P
Player
Guest
I find it endlessly fascinating that Nikon chose to name their semi-pro FX camera a D700.
This makes me think that Nikon is unsure what direction the market will take. Will the consumer still be interested in DX cameras like the D300, or will the D700 signal the death knell for that format?
By choosing to name their semi-pro FX camera a D700, it seems that it gives Nikon wiggle room for future models. If the D300 proves to still be a good seller, future iterations would follow the logical nomenclature of D400, D500 and D600. If FX takes off, subsequent D700 models could move up or down in the naming sequence. D600, D500, and maybe D400, could all be full-frame FX sensor models with fewer features and cheaper than the D700, as prosumer FX models. If the D300 continues to attract buyers, that model will continue to evolve upward, D400, D500, and D600, and the D700 will evolve upward, D800, D900, and D1000.
Is this possible, and does it make any sense?
Thanks.
This makes me think that Nikon is unsure what direction the market will take. Will the consumer still be interested in DX cameras like the D300, or will the D700 signal the death knell for that format?
By choosing to name their semi-pro FX camera a D700, it seems that it gives Nikon wiggle room for future models. If the D300 proves to still be a good seller, future iterations would follow the logical nomenclature of D400, D500 and D600. If FX takes off, subsequent D700 models could move up or down in the naming sequence. D600, D500, and maybe D400, could all be full-frame FX sensor models with fewer features and cheaper than the D700, as prosumer FX models. If the D300 continues to attract buyers, that model will continue to evolve upward, D400, D500, and D600, and the D700 will evolve upward, D800, D900, and D1000.
Is this possible, and does it make any sense?
Thanks.