[iCrop]

24MP ... ~ $1500
New/updated Nikon D600 specifications | Nikon Rumors

I hope Pentax can do something similar, soon.

[dankoBanana]

I really do not see Pentax selling a lot of 1500$ top tier crop bodies if this happens. Give us FF, it doesnt have to be that cheap, but make it in Pentax tradition; smaller than the competition

[TomTextura]

Hopefully it'll influence Pentax to offer two tiers of FF: a stripped down one at a cost that'll compete with the future D600 and a full featured one at a higher but not astronomical price point.

[kenafein]

Seems like quite the bargain if that's all true. They don't seem to be skimping on much for that price tag. I wonder if this will be a loss leader for them to steal Canon's business. Unfortunately, it will steal a lot of Pentax's business.

[ramseybuckeye]

See how it performs first! But, I'm not in FF market anyway.

[boriscleto]

I notice a commenter says he was told the D600 will be DX and not FX. That would make it a D7000/D300s replacement.

[DSims]

If the D600 really is an FX, it only worries me in terms of how Pentax will be able to position just a single FF camera price-wise. I've always believed it was likely they'd use a 24MP sensor themselves. As much as I want to pay less for it, I also want it to be a success and to justify Ricoh's investment. But they look like they've done well with the K-30, so hopefully they'll be able to figure this one out too.

Anyhow, most Pentax FF buyers will probably need at least 1 or 2 new lenses, so they can make their profit through that.

[Peter Zack]

IMO there's no way Nikon's going to release this at $1500. I would say "Maybe" at $1999 but put money on it $2200.00 (or possibly a bit higher).

1) FX Sensors cost 10x that of APS-c. Average cost is around $400, nearly 1/3 of the entire retail cost? Consider that most companies want around a 20% retail margin. How could they make a profitable camera at a wholesale cost of $1200? Then Nikon corporate needs to get 20% out of it to make money (and even that's slim, most industries want 50% margins from wholesale but electronics are a strange animal). So now the wholesale without margin is $950. You have to factor in service, warranties, shipping and a ton of support costs. I'd guess that the back-end costs of a product are 1/3 the wholesale. So the sensor is 1/3, shipping and warranty etc and 1/3. At this price, the camera is a money looser big time.

2) With the D4 at 16MP and $6K and the D800 at 36MP and $3300, this puts the prices of these cameras far too high. It's too big a jump from $1500 to $3300 between bodies and D800 sales will suffer.

3) put far too much downward pressure on APS-c prices. The D300s launch was $1699. Now it would have to be at $999 for the replacement and whatever replaces the D7000 would be at sub $799. There's no room for those cameras to be profitable.

4) There only competition is Canon and their cheapest FF body is the MKIII at $3600. Why would Nikon have to be less than half for a similarly spec'd body?

5) They are no known for 'giving away' the upper end cameras. IMO the D300s was overpriced and should have been around $1299 or so. Regardless sales were strong at $1699. The D700 has been in the line for 4 years and only dropped a bit ($2899>$2699 MSRP) in that time until now it's due to be discontinued. They just don't give products away.

6) They are not feeling big pressure from Canon and have a solid semi and pro following and it's growing. Sure the MKIII has turned heads and as well it should. It has gained new owners to Canon for sure but not that many have switched because Nikon wasn't asleep and had 3 new cameras at the same time as well as rumours of between 3-6 new bodies in total for 2012. Plus Nikon gained a big switch from Canon shooters over the poor focus on the MKII. They aren't going to switch back in under a year, too expensive.

7) If you look at lens prices and that is anything to go on in terms of Nikon thinking and I know this doesn't necessarily translate to body prices, each new top end lens that's been launched the last couple years is 20-30% higher than it's predecessor. I just don't see them going $1400 lower than the D700 launch price.

Overall I think this price would loose money on each unit sold because there wouldn't be much or any profit at that price and it would overall diminish the brand.

[boriscleto]

On the other hand, I was at a meetup the other night and the presenter was a sales guy from a local shop. He was insistent the vboth Canon and Nikon are going to release sub-$2000 FF cameras this year. I would argue that doing so is insane. FF DSLRs are a high margin item, why would you undercut them with a lower margin item? Apple would never do something like that, that's why they have $100 billion in cash.

[normhead]

On the other hand, I was at a meetup the other night and the presenter was a sales guy from a local shop. He was insistent the vboth Canon and Nikon are going to release sub-$2000 FF cameras this year. I would argue that doing so is insane. FF DSLRs are a high margin item, why would you undercut them with a lower margin item? Apple would never do something like that, that's why they have $100 billion in cash.

But then Apple doesn't really have any competition.

I just saw a D700 on the weekend, new in the box for under $2000, so the under 2k FF body is already here. And honestly, I'm not sure I need more than 12 Mp. I'd like 18, 20 max, 24... I don't want the file size, and i don't want less than 14 bit color.

[DSims]

IMO there's no way Nikon's going to release this at $1500. I would say "Maybe" at $1999 but put money on it $2200.00 (or possibly a bit higher).

These are all good points. But don't forget that Sony is going to focus on low-cost FF for their next release(s). I think Nikon and Canon are wise not to see themselves as the only players in the Market.

On the other hand, I was at a meetup the other night and the presenter was a sales guy from a local shop. He was insistent the vboth Canon and Nikon are going to release sub-$2000 FF cameras this year.

I believe it's plausible that Sony is the only reason for this, and it's very real. But $1700-2000 still sounds more realistic. Pentax is smaller, plus they're so secretive about their plans it'd be hard to base decisions on their moves anyway.


I think this is one of those critical times when it's genuinely not important to make a profit on a particular body for a little while. Breaking even would be more than satisfactory. Right now people are thinking a lot about FF. The push is not only to get them into your brand, but also to get people to commit to FF with its more expensive lenses before they fully realize what they're doing! In the face of ever-increasing lens prices, a low-priced FF body is a suitable distraction. And by the end of the production run, with the lower component costs it will probably be profitable anyway!

[Peter Zack]

Honestly, who cares what Sony does in FF bodies? They could sell them for $1200 and they won't get Nikon or Canon users to switch. FF is a very different shooter most of the time.

Hell you can't get a Canikon shooter to buy a Tamron lens let alone look at bodies from other brands. They've bought not only the brand but the system. For a serious FF owner, there are no other complete system choices available. Huge lens choices, better and more flash choices. Service that is unparalleled, available rental options when you need it and the list goes on.

APS-c users watch what FF users are doing and look at Canikon. Look at all the FF threads here on the subject. Canikon FF users are just the same, they watch what's happening in either the top FF models from both companies or what's happening in MF. They don't look sideways at what they consider "B" brands. In fact the only brand in FF I contend they watch is Lieca.

It's why I think Pentax would be nuts to go FF. They will just trade dollars for APS-c sales at a huge expense (new flash system, new lenses etc). They are not going to get Canikon customers no matter what they do.

[jsherman999]

Honestly, who cares what Sony does in FF bodies? They could sell them for $1200 and they won't get Nikon or Canon users to switch. FF is a very different shooter most of the time.

Hell you can't get a Canikon shooter to buy a Tamron lens let alone look at bodies from other brands. They've bought not only the brand but the system. For a serious FF owner, there are no other complete system choices available. Huge lens choices, better and more flash choices. Service that is unparalleled, available rental options when you need it and the list goes on.

APS-c users watch what FF users are doing and look at Canikon. Look at all the FF threads here on the subject. Canikon FF users are just the same, they watch what's happening in either the top FF models from both companies or what's happening in MF. They don't look sideways at what they consider "B" brands. In fact the only brand in FF I contend they watch is Lieca.

It's why I think Pentax would be nuts to go FF. They will just trade dollars for APS-c sales at a huge expense (new flash system, new lenses etc). They are not going to get Canikon customers no matter what they do.

I fear that if they don't offer a FF option, K-mount may be in trouble.

I think aps-c DSLRs in general will have a hard time selling at the $1600 price point in the near future, maybe even at $1200. FF bodies are already selling new for $2200 (D700) and maybe lower now with the D600 and Canon body. High-quality mirrorless is going to eat out that $500-$1500 center, and Pentax is going to have a hard time selling a native K-mount mirrorless body, because the registration distance will make it bulkier than the other offerings. They could offer a K-adapter on a new mount, but then their incentive to offer new K-mount lenses decreases that way as well; they could just deliver glass in the new native mirrorless mount.

A FF DSLR keeps a lot of shooters in K-mount, and brings new ones in as well, as folks upgrade from other lines that don't offer FF.

[DSims]

Hell you can't get a Canikon shooter to buy a Tamron lens let alone look at bodies from other brands. They've bought not only the brand but the system. For a serious FF owner, there are no other complete system choices available.

It's why I think Pentax would be nuts to go FF. They will just trade dollars for APS-c sales at a huge expense (new flash system, new lenses etc). They are not going to get Canikon customers no matter what they do.

That's just the point. These are not serious FF owners - at least not yet. It's a whole new market they're creating. And some Canikon shooters will buy Tamron or Sigma lenses - mostly those with "budget" APS-C DSLRs. If you move this demographic up to "budget" FF a similar phenomenon will occur.


Think about it. How many times has someone posted a thread on this forum stating that they're committed to buying a K-5, and they want to know what sub-$200 lens(es) to get for it? If you create a FF with a variable aperture 24-105 lens people will buy it. Make the cost seem just slightly out of reach and people will stretch for it by finding the money to purchase it.

[TomTextura]

@jsherman999 That analysis makes a lot of sense. If the powers that be over at Pentax are in agreement then a FF Pentax body is imminent.