Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon on Crack  (Read 32209 times)
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #140 on: December 24, 2008, 11:33:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7763



WWW
« Reply #141 on: December 24, 2008, 11:38:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MatthewCromer
$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/

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7252


WWW
« Reply #142 on: December 25, 2008, 12:31:22 AM »
ReplyReply

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


Quote from: ziocan
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.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7252


WWW
« Reply #143 on: December 25, 2008, 12:40:07 AM »
ReplyReply

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


Quote from: JohnKoerner
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
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 12:40:37 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #144 on: December 25, 2008, 06:48:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
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.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #145 on: December 25, 2008, 10:14:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: telyt
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.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 10:16:43 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #146 on: December 25, 2008, 11:17:30 AM »
ReplyReply

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

Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #147 on: December 25, 2008, 01:49:51 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #148 on: December 25, 2008, 04:05:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
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"  




.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #149 on: December 25, 2008, 09:08:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #150 on: December 25, 2008, 09:19:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp
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).
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7763



WWW
« Reply #151 on: December 26, 2008, 02:42:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Now at 709,000 Yen.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #152 on: December 26, 2008, 02:49:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
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.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #153 on: December 26, 2008, 07:45:44 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW, a lot of folk are getting grey market Alpha 900s in the $2300-2500 range USD.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3871



WWW
« Reply #154 on: December 27, 2008, 06:24:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm, must visit the Akihabara Outlet Plaza some time

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #155 on: December 28, 2008, 01:04:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: telyt
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.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2008, 01:09:48 PM by ziocan » Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #156 on: December 28, 2008, 01:13:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
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?

Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #157 on: December 28, 2008, 01:17:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
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.

Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2008, 06:17:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp
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   ACK!  My soul is dying...

http://media.nextautos.com/wp-content/uplo...e-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...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7763



WWW
« Reply #159 on: December 30, 2008, 07:21:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ziocan
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
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad