jfriend00 wrote:
motobloat wrote:
Patco wrote:
marike6 wrote:
... the majority of photographers have moved on to FF?
Care to share your source of this amazing turn of events?
I don't know if it's the "majority", but some have, certainly. Or switched systems.
Either way, the more people who "move on to FF" the more Nikon's psuedo-
price skimming strategy works.
That is, they convince you to upgrade to a more expensive system by delaying what you really want.
Nikon is hoping that by the time the D400 is released (if it ever is) they will have skimmed off as many possible FF converts during that time, or at least, sold them a D7000/D7100 that they didn't really need.
The risk with price skimming is that it assumes an
inelastic demand curve. If instead, people leave for Pentax or Canon or Fuji or whatever, then the demand curve may not be so inelastic after all.
That is, there are
switching costs, to be sure. But how much can you annoy your customers (by steering them towards an expensive upgrade that they don't need) before the costs of switching are less than the
opportunity costs of staying?
I own three Nikon dSLRs (all DX) and 20k worth of lenses (I shoot many things, but long action reach is the most difficult thing I shoot).
What have I purchased in the last 6 years? A Fuji X-E1 (very nice camera/lens) for backpacking because Nikon hasn't made anything that fits what I shoot better than what I have.
I would have purchased one or both of a D750 and a D400 if Nikon made them. I've rented a D800 - didn't work for what I do. A D4 is beyond my budget and not as much reach as I want/need. I don't let manufacturers coerce me into buying something that doesn't really fit my style just because it's the only new thing they're making so what you describe as Nikon "skimming" is not work on me. I prefer to spend my money efficiently and only buy something when it really fits what I need and I believe it will meet my needs for the next 4 years.
Right now, Nikon is hanging on by a thread and the ONLY reason I haven't left the brand entirely is that no competitor has yet done a D400-style camera either. But, the moment that happens (the Pentax K-3 offering will need to be evaluated), my entire commitment to Nikon is vulnerable. I actually like Canon's long glass more than my Nikon long glass so if Canon does a competent D400-style camera, I may go that way.
A D7100 came somewhat close, but it's short on fps and the small buffer just kills it for the unpredictable action sequences I shoot. I even run into the limits of my D300 buffer from time to time - I have no intention of moving to a camera with less capabilities in that regard. Also, there is a difference between 6fps and 8fps. It isn't a light and day difference, though it is sometimes useful so why should I buy a new camera that has less capabilities that what I already have? Plus, why should I buy a camera that isn't what I really want that we all know could easily be eclipsed any day now using off-the-shelf tech. Pentax has now done it. Canon is rumored to be doing it early next year. We know Nikon could do it with the EXPEED 4 if they wanted to. This market segment won't go unserved forever. There are people who will buy it and it's a natural upgrade progression from all the other DX cameras (more so of an upgrade in some ways than any of the FX line).
I could even argue that a D400 might be the best all-around camera in Nikon's entire lineup if they added it to what they have now. It could do action better than any other camera in the lineup except the D4 and it could do long reach action better than even the D4. And, if it was a very high quality 24MP DX camera, it could do pretty much every other type of photography very well except for super low light or razor thin DOF. And, it could be a pretty nice value too (the amount of great functionality you get for the money). Remember, the majority of Nikon's existing customer base owns a DX camera of some kind (D3x00, D5x00, D7x00, D90, D300, D200) and a D400 would be a much more likely upgrade for all of those customers than any FX camera because it fits exactly what they're already doing (just better in every way) unless the main goal is to improve low light performance.
I know from all the talk about a D400 here in the forums that there are certainly others like me. The only question that remains for Nikon is if they want to make something that we will buy?
). Nikon seems to think "picture? that's on card, why you want it to go anywhere else?"
