Why the D3x price makes us angry

I follow your logic and feel the same. I am an amateur but print often for donation.

2 months ago, I looked at A900's 24mp photos and impressed by the fine detail. I seldom print very big but need to crop very often. Getting more pixel gives me freedom to crop. Knowing the high ISO and NR result, I stopped thinking about changing to Sony and decided to wait for a Nikon.My accepted price range would be around 6-6500.

I am rethinking about the A900 (hope next version would improve), even more likely to think about Canon 1DsM2, which has both D3 and D3x capability. If I change, that will be forever because I think 1DsM2 will suit my need for the rest of my life (cause I'll never turn into a pro).

Julia Borg said:

the only reason I can
imagine why Nikon are skipping on a double play is shortage of the
sensor supply.

Click to expand...

I think this is the real reason why the camera was priced at $8k. If correct, consider the alternative if Nikon had priced the camera at $5500: demand would far exceed supply, wait lists could streatch a year and then you'd really have some PO'ed customers. dave

Most amateur who want the latest gear are angry......(like me)....and pro are happy !!!

dasams said:

Julia Borg said:

the only reason I can
imagine why Nikon are skipping on a double play is shortage of the
sensor supply.

Click to expand...

I think this is the real reason why the camera was priced at $8k. If
correct, consider the alternative if Nikon had priced the camera at
$5500: demand would far exceed supply, wait lists could streatch a
year and then you'd really have some PO'ed customers. dave

Click to expand...

another POV, Sony agreed w/Nikon not to undermine a900 sales.

--
Julia

think it is time for some to "get a life". It's very simple.If you want to own the finest tools available to ply your trade, you buy them. If you happen to like the tools that Canon makes you buy canon. Many have invested 8 grand to buy into the canon top of the line cameras. It you happen to like Nikon, you will shell out 8 grand for the new top "o" the line nikon. Then you will go out and create wonderful images for display or for clients with these wonderful tools. Getting angry at a manufacturer and calling names is such a waste of time and energy when that same time and energy could be used to create wonderful images. If a person is really a photographer, he or she will see what the marketplace offers and make a decision. I suspect that some on this forum are "just pretending", thus the outrage and anger. The D3x after all is only a tool. Real photographers will look at what is offered and decide if the advanced features available in the camera will work for him. If so,he will purchase. If not, he will not purchase. Real photographers will continue to make stunning photographs. Others will continue to whine and complain and wast time and energy
--
tevanhorn

ddt332 said:

Never used Sony's lens before but my Nikon's 70-200, 14-24, and
24-70 and hell even 17-35 are all in this price range. What wrong
with Sony to charge $1699 for their 70-200? Is it a bad lens?

Click to expand...

$1699 is better than the old $1899 price. But even still, for $1625, the Nikon has VR (with the Sony you don't need it, but you're still paying more money for a lens that doesn't have that extra cost associated with it) and the Canon non-IS lens is only around $1100.

When the lens was $1899, there was just no real way of justifying it on a value basis. You either bought it or you didn't

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

tevanhorn said:

think it is time for some to "get a life". It's very simple.If you
want to own the finest tools available to ply your trade, you buy
them. If you happen to like the tools that Canon makes you buy canon.
Many have invested 8 grand to buy into the canon top of the line
cameras. It you happen to like Nikon, you will shell out 8 grand for
the new top "o" the line nikon. Then you will go out and create
wonderful images for display or for clients with these wonderful
tools. Getting angry at a manufacturer and calling names is such a
waste of time and energy when that same time and energy could be used
to create wonderful images. If a person is really a photographer, he
or she will see what the marketplace offers and make a decision. I
suspect that some on this forum are "just pretending", thus the
outrage and anger. The D3x after all is only a tool. Real
photographers will look at what is offered and decide if the advanced
features available in the camera will work for him. If so,he will
purchase. If not, he will not purchase. Real photographers will
continue to make stunning photographs. Others will continue to whine
and complain and wast time and energy
--
tevanhorn

Click to expand...

--

Exactly....make pictures....sale them.....and the 2-3K $ extra...will be something of the past...

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.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

Only those who can't afford it are angry.

The "best" comes at a price. Those who balk at the cost of admission should look at the cheaper alternatives.
--
joeyv

Sure, the 8K seems a little much. But the reaction to it is even crazier. "How dare they' and so on. Surely you expected some sort of premium over the D3/700, no? Would you have been alright with $2000 more? $1500? Would $6500 be alright?

And BTW, the cost of the D700x is going to be a similar price more, though nikon may take some of the premium out. Not only are you not going to see a D700x for a little while, but it too will have a premium on it when it's introduced. My guess is a 4K introduction, though it might depend on where the D700 is priced at that point.

And it will be worth every penny over the 5D2, assuming equal image quality. And what is going on with all these 5d2 comparisons? The D700 body is an almost fully pro body. That is simply not the case with the 5D2, and purchases are going to be paying for that differences. Now whether or not a given shooter needs them is another story, as in: did nikon build the right body for the right audience?

Nikon's never been cheap. Look how much they charged for the D2x, which was a one-trick (very low ISO) pony. Look how much they charged for the D300. You don't think they'll charge at least a grand more than Sony? And seriously, if you're that upset, just buy the sony. Oh, wait, that's right, no one wants to. Everyone wants a nikon at a sony price.... Well I want a porsche 911 at a corvette price....

I don't disagree that the 8K price is a little high, but some of these reactions are absurd.

Exactly.....even myself, i can not justify the ROI on 8000$ for now...and i prefer wait for new technology (with sensor cleaner, better focus point, etc)

But....for a pro who make 150K $ year.....it is a no brainer !!!

The D3X is a camera for established commercial studio and location photographers.

$8000 is a business expense and compared to medium format offerings is in expensive. (our studio spent $80k on an early digital 4x5...then $50k on the next version...and then lastly $30k on the third one). A single sinar digital lens ran about $7000 and this was several years ago. And then we started buying canon 1ds's starting with the first one for location work. The 1ds has always been $8000 at launch.

I should point out that all our systems were financed by our long standing relationship with our banker.

And for some perspective, just before his retirement, my father's company bought a $10 million machine that made a single part... $8000 for a tool is pretty cheap

Frankly, the D3X not for the dpreview hobbyist crowd. I agree with the "get a life and move on" sentiment.

pgphoto_ca said:

tevanhorn said:

think it is time for some to "get a life". It's very simple.If you
want to own the finest tools available to ply your trade, you buy
them. If you happen to like the tools that Canon makes you buy canon.
Many have invested 8 grand to buy into the canon top of the line
cameras. It you happen to like Nikon, you will shell out 8 grand for
the new top "o" the line nikon. Then you will go out and create
wonderful images for display or for clients with these wonderful
tools. Getting angry at a manufacturer and calling names is such a
waste of time and energy when that same time and energy could be used
to create wonderful images. If a person is really a photographer, he
or she will see what the marketplace offers and make a decision. I
suspect that some on this forum are "just pretending", thus the
outrage and anger. The D3x after all is only a tool. Real
photographers will look at what is offered and decide if the advanced
features available in the camera will work for him. If so,he will
purchase. If not, he will not purchase. Real photographers will
continue to make stunning photographs. Others will continue to whine
and complain and wast time and energy
--
tevanhorn

Click to expand...

--
Exactly....make pictures....sale them.....and the 2-3K $ extra...will
be something of the past...

Click to expand...

evil_girl said:

Ok, here's the deal.

1. you have to look at the acceptable quality yield % of
manufacturing for the new sensors. The cost of the sensor is derived
from that data. It could be well over $500 or more per sensor.
(guess here)
2. time and ewo dollars to work on the new camera, quality testing,
fw design and testing.... all takes money.
3. of course 40% or more in profit margin.

These things all add up, and yes we would like to think that Nikon
would sell us such an awesome monster of a camera for less money, but
would you charge less for a shoot you did because everyone wanted
your images for less money? I didn't think so.

Yes, I would love this camera. Will I be getting one, no, too
expensive.
--
The one with the most SB900's wins.

I think McNally is winning so far.

Click to expand...

Many valid points but (at least) one (more), perhaps overriding...

The size of the market over which to amortize the development costs. Many (if not most) bitching over the lesser megapixel count of the D3 have no real NEED for the higher pixel count and despite the protestations would be unlikely to buy it any way.

Lesser but still significant is the fluctuating exchange rate between various currencies.

--
Ric

I am not a pro photographer (even if i have a D3, D700, etc and the best lens).....I am a CA (chartered accountant)....and i agree 200% with you

Any pro....(like a dentist) need to spend many 100K $ for there equipement...and people are complaining for maybe for 2000$ D3X overprice.......it's a joke !

My view

Disappointment more than anger. Some of us landscape shooters are really salivating for that high-resolution camera but want something that doesn't break the bank. Going $3000 over the previous $5000 D2X shelf during a global economic downturn? That's just sad and funny at the same time. And yes, I know that some people can afford it and think that the price is justified; good for them.

Canon and Sony shooters now have their high-MP pro/hobbiest camera and many of us Nikon users are waiting for the parallel offering from Nikon. When a Nikon D700x comes out (and is under $5000), all of this sadness and anger will subside because there will be a camera for everybody. -Joe

--------------------------------------------
Joe Braun Photography
http://www.citrusmilo.com/

Well

The majority here wanted a 5dmk2 killer.

On paper, the d3x is almost perfect, and the images bear this out.

what we got is a 1ds equaller in far too many ways - to really hurt Canon's sales it needed to be cheaper. Else there'd be no moaning.

For a year now we've enjoyed the higher ground after years of feeling rather uncomfortable around the Canonite baiting.

However, if the opinions are there that we feel treated roughly, they're valid, no smoke without fire, sorry.

Ironically, I could actually afford it.. but I won't. For my needs Hi Res needs to be portable, trekkable, so the D3 is the workhorse, the hi res light camera would be my hobby camera

i believe in the right tool for the job, not the nice to haves, my photowork that I do is apt for the d3 - nothing comes close. For my fun side of things, you know I'm rather tempted by adding a 5dmk2.

If i was a pro....i will say to Nikon add sensor cleaning, add more focus point, etc.....to the D3X......and set the price to 9000$ or even more....

I believe the D3X with only more MP...came to fast...

That will separate amateur from the pro.....and my customer and banker will be happy....

better than i put it..

RomanJohnston said:

Nikon has never had a pro body over $5000.....

Now I know times are a changing.....and I could have even seen $6500.

But to put it at a price point of Canon's top of the line...(and as
Thom says...without the premium support in line with the price)

I mean....the new 5D II is just hitting the market......at a
pricepoint that is quite attractive.

They either needed to offer a D3X at a lower price point (which I
think they would have ANOTHER home run on their hands) or make sure
that both the pros AND those looking seriously at the new 5D II would
have an option to get a D700X.

Its a thinning economy out there.....and they will have to fight for
every share of that thinning market.....which (in my opinion) they
just gave back to Canon.

They had Canon on the ropes with the D300/D3/D700 1-2-3
punch.....they could have issued a knockout blow if they played this
right and been on top for at least another 1-2 years till Canon
scrambled to answer Nikons major blows....

Sad......thats all...just sad at what could have been for the company
I belive in.....and that we all could have won.

Roman

--
'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our
darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be
brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.

Actually, who are we not to be?'

--Marianne Williamson

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Click to expand...

markmark said:

i suggest those who will purchase the d3x fall into two groups..

1) rich buyers that $8000 is not that much to them

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)

neither of those groups will revolt or whine

Click to expand...

...and neither of those 2 groups is large enough to make Nikon any money on a D3x at $8k. What are we talking about, 1--2,000 cameras per year? But in any case, that completely misses the point which is that Nikon has alienated a large mass of core users who believe they should have an option for a $3--4k priced camera with a 20+ MP sensor. When you add new markets you must be sure to care for the markets you already serve. Sales volume is the engine that provides the revenue a company like Nikon must have to innovate and provide what its market craves.

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com

bills_pix said:

debruyne said:

Brand-loyalty has got a dent.

Click to expand...

Why are some people forgetting that Nikon is in the business of
maximizing profits, not keeping us happy?

They obviously see more profit to be made with a lower volume at $8k
than a higher volume at $5-6k. It is as simple as that.

Click to expand...

Two things:

First, making your market happy is the ONE AND ONLY way a company succeeds and is profitable.

Second, there is no possible way Nikon is going to make more profit from selling a small volume of D3x at $8k than by selling a far larger volume at $5--6k. The profit is vastly outweighed by numbers. You can do the calculations yourself.

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com