Reading mode: Light Dark

How can Nikon sell a DX camera for $2000?

Go to last post
JimPearce said:
Total DSLR sales by year before and after the peak in 2012 are pretty much symmetrical. The D300s is indeed a good camera - I still have one - but sold at less than half of the rate of the D300.
Click to expand...
 
alcaher said:
you are really lucky to handle the holy grail for 3 nights in a row... try to record this time the sound of those 10fps.
Click to expand...
BRRRRRRRRPPPPPP-BRRRRRRRPPPPP

How's that????? :-D

I thought there was some video around that has this, maybe I'll try on my phone if I get a chance.
 
it sounds great :)

Here the d500 sounds sweet and quiet


but here it sounds like war...awful.

 
alcaher said:
it sounds great :)

Here the d500 sounds sweet and quiet


but here it sounds like war...awful.

Click to expand...
second clip, did you notice how the sound dropped at about the 5 second mark? I sure did not find it obnoxious at all, and in quiet mode it is, well, quieter, but not as fast.
 
Dan_168 said:
JimPearce said:
This is a price point question, not a value question: Nikon are pretty superstitious about one price point, one camera. If you look at the serial numbers of the D600/610/750 the sales are less than half of the 800,000 plus unit sales of the D800/E/D810. Nikon only needs one entry level FX camera; this will likely be the D750 successor and I expect it to move upmarket slightly.

We hear so much about the D300s being a failure - but it sold nearly as well as these three entry level FX cameras combined.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JimPearce said:
This is a price point question, not a value question: Nikon are pretty superstitious about one price point, one camera. If you look at the serial numbers of the D600/610/750 the sales are less than half of the 800,000 plus unit sales of the D800/E/D810. Nikon only needs one entry level FX camera; this will likely be the D750 successor and I expect it to move upmarket slightly.

We hear so much about the D300s being a failure - but it sold nearly as well as these three entry level FX cameras combined.
Click to expand...
It's pretty simple really. There are several no-brainer reasons people would go for a D500 at $2k over any FX option:

1. You want a great action camera, but there's no way you're parting with $6k for a D5 and you can accept DX sensor performance (e.g. you don't shoot night sports or you'll accept the D500 level of noise).

2. You want speed and reach (think wildlife, birding). Let's say you had a D7200 and 200-400 f/4 and wanted to upgrade body (more fps, better AF). Going to the D5 or even a used D4, means you also need a lens upgrade to maintain reach at your aperture. Ouch, that's a ton of new coin. The D500 fits that bill.

3. You're a DX shooter already (own other DX bodies, are invested in DX lenses) and are interested in moving up the feature scale without having to build a new FX lens inventory. Many of the D300 owners would have lined up to be in this category if the D500 came out 3 years ago, but many have probably moved on). Not everyone is dying to move to FX.

I've always thought there was room for a D500 around $2k. Back when I primarily shot a D300, that's the camera I wanted to upgrade to. But, I think Nikon tried really hard to push people into FX and one of the ways they did that was to cap the performance of the DX line at the D7x00 series and they dropped the D300 lineage. That worked for some folks, but not for others. Eventually, I think three things happened at Nikon.

First, Nikon feared competitive pressure from Canon for a faster DX camera. That probably forced their hand to move. Competition is good for us consumers because they can't just sit back and protect their high margin products forever if the competition starts to go after an opening.

Second, those who were going to move to FX had moved by now, but not everyone moved and Nikon realized it wasn't about the price of the body - it was because some people just didn't feel the need or incentive to move to FX. That left a market opportunity to get some of these DXers to upgrade to something else DX.

And, third it got easier to move 20MP at 10fps with decent noise and a decent buffer at a consumer-ish price point with the maturation of the Expeed 4 and Expeed 5 chip and perhaps some evolution of sensor read-out technology.
 
JimPearce said:
This is a price point question, not a value question: Nikon are pretty superstitious about one price point, one camera. If you look at the serial numbers of the D600/610/750 the sales are less than half of the 800,000 plus unit sales of the D800/E/D810. Nikon only needs one entry level FX camera; this will likely be the D750 successor and I expect it to move upmarket slightly.

We hear so much about the D300s being a failure - but it sold nearly as well as these three entry level FX cameras combined.

--
Jim
Click to expand...
The 7DIII with the new sensor design that is in the IDXII (on sensor ADC), which largely removes the advantage of Sony / Nikon sensors re noise and base ISO DR, will surely come reasonably soon.

That sells (or the 7DII does and no reason to think the 7DIII will be different), at USD1,600.

So, I expect the D500 first year prices to be at the USD2,000 listed price, after which it should then have to compete with the 7DIII (when issued).

But if one likes and needs the features now, why not buy it.

With any sensor difference between the two brands significantly reduced , if not removed, the large part of the decision between the 7DIII when it comes and D500, will be AF accuracy and response and lenses.

Now you see a 'possible' reason why Nikon put the D5 AF in the D500!

--
Wishing You Good Light.
 
Last edited:
Welcome back, Stranger :-)


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
 
JimPearce said:
This is a price point question, not a value question
Click to expand...
The answer is, they seem to have chosen their price point well; it was reported here by Shun Cheung , who also posts in this forum, that at a launch event he attended last week, "a Nikon rep mentioned that there are some 80K D500 preorders in the U.S. already."
 
greenmanphoto said:
Jim and Dan,

During all the speculation about whether or not a D300 replacement would come, I thought that, if it would come, it would be AT LEAST $2000, and probably more like $2200-2300. I also thought it would be at least 24 MP, although I would've been pretty happy with 18-20 MP, considering some of the other things I wanted to see in the camera, such as frame rate and DR. So, I'm pretty happy with the price at $2000!
Click to expand...
I was expecting the same, thought most likely will be a 24MP crop sensor, but well, not a deal breaker that is being a 20MP, I don't prine sport shott, if that's a landscape camera for me then it will be for sure a no go regardless of the price point, but for a sport camera I am totally happy with 20MP.
 
luxun54 said:
The answer is, they seem to have chosen their price point well; it was reported here by Shun Cheung , who also posts in this forum, that at a launch event he attended last week, "a Nikon rep mentioned that there are some 80K D500 preorders in the U.S. already."
JimPearce said:
Then again, reps say the damnedest things
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
With many hundreds of thousands of D300/300s buyers, I would guess that at least a couple (or several) hundred thousand of us (like me) are still using them as our primary camera, never "upgraded," and have been stubbornly waiting for the D400/D500. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me that a percentage of that large group has pre-ordered a D500, along with a percentage of owners of a few other camera models. Pretty soon, small percentages of big groups start to add up, to some tens of thousands of preorders.

--
http://www.pbase.com/luxun54/galleries
 
Last edited:
luxun54 said:
JimPearce said:
This is a price point question, not a value question
Click to expand...
The answer is, they seem to have chosen their price point well; it was reported here by Shun Cheung , who also posts in this forum, that at a launch event he attended last week, "a Nikon rep mentioned that there are some 80K D500 preorders in the U.S. already."
Click to expand...
Because there's no other Canon/Nikon dSLR that can do that fps, buffer and AF for under $5k, Nikon probably could have initially priced it higher and then dropped it over time - but apparently chose to grab market share and build volume at the $2k price point - perhaps in advance of the Canon competition.
 
My first Nikon DSLR was the D1x 6MP DX camera and I paid $5500 for it. DX is not the issue as the sensor is a small part of the manufacturing cost. The D500 is comparable to the D810 in build quality and features and my D810 cost me $3300.

The camera whose price I would question is that of the D750 which has the build quality of the $1100 D7200 and the $1400 D610.
 
calson said:
My first Nikon DSLR was the D1x 6MP DX camera and I paid $5500 for it. DX is not the issue as the sensor is a small part of the manufacturing cost. The D500 is comparable to the D810 in build quality and features and my D810 cost me $3300.

The camera whose price I would question is that of the D750 which has the build quality of the $1100 D7200 and the $1400 D610.
Click to expand...
Uhhh, you're missing some info if you think the sensor cost delta between DX and FX is negligible. First off, an FX sensor is 2.3x the area of a DX sensor. So, based on pure proportionality to how much silicon it takes, it would be 2.3x higher in cost. Then, factor in that because these are large rectangular blocks trying to fit onto round wafers, there's more waste. Then, factor is that the larger the area of silicon with a given technology, generally the greater a chance of a defect and thus a lower yield. As of a few years ago (I haven't found any more recent articles discussing the topic), it was generally believed that an FX sensor was 3-5x more expensive than a DX sensor.

Then, a more expensive product probably sells in lower volume and thus has to recoup engineering costs in fewer units so it's often sold at a higher margin.

Since costs like this then get marked up before getting sold to an actual retail customer, that delta might be magnified even more.

Here's one discussion of the topic from several years ago: Is an FX sensor really $1500 more expensive than a DX sensor.
 
jfriend00 said:
calson said:
My first Nikon DSLR was the D1x 6MP DX camera and I paid $5500 for it. DX is not the issue as the sensor is a small part of the manufacturing cost. The D500 is comparable to the D810 in build quality and features and my D810 cost me $3300.

The camera whose price I would question is that of the D750 which has the build quality of the $1100 D7200 and the $1400 D610.
Click to expand...
Uhhh, you're missing some info if you think the sensor cost delta between DX and FX is negligible. First off, an FX sensor is 2.3x the area of a DX sensor. So, based on pure proportionality to how much silicon it takes, it would be 2.3x higher in cost. Then, factor in that because these are large rectangular blocks trying to fit onto round wafers, there's more waste. Then, factor is that the larger the area of silicon with a given technology, generally the greater a chance of a defect and thus a lower yield. As of a few years ago (I haven't found any more recent articles discussing the topic), it was generally believed that an FX sensor was 3-5x more expensive than a DX sensor.

Then, a more expensive product probably sells in lower volume and thus has to recoup engineering costs in fewer units so it's often sold at a higher margin.

Since costs like this then get marked up before getting sold to an actual retail customer, that delta might be magnified even more.

Here's one discussion of the topic from several years ago: Is an FX sensor really $1500 more expensive than a DX sensor.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top