Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D3X Pricing  (Read 22352 times)
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2008, 05:59:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Because my Mac pro was cheaper than a comparable Dell workstation when I purchased it.

Cheers,
Bernard

Actually you've hit the one area where that Apple is very competitive. We're running 8 core Apples in our dev dept with Vista 64 for rendering videos. Except for Apple memory of course.

Bob



Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2008, 06:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bob mccarthy
Actually you've hit the one area where that Apple is very competitive. We're running 8 core Apples in our dev dept with Vista 64 for rendering videos. Except for Apple memory of course.

Bought my 16 GB from OWC.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
aaronleitz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2008, 06:25:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Because my Mac pro was cheaper than a comparable Dell workstation when I purchased it.

Cheers,
Bernard

This point really hits to the crux of the issue for me as well. When Phase announced the P65+ I also asked (as did many) "who is the target market for such a camera?" In Phase's case, however, they already had an entire line of backs at different price points to compete with other manufacturers. They could afford to beat their chests a bit.

With Nikon, this is not the case. "Marketing 101" you say? - Apple aced it a while ago. Not sure Nikon's marketing dept has taken that course yet ;-).

My guess is they'll be coming out with a D700x or whatever you want to call it real quick....
Logged

Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2008, 06:31:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I’ve read Michael’s recent essay on “Judging Value” and agree with just about everything stated.  If you already have (in this case) a camera that has almost the identical specifications as one costing many thousands more the question is why not cancel the order; reminds me of the old saying “If it isn’t broke why fix it”.  

We need to remember that this is money coming out of Michael’s pocket and he has every right to spend it how he sees fit; we also need to remember that more than likely the gear Michael buys today will be sold at a loss within the next 12-18 months.

Forget brand loyalty start thinking financial loyalty – you own.

Good reasoning Michael


don    
Logged

maxdance
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2008, 07:03:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that pricing of new models can be critical.

12 months ago I sold all of my good quality Nikon gear and bought an a700 and CZ auto focus lenses.
At that time the a700 was available for NZ$800 less than the D300 and I really wanted the Zeiss lenses. The body price advantage helped in making the decision, and I was impressed by the Luminous Landscape Field report and other reviews on the a700.

I certainly had no hesitation in buying the a900 recently and regard it as a bargain buy currently in New Zealand at NZ$4,500 (US$2,400).
 
I now have a selection of AF CZ lenses, all IMAGE STABILISED on the a700 and a900 bodies, and am happy with the, relatively, minimal outlay.

Price does matter.

Max.
Logged
Theodore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2008, 09:32:05 PM »
ReplyReply

After noting yesterday in this thread that Nikon's price seemed a surprise given the expectations that Nikon had helped to create with the price / features of the D700, I spent a little time on a Canon forum that now has a fair number of Nikon users looking through a thread on the D3x.  That thread provided me with a bit of perspective.  On it, there were two studio photographers who could not be more excited about the D3x.  Their vantage was that they were going to get additional resolution in a body with much better handling than a Phase One MF box.  From that point of view, $8000 may well seem a welcome price.

Now, I wouldn't be buying a D3x in any event - $5000 or $8000 or really any price - it's not the right camera for me in terms of a feature set.  As has been noted, the studio folks or landscape folks who will use this are the low ISO, high resolution, 5FPS is lighting fast crowd.  So my view was purely holding forth on my impressions of the market and value and how all of this works or doesn't for Nikon as a business model.  But reading the comments of a few of that target crowd made me reassess that perhaps I was looking at this too much from a consumer point of view rather than how the intended users for this camera may view it.  In other words, my filter or mindset looks at it one way and folks who have needs for high resolution and have been waiting or hoping for that high resolution in a Nikon package and have spent much more on equipment that they find to be less nimble may welcome the body as a tool with an acceptable or even reasonable - again depending on the inputs of their analysis, which are different than mine - price.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 09:53:19 PM by Theodore » Logged
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2008, 03:17:58 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems to me that unlike almost any camera release I can remember the D3X is being based on purely it's price and not capabilities. Normally the camera goes through a review cycle in the press/web where it's technical capabilities are assessed and once there's been a decent appraisal of the camera's capabilities it is then also assessed for 'value for money' whatever that means. We seem to have skipped all this sanity and just jumped in to focus on the price differential.

I must admit though that Nikon's marketing department really missed the mark this time around. Generally release of a new camera creates a positive buzz and if it's expensive (think MF digital) there's at least an aspirational buzz amongst photographers.  Someone seriously screwed up and really missed the emotional measure of the camera market this time around I think.

On a personal note, I'll probably end up getting the camera at some point but I suspect that the market will drive the price down significantly by the time the camera ships in any quantity. If cameras are gathering dust in dealers storerooms at $8k in six months then I'll wager that we'll see much closer price parity on the street to Canon. I almost find it ironic that Nikon is now being perceived as the 'gouger' after years of Canon 1Ds I/II/III releases at exactly the same price point.

Do you think that anyone at Nikon will fall on their sword and that they'll reassess the market and announce an adjustment to say $6999? Other than the embarrassment it wouldn't be too late since nobody has a camera yet.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 03:20:24 AM by gwelland » Logged

Graham
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2008, 05:04:20 AM »
ReplyReply

On a side note, this is one of the main reasons why I always liked LuLa as a main source on photography and industry information. No BS and just straight forward opinion from someone who is dedicated to the practise rather than paper specs. I bet my bottom dollar that this article and thread here is discussed in Nikon headquarters. Michael does not hesitate to call a spade a spade, this has gained him the respect of many. He does not hesitate to ruffle feathers when it makes perfect sense.

As for the pricing of this latest NIKON offer, and this is my own assumption, the file quality as important as it is for many, simply can not outperform other offers such as the mentioned 5DMKII or A900 to justify this pricetag. Then again, we all make errors of judgement once in a while, and I would not be astonished to see NIKON correcting this rather sooner than later.

I have very little doubts, this will be a very nice camera in deed, but we approach 2009 and this year will put our markets and social economical structures to the test, everybody will feel the pinch, and in my opinion Nikon can simply not afford to produce a top of the range camera that will be ignored by a substantial share of possible adopters.

I was discussing +20MP options over breakfast in a greasy spoon with Michael last october. You know that the coffee is somewhat substandard when your tommy starts to make a funny sound, telling you to stay clear of it, and hey, it made the same sound when I heard about the 8K pricetag.  

Best wishes
Georg
Oceanviewstudio-Ireland
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 05:09:23 AM by laughingbear » Logged
reyn_two
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2008, 12:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

As an amateur at almost everything including photography I usually take my photo's when on holiday and then either do nothing with them or if I'm really bored print them at maximum size of A3 and try and find somewhere to put them. I have also had a web account with Zenfolio for some time and have managed to put four pictures on it. http://www.kuckoophoto.com
I started off digital with a Minolta Dimage 5 which I managed to carry most places and took a lot of pictures, I was then seduced by the concept of owning a DSLR with it's separate lenses and purchased a Canon Rebel which I did not like so I sold it and bought a Nikon D70 which I liked but sold it and bought a Nikon D80 which I liked but sold it and bought a Nikon D300 I then decided my lenses were not good enough and sold them and bought some new ones. Do you think I should sell the D300 and buy a Nikon D3X?  

As an aside the picture shown in my profile is not a true representation of me, I don't have a green jumper.  

Frank
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 11:51:34 AM by reyn_two » Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2008, 03:03:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaronleitz
Will someone please explain to me who exactly the target market is for this camera? Being a little more specific than "high end pros" might help as well....

Nikon high end pros  and amateurs who want 24MP and have 8K burning a hole in their pocket. I don't think it's complex. The better quetion is just how many people fit the description. Perhaps Nikon is more interested in photojournalists and generalists to whom the D3 or D700 is very appealing. Not forgetting of course the low end where they have some competitive offerings like the D60.

Either way you question is a good one, but it's all guesswork until a Nikon executive tells us what they had in mind when pricing the D3x.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2008, 10:12:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GregW
Nikon high end pros  and amateurs who want 24MP and have 8K burning a hole in their pocket. I don't think it's complex. The better quetion is just how many people fit the description. Perhaps Nikon is more interested in photojournalists and generalists to whom the D3 or D700 is very appealing. Not forgetting of course the low end where they have some competitive offerings like the D60.

Either way you question is a good one, but it's all guesswork until a Nikon executive tells us what they had in mind when pricing the D3x.

Why people don't pose this question to Canon also? They have set the price target for this niche first, and they continue to defend it with every new iteration of the 1Ds. The fact that after one year the street price of the camera has fallen to $6500 does not change the fact that the camera's RRP is $7999. People who should know maintain that most of the current discount is coming out of the reseller's pockets and not those of Canon.

Asking Nikon to introduce a newer, possibly better, competitor to the 1Ds at a significantly reduced price, amounts to asking Nikon to enter into a price war with Canon. Which I'm sure they can't win. That's why they won't. Period.

Whichever way you look at it, Nikon is just following the pricing set by Canon. Price at introduction: Same . Price difference between the high resolution pro body and the high speed pro body, both at introduction and current street price: Similar.  I will guess that their estimates about their break even volumes are similar too: Low.

So whoevers needs the expensive cameras and can afford them buys them. Otherwise just waits or goes for the cheaper body alternatives. As simple as that.

Nikon's problem is not D3x pricing. That's the photographer's problem. Nikon's problem is one and only: Where's the D700x?Huh?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 11:34:18 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2008, 11:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwelland
It seems to me that unlike almost any camera release I can remember the D3X is being based on purely it's price and not capabilities. Normally the camera goes through a review cycle in the press/web where it's technical capabilities are assessed and once there's been a decent appraisal of the camera's capabilities it is then also assessed for 'value for money' whatever that means. We seem to have skipped all this sanity and just jumped in to focus on the price differential.

That's because everybody is taking it for granted that the D3x will be amazing... if it ends up not being that amazing, the complaints on pricing will further inflate.

Quote from: gwelland
I almost find it ironic that Nikon is now being perceived as the 'gouger' after years of Canon 1Ds I/II/III releases at exactly the same price point.

Well, that's the difference one year and 2 much cheaper bodies makes...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2008, 11:38:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
That's because everybody is taking it for granted that the D3x will be amazing... if it ends up not being that amazing, the complaints on pricing will further inflate.


Well, one thing that's bound to make matters worse is when people realize that the max. frame rates are quoted for 12-bit shooting and the frame rates for 14-bit shooting are reportedly much less though not officially quoted (both for FX and DX crop), lending credibility to the assumption that this is the Sony chip packaged with external ADCs and supporting circuits and with different Bayer and AA filters. Regardless if 12 bit vs 14 bit makes any distinguishable difference at all, the comparison to the 1DsMkIII is inevitable to raise some eyebrows.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 11:43:23 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2008, 11:43:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Well, one thing that's bound to make matters worse is when people realize that the max. frame rates are quoted for 12-bit shooting and the frame rates for 14-bit shooting are reportedly much less though not officially quoted (both for FX and DX crop). Regardless if 12 bit vs 14 bit makes any distinguishable difference at all, the comparison to the 1DsMkIII is inevitable to raise some eyebrows.

Yes, indeed. Not sure where the truth lies on that one though. The D3 is for sure able to maintain the same throughput in 12 and 14 bits, but the D300 cannot.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2008, 12:14:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Well, one thing that's bound to make matters worse is when people realize that the max. frame rates are quoted for 12-bit shooting and the frame rates for 14-bit shooting are reportedly much less though not officially quoted (both for FX and DX crop), lending credibility to the assumption that this is the Sony chip packaged with external ADCs and supporting circuits and with different Bayer and AA filters. Regardless if 12 bit vs 14 bit makes any distinguishable difference at all, the comparison to the 1DsMkIII is inevitable to raise some eyebrows.

Recognize that having the Nikon image processing chain different downstream of the sensor is precisely what makes the difference in terms of image quality, color rendition, noise characteristics, DR etc. It's the one area where Nikon have shown their mastery over the years and particularly with the D300/D3/D700 and their XPEED processor. There's also the obvious other aspect of the image chain - the RAW convertor too; another area where Nikon have excelled for rendering,even from their slow as molasses original Nikon Capture days. It's not just about the chip.

Nikon has a tough job these days because the image quality bar is so high with much more affordable cameras. However, as is shown in the medium format digital market, people are prepared to pay a substantial premium for the ultimate quality.

As regards pricing - consider 'want' vs 'need'. I'm not a pro but if I were and I thought I needed the extra capabilities of the D3X to maintain my competitiveness and differentiate my work from others for the available business, I'd get the D3X in a heartbeat. As a non-pro I'm in the 'want' category ... I shoot Leica these days so my cost/value equation may be a little skewed.  
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 12:15:48 AM by gwelland » Logged

Graham
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2008, 12:03:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Yes, indeed. Not sure where the truth lies on that one though. The D3 is for sure able to maintain the same throughput in 12 and 14 bits, but the D300 cannot.
Hello Bernard. There's some fairly convincing evidence that the lower frame rate at 14-bits is true (someone actually got their hands on a D3X and tried it - it worked out to around 2 frames/sec in 14-bit mode).

The thing that I wonder about is what this tells us about whether the D3X uses the Sony sensor's on-chip A/Ds (in a Nikon-exclusive 14-bit mode) or hgher quality external A/Ds. There's been much speculation as to whether the D3X was using high quality external A/Ds instead of the A/Ds that are on the Sony chip. In fact, many have claimed that the D3X will have superior image quality because it's using these external A/Ds. But if this is just like the D300, then I'm starting to think the D3X is using the same on-chip A/Ds as the A900 is using. So I wonder - how do people expect the D3X image quality to be any better than the A900?
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2008, 12:17:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mort54
Hello Bernard. There's some fairly convincing evidence that the lower frame rate at 14-bits is true (someone actually got their hands on a D3X and tried it - it worked out to around 2 frames/sec in 14-bit mode).

The thing that I wonder about is what this tells us about whether the D3X uses the Sony sensor's on-chip A/Ds (in a Nikon-exclusive 14-bit mode) or hgher quality external A/Ds. There's been much speculation as to whether the D3X was using high quality external A/Ds instead of the A/Ds that are on the Sony chip. In fact, many have claimed that the D3X will have superior image quality because it's using these external A/Ds. But if this is just like the D300, then I'm starting to think the D3X is using the same on-chip A/Ds as the A900 is using. So I wonder - how do people expect the D3X image quality to be any better than the A900?

Yep, that is indeed troubling.

As far as I am concerned, 2 fps would not be an issue, but those shooting fashion might find this to be a problem.

Maybe that's what Nikon meant when comparing the D3x to a MFDB, "as slow as one"...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
markhout
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



WWW
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2008, 01:28:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Nikon's problem is not D3x pricing. That's the photographer's problem. Nikon's problem is one and only: Where's the D700x?Huh?
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2008, 03:35:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: markhout
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.

What bothers most of us here is that Nikon could very well have decided to release the D700x before the D3x. Nikon has become a very agile company, what we have here is a clear commercial choice that, coupled with the high price point of the D3x, makes it difficult for faithful Nikon customers to access higher resolutions quickly enough.

Nobody complained when they did the same thing with the D3 because the D3 had a more reasonable price point, this time around it looks like customer milking at its worst.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

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

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2008, 05:52:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: markhout
That's a very sensible comment. Throw in a D700x at $3500 (yes, more expensive than a 5DII), and everybody would be happy. Given Nikon's sluggish time-to-market I would be really surprised if we would see a 24MP D700x within the next 6-12 months.
How can they possibly release a D700x at $3500 and keep the list price of the D3x at $8000? IMHO people who don't mind the D3x price because they're expecting a D700x in 7 months for $3000 or even $3500 are engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. To think that you could purchase a D3 and a D700x for the price of a D3x seems pretty ridiculous. The D700 released at $2K below the D3, or maybe it was $2.5K I can't remember. But either way, that's a much smaller price differential than people seem to be expecting between the D3x and D700x (or whatever it ends up being called). I really don't see how Nikon can release a D700x for under $5K without lowering the price of the D3x to keep things in line, which I don't think they're going to want to do so soon after release.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad