Previous news story    Next news story

US customers willing to spend more for Nikon

By dpreview staff on Nov 18, 2011 at 22:03 GMT

Product advice/market research website 'MyProductAdvisor' is claiming that US customers are willing to pay more for Nikon than for other camera brands. Strong consumer engagement with camera brands will come as no surprise to anyone who's spent time on camera forums, but it's interesting to see figures suggesting this translates to a willingness to spend more. The company's figures suggest Canon can command the second-largest price premium with customers showing some willingness to pay more for Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm. This could explain the logic behind Nikon's comparatively high pricing of its 1 System.

Press release:

Digital Camera Consumers are Willing to Pay More for Nikon

Real-time Consumer Market Research Reveals Shoppers’ Brand and Price Preferences

PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Market Insight Corporation today reported that U.S. consumers are placing greater importance on “brand” for digital camera purchase decisions. Further, the maximum price that consumers are willing to pay for a digital camera is increasingly influenced by brand.

Based on preferences collected from more than 26,000 digital camera shoppers visiting MyProductAdvisor.com from May through October 2011, those who prefer the Nikon brand are willing to pay the most, with Canon ranking second. Olympus, Panasonic, and Fujifilm are among those brands attracting shoppers with more moderate willingness to pay. The results may verify expectations that Nikon’s overall brand/price power is positively impacted by the presence of its “high end” line of cameras.

The maximum price that consumers are willing to pay across a broad line of digital cameras reached a “recent years low” during the 2nd half of 2010, and has been trending up during 2011. A noteworthy trend is the shift towards cameras priced over $600. Between May and October, the percentage of shoppers in this price group increased by 12%. But not all brands enjoy consumers’ enhanced willingness to pay. For example, consumers who prefer Samsung are drawn to stylish design, internet based social media, point and shoot, and video recording capability. But those preferences have not yet translated to a significant increase in shoppers’ willingness to pay. This may confirm expectations that smartphone cameras compete for these attributes.

Comments

Total comments: 99
12
john
By john (Nov 29, 2011)

i have my eyes on the d800, i hate tiny sensor.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Nov 24, 2011)

That's always funny with Nikon - even here in Old Europe. In the old days of a Nikon FM-2 (I have one) I really understood Nikons reputation... but now? We have a Canon and a Nikon system in our household, with a D300 and an EOS 7D (plus some older analogue bodies), and comparable lenses (such as the latest 70-200/2.8 of both companies). We use it extensively (e.g. for wildlife photography) and so I know both systems quite well. And I really can say that the Nikon system by no ways beats the Canon system - both have it's pros and cons. I'd value them equal. So, as a Canon user (no fanboy!) I am really happy if Nikon leads the price race. And currently I am happy that I can get a new full frame EOS 5D/II body for about 3/4 of the price of a D700 body 'cause I think about it... ;-)

But don't forget: the real mercedes still is a Leica...

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 23, 2011)

Just got the V1. It's worth every penny.

1 upvote
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Nov 25, 2011)

Care to elaborate? I'm curious to know what makes it appealing to some people.

0 upvotes
eliehbk
By eliehbk (Nov 22, 2011)

What about Pentax, how come nothing was said about the brand!!! I mean they lack marketing but they make excellent cameras as well

0 upvotes
snake_b
By snake_b (Nov 21, 2011)

That's assuming every camera in their lineup is class-leading, which they are not. Every company has its greats and its stinkers. Nikon has a lot of them. For the most part, if I went compact and wanted to no-brainer it, I'm going with Canon.

If I was a pro dSLR shooter, going for the D3 series would be incredible. However, again, companies like Canon, Pentax, and others have great contenders as well.

0 upvotes
VENTURE-STAR
By VENTURE-STAR (Nov 21, 2011)

I wouldn't take too much notice of this claim. Top-end pro quality Nikon cameras are very good, and in a different league from the enthusiast market.

However, some of their budget cameras dating back to the days of film have been badly designed and in some cases poorly manufactured by sub contractors.

0 upvotes
IeraseU
By IeraseU (Nov 21, 2011)

The price of the Nikon 1 system is baffling to me.

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (Nov 20, 2011)

That is not surprising. Back in the early 1980's I attended a photo show, and around the Nikon booth, all you hear are fans uttering words like "quality." Nikon has built a strong reputation for high quality and durability, and they are thus able to command a higher price. Canon's F1 also had a reputation for solidity and reliability, but I think Canon made a mistake when they put plastic lens mounts on some of their early autofocus film cameras. That hurt their image more than it saves them in terms of manufacturing cost.

0 upvotes
Michael She
By Michael She (Nov 20, 2011)

Maybe it has to do with the poor quality printers Canon seems to dump on the market year after year? If Canon made more reliable inkjets, perhaps people would equate their cameras with quality as well?

0 upvotes
Guy Swarbrick
By Guy Swarbrick (Nov 21, 2011)

I've had several Canon printers and they have all been superb. I wouldn't touch one of their low end DSLRs with a fifty foot pole and the prosumer/consumer bodires are adequate and no more. Nikon is miles ahead on build quality.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 20, 2011)

Shocking. And I'll bet these same consumers think a Mercedes is worth more than a Buick, but let's commission a study.

Nikon products are (usually) great but make no mistake, Joe Ehrenreich was a master at giving things away (now known as endorsements). And therein lies the secret of Nikon's good fortune with name recognition. To be fair, the Nikon F was more suitable SLR for pros than what Canon, Leitz or Topcon were offering at the time. Another secret to Nikon's success might be that they are frequently backordered whereas Canon announces the thing and the floodgates open.

BTW, the reason Leica doesn't have the same level of name recognition is because (a) they never devoted the effort and money to product placement that Nikon has and (b) many of the people who know what the Leica is and was are no longer with us.

File this study next to the one National Geographic did, to find out if Kodachrome was really more permanent than other color film.

1 upvote
Brandon Feinberg
By Brandon Feinberg (Nov 20, 2011)

I Think Leica should be on the list I mean 20,000 S body and 8000 for an M body.

2 upvotes
danaceb
By danaceb (Nov 24, 2011)

Yes and no, when it comes to brand tards snapping up the Panasonic rebrands, yeah but they are a small lot. Rangefinder fans, absolutely not.

The full frame M9 rangefinder is the only of its kind yet. Where as the D3, D700...yadda yadda everything Nikon makes has a market rival. Most M9 owners (most) will try any brand of good repute, where as the large masses of die hard Nikon and Canon fans would spit at anyone using a Sigma or whatever lens on their precious brand.

0 upvotes
rsf3127
By rsf3127 (Nov 20, 2011)

The conclusion of this spurious study does not seem wrong to me since nikon has produced good equipment most of the time during its existence. But I am sure that the recent boost in its marketing campaign is responsible for most of the brainless crowd to buy its cameras.
It is really hard to find a Sony or Canon or Pentax advertisement on DSLR. There are some P&S, but they are also scarce.
Nikon's Ashton Kutcher is everywhere!!!
Don't forget that a Nikon camera is a Sony camera in disguise...

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Heie
By Heie (Nov 20, 2011)

All those ready to spend more just because it's Nikon have never held a Pentax K7/K5.

4 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Nov 23, 2011)

Are you saying that those cameras should have been set at a lower price?????

0 upvotes
FEDERICO FLORES MOY
By FEDERICO FLORES MOY (Nov 20, 2011)

The best compac camera 2011 fujifilm x10.
Is a good price awesome camera.
FEDERICO F. Moy.

2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Nov 19, 2011)

Perhaps one reason the Nikon brand gets so much respect from camera buyers is that they really have no other business but cameras and lenses. (OK... a few riflescopes and binoculars... but not that many).

Just like Rolex means "wristwatch".... Nikon means "cameras."

The names Sony, Samsung and Panasonic mean "electronic appliances."
The names Canon and Ricoh can also mean printers.
The name Sigma means "cheaper lenses for your Nikon"
The name Olympus means "inept Board of Directors" (at least lately)

Nikon sits among a small group of companies who derive almost all their income from cameras and lenses, and as a result command instant brand recognition and respect.

3 upvotes
Mark Boreham
By Mark Boreham (Nov 20, 2011)

Actually Nikon make far more than you would think in the industrial sphere. I have had the chance to walk round one of their X-Ray CT manufacturing plants recently.
http://www.nikon.com/products/instruments/lineup/industrial/xray_ct/index.htm

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Nov 19, 2011)

Brand image means a lot in marketing anything.

It speaks about brand recognition, and the customer's perception of quality or prestige.

This is why Toyota can sell cars very similar to Kia cars for a lot more money, and why Lexus can sell a re-badged "loaded Toyota" for a whole lot more than a similarly equipped Toyota would cost.

2 upvotes
Roy Anderson 4266
By Roy Anderson 4266 (Nov 19, 2011)

Interesting. I'm a bit more pragmatic about camera brands now. Given my experience with failed Nikon coolpix cameras over the years, culminating in the unfixed P7000 focus issues I wouldn't pay any amount for their consumer grade cameras.

I've owned about 1/2 nikon and 1/2 other brand (4 Canon, 2 Fujifilm, 2 Panasonic, 1 Sony). 3 failed Nikon cameras, 0 failed other brands. If I look at all the electronic brands I've purchased over the years, only one has been problem free and that is Panasonic. I now purchase Panasonic whenever possible.

I'm stuck with Nikon DSLRs for the time being due to investment in glass, but would gladly trade out to a different brand if there were a compelling feature AND it made sense financially.

0 upvotes
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Nov 19, 2011)

I have already seen the prices of the Nikon 1 system begin to fall in the UK, from the initially somewhat high levels. Perhaps British consumers are less willing to pay a name premium than those in the US.
I also get the impression that Nikon lenses are cheaper nowadays (after adjustment for inflation) than they used to be. Leica lenses (albeit likely to be expensive if they are made in Germany) are the real premium priced article.

0 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (Nov 19, 2011)

Paul Simon never sang about Canon. But then Kodachrome is gone too. It takes some of my countrymen a while to catch on.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 19, 2011)

What is "comparatively high" price for the Nikon 1? I think DPR and its population lives in its own world so they don't get all digital cameras today are dirt cheap.

Compare with prices of cameras from the film age, and especially from some 30-40 years ago, when people from Western countries needed to put aside few monthly salaries to obtain just one camera with one lens.

But perhaps the whole story tells more about what cameras have become and what's their true value: today's camera have little value and are treated as commodities, not as photography tools.

And there's no price too low for a commodity.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Shelly Glaser
By Shelly Glaser (Nov 19, 2011)

Since the "1" Nilons are probably made in Thailand or a similar country, their manufacturing cost should be no higher than those of the Sony NEX cameras or Olympus and Panasonic cameras. The only real reason for buying the "1" cameras is using legacy Nikon lenses. However, if one does not insist on auto-focus, any Nikon lens can be used on any mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (well, not Leicas, I guess).

For reasons beyond my comprehension, Nikon decided to use the smallest sensor of any camera of this type (well, except the Pentax Q). Untill I see detailed review proving me wrong, they would not be my first choice for this camera type (and I have owned, used and loved Nikon SLR cameras since 1971).

Perhaps, for those wanting smaller cameras with high quality, Nikon should have revived their S sreias of rangefinder cameras in a digital format.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Nov 19, 2011)

"However, if one does not insist on auto-focus"

I think that would be about 5% of the picture-taking public. Of course auto-focus is important. I think Nikon wanted to do something special in this area to attract people who want a small camera while not stealing potential buyers of Nikon DSLRs. Whether or not they hit the right balance, only time will tell. The NEX 5N can be used in a studio. Obviously a V1 cannot. However, the 5N and all other mirrorless systems, except the 1 series, share one major failing - autofocus. I look forward to seeing how this shakes out.

0 upvotes
ELLIOT P STERN
By ELLIOT P STERN (Nov 19, 2011)

Very well said. I agree with you one thousand percent.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 19, 2011)

That's only half of the truth.
The other half ... Nikon & Canon are the only two brands that deliver a complete system where every photog finds something at pro level in the FX/DX class.

All other brands lack this kind of "completeness".
Seen under this perspective "Canikon" is not more expensive than other brands.
Finally ... you get what you pay.

1 upvote
ZZ9
By ZZ9 (Nov 19, 2011)

so you get the best camera in the world considering the price of Nikon 1 system....

pity that use plastic lens....900 euro for a V1 with a plastic zoom....more then a Panasonic GH2 + the 20mm 1.7 !

1 upvote
panos_m
By panos_m (Nov 19, 2011)

Where in Europe the V1+10-30 kit costs €900? In Athens the introductory price was €749 and now is €699.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Docno
By Docno (Nov 19, 2011)

A truly ridiculous study. Go look at the website. The first thing is that the only people who would use such a site are those who are clueless about cameras and want they are looking for. So the representativeness of the sample is dubious. You basically put in your criteria, and the site makes a recommendation. So you can check off your preferred brands (i.e., the ones you've heard about and indicate your price range). Apparently camera-naive people who check off Nikon also indicate a willingness to pay higher prices. So what? We still don't know how well this applies to consumers in more traditional sales channels or to even the 'average' consumer....

6 upvotes
AdamT
By AdamT (Nov 19, 2011)

Not in the UK though, the N1 system price is dropping like a stone Daily - take a look at Camerapricebuster to see the falling price of the V1 kits in particular.. hardly suprising given the initial retail but it`s not holding its high launch price as well as Fuji or Panasonic kit tends to

0 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Nov 19, 2011)

The same is true also for Apple products or no?

1 upvote
fmian
By fmian (Nov 19, 2011)

People are comfortable spending more money for Nikon cameras as they have more buttons on them. That must make them better right?
Might be good if this survey were to measure peoples level of intelligence against their willingness to spend more for nothing. I think there would be a direct correlation between the two.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Nov 19, 2011)

Yeah, all those buttons are dummy controls meant to confuse smart people.

0 upvotes
Qwntm
By Qwntm (Nov 19, 2011)

There's nothing a Nikon can do that a Canon can't. Except gouge their loyal customers it seems. I've shot both professionally, there's really no difference. Why pay more?

1 upvote
l_d_allan
By l_d_allan (Nov 19, 2011)

Canon DSLR owner who envies the built-in intervalometer on Nikon DSLR's. At times, the 3-shot HDR limitation of Canon DSLR's is frustrating, especially since both capabilities are accomplished in firmware.

1 upvote
Rmano
By Rmano (Nov 19, 2011)

All that are really silly (or intended) firmware limitation. I wonder if, sometime, we will have a firm giving us configurable, programmable open source software for a camera.

0 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Nov 19, 2011)

Thats Nikon ....number one choice of true professionals !!

0 upvotes
ZZ9
By ZZ9 (Nov 19, 2011)

i have seen many Magnum photographer with a Leica M9 ...ah sorry you with professional mean the "photographer of marriage..." ;-)

yes in this case yes...they use mostly nikon or canon

1 upvote
gerry328
By gerry328 (Nov 22, 2011)

Yes, wedding and events (baptisms, funerals, birthdays, etc.) photographers are the true professional photographers - they eke out their entire livelihood and day-to-day existence from photography. They are not well-heeled people who can afford luxuries like a Leica nor even the high-end Nikon D3 series. So far, all professional photographers I got to know personally who covers such special events in ordinary peoples' lives in our locality in the Philippines shoot Nikon SLR's/DSLR's ranging from an old film F80 (my daughter's confirmation), to a consumer D90 (my mother's funeral, different photographer), and a D700 and D300s (my daughter's 7th birthday, also different photographer). They are hard-working professionals who literally rely on their cameras to earn money for their daily bread and they trust Nikon. I am an amateur but I have and use an old 1989 FM2 (though rarely today) and a D7000. My late father, who had a circa 1936-52 Ihagee Exa, taught me to value long-term quality.

0 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Nov 19, 2011)

The writer of this article probably haven't meet the Leica "collectors", who are willing to pay a lot more for the red dot and several versions of the same camera when it comes to limited editions. Even Nikon has limited success in limited editions.

0 upvotes
K3nKen
By K3nKen (Nov 19, 2011)

The Nikon1 probably costs more because it has a new custom 1" sensor unlike APS-C or 4/3 where they already have volume. The Nikon1 also has alot of high speed memory, silicon costs money.

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Nov 19, 2011)

The Nikon1 probably costs more because it has a new custom 1 logo unlike the APS-C or 4/3 where they already have logo volume. The Nikon1 also has alot of dorks willing to spend money, not having too many brain cells costs money.

10 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Nov 19, 2011)

"Based on preferences collected from more than 26,000 digital camera shoppers visiting MyProductAdvisor.com from May through October 2011".

Before Nikon 1 was announced...

Better conduct another research soon, dudes... voters are fickle minded.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
max metz
By max metz (Nov 19, 2011)

Trading largely on a good name and peoples ignorance with the Nikon small sensor slow lens 1 kit is likely to be a strategy with a limited life.

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (Nov 19, 2011)

Well.. duh.. You need a market research company to tell you this.? Nikon equipment costs the most on average vs. market competitor peers.. so I kinda had the feeling Nikon already figured this out (and about 30 years ago or so)?

2 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Nov 19, 2011)

very true, look at the number of people who are actually buying Nikon 1 series of cameras and the Nikon lenses a lot more expensive than the competition.

0 upvotes
ELLIOT P STERN
By ELLIOT P STERN (Nov 19, 2011)

There really are no bad cameras today and brand loyalty should not be the deciding factor. The camera and lenses need to be right for what you want to do and having the most expensive price tag does not make it the best camera for your particular purpose.

They all produce great images and all have their own special benefits as well as limitations.

Reviews don't tell the whole story. You need to hold it and try it to find out whether or not it is going to be right.

Forget the brand name. It means very little today as far as getting incredible images in the most comfortable and efficient way possible. There are many cameras above and beyond the N and C names. Great marketing which Nikon and Canon are exceptional at does not translate to best camera and lenses.

1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Nov 19, 2011)

I just buy the camera that does what I need it to do. I don't really care about the price only the functionality. If you worry about price you are in the wrong hobby. This is a non-essential discretionary expense and every cent spend on a Nikon or a Canon is, strictly speaking, a waste of money.

I do have a limit to what I would spend on my hobby, but the difference in price between Canon and Nikon is too small to count as a decider in any purchase.

0 upvotes
healer81
By healer81 (Nov 19, 2011)

I dont think people are willing to pay more because they think they are getting a better value or it will pay for itself. Look at Mercedes and Lexus. People are typically willing to pay more for European than Japanese. Even though the Japanese car is better than the European car.

0 upvotes
bloodnok
By bloodnok (Nov 19, 2011)

apparently i'm an idiot .... who knew?

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Nov 19, 2011)

Perception is Reality.
Marketing 101

0 upvotes
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (Nov 19, 2011)

Ha ha :-)
Isn't it the same US consumers that are willing to pay more for Coke than Pepsi ? ;-)

0 upvotes
Taikonaut
By Taikonaut (Nov 19, 2011)

Well 26,000 shoppers does not represent the whole of USA. It may also be that more Nikon fanboys felt the need to visit MyProductAdvisor.com for some soul searching when choosing gears. Canon users tend to know more about what they are buying and feel less need to look for an advisory site. The proof of the pudding is Canon sells more cameras than Nikon which discredit the above survey.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 19, 2011)

There are a couple of flaws in your logic, I'm afraid:

26,000 people is a comfortably large sample to reflect the whole population of the USA to quite a high confidence level. The bigger concern is that it's a self-selecting (non-random) sample.

Secondly, it's the amount people are willing to pay that's being discussed, not how many people buy each product.

Ultimately we published this story because it's interesting, not because we believe it is based on bullet-proof methodology.

3 upvotes
chevysales
By chevysales (Nov 19, 2011)

could a response be any more off base? canon is bigger than Nikon.... doesn't mean their product is any better.

your last sentence shows your complete lack of reality regarding this "survey".

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 20, 2011)

There is very important point either the surveyors or the DPR is missing therefore in my opinion misleading the public. Are those people who took part in this surveys potential camera buyers or any ordinary members of the public who go about their daily business and occasionally take pictures. They may be willing on the basis of brand perception but if presented with the choice would they actually spend more for Nikon. It is almost the same case with the perception of Volvo cars which for many years perceived to be solidly made, safe cars. But as the independent testers of safety repeatedly proved that there were a lot of cars as safe or safer than Volvo some even costing less. Or just look at customer satisfaction surveys which brands actually come on top repeatedly while so called premium brands miserably fail. Some of you may say owners of premium brands expect more from their products but this again proves the point that expectations are not met despite the premium paid.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
gerry328
By gerry328 (Nov 22, 2011)

Canon sells more cameras because it advertises more here in the Philippines than Nikon and its advertisements target entry-level enthusiasts buying their first DLSR's or a P&S (where Canon is better). Nikon doesn't advertise as much because they know that their market, the mid to higher level DSLR users already know which brand/model is better. In the same manner Leica hardly ever advertises - people know the quality of the name Leica and their products and its useless advertising in a typical magazine whose readers will typically not be able to afford a Leica. I fact I notice that Nikon advertises more for its riflescopes and binoculars (US gun and sporting magazines) - it is originally and still is, an optics company. During its first 12 years of existence (1935-47), Canon (Kwanon) used Nikkor lenses and stopped only doing so in 1948 when Nikon made its own camera body - Ken Rockwell photographed a 1945 Canon S rangefinder with a Nikkor 50mm f/3.5 displayed at Canon's 2007 PMA booth.

0 upvotes
JPMontez
By JPMontez (Nov 19, 2011)

Maybe people are willing to pay more just because... they will get more? Just a thought...

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 19, 2011)

Nikon makes great lenses and cameras. Why shouldn't people be willing to pay for them, of they can? The prices: look at a 70-200 2.8 from any of the big 4 camera makers and you realize they all charge a premium for this level of gear. All quality camera gear is expensive. The only profession or hobby more expensive to outfit yourself in is videography.

2 upvotes
Karl Scharf
By Karl Scharf (Nov 18, 2011)

Doesn't make sense to be willing to pay more just because of the name 'Nikon' when there are better alternatives for less money and more advanced technologies!

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 19, 2011)

Most illogical.

0 upvotes
JPMontez
By JPMontez (Nov 19, 2011)

That doesn't make sense indeed. So I suspect people keep paying more for Nikon products not because they like to through money away, but because Nikon products continue to offer people what they want at a price they are willing to accept...

2 upvotes
Joe Federer
By Joe Federer (Nov 19, 2011)

I agree... doesn't make sense to buy for a name brand. That said, they offer the best products and thus justify a slight premium.

1 upvote
KaiserAng
By KaiserAng (Nov 22, 2011)

I find their price justified for the quality I get, and where I am, I don't find the price of the other brands much cheaper and provide better quality than Nikon.

0 upvotes
Graeme Outerbridge
By Graeme Outerbridge (Nov 18, 2011)

Nikon..over rated^^

6 upvotes
DotCom Editor
By DotCom Editor (Nov 18, 2011)

Spurious research -- based on only those who visit their site. Useless.

0 upvotes
Wayndom
By Wayndom (Nov 18, 2011)

I think the article has it backwards. It's because Nikon has always charged the highest prices (among Janpanese cameras) that only those who are willing to pay more are Nikon customers.

And Canon loves to pull the price rug out from under Nikon. When Nikon debuted their 12-megapixel version of the 5d, it had the same price as the original 5D. A month or two later, Canon debuted the 5DII with more pixels, and about $500 cheaper. Nikon had no choice to drop their price to match the price of the (higher-performing) 5D II.

11 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Nov 19, 2011)

"the (higher-performing) 5D II."

If no one else will, I will tell you thanks for introducing humor to the discussion. We all need a good laugh at times.

1 upvote
chevysales
By chevysales (Nov 19, 2011)

waynedom tell us what camera was a 12mp version of 5d? certainly not the D700 as the 5d is a toy in comparison. and the 5D2? with the same 3-4 year old auto focus system?

the D700 is such a better made camera no comparison to a plastic camera. and you may want o check you dates as it was far from 2 months later. and take away your video which from my perspective is not why I buy a DSLR

1 upvote
Kabe Luna
By Kabe Luna (Nov 20, 2011)

This is pretty funny since the D700 is a far more "complete" camera than any 5D has been in terms of AF, features, construction and speed. And, as if to prove it, the D700–which you assert is little more than a clone of the ancient 5D–has pretty much commanded a higher price in the marketplace than the 5D's "higher-performing" successor, the 5DII. Having owned and used both extensively, the D700 is the camera I stuck with for the long haul because its image quality (not resolution, mind you, which is only one of many components of image quality) is higher, and the camera is more versatile.

But thanks for a good laugh. :-)

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Nov 18, 2011)

It's still not in the crazy Leica territory. I see a lot of better cameras in the M9's competition, but look at the price they get for that M9. Yikes.

1 upvote
Camphoneguy
By Camphoneguy (Nov 19, 2011)

Boy, ain't that the truth!

0 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (Nov 19, 2011)

Really? M9 has no competition. Canon and Nikon don't make rangefinders, so you can't be comparing them.
If you mean marginally better image quality than I see your point. But photography is not just about image quality. And cameras are not only a photo tool, but also a collectors item. (nikon D700 won't make it in my display cabinet)
I'm not huge fan or Rolex, but I don't compare them to Casio.

1 upvote
gerry328
By gerry328 (Nov 22, 2011)

Rangefinders are not good for macro or telephotos exceeding 135mm, which I guess is one reason why people who can afford a US$7,000 Nikon D3X will not shell the additional money for a Leica M9.

0 upvotes
RonHendriks
By RonHendriks (Nov 18, 2011)

No mentioning of those El Cheapo Pentaxian's?

0 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (Nov 18, 2011)

K5 looks like an awesome camera for what you get for the money. If Pentax made a 400mm f/5.6 with USM/SWD, and their AF was at least as good as Olympus AF, I'd switch tomorrow.

2 upvotes
Jarda_Houdek
By Jarda_Houdek (Nov 19, 2011)

Which Oly has AF better than K-5?

3 upvotes
Ibida Bab
By Ibida Bab (Nov 18, 2011)

Not I. I am buying the Fujifilm x10 for the single reason, it is Made in Japan. Until Nikon starts manufacturing in Japan again I am not interested.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Nov 18, 2011)

my d700 was made in japan

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Nov 19, 2011)

All Canon DSLR cameras and most Canon lenses are made in Japan with the exception of the 18-55 kit lens. Nikon high-end DSLRs are made in Japan.

0 upvotes
Mr Tudor
By Mr Tudor (Nov 19, 2011)

That's one of the most absurd reasons for buying a particular camera I have ever come across. Don't be surprised if production will have to be shifted to outside of Japan due to the legacy of the tsunami.

1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Nov 19, 2011)

This kind of thing amuses me. Back in the days of the Contax RTS system there was a tonne of snobbery about the Zeiss lenses - some of them were made in Germany, some in Japan. The latter were pooh-poohed, because back in the 1970s "made in Japan" didn't have cachet. Now Japan is the bee's knees, and people diss "made in Malaysia" or "made in China" instead.

2 upvotes
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Nov 18, 2011)

I guess Nikon was right. As long as they make sure the price is high enough people will buy the thing, assuming that high price = good product.

5 upvotes
Total comments: 99
12