digitalphotography
By John Rettie
PRICING CONTROVERSY ON HIGH-END DSLRS
Nikon’s new $7999 D3X sports a 24.6-megapixel full-size FX sensor and is positioned as an alternative to a medium format camera.
Canon’s lowest cost DSLR, the 10.2-megapixel EOS Rebel XS costs $599 and includes a EF-S 18–55mm lens with image stabilization.
In case you’re wondering why I am only now discussing the new Nikon D3X even though it was announced before you read the last issue of Rangefinder, let me explain. Back in October 2008 several writers including myself were given scant details by Nikon—namely that the upcoming pro camera would have a 24.6-megapixel FX sensor that could shoot at 5fps with an ISO range of 100–1600 and a HI setting of 6400. That was the extent of the information we were given. They also set an embargo date of December 15 and we were told more information would be given to us under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) nearer the date and they assured us that we would not hear about it first on a rumor site. Guess what? It all went wrong for Nikon. First the unveiling date was moved back to December 1 and we were given more details on November 21, but that was too late for inclusion in the December issue. Then (no surprise) information was leaked early on November 27, inadver-
tently by Nikon’s own European publication in the U.K. The cat was out of the bag. Everything, except for the price, was
disclosed four days early. Frankly, I was disappointed with what I heard. The D3X is a D3 body with the
Holiday season sales flyers from Canon, Nikon and Sony vividly show how the pricing of “non-professional” DSLR cameras makes sense, ranging as they do from $500 to $2700.
same Sony sensor found in the A-900 camera, albeit heavily tweaked by Nikon. Based on the presentation we were given in October, I was expecting a new body with new features. Don’t get me wrong: There is little wrong with the D3 body, but I was hoping for a modular body that would directly compete with medium format cameras—the target audience for the D3X. Then, along with everyone else, there was disappointment at the price of $7999. Okay, it is far less expensive than a medium format camera with a digital back and it is the same as the initial launch price of the 15-month-old Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. Just about everyone was expecting Nikon to come in at a lower price in order to gain market share, especially as Sony sells the A-900 for $2999. It’s worth remembering that Nikon upset the status quo back in 1999 when it introduced the original D1 for $5000. At the time everyone expected it to be around $8000. Nikon could have repeated the same scenario again. In my view it’s difficult to justify such a high price purely on production costs. For many years manufacturers have said that making full-size sensors is much more expensive because they have a lower yield. Fair enough, but Canon, Nikon and Sony have all introduced cameras with full-frame sensors priced between $2700 and $3000. Granted they have less expensive bodies, but they prove that the incremental cost of a full-size sensor compared to a smaller sensor is around $1000. Historically the price delta between entry level 35mm film cameras and mid-range models was about $800 and then another $800 jump to a high-end body. In reality, if the same sensor is used in digital cameras, a similar price delta should apply. This would mean that a mid-range camera would cost about $1300, compared to an entry-level camera, which costs around $500. Check out the prices for a Canon EOS 50D and a Nikon D300 and you’ll find that they do indeed sell for about $800 more than the Rebel XS and the D40. Let’s then add $1000 for a full-size sensor plus $800 for a better body and a D3 should cost around $3500. Its retail price is still $4999 although one can already find it discounted as low as $4000. Based on my pricing ladder a D3X (and a 1Ds Mark III) should sell for around $4500 or even $4000. In reality it is only the top-of-the-line Nikon and Canon cameras that are overpriced. I guess it’s because they are aimed at professionals and commercial photographers who have more funds for tools. In today’s economy I cannot see Nikon or Canon sustaining these prices much longer. After all, most photographers have switched to digital so the savings from switching to digital are long gone. Now we are all in upgrade mode and the return on investment is not nearly as great. In fact there is zero return on investment if your current camera is producing image quality that is sufficient for your client’s needs. Sorry to sound like a whiner but I, along with many others, was disappointed by the price point Nikon chose for the D3X. I am sure it offers excellent quality and I will treat it as an alternative to a medium format camera when I review it in the not too distant future—stay tuned.
Apple’s iWork ‘08 is a great alternative to Microsoft Office. It sells for $79 and by the time you read this in 2009, there may be a new version!
Last month I briefly described my experiences with a $1000 DSLR, the Nikon D90, and found myself perfectly happy
with the quality of the images it produced as well as its operation. This month I have been trying the
Canon EOS Rebel XS, which is comparable to the Nikon D40, and again I am impressed. The XS has a 10.1-megapixel APS-C-size sensor that’s also found in the EOS 40D, which sells for $1100. The Rebel XS comes as a kit with an EF-S 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6 IS lens and retails for $600. Obviously, compared to an EOS-1 series camera, the Rebel has a far less substantial feel to it but it still gets the job done with the ability to shoot at 3fps and a decent buffer. It even includes live view and an integrated cleaning system. For a beginner it is an ideal camera as it accepts any Canon mount lens so it is a good system starter that can grow as the photographer’s skills improve. It would also make an ideal low-cost backup camera for a pro using a pro body. Plus, it is the sort of camera one can throw in a bag for occasional use when traveling rather than carrying around a hefty EOS-1 body. Ironically, the Rebel XS goes a long way to support my belief that Canon and Nikon’s pricing on their high-end cameras has gotten out of whack. If we take the old delta pricing scale of film camera bodies it
would be entirely possible to sell a camera using this sensor in the same body as the EOS-1D or the D3 for about $2200. Many of you have probably gotten Canon, Nikon and Sony sales flyers in your local newspaper before Christmas. It was interesting to note that none of them included their top-line cameras. Nikon was already offering an instant discount of $300 off the price of a D700. Canon had similar instant rebates on many lenses as well. This indicates to me that there is even price pressure on the more expensive non-professional cameras. The D3 and 1Ds Mark III are also being discounted so I suspect the D3X will quickly drop in price whether Nikon likes it or not. It’s a shame Nikon did not choose to price it more competitively in the first place. Office vs. iWorks vs. Free I’m sure many pro photographers would like to spend most of their time shooting pictures and not have to do “back-end” work, other than image-editing, on a computer. However, realities of everyday work
Quick software review
Microsoft introduced its productivity programs on the Mac in 1984 before Windows and it has kept on upgrading the suite ever since.
and running a business mean that all of us have to use a word processor, spreadsheet and maybe even a presentation pro-
gram in order to get our work done. Microsoft’s Office suite is by far the most widely used “work” program, which
other than plain word prois why Word and Excel files cessing, but if you use it for have become the de-facto file producing brochures or simstandards. Although there are ple artwork I suspect Pages is competitors out there most much better as it is more heavpeople end up using Microily orientated toward this sort soft products. of production than Word. Mac users have a unique As far as spreadsheets go I choice as Apple sells iWork, found Numbers more difficult which is a suite that includes to get used to as it is differPages for word processing, ent from Excel. However, if Numbers for spreadsheet and you have never learned Excel, Keynote for presentations. I suspect the initial learning Like most Mac-only programs curve for Numbers is easier. these three all have characterI have never used either proistics that set them apart from gram for complicated spreadWindows programs. sheets so the apparent lack of During the past few months some high-end formulas and I have been using Pages to write articles, including this NeoOffice is an open source alternative to Office, based on Open Office. It has been functions in Numbers is of no concern. column, instead of Word. De- specially modified to be more Mac-like. Even though both my sons spite being a long-time Word correction automatically and it does not learned how to use PowerPoint in school user, I was quickly able to adapt to Pages I have never had to produce a presentaautomatically highlight the first choice as it is very similar. As a lousy two-finger when it offers more than a single word tion so I am not really up to speed on “hunt-and-peck” typist, I rely heavily on these programs. However, a cursory look while checking. Otherwise, I like Pages the spell checker to correct my typing at both shows me that learning and using better than Word. errors. This is one feature where Pages is I have never used Word for anything Keynote on the Mac is, not surprisingly, not as good as Word. It will not repeat a
is very little difference between the two suites, so it boils down to personal preferences as to which one to purchase. It’s worth noting that you do have to remember to export a Pages document as a Word file so that other users are able to open it in Word. Pages can read a Word document but Word cannot read a Pages document. It’s the same with Numbers and Keynote. The price of the two suites definitely falls in favor of iWork as it sells for just $79, while Microsoft Office starts at $150 OpenOffice is the original open source alternative to Office that was for student and home use. programmed for Windows but works on a Mac. The programmers say If you really want to save the next version will be more Mac-like. money, there are two free alternatives to Office called NeoOffice much more pleasant than PowerPoint. If you buy a new Mac, trial copies of and OpenOffice. They are both open both iWork and Office are pre-loaded so source “copies” that work almost as well you can experience both. In reality there as Office and produce fully compatible
files. NeoOffice is the better choice for Mac users as it is a special version of OpenOffice that has a more Mac-like interface. If you are not a heavy user of a word processor or spreadsheet these free programs are well worth considering as an extremely cost-effective alternative.
John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. He has been using a camera as a professional for 39 years, a computer for 29 years and has combined his knowledge of both for the past 15 years. Readers can contact him directly by email at john@ johnrettie.com.
Further Information
iWorks www.apple.com/iwork Office www.microsoft.com/mac NeoOffice www.neooffice.org Open Office www.openoffice.org