Nigel Atherton
WDC Editor
Reged: 16/05/2006
Posts: 277
Loc: Ministry of Magazines, London
|
|
WDC's two-part video review of the Nikon D700
|
eyedeebee
journeyman
Reged: 04/11/2006
Posts: 72
|
|
Nice review thanks - Now, do I really need a D3????
|
mediaman
Nearly Laid Back
Reged: 28/07/2008
Posts: 621
Loc: edinburgh
|
|
^^^ WHS^^^
--------------------
Kenny.
The tears of laughter were running down my legs.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2475
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
It seems to me that the lenses I would want with a D700 would be the same ones I would want with a D3. Now add up the weight of the lenses and D3 and with a D700. The difference in weight as a percentage is not really significant. You can do the same with cost.
To me DX is better than I need and FX is way over spec., so I stick with a D300. If I did want FX however I would be buying the D3 and not the D700.
|
Nigel Atherton
WDC Editor
Reged: 16/05/2006
Posts: 277
Loc: Ministry of Magazines, London
|
|
Quote:
Nice review thanks - Now, do I really need a D3????
That's the big question, isn't it. For most enthusiasts I'd have to say No. If you can get similar image quality and most of the features for a grand less, you've got to really want those extra bits that the D3 has.
I'm guessing Canon users will be asking the same question about the EOS 1Ds Mk3 now the 5D Mk2 is out.
|
lightspeed
member
Reged: 17/09/2006
Posts: 117
|
|
Leaving aside for a moment, the issue of changing cameras every 18 months, whenever the latest "must have" feature arrives on the market place, my question is this:
Why is the D700 nearly £1,000 more than the D300?
Yes, I know about the FX sensor being "harder to produce" and "very expensive to produce" etc, but to be honest, these excuses are cobblers! Once the tooling has been set up to produce any semiconductor device in quantity, the piece part costs are tiny! Look at microprocessors!
A grand extra for a larger sensor? seems to me that we are being taken for a ride! (I wish I had shares in Nikon!)
|
Adesw
The phantom flasher
Reged: 07/02/2008
Posts: 715
|
|
Im afraid its a demand and niche product thing
Both the d300 and d700 are a case of high profit, low sales.
If the d700 was much cheaper, then it would undercut demand for the d300, and clear the upgrade path for them. But right now they have a case of people buying the d300 because its £1k cheaper, and some will eventually upgrade to fullframe, effectively giving nikon double profits.
|
TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16863
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Quote:
Yes, I know about the FX sensor being "harder to produce" and "very expensive to produce" etc, but to be honest, these excuses are cobblers! Once the tooling has been set up to produce any semiconductor device in quantity, the piece part costs are tiny! Look at microprocessors!
Sounds OK to start with, but how many chips for cameras (excluding compacts, which, let's recall are over 90% of the total market) are manufactured compared to microprocessors for computers and lord alone knows how many other devices these days. I'd suspect it's a fraction of a percent of the microprocessor output. In addition, not all DSLRs - even within a given sensor size - use the same chip, so that's multiple production lines to factor in.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else--and whichever is better you print. - Garry Winogrand
|
lightspeed
member
Reged: 17/09/2006
Posts: 117
|
|
Apparently over 70,000 D300s are produced per month at Nikon's plant in Thailand - that's nearly a million cameras per year.
If the D700 was priced around the D300 mark, then there is no reason to assume that D700 volume would not be similar
Even at £1M sensors per year, what is the unit cost going to be? £20 per sensor? - let's be generous, and say it's £100 - that's still a long way away from the extra £1,000 for the D700
The real reason for the price difference is purely marketing and greed! In the normal way of things, the D700 could almost be considered as a replacement for the D300, but it has been released almost in parallel to boost sales and profits!
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 3938
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Quote:
The real reason for the price difference is purely marketing and greed! In the normal way of things, the D700 could almost be considered as a replacement for the D300, but it has been released almost in parallel to boost sales and profits!
What is wrong with that? That is the reason Nikon exist after all, to make a profit for the share holders.
|
PaleRider
journeyman
Reged: 15/06/2006
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
Apparently over 70,000 D300s are produced per month at Nikon's plant in Thailand - that's nearly a million cameras per year.
My D700 claims to have been made in Japan, so that will also add to the premium above the 300. Not sure if that means manufactured or assembled in Japan though.
--------------------
I have hidden shallows.
-Apparently, I said that.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
