Nikon D3X

[Derrel]

Well, InTempus, you wrote it, not me. Call yourself whatever,or whoever you want to call yourself.

My post is clearly not a flame war. My opinions are pretty clearly stated.

You've really got a chip on your shoulder if you think a few comments constitute a "flame war". I made a simple post, and you come trailing in, within minutes, trying to stir up trouble by calling yourself an idiot and throwing gasoline on a spark you're trying to fan into flames.

Don't you have anything better to do than run around behind my posts and try and stir up controversy with juvenile attacks on me?

Please, show me how I am "trying to start a flame war in every post". I spend a lot of time and effort here actually HELPING people and answering technical and practical questions. Your allegation is baseless, and really nothing more than an ad hominem attack; you had nothing worthwhile or factual to say, so you attacked me as a person. You even invoked Mike in your silly little game; why bring another person into your ad hominem attack?

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[schumionbike]

Well Mike, it would appear we're both idiots. The Derrel has spoken.

As you can see, he's continuing to try and start a flame war in every thread in which he posts.

The guys gave his opinion, you gave yours, that was all there was to that. While we're at it, here's my 2 cent

I'm sure when Nikon introduce the D700, they didn't lose a profit, heck, they probably gain a huge profit from that. Yeah, the D3 might lose some sales but Nikon would gain that all back with the D700. I mean, the most expensive thing to develop in the camera is the sensor and probably the AF system, and if they can sell that sensor and AF system to more people to split the oringal R&D cost, that's a good thing. The only thing that is really different between the D3 and D700 is the body built and features. If Nikon get more people to buy their sensor and AF system by selling the D700, that's good. If they can get professional who lives depend on the robustness o their camera and not just simple image quality,well, they can pay an extra 1500 bucks. Features the D3 has like the dual slots and 100% viewfinder and all that jazz could cost quite a bit extra even though it probably doesn't cost all that much to develop them. Not to say that dual slot and 100% viewfinder don't have much worth to a pro-photographer but they are charging a lot for something that is relatively easy to develop. This would be a better approach then to to sell a limited amount of D3 and can't split that R&D cost of the sensor and AF system.

Cliff note: if both the D700 and D3 sales are generating profit, they both be around forever. I believe this is the case since the R&D cost of the sensor and AF system per camera is much lower with the intro of the D700. K, done with my two cents. Now I just hope I can get a a new D300 for $599 in the next couple years.

 

[DScience]

Well Mike, it would appear we're both idiots. The Derrel has spoken.

As you can see, he's continuing to try and start a flame war in every thread in which he posts.

I wasn't going to read Derrel's post, but then I did to see what the big deal was. And I am still asking that question?

Honestly, I see absolutely NO intentions of starting a flame war. I think you are a little out of line, but do as you wish.

 

[inTempus]

Nikon's users are not sheep, which gather in flocks. Nikon has been gaining market share, largely at the expense of Canon.

Here the implication is that I am insulting Nikon users by making them out to be sheep "which gather in flocks". That clearly wasn't my intention by saying that if Nikon pulls back on features on future releases of the D700 people will bail in flocks. The point was that people are now accustom to the highbrow feature set of the D700 which rivals that of the D3. It's not something you can easily take away without upsetting folks. Derrel's snarky comment was purposely intended to solicit a negative response.

What, will Ferrari start making $80,000 "economy model" cars next? Will Rolex start selling $149 watches? Will Crystal become a $49 econo-champagne. Duh....

The addition of "duh" is clearly intended to imply stupidity.

We can do without the snarky little jabs I believe. We have enough of that non-sense already.

 

[inTempus]

I wasn't going to read Derrel's post, but then I did to see what the big deal was. And I am still asking that question?

Why were you avoiding reading Derrel's post?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Clash of the Titans – Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock | Yuri Arcurs

Has some good comments on actual usefulness and on body ergonomics,as well as lenses that are up to the task.

I don't see people leaving Nikon in "flocks",not matter what a D700x might have, since even their prosumer D300 body has the same, capable autofocus system in a body that prosumers and hobbyists can afford. Nikon's users are not sheep, which gather in flocks. Nikon has been gaining market share, largely at the expense of Canon.

As for the end of the high-priced, single-digit bodies from Canon and Nikon, executives at Canon and Nikon are the ones who make the decisions, and the flagship factor of the highest-MP bodies is something neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to throw away because Michael Reichmann has had his fill of costly bodies,finally; anybody who knows camera marketing can tell you that the top-tier bodies,and lenses, are aspirational tools; without a top-tier body, users of the system do not have something to covet and aspire to eventual ownership of. People who say the days of the Nikon D3x or Canon 1Ds Mark III are somehow "numbered" or "limited" are clearly not in tune with photographic consumers, or top level professionals. What, will Ferrari start making $80,000 "economy model" cars next? Will Rolex start selling $149 watches? Will Crystal become a $49 econo-champagne. Duh....

There are ample people who will ALWAYS be willing to pay for the Top Model. And beneath them are legions who look to the Top Model as the pinnacle of the system. Nikon has made a major sea change over the 27 years I've shot Nikon--and that is to rather quickly down-migrate Top Model features, such as the pro-level AF system and pro-level metering modules in the D3 series, in the mid-level D300 and D700 bodies. Nikon is also a very proud engineering company; the F6 was made for company pride and for proof of engineering prowess, not for sales numbers.

The D3x is for the upper echelon of shooters, just like the 1Ds Mark III is. The masses are shooting D90's and D300's and 50D's and 5D Mark II's. The beginners are buying Digital Rebels and D60's. But deep down inside, there seems to be quite a bit of interest about the Top Model,even among those who have no need for it, and no means to ever obtain it. And that is why the days of the expensive, Top Model d-slr are not limited, but unlimited.

:thumbup:

 

[DScience]

I wasn't going to read Derrel's post, but then I did to see what the big deal was. And I am still asking that question?

Why were you avoiding reading Derrel's post?

Because it was long lol

 

[MrLogic]

Mike,

Nikon gutted their own D3 market. Perhaps it was by design or perhaps it was by mistake. Either way, the end user really gained from their actions... even us Canon shooters did. Because what Nikon does Canon must counter if they want to stay in the game.

Canon has purposely tried to avoid doing this. They push people to their 1D bodies by watering down their lower end bodies. Robbing them of high-end AF systems, dual card slots and weather sealing. Personally, I find this rather annoying. As a user, I like Nikons approach.

And yet... the 5D MK II still competes with 1Ds MK III, despite the many consumer-grade features of the former. I know too many studio photographers who opted for the 5D II.

 

[MrLogic]

Clash of the Titans – Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock | Yuri Arcurs

Has some good comments on actual usefulness and on body ergonomics,as well as lenses that are up to the task.

Odd that he doesn't consider third-party lenses... especially Sigma.

 

[schumionbike]

Yeah, I kind of like Yuri Arcus analysis of the lenses from the link above. It's kind of surprising that he didn't like the 24-70 f2.8 from Nikon considering all the praises I've been hearing about it. Here is a little excerpt from the blog.

"Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 (impressively sharp lens)
Nikon 50mm f1.4 (useless below f3.0, sharpness lacking, will be rejected for stock)
Nikon 85mm f1.4 (too blurry below f2.0, very sharp at f5.6)
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8"

 

[benlonghair]

The addition of "duh" is clearly intended to imply stupidity.

We can do without the snarky little jabs I believe. We have enough of that non-sense already.

For some reason this thought reminded me of this: xkcd - A Webcomic - Duty Calls

 

[terri]

Nikon's users are not sheep, which gather in flocks. Nikon has been gaining market share, largely at the expense of Canon.

Here the implication is that I am insulting Nikon users by making them out to be sheep "which gather in flocks". That clearly wasn't my intention by saying that if Nikon pulls back on features on future releases of the D700 people will bail in flocks. The point was that people are now accustom to the highbrow feature set of the D700 which rivals that of the D3. It's not something you can easily take away without upsetting folks. Derrel's snarky comment was purposely intended to solicit a negative response.

What, will Ferrari start making $80,000 "economy model" cars next? Will Rolex start selling $149 watches? Will Crystal become a $49 econo-champagne. Duh....

The addition of "duh" is clearly intended to imply stupidity.

We can do without the snarky little jabs I believe. We have enough of that non-sense already.

Even if your perception is that Derrel's comments were meant as "snarky little jabs" (and you appear to be the only one here who took it that way), you would be better off NOT zeroing in on it, quoting it, and making additional comments on it. That takes time and effort...and it also makes you more of the instigator here, sorry.

It's clear you two kids don't get along, but you both seem unable to resist reading one another's posts, searching carefully for perceived insults so you can volley something back. Given the fact these posts usually end up getting reported, I can safely say the general membership is sick and tired of the pissing contest and the moderators are sick of running to these skirmishes to tell you - again - to play nice. USE THE IGNORE FEATURE on each other. The moderator team will know if you don't.

 

[inTempus]

Ignored.

Thanks Terri.

 

[reng2009]

Clash of the Titans – Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock | Yuri Arcurs

Has some good comments on actual usefulness and on body ergonomics,as well as lenses that are up to the task.

I don't see people leaving Nikon in "flocks",not matter what a D700x might have, since even their prosumer D300 body has the same, capable autofocus system in a body that prosumers and hobbyists can afford. Nikon's users are not sheep, which gather in flocks. Nikon has been gaining market share, largely at the expense of Canon.

As for the end of the high-priced, single-digit bodies from Canon and Nikon, executives at Canon and Nikon are the ones who make the decisions, and the flagship factor of the highest-MP bodies is something neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to throw away because Michael Reichmann has had his fill of costly bodies,finally; anybody who knows camera marketing can tell you that the top-tier bodies,and lenses, are aspirational tools; without a top-tier body, users of the system do not have something to covet and aspire to eventual ownership of. People who say the days of the Nikon D3x or Canon 1Ds Mark III are somehow "numbered" or "limited" are clearly not in tune with photographic consumers, or top level professionals. What, will Ferrari start making $80,000 "economy model" cars next? Will Rolex start selling $149 watches? Will Crystal become a $49 econo-champagne. Duh....

There are ample people who will ALWAYS be willing to pay for the Top Model. And beneath them are legions who look to the Top Model as the pinnacle of the system. Nikon has made a major sea change over the 27 years I've shot Nikon--and that is to rather quickly down-migrate Top Model features, such as the pro-level AF system and pro-level metering modules in the D3 series, in the mid-level D300 and D700 bodies. Nikon is also a very proud engineering company; the F6 was made for company pride and for proof of engineering prowess, not for sales numbers.

The D3x is for the upper echelon of shooters, just like the 1Ds Mark III is. The masses are shooting D90's and D300's and 50D's and 5D Mark II's. The beginners are buying Digital Rebels and D60's. But deep down inside, there seems to be quite a bit of interest about the Top Model,even among those who have no need for it, and no means to ever obtain it. And that is why the days of the expensive, Top Model d-slr are not limited, but unlimited.

You're absolutely right. I agree completely. When I was shopping for my first DSLR, I was drawn to the Canon brand, thanks to their aspirational high-end models. To be sure, my 40D is not in the same league as the 1Ds Mk III, but I'm very glad to have a piece of the Canon mystique.

 

[schumionbike]

if this mean anything, Flickr: Camera Finder: Nikon average number of nikon camera use at the site everyday. You'll notice 446 D3 user daily and about 1000 D700 users. Given the prices different between the two camera, you probably can say that D700 complimented the D3 sales. Serious amateur who who would have opted for the $1800 D300 could now go for D700 now. I think the sport photographers still go use the D3. Photographer who shoot wedding on weekend to supplement their income could upgrade to a D700 too.

Notice that there's only 26 D3X on flickr on average, a much smaller segment, oh, and look like the D40 hold top honor with 3200 user on flickr daily. The D1 series look like they are completely gone . The D2 series is getting there too.\


Edit: actually it's the D80 that hold top honor, the D40 rank second