brianric
Veteran Member
I can vouch for that.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The D300 successor. We can only speak from personal need I guess?
- Thread starter RichRMA
- Start date
brianric
Veteran Member
I believe Nikon senior staff will not provide an answer; they are always a bit vague and nebulous !
We have to wait !
BobWorrell
Senior Member
Sony has always been an innovator coming out with the next best thing, they did it with TV's, Betamax, vcrs, dvds, now cameras, once they were the highest quality, then price competition drove their product quality down and the competitors took the market, I personally think their type of camera technology is the future (but its not there yet) history will repeat and they will lose to competitors.
If Nikon is still in the game, I will continue to use their products, right now The DSLR fits my needs if that changes in the future I will change with it.
DPReview will not ask pointed questions. They are part of Amazon's camera sales division for all intents and purposes since being acquired by Amazon.
They even state in the D7200 First Impressions article that they believe the D7200 IS the D400 and goes up against the 7D M2 for less money. They are NOT of like mind with those on this group wanting a Pro DX. DPReview is not inclined to say anything that might hurt sales of current products that they happen to sell on their sister Amazon.com.
And yet, not long after the introduction of the cheap D7000 with its initially problematic focusing, people began looking at Canon's offerings and lauding them, even though Canon still offered a "lesser" sensor. I never saw this when the D300 was the primary DX body.
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
hate Nikon.. or am I wrong.. you used a lot of capitals in there
They make some great cameras; just not what you want. That's ok.
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
Had a pair of D300's for many years, first shipments here to Seattle. Loved them to death, but could certainly use better ISO performance. I owe someone 2 lunches for being "sure" when the D400 would show up, I'm not guessing again but I keep hoping.
I no longer have the 2 D300's, they have been replaced by a D810 and a D7100, the D7100 may very well be replaced by a D7200 in the not distant future and hopefully a D400, before I die.
One thing I do not do is buy into the "what the company is doing TO me" syndrome that we see here. Nikon is a business, they will do what they do, no matter how much angst I have or how much complaining I do.
So what I DO do is to look at the things that are important to me and then determine if the "current" bits get me more than I lose.
So, for me:
1. Far better AF
2. Far better ISO
3. Next gen sensor and processing
Trumped:
1. Loss of 1-2FPS
2. AF-On dedicated button on the D7100
3. Full Magnesium body
I am, to be quite honest, happy to see you have enough integrity to admit personal preference. Too bad you then stoop to "pushed by Nikon to a cheap D600FF", rather than continuing on with a rational discussion.
ImageAmateur
Veteran Member
I agree fully. What Nikon does is to itself... *WE* have options... ;-) And I will spend for myself, not spend for Nikon, I will buy used lenses, 3rd party lenses etc etc... my pocket and my uses matter. So, Nikon owes me nothing and I owe them nothing.
agree.
The D7200 will suit me fine, the AF, the far better ISO (and I am hoping, hoping it is the D5500 sensor) and the processing speed algorithms. Though I shoot RAW, still, more data should be there.
6fps is enough for me.
I will reallocate the AE-L button
Kind of a shame. That is the one thing I see as a not so good here. The build quality. Because the higher build quality reflects other things besides magnesium, it is build of shutter/ life, processing hardware etc = reliability.
But then, when one considers the USD 500 less than a d400 would likely cost, that is a fair exchange, provided it is not a lemon and works satisfactorily for the rated shutter life.
I would be happy with that. Now just hoping for the D5500 sensor... ;-)
--
Wishing You Good Light.
Last edited:
talmy
Senior Member
Haven't put my D300s up for sale and still have my D200 IR-converted camera as well.
It is personal need. I'm shooting 95% landscapes 95% on a tripod. I was just waiting for a return to full frame in the same basic body that gave a clear image advantage over the D300s (the D700 didn't) and had the bugs worked out (the D800 didn't).
I may keep the D300s since it is still a great camera but without much residual value. My 16-85 works nicely on it.
It is personal need. I'm shooting 95% landscapes 95% on a tripod. I was just waiting for a return to full frame in the same basic body that gave a clear image advantage over the D300s (the D700 didn't) and had the bugs worked out (the D800 didn't).
I may keep the D300s since it is still a great camera but without much residual value. My 16-85 works nicely on it.
If landscape is your think ANY of the FF bodies will beat the D300. But I find it curious you saw no improvement between the D300 and D700 for that purpose. I used (still use) the two side by side and the D700 with the 14-24 2.8 is pretty stunning compared to the D300 with say the 12-24 f/4. The D800e is another level above that, even starts to show the weaknesses of the excellent 14-24 given it's resolution. I've never seen any of the AF issues others have reported with the D800, but that may also be that for the type shooting I do with the D800e I rarely use outer AF points and focus precision at infinity on a wide angle lens is more forgiving than a telephoto shooting sports/wildlife as I do with the D300.
RayJo
New member
I had a D2X that was fantastic on a tripod with a 17-55 2.8, especially for longer exposures. Some of the best looking frames I took ever. My D300, since 2008, is nearly as good.
I had one of the first D3 in the UK, it went back as it refused to work well with my 17-35 2.8. I do miss the high ISO and locking controls but little else.
Have always been Nikon and always will be. Bought the d300 when it first came out and have had 3. Have been waiting for the D400 for some time now but just pulled the trigger on a new D7200.
Looking forward to it. Now if a D400 actually does come out, I'll pass unless it's substantially better than the 7200 cause I just don't shoot that much sports anymore. Actually, I never needed any additional FPS but I did like the more professional body.
So, for what I mainly shoot now, I think the 7200 will be fine.
Looking forward to it. Now if a D400 actually does come out, I'll pass unless it's substantially better than the 7200 cause I just don't shoot that much sports anymore. Actually, I never needed any additional FPS but I did like the more professional body.
So, for what I mainly shoot now, I think the 7200 will be fine.
talmy
Senior Member
It's a matter of having the right lenses. I certainly could have gone from the D200 to the D700 at the time I bought the D300s (after all, the D700 was available first) but the killers for me was (as I thought at the time) having to buy new wide and mid zoom lenses -- adding to the already higher purchase price I would have been looking at over $5000 out of pocket. The D700 in DX mode would be a major step back in resolution, so not really an option.
The D810 gives me a 15mp DX camera that also has much better DR and lower noise (though the latter isn't an issue for me).
But I also made the decision now to go prime. I only need an 85 to be happy.
--
Equipment in my User Profile.
RayJo
New member
calson
Forum Pro
I care first and foremost about high ISO performance and autofocus performance. Secondary is having a body with the Nikon 10-pin port as I use it with my Quantum RF remote flash triggers and flash gear and my Bluetooth adapter for syncing with a GPS receiver.
I had the D300 and used it with first a D2x and then a D3 to photograph weddings. The D300 was good up to ISO 1600 and autofocus was the same as that of the D3. Now I have a D800e and a D7100. The D7100 has better low light autofocus than the D800e which in turn is better than the D3/D300. The D7100 produces images at ISO 6400 of people that do not need noise reduction before use.
The box that my old Apple MacPro workstation used was a work of engineering art and this was reflected in its size and weight. Newer workstations have a lot more plastic and are much smaller and weigh a lot less but provide more than 4 time the performance.
At $1100 the D7100 provides far more value than the $1900 I paid for the D300. In addition to the features mentioned the D7100 has two card slots as with the D3 and using the superior (more durable) SD cards. The D7100 has video capture as well as still.
Not to be dismissed either is that I can use SD cards and the exact same batteries in my D800e, D750, and D7100 cameras. No longer do I need two sets of cards and two sets of batteries.
Time to get out of your box. The D750 is twice the camera that the D3s is and at a third the cost. If I wanted the same massive and heavy camera that used two different card types in its two slots and yet another battery that only works in one camera I could spend $6500 on a D4s (and have an inferior autofocus system and 25% lower resolution).
I cannot imagine what wonderfulness would be in a D400 that would be selling for $2000 that would cause someone to buy it instead of the D7200 at $1100 or the D610 at $1500 or the D750 at $2300. Evidently the people at Nikon cannot either.
I had the D300 and used it with first a D2x and then a D3 to photograph weddings. The D300 was good up to ISO 1600 and autofocus was the same as that of the D3. Now I have a D800e and a D7100. The D7100 has better low light autofocus than the D800e which in turn is better than the D3/D300. The D7100 produces images at ISO 6400 of people that do not need noise reduction before use.
The box that my old Apple MacPro workstation used was a work of engineering art and this was reflected in its size and weight. Newer workstations have a lot more plastic and are much smaller and weigh a lot less but provide more than 4 time the performance.
At $1100 the D7100 provides far more value than the $1900 I paid for the D300. In addition to the features mentioned the D7100 has two card slots as with the D3 and using the superior (more durable) SD cards. The D7100 has video capture as well as still.
Not to be dismissed either is that I can use SD cards and the exact same batteries in my D800e, D750, and D7100 cameras. No longer do I need two sets of cards and two sets of batteries.
Time to get out of your box. The D750 is twice the camera that the D3s is and at a third the cost. If I wanted the same massive and heavy camera that used two different card types in its two slots and yet another battery that only works in one camera I could spend $6500 on a D4s (and have an inferior autofocus system and 25% lower resolution).
I cannot imagine what wonderfulness would be in a D400 that would be selling for $2000 that would cause someone to buy it instead of the D7200 at $1100 or the D610 at $1500 or the D750 at $2300. Evidently the people at Nikon cannot either.
great post.
redhed17
Senior Member
You don't get why in the Pro DX Forum there are people wanting a Pro DX style camera. :-/ Read some threads and you may see what some people want from a Pro DX camera. They are not all the same, but they are pretty consistent in describing a camera very similar to a D300S with a better sensor.
In the Pro DX Forum you don't get that there may be some people who don't want to go FX in the Pro DX Forum. :-/
I'm happy that you have the money, and have found the combination of cameras that suit you. Some people can't afford/don't want multiple cameras, they may need/want one camera that can cover a lot of different Photographic situations. And if any of those situations includes things that are fast moving and far away, a updated D300S type camera is the one that ticks a lot of boxes for some people.
You don't get it, and that is fine, but there have been people on here for years saying what they want from a Pro DX camera, and whilst some have settled for a D7000/7100, and some more may be swayed by the D7200, and some may have gone FX, or to another brand, there will be some of us in the Pro DX Forum who may still hanker after something better from Nikon. There are even some that have changed to something else who still say they would buy an updated D300S.
And I'm sorry, but "using the superior (more durable) SD cards." As someone who has had a SD disintegrate in their fingers, and had another get corrupted, I don't find SD cards durable, and they don't fill me with confidence. They are almost ubiquitous and cheap, I'll give you that, but they are not a superior format, IMHO.
SD cards have been playing catch up to get the performance of the fastest CF cards. Of course if you don't need high performance cards, and are happy with SD cards, then they may be the format for you. Obviously you do have to use whatever format of cards that are in the camera you choose, ;-) but if there is a choice, like there is in the D300S I have, then I will use the CF cards as the primary card every time. Never had a problem with CF cards, and I occasionally need the performance of a fast card.
I try not to say what camera(s) are right for people unless they ask for advice. ;-) I definitely know what is right for me though, and it is not any of the options you offered.
Otherwise I would probably have one or more of them already wouldn't I. :-DKeyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum