Is the FX revolution fizzling?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
jfriend00
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,841
Like?
Re: Is the FX revolution fizzling?
In reply to inasir1971, 6 months ago

inasir1971 wrote:

I am a little surprised by Thom's views on DX - at least I don't share them. Personally, I don't see DX as offering anything over other formats. It isn't particularly small, or any more convenient, and doesn't offer significant IQ benefits over some formats like MFT. The OM-D E-M5 has a more capable sensor than any APS-C Canon, and the Nikon DX are only marginally better. In terms of lens support, even Zeiss have stated that they will be launching a line of lenses for MFT so the future for MFT looks good.

Uhhh, DX is HALF the cost of FX. That's the major thing that it offers over FX. Just compare the D600 to the D7000. DX offers mostly comparable features at HALF the cost. If you add in lenses, FX is even more expensive. If you add the cost of lenses with reach, FX is ridiculously more expensive than DX.

It's a fact that MOST photographers either: 1) don't have the money for FX or 2) would benefit more from putting that extra money into glass instead of FX or 3) simply don't need what FX offers them so have no need to spend all that extra money.

As such, FX has a limited market above $2000. I think what we're seeing is that Nikon has delivered some excellent cameras in the FX market and pretty much everyone who is in that market has bought one of the new models (or already had one that is still working fine). The >$2000 FX market is simply not expanding rapidly.

Sure, if you're shooting in the dark or super-wide, FX has some meaningful advantages, but for most shots that most people take, DX produces an image that is indistinguishable from an FX image. So, the people that are willing to pay a lot of money for both FX bodies and glass just for those few conditions where FX makes a noticeable difference are limited.

I'm not bashing FX at all, it's just not appropriate for most of the market. When a lot of your R&D targets a small piece of the market, guess what? Sales won't meet expectations. The sweet spot of this market (from a profitability point of view) is likely going to be in the $500-$1000 because Nikon can produce products with both a decent profit margin and significant volume. It's possible that they can replicate the D300 hit also at a higher price point (~$1600) too. But, cameras at $2100, $3000 and $6000 are going to be much more limited volume. Done right, they could be profitable products to themselves, but they aren't going to produce the main part of Nikon's revenue or profits.

I also think DX mirrorless sets up some interesting possibilities too at some point in the future.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Edited 6 months ago by jfriend00
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow