What are Nikon & Canon seeing in their sales projections for DX sport cameras?

[ImageAmateur]

We will see what September camera releases bring.... ;-)

 

[Kerry Pierce]

I would suggest that they are far less advantageous today, than they were when the d300 was released.

yes, i would agree. more recent DX sensors are closing that gap... the gap is still there, of course.

First of all, I don't count ultra wide angle as a universal advantage. I have wider lenses for DX than I do for FX. My 24-70 is my widest normal FX lens and the Nikon 12-24 is my widest normal DX lens. I'm probably in the majority on that issue.

i dunno. it's certainly easier to find quality ultrawides for FX. i mean, what in DX competes with the 14-24? that said, there a plethora of cheaper DX ultrawides, in part because this used to be such a problem.

For the folks that really want wide, certainly FX is probably the appropriate answer. I say probably because I've see a ton of FX users simply reject the 14-24 out of hand because of the cost and/or filter issues. I've also seen a number of posts from folks that bought and sold the 14-24, for a variety of reasons.

So, if you aren't going to buy, keep, and use the 14-24, I'd suggest that the Nikon 12-24 on a 24mp DX camera would be a very viable alternative to FX and the 16-35 or something of that ilk.

Perhaps the 24-70 on the d800e is a better WA option than the 12-24 on a DX camera, but then we're getting away from the ultra-wide area anyway....

Personally, I use the 24-70 or 24-120 f/4 for the vast majority of my FX WA work. Otherwise, I'd use the Nikon 12-24 on a d7xxx body.

that said, this can really go either way. DX sensors tend to have higher pixel densities ("more reach") making them more ideal for sports. the DX telephoto and supertelephoto exotics will always be smaller and cheaper than their FX equivalents.

For the amateur landscaper on a budget, the d800 and 14-24 isn't really a viable option. Maybe even the d600 is too expensive when used with the 14-24.

In my mind, only the most serious landscaper, one that uses tripods and such religiously, really benefits from FX and the 14-24 over the DX alternatives. I have some 10 & 12mp landscapes that I see no reason to try to duplicate with FX.

Second, the way sensor performance has improved over the last few years has greatly impacted the high ISO benefits of FX cameras. There are DX sensors available today that apparently equal high ISO performance of the d700. Not many people really need better high ISO performance than that, IMO.

i remain unconvinced of this point. but... open to convincing.

Well, there are many thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of "photographers" that use phone cameras, digicams and consumer dslrs that don't have anywhere near the high ISO performance of the d3s.

For example, my d3s is a low light king, yet it isn't very often that I actually use the ultra high ISO settings. By far, the vast majority of my "keeper" images are at ISO's far lower than what the d3s has available. I'd guess that I'm in the majority on that issue as well.

i routinely shoot my D700 at 6400 ISO. but i don't think i'm in the majority.

Neither do I.

Kerry

 

[teirnav]

I would suggest that they are far less advantageous today, than they were when the d300 was released.

yes, i would agree. more recent DX sensors are closing that gap... the gap is still there, of course.

First of all, I don't count ultra wide angle as a universal advantage. I have wider lenses for DX than I do for FX. My 24-70 is my widest normal FX lens and the Nikon 12-24 is my widest normal DX lens. I'm probably in the majority on that issue.

i dunno. it's certainly easier to find quality ultrawides for FX. i mean, what in DX competes with the 14-24? that said, there a plethora of cheaper DX ultrawides, in part because this used to be such a problem.

For the folks that really want wide, certainly FX is probably the appropriate answer. I say probably because I've see a ton of FX users simply reject the 14-24 out of hand because of the cost and/or filter issues. I've also seen a number of posts from folks that bought and sold the 14-24, for a variety of reasons.

So, if you aren't going to buy, keep, and use the 14-24, I'd suggest that the Nikon 12-24 on a 24mp DX camera would be a very viable alternative to FX and the 16-35 or something of that ilk.

Perhaps the 24-70 on the d800e is a better WA option than the 12-24 on a DX camera, but then we're getting away from the ultra-wide area anyway....

Personally, I use the 24-70 or 24-120 f/4 for the vast majority of my FX WA work. Otherwise, I'd use the Nikon 12-24 on a d7xxx body.

that said, this can really go either way. DX sensors tend to have higher pixel densities ("more reach") making them more ideal for sports. the DX telephoto and supertelephoto exotics will always be smaller and cheaper than their FX equivalents.

For the amateur landscaper on a budget, the d800 and 14-24 isn't really a viable option. Maybe even the d600 is too expensive when used with the 14-24.

In my mind, only the most serious landscaper, one that uses tripods and such religiously, really benefits from FX and the 14-24 over the DX alternatives. I have some 10 & 12mp landscapes that I see no reason to try to duplicate with FX.

Second, the way sensor performance has improved over the last few years has greatly impacted the high ISO benefits of FX cameras. There are DX sensors available today that apparently equal high ISO performance of the d700. Not many people really need better high ISO performance than that, IMO.

i remain unconvinced of this point. but... open to convincing.

Well, there are many thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of "photographers" that use phone cameras, digicams and consumer dslrs that don't have anywhere near the high ISO performance of the d3s.

For example, my d3s is a low light king, yet it isn't very often that I actually use the ultra high ISO settings. By far, the vast majority of my "keeper" images are at ISO's far lower than what the d3s has available. I'd guess that I'm in the majority on that issue as well.

i routinely shoot my D700 at 6400 ISO. but i don't think i'm in the majority.

Neither do I.

Kerry

 

[Tony Beach]

DX lens performance when connected to a body with a much higher resolution sensor could have proved a challenging problem in designing the replacement for the D300.

It wasn't a problem when replacing the D90 with the D7000, or the D7000 with the D7100. There are many lenses that can benefit from greater sensor resolution -- DX, FX or legacy, from Nikon and third parties.

 

[noirdesir]

What are the camera companies seeing in the sales figures that we are not?

From the forum here – the most requested new model is a D300/D300s replacement – DX sports camera.

The problem is always how representative the posters here are in regard to all Nikon customers. Assuming it to be more enthusiast-biased than whole of Nikon DSLR customers is probably a very safe bet.

Just looking at the number of posts:

• Consumer DX: 2.20 m
• High-end DX: 0.93 m
• FX + Pro DX: 1.84 m

I don't think anybody believes these ratios reflect the sales numbers very well. But consumer DX has sold significant numbers for much longer than FX+ProDX has (which almost certainly reached new levels with the D700 and all other compact-body FX cameras, though the D3 and D3s gave a noticeable boost already). So let's look at the ratio of all models since the release of the D3:

• Consumer DX 2007+ (D40x & D90 onwards): 12'300 threads
• High-end DX 2007+ (D300 + D300s): 2000 threads
• FX + Pro DX 2007+ (D3+, D700+): 26'500 threads

Taking camera mentions here as representative would indicate that Nikon sold twice as many FX+ProDX than consumer DX cameras, when most people estimate it rather at least 10:1 in favour of the consumer DX cameras. Or looked at differently, FX+ProDX seems to overrepresented by a factor of 20 on this site here.

When the camera first appeared – Canon responded rather quickly with the 7D model – their version of a DX sports camera.

The question really is which camera was the D300 mostly replacing (as in which camera did the buyers of the D300 used before), ProDX (D2s) or D200s plus upgraders from D80, D70, D100? I would very much guess the latter.

Today – Nikon users are waiting for a D300 replacement

And a D700 replacement and D3x replacement. Even if we subtract the Df as an aberration, that is is five FX cameras that as cameras with an apparent product space: D6x0 (entry FX), D710/D800h (affordable high-end sport), D800 (affordable high-end resolution), D4s (top sports), and D4x (highest body quality resolution) and four DX cameras D3300 (entry-level), D5300 (middle with significant technical upgrades, eg AF), D7100 (high consumer, again with significant upgrades), and D9000 (D800 quality body, D710/D800h speed).

It can be said that the D200 to D300 upgrade wasn't attractive enough that a lot of D200 did not buy the D300. And the reason for this was FX which bifurcated demand.

– but more interestingly, Canon users are also waiting for a 7D replacement. No rumours or indicators that a replacement will be coming soon.

The only company that seems to be hearing the call for a DX sports camera is Pentax when they released the K3.

As they have no FX models, they might as well put everything they have into their top (DX) model.

So my question is, were the sales of the D300/D300s/7D way below expectations that Canon and Nikon decided to abandoned this category of DX sports camera?

Ask yourself how many of all D300(s) users (and not how many of the semi-professional sports shooting D300(s) users) replaced their camera with a D7100, a D700, a D800 or even a D6x00, D3s or D4 model. The FX and the D7100 diluted demand for a D9000.

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases. Putting their top AF system in more than their single-digit flagships (D300, D700, D800, D7100) and Canon 5D III has spread the action lovers over more models.

 

[Tony Beach]

It can be said that the D200 to D300 upgrade wasn't attractive enough that a lot of D200 did not buy the D300. And the reason for this was FX which bifurcated demand.

A lot of D2x/D2xs users went to the D300, so arguing that the D300 "wasn't attractive enough" isn't really supported by the enormous popularity the D300 once enjoyed. Also, many D700 users also bought the D300 (or vice versa), so this has never been entirely an "either/or" proposition.

The FX and the D7100 diluted demand for a D9000.

That's completely unproved.

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases

I'm reasonably certain that the margins on a D9000 or D400 are going to be higher than they are on a D610, and a D9000 or D400 will outsell D800 by a fairly wide margin (and that will also translate into greater profits).

As for DX lenses, Nikon isn't even trying to make money with them, so that is another topic of speculation about why Nikon is failing so badly to capitalize on their DX system.

 

[n057]

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases. Putting their top AF system in more than their single-digit flagships (D300, D700, D800, D7100) and Canon 5D III has spread the action lovers over more models.

I don't see any of the mentioned models as action cameras. But then that's me


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[noirdesir]

It can be said that the D200 to D300 upgrade wasn't attractive enough that a lot of D200 did not buy the D300. And the reason for this was FX which bifurcated demand.

A lot of D2x/D2xs users went to the D300, so arguing that the D300 "wasn't attractive enough" isn't really supported by the enormous popularity the D300 once enjoyed.Also, many D700 users also bought the D300 (or vice versa), so this has never been entirely an "either/or" proposition.

That is us coming from different positions, I as an amateur cannot justify owning two DSLRs and to some degree another line of lenses. Selling the old one always contributed to the financing of the new one. Thus my assumption is that this applies to a lot of amateurs and also that most D300 are sold to amateurs.

And your statement "this has never been entirely an either/or proposition", is essentially agreeing with me that it partly has been an either/or proposition, so even in your eyes some demand went to FF instead of staying within DX. Which is a bifurcating demand. So, why arguing with me when you essentially agree with me? The D300 'not being a attractive enough' means just that, not attracting enough that it let all D200 users that were willing to buy a new camera to buy, not attractive enough to prevent any significant leak-off into FX. I did not talk about absolute attraction but relative attractive compared to other options. The person who comes second in a beauty contest was not attractive enough to beat the person who won, but that doesn't say anything about whether the person was attractive in an absolute sense.

The FX and the D7100 diluted demand for a D9000.

That's completely unproved.

This is not about proving something (for that you need very good surveys and best sales data as well), it is just a fairly logical conclusion about likely purchasing decisions. What would the people who bought the D3 and in particular the D700 bought instead if there had been no FF offering from Nikon? Isn't it reasonable to assume that a good part of them would have bought the D300 instead? I am not predicting any numbers, just that the effect was not insignificant.

I started with a D70, then upgraded to a D200 when it came out, and would certainly have upgraded to the D300 if the option of FX hadn't suddenly appeared and I got a D3 instead (and I was vacillating quite a while between the D300 and the D3). And when the D700 came out, it made to go full-frame instead of upgrading to the D300 (from any lesser camera than the D300) much easier.

When the D200 came out, what were the alternatives? The D2x at a much higher price for not a much better sensor (and in some regards slightly worse sensor). When the D300 came out what where the alternatives? The D3 at a much higher price but also with a significantly better sensor, and one year later the D700 with a price point somewhere in between with the same ignificantly better sensor. That is my only point here.

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases

I'm reasonably certain that the margins on a D9000 or D400 are going to be higher than they are on a D610, and a D9000 or D400 will outsell D800 by a fairly wide margin (and that will also translate into greater profits).

That is what you think. I am just describing what Nikon might likely be thinking. I am not endorsing either position, I am just trying to provide an understanding of Nikon's reasoning.

 

[noirdesir]

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases. Putting their top AF system in more than their single-digit flagships (D300, D700, D800, D7100) and Canon 5D III has spread the action lovers over more models.

I don't see any of the mentioned models as action cameras. But then that's me

The AF in the 5D II was not very useful for an action camera, the AF in the 5D III is pretty similar to the AF in Canon's best action model, the 1D X.

I shoot much better action photos with the D800 than with the D200 because the AF is much better (the same applies for all cameras with a similar AF, ie, D700, D300 and D7100). And if you follow this thread, the D300 is seen by many as a sports camera.

I also rarely use high frames rates, so for me the AF is the more important aspect (low light capabilities for high shutter speeds also), it is just much more work later in processing deciding which images to use.

 

[Tony Beach]

It can be said that the D200 to D300 upgrade wasn't attractive enough that a lot of D200 did not buy the D300. And the reason for this was FX which bifurcated demand.

A lot of D2x/D2xs users went to the D300, so arguing that the D300 "wasn't attractive enough" isn't really supported by the enormous popularity the D300 once enjoyed.Also, many D700 users also bought the D300 (or vice versa), so this has never been entirely an "either/or" proposition.

That is us coming from different positions, I as an amateur cannot justify owning two DSLRs and to some degree another line of lenses. Selling the old one always contributed to the financing of the new one. Thus my assumption is that this applies to a lot of amateurs and also that most D300 are sold to amateurs.

I think you would be surprised how many D300 users own other cameras.

The D300 'not being a attractive enough' means just that, not attracting enough that it let all D200 users that were willing to buy a new camera to buy, not attractive enough to prevent any significant leak-off into FX. I did not talk about absolute attraction but relative attractive compared to other options. The person who comes second in a beauty contest was not attractive enough to beat the person who won, but that doesn't say anything about whether the person was attractive in an absolute sense.

Here's the issue though, what is the camera or cameras you are saying are more "attractive" then the D300? The D200? The D800? The D610? The Df? My bet is a D400 would have healthy sales. What's more, given that none of the reasonably affordable FX cameras would do what a D400 can do in terms of fps and pixel density (i.e., reach), and they cost more, well I really don't see how they would have any real bearing on D400 sales.

The FX and the D7100 diluted demand for a D9000.

That's completely unproved.

This is not about proving something (for that you need very good surveys and best sales data as well), it is just a fairly logical conclusion about likely purchasing decisions. What would the people who bought the D3 and in particular the D700 bought instead if there had been no FF offering from Nikon? Isn't it reasonable to assume that a good part of them would have bought the D300 instead? I am not predicting any numbers, just that the effect was not insignificant.

My bet is a D400 would sell more copies than all the FX cameras combined.

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases

I'm reasonably certain that the margins on a D9000 or D400 are going to be higher than they are on a D610, and a D9000 or D400 will outsell D800 by a fairly wide margin (and that will also translate into greater profits).

That is what you think.

Given the price of FX sensors versus DX sensors, it's more than an educated guess.

I am just describing what Nikon might likely be thinking. I am not endorsing either position, I am just trying to provide an understanding of Nikon's reasoning.

Well, to reiterate what I've said before, whatever Nikon is thinking they are wrong about this. Your argument is analogous to a car company deciding not to sell a $40,000 car because it's squeezed out by that brand's $30,000 and $50,000 cars. Car companies don't do that, and Nikon shouldn't do that either.

 

[n057]

Nikon wants to entice the really serious amateurs into FX because that probably means bigger margins and a good deal of new lens purchases. Putting their top AF system in more than their single-digit flagships (D300, D700, D800, D7100) and Canon 5D III has spread the action lovers over more models.

I don't see any of the mentioned models as action cameras. But then that's me

The AF in the 5D II was not very useful for an action camera, the AF in the 5D III is pretty similar to the AF in Canon's best action model, the 1D X.

I shoot much better action photos with the D800 than with the D200 because the AF is much better (the same applies for all cameras with a similar AF, ie, D700, D300 and D7100). And if you follow this thread, the D300 is seen by many as a sports camera.

I also rarely use high frames rates, so for me the AF is the more important aspect (low light capabilities for high shutter speeds also), it is just much more work later in processing deciding which images to use.

Doh! How could I have missed that! (slap on forehead).

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[Alton (TN)]

I don't know the thinking of Nikon or Canon, only mine. My thinking is whoever releases the pro DX type camera will probably get my business.

I have the 7D and have considered the D7100, but still feel like that would just be a stop-gap measure until the D400 or 7DII arrived. Still I wait...

 

[Canadianguy]

Guess you will be joining the Pentax forum?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-3

I don't know the thinking of Nikon or Canon, only mine. My thinking is whoever releases the pro DX type camera will probably get my business.

I have the 7D and have considered the D7100, but still feel like that would just be a stop-gap measure until the D400 or 7DII arrived. Still I wait...

--
Alton

 

[noirdesir]

That is us coming from different positions, I as an amateur cannot justify owning two DSLRs and to some degree another line of lenses. Selling the old one always contributed to the financing of the new one. Thus my assumption is that this applies to a lot of amateurs and also that most D300 are sold to amateurs.

I think you would be surprised how many D300 users own other cameras.

It would make an interesting poll how many (non-professional) photographers own (and still actively use) more than one camera per lens mount.

The D300 'not being a attractive enough' means just that, not attracting enough that it let all D200 users that were willing to buy a new camera to buy, not attractive enough to prevent any significant leak-off into FX. I did not talk about absolute attraction but relative attractive compared to other options. The person who comes second in a beauty contest was not attractive enough to beat the person who won, but that doesn't say anything about whether the person was attractive in an absolute sense.

Here's the issue though, what is the camera or cameras you are saying are more "attractive" then the D300? The D200? The D800? The D610? The Df?

Attraction is not a binary thing. My point is simply that the D300 was not attractive enough to outsell all FX cameras combined by a factor of, let's say, 100:1. I never said that any of those cameras was more attractive than the D300. There is a difference between 'more attractive' and 'attractive enough', because whenever the word 'enough' is used, it has to be defined what 'enough' means. Saying lock A is not safe enough to prevent anybody from cracking it, is not making any statement whether lock A is better than lock B.

My bet is a D400 would have healthy sales. What's more, given that none of the reasonably affordable FX cameras would do what a D400 can do in terms of fps and pixel density (i.e., reach), and they cost more, well I really don't see how they would have any real bearing on D400 sales.

And the D3 coming out had no bearing on me not buying a D300? I stand by my point that most people do not have multiple camera bodies with the same lens mount. I also stand by my point that all Nikon FX camera sales combined account for more than single digit percentage fraction of the D300 sales. But that is naturally all based on anecdotal evidence (ie, from people I personally know).

The FX and the D7100 diluted demand for a D9000.

That's completely unproved.

This is not about proving something (for that you need very good surveys and best sales data as well), it is just a fairly logical conclusion about likely purchasing decisions. What would the people who bought the D3 and in particular the D700 bought instead if there had been no FF offering from Nikon? Isn't it reasonable to assume that a good part of them would have bought the D300 instead? I am not predicting any numbers, just that the effect was not insignificant.

My bet is a D400 would sell more copies than all the FX cameras combined.

Why is there then no D400? Because Nikon's leaders are complete morons? I find explanations that are a bit more nuanced than 'they are complete morons' generally more believable. Nikon doesn't make product decisions by throwing darts at a wall. I care much more about trying to understand their decisions than in knowing that I am smarter than them, because the latter doesn't gain me anything (except maybe brownie points in this forum), but the former makes it more likely that I manage to guess their future behaviour better.

 

[Tony Beach]

That is us coming from different positions, I as an amateur cannot justify owning two DSLRs and to some degree another line of lenses. Selling the old one always contributed to the financing of the new one. Thus my assumption is that this applies to a lot of amateurs and also that most D300 are sold to amateurs.

I think you would be surprised how many D300 users own other cameras.

It would make an interesting poll how many (non-professional) photographers own (and still actively use) more than one camera per lens mount.

There are also a lot of professionals who you seem to be discounting who would want to use the D400 along with an FX camera. I recall quite a few users in these forums who had both the D700 and D300 (they even use the same MB-D10, which was I think not a coincidence), so I would expect that demographic would be reasonably satisfied with a D400 and D800 combo.

The D300 'not being a attractive enough' means just that, not attracting enough that it let all D200 users that were willing to buy a new camera to buy, not attractive enough to prevent any significant leak-off into FX. I did not talk about absolute attraction but relative attractive compared to other options. The person who comes second in a beauty contest was not attractive enough to beat the person who won, but that doesn't say anything about whether the person was attractive in an absolute sense.

Here's the issue though, what is the camera or cameras you are saying are more "attractive" then the D300? The D200? The D800? The D610? The Df?

Attraction is not a binary thing. My point is simply that the D300 was not attractive enough to outsell all FX cameras combined by a factor of, let's say, 100:1.

Well, that's a ridiculously high ratio to expect.

I stand by my point that most people do not have multiple camera bodies with the same lens mount.

That's as much an argument to have a D400 and not a D610 or even a D800 as it is the other way around.

I also stand by my point that all Nikon FX camera sales combined account for more than single digit percentage fraction of the D300 sales. But that is naturally all based on anecdotal evidence (ie, from people I personally know).

I bet you don't personally know many photographers with 500mm lenses either, but there are more than a few out there and many of them want a D400 to put that lens on and not a D7100, a D610, or a D800.

Even in their best days the D200 and D300 did not sell as much as the D40x and D80, and as I said, that's not a good reason not to have a camera like those in Nikon's lineup. Likewise, just because the D400 would outsell all FX bodies by a wide margin doesn't mean Nikon should abandon their FX lineup.

My bet is a D400 would sell more copies than all the FX cameras combined.

Why is there then no D400?

We don't know and all of us are merely speculating about that. The floods in Thailand that wiped out Nikon's factory there might be a big reason.

Because Nikon's leaders are complete morons? I find explanations that are a bit more nuanced than 'they are complete morons' generally more believable.

I didn't say they were "complete morons."

Nikon doesn't make product decisions by throwing darts at a wall.

Df looks exactly like that sort of decision process. Someone at the top saw a sketch of an idea for a camera and Nikon ran with it even though they didn't bother to fully think through the UI. By comparison a D400 or D9300 would absolutely crush the Df in sales and profits for Nikon.

I care much more about trying to understand their decisions than in knowing that I am smarter than them, because the latter doesn't gain me anything (except maybe brownie points in this forum), but the former makes it more likely that I manage to guess their future behaviour better.

A lot of us are still betting that Nikon will come out with a D400 or D9300 or whatever they want to call a legitimate D300 successor. You arguing the opposite, which is the crux of our disagreement here.

 

[jfriend00]

Why is there then no D400? Because Nikon's leaders are complete morons? I find explanations that are a bit more nuanced than 'they are complete morons' generally more believable. Nikon doesn't make product decisions by throwing darts at a wall. I care much more about trying to understand their decisions than in knowing that I am smarter than them, because the latter doesn't gain me anything (except maybe brownie points in this forum), but the former makes it more likely that I manage to guess their future behaviour better.

Companies make mistakes in their product plans all the time. They don't have to be morons to make mistakes or misinterpret the direction a market is going. Look at a couple recent Nikon products. Do you think the whole Nikon One line has done anything remotely close to what Nikon expected? What about the Nikon Coolpix A? Do you even hear anything about it any more?

So ... it's a mistake to think that companies are always right and the reason no such product exists is because they know it wouldn't sell. Someone apparently had a theory that the D400 was less important than all the other products Nikon has built in the last 6 years. That doesn't mean they were right. That was just a theory. Market theories are wrong as often as they are right.

So, there's a group of customers who want what a D400 could bring. We happen to believe that Nikon has been wrong to not create that product and we happen to think that a new top-end, kick-ass DX product would be quite successful just as the last top-end kick ass DX product was even though there are now more FX options available than there were then.

The general idea is that there are probably 5-10x as many DX customers as their are FX customers out there in the marketplace so without even attracting a new customer to the brand, the population of customers that might immediately consider a D400 is way larger than a new FX camera. Plus, the advantage of DX is that you get so many more features for your buck than you do with FX because you're paying so much less for the sensor. A D400 would likely cost less or the same as the D610, yet offer a lot better features in every way except for the things directly related to sensor size (mainly high ISO performance). You could get 8-10fps, a large buffer, kick-ass AF system all in a D400 (or D9300) for under $2k (most likely $1500-$1800). That's a pretty darn good value for those who care about those features. With the only other serious option for shooting action being the $6500 D4s, there's a lot of people looking for something that meets these needs that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

The D7100 is a very nice camera and is an incredible value for what it costs, but it doesn't really carry the banner of the DX line very well because it's not a kick-ass camera overall. Compared to the D300, it has a better sensor, but is crippled in fps and buffer and some say the AF isn't even quite as good as the D300. Any new flag-bearer for the DX line should move the standard forward on all fronts from the D300 (more and better pixels, better AF, bigger buffer, better AF, better viewfinder, etc...). That's what would energize the top end of the DX line just like the D300 did back at its launch.

So, what we're saying is that a camera like that would draw in buyers from a number of areas:

1. Certainly former or current D300 owners who still want a top quality DX camera.

2. D5xxx or D7xxx owners looking to move up the product line without having to redo their lens lineup or massively blow the budget.

3. Nikon FX owners who want a 2nd body that has a different set of strengths than their D800 or D610 or even D700/D3s (e.g. more reach or fps and top AF).

4. Action/sports shooters from another brand who want top quality action shooting features without breaking the bank and who primarily shoot in daylight outdoors.

The potential to draw in buyers from a number of different directions and draw some attention to the whole DX product line is definitely there. I don't think Nikon are morons, but I do think they missed the boat on this opportunity. If you look at the enthusiasts who MOST want dSLR over mirrorless, it's the action shooters and Nikon isn't really going after that segment of buyers with full force. They should. This is where dSLR holds it's largest advantage over mirror-less and people who want it are willing to pay for it. Not maybe the $6500 that a D4s costs, but certainly the $1500-$1800 that a D400 (or D9300) would likely be.

 

[samfan]

I'd like to share my 2 cents which may not make any sense at all, but here goes.

Nikon's problem is that a typical (IMHO) user is not upgrading in ways Nikon would expect.

For example, they'd expect:

D50 -> D40 -> D3x00 -> D5x00

D70 -> D80 -> D7x00 -> D6x0

D100 -> D200 -> D300 -> D800

D2h -> D3 -> D4

D2x -> D3x -> D800

F4 -> Df

In my experience, it looks more like this:

D50 -> D80 -> D7x00

D100 -> D300 -> ???

D70 -> D300 -> ???

D200 -> D700 -> ???

D2h -> D300 -> ???

D2x -> D300 -> D800

F4 -> D700 -> ???

In my theory, the sale numbers of the higher DSLR series were kinda weird, e.g. D200 didn't sell as well because people were buying D70 and D80 instead; D200 users didn't upgrade to D300, D2 users went to D300 instead of D3 etc. so maybe it all didn't add up.

On the other hand, D40 was a big splash because everybody was buying it (e.g. many Nikon enthusiasts bought both D40 and D40x), while D3 and D700 were also big splashes which caused many people to go to Nikon or within Nikon to FX.

So Nikon reasoning would be - screw the middle , nobody can figure out what they want. Let's just make lowends and FX which always sell.

 

[n057]

Why is there then no D400? Because Nikon's leaders are complete morons? I find explanations that are a bit more nuanced than 'they are complete morons' generally more believable. Nikon doesn't make product decisions by throwing darts at a wall. I care much more about trying to understand their decisions than in knowing that I am smarter than them, because the latter doesn't gain me anything (except maybe brownie points in this forum), but the former makes it more likely that I manage to guess their future behaviour better.

That could be an explanation. They certainly act as if they were

I don't see what guessing their future behaviour gains you, except maybe being better able to decide where you want to go in the future.

But we can only speculate about what happened. As we can only wonder about why the D7000 had the 39-point AF module, which has since been replicated in most of the consumer line, except the D7100. How it found its way into the Df is a puzzle.

Why they persist to believe that North-Americans do not like the Nikon 1 because they do not like mirrorless, but other brands are successfully selling mirrorless? Their conclusion is that we do not like smaller cameras because we believe bigger is better.

All I know is that I want a DX follow-up to the D300. I still have the D200 because I wanted to skip one generation, waiting for an extra 2 stops of low-light ISO and not wanting FX. Many D300 owners did not get the D300s because it was not enough to sway them. Nikon's actions look like they believe there was no interest in pro-DX.

Do not believe there is malice in their actions, it could be plain stupidity. More likely, when the question of a new pro-DX body was presented, there was a "Pretty Foil" maker who convinced the board that it was not a good idea. It happens.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[Donald Chin]

What are the camera companies seeing in the sales figures that we are not?

The majority of their target sports shooters have already migrated to FF, there's no room for high end crop sensor even like APS-H, not to mention APS-C.

From the forum here – the most requested new model is a D300/D300s replacement – DX sports camera.

Because that is the very few that still hang on to this forum, actually DP should reorganise Nikon forum base on format.

When the camera first appeared – Canon responded rather quickly with the 7D model – their version of a DX sports camera.

Today – Nikon users are waiting for a D300 replacement – but more interestingly, Canon users are also waiting for a 7D replacement. No rumours or indicators that a replacement will be coming soon.

With Sony so eagerly want to take a share in FF market, we will only expect Canon and Nikon to bring out even more affordable FF.

The only company that seems to be hearing the call for a DX sports camera is Pentax when they released the K3.

Because Pentax doesn't have FF, K3 is their flagship, so as Fujifilm X-T1, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Panasonic GH-4.

So my question is, were the sales of the D300/D300s/7D way below expectations that Canon and Nikon decided to abandoned this category of DX sports camera?

Those I know who previously own D300, 7D had already migrated to FF, and those I know who use D7100, D5300 clearly will not pay more than $1000 for APS-C body. What's the benefit of APS-C DSLR except it price?

 

[jfriend00]

What are the camera companies seeing in the sales figures that we are not?

The majority of their target sports shooters have already migrated to FF, there's no room for high end crop sensor even like APS-H, not to mention APS-C.

What FF sports camera did all the D300 owners migrate to? The only current sports camera in Nikon's lineup is the $6500 D4s. Do you think all those show purchased an $1800 D300 can now somehow afford a D4s and much longer glass to get to the same reach? That's not what happened at all. Nikon has ignored the semi-affordable sports shooter in both DX and FX, so it's pretty hard to say they all moved to FX when there is no semi-affordable FX sports camera.

With Sony so eagerly want to take a share in FF market, we will only expect Canon and Nikon to bring out even more affordable FF.

Which has little to do with a DX or FX sports camera or a D400 as it's a completely different market segment.

So my question is, were the sales of the D300/D300s/7D way below expectations that Canon and Nikon decided to abandoned this category of DX sports camera?

Those I know who previously own D300, 7D had already migrated to FF, and those I know who use D7100, D5300 clearly will not pay more than $1000 for APS-C body. What's the benefit of APS-C DSLR except it price?

You're missing the fact that Nikon has NO sports camera in their current lineup other than the $6500 D4s and there are clearly lots and lots of amateur sports photographers who can't afford to spend that much on a camera. There's room in the lineup for other sports cameras at lower prices and plenty of reason to offer one in DX in addition to FX.