Does the D3x make you want a D60?

[fletch]

Car companies often state that the presence of a top of the line sporty hot version of their standard cars increases sales of the standard model. This is beacuse people want the fast one but can't afford it so settle for the basic family version happy in the knowledge that a car very similar to theirs can do 100mph. Examples include the VW Golf GTI, Ford Focus RS etc. This allows the company to write of the cost of developing the car as a marketing expense.

I was wondering if the same was true for camera companies. Does the relase of the Nikon D3x increase sales of the D60 despite the fact nobody in there right mind is going to spend $8000 on a camera? Does the release of the new Sony FF camera increase sales of their entry from before when they had no 'pro' camera in their range? Coversly does the fact that Canon's flagship 1ds mk3 is a bit long in the tooth put off entry level buyers despite the fact they will never progress beyond entry level?

Lets have your thoughts.

[OsmosisStudios]

I dont think youre comparing apples and apples.

The system you presented (and you left out the Subaru WRX/STi) works for cars because theyre essentially the same thing with just a few parts changed. While that can loosely work in the camera field, its not quite the same.

A D60 is made for the enthusiast that likes photography but isnt making wads of cash every year from it. the D3x is made for the guys that spend all their time either in studio or with a very large, very padded camera case out in the field somewhere.

While they are, like cars, essentially the same device, it's kinda like comparing a hot hatch with a full-size truck. You'd never use a Golf as a construction vehicle, in much the same way most full-size pickup trucks arent driven in downtown city streets: each fufills a similar yet very different role.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I dont think youre comparing apples and apples.

The system you presented (and you left out the Subaru WRX/STi) works for cars because theyre essentially the same thing with just a few parts changed. While that can loosely work in the camera field, its not quite the same.

A D60 is made for the enthusiast that likes photography but isnt making wads of cash every year from it. the D3x is made for the guys that spend all their time either in studio or with a very large, very padded camera case out in the field somewhere.

While they are, like cars, essentially the same device, it's kinda like comparing a hot hatch with a full-size truck. You'd never use a Golf as a construction vehicle, in much the same way most full-size pickup trucks arent driven in downtown city streets: each fufills a similar yet very different role.

You've never seen a sub compact with several sheets of plywood/ lumber strapped to the roof?!! And a lifted H2 downtown?!

never say never.

But I largely agree...this is more like sneaker sales...."brand association", not direct relevance....but then again, marketing/ buying trends often make little "sense"....(remember the cabbage patch dolls thing?...I'm kinda amazed I do....)

[sk66]

BTW, if you had an option that said
"hell no, it makes me want to switch to canon!" I would have voted...

[fletch]

Originally Posted by sk66

BTW, if you had an option that said
"hell no, it makes me want to switch to canon!" I would have voted...

But why do you want a Canon - Is it the eye candy 1ds Mk3 showing you what they can do or the relative merits of the 1000d vs the D40?

[richsuk]

Probably in a round about way. Every one wants the make professional recommend lol.

Regarding cars I always buy the top model anyway. At the moment it's the Volvo S60 R which was meant to give the halo effect for the rest of the range but I just bought that.

I bought into Nikon because most of the pro's I know recommended Nikon. I bought the D700 over the top line D3 at the time because it had the same "engine" in a smaller "body"

[aglio]

my D80 makes me want a D300 or D700...i'm confused, why would i want a D60? it's an updated D40...

[vandergus]

Maybe not the D3x, but the D300 makes me eager for the next entry level Nikon. Nikon has a way of trickling down it's sensor technologies. Their ten megapixel sensor started in the D200 before making its way into the D80 and D60. The 12 megapixel sensor from the D300 has already made it into the D90 and there's a bit of speculation that the next entry level camera will have it as well. So the pro level bodies don't really make the entry level camera more attractive in any sort of coolness by association way, but they do give me a good idea of the kind of performance to expect from products I may actually be able to purchase in the future. So for that reason, the D300 and other such unattainable cameras are interesting to me.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by fletch

But why do you want a Canon - Is it the eye candy 1ds Mk3 showing you what they can do or the relative merits of the 1000d vs the D40?

No, it's the 5d mk II...comparable camera to the D3x for 1/2 the money...

[TDrag27]

This is the Goldilocks or "Just Right" marketing tool. I think you're just going astray in including the entire SLR line into the equation. The metaphor works if you break up the models into "pro-sumer" and "pro."

So....
The D40 is not enough, the D90 is too much, so the D60 feels "just right!"

On the higher end range of the cameras, the D300 is not enough, the new D3 too much, so the D700 might be "just right!"