some interesting thoughts on future

[Kerry Pierce]

Here's a link to an article by Roger Cicala at LensRentals, where he questions what we'll be shooting in 5 years. There are a lot of user comments at the bottom of the article, often with Roger's response. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/whose-camera-will-i-buy-in-2018

I found the article interesting and somewhat provocative and thought it would be a good topic for discussion here, primarily because it might pertain to the d300 replacement.

I'll comment on it later, after other folks have had a chance to read it, because I'd like for folks to read the article without having my prejudicial commentary in mind.

While this could be a wide ranging topic, please try to confine your posts to what you are thinking about Nikon's probable actions with the d300 replacement, ie a true DX sport/action offering. I think that we already know that folks wanting a small/light, landscape or vacation type cameras, aren't looking for a d400 type camera and that the folks posting selfies on the various social media sites probably don't even know that the d300 exists, nor do they care.

Kerry

 

[Hrvoje Crvelin]

I think most important sentence in that blog post is: "Photography isn’t dying, it’s simply changing."

I'm not trend analyst by far and I look at these things as curious person, but for what is worth... We do have P&S which certainly will get replaced by mobile gadget family (tablet, phone, glasses, you name it). We are talking about pictures which are nice for web and desktop screens. Certain P&S level will migrate to dSLR range too - actually it already happened as entry level cameras in dSLR land are cheap these days. From interviews by camera vendors, some published here on dpreview too, we know market is geographically split a bit in preferences whether they love more mirrorless or dSLR. Mirrorless has edge on development, but this is because it has to catch up with those fine features of classic dSLR engines, but it also has advantages on its own too - so interesting battle there. Most recently, we also saw media format rumors that might now get refresh. But what about D300 and its family line as you asked?

I think it will come out as Canon rumors are strong about their counterpart model and Canon & Nikon like to shadow each other. Canon is rumored to have new sensor and perhaps Nikon will go with new Nikon sensor. In both cases, it might seem that both vendors took their time before they would release rumored models. Was this due to uncertainty of market trends or because they wished to develop giant step forward - who knows. But, DXXX users would certainly love something new and groundbreaking - certainly something which can stand test of time and may last for many many years (some of features and design of D300s still beat d7100 and I think it is pointless to repeat all that has been said on that subject here so I guess users do have expectation that next throne holder should be big too). Apart from new sensor(s) we have lenses. VR, lighter materials, faster, exciting focal lengths. Recent Sigma lenses rock, but number of users would still prefer rather camera vendor lens so as 3rd party releases better lenses, users will build up expectations toward vendors as well. Should we expect things to go so far soon sensors will also start appearing in lenses and have some sort of smart communication with sensor in body - in short, will it move further from just being a glass?

I thing which still keeps me in doubt, at least in Nikon world for sure, APS-C vs full frame cameras. I would like to kick one out, but can this really be done. Sony is stepping into full-frame mirrorless and you can have DX mode on FX. DX can use FX lenses so it make appear that APS-C might just vanish with years to come as full frame is expected to drop in price - how long until we get first model under 1k? Another thing which worries me what if mount will need to change in future. I love F mount and fact that Nikon didn't change it, but what if they will just have to do it just as Canon once did. I personally would like to see dSLR stay and rock, but I can't say I'm not biased here due to lenses I have.

I can't say what to expect in 2018 as one tsunami in 2015 might change everything, but photography will always be stills. Obviously more digital, more dynamic range and perhaps some new way to max out glasses (which might require new mount as well). Biggest threat to Nikon (and Canon) is probably Sony - who already now is innovating and releasing cool stuff and can use other lenses. I guess they just might be in position to build perfect digital body of the future and rely totally on lenses ranging from Sigma to Zeiss. Nikon might explore video too, but they would really need to have killer product to enter that segment - which is crowded already.

 

[yray]

His most productive thoughts are toward the end, I think. Quote:

"Perhaps it will be a specialty camera, like a medium format, 80 megapixel, live-view focus only, landscape body with ultra-high resolution for the cost of an SLR. They might offer an optional bellows attachement, or interchangeable lens mounts. A niche market, for sure, but I know some people who would love one. Especially if they could shoot their Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, then swap around to a Canon 300 f/2.8, and finally clip on a bellows and classic Hasselblad medium format lens.

Maybe it will be a modular camera that allows you to pick your sensor, viewfinder, storage media, flash attachments, LCD, etc. You buy only the modules you need and change them out as conditions warrant. As I mentioned earlier, I’d love to an interchangeable lens mount. Sigma and Tamron make autofocus lenses for 6 different autofocus systems. I bet somebody could make a camera with translation chips that can autofocus 6 different lenses."

An interchangeable lens mount and a sensor one could simply plug into an existing body would make consumers' lives oh so much better. But I don't think major manufacturers are going to go in that directions: they would rather sell you their own lenses, and they would rather have you buy a whole new camera if you want a different sensor. But a smaller company may very well come up with such a disruptive product. If it could handle F-mount lenses and do everything else I want from a camera, I won't care less which way Nikon's fortunes go.

 

[ImageAmateur]

I think the theme of the article is fair i.e. companies must respond to change to succeed and remain viable.

Secondly, what *I* see in the future D300 level camera is one that has improved high ISO, which everyone is demanding these days (and useful for wildlife, sports and even wedding shots, which most of the buyers of the camera will use it for).

It will also require the megapixels for cropping and resolution, as per uses above.

It will also, MUST have, video. For the third use above and even the second use.

Reality is that video is getting popular, about time for Nikon to step up to the game and hammer a great video DSLR out.

The camera should not just be to ''satisfy those wildlife and sports guys', it SHOULD be to wallop the market, so that the wedding guys buy it too, and the family gathering and events guys to have both a still camera and the best video DSLR around.....

It is not about ...ho-hum, it is about rocking the market.

In summary the REAL requirements are:

- high ISO to 6400 clean

- high MP's say 24

- Top of the line video

Everything else is by the way.

And personally .... an on/ off electronic overlay manual focus viewfinder assist, using the AF sensors, such as a split prism or cross hair overlay.

Cheers

--
Wishing You Good Light.

 

[mistermejia]

I think the theme of the article is fair i.e. companies must respond to change to succeed and remain viable.

Super interesting article. I liked reading it. That's clearly what i understood also. The companies that are NOT making those changes, based on customer's needs and desires, the ones that are not coming out with nothing exiting and new (under $1500), those are the companies i see falling WAY behind, or even to stop existing.

Secondly, what *I* see in the future D300 level camera is one that has improved high ISO, which everyone is demanding these days (and useful for wildlife, sports and even wedding shots, which most of the buyers of the camera will use it for).

It will also require the megapixels for cropping and resolution, as per uses above.

It will also, MUST have, video. For the third use above and even the second use.

Reality is that video is getting popular, about time for Nikon to step up to the game and hammer a great video DSLR out.

Yep. And somebody is falling REALLY behind in the video department, considering that it is one of the biggest companies.

The camera should not just be to ''satisfy those wildlife and sports guys', it SHOULD be to wallop the market, so that the wedding guys buy it too, and the family gathering and events guys to have both a still camera and the best video DSLR around.....

This is only my personal opinion, but nikon has dropped the ball in the image quality department regarding certain aspects. Mainly skin tones. From what i have noticed, the only new cameras from nikon that have better looking skin tones are the $3000-6000 dollar bodies. That's not good at all.

It is not about ...ho-hum, it is about rocking the market.

I agree. If they don't rock, i don't buy

In summary the REAL requirements are:

- high ISO to 6400 clean

- high MP's say 24

- Top of the line video

Everything else is by the way.

And personally .... an on/ off electronic overlay manual focus viewfinder assist, using the AF sensors, such as a split prism or cross hair overlay.

Cheers

--
Wishing You Good Light.

 

[VadymA]

Personally, I think in 5 years we'll be all shooting with cheap P&S or smartphone cameras and "invest" thousands in post-processing software which will be capable of producing effects indistinguishable from those of FF cameras, such as non-distractive noise reduction, sharpening, creamy bokeh, rich colors, etc. This, of course is rather extreme example but my point is that the future of photography in my opinion will be shaped by rather disruptive technologies be it post-processing or unique sensor development which will make current lenses obsolete. On the other hand, most people thought that vinyl is dead, yet it is making quite a comeback now. ;-)

 

[BackroadsTraveler]

Nikon could have easily released an update to the D300 anytime in the past 4 years, but they have chosen to not do so.

I think one of two reasons behind this:

1: They don't think the market for the camera justifies the development costs, and have already 'moved on'. I personally hope this is not the case.

or

2: They are sitting on a significant technological breakthrough or breakthroughs, and want to make certain they get it right before release. Since Canon likewise has not released the direct competitive counterpart, there has been no pressure on Nikon to release 'before they're ready'.

Now if the reasons are anything like #2 here, we could be seeing some significant technological advances. Maybe not a quantum leap, but perhaps significant improvements in several areas.

For example, Expeed 4 processor is now over a year old. Could there possibly be an even faster version now available for a 'sport-wildlife' specialty camera, which allows enhanced buffer and FPS?

They could be considering or planning an entirely new sensor, with improved ISO, noise reduction, etc.

There have been significant improvements in AF performance in the latest releases, so I don't expect huge steps forward here, but they could certainly put the best AF available in the D400.

And for the video fans, perhaps the next big DX will offer 4K or comparable. Personally, I'd prefer the camera without video, but the article makes a valid point about needing video to keep up with consumer demands.

None of these represents true ground breaking technology, but it they put all these features into a single offering, it would certainly garner a lot of attention. (It would probably retail for $3,000, also).

 

[Tidewater]

As far as the D300 is concerned , if its not already past the drawing board it will have some new and unique concepts or capabilities.

As far as 2018 and beyond it will be based on sensors that are equal or better than the human eye, combined with internal processing that we cant imagine at this time. It might have to be quite inexpensive because of image commoditization. Picture taking for memories might be so easy and so common that we won't need to pay much for our vacation imager. We already can see every part of Disney and every place and every creature on demand on Flikr. Images as art will still be created but the brushes and paint will be something we don't know about now. The big unknown is always the new and disruptive technology maybe from someone like Google. Much faster, much smaller and much different. Possibly hologram or ?? I spoke years ago of an imager embedded in sunglass frames sending images to a cloud and seeing in 3 dimensions like human vision. The concept is already here. I think much more is closer than we can imagine, but it will also be tech that we can't imagine. By 2020 the camera as we know it, could like film, be obsolete.

There is a possibility of stagnation if the tech does not have the economics to drive it, (like advertising does for the internet,) in which case we might be using similar equipment to what we have now.

 

[HansN46]

I fully agree with Roger Cicala. And what you see in his article, or better, what you don't see is that the FF format will survive. Obviously it won't in my opinion. As I said before:

"...................... . Too much unneccesarily weight and costs.
If DX will be skipped somehow sometime by the manufacturers I'll go to a mirrorless interchangeable system (Fuji X). Quality and small is the trend in all digital electronic devices, except in the camera world, there it's quality and big (well, at least by Nikon). Very strange.

Why go big when there is small with comparable and still developping quality? I know, narrow DOF and all that stuff, but new possibilities to handle that will appear. Now, for me it's sufficient.

But if I can I prefer to stay with DX. The ideal compromise between size, quality and costs. ................."
At least for this moment.

That Nikon seems to be changing to FF is totally illogical. It looks they keep caressing the so called professional photo world and give them the idea of staying professional with the big monstruous hardly bearable expensive gear FF cams are, in the name of better quality. And many prosumers seem to follow.
It is like capturing a concert for a DVD with a taperecorder with big 12" coils while there were much smaller DAT-recorders in the 90s. And today that's being done by very small digital gear. And because it's digital, it is small.

It's 2014! There are all kinds of (PP-)technics available to take care for bokeh, sharpening/unsharpening, and so on.. And if not today yet they will be in 2018.

So what do I buy in 2018? I guess the last generation of DX cams (D9300?) and indeed I'm some 5 years behind, but that's what I always are. And as I said before: who cares if I and others like my images?

What do many of you buy in 2018? Probably one of the compact digital devices from one of the now unknown manufacturers that has found the right trend in photographic gear for the next generation. And that's the gear you guys will probably sell me second hand in 2023, IF I'm still active in photography then....... :-D.

Nice brainstorm btw.
HansN

 

[coudet]

Quality and small is the trend in all digital electronic devices

Like cellphones, right? My smartphone is only 2-3x larger than the phone I had 10 years ago. And all current top smartphones are larger than the one I have, btw.

 

[ImageAmateur]

....I fully agree with Roger Cicala. And what you see in his article, or better, what you don't see is that the FF format will survive. Obviously it won't in my opinion. As I said before:.....

I think FF will survive, the reality of physics and light is that a larger sensor will give more light and better quality at high ISO's, which many do use, especially for events, sports and weddings, three of the remaining bastions of the Pro.

...... It looks they keep caressing the so called professional photo world and give them the idea of staying professional with the big monstruous hardly bearable expensive gear FF cams are, in the name of better quality. And many prosumers seem to follow.
........

but, the Pros, do NEED, in many cases, the attributes of the larger sensor, it is just what is. I do agree, that if a technological advance made it possible to use ISO 25,600 or such, or even less, say ISO 12,800, super clean on APS-C, likely that would indeed be the end of FF.

It's 2014! There are all kinds of (PP-)technics available to take care for bokeh, sharpening/unsharpening, and so on.. And if not today yet they will be in 2018.

.... Yes, ACDsee Pro 7 even has that blur tool in local adjustments and I have used I a few times.

But it is time spent and why not get it done with camera lens combo? Especially if a pro (I am not and I don't want to do it all the time) is shooting a wedding with hundreds of phptos?

Also, bokeh quality is another matter completely than just blurring the background?

..... it's very common to make MANY average images with a pro-cam!....

I fully agree, I have seen images with D800 /D600 and wonder a bit....

But the point is that the potential is there to use re low light, bokeh etc.

Overall though, you have some fair points. I am after a second camera (lens changes and low light), FF just for low light use (cant use flash for one thing I use it for).

And, I do like the pixel density of the new cameras.

However, funnily enough, the longer I wait, the more I have doubts about spending that much more (about USD 2k+ vs USD 500) and wonder if I should just buy a D2X or second D300 in excellent condition as a second camera (to save changing lenses in a haste) ... ;-) the money is right and saves a heck of a lot over a new camera and I will just have to work with the light and use what I have.... if I get such.

But with the output from my D300 that I am getting, I am actually wondering more and more...

Gosh knows, it may be a split decision... ;-)

And no, the D7100 will NOT do it for me. It is also about build quality, features and feel, something that only the OM-D and Pentax seem to have in the smaller new cameras now.

Cheers

--
Wishing You Good Light.

 

[joeybob]

Here's a link to an article by Roger Cicala at LensRentals, where he questions what we'll be shooting in 5 years. There are a lot of user comments at the bottom of the article, often with Roger's response. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/whose-camera-will-i-buy-in-2018

I found the article interesting and somewhat provocative and thought it would be a good topic for discussion here, primarily because it might pertain to the d300 replacement.

I'll comment on it later, after other folks have had a chance to read it, because I'd like for folks to read the article without having my prejudicial commentary in mind.

While this could be a wide ranging topic, please try to confine your posts to what you are thinking about Nikon's probable actions with the d300 replacement, ie a true DX sport/action offering. I think that we already know that folks wanting a small/light, landscape or vacation type cameras, aren't looking for a d400 type camera and that the folks posting selfies on the various social media sites probably don't even know that the d300 exists, nor do they care.

Kerry

 

[Sonyshine]

A great article!

I think camera phones will continue to improve, we hear curved sensors are on their way next year - this could mean slimmer phone-cams with faster, better lenses.

Smaller sensors are getting better and better - 1" are very good now ( but will this mean bigger 1" sensors in phones or more 1" sensors in smaller faster cameras? )

Once phone makers find simple convenient ways to add optical zoom, macro, wide angle choices to mobile phones many people will be satisfied with that.

Less and less media is printed - more and more is only viewed in digital form - getting it there and accessing it easily is key to future growth. Proper WIFI and its decent integration into the workflow is totally missed by the camera makers at present.

Video is becoming far more important than stills - how long before video is the norm and we just extract stills that we want afterwards - we can do this now on a few cameras and phones. Watch Go-Pro for exciting thinking outside the conventional.

...and lets face it - photography today is a very middle-aged-male dominated industry ( yup - me! )

If you want to see what the future looks like then observe what tech savvy youngsters are using - and its not big bulky conventional cameras! They use their mobiles and Go-pros.

As for who will still be around in five or ten years time - no-one knows - thats for sure, but there will certainly be some big changes and possibly mergers.

I think as photographers we need to consider that our big set of branded lenses may just become a big set of expensive branded paperweights.....

 

[Retzius]

Good thoughts there but TBH everyone is overthinking this whole thing.

D400 should have D800 style body, 24mp DX chip, excellent high ISO performance, a very large and fast buffer, a 1.00x magnification viewfinder (like 7D) with good eye relief, and blazing autofocus.

The rest of the stuff is all "future fluff" or features that the target user of this camera would not really need. I would go a step further and make this a stills only camera to keep down price and focus on the cameras strong suit i.e. a amazing sports and wildlife camera at an "affordable" price.

I DO think video is a great addition to Dslrs but I find that for those who don't really demand high production value the low DX bodies work fine. Those that demand really high production value will go FX for all the benefits. The sports/action DX body is a niche product that doesn't really fit either of these and TBH is a bloat feature on this camera.

 

[David314]

Video is becoming far more important than stills - how long before video is the norm and we just extract stills that we want afterwards - we can do this now on a few cameras and phones. Watch Go-Pro for exciting thinking outside the conventional.

...and lets face it - photography today is a very middle-aged-male dominated industry ( yup - me! )

i just took a cruise and yes, there were middle aged guys and older with DSLR's, and the ship photographers all used D300's

but what caught my eye

gopros in the hands of a lot of the younger people

and gopro just got a large infusion of cash so it will be interesting if they branch out wider with some products in the stil/video side

and I personally think my next camera will not be a DSLR

 

[Hrvoje Crvelin]

GoPro is popular - no doubt, but it is different. I might be old fashioned, but I still see stills and videos as two world apart. Of course, having device which can do both is great, but stills out of video are still not so well done (might change). Power of still is catching the moment or certain configuration and have it frozen and admired as it is - at least to me. Video is something else, video is action, certain continuous event, something that takes turns and should be story from start to the end. Like those russian videos from cars

 

[ImageAmateur]

Good thoughts there but TBH everyone is overthinking this whole thing.

D400 should have D800 style body, 24mp DX chip, excellent high ISO performance, a very large and fast buffer, a 1.00x magnification viewfinder (like 7D) with good eye relief, and blazing autofocus.

The rest of the stuff is all "future fluff" or features that the target user of this camera would not really need. I would go a step further and make this a stills only camera to keep down price and focus on the cameras strong suit i.e. a amazing sports and wildlife camera at an "affordable" price.

I DO think video is a great addition to Dslrs but I find that for those who don't really demand high production value the low DX bodies work fine. Those that demand really high production value will go FX for all the benefits. The sports/action DX body is a niche product that doesn't really fit either of these and TBH is a bloat feature on this camera.

I understand your viewpoint, however, two things make me think video is necessary.

- there is too much competition at this level (and A7 for around 1,600 or whatever as a FF), to rely on one segment and not make this camera have added features to grab users, aka video.

- an acquaintance was searching recently, wanting to upgrade his DSLR's for wedding work, he was more thinking about APS-C but then, because the video on the FF is better, looking longer and also, pushing towards Canon because Canon video is known as better.

To get people like him, Nikon have to include excellent video features, it s not if's and but's, it is now a must.

Yes, there is no need and indeed, it would be irrational to try to compete with GoPro's and small mirrorless with DSLR offerings, but 'in the category of DSLR's, Nikon have better compete fully or just cede the market over to Canon, Fuji and Sony, that is it.

And competing fully means video as well as stills. And this from one who actually, at this time, has little use for video.

I think the happy days of 'model by model' iteration are over (okay, now improved AF, next model, improved ISO), Sony and Fuji are making sure of that.

Cheers

 

[HansN46]

Quality and small is the trend in all digital electronic devices

Like cellphones, right? My smartphone is only 2-3x larger than the phone I had 10 years ago. And all current top smartphones are larger than the one I have, btw.

Yes, but they have about 10x or 20x the functionality of your 10 year old phone. Count the apps your using on it.

 

[HansN46]

....I fully agree with Roger Cicala. And what you see in his article, or better, what you don't see is that the FF format will survive. Obviously it won't in my opinion. As I said before:.....

I think FF will survive, the reality of physics and light is that a larger sensor will give more light and better quality at high ISO's, which many do use, especially for events, sports and weddings, three of the remaining bastions of the Pro.

We still keep thinking that, because of the preoccupation with the idea that 'quality' is strictly associated with 'large'. But the difference in quality on the scale of DX and FF will disappear as too insignificant. It might stay for some longer time in bigger projects like orbital photography.

...... It looks they keep caressing the so called professional photo world and give them the idea of staying professional with the big monstruous hardly bearable expensive gear FF cams are, in the name of better quality. And many prosumers seem to follow.
........

but, the Pros, do NEED, in many cases, the attributes of the larger sensor, it is just what is. I do agree, that if a technological advance made it possible to use ISO 25,600 or such, or even less, say ISO 12,800, super clean on APS-C, likely that would indeed be the end of FF.

It will and not only on APS-C but also in 1" sensors or smaller.

It's 2014! There are all kinds of (PP-)technics available to take care for bokeh, sharpening/unsharpening, and so on.. And if not today yet they will be in 2018.

.... Yes, ACDsee Pro 7 even has that blur tool in local adjustments and I have used I a few times.

But it is time spent and why not get it done with camera lens combo? Especially if a pro (I am not and I don't want to do it all the time) is shooting a wedding with hundreds of phptos?

Also, bokeh quality is another matter completely than just blurring the background?

Of course, today, but you will see it being able to manage that in a few years. Even inside the camera-lens combo.

..... it's very common to make MANY average images with a pro-cam!....

I fully agree, I have seen images with D800 /D600 and wonder a bit....

But the point is that the potential is there to use re low light, bokeh etc.

For today, yes, you're right. So let's use what we have and enjoy what we do and don't worry.

Overall though, you have some fair points. I am after a second camera (lens changes and low light), FF just for low light use (cant use flash for one thing I use it for).

And, I do like the pixel density of the new cameras.

Ok, but for me pixel density is actually unimportant. I don't see any pixel when my image is in my digital photo frame of 15.6" or when my cropped and enlarged printed image is on the wall. And for my books I process them adequately and so far I'm very satisfied with the results and so are my customers.

However, funnily enough, the longer I wait, the more I have doubts about spending that much more (about USD 2k+ vs USD 500) and wonder if I should just buy a D2X or second D300 in excellent condition as a second camera (to save changing lenses in a haste) ... ;-) the money is right and saves a heck of a lot over a new camera and I will just have to work with the light and use what I have.... if I get such.

Actually, you're in the same boat as me, except that you have not decided yet wich I did. I stay with DX and always stay behind a few years. I don't rush into the shop each time a new model is released. So my next cameras will probably be a D300 to replace my D200 and a D7100 or D5300 to replace my D5100. But both are still going strong.

But with the output from my D300 that I am getting, I am actually wondering more and more...

Gosh knows, it may be a split decision... ;-)

And no, the D7100 will NOT do it for me. It is also about build quality, features and feel, something that only the OM-D and Pentax seem to have in the smaller new cameras now.

Cheers

 

[HansN46]

A great article!

I think camera phones will continue to improve, we hear curved sensors are on their way next year - this could mean slimmer phone-cams with faster, better lenses.

Smaller sensors are getting better and better - 1" are very good now ( but will this mean bigger 1" sensors in phones or more 1" sensors in smaller faster cameras? )

Once phone makers find simple convenient ways to add optical zoom, macro, wide angle choices to mobile phones many people will be satisfied with that.

Less and less media is printed - more and more is only viewed in digital form - getting it there and accessing it easily is key to future growth. Proper WIFI and its decent integration into the workflow is totally missed by the camera makers at present.

Video is becoming far more important than stills - how long before video is the norm and we just extract stills that we want afterwards - we can do this now on a few cameras and phones. Watch Go-Pro for exciting thinking outside the conventional.

...and lets face it - photography today is a very middle-aged-male dominated industry ( yup - me! )

If you want to see what the future looks like then observe what tech savvy youngsters are using - and its not big bulky conventional cameras! They use their mobiles and Go-pros.

As for who will still be around in five or ten years time - no-one knows - thats for sure, but there will certainly be some big changes and possibly mergers.

I think as photographers we need to consider that our big set of branded lenses may just become a big set of expensive branded paperweights.....

Absolutely true. What a blessing would that be if it happens soon. We shouldn't have to worry anymore about Nikon yes or no producing a successor to the D300 or about the "better" image quality of FF over DX, wich we are trying so hard to notice in any of the final products (digital images) we make but we hardly can in most of them.

The differences we see are academic and hardly of any use in the real world of digital images. And they will be even smaller in the near future.