If Nikon doesn't get their act together on DX...

they could fail as a company. That is Thom's stark message in his latest blog "The Wall Approaches" http://www.bythom.com/ in a nutshell. What are they thinking? DX is something like 60% of their biggest and most profitable business, the ILC market. The wags on the Nikon forums who see the future as FX and CX are smoking some pretty strong stuff: without some innovative development of the DX DSLR and lens markets, much of 60% of Nikon's ILC business is in danger of slipping away to mirrorless micro 4/3s and APS-C offerings.

--
Jim

Or an alternative theory is that Nikon doesn't believe the DX dSLR segment has long to live anyway so rather than spend some R&D cycles on one last generation, maybe the DX delay is because Nikon is working on their own APS-C mirrorless offerings that would natively use DX or FX lenses and it's taking longer to do the original R&D to get to D300-like continuous AF performance at 8+fps with mirror-less tech.

Or, they think the next DX generation needs to be 24MP and 8fps and EXPEED can't do that yet with low readout noise so they're working on the next iteration of EXPEED that can solve that and that has taken longer than desired.

Or they're truly just clueless and some brain dead marketing/product management folks just thought all D7000 and D300 owners would flock to the D600 and replace most of their lenses and only now have they discovered that's not true and they're in emergency planning mode to figure out what the heck to do.

While they are losing sales right now because lots of us are ready to buy something if they make what we would be willing to buy (so we're not spending until they do), Canon isn't putting the competitive hurt on them in that area either so maybe there was some dSLR group-think on not paying attention to quality APS-C and only now are they both discovering that was a mistake.

FYI, it was not long ago (perhaps 12 months ago) that Thom Hogan himself didn't see much of a future for a successor to the D7000 or D300.  He obviously thinks differently in the last 6 months, but there were a lot of folks thinking that way at the dawn of the D800.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

That's an interesting article. Thanks for posting it. A very interesting part was where they predicted a fewer DSLR sales than before, in spite of the CIPA forecast of 1.5 million sales.  AFAIK, that's not the way to gain market share.....

Although there have been times when I think that they do really stupid stuff, I can't really imagine that they are so stupid as to not realize what their actions in the last 2 or 3 years would do to their bottom line.

Can they really be so stupid as to think that 4 new FX and 2 consumer DX cameras would carry the company as if the d300 and d7000 weren't important to their bottom line?  I don't think so.  I have no idea why they've chosen this course of action, but I don't think it's due to stupidity.

Maybe it's just a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians.  I dunno, but I wish that they'd get their act together soon. Canon is supposedly going to a new fab, so their sensors will be much more in line with Nikon, maybe better.  If that's true, Nikon may have a rough road ahead.

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

But that's hardly the point. If DX/APS-C is dead, Nikon and Canon have only themselves to blame for their mindless iteration over the past five years. But Canon is more than just a camera company and will survive to fight another day. Nikon is only a camera company, to all intents and purposes. As for a D400, 20MP would have been sufficient, and Expeed 3 could have handled it. And there's no way a mirrorless system will use DX and 35mm "natively" - that would mean F-mount.

--
Jim

They have lost my upgrade money, at least for this year. I had been accumulating a tidy sum for "a D400", somewhere between what would be needed for a D800 and what would be needed for a D4, but instead just spent it on a nicer new car than I would otherwise. So for now it's D200 and PP for the foreseeable future.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

What Thom calls Canon envy: Nikon is so eager to assume the top spot, so fixated on Canon, that they've focused their effort on FX. And they got what they wished for: high resolution, slow, expensive and relatively bulky cameras in a market that is looking for portability, responsiveness and lower cost. And don't even get me started on their ill-conceived CX venture...

--
Jim

Maybe that is where the D400 development money went.

Dan

What's wrong with an APS-C mirrorless that uses F-mount that eventually replaces the DX dSLR line? If you could make the entire DX line better with mirrorless tech (that's a big "if"), why wouldn't you use F-mount and have access to the entire F-mount lens inventory?

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Many associate "mirrorless" with "pocketable". F-mount has a large flange to film plane distance, making it less pocketable.  Me, it does not matter.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

If you think that the DX line is eventually replaced by APS-C mirrorless, I don't see why you'd make yet another lens mount and line of lenses.  If you want to optimize for pocketability, you don't choose an APS-C camera in the first place - buy a camera in the Nikon 1 line for an interchangeable lens camera that is pocketable.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Why is it so important to lose the mirror?

--
Jim

You read way too much in what Thom wrote.

DX - APS-C offerings from Nikon aren't going away.

I don't see the D3xxx line disappearing

I don't see the D5xxx line disappearing

I don't see the D7xxx line disappearing

I see the D3xx line gone - we will get confirmation if there is going to be a D400 by the specs of the D7000 replacement when it gets announced.

That leaves 3 DX cameras for the consumer market.

How much more market share will a 4th DX camera get them and more importantly, will it be profitable to add that 4th camera?

Thom is talking about "lazy iterations" of DX, the lack of timely replacements for the D7000 and D300s and the lack of development in DX lenses. He isn't saying that Nikon will stop iterating DX - and neither am I. He's concerned that DX is being set up to fail.

--
Jim

That sounds like the right question.  Can Nikon figure out mirror-less continuous AF and deliver a DX sensored, mirror-less F-mount body that does 15-30fps with at least D300-level AF performance for the same or lower cost than today's D7000/D300?

Can an EVF and high res sensors be combined in a DX body to implement a real workable digital crop zoom that has no viewfinder compromises?

Can some other advantage of mirror-less/EVF be found/exploited to make an F-mount mirror-less better than an F-mount body with mirror?

If not, then perhaps there is no point in ever replacing the DX line with mirror-less.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

And one has to wonder if it is a good idea to drop the D300 line. They have the body, they have the AF, they have the sensor, so why not sell this camera? I am quite certain that they earn way more money with every D300 line camera sold than with every D3X00.

--
hobby aviation photographer

The ill conceived venture that just happens to be at the top of the world sales for mirrorless. I was talking to a colleague a couple of days ago. Canon shooter - good photographer too. Never used or owned a Nikon, except to my astonishment he's now using a J1, and is delighted with it - he actually tried one, found what it could do, rather than just slagging it off on the basis of his own prejudices.

Seems to me that Nikon has a much better idea of what will succeed than the gaggle of armchair CEOs here.

--
Bob

Waht makes the most sense to me would be to use a short register distance for a possible new mirrorless line, which would be advantegeous for the optical construction at the wider end. I don't see why it should not be possible to make a more or less fully functional adapter to take existing F-mount lenses. After all, in terms of optics, its just empty space where the mirror would otherwise go. And then you'd need the necessary electronic and mechanical links. Actually, I'd rather hope this would be the direction that Nikon would pursue, as I also suspect the DX DSLR's will eventually be replaced by mirrorless - with FX being the sole mirror system. As it is now, I'm like many others here in doubt over the long term future of DX. At the same time, I currently consider going FX to be overkill for my ambitions and photographic proveness. So to me , a gradual shift to Nikon DX mirrorless, allowing me to use my DX lenses in the process, would suit me fine. Thats assuming the EVF and on sensor PDAF would be up to the task.

--
------- Eirik ----------
Visit my gallery at http://eirikbs.smugmug.com/

I don't have a problem with FX, because it has its place, somewhere between 10 and 15% of the DSLR market. But I don't understand the "fixation" on it and the fixation on what Canon does. The notion that Nikon and Canon are so fixated on each other, to the point of ignoring their own sales figures for each market segment, simply goes beyond logical, rational behavior of any company seriously trying to make a profit.  Yet, on the surface, it certainly does have that appearance, almost like the same CEO is running both companies, deciding what products to bring out.

The d400 isn't going to be any smaller than the d800 or d600.  Indeed with grip, those cameras are about the same size as a d3 body.  The folks that are looking for smaller, ain't gonna be looking at the d400.

But, again, if Nikon is so eager to assume the top spot, where is the evidence that they've done anything other than FX to get there?  History has told them that they need a full line of DX cameras. It makes no sense to ignore them, as both companies have done.

As I said before, it may be that the next TOL DX camera will be at the limits of what is possible for DX sensors.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't sell a boatload of them, so where is it? Same for the d7100.  There's money to be made and they're not even making a feeble attempt to get it.  But, neither is Canon.  How can that be, with "competing" companies?

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

The big problem is that with the lower end DX, they compete with the Sony's, the Pentax, the wonderful NEX series (the NEX is the major danger along with Panasonicc M4/3) etc.

The ONLY competition with the D300 series is the 7D.

I still expect both will be replaced this year, after D600 sales flatten.

But I think the series will be upgraded with a slightly larger sensor, or something, very very good performance in low light (seeing as it will mainly be a sport/' even/ jounalism' camera (that can be used for landscape and everything else too).

Does not make sense otherwise.

Neither does having two low end DSLR (D3XXX and DXXX) that are both mirrors, not mirrorless.

The big problem is that their competition is now not just Canon. Sony and Pansonic are drawing many but Nikon and Canon are holding mainly because of the legacy in lenses and mounts, uses (sports and pro uses such as weddings, architecture, landscape) and reliability.

That said, amateurs are bundling into Sony and Panasonic.

That is a serious marketing issue.

--
.....Just from an amateur......''Sometimes it's to your advantage for people to think you're crazy.” I am only a hoobyist, I cannot and do not give expert advice, dont expect it, just take it as a suggestion to think about, but only if you wish to. We should try to not wait for life to happen, while it passes us by.

I don't think Tom ever writes what he really thinks. He used to, but not any more, he's caught up in his own marketing.

What I find odd is how nikon and canon are shadowing each other. Why neither has produced a flagship DX seems very odd - it would surely be a good seller, especially if the other didn't have an answer.

So is mirrorless the next step for DX? Its increasingly looking that way. Its got to happen at some stage.

--
UK wedding photographer in the Lake District
http://www.johnleech-weddingphotography.co.uk
For my landscapes and fine art photography:
http://www.johnleechstudio.co.uk