Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 881
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

Yes, he's been all over the place with this issue. This D800 confused a lot of people because it didn't fit into the established pattern. It really is the closest thing to a D3x update, not so much D700, but I'm okay with whoever may disagree on this issue. The reason I don't see D800 as the D700 update is that it encourages a different approach to photography to get the most out of it technically, plus a host of more practical file processing and management issues.

You can reverse what you said about what you need or don't need in the D700 or D800 and point out that the only thing the D700 does better than the D800 is fps (if you want to shoot full frame instead of 1.2x or DX crop modes, and if you put the MB-D10 on it with appropriate batteries). Also, I wouldn't characterize 70% more resolution as "ever so slight."

No, I wasn't thinking about D800, rather about D3s/D4, both of which are philosophically closer to the D700 than D800. The D700 is really a D3 minus the built-in grip, and plus/minus a few other relatively minor things. Sometimes I shoot with both D700 and D3s, and there isn't all that much between them until you get to real corner cases.

What Thom was saying is that Nikon keeps changing how they make the latest sensor available at a lower cost. With the D3 they brought out the D700, with the D3s they didn't bring out anything, and with the D4 they now have the Df. There's no continuity there, and that's the crux of the discussion; not whether or not buying a used camera is a better deal than buying a new camera.

Yes, I agree, all of the above is a discussion for the other forum.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fishywisht
Contributing MemberPosts: 868
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to jfriend00, 6 months ago

jfriend00 wrote:

The undercurrent in Thom's article that bothers me the most (and is reflected in a number of recent products) is that Nikon is making products for the "bean counters", purposely crippling things to protect upscale revenue rather than deliver the best product they can at a given price point and margin and is also pretty out of touch with what customers really want.

Of course it isn't only Nikon that does it, it's just Nikon's products that you are more sensitive to.

Canon's 10-50D line was produced for 6 years over 5 iterations with a hopeless 9-sensor scattered diamond pattern, during which time the 50D competed with the D300 for a few hundred less. This line would always debut at around $1400, a supposedly semi-professional camera, and if you wanted a better focus system, you had to lay out $4000 for the 1D series. Every iteration of the 00D series there were nominal improvements of the sensors, just enough to quote on the spec sheets for shill reviewers, but the tracking across that inadequate sensor pattern was simply inferior and things would simply move between the scattered points and you'd get shots out of focus. The D300 and even the D90 showed it up for the crippled system it really was and were the only impetus to improve the line. Canon's response was to pack the same old pattern on the 7D with a few more sensors to bring it up to 19- whilst the D300 has 51 and 1D series 45. Canon didn't try too hard to encroach on 1D territory.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ceaiu
Forum MemberPosts: 82
Like?
Re: No, I think the F-mount stays for DX...
In reply to JimPearce, 6 months ago

My understanding is that a lens designed for MILC is lighter /smaller than one designed for SLR.
Why not take advantage, and make a DX system that's realy lighter than FX?
Why keep the F-mount for the possible APS-C mirrorless, when there are no "exciting" DX lenses currently?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,771
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to yray, 6 months ago

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

Yes, he's been all over the place with this issue. This D800 confused a lot of people because it didn't fit into the established pattern.

There is no "established pattern."  When something happens once, that's not a pattern.

It really is the closest thing to a D3x update,

I do think there's a pattern here, and it has to do with being competitive.  The D700 came out to compete with the 5D/5DII because the D3 was too expensive for many who would then choose the Canon option.  The same reasoning is behind the D800 which competes against the 5DIII and A99; there is no more need for a D700 successor in Nikon's lineup because it is bracketed by the D610 and D800.

not so much D700, but I'm okay with whoever may disagree on this issue. The reason I don't see D800 as the D700 update is that it encourages a different approach to photography to get the most out of it technically, plus a host of more practical file processing and management issues.

Here's the thing though, except for fps (again, when using the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries) you can get more out of the D800 than the D700 using the D800 in exactly the same way as the D700 (more DR, more resolution, better high ISO performance, more viewfinder coverage, dual memory card slots, etc.). As for the larger file sizes, well that's just a fact of life now, even the D600, D7000, and D7100 have larger file sizes than the D700 -- nobody is going back to 12 MP.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fishywisht
Contributing MemberPosts: 868
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

I do think there's a pattern here, and it has to do with being competitive. The D700 came out to compete with the 5D/5DII because the D3 was too expensive for many who would then choose the Canon option. The same reasoning is behind the D800 which competes against the 5DIII and A99; there is no more need for a D700 successor in Nikon's lineup because it is bracketed by the D610 and D800.

5D III & D800 were released a month apart. The Canon ended up substantially more versatile with 6fps & its focus system. In that they were probably spurred on by the D700. Funny because Nikon themselves decided not to approach pro-spec with anything less but their most expensive camera anymore.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,292Gear list
Like?
Right now DX users have access to all F-mount DX and 35 mm lenses...
In reply to ceaiu, 6 months ago

With your (epithet deleted) plan we'd be worse off than Fuji shooters.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,771
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to fishywisht, 6 months ago

fishywisht wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I do think there's a pattern here, and it has to do with being competitive. The D700 came out to compete with the 5D/5DII because the D3 was too expensive for many who would then choose the Canon option. The same reasoning is behind the D800 which competes against the 5DIII and A99; there is no more need for a D700 successor in Nikon's lineup because it is bracketed by the D610 and D800.

5D III & D800 were released a month apart.

Yeah, so what?  5DII had more megapixels and had been out for some time, as was the A900/A850.  You don't think the writing about more megapixels and video was already on the wall?

The Canon ended up substantially more versatile with 6fps & its focus system.

I disagree.  "Substantial" suggests a lot, on the D800 the 1.2x crop is 5 fps at 25 MP versus the 5DIII  full frame at 6 fps at 22 MP, that's not that substantial in my book.

Some D800 cameras had a left side focusing issue but many didn't, and the CAM3500 is a very good AF system so that's like saying the D4 AF system is not as "versatile" as the 5DIII AF system.  There are trade-offs between them, but I don't see it as a substantial difference in favor of Canon here.

In that they were probably spurred on by the D700.

Well, in this forum we hope these companies spur each other on when it comes to the D400 and 7D.

Funny because Nikon themselves decided not to approach pro-spec with anything less but their most expensive camera anymore.

That's ridiculous.  The D800 exceeds "pro-spec" in a couple of significant ways over any other camera at any other price -- it had the most DR and still has the most resolution of any DSLR on the market.  The D800 has all of the specifications we want in a D400 except for fps, and the D800 soundly beats the D700 at high ISO as well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,292Gear list
Like?
A rose by any other name...
In reply to gftphoto, 6 months ago

If the only spec which would separate a D7200 and a D400 is the body - as Thom is clearly thinking - I'm good with the D7200. I need the functional camera, the body is a secondary consideration.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,771
Like?
Re: A rose by any other name...
In reply to JimPearce, 6 months ago

JimPearce wrote:

If the only spec which would separate a D7200 and a D400 is the body - as Thom is clearly thinking - I'm good with the D7200. I need the functional camera, the body is a secondary consideration.

I remember when the D7000 came out and thinking to myself that it was an impressive upgrade to the D90, it addressed a lot of the things I found unappealing about the D90.  Yes, I would rather have the D300 body in the D300 successor, but I could live with the D7000 body and if it costs somewhat less then that would make it a fairly reasonable compromise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fishywisht
Contributing MemberPosts: 868
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

That's ridiculous.

Due to your aggressive tone, there would be no point me pursuing a conversation with you. I could answer your snipes but I just wouldn't want to now.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Devendra
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,573Gear list
Like?
not expecting much from D7200
In reply to JimPearce, 6 months ago

We agree on the two biggest ones:

1. Will there be a D300s successor? Yes, but unfortunately it will be a D7200.

2. Will there be a D700 successor No.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-answered-questions.html

-- hide signature --

Jim

Based on the recent lower model upgrades between 5200->5300 then 3200->3300, I am not expecting a major upgrade between 7100->7200, except for buffer, and maybe 7fps (w/4k vid) to compete with canon. Good thing is most x100 to x200 saw a nice jump in capabilities and mp.
If I'm right, then there is room for D400, if I'm wrong then I hope D7200 is a killer camera. Interestingly the order can be D400 (w/o 4k vid) followed by D7200, just like highly capable D800 followed by D600. But NR has been awfully quiet on D400.

As far as Thom is concerned, forum members here have more or less the same or better information on what they want/need/expect so I wouldn't count on what he says. It could very much be that he is reading the information here, then summarizing in his 'blogs'

I usually do not like ifs in my posts (n code), but decided to take the liberty this time.

Only time will tell what will be handed to us when it comes to pro-dx

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions... D700 replacement?
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

I have not been in this long, far less qualified than most of you to comment, but if I may suggest my amateur impressions.

No doubt the D800 is a spectacular camera, I cannot 'justifiably' afford one, but darned it is worth the price.

Now, compared to D700, it seems to be Nikon's upgrade, for the 'serious' amateur or Pro, in giving top notch IQ, resolution and dynamic range in a reasonably priced, excellent AF, well built body. Sounds sort of like the D700, which was reasonably priced compared to the D3 and bear in mind, just six months or so before discontinuation, a D700 could not be had for less than USD 2,200, so for USD 2,800, the D800 is rather a good deal.

That said, my opinion is that the 5DIII is more, in terms of APPLICATION, of a D700 replacement, in that I am not sure that many would use the D800 as a general camera INCLUDING fast low light sports, aka the D700 as an alternate to the D3. If I had it, I would work it, but I think it may not be the ideal.

However, with its suitable file sizes, the fps, the AF, the 5DIII seems to be very versatile including for low light sports.

A friend of mine actually prefers his 5DIII over his 1DIV for sports, including inside gymnasiums, and that goes for the AF also. He is an amateur too.

So from that viewpoint I see the 5DIII as the D700 replacement, moreso than the D800.

Make sense, or no?

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

 Bajerunner's gear list:Bajerunner's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,771
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to fishywisht, 6 months ago

fishywisht wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

That's ridiculous.

Due to your aggressive tone, there would be no point me pursuing a conversation with you.  I could answer your snipes but I just wouldn't want to now.

Whatever -- I will be perfectly happy if you never respond to me again.  I know you can't support that the 5DIII is "substantially more versatile" than the D800, or that the D800 does not "approach pro-spec."  If you want to make ludicrous statements then you better be thick-skinned enough to hear what others think of that.  Since this is the Pro DX Forum, it's just as well that this ends right here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jfriend00
Forum ProPosts: 11,106
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to fishywisht, 6 months ago

fishywisht wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

The undercurrent in Thom's article that bothers me the most (and is reflected in a number of recent products) is that Nikon is making products for the "bean counters", purposely crippling things to protect upscale revenue rather than deliver the best product they can at a given price point and margin and is also pretty out of touch with what customers really want.

Of course it isn't only Nikon that does it, it's just Nikon's products that you are more sensitive to.

Canon's 10-50D line was produced for 6 years over 5 iterations with a hopeless 9-sensor scattered diamond pattern, during which time the 50D competed with the D300 for a few hundred less. This line would always debut at around $1400, a supposedly semi-professional camera, and if you wanted a better focus system, you had to lay out $4000 for the 1D series. Every iteration of the 00D series there were nominal improvements of the sensors, just enough to quote on the spec sheets for shill reviewers, but the tracking across that inadequate sensor pattern was simply inferior and things would simply move between the scattered points and you'd get shots out of focus. The D300 and even the D90 showed it up for the crippled system it really was and were the only impetus to improve the line. Canon's response was to pack the same old pattern on the 7D with a few more sensors to bring it up to 19- whilst the D300 has 51 and 1D series 45. Canon didn't try too hard to encroach on 1D territory.

What I'm secretly hoping is that the shift to mirrorless (Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, etc...) opens the lanes for the competitors to get back in the game in a meaningful way because if that happens, then neither Canon or Nikon will be able to get away with these crippling games any more.  They will have to produce the most competitive camera possible at a given price point (no intentional crippling) or they'll simply get beat by the competition, particularly in the $500-$1500 market where people may be less locked into a lens lineup or brand familiarity than the pros are. That's what I'm hoping for.  The Pentax K-3, Sony A7r and Fuji XT-1 are some of the first shots across the bow.  Nikon probably hoped to be taking a shot with the Nikon 1 line, but they messed that up in a zillion ways (sensor too small, mismatches feature set, price and intended audience).

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jfriend00
Forum ProPosts: 11,106
Like?
Re: No, I think the F-mount stays for DX...
In reply to ceaiu, 6 months ago

ceaiu wrote:

My understanding is that a lens designed for MILC is lighter /smaller than one designed for SLR.
Why not take advantage, and make a DX system that's realy lighter than FX?
Why keep the F-mount for the possible APS-C mirrorless, when there are no "exciting" DX lenses currently?

Especially since it's possible to have full featured F-mount compatibility with an optional adapter.  It seems like the best of all worlds would be new, more compact DX mirrorless mount that allowed smaller lenses and a smaller system, but also making a full featured F-mount adapter so ALL existing F-mount lenses could be used on the system (with metering and AF).  With the right engineering, this should be possible.  Then you could have either smaller, lighter lenses OR compatibility with the huge inventory of F-mount lenses.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to jfriend00, 6 months ago

jfriend00 wrote:

fishywisht wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

The undercurrent in Thom's article that bothers me the most (and is reflected in a number of

What I'm secretly hoping is that the shift to mirrorless (Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, etc...) opens the lanes for the competitors to get back in the game in a meaningful way because if that happens, then neither Canon or Nikon will be able to get away with these crippling games any more. They will have to produce the most competitive camera possible at a given price point (no intentional crippling) or they'll simply get beat by the competition, particularly in the $500-$1500 market where people may be less locked into a lens lineup or brand familiarity than the pros are. That's what I'm hoping for. The Pentax K-3, Sony A7r and Fuji XT-1 are some of the first shots across the bow. Nikon probably hoped to be taking a shot with the Nikon 1 line, but they messed that up in a zillion ways (sensor too small, mismatches feature set, price and intended audience).

-- hide signature --

Well said. And yes, the 'first shots across the bow' may actually have taken off a bit of the wood, if not a chunk, chippings.

The thing is, their AF is looking somewhat close and that was the hold up all along, so no longer a limitation and the floodgates will open.

Am I wrong?

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

 Bajerunner's gear list:Bajerunner's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jfriend00
Forum ProPosts: 11,106
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

Here's the thing though, except for fps (again, when using the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries) you can get more out of the D800 than the D700 using the D800 in exactly the same way as the D700 (more DR, more resolution, better high ISO performance, more viewfinder coverage, dual memory card slots, etc.). As for the larger file sizes, well that's just a fact of life now, even the D600, D7000, and D7100 have larger file sizes than the D700 -- nobody is going back to 12 MP.

When you say "except for fps", do you realize you're saying "except when you want to shoot serious action".  The D800 is, plain and simple, not a great camera for shooting serious action.   And, that is the main audience that is still shooting with a D700 and clamoring for an actual D700 upgrade.  In FX, Nikon has NOTHING that is even 6fps with the good AF for less than $6000, much less the 8fps of the D700+grip.  That's a set of action shooters that are going to go elsewhere over time.  Right now, a lot of them are either still shooting with the D700 or buying used D3 or D3s bodies, but that won't last forever (I'm probably going to buy a D3s myself).

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Devendra
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,573Gear list
Like?
I have to agree with Tony
In reply to fishywisht, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

That's ridiculous.

Due to your aggressive tone, there would be no point me pursuing a conversation with you. I could answer your snipes but I just wouldn't want to now.

D800 af is extremely impressive. Look up dileep in that forum. He posted a while ago, but I have to concur his experience. Snappy locking, affirmative (feel good) and reliable tracking in day or dark on dynamic/moving subjects. Tiny or large, it doesnt matter.
Yes leftmost af point static subject qa issues existed in the beginning, but its not a general drawback of the camera but more of a manufacturing defect.
5D3 doesnt entice me at all. Apart from being seriously more expensive at msrp, then without onboard flash makes it look like a padded up 5d2 with better af n fps than its previous version. Nothing more nothing less.
Anyway, I dont want to hijack this discussion into canon ff vs nikon ff debate, so im out.

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ragspix
Contributing MemberPosts: 638
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
In reply to Maji, 6 months ago

Maji wrote:

ragspix wrote:

Maji wrote:

ragspix wrote:

... 4 years to develop the Df??? a parts bin camera...

Bean counters have to account for this stuff

Nikon has deeper problems that can't be seen from the outside.

Rags

I read somewhere that Nikon mentioned that Df took so long because of the natural disasters. As for the other stuff, I think as Thom mentioned, it is more about turf wars within Nikon between their various divisions.

I don't buy Nikons excuse...

You can move a design & development unit to anybodies office outside the affected area

Manufacturing lines are different

Rags

The Df is assembled in Japan, in an area that was impacted by the Tsunami.

Read my words... manufacturing is assembling.... and that's different

Rags

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,771
Like?
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions... D700 replacement?
In reply to Bajerunner, 6 months ago

Bajerunner wrote:

...my opinion is that the 5DIII is more, in terms of APPLICATION, of a D700 replacement, in that I am not sure that many would use the D800 as a general camera INCLUDING fast low light sports, aka the D700 as an alternate to the D3. If I had it, I would work it, but I think it may not be the ideal.

Again, we are talking about 1.2x crop at 5 fps and 25 MP versus full frame at 6 fps and 22 MP.  This is a rather small difference in the real world.

However, with its suitable file sizes, the fps, the AF, the 5DIII seems to be very versatile including for low light sports.

See above about the file sizes, and the D800 is no slouch when it comes to AF (comparable to the D4 in that regard).  The D800 does better than the 5DIII at DR and high ISO performance using its full frame, and using 1.2x crop it holds its own.  Regardless of whether it's full frame or 1.2x crop mode, both cameras are very close.  At lower ISOs (and many sports are not lowlight, which is after all the kind of sports we generally use Pro DX cameras for) the D800 has significantly more DR than the 5DIII even in 1.2x crop mode.

A friend of mine actually prefers his 5DIII over his 1DIV for sports, including inside gymnasiums, and that goes for the AF also. He is an amateur too.

So from that viewpoint I see the 5DIII as the D700 replacement, moreso than the D800.

Make sense, or no?

No because you are talking about switching systems to gain a different AF system, a 20% larger frame, and 1 fps.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads