I really don't get it!!! - Nikon D3X Price

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by chuck_t, Nov 30, 2008.

  1. The new Nikon D3x official announcements didn’t make my eyebrows rise, the price does. I really didn’t want to give
    a rant here, because I devoted to use Nikon in almost ten years and I have also purchased of the D700 recently. I
    was thinking to get the D3x for the price of US$6000-6500 and that was what many were guessing.

    Okay, you may thinking Nikon will bring the D700x or D800 to compete with the Sony A900 and the 5D mkII, but I
    doubt the price will also be cheap.

    Nikon D3 to D700 is US 2000 dollars less; I think the D3x to D700x or D800 will also be US 2000 less. That is, it will
    cost US$6000 dollars for a D700x.

    The feature is still 14 bit with same AF focus, etc. The practical ISO is up to 1600.

    Well, many of the pros are saying they either wait for the price drop or rather get a digital back.

    What scare the rest of us are the rumor MX, many were saying it could be under USD 10,000. Unfortunately, the
    price will be close to the medium format or Leica S2, if the beast does exist in the near future.

    Everyone pretty much agreed the 8k price is dead. Now Nikon does this. What a surprise.

    LoL, I can get the whole set of the lens and system with US$8000 from Sony:).
     
  2. My guess is that the D3x is a limited sales product thus a very short production run which means that Nikon has to retrieve
    thier investment in the all new sensor - tooling and associated manufacturing costs over a much lesser number of units
    sold. Therefore to amortise the cost of producing such a limited number of new D3x bodies the price is much higher over
    the life of the model to cover all costs and hopefully for Nikon - make a profit.

    It's a distinct possibility that Nikon will make a net loss on the D3x model and cover this with much stronger sales of D60,
    D90, D300 and lenses. I've never owned a top line model Nikon back before but I'm sure it possible that there is also some
    exclusivity built into the price of a D3x ie) you are paying a premium to a degree for the priviledge of owning one of these -
    Canon must surely run on similar principles.

    Nikon will not take a model from initial concept to marketable product without being certain to shift a number of units over a
    given period of time.

    I had a big sook over the price of the D700 in my native country (Australia) but soon shut up after shooting with it a few
    days. I
    got every thing I paid for despite paying a premium for my Nikon.
     
  3. i'm sure nikon's betting that anyone considering one of these cameras wouldnt get a sony system instead, but that price isnt even competitive with the 5dmkII. bet they sell more d90s as a result, though.
     
  4. I really do not believe Sony is a professional camera yet. Did anyone see any photographers at the Olympics with a Sony SLR? I've never seen any. Sony is trying to break in but at best, their gear is at the high end of the enthusiast level. I do not believe the A900 competes with the D3 or D3x. The D3 and D3x are marketed at the pro photographer level, period. And pros can afford a body like the D3x. Just look at how many Canon 1SD MKII bodies were sold. A ton. And they were more than $8k when they came on to the marketplace. Nikon sold a lot of D2x bodies, I don't see why they won't sell many D3x bodies. I would love a D700x, but am sure that when they come out, I'll still be enjoying my D700, which is a fantastic natural light camera.
     
  5. "Did anyone see any photographers at the Olympics with a Sony SLR? "

    Did you see any Hasselblads? Does that mean that Hasselblad is not professional either?

    Sony is the new kid on the block. It will take a lot of work and time from them to get professionals into it. For newspaper staff they are unlikely to never get there. Canon and Nikon are just too established. But there are other pros out there. Some have to pay for their own equipment. It is a lot easier to justify a $3k investment than a $6-8k investment. Especially if you need two bodies to have a backup. The SonyA900 will probably get more converts now when the much rumoured Nikon D3x is out and with a price tag like this.
     
  6. Lately people talk about a D700x

    What is that? What do people think will be different? Just by looking at Nikon models besides the D1, D2 and now D3 there
    hasn't been other model with an H or an X unless I am misinformed!
     
  7. Oh! D40x! I forgot, but that was just like an upgrade and not a camera with a different purpose!
     
  8. The price to me was expected.

    This is faster than the 5DII. It is more like a 1Ds III which retails for around $8,000 doesn't it?

    It is the same rant you can do all day long .. the prices of 5DII vs 1DsIII. There are those who will pay for a 1DsIII and those for a 5DII.

    The 5DII and 1Ds III are both 21MP, the Nikon is 25MP. The Nikon does 5 fps like the 1DsIII, the 5DII at 3.5 or soemthing.

    Nikon isn't there to give huge discounts, they are a business.
     
  9. The quality of Nikon's image samples is really good. It's outside of my price range but I can see why Nikon want
    to give it a try at this price.
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Clearly, this D3X is direct competition against Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark III. All three entries in the 1Ds family started at US$8000 and then the price gradually drifted down, e.g. for the 1Ds III:

    http://www.nextag.com/Canon-EOS-1DS-21-561832365/price-history-html

    When Canon announced the 5D Mark II, some who recently paid $8K for the 1DsIII complained loudly. In particular, the 5D Mark II seems to have much better high-ISO results but an inferior AF system at 1/3 of the cost. Nikon may have a similar issue with the D3X.

    But recently the general pricing strategy seems to be soaking those who are willing to pay top money first and then gradually reduce the price. We'll have to wait and see whether this strategy works for a $8K DSLR in this tough economy.
     
  11. Dpreview says $7999, €7728, £5499


    Samples here: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3x/sample.htm
    (note that the last one has been taken with a 50mm F/1.4 G lens)

    Does anybody now if they finally incorporated the SONY sensor? The specs gives the impression that Nikon developed their own one.

    heise.de (German) says that "The new D3x sensor (nominally 1600ISO, with boosting max 6400) cannot match the enormous low-light sensitivity of the D3 capturing device (max. 25,600 ISO; original text "Von der enormen Lichtempfindlichkeit des D3-Bildaufnehmers [max. 25.600 ISO] ist der neue D3X-Sensor mit nominal 1600 ISO [boostbar auf 6400 ISO] aber weit entfernt")
     
  12. The brochure says that the sensor has an "exclusive low-pass filter with multi-layer coating for pristine resolution and minimized moiré", so that part at least is new in the D3X.
     
  13. Lucky me - I'm happy with 12 MP!
     
  14. Pros who need to make large prints will pay the price.

    My "absolute guess" is this is a pixel packed D3 with more noise. I would rather have my D700 with a bit less resolution and noise. 12MP noise free suits me fine.
     
  15. "exclusive low-pass filter with multi-layer coating for pristine resolution and minimized moiré"

    It is really amazing how even the strangest features are praised for marketing ;-)

    It is nothing new that if you want resolution, you should apply a really small amount of low-pass filtering (since it filters out the highest frequencies, which convey fine detail). And if you want to get resolution, you have to live with aliasing effect (Moiré patters).

    And if you are smart, you can implement some of the latest image processing techniques for suppressing aliasing effects. Then you get sharp images and good Moiré suppression.

    Would be interesting to know which anti-Moiré strategy Nikon has implemented. Sadly, the brochure leaves me with more questions than answers.

    For me 12MP are at the moment more than enough - I also rather have fine low-light performance. But of course this depends on the needs of each and everybody.

    Why are megapixels always used as the prominent marketing strategy? Why not dynamic range or tonal range? Why not SNR? Seems that humans think in terms of quantities...so having more megapixels per Euro/Dollar/Yen activates the brain regions which are assoiated with reward. Megapixels make us feel better!
     
  16. Post scriptum:

    More Megapixels --> less ISO boosting, but higher serotonin boosting. This is neuromarketing :)
     
  17. This is Nikon's push into medium format market territory. I'll bet they have success, even and 8-large. One thing Nikon has, is
    lenses that can challenge the sensor performance.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Folks, we already have a main thread on the D3X release:
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Renl

    This thread was started questioning about the high cost for the D3X. Obviously most of us cannot afford such a camera anyway. Whether such high cost is the right move for Nikon will have to be determined by the marketplace.

    For general D3X discussions, please move onto the main thread.
     

Share This Page