News Story Re: Nikon DSLR's

Reuter's has a story about Nikon beating estimates & that the Thailand facility

is at full bore (big surprise there:))

 

See:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-07-05T080106Z_01_TKV002590_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAPAN-NIKON.xml&archived=False

Great story Lee! That's the first time I've seen someone quote actual market share for Nikon and Canon.

Interesting article but not too surprising. However, I've been hoping for a D70S successor very soon for my first DSLR, but if Nikon is indeed selling D50's and D70S's as "fast as they make them" I wonder what incentive they have to come out with a new model in that price range any time soon?

You know Canon will come out with new models all the time so it's necessary for Nikon to have a "fresh" product line up to compete with them. It's not always about improving so much as just changing, or rather <i>evolving</i>.... yeah ;)

They aren't selling D70s as fast as they can make them; that plant makes D200s and

18-200s, though, so you'd better believe there's no rest for the weary.

The part about the eventual target price being $300 to $500 is exactly why I'm still shooting film. Went through paying a premium for new technology in the early days of computers. Not gonna do that again.

Wayne, a D70s body is already under $700. Isn't that close enough? If you wait for a drop to the $300-$500 range, you'll have spent the difference in film and processing.

 

A D50 body is only $550. It will be a real long time before you see anything like a D200 in that price range.

 

And you'll be that much further along in the adjusting to a new workflow too.

I am afraid that Wayne has the "keeping waiting for the cheaper and better computer" mentality. The D50 is pretty much a $500 DSLR already.

"Went through paying a premium for new technology in the early days of computers. "

 

I did the same, trying o stay on the cutting edge. Lesson learnt -- upgrade only when you see a definite need.

"I did the same, trying o stay on the cutting edge. Lesson learnt -- upgrade only when you see a definite need."

 

Agree with this wholeheartedly. My office just got a reminder this lesson within the last month or two, as we all came in one morning to find that headquarters had updated our Office software overnight, to a version that functioned differently enough that it was like learning an all-new software package, wasn't compatible with the Adobe software we were using, and really didn't bring to the table any capabilities we needed. It was newer, but it was also crankier.

 

Lesson learned, it it ain't broke, don't fix it. If what you already have is serving your needs just fine, then the newer, "better", faster upgraded stuff is really a waste of good money.

I mostly agree with the upgrade to new technology thing, but not entirely...I wanted a digital SLR 6 years ago when I bought my N80, but there were none yet; at least none that cost less than a house did. So I bought what digital cameras I could afford, used them til I really outgrew them and then got the best I could afford after that. Finally, this year I got a D200. It took 6 years for technology to catch up to what I wanted in a camera at a price that was high, but not out of reach, and I do not regret having gotten it for a second. I do NOT expect to need to change it for many years, either, assuming that it does not have a fatal electronic flaw that kills it early.

 

Computers really did need to be upgraded frequently until about 4 years ago, when the pace of useful gains slowed down. I did, however, have to get a new computer for use in processing the large D200 NEF files without having to wait interminably. Processors with dual-core technology really are an advance when it comes to working with digital images, and are really worth the investment. It's also really nice not to have a 65lb CRT sitting on my living room table anymore :)

 

The upshot is, that the basic level of technology has reached a point where it doesn't hinder the creative process greatly. In other words, the technolgy is maturing, and as it does, improvements will be made in smaller increments than they were early on. Ergo, it will be acceptable to go longer between upgrades, since each improvement will not represent a quantum leap in what can be produced using the technology.

 

This happened in the Hi-Fi industry through the 1980's and into the 90's. As the basic level of audio equipment became so good, the manufacturers were having a harder and harder time convincing people there was a heck of a lot of difference between one stereo product or the next. So, they did one of two things: They developed new technology (cd's, audio/video surround sound), or they developed new markets (High end audio for the well-to-do audiophile). I suspect the same things are happening in the computer and digital photo industries.