As an ex Contax guy (oh how i long for my RTS III!), and when deciding to shift to digital, I chose Nikon. In retrospect I should have chosen Canon simply for their vision in pushing the envelope on technology, since it is technology that makes cameras (sorry Leica!... waiting for the flames)
Can anyone out there make a FF back for my Contax's ??? Please ?
I might even consider renewing my long standing affair with Hasselbad (film) if this continues.
Carlos
-
The fact is that for most studio usage, the 5DII and A900 will do just as well as the D3x, but save the photographer enough money to buy a new high end Mac Pro workstation and screen.
That seems to point to the the sad fate of cameras like the D3x and also the 1DsMkIII: most of those who need more resolution than the D3 or 1DMkIII provide mostly do not have a great need for more than the 5DMkII and A900 offer. And I suspect that even dropping the wholesale price difference to match the manufacturer's cost difference would not help greatly, so Canon and Nikon are now stuck with high markup, very low volume "prestige" items at the top of their product lines.
As evidence, Thom Hogan reports that despite greatly reduced demand for the 1DsMkIII (due to the 5DMkII in particular I suppose), Canon has not dropped its price to dealers; retailers have just been forced to accept far lower margins along with greatly reduced sales volume.
For now the D3X at least has a few Unique Selling Points over the 5DMkII and A900, but the list is rather thin:
1. access to the Nikon lens and flash system and professional support, particularly compared to Sony's A900.
2. 100% VF coverage vs less for the 5DMkII
3. 5fps vs 4fps for the 5DMkII
4. better AF system (but how much does it matter for careful, deliberate high res. work?)
5. Integrated vertical grip (is that overall an advantage or a disadvantage for non-action photography?)
I suspect that after Nikon has cashed in on item 1. in particular, it will have to put a D3x-like sensor in a D700-like body, to grab a share of the far bigger sales that the 5DMkII and A900 are getting. And that cancels items 1, probably item 4 and maybe item 5. So how much will a 100% VF and the unremovable extra weight and bulk of a non-removable vertical grip all to the value of the D3x then? And a 100% coverage VF is surely doable too in a $3,000 DSLR, as the A900 already shows. (Even the far less expensive E-1 and E-3 have that much.)
My optimistic interpretation is that except for high speed action photography tools like the D3 and the 1D series plus a very small "prestige" market, very good DSLRs in full 35mm format will soon have little or no reason to cost more than about $3,000. At least for the landscape photographers that we allegedly are around here!
-
I cannot understand why Nikon have set the price so high. Putting it near the D3 would not take away sales as they target different markets/uses. The D3 is for low light and action. The D3x is studio, landscape, and general use. In fact, with a lower price, would not many pros buy a D3 and a D3x? And since they seem to share the same outer frame, viewfinder and other parts, production costs are lowered, though the new sensor and electronics will require investment.
The only reason I can see is a mixture of greed and optimism. Someone at Nikon HQ has seen the price of MF cameras, and thought "We want a piece of that action". If that is true, I wonder what the D3x brings to the party that the Canon 1Ds3 does not. Have MF users flocked to the 1Ds3, and if not, why not?
Alternatively Nikon cannot make many of them, and want to maximise the profit on the small number they will sell.
-
Could something important to the D3x's image quality actually BE very expensive? Nikon says say there's something unusual about the AA filter - could whatever it is have either a very high development cost or a very high production cost? Alternatively, could the A/D's Nikon's using be unusually expensive? For all that the D3x sensor seems to be related to the Alpha 900 sensor, the images don't look terribly alike - the Nikon samples are clearly less noisy, look like they have smoother transitions, and may have even more DR. The sharpness of the samples looks really good, which indicates that the AA filter is doing its job well.
-Dan
-
Could something important to the D3x's image quality actually BE very expensive? Nikon says say there's something unusual about the AA filter - could whatever it is have either a very high development cost or a very high production cost? Alternatively, could the A/D's Nikon's using be unusually expensive? For all that the D3x sensor seems to be related to the Alpha 900 sensor, the images don't look terribly alike - the Nikon samples are clearly less noisy, look like they have smoother transitions, and may have even more DR. The sharpness of the samples looks really good, which indicates that the AA filter is doing its job well.
CFA filter also plays a role. The camera produces 14 bit files. Optimizing all the interrelated parts requires some R&D. Nonetheless, this was all true of the D3 too, so the price difference is strictly an effort to protect already eroding margins on the D3, D700, D300, D90 and D60. The problem is that it sends a message to those who want something that competes head to head (in terms of price and resolution) with the A900 and 5DII that Nikon is in no hurry to provide that and that it could end up costing a lot more (therefore, not competitive in terms of price, albeit perhaps -- as yet unproven -- it will provide better image quality).
-
For now the D3X at least has a few Unique Selling Points over the 5DMkII and A900, but the list is rather thin:
<snip>
3. 5fps vs 4fps for the 5DMkII
I never use the 3fps or whatever my 5D has, as I prefer to take a single shot at the correct moment.
I had a 5fps camera years back, I tried it out of curiosity and found it always missed the shot.
If you are a decent photographer, being able to take a picture at the right time should be a given.
4. better AF system (but how much does it matter for careful, deliberate high res. work?)
5. Integrated vertical grip (is that overall an advantage or a disadvantage for non-action photography?)
As you can buy a grip for the Sony + Canon and still be waaaaay cheaper, not much of a point. Plus the vertical position [if like the D3] does not include all the horizontal controls unlike the Canon, so not very good in fact. Not tried the Sony to commment.
The Nikon rep who was showing me the D3 last week admitted that was a serious boo-boo when I asked about this odd ommision. The other thing that was unexpected was the very slow AF performance using the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Particularly as this was an area that the Nikon is meant to excell in. Shockingly slow in fact, possibly the worst AF I've ever used by a long way. This was kit supplied by Nikon UK at a Nikon promotional event.
-
jjj,
as I said in the text that you quoted, the list is rather thin; in fact my goal was to be comprehensive in listing any possible advantages just to show how limited the case is.
My guess is that unique selling point #1 on my list is the main issue: for now, those who prefer the Nikon system of lenses, accessories and professional support to the Canon and Sony alternatives, and who want more than 12MP, have nowhere else to go. Once they do have other options, like the widely expected "D700x", then the D3x will probably become a very slow selling flagship. I understand that the 1DsMkIII has already suffered this fate with the arrival 5DMkII; Thom Hogan reports this.
Even so, producing the D3x along with the D3 and "D700x" adds little cost to having only the latter two, since the D3x uses mostly or entirely components needed anyway for the D3 and/or "D700x". Likewise for the 1DSMkIII, once Canon is making all the components needed anyway for the 1DMkIII and 5DMkII. So it is probably cheap to have these flagships, even if they sell in far lower numbers than the 1DS models used to.
-
Could something important to the D3x's image quality actually BE very expensive?
I've been trolling the web looking for D3x samples, and I have to say that there's a possibility that Nikon priced the D3x as it did because they believe that when people really start seeing a lot of samples, that they will pay the $8,000. The quality seems to me to *very* good. Better than the 1DsIII and the A900 -- from what I can tell. On the other hand, I'm mostly looking at web jpegs.
I mentioned earlier on a LL thread that I'd decided not to buy this camera because, like Michael and others, it didn't seem that the value was there, that Nikon was simply gouging us because they thought they could. I'm starting to re-think that, although I'm still going to wait for the price to drop, and I'm still not sure that I will buy it at all. But when I made the original decision, I was fixated on the question, "How much better could it be, than the 5DII and the A900?" and the underlying thought was, "Not much." But what if it is? What if it's a whole generation better? I think that's a possibility, but I want to hear some serious, in-depth reports.
Further along in this thread, jjj said he tried a 24-70 on a demo D3 and found the autofocus to be terribly slow. I used the D3 with that lens both in Iraq and at the Republican convention and found it to be fast and accurate.
JC
-
My guess is that unique selling point #1 on my list is the main issue: for now, those who prefer the Nikon system of lenses, accessories and professional support to the Canon and Sony alternatives, and who want more than 12MP, have nowhere else to go. Once they do have other options, like the widely expected "D700x", then the D3x will probably become a very slow selling flagship. I understand that the 1DsMkIII has already suffered this fate with the arrival 5DMkII; Thom Hogan reports this.
Let's also not forget that Canon shooters who were not willing to spend 8000 US$ on a 1ds3 had the option to buy a second hand 1ds2 as well with a resolution that was not half that of the flagship. Incremental increases a la Canon have at least that value.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could something important to the D3x's image quality actually BE very expensive? Nikon says say there's something unusual about the AA filter - could whatever it is have either a very high development cost or a very high production cost? Alternatively, could the A/D's Nikon's using be unusually expensive? For all that the D3x sensor seems to be related to the Alpha 900 sensor, the images don't look terribly alike - the Nikon samples are clearly less noisy, look like they have smoother transitions, and may have even more DR. The sharpness of the samples looks really good, which indicates that the AA filter is doing its job well.
-Dan
All of the signals are pointing to the D3x's A/D conversion being similar to the D300's implementation. The D3x has on sensor A/D's as stated by Nikon, and it only gets 1.8 fps in 14bit mode, a la the D300. Here is a great explanation by emil:
d300 14bit (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=27430482)
Or, possibly, the D300 just resamples:
link (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=27430850)
If this is the case, the D3x is more or less a giant D300 sensor, just like the A900 is a giant A700 sensor. We'll have to see....
-
I'm just waiting for the crushing reality of obsolescence to hit Nikon when one of the other makers ships a 25-30MP DB for $5K. You know it'll likely happen in the next year or so and obliterate their pricing structure. At this rate, I'd bet on Sony or maybe Fuji getting into the DB market at a fraction of the price. Possibly Sigma as well(see below)
$8000 is just silly.
I'm actually considering the A900 because of this - it's cheaper and finally Minolta/Sony has a contender. Yes, they are really late to the game, but then again, so was Hyundai. And they are now giving GM and Ford fits as they nearly equal the same quality and performance for loads less money.
But I'm waiting for Sigma's next move. I really like their sensor technology a lot. And now that they have bought Foveon outright, I suspect things to start moving quickly. Both companies also have a Hyundai-esque(new term? heh) philosophy of undercutting the competition. Should be a fun next year or two
-
Earning $1 would be ROI. Do you mean profit? You would have $5000 more profit with 5DII or A900.
I remember back in '83 in Navy Photo School when the instructor told us that it was OK to drop the camera, but if we break the lens, he would dismiss us on the spot. The camera is a dumb box, the lens is what make the image work. If you have more than $8000 invested in lens and matching kit materials... Kinda makes this whole thread pointless, doesn't it?
-
I remember back in '83 in Navy Photo School when the instructor told us that it was OK to drop the camera, but if we break the lens, he would dismiss us on the spot. The camera is a dumb box, the lens is what make the image work. If you have more than $8000 invested in lens and matching kit materials... Kinda makes this whole thread pointless, doesn't it?
I went to a photo seminar recently and the professional running it has a contact in industrial imaging apparently and he was buying all the Nikon 600mm lenses whenever and wherever they could because it was cheaper to break the lens up and pull the glass out than it was to buy the glass as individual items. Now that is a pricing structure!
-
Further along in this thread, jjj said he tried a 24-70 on a demo D3 and found the autofocus to be terribly slow. I used the D3 with that lens both in Iraq and at the Republican convention and found it to be fast and accurate.
Which is what I would expect, from previous experience of using Nikons.This was indoors with not the best lighting, but even so, my 5D which is not known for it's sports photography autofocus capabilities, has no problems in those conditions.
Maybe it was a duff camera. Not good for selling product though
-
Hitler thinks Nikon is on crack too. (Well, I thought this was on-point and funny....)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0)
-
I find the various rants against Nikon and the D3X extremely surprising, and childish.
It's as if no one has been paying attention to the buying power of the dollar as record deficits are run up by many countries.
The dollar is not worth as much as eight years ago. Nikon has poured a lot of money in the development of this camera knowing it is designed for a small market segment, just like the Canon 1D mk III, which when it first came out was similarly priced, so the need to recover the design costs is spread over fewer camera bodies.
The dollar when the D1 and D2 series where released was much stronger, and thus the cost of these machine have the illusion of being cheaper.
If you can't afford the camera, don't buy it. There is no rule that says you need to buy the latest and greatest. A camera is not 'male jewelry' we hang from our necks. It is not a status symbol of how good you are as a photographer or human being. It's just a tool to help you achieve your vision. The D3X doesn't know a crappy photograph from a quality photograph, and can NOT make you a better photographer.
I heard no complaints when the Canon 1D mk III was released. I did hear tons of complaints about the focus system of the Canon 1Ds mk III when it was released. Talk about a true waste of thousands of dollars per camera. No one equates Canon with Hitler, one of the singularly evil men in history, for releasing a poorly designed camera on the public? I hear no one complaining about the cost of the Leica M8 (with its Infrared problems) or M8.2.
Let's wait till the D3X is in the hands of shooters before we nail it to our cross. Let's see how its auto-focus tracks. Let's see how clean the files are.
I'm so amazed at the belly aching by people when the camera hasn't hit the streets yet.
The only crack users I see are the ones throwing a tantrum. Get over it. Worry about making compelling images, not about a piece of gear that will be obsolete in 3 years.
If more time and energy went into making quality photographs, we'll all be better served. As I remind my college students during our first class of the semester, it's not the quality of the gear, it is the quality of your thinking that counts.
-
It's as if no one has been paying attention to the buying power of the dollar as record deficits are run up by many countries.
The dollar is not worth as much as eight years ago. Nikon has poured a lot of money in the development of this camera knowing it is designed for a small market segment, just like the Canon 1D mk III, which when it first came out was similarly priced, so the need to recover the design costs is spread over fewer camera bodies.
Nikon is charging even more for the D3x in Japan, so currency exchange rates have nothing to do with the price.
The D3 cost a lot to develop too, but Nikon charges $3000 per unit less. for it than the D3x. One way to amortize R&D is to spread the costs over several bodies and to increase volume.
If you can't afford the camera, don't buy it. There is no rule that says you need to buy the latest and greatest.
That's not the problem for Nikon (or me). The problem is that Sony and Canon are offering me less expensive alternatives. I could end up funneling $10,000 towards Sony instead of Nikon over this, and multiplied by thousands of others that starts to add up to real money and future market share.
No one equates Canon with Hitler, one of the singularly evil men in history, for releasing a poorly designed camera on the public?
It's a parody of those complaining about Nikon; not about Nikon.
The only crack users I see are the ones throwing a tantrum. Get over it. Worry about making compelling images, not about a piece of gear that will be obsolete in 3 years.
If a perfectly good camera becomes "obsolete" in 3 years, then I think you are on to something about the addiction analogy. Perhaps Nikon isn't on crack, they just think they're users are, and will pay any price to get their fix.
-
I find the various rants against Nikon and the D3X extremely surprising, and childish.
It's as if no one has been paying attention to the buying power of the dollar as record deficits are run up by many countries.
The dollar is not worth as much as eight years ago. Nikon has poured a lot of money in the development of this camera knowing it is designed for a small market segment, just like the Canon 1D mk III, which when it first came out was similarly priced, so the need to recover the design costs is spread over fewer camera bodies.
The dollar when the D1 and D2 series where released was much stronger, and thus the cost of these machine have the illusion of being cheaper.
That's a very naive point of view and ignores that this is not an American forum. When the pound was very strong compared to the dollar, Adobe products cost up to 100% more in the UK and Europe where the Euro was also strong. So Adobe stuff should have cost a less/same not a lot more than in US. Same goes for Camera gear. As for a lot of development cost on camera, it's an old body with a new sensor, not a new and improved body with a new sensor
If you can't afford the camera, don't buy it. There is no rule that says you need to buy the latest and greatest. A camera is not 'male jewelry' we hang from our necks. It is not a status symbol of how good you are as a photographer or human being. It's just a tool to help you achieve your vision. The D3X doesn't know a crappy photograph from a quality photograph, and can NOT make you a better photographer.
Uh, a lot of people who can afford it are also complaining. It's less the absolute price of the item, more that it seems poor value that is annoying people.
I heard no complaints when the Canon 1D mk III was released.
That was a while back, things have changed and people expect more bang for their buck when buying electronics several years later.
No one equates Canon with Hitler, one of the singularly evil men in history, for releasing a poorly designed camera on the public?
Duh! Have you even looked at link, before making such a daft comment?
I hear no one complaining about the cost of the Leica M8 (with its Infrared problems) or M8.2.
Most people know Leica is overpriced and very overrated, so not news really, but people did comment on the price. Personally, I've always considered Leicas to be male jewelry, that can also take pictures. And if anyone thinks that's a daft statement just lookat the pictures on this page
Gold + Snakeskin Leicas (http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=gold%20leica&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi)
If more time and energy went into making quality photographs, we'll all be better served. As I remind my college students during our first class of the semester, it's not the quality of the gear, it is the quality of your thinking that counts.
Need to improve yours a bit then!
-
Guys, I wasn't taking about the exchange rate. I was talking about the world inflation rate due to the cost of rare materials and services. Services include the engineering that designed and built this new chip. A chip that will be obsolete in 3 years, even though the camera will last far long. Europe, Canada, South America, Africa, Asia, the USA, have all got to deal with rising costs.
I'm not the one who is angry over the price, but I am puzzled by so many people ranting.
If Sony or any other manufacturer is making a camera that works for you. Great. Buy it. But to bash Nikon is silly in my humble opinion.
Let your money do the talking. Nikon will listen.
-
"Duh! Have you even looked at link, before making such a daft comment? "
I still own my Nikon F2. Yes I watch the video through.
I also have personal friends whose families were murdered by Hitler. Tell them about enjoying the parody.
Don't go through life angry slamming a person's opinion as if it is directed to you personally.
As I tell my college students, celebrate life with your camera.
Get over it.
-
This form of pricing is nothing new. My 1Ds Mark I was $7500, that was three years ago, and I still us it today. We can wine all we want about price, but we tend to forget how much the real cost would be over and above the $8000 price tag for switching systems. If you have more than the difference of the cost invested in lens, it would cost you more since you would have to replace the lens as well. It would also cost you time in relearning a new system, etc. Don't think for a minute that Nikon is not aware of that fact.
I also have a 40D, it's considered to be a direct crop of my 1Ds, cost 1/7th the price, and does almost 90% of what the 1Ds does, except for the full sensor and rugged build. There are times that I still reach for the 1Ds over the 40D simply because of that one fact (better portraits, having that extra 30mm for wides, being dropped, getting soaked for instance). It's that extra 10% that breaks the bank, but has saved my butt more than once.
-
This form of pricing is nothing new. My 1Ds Mark I was $7500, that was three years ago, and I still us it today. We can wine all we want about price, but we tend to forget how much the real cost would be over and above the $8000 price tag for switching systems. If you have more than the difference of the cost invested in lens, it would cost you more since you would have to replace the lens as well. It would also cost you time in relearning a new system, etc. Don't think for a minute that Nikon is not aware of that fact.
Would you still pay 7500 US$ for that same 1ds3 today without second thoughts?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Guys, I wasn't taking about the exchange rate. I was talking about the world inflation rate due to the cost of rare materials and services. Services include the engineering that designed and built this new chip. A chip that will be obsolete in 3 years, even though the camera will last far long. Europe, Canada, South America, Africa, Asia, the USA, have all got to deal with rising costs.
I am aware that you main point is different.
Speaking about cost though, the exchange rate does matter, but it should if anything make the D3x cheaper in Japan compared to the D3. Assuming that Nikon buys some parts of the D3 abroad, it should be cheaper for them to purchase them now than it has been in the last 8 years, the Yen has never been stronger.
Inflation in Japan has been nil or negative these past few years, and the cost of developing the D3x has clearly not been affected any such engineering consulting fees inflation. Besides, most of the Nikon engineers are based in Tokyo and there has been no significant salary inflation in Japan these past years also.
This being said, Nikon might be anticipating some raising production costs as a result of un-direct financial consideration related to the cost of credit, etc... but I think that factoring all this in in a single high end product wouldn't make so much sense.
So the bottom line is that, considering all we know today, it seems doubtful that the price of the D3x is driven my increased costs at Nikon.
From the point of view of a working pro, it is true that the camera is only one expenditure among others, but they all are, aren't they? All these equipments are complex and cost money to produce, and agreeing happily to a significant price increase of one of them on the grounds that it represents only a few % of the total is opening the door to a large scale inflation accross the board.
Today, the price gap between a D3x and an A900 - mostly competitive for the applications at hand - is equal to that of an Epson 9900 44 inch print weighting 240 pounds (inks included). Of course, considering the price of switching over - even partially - things are not that clear, but Nikon shooters hate to be shown so clearly that they are held hostage in a proprietary system that might induce more and more costs in the coming years.
Is it foolish to react here? Probably so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One thing that becomes clear after reading all these comments is that Bernard really, really hungers for this camera. I think we should start a pool on when he caves in and buys it. I'd say it's about six weeks away... 8-p
JC
-
One thing that becomes clear after reading all these comments is that Bernard really, really hungers for this camera. I think we should start a pool on when he caves in and buys it. I'd say it's about six weeks away... 8-p
JC
I do not refer to anyone in particular, but I do not really get all this fuss about the 8k.
Maybe It is 1500$ more than what it should have been.... Few hours of work... 1 day of work.... If it takes more than 2 days of work to make 1500$, you cannot justify an 8 grands camera and should move on. If you make more than that, don't waste your time, go back to work.
Seriously, why should it have been less than 6500K?
I'm not a Nikonian (though I owned Nikon for 20 year+), but if you are a Nikonian this is for some aspects the best DSLR out there. Why should it cost less than the canon 1ds3?
Again, there are two others valid alternatives at less than 3 grands. Why bother then?
-
I do not refer to anyone in particular, but I do not really get all this fuss about the 8k.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30281863 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30281863)
-
The problem is that the competition can be had for about $5K less.
You talk about switching over, but the old Nikon Lenses would sell for at least what the new Minolta/Sony ones would. So there's really no huge price increase there. In fact, you might actually make a profit by doing this and selling your old Nikon stuff. Nikon has just priced themselves too close to DB territory and soon will likely find themselves undercut by a couple of thousand by MF gear. If a 25MP DB comes out for $5K, there isn't a single person who will buy it for $8K. Well, other than a few die-hards and the review sites.
-
One thing that becomes clear after reading all these comments is that Bernard really, really hungers for this camera. I think we should start a pool on when he caves in and buys it. I'd say it's about six weeks away... 8-p
JC
Truly funny
I too don't see what the big deal is. For some people an extra $1500 is nothing. Nikon is not targeting every single person drooling over their camera, only those people who can afford the camera and have the need for it.
It seems to me Nikon simply believes they have a better camera than the competition. Their D3x is priced approximately 120% of what the 1DsMkIII is, and their D300 is likewise priced at 140% of what the 50D is. That means there is proportionally less margin over the 1DsMkIII than the 50D. As a matter of fact, the D300 was $1800 1.5 years ago and has only dropped $250 in price during this time. When the 50D came out a few months ago, it was $1400 and in only 3 months has plummeted down to $1100, which means it is Canon who is not as confident in its product as Nikon is.
The fact is, when the D3 came out everyone heralded the fact that it was a superior camera, especially at high ISO, but they wished it could match the 1DsMKIII in resolution. So now Nikon provides this one missing element, and now people are crying over the price. It seems to me all people want to do is make demands, and when their demands are met, they look for something new to cry about
Jack
.
-
One thing that becomes clear after reading all these comments is that Bernard really, really hungers for this camera. I think we should start a pool on when he caves in and buys it. I'd say it's about six weeks away... 8-p
I need something like the D3x for sure. Considering the depreciation though, you either buy a camera like the D3x on the first day of its availability, or you don't buy one at all.
As of now, I have other plans on Dec 19th.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30281863 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30281863)
I understand the argument. But it is not really worth arguing and bothering.
You either get one, or just buy an alternative. Or you just hang on with what you have which is probably a very good camera already.
I sold some of my older Nikon lenses for a profit. Not counting that they had already paid for them selves in spades.
There also are some better lenses than Nikon with the alternatives brands, not all of them of course, but some surely are better than the nikon. It may well be that they will deliver better results on a similar size sensor. Who ever is thinking that Nikon got some magic and their sensor, which is exactly the same size and MP counts of the Sony and slightly more than the Canons, will deliver for sure every time better results, are due for a a small disappointment. The lenses that have the better quality, will very likely outperform the others on the output.
There are some strong chances that from 50mm to 135mm primes, Canon and Sony are equal and some cases better than Nikon's, not mentioning the 70-200mm zooms. If someone is working on that range...
Of course all that matters if you only shoot raw and do not shoot Jpeg like Ken and Adolph.
-
We can wine all we want about price, but we tend to forget how much the real cost would be over and above the $8000 price tag for switching systems. If you have more than the difference of the cost invested in lens, it would cost you more since you would have to replace the lens as well. It would also cost you time in relearning a new system, etc. Don't think for a minute that Nikon is not aware of that fact.
They seemed quite keen to get user to switch to Nikon to use the D3.
And the cost to switch is not so high. I recently sold lots of Nikon lenses I was not using and I got very good prices (near shop) via FleaBay. Good photos and sellers history help. So that £3000 ($4,500) saved by buying a 5D2/A900 would buy you a range of high quality lenses, and you would get back a lot of money from selling existing Nikon lenses.
I have no desire to switch, but some might. Not many though is my guess.
-
I do not refer to anyone in particular, but I do not really get all this fuss about the 8k.
Maybe It is 1500$ more than what it should have been.... Few hours of work... 1 day of work.... If it takes more than 2 days of work to make 1500$, you cannot justify an 8 grands camera and should move on. If you make more than that, don't waste your time, go back to work.
I wonder how many landscape shooters make 200.000 US$ per year.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"Duh! Have you even looked at link, before making such a daft comment? "
I still own my Nikon F2. Yes I watch the video through.
I also have personal friends whose families were murdered by Hitler. Tell them about enjoying the parody.
Don't go through life angry slamming a person's opinion as if it is directed to you personally.
As I tell my college students, celebrate life with your camera.
Get over it.
Angry!? Unlike you, I found this video extremely funny.
And did so despite living in a country where an awful lot of people are dead as a result of Hitler, despite growing up in a city that the Luftwaffe completely flattened during the war, despite knowing people affected by WWII and despite my oldest friend being Jewish. Why - simple, it is a very clever satire regarding the current Nikon debate and I realised it wasn't about Hitler, but Nikon.
I've even seen the film that is used for the parody and very good it is too, despite it being about such an awful human being.
And I'll tell you, if you want to celebrate life you don't even need to use a camera, you just need to learn to see the joy in life that's all around. so
-
If you study almost every single product Nikon has, it is priced at between 120% to 140% of what Canon's prices are for the same thing.
Nikon is clearly confident in the ability of its camera.
Or the slavish devotion of their users?
I always thought Nikon was regarded by it's users as Apple is, with a huge amount of [at times unjustified] loyalty. The fact that you pay a lot more for both indicates their stranglehold over their fans, who will stick by them regardless of price and at times even inferior products. Nikon, thanfully are now making kit to rival their opposition [at a premium price], but sadly Apple seem to be making kit [at a premium price] which is aimed at iTunes users these days, not graphics professionals.
-
sadly Apple seem to be making kit [at a premium price] which is aimed at iTunes users these days, not graphics professionals.
Don't know, when I bought my Mac Pro last year after years of Wintel, it was significantly cheaper than equivalent workstations from Dell and HP.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Don't know, when I bought my Mac Pro last year after years of Wintel, it was significantly cheaper than equivalent workstations from Dell and HP.
And they are not the cheapest and certainly not the best PC kit and Dell are always used by Apple for comparisons, for that very reason.
I could have bought a much better specced Windows box when I bought my MacPro - same price. Not only that, it also came with a good quality large monitor too. Still wondering if that wasn't a very, very expensive mistake. It's not as if the MP hasn't been back to the shop on numerous occasions to sort out various issues. Which is also expensive in time and inconvienience.
-
Or the slavish devotion of their users?
I always thought Nikon was regarded by it's users as Apple is, with a huge amount of [at times unjustified] loyalty. The fact that you pay a lot more for both indicates their stranglehold over their fans, who will stick by them regardless of price and at times even inferior products. Nikon, thanfully are now making kit to rival their opposition [at a premium price], but sadly Apple seem to be making kit [at a premium price] which is aimed at iTunes users these days, not graphics professionals.
Well, it seems like we're comparing Apples to Nikons
Nikon apparently feels that its prices are justified, and feels that its camera is better.
.
-
I'd be shocked to see the MF guys actually undercut Nikon (my criterion for whether I buy the D3x I have in preorder (without money down) is simply "does the image quality match 31 mp MF at 24x36 inches?"). If it does, I'll go for a D3x instead of moving to MF - right now, it's too early to tell, but it looks good. Not counting used gear, the entry price for MF is still hovering at about twice the price of a D3x, and that's after a round of 40% price cuts this summer. Can the MF makers cut prices like that twice in a year and survive? I'd imagine not. I'm also not sure if they can survive if Nikon (and I'm sure Canon is working on a camera with the same image quality - everything I've seen says they don't have one yet, but they will in six months or a year) grab the bottom end of their market. MF could be left without a really viable product below the 50 MP backs, which sell for $30,000. If they cut the price of 50 mp to $15,000 - $20,000, they'd have something, but they'd lose most of their margin. The older sensors they sell in the $15,000 market right now would simply not offer enough advantages over a $8000 DSLR to be viable, and their production costs per unit are probably too high to sell them for $8000. The second wall the MF guys are running into is "how do you view the images". A point will come where printers and wall space in galleries are the driving concern - a 24x32 or 24x36 print is already very large, and a 44x60 or 44x66 print is huge - how many markets are there for 44 inch prints of the highest quality? If you can make a 24 inch print from a $8000 camera that is as good as one from a $15,000 camera and hard to tell from one from a $30,000 camera, that squeezes the more expensive cameras into the very small niche of the largest prints.
Of course, the same thing is happening TO the $8000 cameras - there are $3000 cameras that are almost as good. Even if one of the $3000 cameras can be noisy, and the other one has black spots, their existence demonstrates that it's getting close to the time when a $3000 camera can equal low-end MF - maybe a year or two... The Alpha ISN'T there yet, from looking at prints, but it's very, very good for its price. How long can it be until someone builds a $3000 camera that equals the performance of 31 mp MF (and of the D3x)? That will reset the top price in the DSLR market to $5000 - $6000 - there will always be a "body premium" for ruggedness, the best AF and secondary things like long battery life. I'm convinced the D3x will be $6500 next year and $5500 in 18 months (but I have a $2000 tax advantage to buy a camera by Dec. 31 that I won't have next year , so I'm willing to pay the $8000 because $2000 of it is not my money).
if the high end of the DSLR market in a year looks like:
$3000 buys nearly but not quite state of the art IQ in a cheap consumer body (5DII, Alpha 900)
$4000 - $4500 buys state of the art IQ in a good compact body with good AF ("D700x", "EOS 3D" - the long-rumored pro compact Canon)
$5500 - $6500 buys state of the art IQ in a big pro body (D3x after a price drop, EOS 1Ds mk IV)
And "state of the art IQ" makes 24 inch prints of the most difficult, detailed subjects without blinking
What are the MF makers to do? They have a $15,000 product that competes with products in the $4000-$6500 range, and a $25,000 product that has unique image quality, but it takes a 44 inch print to see it. Their best bet is to drop the 25-33 MP lines entirely (unless they can sell them under $8000 and say "we know the image quality is effectively the same as the best DSLRs, but we like our lenses, our DOF and our expandability"). They need to sell the 50 mp systems for $15,000 ($25,000 for 60+ MP full frame 645), and hope there's enough volume there to survive. Fortunately for them, the laws of physics protect the 50 mp+ market to a large extent - at some point between 25 and 40 MP, cramming more pixels on a 24x36 mm sensor becomes counterproductive to image quality - MF can keep going up to 80+ MP. They'd also better hope and pray that 44-inch printers sell well (perhaps even team up with Epson or HP (Canon wouldn't do it because of their DSLR business) to offer a "we'll give you the printer" promotion at some point).
-Dan
-
The Alpha ISN'T there yet, from looking at prints, but it's very, very good for its price.
Sheesh.
It's the same d*** sensor as the Nikon D3x.
Use a decent RAW convertor and the IQ is identical.
-
Sheesh.
It's the same d*** sensor as the Nikon D3x.
Use a decent RAW convertor and the IQ is identical.
Exactly.
I don get why some people take for granted that the d3x will be better.
From the sample I have saw, at 1600iso and up, the nikon would defenitevely be better, but maybe only until next Sony firmware. As we saw with the A700/D300.
But at 100/200 iso, the lense will make the difference. And, i repeat myself: with a 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, the Nikon cannot be better. Simply it can't.
-
The D3x sensor is NOT exactly the Alpha 900 sensor - it's clearly a relative, but there is some pretty significant Nikon tweaking to it - many samples have popped up that show this. Low ISO samples from the D3x are noiseless - I've never seen a noiseless Alpha sample (and yes, I've looked at samples processed with alternative RAW converters). The D3x also has smoother tonal transitions and (perhaps) slightly more detail. Nikon did SOMETHING to the sensor that made a significant difference. The Alpha is one heck of a nice camera (the noise I've seen at low ISO is not especially bothersome), but the D3x has unique image quality for a 35mm-size camera.
-Dan
-
Sheesh.
It's the same d*** sensor as the Nikon D3x.
It is not the same sensor. The CFA and ADC are different.
Use a decent RAW convertor and the IQ is identical.
Can you prove that? I bet you are wrong.
Exactly.
I don get why some people take for granted that the d3x will be better.
From the sample I have saw, at 1600iso and up, the nikon would defenitevely be better, but maybe only until next Sony firmware. As we saw with the A700/D300.
But at 100/200 iso, the lense will make the difference. And, i repeat myself: with a 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, the Nikon cannot be better. Simply it can't.
Iliah Borg has handled files from both cameras, and he is convinced that the D3x is better, even at base ISO.
-
-
At 100/200 iso there is no noise on Alpha files, at least those taken by me. it actually has "less" noise than the 1ds3 at those iso on my tests and also other tests I have seen. which means no noise. ZERO.
So far the d3x samples I have seen at 100/400iso do not make ANY significant difference. They may not be even be slightly better, if shots with some primes and compared to primes taken with Sony Zeiss. Sony and Zeiss lenses got better coating and also circular blades on all lenses. They will give a slight advantage to Sony at 100/400 iso most of the times. Not all the times but most.
wait and see.
Where there could be a significant difference in favour of the d3x at low ISO is in DR, smoothness of tonal transitions and detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Where there could be a significant difference in favour of the d3x at low ISO is in DR, smoothness of tonal transitions and detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe, but it could be negated by the lenses.
I have been shooting with the two zeiss primes for almost a year by now, (20 years of Nikon and 5 years of canon as well, not mentioning hassy and mamiya), the nikon primes do not have certain characteristics of the zeiss. It is too complicate to explain and even showing examples would be a daunting task. Only using the equipment several times on several condition with different bodies convinced me of that. that is enough for me.
where the d3x could have an advantage in DR and transitions (eventually), it could be made up by the Zeiss lenses on the other body. The CZ are on another planet compared to anything that Zeiss made for hasselblad, contax and all the manual focus that are unloading for the other makes. The CZ have been redesigned (even if on the same base) from scratch.
Sometimes you can see the difference immediately, sometime it takes few images on different lighting, but the difference will come to your eyes. It s mostly the micro-contrast on the mid range that make the difference. Something that cannot be achieved in post without screwing other tones on the image.
if you ever shot some film with nikon next to the Hasselblad or Rolley, you may know what I mean. it is not at the same extent, because the larger format gave some advantages, but that difference still carried on, on these lenses.
It does not have anything to do with sharpness.
By the way some of the beauty and portrait images from the D3x, has still the problem of the green tinge on skin shadows transition and magenta green shifts on gray backgrounds with gradients which was plaguing the kodaks. It is not at the same extent, it is actually almost invisible, but it is there. look at the girl with the pearl chin and some of the shots of the black girl with the horse on the beach. look at the sand.
With the Kodaks the problem came from the lenses that had the rear glass very narrow. you can mostly see it with the photos made with the 60mm micro which was unusable on the kodaks.
i'm still surprised that some of the Nikon experts did not catch this problem yet.
-
Well, it seems like we're comparing Apples to Nikons
Shame Orange don't sell the iPhone then, as many people regard their service as more akin to that of a lemon.
-
Shame Orange don't sell the iPhone then, as many people regard their service as more akin to that of a lemon.
But you see that is where I don't think the Apples to Nikons comparison is valid.
The Nikon D300 is 140% of the price of the Canon 50D, and to justify the price there is the superior build, better weather sealing, longer shutter life (150%), and other user-friendly features that have been recited many times. They are not offering a lemon for a higher price, they are offering a better-built camera. And while the Canon can match or surpass it in some areas, it falls shorter in others, and ultimately is a cheaper-made camera.
I believe the same philosophy is in back of the D3x vs. 1DsMkIII, Nikon is not trying to sell a lemon for a higher price, but what they feel is a camera in the same class, only nicer and with some advantages. Why should they charge the exact same price for a camera they feel is better and offers distinct advantages.
Sure, it would be nice if BMW sold their M5 series automobile for the same price as a Toyota Avalon, but the M5 is a nicer car and so they charge more for it. Yes, both can get you from point A to point Z, but not in the same level of class or comfort. There are many rich guys who can afford a BMW but don't get one, but there are plenty who can and who do.
I simply do not think it is unreasonable for Nikon to offer a camera that eclipses the 1DsMkIII in some critical areas, and matches it in its own forte, and to charge 120% of the price for the added margin of benefit. It would be unreasonable of the Sony A900 to be at that price, and not really equal the others in value, and so what makes the Sony such a bargain is to match these cameras in "some" ways, and to be so cheap.
But as with autos, when you match the best there is in ALL ways, and eclipse the comp in several unique ways, you are simply going to charge more for your product. That is just the way the world turns ...
Jack
.
-
I believe the same philosophy is in back of the D3x vs. 1DsMkIII, Nikon is not trying to sell a lemon for a higher price, but what they feel is a camera in the same class, only nicer and with some advantages. Why should they charge the exact same price for a camera they feel is better and offers distinct advantages.
I think that is the point. Nikon are competing with the 1Ds3, and since the camera is new, it will be priced high to start, as was the 1Ds3. Give it a while and it will be at the same price.
The D3x provides a pro grade build and features unlike the Canon 5D2. But most amateurs and many pros want a Nikon equivalent of the 5D2 as they want the high res sensor, not the other pro features, and not the price.
-
What are the MF makers to do? They have a $15,000 product that competes with products in the $4000-$6500 range, and a $25,000 product that has unique image quality, but it takes a 44 inch print to see it.
My point is that there are a couple of makers that don't HAVE a DB yet. I suspect them to get into the game by basically using their existing technology with a bit of tweaking and ramming the thing into the market for $5K or so. I can see Fuji, Sony, or Sigma doing this quite easily. And in the case of Sigma, it's almost guaranteed that they are eying the DB market with glee. And they're the long-standing kings of discount lenses and beating the other guys at the same game.
-
My point is that there are a couple of makers that don't HAVE a DB yet. I suspect them to get into the game by basically using their existing technology with a bit of tweaking and ramming the thing into the market for $5K or so. I can see Fuji, Sony, or Sigma doing this quite easily. And in the case of Sigma, it's almost guaranteed that they are eying the DB market with glee. And they're the long-standing kings of discount lenses and beating the other guys at the same game.
I'd love that, but where are the lenses?
-
Sigma's been making lenses forever. They are fairly new at cameras, but everything they do seems to have a philosophy of lower prices than the competition if they feel the need to gain market share.
Fuji has the technology as well and just needs to get of of their rear end and make one. Sony, well, they are apparently serious about lower prices for the quality.
-
But you see that is where I don't think the Apples to Nikons comparison is valid.
The Nikon D300 is 140% of the price of the Canon 50D, and to justify the price there is the superior build, better weather sealing, longer shutter life (150%), and other user-friendly features that have been recited many times. They are not offering a lemon for a higher price, they are offering a better-built camera. And while the Canon can match or surpass it in some areas, it falls shorter in others, and ultimately is a cheaper-made camera.
I believe the same philosophy is in back of the D3x vs. 1DsMkIII, Nikon is not trying to sell a lemon for a higher price, but what they feel is a camera in the same class, only nicer and with some advantages. Why should they charge the exact same price for a camera they feel is better and offers distinct advantages.
Sure, it would be nice if BMW sold their M5 series automobile for the same price as a Toyota Avalon, but the M5 is a nicer car and so they charge more for it. Yes, both can get you from point A to point Z, but not in the same level of class or comfort. There are many rich guys who can afford a BMW but don't get one, but there are plenty who can and who do.
I simply do not think it is unreasonable for Nikon to offer a camera that eclipses the 1DsMkIII in some critical areas, and matches it in its own forte, and to charge 120% of the price for the added margin of benefit. It would be unreasonable of the Sony A900 to be at that price, and not really equal the others in value, and so what makes the Sony such a bargain is to match these cameras in "some" ways, and to be so cheap.
But as with autos, when you match the best there is in ALL ways, and eclipse the comp in several unique ways, you are simply going to charge more for your product. That is just the way the world turns ...
Er, I was simply making a play on words! Apples. oranges, lemons....
I certainly wasn't saying anything about Nikons being Lemons. Duh!
People should read more carefully before posting.
-
Er, I was simply making a play on words! Apples. oranges, lemons....
I certainly wasn't saying anything about Nikons being Lemons. Duh!
People should read more carefully before posting.
That was rather rude, and gosh, if I recall the conversation correctly, I was the one who originally made the play on words
You were the one who originally compared Apple to Nikon, and then you just went off on another tangent and used the word "lemon" when comparing it to the Iphone.
I am not sure if "I" need to read more carefully, or perhaps you need to stop making one inane brand comparison after another, first to Apple then to the Iphone. I believe that was my whole point is that yours is an invalid comparison ... speaking of duh!
The subject is Nikon, and it has nothing to do with these other makers: Apples, Iphones, or lemons.
Can you stick to a given subject, or is your ADD that bad?
-
That was rather rude, and gosh, if I recall the conversation correctly, I was the one who originally made the play on words
And my reply was in reference to that. So even more ridiculous that you took a further play on those words as a dig at iPhones.
Why not simply be adult enough to admit you simply misread my post rather than come out with more nonsense and insults.
You were the one who originally compared Apple to Nikon,
Yes and it was still in context of thread discussion. Again try reading more carefully.
and then you just went off on another tangent and used the word "lemon" when comparing it to the Iphone.
No I didn't you illiterate, I was actually referencing Orange's poor service with the lemon comment. BTW Orange are a mobile phone provider, as this may also have escaped your attention. And as an aside the iPhone is on my shortlist for my next phone.
I am not sure if "I" need to read more carefully, or perhaps you need to stop making one inane brand comparison after another, first to Apple then to the Iphone. I believe that was my whole point is that yours is an invalid comparison ... speaking of duh!
Yes you really do need to read more carefully, to save repeating myself, see my points above.
The subject is Nikon, and it has nothing to do with these other makers: Apples, Iphones, or lemons.
So what do lemons make then? Other than a sourpuss out of you? WARNING! - PUN ALERT!!!! WARNING!!!
Can you stick to a given subject, or is your ADD that bad?
And you call me rude!? Obviously you are a hypocrite as well as an illiterate and ADD is certainly not a problem I have ever had. However, you seem to have trouble reading or realising a very obvious joke, grief I even added a smiley to underline the fact that it was a humourous comment and still you misread it.
Why not simply admit you made a mistake and move on or are you too stubborn to do that? You gain respect admitting to errors and quickly lose it when denying them.
I get really, really fed up with people not taking the time or effort to read posts more carefully or in context of thread, before replying in a hurry. It's not that hard to to do and saves a lot of unnecesarry aggro if a bit more care is taken.
And your argument as to why Nikon want to charge more is actually perfectly valid and is the same argument people will use when justifying Apple's cost when compared to other makes. So it is another reason why I think the companies are similar.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
(Randall Munroe, http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png) - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License)
-
Beautiful.
Rob C
-
I should show that to my girlfriend.
Sleep is overated anyway.
A bit pot/kettle/black though!
-
A bit pot/kettle/black though!
Well, someone has to show a sense of self-irony.
-
I wonder how many of you guys have a sense of corporate business and pricing. Cost of production is usually a minor factor when we're talking about Pro and niche products. Could anybody tell me what the official price of the 1DsMkIII is? Ah! I thought so.. Who's going to buy the D3X? The same kind of people who are buying the 1DsMkIII.
No manufacturer is going to price their product at introduction too aggressively against their immediate competition unless they are ready to engage in a price war which they think they could win and re-define a market. And Nikon has showed up till now that they do not want to engage in a price war with Canon.
Everybody is mentioning the 5DII and the A900 as if those were the D3X's competitors. Well, I'm sorry, but they aren't. Not in Nikon's mind, and it shouldn't be in your minds either since the only thing that we currently know they have in common is sensor resolution.
I guess what everybody wants to say is that a D700x is sorely missing from the Nikon line-up. To this I have to agree. I would expect Nikon not to wait too long before introducing the D700x. But to expect of Nikon to engage in a catastrophic (for them) price war with Canon at this stage is absurd business wise.
The 1DsMkIII's price has slipped and will slip more now that there's competition around, and I'm sure that Nikon have built enough margin in the D3x's official price to follow suit (and to compete in those special bids we all know take place in the pro market..). But this is a wholly different matter than engaging in a full scale price war on introduction, and that's what would have happened if Nikon had priced the D3x at $5000-$6000 as people seem to propose. Who would have won? Nobody, of course (but the consumer) with Canon emerging in a much better state than Nikon due to their size and the fact that they should have amortized much of the development cost by now.
The $7K-$8K price range at introduction still makes sense for cameras that claim to challenge MF backs in what they deliver to the pro. Target audience: A couple of Pro niches (+ the dentists) as it has always been with the 1Ds series.
So wishful thinking is one thing, realistic thinking is another... Who's on crack now?
From purely an Image Quality point of view, the 5D Mark II is in fact a competitor against the D3x. Paying more then double for the D3X is not going to get you better IQ, and probably lessor. I strongly suspect, and based on anecdotal evident to date, that the 5D Mark II is the DSLR that offers the best IQ of any fullframe, of any make...it even better's Canon's own 1DS Mark III, and Canon has publically admited this.
Given the advent of the 5D Mark II, both the 1DS Mark III and the D3X are stupidly over priced! Only a Canon or Niko fanboy would defend the too high cost of their best pro models...sure it should be priced above the 5D Mark II and D700, but not massively as is the case today.
And why mention the new Sony fullframe A900? It is the worse performing fullframe to date. The noisiest, and the least capable, and not worth mentioning. The only fullframes worth a look are those made by Canon and Nikon. In the future, perhaps Sony will bring better IQ to the table, but not now.
-
From purely an Image Quality point of view, the 5D Mark II is in fact a competitor against the D3x. Paying more then double for the D3X is not going to get you better IQ, and probably lessor. I strongly suspect, and based on anecdotal evident to date, that the 5D Mark II is the DSLR that offers the best IQ of any fullframe, of any make...it even better's Canon's own 1DS Mark III, and Canon has publically admited this.
I suspect you have no evidence of the above claims. And to say that the D3x will not give better IQ, well if you need the higher performance AF, then you will get pictures with the D3x and not with the 5D2.
Given the advent of the 5D Mark II, both the 1DS Mark III and the D3X are stupidly over priced! Only a Canon or Niko fanboy would defend the too high cost of their best pro models...sure it should be priced above the 5D Mark II and D700, but not massively as is the case today.
You make that statement from the point of view of someone who would buy the 5D2. There is a good reason why the D3x costs more than the D700, and why the 1Ds3 costs more than the 5D2. They are different products. If you need the extra - such as rugged build - then you pay the money. If not, you don't. Price is often unrelated to build cost, but to what the market will pay.
I think what you really mean is that for an awful lot of people the D700 or 5D2 fit the bill, and there is not point in paying for a 3Dx. But you are not the sole type of customer.
And why mention the new Sony fullframe A900? It is the worse performing fullframe to date. The noisiest, and the least capable, and not worth mentioning. The only fullframes worth a look are those made by Canon and Nikon. In the future, perhaps Sony will bring better IQ to the table, but not now.
It is funny how someone can make such absurd statements. In capable hands it could produce first rate images. I prefer to read the impressions of those who have used the camera.
-
Lovell,
Opinions are fine, but please don't spout drivel here as if it were fact.
You obviously have never shot with or seen files from an A900 or you wouldn't be so arrogant with your comments.
Save it for DPReview.
Michael
-
it even better's Canon's own 1DS Mark III, and Canon has publically admited this.
Suggest you pop over to DX review and check this out for yourself - the results might surprise you.
-
And why mention the new Sony fullframe A900? It is the worse performing fullframe to date. The noisiest, and the least capable, and not worth mentioning. The only fullframes worth a look are those made by Canon and Nikon. In the future, perhaps Sony will bring better IQ to the table, but not now.
-
Typical statement from who never used the camera and base his knowledge from web samples.
Sony a900 noisy.... Yawn!
Let's be serious, up to 800 iso , from 20mm to 135mm, A900 images got from equal to almost always better IQ than the Canon 1ds3 and definitively better character when images are shot with a Zeiss. The "character" aspect, will very likely apply to comparisons next to the d3x, considering the typical 35mm look Nikon lenses deliver once photos hit the paper.
Above 800 iso is another story.
If someone shoots at above 800 ISO is better off whit lower MP count anyway.
Agreed. Not that Popphoto should be an oracle of truth, but they tested the A900 to have quite a bit more resolution than the 5Dii/1Dsiii. The 5Dii ended up very nearly right in between the D700 and A900. At ISO 800 or less, the A900 can't be beat.
BTW, usual Nikon shooter, Iliah Borg purchased an A900, and he says the camera is limited by it's ADC at ISO 100, so if you really want great high ISO performance, shoot at ISO 100 and boost in a good RAW converter like RAW Therapee. If you're using Adobe, ISO 400 is probably the sweetspot. Granted, this method of shooting is a little slower, but for critical high ISO work, it works well with the A900.
-
That may be true if you don't mind reduced dynamic range.
ISO 200 on the Sony is in fact more like 130 in the real world in any event.
Michael
-
That may be true if you don't mind reduced dynamic range.
ISO 200 on the Sony is in fact more like 130 in the real world in any event.
Michael
ISO 200 improves highlight DR, but ISO 100 is better in the shadows with lower noise. Fwiw, Iliah says best possile exposure in the camera is ISO 100 with -1/3 ev exposure comp.
-
Well, someone has to show a sense of self-irony.
I'm now wondering if it would make a good t-shirt.
-
That may be true if you don't mind reduced dynamic range.
ISO 200 on the Sony is in fact more like 130 in the real world in any event.
Is there is an easy way of finding out the true/accurate ISO of Digital cameras, like the tool you just reviewed which allows to you to easily tweak one's front/back focus. Using a light meter assumes light meter is absolutley spot on too and how do you get that dead accurate.
-
I'd love that, but where are the lenses?
I hear good things about a few of the Sony lenses. But Nikon isn't lacking their own high quality lenses, either from Nikon itself or from third parties. There are, of course, a full range of superb Zeiss ZF lenses for the Nikon F mount. I would argue it's a much more complete line of primes than Sony has. Also, Nikon has the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms, both with curved aperture blades for pleasing bokeh. I don't think you're going to find a finer performing zoom in the 14-24 range than the Nikon. Even the Canon folks seem to appreciate the 14-24 optics :-) And I'd guess the 24-70 can hold it's own. Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this). And the long teles - the 300, 400, 500 and 600. And the superbly flexible 200-400 zoom. I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.
I'm not knocking the A900. So far I've been favorably impressed by what I've seen from it. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that the D3X will be hampered by poor lenses.
-
I hear good things about a few of the Sony lenses. But Nikon isn't lacking their own high quality lenses, either from Nikon itself or from third parties. There are, of course, a full range of superb Zeiss ZF lenses for the Nikon F mount. I would argue it's a much more complete line of primes than Sony has. Also, Nikon has the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms, both with curved aperture blades for pleasing bokeh. I don't think you're going to find a finer performing zoom in the 14-24 range than the Nikon. Even the Canon folks seem to appreciate the 14-24 optics :-) And I'd guess the 24-70 can hold it's own. Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this). And the long teles - the 300, 400, 500 and 600. And the superbly flexible 200-400 zoom. I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.
I'm not knocking the A900. So far I've been favorably impressed by what I've seen from it. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that the D3X will be hampered by poor lenses.
From most I've heard from that have both ZA and ZF lenses, the ZA are a cut above, being newer designs. Plus, they're autofocus.
-
From purely an Image Quality point of view, the 5D Mark II is in fact a competitor against the D3x.
.......
And why mention the new Sony fullframe A900? It is the worse performing fullframe to date. The noisiest, and the least capable, and not worth mentioning. The only fullframes worth a look are those made by Canon and Nikon. In the future, perhaps Sony will bring better IQ to the table, but not now.
No one is in any position to throw rocks here. The D3X image quality is, as yet, totally unproven. There just aren't enough samples available that were captured in a controlled way. The A900 seems to capture images with superb resolution and dynamic range (best in class so far), while apparently having some issues with noise at higher ISOs (in fairness, however, is the A900 really targeting high ISO applications). And the 5DII has the dreaded black dot problem, and is reputed to have fairly average AF (I'm only going by what I've read regarding the AF).
Instead of throwing rocks, maybe we should all be counting our lucky stars at the rapid pace of advancement in our tools.
-
From most I've heard from that have both ZA and ZF lenses, the ZA are a cut above, being newer designs. Plus, they're autofocus.
Deleted. I did not realize that the ZAs are the Sony versions. I thought you were talking about the new Canon mount ZEs (?). As I said, I've heard good things about a few Sony lenses. At this level, however, I think we're talking nits.
-
And my reply was in reference to that. So even more ridiculous that you took a further play on those words as a dig at iPhones.
Why not simply be adult enough to admit you simply misread my post rather than come out with more nonsense and insults.
Yes and it was still in context of thread discussion. Again try reading more carefully.
No I didn't you illiterate, I was actually referencing Orange's poor service with the lemon comment. BTW Orange are a mobile phone provider, as this may also have escaped your attention. And as an aside the iPhone is on my shortlist for my next phone.
Yes you really do need to read more carefully, to save repeating myself, see my points above.
So what do lemons make then? Other than a sourpuss out of you? WARNING! - PUN ALERT!!!! WARNING!!!
And you call me rude!? Obviously you are a hypocrite as well as an illiterate and ADD is certainly not a problem I have ever had. However, you seem to have trouble reading or realising a very obvious joke, grief I even added a smiley to underline the fact that it was a humourous comment and still you misread it.
Why not simply admit you made a mistake and move on or are you too stubborn to do that? You gain respect admitting to errors and quickly lose it when denying them.
I get really, really fed up with people not taking the time or effort to read posts more carefully or in context of thread, before replying in a hurry. It's not that hard to to do and saves a lot of unnecesarry aggro if a bit more care is taken.
And your argument as to why Nikon want to charge more is actually perfectly valid and is the same argument people will use when justifying Apple's cost when compared to other makes. So it is another reason why I think the companies are similar.
You sure do get excited easy don't you? Is it that time of the month?
Thank you for acknowledging that my argument as to Nikon's pricing is perfectly valid. You could have saved all of the histrionics and just acknowledged that to begin with
Jack
.
-
You sure do get excited easy don't you? Is it that time of the month?
Thank you for acknowledging that my argument as to Nikon's pricing is perfectly valid. You could have saved all of the histrionics and just acknowledged that to begin with
Jack
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Fr...nfluence_People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People)
-
I won't close the thread yet, but I do request that everyone remain civil.
No personal attacks please!
Michael
-
I was anxiously awaiting the D3X and was shocked when the price was introduced at $8000. I expected it to be around $6000. They already had the body so there was very little development cost involved in fitting the new chip to the body. The Sony with the 24mp chip was $3000, the Canon 5D with the 24mp chip was under $3000 and the current price of the D3 is around $4100. There is a huge void in the Nikon line from 12mp to 24mp and they want to slam an $8000 camera down loyal users throat during a time when the world is in financial turmoil.
They can keep it. The price will drop like a bullet in short time in my opinion. If it doesn't then bye-bye Nikon for me.
-
You sure do get excited easy don't you? Is it that time of the month?
Thank you for acknowledging that my argument as to Nikon's pricing is perfectly valid. You could have saved all of the histrionics and just acknowledged that to begin with
Wasn't disagreeing with why they did it, that was a separate issue to your misunderstanding and ubsequent rant.
Plus I notice you convieniently ignored everything else I wrote and I was annoyed with your continued inability to read and personal attacks to cover up for your mistakes.
Why can't peple read posts correctly and if they don't, why not have the backbone to admit they made a mistake say sorry and move on?
This is why I gave up on LL for while, as there was too much aggro from people who were too lazy to read posts properly and then too proud to admit to making a mistake and built entire world views around their misunderstanding.
I have zero respect for people like that and sadly once again they seem to be increasing in numbers here.
-
Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this).
Hartblei sells TS lenses for the Alpha mount (as well as for Canon EF, Nikon F, PentaxK, Leica R, Contax). They are more expensive but the functions can be independently aligned, which is very cool; the alignment of the functions on the Nikkors come from the factory offset at 90° and I'm currently having mine aligned to be on the same axis, but it's costing me $126 per lens (plus shipping to El Segundo) and it appears that Nikon is going to take a month to finish the project (there is currently a "Parts Hold" on my 24mm and 45mm PC-E lenses). On the other hand, the Nikkors can focus closer without using extension rings, communicate well with the D3x, D3, D700, and D300 (so far, more DSLRs to come), and you can get a Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E whereas the shortest focal length for the Hartblei TS lenses is 40mm.
I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.
Yes, and it sometimes comes down to a matter of individual taste -- some prefer Zeiss while some prefer Nikkor or Canon, and those preferences can change depending on the particular lens.
I was anxiously awaiting the D3X and was shocked when the price was introduced at $8000. I expected it to be around $6000. They already had the body so there was very little development cost involved in fitting the new chip to the body. The Sony with the 24mp chip was $3000, the Canon 5D with the 24mp chip was under $3000 and the current price of the D3 is around $4100. There is a huge void in the Nikon line from 12mp to 24mp and they want to slam an $8000 camera down loyal users throat during a time when the world is in financial turmoil.
They can keep it. The price will drop like a bullet in short time in my opinion. If it doesn't then bye-bye Nikon for me.
That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I will say though that the street price of the D3x will likely drop to around $6500 once initial demand is met; it appears to be a worthy camera in its class and the only other camera in that class is the 1DsIII which has the same MSRP and a current street price of about $6500. I expect Nikon will come out with a "D700x" that combines the D700 body with D3x sensor; I would pay $4000 for it if the image quality is as good as some informed sources are claiming it is for the D3x and because of the aforementioned compatibility with my existing lenses -- YMMV. Therefore, the big question for Nikon is when a "D700x" is available and for how much; for their sake it better be soon and it better be affordable.
-
I hear good things about a few of the Sony lenses. But Nikon isn't lacking their own high quality lenses, either from Nikon itself or from third parties. There are, of course, a full range of superb Zeiss ZF lenses for the Nikon F mount. I would argue it's a much more complete line of primes than Sony has. Also, Nikon has the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms, both with curved aperture blades for pleasing bokeh. I don't think you're going to find a finer performing zoom in the 14-24 range than the Nikon. Even the Canon folks seem to appreciate the 14-24 optics :-) And I'd guess the 24-70 can hold it's own. Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this). And the long teles - the 300, 400, 500 and 600. And the superbly flexible 200-400 zoom. I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.
I'm not knocking the A900. So far I've been favorably impressed by what I've seen from it. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that the D3X will be hampered by poor lenses.
I did not say that Nikon would be hampered by poor lenses. Though on almost every lens where there is a CZ or a minolta prime, Sony got from equal to better than Nikon. BTW, Sony also got curved blades on all lenses even the 300$ ones.
Anyway, my comment that you quoted above and some how you got out of contest, was referring to someone saying that Nikon, Canon and SIGMA???? are working on medium format digital cameras. Therefore my question "where are the lenses" for such a large sensor was made ironically.
In my view, nothing on the lens line up of the DSLR makers could be put in front of a medium format sensor today, even the smallest sized 28/31mp sensors. therefore they all need new lenses.
Sigma can barely do decent lenses for 35mm FF, Nikon is spilling out 2 or 3 lenses per year (sometime even DX lenses....), canon is maybe doing barely better. If they want to introduce such a body, they need to come out with at least 6 lenses to begin with, in order to be able to work with such a camera.
Let's be realistic, nikon took 6 year to catch up with Canon borrowing sensors from sony, and they finally came out with a 12mp sensor 5 years too late and with a 24mp sensor when everybody, a part from Nikon users, already got one 20mp+ DSLR and are yawning about the DX3. Not mentioning that medium format kits body, lens prism and digital back can be bought for 15/18.000 dollars today and leica will be out with a 37mp body in september next year and they said they will do their best to offer it at 15K. The Leica body, if anybody had the chance of playing with it, will realize it is on a league that will be very difficult to match by anybody else, they will use a Kodak MF sensor of the same class of those used on Phase and Hassy backs, and they already have at least 6 medium format lenses ready. Who think Canon , Nikon and Sigma???? really want to go there?
I mean Sigma... come on!
-
From most I've heard from that have both ZA and ZF lenses, the ZA are a cut above, being newer designs. Plus, they're autofocus.
they are of a superior "grade" of anything that was designed by Zeiss for Hasselblad, Contax and Rolley in the past. And all the "new" manual focus DSLR ones are based on the older designs, while the CZ are completely new.
-
they are of a superior "grade" of anything that was designed by Zeiss for Hasselblad, Contax and Rolley in the past. And all the "new" manual focus DSLR ones are based on the older designs, while the CZ are completely new.
So you own all these lenses and have done side by side tests to verify all this. That's fantastic.
-
So you own all these lenses and have done side by side tests to verify all this. That's fantastic.
I own and owned quite a bunch of them. being shooting those cameras for 25 years.
In any case it does not take a crystall ball to know that. All those older Zeiss were designed for medium format film and they had requirement and tolerances that were less strict that those needed for a 24/36 digital. the new CZ were redesigned taking care of all these new requirements.
We have been told to they are based on the old design and carry the same old names (like Sonnar, Planar whatever....) but if we look at the technical design the groups and the glasses do not even look alike.
I know posts like mine are a bit annoying to read, since they go against the consensus.....
-
I know posts like mine are a bit annoying to read, since they go against the consensus.....
Not really. What's annoying is someone making statements as if they were facts, without any data to back them up.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the CZ lenses, but so far all I've heard is the same old brand favoritism. Blanket statements suggesting that the CZ lenses are superior to everything that's come before them, simply because the CZ lenses are newer, is a rather "interesting" position to take. Sorry, but I just find this brand bashing and brand posturing a little tiresome.
-
Not really. What's annoying is someone making statements as if they were facts, without any data to back them up.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the CZ lenses, but so far all I've heard is the same old brand favoritism. Blanket statements suggesting that the CZ lenses are superior to everything that's come before them, simply because the CZ lenses are newer, is a rather "interesting" position to take. Sorry, but I just find this brand bashing and brand posturing a little tiresome.
I just say what I think, based on my experiences taking photos with the equipment I'm referring to.
After all is just an opinion, like many others.
-
It is now absolutely critical that Nikon get the D700x / D800 out as soon as possible for under $3000.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. A Nikon ad in the BJP last week contained the phrase, "The Nikon FX family is now complete". Obviously that doesn't rule things out 100%, but I'd be surprised if a 5D-alike were to appear in the medium term.
-
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. A Nikon ad in the BJP last week contained the phrase, "The Nikon FX family is now complete". Obviously that doesn't rule things out 100%, but I'd be surprised if a 5D-alike were to appear in the medium term.
I am reading a lot of posts suggesting it might take a year or even more for Nikon to release a "D700x". IMO, even six months is too long; I've decided to wait until May or June, but than I will get a Sony A900 and 16-35/2.8 ZA which should satisfy about 90% of my landscape work. If Nikon waits longer and/or charges significantly more, I will punish them by selling off gear to buy Alpha mount lenses and will eventually abandon Nikon over this one issue. Nikon has been too late a number of times: too late for decent high ISO performance, too late for FX, and now this.
-
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. A Nikon ad in the BJP last week contained the phrase, "The Nikon FX family is now complete". Obviously that doesn't rule things out 100%, but I'd be surprised if a 5D-alike were to appear in the medium term.
I suspect that is just marketing spin, to convince is that Nikon now covers all needs as they have a complete system. As to what Nikon's plans really are, only they know.
-
I am reading a lot of posts suggesting it might take a year or even more for Nikon to release a "D700x". IMO, even six months is too long; I've decided to wait until May or June, but than I will get a Sony A900 and 16-35/2.8 ZA which should satisfy about 90% of my landscape work. If Nikon waits longer and/or charges significantly more, I will punish them by selling off gear to buy Alpha mount lenses and will eventually abandon Nikon over this one issue. Nikon has been too late a number of times: too late for decent high ISO performance, too late for FX, and now this.
I say keep the Nikon gear and go for an A900 and 16-35 in the interim. I'm sure you wouldn't loose too much money if you were forced to sell the Sony gear in May. Probably <$500 total, which would be a very good 5 month rental price for such a set up. I waited 2 months from the release to buy the A900, and I wished I would have gone ahead and purchased it in the beginning.
-
I say keep the Nikon gear and go for an A900 and 16-35 in the interim. I'm sure you wouldn't loose too much money if you were forced to sell the Sony gear in May. Probably <$500 total, which would be a very good 5 month rental price for such a set up. I waited 2 months from the release to buy the A900, and I wished I would have gone ahead and purchased it in the beginning.
I will not do anything until May or June because my income is seasonal (it comes primarily from residential window cleaning), and I just can't afford the $4200 the Sony system will set me back; besides that, the Sony 16-35/2.8 ZA will not be available until January. Likewise, I was always planning on waiting for the Nikon $3000 alternative -- it's just that now it doesn't look like it will be $3000. Where this becomes a bleed for Nikon is that if they just leave me hanging and then come out after a full year with something that is not competitively priced, then the combination of my resentment and my investment in Sony lenses will grow to a point where I won't turn back, plus I will start funding missing Sony lenses by selling off my unused Nikkor lenses. Actually, there will be a tipping point where all the Nikkors and Nikon DSLRs go at once, probably that will be August or September -- I just don't see myself straddling two systems with incomplete satisfaction in either system when it starts to look like Sony is going to give me more satisfaction than Nikon has so far.
-
Gotcha, Tony. Makes sense to me.
-
"Nikon on crack", well Nikon is on rocket fuel down under! The price listed down here in NZ at www.photo.co.nz is $21200 NZ. To give you an idea I paid 12000 NZ for my 1DS Mrk3 back in January.
I could buy a rather nice used Porsche for $21K.
-
"Nikon on crack", well Nikon is on rocket fuel down under! The price listed down here in NZ at www.photo.co.nz is $21200 NZ. To give you an idea I paid 12000 NZ for my 1DS Mrk3 back in January.
I could buy a rather nice used Porsche for $21K.
Sure, but how many megapixels is the Porsche?
-
Sure, but how many megapixels is the Porsche?
Not to overstretch the metaphor, but what if I could buy a Mazda for one third the price of the Porsche and it could do everything as well except didn't have the same top speed? In California where I live you never get to go 200 mph (except on a racetrack), so 150 mph or even 120 mph would be more than enough -- the same is true of the A900, for me.
-
Not to overstretch the metaphor, but what if I could buy a Mazda for one third the price of the Porsche and it could do everything as well except didn't have the same top speed? In California where I live you never get to go 200 mph (except on a racetrack), so 150 mph or even 120 mph would be more than enough -- the same is true of the A900, for me.
Actually, the Mazda can't do anything as well as the Porsche (it can't handle corners, it does not have the braking system, steering, acceleration, etc.) So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.
The only thing the Mazda has over the Porsche is it's cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. But it will never perform anything like a Porsche ... or feel as good to own ... and that's why there's such a dramatic price difference
-
"Nikon on crack", well Nikon is on rocket fuel down under! The price listed down here in NZ at www.photo.co.nz is $21200 NZ. To give you an idea I paid 12000 NZ for my 1DS Mrk3 back in January.
I could buy a rather nice used Porsche for $21K.
What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*
Steve
-
What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*
Steve
Good Point!! Perhaps the Nikon is a better option!!!
-
What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*
Steve
In my experience, a Porsche has much better acceleration than a sheep, and also a better high end. No need to fear sheep; an M3 might be a different matter.
JC
-
So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.
Except get you to your destination safely; perhaps more safely.
-
Actually, the Mazda can't do anything as well as the Porsche (it can't handle corners, it does not have the braking system, steering, acceleration, etc.) So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.
The only thing the Mazda has over the Porsche is it's cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. But it will never perform anything like a Porsche ... or feel as good to own ... and that's why there's such a dramatic price difference
Are you still shooting with a P&S? That's the photographic equivalent of a small station wagon with a 4 cylinder engine.
We could also start discussing putting a lousy driver in a Porsche and having him race against a professional race car driver in a Mazda -- but then we might need to discuss the gas they put in the cars, the tires they drove on, the road conditions, etc, etc -- but that would all be nonsense as it relates to whether a D3x is worth $5000 more than an A900. That's what why I said I didn't want to overstretch the metaphor. There are many things the D3 can do that the D700 cannot do, but they have nothing to do with image quality. As for the A900 compared to a hypothetical D700x or an actual D3x; at or near base ISO using optimal technique and skills there will be very little to distinguish them from one another in landscape and nature photography. As Thom Hogan wrote today: either the A900 is underpriced, the D3x is overpriced, or Nikon has spent $1000 making the D3x sensor better than the A900 sensor upon which the D3x sensor is based -- and that last possibility is highly dubious.
-
In my experience, a Porsche has much better acceleration than a sheep, and also a better high end. No need to fear sheep; an M3 might be a different matter.
JC
The problem arises when ( ∆d(sheep)/∆t=0; intersects with ∆d(Porsche)/∆t=>0) = >D3x
Steve
-
What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*
Steve
Well, for starters, it's still a Porsche, and therefore handles better, so you could whiz around the sheep easier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except get you to your destination safely; perhaps more safely.
Nonsense. All of the safety features favor the Porsche ... well, unless you are driving a silver Porsche too fast at dusk like James Dean ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you still shooting with a P&S? That's the photographic equivalent of a small station wagon with a 4 cylinder engine.
True, but in the camera world I am still just a student driver
We could also start discussing putting a lousy driver in a Porsche and having him race against a professional race car driver in a Mazda -- but then we might need to discuss the gas they put in the cars, the tires they drove on, the road conditions, etc, etc -- but that would all be nonsense as it relates to whether a D3x is worth $5000 more than an A900.
All could be parallels drawn, actually. However, when you put equally-talented drivers in the Mazda and the Porsche, it won't be the Mazda winning the race
That's what why I said I didn't want to overstretch the metaphor.
Are we over-stretching the metaphor---or missing the point? The Porsche costs more because it is a better car, on every level, except economy. And I would venture to guess that the Nikon D3x will be a better camera in every way than the Sony, except for those who can't afford it (or who just don't want to go that high-end).
As for the A900 compared to a hypothetical D700x or an actual D3x; at or near base ISO using optimal technique and skills there will be very little to distinguish them from one another in landscape and nature photography.
Sure, just like sitting in traffic, or calmly put-putting down the street, there will be little to distinguish the Porsche from the Mazda (except look and feel). However, I would imagine that when called upon to "push the limits" the metaphor will again apply when a person will now be able to see where that extra money's going ...
As Thom Hogan wrote today: either the A900 is underpriced, the D3x is overpriced, or Nikon has spent $1000 making the D3x sensor better than the A900 sensor upon which the D3x sensor is based -- and that last possibility is highly dubious.
I don't know why it is "highly dubious" at all. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but my money is betting that there will be a lot of "oohs" and "aahs" when it comes to nut-cuttin' time and the comparisons are made, just as there was when the D300 came out, and just as there was when the D3 came out. In both cases, Nikon delivered and justified its price.
Jack
.
-
Nonsense. All of the safety features favor the Porsche ... well, unless you are driving a silver Porsche too fast at dusk like James Dean ...
As a matter of interest, do we have any accident statistics on this issue? Percentages of Porsche drivers involved in accents as opposed to percentages of Mazda drivers?
There is a perception that powerful vehicles with quick acceleration tend to have more accidents, just as motorbike riders tend to have more accidents.
Let's look at the facts, if you have them.
-
If anything, a Porche is a status symbol, not necessarily the best car one can get. Now for a Nikon...
A Porsche is a status symbol, because it is a superior vehicle in every way. Whether it is "the best" car a person can get, "best at what" becomes the question. If you are traversing wild terrain, I would recommend a Land Rover. If you are wanting to enjoy a wide-open, winding highway on a beautiful day, I recommend the Porsche.
(Check out how Road & Track magazine, etc. rates the Porsche, time and again, against its competitors ...)
As a matter of interest, do we have any accident statistics on this issue? Percentages of Porsche drivers involved in accents as opposed to percentages of Mazda drivers?
There is a perception that powerful vehicles with quick acceleration tend to have more accidents, just as motorbike riders tend to have more accidents.
Let's look at the facts, if you have them.
When I first got out of college, I was an auto bodily injury claims invesitgator/adjuster for 12 years. But while I do not have any concrete statistics, per se, I can truthfully tell you that accidents involving Porsche's were almost non-existent.
However, it is also true that the owners of Porsches are almost non-existent compared to the owners of other, cheaper, vehicles. But I would imagine that the people who have the wherewithal to buy a Porsche would (on average) have a little more sense to begin with and would probably be better drivers.
RE: motorbikes, I don't know if they "get in accidents more," but those who do get in accidents sure do die or get seriously injured more ...
Jack
-
Are we over-stretching the metaphor---or missing the point? The Porsche costs more because it is a better car, on every level, except economy. And I would venture to guess that the Nikon D3x will be a better camera in every way than the Sony, except for those who can't afford it (or who just don't want to go that high-end).
Skipping the car metaphor now (because it has truly worn thin); putting aside price, one way I can specifically say that the D3x is not as good as the A900 for me is its size.
However, I would imagine that when called upon to "push the limits" the metaphor will again apply when a person will now be able to see where that extra money's going ...
For those that want the extra features, and can afford them, and don't mind the extra size (or even prefer it), the D3x is their camera. All of this is academic to me anyway; I'm waiting for a "D700x", or at least I was waiting until the price of the D3x and its implications on the eventuality of a competitively priced "D700x" made me look much more seriously at the A900 -- now I am less willing to wait for Nikon to deliver the camera I want to use, especially since Sony already has.
I don't know...[that Nikon has spent $1000 making the D3x sensor better than the A900 sensor upon which the D3x sensor is based] is "highly dubious" at all. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but my money is betting that there will be a lot of "oohs" and "aahs" when it comes to nut-cuttin' time and the comparisons are made, just as there was when the D300 came out, and just as there was when the D3 came out. In both cases, Nikon delivered and justified its price.
Your mixing up the justification of the high price of the D3x based on performance with engineering and production costs and market forces; regardless, Nikon has trouble justifying the price of the D3x on all three counts. We're not discussing a few hundred dollars here, or an enormous benefit in performance or image quality; we're discussing a very large premium for a relatively small advantage, and if you are carrying a back-up (as Michael is doing on his trip to Antarctica), then you can double that price differential and that puts the question of value into even starker perspective. Look at it this way: You have one D3x and it breaks down, and I have two A900 cameras and one of them breaks down -- who has the better camera now?
-
$8000?!
For what it is worth, the street price of the d3x has been dropping significantly in the past 5 days, down from 808,000 to 724,000 Yen. Still a bit too high for my liking, but getting there at an un-precedented rate for a Nikon DLR.
http://kakaku.com/shop/610/PrdKey=K0000008369/ (http://kakaku.com/shop/610/PrdKey=K0000008369/)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Different makers have different design philosophies. Zeiss is said to focus on high contrast in the "sweet spot" of the lens even at large aperture. I have two ZA lenses. The 16-80 never shined in my formal tests, but it is a nice picture taker in real life. No, it's not really usable at full aperture, but I still use it quite often fully open. In many situations corner to corner sharpness does not matter. When stopped down two 5.6 or 8.0 the lens really shines.
The new 24-70/2.8 ZA I have has similar characteristics. Corner sharpness at full aperture isn't anything to write home about, but it is working very well in real picture taking.
Best regards
Erik
I just say what I think, based on my experiences taking photos with the equipment I'm referring to.
After all is just an opinion, like many others.
-
I guess the Mazda is far better then the Porsche in transporting four persons from point A to point B, especially if all carry Nikons with Nikkors and a nice Gitzo each.
Another issue is that driving a car has a lot down with laws of physics and laws of man. Testing the limits of the former takes you in conflict with the latter.
Erik
Actually, the Mazda can't do anything as well as the Porsche (it can't handle corners, it does not have the braking system, steering, acceleration, etc.) So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.
The only thing the Mazda has over the Porsche is it's cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. But it will never perform anything like a Porsche ... or feel as good to own ... and that's why there's such a dramatic price difference
-
Look at it this way: You have one D3x and it breaks down, and I have two A900 cameras and one of them breaks down -- who has the better camera now?
We have yet to determine which is more likely to break down.
-
We have yet to determine which is more likely to break down.
The D3x would have to be twice as reliable, and even that wouldn't justify taking only one of them (after all, you might drop the camera in your hand off a cliff or into a river). This is the problem with Nikon not having a "D700x", there is no inexpensive and small back-up to the D3x; so you end up spending $16,000 for two D3x cameras and they are heavy and bulky.
-
This whole discussion has gotten too weird. The A900 is a fine camera; three years ago it would have been the best 35mm-format camera on earth. The D3x is simply different, and from what I can see of the image tests, it gives better image quality at the margins. If you need a camera for some extremes, the D3x is better. If you go on long treks through the mountains, in wild temperature ranges, with lots of water around, taking photos in all kinds of light conditions, and with the possibility that you'll never be back, I'd take a D3x and a D300. If I had an extensive Nikon lens and strobe system, I'd go for the D3x. If I were shooting a wedding that couldn't be repeated, I'd rather have two A900s than one D3x (actually, I'd rather have two D700s, but that's another discussion); if I were a beginning landscape shooter, somebody without an extensive system, I'd probably go for the A900 because of cost. At least for now. The D3 price is down 20% from its release a year ago; a year from now, I'd expect the D3x to be selling for $6000 or so, and judging from what Bernard's been saying, it may come down a lot quicker than that.
JC
-
With the image quality I'm getting (only one day, and no real meaningful subjects - too busy with holidays), Nikon's NOT on crack to charge a lot for the D3x. I was initially disappointed with my first few shots (I thought "this looks a little bit better than a 1Ds mkII at base ISO (100), plus it has 3/2 the pixels") - I then realized that I was looking at a file I had shot at ISO 400 - it had just beaten a nice camera, operating with a 2 stop handicap. I opened up one of the few ISO 100 files I had (yesterday was very grey and dreary, and I didn't have the time to wander with a tripod!). The ISO 100 file was like NO DSLR file I'd ever seen (absolutely no noise or blurring from AA filter/noise reduction).
-Dan
-
Look at it this way: You have one D3x and it breaks down, and I have two A900 cameras and one of them breaks down -- who has the better camera now?
Being in bed with two fat chicks will never be as satisfying as rolling around with just one "10"
.
-
Being in bed with two fat chicks will never be as satisfying as rolling around with just one "10"
You know what? You're really offensive. You think being insulting to people is funny? Your analogy is also simply wrong; what makes you think the A900 is a "fat chick"? Well, back to ignoring you.
-
If I had an extensive Nikon lens and strobe system, I'd go for the D3x.
Here's where Nikon isn't on crack; Nikon thinks they have crack to sell and that their customers are crackheads. I have just about everything you just described:
Nikkor 14-24/2.8
Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E
Nikkor 35/2
Nikkor 45/2.8 PC-E
Nikkor 50/1.8 (2 copies)
Nikkor 85/2.8 PC micro
Tokina 90/2.5 macro
Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR
Tokina 300/2.8 AIS
SB800 (2 copies)
SB600
Still, I will spend $3000 on an A900 before I will spend $8000 on a D3x. I can imagine in two or three years having none of the gear I just listed, certainly in 4 years from now that will be the case if Nikon doesn't get off their ass and come out with a "D700x" that I consider affordable (which for me would be around $4000).
-
Now at 709,000 Yen.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now at 709,000 Yen.
That's less than you can buy it for in the United States right now; assuming you can find it anywhere as it has barely had time to show up. It will probably be 600,000 yen by Summer; it may stay more expensive in the United States indefinitely given the weakness of the dollar.
-
BTW, a lot of folk are getting grey market Alpha 900s in the $2300-2500 range USD.
-
Hmmm, must visit the Akihabara Outlet Plaza some time
Edmund
-
We have yet to determine which is more likely to break down.
well, I know what you mean but it does not always works like that. What you determine is not what is likely to happens.
I had a brand new f4 that failed the very first day I used it and it failed again later once again, but I had 2 of f801 that never had a glitch in years.
I had hasselblads failing much more often than mamiyas.
Fate does not really care for how much you paid your camera or what the gear heads says.
Then if are going to drop the camera, it does not really matter how much it cost or its presumed "professional grade body" make you feel, you are always better with a back up.
Let's say you are an advertising or fashion photographer. If you are going to shoot a job with 10 to 15 persons involved and a production cost of 30 grands per day (not even that expensive), are you going to show up only with one camera body? Are you going to show up with a 24mp body and a 12 mp body as back up? what are you going to tell the AD when you will present the 12mp photos and the man was expecting something different?
If you go with only 1 body, you are not a responsible professional.
You need two bodies, and therefore the d3x is a 16.000$ camera.
-
Now at 709,000 Yen.
Cheers,
Bernard
that is still 8 grands at this side of the pond. well 150$ short of 8000$
counting peanuts, does really matter?
-
Here's where Nikon isn't on crack; Nikon thinks they have crack to sell and that their customers are crackheads. I have just about everything you just described:
Nikkor 14-24/2.8
Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E
Nikkor 35/2
Nikkor 45/2.8 PC-E
Nikkor 50/1.8 (2 copies)
Nikkor 85/2.8 PC micro
Tokina 90/2.5 macro
Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR
Tokina 300/2.8 AIS
SB800 (2 copies)
SB600
Still, I will spend $3000 on an A900 before I will spend $8000 on a D3x. I can imagine in two or three years having none of the gear I just listed, certainly in 4 years from now that will be the case if Nikon doesn't get off their ass and come out with a "D700x" that I consider affordable (which for me would be around $4000).
If those lenses are old enough and you put them on Ebay, you will find plenty of people ready to make you a profit. that was what happened to my Nikon gear.
I had old nikon equipment, and now I have brand New Sony and Zeiss equipment. Life goes on.
-
This whole discussion has gotten too weird.
Heh.
But the Porsche Cayman versus RX8 comparison is very good. If you look at both, they come within a couple of tenths of a second / mph from each other in almost every test. Yes, the Porsche is marginally better. Neither is an exotic, though.(MF or similar in this comparison)
For the person just getting around town and not racing, they wouldn't know the difference. But the cost is a no-brainer for the average consumer. Only the very wealthy who need to massage their egos really need the Porsche. Or this silly Nikon at 3x the price.
(note - my ego, btw, someday will make me own a Panamera GT(2 door coupe version)... I don't need it, but I do want it...) Oh, and the 4 door version is a sin.
http://www.carzi.com/wp-content/uploads/panamera-3.jpg (http://www.carzi.com/wp-content/uploads/panamera-3.jpg) ACK! My soul is dying...
http://media.nextautos.com/wp-content/uplo...e-Rendering.jpg (http://media.nextautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Porsche-GT-Coupe-Rendering.jpg) - Tons better. I just have to wait until it comes out and it's about 5-6 years old to afford one... heh. Nice future midlife crisis toy...
-
that is still 8 grands at this side of the pond. well 150$ short of 8000$
counting peanuts, does really matter?
This was probably a bit Japan centric indeed.
For me though, these peanuts represent a 1.200 US$ price drop in one week.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One can always shops around and find a lower price than the manufacturer's recommended retail price, but comparing RRP prices in Australia, I find that the Nikon D3 is A$7499 and the D3X A$13,999.
Since we often compare noise and dynamic range at the pixel level, why not compare value at the pixel level? If we do that, we get 0.065 cents per pixel for the D3, and only 0.058 cents per pixel for the D3X. That seems a fair 'quantity discount' to me, for the D3X. What are you guys complaining about?
-
One can always shops around and find a lower price than the manufacturer's recommended retail price, but comparing RRP prices in Australia, I find that the Nikon D3 is A$7499 and the D3X A$13,999.
Since we often compare noise and dynamic range at the pixel level, why not compare value at the pixel level? If we do that, we get 0.065 cents per pixel for the D3, and only 0.058 cents per pixel for the D3X. That seems a fair 'quantity discount' to me, for the D3X. What are you guys complaining about?
Before somebody else embarks on stupid car comparisons, let me say that a Bentley still looks expensive when comparing the price per kg to a Nissan March.
Now that is a relevant comment, isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Before somebody else embarks on stupid car comparisons, let me say that a Bentley still looks expensive when comparing the price per kg to a Nissan March.
Now that is a relevant comment, isn't it?
No, because the Bentley is much more FUN.
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]It's like driving a cathedral - sideways.[/quote]
So think of it that way when you buy a D3x; it's like photographing with a cathedral - sideways.
Now what could possibly top that?
-
No, because the Bentley is much more FUN.
OK, then car comparisons are probably never relevant. CQFD.
Cheers,
Bernard