Did Nikon screw up?

Started May 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,144
Re: Did Nikon screw up?


Jtan made a very cogent argument, which aligns with current marketing practice, but you reject it out of hand.  Not because it doesn't make sense from Nikon's perspective but because it doesn't make sense from your perspective.

There is no doubt that the D700 and D3 overlapped.Clearly the D700 cannibalized D3 sales.  To what extent I don't know.  There was very, very little that the D3 offered that a pro couldn't accomplish with a much less expensive D700.   Prior to the D700 intro, Nikon photographers who needed fast weather sealed cameras would have to choose between the D300 and D3 cameras.  The D700 provided an intermediate choice for buyers.

Perhaps it was not as big a problem due to the non-simultaneous release of the two last generation FX cameras, However, it would definitely have been a problem in 2012. Getting a camera with 95%+ of the D4's functionality for 50% of the cost at the same time the D4 was introduced made no economic sense. Did Nikon lose some sales to Canon? Probably, however, I don't think it was that many due to switching costs. It's a hassle to sell equipment and buy all new.  Some photographers are willing, but most are willing to do so only if they have a compelling reason. So, how many photographers truly need burst rates that are greater than 5-6fps?  I suspect that the majority are pros who will either buy the D4, or continue using their D700 and D3 cameras.  Were there switchers? of course; but most users are locked in.

In essence, Nikon forced its users to sort themselves. Some would switch for that extra FPS that Canon offered (what is it, 6FPS?), but most would stay firmly in the Nikon camp.  Moreover, they would pick up a lot of photographers looking for a high resolution/high DR camera, and a lot of the purchasers of current FX cameras would be DX and APS-C users looking for a noticeable increase in IQ.  They were confident enough to know--I suspect they conducted pretty high-powered marketing research--that their market differentiation strategy would increase profits rather than reduce them.

This approach may not be in your best interest.  It obviously was not what the OP was looking for.  But it undoubtedly was far better for Nikon not to produce cameras that compete against each other.

SubPrime wrote:

jtan163 wrote:

I know  couple of people who have D700s as backups to their D3's.
If there were no D700's they'd almost certainly have bought a second D3.

Maybe.  I know a few that bought D300s or D7000s.

But we'll never know for sure, because they did release both models.
Not all D700 sales would have cannibalised D3 sales, but I reckon a decent number did.

Like you said, there is no way to know.  If they did, it was rectified by the D3s, which not only reignited sales of pro bodies, but it also staved off the challenge from the Canon 1D4.

They've released a D700 replacement.
It's the D600.

Nope.  It they released a D700 replacement, I would have bought it.  The D700 had a pro AF, a weather sealed body, accepted the higher voltage batter and was not limited to 1/4000 second shutter speed.

In other words the line is more specialised.

Not really.  They had a D3X before if you recall.  That was more of a specialized body than the D800 is.

The D700 fulfilled both roles.

The D700 was an all round workhorse.  They no longer have one - apart from the D4 of course.

It's replacement's don't. 
Nikon's moved on.

Sadly, so has much of it's user base

That's another approach.
Knock yourself out.
Or get yourself a Sony.

All money that could have ended up in Nikon's hands.


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