Eight thousand dollars?!

$8000 really isn't a lot of money for many people. Do you realize that e.g. ten thousands of wrist watches costing way over 100K are sold every year? Or cars costing 250K or houses costing 5 million and more? 8K is nothing for someone pulling a couple of hundred grand per year. Just because someone can't afford something doesn't mean it's too expensive.

Rob Gailbright site stated 8000 $ .... I think they are reliable.

If you think releasing this camera at this price point is smart, more power to you...

... it´s just 5000 euros three crying in low!!

The $3499 version making just the same pictures but with less speed etc. is out in 2010 at the latest. Will be just fine for me, use the D3 for the action and use the upcoming D700x for the high res stuff.

On the other hand, maybe waiting for the 8fps & 25mpx version may still be the best option.

just because you can't afford it doesn't automatically mean it's too expensive. You can't afford $4K pairs of bespoke shoes either but there a companies who do very well selling them, just like Nikon will sell their 8K camera, just not to you.

This is an amazing MSRP from Nikon. Totally floored me.

The D3 was so perfectly priced when it came out in direct competition to

Canon's 1D3 - which it turned out to be superior to in almost every way - for just
a few hundred dollars more.

But this, this...$8000 price tag - 24MP's be dammed - is just not even in the value-to-features and performance ballpark that the class leading D3 is in, let alone the new Canon 5DII. or Sony's A900.

I gotta believe that Nikon will correct this pricing mis-step pronto. Real street costs

could drop to $7-7.5K by years end - with further price reductions in the mid 6K range by spring of 09.

Unless this beast produces class leading images and very clean high ISO, both Canon and Sony will be breathing a big sigh of relief regarding their high resolution DSLR's - for the time being.

The 5D II is looking better by the day..Come on Nikon D700x/D800????.

Let's get this FF/FX format into full gear for less $$$$.

If I already didn't have Nikon lenses and had $8k to blow, I would consider the Sony fairly seriously and get 24-70 16-35 Zeiss lenses and a 70-200 2.8 for that money.

MCromer said:

Is that price possibly for real?

The economy is collapsing and they want to charge 8 grand for this
camera? Did they somehow miss the memo that commercial photographers
are in a world of hurt with all the ad and marketing dollars being
frozen?

I guess now we know what the "Big" part of the announcement was --
the price!

Click to expand...

Their shareholders might begin thinking they need a new CEO after this. Or at least a new accounting department.

The marketing department has probably declared war on the accountants.

nikonjohn said:

still be substantially less costly than the downsized D3X. I don't
think that Sony or Canon are going to feel much competition from the
D3X.

Click to expand...

I don't have a horse in this race. I've no need for such a camera and wouldn't buy it if it were $4k. I'm quite content with my d300 and d700. That doesn't mean that I don't understand and sympathize with the disappointment that many are feeling now.

I'm only trying to understand the logic of the price. The 1dsIII seems to me to be the obvious target competing model. Not a lot of amateurs buying that cam, I suspect. The same will be with the d3x. I'd expect a lot more amateurs to buy the a900 or 5dII, probably the vast majority of buyers. So, I'm not sure that the price is really significant to those buyers. Even if the d3x were $5500, how many of them would fork over the extra $2k+? I suspect not many buyers of either the a900 or the 5dII would buy the d3x, even at that lower price. If that's true, then the higher price isn't nearly as out of bounds as some would make it appear.

Canon has already shown that the pros that need that type of camera will buy it, at a very high price. Of course, most any businessman loves a good deal, but $3k over a years time, isn't a lot of money to folks making more than that in one photo session. OTOH, I assume that many, if not most, of the 1dsIII buyers feel that they are getting a significant bargain, compared to the prices of MF, with a higher performance camera and bigger selection of lenses to go along with that. The d3x would be the same way.

Of course, this doesn't help the nikon faithful, both amateur and less well heeled pros that want the camera, but nikon set that price for a reason. Part of that reasoning has to be anticipated sales volume. One would assume and hope that their reasoning is based on good supporting marketing information. Of course, if their reasoning is flawed, the price will drop rather rapidly. Time will tell.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

How many bad analogies you going to make? you're up to at least 3.

When you price something at an outdated price point, you have a problem. Especially when a year ago your company set the current price point for the same body. Nikon needs to come up with 3 grand of justification very fast. And so far they have been struggling with coming up with 2k of justification between the D700 and D3.

Yes, for some people the price doesn't matter. But a lot of people it will. But more importantly they are burning their image very very bad right now. Even those who can buy it without much issue are looking at it knowing it's purely Nikon trying to screw them by 3 grand for no reason. This is not a good way for Nikon to move Canon users over. Nikon was on the path to do just that with this body. Shift all the 1Ds folks over they could get the same as they got the 1D folks. But with the price, they aren't going to move canon folks. They very well could take a loss in folks on this.

Nikon built up a lot of good vibes the past year or so with their users and people of other systems. They might have just fried all of that. If the D3X was 5grand, then people would be happy and just keep pondering the 2k difference to D700 from D3. Now they are questioning Nikon hard.

Further, look at the future model stuff. Many people were getting ready to start pondering a D700X, since that would be the next logical step. It fills the void Nikon has against Sony and Canon. Now with this D3X pricing, it says a D700X would cost 6K, 1K more than a D3. Does that make any sense? No. But lets say they make one and it cost 3K like a D700. Now Nikon has to create 5K of justification. Make a D700X someplace in the middle, still have issues. No matter what they have screwed themselves. A person thinking about a D700X in the future is now going to pass on that thought and start looking at the Sony and Canon.

If Nikon doesn't announce an amended Press Release in the next few hours stating it was a mistake and the price was suppose to be 5K they have a major problem on their hands. They just threw away the Pro market for a few years with a dumb move.

Kerry Pierce said:

Canon has already shown that the pros that need that type of camera
will buy it, at a very high price.

Click to expand...

Hmmn. I think they have shown that when there is only 1 FF dSLR on the market, people will pay that price, and that when there is only 1 20+MP FF body on the market people will pay that price. Now that the 5D2 is out with a 21MP sensor (thanks to the Alpha 900 pre-announcement) I suspect that 1Ds3 sales are cratering.

Since the photography market is cratering due to the collapse of the economy, I cannot imagine this is a good market to release a dSLR at $8000 when it offers very little unique selling proposition versus existing entrants at less than half the price.

You're right, $8k seems way too high---as in "wacko". Just how many units do they anticipate selling at $8k? The goals of sales are supposed to be 1) unit profit x volume, and 2) yanking sales away from your competitor. If the D3x were $5k to $5.5k rather than $8k, I would bet Nikon would make a heck of a lot more money, and they also would deliver a death blow to Canon's high end.

What on earth are they thinking?

Michael

MCromer said:

Is that price possibly for real?

The economy is collapsing and they want to charge 8 grand for this
camera? Did they somehow miss the memo that commercial photographers
are in a world of hurt with all the ad and marketing dollars being
frozen?

I guess now we know what the "Big" part of the announcement was --
the price!

Click to expand...

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com

I was expecting the same price range. Speed sometime is more expensive than quality in some area....

At 5k -6k I would have said wow, great job Nikon but not at that price range... This is going to be a flop...

! same sensor "design" but just doubled the pixels no reason for that extra 3k.
! No sensor cleaner.. huh ?
! No Video (gadget yes but it is available on the new 5D

! No touch screen, I was sure this was coming along as it started to show in the new coolpix...

D3x? Not for me...

--
Word and Ideas CAN change the world.

I always get a good laugh from the statements guys like you make about how companies should run their business. Nikon has been manufacturing and selling lots of cameras for a long time and they will continue to do so, despite guys like you thinking they're in big trouble. I remember guys like you predicting Sony's soon to be bancrupty because the pictures of one of their new cameras showed purple fringing. Well mister, it didn't happen.

There are quite a few decent, advanced amateur photographers on these forums but very, very few people who have the slightest clue about running a large international company and you certainly aren't one of them.

You're the only person I've seen so far saying $8000 isn't too much. The middle and upper middle class still holds the vast majority of wealth, even though per capita it doesn't compare to the rich and ultra rich. Nikon should consider that more sales at less profit will amount to a greater bottom line than fewer sales with larger profits.

The gap in price between the D3x and it's nearest competitors, the 5DMkII, the 1DsMkIII and the A900 is so huge that Nikon will lose sales they could have had. Not only is this move by Nikon going to harm their bottom line, but they're driving customers into the waiting arms of Canon and Sony.

So consider much more will Canon and Sony make because of this, compared to what Nikon will make by selling the D3x at such an outrageous price.

What a boneheaded move by Nikon. And I can't believe they aren't reading forums such as this and seeing the collective angst. Surely all these expressions of shock, ridicule, disappointment and even anger will lead them to rethink their pricing, and soon.

Nikon, what are you thinking?!?

MCromer said:

pre-announcement) I suspect that 1Ds3 sales are cratering.

Click to expand...

First of all, the sales of all cameras are down, not just the high priced models. Secondly, if your supposition is true, then the prices will be lowered, on both canon and nikon flagships. If it isn't true, then perhaps both companies have better marketing information than you do.

MCromer said:

Since the photography market is cratering due to the collapse of the
economy, I cannot imagine this is a good market to release a dSLR at
$8000 when it offers very little unique selling proposition versus
existing entrants at less than half the price.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that the half price models are anywhere near as close to either the 1ds3 or the d3x as you are trying to portray. There is a lot more to a camera than just pixel count. Otherwise, canon wouldn't be selling both the 5dII and the 1ds3. AFAIK, sony hasn't made much of an impact on the pro levels.

Personally, I'm sure that both the 5d2 and a900 are fine cameras, but I wouldn't trade either my d300 or d700 for one of them. Regardless, as I already said, time will tell.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Look up and down the posts in this thread. Everyone except you is hopping mad. You tell me how this isn't going to hurt Nikon.

I've never called someone a troll on this forum, but surely you have got to be one. That or you're completely clueless.

stevielee said:

This is an amazing MSRP from Nikon. Totally floored me.

The D3 was so perfectly priced when it came out in direct competition to
Canon's 1D3 - which it turned out to be superior to in almost every
way - for just
a few hundred dollars more.

Click to expand...

1D MkIII was introduced at 4.000& and D3 at 5000$; that's 25% in price difference and it was "perfectly priced".

Now we have 1Ds MkIII and D3x, both introduced at 8.000$ and that "totally floored" you?

I can see where the problem is; for the last month everybody was talking about how D3x is gonna cost somewhere between 4.500 and 6.000$ and now, when the inevitable has come, you're all "floored".

The ones who can tell apart wishes from reality, the price is of no surprise.

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

Kerry Pierce said:

Canon has already shown that the pros that need that type of camera
will buy it, at a very high price. Of course, most any businessman
loves a good deal, but $3k over a years time, isn't a lot of money to
folks making more than that in one photo session. OTOH, I assume
that many, if not most, of the 1dsIII buyers feel that they are
getting a significant bargain, compared to the prices of MF, with a
higher performance camera and bigger selection of lenses to go along
with that. The d3x would be the same way.

Click to expand...

That works when you don't have options. It remains to be seen if it will be nearly as effective with 2 very good high resoltution alternatives for less than half the cost.

5500 bucks is alot of money. I could SERIOUSLY eliminate over half of the "daemeon's most wanted lens" collection with that dough.

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Photo_AK said:

stevielee said:

This is an amazing MSRP from Nikon. Totally floored me.

The D3 was so perfectly priced when it came out in direct competition to
Canon's 1D3 - which it turned out to be superior to in almost every
way - for just
a few hundred dollars more.

Click to expand...

1D MkIII was introduced at 4.000& and D3 at 5000$; that's 25% in
price difference and it was "perfectly priced".

Now we have 1Ds MkIII and D3x, both introduced at 8.000$ and that
"totally floored" you?

Click to expand...

The 1Ds Mark III was announced in August 07, and released in December. That was just before the economy began taking a major beeline to the minus zone. That was also before the A900, or Canon 5DII was announced. Even Canon's 1DsIII has dropped in price and is currently selling for around $6.5 to 7K.

What is "flooring" is Nikon charging 5K more for a DSLR than Sony's A900 who made and sports essentially the same sensor that is the heart of the D3X. It's not like Nikon has an exclusive on these sensors, or that they were solely made by Nikon, as the 1DsIII's CMOS is by Canon.

Photo_AK said:

I can see where the problem is; for the last month everybody was
talking about how D3x is gonna cost somewhere between 4.500 and
6.000$ and now, when the inevitable has come, you're all "floored".

The ones who can tell apart wishes from reality, the price is of no
surprise.

--
Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did....
He also often visited my daily photoblog at
http://logatec.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...