Originally posted by rawr While as a geek I can see the appeal of such a retro Nikon as a tech object, I wonder what marketing (and/or strategic) calculations may have driven them to produce such a camera?
Age group targeting. Not everyone wants their cameras to be weird gizmo in a blobby shape served commonly at every shelf.
It is fair to presume Nikon is now finally targeting at that age group that made Nikon famous in the 1980s. They owe it to them, big time.
And that age group now is 55+. (Note how all idealised male models in these Nikon ads are men in mid to late 40s, walking alone, and you see greys in their hair). They are not for scraps yet; they have financial means most likely, control the family income, and feel that they should be respected as they deserve with something made exclusively for them. That age group now also rapidly loses eye sight too, and an FF solution of some sort with bigger viewfinder helps a lot.
Pentax is doing similar, and quite well IMHO. Their first DSLRs were first made
(1) for middle age men, then
(2) reduced in size to be used by women and then
(3) repainted in hundreds of colours to be appealing to young families, young men and women, and teenagers too.
Q was definitely started to be appealing to teenagers (and those who feel very young).
Now they need to think of other age groups. I believe that FF of theirs will come in at least two flavours if they continued to think in their Pentax way — and they must, because they cannot neglect age group of 50+; if for nothing else, such persons would love a camera with a bigger OVF to see better.
And perhaps 645DII is restyled for similar reasons.
Last edited by Uluru; 10-26-2013 at 07:16 PM.