Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

  1. #1
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

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

    Thank you, Nikon!

  4. #4
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

  5. #5
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Read Reichmann's article on supposed shortcomings with DxOMark's methodology in regard to medium format digital.

    Nothing is clear cut.

  6. #6
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

  7. #7
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

    Just this guy you know

  9. #9
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I think the number of A900's around here bear witness to Nikon's mistake.
    What mistake? In the UK the Nikon D3x is now selling for considerably less than the Canon 1Ds 111.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithL View Post
    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).

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

  12. #12
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by TimF View Post
    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...

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

  14. #14
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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?

  15. #15
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    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.

  16. #16
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by marknorton View Post
    I'm quite sure there will be a D800 in due course which will be more price competitive against the Canon and Sony.
    Indeed, and it'll be the perfect back-up for the D3x

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithL View Post
    ...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

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithL View Post
    Indeed, and it'll be the perfect back-up for the D3x
    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

  19. #19
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by marknorton View Post
    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!

  21. #21
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Sony got mine by offering a better over-all value (same resolution, built-in IS and better lenses ...
    And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?

  22. #22
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger 9 View Post
    And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?
    And by that you mean (intervening a bit here to keep the discussion on track) that a strong brand name or reputation should not necessarily be taken as a guarantee for quality, right?

    (My favorite lens says "Cooke Optics Ltd Leicester, England.")
    Last edited by Lars; 5th February 2009 at 12:06.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger 9 View Post
    And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?
    Yep.

  24. #24
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger 9 View Post
    And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?
    I know of many dual Nikon/A900 users, and I've yet to hear of one say that the Nikon 24-70, 85, and 135 are a match for the equivalent ZAs. Granted, I'm sure there will be a debate once the 14-24 Nikon and ZA 16-35 have more comparisons, as that is a great Nikkor and should get the nod.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    I know of many dual Nikon/A900 users, and I've yet to hear of one say that the Nikon 24-70, 85, and 135 are a match for the equivalent ZAs. Granted, I'm sure there will be a debate once the 14-24 Nikon and ZA 16-35 have more comparisons, as that is a great Nikkor and should get the nod.
    If you are referring to the 135 DC Nikkor, it's a much more complicated design than a "straight" prime. Considering that, it holds up pretty well. That doesn't mean it's a match to the Zeiss, but the comparison is a bit flawed.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  26. #26
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars Vinberg View Post
    If you are referring to the 135 DC Nikkor, it's a much more complicated design than a "straight" prime. Considering that, it holds up pretty well. That doesn't mean it's a match to the Zeiss, but the comparison is a bit flawed.
    Oh yeah, I forgot that it was a DC. I guess it's more in line with the Sony 135mm STF, albeit they're very different designs.

  27. #27
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars Vinberg View Post
    If you are referring to the 135 DC Nikkor, it's a much more complicated design than a "straight" prime. Considering that, it holds up pretty well. That doesn't mean it's a match to the Zeiss, but the comparison is a bit flawed.
    That's part of Nikon's problem. They don't have a "straight" 135.

    I find Nikon's slowness to develop ordinary, fast, new primes below 200mm increasingly frustrating. The last few years, there have been three PC lenses, two micros, one fish-eye but only one ordinary lens. On the other hand, they have discontinued their only fast WA and most of the manual focus lenses.

    For prime users, Canon, Sony and Pentax have much more interesting choices. Even Sigma has a relatively extensive range.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Yes, Nikon seems to think that a good 300/400/600 supertele lineup brings in more revenue than a 35/1.4 AF. And they're probably right.

    Sigma's product strategy is refreshing, if they could just get a reputation for consistent quality they'd be a an alternative at all levels.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Well, in truth no one should kiss off a whole lens line up, nor tout that just because it's Zeiss it has to be better.

    A few observations from a dual user:

    Since I use both Nikon and Sony at weddings, I cherry picked lenses for both. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is one essential Nikon, and my favorite from Nikon is the 200/1.8. (freakin' LOVE that lens!)

    To be fair, the Nikon 85/1.4 is an okay lens, but sorely in need of updating (AFS, Nano coating, APO? ... not holding my breath). By comparison, the Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4 is a better lens, but no world beater ... the Canon 85/1.2 is a better lens @ f/1.4.

    Same for the 135s ... the Nikon was pretty good 10 years ago, but long in the tooth and is falling behind as the resolution of these cameras moves up ... the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 is a world class lens .... the equal to the Canon 135/2 in clarity, while beating it for color rendition, micro detail and bokeh.

    The mainstay lens for my wedding work is a 24-70/2.8 ... it's here that the Sony/Zeiss walks away from the pack ... IS is one contributing factor to that over-all impression which neither the Nikon or Canon version offer ... but even with the camera's IS turned off, the lens clearly out performs both the Nikon and Canon versions in all respects concerning IQ. However, it still exhibits visible distortion at the wide end, so is far from perfect.

    IMO, the stand out lens from Sony isn't a Zeiss optic! The 70-200/2.8G APO is without a doubt the best version of that focal length zoom I've ever encountered.
    The Sony doesn't have the IS advantage here as both Canon and Nikon offer IS and VR. Both competing lenses are excellent performers but the edge goes to the Sony IMHO.

    Why Nikon refuses to produce at least 3 fast primes baffels me. A 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 with AFS and Nano coatings, and a new 85/1.4 ED, AFS, Nano-Nano would be most welcome.

    I personally don't care if they don't do a fasterer wide angle ... the 14-24/2.8 is a world class lens (except for flare), and if size is an issue there's always the often forgotten Nikon 18/2.8 ( a lens I haven't used for years, so I don't really know how it would stack up today on a high res. DSLR)

    Lastly, when the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 hits the shelves, it should be conmpared with the Nikon 17-35 and Canon 16-35 ... not the 14-24/2.8. I can already guess how that comparison will shake out since the Nikon version is also quite long in the tooth.

    When Sony produces a camera that shoots to dual cards and is better weather sealed with a wider array of AF points ... the game will be over for Nikon and me. Until then I'm content to cherry pick the best for both. Being a gear whore, if I could hack it financially, I'd like a 5DMKII and 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2 to cherry pick from also.

  30. #30
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Why Nikon refuses to produce at least 3 fast primes baffels me. A 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 with AFS and Nano coatings, and a new 85/1.4 ED, AFS, Nano-Nano would be most welcome.
    The original Swedish version of this page was linked to here last year, suggesting that 35mm/1.8 and 135mm/1.8 are in the pipeline, together with an update of the 80-400mm.

  31. #31
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    While we are on the subject of lenses, how about 50mm primes?

    Nikon AF 50mm f1.4D vs. Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4G vs. Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZF?

    Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar? How does it perform at distance?

    Nikon 45mm f2.8 ED PC-E? How does the performance compare (un-shifted) with the standard primes?

    Obviously I'm not concerned about AF performance and neither am I concerned about wide open performance or bokeh. Any hands on comparisons would be appreciated.

    So many questions, perhaps I should have started a new thread?

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by TimF View Post
    The original Swedish version of this page was linked to here last year, suggesting that 35mm/1.8 and 135mm/1.8 are in the pipeline, together with an update of the 80-400mm.
    35/1.8 when EVERYONE else has a 35/1.4 ... the 135/1.8 sounds promising because making a decent fast 135 is apparently not that hard ... who cares about a slow mega zoom ... not me.

    Bring back the 28/1.4 ASPH with AFS and Nano-Nano and I'm there cash in hand ... never should have sold that lens

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithL View Post
    While we are on the subject of lenses, how about 50mm primes?

    Nikon AF 50mm f1.4D vs. Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4G vs. Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZF?

    Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar? How does it perform at distance?

    Nikon 45mm f2.8 ED PC-E? How does the performance compare (un-shifted) with the standard primes?

    Obviously I'm not concerned about AF performance and neither am I concerned about wide open performance or bokeh. Any hands on comparisons would be appreciated.

    So many questions, perhaps I should have started a new thread?

    Nikon 50/1.4D: not as good as the Canon version.

    Nikon AFS 50/1.4G: haven't used one.

    ZF 50/1.4, pretty sharp ... you may not be concerned with bokeh, but that may change if you get this lens ... worst bokeh in the Zeiss line up, Nikon is better.

    ZF 50/2 Macro: superb at all distances, beautiful bokeh. A gem of a lens.

    Sigma 50/1.4: sharp, blooming around highlights @ f/1.4, but crisp at f/2.8 on ... very nice for portrait work.

    Voigtlander 58/1.4 Nokton: odd lens with odd bokeh ... quite sharp stopped down.

  34. #34
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    35/1.8 when EVERYONE else has a 35/1.4 ...
    Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.

  35. #35
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.
    That makes sense, to fill the need for a normal prime in the high volume DX market. Aggressively priced must mean sub-$150. A lens like this is a fairly simple design, so it will quite possibly be a decent performer and a good value like the 50/1.8.

    BTW Nikon in Sweden has 35/1.4 manual focus in stock, as well as 24/2.0 and 50/1.2.
    http://www.nikonstore.se/Product/Sec...st.aspx?s=8216
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  36. #36
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars Vinberg View Post
    BTW Nikon in Sweden has 35/1.4 manual focus in stock, as well as 24/2.0 and 50/1.2.
    http://www.nikonstore.se/Product/Sec...st.aspx?s=8216
    I think at least the 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 are still being made, although in small batches.

  37. #37
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    I think Sony have achieved something of a coup by introducing Carl Zeiss lenses which are fully integrated into the camera unlike the basic manual focus, aperture priority only primes for Nikon (and, I assume, Canon). Sony have had some sort of alliance with Carl Zeiss - along the lines of the Panasonic/Leica arrangement - for some years so the top end lenses seem a given. Sony get CZ's lens designs, CZ get access to the interface which beats reverse engineering it.

    I can understand therefore why some are dumping Nikon/Canon in favour of Sony or as an alternative and am impressed - could never happen for me though, just too deeply invested in Nikon to throw it all away and start again. Cameras, lenses, flashes, wireless, just too much.

    I don't think there's any chance we could see CZ lenses fully integrated into Nikons and Canons - I'm sure Sony will have some sort of exclusive arrangement - but I'd like to see Leica use their lens expertise to do an "up-market Sigma" and produce a series of top quality lenses which integrate fully with Nikon and Canon, even Sony.

    Too often, we read comments "improves on stopping down" which makes me wonder what the point of buying a fast lens is if it's not fully usable wide-open. I've bought the AF-S 50mm/1.4 and it's a nice lens, but it's no Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH...
    Last edited by marknorton; 7th February 2009 at 19:15.

  38. #38
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I think at least the 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 are still being made, although in small batches.
    I bought both on ebay after I got my D3 and they're nice lenses, especially the 50/1.2 which has a Noctilux look about it. Very soft at the edges on FF though... The 35/1.4 is an amazingly long lived lens design by Japanese standards, haven't really gelled with it, more likely to pick up the 28mm/1.4 AF-D instead.

    I do think Nikon need to get back into primes in a big way after a steady procession of worthy but oh so dull consumer zooms.

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.
    DX? No joy there.

    Is the Sigma 30/1.4 an FX ... and more importantly is it any good wide open?

    It's odd that there isn't a killer AF 50/1.4 Pro spec lens in Nikon mount. Canon's 50/1.4 is really quite good, and the 50/1.2L is a great lens.

  40. #40
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    DX? No joy there.

    Is the Sigma 30/1.4 an FX ... and more importantly is it any good wide open?

    It's odd that there isn't a killer AF 50/1.4 Pro spec lens in Nikon mount. Canon's 50/1.4 is really quite good, and the 50/1.2L is a great lens.
    Sigma 30/1.4 is a normal lens for DX.

    While a cheap DX normal might not make anyone here happy, if it's priced like the 50/1.8D or Canon's equivalent (<$100) it's bound to become a best seller. That's the target market, D40/D60 owners. Not people here. From a revenue standpoint that's not a bad move.

    Re 50/1.4, the new G seems to match the Canon in performance as well as price. The Canon isn't exactly stellar, and Canon can always fall back on the 1.2L for reputation. If it wasn't for the 1.2L then Canon's offering would be a bit lame (i.e. like Nikon's). But at a price point of 12x the 50/1.8, the 1.2L is hardly relevant WRT revenue.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  41. #41
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by marknorton View Post
    I think Sony have achieved something of a coup by introducing Carl Zeiss lenses which are fully integrated into the camera unlike the basic manual focus, aperture priority only primes for Nikon (and, I assume, Canon).
    From what I've read the Zeiss ZE lenses have/will have electronic linkages, so apart from AF should be fully compatible with Canon's bodies. Why is this not the case with the Nikon-mount optics? (and will they be upgraded with such) Maybe those who developed the idea didn't consider that users outside of the old classic manual bodies would use them?

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    I don't know why not. Mr. Kobiyashi over at Cosina figured it out with the SL II line. Both lenses are chipped for Nikon in F-mount. Works like a champ!
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  43. #43
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.
    Regrettably the rumours are correct - 199 in UK, in shops March 6th.

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    I still do not grasp why the maker of a Professional level DSLR ... now with full frame capability in 2 of it's cameras, does not field a modern AFs 35/1.4.

    It is a mainstay for wedding & event work, journalism and serious street shooters, and probably the most used prime lens of them all.

    Since I believe most folks who buy comsumer level cameras tend to use zooms, I'd hazard a guess that a 35/1.4 FX would outsell this new 35/1.8 DX ... and at approx. $1,000. (like Canon's 35/1.4L) compared to $200., it'd generate more revenue also.

  45. #45
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    As even an FX/DX 35 1.8 would outsell the DX only 35mm I'm at a loss to understand why they crippled the lens?
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  46. #46
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    As even an FX/DX 35 1.8 would outsell the DX only 35mm I'm at a loss to understand why they crippled the lens?
    Probably because they needed a cheap lens to sell in large volume. If they made it FX, they would have been slaughtered for not making it good enough. The one they need for the high-end market will not be cheap.

  47. #47
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Probably because they needed a cheap lens to sell in large volume. If they made it FX, they would have been slaughtered for not making it good enough. The one they need for the high-end market will not be cheap.
    I still don't get it. Does Nikon consumer cameras come bundled with a lens like this elsewhere in the world? It doesn't here in the US ... it's usually a crappy zoom.

  48. #48
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I still don't get it. Does Nikon consumer cameras come bundled with a lens like this elsewhere in the world? It doesn't here in the US ... it's usually a crappy zoom.
    No, they don't, but when you think of the number of 50/1.8 sales, it's a very easy business decision to make.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •