A couple of thoughts come to mind,
The first is the yield of a FX sensor to a DX sensor, the FX is twice the size in actual area, and it has more transistors, not quite the same density of the D7000, but yield across a silicon wafer is on a log curve when the chips get large, In the end, some bad pixels are most likely on every single sensor shipped, because at that size silicon, getting 100% PERFECT would make the cost become so high, that nobody could afford buying digital.
Since the camera bodies of the D600 and D7000 are almost identical, then you know the delta cost is all to the sensors. Does the cost of the silicon drive the delta to 2X the price,, maybe,,
but maybe,, it is more a supply and demand, Nikon has been hit with severe supply constraints and angry potential customers. If this camera had been priced at 1500-1600 dollar, the pent up FX demand would have created an crisis of supply, driving up the black market, and more bad press.
So, the 2100 dollar price range provides some slowdown of the purchases of this camera. Because, I do agree, that for that price range, the D600 should have had more the build quality/features of a D700 and not a D7000 (I own both). If the D600 had the full features of the D700, I would have been tempted to buy the D600 at 2100 dollars, but not with the D7000 quality body.
and, if the D600 with the D7000 quality body was only 1500, then I would have been tempted to sell the D7000, and buy up to full FX set of kits. Me and so many others, creating a huge supply crisis as I discussed,
So, I think Nikon is doing the right corporate thing by pricing at 2100 dollars narrowing the customers to those that have not yet bought a FX camera, and keeping out all those D700 buyers (I recommend the D800 still for any person upgrading from a D700 (I have been totally happy upgrading from a D700 to a D800 with no loss of features, and even more function).
will be interesting to watch the order volume on this product.
The first is the yield of a FX sensor to a DX sensor, the FX is twice the size in actual area, and it has more transistors, not quite the same density of the D7000, but yield across a silicon wafer is on a log curve when the chips get large, In the end, some bad pixels are most likely on every single sensor shipped, because at that size silicon, getting 100% PERFECT would make the cost become so high, that nobody could afford buying digital.
Since the camera bodies of the D600 and D7000 are almost identical, then you know the delta cost is all to the sensors. Does the cost of the silicon drive the delta to 2X the price,, maybe,,
but maybe,, it is more a supply and demand, Nikon has been hit with severe supply constraints and angry potential customers. If this camera had been priced at 1500-1600 dollar, the pent up FX demand would have created an crisis of supply, driving up the black market, and more bad press.
So, the 2100 dollar price range provides some slowdown of the purchases of this camera. Because, I do agree, that for that price range, the D600 should have had more the build quality/features of a D700 and not a D7000 (I own both). If the D600 had the full features of the D700, I would have been tempted to buy the D600 at 2100 dollars, but not with the D7000 quality body.
and, if the D600 with the D7000 quality body was only 1500, then I would have been tempted to sell the D7000, and buy up to full FX set of kits. Me and so many others, creating a huge supply crisis as I discussed,
So, I think Nikon is doing the right corporate thing by pricing at 2100 dollars narrowing the customers to those that have not yet bought a FX camera, and keeping out all those D700 buyers (I recommend the D800 still for any person upgrading from a D700 (I have been totally happy upgrading from a D700 to a D800 with no loss of features, and even more function).
will be interesting to watch the order volume on this product.
