Reading mode: Light Dark

Thom once again on Nikon's neglect of DX...

Go to last post
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Rumored D7100 specs.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13089.msg235326;topicseen#new


51 point AF and no AA filter sounds pretty darn good. D400 why?
Click to expand...
The differences between this and a supposed D400 have certainly been narrowed a lot. The remaining ones would be 8fps with grip, dedicated AF-ON button and any other remaining differences in build/buffer. It's hard to know if Nikon has quit on the D400 or has ideas for it beyond what we've supposed. It will be interesting to see what the good action/wildlife photogs say about how the D7100 performs.
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
MPA1 wrote:
Member said:
jfriend00 wrote:
Member said:
MPA1 wrote:

As soon as FX appeared, I felt that the writing was on the wall for DX.

I just think FX size emulates film and Nikon's long film history suggests to me that they just do not like sub-FX sensors in DSLRS and only had them because otherwise they would not have been able to make any when they began.
Click to expand...
If they're interested in filling price points below $1800 and lower-priced systems, they have to offer smaller sensors - that's just how the physics of semi-conductor manufacturing works. If they only want to sell to the top 20% of the market, they can focus on FX and good luck doing that without all the lower-end models to bring people into the brand and create demand for future FX purchases. Maybe most pros have moved to FX, but that's only a small percentage of the overall market.

So, NO they're not making DX sensor cameras only because they couldn't originally make FX. There are legitimate market reasons for filling in the price gaps with smaller sensored cameras.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
MPA1 wrote:
I disagree.

If FX could have been made realistically at the D1 stage of the digital development, then DX would never have happened.

It simply would not have occurred to anyone to do anything but replicate the then standard format worldwide of 35mm film - ie FX.
Click to expand...
No offense intended, but there are people who feel that even DX is too large a sensor size for a camera system they want to work with. Different people, varying mileage :-)
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Rumored D7100 specs.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13089.msg235326;topicseen#new


51 point AF and no AA filter sounds pretty darn good. D400 why?
Click to expand...
The differences between this and a supposed D400 have certainly been narrowed a lot. The remaining ones would be 8fps with grip, dedicated AF-ON button and any other remaining differences in build/buffer. It's hard to know if Nikon has quit on the D400 or has ideas for it beyond what we've supposed. It will be interesting to see what the good action/wildlife photogs say about how the D7100 performs.
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote:
bobn2 said:
JimPearce wrote:

Your rhetorical habits - which really amount to little more than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks - are really quite appalling Bob. As it happens I'm quite interested in another Nikon DSLR, perhaps a D4X, and the 800 f5.6 VR. But first I'd like to know that the $25,000 or so in Nikon-specific lenses and sundry gear I own will still be usable for wildlife photography. Most of the clowns here who question whether wildlife photographers really know what they need don't have a fraction of the skill or equipment needed to pursue this passion. And clown trumps idiot.
Click to expand...
You're jumping to conclusions that I meant you. Still, as they say, if the hat fits....

So far as 'clowns' and 'idiots' go, I've never said anything about wildlife photographers knowing what they need, I've just questioned whether there are enough people who 'need' that extra FPS, or that extra button and are willing to pay $600 for it.

Still, looks like Nikon thinks like me, doesn't it?

PS Nikon doesn't make a D4X, I expect that you knew that really.

PPS Bet I know who your two 'thumbs up' are.
Click to expand...
 
That he agrees with many here, that the buffer seals it Renato - there will need to be a D400. But he seems impatient with those who ever doubted it (one presumes both within Nikon and without).
 
JimPearce said:
JimPearce wrote:

That he agrees with many here, that the buffer seals it Renato - there will need to be a D400. But he seems impatient with those who ever doubted it (one presumes both within Nikon and without).
Click to expand...
Yeah, with RAM so cheap these days, the small buffer is a very clear signal that Nikon didn't intend for this camera to be their top DX sports/action camera. And, the ONLY reason to cripple it this way is to protect the turf of a more expensive camera above it. I've long since given up on a D400, but I can think of no other reason why they would artificially constrain the D7100 in this way other than there's another camera coming. If there wasn't another camera coming, then they would sell more D7100s if they didn't do this.

So, the D400/D9000 will probably have 8fps, larger buffer, dedicated AF-ON, the D800 AF and perhaps some other qualities of the pro lineup such as CF card compatibility or 10-pin connector more like the D800 and be priced somewhere in the $1599-$1999 range (my guess is $1699, but I think with such a good D7100, they probably know they could go higher price for the people who really want this D400/D9000 camera so the price could be in the upper end of the range).
 
Last edited:
Nikon had the camera ready, likely in various configurations. The inclusion of 51 point autofocus signals a shift away from the notion that every FX camera has to be better than any DX camera in every significant specification. I think the key here is that while Nikon's FX push came close to plan, it took a lot of discounting to get there. They now know just how much of a shift in DSLR sales from DX to FX the market will bear - and it leaves them with a big gap. Another thing is that I think their mirrorless DX plans are now firm, and the D7100 and D400 will play an important role in the new upgrade path from Nikon 2 to FX. Oh, then there's always Canon's plans to consider - and Canon is clearly signaling a 7D Mark II. Put that all together, and a D400 could sell for as much or more than a D600 as Nikon moves away from the simplistic "FX is the upgrade" message.
 
Last edited:
Is there a 16M sensor with even better noise and dynamic range performance?
 
Radu Tenenbaum said:
Radu Tenenbaum wrote:

Is there a 16M sensor with even better noise and dynamic range performance?
Click to expand...
I could see Nikon using a 16MP sensor in the D400/D9000, but I don't think they want to go that way unless it's the only way they can get 8fps or the only way they can get suberb sensor performance.

I think they'll sell more of the D400/D9000 if it's 24MP and unequivocally an upgrade in all ways over the other DX cameras and I would think that they think that too. If it's better in all ways except resolution, then it just confuses the market a bit and makes the top-end DX camera a bit of a tradeoff that it would be better not to have.

I'd be fine with it at 16MP if it was awesome in all other ways (e.g. better than the D7000 sensor and better than the D300 in all other ways), but I doubt that is Nikon's goal unless they are forced there for some other reason (fps or sensor quality).

As to which sensor it would be and whether there's an awesome 16MP sensor around, I have no idea. Pretty much all Nikon dSLRs (except the D4) are moving beyond 16MP these days so I don't think there's a ton of new APS-C 16MP sensors lying around unless they're being made for new mirrorless cameras (which probably also want 24MP).
 
Given the D7200 specs, I have visions of D400 with D4 type performance scaled down for the smaller sensor and body. It would impact the market the same way the D300 did all those many years ago and would justify the price premium over the D7200. Wishful thinking, maybe.
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 said:
mosswings wrote:
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
mosswings wrote:

And then you have the latest report from Nikon Rumors that the new camera to be introduced will be a DX fixed 28mm f2.8 compact; new DX DSLRs are out another month or so.
Click to expand...
Who wants to buy a DX camera with a single fixed 28mm lens? Not interchangeable, not even a zoom? I know a few other manufacturers have done this too, but I just don't understand who wants to buy them?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mgblack74 said:
mgblack74 wrote:
mgblack74 said:
I still don't understand who buys this camera?

I would. Not to shoot sports, but as an in between my full frame DSLR and my iPhone. If Nikon really wants to steal sales away from the likes of Fuji, they will put a standard hot shoe on it and make it CLS compatible. If their CX line had been CLS compatible I would have picked up one with the 10mm f/2.8 lens. Heck, if Fuji had kept their Nikon shared heritage and put a Nikon compatible hotshoe on the X100, I would have bought that too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So, why would you prefer a permanent, fixed lens camera instead of a similar design camera with an interchangeable lens that you could use with a single prime if you want, but you could also use with other primes or a zoom if you need to or want to in the future? And, all you'd have to buy to do that would be a new lens, not a whole new camera. Using multiple lenses would be entirely optional, but you'd have that option rather than having to buy a new camera to do so. I'm curious what the attraction is of the single, fixed lens?
 
Last edited:
brunobarolo said:
brunobarolo wrote:
brunobarolo said:
MPA1 wrote:
I disagree.

If FX could have been made realistically at the D1 stage of the digital development, then DX would never have happened.

It simply would not have occurred to anyone to do anything but replicate the then standard format worldwide of 35mm film - ie FX.
Click to expand...
No offense intended, but there are people who feel that even DX is too large a sensor size for a camera system they want to work with. Different people, varying mileage :-)
Click to expand...
No offence at all - I use FX Nikon and M4/3 Lumix so sensor size is no great issue.

I think in terms of 35mm because that is what I learned to shoot on so all my lens views are framed in my head in those terms.

I merely suggest that, had it been technically possible at the correct price point when the first DSLR cameras were being designed to build them with 35mm equivalent size sensors, no one would have even thought of not doing that.
 
Member said:
MPA1 wrote:
Member said:
jfriend00 wrote:
Member said:
MPA1 wrote:

As soon as FX appeared, I felt that the writing was on the wall for DX.

I just think FX size emulates film and Nikon's long film history suggests to me that they just do not like sub-FX sensors in DSLRS and only had them because otherwise they would not have been able to make any when they began.
Click to expand...
If they're interested in filling price points below $1800 and lower-priced systems, they have to offer smaller sensors - that's just how the physics of semi-conductor manufacturing works. If they only want to sell to the top 20% of the market, they can focus on FX and good luck doing that without all the lower-end models to bring people into the brand and create demand for future FX purchases. Maybe most pros have moved to FX, but that's only a small percentage of the overall market.

So, NO they're not making DX sensor cameras only because they couldn't originally make FX. There are legitimate market reasons for filling in the price gaps with smaller sensored cameras.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
I disagree.

If FX could have been made realistically at the D1 stage of the digital development, then DX would never have happened.

It simply would not have occurred to anyone to do anything but replicate the then standard format worldwide of 35mm film - ie FX.
Click to expand...
I find it reasonable that a smaller frame would have occurred to them for a digital camera, as Nikon already had an APS film SLR before the D1:

Nikon APS-format Pronea 600i

Nikon APS-format Pronea 600i

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/pronea_600i/index.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9698.htm





--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
rhlpetrus said:
rhlpetrus wrote:
rhlpetrus said:
bobn2 wrote:
rhlpetrus said:
JimPearce wrote:

Your rhetorical habits - which really amount to little more than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks - are really quite appalling Bob. As it happens I'm quite interested in another Nikon DSLR, perhaps a D4X, and the 800 f5.6 VR. But first I'd like to know that the $25,000 or so in Nikon-specific lenses and sundry gear I own will still be usable for wildlife photography. Most of the clowns here who question whether wildlife photographers really know what they need don't have a fraction of the skill or equipment needed to pursue this passion. And clown trumps idiot.
Click to expand...
You're jumping to conclusions that I meant you. Still, as they say, if the hat fits....

So far as 'clowns' and 'idiots' go, I've never said anything about wildlife photographers knowing what they need, I've just questioned whether there are enough people who 'need' that extra FPS, or that extra button and are willing to pay $600 for it.

Still, looks like Nikon thinks like me, doesn't it?

PS Nikon doesn't make a D4X, I expect that you knew that really.

PPS Bet I know who your two 'thumbs up' are.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
antoineb said:
antoineb wrote:
antoineb said:
rhlpetrus wrote:
antoineb said:
bobn2 wrote:
antoineb said:
JimPearce wrote:

Your rhetorical habits - which really amount to little more than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks - are really quite appalling Bob. As it happens I'm quite interested in another Nikon DSLR, perhaps a D4X, and the 800 f5.6 VR. But first I'd like to know that the $25,000 or so in Nikon-specific lenses and sundry gear I own will still be usable for wildlife photography. Most of the clowns here who question whether wildlife photographers really know what they need don't have a fraction of the skill or equipment needed to pursue this passion. And clown trumps idiot.
Click to expand...
You're jumping to conclusions that I meant you. Still, as they say, if the hat fits....

So far as 'clowns' and 'idiots' go, I've never said anything about wildlife photographers knowing what they need, I've just questioned whether there are enough people who 'need' that extra FPS, or that extra button and are willing to pay $600 for it.

Still, looks like Nikon thinks like me, doesn't it?

PS Nikon doesn't make a D4X, I expect that you knew that really.

PPS Bet I know who your two 'thumbs up' are.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 said:
mgblack74 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
I still don't understand who buys this camera?

I would. Not to shoot sports, but as an in between my full frame DSLR and my iPhone. If Nikon really wants to steal sales away from the likes of Fuji, they will put a standard hot shoe on it and make it CLS compatible. If their CX line had been CLS compatible I would have picked up one with the 10mm f/2.8 lens. Heck, if Fuji had kept their Nikon shared heritage and put a Nikon compatible hotshoe on the X100, I would have bought that too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So, why would you prefer a permanent, fixed lens camera instead of a similar design camera with an interchangeable lens that you could use with a single prime if you want, but you could also use with other primes or a zoom if you need to or want to in the future? And, all you'd have to buy to do that would be a new lens, not a whole new camera. Using multiple lenses would be entirely optional, but you'd have that option rather than having to buy a new camera to do so. I'm curious what the attraction is of the single, fixed lens?
Click to expand...
 
rhlpetrus said:
rhlpetrus wrote:
rhlpetrus said:
bobn2 wrote:
rhlpetrus said:
JimPearce wrote:

Your rhetorical habits - which really amount to little more than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks - are really quite appalling Bob. As it happens I'm quite interested in another Nikon DSLR, perhaps a D4X, and the 800 f5.6 VR. But first I'd like to know that the $25,000 or so in Nikon-specific lenses and sundry gear I own will still be usable for wildlife photography. Most of the clowns here who question whether wildlife photographers really know what they need don't have a fraction of the skill or equipment needed to pursue this passion. And clown trumps idiot.
Click to expand...
You're jumping to conclusions that I meant you. Still, as they say, if the hat fits....

So far as 'clowns' and 'idiots' go, I've never said anything about wildlife photographers knowing what they need, I've just questioned whether there are enough people who 'need' that extra FPS, or that extra button and are willing to pay $600 for it.

Still, looks like Nikon thinks like me, doesn't it?

PS Nikon doesn't make a D4X, I expect that you knew that really.

PPS Bet I know who your two 'thumbs up' are.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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