Nikon guys better all get faster computers Check this out!!
Not what I was hoping for out of Nikon for a new DX body. Where is my 300s replacement?
Gives hope for a new pro DX body. But when? And What?
http://www.pictureline.com/blog/nikon-announces-new-d3200-dslr/
Gives hope for a new pro DX body. But when? And What?
http://www.pictureline.com/blog/nikon-announces-new-d3200-dslr/
0
Comments
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
It sounds like you're going all the way back to the D2X / D2Xs, which I think is not really a proper judgment of Nikons "pro DX" situation. The D300 and D300s have totally eclipsed the D2X's performance, and have retained quite a few flagship-only options such as TIFF capture. A useless feature for most of us, but a subtle statement that the D300 series is effectively the continuation of the flagship DX line. The D300s even added dual card slots, which the D2-series never had. And of course video, but that is ubiquitous now.
My point is, I think the D300s is an un-sung hero, a worthy continuation of the DX pro line, ...and due for an upgrade either this year or VERY early in 2013.
The problem is that Nikon knows that the day they dropped the FX bomb, (August 2007, along with the D300) ...they kissed goodbye any future in high-volume pro DX sales... But, just like the D3X, I hope Nikon ends up deciding that it's worth it despite the lower sales volume. Obviously the D3X had a FAR higher profit margin than the D300 / D300s, ...and to make a D400 sell any volume they're going to have to price it right at $1700 / $1800.
Those who argue that nobody will buy a D400 for that much if the D700 is just $2200, well, to you I say, ...just imagine a DX version of the D800 for $1200+ less than $3K! ...With 6-8 FPS!!!!
The longer you think about it that way, the more you realize it'll sell. Based on the D3200 sample images, I'm really looking forward to the D400. And I'm actually glad that they're doing the D400 second, instead of first; unlike the D300 and D300s which had to play second-fiddle to the D90's improved RAW noise performance... (What I mean to say is, however good the D3200 is, the D400 could only be better.)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Not to get too side tracked with this. But Nikon is doing some big moves this year. It seems like they want to really bitch slap every other manufacturer with straight up specmanship. Not real world use. People still look at megapixels as a huge feature. I am so surprised Nikon has left such a gap. The D4 is nice, but not a huge step away from the D3s for still pictures. I got to review one! For photographyreview.com. I got to do a back to back test of the D4 vs D3s in low light at a womens self defense seminar. Shot it at ISO 12,800 with the same lens and settings. Review should be coming out soon. Don't want to spill all the beans but in short, they are really about the same. It is just the D4 has more resolution. But the D4 looses many switches the D3s has that I am fond of. Not a deal breaker, but?? Why??? So for this one, I have a weird feeling about it especially for $6000. If I am really lucky, I am shooting a fight with it too. That is still up in the air. This will be the perfect comparison. The 2 kings of sports photography go head to head in the octagon! It will test everything.
The D800 is a HUGE step from the D700. So much so that it is not an upgrade from the D700 but an entirely new concept. It seemed to be that the D700 was designed to be very versatile. And it might be the best all around DSLR. So Nikon seems to have really departed from this philosophy with the D800. Not really in a good way for most users. Its 36 megapixles are cool on paper, cool for prints, but a nightmare for most computer systems if shot in large volumes. Lower frame rate. Not really better ISO, I am glad I now own a D700. I love it and could have many of those bodies. But for say a portrait photographer, fashion, product, and even some wedding type shots the D800 is the bomb. Almost medium format quality for $2999? Crazy. And you get to use the lenses you already have. Serious bang for the buck for IQ. I also think it is too cheap. It would have been cool to see this as a D4x. The people that need that sort of thing would buy it. I would have liked to see a 16 megapixel FX body that shot 8fps and had ISO at least slightly better than the D700. Maybe ISO 8000 instead of 6400. Even better would be the D3s crammed inside of a D700 size body for about $3000
The poor 300s is left out in the cold. Outdated and underrated. It's AF performance is close to the D3s. Frame rate is high, IQ is great in the right conditions, and ISO very usable up to 3200. It sits in a weird spot. Slightly eclipsed by the D7000 in a lot of ways. ISO is the big one here. And of course video performance. But the rockin AF system of the 300s still makes it a better camera for any sort of action. It it is not in focus, it doesn't matter how good the sensor is. And the navigation is almost identical to the D700 and D3s which makes it very nice to use along with those bodies.
D400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the long rant. Started typing and couldn't stop.
I am going back to the D2x(s), because that was the last PRO DX body that Nikon sold. The D300(s) can be used in pro situations, but that doesn't make it a pro body. D700 is the same. The D7000 eclipses the D300(s) performance as well, but that doesn't make it pro. The ONE feature the D300s brings to the table is dual card slots. That is more an issue of bandwidth capability over time than "pro" vs non-pro. Again the D7000 has dual card slots.
I know several pros who shoot a D300. And all of them use it as a back up. I think it is credible in that role. But I'll tell you right now, if I had to choose between an D2x and a D300 when I was going to spend 3-5 hours behind the lens, my choice would be made instantly.
Since Nikon won't put a DX sensor into a full-sized pro body any longer, I am going to be forced down the road of the D400. DX still has a place for me as a sports shooter. If it does come in with the rumored 24MP Sony sensor, I will be quite pleased to buy one. I don't really care if it's $1800 or $2500. As long as they can produce it and get it to me before the fall sports season starts!
I could care less about the D700. Nice camera, but brings nothing new to the table for me. A DX version of my D800 on the other hand would be most welcome. Even without the high frame rate. I don't find myself missing much because the D800 is slower.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Say WHAT? The D300 may be a fine camera, but it is in NO WAY similar in feel and performance to a D3s. Come on now.
I do agree that the D4 didn't bring much to the table for my needs. My buddy bought one, and we were shooting last week at a track meet. I had my D800 and D3s with me. He had his D4. I really didn't see anything there to make me want to spend $6k.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Bingo. I think that Nikon has tried a liiiitle too hard to re-program their control layout to accommodate video captureI'm almost okay with the C/S/M switch change, because I've shot with the D7000 and I have to say it's not that hard to get used to, as long as you have a right finger free to change the settings. (Which also "allows" them to remove the dynamic AF switches, which again I can learn to live without but still, ...why add a switch that could COMPLETELY halt my shooting if I accidentally bump it? I suppose I've never bumed the dynamic AF switch before, so I'm safe.
I totally agree, but it's ironic that (according to DXO) ...the D800 sensor is the best ever. Or at the very least if we don't want to open up that can of worms, we can at least conclude that the 36 megapixel sensor has proven us quite wrong about "more megapixels equals worse ISO performance" ...when considering how close the D800 is to the D4 in high ISO testing.
The TRULY ironic part is, ...they could have avoided all of this by just giving us an sRAW mode. People can argue all they want about how the D800 file sizes aren't that bad, or that sRAW isn't truly RAW, but the bottom line is that I shoot a quarter-million images a year, and going from the D700 to the D800 would triple my memory, hard drive, computer power, and also significant TIME consumption. Also, it reduces the shooting speed. Together, these two things make the D800 borderline un-acceptable as a wedding photography camera, to me at least being so accustomed to the D700's versatility, and also compared to what the 5D mk3 has to offer on the other side of the fence.
Fortunately, all this leads me to believe that we're still due for a D700 "replacement". Many industry pundits have mentioned (including Thom Hogan?) that it is just not cost-effective for Nikon to develop it's own sensors, and then only use them ONCE. Thus the D3, D700, and D3s. This makes me even more confident that the D4 sensor will be re-used, at LEAST once, if not twice.
My only hope is that they don't just make an FX D7000, with all those "advanced amateur" control / function limitations. I want a TRUE D700s-type body. Call it the D800h, call it whatever you need to, just give us the D4 sensor in a $3-$3.5K body!
Exactly. Unfortunately I think it's too late for Nikon do re-hash it's 12 MP sensor one final time, which is a total shame but hey I'll happily take 16 megapixels and the D4's ISO performance...
Yep, I'm always a little shocked when someone claims that the D7000 totally kills the D300s line. Hardly! I know you of all people can understand just how awesome it is to have three types of cameras with nearly identical controls. I can switch back and forth from the D300 and D700 all day long, but the one time I tried to switch between the D7000 and the D700, it was quite clear how limited the D7000 was for my needs...
So, here's to hoping that we get a D400 and a D700 replacement within the next 12-18 months!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
If anything, this is just what happens to a less popular flagship lineup in a down economy. Nikon makes 'em in Thailand etc. instead of Japan.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I really think it does have a similar feel to it. Yeah it is not a full size body. But I am talking about how it is built and feels in your hands. Also the control layout. I love having all 3 of my bodies have virtually identical controls and menus. Even though they are 3 completely different cameras.
Also the 300s has virtually the same AF system as the D3s, D3, and D700. That is what sets it apart from the D7000 performance wise.
I actually prefer the D300 / D700 control layout to the D3 etc. layout. I LOVE where the metering switch is, and hate how it's locked on the side of the VF prism on the flagships. I also prefer the D700 / D300 method of image playback, and the less-spread-out controls for ISO etc... (that tiny little screen below the main LCD needs to go IMO; sorry flagship shooters!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
And that is the fundamental. When you spend half your day with your eye against the viewfinder, that big camera allows you to relax your grip. Especially on the monopod where you are balancing the camera. When shooting offhand, like with an 85 or a 70-200, you can actually open your hand and just let the body dangle from your fingers without feeling like you are going to lose it. After a few thousand shutter presses on the day, that is a VERY welcome relief.
But hey, to each their own...
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Ok. When I was shopping bodies last year, I picked up a D7000, a D300s, and a D700. I was shooting a D2x and a D2H at the time. For me, the D300 and D700 felt much the same, the D7000 felt like a toy in comparison, and none of them felt or handled like a pro body. BUT, if you spend your day with a 50mm, 85mm, or a 24-70mm on the camera I think they are all ok. If you spend your day with a 300, 400, or 600 hanging off your monopod all day, the heft of the pro bodies means a LOT.
Ok, I'll take your word for it. I don't shoot a D300. I do have a gripped D200 that feels pretty good. My gripped D7000... not so much. Good for 10-15 minutes at a time.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I could count on one hand the number of times I've needed 8fps in the past year. I typically am shooting sports either as single frames or bursts of 2-3 shots.
I couldn't hold onto a D300 for more than half an hour without my hand cramping up. Ungripped is worse.
And why I never bought an F6, and most sports pros didn't either. I spend 85% of my time in vertical orientation for volleyball. I am DYING without the grip for the D800, but fortunately, the season is now over. Hopefully, I can get the grip before indoor season starts in August.
Yea, I guess so.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
What sounds good on paper isn't always good.
I guess Nikon assumes these people won't be shooting and processing RAW.
24mp jpegs will be no problem.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Have to disagree. I've been hearing this tale of woe since I started with digital. The simple fact is that technology progresses. I started out with a 2 mp camera and a PC with storage that wasn't measured in GBs. As my cameras progressed so did PCs and storage. I probably upgrade my PC faster than I upgrade my camera bodies.
At one time a 24 inch TV was considered enormous now they take up whoie walls. Of course instead of watching movies on them we view movies on the 3 inch screen of our IPhone or Android.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
...But that doesn't make it a good thing. Just like how each new OS is a little bit more resource-hungry, I think it's at least a little bit of a tragedy that digital technology *MUST* progress like this. I don't want bells and whistles, I don't want megapixels, I just want improvements in autofocus and ISO. That's it. Yes, as a professional I upgrade my work computer every other year or so, however as a consumer I am still enjoying an iMac from 2007 or so, which can only be considered "fast" if I'm working on 12 megapixel RAW files. And honestly I think it's a joke to argue that I "*MUST* spend thousands of dollars extra as a consumer, every time I buy a new camera. (Or at least every other time...)
The thing is, I know I'm in the minority and I don't see this changing any time soon. Fortunately, we can't even begin to fathom the dramatic changes in technology that will break this cycle in the near future, I suspect.
Of course, the irony does NOT escape me concerning sRAW mode and how this whole thing would be a non-issue if Nikon would just get off their high horse and do what Canon does. Ugh...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I was perfectly happy with my Commodore 64. It never crashed and did what I needed it to but times changed. After I upgraded to the 4.9 mp Sony 707 from the 2 mp Kodak DC280 I told my wife that the 707 was all the camera I would ever need. I mean it had a 38-190 lens! Of course I needed bigger rmemory cards with that monster. I had to buy some 8mb memory sticks :yikes
This pattern has remained unchanged over the years. When I got the Nikon D2X I was told that I would have to upgrade all my glass and use a tripod and absolutely perfect technique because that new sensor would expose any error or defect. I was also told that I would have to spend thousands on a new PC and increased memory for that 12.2 MP beast after having shot with the 4.1 MP Nikon D2H.
The reality was rather different than what all the alarmists went on about. I won't be upgrading my PC, My current storage of a dual drive 3TB drives should hold me for a tad longer. Then there's the option of online storage with many services offering unlimited storage for $5/month.
The new Nikons have improved AF, better DR, improved IQ, improved ISO performance and higher resolution. The D4 is an incremental improvement over the D3s and the D800 is a game changer. Are there areas for improvement? Sure, but I expect to be one happy camper for the next few years.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"