http://www.flickr.com/photos/32599917@N05/3818407616/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32599917@N05/3818407616/

Nikon has to seriously think twice about D700s…

A D700s released now is going to be a major let down, Nikon can’t afford to release another 12MP camera if they want to maintain an edge over the competition. The megapixel race is still going but Nikon seems content on taking a back seat.

The ‘h’ was always the faster “sports” camera and the ‘x’ was always the higher-res model of the same generation. In the case of the D3, it already is a fantastic fast “sports” camera, so no need for a D3h, but the D3x is still the high-res model.

The ‘s’ is always a minor upgrade to milk the current generation of cameras for just a little longer: D70s, D2Xs, D2Hs, D300s, etc. The feature of this generation of course is video, but this hasn’t always been the case. Also note that not all models are followed by an ‘s’ version; Nikon only does this with models they feel are worth milking with a step increase.

A D700s doesn’t seem very necessary at all, except maybe to give it video capabilities, parallel to the D300s. But this doesn’t rule out the possibility of a D700x in future, although it sounds like a D700x might not come as soon as we had hoped.

There was a comment that the D700 might cannibalize D300 sales if stays at a $2,300 street price. Why is that a bad thing? Sales of D300 go into the same bank account as sales of the more expensive D700. Other companies cannibalizing your products is bad. Doing it to yourself with a more expensive product is not “bad”. Nikon doesn’t require $1,000 gaps between products to make money. $500 between products isn’t “too small”.

The D3x is somewhat aimed at competing the medium format cameras. The price is so far up there that it isn’t even in the game with 24MP offering from the DSLR competitors. The images are better but when thousands more, even a legacy lens factor is less of a problem from folks migrating to the other solutions. Nikon doesn’t really have anything at 24MP competing in the core DSLR market. They don’t have to limbo as low as Sony, but have to get in the game. Especially when it is moving something ALREADY have into a more cost effective slot.

Besides a D700x with a higher run rate will increase the margins on the D3x since the cost per sensor should drop with volume. It makes Nikon more money and more customers are happier. Why not?????

The video on the D90 and D300 can probably suffice for now. They have the wrong compression tech (MPEG2 ) to go with 1080p. Because CF cards are pragmatically stuck with FAT32 file format there is a hard 4GB file size limiter. In order to get better video stored for a decent amount of time they need to make the video storage smaller. As a first cut, what they have is a DV (or HDV 720p ) attempt. That was good to get a feel for how to do this. However, they need a H.264/MPEG4 to really have a HD workhorse.

High ISO video…. ??? the D300s isn’t that bad. There are substantive number of folks with DX lens to leverage it.

A D3s with a reworked “prime time” video1080p 24p solution that can live with the FAT32 limitation would be straightforward to then drop onto a 700s. ( or an 800 if it is time for it).

A strategy of movie a ‘catch up’ , ‘new expertise’ feature up the line D90 -> D300 -> D700 is backwards. In that it shows some flexibility, that is good. However, at some point, it needs to be done “right”; that means real HD (1080p/24p ) for useful periods of time if what to get in a mix it up with RED and cinematic cameras.
That means stopping this lower-to-higher progression.

So if I was running Nikon … LOL … I’d drop the price on the D700 ( so get out of this “too low to show on webstore” mode in now). Drop a D700x (at 24MP) onto market ( not quite as high since there is room above the D700 now). Then drop a better D3s as quickly as can get the kinks worked out.

The D300s (with video) sales won’t crater against a D700 (without video) $500 above it.

There will be lots of wailing about “Canon and Sony” are going to bring doom for 4-5 months or so, but when deliver something with better imaging that will go away for a while. ( if can get a Exomor R , with better light collection , base collector out of Sony and layer very good color/AA filter on top. Can work on better better High Dynamic Range out of the initial shot. That will be D4/D400 time. )