|
|
Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
WDC's two-part video review of the Nikon D700
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
Nice review thanks - Now, do I really need a D3????
|
|
mediaman
|
|
(Nearly Laid Back)
|
|
21/09/2008 20:51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
^^^ WHS^^^
|
|
Learning
|
|
(Ethelred the Ill-Named)
|
|
21/09/2008 21:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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)
|
|
24/09/2008 21:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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)
|
|
25/09/2008 10:14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Re: Nikon D700 video review posted
|
|
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.
|
