Originally posted by loveisageless 
The Nikon D600 is under a cloud right now similar to the K-5 when introduced.
The D800 is also experiencing some QC issues. Nikon appears to be making a desperate attempt to wrest the number one spot from Canon, and they're pursuing aggressive pricing policies and cutting corners on QC to attain this end. I doubt this strategy is going to work in the long end (although Canon is having it's own QC issues as well, though they don't seem to be as bad as Nikon's). In any case, if Nikon has to cut corners on QC and pursue aggressive pricing policies to push the D600 below $2,000, it should be clear that APS-C still enjoys a significant price advantage over FF.
Originally posted by Kunzite By the way, I'm not sure m4/3 being small is the primarily reason it sells so well; I'd rather say it's the dirt cheap price. The market is flooded with myriads of MILCs, I can still buy NIB ones which are sold for a penny and are some 5 generations old. While consumers are happy with the low prices, is the producing company actually making a profit on that? How well are Olympus and Sony doing?
The camera divisions at both Olympus and Sony lost money this year, despite the success of the Olympus OM-D and Sony Nex Series of cameras. It should also be noted that all those cheap m4/3rd cameras can't really be compared to even entry level DSLRs, as they don't have viewfinders and they produce significantly noisier raw files. The MILC's comparable to DSLR's are those with viewfinders, and these cameras often are more expensive than comparable DSLRs. In effect, consumers are paying a premium for the smaller size. So it's not actually clear that MILC's constitute as big a threat to APS-C DSLRs are they are sometimes made out to be.
Post #231 by photoephemere
Similar Threads 
