Reading mode: Light Dark

Why the D3x price makes us angry

Go to last post
it makes"us" angry because it has finally hit the tipping point where many realize that their "needs" really are much less than the current state of the art in cameras.

the" gear head" vs "photographer" are now in conflict because of the substantial price attached to the new offering.
 
markmark said:
it makes"us" angry because it has finally hit the tipping point where
many realize that their "needs" really are much less than the current
state of the art in cameras.

the" gear head" vs "photographer" are now in conflict because of the
substantial price attached to the new offering.
Click to expand...
For me this post really hits the nail on the head. I've owned a D1X, and I currently own a D2X, but I don't have any plans to buy a D3X immediately, because I really don't need the resolution for my work, and the money could be better used on lenses right now. For my wildlife photography the D300 I just bought is actually more useful to me, with it's 12.3mp DX crop and 8fps at full resolution and around 2 stop better high ISO than the D2X it's a reasonable replacement.

I'm also not at all "angry" about the price of the D3X, the only other camera that's a direct equivalent as far as resolution, build and features, not just resolution, cost just as much when released, and offers less. This isn't Nikon's competition for prosumer full frame SLRs, it's their flagship camera, it's thier offering for medium format digital shooters who want a more versatile alternative without giving up the image quality they're used to. It's for sports/photojournalist/wildlife shooters who want that kind of resolution in a camera that can still do the job of a D3/D700/D300 if needed. In other words it's a tool for photographers who have a use for that tool, and they will buy it.
 
mn57 said:
The $2--3k premium is not the point. It is the fact that it is so
transparently just empty markup. I described why there was a strong
negative reaction by a significant number of core customers. And I
offered a solution that would have both satisfied everyone and made
Nikon more money.
Click to expand...
No, what you offered was "I want xyz at _$abc_." The truth is, you weren't going to buy a D3x at 6k, 7k or 8k. So what it is and what it cost is really irrelevant to you. The D700 didn't come out at the same time as the D3, and there was never any reason to expect that Nikon was going to put out the D700x at the same time as the D3x. Get over it.
 
mn57 said:
The $2--3k premium is not the point. It is the fact that it is so
transparently just empty markup.
Click to expand...
It's only an empty markup if you expect Nikon to just completely absorb any costs associated with development of this camera. It's not simply a matter of throwing an off the shelf sensor in an existing body. It's modifying that sensor to their own specifications, and turning that into a mass production part. It's getting all the D3's image processing hardware, assuming it's even the same to work with a completely different sensor, not to mention all the other hardware. It's getting the desired output from the image processing software that people will expect from Nikon. I'm sure all of this requires a lot of extensive testing as well as some trial and error. This is also the initial cost, which I'm sure will drop closer to the current 1Ds Mark III cost over time. Yes I do think this camera would be a bigger hit initially if it were 6k, but I'd still say that most people who really need such a camera for their work will end up buying it. I also think it says something about the product that the price is the only thing people seem to be complaining about, especially after seeing sample images. There are usually countless negative comments about initial sample images when any new camera is released.
 
Dragos Nenciu said:
For the type of shooting you do with a 24mpx camera the extra
features of the d3x would not matter much.
Click to expand...
I'm impressed. for this type of shooting I definitely do not need best of the class tracking, af, fps. have you ever tried shooting a polo scene?

--
Julia
 
Eh? And what exactly do you know of my intentions?
Jim Keye said:
mn57 said:
The $2--3k premium is not the point. It is the fact that it is so
transparently just empty markup. I described why there was a strong
negative reaction by a significant number of core customers. And I
offered a solution that would have both satisfied everyone and made
Nikon more money.
Click to expand...
No, what you offered was "I want xyz at _$abc_." The truth is, you
weren't going to buy a D3x at 6k, 7k or 8k. So what it is and what it
cost is really irrelevant to you. The D700 didn't come out at the
same time as the D3, and there was never any reason to expect that
Nikon was going to put out the D700x at the same time as the D3x. Get
over it.
Click to expand...
--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com
 
People know that Nikon could sell the D3x for $5,000 or less and still make a good profit.

They had a choice and they chose sky high. Why? I don't think it has to do with greed. They can't possibly expect the D3x to be a top seller at that price. I rather think someone at Nikon said "Canon had prestige cameras for years. Now we have one too".

I'm personally not very interested in the D3x. Too heavy, too bulky. But I'm as angry as everyone else, because I can no longer see an affordable D700x in the near future.

At the same time, I have to say I'm incredibly impressed with the sample images I've seen.

Regards
Lasse
 
Julia Borg said:
Julia Borg said:
Had Nikon simultaneously offered a D700x with a ~ $3,500 price, there
would have been no rebellion.
Click to expand...
D700X for 5000 available simultaneously or before D3X for 7500 IMHO
is the best move and would help recover R&D money much faster.
Click to expand...
I doubt nikon had much R&D invested in a sensor that is likely sony but with nikon input, i.e. lowering the base iso. And it is essentially a d3 with a different sensor. From what I've read there's no comment on the buffer size as if the design set isn't finalized yet so there's a chance it even has the same memory size buffer as the d3.

It seems users got very accustomed to nikon giving away pro features to the d300 and givng them a $2000 instant rebate off the d3 when they put out the d700. Maybe nikon wants to start making more profit now?

I don't see a d700x coming even within the next year. It is clear the d700 is nikon's consumer priced FF offering.
 
ehlarson said:
Nikon is clearly gouging - offering this sensor only at the high end
to milk their customers before offering it in a lower cost camera.
Click to expand...
' Milk their costumers' ? You don't HAVE to buy theD3X ... nor do you have to stick with Nikon

Also, one should ask oneself: do I really need 24MP?

When the D3 hit the market I shortly after the introduction got one (for not much less then the MRSP), as the inferior high ISO of the D2X was frustrating me under low light shooting conditions (I'm a long time Nikon user so for practical and emotional reasons considering to switch was no option) so I felt I really needed the higher ISO (with improved body AF etc as a bonus)

For me the D3X is tempting for the 10MP DX mode in combination with D3 handling and AF (I shoot sports so I want the best AF I can get) with the 24MP FX mode as a bonus, but for me personally I don't see much real world need for an extra 12 MP

Sure, it would have been nice if the D3X was offered at 5500-6500 Euros, but given the original price of the Canon counterpart 1DSIII this initial MSRP is IMHO normal (think of the cries of outrage if the pricing had been set close to the D3 original MRSP)

And who knows what prices will be in six months or a year (eg the D3 was introduced in the Netherlands for around Eur 5000 at 'normal' retailers, and is now selling for as low as Eur 3385 at the same shops)

And after all. it's a Nikon so why treat it as if the quality dictates a lower price then the competition (no, IMHO I don't think the A900 and 5DII are direct competitors, there is more that makes the difference then just MP)

--
all in a day's work
 
because I have not need for the awesome firepower of D3X.
Nor will I buy D3, D700, D300 for the same reason.
But if I were a professional photographer, I would buy D3X.
45 years ago, I bought a NikonF Photomic T and it paid for itself.

33 years ago, I bought an HP55 for close to $500 when I could have bought an TI for about $100. The HP55 more than paid for itself at work.
--
ecube
 
no text
 
Jim Keye said:
The truth is, you
weren't going to buy a D3x at 6k, 7k or 8k. So what it is and what it
cost is really irrelevant to you.
Click to expand...
Most of the whiners in this forum are exactly in the same situation.

This entire forum is becoming way too much like a 3rd grade classroom full of spoiled little brats whining about the candy that they can't afford.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net
 
I think its a bit different. The feeling wasnt the same when Nikon stuck with DX while Canon were into their 2nd gen 1Ds. I think a lot of ppl are upset because they just cant justify the price anymore.
mn57 said:
I've followed many of the threads regarding the D3x price. I believe
I know where much of the market psychology behind the "D3x Revolt"
originates, and I thought I would offer up my analysis to see if
anyone else feels it has merit.

Like enthusiasts and practitioners in any creative/personal growth
pursuit, Nikon users expect there to be an upgrade path to
continually provide options that meet their growing needs. Cutting
right to the chase here, the anger at Nikon's D3x pricing results
from feeling ignored and unimportant.

Buying into a system (bodies, lenses, flash) means that the
manufacturer has convinced you to roll the dice believing they will
be there to suit your evolving needs at a price/performance level you
can handle. Many Nikon customers have wanted 20+ MP form Nikon since
it was first offered by Canon, long before Sony jumped in. We've been
more than patient, continually thinking "Nikon is a leader and they
will meet my needs soon", while fighting off the self-doubt that we
made a good decision not to switch to Canon or Sony instead of
continuing to invest in Nikon equipment. The key words here are
"hope" and "soon". We know that we can get 20+ MP from Canon and Sony
for under $3k and then the D3x, using an almost identical Sony
sensor, is introduced at $8k which puts it totally outside the grasp
for most Nikon DSLR owners. By clearly inflating the price of its
first 20+ MP entry in order to go after a totally different market
(medium format) while leaving the rest of us hanging out to dry,
Nikon has essentialy said "Tough! You guys can wait until we choose
to service you."

