D400 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D400

(862 posts) (98 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1 234…35 Next »

TaoTeJared

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

There were a couple of responses before my book above.

Don't try to force analysis on numbers as a black and white, right or wrong answer. That is not what analysis is. Trying to nit-pick $$ that only equal a few percent in the overall scheme doesn't change anything. If you push my numbers a few percent, even 20% either way, start the beginning numbers a bit less, it doesn't change the whole picture.
You may not like the result, but that is different then proving fault in the conclusion of the rational.

Analysis on costs, margins etc. are estimates based on what information is available - and Nikon along with every company out there is very closed lipped on those numbers.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

My intentions were not to nit-pick on your analysis. I wasn't expecting a fully blown down-to-the-cent accurate analysis but still there were some points that I just did not understand.

I'll try to keep it brief and only reply to the main points specially since we actually agree on more things than we disagree.

TaoTeJared said:
The D700 was $3,000 when it was released.
(http://press.nikonusa.com/post/2008/07/01/the-agile-new-nikon-d700-fx-format-d-slr-camera-delivers-performance-inspired-by-the-nikon-d3-in-a-smaller-lighter-design/)

See my reply to PB PM above.

TaoTeJared said:
I do not fully understand your statement:
"Your calculations also don't account for adding back the profit which makes the final price $3500 therefore even the D800 is a production paradox."

When you made your cost calculation, you started with the MSRP of D300 which is $2000. Then you said the a production cost would be around $1500. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming the $500 difference is profit, correct? Now at the end of your analysis, you added the cost of the body to the cost of the new FX sensor and you got the final price of $3000 but you forgot to add the initial $500 that you subtracted.

TaoTeJared said:
My statement was "Published comments by manufactures OVER the last 8 years." One of the first comments on cost was from Canon about 8 years ago and that was very high (20+) but that was a long time ago as you said. Nikon hasn't released any cost from what I have ever seen. Sony sort of did but you had to back into it, that is where the DX sensor cost was about 1/4-1/3rd the production cost due to the failure rate of manufacturing sensors, i.e. dead sensors on a wafer. The more recent one I ran across was from a industrial chip maker who used the 5-6x cost factor again stating the failure rate per wafer. Apologies, but I don't bookmark every story I read.
This site does a good job describing the fabrication differences of an FX/DX chip where you can see the cost factors change.
http://www.nikonhq.com/nikon-d700-review/the-fx-sensor

I'm fully aware of what you wrote but that form of data (over long periods of time) is only useful when the data does not change much or to illustrate a pattern. It really doesn't mean anything in this situation unless it's current.

The article in the website was probably written when the D700 first introduced since they talk about the D300 and D60 too. This makes me think it's about 4 years old which also makes me wonder how old the sensor fabrication data actually is.

TaoTeJared said:
I have often thought the same thing but this is the same/similar gap they have had for the last 2-3 generations and Canon has a similar gap. I'm just not sure what can be added or removed to split it up. Evidently neither does Canon or Nikon. ;)

Even though the MSRP gaps were similar, actual selling prices were not. Again see my reply to PB PM above regarding this point.

TaoTeJared said:
That can be true in some situations and I have experienced that first hand. What I was point to was the paradox (I'm adopting your word as my "word of the day" btw- love that word) that many users opted to buy just a D700 rather than the D3 since performance and feature wise, it was almost the same camera. If you guesstimate that Nikon makes 10% (any % would work) profit, 10% of $3,000 = $300, 10% of $5,000 = $500. Say 50,000 people did this: D700: $15mil vs D3 $25mil.

"Paradox" is actually one of my all time favorite words. I still remember when I first learned it in English class :)

Now, here you're assuming that Nikon sold an equal number of D700 and D3 units, however that's very unlikely and Nikon would never expect that to happen.

The D3100 outsells (and generates more profits than) any other Nikon DSLR. Peter has a link on the main blog about Nikon becoming the number one camera seller in UK due to the D3100 :)

TaoTeJared said:
I don't disagree that their could be - Hell I would love to see a $2500 FX camera. I'm just one of those pesky realists that see things for what they are.

I like to think of myself as a realist too but I can also be a possibilist as well :)

TaoTeJared said:
Every time I hear this, my mind drops into a "Game of Thrones" inner dialogue: Who is the true successor? The inbred, the older brother, the younger brother, the last Targaryen, would Stark really just kill Joffery and leave the Iron Throne to someone else? Deee daaa deee daaaa - de da da daaaa, da dee daaa deee da, du da daaaaaa.

Sorry, never heard of it until now. Too bad it's not on any of my local channels.

TaoTeJared said:
I understand some people's disappointment. No one wants to spend $3,000 more for what they wanted. I just think those who wanted more resolution and didn't want to spend the $5,000 premium of the D3x won out this time - and in a very big way.

True.

TaoTeJared said:
What if the D400 is DX but has a 16-18mp sensor that matches the D3s high iso?
Looking at what the Fuji X-pro1's images, I would say it can be done.

I'd like to see that although I'd like to see more mp's than that.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

Thom Hogan states:

I personally think that Nikon needs to be here:

CX: J1, V1, Z1 (the Z1 being a more enthusiast tailored version). The prices need to be pushed downward from their current points so that CX clearly lives below and up to DX (e.g., Z1 being top of the line and priced at the D3200 price point).
DX: D3200, D5200, D7200, D8000 (the D8000 being an integrated vertical grip pro caliber DX). The price points are okay, but there are a considerable number of missing lenses to keep DX living healthily (see next article).
FX: D400, D800, D4 (the D400 being an entry FX body that replaces the D700's current position in the lineup).

NOTE What he says about the D400 being the entry level FX model and an integrated grip pro DX model he calls the D8000. I have been saying these same things for some time now (to some ridicule). I think Thom and I are correct. Whether or not Nikon agrees and will do it remains to be seen. Time will tell.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

iris chrome said:
When you made your cost calculation, you started with the MSRP of D300 which is $2000. Then you said the a production cost would be around $1500. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming the $500 difference is profit, correct? Now at the end of your analysis, you added the cost of the body to the cost of the new FX sensor and you got the final price of $3000 but you forgot to add the initial $500 that you subtracted.

I'll give you that, but then you are to your point about selling price, where the Selling price point is around $2600.
A note on "selling price" which doesn't mean much at all or rather doesn't change anything. We all realize MSRP doesn't hold long and assume that is the max profit for everyone in the chain (manufacturing & retail,) but if you move that back 10-15% then all variables move back 10-15% - they are all dependent on the beginning price. The conclusion or end result does not change, just the beginning number.

iris chrome said:
I'm fully aware of what you wrote but that form of data (over long periods of time) is only useful when the data does not change much or to illustrate a pattern. It really doesn't mean anything in this situation unless it's current.

The article in the website was probably written when the D700 first introduced since they talk about the D300 and D60 too. This makes me think it's about 4 years old which also makes me wonder how old the sensor fabrication data actually is.

8 years is not a long time, and 4 years is nothing for production costs per unit. This is really true when the "unit" actually changes over time. A move from 20x to 5x is considered a large change.
Most variables in this type of production remains the same. If the unit does not change (i.e. a suggestion above for utilizing a 12mp sensor from the D3s) then costs can decrease rapidly. Camera sensors are redesigned and new production design are deployed (i.e. improved micro lenses) thus the cost remains relatively the same or even increased from previous generations. There is not a physical possibility of increasing more sensors per wafer, which that is what would lower a cost dramatically. Labor costs, metals, silicone costs, energy costs are relatively the same or go up as well. The only thing that really changes is production efficiency. We can look to the price of the Flagship camera D4 has always been prices around the $5-6,000 mark and not moving much.

iris chrome said:
Now, here you're assuming that Nikon sold an equal number of D700 and D3 units, however that's very unlikely and Nikon would never expect that to happen.

Nope - just saying that X amount of people would have purchased a D3 rather than a D700. The amount of profit (assuming the margin % is the same) would have been more and that cuts into the bottom line.

Good debate!

Posted 1 year ago #
zhinsara

senior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 59
offline

TaoTeJared said:

Most variables in this type of production remains the same. If the unit does not change (i.e. a suggestion above for utilizing a 12mp sensor from the D3s) then costs can decrease rapidly. Camera sensors are redesigned and new production design are deployed (i.e. improved micro lenses) thus the cost remains relatively the same or even increased from previous generations. There is not a physical possibility of increasing more sensors per wafer, which that is what would lower a cost dramatically. Labor costs, metals, silicone costs, energy costs are relatively the same or go up as well. The only thing that really changes is production efficiency. We can look to the price of the Flagship camera D4 has always been prices around the $5-6,000 mark and not moving much.

I'm going to explain a bit more on this.

Why I agreed with TTJ on the FX pricing is because the number of sensors you can fit on a silicon wafer does not change. Assuming production on a 200mm wafer, you can only manufacture 20 sensors at perfect yield. It's more likely the yields go down. Part of my research work was categorizing yields for small ASICs, and it's common to see yields of 80+% for a good run (occasionally, some runs have yields as low as 30%) , and that's for chips many times smaller than a FX sensor. As a result, you may be able to get 10-12 FX sensors from a 200mm wafer if you're lucky.

The costs of production for semiconductors are fixed, in the sense that fabrication costs, wafer costs are constant. That is why companies keep striving to decrease the production process so they can cram more chips onto one wafer, hence decreasing the average production cost per chip. You can't do that for a FX sensor because the size is fixed at 24 mm x 36 mm.

Running with this, Nikon can save money by keeping say, a D3s sensor run up and use those sensors for a new camera. There's minimal development costs associated with that because the sensor design has already matured, however, it still doesn't change the base material costs. The only way I see costs lowering is if overall silicon wafer costs fall,there are improvements in the fabrication process neccesitating less steps, or the sensors are transitioned over to 300mm wafers which have lower costs/unit silicon(maybe Sony already has)

References
Canon Whitepaper on FF Sensors
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

Transition from 200mm to 300mm wafers
http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/ice/cd/CEICM/SECTION7.pdf

I don't exactly agree on the D700 cannibalizing the D3 sales though. The gap between launches was 1 year, and IMHO the people who needed/wanted a D3 would have immediately ordered and paid for one. The D700 helps by increasing the sales volume of a high end, relatively high margin camera that otherwise won't sell as well (D3). So I would say that Nikon would have actually gained more from volume sales of the D700, than the lower volume of the D3 had the D700 not been introduced. I have no figures to back that up though.

Posted 1 year ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

Great Dialog and not a single comment on DOF! I’m going to use paradox in conversation today if I can’t find a way to put it in this post.

What I know about profit margin and it’s not that much but my father worked for years in manufacturing and at least in his industry the margins were very thin. Regardless of manufacturing cost and MSRP, after the accountants had figured in R&D, Marketing, salaries, over head, employee pensions, health care, etc…. profit margin was 3% and they thought that was good.

Nikon will probably never give us precise numbers but I doubt their margins are any higher.

No doubt Nikon makes most of their money on point and shoots where the margins are probably thinner but made up on volume.

Tao – You can tell me if I’ve got it wrong.

Whether or not the D400 is an FX, I think there’s room for an entry level FX body along with a Pro-DX body as far as image quality goes. The problem is the price points are so close but if Nikon could keep the DX under $1900 and the entry level FX under $2500 if might work.

If a DX-D400 is $2000, I predict the price of a used D700 is going to go up and stay there until they’re gone and/or D800’s become more available. Unless Nikon unveils a DX-D400 the blows away the D700, is that even possible? The D800 surpasses the Medium format, at least according to DXOmark.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

zhinsara - you said it much better than me on production. Good addition.

The D700 did yank D3 sales and Nikon did say that in one of it's annual reports. It also added or pulled up more customers from higher margin cameras as well. Just as we are seeing the availability of the D4 is low probably for a year, that was the same for the D3. From what I understand NPS members can only get 1 body on the early order program so it was almost a year before they could get a second body. The D700 became the 2nd body of choice rather than the D3 and the primary body for those who held off until production caught up to demand. Everyone at the time was talking about passing on the D3 so much I'm kind of surprised anyone doesn't remember.

andrewz said:
...profit margin was 3% and they thought that was good....

Margins can greatly vary by industry, even sub industries and that is not far off for a lot of companies. My stint in the energy sector as an operations analyst really showed this. Working in propane margins were about 25% but varied from 200% to 5% depending on the region of the US and even the difference between propane bottles vs bulk. I then worked for a fuel hauler (gas, diesel, etc) who per truck load made only $20-40 per load for 9,000gal or $32,000. That is not an exaggeration. They didn't make money on fuel - they made money on the float of cash, loaning it out to banks on over night loans. The regularly had about $75mil that they could loan through those transactions every day. @ 0.5% they made $375,000 a night.
It is not always obvious where companies make their money from.

My guess is that the higher end cameras actually don't make Nikon much money at all but the $50/$120 batteries, $300 battery grips, $7 lens and body caps, & flashes do. I think the 3100/5100/7000 bodies have much higher margins as do the 18-55,18-105,55-200.... lower lenses as well and that is where Nikon makes it money along with the compact cameras etc. Their Non-photography business that works with industrial and medical probably supports the consumer side or at least supplements it on low years.

The issue with using the D3s sensor is that those lines were converted to the D4 & D800. Production capacity does direct what we can expect. FX seems to only be in Japan for quality control. Knowing the D400 was to be made in Thailand (DX plant) again and the floods delayed the launch. So we know at one time the D400 was to be DX. Nikon also stood up another plant in China for DX bodies as well.

Adding an additional body I don't think makes much since and I don't see Nikon or Canon doing this. The only separation would be the DX/FX and we already have that with the D800.

I'm really not trying to challenge everyone to a dual or shoot everyone down, I just think once you take the whole picture in, the direction seems to be clear.

That doesn't mean I quietly hope I'm wrong :)

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

donaldejose said:
Thom Hogan states:

I enjoy reading Thom as well. He makes some very good points and I think he has a better handle quicker on the industry than many companies.

One thing he and most who write on the subject have, is the ability to see and suggest changes for the day, today. The issue becomes when companies have to start designing 4 years before "today" or guess what the market 4 years from now will look like. Almost every camera company says that is how long it takes to develop new products. 4 years ago I would have never expected the m4/3 cameras to be as in demand, nor would I have seen cell phones overtake to the extent they have on compacts this fast. DSLR video being used for big production movies? Didn't see that one either. So far companies do a hell of a job predicting market forces.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

It's not DOF but it's barely D400 anymore! Let me see if I can bring this thread back on track while I clarify my position one more time :D

When I said that the math did not make sense to me, it wasn't just the profit I was referring to. As I said before, I don't think that the cost of production would be as high as 3/4 of the MSRP of D300. The cost was even worse when doing the full frame calculation and a big part of that calculation was the cost of the sensor ($1875).

Now, take a look at the Canon whitpaper document that zhinsara linked to (thanks zhinsara). Under section IV. Economics of Image Sensors (page 11), it mentions that an 8" wafer could cost anywhere from $450 to $5000 and can fit up to 20 full frame sensors. Even if we take the highest wafer cost, in order to arrive at a sensor cost of $1875 we need to have a yield of 2 to 3 sensors per wafer. That's a yield of 10-15%!

Maybe that applied to the earliest FX cameras but I find it hard to believe it would apply to today's FX sensors. Even if wafer costs from 6 years ago have not changed, manufacturing techniques do improve and sensors today most likely have a higher yield than back then. That's why I said we can't rely on old data in this case. (Btw, that whitepaper probably dates back to 2006 and while it does mention the 5D, the highest wafer costs were most likely in regard to the 1Ds. Of course I don't have any proof of this but just making edumacated guesses).

About the D400 or whatever hypothetically possible "entry level" FX camera Nikon might release, I don't think Nikon would use the same quality sensor as D4. I don't think they'd use the same quality sensor as D800 either. The cost for an FX D400 sensor would be lower than either the D4 or the D800.

About D700 cannibalizing the D3, again I go back to my earlier point; it's only a problem when Nikon does not manage their inventory properly and does not match demand (over-match/under-match). What's also not mentioned is that photogs who couldn't afford the D3 went ahead and bought a D700. Also, photogs who could afford the D3 but went with a D700 instead might have bought two D700's instead of one D3.

Bottom line is this: is it an economic possibility for Nikon to release an FX D400? Yeah I think it is. Does the market want an FX D400? I think it does. Is it going to undercut D800 sales? Not if Nikon plans accordingly. Is Nikon gonna do it? Who the heck knows!

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

@iris chrome: If anything the cost of manufacturing silicon (thus sensors) has gone up, not down. As the process becomes more refined they do get higher yields and thus the cost goes down over the life of a production run. The problem is that all changes when you start a new line of chips. Each new chip starts the cycle all over again. So if anything the new 16MP and 36MP sensors cost more to make today than the D3/D3s/D3x sensors did when they started production. Primary reasons would be, inflation, employee wage increases and the cost of updating the manufacturing equipment to the larger 300mm plates (if they are indeed using them). Over time the price will fall, just as with the last generation chips, but that will take a year or two.

I agree with Tao, and as much as I respect Thom's opinion, I don't see Nikon introducing another FX camera, at least not at this point.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

@PB PM

If Nikon does end making an FX D400, do you think its sensor alone will cost almost $2000?

I don't.

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

My point (and Tao's) is that Nikon wont be making the D400 FX, because it would cost too much in total, bringing the sale price very close to the D800. In other words it would steal sales from higher end FX bodies, something Nikon doesn't want. Nikon doesn't care about the price gap between DX and FX, at least the way you seem to think they should. That gap has been there for many years, and I doubt that will change any time soon.

Even if FX sensor are made for under $2000, Sony must be able to do this or they would be going bankrupt on A900 sales (They lost money on sales of the $2100 A850, not the A900), that doesn't tell the whole story. Unlike Canon though, Nikon does not make it's own sensors, which adds some extra costs. Just because the sensor is made for under $2000 doesn't mean it sells for less than $2000 per unit at the start of a run (Sony needs to make up R&D costs too!). If the D400/or a D8000 was FX the sale price would be around $2500 minimum (here we go again...). First reason the sensor would be at least $1000, throw in the larger pentaprism than DX (thats not cheap either), larger mirror, larger higher end shutter mechanism, higher end CPU and more. The sensor manufacturing price alone does not make up for the cost difference for Nikon, because they buy them from another company.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

Pg 11 of the white paper: "For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not
three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor." (That one is bookmarked.) If you read just pg 11, it goes into how easy the whole wafer could get thrown out. An overall yield of 10-15% - That is very believable, yields for really high end precision electronics are not great and a ton get scrapped. Say your yield is 90%, all it takes is a couple of entire wafers to knock that down quick.

Iris once more you are focusing on specifics that don't change the overall result. Go to your previous post, where I responded to go ahead and lower each number 10%, lower it 20% - Each number needs to be lowered though.

You can't apply industrial manufacturing (bolts, steel, raw materials) to precision products where over time, cost reduces. Major cost reductions happen when a brand new technology goes mainstream and it levels off and then increases slightly over time due to many of the factors PB PM mentioned (labor, energy...). The first Digital cameras were $10,000s but that was the late 80's and early 90's. Then the technology became main-stream and the cost dropped less and less each year to where it has leveled off and actually started to increase again.

Iris - by what you are trying to argue, it would be like saying: "the new generation of a F150 pick-up should be cheaper because the engine, even though it is different than the last one, has been produced for 80 years and it can't cost that much."
Think of it in terms of cars. In reality when it comes to applying cost, a camera is nothing more than a small car. It has parts, it gets updated, re-designed, etc. It's not much different - except for the fact that I doubt Ford looses 1 out of ever 2 or 3 engines due to dust or a scratch. That is where it turns unique.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Look guys, I wasn't the one who said that it couldn't be done because of A, B and C. The only thing I'm saying is that it is *possible* because A, B and C don't exactly apply here. There was no nit-picking and there was no dwelling on specifics either. At the same time I'm not going to sit and listen to half analyses and say nothing.

Tao, your main point regarding the cost of an FX D400 camera was that it could not be done since any attempt at making any other FX camera would essentially equate to another D800. You made that point quite clear in your post. That was half an analysis. You're assuming a system so rigid that it can't afford a reduction in costs. By that notion, it must be a miracle how we ever got the 5D and the D700 in the first place. I mean all other FX cameras were priced in the $5000+ range. What was the cost of those FX sensors then? If there is no way Nikon (or Sony or Canon) can manufacture a lower cost FX sensor today, how the heck did they manage to manufacture lower cost sensors for the 5D or the D700?

Tao, you say that another FX camera would be too closely priced to the D800 and would pull sales away from it. However, you also said that a D400 needs to be priced "low enough to pull people from a D7000." If that's not contradictory, I don't know what is. Honestly now, is it ok for the D400 and the D7000 to compete but not ok for the D800 and another potential FX camera?

Tao, you made a point earlier how if 50,000 people bought a D3 vs. 50,000 who bought a D700 then the profit margins for Nikon would have been $25mil vs. $15mil. So essentially Nikon loses $10mil because of D700 cutting into the D3. Again, you've given us half an analysis. You can't just say this and then ignore the actual total number of people who bought a D700 vs. people who bough a D3.

TaoTeJared said:
An overall yield of 10-15% - That is very believable...

Remember that this was based on the highest priced wafer mentioned in the report - in other words that was 10-15% on a best estimate. Based on a $4000 wafer then your yield would need to be 10.67% to obtain a sensor priced at $1875. If based on a $3000 wafer then your yield would need to be 8% and 4% based on a $2500 wafer. I'm only throwing these numbers out there to gain a perpective. I'm not being specific here. You can also bum down the sensor price a few hundred dollars but it's not going to change the yield much.

TaoTeJared said:
Iris - by what you are trying to argue, it would be like saying: "the new generation of a F150 pick-up should be cheaper because the engine, even though it is different than the last one, has been produced for 80 years and it can't cost that much."

Well, yeah!

If Ford is having a low engine yield because of manufacturing techniques/deficiencies then it stands to reason that improving the techniques/eliminating deficiencies would result in a universal price lowering.

TaoTeJared said:
...except for the fact that I doubt Ford looses 1 out of ever 2 or 3 engines due to dust or a scratch. That is where it turns unique.

Exactly my point!

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

PB PM said:
My point (and Tao's) is that Nikon wont be making the D400 FX, because it would cost too much in total, bringing the sale price very close to the D800. In other words it would steal sales from higher end FX bodies, something Nikon doesn't want. Nikon doesn't care about the price gap between DX and FX, at least the way you seem to think they should. That gap has been there for many years, and I doubt that will change any time soon.

Like I said in earlier posts, if there is a market then there is a market. If Nikon doesn't tap into it then somebody else will. Given that info which do you think is wiser, to let the sales go to another company or create a product that will meet the market's demands?

The only reason a company could undercut itself with a lower pricing product is if they fail to a) price it appropriately, b) manage inventory and c) match production expectations.

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

If that was true the Sony A850 ($2100 MSRP) would have easily outsold the D700 and 5D MKII, but it did not (it wasn't even close).

Posted 1 year ago #
zhinsara

senior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 59
offline

I would suspect the reason why that was the case is because it's a Sony. People who are going for these cameras probably have systems built around a Nikon/Canon base. No point spending less for a body and having to make up for it by buying glass you would need. On top of that, the Nikon/Canon name has a lot of reputation going for it.

@iris chrome, regardless of how well the processes improve, the material costs for each sensor is still quite high due to the high die surface areas involved. It's likely that fabs now have lots of experience with FF sensors, so they can improve yields.

Btw, regarding pricing, here in Msia the D700 has been sitting at RM6300 (USD 2100) for quite before they announced the price cuts in the States. It might still be profitable to make. Eg, the D90 body is now selling at RM2200, compared to RM3400 when it was first released. Could have been old stock, but the fact they can slash the price 30% and still continue selling for 1.5 years after the D7000 comes out says they still can make money on it.

Side note, I was always under the assumption that the low end products had tighter margins but made money due to volume, and the inverse for the high end (high end, higher margin, low volumes). That is generally the case, right?

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Having seen my first D7000 yesterday......I do not get around much..... I can easily see it is not a D300s or anything approaching it. So, it will certainly baffle me if NIKON changes the D400 to an FX. I suspect the FX shooters are happy with the choices available. Either a D800/e or D4. Maybe a smaller MP FX will come out, but doubtful. What is needed is the D300s "upgrade" and no argument I have heard is going to convince me that all of a sudden the DX format will be abandoned in the "Pro" or at least "Pro-sumer" line.

Now, if someone will read the new books that are available for pre-order, someone in the "inside" and let us all know, then we can complain about something else.

Posted 1 year ago #
tsitalon1

member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 38
offline

msmoto said:
Having seen my first D7000 yesterday......I do not get around much..... I can easily see it is not a D300s or anything approaching it. So, it will certainly baffle me if NIKON changes the D400 to an FX. I suspect the FX shooters are happy with the choices available. Either a D800/e or D4. Maybe a smaller MP FX will come out, but doubtful. What is needed is the D300s "upgrade" and no argument I have heard is going to convince me that all of a sudden the DX format will be abandoned in the "Pro" or at least "Pro-sumer" line.

Now, if someone will read the new books that are available for pre-order, someone in the "inside" and let us all know, then we can complain about something else.

HAHA, I emailed the author asking for validation of the existence of a d400 an whether it is FX or DX and have recieved no response as of yet. Kinda saw that coming, but just had to try. LOL

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

I think we all are a bit tired of waiting on Nikon for the D400. Why the hold up?

Let me suggest it is because there will be some new technology in that D400, such as a sensor that is not yet quite finalized.

Or let me suggest it is because Nikon is setting up an FX sensor production facility and assembly line in China in order to being FX production costs down to the point where FX can be sold at the D400 price point.

We should know all about the D400 by the end of this year. Maybe even before my D800 preorder is shipped to me!

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

zhinsara said:
Side note, I was always under the assumption that the low end products had tighter margins but made money due to volume, and the inverse for the high end (high end, higher margin, low volumes). That is generally the case, right?

Depends on the product and device but generally the cheaper usually has higher margins in consumer tech. In cameras, especially compacts and smaller body DSLRs the margins are greater. They do bennifit from previous generations of technology being included as well as lower tolerances, cheaper materials, less complex and capable circuit boards and chips, etc. They also don't see a full revamping with each release, usually just a couple of tweaks or inheriting the next level up's tech. (The D3100 is basically the D5000) Take it all in stride, the difference in margins is probably no more than 5-15%. In business, when you can sell 3x-10x as many, that couple of % can be huge. Some want to believe that everyone's margins are 50-200% on devices but that is rarely the case with consumer products and it is more likely they are in the 3-10% range.

donaldejose said:
Or let me suggest it is because Nikon is setting up an FX sensor production facility and assembly line in China in order to being FX production costs down to the point where FX can be sold at the D400 price point.

You can suggest it, but Nikon has made clear it is a DX plant and for accessories.

You know, if you guys would go read Nikon's press releases instead of dreaming you might be less disappointed with releases.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

msmoto said:
Now, if someone will read the new books that are available for pre-order, someone in the "inside" and let us all know, then we can complain about something else.

A few years back one of those publishers listed a book for the Canon 5dmkII almost 2 years before it was released. A Canon's response was something to the effect of - Hell we don't even know what it will have how could they?
Following that incident as the rumors grew, the publisher just said they choose the author and they are under contract for the next iteration of the body and it was nothing more than an advance placeholder for retailers to plan for.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

I am sure I won't be disappointed with the D400 whether it be DX or FX!

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

donaldejose said:
Or let me suggest it is because Nikon is setting up an FX sensor production facility and assembly line in China in order to being FX production costs down to the point where FX can be sold at the D400 price

Ok, Nikon does NOT make sensors, they buy them from Sony. Sony makes DX sensors in Thialand, and FX in Japan. In other words this is a non-issues.

Btw check out the main site, there is a rumor about the D600 being the entry level FX body. No MP count yet, and basic entry level features. Dual SD slots (no CF... WTF???). Also more rumors about D400 books, due for release in September.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

TaoTeJared said:
You know, if you guys would go read Nikon's press releases instead of dreaming you might be less disappointed with releases.

PB PM said:
Btw check out the main site, there is a rumor about the D600 being the entry level FX body.

Epic! ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #