The D7000 is really the only glimmer of light. I hope the 2011 introductions are better than he expects them to be! http://www.bythom.com/
--
Jim
--
Jim
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thom Hogan agrees: Nikon's DX offering is poor.
- Thread starter JimPearce
- Start date
Apollo18
Veteran Member
A D400 with integral grip and D3-like performance (focusing, fps etc.) would turn it around big time.
Also have to say that I'm personally not so down about the D3100. I find it to be an excellent light weight option, at a very nice price.
--
My photos:
http://nickburtonswildlifephotography.blogspot.com/
http://nickburton.smugmug.com/
Also have to say that I'm personally not so down about the D3100. I find it to be an excellent light weight option, at a very nice price.
--
My photos:
http://nickburtonswildlifephotography.blogspot.com/
http://nickburton.smugmug.com/
Tony Beach
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
The other glimmer of light for Nikon is their competitors. Pentax did a good job with the new 16 MP Sony sensor, but they are hardly a threat to Nikon right now. Sony has the resources to really put pressure on Nikon, but those in charge of Sony's cameras right now are the gang that can't shoot straight -- I strongly doubt Sony will have a camera as good as the D300s successor will be. Canon has its fans just as Nikon does, these two companies will continue to do whatever it takes to dominate the market for the next few years.
For those in this forum planning on upgrading their D200, D300, and D300s cameras, it will only take one introduction to take care of the camera situation. A super-wide PC-E lens works for both the FX and DX line-ups -- I can live with the AOV of a 16mm lens on DX. FX could use a camera body like the D7000, and that's not going to happen (read what Thom says about the weight of the FX camera bag pushing 30 pounds). I don't see the prognosis for DX and FX to be nearly as clear cut as Thom does.
For those committed to Nikon's DX format things are not bad at the top even if they could be better. I'm not particularly interested in consumer DSLRs although the D7000 strikes me as a very good choice there, albeit an expensive one. Unlike Thom (who is understandably looking at the entire Nikon line-up) I don't think many of the high end DX users really care about the issues consumer camera users might have; those consumer camera users hardly realize what they're missing in terms missing lenses (many only own one or two kit lenses), user interface, or accessories -- but for them the video issue needs to be fixed. Also, one hopes that if Nikon doesn't make the lens you want that a third party lens maker will fill that gap; that doesn't help Nikon, but it would address our individual concerns.
There are two points he discusses: bodies and lenses. For bodies, the only solution is a 'pro DX D400'. However, he suggests 'maybe one decent one' will come. Either he knowns more but says nothing, or he's just guessing.
For lenses, I think he is a bit to overoptimistic about how to run a company. Of course, the customer has wishes. But that doesn't mean Nikon will simply deliver when asked. The lack of modern DX-lenses he mentions is something he apparently considers a problem, but look at the reality. The old but current 17-55 is already priced at twice the latest 17-50 from Sigma, and 3 times the latest Tamron. Nikon is going to have a hard time building an new lens in that rnge without increasing the gap any further. Of course, some purists will buy it...
His wish for a 50-150 f/2.8 with VRII is only a strict neccesity if you really need the 20 mm below the current 70-200, be it an FX and not a DX lens. Now, how many times did I hear that 70 mm is only a couple of steps away from 50 mm ? Look at the expected price of the 50-150 from Sigma but with OS: 900 euro. There is no way Nikon is going to even get close to that price. And there's too much happening around them to start a race for new lenses right now.
lock
For lenses, I think he is a bit to overoptimistic about how to run a company. Of course, the customer has wishes. But that doesn't mean Nikon will simply deliver when asked. The lack of modern DX-lenses he mentions is something he apparently considers a problem, but look at the reality. The old but current 17-55 is already priced at twice the latest 17-50 from Sigma, and 3 times the latest Tamron. Nikon is going to have a hard time building an new lens in that rnge without increasing the gap any further. Of course, some purists will buy it...
His wish for a 50-150 f/2.8 with VRII is only a strict neccesity if you really need the 20 mm below the current 70-200, be it an FX and not a DX lens. Now, how many times did I hear that 70 mm is only a couple of steps away from 50 mm ? Look at the expected price of the 50-150 from Sigma but with OS: 900 euro. There is no way Nikon is going to even get close to that price. And there's too much happening around them to start a race for new lenses right now.
lock
olyflyer
Veteran Member
Yes, it would turn around in the wrong direction... I mean the grip.
There are more important points for the D400.
Tony Beach
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
We've been around and around on this a number of times; so just as you weigh in with your opinion on this I will as well and disagree with you about that. Want lighter? Buy a D7000, some FX shooters would be envious of that just as some DX shooters are envious of the D3s and D3x bodies.
HSway
Veteran Member
I too had similar thought elsewhere lately (Nikon’s difficult situation matching offerings of some related product specialists). It’ a large world exploded on their hands (not only theirs) in a revolutionary fashion they are adapting to but simply not just as fast on all fronts which frankly is not to be expected - as yet - and in the shape the company is today. Besides the ever present risk of “changing shape” others things weigh to slow down and complicate. They must be prioritizing between an absolute must-do and very slightly less absolute must to do. They wont prevent other groups to invade their (?) territory successfully; that's not the measure of a success in this hectic battle any more. Rather the ability to shape their own profile on the back of science, the company tradition and a brutal business in the great recession years.
..Incidentally, I tested some lenses for myself today - 2 samples of 17-50 Sigmas fully in close range through the FL/aperture range vs my 16-85. Both consistent in results. I can say they are the better lenses so far – I’ll try to look what they do in landscape ranges soon. I had put the 16-85 against row of lenses before, it's one of those harder lenses to beat.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
..Incidentally, I tested some lenses for myself today - 2 samples of 17-50 Sigmas fully in close range through the FL/aperture range vs my 16-85. Both consistent in results. I can say they are the better lenses so far – I’ll try to look what they do in landscape ranges soon. I had put the 16-85 against row of lenses before, it's one of those harder lenses to beat.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
KnightPhoto2
Veteran Member
Oddly enough, a full-pro DX camera with top of the line AF, viewfinder blackout, FPS, buffer, weather sealing, etc. would suit me perfectly for wildlife/birds and a D3S sensor in a D700 body for theatre/general would be great!
Hmmmm, Nikon only seems to have the opposite available ;-)
As to Thom, I kind of agree about the D3100 sensor, I had hoped for more given it's Nikon-design/build. And yes I continue to want more for video.
And a (as low cost as practical) 400mm f5.6 VR prime would be great too as would some additional DX primes in the 35mm f1.8 style (they will sell a bunch!).
A few of the DX lenses Thom calls for are a bit of a stretch though. I personally would rather (and do) shoot a dual FX/DX kit and look for the FX version for the specialty stuff (f2.8 zooms, T/S, f1.4 primes, etc.). Thom is on record advocating that one should shoot pure DX or pure FX, but I find shooting both FX and DX very natural to own.
I want Nikon to do well, so I wish they would listen a bit more to what Thom has generally pretty carefully thought out.
(I liked his FX article too)
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
Hmmmm, Nikon only seems to have the opposite available ;-)
As to Thom, I kind of agree about the D3100 sensor, I had hoped for more given it's Nikon-design/build. And yes I continue to want more for video.
And a (as low cost as practical) 400mm f5.6 VR prime would be great too as would some additional DX primes in the 35mm f1.8 style (they will sell a bunch!).
A few of the DX lenses Thom calls for are a bit of a stretch though. I personally would rather (and do) shoot a dual FX/DX kit and look for the FX version for the specialty stuff (f2.8 zooms, T/S, f1.4 primes, etc.). Thom is on record advocating that one should shoot pure DX or pure FX, but I find shooting both FX and DX very natural to own.
I want Nikon to do well, so I wish they would listen a bit more to what Thom has generally pretty carefully thought out.
(I liked his FX article too)
--
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
jfriend00
Veteran Member
I don't get why Thom is complaining about DX. The d7000 is one hell of a camera at it's spot in the lineup - same for the 3100. We're due for a D400, but if Nikon does the following in the D400 (which are all evolutionary moves), it will be a real winner and suddenly the DX line will look strong again:
o New generation of AF that improves performance significantly from the D300s (probably based on technology in the D4) and once again shows Nikon is way ahead of Canon in AF technology.
o Get another 1/2 to 1 stop of high ISO performance above the D7000.
o Go to 16.2 MP sensor (probably derivative of D7000 sensor)
o Bump the fps a bit from the D300s
o Increase the buffer a bunch over the D300s (more consecutive RAW files)
o Increase the card write speed (more consecutive RAW files)
o MB-D10 Grip compatibility with D300/D700 (this is for the upgrade market)
And, a significant bonus feature would be if Nikon could increase the DR measurably over the D7000. I'm not expecting it (other than what you get from noise improvements), but DR should turn into a new battlefront in the dSLR war.
You'll notice that nearly all of these are for action shooters and that's because the only significant reasons to get a D400 instead of a D7000 are action shooting or build quality. For objects at rest, the D7000 will likely be similar IQ to the D400.
I have no DX lens issues at all. I've got Sigma 10-20, Nikon 17-55, 105 macro, 70-200, 200-400 and 600, TC1.4 and then the 18-200 when I need one general purpose lens for family snaps. This is one heck of a lineup - nothing I'm missing for what I shoot.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
o New generation of AF that improves performance significantly from the D300s (probably based on technology in the D4) and once again shows Nikon is way ahead of Canon in AF technology.
o Get another 1/2 to 1 stop of high ISO performance above the D7000.
o Go to 16.2 MP sensor (probably derivative of D7000 sensor)
o Bump the fps a bit from the D300s
o Increase the buffer a bunch over the D300s (more consecutive RAW files)
o Increase the card write speed (more consecutive RAW files)
o MB-D10 Grip compatibility with D300/D700 (this is for the upgrade market)
And, a significant bonus feature would be if Nikon could increase the DR measurably over the D7000. I'm not expecting it (other than what you get from noise improvements), but DR should turn into a new battlefront in the dSLR war.
You'll notice that nearly all of these are for action shooters and that's because the only significant reasons to get a D400 instead of a D7000 are action shooting or build quality. For objects at rest, the D7000 will likely be similar IQ to the D400.
I have no DX lens issues at all. I've got Sigma 10-20, Nikon 17-55, 105 macro, 70-200, 200-400 and 600, TC1.4 and then the 18-200 when I need one general purpose lens for family snaps. This is one heck of a lineup - nothing I'm missing for what I shoot.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
Phil Hatten
Active member
when it comes to what nikon is going to do, those who know say nothing. those who know nothing say what they want. everyone has a wish list.
Of course the 2 Sigma's you tested extend somewhat more than the Nikon rival does. And they does not have manual override. That does make a difference, but the question really is if it worries you. So, here you have a lens that is likely to cost half the money or even less then that of a still non-existing Nikon version that probably lands with SWM and VR sometime. If optically the Sigma does the job, why not get a D5100 as a backup and a Sigma lens in stead of an expensive Nikon equivalent ? Today, I might even prefer to buy a new Sigma and a compact Sony NEX-5 with a 16 mm pancake and a 18-55 OS lens in stead of getting a fresh version of the old Nikon 17-55. Nikon currently cannot even match such an alternative approach. Basically, this is one of the major issues Nikon currently is facing (as well as Canon and also Pentax): rapid technical changes in still life photography and video combined for the big mid level consumer market, with the threat that Nikon cannot deliver.
Actually, Sigma is already aware that manufacturers such as Nikon will not be able to deliver everything. So they changed their price policy rarther drastically. Just look at the prices of the new stabilzed versions of the fast standard zoom and the 70-200. With the latter, they added full HSM and doubled the price to start with. With the standard zoom, they added a stripped version of HSM and almost doubled the price. It didn't work with the new 70-200, hence the price went down. But it does seem to work with the 17-50, and in a similar fashion, it also looks like they use this policy with the stabilized 17-70.
Actually, Sigma is already aware that manufacturers such as Nikon will not be able to deliver everything. So they changed their price policy rarther drastically. Just look at the prices of the new stabilzed versions of the fast standard zoom and the 70-200. With the latter, they added full HSM and doubled the price to start with. With the standard zoom, they added a stripped version of HSM and almost doubled the price. It didn't work with the new 70-200, hence the price went down. But it does seem to work with the 17-50, and in a similar fashion, it also looks like they use this policy with the stabilized 17-70.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
I have no problem with that.
No, I don't want lighter, but also not heavier. The weight and the size of the D300s is just fine.
No I won't. The D7000 is not an alternative to the D300s and will never be an alternative to the D400.
I don't envy anyone, so I really don't care if some FX shooters are envious of the D7000.
Simon Garrett
Veteran Member
If I understand Thom's comments, he expects:
The most notable features of DX kit are that they (bodies and lenses) are smaller, lighter and cheaper than FX. If the D300 replacement is bigger, heavier or more expensive, then that suggests to me that Nikon have decided to split the D300 market spot into two:
But I wouldn't buy a professional DX camera (unless it's a light and cheap as the D300). And I'll be in no hurry for a D7000, which doesn't have the versatility of the D300.
--
Simon
- a D300(s) replacement probably with a grip and "that is clearly a pro-level DX body"
- a D700 replacement (no mention of any change of body size)
The most notable features of DX kit are that they (bodies and lenses) are smaller, lighter and cheaper than FX. If the D300 replacement is bigger, heavier or more expensive, then that suggests to me that Nikon have decided to split the D300 market spot into two:
- a professional DX camera - which will sell at much lower volume than the D300
- the D7000 - the top-end amateur camera
But I wouldn't buy a professional DX camera (unless it's a light and cheap as the D300). And I'll be in no hurry for a D7000, which doesn't have the versatility of the D300.
--
Simon
Tony Beach
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
We could call it the Goldilocks size. I would be for having three pro lines: D7000 size, D300s/D700 size, and D3s/D3x size for both FX and DX would be great. If I could only have one size I would agree with you, but if I could have two camera bodies then I would skip the mid-sized body and instead get a bigger (and presumably more capable body) and a smaller body.
Yes that's true, but likewise the optional grip isn't an alternative to what the larger body offers.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
She must be a huge Goldilocks...
The ones I know who live around me feels the D300s is just too big and heavy for their hands. They prefer the D5000 or smaller.It's a question of which would sell most. I think the one without an integrated grip is the winner, but neither you nor I control Nikon, so let's see and wait. If it comes with the grip I believe it would cost as much as the D800, or near that, which would be (hopefully) without an integrated grip and with a 24MP sensor. I will then decide which one I will buy next, or if I move on to Canon.
jfriend00
Veteran Member
There's no question that a D400 without grip would sell more than one with a grip - if for no other reason than it would be at a substantially lower price point. That is only part of the equation though. Lots of lower priced products sell more than higher priced products but that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason to do the higher priced, lower volume products.
Offering a DX body with a grip would show that Nikon realizes that FX and DX each have their place long term in their product line and there are photographers who want a grip that don't want FX.
The ideal situation would be to have D4, D800 for FX and D400/D400x for DX (one with grip, one without). Then, you could have a no-compromise choice - Pro FX or Pro DX with integrated grip or without. Pick your sensor size. Pick your body style.
If Nikon only does one D400 body style, it would likely be a dumb business decision to only do the integrated grip because that would be telling those who don't want an integrated grip that they have to downgrade to a D7000. That's generally a bad move to tell your customers to downgrade. But, offering both integrated grip and non-grip would be a total win. Existing D300 owners who like no integrated grip could upgrade to D400. Existing D300 owners who miss the build of their older D2X could upgrade to the D400x with grip built in.
I have no idea what Nikon will or won't do. I think it's be a dumb business decision to only offer a D400 with integrated grip and I think it's be wonderful for customers if they offered a D400 either with or without integrated grip and would show that the DX line is here to stay and has their full support.
I'm not exactly sure whether I'd personally buy D400 or D400x. I have a D2Xs and love the advantages of the integrated grip and so sometimes miss that on my D300 with add-on grip. But, I also take the grip off my D300 when I want something a bit lighter. Maybe I'd get the D400x and use that when I want max performance or full grip and then use my D300 without grip when I want something lighter.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
KnightPhoto2
Veteran Member
I think Nikon should offer the three choices in body size for FX and DX. It would differentiate them from Canon and Sony and we could each do as we pleased.
I'd go pro-body DX to complement my D7000.
I'd also go with a D700-body with a D3S level of ISO (high pixels optional for my needs). If necessary Nikon should also offer a high-megapixel version too. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't release a D700S/D700X choice, they would have sold a ton IMO.
And just imagine a D7000 body with an FX sensor, they would sell VERY WELL.
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
I'd go pro-body DX to complement my D7000.
I'd also go with a D700-body with a D3S level of ISO (high pixels optional for my needs). If necessary Nikon should also offer a high-megapixel version too. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't release a D700S/D700X choice, they would have sold a ton IMO.
And just imagine a D7000 body with an FX sensor, they would sell VERY WELL.
--She must be a huge Goldilocks...
It's a question of which would sell most. I think the one without an integrated grip is the winner, but neither you nor I control Nikon, so let's see and wait. If it comes with the grip I believe it would cost as much as the D800, or near that, which would be (hopefully) without an integrated grip and with a 24MP sensor. I will then decide which one I will buy next, or if I move on to Canon.
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
HSway
Veteran Member
Seems the third-party s trying to rise to the challenge. The first break point seems the stabilization and it’s evolving slowly further including AF and dare I say QC as is my guess. Mind you the QC of the Nikon is far from impressive.
Yea it’s just a broader basket of choices, possibilities for those without prejudice. I am thinking replacing 16-85 hard worker w/ the Sigma if it proves definite improvement, I should find out tomorrow.
It’s very nice lens (compared to Nikkor) and the OSll looks promising what I've tried. Sure no internal zooming design to think of (can’t be beaten) but the lens can be always exchanged when the better one comes out – I’d add more cash for it. What bothers me more than override for my shooting is ‘rattling os element’ feature :-D that follows the OSll. I have to shake quite wild with the poor lens in vertical position to get the effect but it’s not the most pleasant sound to my ears. Not like Nikkor is silent but can be hardly called a rattle.. Okay - has to be carried lying when hiking – better (no prob in lowepro Fastpack). When under the power the element shuts up. Let me correct you - the Nikkor is extending more than the Sigma’s lesser range. And lv AF seems a tad faster. AF not tired mach apart from knowing it is dead accurate and sure in low light. My order sample is very slightly (if I have to decide) better than my friend's well tried one (else I'd swap them ;-)) . Very nice 2.8 I note (didn’t look for corners though yet - if I do at all). Only variation is rather surprising (quite large honestly) -a difference in color temperature as his is cooler than already cool Nikkor but mine is positively warmer than Nikkor which I am ok with. Little unusual I'd say.
So thinking to get little better zoom lens than 16-85 optically as I know it’s possible. And don’t want to just buy another 24-120/4 while 16-35 is no good on 16mp for some odd reason. Let’s see 5100.. I think there might be reasons for a use of 3100 based sensor I but market strategy can create enough reason for 16mp to be the best way to go. Especially when the 5100 should be quite a strong camera – assuming nothing between it and d7000. I am thinking rather of d90 as a backup n the 450d Canon a partial one (w/70-200) while our next body would be another d7000 or ‘d400’.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
Yea it’s just a broader basket of choices, possibilities for those without prejudice. I am thinking replacing 16-85 hard worker w/ the Sigma if it proves definite improvement, I should find out tomorrow.
It’s very nice lens (compared to Nikkor) and the OSll looks promising what I've tried. Sure no internal zooming design to think of (can’t be beaten) but the lens can be always exchanged when the better one comes out – I’d add more cash for it. What bothers me more than override for my shooting is ‘rattling os element’ feature :-D that follows the OSll. I have to shake quite wild with the poor lens in vertical position to get the effect but it’s not the most pleasant sound to my ears. Not like Nikkor is silent but can be hardly called a rattle.. Okay - has to be carried lying when hiking – better (no prob in lowepro Fastpack). When under the power the element shuts up. Let me correct you - the Nikkor is extending more than the Sigma’s lesser range. And lv AF seems a tad faster. AF not tired mach apart from knowing it is dead accurate and sure in low light. My order sample is very slightly (if I have to decide) better than my friend's well tried one (else I'd swap them ;-)) . Very nice 2.8 I note (didn’t look for corners though yet - if I do at all). Only variation is rather surprising (quite large honestly) -a difference in color temperature as his is cooler than already cool Nikkor but mine is positively warmer than Nikkor which I am ok with. Little unusual I'd say.
So thinking to get little better zoom lens than 16-85 optically as I know it’s possible. And don’t want to just buy another 24-120/4 while 16-35 is no good on 16mp for some odd reason. Let’s see 5100.. I think there might be reasons for a use of 3100 based sensor I but market strategy can create enough reason for 16mp to be the best way to go. Especially when the 5100 should be quite a strong camera – assuming nothing between it and d7000. I am thinking rather of d90 as a backup n the 450d Canon a partial one (w/70-200) while our next body would be another d7000 or ‘d400’.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
Hi Hynek,
So far I have not found a sigma lens that behaves well wide open. Even the Sigma 150 Macro is softer at 2.8 than the Nikkor 70-200 VRI at 2.8, despite the fact of comparing a zoom with a fixed focal Macro.
I am using the 16-85 intensively. I would like to hear about your results with the Sigmas in the future.
Best regards
--
Francisco Romero
So far I have not found a sigma lens that behaves well wide open. Even the Sigma 150 Macro is softer at 2.8 than the Nikkor 70-200 VRI at 2.8, despite the fact of comparing a zoom with a fixed focal Macro.
I am using the 16-85 intensively. I would like to hear about your results with the Sigmas in the future.
Best regards
--
Francisco Romero
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum