Is Thom Hogan correct?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
jfriend00
Forum ProPosts: 11,084
Like?
Re: Is Thom Hogan correct?
In reply to Shotcents, 4 months ago

Shotcents wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Alpha Tech wrote:

Nikon could not release such a camera. They already learned with the D700 that sales of the flagship model will be reduced when consumers have a good alternative. The Df is so different from the D4 that it isn't really a substitute in the way that the D700 was for the D3.

Nikon's business objective is NOT to maximize D4 unit sales. Their business objective is to maximize their overall profit. If they followed your advice, they never would have produced the D800 because that killed the D3x. But, clearly they realized that they could sell so many more D800s at $3000 than they could D3x bodies that they'd make a lot more money by selling the D800 than protecting the D3x.

Patently false. It's bad business not to protect the line hierarchy. The D800 killed the D3x, but the D3x was also a dud for them anyway.

The D4 is a hot camera. Nikon was not about to offer 90% of a D4 for 50% less.

The Df is an FX like no other. It's an image booster, maybe not for the gear-heads here, but a LOT of people are going to find one under the tree. It's a classy looking product and Canon has nothing like it. That's part of the sense of the thing.

With that said I would have tweaked the Df specs a bit higher. 6.5 or 7 FPS would have brought more love without threatening the D4. And if the Df is so pure, why don't we get an E model?

Who said the D4 is a hot camera?  What sales data do you have that it's a hot seller?  What I'm seeing is a robust used market for D3 and D3s which seems to indicate that the D4 doesn't have a lot over those so people are paying $3500 for a used D3s instead of a D4.  So there's already a $3500 speed camera out there, it's just not something that Nikon gets any money for.

I have nothing against the Df.  It's not remotely interesting to me, but if others like it that's fine. To me, it seems under-speced for what it costs such that you're basically paying extra for a particular style. If that's what someone wants, then that's all fine.

So, now you say that 7fps in the Df wouldn't threaten the D4, but somehow 8fps would kill the D4. Seems like a pretty fine line you're walking there.

At 7-8fps and with the D800 AF, Nikon would have sold a ton more Dfs even at $3000.  It could have fulfilled the specs for the missing D700 upgrade.

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