Nikon's D700 a balanced camera for image quality, value, pro handling and MP.

Started 9 months ago | User reviews thread
Robin Casady
Forum ProPosts: 12,013
Like?
Re: Nikon's D700 a balanced camera for image quality, value, pro handling and MP.
In reply to T O Shooter, 9 months ago

T O Shooter wrote:

Robin Casady wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

Robin,

You must be losing something in the English to English translation! I didn't say they were doing badly.

Perhaps the loss in translation was between your thoughts and your words. Considering that the argument is about whether Nikon should make a new model closer the D700 specs, and taking these sentences, "They may have made a killing selling D700 bodies instead. And considering the money Nikon has lost through stupidity ( ie D600 oil. D800 AF ) building a D700II should be the least of their worries." it sounds like you are implying that the D800 did worse than the D700. Otherwise, I don't follow the logic of your argument. How would some mfg. problems support the idea of adding another model. Seems that it would be a good argument for the opposite. If they are having mfg problems with their existing models, adding a new model would just add stress to a system that is already struggling.

No - probably between my words and your thoughts. My remark on "they may have made a killing selling D700 bodies" was making the point, as was in the full post, that even though fellows said on here that D700 sales bastardized D3 sales, we really do not know if that's the case. Nikon may have made more money with D3 / D700 together than if they never made the D700. None of use here are privy to that info. So my only point to that was that a D4 / D700II combo may or may not be a bad thing. Nikon should have an idea on that. END OF THAT

So, you were just saying that we don't know the truth about a point I didn't make.

Second idea put forth - The D600 and D800 issues cost Nikon money. They lost sales, irregardless if the D800 is the best selling DSLR or not. Charges to clean sensors, replace shutters, adjust AF all added up to money lost or money not made due to stupidity ( carelessness, poor QC, whatever ) I'm saying for the money wasted they could have shoved a D4 or D600 sensor into a D800 body with a decent buffer without spending a ton of money. Probably less than they lost on the D600 / D800 issues. Manufacturing problems are over - they seemed to have been over when the Df was released. Not time to retreat. Hit it hard with a D700II release. Df created a lot of buzz; imagine what a D700II would do. END OF THAT

The D600 problem was likely the fault of the shutter supplier and quite likely beyond Nikon's control. Stuff like that happens in mfg. It may not have been due to any stupidity on Nikon's part. Or, someone or some group may have made some bone-headed decisions. There isn't enough info to say for certain that it was due to stupidity. IMO, those who think Nikon handled it horribly are naive about what was involved.

As with the D700 vs. D800 sales issue, we don't know the necessary details of what caused the left AF issue with the D800. So, we really don't know whether it was stupidity, or something else.

I see all that as completely irrelevant to whether Nikon should make a 16-24 MP camera with a D800 body. I suspect it would be a bad idea for Nikon's bottom line. There is considerable cost involved in adding a new model. There is more to the R&D than just slapping a new sensor in a D800. Even if it only took minimum R&D, it would take significant testing to try to avoid the problems they had with previous models. The D800 underwent intensive field testing with working pros for at least a year, and they didn't discover the AF problem. Next costs are manufacturing. Such a camera would be made at Sendai. That means they reduce the capacity to produce D800, D800E, and D4s cameras or they expand the facility. Would a D700+ add so much to revenue that this would be justified? It wouldn't just have to cover those expenses. There would also be the costs of building a backlog of product prior to release (I think Nikon typically builds three months of production prior to release). Then they would have to advertise it world-wide.

So, to cover all these expenses, this camera would have to bring in sales that wouldn't otherwise go to the D800 or D4 cameras. It think it would be a rather iffy gamble.

Besides from the percentage of dpreview members who are D700 fans, how would it be received by the larger market. I suspect it would just add more confusion to the D4 and D800 market than it would expand it. What would the average doctor, dentist, or lawyer make of a D4s-D800-D800E-Df-D750-D610 selection compared to a D4s-D800-D800E-Df-D610 selection? How many would say that they can't find what they want in a D4s-D800-D800E-Df-D610 selection and postpone their purchase or go to Canon? Enough to offset all the expenses of adding a new model and make a profit? I rather doubt it. I suspect a N750 would mainly take sales from other models.

-- hide signature --

Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
—Mark Twain

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