As I hypothesized in yesterday's commentary, the pros don't seem to have much disagreement with my assessment, but the consumers jumped all over me. In fact, it really all boiled down to one type of consumer who vehemently disagreed: the 5DII wannabe consumer.
Basically, everyone wants a cheap D3s or D3x. Who wouldn't? Well, Nikon for one ;~). If all you do is provide a lower cost version of the same thing, you kill your margin for volume. Nikon doesn't need more volume, per se. They need total growth (sales and profit), not market share growth.
So I started answering back to all those who emailed me in disagreement. I wanted specifics as to why Nikon needed to do a 5DII-type camera. Yep, it all came back to the same word: affordability. Specifically, the things those people wanted "affordable" all seemed to boil down to high megapixel count, high ISO capability, and pro HD video features. So I challenged them on each of these things. Let's listen in, shall we?
"Why do you need high megapixel count?
"Enlarge and crop."
"How often do you enlarge beyond 24"?"
"Haven't done it lately (or yet), but I want that flexibility. Also, that means I can crop aggressively."
"So, if you need to crop aggressively that means you don't have a long lens or can't get close to your subject, right?"
"Yeah, I guess."
"Do you know what perspective is?"
"I think so."
"Filmed and edited any video productions lately?"
"No, but I might want to."
I could keep going, but that's the gist of a number of email conversations I had yesterday. So let's go to the facts.
Need more megapixels. I challenge this assertion. Yes, there are some people who may need more megapixels, I won't deny that or the fact that I have some cameras with "more megapixels." But we're talking about an affordable camera here for the masses. Do they need more megapixels? My question to each one who said yes was to ask them what types of things they photograph. Landscapes (learn how to do panos, it's easy). Portraits (will your subject really like to see their zits in detail?). Kids playing, casual stuff (are you really going to blow that up to 48"?). Not much else. Sorry, I'm calling a BS on this claim. Not a single person I challenged has yet given me an exact scenario where those extra megapixels buy them much they don't already have.
Need low light work. So, my challenge here is this: the D700 is worse at low light than the 5DII? Just the opposite in my testing. Usually when I trip the person up on this they say "but the 5DII has more megapixels, so I can get 18mp at ISO 6400." Okay, what the heck are you photographing at ISO 6400 that needs 18mp? Oh, they're downsizing their images to get less noise. Oops. Again, I call BS.
Need pro HD video features. Okay, the D700 doesn't have video, the 5DII does, and it has very capable and flexible video. The question is whether or not you actually need it. What manual focus, low light, shallow DOF video have you been recording lately? Uh, none. Again, BS. People seem to be afraid that if their camera doesn't have those pro features on it that they'll never really use that it isn't good enough. Nonsense.
Okay, there are people who need or can use what the 5DII provides. Obviously so. The 5DII sells in decent (but not huge) volume. Nikon does not currently have an equivalent, so those particular people--and you already know who you are--find the lack of a Nikon equivalent problematic (for video, I'm not sure why, since you can mount manual focus Nikon lenses on the 5DII, and manual focus is what you'll be using for video ;~).
No, the problem I have is that most of the people protesting the loudest about Nikon's "missing cameras" don't actually need them, they just want them. I might even go so far as to say that they want them because they think that numbers indicate state-of-the-photographic-art. It doesn't help that the camera makers pathetic marketing campaigns have hammered that home over the years. In the meantime, the savvy photographer is looking at far more than just pixel count or if the ISO setting goes to 11. Personally, I'd rather have Nikon fix their broken hot pixel suppression routine than add more pixels that are still broken on long exposures.
What makes me think that most of the people asking for a US$1999 24mp FX HD video DSLR are driving cars with 400 cubic inch engines on roads with speed limits of 35 mph? More isn't better.