Rumoured New Entry ELvel Nikon FX DSLR: D600

[D.P.]

There have been quite a few rumours and hints from various people over the last year about a potential low end Nikon FX DSLR, now Nikonrumours have some firmer details. Some assumed the D700 would continue and take on this role but the battery in the D700 is not allowed in Japan and some other countries anymore (exposed contacts) and a newer sensor might be a nice addition, along with the inevitable cost cutting measures.

If Nikon do bring out a 16/24Mp FX DSLR at a $1500-1800 price point it will be another game changer from Nikon.

 

[D.P.]

Perhaps but once again, as the D700 did with the D3, it could cannibalise D4 sales without a real need to do so, given the 5D3's pricing.

The hypothetical D600 would quote clearly be completely different camera to the professional top end sports and PJ camera that is the D4.

It might possible eat into the D800 sales, people with marginal finances will take a lower end D600 rather than stumping up for the D800. But again, these will be different cameras and the D800 sensor alone will differentiate the 2.

The lost D800 sales would more than likely be recouped by people who can now afford to buy a new FX body, people who were thinking of spending $1200 on a D7000 (or replacement) or a DX D400. And if a DX user is persuaded to upgrade to FX then they will buy some more FX glass.

There are probably also people out there looking to move into an entry level Full frame camera, where Canon provided a 5D classic second hand and 5DMKII with the same IQ as the 5DMKIII. Providing a cheap Nikon FX camera will make some people swing to a Nikon D600 which could offer better IQ and definitely better AF than the 5DMKi and MKII.



It is also a bit of a myth that the D700 had a large affect on D3 sales, mostly spread by Canon users to justify why their 5DMKII was crippled. People that needed a top end professional camera still purchased a D3, and the D700 generated plenty of sales from people who could not afford a D3. Perhaps some pros who needed a backup body to go with their D3 purchased a D700 instead of a 2nd D3, but then others would buy a D3x to go with a D3. You got to consider the price difference between a D3 and a D700 to a pro was not that big, and professionals tend not to worry about differences in prices but in the quality of the equipment. Anyway, with the release of the D3s there was a clear differentiator, about 1.5 stops low light performance.

 

[D.P.]

D4 is low volume anyway, and those who can afford it will pay the extra. Tbh I just think Nikon are aggressively trying to gain market share from Canon...

This 100%. Nikon are almost entirely a camera manufacture. They don't really do anything else (they do have a smaller stepper business but it is not so important). Nikon is the only pure camera manufacture who goals is to sell photographical and optical equipment. Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Samsung all have many different diverse enterprises and imaging is only a small part of these companies. All of these companies can survive without the camera business, and in fact for many of these companies their camera business is costing them money, being non-profitable.

So Nikon is in a fairly dangerous position, all the eggs in 1 basket, where the world demand for their product is flat-lining, or even disappearing with camera phones sucking up the bottom. Nikon has to take shares away from the other camera manufactures at every entry point. So far they are exceeding, and are showing growth while everyone else is loosing camera sales - to Nikon. It is not clear how Nikon has achieved its latest performance but they will need to try harder to keep up their growth.

Bottom line is Nikon needs to take camera sales from Canon, a low price FX Nikon camera is part of the process.

Thom Hogan frequently provides good insight into the camera business:
http://bythom.com/trend2011.htm

 

[D.P.]

Some more rumours on the sensor:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/30/r...-a-new-full-frame-cmos-sensor-for-nikon.aspx/

 

[D.P.]

That really would be shooting them selves in the foot. A lot of people buying a D600 would not have owned a full frame camera before and will probably need to upgrade their lenses at the same time. Restricting them to AF-s would put a lot of people off.

That said, a very small super basic full frame camera under £1000 would probably go down a storm with the street photography crowd. Possibly even something without a view finder like that bonkers Pentax.

EDIT: Actually the more I think about it, it should be like an old medium format camera with a the screen on the top.

Eh? Your logic is completely backwards. If the D600 was to materialise as an entry level body with FF sensor and as you postulate many users would be new to Nikon FX DSLR, then they are very unlikely to own any legacy non AF-S FF lenses, therefore the inclusion of a screw-drive motor for legacy lens support is pointless. An entry level D600 will match up perfectly with the 24-120mm f/4.0 AF-S VRII, or even the 28-300mm f/5.6 AF-S. Nikon have even patented a new 24-85mm variable aperture f4-5.6 lens as a potential cheap kit lens.

 

[D.P.]

What would a $1500/1800 price be equivalent to over here? Just swap the $ for a £?

Something like 1100-1300GBP at launch, basically half the price of a D800, much less than half the price of a 5dMKIII (although I believe Canon must lower their MKII prices by 25-30% to be competitive against Nikon D800) and a few hundred cheaper than a Canon 5dMKII. Canon will probably respond by lowering the 5DMKII price, which will make it a relative bargain against the 5dMKIII because the difference in IQ is so small.