Does the D700 cannibalize sales of the D3 significantly?

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

I doubt anyone on this forum could actually answer your question.....unless we have a senior Nikon exec posting who doesn't mind leaking such things.

JackM said:

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

Click to expand...

You phrase your question in two ways that are significantly different.

1. cannibalize sales of the D3 significantly
2. killed sales of the D3

2 above is obviously not true. The D3 and D3s have features in them that make them appealing to a large crowd of photographers and make them a better choice in these cases over the D700.

Does the D700 cannibalize sales of the D3? Of course it does. Nikon would sell a lot more D3 bodies if the D700 didn't exist. But what does significantly mean? The availability of the D700 also takes sales away from the lower (and cheaper) crop sensor models like the D300. Those that would never shell out for a D3 will shell out extra for a D700 over a D300.

Cannibalizing sales of another model is not necessarily a bad thing. The point (from a business perspective) is to maximize profit. You have to take into account sales numbers and profit margin.

And to your point of the AF system. While the AF module in the D700 is apparently the same hardware unit as in the D3 there are carefully conducted tests that show that it does not perform quite as well as the D3 unit. The difference is very small. But for a sports professional (e.g.) that tiny difference makes the D3 worth the extra cash outlay. So the common man gets a decent AF system in the D700 and the pro still buys the D3.

JackM said:

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

Click to expand...

--
Mike Dawson

Quick easy reply, try to find a D3s in stock any where in the USA. As soon as a shipment hits the shelves it is sold out. I am saving for a D3s and would not consider a D700 as a substitute even though it is about half the price of the D3s.
--
Conrad
---------------------------------------------------
Show Low, Arizona

Although the D700 did not cannibalize D3S sales, it did on the D3. See any D700S coming out?

Mr Gadget said:

Quick easy reply, try to find a D3s in stock any where in the USA. As soon as a shipment hits the shelves it is sold out. I am saving for a D3s and would not consider a D700 as a substitute even though it is about half the price of the D3s.
--
Conrad
---------------------------------------------------
Show Low, Arizona

Click to expand...

brianric said:

Although the D700 did not cannibalize D3S sales, it did on the D3. See any D700S coming out?

Click to expand...

"Cannibalize" is not necessarily a bad term. It's all about total sales and profit margin. To think that Nikon wouldn't sell more D3s cameras if the D700 didn't exist is wishful thinking. Therefore the D700 is cannibalizing sales of the D3s. But that's OK. I'm sure Nikon has it all figured out with sales projections and profit margins.
--
Mike Dawson

Maybe some D3 sales, but as far as profit goes I would bet they are well ahead. Using myself as an example, a D300 user who upgraded to a D700. I would not have considered a D3. So on top of the sale of the D700 they also got sales of new lenses to optimize full frame.

michaeladawson said:

You phrase your question in two ways that are significantly different.

1. cannibalize sales of the D3 significantly
2. killed sales of the D3

2 above is obviously not true.

Click to expand...

You are right, my mistake. I meant 1.

michaeladawson said:

So the common man gets a decent AF system in the D700 and the pro still buys the D3.

Click to expand...

That is kind of what we have going on between the 1D and the 7D, but the 7D is more like a D300. We are hoping the next 5D will get the 7D AF. And then many are hoping for the arrival of the as-of-yet non-existent "3D" which would be like the D700.

Actually it's a smart move from Nikon.

Just look how much expensive FF lenses are bought by D700 users

JackM said:

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

Click to expand...

not for that reason but I dont think the 5D2 crowds majority of them need or want pro or sports AF, I , for one , I got it for art paint work and landscape studio work and I do not want to pay any penny for the so-called pro AF.

I have my Nikon for event and fast shooting and my Canon for studio and many other kind of works where I dont need sports kinda AF.

JackM said:

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

Click to expand...

Actually, the D3s is selling very well , it is the only one camera in camera history to breakthrough into top100 sells ranking as a true pro body.

So, I assume the D700 does not cut or damage anything but if Nikon released the D700 with video and even higher ISO capability like the D3s , then it may have killed the D3s sells.

However, I still think D700 type of body cannot replace or do any damage to the D3s sells because people who need the D3s know it.

I have both the D3s and D700 and they are totally differnet kind of cameras, the D3s built much better and the VF is just incredible and while its Low ISO is not that good or just as good as the D700 , its high ISO is just better , I odnt say much better but better.

So if the stop better high ISO of the D3s and faster AF of the D3s worth to you and you need it , you will get the D3s not the D700.

I know there are many people believing the D3s and the D700 share the same AF , I dont argue with them and let them believe what they want , but I know they are different , I mean maybe the same AF sensors but CPU or processing algorithms are very different.

I can tell it by initial AF acquisition speed of D3s vs D700.

the D700 is significantly slower and the D300s is even slower and the original D300 was much much slower than any of these.

also if you shoot 14bit rossless NEF alot , the D700 and the D3s blow the D300s out of the water , the D300s only can shoot 14bit at 2.5f/s.

the D700 can go 8f/s in 14bit mode and the D3s can go 11..............

so if you need real pro AF , you can get it only with a pro body like the D3s or 1D4............

wow, very rational and very logical post all make sense.

michaeladawson said:

You phrase your question in two ways that are significantly different.

1. cannibalize sales of the D3 significantly
2. killed sales of the D3

2 above is obviously not true. The D3 and D3s have features in them that make them appealing to a large crowd of photographers and make them a better choice in these cases over the D700.

Does the D700 cannibalize sales of the D3? Of course it does. Nikon would sell a lot more D3 bodies if the D700 didn't exist. But what does significantly mean? The availability of the D700 also takes sales away from the lower (and cheaper) crop sensor models like the D300. Those that would never shell out for a D3 will shell out extra for a D700 over a D300.

Click to expand...

very very well said, sir.

michaeladawson said:

Cannibalizing sales of another model is not necessarily a bad thing. The point (from a business perspective) is to maximize profit. You have to take into account sales numbers and profit margin.

And to your point of the AF system. While the AF module in the D700 is apparently the same hardware unit as in the D3 there are carefully conducted tests that show that it does not perform quite as well as the D3 unit. The difference is very small. But for a sports professional (e.g.) that tiny difference makes the D3 worth the extra cash outlay. So the common man gets a decent AF system in the D700 and the pro still buys the D3.

Click to expand...

very very true.

michaeladawson said:

JackM said:

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

Click to expand...

--
Mike Dawson

Click to expand...

Pocketbook going ouch, sounds like I need to spring for a D3s instead of getting a replacement D700.....

All this talk about cameras eating each other assumes that it's a closed environment and it isn't. If the D700 didn't exist then the Canon of similar configuration(excuse me because I know not which Canon that is as I only use Nikon) would be canon-able-ising the D3.
--
-Steve

But what some of the people referred to by the OP would say is that the D700 should be a lesser camera. Cheaper AF, cheaper build, less FPS, etc. If Nikon's version of the D700 was this cheaper version then people would not have a reason to switch to Canon.

I don't agree with that logic, btw. Only pointing out that there was a slight gap in your assumption.

Its me said:

All this talk about cameras eating each other assumes that it's a closed environment and it isn't. If the D700 didn't exist then the Canon of similar configuration(excuse me because I know not which Canon that is as I only use Nikon) would be canon-able-ising the D3.
--
-Steve

Click to expand...

--
Mike Dawson

For the sake of argument, lets say you have a pro camera at $4000, and a semi-pro/enthusiast camera at $2000 with the same sensor and IQ.

To assume that there was significant cannibalisation you would have to also assume that if a $2000 solution did not exist, the SAME users would automatically buy the $4000 one. This is highly doubtful. It is equally doubtful that a customer who needed the performance of the D3 would settle for a D700 simply to save a few bucks.

I believe the 5Dmk2s AF issue is simply a margin decision by Canon. Its possible that their pro AF system (which was having a few issues of its own at the time) is too expensive or complex mechanically to use on a 2k body, whereas the Nikon system is not. After all the same AF system is also used on the D300, whereas the 7D uses a whole new system which is not as I understand based on the 1D version.

JackM said:

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Steve

I was told at my local camera dealer that they cannot get the D3 now... and the D3s is a back order etc.

The D3s has it all over the D700 for what it does, at ISO6400-25600 in any kind of contrasty lighting conditions you can imagine. The D700 does a decent ISO6400, but the moment you get it into high contrast situations, you get the blooming, and visible pattern noise. The D700 is still a stellar performer. But the D3s sensor works in many situations for me where the D3/D700 just wouldn't.

Interesting question. I wanted things in the D3 to be packed in a smaller body for ease of portability and here we have the D700, which is exactly what I want. In addition, D700 is a very good option (alternative) between D3 and D300s. It seems to me the D700 user base is pretty large.

JackM said:

Hi, I'm a Canon shooter, and we have many know-it-alls over in the Canon forums who insist Canon would never give the 5DIII a proper AF system because ooooh, that would cannibalize sales of the 1D cameras. I don't buy that.

So I'm wondering if the D700 has killed sales of the D3? I kind of doubt it because they just came out with the D3s last year. Any word on a new D700? Or are they going to move it down-market (a la Canon 60D), or leave it alone, or sunset it? Or are they going to do away with the D3(s) and only offer a new D700 and the D3x?

Click to expand...

To a certain degree releasing the D700 reduced the sales of the D3, but the alternative would be to have most of todays D700 users (myself included most likely) switch to the Canon 5D I/II

I am sure some cannibalization is taking place, but Nikon still make more money since they get a wider user base and more people buying lenses.

I also dont't think Canon would take a major hit by releasing a 5D with better AF. Sure, the sales of the pro models would go down a bit but they would likely get many users from other brands switching over.

In a monopoly situation the cannibalization theory makes sense, but with about 40% market share Canon has many other potential customers out there (the same for Nikon).

Would you read what I said. I mention D3 sales were cannibalize by the D700, not the D3S. I don't see any D700S.

michaeladawson said:

brianric said:

Although the D700 did not cannibalize D3S sales, it did on the D3. See any D700S coming out?

Click to expand...

"Cannibalize" is not necessarily a bad term. It's all about total sales and profit margin. To think that Nikon wouldn't sell more D3s cameras if the D700 didn't exist is wishful thinking. Therefore the D700 is cannibalizing sales of the D3s. But that's OK. I'm sure Nikon has it all figured out with sales projections and profit margins.
--
Mike Dawson

Click to expand...