Nikon's Strategy Blueprint after the D3
January 4th, 2008
With the D3 out, albeit in not everyone's hands yet, the question is: Where does Nikon go from here? Probably Nikon itself doesn't know for sure yet, waiting for market feedback before plotting the onward route. What I think may happen. Shortly after the introduction of the "phenomenal" D3, but months before the camera even hit the shops, speculation arose as to the feature list of the next model of the D3, conveniently named the D3X. It seems people are wanting to upgrade sometime, but are not quite there yet, so they need a vision to comfort them and look forward to during the long wait. Well, several paths are possible. The most obvious are dictated by the pressure of Canon's market dominance. For one, Canon's low-light full-format 12 MP rockstar, the 5D, has been around for ages and costs half the price of the D3. Then there is the 1Ds MKIII, with it's full-format 21 MP sensor. Even with it's latest offerings, Nikon cannot counter these cameras. Nikon is still playing catch up to Canon (it admittedly had a long way to catch up), firstly in price, secondly in resolution. Nikon's D300 isn't full format and has inferior low-light performance to the 5D, but costs the same as the 5D. Nikon's D3 doesn't match up to the 1Ds for those pixel-hungry fashion and commercial photographers (but is cheaper). To counter, Nikon might go the following paths: 1) Offer a D400 with essentially the D3's 12 MP full frame sensor for a D300-range price. With it's superior optics and better ergonomics, it might just tip the scales for a flood of photographers to flock from Canon to Nikon. 2) Offer a D3x with a high resolution full frame sensor. Since Nikon has already crammed 12.3 MP on a CMOS DX sensor in the D300, extrapolating that pixel density to a full-frame CMOS sensor would yield 28.1 MP, which would seriously endanger Hasselblad's (and 1Ds) territory. Nikon would assume that stellar low-light performance would not be first priority for this artificial-light-focussed market group and would perhaps rather opt for more pixels at a higher density rather than than less pixels for better low-light performance at lower density. To thwart Canon, it would would need to price it's offering at or lower than the 1Ds, or higher to emphasize it's superiority. 3) DX Quo Vadis? I don't quite assume Nikon will abandon it's move into DX, since it's potential in cost-savings for the huge amateur market both in sensor and lens manufacture is very significant to it's strategy. I can well imagine Nikon continue to bring over the experience and technology gained in FX sensor technology to further improve DX performance for a D300x and a D90. 4) Nikon needs to get busy on modernizing it's fixed focus lenses. Abhorring chromatic aberration, noisy motors and outdated designs will need to be overhauled foremost in the popular 50mm and 85mm series (the 105mm has already been "VR-, USM- and-Nano'd", albeit better work would surely be possible than in this offering). 5) It's Flashes need an overhauling too. Compared to the good ergonomics of it's cameras, the SB series are notoriously bad to handle (how many dinky plastic buttons do you have to press how long to achieve which setting? on a professional flash?? Come on, Nikon!) It's diffuser breaks off with one wrong move and the SB-800's 5th-battery covering slips off all to easily in the field. This is horrible in a dark setting, when all of your AA's roll off into the darkness and the holder along with it. Wow, good luck when grabbing that moment...!
Write a comment