FX for non-pros « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

FX for non-pros

(39 posts) (18 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 12

TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

mirtos said:
I think Nikon might be shooting itself in the foot.

I would say Nikon has us all on the hook.

I think Pierre hit the nail on the head - people make choices how much to spend on their tools, hobbies and passions. Just because people choose (and it is a choice) not to spend 2, 3, or $6,000 on a camera does not equal a company shooting itself in the foot. Shooting itself in the foot would be choosing to loose money just to hopefully pacify some customers.

How low would it have to be priced? There are people on here screaming about the new 50mm 1.8 being too expensive at $225. When the D400 comes out, I'm willing to bet it will be close to $2000, and I'm sure people will scream about that. Point being, no matter what price Nikon needs to charge, there will be those who want it cheaper so it fits their choice of what they are willing to spend.

$8000 for a carbon-fibre bicycle? That is almost 3x the cost of my first car in the mid 90's.

Posted 1 year ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

mirtos said:
So upgrading from "hobby" to pro... I think Nikon might be shooting itself in the foot.... (of course part of this thread is really about "is DX a bad thing?"...

DX is not a bad thing, Coolpix neither... It all depend on your photographic ambitions and your greed for the best. There is an offering for all and Nikon like others are covering all the lucrative segments of the marke while obeing to the forces at play. That's what they must do to survive.

One that might upgrade to FF is shooting himself on the foot by massively investing on DX lenses.

If all of the suddent, medium format become a high-demand commodity and lots of people are willing to shell big money for it, it would be suicidal for any responsible compagny not to provide an offering and the fittest would be the leader. If that was to happen, investing heavily on FF glass would be shooting oneself on the foot.

At the end, it is the buyers that drive the market. If you are happy with DX, stay with it but dont complain if it is not as good as FF. By nature, bigger sensors will always be better than small ones.

Posted 1 year ago #
mirtos

preferred member
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 159
offline

hmmm.. with the new price points on the d700, maybe the d700 is just that opening i was looking for.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

There are some (valid I think?) predictions that in about 6 months a used D700 will sell for about $1,500. That will put FX just a few hundred dollars above a D7000, probably a few hundred dollars less than a D400 (or equal to a D400) and make a nice "entry level" FX or a nice "amateur" FX. I also have lots of 35mm AF lenses I purchased inexpensively a few years ago and I would like to give them a "new lease on life" with an FX body.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

I could see the $1500 price if Nikon keeps selling the D700 for years to come, I just wonder if the pricing now is to get rid of excess stock on hand. If the D700 does sell out then I see it sticking around the $1800-$2100 mark depending on condition.

Posted 1 year ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

mirtos said:
hmmm.. with the new price points on the d700, maybe the d700 is just that opening i was looking for.

One thing that I find crazy is that a couple of years ago before the yen strengthened against the dollar, amazon was selling the D700 for not much more (2300 or 2400, I think). I'm also considering the D700 sometime in the futue.
edit: I checked on that price claim. I wrote in a blog post that I saw it new for $2160 in December 2008.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

scoobysmak said:
I could see the $1500 price if Nikon keeps selling the D700 for years to come, I just wonder if the pricing now is to get rid of excess stock on hand. If the D700 does sell out then I see it sticking around the $1800-$2100 mark depending on condition.

As with some others, I believe that there is a glut of parts that were ordered before and shortly after the Floods and the Earthquake that have been delivered and they need to do something with them. With the price drop, I would say they are trying to dump them all and not loose money on the parts delivered. If they were actually going to try to keep the line going, they would not be dropping the price to within 100's of a D300 replacement.

Posted 1 year ago #
jorgen

junior member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 7
offline

really, FF and cheap just do not go together. FF-sensor will always be more expensive, lenses will have to be larger, FF-bodies will always be viewed as superior to DX bodies (of similar age or class). the point of DX is being chaep(er). and smaller, lighter, easier, etc.
FF was never cheaper than now btw. DSLR-technoliy has reached a plateau with the D700/D3.
get a cheap D700 and spend the rest for good glass.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

jorgen said:
really, FF and cheap just do not go together. FF-sensor will always be more expensive, lenses will have to be larger, FF-bodies will always be viewed as superior to DX bodies (of similar age or class). the point of DX is being chaep(er). and smaller, lighter, easier, etc.
FF was never cheaper than now btw. DSLR-technoliy has reached a plateau with the D700/D3.
get a cheap D700 and spend the rest for good glass.

I haven't seen a plateau yet...I think it is more like the technology of digital has finally caught up with results that people see as satisfactory even with the lowest level dSLR cameras. I am sure the $5500, 2.6 MP D1 was considered a great camera at the time, but people scoff at it now. It isn't as good as film yet, but I think the results are getting very near and the MP counts are letting people print fairly large now.

Technology wise there are still improvements. Improvements with the speed of processing, better sensors, better focusing systems, better video and I am sure more to come in things we haven't even thought about.

The D700 is still a very competent camera even with the D800 coming out. The bottom level D3000 or D5100 now provide better results than many of the aging pro bodies.

Posted 1 year ago #
jorgen

junior member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 7
offline

tcole,
that was unclear. better said, the D3/700 are the "absolutely-good-enough plateau" for a stills FF-DSLR. this was said in combination with nikon FF having never been cheaper. cheaper also means, that you do not buy the ultra-latest tech. D700 is 4 year old tech + the new cameras are better for sure.

but- just my 2 cent- before the D3/700 i NeedeD to upgrade to the newer = better camera. no need anymore. the new cameras are that much better, but D3 or D700 are still good enough in case you have limited funds. speaking as a stills-camera guy. i now realise, that is maybe rather narrow minded ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
Danny Ocean

senior member
Joined: Nov '11
Posts: 57
offline

mirtos said:
The business reason is this. Nikon is splitting their customers into the following:
(ignoring the P&S audience for this discussion)

Pros - use FX camera and lenses.
Amatuer - use DX camera and lenses, unable to upgrade body without upgrading lenses
Film - using film camera, and FX lenses

Since when does ones equipment classify the photographer's skill? Such an amateur thing to say.

Posted 1 year ago #
Meinrad

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 137
offline

mirtos said:
Ok this may seem a weird topic, but do you ever think Nikon is going to offer a non-pro (or "prosumer") line FX camera? One of the things about FX vs DX is that FX is more true to 35MM, I have to wonder if I am the only amatuer prohotographer out there with a bunch of lenses from film days (when camera bodies werent the super expensive item) that wants FX just to use older lenses to their full capabilities.

Mirtos: Consider the cost of film and processing (do you do your own darkroom work? Add up all those costs, too) and your (used) D700 will be a bargain in a hurry. I was biting the bullet three years ago and got myself a D700, although it has been almost 40 years since I last made any money with photography. I am no pro, I just do it for fun. That D700 revived everything - the fun is back. I now enjoy photography again like I did when I was a teenager or in my early twenties.
I say: go for it!

Posted 1 year ago #
mirtos

preferred member
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 159
offline

Well, ive been doing DX for the last 7 years, but i do get your point. And Im currently debating between a d700 (used) and a d700 (new). Seems with the new price point, not really a whole lot of advantage going the used route.

(Im also having a hard time not thinking about the d800, but i realize i dont need it) Of course need and want are often two different things. :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
mirtos

preferred member
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 159
offline

Danny Ocean said:
Since when does ones equipment classify the photographer's skill? Such an amateur thing to say.

Danny, you misinterpret what I meant by Amatuer and Pro. I wasn't talking about skill level. I've seen some Amatuer's that are more talented than Pro's. by Amatuer, I meant people who have photography as their hobby, and either don't sell, or sell just enough to cover their gear, not their rent.

I was talking more about Nikon's business model than skill level. I meant no offense.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

FX for non-pros

Reply