Nikon D600

[boyfalldown]

I can't see how it would involve anything more than minimal R&D costs, it's a straight parts swap. Any major R&D required was done when the same sensor went into the D3 to produce the D3s.

'Minimal R & D costs' is a misnomer if ever there was one, but just producing a new set of firmware, tooling up for production and then testing would still all cost. Thats far from an exhaustive list.No arguement it would be cheaper then a new camera, but still not cheap.

Anyway I'm prepared to bet it won't happen. If you think sensibly about it there's no place in the range for it, and other then some wishful thinking no real demand

 

[Flash In The Pan]

'Minimal R & D costs' is a misnomer if ever there was one, but just producing a new set of firmware, tooling up for production and then testing would still all cost. Thats far from an exhaustive list.No arguement it would be cheaper then a new camera, but still not cheap.

Anyway I'm prepared to bet it won't happen. If you think sensibly about it there's no place in the range for it, and other then some wishful thinking no real demand

If there's no demand for it then when the D700 does finally go there will be a near £1500 hole in Nikon's range between the top APS-C body and the entry level FF one.

Look further down the range, is there really a need for the D5xxx models? The gap between prices at that end of the market is minuscule compared to that at the other end....

 

[simonblue]

But a D600 could be a big risk,not well build enought for the pro market,and if it leave out the the body drive,it risk putting of the amateur market,who have lens without build in drive.

To me their best bet is a mini me D4

 

[boyfalldown]

If there's no demand for it then when the D700 does finally go there will be a near £1500 hole in Nikon's range between the top APS-C body and the entry level FF one.

Look further down the range, is there really a need for the D5xxx models? The gap between prices at that end of the market is minuscule compared to that at the other end....

That rather assumes that whatever replaces the d300s will still come in around the £1k mark. at the current d5xxx,d3xxx & d7xxx prices I'll bet nearer £1,500-£1,600 for whatever replaces it. Don't forget in quoting prices you're also comparing something at the end of its life (d300s) with something so new nobodies really discounting from RRP yet (d800) to get to £1,500.

Asuming £1,500 cost for the d300s replacement that would leave approx. £1k gap between DX and FX bodies a bit like theres always been really.

There is no room in the line up for it, and Nikon don't have the resources to produce it even if there was

 

[Flash In The Pan]

That rather assumes that whatever replaces the d300s will still come in around the £1k mark. at the current d5xxx,d3xxx & d7xxx prices I'll bet nearer £1,500-£1,600 for whatever replaces it. Don't forget in quoting prices you're also comparing something at the end of its life (d300s) with something so new nobodies really discounting from RRP yet (d800) to get to £1,500.

That would leave approx. £1k gap between DX and FX bodies a bit like theres always been really.

There is no room in the line up for it, and Nikon don't have the resources to produce it even if there was

It's an interesting argument, that in these times of cost cutting a small camera producer wouldn't take the cheaper route to producing a new model, especially when they have a prior track record of doing just that.

 

[boyfalldown]

It's an interesting argument, that in these times of cost cutting a small camera producer wouldn't take the cheaper route to producing a new model, especially when they have a prior track record of doing just that.

but as I posted above, they also cannibilised their own profits and the higher models sales by doing so.

The cheapest route to producing a new model is simply not to bother, which is what I've been saying all along. You're assuming a market for this new camera, outside of a few people wishful thinking there won't be simply because it'll take sales from the higher models

 

[Flash In The Pan]

but as I posted above, they also cannibilised their own profits and the higher models sales by doing so.

The cheapest route to producing a new model is simply not to bother, which is what I've been saying all along. You're assuming a market for this new camera, outside of a few people wishful thinking there won't be simply because it'll take sales from the higher models

The reason that the D700 cannibalised D3 sales is because it offered the same sensor in a cheaper body, that wouldn't be the case with a "D700s", as it would be a completely different camera from the D800.

The cheapest route to producing a new model is simply not to bother

No, that's the quickest route to bankruptcy, if it were the cheapest way to "produce a new model" then we'd still be shooting with the D1 and D70....

 

[boyfalldown]

The reason that the D700 cannibalised D3 sales is because it offered the same sensor in a cheaper body, that wouldn't be the case with a "D700s", as it would be a completely different camera from the D800.

a cheaper full frame model would still pull away from the d800 sales.

No, that's the quickest route to bankruptcy, if it were the cheapest way to "produce a new model" then we'd still be shooting with the D1 and D70....

I'm sure you know what I meant by that comment anyway there is simply no need, neither do Nikon have the resource to make a 3rd full frame model at the moment.

Being honest do you really think a $1,500 FX model is even slightly realistic, just considering the sensor costs to produce alone. We know how difficult, and how expensive FX sensors are to produce

 

[Phil Young]

a cheaper full frame model would still pull away from the d800 sales.

Not at all. They would be 2 completely different cameras. 1 for resolution the other for ISO. As was the D3x and D3s

 

[boyfalldown]

Not at all. They would be 2 completely different cameras. 1 for resolution the other for ISO. As was the D3x and D3s

errr.........the d3x was just a big fail on Nikon's part, sadly.

The d800 isn't exactly a slouch in the iso stakes, is it? or did I dream the bit where its generally tests atleast as well as the d700/d3 on that front.

So it'll just cannibilise sales from the d800. You also missed the part about Nikon not having resources to do it, or maybe you have a comment about how they'll manage that one too?

eta -in what way does someone photoshoping a new number onto a camera strap represent a companies marketing direction. Wishful thinking much?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

a cheaper full frame model would still pull away from the d800 sales.

I'm sure you know what I meant by that comment anyway there is simply no need, neither do Nikon have the resource to make a 3rd full frame model at the moment.

Being honest do you really think a $1,500 FX model is even slightly realistic, just considering the sensor costs to produce alone. We know how difficult, and how expensive FX sensors are to produce

The argument about taking sales from the D800 doesn't really hold water, otherwise why produce the D5xxx or D7xxx series? Surely they take sales away from other models in the range too? I'm with you re a $1500/£1000 FF camera, that just isn't going to happen, however I'm struggling to see why Nikon don't have the resources to "make a 3rd full frame model at the moment", surely they're already producing four (D700/D800/D800E/D4)?

 

[boyfalldown]

The argument about taking sales from the D800 doesn't really hold water, otherwise why produce the D5xxx or D7xxx series? Surely they take sales away from other models in the range too?

thats not true as I'm sure you know, when I come to look for my next new camera I'm not going to be looking at the entry level models, same as most folks looking for their first DSLR ain't going to be looking at the FX range (irrespective of price).No one looking for an entry level DSLR is going to be tempted by the higher range (or very few are) and vice versa. Its not going to cannibalise sales, same as many companies have entry/mid.high products. TBH its a little silly argument

I'm with you re a $1500/£1000 FF camera, that just isn't going to happen, however I'm struggling to see why Nikon don't have the resources to "make a 3rd full frame model at the moment", surely they're already producing four (D700/D800/D800E/D4)?

I have to admit I'm still thinking of the D800(e) as one camera, wrongly. But even so if I'd said Nikon doesn't have the resources to add another FX model to the range at the moment would that be clearer? As you know Nikon are a relatively small company, who look at the moment to be struggling with production of the new FX models without adding a new option to their FX line up.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

thats not true as I'm sure you know, when I come to look for my next new camera I'm not going to be looking at the entry level models, same as most folks looking for their first DSLR ain't going to be looking at the FX range (irrespective of price).No one looking for an entry level DSLR is going to be tempted by the higher range (or very few are) and vice versa. Its not going to cannibalise sales, same as many companies have entry/mid.high products. TBH its a little silly argument

You may not be, but plenty of other people can't afford to shell out £2500 on the cheapest new-model FF Nikon, that leaves the whole lower-priced ff market open to Canon with the old 5DII.

I have to admit I'm still thinking of the D800(e) as one camera, wrongly. But even so if I'd said Nikon doesn't have the resources to add another FX model to the range at the moment would that be clearer? As you know Nikon are a relatively small company, who look at the moment to be struggling with production of the new FX models without adding a new option to their FX line up.

I need to ask, how do you know that Nikon don't have the resources? As I've said repeatedly it's not as if we're talking about a new camera designed from scratch, rather something that could be cobbled together using parts that they are ready have, and parts that are, in effect, redundant.

 

[simonblue]

When Nikon finally discontinued,the D3s D700,their going to be no model,that will appeal to the press/ sport photographer others than the D4 ?

The D800,might be very good at high iso,but it let itself down on frame rate for sport,and big files sizes if your a pressman or photojournalist on the go.

 

[boyfalldown]

You may not be, but plenty of other people can't afford to shell out £2500 on the cheapest new-model FF Nikon, that leaves the whole lower-priced ff market open to Canon with the old 5DII.

if you were going to take that arguement (and there is alot of sense in it) wouldn't you just leave the d700 in production to compete directly, rather then introducing a new model to compete with what is old tech now?

I need to ask, how do you know that Nikon don't have the resources? As I've said repeatedly it's not as if we're talking about a new camera designed from scratch, rather something that could be cobbled together using parts that they are ready have, and parts that are, in effect, redundant.

Look at the facts, Nikon are a relatively small company, who were set back maybe a year in 2011 by various natural disasters. They seem at the moment to be struggling with production of the d800 and d4. Thats why I don't think they have resource to do it. A little logical thought, thats all.

I know you think of it as easy, but even a parts bin camera will need tooling, new firmware and testing at a minimum. I know its not the same resource as a new camera from scratch, but its still alot of work and money. (I've said that repeatedly too )

If they really need to compete with the old 5D mk ii (and I'm not sure they do) why not just leave the d700 on the market. It did a very good job of competing when it was a current model. Why not let it carry on

 

[boyfalldown]

When Nikon finally discontinued,the D3s D700,their going to be no model,that will appeal to the press/ sport photographer others than the D4 ?

The D800,might be very good at high iso,but it let itself down on frame rate for sport,and big files sizes if your a pressman or photojournalist on the go.

yep, exactly that. Why would they pull sales from the d4 for a cheaper model?. I guess you could move brands, but it will cost you exactly the same money to buy a the canon equivelent

 

[Phil Young]

Look at the facts, Nikon are a relatively small company, who were set back maybe a year in 2011 by various natural disasters. They seem at the moment to be struggling with production of the d800 and d4. Thats why I don't think they have resource to do it. A little logical thought, thats all.

Canon are a big company and they are having the same problem.

Perhaps they are getting sensible financially and supplying to the demand but the demand us way higher than the rate they can supply...

 

[Phil Young]

The d800 isn't exactly a slouch in the iso stakes, is it? or did I dream the bit where its generally tests atleast as well as the d700/d3 on that front.

I didn't say it was a slouch. I said when you have the likes if the D4 offering 3 extra stops, what else do sports photographed have in todays age?

You can't argue the D800 is asgood as a 4 year old camera because we have moved upwards from the D3.

 

[simonblue]

yep, exactly that. Why would they pull sales from the d4 for a cheaper model?. I guess you could move brands, but it will cost you exactly the same money to buy a the canon equivelent

Yep Canon is in the same prostion,except the Canon 50mkIII,has a bit better frame rate,and not such large files to handle,if your in a rush, press/paps.

Nikon your move

 

[boyfalldown]

I didn't say it was a slouch. I said when you have the likes if the D4 offering 3 extra stops, what else do sports photographed have in todays age?

You can't argue the D800 is asgood as a 4 year old camera because we have moved upwards from the D3.

I can and did why do you need more or is it just a numbers game for you now.

You didn't say it was a slouch, but implied it (need another body for high Iso remember?) I'm not sure about your sports point, why wouldn't you buy a d4 for that? Or do you think Nikon will introduce a mini d4 so they cannibalize their own sales? Seriously?

 

[boyfalldown]

Yep Canon is in the same prostion,except the Canon 50mkIII,has a bit better frame rate,and not such large files to handle,if your in a rush, press/paps.

Nikon your move

The 5d mk 3 is no more a press/sports camera then the d800. It looks very good for sure, but if you want/need d4 features by a d4 or 1dx - don't think Nikon will ever cannibalize those sales with a mini version

 

[boyfalldown]

Canon are a big company and they are having the same problem.

Perhaps they are getting sensible financially and supplying to the demand but the demand us way higher than the rate they can supply...

Ehh?, you mean you don't really think they have their marketting and product maps defined by a chinese bloke phototshoping new numbers on straps?

 

[gman]

I would hesitate a guess that post-disaster it would be uneconomical for Nikon to build new manufacturing plants in order to cope with temporary high demand; hence the delays. These plants must surely require large amounts of space, specialist equipment and skilled workers at great expense.

In comparison, even though R&D can be expensive I can't imagine it being anywhere near that of the manufacturing facilities and what with all the current technical knowledge they have I don't think new developments will be all that expensive unless it's ground breaking technology?

Is there any information online about the costs of Nikon's various divisions? Would be interesting to see. I'm going to see if I can get anything from their accounts in the meantime which may help

 

[Phil Young]

Ehh?, you mean you don't really think they have their marketting and product maps defined by a chinese bloke phototshoping new numbers on straps?

I give up, you know the answers...

 

[boyfalldown]

I give up, you know the answers...

I love it when people manage sensible, reasoned debate,:shake::shake:

 

[specialman]

...If you are a long term user with old glass, you should have had D700 by now...

I don't because the D700 just doesn't fit what I want. It's not a body that looks like it'll suffer what my D2x has gone through, no matter what people say otherwise...

Anyway, a consumer-sized FX body sounds far from appealing unless you are easily wowed by a sensor and not the camera as a package.

 

[Phil Young]

I love it when people manage sensible, reasoned debate,:shake::shake:

It's just that you are very aggressive in your debating and smashing down everybody's opinions with your own...gets a bit annoying.

 

[boyfalldown]

It's just that you are very aggressive in your debating and smashing down everybody's opinions with your own...gets a bit annoying.

I'm sorry you find it annoying, but I'd love some examples of me 'smashing' down other opinions. Simply not agreeing with you is neither rude, nor aggressive.

 

[gman]

It's just that you are very aggressive in your debating and smashing down everybody's opinions with your own...gets a bit annoying.

I'd probably say it's more intense than aggressive, although it also seems that Hugh is getting as good as he's gives here! Perhaps the odd bit of sarcasm could come across as being rude but then we all get a little animated in a good debate so I wouldn't take it personally or anything, it's all just fun and games

 

[simonblue]

The 5d mk 3 is no more a press/sports camera then the d800. It looks very good for sure, but if you want/need d4 features by a d4 or 1dx - don't think Nikon will ever cannibalize those sales with a mini version

You might be right.
But Nikon keep saying the D800,is not a direct replacment for the D700,so when the D700 life is over ?

 

[boyfalldown]

You might be right.
But Nikon keep saying the D800,is not a direct replacment for the D700,so when the D700 life is over ?

I dunno, but I doubt very much we'll see another camera like the D700 was to the D3

 

[Phil Young]

I'm thinking that they should bring out a camera along the lines of the D3s in a D300/700 body. Maybe not exactly the same but something like 8fps, 56k/102k iso and weather it's dx called the D400 or full frame and the D600 I don't know...but that's what's missing in my opinion...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I don't because the D700 just doesn't fit what I want. It's not a body that looks like it'll suffer what my D2x has gone through, no matter what people say otherwise...

Anyway, a consumer-sized FX body sounds far from appealing unless you are easily wowed by a sensor and not the camera as a package.

Neither will D800 or the mythical D600... D3/4 (the top line) sounds like your camera.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

if you were going to take that arguement (and there is alot of sense in it) wouldn't you just leave the d700 in production to compete directly, rather then introducing a new model to compete with what is old tech now?

That's exactly what they are doing, or to be more precise Canon are leaving their old model in production to compete with (and undercut) the D700.

Look at the facts, Nikon are a relatively small company, who were set back maybe a year in 2011 by various natural disasters. They seem at the moment to be struggling with production of the d800 and d4. Thats why I don't think they have resource to do it. A little logical thought, thats all.

Then logically the cheapest route to stay competitive in the D700/5DII sector is to upgrade the D700 and by doing so have a "new" camera competing at the same pricepoint as the "old" Canon.

I know you think of it as easy, but even a parts bin camera will need tooling, new firmware and testing at a minimum. I know its not the same resource as a new camera from scratch, but its still alot of work and money. (I've said that repeatedly too )

I realise you've repeated your point ad infinitum that, however, doesn't make it correct, unless you can back it up with figures.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that it's a straight parts swap, that the D3s sensor is a straight replacement for the D3 one already in the D700 and that any other parts/firmware/software is also directly replaceable at a production line level. Where, then would all this "lot of work and money" come from? Reusing technology and producing "niche" products is the way forward, one only has to look at the motor industry to see that.

If, on the other hand, your argument is that a D700s would steal sales from the D800 then the same point can be made about the D800e, which is the very definition of a niche product.

 

[boyfalldown]

I realise you've repeated your point ad infinitum that, however, doesn't make it correct, unless you can back it up with figures.

this is true, but it doesn't make yours correct either, because you aren't backing it up in the same way. Rather making a widely wrong assumption.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that it's a straight parts swap, that the D3s sensor is a straight replacement for the D3 one already in the D700 and that any other parts/firmware/software is also directly replaceable at a production line level. Where, then would all this "lot of work and money" come from? Reusing technology and producing "niche" products is the way forward, one only has to look at the motor industry to see that.

thats too big an assumption. Your assumption you can just swap the sensors with no further work can't be right. The whole imaging chain has to change.

Even assuming you can just swap that without any dedicated software or firmware changes (something we know can't be true, purely on the difference in RAW files between the 2 sensors), then you can't really be suggesting Nikon release a product without testing it. Those changes and the testing are where the money comes from.

Then logically the cheapest route to stay competitive in the D700/5DII sector is to upgrade the D700 and by doing so have a "new" camera competing at the same pricepoint as the "old" Canon.

Or just leave your already competitive product to compete with the old canon. A product you already have which has proved itself more then capable of competing over the last 4 years. Many would argue the d700 is the better body already

You're also assuming that canon will leave the 5d mk ii on the market indefinitely, while Nikon will withdraw the d700 at some point which may not happen(I have to admit I think this will probably be a sales lead decision by both companies.)

If, on the other hand, your argument is that a D700s would steal sales from the D800 then the same point can be made about the D800e, which is the very definition of a niche product.

Yes, I think it will, the d800e has a very niche market, and I suspect won't sell very many or worry Nikon unduly in that way

 

[Flash In The Pan]

this is true, but it doesn't make yours correct either, because you aren't backing it up in the same way. Rather making a widely wrong assumption.

Unless you have the figures to disprove my point you can't state that it is "widely wrong".

thats too big an assumption. Your assumption you can just swap the sensors with no further work can't be right. The whole imaging chain has to change.

Even assuming you can just swap that without any dedicated software or firmware changes (something we know can't be true, purely on the difference in RAW files between the 2 sensors), then you can't really be suggesting Nikon release a product without testing it. Those changes and the testing are where the money comes from.

Nowhere did I say that it was just a case of swapping sensors, there would obviously be, as I have stated, other parts that need swapped. My hypothetical point was that assuming the parts used in converting the D3 to the D3s can be used in a D700 -> D700s then the costs won't be anywhere near as much as producing a new camera, thus refreshing an old design and maintaining a lead in the market sector.

Or just leave your already competitive product to compete with the old canon. A product you already have which has proved itself more then capable of competing over the last 4 years. Many would argue the d700 is the better body already

You're not grasping this, are you?

You're also assuming that canon will leave the 5d mk ii on the market indefinitely, while Nikon will withdraw the d700 at some point

No, that's your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have said. Nowhere did I state that Nikon will will withdraw the D700, in fact I made the exact opposite point, that they would leave it in production as there is still a demand for it. Similarly Canon are leaving the 5DII in production as they feel there is a demand for that too.

That would suggest there is a market at this pricepoint for a full frame camera and Nikon, with a D700s would have the advantage of being able to offer a "new" product to compete against Canon's older camera.

Yes, I think it will, the d800e has a very niche market, and I suspect won't sell very many or worry Nikon unduly in that way

But surely they will have spent large sums of money on R&D for it, or are you suggesting that they have simply removed the AA filter and launched the camera, without extensive testing and new firmware etc? As you said previously "the whole imaging chain has to change", so there has probably been as much, if not more, spent on developing the D800e than would be needed for a D700s, for a camera which will, in all likelihood, sell in far smaller numbers...

 

[boyfalldown]

Unless you have the figures to disprove my point you can't state that it is "widely wrong".

I can and did in much the same way as you're assuming I'm wring without any figures to disprove me either.

Nowhere did I say that it was just a case of swapping sensors, there would obviously be, as I have stated, other parts that need swapped. My hypothetical point was that assuming the parts used in converting the D3 to the D3s can be used in a D700 -> D700s then the costs won't be anywhere near as much as producing a new camera, thus refreshing an old design and maintaining a lead in the market sector.

I've never said the costs would be as much as producing a camera from scratch. Your hypothetical point assumes far to much though

You're not grasping this, are you?

perfectly thanks, I just think you're wrong on it. Thats not the same as not understanding your point.

No, that's your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have said. Nowhere did I state that Nikon will will withdraw the D700, in fact I made the exact opposite point, that they would leave it in production as there is still a demand for it. Similarly Canon are leaving the 5DII in production as they feel there is a demand for that too.





That would suggest there is a market at this pricepoint for a full frame camera and Nikon, with a D700s would have the advantage of being able to offer a "new" product to compete against Canon's older camera.

I do like the way you've snipped half my sentence from the quote.

I never said there wasn't a market, just why not take the easy option and not bother replacing the d700. It competes more then well enough.

But surely they will have spent large sums of money on R&D for it, or are you suggesting that they have simply removed the AA filter and launched the camera, without extensive testing and new firmware etc? As you said previously "the whole imaging chain has to change", so there has probably been as much, if not more, spent on developing the D800e than would be needed for a D700s, for a camera which will, in all likelihood, sell in far smaller numbers...

does the d800e have a new sensor then? I also didn't suggest that it wasn't tested and developed properly. It also costs more and is not likely, as I'm sure even you would agree, to steal any d800 sales.

You also seem to have sidestepped in all of your posts the probability Nikon don't have resource to develop another FF body at present, or maybe you'd like to explain why you think they could (assuming they wanted to)

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I can and did in much the same way as you're assuming I'm wring without any figures to disprove me either.

No, you can't, it may be your opinion but you it's not a statement of fact.If you do have figures to back up your wrings (sic), please share them...

I've never said the costs would be as much as producing a camera from scratch. Your hypothetical point assumes far to much though

Once again, that's just your opinion, based on assumptions with no proof to back them up

perfectly thanks, I just think you're wrong on it. Thats not the same as not understanding your point.

I'm not so sure you do....

I do like the way you've snipped half my sentence from the quote.

I felt that if I left it it would only have confused you further

I never said there wasn't a market, just why not take the easy option and not bother replacing the d700. It competes more then well enough.

As did the D3, then the D3s, why bother replacing those?

does the d800e have a new sensor then?

No, but then neither would a D700s, or is that what's confusing you?

I also didn't suggest that it wasn't tested and developed properly.

I have a sinking feeling that you're not reading my posts before replying to them...

It also costs more and is not likely, as I'm sure even you would agree, to steal any d800 sales.

So, what your saying is that anyone buying a D800e wouldn't have been in the market for a D800 had the "e" model not existed? What are these then, "new" customers that have never bought a camera before?

You also seem to have sidestepped in all of your posts the probability Nikon don't have resource to develop another FF body at present, or maybe you'd like to explain why you think they could (assuming they wanted to)

Again, that's just an assumption on your part based on, well, nothing, except your assertion than Nikon is a small company. Unless you have in-depth knowledge of Nikon's finances and the amounts involved in developing a new camera model, all you're doing is guessing.

 

[boyfalldown]

No, you can't, it may be your opinion but you it's not a statement of fact.If you do have figures to back up your wrings (sic), please share them...




Once again, that's just your opinion, based on assumptions with no proof to back them up

I'm sorry FITP, I made a spelling mistake, but TBH if you have to get down to quoting them then you know you're on a losing battle. I've been completely open about what my assumptions are based on, but they are no more assumptions then yours. Which you haven't been quite so open about sharing. As you know the actual costs associated with development are a pretty good secret, but its probably fair to say (again tell me if you think I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will) that based on other industries R & D costs are generally pretty high, even just to extend a product.

I'm not so sure you do....




I felt that if I left it it would only have confused you further

yawn, just because I happen to disagree with you...........kind of weak really

As did the D3, then the D3s, why bother replacing those?

who's trying to confuse things now? Seriously .......... are you really suggesting that replacing something to compete with your competitors 4 year old tech, when you don't need to is the same thing.

No, but then neither would a D700s, or is that what's confusing you?

did I ever say that, anywhere? it would need a hell of a lot of development still though. Oh and on the subject of confusing you, while I think you're wrong about the d700s this thread started about the D600.

Further more why do you seem to think Nikon wish or need to add a direct competitor to the 5d mk ii, they've always deliberately not done so, why start now?

I have a sinking feeling that you're not reading my posts before replying to them...

thats cause you can't get your head round the idea someone thinks you're wrong :nuts:

So, what your saying is that anyone buying a D800e wouldn't have been in the market for a D800 had the "e" model not existed? What are these then, "new" customers that have never bought a camera before?

I said that where?

Again, that's just an assumption on your part based on, well, nothing, except your assertion than Nikon is a small company. Unless you have in-depth knowledge of Nikon's finances and the amounts involved in developing a new camera model, all you're doing is guessing.

Nikon publish their finances every year, and yes they are a relatively small company. As above no-one publishes camera development costs, but just from their size its pretty obvious they haven't the resources. Again FITP I'm constantly explaining my assumptions, something that seems to be well above your ability to do the same.

Rather then constantly telling me I'm wrong in my assumption that Nikon haven't the resources to do this, maybe you'd share you're assumptions as to why? I'm all ears as to where you make the assumption Nikon have the resources to do this from.

 

[gman]

I'm getting dizzy lol