So do you think we will get a D700x any time soon?

[ddk]

Here is an excerpt from Thom Hogan's analysis of Nikon's earnings - released yesterday...

http://www.bythom.com/

The bad news first: Precision is contracting fast. Nikon's current fiscal year estimate is that the Imaging division (cameras and lenses) will be 72% (!) of the overall corporate sales this year, and the only profitable (barely) unit. Also, Nikon is predicting first half Imaging sales well below that of last year (down 26%). Unit volumes of all items (DSLRs, lenses, Coolpix) is also expected to be lower for the first half of the year, but recover during the second half of their fiscal year (Ocober 2009 through March 2010). Ditto for sales and profits in the Imaging division.

The question, of course, is why the increase in the second half? Especially to the profitability. It doesn't seem to be "the economy will recover"--Nikon still remains pretty bearish regarding the overall economic situation, including the yen/dollar situation (yen starting to appreciate slightly again, which would reduce profits). I'd have to guess that it's high-end products. A D700x, D3s, strong D300s sales, plus three or four pro lenses would probably account for such an optimistic second half forecast.

Or its just wishful thinking for the stockholders benefit!

 

[wayne_s]

More interesting would be market share results and data on profit margins.
Good luck with the idea of 2nd half recovery. LOL

 

[fotografz]

My 2¢ based on currently owning and shooting with both Sony and Nikon systems.

Sony is a real value in terms of useful features, and some lenses in terms of IQ ... specifically the Zeiss offerings. It is no match for the D3X in ISO performance above 320 ... and is semi-useless in lower light especially compared to the D3/D700. Meg count means nothing when you simply cannot take the shot, or it's so noisy that you shouldn't have taken the shot . The Sony flash system is no where near that of Nikon and the ergonomics of the Nikon are subjectively better IMO.

IMO, a replacement for the D700 needs to keep this high ISO advantage more so than the D3X does. I wonder if the D3X sensor can be conformed with firmware to produce better high ISO performance with a slightly lower meg count ... like 16 to 18 meg or something like that ... AKA: Pixel Binning. :thumbs:

If it also followed the new D300s and offered 2 card slots for dual capture, and 14bit, that would be stellar as the current Sony has neither.

IMO, that would differentiate it from the D3X which would remain the highest IQ Nikon offering, and murder the Sony even if priced higher by outperforming it where it counts the most ... in less than ideal available light ... while capturing to 2 cards @ 14 bit. As a companion to my D3X, personally and professionally, I'd buy that camera in a NY heartbeat. :ROTFL:

BTW, I think such a camera would eliminate the need for a D3.

 

[Bill_Green]

Ditto for the D700X hurting D3X sales - I suspect that those who decide to buy the D700X weren't going to buy the D3X in the first place so I'd hardly consider that a lost sale. Depending upon pricing it may have more of an impact of D700 or D3 sales I think.

I think that is a valid point. I don't think Canon is attracting new users with the 5DII, clearly a few, but I think most are already living in the Canon camp. I opted for the Sony because Nikon didn't have a D700x. However, I also see that as temporary. In my eyes, the Sony A900 and Nikon D700 are the first cameras that really feel like a digital version of the old second tier pro/prosumer film cameras (Canon 1n, EOS 3, Nikon F100, Minolta Maxxum 9). Although I love the A900, it is far from perfect and I'm taking a wait and see attitude toward Sony.

On a slight tangent, when my Nikon system packed it in (sudden system wide failure) I decided to start over. I loved the F5 but not the price or weight and the F100 was unusable for me, so that ruled out Nikon. The EOS 3 was ok, but the 1n felt old and 1v was still a good way out. The Minolta system really did it for me, though the overall system price was pretty steep. I was strongly leaning toward Minolta when a Canon rep gave me a too good to pass up deal so I went that way. The A900 feels a bit like coming full circle and if my next move is to Nikon it really will be full circle. I did not check out a D700 when I bought the A900 as it seemed to be skewed toward features that were not important to me, much like the 5DII, but I really like the D2x feel and ergonomics and assume it is similar.

 

[Steen]

(...) I have been looking at high meg alternatives (...)

An affordable High-Megapixel Nikon "DxxX" is just a matter of time, probably even a rather short time (within the next six months I'd guess).

And an affordable High-ISO Sony "Axxx" is probably also just a matter of time. Maybe a little longer time.

I confidently believe both brands will at some point catch up on these competition parameters.
As an amateur I can just choose to patiently wait for that to happen.
Of course professionals cannot wait, they need to go with the best current solutions.

But ... I suspect Sony has a huge, very long lasting advantage with the in-camera anti-shake, as Marc (fotografz) mentioned in another thread on the Sony board.
I believe Sony made an extremely important decision choosing that path.
And furthermore (as Marc stated as well), Sony has the autofocus Zeiss optics !
This could be a very strong, and long lasting, advantage, provided they are clever enough to move on and make it a full range of Zeiss lenses.
The question is, will Sony do that ?

For me it's always the optics first. I bought my Nikon D300 simply because of the Zeiss ZF lenses. But sometimes I need, and miss, fast autofocus.
Right now I'm waiting for the hopefully soon to be released new Nikkor AF-S 1.4/85 (VR?) - or why not f/1.2 ?
I'm convinced Nikon is capable of designing a stellar high-level lens. But will they do that ?
For me this lens will be the acid test. If it is disappointing, I'll probably make the switch and walk the Sony-Zeiss path at some point in the future.
I never got it why Nikon doesn't design a completely outstanding 1.2/85 to take up competition with the renowned Canon 85 (I/II) L ... ?