Eight thousand dollars?!

Ilkka Nissilä · Dec 1, 2008

PhotoTraveler said:
Has it occurred to those like you that maybe you mis-judge the A900?

That's a possibility. I am looking at sample images provided by both manufacturers, and there is a world of a difference. If Sony doesn't know how to use their camera to their advantage, and the quality can be much better then that's good for Sony users who have the skills and software.

PhotoTraveler said:
Many people passed judgement based on the horrible JPEGs. The RAWs
are a very different story.

Good to know.

PhotoTraveler said:
But
the core of the sensor is most definitely looking to be the same.

Based on what information? Nikon says that the sensor has optics unique to the D3X. Maybe that's how there is so little color fringing in the images as compared to the Sony samples?

PhotoTraveler said:
Lets wait for a run off between the 2 by people who know how to do
more than just shoot JPEGs to see what happens.

There are no manual focus lenses for the Sony, no tilt/shift lenses, most autofocus lenses are screwdriver-type, etc. I would not be interested in investing in any system that doesn't have a range of PC lenses.

The D3X is too expensive for me but given the sample images I consider the price justified.

Per-Christian Nilssen · Dec 1, 2008

My NAS suddenly got cured!

mike kobal · Dec 1, 2008

Sony couldn'd have hoped for better advertisment.
Nikon just got in line for Chapter 11.

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!

--
mike kobal
http://www.mikekobal.com

natureman · Dec 1, 2008

Ilkka Nissilä said:
Ilkka Nissilä said:

Has it occurred to those like you that maybe you mis-judge the A900?

Click to expand...

That's a possibility. I am looking at sample images provided by both
manufacturers, and there is a world of a difference. If Sony doesn't
know how to use their camera to their advantage, and the quality can
be much better then that's good for Sony users who have the skills
and software.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Many people passed judgement based on the horrible JPEGs. The RAWs
are a very different story.

Click to expand...

Good to know.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

But
the core of the sensor is most definitely looking to be the same.

Click to expand...

Based on what information? Nikon says that the sensor has optics
unique to the D3X. Maybe that's how there is so little color fringing
in the images as compared to the Sony samples?

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Lets wait for a run off between the 2 by people who know how to do
more than just shoot JPEGs to see what happens.

Click to expand...

There are no manual focus lenses for the Sony, no tilt/shift lenses,
most autofocus lenses are screwdriver-type, etc.

Where so you get the idea that there are no manual focus or tilt/shift lenses available for Sony cameras?

Ilkka Nissilä said:
I would not be
interested in investing in any system that doesn't have a range of PC
lenses.

The D3X is too expensive for me but given the sample images I
consider the price justified.

megaresp · Dec 1, 2008

Fred Ferkel said:
Fred Ferkel wrote:
b) there is no camera on the market which matches
the 3Dx's specs so comparing its price with that of the
A900 or 5DII is ludicrous.

No, it isn't. I don't know how working pros will regard the $3,000 premium. If their actions reflect the opinions of people in this thread, Nikon has a problem.

Whether or not the D3x ought to be compared with the A900 or 5DII is irrelevant.

Fred Ferkel said:
c) people are upset because Nikon released a camera
which they desire but can't afford.

If you were a Nikon marketing executive (I'm not suggesting you are), this would be a dangerous attitude to have. Especially as it overlooks people who can afford it, and are upset about the $3,000 premium.

Fred Ferkel said:
d) understand the law of diminishing returns.

Oh the irony!

Fred Ferkel said:
e) early adapters always pay a price.

This isn't always the case. Plenty of times the company ends up paying the price because they made a mistake when it came to selecting price.

And please don't take this to mean I think Nikon will go broke if the D3x fails in the market. It's a single model. The company can stand a failure or two.

What is clear, is that Nikon are not first to market with 20+ megapixels. Neither are they first to market with a pro-spec 20+ megapixel camera.

There is nothing early about the D3x. This is a clue as to how the market is likely to view a high price in the complete absence of anything that explains the $3,000 premium.

Fred Ferkel said:
g) If $6'000 is OK for the D3x then saying $8'000
isn't, is simply ridiculous.

Only if the price you set has no impact on your bottom line.

Fred Ferkel said:
Who would let $2'000 come in the way of owning the
most advanced DSLR in the world?

I must have overlooked all the features in the D3x that make it the most advanced DSLR in the world.

However, now that you've said you think it's the most advanced DSLR in the world, I do understand where you're coming from.

Fred Ferkel said:
For people who know marketing, sales and
management, it's easy to understand why
it's priced the way it is.

Is that so? Do you understand where they're coming from? And if you do, why are you having such a hard time explaining it to the rest of us?

echelon2004 · Dec 1, 2008

Don't know about the US, but over here, commercial shooting is gaining a lot due to the recession. Companies spend more money to sell than what they used to.

It's not a camera aimed for the masses, and I figure that Nikon will quite easily sell each body they have capacity to produce, which would indicate that the price is right.

I saw some early images from the camera and not counting the Digital MF cameras with photosites 9 microns or larger, it can comfortably compete with all cameras made this far on quality. And remeber, it does come with an F-mount

That's a whole bunch of money saved right there.
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

tissunique · Dec 1, 2008

There will be high income pros who will buy it at this price without batting an eyelid, and pay for it in a couple of fashion jobs. And it's these photographers who are looking to competitive advantage, use of existing lenses, etc. without paying very high medium format digi prices. So for them it's something of a bargain whose investment will be recovered quickly, and if the price drops they are not really worried - they will want it as soon as it's available. So Nikon will grab a nice profit for the few thousand that they sell (10,000, 20,000 units???). My guess is that January 09 or so will see a D800 offering some of the goodies missing from this pro model and that are not really needed by D3X's initial target market. There's also the wealthy gadget freaks who'll buy it as well of course, and seldom use it...
Tony

tissunique · Dec 1, 2008

Oh please! What you've just posted is nonsense
Tony

Gary-UK · Dec 1, 2008

Re-read my post Fred (and the ones earlier in this thread); I clearly state UK prices.

In the UK we're shafted even more by Nikon's pricing of the D3X.

Here are UK prices for you. They may not compare to lower US prices.

D3 price on release - £3500 approx
Best D3 price now - £2500 approx
D3X RRP (recommended retail price) - £5500 approx (from DPReview release)
Canon 5DII - £1920 approx
Sony A900 - £1680 approx
(Source: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk )

So, in the UK at least, the D3X will cost £3000 more than the D3 and more than £3500 more than the Canon and Sony.

So in answer to your question, I do my shopping in the UK. No doubt other European countries may pay even more than we do.
--
Regards

Gary
http://www.pbase.com/gazcarts/

tissunique · Dec 1, 2008

Nikon will know to the nearest ten how many will be sold at this price
Tony

glacierpete · Dec 1, 2008

noText

rhlpetrus · Dec 1, 2008

5.9 micra for A900 and 5.49 for D3X. Iso 100 x Iso 200.

Definitely not same sensor.

Ilkka Nissilä said:
Chubly said:

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.

Click to expand...

The chip is not the one used in the Sony. The image quality of the
D3X samples, particularly skin texture is from another planet.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Jeff Hicks · Dec 1, 2008

... and the thousands of other Nikon users who are quite happy with 12mp, as there seem to be a lot of unhappy campers who will now be flooding the market with top quality Nikon equipment, lookig for buyers, as they switch to Canon and Sony because they 'need' 20+mp to take good photographs
--
Mine: http://flickr.com/photos/7955626@N03/

Jessica Hope · Dec 1, 2008

MCromer said:
Same Sensor

Incorrect. The 24.5MP sensor style might be identical, but the actual steppers won't be Sony ones, and I'll wager that the microlenses and Bayer filtration are totally different. Word on the street is that Nikon hired Sony fabs to produce the chip. If you think the sensors are the same, you've got another thing comming.

MCromer said:
Same performance

There's been no performance comparisons so far, so you're clearly trolling to say that. Being said, due to the previously mentioned item, I'd expect the performance to trump the A700 many a time over.

Many.

Jessica

O5iris · Dec 1, 2008

Don't doubt it.

One thing is 'most of us don't have this kind of money to spend on a camera'. But that's not the only reality. There are a LOT of wealthy people around the world (pros and many amateurs) who will not think twice before getting their hands on this baby, recession or no recession and Nikon will have Sendai at full capacity with the 3 pro bodies (and undoubtfuly the best pro '35mm' combo in the market).

If you tell me that a lot of people who were waiting for the D3x will stick to Canon or the Alfa900, I will have to agree too.. only a Nikon owner with some good money already invested in Nikon equipment will buy a D3x..in most cases.

I agree that it's a lot but it's a very tempting piece of photographic technology, and the price will drop soon enough.

Cheers!
Nuno B.

carlsgenome · Dec 1, 2008

I've held off on thinking much about medium format for a carry around people and landscape camera. $10K to $40K just seems like a lot for a camera that is going to be harder to carry on airplanes and around town than a Nikon.

If the colors on the D3x are as good as the D3, or nearly so, then finally there is a mobile camera that can take some abuse and uses my existing lenses and still takes 20+Mp images. It would be a good second body, and if the colors are up to snuff, then a good primary body on some days.

In short the D3x is a compromise that might work.

Toermalijn · Dec 1, 2008

echelon2004 said:
Don't know about the US, but over here, commercial shooting is
gaining a lot due to the recession. Companies spend more money to
sell than what they used to.

It's not a camera aimed for the masses, and I figure that Nikon will
quite easily sell each body they have capacity to produce, which
would indicate that the price is right.

I saw some early images from the camera and not counting the Digital
MF cameras with photosites 9 microns or larger, it can comfortably
compete with all cameras made this far on quality. And remeber, it
does come with an F-mount That's a whole bunch of money saved
right there.
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

I must say that the pictures on the site are outstanding...price, i am not sure in this situation this price is justified, even it's a nikon.

Toermalijn · Dec 1, 2008

O5iris said:
Don't doubt it.
One thing is 'most of us don't have this kind of money to spend on a
camera'. But that's not the only reality. There are a LOT of wealthy
people around the world (pros and many amateurs) who will not think
twice before getting their hands on this baby, recession or no
recession and Nikon will have Sendai at full capacity with the 3 pro
bodies (and undoubtfuly the best pro '35mm' combo in the market).
If you tell me that a lot of people who were waiting for the D3x will
stick to Canon or the Alfa900, I will have to agree too.. only a
Nikon owner with some good money already invested in Nikon equipment
will buy a D3x..in most cases.
I agree that it's a lot but it's a very tempting piece of
photographic technology, and the price will drop soon enough.

Cheers!
Nuno B.

To be fair, both the sony a900 and the canon 5dII can't compete image quality wise. it is truely leaps over the a900!

glacierpete · Dec 1, 2008

During recessions usually marketing budgets are cut drastically. Recessions are the time for bean counters. Just watch the relation of open positions in your country for marketing managers in relation to finance managers.

echelon2004 said:
Don't know about the US, but over here, commercial shooting is
gaining a lot due to the recession. Companies spend more money to
sell than what they used to.

It's not a camera aimed for the masses, and I figure that Nikon will
quite easily sell each body they have capacity to produce, which
would indicate that the price is right.

I saw some early images from the camera and not counting the Digital
MF cameras with photosites 9 microns or larger, it can comfortably
compete with all cameras made this far on quality. And remeber, it
does come with an F-mount That's a whole bunch of money saved
right there.
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

Louis_Dobson · Dec 1, 2008

but I dispute the conclusion. I think $8K is too high to sustain, they just won't sell enough, and the camera's mere existence taints the D3's previous "top dog" status.

The obvious choices are:

1) They've cocked up.
2) They'll cream off the "must haves" and drop the price.
3) The D700x will be with us shortly/

We'll see.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Eight thousand dollars?!

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

New member

Leading Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts