70D and 7Dmk2 is coming what to expect?

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 29,296
Like?
Re: 70D and 7Dmk2 is coming what to expect?
In reply to Josh152, Mar 2, 2013

Josh152 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

there are plenty of teardowns and from them it is obvious that the chassis is plastic.

This sounds like one of those nonsensical statements that turns out to be almost plausible if you use remarkably esoteric, obscure, or obtuse definitions of "chassis" and/or "plastic". Or maybe it's just that magnesium painted black looks like plastic in those teardowns. For the rest of us there's Body material - Magnesium alloy and magnesium construction.


Canon's marketing is very cute, much more so than Nikon, which seems clumsy and naive by comparison. One good reason why that D300s doesn't sell so well is quite likely that Nikon doesn't want to sell it, very likely it makes hardly any profit per item at the price it needs to sell at. By contrast, the 7D is a much cheaper to build camera which commands the same or higher retail price, and makes a tidy profit each one, so Canon sells it in its thousands. I know which is smarter business.

-- hide signature --

Bob

This is probably why Nikon made the D7000 in the first place. It was probably always intended to replace the more expensive to build, lower profit, D300 type bodies. If a new DX camera does come out positioned above the D7100 I would bet dollars to doughnuts it will have the same type of construction as the D7100 as it makes the most sense from a business prospective. Especially since such a camera will have to go for like $1,500-$1,600 to be a viable product with the D7100 which would be 80%-90% just as much camera on one side at $1,200 and the very tempting FX D600 at $2,000 on the other. Even then it is likely such a camera would have a hard time selling. The D7100 is just too good of a deal at $1,200 and the things that could be added to make it better are probably just too minor for most people to spend the extra money.

Yes, the D300 was a particular camera born of the situation Nikon was in. I suspect they felt it necessary to produce a camera to that spec to maintain faith with the DX D2 users, who had been convinced that DX had advantages. So, essentially the D300 is an updated D2X - updated with the D3 AF and the Exmor sensor. It probably costs just as much to build as the D2X - most of the internal mechanisms are the same. In the event, most of the D2 owners moved seamlessly to the D3 and discovered the advantages of full frame. The market for the D300 ended up being wannabe pros who wouldn't shell out for the real thing, plus the real enthusiast amateurs for whom the D200 and 40D/50D had always been the staple. The result was that the D300 was very successful in its early period, and ate the 50D's lunch. Canon's response was the 7D, where they managed very cleverly to get almost all of the marketing kudos of the D300 without the production expense. It had a rocky start due to its AF issues, but once it started motoring, the revenues to Nikon from the D300 must have been very small. Hence, as you say, the D7000.

-- hide signature --

Bob

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