Nikon is serious about FX

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jim Keye Senior Member • Posts: 1,964
Re: high-end DX - harder to incite upgrade ever, thus market shrinks?

moving_comfort wrote:

Jim Keye wrote:...

I wouldn't be surprised if hi-end DX is probably the lowest-selling segment in terms of volume, hence nikon's delay in getting around to it.

Could be, but it's also likely that they don't see an easy way to continue the upgrade incentives in high-end aps-c.

MP can't really get much beyond 24MP in that format without diffraction and focus errors bringing harshly diminishing returns, so how many more 'upgrade' iterations can they eke out of the format?

Will people rush to the 'D400' like they rushed to the D300 or D200? How about the 'D500'? What will be the impetus to upgrade if MP levels off, PDAF can't be improved beyond the incremental level, metering is roughly the same... better video? Wireless? GPS? Some of that will be nice, but peripheral to the task for most.

That's a good question. And yes to those things you mentioned. They're all sitting there in Nikon's parts bins, with the exception of the sensor. Frankly I don't see more resolution as the goal for DX sensors, rather better S/N, i.e. high ISOs and low light performance. It's always been the achilles heel of the format.

But why not put the latest metering and AF in a DX body with a new sensor? Huge segment or not, it's also important for nikon to offer a full range even if it doesn't all sell at the same level. To my way of thinking this is the point with the no-dx-primes. Offering them is more important than how well they sell (aside from breaking even on the R&D). I'm thinking specifically of the D300 here, as it's looking ‚Äčridiculously‚Äč long in tooth right now, even compared to the D7000.

I think they may see that segment shrinking in the next 5 years, and it already wasn't huge to begin with.

Yes, but again, something of a self-fulfilling prophesy. And serious shooters have a tendency to burn through bodies strictly from a shutter count and use/abuse perspective. If you're contemplating a $500 repair bill but could pick up a new body with all the latest goodies for $1500, that repair is much less attractive.

  • 16-18 MPs and at least two-stop improvement over the D300
  • HD video at up to 60 fps and lower res/higher fps options.
  • Better live view implementation and CDAF
  • Latest 51-point AF/metering, fine tune, etc
  • 6 FPS in, 9 or 10 FPS with grip
  • 200 or 250K shutter
  • top-end body build, obviously a grip option
  • GPS?

None of that besides the sensor requires much R&D. It can't be that hard for them to build.  And how would a D300 user not find that extremely attractive if it was priced right? There may not be the rush that the the 100/200/300 offered, especially in the face of the 600/800, but it still seems like low-hanging fruit to me.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow