Comments on: And another one (Nikon D300s)

By: MK

MK — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:30:14 +0000

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.

By: JM

JM — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:12:16 +0000

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.

By: Gustav

Gustav — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:02:17 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:20:33 +0000

It won’t happen. Both Nikon and Canon have been clear on the subject.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:22:59 +0000

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?

By: Lance

Lance — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:35:47 +0000

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.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:37:31 +0000

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.

By: D700x?

D700x? — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:07:39 +0000

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.

By: ccccccccccc

ccccccccccc — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:33:18 +0000

They already use sony sensors.

By: NikoDoby

NikoDoby — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:00:01 +0000

True c11, but I don’t think Nikon will ever offer in-body image stabilization. Or an EASY-Bake oven either, unfortunately

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:35:20 +0000

I think the lens is the new 18-200. That’s why they tried to hide it with blur.

By: ccccccccccc

ccccccccccc — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:29:06 +0000

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.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:55:50 +0000

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.

By: MW

MW — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:55:32 +0000

I know admin, I’m just wondering if it is exactly the same as the real one

By: zzddrr

zzddrr — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:10:10 +0000

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.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:08:26 +0000

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.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:56:58 +0000

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.

By: zzddrr

zzddrr — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:32:32 +0000

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.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:59:19 +0000

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

By: Ken Elliott

Ken Elliott — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:38:25 +0000

>> 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.