FX-vs-DX Sales

I guess I'm part of the 2%.
I agree that Nikon probably needs a pro DX line of lenses, at least a Trinity:

DX 9-17mm f2.8 VR
DX 17-55mm f2.8 VR (already exists)
DX 55-135mm f2.8 VR

Also probably a couple high quality bright primes, like:

DX 14mm f1.8
DX 16mm f1.4
DX 24mm f1.4
DX 56mm f1.4 VR
DX 90mm f1.8 VR

Something one would actually use on a D500.

Then again maybe thats Nikons strategy: force people to FX ...

FX sales are going to shrink back a bit. The D500 is going to take some from D7200 sales, but will probably take more from D610 to D810 sales.
Um. I couldnt possibly disagree more.

Somebody who buys a D500 instead of a D610 or D810 ?!? Wait, what ?!?!??? Who exactly would that be ? I'm drawing a perfect blank there.

Obviously the D500 will "steal" from the D7200. Thats because people want the fps the D7200 lacks.
His analysis seems to be based on everyone who buys a camera is a Pro whether DX or FX.

His analysis needs further break down such as:
let's assume anyone with a d3x00 or d5x00 is a general consumer, and probably will not need anything more than a kit lens kit. Yes, TPF is full of people that go beyond this but we would need to analyze ALL sales (yes even those from Kmart and Target) of how the buyers used the cameras.

Can't we assume high end buyers who buy d3x00 and d5x00 Upgrade at some time? Thus taking them out of the low category?

We can think of d7x00 users as moving to better lenses which would match his analysis.
and D500 (d300 also) use better glass

And FF users use better lenses, though don't need DX lenses.

So if we look at the same of the d500, d300 bodies then we can make a real analysis of a trinity of DX lenses.
Using the entire population of DX sales to support his theory I believe is wrong.
After all, it's Supply and Demand.
And I don't think there's a large enough Demand to warrant a Supply. If the Supply is low, then all engineering costs would have to be included in that small Supply which would mean HIGH prices, possibly higher then FX lenses. Thus, why bother ?

his analysis is really 2 dimensional, when it needs to be 3 dimensional.

Maybe ppl can gather up their money and help subsidize the design and engineering costs in order to manufacture lower cost DX lenses.

These analysis really need to include the cost of design and engineering to bring things into perspective.
wow. really Thom?
"Consumer in this context means mostly the Mode dial cameras (e.g. currently D3300, D5500, D610, D750)"

this is one of the single most retarded articles I have seen from Thom yet. hes really reaching here.
first off, he completely fails to separate Nikons camera linup in any reasonable way except to purposefully skew the numbers the way he wants them. if you actually look at his classifications, this is clearly obvious. (see above quote)

secondly, the entire premise of his article is...you know what? I have no friggen idea what the premise of his article is. its just that stupid. he spends have the article re-classifying cameras, and the other half bitching about Nikon not making a mirrorless camera. does Thom just have so much Nikon stock that he feels he constantly has to try and protect the company? or is he just so much of a conceited ego-maniac that he really thinks he knows the camera business better than Nikon does?

The answer, Thom, is this....
Nikon makes a limited lens lineup for DX because....and please bear with me just a moment....
wait for it..... (this may come as a shock to you)
DX camera users can use FX lenses.
yup. the word is finally out.
I know, I know...there are some reasons that lenses specific for DX would be nice. smaller, cheaper...but I think in the end, enough people are buying the pro FX lenses for their DX bodies that Nikon probably doesn't feel the need to make two versions of the same lens, especially when im sure the bulk of those consumer DX buyers arent buying many lenses outside of the kit lenses anyway. so...Nikon is supposed to develop and produce pro DX lenses for the remaining people that want pro lenses cheaper for their DX cameras? I think Nikon would be better off improving their Kit lenses like Fuji and making it an 18-55 f/2.8-4 lens.

As for the resurgence of the "pro DX" camera...
I think Thom is really overthinking Nikons decision there. I think its simply a response to more people using DX cameras for wildlife/sports shooting and Canon putting out some better DX FPS/buffer options lately.
I think Thom is completely off on where he thinks the D500 will steal sales from. the D610/d810? really?
come on man, are you even trying at this point Thom?
An entry level FF and a camera totally designed for portrait/landscape work...yes Thom, those are the cameras that the new DX sports camera is going to pull from. *facepalm*
for someone who is supposed to be some sort of Nikon expert, he sure doesnt seem to know the company (or the customers) very well. I mean, im an idiot and i can figure out why Nikon is doing what its doing...
I think Thom has reduced himself to basically writing for clickbait lately.
all fluff and speculation with no substance.
I think Thom has reduced himself to basically writing for clickbait lately.
all fluff and speculation with no substance.
@cgw doesn't seem to care. He'll just spend all day posting the latest crap article on various sites and you'll keep reading them.
When you are part of an enthusiast forum like this it seems like most want fullframe. However I know loads of people that wanted a good camera, had a bit of money and bought a crop dslr, only for it to be never used or definetely never upgraded. The low fx numbers make sense
If we take all the photos that we could possible want to take and look at the percentage that could only be taken with an FX camera, what do you think that percentage would be?? I'm thinking perhaps 1 or 2 percent?
And, what's the percentage of folks that just WANT an FX versus folks that NEED an FX, perhaps 75 or 80 percent???
Depends upon your perspective and cost analysis and at what level of cost analysis.
It was cheaper for me to move to FX than get an appropriate lens in DX for UWA.
But it was also cheaper to get a d7x00 body for it's builtin focus motor with AF-D lenses than a cheaper body and AF-S lenses.

If you want to base analysis on only NEW current lenses and bodies cost analysis can justify certain level of items.
if you add used, older technology, and base your results on not the super duper IQ, etc quality from a mega-expensive lens, then your cost analysis can show varying results.

Essentially, buy what you can afford based upon what you want to get out of it and what you feel comfortable buying. Then use it.
Somebody who buys a D500 instead of a D610 or D810 ?!? Wait, what ?!?!??? Who exactly would that be ? I'm drawing a perfect blank there.

I'd be one of those. I was thinking of "upgrading" to FX, but with the D500 coming out, I'd rather go with that since I already have DX lenses that I like.

edit: Actually, I would've gone for the D750, so maybe your point still stands.
Me three.. Did the full frame route and it doesn't work for me.. But I'm special :)

Most reactions