Nikon does update the 70-200, announces new camera and 18-200mm

[compuwar]

Based on my experiences, the D700 isn't actually doing that well. A lot of my colleagues (those who shoot Nikon anyway) are going straight for the D3 over the D700, and picking up a D300/200 for their backup camera. The D3 doesn't cost *that* much more than the D700, but is a better package. When I'm out on shoots, I see very very few D700s around (much like the D3x, of which I've seen one outside of a studio) - if they were a run away success then I should be seeing a lot more of them.

Different markets act differently, in the US- probably still the single-biggest DSLR market, the D700 is definitely outselling the D3- though I'd bet Nikon would actually prefer it the other way around as the D3 is a slightly higher-margin body. I'll bet that Nikon's annual statement next year, or even the quarterly statement the third quarter of CY09 is going to single out D700 sales as above predictions.

The rumoured D700x is going to add video and possibly a higher resolution sensor (although that goes against your statement that Nikon only issue "small" updates when they append a letter).

Again, reading comprehension 's' updates are small, 'x' updates are resolution + features. Once again there's a long history of such updates, so it shouldn't be a mystery or surprising for anyone following the market.

The problem is, putting a bigger sensor on the camera will kill D3x and possibly D3 sales much like the 5DII has impacted seriously on 1DsIII sales (I most commonly see a 1DII/III paired with a 5D these days rather than a 1D/1Ds combo). Throw in the fact that Nikon will possibly keep the D700 around, the RRP on the D700x is going to be even more expensive - UK price I'd imagine around the £2200-£2500 mark which is directly comparable to a 5DII.

Another fundamental misunderstanding of the market- Nikon have done the math, they understand the volume and unit price comparisons as well as the impact on higher end sales- they're perfectly happy to eclipse a model with a newer, lower-end model (such as the D300 eclipsing the D2x) when the time is right. The business strategy is to get the most profit (high margins) on new release when the sales volumes are lower and you're ROIing your production line, then reuse the components for the higher end system, or add new components as the technology allows and sell a higher-volume lower-priced camera.

Again, Nikon's camera division made a profit last year- Canon's didn't. Nikon's profits were mostly based on DSLR and lens says (though they outsold their predictions on Coolpix by a good margin P&S margins suck generally.)

I don't understand what your bone to pick with Nikon is Peskka, but it's funny, I will acknowledge that!

I think the existing Nikkor 70-200 is at least as good as the current Canon offering.

Better sharpness in the center, worse out from there- it's pretty-much a wash IMO.

 

[John.B]

The smiley is there because it's humor, but if you want to be like that, here's what you actually said that provoked the comment:



Since Nikon's exact words were:

I found it more than a little ironic that you didn't read it as "doesn't have zoom creep."

FWIW, the lock switch is probably to insure no creep over time when pointed down instead of tilted down- given the lifespan of most lenses it's probably a good idea.

Fair enough, points taken.

FWIW, I'm pretty skeptical of the Canon marketingspeak as well. Maybe more so, since I have a minor investment it.

 

[compuwar]

My bone is that this update is a bit lame, and I was expecting more from them. Plus, if this update is lame, I'm expecting the D700x one to be just as bad.

Honestly, if you were expecting a D400, then you're not followed Nikon's body release dates- Thom Hogan has a good post on them on his site somewhere. If you're expecting the D700x to be more than basically the D3x sensor in a D700 body, then you're definitely going to be displeased about that too- Nikon's got a pattern that works for them- they're not likely to change it anytime soon (I'd expect to see a lot more Aston Kutcher (sp?) adverts too- I think he sold a gazillion Coolpixes.)

I do think that if the new firmware company is successful we'll see a lot more interesting intermediate firmware updates- perhaps even on a much shorter cycle than the 's' bodies typically show up in.

The current Nikkor 70-200 is good, but not fantastic on FX. Whilst its great they've updated it for FX and acknowledged the problems, the new cost (RRP of £2000, what the hell?) is rather high, and Canon are going to bounce past it fairly soon with IS II. Again, not enough - they needed to set themselves firmly into the lead, rather than simply nudge past (which always seems to be the way with both companies). If the D300s was a D400, then they'd be set.

Nikon's increased lens per camera body sales (not as much this year as last, but still up overall)- so again from a business perspective I doubt they're going to change.

The 5D2's "slow" FPS (jesus, did nobody shoot when you had to manually wind?) isn't really a problem when you have 10FPS on your other body, and the AF only presents a problem during sports and again, with any fast moving subject I'd be reaching for a 1D.

