Nikon D600

[Phil Young]

Gosh...beats my little tiff lol.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

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.

Hmm, ok I thought I had been pretty open about what my assumptions were based on, namely that they already have the technology/parts etc to produce a "new" model without incurring the full cost of developing a brand new model, as seems to be the suggestion for the "D600" in the op's link.

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

and everybody else, with a similar "I'm right, you're wrong and that's all there is to it" attitude.

I give up, you know the answers...

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry if you're getting confused, but in essence, yes it is. This is, to all intents and purposes, as prices for the 5DIII and D800/e have migrated to a £2500-3000 pricepoint, a "new" market sector, albeit one populated with old technology.

The point that you seem to be missing is that not everyone who aspires to owning a FF camera has £2500/3000 to spend and potential buyers with, say around £1500, are more likely to buy a used camera in such cases than mortgage the cat to come up with the extra £1000. In such a case Nikon (or Canon) wouldn't be robbing sales from their new model (although obviously some buyers may decide to buy the cheaper camera) they are gaining sales that would otherwise have gone to the used market, from which they would have gained zero revenue.

Naturally the cheaper camera will steal some sales from the newer, more expensive one, but the manufacturer, be it Nikon or Canon, will still be earning some revenue from the sale, revenue that they would not have had at all if the choice had been a three grand new camera or a secondhand older model.

Now that we (that's the Royal "we") have established that the market exists, the key is to gain/maintain dominance is to be perceived to offer the best vfm, as this is a price-driven sector. And that is where my theorised D700s (or the D600 in the op) would come in.

From the link in the op NR seem to be suggesting that Nikon's answer to this is to fit a FF sensor into the smaller Dxxxx body (suggested by the lack of af motor). If that is the case, and it may well be they simply intend to geld a Dxxx body such as the D700 one, then I would imagine it wouldn't be a great deal more cost effective than my suggestion and the use of the smaller, entry level body may well put off a lot of buyers brought up on the likes of the D200/300 or even the D90/7000 sized ones. Of course, like you, I have no figures to back this up, I am merely proffering my opinion.

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.

I am aware the thread started in relation to the D600, that's why I have expanded on my thoughts (above) to explain why in my opinion the D700s route would be more commercially viable than something based on an entry level body.

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?

The D800, had it not been beset with production setbacks, would have been launched at a time when it's main competitor was the 5DII and it has headline features which are more "Canon" than traditional Nikon, in that it has a high MP count (traditionally a Canon USP), rather than a high ISO capability (traditionally a Nikon USP).

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

Not true at all, I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, or for someone to argue an opposing case, the key is that they need to be able to do it without simply shouting down the other (in this case,my) point of view.

If you know something I've stated as fact is wrong then please, correct me. If it is your opinion that something I've said is wrong then please provide a substantive argument as to why you feel that is the case, I won't be offended.

I said that where?

You didn't say it, but perhaps, if it wasn't what you were inferring, you could explain, if the D800e isn't stealing D800 sales, then where the customers are coming from? They have to come from somewhere and be buying the "e" at the expense of some other camera (unless, as I said in jest, you think these are new photographers buying their first camera). With the D800e Nikon have given potential purchasers a choice, but ultimately it will not mean more sales, it will merely fragment the overall D800 sales.

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.

I'm sorry, I thought I had explained the basis for my theories repeatedly, but never mind, as long as it gives you the chance to launch a personal attack.What was it you were saying about "you know you're on a losing battle"......

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.

I haven't "constantly" told you you're wrong, I've offered my theories, it is you who seem to be of the mindset that if someone fails to agree with you then they are wrong and any such deviance from your stance is an "argument". I am more than happy to have a grown-up discussion where different theories are raised, there is, however, little point in doing so if the other party has to lower themselves to personal attacks to put their case across.

 

[steve248]

You would think they'd focus on getting the D800 and D4 to waiting customers first.

I can only speak from my personal experiance but I received my D800 just a few days ago and was on order for just 8 days...

Maybe I was lucky?

