I SAID "there is no way they are going to release a new 18 MP camera with inferior resolution etc just to keep the price moderate." Then you said "why would you presume worse iso performance etc." SO THEREFORE, I mean Nikon will offer a strong product at a premium price. Oh, funny that's what you said too, what an amazing coincidence, we agree!
Okay, but what if it doesn't come out in March 2010? What if the next iteration is a D3XS with 1080 HD video and tweaked high iso for $9,000, then nothing after that for a year except maybe a 7D type DX with 16 or 18 MP? There are a lot of things Nikon can do, and can't do, that prevent a true 5DM2 competitor. I don't see one good reason from anyone, especially not from Nikon that they have any interest in a 5DM2 competitor, even though they must clearly see the windfall profits it has gained Canon, that camera is STILL selling like hot cakes. If I worked at a high level at Nikon, I would be sick over this.
No need to shout, I just didn't read your post the way you intended it. Having just re-read your post, I still feel your position could be more clearly stated -- for instance, 18 MP (all other things being equal) is less resolution than 21 MP.
I suspect a "tweener" product, but not because Nikon is trying to mollify D3x owners, rather because of what I wrote in my first reply about Nikon making a break with Sony. Breaking with Sony may already be having the desired effect for Nikon, the A550 sensor only has one customer, and the price of that camera is a little high (which may be a result of Nikon not helping offset the sensor's production costs by purchasing boatloads of them).
High ISO performance and high resolution may be in conflict with one another for reasons other than just the size of the photosites. Color separation is also an issue.
We can talk about "what if" scenarios all the time. The difference between your what if and my what if is I do see an interest from Nikon in competing in the mid-high range FF market. If they were not interested in this market, they would not have produced the D700 in the first place. The fact that it has been so successful, despite the higher MP Canon. The success of the canon and the Nikon can only whet their appetite for more money with an improved camera, and they know that all good things come to an end. There is a larger market for the mid-high range DSLR than for the premium DSLR.
The new sensor is already there (oops! ;-)
A camera will always offer more than it's previous model, it can be by features, image quality etc. Lets wait indeed!
Right. The problem is not about just putting something in the camera - you need to first develop the technology to do it. Current state-of-the-art 12 MP FX is approximately two stops ahead of current 24 MP FX in terms of SNR (after averaging pixels corresponding to equal size area in print) at equal ISOs. This puts the 24 MP cameras in a position of being inferior for most uses apart from tripod-bound base ISO shooting of still subjects.
SNR is only one image quality parameter. Regardless of that, where are you getting two stops? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34033084 You claimed one stop for the D3/D700 over the D3x and cited DXO Mark, but going to their website contradicted your assertion.
Funny thing is that the D3s is also inferior to itself until you put it on a tripod and use it at or near base ISO. Since this happens to be what I (and others) often do to optimize image quality, it stands to reason that for many the choice for optimum image quality is a different set of priorities than what is offered by Nikon (and yes, Canon too). As for subject needing to be still, that is not necessarily so.
Do you think Nikon can walk and chew gum at the same time? The only thing keeping Nikon from offering a D3x sensor in a D700 body (and calling it a "D700x") is Nikon. If Nikon continues to sit on this issue, they will end up two generations behind in the high MP niche and continue to lose sales to Canon and Sony.
Ironically, I don't have a Canon DSLR, I have a Sony A850 and a Nikon D300. Between them I'm getting everything I can reasonably ask for right now.
Nikon could have. They already have a lot of fine cameras, they're just missing one right now (a "D700x") and the reasoning for not having it are perplexing and rather frustrating to some of us.
Too bad for both then that Sony came out with the A900 a year ago, and now the A850.
You contradict yourself here. Nikon is pursuing what you consider a good marketing strategy by ignoring market demands. Perhaps you mean Nikon should continue to resist consumers and budget constrained enthusiasts who want D3x quality sensors to placate their more well-heeled enthusiasts and professional customers, and that is good because that is what you want.
Replacing my 11x14 and 12x18 prints with 16x20 and 20x30 prints has had a tangible effect for me. The prints on my walls have a lot more wow factor to them now.
I bought an A850 and it doesn't feel "rushed-to-market" to me.
