Reading mode: Light Dark

What about that full pro DX body?

Go to last post
a bigger brighter viewfinder with some more megapixels and great high ISO quality.
 
Xscream said:
Why not make the sensor square? that way there's no need to turn the camera, and you could just crop...
Click to expand...
With higher resolution the option to just crop already exists. The problem with making the mirror square is that its physical size along the vertical axis is limited by the distance between the sensor and the lens flange, whereas along the horizontal axis there is more room to accommodate more sensor. If you are going to make a 24mm by 24mm format, why not just keep the extra 12mm of the FX format? Then you just crop the final image from wherever you want from the full FX frame.
 
eNo said:
Anyone still want it? I keep hearing rumblings about it: since the D7000 brings a lot of D300'ish features (non-CPU metering, semi-ruggedized body, more AF points) down to the mid-level, the D300 successor will have to offer "more" than just a higher MP sensor, and that this may well mean that finally, since the D2/X/H we will see a full body in the DX family again.

Thing is, I really don't want it. It's too big for my usage, and the D300 form factor suits me just fine. Sure, shooting portraits without the vertical grip is hard at times, but I rather deal with that than have to lug the extra weight and size around.

What do you think? Would you like a full size DX body, and if so, why?
Click to expand...
Here's a hypothetical for you. What if the price of the "D400" is $2200? Would you still buy one, or go for a D7000 for half the price instead? Now what if the "D400" is $2500 and has an integrated vertical grip, more fps, better AF, and more external controls than it would have had without the integrated grip? I submit that the balance of features, performance, and price are probably more important than the weight and size are to many of those that would be choosing between a "D400" and a D7000 or a competitor's product.

What might make the "D400" with an integrated vertical grip the most competitive option for Nikon is that none of Nikon's competitors has an APS-C format DSLR with that. It would also be appealing to users of the larger FX bodies because they would presumably be able to share batteries and other accessories with all their bodies.

In a perfect world there would be a D3s/D3x sized DX body, a D7000 sized FX body, and the D300s/D700 sized bodies in both DX and FX formats -- so you could choose either format in any size you prefer. Now imagine for a moment in that perfect world which cameras net Nikon the most profits and the least profits; it could well be that the big pro bodies have the highest profit margins, the small consumer bodies have the biggest market share, and then the in-between D300s/D700 bodies might be the least compelling products in that line-up.
 
I'll chew on that for a while. Question back to you in the meantime, if it makes so much sense to skip the mid-size (D300/D700) form factor, why hasn't Nikon (and its competitors) done it already?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03
 
I have a D300 and recently purchased a D700. I like the fact that I can use the MB-D10 grip on either camera and go either big or small. Usually I use it with the grip. I would prefer a similar set up with the D400 and a price just under $2K.
--
Laslo
http://www.digitalexpressionsphotography.com
 
I don't like the "full sized" camera body. I'm waiting to see what they do for the D300s before I get another camera. I currently have a D90 and it is just fine, but I really want the metering with my AI lenses. If the D400 has a larger body I will get a D300s.
--
Michael
 
Hmmm... I don't think so

While the pro bodies may have higher margins, I believe Nikon has moved to a larger faster growing market. P&S and entry level dslr's.

I think they will ride the herd as the herd gets more knowledge, they will upgrade the cams.

Pro's???? I think they are a waning market segment. Certainly there is no job grow in the in the image segment, with newspapers and mags closing. Small local newspapers are having intern reporters take pix with their own p&s & putting them on the front page.

IQ ??... ha!, it's becoming an endangered species

Rags
Tony Beach said:
eNo said:
Anyone still want it? I keep hearing rumblings about it: since the D7000 brings a lot of D300'ish features (non-CPU metering, semi-ruggedized body, more AF points) down to the mid-level, the D300 successor will have to offer "more" than just a higher MP sensor, and that this may well mean that finally, since the D2/X/H we will see a full body in the DX family again.

Thing is, I really don't want it. It's too big for my usage, and the D300 form factor suits me just fine. Sure, shooting portraits without the vertical grip is hard at times, but I rather deal with that than have to lug the extra weight and size around.

What do you think? Would you like a full size DX body, and if so, why?
Click to expand...
Here's a hypothetical for you. What if the price of the "D400" is $2200? Would you still buy one, or go for a D7000 for half the price instead? Now what if the "D400" is $2500 and has an integrated vertical grip, more fps, better AF, and more external controls than it would have had without the integrated grip? I submit that the balance of features, performance, and price are probably more important than the weight and size are to many of those that would be choosing between a "D400" and a D7000 or a competitor's product.

What might make the "D400" with an integrated vertical grip the most competitive option for Nikon is that none of Nikon's competitors has an APS-C format DSLR with that. It would also be appealing to users of the larger FX bodies because they would presumably be able to share batteries and other accessories with all their bodies.

In a perfect world there would be a D3s/D3x sized DX body, a D7000 sized FX body, and the D300s/D700 sized bodies in both DX and FX formats -- so you could choose either format in any size you prefer. Now imagine for a moment in that perfect world which cameras net Nikon the most profits and the least profits; it could well be that the big pro bodies have the highest profit margins, the small consumer bodies have the biggest market share, and then the in-between D300s/D700 bodies might be the least compelling products in that line-up.
Click to expand...
--
Rags
 
torags said:
Tony Beach said:
Here's a hypothetical for you. What if the price of the "D400" is $2200? Would you still buy one, or go for a D7000 for half the price instead? Now what if the "D400" is $2500 and has an integrated vertical grip, more fps, better AF, and more external controls than it would have had without the integrated grip? I submit that the balance of features, performance, and price are probably more important than the weight and size are to many of those that would be choosing between a "D400" and a D7000 or a competitor's product.

What might make the "D400" with an integrated vertical grip the most competitive option for Nikon is that none of Nikon's competitors has an APS-C format DSLR with that. It would also be appealing to users of the larger FX bodies because they would presumably be able to share batteries and other accessories with all their bodies.

In a perfect world there would be a D3s/D3x sized DX body, a D7000 sized FX body, and the D300s/D700 sized bodies in both DX and FX formats -- so you could choose either format in any size you prefer. Now imagine for a moment in that perfect world which cameras net Nikon the most profits and the least profits; it could well be that the big pro bodies have the highest profit margins, the small consumer bodies have the biggest market share, and then the in-between D300s/D700 bodies might be the least compelling products in that line-up.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I don't think so

While the pro bodies may have higher margins, I believe Nikon has moved to a larger faster growing market. P&S and entry level dslr's.

I think they will ride the herd as the herd gets more knowledge, they will upgrade the cams.

Pro's???? I think they are a waning market segment. Certainly there is no job grow in the in the image segment, with newspapers and mags closing. Small local newspapers are having intern reporters take pix with their own p&s & putting them on the front page.
Click to expand...
Well, it isn't only pros that use the larger bodies. Also, the larger bodies are not simply about being larger, they are about having more features and better performance, which is one of the reasons many enthusiasts prefer them. If the larger bodies were dead, then Nikon wouldn't bother making D3s or D3x bodies anymore and would have simply put the D3s sensor in the D700 and called it a D700s.
 
I bought a D90 because it had the same sensor as the D300/D300s and was smaller, cheaper and did everything I wanted. I now want to do more birds in flight and want faster auto focus. I'm waiting for details of the D400. If it's any larger than the D300s, I'll get a D300s while they're still around. If the D400 is the same size and has more/better features and performance, it's my choice. The size is very critical to me.

The price charged is constrained by market competition as much as own Nikon's product line price considerations. I'd imagine the D400 has to be between $1,500 and $2,000.
 
eNo said:
...if it makes so much sense to skip the mid-size (D300/D700) form factor, why hasn't Nikon (and its competitors) done it already?
Click to expand...
One step at a time. Before the D200 we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Back then the D100 compared to the D1x was about where the D90 compared to the D300s is today. Today the D7000 is doing to the D300s what the D200 did to the D2xs in 2005. When Nikon came out with the D300, Nikon abandoned a larger body DX body, but to this this day Nikon has continued to put their cutting edge sensors, their best performance, and their best features in their largest bodies.

Why not abandon the D300s/D700 sized bodies now, or last year? The answer is fairly obvious, there isn't anything to fill that gap -- yet. However, if Nikon never comes out with a large body DX DSLR, then for those who want the most that DX has to offer the D300s and eventually a similar sized "D400" will be their only choice. Give people a choice though, as the D7000 has done in regards to many of the features and performance that were previously only available in the D300s, and you will see many of them choosing the smaller body or the larger body if that choice exists.
 
pictureted said:
I bought a D90 because it had the same sensor as the D300/D300s and was smaller, cheaper and did everything I wanted. I now want to do more birds in flight and want faster auto focus.
Click to expand...
The D7000 gives you that, plus more resolution and better ISO performance. Why not just get it?
pictureted said:
I'm waiting for details of the D400. If it's any larger than the D300s, I'll get a D300s while they're still around. If the D400 is the same size and has more/better features and performance, it's my choice. The size is very critical to me.

The price charged is constrained by market competition as much as own Nikon's product line price considerations. I'd imagine the D400 has to be between $1,500 and $2,000.
Click to expand...
Where is the market competition for a large body DX DSLR? There isn't any, and I suspect there are a fair number who would jump on one for $2500; while there is fairly stiff competition against another D300s sized DSLR. Nikon might well find it easier to sell a bigger body DX DSLR for $2500 than to sell the current sized body for $2000 -- especially with the D7000 costing half as much and offering so much of what the D300s offers now (the only thing other than the ergonomics that really jumps out at me is the size of the buffer).
 
I don't know. I just can't see someone who started with a pink pearlescent coolpix (or whatever), be interested in an integrated grip cam.. :)

--
Rags
 
torags said:
I don't know. I just can't see someone who started with a pink pearlescent coolpix (or whatever), be interested in an integrated grip cam.. :)
Click to expand...
I don't see that person being interested in a D300 either; I think that group of consumers tops out at the D7000 or even below that. OTOH, if you want to have Nikon's absolute best DSLR you have a D3x and/or a D3s, then you would want a comparable DX DSLR that shared batteries and accessories with the top of the line FX bodies.
 
Because of the diversity of opinions I think Nikon should start offering additional differentiating models to keep us all buying:
  • D400 model as per D300 (sorry but $2,000+ range this time around)
  • D400 integrated grip model as per D2X tradition, and with bigger buffer, more shutter life, pro-sealing, 2X crop, lower blackout time and better resulting AF. Maybe $3,200 on release.
I would buy the latter (eventually), since I already have the D7000 for the go-light kit.

And while Nikon is at it we also needed a D700S and D700X choices (not one or the other nor a tweener model). But too late for that now, I'm guessing the delay was partly in getting video developed up to 1080/30 or 1080/60, whatever it is that is coming. Here's hoping Nikon offers both a low-light and high-res model for the D800, maybe a D800S first and then a D800X ;-)

--
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
 
KnightPhoto2 said:
Because of the diversity of opinions I think Nikon should start offering additional differentiating models to keep us all buying:
  • D400 model as per D300 (sorry but $2,000+ range this time around)
  • D400 integrated grip model as per D2X tradition, and with bigger buffer, more shutter life, pro-sealing, 2X crop, lower blackout time and better resulting AF. Maybe $3,200 on release.
I would buy the latter (eventually), since I already have the D7000 for the go-light kit.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this, but would add an FX sensor in a D7000 body to this ambitious proposal for a fully diverse line-up. I still think that if every option was on the table that the D300s/D700 sized bodies would start to wither -- just take note of how many have said they want something smaller than the D300s, and you yourself have said if you were given the option you would skip over it; if that is so, then Nikon would be wise to not build them in the first place (yes I know, my saying this is going to upset some).

Now here's the thing about this entire discussion, Nikon probably won't come out with a large body DX DSLR precisely because they want to on the one hand protect the D300 size, and on the other hand force higher end users into FX (which also forces greater expenditures on lenses). Likewise, Nikon won't come out with a D7000 FX DSLR to protect the D700 and keep the profit margins on FX cameras higher. What I'm saying here is that what would be best for photographers is at best a secondary consideration for Nikon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Madstacks
What to go for???
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
39K
MJ_Photo38
MJ_Photo38
P
Do Nikon FX bodies have to be bigger than DX bodies?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
5K
SGA
SGA
K
Returning the Z50ii
2
Replies
30
Views
71K
ANAYV
A
O
Any Bargain AF-D Lenses that Manual Focus Well?
2
Replies
20
Views
179
JHern
JHern
M
How it started vs. how it's going ... AKA how I learned to love the chonkers
2
Replies
36
Views
24K
Palombasso
P

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top