Not many of course but still the path remains for APS-C upgraders. Not everybody takes the path that we are taking (lens first before body). But at least the choice is still there. I'm also not saying it's an important feature, but at least Nikon cares for those upgraders.weixing said:Hi,
I just wonder how many people will actually use the crop mode over a long period of time? For example, a user who own a D3200 with quite a number of DX lens decided to upgrade to D600 while he'll slowly upgrade to FX lens... then suddenly realized in DX mode, he only had 10MP on D600 while his old D3200 had 24MP... hmm... I'm not sure about others, but for me, I'll not be very happy during the transition time. If I'm a Nikon user ready to upgrade to a FF DSLR, I'll first upgrade all my len to FX lens before getting a FF DSLR.verysimplejason said:I think it's not only the price. Upgraders from APS-C will find Nikon offering much easier to take. Imagine if you're invested in DX (AF-S) glasses. You can still take D600 and little by little upgrade your lenses. It's besides the fact that it's offering it at almost the same price of 5D2. Wow!
So, for me, a FF DSLR offering a crop mode is not attractive at all, unless when using crop mode, the FF DSLR can achieve a much higher frame rate then that's another story.
Have a nice day.
I'm quite sure you're wrong here - their production costs have nothing to do with it, I doubt they can even figure them out considering the r&d involved that has to be returned, too. The price is simply as high as they can get away with it w/o loosing too much market share, and whey the early adopters got the products they'll lower the price according to demand (that might be official or vendor rebates, too).mitch.o said:Canon doesn't just set their prices based on the (supposed) superiority of a competitor's product. They set prices based on their own production costs.
My 2 cents: $2000+ certainly isn't "budget", for this price I expect a quality product even though of course they won't cannibalize the 5d3.Aglet said:But with 4 Nik bodies already on hand I can certainly wait to see what Canon's response will be and how each of these new "budget" FF bodies perform on the test charts.
Well, 1/4000s certainly is enough for 99% of my shots. The 5d series only has 1/200, too - doesn't matter much because of hss though. But no afma is rather impertinent on a camera with this price tag, I guess it's cut to prevent people buying 3rd party lenses that often need adjustment.marinien said:No AF micro adjust. Max flash sync 1/200s. Max shutter speed 1/4000s.+
The real question is: What would you buy for the same price - a 6d with a new 24-70 mk2 or a 5d3 with a Tamron 24-70? Yeah, right. But this is just theory because the 5d3 will freefall once enough quantities of the 6d are on the market and it isn't too crippled.Freelancer said:
Economists tell us there's nothing wrong with greed.And-Rew said:Technology prices are supposed to get cheaper - but not in Canon's case, it is most definitely bucking a very long trend without any supporting evidence except greed!
All now products have an early adopter's premium on it, the d600 will drop a couple of hundred whatever after a few month and you'll get better prices from competitive dealers once enough d600 are on the shelves.Basti187 said:so the cheapest d600 i can find for the UK is £1800($2900) which is £300 less than for the 5dm3
Just a little lesson in manufacturing economics. The cost of manufacturing has nothing - repeat - nothing to do with the price that any product sells for in the marketplace.torger said:A major part of the manufacturing cost is the sensor, large sensors are exponentially more expensive than smaller ones. With today's sensor manufacturing technology a full-frame camera cannot approach the price of an APS-C camera.
It's really not about the core specs but about the complete set including firmware features and handling - but only a real review will tell us in a couple of month when the real hardware is here (if ever).pakosouthpark said:if canon could surprise us with better specs and same price.. but it won't. let's see what they come up with..
But must at least higher than the manufacturing cost, right?? Unless they just want to get the market shareCharlieB said:Just a little lesson in manufacturing economics. The cost of manufacturing has nothing - repeat - nothing to do with the price that any product sells for in the marketplace.torger said:A major part of the manufacturing cost is the sensor, large sensors are exponentially more expensive than smaller ones. With today's sensor manufacturing technology a full-frame camera cannot approach the price of an APS-C camera.
The price in the market, even as "suggested" by the manufacturer is always based on feedback from the market - thats you and me. The lifecycle of a product is not from the ground up, but from the final concept down. Marketing at a company decides it needs a product with feature set "X" at price point "Y" to compete. This is all based on marketing research, focus groups, informed decisions, and gut level feelings of the marketing department. At that point, they go to manufacturing and say "build us this....(whatever)". There may be some back and forth, especially when new technology will need to be brought in. The back and forth is more or less to determine the scale of the expected propduct - its product life, the number of units, how they can also use technology in other products... that sort of thing. At the end of the day - manufacturing's job is to build marketing's product, and do it at the lowest possible price, so that they make the most money. In a company the size of Canon, manufacturing is a seperate company within a company, with their own bottom line. They sell to marketing, which in turn has its own bottom line... but... always.... the actual "cost" to make anything, has no effect on its sale price. The price is always determined by market conditions. Always.
(the above is the condensed version, proto Readers Digest etc etc)
but how about a 7D who's original price point wasn't too far off this? They have a D800 to match the 5D3Bennymiata said:I wonder if it will have the same green-screen display and the focus point problems as the D800?
This new D600 still doesn't sway me enough to trade out of my 5D3.
As long as there are people who think a 4 year old 5D Mark II is just as good as a brand new D600, Canon has NOTHING to worry about...dstppy said:Okay, so where's that "it's gonna be $1500, canon's gonna poop their pants" guy now?
So, we've got a camera that's $300 more than and basically a 'single step up' from the 4 year old canon. I'll pass.
Seriously, 6D could simply be what was posted: 7D AF, digic V+ FF and sell for $2500 without issue.
Boy, I'm glad we were prepared with thread-upon-thread about how this camera was going to put Canon out of business :
+1 ... another factor they'll have in mind is the devaluation of the products and what premium customers will pay to get a product that doesn't drop in price too fast (ff camera bodies) or not at all (L lenses). That's why I'd even consider buying the new 24-70ii - unless it's stolen or I manage to trash it, unlike Tamron I'd expect to be able to sell the Canon lens later on if I find I don't need it anymore.CharlieB said:Just a little lesson in manufacturing economics. The cost of manufacturing has nothing - repeat - nothing to do with the price that any product sells for in the marketplace.
But they do, actually their worry is that the 5d2 is just too good to make an easy profit with a "real" successor 6d - either it'll be too expensive to people will still get a 5d3 or 5d2 as long as possible, or it'll be too inexpensive cutting profits.lola said:As long as there are people who think a 4 year old 5D Mark II is just as good as a brand new D600, Canon has NOTHING to worry about...