Comments on: Nikon roadmap 2009-2010 leaked (part 2)

By: KGR

KGR — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:45:00 +0000

I am one of the people anxiously waiting on the 80-400 upgrade with VRII and AF-S. My interim solution was to get the equivalent Tokina used without VR or -S.

While I’m pleased of the longer reach of this purported lens I do note the lesser range. 120-450 is 3.75x versus 5x of the 80-400. That is less versatility than the current offering and I often find myself at 80 with this range and wishing for even more versatility . I do think longer reach will be a draw for those considering upgrading from current Nikon 80-400, Tokina, Sigma (Bigma and the newer, problematic OS/VR lens). I would very much prefer a 100-500, 120-600 or even 80-400 and keep 5x the zoom range.

This might be a deliberate leak, a test balloon to see the community reaction prior to design and production. Such a move would be quite wise on their part. Please be careful not to give in too quickly on 120-450 (not 480 PHB so the DX equiv is 675 not 720, please let’s not exaggerate manufacturer claims they do so already readily and look at the trade-off.

By: TJGilbert21

TJGilbert21 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:59:36 +0000

I don’t see the point in the AF-S Zoom-NIkkor 24-85mm f/4 if the current one is f/2.8-4. Even if the new one has VR, the older one seems better. Same with the 400mm. The current one is f/2.8! Why downgrade to f/5.6?

By: PanozJim

PanozJim — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:46:33 +0000

In my experience in the wireless industry a “roadmap” refers to things that are in active development. Timelines can slip but they are generally a target in terms of launch month. “Roadmaps” are not wish lists, they are things you plan to do and generally the only things that change that are problems with the product and / or changing market conditions.

By: RobJ

RobJ — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:15:36 +0000

I agree, I’m not buying that this is legit. I question this lens in particular:

AF-S DX Nikkor 17 to 65 mm f/3.2-4G ED VR

Seems to close to the already excellent 16-85mm. f3.2-4 is only slightly better than f3.5-5.6, and the focal range is worse. I think it’s more likely Nikon would simply ship a D300x with the 16-85mm.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:24:40 +0000

Yep, 60-95 would be a totally awesome portrait lens, at least if the bokeh and stuff is decent. Zooms are nice for this purpose, especially when using ring flashes, which don’t really allow you to move without readjusting them.

Personally, I hope the 60-95/2, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 are real. The other stuff – dunno. Meh. I won’t use too much mental capacity for this ATM anyways

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:54:39 +0000

http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/0630_01.htm

Fijitsu != Fijifilm

By: ennan

ennan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:34:24 +0000

And you cant print 16 bit in minilabs either. Frontiers for example can only handle 8 bit.

By: getanalogue

getanalogue — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:04:37 +0000

folks, i told you that nikon made a deal with fuji: fuji is discontinuing their slr program, since their exr tech in nikon d200/d300 bodies became too much of a danger for nikon. the deal is, fiji discontinues selling dslr’s and nikon, in return, is licensing fuji’s revolutionary exr tech for their pro cams. maybe nikon will give up low-level p&s in favour of fuji. if you now was hasselblad is doing (multi exposure), the new nikon tech is taking on middle format cam vendors such as Hasselblad and leica by using multi exposure tech. i like it and i knew it – these guys are great, even though japanese. i think the leak is launched by nikon itself in order to retent their clients until they rule the camera world, but not sure about the lenses in that respect. i think i have to give up using my bentley f4 in 2011 latest.

By: Ben O.

Ben O. — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:46:27 +0000

Dang! I wish my D90 had active D Lightning. That would be so cool to instantly bring down giant bolts of electricity.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:46:06 +0000

Q 1- can anyone speculate if the listed AF specs for the movie mode on D300s and D400 are any closer to auto focus or this would still be a manual focus thing?
Q 2 – can anyone speculate how the release of D300s and D400 impact prices of D300 and D90?
Q 3 – What about predictions for a D90 replacement?

By: Darren C.

Darren C. — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:30:31 +0000

Of course I use an ND filter, and even stack it with a polarizer on occasion, but sometimes it’s still not enough. It’s nice to be able to dial down to ISO 100 or lower if the camera allows it. Thanks for the information.

By: niko58

niko58 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:11:32 +0000

I understand what you are saying Darren, but many of the current Nikon cameras, according to Nikon, are optimized to shoot at ISO 200 and they do not recommend lower ISOs, even if is supported using the expanded ISOs option. If your concern is getting long exposures of moving water, just slap a neutral density filter on the front of your lens. ND filters are available in multiple strengths, do not affect color, and will acheive the longer exposures that you are looking for.

By: Nikkorian

Nikkorian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:08:41 +0000

lol. u know what a grey filter is?

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:44:07 +0000

I agree, I have both a D700 and a D300, The D300 feel like a toy in your hand once you get used to the D700. Also I have and would not hesitate to shoot my D700 in pouring rain for Sporting events. I would not do this with my D300. It would probably be fine, But I wouldnt feel as good about it.

By: niko58

niko58 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:38:56 +0000

Not sure who you are getting your info from John, but if you are basing you buying decisions on this advice, you should seriously consider finding a new source for your information. I own both the D300 and D700 and other than the D700 being heavier and some slight design variations, they both are just as solid with the same basic construction and materials. No Nikon Rep would ever make the nonsensical statements you attibute to one, unless they had absolutely no knowledge of Nikons Digital SLRs. You might find the following information to be a bit more accurate for these three cameras and, as you can see, neither the D300 or D700 share the same construction as the D90.

Nikon D90: 620g, Metal reinforced polycarbonate cover (translated: plastic over a metal frame, albeit nice plastic)

Nikon D300: 825g, Magnesium Alloy, enhanced weather seals and environmental protection

Nikon D700: 995g, Magnesium Alloy, enhanced weather seals and environmental protection. The actual weather sealing description from the Nikon D700 Brochure is “Comprehensively sealed against dust and moisture. The D700 goes the extra mile to protect against invasive moisture, dust, and even electromagnetic interference. A maticulous systematic series of O-rings and other specialized seals, combined with additional Nikon protective engineering, keeps you shooting when lesser cameras fail”. As far as the construction goes, try “Precision-cast magnesium alloy body. The D700 features rugged, durable and lightweight magnesium alloy for the body exterior cover, chassis, and mirror box, to protect the advanced technologies within and ensure its ability to perform in the most demanding shooting conditions…”.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:27:30 +0000

the problem is that if the roadmap is true, Nikon may decide to change their dates in order to make make us believe that it’s fake… so we will never know for sure…

By: Darren C.

Darren C. — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:56:30 +0000

I hope the D3000 specs are wrong here. I sold my D40 in anticipation of a replacement, and two of my main complaints about the camera were that the ISO went only as low as 200, and the model didn’t have auto bracketing. It’s not easy to capture a long exposure image of moving water, for example, when the ISO starts at 200.

By: ak

ak — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:46:16 +0000

Chester: The D300s doesn’t have 22Mpix. Read again.

Duff: There is a D3000…

Doesn’t mean I believe this stuff, though.

By: Ken Elliott

Ken Elliott — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:37:35 +0000

Considering that this is called a ‘ road map’ it is believable. Most of these things reflect long-desired customer requests (MU+timer, updated 70-200, 85mm f/1.4), interesting engineering developments. As an example, it looks like the 16 fps is achieved by taking a pair of shots while the mirror is up. So the mirror acts like it is going at 8 fps, while the shutter goes to 16 fps. This is an elegant solution, and not at all obvious. I suspect the D4 movie mode will be both 30fps and 24 fps, as such documents tend to refer to added features (adding 30fps to the existing 24fps standard). The D300s suggests (to me) an update of the D300 body to match the D700 (a better handling body) and perhaps chassis updates, while the D400 suggests updates to the electronics package. In other words, you could think of this as a full upgrade, with 1/2 the changes appearing in the D300s, and the rest in the D400. If the mechanical updates are ready, it makes sense.

I have long felt that Nikon has been moving to a more modular construction, where different parts of the camera could be updated separately. If they have been doing the same to the optics, then I would expect such a large number of updates.

If you think about it, a 20 year roadmap will show every lens and camera being replaced. So I think this roadmap is possible, but I’m not sure the timeframe is.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:54:57 +0000

ya think Nikon doesn’t realise that also? They know ignoring it and not confirming is probably safest.