The D3x Price Tag
Today marks the arrival of the Nikon D3x. It’s a 24.5 megapixel beast that’s been long awaited by the Nikon rumormongering community. It remains to be seen, but it promises to produce the best images to ever come out of a Nikon camera and should rival those produced by medium format digital backs. The low ISO sample images of studio subjects and landscapes I’ve seen so far sure do look nice. But, you’ll hear very little of the positive attributes of this camera online right now. Most of the pundits are consumed by the singular issue of price. $7995.95 to be precise.
The collective photography punditry community seems to have one thing to say about this, and not in a good way: Holy frakking mother of crap! Thom Hogan describes Nikon as trying to be the premium price player. Michael Reichmann has cancelled his order, declaring the pricing to be out to lunch. Self proclaimed cheapskate Ken Rockwell has decided that only suckers would buy a D3x at $8000. All in all, the commentary has been pretty harsh and totally obscures the fact that Nikon has produced what may be its best camera ever.
As for myself, while I was curious to see what the D3x would bring and am impresed by the information and sample images so far, it’s certainly outside of my current budget and I won’t be picking one up soon. Especially given the current economic conditions we find ourselves in.
It’s pretty obvious where the price tag came from. Nikon has obviously had one camera in its sights for this release. The Canon 1Ds Mark III. What’s the list price on that body? $7999. Of course, that’s list. You can buy the the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III on Amazon
In otherwise different times, and in a different marketplace, price matching the Canon 1Ds Mark III would probably be a wise move on Nikon’s part. While nobody likes the fact that the 1Ds Mark III is so expensive, it wouldn’t seem to be out of line on Nikon’s part. But, the 20+ megapixel digital SLR camera category isn’t composed of just these two cameras. There’s also the Canon 5D Mark II and the Sony Alpha A900, both priced at the just under $3000 price point. Sure, the 5D Mark II is skimpy on everything besides the sensor and the A900 is still a relative unknown. Even so, a $5000 price spread between these two cameras and the 1Ds Mark III and the D3x can’t be justified by just build quality, autofocus systems, and the like. Canon’s pricing on the 1Ds Mark III, especially in light of the release of the 5D Mark II seems outrageous. Nikon following suit seems equally so.
The current economic situation just makes the outrage that much worse. After all, budgets are tightening up everywhere. A bit of focus on the bottom line is imperative these days. And, OMG, EIGHT GRAND is a big hit on the books of most photographers who work solo or are simply enthusiasts. The hit is especially hard since you can get a twenty-some megapixel camera for five grand less. If all you are after is resolution, there are certainly more reasonable options.
Of course, it’s not just about resolution. There are other factors at play. You don’t buy a camera like a Nikon D3x based strictly on its spec sheet. You buy it based on what it can do. What the images look like when you print them out on paper at large sizes. The quality of the images a camera can produce is dependent on dynamic range, tonality, and several other factors beyond just the number of pixels crammed onto a chip. One of the things that makes medium format digital so appealing is that they provide more tonality and more range which produces a more pleasing image as a result.
If the Nikon D3x can indeed deliver medium format caliber images—which remains to be seen—or even get close to that level of quality, then that is worth something. If you’re in a business situation where your client demands something better than what you can provide, and is willing to pay enough so that their demand is reasonable, then the decision of whether or not to spend eight grand becomes a simple matter of business economics. The question boils down to: “can I make up the difference in cost in a reasonable time frame while making my clients happier with the results?” It’s a simple question that should be behind every purchase a business makes. And certainly, if the D3x can produce results in the ballpark of a $20,000 medium format setup, well, then the answer is straightforward enough.
Make no mistake. Nikon hasn’t priced this camera for enthusiasts. Or amateurs. Or pundits. It’s priced for big league professionals who are busy with decent sized productions. It’s aimed at people like Chase Jarvis who is both a Nikon and a Hasselblad user. The question is, did Nikon price right even for this market? Time will tell.
The rest of us that can’t make the business equation work will have to wait on the typical progression of Nikon aggressively pushing their technology down through their product line in a fairly reasonable timeline. Maybe we’ll see a D700x with the same sensor package in 2009 sometime? At a decent price? Assuming that the image quality that comes out of this technology package is all that it cracks up to be? All open questions at this point. And, for me, they aren’t pressing questions. After all, the D700 is the perfect camera for my business operations and I don’t see anything about the technology in the D3x that changes that analysis.
Still, even though I can see their pricing strategy with the D3x, I can’t help but to find it fairly off-putting. I also can’t help thinking that if Nikon had priced the camera at around $5000 or maybe $5500, they’d look like heros right about now. Super heros, in fact. As it is, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the street price of the D3x spin down to around what you can get the Canon 1Ds Mark III fairly rapidly.
Related Posts:
12 Comments
If you also take into consideration that the dollar is worth on average 95 yen right now (and it looks like it's gonna flirt with the high 80's soon), then setting a high price tag also makes some sense from a Nikon HQ balance sheet point of view.
I bet if the US$ was still at around 105~110 yen, the D3x would have been released at US$6,999.
Reply to this comment
You touch on it at the end, but remember: a company can always bring down the price of its products if they're too expensive, but bringing them up if they're too cheap is bloody near impossible. Give it a year or so, and I'll bet the street price will be at, or maybe even slightly below, that of the 1Ds III.
Reply to this comment
Good analysis on the D3x. I am really surprised to see lots of people that should know better complaining about the price of the D3x.
A certain group of pros with need/want this camera to do their jobs. It will be paid for with a couple jobs.
They will buy it regardless of the price (within reason) and then the demand will slow. Nikon will then lower the price to a point where demand picks up again. This is business 101. This is not the type of camera that will sit next to the Sony or Canon at Best Buys.
Do people think Nikon has a factory where elves crank these out for $500 apiece? They have to cover the cost of the camera, marketing, R&D, admin, etc... with the price of the camera.
Why should I pay $600 for Photoshop when there are many alternatives including Adobe's own PS elements that do the same thing for much less?
Keep up the good work. Like the new podcast.
Reply to this comment
I am very sad that middle class hobbyist photographers are unable to buy the latest toys to impress their friends. I think they should apply for a government bail out. Seriously, the D700 was GBP 2000 when it first came out in the UK. Now it's down to GBP 1600 or less. If people must have the product immediately that's their choice, if they don't then it helps Nikon manage the product ramp. As you say, those that can make money with it will buy it. Those that won't should wait.
Me, I'm happy with what I have.
Reply to this comment
Nikon forgot about 'mindshare'. I have used Macs and PCs, but prefer Macs greatly. Those who never used a Mac 'don't get it' . Canon has mindshare - people will often buy Canons ignorantly stating "this is THE camera pros use" like nothing else ever existed. People who go to an Apple store, and try Mac very often love Macs. Nikon needs to get cameras in more people's hands, $6000 would have kept mostly everyone happy. Nikon needs to senselessly beat Canon while they're 'down'. Canon is an 800lb gorilla, you may need to do whatever you have to to win. Nikon already lost probably over a couple hundred million since the 80's? when pros switched to Canon for their 'superior' autofocus and high ISO. Don't drop the ball twice Nikon!
(I tried a Canon - blah, like an alien artifact -- bought a D700 - it's my sweetheart)
Reply to this comment
I'm pretty puzzled by all this, well ... whining about the price. Yeah, it's crazy much money. Yup, way too much for most of us. Yup, you can get A LOT of camera for much less (for example the D700 - or even the D3). But it's not off the charts for "the high-end 35mm SLR camera".
Adjusted for inflation we paid almost as much for the D1 (less than 3MP!) or the D1x. And that was a great deal! Thousands less than the competition (Kodak's frankenstein monsters).
The one surprising bit isn't that it's expensive, but that it's so much more than the D3 and not clearly better. Higher resolution, but slower. Sorta like the x vs h models in the past.
But I think that can be explained by the target group these bodies. They are, as you said, people who do studio work or landscape work who currently use medium format backs that cost more than many peoples cars. If it's good enough for more of their work, then that's a great deal.
If you are targeting people who otherwise usually spend tens of thousands - what's a couple thousand then? It might even help get their attention.
Anyway - who cares! Our existing cameras didn't get worse overnight. :-)
- ask
Reply to this comment
Kurisu, Indeed. Currency issues and the continued concerns about what's happening in the economies of the world plays into this from that angle as well.
Reply to this comment
Indeed. Our existing cameras are just fine. And, as sample images come from the D3x that are good, I certainly plan on printing them large to get an idea of where its capabilities lay. That way, I have that much more information to work with to make any potential future decisions when the technology trickles down (or my client needs go up!).
Reply to this comment
Medium format digital is now less than $20K.
From B&HPhotoVideo:
Mamiya 645ZD w/80mm/2.8 (22mpix Mamiya back) $10K
Mamiya DL28 w/80mm/2.8 (28mpix Leaf Aptus II) $15K (includes choice of 55/2.8 or 150/3.5 lens - limited time offer)
Bottom line: Mamiya DL28 with two lenses, 44x33mm sensor, $15K
For certain use cases (studio, portrait, etc.), this might be a viable alternative for folks who are looking at a D3X or a 1Ds MkIII. And the Mamiyas take film backs.
Hmm.
Reply to this comment
Victor, aren't those just the digital back? You need to add a body (a couple thousand or so) and lenses. And those are just around the same resolution as the Nikon. (Maybe "better pixels" because they're bigger -- but maybe not).
Anyway - even so then you are proving my point. :-) If the D3x can compete with those cameras and it's still thousands of dollars less; that's a pretty good deal.
For another data point that they're targeting medium format users: I looked through the D3x brochure, and it's worth noting that 3 out of 4 of the photographer testimonials were from people usually using medium format cameras and praising the D3x.
- ask
Reply to this comment
A lot of emotion is flying around on this issue ...
As the proverbial "800 lb Gorilla" - Canon is the price leader (establishes pricing). As they can't be too happy about the erosion of their previous market dominance - you (as a vulnerable rival) don't want to further irritate them - into a price war ...
Reply to this comment
About the price... I paid full price for the D3 not long after they came out and although it was high, that camera was a big leap in many of the technologies used in it, it does things no other camera does, and I don't regret buying it. A lot of professionals agree, as witnessed by the news and sports fields that were almost totally dominated by grey lenses turned black almost overnight after it was shown what the D3 can do.
On balance, the D3X has a higher pixel count sensor... however, this sensor was not accompanied by any breakthroughs in the other technologies in the body, so physics dictate that it will be:
A) Less sensitive (smaller pixel wells capture fewer photons)
B) Noisier (less photons mean a higher signal-to-noise ratio before noise reduction takes place, and given the same technology to do the noise reduction, the result is a higher signal-to-noise ratio output than can be achieved with a cleaner, less noisey starting point, like the D3)
C) Slower shooting and internal processing rate (twice the pixels processed at the same speed in both bodies means a slower processing cycle.
All of this is to be expected. The bodies are the same with the exception of the sensor, and a larger buffer memory in the D3X.
The cameras are not interchangeable even though they have some overlapping capabilities. But there is no question from anyone that the D3X is not a replacement for the D3.
The majority of the R & D costs have been paid off for by the D3 due to it's huge popularity, so what really justifies the cost? When it comes right down to it, Nikon is asking us to pay an additional $3000 (oh, and you can add to that whatever the D3 sensor costs) for a higher pixel count sensor. We know (with the exception of the additional buffer memory- which btw, memory is dirt cheap these days, even the very highest performance memory, relatively speaking) that the bodies are identical, even sharing the same firmware in them. And we know that the sensor is in other 24mp cameras that cost as little as $3000 for the entire camera including all of those 'R & D' costs that someone else mentioned... I'd be greatly surprised if the cost of the sensor was even $1000, I'd even be surprised if it cost as much as $500, but that's as high as I could imagine it costs (I have a strong background in the design & manufacture of large scale integrated circuits, so it's more than just a guess).
So, what justifies Nikon charging this amount of money for the D3X? I feel I already have paid off my fair share of the R & D expense when I bought my D3. If the D3X had some huge technology breakthrough like a sensor that was twice the density of the D3 AND was as sensitive and had the same noise figures that the D3 is, I might be able to justify the price tag. If the D3X sensor was 24mp and had the wide dynamic range that the Fuji S5 Pro has, I might be able to justify the price tag. But the new sensor is a niche product that just fills one part of my needs, and even though I've got plenty of money to pay cash for one today, I'm going to sit on the sidelines and hope that Nikon comes to their senses. Sorry, if Nikon wants my money, they'll have to stick a gun in my face to get this much from me for a D3X.
Reply to this comment
Leave a comment