Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D3X Pricing  (Read 20881 times)
image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« on: December 01, 2008, 11:57:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Isn't the D3X announced price the same as the 1DsMk3?  What gives?  Why the outburst against Nikon and not against Canon?  How about Phase One?

Frankly, all along, I thought that Canon's pricing was the epitome of arrogance, but that didn't seem to bother anybody before.  Now Nikon offers what we were asking for--a higher pixel count D3 to match the 1DsMk3.  Did you actually think that Nikon was going to give them away? If Canon is going to charge $8000, why not Nikon?  Frankly, the Nikon is the better camera.

And to compare this camera to the Sony or the 5Dmk2 (which we've never seen yet and might be a dog for all we know) is incompatible with common sense. This is no different than back in the film days saying that a EOS Rebel was just as good as a EOS 1V.  It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. (Until I see a Sony A900 image that isn't smeared from too high Noise-Reduction...  The Sony, as good as it is, ain't no Nikon or Canon).

Michael, your rant should not be aimed at Nikon, but at the entire industry that continues to find some justification for these excessive equipment prices.  And you are as much to blame as anybody because you've been the poster-child of the camera buyer that must have the "latest-greatest" at any price.  After all, you had a standing pre-order on a camera that nobody has ever seen nor had any proven track-record one way or the other.

Ken
Logged
canlogic
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2008, 12:11:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Right now list on 1DSMKIII is $7750 Canadian at Camera Canada. D3X is about 2k more.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 12:12:18 PM by canlogic » Logged

1dmkIII, some lenses, Epson 7880, iMac, Leica M8, other stuff
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2008, 12:11:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't the Canon more like $6500 these days?
Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2008, 12:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The D3x has the same SRP as the 1Ds Mark III - USD 7999. I would be surprised if the the street price doesn't level out in the coming months.
Logged
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2008, 12:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken....

I don't follow the Canon series, but when the 5DMKII was announced; was it only a MP upgrade?  By and large, that's what the D3x is; simply more megapixels; some would even say they have lost a bit of dynamic range due to the lower hi-iso.

Also, I do think that Nikon should have taken into consideration the current economic conditions when pricing this product.  By pricing this the way they have, they clearly have targeted the highly professional market; and perhaps do compete in the Hassy area.

We'll see if the market that they targeted is actually interested enough in buying enough of these to make profit/loss sense for Nikon; time will tell.  Thom Hogans thoughts were spot on in my opinion (and his opinion counts for a lot more than mine does!).

I think if Nikon releases the same sensor in a D700 body for about $4-$5k; they'll have a much better run at it.

Think of it....Michael is able to buy gear just because he can, and HE cancelled his order for this one.  If someone REALLY needs this than they will buy it; I guess if someone was really waiting for these pixels, might they not have jumped ship already?

Just my .01.

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago
Very Happy Nikon D700 abuser

Quote from: image66
Isn't the D3X announced price the same as the 1DsMk3?  What gives?  Why the outburst against Nikon and not against Canon?  How about Phase One?

Frankly, all along, I thought that Canon's pricing was the epitome of arrogance, but that didn't seem to bother anybody before.  Now Nikon offers what we were asking for--a higher pixel count D3 to match the 1DsMk3.  Did you actually think that Nikon was going to give them away? If Canon is going to charge $8000, why not Nikon?  Frankly, the Nikon is the better camera.

And to compare this camera to the Sony or the 5Dmk2 (which we've never seen yet and might be a dog for all we know) is incompatible with common sense. This is no different than back in the film days saying that a EOS Rebel was just as good as a EOS 1V.  It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. (Until I see a Sony A900 image that isn't smeared from too high Noise-Reduction...  The Sony, as good as it is, ain't no Nikon or Canon).

Michael, your rant should not be aimed at Nikon, but at the entire industry that continues to find some justification for these excessive equipment prices.  And you are as much to blame as anybody because you've been the poster-child of the camera buyer that must have the "latest-greatest" at any price.  After all, you had a standing pre-order on a camera that nobody has ever seen nor had any proven track-record one way or the other.

Ken
Logged
markhout
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2008, 12:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GregW
The D3x has the same SRP as the 1Ds Mark III - USD 7999. I would be surprised if the the street price doesn't level out in the coming months.
B&H quotes $ 6,679.95 as the sales price for the 1DsMKIII today (Dec 1).

B&H states today for the sales price of the D3 "Please note the lower price for the Nikon D3 SLR Digital Camera (Camera Body) is $4,198.95".
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2008, 12:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like Nikon is overdoing what economists call price discrimination. There are certain people who require the new body, and others who are just fine with the old, or a D700 or whatever. Nikon has a portfolio of cameras, and I think it is a prudent decision to put the flagship at a higher price point than the others to avoid cannibalizing their own portfolio of earlier cameras still in production, and lower-spec cousins.

