D3x is coming

[jani]

"It's the quantity, you see," the farmer said, selling potatoes with a loss.

[pss]

we all want things to e cheaper...of course...
canon set the price of their high end flagship at 8000 at the same time as the kodak 14n came out....a nikon body with higher resolution at the time at 5000....afaik canon thought very long and hard of coming in lower to directly compete with the kodak (i heard between 5000 and 6000)....the kodak was a flop (i owned one, a great camera with even greater limitations...) and canon went ahead and priced their top of the line at 8000.....and that price hasn't changed so far mostly because they don't have to.....
that is why nikon put theirs out at the same price....simple as that....
my problem with this situation is that a canon kit today consists of the "dreamteam" dsIII and 5dII...which is less then 10000 streetprice for 2 bodies that can handle anything and a kit with which i don't have to worry about getting a lesser file if i pick up this or that body....
nikon cannot match that....at all...the d3/d700 are completely different cameras....optimized for high iso...great cameras, but pretty much useless for me.....
if the D3x would have been in the market 6months ago, i would probably own it now.....but it wasn't and i won't switch now to a system that forces me to pay a 50% premium for 2 bodies....i don't care when the d700x will come out...it is too late....
i am sure there are a lot of nikon shooters out there waiting for the d3x and they will gladly pay the 8000 and finally get rid of their MF backs and gear and take a vacation with the money saved....
still...nikon is a year behind....the d3x is coming out when we are starting to wait for the next canon flagship which will hopefully be a step in the direction leica has shown a couple of months ago....finally away from the film formats....

i just don't think nikon was ready to start a price war with canon....if the d3x was 5000, my dsIII would be on ebay right now....
just like the democrats and repulicans...the real enemy is not the other party, but some independent 3rd party....as long as they can keep prices up and cut up the cake more or less evenly they are both happy....no need to try and take it all....

[Tony Beach]

Look, I have no doubt in my mind that the D3x is priced 'right' at introduction. The real question for me is why Nikon chose to introduce the D3x first and not a D700x that would have competed to the 5Ds and A900s of this world. I can only assume that Nikon, somehow, know their business better than I do...


PS. I expect the D700x (or whatever) to be introduced at a slightly higher price than the 5DMkII and A900 introductory prices. Remember you read it here first   Nikon are trying to position themselves as the premium manufacturer here, I believe. Time will tell if they will succeed.

How do you know the price will be "slightly" higher?  If you extrapolate from the current prices of the D3, D700, and D3x, then you end up with between $5000 and $6000 for a "D700x".

There is also a question of timing that you raise, and that is a bind for Nikon since they can hardly expect to ask $8000 for a D3x if they are already selling a "D700x" for significantly less.  As for me, I have to wait until who knows when for a camera that sells for who knows what, when I could buy an A900 with a Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA next February.  That means with Sony I have a bird in the hand, and with Nikon I have a bird (maybe more plump, but not two) in the bush.  Right now, I'm leaning towards selling some of my Nikkor lenses and getting the A900; but I'll wait to see what the image quality of the D3x is and how good the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA is, and maybe Nikon (or their now terribly leaky rumor mill) will give me some indication of just how much I will have to pay for a "D700x" and when it might be available.

[SeanBK]

............. but I'll wait to see what the image quality of the D3x is ........

There are some images posted by Nikon on their site.
     http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc.../25442/D3X.html

[Tony Beach]

There are some images posted by Nikon on their site.
     http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc.../25442/D3X.html

Please, you want to evaluate thumbnails?  Better to go here:  http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/.../d3x/sample.htm

Anyway, I'm not passing judgment on the camera based on these, which I find underwhelming.

[NikosR]

How do you know the price will be "slightly" higher?  If you extrapolate from the current prices of the D3, D700, and D3x, then you end up with between $5000 and $6000 for a "D700x".

There is also a question of timing that you raise, and that is a bind for Nikon since they can hardly expect to ask $8000 for a D3x if they are already selling a "D700x" for significantly less.  As for me, I have to wait until who knows when for a camera that sells for who knows what, when I could buy an A900 with a Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA next February.  That means with Sony I have a bird in the hand, and with Nikon I have a bird (maybe more plump, but not two) in the bush.  Right now, I'm leaning towards selling some of my Nikkor lenses and getting the A900; but I'll wait to see what the image quality of the D3x is and how good the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA is, and maybe Nikon (or their now terribly leaky rumor mill) will give me some indication of just how much I will have to pay for a "D700x" and when it might be available.

Pricing is not an algebraic operation. Nikon has not been known for pricing themselves cheap but they also have not been known for pricing themselves out of the market. Timing is the biggest question here.

[Tony Beach]

Timing is the biggest question here.

As far as I'm concerned, the clock is now ticking on Nikon.  If the Sony 16-35/2.8 ZA looks good then Nikon is in trouble with me.  Next will come the head to head image quality comparisons between the A900 and the D3x which should indicate what I can expect to gain from a "D700x".  Finally, as soon as my personal finances allow it I will be anxious to pull the trigger, and if Sony has done reasonably well on the lens and the sensor, then I will stop waiting and I will sell my Nikkor 14-24/2.8 to defray the costs of buying the Sony equivalent and I will spend the money I was going to spend on a "D700x" on an A900.  Nikon probably has until May to keep me, but it's possible that I dump my PC-E lenses in order to fund the purchase of the A900 in February if the head to head comparisons are favorable to Sony.

[Quentin]

A further point to consider is Sony are not yet finished.   I predict that they will want to build on the success of the A900 with a cheaper full frame variant which will undercut the predicted D700x, just as the A900 undercuts the 1DsIII and D3x, and before too long - say within 1 - 1.5 years, expect to see 30 or 40mp models priced close to the present A900.  Are Nikon or Canon going to be fleet footed enough to keep up?

Quentin

[Tony Beach]

A further point to consider is Sony are not yet finished.   I predict that they will want to build on the success of the A900 with a cheaper full frame variant which will undercut the predicted D700x, just as the A900 undercuts the 1DsIII and D3x, and before too long - say within 1 - 1.5 years, expect to see 30 or 40mp models priced close to the present A900.  Are Nikon or Canon going to be fleet footed enough to keep up?

Quentin

Sony likely has already beat the "D700x" in price, and has definitely beaten it to market.  Right now, Nikon does not seem very fleet footed.