A Nikon Rumors reader (thanks A.) sent me a close up of the Nikon D300s camera from the Nikon Club event in the Philippines (click on image for hi-res):
Note the mic holes – exactly the same as on the previous leaks. Let’s revisit the old D300s picture threads/discussions and have some fun 
If this was not enough – check this one out.
Related posts:
70 Comments
what more do we need?
price and lenses
My guess: $1999 body only, $2699 w/the 10-24, $2599 w/the 18-200. I think no new lenses, though I’m hoping for an 85, new 70-200 and/or 80-400-ish lens. Those big-time FX lenses seem a better fit for D700x release.
The mic holes are actually different than in previous “leaked” images. As you can see in this picture, there are isn’t an oval “frame” around them. Unless it’s just a different angle (doesn’t seem like it), then it would appear the previous images were fakes after all. There are multiple witnesses to this sighting, so I would say it’s more credible than the previous posts.
The “oval frame” is likely a replaceable tool (called an “insert”) in the mold used to create the holes. The holes are small and you want to be able to replace this part in case of damage or wear. Sometimes the insert doesn’t seat all the way in its hole and will stick out slightly, creating the witness lines. I suspect the earlier photos were of first-run prototypes, where they tweek the fit of the inserts. Pretty easy to remove metal from the insert to make it sit flush. Hard to put metal back if it is too short, so the tooling is generally made “tool safe”.
We need the specs!!!
I posted the specs 2 months ago – look under the D300s category.
here is the link:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/05/28/nikon-d300s-specs.aspx
I know admin, I’m just wondering if it is exactly the same as the real one
yes exactly, what more do we need in there prosumer line? Give us some reel stuff instead that contains revolutionary updates!
Video HA!
It makes sense (and justified the “s” suffix rather than a new model number) that the first generation sensor in the D300 is updated to use the better, second generation sensor in the D90 and now, the D5000. Avoids the embarrassing situation where the D300 has better build and more features but oops, slightly worse dynamic range and noise performance then the D90.
Its not a likely upgrade purchase for existing D300 owners, just a mid-life refresh to keep it competitive until the next major model.
And yes, as part of that, it will add video. Get over it, people.
FIRST!
nope – second
D’Oh! Seriously though, we need one of the BACK – I’m seriously concerned that this thing won’t have the updated controller / dedicated live view button. That (along with the video capability obviously) is why I ditched my D300 for the D90 – it just makes it easier to use.
It had a live view button. Can’t recall about the center button on the controller.
So even with the video, if the D90 didn’t have the updated controller and dedicated live/view button you’d have stayed with the D300? LOL
The D300s has a dedicated Live View Button and the multi-directional navigation button is the same as the D700′s which also has a center button.
What about the Mirror Up and Timer at the same time?
Didn’t get the chance to check these out. The D300s was in my hand for just a minute or so since a lot wanted to see it.
By the way, along with the D300s is the new entry-level D3000, though no actual sample was brought during the event.
how about using timer with liveview, that gives u mirror lock up.
OOOH I SEE THE MICROPHONE !!! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN !!?? VIDEO !!
Doesn’t look right…
The D300s logo is a different colour white to the Nikon logo on the Flash housing…nor is it horizontally straight…
Heh man. What’s it going to take? A 100 photo gallery from different angles before it’s accepted as real?
Yeah I agree with Altkin.
lol an announcement, probably…
I want D3X anyway…12mp and movie mode is so 2008 lol
Amen to that!
It has begun
Really? Has it begun?
Nikon D300s with a AF-S DX Nikkor 17 to 65 mm f/3.2-4G ED VR kit-lens
It’s FAKE! Just look at the eh… oh who am I kidding. Nice, a D300 with video. I’m going to sell my old D300 immediately! NOT!
It is not just the video, it may be the megapixels and more features ….
definitely no new sensor/more megapixels, probably only a tuned version to support Video
Damn am I lucky to have just sold my D300 (switching to canon) before the D300s came out!
Oh lord, please stop Nikon throwing more 12MP crap at us! For mentally challanged people it is simple; you have the option of 12MP or 12MP (except D3x but that one is for astronauts since the price is almost equal with a trip to the space station).
But seriously, I guess Nikon forgot one important aspects of this; actually asking serious photogrpahers about what they want.
Well, I guess most serious photographers are pretty happy with the “12 MP crap” Nikon is giving to them, together with great AF and a fast and responsive camera, so….
I guess you meant that the segment where you’re at the moment (and many others) are pretty satisfied with the current line up of 12MP from bottom to top.
On the other hand, there is a group of serious photographers who have different needs. I was talking about them. Keep in mind, one does not fit for all.
But seriously, those who want more than 12MP (let’s say) what options do they have? D3x…a tank sized body that (top of the line, probably the best) is targeted for a really small number of people.
My point was that perhaps a little variety in that area would be welcomed by quite few. I don’t think it’s the best strategy what Nikon is doing namely, the Ford one – Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black. (Henry Ford). Nikon version of that would be the 12MP (except D3x).
15mp happy?
Are you?
There is not much difference between 12MP and 15MP, and I assume you know that.
If you think that Nikon is not doing actual market research and not talking to real photographers you’re completely blind.
All this talk about 12mp not being enough may or may not be valid. But whoever says 18mp is enough but 12 is not doesn’t really understand the facts. The printed difference between 12 and 18 is nearly negligible. Sure there’s a difference, but it’s not earth shattering.
IMHO it is a fake image. S looks like real, but not in line with other chars (underline) To hide it the image was maked with low depth of field.
all you guys saying “12 MP is enough”: That’s the reason why almost everyone switching to canon? Put your head into the sand and dream on until your D3 is obsolete and of no financial value anymore.
Still love my Bentley F4 – film tech still improving and not needing any hardware investments (apart from great scans)
so what do you scan with? an Imacon? I’m curious please tell
sorry, forgot to mention, urgently waiting for D400 with 18MP chip/ multi-scan tech (like Hassies and Phase’s) for my emotional and day-to-day work
I wish internal stabilization like Sony.
I was hoping the D300S would have an integrated EASY-BAKE oven like Hasbro
http://www.hasbro.com/easybake/
maybe on the D400/D500
so funny…..
Try to have an 85mm f1.4 stabilzed….
with internal stabilization you have all your lens with vr for free.
Optical stab is an old technology from analogic.
But only tele lens (more than 200mm) need optical stab.
True c11, but I don’t think Nikon will ever offer in-body image stabilization. Or an EASY-Bake oven either, unfortunately
They already use sony sensors.
It won’t happen. Both Nikon and Canon have been clear on the subject.
Would all you folks asking for higher MP count please entertain me with what you’re actually doing with all those pixels? How many of you print posters for review at close distances, really? Who’s work is judged with a loupe? 12mp is enough to make some pretty large prints.
About the only good argument for higher resolutions is cropping, but cropping is something few people should be doing that much of… if your final images need so much cropping that you’re running out of pixels than you should invest in some lenses/technique to get you closer to the action.
And I suggest that you should invest into a darn good chrystal ball.
Often you have to use the pictures already taken (perfect composition) and crop them because the client asks for something that was not initinally communicated. Would you redo the same work if you had the resolution to crop from?
There are quite few actually need more resolution and I guess there is nothing wrong with that. So please do not judge others based on your personal opinion. Photgraphers do have different needs and my point was that the segment that needs more than 12MP is extremely underserved by Nikon.
totally agree, you seem to be a pro
12 MP on DX seems to be just about the right balance between resolution and noise. Plus it’s about the limit for most lenses and most shooting conditions, so diminishing returns start to kick in big time with additional pixel stuffing.
If you need 24MP then you also need a bigger sensor to cope.
Agree and not. Let me explain, agree with the dimishing return and disagree with the bigger sensor. That is because (1) the technology is available, (2) there is a significant market to support the notion of economies of scale, and (3) software/data processing side is still not fully explored even with the current hardware (sensors).
Let me ask you this, do you know the processing speed of the cpu these cameras use? Look at the snapdragon 1GHz and it fits into an iPhone sized machine. Ok, Nikon use 16 bit image processor called EXPEED. It’s a psecial processor for a special purpose. Now, imagine that Nikon would use a generic “workhorse” running at 3 times the speed and at 64 bit. All they have to do is to adapt something that is made in large quantities (to get lower costs such as cell phone cpus) and tailor its work for the dslr purpose. I think now you got the picture….
On the other hand, it is only Nikon’s fault of not producing on time lenses that can be used beyond the magical 12MP. My take on this is that they never imagined that consumers want more than 12MP so quickly. And I repeat so quickly. (Bad strategic decision)That is why the play catchup on around their lens front including FX and DX. (Note that they have lenses that are just perfect performers upto 40MP but you have to rob a bank to pay for them. And of course, they are heavy as a tank but can survive the explosion of a smaller scaled nuclear bomb.)
>> Now, imagine that Nikon would use a generic “workhorse” running at 3 times the speed and at 64 bit. All they have to do is to adapt something that is made in large quantities (to get lower costs such as cell phone cpus) and tailor its work for the dslr purpose.
———————-
Well, I’m not so sure about the logic of this. CPUs tend to be general purpose processors, while special purpose processors are designed to be focused on a single function that is served by dedicated hardware. As an example, compare the speed difference of a CPU vs the GPU on a graphics card. The nVidia GTX 275 GPU runs at 633MHz, yet is many times faster than a 3GHz Intel CPU. Specialized hardware is generally much faster and power efficient than general purpose CPUs. Of course, CPUs get faster every year, and if you don’t constantly update your design, then general purpose CPUs will catch up and surpass.
But even today, video, ethernet, PCI bus, sound and nearly everything else on a PC is still handled by special purpose chips. You only need a CPU on the camera to act as a programmable interface to the rest of the camera. Using a dedicated processor to handle all the processing of sensor data makes perfect sense to me. And I think this is the holdup on the D700x – Nikon used the D3x to lay the groundwork for a 24MP line of cameras and get real-world feedback. And what they have learned is they need faster processing and to improve their lens lineup.
But if the point of your comment is that some day CPUs will be fast enough to do away with dedicated chips, I might agree. But it won’t be 64-bit. There is no need for that address space. The number of bits does not indicate speed – it dictates the maximum memory address space.
Ken Elliott – I 100% agree with you.
On the other hand, I would add that Nikon is making bad assumptions instead of properly researching the market. On the top of it they seem they can’t think outside of the box. For example, they knew it for a year now (at least) that they will put video in their DSLR. Yet they cannot get rid of the shutter mechanism for taking still pictures. My guess is this would save some cost…. Again, the technology is available but for Nikon a DSLR must have the mechanical shutter (combined with some electronic parts). I bet that if Canon would come out with a DSLR without the mechanical shutter Nikon would follow it in 12 months.
i do with pictures from my D 90. Not intending to upgrade to FX, but to medium format. An 18MP DX camera would be nice to have and worth upgrading. I don’t shoout at iso 3200 or more (who does?). Would be happy to have more pixels plus multi exposure for less noise and/or more DR at lower weight and volume.
I’ll give 50,000 credits to whoever post a picture of the D300S’s back first!
Anyone else notice that the lens seems to be selectively blurred out?
Wonder what new lens it might be…
Nikon D3x is the top of the line? zzddrr has a point about the Nikon D3x in that it has more megapixels and is FX. I looked at buying one really close. I did not!!
Why?? Too expensive, too big, no dust removal function. As I have had dust issues with Nikon DSLR (I use them in the field, not studio!) and the Nikon D300 and D90 have both performed superbly in that area……..I decided NO to the D3x. I was not alone.
D3x is NOT the top of the line field performer. Give me a D300 or D700 anytime. As to 12 versus higher mega-pixels…..a lot of that can be quickly proven to be more marketing than reality. Dust on low pass filters etc. is a real issue for some working pros! The Nikon D300s will handle dust removal.
David, I second your comment of “D3x is NOT the top of the line field performer.” Honestly, I still do not understand why Nikon did not put a dust remover into the D3 line (D3 and D3x) or at least two Japanese (female) engineers who would perform a quick clean on demand.
Seriously, Nikon did not think that the D3 line will be used in dusty environment? It just seems odd. I mean, we know the limitations of the dust remover system but still it is better than nothing.
These issues (for example) made me conclude that Nikon is not a consumer friendly innovator. On the top of that as it appears they do not listen to their users. Needless to say that they have no clue whatsoever about marketing and market research. It does not take a rocket scientist to map out their new products for the next 1-2 years based on past performance and not on well established research of consumer needs.
This post is sent mostly to gentanalogue……..I will tell you from personal experience that medium format is not going to do all that well for you. I owned Hasselblad, Mamiya, and some pretty exotic cameras. In the field they are very sad compared to Nikon or for that matter Canon. I have owned larger formats than medium and what I have seen recently from large format digital suggests that with film they were justified. And for very large prints. But with the way most pros use photos today…..I would stick to 35mm. I credit B & H Photo and Video pros in that they alone were adamant that larger formats are less efficient. As to cost…..a D3x looks inexpensive compared to even medium format.
Two cameras really stand out in my personal experience in bang for the buck……
D300 and D90. I am personally convinced those two cameras could produce wonderful images. After that it is about being at the right place at the right time.
Nikon should be taking into account advise given by serious amateurs and pros like reflected in these Nikon Rumors threads. I have received no less than 50 emails and even albums and CDs from one dozen amateurs I gave assistance to in camera purchases of Nikon DSLR and lenses. Two also added Mac computers having seen my slide shows in the last two months. If I had given these people bad advise and they were unhappy, I would have done these buyers a great disservice. I am not though a camera developer and engineer. Nikon should be listening to serious input by writers who contact Nikon Rumors do influence camera sales. I guess if I were Nikon I sure would hasten to fix the very outdated 80-400. Easily one lenses that needs to be fixed. I guess sales volume lead to updating the 18-200VR which I own and use some. It is good, but far from perfect. I also admit I would have no reason to buy or maybe even try the redesigned 18-200VR lens.
I think the lens is the new 18-200. That’s why they tried to hide it with blur.
Personally, I am interested to see the D700x (or D800) full frame update to the D700. Probably coming around October 2008 so some time to wait!
DX cameras are dead! They should be dead for good!! Why? Put your eye in a full frame viewfinder and do the same in a DX sensor DSLR camera and you will know why I say that DX cameras should be retired for good and leave place to full frame DSLR cameras.
When FX cameras cost the same as DX cameras, then DX will be dead. I don’t see that happening until 5 to 10 years from now.
DX cameras for field use have advantages over FX. I own a wonderful Nikon F5. I will never sell it. It is in great shape and has taken some wonderful photos. But digital is way better for ME. I have looked very close at Nikon D700 and when it goes to D700s or x I will have a tough decision to make. I have nice glass for wide FX. I really use 70-300 a lot in both D and VR versions, both good on F5 and FX like F700. But my lenses are not as varied or adequate when I switch to FX. I am not the only one who thinks DX is far from dead. Do I think FX is the way to go? I agree with NR member D700x? that FX is even just a matter of time for me too…..but I have to pay as I go…..and I do have other responsibilities than just buying cameras. I wish Nikon would help us fence sitters some by producing some top notch f4 lens and not just humongous 2.8 lens. They sure can build those lens and they would have very desirable properties. If those type lenses became available in FX capable out to focal lengths of say 450mm or 500mm I think the D700s or D700x would quickly become THE camera many of us would just BUY.
OK, so some pros want more resolution in a DX camera… FWIW, the final image doesn’t car if it came from a DX or FX camera, a pixel is a pixel (sure bigger pixels are more sensitive, blah blah). A 12mp image is a 12mp image once it’s on your PC.
Higher pixel density is more taxing on a lens to get pixel-sharp images, at some point in the mp race the move to FX will be required to get sharp output… lens resolving power/sensor noise will not increase/decrease at the same rate as sensor resolution gets pushed upward to satisfy the marketing departments – I think Canon is starting to infringe on that area with its latest 15mp offerings.
The 300s supposedly has autofocus, swivel screen, mic output, and CF card slot.
If that is correct, and Nikon is planning on releasing a d400 in the next 6 months, I am confused.
Why would they waste time with such a defanged release, if they will release it successor close after?
It is my opinion that either the D400 is either farther away than estimated or this d300s camera will have more than those specs. Otherwise, Nikon is expecting people to pay close to full price for a new D300s, then release a camera within 6 months that will heavily trump that camera for a similar price?
Am I missing something?
To answer you question, I think D400 will be released a year from now. The D300s probably has a sensor quite identical to D300, and is mainly a video-update. The D400 on the other hand will probably have 15-24mpx. So nothing confusing about this release: it’s an update, not an overhaul.