Tweet
Op de site van Thom Hogan vond ik dit interessant artikel:
Bron: http://www.bythom.com/index.htm
Bron: http://www.bythom.com/index.htm
The D700s and D700x
Feb 24 (commentary)--I notice that Nikon Rumors is recreating a poll that I've run many times, only in a slightly updated guise. It's basically the "what do you want to replace a D700" poll. The choices have always been (1) improve the low light capability (the D700s choice: 12mp D3s sensor in D700 body), or (2) increase the pixel count (the D700x choice: 24mp D3x sensor in D700 body).
With over 25,000 responses prior to the D800 leaks, my results put the D700s and D700x options neck and neck: within two percentage points, at 49% versus 51%. As I write this, the Nikon Rumors results are 58% versus 42%, still very close and within sight of a coin toss.
Indeed, one might explain the slight tilt Nikon Rumors tilt towards the D700s option as being people deciding that the D700x option (the D800) was a little too x for them once it was announced. That, coupled with the 16mp versus 36mp choice--16mp is closer to 24mp but keeps the essence of the D3s sensor--probably explains the difference. Still, taken at face value, all these polls that have been run about the D700 followup choices still indicate the same thing: there's strong demand for both options. Put another way, Nikon needs to produce both options.
So the question is: will they?
I keep getting vague hints from anonymous sources that the D400 is indeed not a DX camera but something akin to a D700s. To date, no information I've received about that has the clear ring of authenticity to it, though.
The interesting thing is that there are two missing cameras from Nikon's DSLR lineup: a high end DX model, and an entry level FX model. The D7000 doesn't satisfy the high-end DX side primarily because of its buffer. That, coupled with the new "top" for DX being 24mp (Sony A77, NEX-7), means Nikon doesn't have a true competitor at the top of the DX line at the moment. I can't see Nikon foregoing that, so it's easily imaginable that the D300s replacement is a 24mp DX D400.
On the other hand, there's that strong demand for a D700s. Curiously, Nikon announced that they'll continue to build the existing D700, but they didn't change pricing at all. That seems like a "patch," not a solution. Either the D700 needs to come down to a price one full step below the D800, it needs to get the D3s sensor, or both.
Meanwhile, the D7000 is coming up due for an update late this year. Could it be the new high-end DX? Imagine this lineup for a moment:
D3200. Entry DSLR, and entry DX, 24mp.
D5200. Mid-level DX, 24mp.
D7200. High-end DX, 24mp.
D400. Entry FX DSLR, 16mp.
D800. Mid-level FX, 36mp.
D4. Pro FX, 16mp.
versus:
D3200. Entry DSLR, and entry DX, ??mp.
D5200. Mid-level DX, 16mp.
D7200. High-end DX, 16mp.
D400. Top DX, with 24mp sensor.
D700. Entry FX DSLR, 12mp. (Eventual D720 or phase out?)
D800. Mid-level FX, 36mp.
D4. Pro PJ FX, 16mp.
D4x: Pro studio FX, 36mp.
Basically, it boils down to which of those lines you think makes more sense. The first list seems lean and clean to me. The second list has a lot of historical slop in it, and some pixel count marketing issues. Add in a third Nikon 1 model (my Z1), and the first list would be 3 CX, 3 DX, and 3 FX: basically an entry, mid, and top in each line, with the lines being spaced nicely (except for the Nikon 1, which is currently out of whack in terms of pricing).
The second list is more hodge podge, with new/old overlap and essentially four choices in each category.
I know which list I'd want to market. Does Nikon?
Feb 24 (commentary)--I notice that Nikon Rumors is recreating a poll that I've run many times, only in a slightly updated guise. It's basically the "what do you want to replace a D700" poll. The choices have always been (1) improve the low light capability (the D700s choice: 12mp D3s sensor in D700 body), or (2) increase the pixel count (the D700x choice: 24mp D3x sensor in D700 body).
With over 25,000 responses prior to the D800 leaks, my results put the D700s and D700x options neck and neck: within two percentage points, at 49% versus 51%. As I write this, the Nikon Rumors results are 58% versus 42%, still very close and within sight of a coin toss.
Indeed, one might explain the slight tilt Nikon Rumors tilt towards the D700s option as being people deciding that the D700x option (the D800) was a little too x for them once it was announced. That, coupled with the 16mp versus 36mp choice--16mp is closer to 24mp but keeps the essence of the D3s sensor--probably explains the difference. Still, taken at face value, all these polls that have been run about the D700 followup choices still indicate the same thing: there's strong demand for both options. Put another way, Nikon needs to produce both options.
So the question is: will they?
I keep getting vague hints from anonymous sources that the D400 is indeed not a DX camera but something akin to a D700s. To date, no information I've received about that has the clear ring of authenticity to it, though.
The interesting thing is that there are two missing cameras from Nikon's DSLR lineup: a high end DX model, and an entry level FX model. The D7000 doesn't satisfy the high-end DX side primarily because of its buffer. That, coupled with the new "top" for DX being 24mp (Sony A77, NEX-7), means Nikon doesn't have a true competitor at the top of the DX line at the moment. I can't see Nikon foregoing that, so it's easily imaginable that the D300s replacement is a 24mp DX D400.
On the other hand, there's that strong demand for a D700s. Curiously, Nikon announced that they'll continue to build the existing D700, but they didn't change pricing at all. That seems like a "patch," not a solution. Either the D700 needs to come down to a price one full step below the D800, it needs to get the D3s sensor, or both.
Meanwhile, the D7000 is coming up due for an update late this year. Could it be the new high-end DX? Imagine this lineup for a moment:
D3200. Entry DSLR, and entry DX, 24mp.
D5200. Mid-level DX, 24mp.
D7200. High-end DX, 24mp.
D400. Entry FX DSLR, 16mp.
D800. Mid-level FX, 36mp.
D4. Pro FX, 16mp.
versus:
D3200. Entry DSLR, and entry DX, ??mp.
D5200. Mid-level DX, 16mp.
D7200. High-end DX, 16mp.
D400. Top DX, with 24mp sensor.
D700. Entry FX DSLR, 12mp. (Eventual D720 or phase out?)
D800. Mid-level FX, 36mp.
D4. Pro PJ FX, 16mp.
D4x: Pro studio FX, 36mp.
Basically, it boils down to which of those lines you think makes more sense. The first list seems lean and clean to me. The second list has a lot of historical slop in it, and some pixel count marketing issues. Add in a third Nikon 1 model (my Z1), and the first list would be 3 CX, 3 DX, and 3 FX: basically an entry, mid, and top in each line, with the lines being spaced nicely (except for the Nikon 1, which is currently out of whack in terms of pricing).
The second list is more hodge podge, with new/old overlap and essentially four choices in each category.
I know which list I'd want to market. Does Nikon?
Comment