Having said that, it appears that Canon's pricing strategy is undermining this effort, and that some Nikon's customers think the differentiation in price is too high to justify for the differentiation in features.
Logged

Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2008, 12:58:17 PM »
ReplyReply

This very topic of course will be debated ad infinum for the next few months.....sounds like fun!

I think it will be interesting and perhaps telling to see when Nikon releases the new sensor at a lower price point; sooner *may* indicate a pricing blunder with the D3x.

Fun straight ahead!

Cheers...

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: feppe
Sounds like Nikon is overdoing what economists call price discrimination. There are certain people who require the new body, and others who are just fine with the old, or a D700 or whatever. Nikon has a portfolio of cameras, and I think it is a prudent decision to put the flagship at a higher price point than the others to avoid cannibalizing their own portfolio of earlier cameras still in production, and lower-spec cousins.

Having said that, it appears that Canon's pricing strategy is undermining this effort, and that some Nikon's customers think the differentiation in price is too high to justify for the differentiation in features.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2008, 01:04:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon of course has an alternative offering for pixel starved photographers short on greenbacks, it's called the EOS 5DII. For my part I'm interested in Sony, as I have a lot of pretty good Minolta lenses.

Erik


Quote from: feppe
Sounds like Nikon is overdoing what economists call price discrimination. There are certain people who require the new body, and others who are just fine with the old, or a D700 or whatever. Nikon has a portfolio of cameras, and I think it is a prudent decision to put the flagship at a higher price point than the others to avoid cannibalizing their own portfolio of earlier cameras still in production, and lower-spec cousins.

Having said that, it appears that Canon's pricing strategy is undermining this effort, and that some Nikon's customers think the differentiation in price is too high to justify for the differentiation in features.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710


« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2008, 01:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Thing is that neither of the sectors that TH recommends this camera for, landscape and studio, need a D3X over a 5D mkII or even A900 with zeiss glass (should you hate canon glass). Neither class of photographer have dual card backup, pro water proofing, etc with their MFDB's, neither particularly need world class AI Servo AF. As MR's experience in Antartica showed, you use a rain cover even with your super 1 series bodies.

How many people need a 1Ds mkIII for the megapixels where the 5D mkII wouldn't be good enough? A very tiny niche methinks and Nikon have just stepped up to that mark with a camera that at street will still be double the price of two of it's megapixel competitors.

As a wedding photographer I want a pro body, but I don't need 24 megapixels, a couple of D700's far better fits the bill. A studio photographer/commercial photographer would most likely be more than happy with a 5DmkII/A900, the Journalist wants a D3 and there are very few landscape photographers with the commercial need of such a high spec body.

The 1Ds mkIII was the only one of its kind at the time, you paid for a 21 megapixel FF chip. Since then I can't see that there is room for that kind of pricing except as a niche camera. Nikon so far have offered more value for more money but how do they compete for same value (possibly, max iso 1600?), same money, in such a tiny market?

So who is it aimed at? If you needed that kind of resolution you either already have a 1Ds mkIII or have MFDB's with a 5D mkII already on order. If you're a hobbyist or dentist then this is exactly the wrong time to market an overpriced camera to them. Most pros don't need it, so who the heck is going to buy it?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 01:28:54 PM by pom » Logged

Steven Draper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2008, 01:27:09 PM »
ReplyReply

While I agree it would be very 'nice' to have everything at very low prices, if you are a pro / business and can justify the cutting edge equipment then it can also be an advantage that the whole world does not replace it's camera equipment with D3x's overnight because it's price point is so inviting! I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but for some people / business's it is important to be able to define a difference.

I'm very happy with the D3 / D700 option for a great deal of my work, especially natural and low light. In fact I'm still working through a whole load of D2x files - that some people may be surprised to hear still makes excellent images!  Yes the D3x will certainly move the bar but for more serious landscapes etc I've decided to investigate MF film options where items are less likely to go out of date in a few months. I can purchase equipment for a project knowing that most of the depreciation has occurred!


Steven












































Logged

image examples are at my website  stevendraperphotography.com   and Polepics is      "Here"
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2008, 01:43:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Pom...

I think you basically just nailed it.

This is designed for a very small niche market; period.  Those high end pro's who'll stop at nothing to get the highest quality possible.  Very small market.

The community in general is up in arms over this, because Nikon didn't come out with something for them.  Everyone wants more; it's just the way people are.

