Why the D3x price makes us angry

[tissunique]

Michael

I've responded down the page a spell but my final comment is that the D3X will fill a market need for those who can afford it and need it - no question. ISO performance also seems good for this high resolution. I await final, proper testing.

However, while I originally thought Nikon should release a lower price version sooner or at the same time to combat the new 5D, I now believe that Nikon have played a very clever hand. Try this on for size:

Release the D3X for those who can afford it (and top-paid pros could conceivably cover the cost in 1 or 2 shoots). Wait for the independent testers who will look at capabilities first, price second. Get the acclaim and then release the D800 in January to a large group of Nikon users who look at the 5D with envy (not really but you know where I'm coming from) using the same sensor and a few handy add-ons, even reduce the res a bit. They have effectively primed the market as they did with the D3 - less marketing spend, big sales. And, incidentally, Nikon is now the biggest dslr seller.

A few moaners wouldn't worry me if I knew what's coming next together with a few long-awaited lenses...

Whadyer reckon?

Tony

 

[eelpout]

Does anybody use Sony for nature photography? Their longest current
prime lens is a $6K 300 f/2.8. Now thats something to ***** about.
$1,800 for their new 16-35 f/2.8 . How insensitive of Sony to
release such an expensive lens in these troubled times. Not to
mention $1,749 for a 24-70.

Look in the Sony DSLR forum or on Dyxum (here's a wildlife lens poll: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16577 ). There have been some birders using the large Sigma 500 on the A900 with good results ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=30213589 ).

 

[tissunique]

Oh dear, I think you've moved too early and for an inferior camera
Tony

 

[Guy Swarbrick]

...is that the UK price (£5499) is only $8200 at today's exchange rate, which is about as transatlantically competitive as I can ever remember a Nikon UK launch price...

If I'd been thinking about, for example, a Mamiya ZD (£6300) I might think it was an utter bargain.

List price is £1500 more than the best discount I've seen for a 1DsIII from anyone I might remotely consider buying from. My guess is that once the discounters get their hands on the D3x (tomorrow...) that gap will be £800-1000. It does seem like a high risk strategy.

Fortunately, the D3x is totally inappropriate for anything other than the amateurish landscapes I do for fun, so it was never under consideration anyway. At any price.

--

Guy

My 'work' photos are at
http://swarbrick.com/photos and
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=7241

The 'fun' stuff is at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swarbrick

 

[jb_va2001]

I'm irritated by D3x price for a completely different reason, product line breadth and market leadership.

After the D1/D1h/D1x began to age Nikon lost the lead in the pro-DSLR market to Canon. The D2h pushed many more pro's to Canon. With the D3 & D700 Nikon finally began to rebuild its pro base, even attracting many to return to the brand. But still lacking in the Nikon line was the high mpix body for those who needed or simply wanted it. We all knew the high mpix models were coming (all except nicram maybe), most waiting patiently while Canon shooters enjoyed a broader DSLR product line to choose from.

But instead of continuing the momentum built by the D3 & D700 and aggressively pricing the D3x to grow market share, Nikon picks a price point that Canon was only able to reach when they were the ONLY ones to even have a product in that class. Nikon could clearly have a hugely profitable D3x and targeted the 1DsM3 street price releasing the D3x at $6K or $7K USD tops.

How many MF shooters who were looking for a 35mm size body waited on Nikon?! Few I expect, most already went to Canon in the many years Nikon had nothing to offer them. Nikon missed the window for selling $8K DSLRs to the MF crowd, Canon already closed those deals. I get a sense of the old Nikon arrogance returning.

So now, where does Nikon price the 5DII competitor, a D700x or D800 with a D3x sensor? Some $2K less that the D3x? At $6K it won't sell well either. At a competitive market price the D700x or D800 will make the D3x price look ridiculous, much worse than the D700 to D3 price delta.

Is Nikon planning to reduce the D3x price by $2K in 6-9 months once initial demand is filled? That will get some good Nikon customers upset but I see no other alternative.

So, I know if I don't like the D3x I don't have to buy it. But I think Nikon made a huge pricing error with the D3x and they missed an excellent opportunity to retake the pro-DSLR lead from Canon.

Cheers,
JB

I've followed many of the threads regarding the D3x price. I believe
I know where much of the market psychology behind the "D3x Revolt"
originates, and I thought I would offer up my analysis to see if
anyone else feels it has merit.

Like enthusiasts and practitioners in any creative/personal growth
pursuit, Nikon users expect there to be an upgrade path to
continually provide options that meet their growing needs. Cutting
right to the chase here, the anger at Nikon's D3x pricing results
from feeling ignored and unimportant.

Buying into a system (bodies, lenses, flash) means that the
manufacturer has convinced you to roll the dice believing they will
be there to suit your evolving needs at a price/performance level you
can handle. Many Nikon customers have wanted 20+ MP form Nikon since
it was first offered by Canon, long before Sony jumped in. We've been
more than patient, continually thinking "Nikon is a leader and they
will meet my needs soon", while fighting off the self-doubt that we
made a good decision not to switch to Canon or Sony instead of
continuing to invest in Nikon equipment. The key words here are
"hope" and "soon". We know that we can get 20+ MP from Canon and Sony
for under $3k and then the D3x, using an almost identical Sony
sensor, is introduced at $8k which puts it totally outside the grasp
for most Nikon DSLR owners. By clearly inflating the price of its
first 20+ MP entry in order to go after a totally different market
(medium format) while leaving the rest of us hanging out to dry,
Nikon has essentialy said "Tough! You guys can wait until we choose
to service you."

Had Nikon simultaneously offered a D700x with a ~ $3,500 price, there
would have been no rebellion. Lots of existing customers would have
their needs met and the market would be happy and confident about
their future with Nikon. Now a lot of users seriously question
whether Nikon has a commitment to offer them the tools that, for a
couple of years running, they could have gotten elsewhere at an
acceptable price. And this happens while you are staring at your
$10k+ investment in proprietary Nikon equipment.

Companies rise and fall on choices of how to meet it's target
market's needs. I see the D3x debacle as a very, very bad strategy
for long term success. It is a lot of goodwill and positive feelings
undone in the span of a day. I think it is a marketing blunder of
massive proportions.

Anyone else have feelings along these lines?

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com

 

[mn57]

--
Why would anybody buy the d3x if they can get a d700x/d800 for 3k less?

For the type of shooting you do with a 24mpx camera the extra
features of the d3x would not matter much.

The d700 is already eating away a lot of d3 sales, but at least for
the type of shooting you do with a d3 the extra features (build, fps,
dual cards) is important.

And why would they buy a D3 if they can get a D700 for $2,500 less? The product stratification should not be done on pixel count alone, and Nikon hit a homerun with both the D3 and D700.

If you do the math on total profit you will find that, from purely a business revenue standpoint, letting D700 sales eat away at some fraction of D3 sales is a really good thing.

Michael

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com

 

[mn57]

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com

 

[justshootyou]

First of all, I'm waiting to see what the testers say. It seems to me that by simply adding megapixels to a D3, it's not worth it for my needs. I love my D700. If, however, there is a significant boost in dynamic range, that's another story. Although I doubt there will be. That's the D4! ;-)

As for the D700X, I don't think we'll be seeing that baby for about another year, give or take. Look at the time lapse between the D3 and the D700! I also think most of us will wait for the D700X rather than switch systems, especially if financial considerations are the main reason for not buying a D3X. You'd be spending the difference of $2000-3000 or more on lens switching and have an inferior camera, to boot.

Why didn't we Nikon people buy an $8000 Canon? We could have had one years ago if 20+ megapixels was so important. I believe in Nikon's engineering and that they will serve me with the best innovative products, which is why I buy the pro lenses. I'm willing to wait for more MP when the price eventually comes down. I'm very glad I held onto my D2X until the D700 came out. The difference between the D3 and the D700 was a 24-70 zoom. ;-)

 

[mmmmmmmm]

I have been in the studio business for more than 35 years.

It wasn't that long ago I was spending between $19,000 to $25,000 for film and 5X5 previews shooting medium format weddings, seniors, commercial, and family sittings. Each proof, which included film and film processing, cost me about $1.15 per unit. A simple head and shoulder sitting of one roll of film plus proofs cost at least $10.00.

The $8000 cost of the D3x would be minimal compared to the cost of shooting medium format. If you need the camera and you are making money with it, then the cost of the D3x can be absorbed in your cost to do business.

Fortunately for me the D700 can and will more than meet my studio needs. I would rather pocket the extra money the D3x costs. It would be nice to see a D700x with a full frame 20+mp sensor somewhere in the $3500 range. This could happen if the sales of the D3x are slower than expected.

BY THE WAY, A GOOD MF CAMERA-BODY, FILM BACK, TTL PRISM, AND LENS- WOULD EASILY COST OVER $5000. I would have many film back repairs over the years but I kept and used one MF camera 18 years before selling it.

Actually the cost of using digital is much cheaper than using MF film. THE REAL COST OF DIGITAL IS THE TIME IT TAKES TO DO THE FILES. I spend more and more time sitting at a computer nowdays. Computer time is basically a great cost to our studio.
Respectfully,
David Miller

 

[Epideme]

the bottom line for many, and certainly for me, is that as good as the camera is (potentially) there is a nagging doubt that it represents reasonable value for money. I'd really looked forward to buying this camera but will instead add some money to my pot of cash and finally buy the 600 f4 I've been promising myself for the last three years.......hopefully the dust will have settled by this time next year and I'll look again at where Nikon is with its cameras.

Paul
--
Academic - someone educated beyond the bounds of common sense.

http://fotologica.co.uk

 

[Bob Quinn]

Nikon is entitled to charge whatever they want. I'm big on free enterprise, but I'm also big on competition. Just looking at this from a business standpoint, I believe Nikon hurt its bottom line with the high pricing of the D3x. As I've said before, more and smaller profits will amount to more $$ than fewer and larger profits. There is plenty of room to downward price the camera without cannibalizing sales of the D3. They're different purposed cameras, as Nikon itself acknowleges. Therefore the prices should be much closer. The D3x is not so much a better D3 as it is another kind of D3. If it were a better D3, then I would say by all means, charge more.

It should get Nikon's attention that people like me who are not even considering buying a D3x are still alarmed. No, I'm not a customer for this camera, but I like the Nikon brand and hope to continue to buy from Nikon.

I feel bad for my fellow Nikonites and Nikon too. Nikon simply shot itself in the foot with this pricing. I don't see it as evil or greedy, just dumb.

Nikon, there's nothing stopping you from lowering the price. Get on with it, or watch your user base erode in the direction of Canon and Sony. They'll happily reap the profits which could have been yours. I'm sure their FF sales are picking up already.

 

[Bob Quinn]

No text

 

[villebon]

2) sucessful pros who think $8000 is a small business expense. (and
probably spend little time on this forum because they are busy doing
photography)

As if pro photographers had no business sense. Plus the D3x cost less to produce than the D3. That means that the business class is being taken for a ride.

neither of those groups will revolt or whine

Wanna bet?

--
Villebon

 

[Dragos Nenciu]

--
Why would anybody buy the d3x if they can get a d700x/d800 for 3k less?

For the type of shooting you do with a 24mpx camera the extra
features of the d3x would not matter much.

The d700 is already eating away a lot of d3 sales, but at least for
the type of shooting you do with a d3 the extra features (build, fps,
dual cards) is important.

And why would they buy a D3 if they can get a D700 for $2,500 less?
The product stratification should not be done on pixel count alone,
and Nikon hit a homerun with both the D3 and D700.

If you do the math on total profit you will find that, from purely a
business revenue standpoint, letting D700 sales eat away at some
fraction of D3 sales is a really good thing.

Michael

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com

--

Maybe, but in my opinion the d700 is a one time only freebee. It was done for one reason only to hit canon hard and get as much of the 5d users as they could from them.

The reason you would get a d3 over a d700 is the fact that if you shoot sports or some other types of applications you will appreciate the faster frame rate and better build.

But for studio, fine arts, landscape crowd FPS even AF is less important.

 

[Astro Landscapes]

Obviously you have an interest in debating this in a civilized way, so I'll oblige... Hopefully replies to my comment can be constructive or at least respectful...

So, here goes:

1.) Are we forgetting what Canon has ALWAYS charged for their "true equivalent" to the D3X? For three generations now, the 1Ds series has always cost $8000 at it's debut, and cameras that even come close in resolution for a lesser price have been at least 12 months behind it. Canon did NOT release the 5D mk2 at the same time as the 1Ds mk3. In fact there was a gap larger than 12 months between the announcements.

2.) The affordable alternatives are exactly that: Affordable, no-frills, "prosumer" bodies that sit distinctly well under the capability and market aim etc. etc. of the real flagship cameras. If you need flagship quality and performance, you have ALWAYS had to pay $8000 for the Canon 1Ds series. The affordable alternatives may match the resolution, but that is about it.

3.) Having said that, it is simply a fact of life now that if you are a prosumer and NOT a flagship demanding professional, you simply don't NEED to buy a flagship anymore in order to get the highest resolution. But that's a GREAT thing in the long run! Buy a 5D mk2, A900, or wait for the D700X. Sure, a lot of "rich" amateurs, prosumers, etc. have paid $8000 for the Canon 1Ds 3. So those who are rich Nikon amateurs- again, don't complain about the D3X price, cuz the 1Ds series has always cost that much. Either buy a 5D 2, A900, or wait for the D700X. It's always been that way.

4.) And yes, in 12-18 months, there will be a REAL 5D mk2 / A900 killer, a D700X or D800 or whatever. A D700 with the D3X sensor, or something along those lines; Nikon sticks to it's lineup system methodology pretty well. The D1X gave birth to the D100 which gave birth to the D70. The D2X gave birth to the D200 which gave birth to the D80 and others. The D3 gave birth to the D700 and D300... (and the D300 gave birth to the D90... Nikon LOVES recycling it's sensors!) ...Then it will be game over for the Canon and Sony fanboys, considering Nikon's superior camera ergonomics and feature set including by far the most flagship-grade features and performance out of any "affordable alternative". Because the real joke here is still on Canon fanboys; just look at the 5D mk2 versus the 1Ds mk3. Canon obviously refuses to do what Nikon does with the D3-D700 lineup, and sadly may continue to do so. (Personally, I don't hate Canon or anything, and I hope they make a 3D with 45-point AF, 1-series seals, and such...)

The bottom line is that because of this, (The great potential for a D700X and Canon's questionable 5D mk2 situation) ...Nikon will do just fine despite the D3X price, and Canon will be the one hurt by the Nikon / Sony juggernaut in the long run. (Not counting the potential for a Canon 3D, which could indeed spell redemption, albeit only if it is affordable enough. The same goes with a D700X; it's gotta be affordable in order for Nikon to redeem themselves...)

Oh and the other bottom line is that the $8000 number always drops fast. The Canon 1Ds 3 dropped to $6600 in about 12 months, and a used 1Ds 2 is only $3500 now, just 4 years after it's release...

Respectfully,
=Matt=

--

Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become even more formidable. - Galen Rowell

 

[Cyclonepath]

1.) Are we forgetting what Canon has ALWAYS charged for their "true
equivalent" to the D3X? For three generations now, the 1Ds series
has always cost $8000 at it's debut, and cameras that even come close
in resolution for a lesser price have been at least 12 months behind
it. Canon did NOT release the 5D mk2 at the same time as the 1Ds
mk3. In fact there was a gap larger than 12 months between the
announcements.

Oh and the other bottom line is that the $8000 number always drops
fast. The Canon 1Ds 3 dropped to $6600 in about 12 months, and a
used 1Ds 2 is only $3500 now, just 4 years after it's release...

Spot on Matt!!!
--
Regards Tony

http://www.llynlight.co.uk

 

[wildlife1212]

Because all doubt D3X can beat 1DsMkIII quality

Even Thom Hogan seems to doubt it... (see his postings)

What if the quality is worth $8000 or even more....

Remember D700 high Iso image quality was far better than the same 12MP of the famous 5D...
It is a strong indication that Nikon 24MP will beat Canon 21MP

Hence Nikon had no doubt to put the price above everything in the world.

Even with less buyer, but it is there, the top quality and top price
(used to be 1Dsmk3 position)

And when it's proven that it is at "the top" above everything else, people will buy it.

the keyword here: "The Top"

.

 

[ehlarson]

The point that is being missed is the Sony and Canon are offering cameras with similar sensors for under 3K. Somehow they are finding a way to cover their R&D costs.

Nikon is clearly gouging - offering this sensor only at the high end to milk their customers before offering it in a lower cost camera.

A lot of people think that the sensor is not much more expensive then
the D3/D700 sensor, but Nikon has to cover the R&D costs for the
sensor which will be sold much less then the D3/D700.

 

[Marcello Geerts]

Both Sony and Canon build a cheaper camera that will sell in larger numbers bringing the R&D costs per camera down.

And Sony wants to buy themselves into the market so maybe they are selling at cost price.

The Canon is much cheaper regarding build quality, etc. so it is logic that this camera is cheaper.

 

[calson]

Nikon is planning to sell the D3x for $8000 because this camera is targeted at commercial photographers who will happily pay this amount. Why not complain about Porsche not selling a car for $25,000 so everyone can own one?

What pro photographers are buying are results and they are looking at the entire system they will need. A Nikon user is likely to be far happier with the D3x and the Nikon 14-24mm and the Nikon 24-70mm lenses than the Canon user with the 1Ds Mark III and the Canon 16-35mm and 24-70mm lenses with their IQ and QC issues.

What has always been difficult to understand is how Nikon feels it can exact a significant premium over Canon gear. The D3x will have a street price that is 20% higher than that of the Canon 1Ds Mark III camera for what will be comparable IQ and performance.

But then I could not figure out why until last year I had to pay a 10% premium to get Nikon super telephotos without VR over Canon lenses with IS. This made even less sense.

Canon earns a much smaller percentage of its corporate income from cameras than is the case for Nikon and so can work off smaller markups and still gain the PR benefits for its copiers and other equipment upon which it depends.