If Nikon made a D750: Want 12 or 16MP?

Started Apr 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP MasterOfGoingFaster Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
Re: D750 could keep D4 sensor volume up, and lower costs

bobn2 wrote:

MasterOfGoingFaster wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

So, I maintain that the proposed 'D750' is bound to cannibalise the D4 and in the end would be likely to lose Nikon money, compared with where they will be without it.

I see it differently. Let's assume the D4 will have a 2 year life.

That would be a change from Nikon's past practice which is a four year life including a 'mid-life kicker'.

Bob - the actual numbers are not important, as I'm simply using these numbers to express the concept of using follow up models to reduce the component cost over time. And the D3 sensor did have a 2-year life in the D3 before the D3s arrived.

The cost of a sensor will be the piece cost plus the setup cost per run (divided by the number of units per run). So the first six month run will be highly profitable, and much less so afterward.

I expect that is a very simplified model. Semiconductor devices are inherently batch processed.

Simplified - of course. My example is all about showing how a D750 keeps the batch size large to keep costs down. I'm writing for others who read this thread and assumed you would realize that. You seem to be focused on the trees and missing the forest.

I just don't think that this D800H (since that is what it would be, not D750 which fits nowhere in Nikon's naming practice) would sell in volumes significant enough for the savings to outweigh the losses.

I selected the "D750" because it represents a D700 upgrade, not as a Nikon naming convention. Nikon did not name the D3 or D4 with an H. All you do is create confusion by creating your own name mid-thread.

You can argue the numbers, but the concept of keeping sensor volume up by staging a second model is exactly what Nikon did with the D3/D700 - except it took about a year to meet the pent-up D3 demand.

I don't disagree with the concept of using the sensor to gain more sales, it is just that for Nikon the D800H is not the right product. The right product is a D7000FX, which would most likely be called a D400 or D600, dependent on whether the D300s successor will be called a D400 or D9000.

Perhaps. I suspect you'll see a "D750" sooner, as this is what many D700 sports/event shooters are asking for. There is little doubt a FX-version of the D7000 will arrive sometime. But your opinion seems odd, given that a large number of D700 owners are asking for an upgrade to the D700 for sports/event work.

This carping about model names is more revealing than you might think. The D4 sensor in a D800 body would naturally be called a D800H based on Nikon's past naming practice, yet people want to call it a D750 or something like that. it shows where they are coming from, what they want is for their D700's to be updated, which does seem to be what Nikon has chosen not to do. They don't call it D800H, because D800 is the camera they are rejecting.

Bob, you mis-read my intentions. I started the thread and selected "D750" to clearly indicate I'm talking about a D700 upgrade. I've got a D800 and D800E on order, so this is not about rejecting the D800(e). But I plan to keep my two D700's for sports/event work. At some point they will wear out and need replacement. I'd be fine with a 12MP D750, but wanted to hear if others would prefer 12 or 16MP.

I'm afraid this thread got hijacked by folks that ignored the question and instead went into a marketing discussion. This thread was asking photographers what they needed, not marketing wisdom.

-- hide signature --

Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.

 MasterOfGoingFaster's gear list:MasterOfGoingFaster's gear list
Nikon D700
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow