Still believe it's less than 24mp?

Started Apr 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
stromaroma Senior Member • Posts: 1,158
Re: Still believe it's less than 24mp?

What jfriend00 said.

jfriend00 wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Further, I have no idea why an announcement of a D3200 has anything to do with whether Nikon makes a new high end DX body to replace the D300s. They are vastly different price segments at opposite ends of the DX line.

From a rational point of view I'd agree with you. Nikon don't have a problem with a D4 having half the pixel resolution of the D800. But the consumer market doesn't act rationally, and the D300/400 (if there is a D400) probably sells mainly in the consumer market.

"More pixels = better" seems to be how many think, or more important: "fewer pixels = worse".

Looking at the post a bit above mine:

With 24MP on the D3200, looks like my D300 is quickly on its way to becoming a door stop.

The poster was probably being ironic, but this sort of sentiment is commonly expressed on these forums.

At $1700-$2000, the D300/D400 are not consumer products that are sold purely based on MP. They are for serious amateurs or pros who know what they want and DX works better for them than FX. People who shoot action at long range are the largest part of this contingent. For example, I shoot daytime large field sports, birds in flight, rowing, etc... and they all need long reach. I already own Nikon's big glass (200-400 and 600 and TC1.4) and use all of them with my D300. I can afford a D4, D800 or D700 and have chosen to stay DX because it meets my needs better.

I would agree that the 3xxx, 5xxx and 7xxx cameras can serve the consumer needs just fine, but for those who want/need the reach of DX, none of those consumer bodies have a pro build, a pro set of controls, Nikon's best AF or Nikon's best fps.

So ... there is a big hole in the offering where the aging D300s sits now that could be filled nicely with a 16-18MP D300s style body that does 8-10fps. This camera would be for people who want/need DX and shoot action (best AF and fps). In Nikon's current lineup of newer released cameras, the ONLY product that matches the needs of these users in any format is the D4 and that's ridiculously expensive and FX and large body style. These customers are not after MP first. They want pro build, pro controls, best AF and best fps.

It makes a lot of sense that Nikon would offer a medium priced DX solution (like they always have) for these customers. If they don't offer this, Nikon will lose a leadership position they have held for years and a big block of customers that have good reasons not to move to FX, but are much more demanding than consumers just looking for more MPs.

I don't know what Nikon will call this camera (and don't really care). It could be the D400, the D7200 or the D9000, but D400 would make logical sense. Then, you'd have Dnnnn as the consumer bodies (D3200, 5200, 7200). You'd have Dn or DnX (D3x, D4) as the full pro-style bodies with grip and you'd have Dnnn (D400, D800) as the pro-build bodies without grip. It would make some sense to position the D400 somewhat separately from the consumer bodies to indicate and position that it is a pro-style product and using the designation D400 instead of D9000 would do that.

As for those predicting the D400 will be an entry level FX product and Nikon will try to solve the needs of the current D300s owners with this product, I don't think that can practically work.

To meet the needs of these action shooters, you have to have fps at least as high as the D300s (7fps) with some of your best AF. If you put an FX sensor in a D800-style body that goes 7 fps and has D4-like AF, it seems unlikely you're going to be selling this for anywhere close to the current D300s price point. And, if you do sell it anywhere near that price point, it will seriously cannibalize the D4. The only way it wouldn't seriously cannibalize the D4 is if it was crippled in a way that makes it not competitive as a D300s replacement. So, it's either too expensive, seriously cannibalizes the D4 or isn't as good as the D300s. None of those are any good for Nikon.

There may be room for a low-end FX camera in Nikon's lineup, but not one that is as good as the D300s and is FX. A new 12-16MP low-end FX camera would be more like the D700 replacement and in that price range. But, an FX camera in that price range won't meet the needs of the D300s action shooters (both because of sensor size and other specs).

The only way an offering that is good enough to actually replace the D300s fits into Nikon's lineup in both product positioning and pricing is if it's DX. The FX sensor just makes it too expensive and too close to the D4 or too crippled.

-- hide signature --

Nikon D300
Nikon D7000
Nikon D40x
Nikon D40
Nikkor 70-300 VR
Nikkor 300 F/4 AF-S
Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VRII
Nikkor 1.4X TC
Nikkor 2.0X TC Version III
Nikkor 18-55 kit lens
Nikkor 18-105 kit lens
Nikkor 35 f/1.8
Sigma 10-20 older version
Canon 500D close up filter
Nikon SB 600 flash
Canon HF10 camcorder
Canon HF200 camcorder
Canon WP-V2 underwater housing for HF200
Three GoPro HD Hero video cameras

Okay, too much stuff, yes I know I need to whittle it down a bit.

 stromaroma's gear list:stromaroma's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow