-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon NOOOOOOOO!
- Thread starter Phathom
- Start date
arachnophilia
Senior Member
i believe nikon's design philosophy now is that APS-c is only for rank amateurs, even enthusiasts should be using FX. i think the D600 demonstrated that.
consequently, i do not think we will ever see another pro or semi-pro DX camera again.
redhed17
Senior Member
:-(
Roll on Canon with a 7DII then, and fingers crossed that it is good enough for what most people waiting for (wanting) a 'D400'/'D9300' want from a enthusiast crop sensor camera. :-/
Last edited:
arachnophilia
Senior Member
i don't think i could ever switch to canon. they make nice enough cameras, but there so many things i like about nikons... in any case, i'll keep on with my older cameras.
n057
Veteran Member
Great opportunity for the other manufacturers. In my case, Pentax, with their conventional non-EVF K3. The two main lenses I use, 17-55 and 70-200 are available in that mount.
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
pavi1
Veteran Member
You really believe a $2,500 camera is going to kill off DX? Really?
arachnophilia
Senior Member
i think OP means that nikon is committing to FX, and ignoring DX.
Phathom
Senior Member
That is exactly right. Canon and Sony are still going further into DX development, but Nikon is completely ignoring it. Apparently they think by going FF and having a good DX crop mode it will handle our needs... but it wont. I don't want to pay $2500 for a camera to do what Canon's $1500 camera can do.
arachnophilia
Senior Member
it honestly might, for me.
now, where's our 8 FPS, deep buffer, professional UI FX camera?
Phathom
Senior Member
If the FF camera can reach 8-9 FPS with a deep buffer and UI I will be ok. But why would I buy a FF camera to stick it in DX crop mode? It's a slap in the face. Basically we are spending money on something we don't get to use. It's like another $1000 that we could save if we were with Canon/Sony. Plus, the DX mode will likely lower the MP to around 15 or so. Ok for most, but some of us will need to crop after the shot again. I think 24MP is the sweet spot. Basically I want a pro level D7100, with a bigger buffer and faster FPS. I don't think that is asking for too much. Not all of us can afford the $6500 D4S and Nikon doesn't offer another solution for sports shooters.
joeybob
Leading Member
arachnophilia
Senior Member
oh, i'd use it.
right now i have one DX and one FX camera, and i use them both. two cameras that work in both modes would be a better solution, in my opinion.
that's the real problem: they forgot about a whole market segment.
OceanFroggie
Leading Member
Doesn't make sense. FF is a mugs game for leisure use. Travellers have no interest in having a brick hanging out of their neck straps. The future is smaller - less is more! FF does not compute for leisure use.
pavi1
Veteran Member
Current line-up is 9 FX and 12 DX. You might be right. You also might be wrong. The only DX being ignored is top of the line/expensive.
pavi1
Veteran Member
You are correct that the masses will always want small over image quality. Pretty much always been that way. Of course the masses prefer McDonald's to Pappadeux.
six34sigma
Senior Member
It makes my decision easy to move away from Nikon. If I am forced from DX my lenses become less valuable since I will have to replace.
Am not happy with the move away from NX2, they had a chance to buy Nik. Lack of a D300 replacement, lack of good DX glass and generally their lack of imagination when it comes to using bluetooth or connectivity, for example using an iPhone or Android phone to trigger the camera.
Enjoy my D7100 but have been eyeing the 5DIII. Its also FF, If but if I don't have a lens tie to Nikon because am forced to FX, why not consider it. Let's see what the 7DII brings and Sony may get a better lens line up in the meanwhile. Become more convinced that my future lies outside of Nikon. In the meanwhile the D7100 works just fine.
--
Regards,
Sanjay
Am not happy with the move away from NX2, they had a chance to buy Nik. Lack of a D300 replacement, lack of good DX glass and generally their lack of imagination when it comes to using bluetooth or connectivity, for example using an iPhone or Android phone to trigger the camera.
Enjoy my D7100 but have been eyeing the 5DIII. Its also FF, If but if I don't have a lens tie to Nikon because am forced to FX, why not consider it. Let's see what the 7DII brings and Sony may get a better lens line up in the meanwhile. Become more convinced that my future lies outside of Nikon. In the meanwhile the D7100 works just fine.
--
Regards,
Sanjay
Last edited:
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
The D600/D610 shares the same basic body as the D7000/D71000, so clearly Nikon hasn't gone so far as to relegate DX to "rank amateurs."
n057
Veteran Member
Since the D7000 was the granddaddy of that body style, logically, would you say that FX is relegated to consumer DX level? ;-)
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
That is very unwelcome speculation and I hope that NR is wrong about it. But, TBH, it wouldn't surprise me. Nikon has obviously spent a lot of effort with FX in recent history. I assume that is because FX has a very high ROI for them. But, I just don't see the millions of DX users suddenly coughing up the dough for an FX camera, when there are plenty of alternatives.
I must admit to being quite bewildered at Nikon's seemingly betting on FX for the future. It's still only about 10% of their DSLR market. Are they really satisfied with that? Is the d7xxx camera really going to be the TOL DX camera for the future? Dunno. Not sure that I'd be satisfied with that.
Kerry
I must admit to being quite bewildered at Nikon's seemingly betting on FX for the future. It's still only about 10% of their DSLR market. Are they really satisfied with that? Is the d7xxx camera really going to be the TOL DX camera for the future? Dunno. Not sure that I'd be satisfied with that.
Kerry
Rob Bedows
Forum Enthusiast
So, I've got a question, and not at all sarcastic. I've got a D300 and it's absolutely a great camera (still) and produces great images in capable hands ( not necessarily including myself here...). The D810 is also a great and tempting camera if one is contemplating full frame. Most of us here want to be as good as we can be and although a camera is admittedly simply a tool, the D810 (and for that matter the D300) is apparently a pretty darn good tool. I want a bit more out of my D300 (better higher ISO performance, better DR although software goes a long way towards addressing that) but the D300 build, handling, and performance characteristics (external controls, etc.) are pretty much great. I'm sure that the D810 falls into the same category as well. So here's the question for those who have used both cameras. A lot of folks say that the weight of FF is excessive yet if you look at the specs on camera weight with the battery in, the D300 actually outweighs the D810 by a totally insignificant amount. So, weight is basically a non factor assuming one already has some good glass (I've got the 70-200 VRII (among others) and think that it's a fantastic lens). Not having shot FF, I think there's no doubt that FF exceeds DX for DR and high ISO performance. Probably for detail and certainly for resolution FF rules as well. Still, does the "it weighs too much" argument make sense? If one is comparing D300 and D810 weights, it doesn't seem as if it does...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum