The MB-D12 also takes the EN-EL18 battery. In fact, using that battery is the only way to tweak out 6FPS in the DX mode.
They REALLY deviated from previous MB-D grip pricing, though. I mean, almost double the price of an MB-D10 and more than double the price of an MB-D11? I am thinking that the marketing department spearheaded this as a way to lower the price of the actual D800 body. "We'll get our extra profit on the battery pack."
There is a serious opportunity for a third party to make a D800 MB-D12 alternative and make some good money.
Wed 08-Feb-12 09:07 AM | edited Wed 08-Feb-12 09:12 AM by rodsky77
>Nikon USA has the MB-D12 battery grip listed for $616, this >has to be an error. It takes the same battery as the D7000 and >the grip looks like the D7000's grip. I wonder why it's so >high?
I'm afraid it's true... the grip is going for 380 British Pounds at Jessops in UK - that's about $600...
Yeah..... It's a battery grip.... It holds a battery, I don't care which kind... It does not even have wireless connectivity in it... The grip, the larger capacity battery and the battery cover will cost $850 - you can buy a prime lens for this money - even 2 - obviously not f1.4, although the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 should fit into that amount.
It's still Nikon, last time I checked, not Leica and not Hasselblad.... 3rd party options will be sold for $100. They won't sell any of these at this price point. Wow, they really are losing it....
I've owned a D90 and a D700 and both had a Nikon battery grip. I don't want or need the extra FPS, all I need is the extra button in the vertical position plus I like the feel of the camera with the grip. I guess I'll be waiting for a good 3rd party alternative because $616 is a joke when the same thing for the D7000 is only $233.
Nikon overbuilt the D700 and it took away profit/sales from the D3s and likewise the D7000 eroded the D300s profit/sales. However, the D700 and D7000 did a great deal of damage to the competition, i.e., Canon, Sony, Olympus etc.
Appears Nikon will not repeat these strategies again........
Do you really think the D3s sales were hurt by the D700? They had limited production facilities for the D3s so they were constantly in short supply as it was. For their purposes they produced the right number since they sold every one they made and had no unsold stock in the warehouse when its production ended. The D700 was easier to build and had more impact on the profitability of the company because it was affordable to a much greater customer pool. The D7000 was the only one that was very restricted in supply for the millions who wanted one and they left a lot on the table by being hit by two natural disasters in short succession. If not for those interruptions, they would have sold twice as many. This last year was not a total waste however, profits were up, unit sales were up and most telling for future sales is the flood wiped out aging production lines which were modernized and capacity increased so the follow-on cameras will be in higher stocking levels. They are going to need it, the D7000 back in full production later next month, coupled with twice the market for the D4(still as always but also video production which is less price sensitive) and the D800 that appeals to not only the current Nikon owners but a flood of potential brand switchers, plus the video people. Each of those 3 cameras share a lot of features and design continuity but each is less overlapping than prior model overlap. The D700 and D3(not s) overlapped a lot but the D800 and D4 overlap little in target customer yet have most features the same. Nikon has made some bold and aggressive moves and they are going to be rewarded for it by sales, margins and share. Good time to own Nikon stock. Canon will see the most shrinkage of share, Sony(who never really figured out who their customer base was going to come from) and Pentax were not really competing for the same customers anyway. Stan St Petersburg Russia