< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

More rumors for upcoming summer announcements from Nikon

Pin It

This Nikon rumor is from an Asian forum member with good previous track record (I briefly covered that rumor last week, but now I have some more details):

  • The two DSLR - one of them will be FX, the one will be DX.
  • The prime lens will be the AF-S 35mm f/1.4 priced at around US $1700 (direct conversion, actual price may be lower in the US).
  • The first zoom will be 24-105mm f/4 VR Nano, priced at around US $1200 (also direct conversion, actual price may be lower in the US).
  • The second zoom is most likely going to be a high power zoom: 100-400mm or something similar.

Supposedly, those are all scheduled for summer release. The DX body is probably going to be the D90 replacement, the FX body will be a D700 replacement or a new FX line. Initially, the 35mm f/1.4 lens was suppose to be announced in 2011, but as I mentioned already the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 has caused some "waves" at Nikon and maybe they will do some last moment adjustments.

There have already been some rumors in the past for the  24-105mm and the 100-500 mm lenses.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • venancio

    just wondering how one can justify replacing a $250 35mm f/1.8 with a $1700 35mm f/1.4… that good, you think? the upcoming DSLR rumors are good to hear…

    • Anon

      Simple, because one is DX and another is FX.

      • Anonymous

        well, my used 35/2 was $150

      • venancio

        say, we rephrase it to 35mm f/1.8 DX at $200 and 35mm f/2 FX at $360, how’d you tell the wife the quality difference is more than $1200 with the f/1.4? the older 2 are still good for low light church/wedding gigs or concert or museum shots… and if you tell her the f/1.4 is good for super low light, she might just say get yourself a used d700/d3s and see if you’re happier (there goes the d700x budget)…

        • spidercrown

          1.4 can blur one of her eye more while maintaining the other eye sharp , may be?

          • Anonymous

            It can blur her wrinkles while keeping her eyes in focus.

          • lorenzo

            maybe, but certainly it can blur your marriage…
            :D

          • amunk

            If you think it’s expensive, then it certainly wasn’t designed for you. The 35mm 1.4 is clearly a lens for working professionals who make their money from having the best possible glass. The 35mm F2D is an older lens with screwdrive focus and several problems – vignetting, soft at F2, and choppy bokeh. The average person will find those flaws acceptable, but a professional would not.

        • Kuv

          1700 is surely too high a price for such a lens.

          the high price on the 24 1.4 makes sense since the next best thing is 2 stops slower and the new one has a better MTF than the old one (1.4 vs 2.8 !!!)

          even if it is perfect i doubt it will have such a high price, and even if it will, i doubt it will keep it for long.

          • ArtTwisted

            Its a specialty pro lens, dont expect the price to go down any time soon other then the usual 100 dollar sales here and then. IDK what people expect, pro glass costs that much if you want to go cheaper get the f2. Ill be buying both the 35 1.4 and the 24-104 f4 those along with the 85 1.4 and a 70-200 sound like the perfect kit for me on FX.

          • Anonymous

            Keep dreaming! The Canon version is almost $1400. It will absolutely not be less than that, nor the same. $1700 is what I expected from it regardless if its predecessor is only one stop less.

            However, I would absolutely love to eat my words! ;-)

        • PHB

          The 50mm f/1.4 is $550.

          I really can’t see $1700 for a 35mm. Going from 46 degrees to 62 degrees is nowhere near as difficult as going from 62 degrees to 84.

          Maybe $800-$900, but that would still be pretty pricey.

          Also, would be rather odd to release two extremely expensive wide primes in a row. The 85 f/1.4 would make much more sense.

    • vinman

      Those who can’t figure out why an f.1.4 lens might be worth so much money obviously have no need to buy one. Those who understand the VALUE of such a tool are excited to hear about it. Simple – don’t buy one if you don’t think you need it. That does NOT invalidate the lens, though.

      • amunk

        +1

    • http://www.andygural.com Andy

      The current full-frame 35mm lens is a 1995 design using seven square-tipped blades. One would hope that this would be replaced by a nine-bladed with rounded edges, in addition to improved optics, coatings and autofocus.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Can’t wait to place a pre-order for AFS 35mm f/1.4.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Could the FX be what Ken Rockwell says on his site?

    24MP D3x sensor for under $3K.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d500x.htm

    • enesunkie

      From a D700 to a D500x? I don’t know but that sounds like a bit of a stretch. I do wish that Nikon had some well thought out nomenclature for their products so we wouldn’t be sitting here guessing at the next name. In a 4-5 years they will have run out of hundreds (D100, D200, D300, D700) and then what are they going to do?

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      First time I’ve seen that Ken Rockwell post – I didn’t think he was into prediction & rumour ;) I have to say that if the outline of his spec became a reality then I would be in line to buy it for sure – I like the whole concept of a D500x because if would fit my needs perfectly; I don’t need 8fps as a landscape photographer, I love the low-light/high ISO capability of my D700 but I would also welcome something lighter too. Two things stopped me buying the 5DMKII – the crappy focus system and a lack of in-built flash. If you give people the majority of the capability of the D700 with the D3x sensor then the 5DMKII might just curl up and die ;)

      • http://micahmedia.com Micah

        That’s funny, I’d rather not have a built in flash–better suvivability in inclement weather.

        • http://www.jjj.org Anonymous

          Built-in flash is practical, and should be there. While bodies are built well enough to survive bad weather more than the lens or photographer :)

        • davis

          It’s pretty useful as a CLS Commander.

        • pro wanna be

          I have met this kind of comments before “what are you going to do with the built in flash” as if it’s a toy thing worth nothing, it’s kind of a snob remark.

          But I disagree, I’m darn happy my D700 has a built in flash, I use the camera as my walk around toy as well and it comes very handy to use it for flash-fill, or why not triggering a separate flash.
          It’s simply not always I want to carry around my SB900.

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            Uh, sorry, I’m not a snob because I want my lighter body to have less chance of zapping me in the face if it’s compromised by rain/sweat/moisture.

            Coming from a D2x and an F100, the flash isn’t an added extra–it’s an annoyance!

            And I’m not a snob for thinking the flash on the d700 is of limited use, even as a CLS driver, because it will NOT work with continuous drive mode. In fact, I’ve taped mine up because I never use it, and it annoys the crap out of me when it pops open. Same was true for my D300. On my D90, I can accept that it has a built in flash.

            If I want to drive CLS, I use my SB800, which allows me to rattle off a more than reasonable number of shots in continuous drive, even in auto FP mode with multi-flash through CLS.

            Ok, ok…you’re right: I’m a S.N.O.B. (Society of Native Oregon Born). I like my gear to be weather proof. I guess you don’t get that idea if you don’t live in the Pacific Northwest.

      • santela

        seriously now, what full frame user needs a build-in flash? give me 100% field view, screw the flash.

        • http://www.jjj.org Anonymous

          How about 100% view + built-in flash? Bigger hump but the best solution.

          • Mark

            I do not think a flash is a deal breaker for cameras at this level but I say adding certainly wouldn’t hurt.

            Who doesn’t mind a good hump?

            Mark

          • zeissdarling

            yeah 100% VF is civilization, lets have it.

        • nobody

          Who needs a built in flash? Me. Because the built in flash triggers and controls the wireless flash.

          • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

            Agreed – and despite the fact I own an SB900 too, I find the built in flash very handy for occasional use anyway. Some of us shoot more than one type of subject after all ;)

          • Iceman

            Same camp. Use the d300 and a pop up to control my 3 remotes. It’s not a big bulky sb900 on top. I want the flash, could even use on a d3s.

        • Joe R.

          Am I the only one who uses my dSLR as a point and shoot when I don’t really care? I’ll throw my 35 1.8 DX on, leave it on aperture priority with it set at f/4 and just shoot. It’s for when I want to be part of the party. The pop-up flash is perfect for this kind of, wish-Nikon-had-a-s90-killer shooting.

          • ArtTwisted

            A dslr with the 35 1.8 will destroy the s90 even in the best conditions. And why do you need a nikon point and shoot, people never make sense. Your accesories wont work on it anyways, buy the S90 already.

          • Greenwood_Geoff

            I also will use mine that way on occasion. When i am just carrying my camera as I go about my daily life I leave it in …. gasps … auto mode … I do it for that quick newsworthy shot that someday I may catch.

            When I am actually shooting something specific, I change between full manual and shutter/aperture priority as it suits me.

    • Click

      Wasn’t their also mention recently ago about a possible new smaller battery pack/grip (MB-D10 replacement). If Nikon replaces the D700 with 24mp in a smaller body, certainly many users would purchase the matching battery pack/grip.

      • Greenwood_Geoff

        I hope we get a little boost in fps if we buy the grip though.

    • jimmy

      I’d be very surprised if Ken Rockwell if right.

      • Mark

        I agree, Ken Rockwell in the past has made some equipment predictions but I think he just times it to be in internet traffic.

        Mark

    • dave

      Anyone that follows Nikon, as Ken presumably does, knows that there would be a D500 BEFORE there would be a D500x. But he is right that Nikon needs to get something going in the higher than 12MP FX midrange market. in the last Pop Photo, about half the images sited were taken with either 5D MK I or II (more Mk I than II, IIRC). Canon is eating Nikon’s lunch in this segment.

      • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

        Have you actually compared images (100%) from the Mk I or Mk II to the D700? No comparison, in my opinion. Image quality, sharpness, noise levels—they are all superior on the D700/D3/D3s when compared to the Canon 5d I or II. I read somewhere when the D3 was released that the chip was so clean and so sharp that the equivalent resolution on any other DSLR was at least 17mp. I concur with that assessment after using various other Canon and Sony systems.

        Then you have the D3x, which smokes the Canons on the other end, resolution.

        • http://micahmedia.com Micah

          Hear, hear!

  • http://www.maxgohphotography.com Max

    any upcoming summer exhibition or special date for Nikon to do announcement?

  • Steve

    A 24-105 would be cool. I love my 24-70, but if the 24-105 is as good, I can sure trade the extra stop for the extra reach. Here’s hoping!

    That 100-400 would be pretty sweet too!

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      I’d welcome a 24-105 f/4 too – and you just know Nikon will only release a lens like that with VR so it wouldn’t have to feel like much of a trade off where the current 24-70 is concerned. I must say though it would have to be exceptional to get me to part with my 24-70 f/2.8…

      • David Hasselblaff

        A 24-105/4 and a 24-70/2.8 serve entirely different purposes. One is a “light” lens for the enthusiast/pro photographer in the field – the other is for situations that require the best image quality.

        • ArtTwisted

          They would hopefully both provide great image quality. Lool at the canon long F4 , it has amazing IQ for such a long focal lenght. The only thing your trading is the F2.8 that many photographers dont need. If i need fast I use primes so I would rather have f4 zooms. F2.8 zooms are more for people that dont have the time to switch to prime during events.

  • Sunra

    How on earth could that lens be 1700$ ? I know the current 1.8 35mm is DX, and cheap plastic, but that doesn’t means the new price can be justified…

    I mean you can get a perfect Carl Zeiss with much less money.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      AI-S 35mm f/1.4 is priced at $1K already.

      • Joe R.

        I think this will be too. Maybe $899. But it’ll be hard top get and sell for $1200.

        • http://www.stark-arts.com Stark-Arts

          can you think of one lens that nikon makes apples to apples that costs less?
          the lens would be 1400 minimum

    • Joe

      The Canon is about the same price.

    • santela

      well, the canon equivalent is about 1400, u pay 100 more for the nano coating and 100 more for nikon quality. the other 100 is ur nikon user tax…
      just be glad its under 2k.

      • http://www.kampus.ro Laurentiu Ilie

        I agree! Good calculation method. :)

      • Joe

        The initial price is probably about the same, is just htat the price settles over the years.

      • http://www.stark-arts.com Stark-Arts

        it’s one thing to think (think) that the nikon lenses are better but the primes are not built better than the canon L’s….

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      I know I’m going to be instantly labeled a heretic for this, but I’m unimpressed by Carl Zeiss lenses when compared to Nikon glass. No autofocus, more apparent chromatic aberration at widest apertures, and they typically cost more than the Nikons! I don’t get it.

      Did I mention they are MANUAL FOCUS?

      • PHB

        I guess you never saw the point in pre-ripped jeans either.

        • iamlucky13

          Oh don’t get me started on pre-ripped jeans…

          Although as long as Nikon is being “trendy” with Ashton Kutcher and what not, why can’t I buy a D90 a pre-scratched sensor?

        • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

          Exactly. Lower quality. Less material. More money. Nope, I didn’t get em at all.

  • enesunkie

    There have been some pretty small increments in improvement in the
    D40X -> D60 -> D3000 for the D3000 NOT to get an upgrade in the next 8 months, but the D700 and D90 are older.

    • lorenzo

      You are joking, right? The D3000 is the camera that less competes in its market segment… All other producers make better cameras for the same amount of money, or less…
      D3000 with D5000 sensor… that would be a start…

      • Maeka

        I think the D3000 is a perfect reworking of the D60, and a concept Nikon will keep:

        Make the low-end consumer DSLR current-generation processing engine with prior generation sensor.

        Don’t expect a D3000 replacement until ALL the other models have been retired IF my summation is correct.

    • santela

      who care about the d3000…

      • lorenzo

        Nobody, I was just answering the previous poster’s statement. I would like a D700x or similar camera new with accessories for 1000 euros. I also accept donations

      • enesunkie

        I think Nikon better care about D3000. When you buy your first DFSLR, your buying into a System, not just a camera. How many Nikon users would there be if the D40 didn’t sell so well? Now those D40 users are potential D90 and D300 users. Maybe I didn’t get my point across Lorenzo, but I too feel really needs a D5000 sensor . Maeka, there has been a new entry level camera every year for a little while, why would it be different this year?

    • Johan Krüger-Haglert

      Isn’t it weird to upgrade the D90 before the D300s? Or don’t they have the same sensors? I’d assume one always wanted to upgrade the higher model first to make people buy that one.

      • Mark

        The D300s is the upgrade to the D300 and was released since the D90 came out so that is why the D90 needs to be updated.

        Also, Nikon does need to make a move to change perception about the new Canon Rebel T2i (550D), so people think Nikon is competitive with that part of the DSLR line up.

        Mark

  • dude

    nikon d4 pls

    • http://www.istockphoto.com/lostinbids Lostinbids

      D4x please :-)

      • j0elc

        d4xs…

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/ Fried Toast

          D5!

          • fork()

            No matter what the current camera is, I’m waiting eagerly for D(n+1).

          • Artur

            F7 ( + digital back)

  • http://www.wildframe.net Wildframe

    As long as the corners are sharp at f/8 I’m a definite for an AF-S 24-105mm f/4. Not sure about the 35mm f/1.4 though, unless it’s 50mm f/1.4 G quality.

    • santela

      hmm… 50/1.4G, that’s not hard to top…

    • rich

      god forbid, if 35/1.4 ends up being “50/1.4G” quality. i for one, will NOT buy if it’s anything like the crappy 50/1.4G

      • Joe R.

        Somethings wrong, you guys should shoot with me 50 1.4G It’s great.

        • ArtTwisted

          bokeh is sometimes harsh, thats all ive noticed though.

        • Mike

          Agreed. 50 1.4 G is of my favorite lenses on the D700. Very sharp right from 1.4. No complaints here.

      • Torben

        Sold my 50mm G, slow AF and cheap China plastic, what was Nikon on?, please don’t do that again….

  • Anonymous

    Um, I’m pretty sure of that 35mm f1.4 is legit, it’s an FX lens.

  • SimonC

    My guess is a June release for an FX model with 35 f1.4 and 24-105 f/4, Aug release for DX model (D90 replacement) with 100-400/500 f4-5.6.

    THe question about the FX model remains: Is it a D3xs, D800 (new sensor > 12 MP but < 24 MP), D700s, or D700x? Nikon is at a cross roads with the FX. 12 MP would be seen as lagging behind the competition. Those who really needed a D3s would've gotten one already.

    IMO, the most compelling model in my mind is the D800, a mid-level FX model with around 18MP. This allows the existence of a future release of a D700s (if needed but probably not) and a future release of the D3xs by Dec 2010.

    • enesunkie

      Well, if Simon says, than that’s what its got to be! :}

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      Any FX cams out in the next year will be either 12mp or 24mp. R&D on an 18mp sensor would be a needless waste of money.

      • preston

        R&D on an 18MP sensor is not a needless waste of money if they are planning to move all entry to mid-level models to that sensor as a multi-year plan. D90 or D700 replacement first depending on if the 18MP is FX or DX (and it good be both like they did with the 12MP D700 sensor for better low light performance), and then pass it on down the line as each model gets replaced. The D300 replacement will still be able to sell for more than the D90x with the same sensor if it gets more pro features (larger body, more fps, better weather sealing, 100% vf, etc.)

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      @SimonC: “Those who really needed a D3s would’ve gotten one already.”

      The D3s seems to be selling quite well. In addition, as I recall the D700 was released in the prime of the D3′s sales. I was surprised that Nikon would undercut the D3 so early on, but came to the conclusion that Nikon knew what they were doing. In the end, it looks like they did, and the D700 didn’t have an unexpectedly negative impact on the D3.

  • http://brettmaxwellphoto.com brett maxwell

    I so hope this is correct, especially the 35, which i’ll preorder immediately, and to a lesser degree the D700 replacement, especially if it adds an SD slot.

    • jimmy

      what advantage is there in having an SD slot? Why not two CF slots, i have a few CF but not SD. CF are faster.

      • j0elc

        SD is faster for mac users who have in built sd slots…

        • Mark

          I am a Mac user used just got a new MacBook Pro with a built in SD card slot but say if there are going to be 2 card slots then why not one of each, one Compact Card Slot and one SD card slot?

          That is the way I want to roll!

          Mark

        • Mike

          And I have a crap load of them from D80/90. Don’t want to have to “scrap” them for CF investment.

      • Casual_Thoughts

        SD is the better tech. No pins to bend and more rugged and secure cards.

        The economies of scale are going to mean SD will be the best bang for your buck soon.

        • ArtTwisted

          i just broke a “pro” sd card. There just three pieces of plastic sandwhiched together with a tiny bit of glue. I do wish they had metal ones, or atleast a harder unibody design or something . I didint loose much atleast but still sucks.

        • fork()

          I must confess that I hate the SD cards. No pins to break? I inserted my SD card into a reader that had some kind of damage to the reader pins. Destroyed the little plastic fins between the metal contacts on the card.
          CF has been around for ages, and still scales much better in size than any SD tech.
          Think SDHC solved all your problems when it comes to SD storage? Nope, that tech is limited to 32GiB, and in a few years all devices will need to upgrade to SDXC, and history repeats itself again.
          CF supports up to 128 PiB, which is five orders of magnitude more data than SDXD cards…

          • Greenwood_Geoff

            technology advances though, so increases in amounts able to be stored on X substance will allow increases in all types of memory.

            I have never broken a SD card, I would be concerned about bending a pin if I got in a hurry.

            Having both seems to be the best idea since both types are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

          • fork()

            @Greenwood:

            Sure, tech advances, but the SD cards need to be upgraded to accommodate for those changes. Your SDHC camera (no camera has SXCD support afaik) can _not_ use more than 64 GiB of your SD card, no matter the size. CF is much more futureproof.

        • http://www.andygural.com Andy

          SD is the better tech. Well, apart from the fact that it reads and writes more slowly. There’s only so fast you can push signal in series through nine contacts. Compact Flash has 50 pins and conducts operations in parallel more quickly.

          • http://www.averywongphotography.com AveryTingWong

            Yeah, I would rather have CF as well. I’ve had so many SD cards fail on me in my lifetime, my 3 CF cards I bought 4 years ago are still working great with no problems after 50k actuations. In those 4 years I’ve probably tossed 4-5 SD cards. I’ve got one SD card left that still works. Maybe I’m just not gentle enough with them.

      • PHB

        1) You can get a WiFi card in SD format but not CF.

        2) SD is the medium of the future, the next generation spec will be faster than CF. All the development is going into the SD format. Video is going to be based on the SDXC version of SD.

        3) I have several 32MB CF from my Coolpix 950, I paid several hundred dollars each, want to buy them off me for 10% of the original price?

        You probably want to use your old CF cards with your next body. But you certainly don’t want to be forced to continue buying CF beyond that. It may continue to be relevant if you shoot a lot of video, but even then, the SD format cards are going to be cheaper for the same speed and capacity.

        • fork()

          *** You can get a WiFi card in SD format but not CF.

          Couldn’t care less.

          ***SD is the medium of the future, the next generation spec will be faster than CF.

          [citation needed]

          ***All the development is going into the SD format.

          Sure! There haven’t been any new CF cards in the last years (sarcasm)

          ***Video is going to be based on the SDXC version of SD.

          That doesn’t even make sense. CF is still faster than SD, and why on earth would the memory card make a difference for video?

          *** I have several 32MB CF from my Coolpix 950, I paid several hundred dollars each, want to buy them off me for 10% of the original price?

          The same applies to SD, what is your point?

          *** You probably want to use your old CF cards with your next body. But you certainly don’t want to be forced to continue buying CF beyond that. It may continue to be relevant if you shoot a lot of video, but even then, the SD format cards are going to be cheaper for the same speed and capacity.

          CF is becoming less mainstream, yes, but SD will still be slower.

          Even if SD is being developed more actively today, that doesn’t make a difference since SD is just catching up with CF tech.

          :)

          • Torben

            SD are for boys, real men use CF….

          • PHB

            Actually, the SDXC spec is designed for speeds beyond what Compact Flash is capable of. So while it is certainly the case that CF is king today, that is not going to last.

            So far, the only pro video I know to have gone for the CF media is the Canon $7000 HD camcorder. And thats because it records into MPEG2.

            If I was buying a pro camera today I would really want the option of using SD cards because that is almost certainly going to be the format of choice in 3 years time.

  • Ron Scubadiver

    Well, I think an all new FX line is just wishful thinking. Considering the short supplies of the D3s or the high price of the D3x, I don’t see a D700 size version of either of those on the horizon. Sadly, the best we can hope for in a D700 update is something like the D300s with its half ass video mode and a few new minor features.

    -Ron

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      If I was a betting man, I’m afraid that I would also be inclined to agree with you but something also tells me Nikon will pull something better than that out of the bag this year and I feel sure that will include an option with a much bigger sensor size…

    • santela

      sad but true…
      if nikon puts a 24mp sensor on d700… i don’t know how many ppl will still but the d3x

    • Joe R.

      If that where the case, it would already be released. I’m inclined to think it’s an entirely new camera.

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      What you just described IS the D3s upgrade in a D700 body. And as for the “half ass video mode”, I have to disagree. The video mode is great. It’s far superior to anything you’ll get in a $5k camcorder, assuming you know how to use it properly. That’s not to say it doesn’t have it’s limitations, some that could have been addressed by Nikon, and some that couldn’t at release time.

      I don’t mind Nikon doing what they have to in order to regain profitability. I support any decision which allows them to shore up their revenue so they can continue to be my camera company of choice (i.e. keep prices high and sales strong on the D3x). After all, if they tanked, I would have some serious issues getting along with another manufacturer.

  • Canonite

    24-105 and 100-400? Stop stealing Canon’s lens lineup… It’s hard enough not to switch as it is, I don’t need more incentive!!

    • spidercrown

      Nothing wrong with it isn’t it. Canon just came out with 15-85mm and 18-135, didn’t they? And rumor of 14-24mm too.

  • bob

    To all the “why is the 35mm f/1.4 so expensive….?”–STOP IT, STOP YOUR INSIPID WHINING RIGHT NOW!!!!

    Here we go again with the price whiners. It always happens–the 24 f/1.4, the new 70-200 VRII, the D3x, etc.–it’s like these characters think that high end, state of the art, PROFESSIONAL equipment should come at cheap, consumer prices. And, it’s these same whiners that will never, ever intend to buy, let alone, USE, this equipment in any meaningful fashion. Really, comparing the 35 f/1.8 and this rumored 35 f/1.4, is an apples and oranges comparison, demonstrating complete lack of understanding of lenses, formats and perspective.

    Rant over.

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      Good glass takes money to produce. Ain’t no complaining a forthcoming 35/1.4 ain’t cheap, since we have two cheap alternatives on the market. Buuut…

      …$8k for a D3x is still a ripoff. Ain’t no arguing otherwise. Nikon owes it’s customers an A900 equivalent. I’m sure that it is in the wild already, just like the D700 was in the wild a year before the D3 was released to market.

      I’m not an amateur whiner. I’m a professional one. ; )

      • JED

        How do I get on this list of people that Nikon owes things too?
        Or do you just have an inflated sense of entitlement?

      • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

        @Micah

        I respect and agree with pretty much everything you say. I consider you in many ways the more level-headed version of me. (Sorry if that disturbs you). Your comment about good glass is spot on. But in this case I have to disagree with you about the D3x. I know that many see Nikon as jacking the price of the D3x to gouging levels, and they may be right. But I see two problems with the general statements made about the D3x.

        First, when compared with the ~$2,500 A900, there is a clear case to be made that they are NOT the same camera. Take away all the other factors, such as Sony selling at a loss so they can get into the market, or Nikon’s superior ergonomics, build quality, feature set, glass, etc. Let’s just talk about image quality. The D3x blows the A900 away. It’s clear that the D3x is NOT just an A900 sensor in a Nikon body. Whether or not you deem the improvements worthy of a triple-the-price-increase, it’s just unfair to compare the two as though they were the same, only differentiated in price.

        Second, Nikon is a company who is working to compete and survive in a brutal marketplace. Believe it or not, they want to survive more than I want them to survive. They will do what they need to in an effort to make this possible. I realize it’s not uncommon for companies to take advantage of customers in order to reap huge profits. But look at Nikon’s books: they’re not thriving, they’re surviving. At the same time, the American dollar has taken a huge hit.

        None of us like the consequences of these realities, least of all me. It hurts when the same $1k-$1.5k that used to buy the top-of-the-line 80-200 now only goes half as far. But these realities aren’t completely the fault of Nikon, if their fault at all.

        I’ve stated here before numerous times that I appreciate Nikon’s slow and steady approach to the photo market, and feel that their having taken small strides has allowed them to take extraordinarily large strides at the same time. By looking at the problems differently, (think: big FX with relatively small MP) they’ve redefined what true quality means. And nobody can argue that they’ve turned a lot of heads (including those in the Canon camp) in the process. Without them, we’d be stuck with too many MP and not enough low-light performance, with chromatic aberration/blurring on the edges, heavy vignetting, bad color rendering, banding, heavy-handed noise reduction, and a whole slew of other problems that are prevalent in the rush to market mostly unnecessarily-high MP competitors.

        It’s inevitable that Nikon release a higher MP body in a smaller form factor. Until then, I’m content to let Nikon do what it needs in order to shore up it’s market position.

        • jimmy

          +1

        • Fredbare

          @ Ron,

          Very well written and completely agree.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      I’ve been waiting for this 35mm f/1.4 update for decades. Hopefully, it will have ED glass, Nano coating and more importantly without VR.

      • nebus

        Yep I’ve been waiing for that 35mm 1.4 for a long time too. Certainly one piece of glass that Canon has over Nikon still. But I’m still waiting on a 1.2 in 50mm (or 85mm) – and I don’t think it’s likely this year unfortunately (if you’ve ever used the Canon you’ll know how amazing the DOF/falloff is wide with this glass.
        But bring the d700 replacement please! And it better be as good imagewise as the 5d II .

        • jimmy

          5dII completely sucks at 6400 iso. It even shows some noise at 400 iso and only gets worse. Unless you need to crop heavily or are shooting for billboards the d700 takes much better photos + less memory card.

          • Canon Fangirly

            The D3s shows noise at 400 ISO too. You just have to look for it.

        • JED

          So you want low ISO banding then?

        • rich

          D700 already has better image quality than the 5D II, other than resolution.

          Less banding at low ISO? Check.
          Less banding at high ISO? Check.
          Less noise at any ISO? Check.
          More DR? Check.

          • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

            Just what I wanted to say, but better? Check.

    • santela

      I’m not whining… but the D3X and the 24G ARE OVERPRICED!!!
      This 35G isn’t.
      I’m just being reasonable, that’s not whining.

      • ArtTwisted

        the 24 is priced a bit over the rumoured 35, how is it over priced. I swear some people are just insane. Also then just dont buy the D3x, if you need it as a working pro then you will buy or lease it or atleast rent it when you need it and if you dont get the D3 or many other options.

    • Greenwood_Geoff

      I wonder how much it really costs once you have the system in place to make them compared to the same lens that is slower ?

    • http://www.andygural.com Andy

      I agree.

      Dear everyone: just because you can’t afford something doesn’t mean that its price is incorrect.

      • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

        Ditto.

      • PHB

        I have no objection to Nikon pricing the 35 f/1.4 as suggested, I just don’t think the price is very likely. Nikon previously stated that a 35 f/1.4 would cost in the region of $1200 when they launched the DX 35mm. Looking at the price of the 50mm and the 24 mm, $1200 looks rather more likely.

        And much more likely than a second fast wide angle lens a few months after the 24mm, I think is the introduction of the 85mm f/1.4 AFS.

        I think this rumor is bull shit from someone yanking our chain. Nothing completely implausible, but no real reason to rate it more likely than anyone else’s guess.

        A replacement for the D90 and a refresh of the D700 are pretty much no brainer predictions. Incidentally, the production difficulty on the D3s would make it more likely that the D700 will be updated soon, not less. The D3s and the other flagships are made in the Japan factory. The D700 is made on a production line scaled for much higher production rates.

        With the introduction of one f/4 zoom, it is a pretty safe bet that Nikon are bringing out others. A 24-105 f/4 is pretty much a no brainer range for a kit lens for a lower cost FX body. The lower end of the x-400 mm zoom does not need to be as short as 80, 100 would be fine for most purposes.

        The only thing surprising here is the price on the 35mm. And that is the only price mentioned. Price info is way harder to get hold of than technical, the circulation in the company is going to be much smaller. I think it was just a tidbit added to give a bit of interest to a bunch of B/S speculation.

  • NikonCanon

    If the rumoured 100-400 or 150-500 is as good optically as the 200-400, but at a much smaller size & weight… bring it on, money no object! :-)

    • nobody

      It cannot be much smaller if it goes up to 500.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/grovlam Morten Tietze

    NEW FX….ohh boy this is going to be an expensive year for me then…. :-D. I am soo looking for a upgrade to my D90, and D700 just seems soo last yearish now. Cannot wait to see what Nikon brings to the table.

  • Kimo

    .. and where’s the SB-700 ??

  • cirtap

    OH LORD NIKON GET IT RIGHT!!!!

    All I want is a new camera..HELL i will pay for it as long as it is NOT A rehash…Give me a NEW camera…18 plus MP…FX…is that too much to ask for?? I don’t need vidio..but you nikon boneheads will place it in there anyways…I don’t need this new camera to snap a goofy ISO at 102,000 plus..NOT needed…

    Ok..i hope it is soon….My D300 is needing mouth to mouth to keep her going…NEED that new Nikon D500, D600, D700X or S…D800…or D900 SOON…Like yesterday…

  • Peter

    why the lense is so expensive they say?

    cause its quality and its most likely made in JAPAN!

  • Raymond

    Keep finger crossed for D700 replacement~dont let us down~nikon!!!

  • Saad Sarfraz

    Noooo! I’ve already ordered a D700, I hope there is no upgrade atleast this year! :p

    • preston

      Actually, your D700 will NOT suddenly decrease in quality is a new model comes out, as many people seem to think. So I wouldn’t worry about it – you will still be able to take amazing pictures. If you were interested in video then maybe getting the D700 wasn’t the best option.

  • Martijn Bouius

    sure hope the D90 replacement will have a high FPS. been looking at the D300s, but if the D90 replacement has high fps shooting i’d go for that. (and no, don’t use it to just shoot random bursts into nothingness and hope for something good. but to make special shots of sports.

    • Joe R.

      I suspect that artificially limiting the burst rate is one of those things that makes it more a consumer camera than a prosumer camera.

      • Martijn Bouius

        yeah point taken! guess i’m gonna go with the D300s then, thnx for the enlightment!

      • PHB

        It is a function of the CPU chip.

        The D300 and D300s have faster chips. The D3 and D3s are faster still.

  • http://www.www.com Landscape Photo

    I’d certainly buy the 24-105mm f/4 VR if it’s compact enough, I mean something 1-2 cm shorter than Canon’s and having 72 or max .77mm filter size.

    I have no doubt about the quality of that proven design especially when stopped down to f/8 or f/11.

    • ArtTwisted

      it will be 77mm if its a pro lens. Nikon knows better since most pros have filters for there 24-70 , 70-200, 85 1.4, etc

  • Ant

    Please feel free to shoot this idea down, but I’m thinking that a lower-end “Consumer” FX body is a possibility. That would go with the F4 glass that’s in the pipeline. If they could make it at a similar price as the D300s.

    Might they be trying to catch upgrading D90 shooters and give them a reason to spend money on new lenses (assuming they’re shooting DX lenses)?

    • Mark

      Ant,

      Your idea holds water, but it would have to be 12MP FX sensor in a D300s or D90 body and be price no higher than $1999 or $1899. Along with this release there would need to be a new FX sensor camera with at least 18MP at a cost of about $2700 to $2999. That would be a nice kick to Canon’s family jewels, the 5D Mark II.

      Mark

      • nobody

        That 12MP FX sensor in a D300 body is already available. It’s called D700 (-:

        An 18-24MP FX sensor in a D90 type body could make sense for Nikon because it wouldn’t cannibalize D3X sales as much as a D700X would.

  • Nicola

    Just a hint for Nikon…
    Look at the noise figures of the 7D:they are really good,too good in fact to think canon had equalled nikon in low noise electronics..in a single model?it doesn’t seem to be the case.
    So what i’m speculating is that the (Sony?)18MPx APS-C CMOS it’s really good, and it could be a great base for the new nikons.

    • http://www.www.com Landscape Photo

      Noise Reduction does not equal to low noise yield. Anyone can have a noise-free image out of any sensor at high iso at the expense of fine detail and color fidelity.

      • ArtTwisted

        +1 , I want my sensor to sharpen nothing , edit no colours and remove 0 noise. My software still does a better job.

    • Greenwood_Geoff

      Look at the DXoMark site, I pass on a 7D’s quality from their ratings.

    • http://www.jimprisching.com JP

      I was a Canon shooter for 10 years, before switching 4 months ago to the D3S. Had a Canon 7D and every other Canon digital camera from the Mark II on up and the noise is pretty bad after 1600 iso. In fact the Mark IV is pretty good to 3200 but then the Nikon D3S destroys it. Don’t believe every lab report you read. Real world results. Having shot both systems, Nikon has it figured out.

  • Nicola

    Holy crap i’ve just read that the sensor is canon’s.We’re all doomed.Let’s hope nikon comes out with backward-illuminated ccds…

  • Johannes

    I’m still hoping for a D90-style camera with FX. And the 24-105mm f/4 could be it’s Kit lens? :-D

    …which I think would be a commercially smart idea from Nikon, a lot of “enthusiast amateurs” will buy a lot of new FX lenses to replace their DX ones…

    • lorenzo

      D90x with the sensor of the D700 for 1000 euros or in kit with 24-105 / 4 for 2000 euros? Count me in!

      • Martijn Bouius

        keep dreaming, that way they’d outdo the D300s, don’t think they’d want that to happen either. lenses are a lifetime buy (at least, if u buy the right ones)
        camera’s are upgradable

        • Ant

          The D90 already does pretty much everything the D300s does anyway. The main reason why someone would buy a 300 over the 90 today is that they want the added robustness. (I know it has some other small advantages as well).

          Even if Nikon introduces an FX sensor in a plastic body, the pros (or anyone really) who need robustness will still go for a D3 or D700 or D300.

          Upgrading D90 owners with their 18-200mm VR & 35mm F1.8s (i.e. me) to an FX body would push them into buying the new glass, where Nikon makes all it’s money. Giving them D700 electronics in a body close to the D90 for D300 money would be a big motivator to make that switch. A D90 replacement with 18mp DX sensor probably wouldn’t inspire me to change body or lens.

          • ArtTwisted

            If its plastic body I wouldnt buy it. I dont mind buying a plastic d90 but if im spending over 1000 it has to be metal and weather sealed, period.

          • Greenwood_Geoff

            I also can pass on the metal body, if it’s raining it’s covered or I am not out in it. I would also be leery of an 18MP DX … the DXO ratings on the 7D fall far below my D90. I’m am unwilling to lose IQ just to feed my want of more MP, else I would have a 7D or 5Dmk2 already.

          • Martijn Bouius

            robustness.. yes.
            but it has more advantages.
            higher FPS
            newer and less noise (not so much though but still)
            more buttons so more user friendly.
            bit bigger (better to hold i think)

            so theres more to it.

  • nobody

    New DX camera = D90 successor, 15-18mp, called D7000. €/$1000.

    New FX camera = D90 successor with FX sensor, 18-24mp, called D9000. €/$2000.

    Same battery grip for both of them. A tandem, just like D300 and D700.

    Just a dream, but not a bad one :-)

  • Saad Sarfraz Sheikh

    Sure, I agree the D700 is 2 years old. But with the D3S already in the market, is there really a need for an upgrade? Is the D700 outdated? Looking at what it’s capable of, do we really need an upgrade? Sure, I can’t afford the D3S, but how can we expect Nikon to give the same thing the D3S offers (FX+HD video) at a lower price in a D700X/S? With the ISO performance of the D700 and some nice glass, you can literally shoot in the dark. I wonder what people are expecting in an upgrade.

    • Click

      2 years in the electronics world is a very long time. Yes the D700 is fantastic but many (including me) are wanting an upgrade to include more resolution & video. Nikon offers no FX body that does any type of Video for less than 5200.00 (D3s). That my friend is a pile of cash, so they have a huge gap in their lineup that you can drive a Canon freight train thru. Sure they should put the D3s sensor in a D700 type body and slap some video in it, that is exactly what they did with the D3, D700 lineup (no video of course) a few years ago and I am sure both models did very well for Nikon. Surely they probably didn’t sell quite as many D3 bodies, but look at all the D700 bodies they sold, not to mention the battery grips and all that expensive glass (lenses) that they sold to go with the D700. Nikon would be foolish not to offer a D700s or some variant, and in my opinion, it is way over due, like a year late IMHO.

  • http://www.photosultan.com Sultan

    hmmm… i was waiting for the 24mm f/1.4 to come into stock, but maybe I’ll get the 35mm instead. I have 2 lenses in the 24mm range already (the 24-70 F/2.8 & 14-24mm F2.8). I dont use this for landscape, but for wider angle concert/stage shot that are low light. the 24mm in the 24-70 distorts the people on the edges. Not sure what to do. 24mm or 35mm (of course we have to see the specs & costs)

    • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

      I believe the 35 will also be out of stock the moment it gets out, so it might be better to continue to wait for the 24 to come into stock :p

    • ArtTwisted

      the 24 will allow slower shutter speeds and the 35 I believe will be harder to get a hold of when every wedding photographer in the world pre orders it.

    • PHB

      No way would I wait to buy a lens based on a rumor like this.

      It is a pretty good bet that every AF lens that sells will be upgraded to AFS. So waiting for an AFS version makes sense whether rumored or not.

      But the fact that a price is mentioned here makes this rumor B/S in my view. I can’t remember ever seeing a rumor with a price that was not B/S.

  • alex
  • 90ear

    I was rewarded for waiting for Mac updates this April, will lightning strike twice in two months ?!!

    A new D90 replacement is most welcome, but please in june; actually around 15th (tuesday) 2pm would be nice :-) … i have assignments in july first week !!!

  • http://www.www.com Landscape Photo

    Let’s hope the new FX body (likely D700 type) will be bundled with 24-105mm f/4 VR, and the price will be affordable (not meaning dirt cheap but around $3500 with the lens).

    Sorry, I’m not interested with either the 35mm f/1.4 or 100-400mm. Because the first will be aimed for low-light conditions with a rather unsuitable FoV for landscapes (odd figure between wide to normal), and the other will be too bulky like a 1lt bottle.

    What about a new, corrected 20mm or 18mm f/4 like that from Voigtlander or Zeiss? And what about a compact 200mm f/5.6 ?

  • Blinkerfish

    Did you mean the 85mm f/1.4 and not the 35mm f/1.4?

  • http://www.jimprisching.com JP

    Great news on a 35, although it will most likely be as hard to get as the 24 1.4.

  • Morg

    okay Im starting to wake up!

  • http://www.mattprattphotography.com Matprat

    Where in the world is the new 85mm f1.4? I’m
    starting to think they are having serious development issues. Long, long overdue The answer to Sigma’s new 85mm is a 35mm f1.4? Does
    not make sense at all. Plus, seems like the new 85mm would sell 10 to 1 better than a new 35mm.

    • PM Buck

      I think admin meant that Nikon was planning to release their 85, however after Sigma’s release having such good quality/MTF etc., they decided they might need to go back and review their design to make sure it is top notch, especially since they will be charging double that of the sigma??? I could be wrong though…

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

        yes, or maybe the issue was the pricing and not the quality/MTF charts – we will never know

        • PHB

          Or maybe this is a B/S rumor.

          I have never seen a rumor monger get price right. The fact that a price is mentioned at all makes it far far less credible in my view.

          Even Nikon would not set a price until the last minute.

    • nobody

      What’s the problem with the current 85mm f1.4?

      • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

        only problem? you cannot get enoug spare ones when even on ebay they cost as new ha!

    • I Am Nikon

      ” The answer to Sigma’s new 85mm is a 35mm f1.4? Does not make sense at all.”

      Nikon doesn’t need to answer Sigma’s 85 f/1.4.

  • vinman

    That f4 24-105(ish) is gonna make it’s way into my bag FOR SURE! I love shooting fast primes in the shorter end of the range (14-105), but I need a zoom for general walk around convenience and shooting dimly lit churches and museums, etc. With VR (if it’s comparable to the VRII in the 70-200) will be a perfect addition for my particular needs. I’m very excited by the possibility of this lens, as the cost of the 24-70 is too hard to justify considering my use of primes in that range…

    • jastereo

      You are definitely not the only one who feels that way. As wonderful a lens as the 24-70 f/2.8 is I just can’t justify the $$ for a lens that probably will be replaced at some point soon (or should be) with a VR version. This new one…giving up that extra stop, adding the awesome VRII (which for many -me included- is MORE important than the f2.8) and cutting the robustness just a touch to get the price to around 1100-1300$. Doing all that while keeping top notch image quality and lower weight than the f/2.8 lenses (ala the 16-35 VR) is like a frigin bonus! All that would make this a PERFECT lens for LOTS of people. Read: Non-pros who will be upgrading at some point to FX, anyone, pros included, trying to cut weight, vacation all-in-one, landscape, etc. Also, sure sounds like a lens that would match perfectly for the introduction with a D800 type body (FX, 16-18MP with similar high iso to current D700 & 1080P video to compete w./ Canon). I’m excited.

      • jastereo

        If you do that (D800/D900 -new FX line), you could also keep the D700 around (or do a D700s) and drop it’s price a bit so it’s just a few hundred more than the D300s – say 1999$. That becomes your “low cost” FX body for people who don’t need the speed/size/build of the D3s or the higher resolution/1080p of the new line. All while keeping the D3x as the high res top of the heap.

      • http://veronikab.wordpress.com VeronikaB

        I agree. I’ve been waiting for this lens ever since I got my D700.

  • Xscream

    Please let the 100-400 (or 500) be true! And let it be introduced as the first one! I really need something like this before October, and I mean really NEED! So I’m willing to spend some $$$ on it.

  • 90ear

    D90s

  • ChriSin

    More affordable full frame please!!!!!

    • amunk

      get real, if a new FX comes out it won’t be cheaper than the current D700

  • Jaws

    Hopefully they come out with a D700S and the 24-105 f/4 VR lens, as that would be exactly what I am looking for.

    Though, I would prefer them to remake the old 28-105 lens and make it f/4 VR Nano with the 1:2 macro feature that the old 28-105 had. The extra 4mm on the wide end the 24-105 would provide is nice, but 28mm is still nice and wide and I would find more value in the 1:2 macro mode over the additional 4mm.

  • Anon

    how much do people think AF-S 100-400 VR will cost? and will price of Sigma 120-400 come down because of that?

    • nobody

      2000+ if it’s up to 400mm, 3000+ if it’s up to 500mm )-:

      • ArtTwisted

        under 3 grand Id guess , maybe 2800 max but thats just a guess . Its not pro glass remember, atleast not pro as in 70-200 or 200-400 pro.

  • Bart

    I’m waiting for a light and fast DX prime lens. 16mm f/2.8 would be great.

  • Leo

    I suggest all those waiting for the next great dslr continue to wait and wait and wait until just before you’re about to die then post that you saved a fortune by never actually buying a camera.
    A few hours after Nikon announce their new dslr some idiot will be on here whinning for the next upgrade, it’s beyond pathetic.

    • Nikon Canon

      Ain’t life grand ??
      Take it easy man….

    • http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Steve the sax

      I couldn’t wait.
      Last weekend I spent a couple of hours in a camera shop trying out the goodies. I compared the 5D II and the D700. Both had things in their favour, but while I was testing the Canon a guy walked in front of the lens as I was about to take the shot…and the camera paused to get the focus. Tried the same thing with the D700, it just grabbed it and shot.
      I’m sure they both take great photos, but the D700 just felt like everything was under the fingers…and I’ve been shooting Canons for the last three years.
      I bought the D700, and a 24-70 2.8.
      I don’t much care what Nikon come up with now – I have work to do and a decent camera to do it with.
      Well, I say I have it…they only had demo stock in, and with no discount I decided to pay for it and wait for them to order a new one in.

      • Adam

        that is such a pathetic story! lol

        • http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Steve the sax

          Really?
          As a working musician I use kit that costs a great deal less than the stuff many rich amateurs are blowing on simply because I know it’s up to the mark and will allow me to do my job. It’s not the kit that makes a good player, it’s what they do with it.
          I bought an FM2 on that basis many years ago, and subsequently a 450D.

  • Gorji

    Reading Thom Hogan’s 6/1/2010 Post on his website, Nikon has a major problem. With so many exotic lenses out of stock at major retailers, if a new DSLR comes out, only folks with good glass in their posession will benefit the most. Folks buying a D700xx will not have any lens to purchase.

    • David Hasselblaff

      Well the thing is that containers full of 600mm f/4 and other super teles were stolen by Nigerian pirates back in March. I checked hundreds of harbor inventory lists, but could only find three lost Nikon containers. That’s still enough to account for 12,000 D3s bodies.

    • Christina

      I’ve got some wonderful Sigma glass that is serving me well. I can’t wait for the new FX to hit the stores/internet. I will finally be able to have a “standard SLR” format in the modern digital era.

      Best of both worlds.

      Bring it on Nikon!

      Money is saved, and I am ready! Hopefully if it’s announced soon, I will be able to replace my D90 about a year after buying it (August 09).

  • Saad Sarfraz

    http://www.europe-nikon.com/ is acting weirdly…
    Says ‘Temporarily unavailable’ on some pages…could something be up?

  • Anonymous

    The german website of nikon is still temporary unavailable, especially the DSRL categories….strange since over 24 hours they are working there….

  • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

    slow zooms for over 1000 eur are not sexy enough to be in my bag!

  • Back to top