Posted by Joshua Hardin on November 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM
It's here (and it's pricey). 24.5 megapixels. $8,000. Looks like Canon's got more competition for the 1ds MkIII. Now the wait is on to see if there will be a (less expensive) Nikon D800 that shares the same sensor like the D700 did with the D3 sensor.
Posted by Rick Dunn on December 1, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Looks like a nice rig, and maybe this will seem like a better deal in the morning after I read the full specs, but right now, I'd be hard pressed to think of a reason to NOT sell my D2X, say goodbye to Nikon, pick up a 5D II, and find something creative to do with the extra $5,000.
Nice camera, but seriously... $8,000? What am I missing?
Posted by George Hager on December 1, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Holy bat guano, Robin, $8,000 ????? Nikon is going to have to hire a proctologist to do a lobotomy on their CEO. I took off my shoes and counted twice and still, the numbers don't make any sense.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on December 1, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Interesting price strategy. Too bad, I was hoping they'd give Canon some price competition.
Maybe this is just an "introductory" price.
Posted by Rick Dunn on December 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Maybe this is just an "introductory" price.
Yep... it's introducing me to Canon!
Posted by Joshua Hardin on December 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM
My thoughts exactly Rick. Yeah, "interesting" pricing strategy. I've been waiting a while for this announcement so I expected to be impressed by the specs, but didn't expect so much sticker shock given the price of the D3 has been plummeting in recent months, the 5DII announcement and competition from the 24mp Sony A900. I'm doubting the new Nikon sensor is THAT ($5,000 more than Canon's 21mp) good, but we'll see what the tests show in the coming weeks. The 5DII is appearing better and better...
Posted by Guy Schmickle on December 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Boy, I was really hoping Nikon would price this much lower and start a new precedent with this class of camera. This is giving Canon the green light to continue pricing their new 1Dsx models in a similar fashion in the future. It looks like the major camera companies are collaborating instead of competing pricewise. Bummer!
By the way, there's an interesting article concerning the new camera's introduction written by Thom Hogan (a Nikon guru, for those that don't know him).
Posted by Joshua Hardin on December 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Great link Guy. I think Thom is right on about this one.
Posted by John Mumaw on December 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
That was a great read, Guy....thanks for posting that link!
Posted by Brett Deacon on December 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM
This looks like a truly amazing camera, but wow, I can't believe that with the recent competition from Canon and Sony Nikon priced it at $8000. For the first time in a long time, I'm actually glad to be a Sony user! I doubt this camera has much advantage over my a900 in RAW image quality at low ISOs (I'm sure we'll find out soon enough), and the Sony costs less than half as much, is much smaller and lighter, and has in-body image stabilization. The Nikon clearly has some advantages over the a900, but none that I'm likely to miss very much for my purposes, and certainly none that would justify paying an extra $5000. Yikes!
Posted by Guy Schmickle on December 1, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Yeah, it's a shame because IMO Nikon now has the ultimate DSLR lineup for the landscape shooter with the new D3X along with their 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 lenses. However, they're pricing makes it almost unattainable for the average joe (or even above-average joe)!
I'm with Thom, and even Ken Rockwell on this one. Although my lens lineup makes me joined at the hip with Nikon, there is no chance - short of winning the lottery - that I'll consider a D3X. As tough as the nature market is, coupled with an apocalyptic economy, I'm wondering who is the the target market? Studio shooters I guess.
(Let's see: I need a D3X, a 14-24, 24-70 and a 70-200. That comes to ~ $14 grand, not counting computer upgrades. How many pictures would I need to sell to break even?)
I'm even happier with my D300 today - it's paid for.
Posted by Les Barstow on December 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I'm with the rest of you here. I don't know what Nikon was thinking by introducing a new body at the $8000 price point. At the "normal" Nikon pro-body introductory price point of $5000 they would have sold a lot of these. At $8000, I don't think they're going to get a lot of takers.
If they don't want them sitting on shelves, they'd better show some samples that blow the socks off the a900 and the 1DSmkIII.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I read the Thom Hogan article too and found it interesting. I can't imagine what Nikon is thinking here. The most interesting items to me were that dealers have reduced their prices on the D3 to clear inventory, but that Nikon has not reduced their dealer pricing on that model. Some dealers were even selling below cost to clear inventory. Then Nikon has followed up with this camera priced at the same point as the 1DsIII. I think Nikon lost alot of customers to Canon in the transition to digital and I don't think the pricing on this camera is going to help bring them back.
I don't see how it would be possible for them to create sample images from the D3x that would blow away the 1DsIII or a900, especially when you consider the incremental nature of digital capture. The 1DsIII didn't blow away its predecessor from a previous generation and the D3x isn't going to blow away its peers from its current generation. I can't imagine that even the 1DsIII will be able to maintain its price point when the 5DII and a900 are priced $5000 lower.
Posted by Les Barstow on December 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM
BTW, unlike some of you, I don't see the impending doom surrounding Nikon's D3 or D3X. Nikon has sold a solid number of D3's, and for what they do, they will continue to sell them. That some retailers are downsizing their inventory via deep discounts I don't think indicates anything other than the limited market for such a specialty product (and let's face it, the D700 sells well to the low-light non-sports crowd, limiting the D3 even more...)
The D3X won't last at that price point, but it's not the end of Nikon's world. I think they'll change the price point relatively soon, and it will be a slow seller at any price if the market is expecting a D800 with the same sensor.
Posted by Joshua Hardin on December 1, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I completely agree with you Les, but you pointed out exactly the reasons why the pricing decision is perplexing. It isn't the end of the world, Nikon just missed an opportunity to benefit from the economic situation. Please forgive this rant:
A D800/D700x/whatever model with the same sensor is expected now so isn’t there much less likelihood potential customers would continue to bite at this price point? Many Canon 1Ds Mk III users feel burned they paid $8,000 when the 5D II came out months later at about $3,000. (Check out Marc Adamus' comment on this topic in the PNW or comments on RMNP when 5DII was announced). Nikon didn’t learn this lesson.
The price of the 1Ds Mk III, this camera’s main competitor, is around $6,000. Yes, Nikon has the newest model and many will pay for that, but is it $2,000 better? Also, potential customers now perceive that the less expensive 5DII and Sony A900 are competitors too. The market for the D3 truly is increasingly limited; D3 has been available 1+ year to its target market (PJs, sports). Meanwhile, a different target market for D3x (commercial/landscape photographers) feel like they’ve been left hanging. Now you’re giving them, a year later, essentially the same exact camera with only the sensor and board changed and you charge this group $3,000 more for it without any new feature improvements? Couldn’t a year’s wait have at least resulted in a sensor cleaner? Does the sensor really cost THAT much? Just seems to be an additional aggravation to a group of target customers who’ve already been contemplating switching brands.
I completely agree the price will go down soon, likely after the premium to “get it before Christmas” novelty wears off. There will be some who wait a little longer to see how this plays out. However this intro price also caused a lot of disillusionment with many potential target customers who are already on the edge. The costs/benefits for taking that risk just don’t add up to me.
Posted by Les Barstow on December 1, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Agreed, though I don't think there's ever been much overlap between the PJ/Sports markets and the commercial/landscape markets, and Nikon has been serving them both with separate lines since the D1H/D1X, at the same price point, with the same staggered releases...
The pricing is the sole detractor IMHO - and it's a very large elephant in the room considering the competition. Nikon is going to take a lot of heat over it (and reduced sales), and they should; whoever decided they could market this at $8000 should be out of a job the week after the camera ships and initial inventory isn't pre-sold.
Discussion
16 replieshttp://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25442/D3X.html
Nice camera, but seriously... $8,000? What am I missing?
Maybe this is just an "introductory" price.
Yep... it's introducing me to Canon!
By the way, there's an interesting article concerning the new camera's introduction written by Thom Hogan (a Nikon guru, for those that don't know him).
Nikon D3x Thoughts
(Let's see: I need a D3X, a 14-24, 24-70 and a 70-200. That comes to ~ $14 grand, not counting computer upgrades. How many pictures would I need to sell to break even?)
I'm even happier with my D300 today - it's paid for.
If they don't want them sitting on shelves, they'd better show some samples that blow the socks off the a900 and the 1DSmkIII.
I don't see how it would be possible for them to create sample images from the D3x that would blow away the 1DsIII or a900, especially when you consider the incremental nature of digital capture. The 1DsIII didn't blow away its predecessor from a previous generation and the D3x isn't going to blow away its peers from its current generation. I can't imagine that even the 1DsIII will be able to maintain its price point when the 5DII and a900 are priced $5000 lower.
The D3X won't last at that price point, but it's not the end of Nikon's world. I think they'll change the price point relatively soon, and it will be a slow seller at any price if the market is expecting a D800 with the same sensor.
A D800/D700x/whatever model with the same sensor is expected now so isn’t there much less likelihood potential customers would continue to bite at this price point? Many Canon 1Ds Mk III users feel burned they paid $8,000 when the 5D II came out months later at about $3,000. (Check out Marc Adamus' comment on this topic in the PNW or comments on RMNP when 5DII was announced). Nikon didn’t learn this lesson.
The price of the 1Ds Mk III, this camera’s main competitor, is around $6,000. Yes, Nikon has the newest model and many will pay for that, but is it $2,000 better? Also, potential customers now perceive that the less expensive 5DII and Sony A900 are competitors too. The market for the D3 truly is increasingly limited; D3 has been available 1+ year to its target market (PJs, sports). Meanwhile, a different target market for D3x (commercial/landscape photographers) feel like they’ve been left hanging. Now you’re giving them, a year later, essentially the same exact camera with only the sensor and board changed and you charge this group $3,000 more for it without any new feature improvements? Couldn’t a year’s wait have at least resulted in a sensor cleaner? Does the sensor really cost THAT much? Just seems to be an additional aggravation to a group of target customers who’ve already been contemplating switching brands.
I completely agree the price will go down soon, likely after the premium to “get it before Christmas” novelty wears off. There will be some who wait a little longer to see how this plays out. However this intro price also caused a lot of disillusionment with many potential target customers who are already on the edge. The costs/benefits for taking that risk just don’t add up to me.
The pricing is the sole detractor IMHO - and it's a very large elephant in the room considering the competition. Nikon is going to take a lot of heat over it (and reduced sales), and they should; whoever decided they could market this at $8000 should be out of a job the week after the camera ships and initial inventory isn't pre-sold.