We don't need to wait very long. At photokina 08, if not before
that, we will see the new 5D and the Sony flagship 24mp. We may even
see a Samsung FF prototype, as well as the Nikon mid-range FF model.
No, probably first D3X at 24MP at Photokina or earlier, and before that D90.
Nikon very rarely goes for a sensor not used in higher level cameras before.
Nikon's strategy, from the very start of the digital era has been: use a new sensor in a higher spec'd body then use it in stripped down versions to the limit. See D100 -> D70 - > D40, D200 -> D80 -> D40X -> D60.
The span it has taken for those moves has shortened, so now we'll probably see the D90 launched less than a year after the D300, with same sensor.
I expect the D10 (?), the compact FF Nikon, to be launched at PMA next year , together with D60X (same sensor as D300/D80), and probably D400 announced, or maybe later. The D3X will have been around for about 7-8mos, so it's about time to announce the D10. It will, my guess, come with the 24MP sensor.
The reason for that is that Nikon doesn't make sensors and doesn't like to have too many sensors and platforms at same time in their plants. Thom Hogan has said this time and again and he knows about Nikon's ways. And that practivce saves a lot of money. An 18MP sensor which hads never been used requires a lot of R&D to implement.
So, here's probable schedule/sensor/price of Nikon's releases until mid 2009:
June '08: D90 (D300's sensor, 1K USD body)
Photokina '08: D3X (24MP,
5-6K USD) Maybe announced also in June, for sale at Photokina.
PMA '09: D60X (D300's sensor,
750USD)
June-August '09:
D400 (14MP CMOS, APS-C, 1.7K USD)
D10 (24MP,
3.5KUSD)
D4 (14-16MP, 4.5K USD)
Looks like a pretty busy schedule, and I can't see it getting more compressed than that.
But I think lower prices will likely be the outcome because they can
still make money at the lower prices, just not as much. And if one
or two of them decided not to sell a full frame unless people are
willing to fork over $5K or more, then the other camera makers would
be more than happy to sell them for less than $5K or even less than
$2K, as Canon is doing right now.
In another thread, I calculated that the difference in manufacturing
cost between a full frame sensor and an APS-C sensor, taking into
account such things as yield, silicon wafer cost and labor, is no
more than about $250. So, a full frame camera should have a price
premium over an APS-C camera of no more than about $750-$900 for a
camera maker to make the same % profit as an APS-C model. That would
mean that a FF can be sold for around $2,000 and still be profitable.
That is exactly what Canon is selling the 5D for at this time, after
rebates.
My prediction is that $2,000 FF DSLR cameras will become common place
in a few years, after manufacturers have given up pursuing the small
but lucrative market for $5K+ full frame models.
Still think, as a matter of strategy, that, at least Nikon, won't go for such low prices. I really don't see much of an advantage to get a similarly priced 14MP FF camera over a 12MP APS-C one, unless one shoots landscapes or a lot of extreme WA. The difference in IQ has really gone down, the D300 is pretty close to both D3 and 5D. Of course the D3 has the high ISO advantage, but the point is really the body's specs.
And one needs more expensive lenses for FF bodies, this won't go away. The 17-55 f/2.8 made by Nikon in a DX body is as good as the new 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF. And much less expensive. The 14-24 is also very expensive, the 12-24mm DX is much less.
Again, if Canon insists on putting a high-quality sensor in a underspec'd body I think it'll hurt its sales compared to a higher spec'd FF body at 25-30% higher price, since people getting that type of camera knows that the body price will be the lighter part of what they will need to spend to get a good system going.
--
Regards, Renato Pedrosa
'Preparei minha máquina de novo. Tinha um perfume de jasmim no beiral de um sobrado. Fotografei o perfume.'
Manoel de Barros - Brazilian poet
