No, under $2k would have been a horrible idea for Nikon (as outlined above). No separation in the market, which is bad. Even for Canon shooters, it's not a bad thing for a direct competitor to stay up and running well. If Nikon (or Canon for that matter) starts falling far behind and grasping at straws to stay afloat, we're in real trouble (especially those that rely on Canon for gear, etc, but even Nikon shooters would be in trouble because of, pretty much, a monopoly situation that would be generated.
Granted, I dont think Nikon needs every camera in their lineup. Hell, none of the major makers do. The biggest thing is that you dont need an entry level DSLR every year, period. From a Canon perspective, the T4i should last two years, period. If they simplified their lines and streamlined a bit, they could dump money back into R&D, reduce issues with things being released (7D's new firmware is already up to 2.0.3), etc. Instead of taking forever, the 24-70 II could already be out and subject to a price drop to get it down closer to $2000...
Canon's current DSLR lineup:
Canon's ideal DSLR lineup:
T4i/70D (Merge xxD and 7D)/5D3/1Dx
Now, granted, some of the first line are being phased out (T3i/T3/5D2 which could be done as soon as this month)/ 1Div/1Ds3), but we don't need to replace all of them next year.
There's room for a more affordable full frame offering in there, sure, but at what expense? Seriously, Canon should merge the xxD/7D lines into the 6D(since it doesn't already exist), then release the 3D as their large megapixel FF offering.
... wow, where did that come from?
Edited by MistaBernie - 9/13/12 at 12:45pm