So Nikon developed a "Technical Proof of Concept"; akin to a 220 mph concept car shown at an autoshow.  Yes, you will be able to purchase them (if you really want.....or...um...can afford), but perhaps the intent here is a bit of chest-thumping bravado.

"Ah ha!  Look Canon!  Look what we the might Nikon can do!  Our camera has more pixels than yours AND better image quality!"

I believe it is very doubtful that Nikon will make a profit on the D3x and that it is simply a technical proof of concept/bravado to show off their technical chops.

Once they put this sensor in reasonably priced bodies, that's when they'll start to reap the benefits from profit/loss perspective.

Just my opinion.

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: pom
Thing is that neither of the sectors that TH recommends this camera for, landscape and studio, need a D3X over a 5D mkII or even A900 with zeiss glass (should you hate canon glass). Neither class of photographer have dual card backup, pro water proofing, etc with their MFDB's, neither particularly need world class AI Servo AF. As MR's experience in Antartica showed, you use a rain cover even with your super 1 series bodies.

How many people need a 1Ds mkIII for the megapixels where the 5D mkII wouldn't be good enough? A very tiny niche methinks and Nikon have just stepped up to that mark with a camera that at street will still be double the price of two of it's megapixel competitors.

As a wedding photographer I want a pro body, but I don't need 24 megapixels, a couple of D700's far better fits the bill. A studio photographer/commercial photographer would most likely be more than happy with a 5DmkII/A900, the Journalist wants a D3 and there are very few landscape photographers with the commercial need of such a high spec body.

The 1Ds mkIII was the only one of its kind at the time, you paid for a 21 megapixel FF chip. Since then I can't see that there is room for that kind of pricing except as a niche camera. Nikon so far have offered more value for more money but how do they compete for same value (possibly, max iso 1600?), same money, in such a tiny market?

So who is it aimed at? If you needed that kind of resolution you either already have a 1Ds mkIII or have MFDB's with a 5D mkII already on order. If you're a hobbyist or dentist then this is exactly the wrong time to market an overpriced camera to them. Most pros don't need it, so who the heck is going to buy it?
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2008, 02:37:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GBPhoto
and:
2 CF slots
DX crop option @ 7fps
High-end lenses that can autofocus   (Zeiss/Leica/Nikon/Oly/Voigt lenses don't AF on the 1Ds)
I've been drooling over the D3 for quite some time now, and now you tell me that I can get AF with Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Voigtlander lenses with the D3x?

I didn't even know that Leica and Zeiss made AF lenses for Nikon, and as far as I knew, the Nikon mount compatible lenses made (ZF) don't even necessarily allow automatic aperture control (like they do for the EF mount, ZE). Is it with some adapter, or perhaps an adapter for the Sony (ZA) lenses with AF?
Logged

Jan
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2008, 02:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GBPhoto
High-end lenses that can autofocus   (Zeiss/Leica/Nikon/Oly/Voigt lenses don't AF on the 1Ds)

To nitpick a bit, the Zeiss lenses are manual focus even for Nikons.

As for the pricing, I think what's got some folks up in arms was Nikon's practice of pricing it's top-shelf DSLR at a respectable $5000 (D1, D1x, D2x, D3). There was an expectation, however irrational, that this much anticipated camera would follow a similar pricing structure. Stay tuned, though. I've got to believe that a more affordable version is on the way similar to the D700 counterpart to the D3. Nikon needs this to compete against the 5Dmk2. Perhaps the D700x?

Chuck
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2008, 03:02:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jan....

I think this poster was indicating that with those lenses on the 1Ds you don't get autofocus; and that the D3x provides a wealth of great AF lenses to choose from.

I've downloaded the 10mb+ jpg's from Nikons site and have reviewed the images and they certainly are breathtaking.  I mean the amount of detail and quality is FIERCE; frightening almost.

As I've said before, for those that want the absolute best in a 35mm digital format, this is probably it (I'll defer to Thom Hogan, or Michael, or one of these other guys when the reviews start coming out).

But I think that the question that remains is the pricing; I simply feel that this camera was created for a niche market and to show technical superiority; and I believe Nikon has completely suceeded in that.

The web is currently on fire with rantings about this Nikon release and everyone will have their opinion.  I think what most likely will not be argued is the *technical* quality of the images produced by the device (don't forget...ya still need a good photographer!).

Eventually Nikon will move this technology into a body at a price point that will make sense for the larger community (which is currently aflame) wanting this technical quality; and wow....those images are scary good.

This will be my last post on this thread as this is one of those ones which can easily get into the "7 page" range....

Peace....

Todd in Chicago

P.S.  If I had $8000 sitting around and spending that amount of money on a camera didn't really bother me, I'd put my name on the list now!

Quote from: jani
I've been drooling over the D3 for quite some time now, and now you tell me that I can get AF with Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Voigtlander lenses with the D3x?

I didn't even know that Leica and Zeiss made AF lenses for Nikon, and as far as I knew, the Nikon mount compatible lenses made (ZF) don't even necessarily allow automatic aperture control (like they do for the EF mount, ZE). Is it with some adapter, or perhaps an adapter for the Sony (ZA) lenses with AF?
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2008, 03:34:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the problem is, when you compare the price of the normal 12mp D3..and the new D3X.

If I am not mistaken, same body..just the higher res sensor. That's a huge premium for a sensor alone, crazy really. Look, I will be dead honest, some of us just have nowhere near the funds to shell out that much, and nope...I don't need it, I guess most people could work without it too. All those who do splash the cash, good luck to you ;-) But even if I were cashed up to the eyes, I would have to say, it's still a silly price tag.
Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2008, 03:45:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: markhout
B&H quotes $ 6,679.95 as the sales price for the 1DsMKIII today (Dec 1).

B&H states today for the sales price of the D3 "Please note the lower price for the Nikon D3 SLR Digital Camera (Camera Body) is $4,198.95".

That's exactly my point. Based on today's B&H photo prices the D3 has fallen 16% and the 1Ds Mark III 16.5% since launch. I expect the D3x will be no different in 12 months.

People can argue about which is the best product but what is clear is that both Nikon and Canon are offering very similar products at identical starting prices for a relatively small market. Thom Hogan's article implies a third of the already lowish volume D3.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 03:49:46 PM by GregW » Logged
T-1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2008, 05:26:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The Canon 1Ds series could've been even more expensive than $8,000 at release, because no one else had anything to compete with it! (35mm DSLRs, not medium format).

But now, Nikon releasing the D3x at 24MP at that price is a little over the top.  It should be $6,499.99.

Also, 24MP is not exactly that special right now, and they shouldn't compare it to medium format, since that sector is in the 56/60MP range right now.  24MP?  Pshhhht.

I'm tired of these "pro bodies" from Canon and Nikon.  What are we paying for?  $6,000 - $8,000 for weather sealing?  A freakin' vertical grip?  A big brick of a camera?  The ability to drop the camera out of a window?  Run over it with your car?  You can shoot a 20D in the rain without a problem.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2008, 06:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm another guy who could afford a D3x, but won't get it; it's not the money so much as the sense of being gouged.

It was what? -- seven or eight months between the D3 and the D700? The same may well be true with the D3x, because, let's face it, Nikon needs a high-res camera to compete with the A900 and the 5DII...

Unless...unless Nikon has something spectacular up their sleeve -- and I'm talking about hands-down 39mp MF quality. If that should be the case, then maybe...


JC
Logged
Theodore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2008, 06:27:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The range of Nikon pricing is what surprises me, along with the fact that Nikon created a lot of the current market place expectations when they put their top-of-the-line features out there for an intro price of $2999.

When the D700 was announced this summer, I was surprised at how much Nikon was offering for so little (compared to others at the time).  On the Canon discussion website, Photography-on-the.net, there was no shortage of folks writing posts that were prayers to Canon: can we have almost all the features of a 1 Series for $2999 too?  Many hoped the 5DII would be a digital body that resembled the 1V more than the original 5D.  On this site, Michael posted his essay regarding the pricing of the D700 - what could Nikon be thinking to price so much for so little especially given the small differences between it and the D3.  Were they crazy, the essay posited, or had Nikon figured out a brilliant product / pricing path designed to eat the other guy's lunch?  In my case, it was a winning price / product: everything I'd wanted at a price that wasn't too crazy.  Mine came to me on the first day of product shipping.

Now comes the D3x and it's surprising for being so expensive relative to expectations.  What's interesting to me is that Nikon's D700 has a lot to do with those price expectations.  A year ago $7999 for this camera I think would have been accepted with a "Wow!", but also the resigned "that's what these things cost" that went along with the IDs MK II / III.  The D700 pushed expectations for Nikon top features (D3 AF, super build, metering, full frame, etc.) and very little compromise to a much lower price point.  The industry followed.  The expectations are thus more along what Michael outlined in his "What's New" coverage.  If the D700 was $2999 at launch - now $2500; if D3s are going for $4300, with the Sony out there at $3.000, perhaps a $5000 or a $5,500 body is where Nikon will strike and again strike a value contrast with the competition.  But alas.  

Who knows, maybe we'll see a D700x in 6 months for $3500 and Michael can dust off the "are they crazy or brilliant" essay.  If anything, the pricing does feel erratic.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad