Nikon responds- "rapid deterioration in the market occurred and fiercer competition"

jfriend00 wrote:

I find it comically entertaining when people make this point about the D700. Do you seriously think Nikon would have been more profitable if they never created the D700? That's ridiculous.

The D700 product put them on the map with FX with the enthusiast consumer/prosumer.

By your thinking, the D600 and D800 are stealing D4 sales too because if you don't need high fps or a big body, then you can get all your need (and actually more pixels) with either the D600 or D800.

So, should Nikon stop making the D600 and D800 because they area also taking away D4 sales?

Certainly, if Nikon didn't have the D600 and D800, they'd sell more D4s. But, duh, they'd sell a lot less overall. So maximizing D4 sales is not the primary objective at all. Maximizing overall sales/profit is.

Companies make multiple products because they reach a LARGER portion of the market and make higher profits by doing so. Every additional product overlaps some in customers with other products in the line, but you need more than one product to meet the needs of more customers. Companies usually don't make higher profits by ignoring portions of their market - particularly in a declining overall market. That's exactly when you need to attack every relevant segment of the market.

I am quite sure that Canon won't leave the $2000-$3000 sports/action market unserved

so if Nikon wants to cede it to Canon, I'm sure they would happily take it.