The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

Lars

Active member
With the rearview mirror firmly in hand, one could give Nikon's product strategy with the D3x some thought.

From looking at the feature set and pricing, the aim for the D3x project must have been squarely set on Canon's 1Ds series. It's a good guess that Canon's dominance on the pro side had been noticed at the Nikon exec level. The decision to make a 1Ds competitor was probably taken some time ago, maybe 2-3 years ago. Nikon engineers seem to have succeeded in making a better camera, but last fall A900 and 5DII happened, altering the game: More megapixels doesn't necessarily mean more bucks.

Nikon now has some tough marketing decisions to make: How to follow up D3x with midrange offering using D3x chip, and where will D3x pricing go?

The first one seems obvious at first glance - upgrade D700 body with D3x chip (let's call it D700x), price it just above A900 and 5DII as it's a better built pro-spec body. Maybe start at $4K list price and let it slide down from there.

The second one is trickier. Is D3x seen as a source of revenue, or is it only about bragging rights? With a D700x body on the market as a volume 20+ Mpx product, the D3x becomes a specialist offering instead of enabling technology for Nikon lenses, so there would be less price pressure.

Now, what if Nikon product strategy had gone the other way? Release D700x first, get the volume and market share it would deserve even at $4K price point, then later on release an overpriced D3x for those who need it. I think there is a good possibility that such a strategy would have generated significant volume sales both in pro and prosumer markets, as well as bragging rights for the best DSLR IQ on the market. D3 would remain PJ and sports shooters' choice, and a D3x body (with D3-like frame rate, possibly priced at $10K) would be for those who really need it.

Bottom line - Nikon might have made a strategic mistake here.

Lars
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I suspect Nikon knows that the market for the D3X is very limited, but that those who feel that they need it will buy it, more or less whatever the cost. For me, the integrated vertical grip and the dual card slots would be reason enough. If I could afford it, but I can't.

The D700X will be in a much more vulnerable position. Although the D700 body is an excellent one, I would prefer the Sony to get in-body IS and access to their excellent Zeiss lenses, at least if I didn't have a bunch of Nikon glass already.

Then there's the 5DII, with video and the possibility of using almost any lens that I can think of. Common sense says Nikon, but my sense isn't always common :eek:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I think with the price hike, it is a good time to sell Nikon glass. :)

Thank you, Nikon!:thumbup::ROTFL:
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Check how the D3x compares to, say, the Mamiya ZD medium-format back in DxOMark sensor ratings and it looks as if maybe the Canon 1Ds wasn't their intended competition.
 
M

marknorton

Guest
If you're a camera manufacturer and your brand new sensor is supply constrained - tough to make, yield problems, huge investment to recover - you're going to put it in the camera with the biggest margin.

I have no idea how well the D3x is selling; if Nikon are selling all they can make, their strategy was correct. There's been a hefty price rise here (UK) just recently, about 10%, though I don't think the market will wear it.
 
T

TimF

Guest
I recently had an email from Calumet, which contained a list of their top 5 selling cameras. The D3X was on it, but they are of course a professional dealer, so the inclusion can't be taken of evidence of anything except that those pros in the UK who need the camera are paying out.

On the other side of the equation, whilst in London before Xmas I was surprised to see the camera apparently as a stock item (though perhaps only a single copy) in a high street dealer's window, suggesting they either hadn't had many pre-orders, or at least one had cancelled when the price was revealed.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think the number of A900's around here bear witness to Nikon's mistake.
If they'd announced a D700x in September I would still have Nikon glass (and I'm not alone).
But if they're selling them, and making a profit, then obviously they got it right.
 

jonoslack

Active member
What mistake? In the UK the Nikon D3x is now selling for considerably less than the Canon 1Ds 111.
But it's still £200 more than THREE TIMES the price of the A900 . . . with the same sensor (of course it has advantages, but disadvantages too).
 

douglasf13

New member
I've seen many Nikon users add the A900 to their arsenal, because a lower cost, high MP Nikon isn't available. The problem is, once those users get used to IS, Zeiss, and handling of the Sony, they may not migrate back to Nikon.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Read Reichmann's article on supposed shortcomings with DxOMark's methodology in regard to medium format digital.
Not that anyone particularly pays any attention, but DxO themselves state continually that their "mark" only evaluates the quantitative performance of the sensor, not the whole camera system.

On the other hand, if I were as heavily invested in medium-format digital as Reichmann is, I too would be scratching frantically for ways to rationalize "subjective quality evaluation" as being more important than quantitative data. But that's fine... The philosophy of "never mind the measurements... it's better because I just know it's better" has been keeping Leica buffs happy for years, and there's plenty of room for medium-format enthusiasts on the same bandwagon.

The fact that medium-format systems have lots of advantages in flexibility, modularity and handling, even if the sensors aren't any better, is one point that's probably going to get lost in the shuffle...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'd say that they missed the mark by about $1,500. given the world economic situation and full frame attrition that took place over the past 5+ years as Nikon pro users moved to Canon IDsMK1,2,or 3, ... or up to Medium Format.

My experience with Nikon new releases over the years was "short supply" for months and months ... not so this camera. My local dealer has them in stock, and have called me more than once to gauge interest ... they still have all of them, not one has sold ... which NEVER has happened before this early after a "hot new" release. B&H has them in stock, which is also rare this early on.

Yes, the A900 happened ... and it happened to me for one. The A900 and 3 Zeiss optics was less than the the D3X body ... (minus the my selling off of any redundant Nikon focal lengths.) I have kept my D3 and D700 for wedding work to cover the lower light work when needed. 90% of that wedding work is done at ISO 800 or less, so the Sony in my wedding bag with the D700. BTW, IS in the A900 body cannot be over stated as a benefit.

I'd have liked to replace my D3 with a D3X ... but no way is that going to happen until the D3X comes in at around $6,500. which may be a while off ... hopefully during an improved economic climate.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I'd have liked to replace my D3 with a D3X ... but no way is that going to happen until the D3X comes in at around $6,500. which may be a while off ... hopefully during an improved economic climate.
...and you can't write that $1500 off against tax?
 
M

marknorton

Guest
I paid £4018 + VAT for my D3x, equivalent, roughly to $5800 + sales tax. You just have to cultivate a relationship with a dealer.

I'm quite sure there will be a D800 in due course which will be more price competitive against the Canon and Sony.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
...and you can't write that $1500 off against tax?
Sure, I can write off the whole $8,000. ... but that's a fallacy, you have to have the money in the first place ... and Sony got mine by offering a better over-all value (same resolution, built-in IS and better lenses ... all for less money ... the total of which also gets written off.

Besides, it's like my wife spending us into the poor house because all the Jimmy Choo's she wants are on sale :ROTFL:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Indeed, and it'll be the perfect back-up for the D3x :ROTFL:
Hey, in the end if you have the money or the work to support it, then anything is possible and is strictly a personal choice.

For me the era of $8,000. DSLRs has come to an end. I never saw the value in it anyway ... I just did it because I could.

Now, if I want super high levels of IQ it's MFD all the way ... I loved the resolution on my Canon 1DsMKIII, and now the Sony A900 ... but in no way do I confuse those also rans with my Medium Format cameras. The persistent chatter of these cameras challenging MFD is nonsense IMO and direct experience ... except maybe for graduates of the Helen Keller school of photography :ROTFL:
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Now, if I want super high levels of IQ it's MFD all the way....I loved the resolution on my Canon 1DsMKIII, and now the Sony A900 ... but in no way do I confuse those also rans with my Medium Format cameras. The persistent chatter of these cameras challenging MFD is nonsense
But as a Sony and Nikon small format DSLR user you know that those super high levels of IQ are just not needed for many jobs and the small format cameras are better suited to certain tasks. Horses for courses.

I don't doubt for a moment that Sony will eventually rise to the top of the small format DSLR pile but they're not there yet. In fact if the Sony was anything like a complete system and had better all round performance I'd already be using it.
 
T

TimF

Guest
I paid £4018 + VAT for my D3x, equivalent, roughly to $5800 + sales tax. You just have to cultivate a relationship with a dealer.

I'm quite sure there will be a D800 in due course which will be more price competitive against the Canon and Sony.
Now now Mark. You've said elsewhere that your dealer was in a particular situation in regard to this camera. I doubt if I could get a D3X (or anything else) at or near dealer price if I tried for eternity! :ROTFL:
 
Top