Nikon D3x - $8000

Nikon users across the net have been busy in the forums since the announcement, mostly expressing their anger at Nikon.  Clearly they are feeling betrayed.  Perhaps more interesting though is the backlash against the backlash, mostly quite irrational.

One commonly expressed sentiment is “If you can’t afford it, you don’t need it.” Personally I can’t see any link at all between the need for something and the ability to pay for it.   Ask someone who has just lost his home for financial reasons if he suddenly doesn’t need one.

Another one is that if you are a professional photographer, you don’t need to think twice about buying one of these because you’ll pay for with a few days of shooting.  The idea seems to be that for any REAL photographer, this is just like a house builder buying a hammer.  There are at least two problems with this thinking.

The June 2006 PDN magazine reported the median income of a self-employed photographer at $57,500. “Median” means that half of those surveyed make LESS than this amount per year. Add a mortgage and a family to support to that equation, and an $8000 purchase is anything but trivial.  And lets not forget that this particular camera is clearly aimed at studio and landscape photographers. The median income for a fine art photographer was just $20,000. It’s not clear to me if these numnbers are gross or net, but I’d guess the former.

Then there is this implicit idea that unless you are a pro, you aren’t a real photographer and shouldn’t expect to use such tools anyhow.   Clearly people need a history lesson … many of the photographers we point to as the best in their time were not professionals, but amateurs.   The derivation of that word is relevant here:  An amateur is someone who does something for the love of it, not the cash.  Is it any surprise that many of the most famous photographs in history were made by such people?

Many of the anti-backlash people point out that not everyone needs more than 12mp.  That’s certainly true, but quite beside the point for those doing work that would benefit from it.

Many among the angry hordes are drawing comparisons to two other recently released cameras, the Sony A900, and Canon’s 5D mark II.  The former is built around the sensor that Nikon’s sensor is based on, and sells for less than half the price of a D3X.  The latter is a 21mp model that according to early reports produces images as good as Canon’s $8000 flagship, but lists at just $2700.

“You can’t compare these to a D3X!” many objectors are shouting, but of course you can, and many people clearly are.  The objectors will tell you that they don’t have the same features found on high end bodies … faster frame rates, weather seals, etc.  That’s quite true, and one of the things people will think about when they make the comparison.  Many are finding that for their use, the differences do not nearly justify the price of a D3X.  How many frames per second do you need for shooting landscapes, or doing product photography?

A big part of this conflict, I think, is that the real reason for the backlash is not often being expressed well, and therefor mostly not being understood by those who object to it.  Nobody is upset that Nikon has produced an $8000 camera.  If next year they introduce a $12000 MF camera, nobody will be angry at that either.

A set of high quality lenses is an expensive investment, and changing systems involves replacing it all, which can be expensive.   So buying a DSLR is not just a one time purchase … it is entering into (or continuing) a relationship.   Like all relationships, there are expectations.

Nikon users are angry because they have invested in the Nikon system, expecting Nikon to take care of their needs as the years go by, and they feel that isn’t happening.  Canon announced its first > 12 MP camera in September of 2004, more than four years before Nikon.  Nikon users around the world held their breath for last year’s D3 announcement, sure that at long last they would get more resolution … but they didn’t.  Nikon surprised everyone by introducing a camera that excelled at low noise, high sensitivity shooting.  It is a wonderful camera (I love mine) but it did not answer the need for higher resolution.  Speculation about a forthcoming D3X began immediately.

Hopes were high for PMA, but all we saw was a 10mp D60.  The rumours pointed to a summertime announcement, but all we saw in the summertime was a Canon announcement of the 50D, a 15mp model currently available for about $1100.   Nikon users still had nothing over 12mp at any price.  Nikon users prayed for pixels at Photokina …. and got silence from Nikon while Cannon announced a 21mp camera for $2700.

The rumour mill said “November, your prayers will be answered in November…” and people waited some more, and finally the announcement came.   The D3X appeared at last… 24mp… wonderful!  But wait… what’s the price?  $8000?   Most of them cannot afford it.  They look at Nikon’s historical flagship pricing, and they look around at the vastly lower cost of buying high resolution cameras from other vendors like Sony and Canon, and they feel profoundly betrayed.

Nikon D3x - $8000

So, the big announcement has finally come, and the new Nikon flagship, the D3X, should be hitting the streets before the month is out.  Let the rejoicing begin!

Or not.  The forums are crazy busy, as expected, but what are they discussing?   Not the new 24 megapixel sensor. which is what we’ve all been expecting for a long time now.  Not the other enhancements, because there don’t appear to be any substantial ones.   But the price.

Nikon Flagships have always been announced at US $5000.  I paid that much for my D2X, and again for my D3.   I wondered if the D3X would come in at a bit more, or if the D3 price would drop when the D3X showed up.

What I didn’t expect was a US$8000 price tag.   Taxes and exchange included, that’s a Cdn $11,000 purchase.

It has been my intention for some time to own this camera.  D3 for indoor/people work, D3X for studio and landscape work.  I never doubted it would happen.  But even though I could buy it, I’m really not sure I will.

My first thought, after I got past the OMG stage, was that Canon has had an $8000 flagship for some time, why shouldn’t Nikon do the same?  But the more I think about that question, the easier it gets to answer.

Canon’s 1Ds Mk III was announced at that price last summer.   At the time, if you wanted that quality, there were no lower cost alternatives.  At the time, flagship cameras not only offered pro quality build and features, they were also the only game in town for high resolution sensors.  It had been that way for some time.

Things are different now.  Nikon’s D700 has the same sensor as the D3, for considerably less money.  Canon’s new 5d Mk II offers 21MP for a list price of $2700, with street price soon to be lower as the initial demand tapers off, and Canonites are comparing the sensor favourably to the 1Ds Mk III.  Sony’s new flagship boasts the 24mp sensor that the D3X sensor is based on, for $2999.

Now some will point out that these sub-$3000 cameras do not have the build quality of my D3, and they are right.  Pro’s are used to paying a premium for faster recycle times, bigger buffers, better weather sealing, etc.  But it has never been a $5000 premium before, and the premium has always included a better sensor.  Viewed in the context of today’s market, this is the worst deal we’ve been offered in a while.

I’ve been shooting Nikon for more than a decade.   Yesterday I began the rather large task of becoming better aquainted with Canon’s offerings.  Depending on what I find, I may switch my more serious work to Canon.  I’ll probably write more about that soon.