 

[steve248]

You would think they'd focus on getting the D800 and D4 to waiting customers first.

I can only speak from my personal experience but I received my D800 just a few days ago and was on order for just 8 days...

Maybe I was lucky?

 

[gman]

I guess you must have been lucky.....lucky.......lucky......ucky.....cky......ky......y.......

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm sorry, I thought I had explained the basis for my theories repeatedly, but never mind, as long as it gives you the chance to launch a personal attack.What was it you were saying about "you know you're on a losing battle"......




I haven't "constantly" told you you're wrong, I've offered my theories, it is you who seem to be of the mindset that if someone fails to agree with you then they are wrong and any such deviance from your stance is an "argument". I am more than happy to have a grown-up discussion where different theories are raised, there is, however, little point in doing so if the other party has to lower themselves to personal attacks to put their case across.

Really? you've constantly accused me of being confused, picked silly holes over spelling mistakes, deliberatly mis-quoted me and when I haven't agreed with you accused me of personal attacks. Its not the adult discussion you were claiming you were trying to have.

Hmm, ok I thought I had been pretty open about what my assumptions were based on, namely that they already have the technology/parts etc to produce a "new" model without incurring the full cost of developing a brand new model, as seems to be the suggestion for the "D600" in the op's link.

I have never said it would incur the full costs of developing a new model, but thats its far from a free option.

I'm sorry if you're getting confused, but in essence, yes it is. This is, to all intents and purposes, as prices for the 5DIII and D800/e have migrated to a £2500-3000 pricepoint, a "new" market sector, albeit one populated with old technology.

apparently I'm the one doing the insulting (again) . The new market sector is populated with new tech

The point that you seem to be missing is that not everyone who aspires to owning a FF camera has £2500/3000 to spend and potential buyers with, say around £1500, are more likely to buy a used camera in such cases than mortgage the cat to come up with the extra £1000. In such a case Nikon (or Canon) wouldn't be robbing sales from their new model (although obviously some buyers may decide to buy the cheaper camera) they are gaining sales that would otherwise have gone to the used market, from which they would have gained zero revenue.

Naturally the cheaper camera will steal some sales from the newer, more expensive one, but the manufacturer, be it Nikon or Canon, will still be earning some revenue from the sale, revenue that they would not have had at all if the choice had been a three grand new camera or a secondhand older model.

I'm not missing it at all. I think you're wrong, for lots of reasons.

Firstly, a new FF camera at that point will steal a fair % of sales from the higher levels.Look at what the d700 did.

Secondly, theres not room in the lineup for it. Whatever replaces the d7000 and d300s will sit between to £900 and £1.5k marks. There always has been a gap of (give or take) £1k between DX and FX just cause of the difficulties and expense of producing an FX sensor (and the cost of the associated gubbins, like a bigger viewfinder)

Thirdly, Just because theres a demand for it, doesn't mean its profitable for Nikon to go there with a new model.

Now that we (that's the Royal "we") have established that the market exists, the key is to gain/maintain dominance is to be perceived to offer the best vfm, as this is a price-driven sector. And that is where my theorised D700s (or the D600 in the op) would come in.



From the link in the op NR seem to be suggesting that Nikon's answer to this is to fit a FF sensor into the smaller Dxxxx body (suggested by the lack of af motor). If that is the case, and it may well be they simply intend to geld a Dxxx body such as the D700 one, then I would imagine it wouldn't be a great deal more cost effective than my suggestion and the use of the smaller, entry level body may well put off a lot of buyers brought up on the likes of the D200/300 or even the D90/7000 sized ones. Of course, like you, I have no figures to back this up, I am merely proffering my opinion.

As above I find it hard to see where a new model would sit. But assuming you're right and Nikon want to compete with the 5d mk ii in this sector I think would be far more sensible to leave old tech competing with old tech

Not true at all, I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, or for someone to argue an opposing case, the key is that they need to be able to do it without simply shouting down the other (in this case,my) point of view.

If you know something I've stated as fact is wrong then please, correct me. If it is your opinion that something I've said is wrong then please provide a substantive argument as to why you feel that is the case, I won't be offended.

I'm unsure if your implication is that I'm offended, or if its a bit of a attempt to try and gain some form of high ground in there?

The simple point, you've yet to answer is why do you theorise Nikon have resources to develop and launch even a parts bin FF camera at the moment? I've explained why I don't think the can even if they (and I doubt it) wanted to.

 

[specialman]

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

D3/D3s definitely, although I'm gonna be awkward and add that I want DX.... basically, I want a D2x with D7000 features. Ain't gonna happen

 

[Phil Young]

I really don't think it would steal sales at all. Take the D4, it's clearly aimed at pro sports and photojournalists and hugely to videographers that need the best of the best.

The D800, clearly landscape and studio.

So the D700s could be aimed at the hobbyists that want a pro ff body that is similar to the D4 but with lower ISO, less video features and a Moderately fast fps.

Yes, if they brought out a mini D4, bad move.

But Nikon have enough variety between pro body cameras now to full a hole.

I can't see how this would steal too many sales but can see a gap in the market for it.

Lets look at gym membership sales for a second...

A common objective is not having a pool. These people may or may not use a pool but nonetheless they still want to have it.

Like it or not, the way technology is going, nowadays cameras need to have video and a decent ISP rating.

That argument alone is enough to conclude that yes, 4 years ago the D700 was amazing but today it's "eh".

Nikon should be addressing this to keep up with the times.

 

[Phil Young]

D3/D3s definitely, although I'm gonna be awkward and add that I want DX.... basically, I want a D2x with D7000 features. Ain't gonna happen

Have you tried buying both and doing a self surgery? Lol.

 

[boyfalldown]

I really don't think it would steal sales at all. Take the D4, it's clearly aimed at pro sports and photojournalists and hugely to videographers that need the best of the best.

The D800, clearly landscape and studio.

the d800 isn't that though. Its certainly not a studio shooters camera (in the way a D3x was.)

So the D700s could be aimed at the hobbyists that want a pro ff body that is similar to the D4 but with lower ISO, less video features and a Moderately fast fps.

Yes, if they brought out a mini D4, bad move.

But Nikon have enough variety between pro body cameras now to full a hole.

I can't see how this would steal too many sales but can see a gap in the market for it.

Lets look at gym membership sales for a second...

A common objective is not having a pool. These people may or may not use a pool but nonetheless they still want to have it.

Like it or not, the way technology is going, nowadays cameras need to have video and a decent ISP rating.

That argument alone is enough to conclude that yes, 4 years ago the D700 was amazing but today it's "eh".

Nikon should be addressing this to keep up with the times.

The d700 is still a fantastic camera. The addition of new bodies doesn't change that.

Nikon have already kept with the times. The new models have done this.Its alright to say like it or not etc. but your argument doesn't support a reason why Nikon should introduce another FX body. The new bodies address those percieved weaknesses.

 

[specialman]

Have you tried buying both and doing a self surgery? Lol.

I can't even make a spice rack so wouldn't want to think of the abomination I'd create. Hell, I might even end up making a Canon

 

[simonblue]

Thinking about it,at the moment they can't even get enought of anything out.

A lot of lens out of stock,people still waiting on their new model,and they want to get the D3200,out by the end of May.

As a company they really need to pull their finger

 

[Dr_O]

I can't even make a spice rack so wouldn't want to think of the abomination I'd create. Hell, I might even end up making a Canon

I liked that

 

[gman]

As a company they really need to pull their finger

They did get hit by a tsunami though so fair play.

Could you imagine the UK if it got hit by one? A little rain and it floods, a little sun and there's a drought, a little wind and things start blowing up and then there's a little snow and the country collapses lol

 

[redhed17]

I've read most of this thread, but glazed over a few times.


People keep on saying they want/there should be an entry level FX camera. Wasn't/isn't the D700 it? :shrug:

I think the D700 got more people from DX than it took sales from the D3.

The D4 has taken over from the D3S with mainly incremental improvements, but a lot of them.

The D800 has taken over from the D3X.

And there may be a replacement for the D700 at some point, but I don't think it will be anytime soon, and I don't think it needs to be any cheaper. I know people would want it cheaper, but I don't think they'll make the mistake of undervaluing again.

They are still selling D700's, and Canon have the same idea about the 5DII, if it's selling, keep on selling it. Maybe they are both just running down stocks, but while the waiting lists for the D4 and the D800 are so large, and they can't service them, there is no rush for a D700 replacement with all the logistical problems that could entail imho.

And talking again of the price, I don't think that they would have a FX camera cheaper than a DX camera, and I don't think Canon would do it either. If the replacement D300S ever appears, it will be close to £1400-£1700, at least initially, which fits in just below the D700 price.

And as for Nikon's priorities, I think the D300S replacement (should it materialise) is more sought after than any 'entry' FX camera. As the D3200 is coming, do they bring a D5200 and/or a D7100/7200? Or do they bring a out D400, or do they retire that line? :shrug:

Nikon seem to be very good, indeed all the camera makers seem to be very good at keeping their plans very quiet.

So speculation runs rampant.

They did get hit by a tsunami though so fair play.

Could you imagine the UK if it got hit by one? A little rain and it floods, a little sun and there's a drought, a little wind and things start blowing up and then there's a little snow and the country collapses lol

Earthquake, Tsunami, Radioactivity and Flood. That they have released any camera speaks volumes for all the hard work they must have put in.

The Japanese fix whole motorways when we can't even fix a Bridge in London.

 

[Phil Young]

I've read most of this thread, but glazed over a few times.

People keep on saying they want/there should be an entry level FX camera. Wasn't/isn't the D700 it? :shrug:

I think the D700 got more people from DX than it took sales from the D3.

The D4 has taken over from the D3S with mainly incremental improvements, but a lot of them.

The D800 has taken over from the D3X.

And there may be a replacement for the D700 at some point, but I don't think it will be anytime soon, and I don't think it needs to be any cheaper. I know people would want it cheaper, but I don't think they'll make the mistake of undervaluing again.

They are still selling D700's, and Canon have the same idea about the 5DII, if it's selling, keep on selling it. Maybe they are both just running down stocks, but while the waiting lists for the D4 and the D800 are so large, and they can't service them, there is no rush for a D700 replacement with all the logistical problems that could entail imho.

And talking again of the price, I don't think that they would have a FX camera cheaper than a DX camera, and I don't think Canon would do it either. If the replacement D300S ever appears, it will be close to £1400-£1700, at least initially, which fits in just below the D700 price.

And as for Nikon's priorities, I think the D300S replacement (should it materialise) is more sought after than any 'entry' FX camera. As the D3200 is coming, do they bring a D5200 and/or a D7100/7200? Or do they bring a out D400, or do they retire that line? :shrug:

Nikon seem to be very good, indeed all the camera makers seem to be very good at keeping their plans very quiet.

So speculation runs rampant.

Earthquake, Tsunami, Radioactivity and Flood. That they have released any camera speaks volumes for all the hard work they must have put in.

The Japanese fix whole motorways when we can't even fix a Bridge in London.

Good enough answer for me...

 

[Philx1979]

the d800 isn't that though. Its certainly not a studio shooters camera (in the way a D3x was.)

QUOTE]

If the D800 isnt a landscape/Studio camera, then what is it?

 

[Phil Young]

Exactly.

 

[gman]

Without the grip it's not really suited for portrait orientation, but not the end of the world either. I guess the D3X having a shutter rated to 300,000 compared to the D800 being 200,000 may also be of interest to a full-time pro.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Really? you've constantly accused me of being confused, picked silly holes over spelling mistakes, deliberatly mis-quoted me and when I haven't agreed with you accused me of personal attacks. Its not the adult discussion you were claiming you were trying to have.

:sigh:

Okay, I'll bite, show me where I've "picked silly holes over spelling mistakes", that's "holes" and mistakes", both plural, which means I've done it more than once.

Again, please indicate where I have "misquoted" or otherwise taken what you said out of context.





<snip>

apparently I'm the one doing the insulting (again) . The new market sector is populated with new tech

Originally Posted by boyfalldown
who's trying to confuse things now?

Apologies, I thought when you said I was "trying to confuse things", that you were confused...

The new market sector is populated with new tech

The new market sector is populated with the D700 and 5DII, with the best will in the world it's stretching things to describe either as "new tech"

I'm not missing it at all. I think you're wrong, for lots of reasons.


Firstly, a new FF camera at that point will steal a fair % of sales from the higher levels.Look at what the d700 did.

Secondly, theres not room in the lineup for it. Whatever replaces the d7000 and d300s will sit between to £900 and £1.5k marks. There always has been a gap of (give or take) £1k between DX and FX just cause of the difficulties and expense of producing an FX sensor (and the cost of the associated gubbins, like a bigger viewfinder)

Thirdly, Just because theres a demand for it, doesn't mean its profitable for Nikon to go there with a new model.

Okay, the argument that the new camera would potentially steal sales from the current (much more expensive) ones is valid (and one I covered in a previous post), or rather it would be, if Nikon (and Canon) hadn't decided to keep their current model(s) in production.

As above I find it hard to see where a new model would sit. But assuming you're right and Nikon want to compete with the 5d mk ii in this sector I think would be far more sensible to leave old tech competing with old tech

If by a "new" model you mean the D600, then I agree, there is nowhere for it to sit in the range, if however you mean "my" D700s, then that's where we have to disagree. As I've said ad nauseum being in the position to offer something "new" at limited cost by reusing older technology from other products in your range to give yourself an advantage in a market is well tried and tested method of extending the shelf life of a product.*

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the costs of rejigging the D700 body to accept the D3s internals were negligible (neither of us has any proof to say what the costs would be, so let's just assume for the moment that they are) would it not make sense (assuming there is a proven, viable, market at the predicted pricepoint) for Nikon to introduce this "new" model to compete with Canon's old one? Nikon have a track record of doing just so to extend the model life of their cameras, the D40x in particular springs to mind.

If on the other hand, as you maintain, this would be an expensive process then obviously it's not a viable plan, however by your own admission you (and I) have no idea of the actual costs involved, so it is no more a valid argument than my own.

This is what happens in many other other markets, notably in the motor industry, it is far cheaper to reuse tried and tested components than develop new ones and if you can extend the shelf life of a product at minimum costs, particularly in testing market times such as these, then it makes perfect sense.

I'm unsure if your implication is that I'm offended, or if its a bit of a attempt to try and gain some form of high ground in there?

Not at all, it's merely an observation, based on your past behaviour on this thread.

The simple point, you've yet to answer is why do you theorise Nikon have resources to develop and launch even a parts bin FF camera at the moment? I've explained why I don't think the can even if they (and I doubt it) wanted to.

Nikon have (according to their annual report) increased the funding available to their camera R&D division from just over £800million in 2011/12 to £1.16 billion for 2012/13 (which equates to around 6-7% of nett sales). To me, at least, this would suggest that they intend to invest more in developing new cameras and, as the market for p+s cameras is in steep decline worldwide due to the improvements in cameraphones, this would be concentrated on the DSLR market.

Again, I am fully aware that I (nor you) can accurately state how much it costs to develop a new FF dslr, all common sense dictates though is that it would be more than would be involved in reusing technology, the cost of which has already been amortised by dint of having been used in a previous generation product.

*Ultimately the litmus test will be whether either current products, the D700 and 5DII, remain in production for any length of time. If sales simple dwindle once the early adopter rush for the new cameras fade and prices for those drop significantly to a point where choosing the older camera makes no financial sense then there is no substantial market for a "bargain" FF camera.

One still has to question though why both major players would leave their older models in production if they felt doing so would steal sales from the new model.

I do agree with you, however, that there will never been a $1500/£1000 FF camera, that's just a pipe dream, regardless of whether one could be viably marketed at that pricepoint it would interfere too much with sales of top-end APS-C bodies.

 

[boyfalldown]

:sigh:

Okay, I'll bite, show me where I've "picked silly holes over spelling mistakes", that's "holes" and mistakes", both plural, which means I've done it more than once.

Again, please indicate where I have "misquoted" or otherwise taken what you said out of context.

where to start. Oh yes

If you do have figures to back up your wrings (sic),

and of course the post above.....

and for out of context try

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 is about half of what I actually wrote

Apologies, I thought when you said I was "trying to confuse things", that you were confused...

really?, it reads much more like you're trying to throw more thinly hidden insults around.

The new market sector is populated with the D700 and 5DII, with the best will in the world it's stretching things to describe either as "new tech"

sorry. It wasn't clear what you meant

Okay, the argument that the new camera would potentially steal sales from the current (much more expensive) ones is valid (and one I covered in a previous post), or rather it would be, if Nikon (and Canon) hadn't decided to keep their current model(s) in production.



If by a "new" model you mean the D600, then I agree, there is nowhere for it to sit in the range, if however you mean "my" D700s, then that's where we have to disagree. As I've said ad nauseum being in the position to offer something "new" at limited cost by reusing older technology from other products in your range to give yourself an advantage in a market is well tried and tested method of extending the shelf life of a product.*

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the costs of rejigging the D700 body to accept the D3s internals were negligible (neither of us has any proof to say what the costs would be, so let's just assume for the moment that they are) would it not make sense (assuming there is a proven, viable, market at the predicted pricepoint) for Nikon to introduce this "new" model to compete with Canon's old one? Nikon have a track record of doing just so to extend the model life of their cameras, the D40x in particular springs to mind.

If on the other hand, as you maintain, this would be an expensive process then obviously it's not a viable plan, however by your own admission you (and I) have no idea of the actual costs involved, so it is no more a valid argument than my own.

This is what happens in many other other markets, notably in the motor industry, it is far cheaper to reuse tried and tested components than develop new ones and if you can extend the shelf life of a product at minimum costs, particularly in testing market times such as these, then it makes perfect sense.

OK I'll buy your assumption on the d700s costs for the sake of argument. I think its to simplistic but................

Nikon do have a track record of that. But not only will your theoretical D700S steal from the higher cameras, it will also steal from the top end APS-C cameras. Not only in sales but also in terms of profitability per camera sold. Even assuming no development costs for a new FX model then based purely on what we know about FX sensors (how hard they are to make, relative size) plus all the associated extra costs (bigger shutter, view finder etc), its not unreasonable to assume a far higher cost of production so less profit. So you'll just be stealing sales from your more profitable models at both ends, nobody will do that. The new APS-C models when they arrive, will fill the £1k to £1.5k price point. Nikon won't leave the low gap between the d7xxx range and the d300s

It is what happens in many other industries, the motor being one example. The pharmaceutical is another, extension/redevelopment costs are pretty high (not as high as a new product) there though. The point being you cannot extrapolate development costs from one industry into another.

Not at all, it's merely an observation, based on your past behaviour on this thread.

I'll repeat for you. You're the one who has picked up silly spelling errors and thrown personal insults because I don't agree with you.

Nikon have (according to their annual report) increased the funding available to their camera R&D division from just over £800million in 2011/12 to £1.16 billion for 2012/13 (which equates to around 6-7% of nett sales). To me, at least, this would suggest that they intend to invest more in developing new cameras and, as the market for p+s cameras is in steep decline worldwide due to the improvements in cameraphones, this would be concentrated on the DSLR market.

Again, I am fully aware that I (nor you) can accurately state how much it costs to develop a new FF dslr, all common sense dictates though is that it would be more than would be involved in reusing technology, the cost of which has already been amortised by dint of having been used in a previous generation product.

As above that approach is too simple. Simply reusing technology may well reduce development costs but doesn't eliminate it.

The same annual report also states that

We will focus on overcoming the difficulties in parts procurement and other issues in the aftermath of the earthquake, the timely launch of new products and strengthening marketing, sales, service and new business products.

Which suggest that Nikon are not going to overstretch their delivery ability any further then it already is.

It also says that R & D funding is maintained at 6-7% of sales, which implies that any increase in R & D funding is purely as a result of a sales increase rather than a planned increase in R & D activity.

*Ultimately the litmus test will be whether either current products, the D700 and 5DII, remain in production for any length of time. If sales simple dwindle once the early adopter rush for the new cameras fade and prices for those drop significantly to a point where choosing the older camera makes no financial sense then there is no substantial market for a "bargain" FF camera.

One still has to question though why both major players would leave their older models in production if they felt doing so would steal sales from the new model.

I'm unsure about Canon cameras, but buying a d800 or d4 is pretty much impossible in the UK at the moment. (OK, so they'll take your order, but delivering is another matter)

At the moment its fair to say they aren't stealing sales from anything. As you say if they leave old the models on the market once the new products are widely available remains to be seen.

 

[Philx1979]

i cant be bothered to read through all this ^^^^ but i still would like to know: If the D800 isnt a landscape/Studio camera, then what is it?

 

[Phil Young]

i cant be bothered to read through all this ^^^^ but i still would like to know: If the D800 isnt a landscape/Studio camera, then what is it?

Lol

 

[Flash In The Pan]

where to start. Oh yes

and of course the post above.....

.

Hugh, prior to that post I had picked you up on one spelling mistake, and to be fair i did so to quote what you had written. You seem to be chastising me on one hand for correcting your spelling, then on the other for directly quoting your mistakes, so there's no real way I can win, is there?

Or have I misunderstood and you're saying you used the plural because I knew you were going to misspell misquoted?

As for the point of Nikon's R&D policies I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree - and with that i'm going to bow out of this thread.

 

[redhed17]

Without the grip it's not really suited for portrait orientation, but not the end of the world either. I guess the D3X having a shutter rated to 300,000 compared to the D800 being 200,000 may also be of interest to a full-time pro.

Before this thread gets closed, I'll say that the D700 and Canon 5DII have been used by many Professionals without the need for a grip, but a grip is there should one want one. Not everyone wants a gripped body, that's why they sell them seperately.

Indeed, the Canon 5DII seems to have been the studio camera of choice over the D700 by the majority, and that was probably for its number of pixels, because it certainly wasn't for it's Auto Focus.

Nikon may have been too late in upping the pixels now that the 5DIII has addressed the AF shortcomings of its predecessor. 36MP is a lot for a Pro to turn their nose up at though, if in almost every other respect it is as good as the competition. Whether it will tempt people to change from Canon is debateable. :shrug:

 

[gman]

I definitely hear what you are saying and the lack of portrait controls wouldn't put me off either. It just that the pros I know, as in the top level mainstream ones, only go for the top end models on the basis of wanting the highest level of build quality etc because they absolutely can't afford for things to go wrong. They don't want to compromise on this for the sake of saving a few grand. Perhaps there's a little snobbery coming through also haha

 

[Phil Young]

Perhaps there's a little snobbery coming through also haha

Definitely a bit of snobbery coming through on the studio side of things at least lol

I'm sure any pro would get the quality they want from a D3100 and a good lens much like they would with a D4

 

[tester777]

I think sooner or later there will be no more crop sensor camera. The production of a cheap full frame camera makes sense to me.

I'm happy to hear your idea about this

 

[Phil Young]

I think sooner or later there will be no more crop sensor camera. The production of a cheap full frame camera makes sense to me.

I'm happy to hear your idea about this

It would take an amazing camera to make me switch to FF because of the crop factor...

I'm sure there must be millions of other people that have their reasons for not switching too!

 

[simonblue]

I think sooner or later there will be no more crop sensor camera. The production of a cheap full frame camera makes sense to me.

I'm happy to hear your idea about this

I think an cheaper FF is on the books soon,but i dont think it will be the end of the crop

 

[gad-westy]

I think an cheaper FF is on the books soon,but i dont think it will be the end of the crop

I think the sheer cost of good FX lenses might be the biggest stumbling block for most users. I can't see DX disappearing either.

 

[desantnik]

I think the sheer cost of good FX lenses might be the biggest stumbling block for most users. I can't see DX disappearing either.

I'd say that was the least of the issues to be honest.

Nikon have a pile of "cheap" FX lenses now, the same as they have a pile of "cheap" DX lenses.

The really outstanding lenses are always "expensive"...

Pretty much no Nikon (or Canon) lens is what most non-photographers would call cheap.

 

[gad-westy]

I'd say that was the least of the issues to be honest.

Nikon have a pile of "cheap" FX lenses now, the same as they have a pile of "cheap" DX lenses.

The really outstanding lenses are always "expensive"...

Pretty much no Nikon (or Canon) lens is what most non-photographers would call cheap.

It's wide angles that were the killer for me when I switched over to FX. Most primes and telephoto zooms etc are FX compatible anyway but once you get to the wide end things get pricey pretty quickly. There is also that annoying factor that you feel a need to buy high end lenses once you are up to high end bodies.

 

[redddraggon]

It's wide angles that were the killer for me when I switched over to FX.

18-35? The rest are pro level lenses with pro level prices.

 

[desantnik]

There is also that annoying factor that you feel a need to buy high end lenses once you are up to high end bodies.

I'm not sure its "feel the need" its more like that you need a good body+lens combo to get the (technically) stunning results, neither one on its own delivers as much as both together...

 

[tester777]

I think an cheaper FF is on the books soon,but i dont think it will be the end of the crop

It would take an amazing camera to make me switch to FF because of the crop factor...

I'm sure there must be millions of other people that have their reasons for not switching too!

Lets think like this.

In the future, when a full frame camera become cheaper and cheaper because of the demand. When your camera gets old, you want to switch to new one, which one should you buy? Well, I admit that many people will know what they really want and they would stick to crop sensor camera. But a FF camera is really attractive...

One day, maintaining two lines of production become expensive or at least, they realize that they should not keep them two. In addition, when the demand increase, the production of a full frame sensor would not be expensive as it used to be... Nikon ( or any producer else) would think about dismiss one of them. Which one should they dismiss?

By producing AFS lens, Nikon is step by step, slowly remove old lens. And I think, producing of cheap FF camera is a signal for the end of crop sensor too. Unfortunately, it would be a long long time until that day...

ps: I mean it is the end of Crop Sensor for DSLR. Compact and PnS would be stick to crop sensor maybe forever

 

[Phil Young]

Unfortunately, it would be a long long time until that day...

I don't think it's unfortunate...I prefer DX.

IF I USE FF I wouldn't be happy with a 200mm anymore and it's barely enough for what I use it for!

"but just buy a longer lens!?"

...£££

Edit: having said that...we are better than we were 10 years ago and I have faith in technology so no point worrying!

 

[tester777]

I don't think it's unfortunate...I prefer DX.

IF I USE FF I wouldn't be happy with a 200mm anymore and it's barely enough for what I use it for!

"but just buy a longer lens!?"

...£££

Edit: having said that...we are better than we were 10 years ago and I have faith in technology so no point worrying!

Hi!

Just use FF camera and crop what you want You're using D7000 which has 16MP. A full frame sensor with 24MP will resolve your problem. It would give you exactly what you've got with your D7000.

Oh, and the rumor said that D600 will have 24MP sensor... Coincidence?

But what if you need a wider angle? Sometime you can not steep backward but you can always crop your picture to have crop sensor's view

 

[simonblue]

I don't think it's unfortunate...I prefer DX.

IF I USE FF I wouldn't be happy with a 200mm anymore and it's barely enough for what I use it for!

"but just buy a longer lens!?"

...£££

Edit: having said that...we are better than we were 10 years ago and I have faith in technology so no point worrying!

I am the other way round,i barely use anything over 200mm,mostly 24 to 50mm,so FX suit me.

I does seem,that Nikon & Canon have given up on pro crop camera

 

[gman]

I wonder if they'll ever look at going MF with all the good stuff from FX/DX bodies? (i.e. FPS, ISO, AF speed, actual body size etc)