Had Nikon simultaneously offered a D700x with a ~ $3,500 price, there
would have been no rebellion. Lots of existing customers would have
their needs met and the market would be happy and confident about
their future with Nikon. Now a lot of users seriously question
whether Nikon has a commitment to offer them the tools that, for a
couple of years running, they could have gotten elsewhere at an
acceptable price. And this happens while you are staring at your
$10k+ investment in proprietary Nikon equipment.

Companies rise and fall on choices of how to meet it's target
market's needs. I see the D3x debacle as a very, very bad strategy
for long term success. It is a lot of goodwill and positive feelings
undone in the span of a day. I think it is a marketing blunder of
massive proportions.

Anyone else have feelings along these lines?

--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com
Click to expand...
 
Both of you are making a flawed assumption. There are those who can't afford the D3x and there are those who WON'T afford the D3x for various reasons. Of course, neither of those groups is monolithic. And it seems that someone who doesn't see it your way is a "whiner". Where is the logic here?
almari said:
Jim Keye said:
The truth is, you
weren't going to buy a D3x at 6k, 7k or 8k. So what it is and what it
cost is really irrelevant to you.
Click to expand...
Most of the whiners in this forum are exactly in the same situation.

This entire forum is becoming way too much like a 3rd grade classroom
full of spoiled little brats whining about the candy that they can't
afford.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net
Click to expand...
--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com
 
We are missing the point in this "price point" issue.

The D3x is NOT in the same market as a Sony 900 or Canon 5D, regardless of the number of mega pixels.

The D3x is a professional tool, more comparable and in the same market segment as the Canon EOS 1ds..... Which is not cheap either.

One cannot compare say a Porsche with a Nissan, even if they have the same size engine.

Yes , they are probably gouging a little bit but they have a right to charge what the market will bear at introduction.

If we really think about it, 8K is not that much money once you get into the medium format catagory.

Have a great day
--
CKL
 
you say.....People know that Nikon could sell the D3x for $5,000 or less and still make a good profit.

you apparently work at nikon in the financial department.
so tell us...what is the actual costs of the camera..

and while you are at it......exactly how do you define "good profit"

you win...dumbest comment
 
I have never in my life seen so much winning about a product.

I have no doubt the D3X will be an amazing camera with mind blowing detailed photos.
Why is every one assumeing Nikon has priced the camera to gouge the buyer.

I would surely think they have a standard percentage markup for their products like any other company, and maybe a little cushion with new products to offer coupons or rebates latter.

If you truly need the megapixels and and can't afford the $8,000 then there are other options available to you.

I would love the details and extra room for cropping, but it is out of my price range.

I think if Nikon has made any mistakes in pricing I think they priced the D300 and D700 to low.
 
mn57 said:
Eh? And what exactly do you know of my intentions?
Click to expand...
I don't know your intentions. I do know what you wrote, and it's pretty clear:
mn57 said:
We know that we can get 20+ MP from Canon and Sony
for under $3k and then the D3x, using an almost identical Sony
sensor, is introduced at $8k which puts it totally outside the grasp
for most Nikon DSLR owners. By clearly inflating the price of its
first 20+ MP entry in order to go after a totally different market
(medium format) while leaving the rest of us hanging out to dry,
Nikon has essentialy said "Tough! You guys can wait until we choose
to service you."

Had Nikon simultaneously offered a D700x with a ~ $3,500 price, there
would have been no rebellion.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone would extrapolate from that that you intend to buy a D3x at 8K. I also think most would conclude you're looking for a 3500 D700x. But you're right, you didn't explicitly state that.

(And for the record, the the price of the D3x is not about medium format.)

But I'll stand by my assumption: you have no intention of forking over 6-8K for a body. Heck you didn't even take the logical step of saying "the 3K premium over the D3 suggests too high a price for the D700x."

You know, I'm sorry, I don't mean to direct this directly at you, but rather at all the whining on the forum. Nikon's will get the message, no doubt, though I fear some of the rest of us may be beat silly with it too in the meanwhile.
 
Finally, someone makes since, well said Matthew.
matthew saville said:
Obviously you have an interest in debating this in a civilized way,
so I'll oblige... Hopefully replies to my comment can be
constructive or at least respectful...

So, here goes:

1.) Are we forgetting what Canon has ALWAYS charged for their "true
equivalent" to the D3X? For three generations now, the 1Ds series
has always cost $8000 at it's debut, and cameras that even come close
in resolution for a lesser price have been at least 12 months behind
it. Canon did NOT release the 5D mk2 at the same time as the 1Ds
mk3. In fact there was a gap larger than 12 months between the
announcements.
Click to expand...
--
http://ridingtheedge.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top