Camera Cannibalism WTF?

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
bunfoolio
Regular MemberPosts: 389
Like?
They do it at thier own risk
In reply to camerosity, Jan 28, 2013

They sit only for so long and eventually it can hurt them.  Look at the mirrorless revolution going on before our own eyes.   What market position will DSLR's be in 5 years from now?   Canikon was kind of late to the game.   Instead small players innovated and the market is in a state of disruption.  Canikon either wanted to protect profit asociated with DSLR's or they did not see it cooming.  Either way each manufacturers market position will change.

camerosity wrote:

This is simple business sense. You don't want to make a lower cost product with the same or near equal performance to a higher cost one, or you'll lose sales on the more expensive product. Take the D700 for example. Its image quality was virtually identical to the much more costly D3. It also had the same performance as the D3 (give or take).

Now look at the D800. It has a lower fps capability than the more expensive D4, whereas the D700 had the same fps capability (with battery pack attached) as the more expensive D3. One feature that was deleted on the D700 vs. the D3 was a 100% viewfinder. Nikon says they had to give the D700 only a 92% viewfinder to accommodate the sensor cleaning function (micro vibration). I say bullcrap on that one, but hey, it's in the past. I've learned to live with the 92% viewfinder on my D700 and all is good.

If the Nikon 1 V1 had the same image quality (or darn near the same considering the smaller sensor) as the entry level D3000, it might steal a lot of sales away from it.
Make sense? I don't agree with it either, from a consumer standpoint. But from a business standpoint it does make sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow