Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon on Crack  (Read 34170 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2008, 10:05:13 AM »
ReplyReply

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!
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 10:07:14 AM by BJL » Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2008, 10:41:00 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 11:04:16 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2008, 11:49:05 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2008, 11:50:55 AM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 11:52:41 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2008, 12:02:43 PM »
ReplyReply

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  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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 12:09:10 PM by GregW » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2008, 12:17:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
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.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2008, 04:57:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jimk
..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.

Quote from: NikosR
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.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 11:16:35 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2008, 09:35:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 09:40:38 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2008, 08:57:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
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
Logged

A few images online here!
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2008, 01:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
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.
Logged

Nikos
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2008, 06:00:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
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
Logged

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

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2008, 06:01:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2008, 11:14:39 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2008, 01:31:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pete Ferling
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
Logged

A few images online here!
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2008, 01:33:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pete Ferling
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.
Logged
Marsupilami
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2008, 02:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2008, 03:07:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
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.  


Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
CarlosDavid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2008, 01:26:04 PM »
ReplyReply

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 Huh Please ?
I might even consider renewing my long standing affair with Hasselbad (film) if this continues.

Carlos
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2008, 03:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
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!

Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2008, 03:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad