This time from PhotographyBay:
Isn’t this a no brainier prediction? Simple extrapolations will tell you all this.
This is not prediction. This is simple extrapolation from the past products.
Seriously, I don’t want video in my D-SLR…
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)
you can always choose not to use a feature… e.g. not using LiveView either, or GPS when it becomes a built-in module
When are they going to build in a cellphone?
but some don’t already have wireless connectivity between cameras? (or maybe I read it on upcoming specs? )
I want to have both 1080p vodeo and GPS in my camera.
d40/d60 probably yes.
the consumer dslr models get updated much often than the others
but d400 maybe at the end of the year.
with the current money problems and since d300 is actually a very good camera which has no competition at its price/features there’s no need for quick updates.
the same with d700. i would not update those early in 2009, they sell too well. maybe at year’s end or early 2010
it’ll be a long time before other manufacturer gets a metering as good as those cameras, a cheaper + better AF or flash system. some features can’t be reproduced at all. canon can never get face tracking in phase focus like even d90 has because it doesn’t have lots and lots of metering color sensors to detect faces. it just can’t be done without liveview for them.
don’t worry about new cameras in 2009. just use what you’ve got.
I completely agree! Just bought a D300 myself and am not too worried about new cameras next year.
Where are the lenses?
we want lenses not cameras!
I expect D400 in next year… (or other concept which replace outdated D300 on DX standard)
No offense, but what, exactly, is “outdated” about the D300? It doesn’t have … video? (Honestly, if I were going to shot serious video, I’d buy a video camera costing about the same as the D300, not a still camera with video added.)
Is photography going to descend into a “my camera is newer than yours” contest? Like another poster said, just use what you’ve got.
OK… just for me…
For me necessary more pixels (I’m not pixelhanter) i’m panoramic photographer… clients require greater resolution for pano projection… 16 mpx will intensify possibility in quick performance of the work under minimum expenses on time….
example – end 2008 :
my way: D50 / D200 / D90 / ?
Then you should shoot film!
The D300 is outdated because it uses a DX sensor, not because it is lacking video. Anything at this point that is not a full 35mm frame or thereabouts is from the early days of digital. Within a couple of years DX will be considered a joke and a bad memory (literally, like APS from the film days is), Olympus will be making strictly point & shoots and Kodak will have released a new full-frame camera with an F Mount.
“Is photography going to descend into a “my camera is newer than yours”
Come on, the whole “use what you’ve got” rebuttal is pathetic. We ARE using what we’ve got. However, I am always willing to use a BETTER camera. Doesn’t mean I’ll buy a new camera. After all, you wouldn’t be on this forum if you were “using what you’ve got” now, would you?
you must certainly be an amateur.
yeah, bring on the lenses!
I can’t wait for D400
Okay, so buy something else…
Although many people can be right, it seems that many ones forget that not everybody is going to “upgrade”, but just buy a DSLR.
The market is not only for people already having DSLR, so Nikon has to keep in mind the new customers too, that are comparing (and will do with next releases) different options between brands.
I only read post from people already having camera, and not wanting (or wanting) an upgrade, but there are also New customers out there, for Nikon, Canon and other brands, and the manufacturers do know it too.
Very Good point
there are only two small holes in nikons body lineup. the d60 and to a much lesser degree the d700. the d60 for obvious reasons and the d700 cos canons 21mp has trumped it in the resolution stakes. every other nikon dslr is a class leader so there should be no need to update them. i suspect we’ll see a d60 replacement sooner rather than later.
i suspect we will see a hi res d700, (d700x?). whether or not its a replacement for the d700 or just an addition to the body lineup will remain to be seen.
there will have to be lens upgrades next year. no doubt about it. not even nikon is arogant enuf to produce an $8k hi res body capable of 50mp images and expect pople to use old screw drive lens’ that are 20 years old. i suspect that by this time next year we weill see 35/1.4, 135/1.8 and 85 1.4 af-s lens’ as a bare minimum. there is also a strong case for the 70-200VR to be improved, again, due to the massive resolution of the d3x which will show up all the lens flaws.
I’ll take a “low resolution” D700 over a noisy D5MK2 anyday thanks.
you see, I don’t know about most people but I do not make poster boards to wrap my fridge around. 12 mp is way more than I have ever needed and I will take the d700 low light performance and speed over the paper megapixels any day.
The only reason I would like a d700x would be to snatch a d700 cheap.
Let people who think they need more pixels have it their way and pay the way for cheaper cameras for the rest of us.
Personally, I consider the D300 and D700 outdated at least in terms of resolution. The D700 has an improved ISO performance at expense of resolution (Canon 5D mark 1 has better resolution compared to D700). This is important for my macro fotography .
As a nature photographer, I would like a high res Nikon camera that doesn’t cost $8000. The higher res will allow me to crop more – that’s why 12MP isn’t enough. For some reason there are people who do not understand the concept of cropping.
enough with the camera upgrades….
where the heck are the lenses???
a new and improved 70-200mm maybe? or even just a decent non-DX all around zoom like the 18-200mm?
upgrade to the primes?
Geez, enough already with the cameras! I love the newest and greatest as much as the next person (as well as rumors – so much fun), and if I believed I really needed it for what I do I’d drop the change on a D3 right now (not the D3x for what I do, would be a nice second camera, but personally I’d get more use out of the D3). But, I don’t NEED it, simply want it, but just not enough.
What I WOULD like is some new, pro lenses, especially for low light. Maybe a line of 1.2 lenses at 28, 50, and 85? And an update to the long range bad boys would be good as well. Maybe a nice macro 200 to spice things up? I know I know, wishful thinking.
We have amazing tech for image capture, but it’s all about the light GETTING to the sensors, not *just* how the sensor handles the light, or how many pixels it stores the light as.
Please Nikon, lenses???
Nikon MGX, July 2009, US$3.500 MSRP
Nikon CM3400, July 2009, US$10.000 MSRP
Nikon CM4900, July 2009, MSRP???
Nikon SPX, December 2009, US$3.000 MSRP(?)
Nikon CM6200, December 2009, MSRP???
what are those products ?
MGX makes me think of the MX mystery. SPX makes me think of the Nikon SP rangefinder camera.
a little more spice on the d700 would be nice. higher mp with the same high iso, 100% viewfinder would be nice, video too.. same price or less
* Nikon D40/D60 Replacement
* Nikon D400
* and maybe a Nikon D700x/D800…
lenses? LENSES?! LLEEEEENNSSSEEESSSS!!!
A new D700x / D800 in a larger body, like the D3 (14-18mpix + super ISO range 100-12600 no boost) would be perfect and some new LENSES!! , for ex. 100-400 VR, 12-24/2,8 , 150/2,8 micro VR, 50mm/1,2 ED. . .
My D300 works perfect but my next step is D3 or “D800″
Nonsense, why would you want a D700X/800 in a larger body like D3? Just go get the battery pack if you want the D700 to look BIG…
Because i already have the D300 with the grip MBD-10. I have tested the D3 and prefer the larger body.
Very easy guesses. Now, this one would be a surprise: D4 (16-18MP fast FF camera) before the year ends. I wrote it first!
I am a Nikon shooter, but let me say something to the people who don’t think Nikon needs a D700x / D800…you are wrong. I am looking to buy a new camera this year and I am now having to sit and wait to see what Nikon is going to do, because while I would love to get the D700 right now.. I can’t bring myself to….and I can’t for a couple reasons. 1) why would I spend $3000 for the D700 at 12mp when I could spend $3000 and get the Sony A900 24.6mp for the same price. Now I understand the high ISO is not even close between the Nikon & Sony, but I only shoot high ISO 1% of the time…now I know this is not the case for some people and I understand that……but for me and alot of other people we don’t need the High ISO. It just makes me mad that Nikon did not try and compete with the Sony A900 when they made the D700…..i mean not even try even the view finder on the D700 is only 95%..i mean are u kidding me. And what is even more crazy is that in most tests between ISO 100 & 800 the A900 is matched with the D3x not the D700. Come on Nikon I want to stay in the family but you are making very hard for me to do so. I can’t see spending $5000,00 more then the A900 just to be able to shoot a higher ISO….Come on make the D800 with 24mp and 100% view and price it around $3,500.00.