The kids these days want the camera to do it all for them- no need for timing in sports when you can just spray 500 shots in a row...

The D3x is great. Stupidly expensive but great.

The D3x retails for USD $300 more than the older 1DsIII- why is it that the D3x is "stupidly expensive" to people who've never complained about the 1DsIII's price? Why is it that Nikon's cameras are making money and Canon's aren't?

Lenses? Canon have better tele's, Nikon better wides.

That used to be true, I don't think it is anymore- there's enough parity that I'd guess that 98% of people couldn't tell the difference side-by-side if you shot with three bodies from each company with each lens.

Oh, and Canon have the f/4L series that Nikon seriously need to make a version of for the prosumer market.

I think the 70-200 is about the only place Nikon needs a constant f/4 to compete, but it'd sure help them in head-to-heads from serious amateurs.

Personally, I wish we'd all go back to film, manual advance and polaroid test shots. Hasselblad any day of the week.

Ha! Schneider lenses on at least a 5x7- Hassy is pwned by LF- leave sports to the video folks!

 

[peskaa]

Different markets act differently, in the US- probably still the single-biggest DSLR market, the D700 is definitely outselling the D3- though I'd bet Nikon would actually prefer it the other way around as the D3 is a slightly higher-margin body. I'll bet that Nikon's annual statement next year, or even the quarterly statement the third quarter of CY09 is going to single out D700 sales as above predictions.

That I can happily accept - I imagine D700s are probably selling quite well to the prosumer's who have a desire for FF. I'm simply commenting that on the pro circuit, they're not that common. Then I guess most of the money is made lower down.

Again, reading comprehension 's' updates are small, 'x' updates are resolution + features. Once again there's a long history of such updates, so it shouldn't be a mystery or surprising for anyone following the market.

And there was me finding Canon's "N" version cameras annoying. I still believe that they should just jump up whole model numbers rather than annoying purchasers with slightly bumps rendering their cameras "out of date" due to a couple of minor features. Canon seemed to learn that lesson with the 1DIIn as there hasn't been a IIIn.

Another fundamental misunderstanding of the market- Nikon have done the math, they understand the volume and unit price comparisons as well as the impact on higher end sales- they're perfectly happy to eclipse a model with a newer, lower-end model (such as the D300 eclipsing the D2x) when the time is right. The business strategy is to get the most profit (high margins) on new release when the sales volumes are lower and you're ROIing your production line, then reuse the components for the higher end system, or add new components as the technology allows and sell a higher-volume lower-priced camera.

But doing this whilst the out-performed model is still being marketed as a top-end professional camera? Bit hasty. Whilst I fully expect cameras at the low end to improve and exceed the pro cameras given time, it shouldn't really be whilst they're still current. Canon's move on the 5D2 over the 1DsIII is rather suprising, and I've been wondering where the 1DIV has gotten to.

Again, Nikon's camera division made a profit last year- Canon's didn't. Nikon's profits were mostly based on DSLR and lens says (though they outsold their predictions on Coolpix by a good margin P&S margins suck generally.)

Now I wonder how Canon even lost money - they certainly sell a lot of P&S.



Incidentally, good on them for fixing zoom creep in a very popular lens.

 

[compuwar]

FWIW, I'm pretty skeptical of the Canon marketingspeak as well. Maybe more so, since I have a minor investment it.

Oh, I'm all for skepticism for not only marketing, but the effectiveness of engineering before it's tested. As one of my old bosses used to say, "Trust but verify." The 18-200 has been majorly successful for Nikon, probably outstandingly so if I'm reading between the lines correctly, and zoom creep was their biggest complaint- so while a newer optical formula with less distortion would have been a "better" upgrade in my eyes (because they're getting lots of competition in the superzoom space now-) they're hitting the weakest point of the lens with a relatively quick upgrade. Same with the 70-200- this was a "quit-yer-bitchen" lens release, and besides whatever kit gets stuck on teh D700x, I'd not be surprised to see another 4-5 lenses announced this year.

 

[peskaa]

Honestly, if you were expecting a D400, then you're not followed Nikon's body release dates- Thom Hogan has a good post on them on his site somewhere. If you're expecting the D700x to be more than basically the D3x sensor in a D700 body, then you're definitely going to be displeased about that too- Nikon's got a pattern that works for them- they're not likely to change it anytime soon (I'd expect to see a lot more Aston Kutcher (sp?) adverts too- I think he sold a gazillion Coolpixes.)

I'll freely admit I don't track Nikon's release dates that closely (or Canon to be fair). I simply see a camera release and wonder what the hell the point of a tiny set of changes is for.

The kids these days want the camera to do it all for them- no need for timing in sports when you can just spray 500 shots in a row...

Ugh, spraying is almost as annoying as chimping. My 1D3 is set to 6fps and I don't touch the 10fps mode, and I'll usually bracket 2-3 shots.

The D3x retails for USD $300 more than the older 1DsIII- why is it that the D3x is "stupidly expensive" to people who've never complained about the 1DsIII's price? Why is it that Nikon's cameras are making money and Canon's aren't?

The 1Ds3 is overpriced too! Hence in a previous post I noted that a lot of people are going the cheaper route of a 1D3 and a 5D2. As for making money, I think Canon would like to hear from you if you know the answer!

Ha! Schneider lenses on at least a 5x7- Hassy is pwned by LF- leave sports to the video folks!

LF is just too fat and heavy to carry around all day Quality was awesome though.

 

[John.B]

Nikon is a smaller company than Canon, and does not have the resources that Canon does. Yet it has managed to basically go toe to toe with Canon and even things up after falling behind earlier in the decade.

Yeah, but Canon has direct print buttons.

A lot of my colleagues (those who shoot Nikon anyway) are going straight for the D3 over the D700, and picking up a D300/200 for their backup camera. The D3 doesn't cost *that* much more than the D700, but is a better package.

That's what I noticed. Like most people, I always check what the next step up or down will get me to see if its a better value (and not just a cheaper price).

 

[GoCubsGo]

A freshened 70-200 is not at all surprising given the criticism of the current lens' performance on FX sensors. Any DX shooters looking for a tele-zoom can count on a flood of used lenses hitting the used market as pros and well-heeled FX shooters dump their old lenses in favor of the new one.

The announcement of a freshened 18-200 was the only component of this announcement that caught me by surprise. It's too bad Nikon didn't spend the effort on a new version of the 24-120 instead. Most people buying a D700 body are reluctant to spend nearly $2k on a 24-70, but Nikon doesn't have any good alternatives at a consumer price point.

Edit: On second thought, maybe Nikon felt they needed something a little less stale to offer in a kit with the D300s, and a freshened 24-120 will be released with the D700x. I guess we will see.

That is and will be my dilemma. Take the current 70-200 off some FX toting pro/sumer and put it on my DX body and have a really good lens for said DX body or aim high, grab the new 70-200 knowing that I will one day take a plunge to a FF camera. I currently have a very old 70-210. It was great in it's time, decent today but ill-suited for much longer use.

I have the 24-120, I would love this lens more with an update. I can't even give the lens away tbh. It has a sweet spot, which I use as often as possible but the sweet spot trumps the VR so basically it's a heavy lens only suitable between F8-F11 with decent lighting. I've used it wide open but it's a gamble really and it worked much nicer on my D70, which is where it will stay soon enough.

I agree that the 24-70 has Nikon asking too much of FX owners. To spend 2k on that lens with an FX body is silly imho, not to mention the Sigma counterpart is top notch.

 

[peskaa]

Yeah, but Canon has direct print buttons.

Ah, that's what that blue button is for. I like the squiggly line.

 

[compuwar]

And there was me finding Canon's "N" version cameras annoying. I still believe that they should just jump up whole model numbers rather than annoying purchasers with slightly bumps rendering their cameras "out of date" due to a couple of minor features. Canon seemed to learn that lesson with the 1DIIn as there hasn't been a IIIn.

I don't think Nikon could spin up the development and production capacity quickly enough to still be as profitable if they released new models more quickly, and I think the tech jumps don't happen that quickly either. Canon's strategy of the "mk FOO" is different, and I think the 5DII was a great jump- despite its few issues also forced by part reuse efficiency. I do think that Nikon's "low res/high res" split is a better strategy than just pushing resolution up with each model, and I hope they continue to evolve it.

But doing this whilst the out-performed model is still being marketed as a top-end professional camera? Bit hasty. Whilst I fully expect cameras at the low end to improve and exceed the pro cameras given time, it shouldn't really be whilst they're still current. Canon's move on the 5D2 over the 1DsIII is rather suprising, and I've been wondering where the 1DIV has gotten to.

Ah, this is the pure genius in the strategy- first of all, pros are going to ROI the body, and the features that are the 2% make all the difference are going to be things like dual CF slots, rugged build quality, etc- so they're going to buy the high end body, it's still going to take great pictures when a newer one is announced, and unlike the advanced amateurs they're not going to chomp for a new body more frequently than they need to- but the amateurs and semi-pros are going to "obsolete" their perfectly good cameras much more quickly because the new pro-am body beats the old pro body.

The 1DIV should be out later this year, and it should be an amazing camera. IMO, Nikon's forced Canon to raise the bar higher than they would have with the D3/D700's amazing success and the number of switchers at least here in the US.

Now I wonder how Canon even lost money - they certainly sell a lot of P&S.

P&S cameras are incredibly low margin products and Nikon's higher price points give them better margins on the DSLRs, which are the gems of the digital camera manufacturers because of their higher margins and decent volumes.

 

[compuwar]

I'll freely admit I don't track Nikon's release dates that closely (or Canon to be fair). I simply see a camera release and wonder what the hell the point of a tiny set of changes is for.

In my observation, that's not how the Japanese companies work. They're quite methodical in how they develop and release products, but it's not as market driven as it seems, as the dev cycles are years at the high end where change is more paced.

The 1Ds3 is overpriced too! Hence in a previous post I noted that a lot of people are going the cheaper route of a 1D3 and a 5D2.

See though- you didn't put an adjective before overpriced- the perception of the D3x price is because all the wanna be fanboys couldn't justify the price tag and there's not yet a D700x for them to bit^H complain about the price of or aspire to. Folks who need or think they need (that should cover me!) the D3x did the research and got one.

As for making money, I think Canon would like to hear from you if you know the answer!

Sell more at higher prices.

LF is just too fat and heavy to carry around all day Quality was awesome though.

I think the field 5x7 kit I used to shot with is probably at least 15lbs lighter than my current DSLR kit...

 

[peskaa]

The 1DIV should be out later this year, and it should be an amazing camera. IMO, Nikon's forced Canon to raise the bar higher than they would have with the D3/D700's amazing success and the number of switchers at least here in the US.

I'm personally chomping at the bit to replace my 1D3. APS-H has always been obviously a compromise sensor size until FF can come down in price, and I'm hoping the IV takes FF across the line (one really high res studio camera, and a lower resolution "sports" FF camera, much like the D3 but with around 14-16mp res.)

Competition is a good thing, always.

P&S cameras are incredibly low margin products and Nikon's higher price points give them better margins on the DSLRs, which are the gems of the digital camera manufacturers because of their higher margins and decent volumes.

And too many cashback promotions.

 

[Cliff3]

That is and will be my dilemma. Take the current 70-200 off some FX toting pro/sumer and put it on my DX body and have a really good lens for said DX body or aim high, grab the new 70-200 knowing that I will one day take a plunge to a FF camera. I currently have a very old 70-210. It was great in it's time, decent today but ill-suited for much longer use.

The new 70-200 will list for $2400. That's a heck of a lot of money for a lens. I would buy the used lens unless you are certain you will move to FX and can justify the cost in your mind. I plan to stick with my 80-200 AF-S for the time being. VR and the (probable) image quality benefits resulting from more ED glass and nano coatings are not justified by the probable ~$1200 price delta between what I could sell my like-new old lens for and the price of the new one.

I have the 24-120, I would love this lens more with an update. I can't even give the lens away tbh. It has a sweet spot, which I use as often as possible but the sweet spot trumps the VR so basically it's a heavy lens only suitable between F8-F11 with decent lighting. I've used it wide open but it's a gamble really and it worked much nicer on my D70, which is where it will stay soon enough.

I agree that the 24-70 has Nikon asking too much of FX owners. To spend 2k on that lens with an FX body is silly imho, not to mention the Sigma counterpart is top notch.

On reflection, I think it is probable it will see a freshening with the release of the D700x. Nikon is going to want to have a kit to sell to people, and the reception to the D700 plus current 24-120 has been lukewarm at best.

 

[compuwar]

That is and will be my dilemma. Take the current 70-200 off some FX toting pro/sumer and put it on my DX body and have a really good lens for said DX body or aim high, grab the new 70-200 knowing that I will one day take a plunge to a FF camera. I currently have a very old 70-210. It was great in it's time, decent today but ill-suited for much longer use.

If your main FF use is going to be portraits, then I'd say either go for it, or get the AF-S 80-200, and happily fix vignetting in post with vignette control turned on. IMO, the main reason to go for the new VRII 70--200 would be if you needed the better VR for shooting from a moving platform, or if you're shooting landscapes much of the time and don't want to deal with VC/PP.

APS-H has always been obviously a compromise sensor size until FF can come down in price, and I'm hoping the IV takes FF across the line (one really high res studio camera, and a lower resolution "sports" FF camera, much like the D3 but with around 14-16mp res.)

Firstly, I'm still perfectly happy with images from my APS-C D2x, so I don't think smaller sensors are necessarily a compromise at the high end. Ok- I'm happier with my D3x, but a lot of that is wanting to do much larger prints with insanely close viewing distances and the obvious rev of the sensor for DR and sensitivity (though a D300 almost won out for that.)

And too many cashback promotions.

That's a manufacturer's way to say "We're not selling as much of this as we wanted to!" Except in the case where they're saying "We're protecting the price point for what's coming next- but we know you're not foolish enough to buy our old crap at that price!" IMO, in the last year or so, Canon's done more of the former and Nikon more of the latter. The fact that Nikon *overcut* production for the downturn says a lot about how well they've been resonating with the market. It's too bad too- because the quarter that just ended might have been much better for them had they guessed a little better.

 

[compuwar]

The new 70-200 will list for $2400. That's a heck of a lot of money for a lens.

A quick Google has the MSRP of the current lens between $2500 and $2295- so worst-case if you believe Amazon the new lens's MSRP is $105 more, and NC is probably worth that alone. The real question is what will the initial street price be.

 

[peskaa]

Firstly, I'm still perfectly happy with images from my APS-C D2x, so I don't think smaller sensors are necessarily a compromise at the high end. Ok- I'm happier with my D3x, but a lot of that is wanting to do much larger prints with insanely close viewing distances and the obvious rev of the sensor for DR and sensitivity (though a D300 almost won out for that.

I'm happy with my 1D3, IQ wise anyway. I mainly want FF so my wides are truly wide, rather some weird middle ground.

 

[Cliff3]

oops, dupe

 

[Cliff3]

A quick Google has the MSRP of the current lens between $2500 and $2295- so worst-case if you believe Amazon the new lens's MSRP is $105 more, and NC is probably worth that alone. The real question is what will the initial street price be.

At the moment, B&H has US imports in stock for $1900. Adorama has it at the same price. Amazon is at $1921.75.

 

[compuwar]

At the moment, B&H has US imports in stock for $1900. Adorama has it at the same price. Amazon is at $1921.75.

Yes, but that's not the list price- so my point is that if we expect relatively similar discounts once the inital rush is over, the new lens will come in around $1999.99.

 

[Cliff3]

Yes, but that's not the list price- so my point is that if we expect relatively similar discounts once the inital rush is over, the new lens will come in around $1999.99.

Actually, it is the list price. Nikon has minimum advertised price agreements in place with their authorized retailers.

 

[compuwar]

Actually, it is the list price. Nikon has minimum advertised price agreements in place with their authorized retailers.

While Nikon does indeed have MAP agreements, there's generally a difference between MAP and MSRP. Which is why retailers like Amazon list MSRP and advertise a lower price, so you can see the "bargain" you're getting. MAP and street price can be (but don't have to be equal) MAP and llist or MSRP are rarely equal.

 

[ChrisA]

How many of you work in enginerring?

What happens is that you have a roughly fixed number of engineers and they work with in a fairly rigid process where first they with strong input from management assemble a long list of requirements and specs for the new product. This drives all kinds of work From Nikon's point of view they don't build cameras, they build assembly lines that turn out cameras. The assembly line is much more complex then a camera. Documents need to be written, people trained up, test procedures and service manuals written. All on schedules.

You don't just react to a competitor and put out a new product on 6 months time. It takes much longer.

The reason Canon and Nikon appear to be reacting to that technology moves ahead at about the same rate every place in the world So camera released by one company will about match camera made by another.

 

[Cliff3]

While Nikon does indeed have MAP agreements, there's generally a difference between MAP and MSRP. Which is why retailers like Amazon list MSRP and advertise a lower price, so you can see the "bargain" you're getting. MAP and street price can be (but don't have to be equal) MAP and llist or MSRP are rarely equal.

I just noticed Amazon has list published at $2295, so I will concede that point. The new list price is still roughly an 9-10% increase over the current one, which will take the new lens over the $2000 mark at retail. That is a substantial investment for a non-exotic lens.

 

[John.B]

I just noticed Amazon has list published at $2295, so I will concede that point. The new list price is still roughly an 9-10% increase over the current one, which will take the new lens over the $2000 mark at retail. That is a substantial investment for a non-exotic lens.

I'm sure the DBROTH price on Amazon will be about half again as much.

 

[Cliff3]

I'm sure the DBROTH price on Amazon will be about half again as much.

DBROTH?