PB PM said:
Niko, we've covered this before, but sadly you hold to this idea that there is no real difference between the D90 and D300. You might not pay $600 more for the D300 over the D90, but many would and do for various reasons. I can assure you that those people, including myself did so for more than a few buttons. The far superior AF system of the D300 is worth a few hundred on it's own for goodness sake. I think Nikon may get rid of the D300 style body, and make a D3/Pro style DX body, (Yes Please!) to address the needs of demanding DX users who don't want FX bodies (ME).

I still don't think the D400 would be an FX camera. IMO, if Nikon makes a lower price FX body it will be a consumer oriented body, with consumer level controls, as the D700 is the FX D300 already, no need to make another one.

Exactly! Well said and I agree completely. I have both a D90 and a D300 and I use them for different things in different situations. They are certainly more than just a few buttons different. They perform differently. The D300 performs more quickly. It's size gives it a different feel altogether and I've shot with it in light rain before. I wouldn't dare take my D90 out in the rain! The AF system in the D300 is head and shoulders above the older system that was put in the D90 despite it being a newer model. If I were only able to choose one camera, I'd gladly pay the extra 600 for the D300 just as you would.

Right now, I'm perfectly happy with my D300 that I paid extra over a D90 for. If the D400 has significantly higher IQ than the D300 - either over the entire ISO range or just in the high ISO range, I may add a D400. Other than that, I personally have no need for anything more at this time.

Interesting debate about the worth of D300 over the D90. However, I see too much conscious or subconscious defensiveness by many of the posters regarding their positions, which may be related to what they decided to purchase. Fer crissakes, if you're happy with what you bought, be happy. And grow up. But, don't stop the heated debating - it's entertaining as hell.

Now that the dust has settled on the D7000 specs. I think It may be time to revisit this topic.
I must say I was pleasantly surprised by some of the specs of the D7000 that make it encroach on the D400 Domian. Lets assume for this thread that there will be a DX successor for the D300/s.
What specs do you thing would/should go into the D400 now that the D7000 is so close to the D300 in many features even beats it?

My musings follow.

1) It seems to point to some amazing revolutionary change for the D400 and D4. What can that be?
2) I can see a possible trend here.. The D400 / D4 is still going to be linked and released together as the flag ships for the nikon range. That would mean that the D7000 ranges and below is decoupled from the flagships release schedule and will be released on a shorther cycle. ( I have predicted the decoupling of the dx range from the normal (longer) nikon flag ship range due to the quicker development cycles of the Dx range) but not the joining of the Flagship DX to the FF Flagship.

So what features would the DX flagship have now that the D7000 has so much?
1) same sensor ? or posible maybe even an improved sensor!
1a) A high ISO version and a High DRhigh MP version just like the D3x/d3s
1b) More likely the same 16.2 MP sensor with a few more advanced tweeks
1c) A new and better performing 16.2 MP sensor with even better High ISO and DR !
2) New Carbon fibre body !! Like the D4 !!
3) Improved AF system - New greater than 51 focus points or all 39 focus points are cross type sensors !
4) New larger Touch screen LCD!
5) Blue tooth or wifi bulitin.
6) D3 style form factor but smaller than D3
7) 1080p at 60 FPS or more ! - would point to a different sensor than the D7000! next generation sensor tech ??
7.a) like black silicon or
7.b) the nikon patented prismatic spliting of the light from a large single pixel to 3 separate sensors for each of the 3 primary colours.
7.c) something else ?? MEG, panchromatic ... etc ?
8) Even more external buttons !! :-)

Have I left anything out? What would you like to see in the new DX flagship camera?

Noise ninja. I really don't like the noise reduction or sharpening tools in Capture One - they tend to leave artefacts unless you're really careful. TBH, a lot of the time I leave the luminance noise and just deal with the colour noise - then it just looks like coarse grain and I kinda like it.

the new Noise reduction on Lightroom 3 is excellent

jonnyapple said:
I agree with the gist of your post, TTJ, but don't forget they do cripple their low-end bodies' by excluding easy firmware upgrades like more bracketing options, intervalometer, etc.

I agree that is a continual PIMA (Pain In My A..) when using a lower body. All camera companies seem to do the same thing or even worse. I would have liked to see some of the little adjustments made in firmware to the D300s to be downloaded but nope. Oh well.

Watched kettle never boils... I am sick of waiting!!.. off to play with my other hobbies.. !! LOL see you guys in a few days !!

Oh and Happy Fathers day!!

TaoTeJared said:
...it shows that Nikon will always continue to improve no matter the line and will not water down any camera just because it is a "lower" line.

I agree with the gist of your post, TTJ, but don't forget they do cripple their low-end bodies' by excluding easy firmware upgrades like more bracketing options, intervalometer, etc.

shivaswrath said:
the biggest deficits in the D90 are seen when it's used in a truly professional setting (which 90% of people aren't doing). These deficiencies are:
1. 450-pt Matrix Metering vs. D300 1005-pt.
2. AF-speed (due to matrix metering differences in #1)
3. AF-point coverage
4. FPS.

This is significant for the following:
1. Sport shooters - have you shot a figure skater and had to track, recompose, and shoot at high FPS with a D90 vs. D300? I struggle with the far superior D3's AF, so you'll notice differences for sure.
2. Event shooters - have you shot a dance sequence at a wedding, or attempted to capture those candid moments for your clients? With the superior AF coverage and AF-speed of the D300, more doable than with the D90.
3. Wild life shooters - same as above, intimate settings with animals are difficult to stumble upon, superior MM will allow more accurate metering, better shots, and of course better results for capturing those rare moments.

Just my thoughts - for that "extra" $500, it's worth it to professionals since it means getting the shot or not.

I'm actually looking forward to the D400 iteration as a backup to my D3, hoping the noise results are the same, the extra reach will be more than welcome, and a large AF coverage is exciting for me.

Very well said and I agree completely. As I said earlier, there are times when my D90 just can't compete with my D300. I have many bird shots that, had I had my D90 with me I most likely would not have got. When pushing these cameras to their limits, the D300 is the clear winner.

the biggest deficits in the D90 are seen when it's used in a truly professional setting (which 90% of people aren't doing). These deficiencies are:
1. 450-pt Matrix Metering vs. D300 1005-pt.
2. AF-speed (due to matrix metering differences in #1)
3. AF-point coverage
4. FPS.

This is significant for the following:
1. Sport shooters - have you shot a figure skater and had to track, recompose, and shoot at high FPS with a D90 vs. D300? I struggle with the far superior D3's AF, so you'll notice differences for sure.
2. Event shooters - have you shot a dance sequence at a wedding, or attempted to capture those candid moments for your clients? With the superior AF coverage and AF-speed of the D300, more doable than with the D90.
3. Wild life shooters - same as above, intimate settings with animals are difficult to stumble upon, superior MM will allow more accurate metering, better shots, and of course better results for capturing those rare moments.

Just my thoughts - for that "extra" $500, it's worth it to professionals since it means getting the shot or not.

I'm actually looking forward to the D400 iteration as a backup to my D3, hoping the noise results are the same, the extra reach will be more than welcome, and a large AF coverage is exciting for me.

I have a hard time explaining the price difference between the D90 and D300 too. Every time I spell out the differences to someone they tend to say, in a confused voice, "that's it?". They always go for the D90 and invest the savings in better lenses. I'm pretty sure the D90 out sells the D300 by a very large margin because of this.

I think Nikon will have a big sales run with a D7000 that's more like a D90 and D300 rolled into one. Pentax, Canon, and Olympus all have metal bodied prosumer cameras for under $1299 but Nikon sells theirs for close to $2000! The D300S was already obsolete and overpriced when it was announce 12 months ago. Nikon should have announced a D400 back then instead but they didn't.

The debate is rather interesting and I think it shows why there exists a D90-body and a D300-body in Nikon's line up. The D90 came out after the D300 and had many advancements which goes against the thought that lower models are not as good as the higher ones. Me for one, I like it - it shows that Nikon will always continue to improve no matter the line and will not water down any camera just because it is a "lower" line.

Seeing what Nikon is releasing at the lower end is not making me think they question their line up, but is making me anxious to see what will be the updates to each body line will be.

It is fun to know you own a system where everyone is debating how much better each release is than the last. I look at other brands and the "same stuff - different year" and wonder what it would be like to initially think that there was no good reason to update.

GO NIKON!

gentoo - I agree with You that there's a big difference when You hand hold a big tele with d300 vs d90, but can't see any difference when You use it on tripod. what kind of tripod head You have. have You try one of the Jobu Design or Wimberlay. I got one from Jobu couple months ago, it was a pricey decision, as I needed to change all the plates but I'm not regretting it so far. it works great when shooting animals - so much freedom, and so little thinks to worry about.

Owning both the D90 and D300, I can see practical reasons for both and doubt that Nikon would merge them. For the consumer who wants something better than entry level, the D90 type cameras are often perfect for what they need. Indeed, when I'm doing candid or people shots, I grab my D90. That combo with a smaller lens, a normal lens is perfect and this is in large part why I got a D90. However for us birders, the D300 is the real winner. It's more responsive meaning it's faster in just about every way. It focuses faster due to a different focusing system altogether. The faster shutter speed is also a big plus, not just fps but it responds more and responds quickly to challenging shooting situations in ways the D90 cannot.

For me personally, the price difference was well worth it. Also the big telephotos we birders need sits better on the D300, it's better balanced, this makes a difference when on a tripod. The difference is quite noticeable when hand holding as well. I've also shot in light rain with my D300 which is something I would not dare do with my D90. To me, they're quite different and well made for the niche they're meant for.

NikoDoby said:
Sigh, here we go again....

1. Price wise I wouldn't pay $600 dollars more for just a few external controls. The difference between the D90 and D300 wasn't much to begin with but now the new " D90" might have a metal body too so there will be even less between a D7000 and a "D400".

The price difference will probably be lessened. maybe down to $400. and as otheres mentioned.. teh differences is more than a few buttons. IE nicely packaged pro features in a great little system.

2. A D3S form factor ( aka built-it vertical grip) would be a "new" D2X and it wouldn't "belong" in the D100 series of cameras.

I guess .. but There is still a place for such a beast.. "a rose by any name" ??

3. That would be the "D800/D900".

No that's not the same those are supposed to be FX cameras. I am suggesting a similar break down for DX.

The D100 series has always been a smaller D1 series camera. When the D1 series switched to full frame it only made sense that the D100 cameras follow along too. and the D700 is proof of that. AGAIN I'm not saying Nikon can't add a "higher" spec DX camera than the D7000, i'm just saying that I don't think it'll be in the D100 family. Just like Nikon isn't going to go back to DX with the D4.

@PB PM - I just guess it's a matter of individual preferences after all, for me d90 was a great camera, and for it's price it was a true winner. I'm not a birder, so maybe because of this I don't see too big difference in AF speed. as for the rest, it's a matter of many other factors, including the annual income You make. For me $600 is a lot, as are all photography expenses (as it's sth that I do for fun not for income).

Look I am a fairly smart and intelligent guy.. and as such I am right most of the time.. or so I think.. I find that humility is a very hard thing for me and that is one of my weaknesses that I constantly need to be on a watch out for. sometimes I find that some persons opinion which they hold dearly and made so much part of their ego is totally wrong. in those cases it is of no consequence to me that they continue to hold that openion. and in some cases though very very few (as I am almost alwys right, lol) I later find that they were correct. :-)

As for niko. I find him(you) to be a great asset to this forum. He is a bit eccentric but that is like spice to this forum. PB I find you to be quite similar in many ways. and maybe thats why you guys clash more often then most. please don't stop replying to niko I value your contrasting opinions but also dot take it so personally as well. It does not matter that his opening is different from yours or mine. he may be right after all LOL!

NikoDoby said:
I didn't start this thread PB PM, but sadly you hold to the idea that there are no other opinions other than your own.

It's amazing how well the DX marketing has worked on some of you. I guess you guys were very happy when NIkon originally said DX was "enough" and they had no intention of going full frame. Howerever they eventually did andI don't think anyone can argue the D3/S and D700 were stupid moves

Niko I realize people have other opinions, but this isn't about opinions it is about the ability to make choices. Should Nikon kill the DX semi-pro camera, that takes away my ability to make the choice. You may not want to spend money for those extra features, but maybe I do. Talk about belittling the opinions of others, you do that in just about every post you make in response to one mine. I think from this point on we'll just have to agree to degree and not bother responding to each other.

I think it'll be pretty easy for Nikon to drop the D300 series line and have the D7000 take its place. Why do I agree with Niko? Nikon seems to take it's cues from Canon.

Canon just introduced a the 60D which was basically a stripped down 50D to make room and "justify" their 7D. They've essentially created a "prosumer" DX market by this move, but created too much duplicity (and hence the strip down). Nikon will do the same, kill the D300 series (now that the 7D is in it), bump up the consumer series (D3100 and soon the D5100), and let the D7000 handle the 7D by competitively staying below it in the price range. How will we know this has happened? 100% VF and dual card slots will spell the D300 prosumer demise.

The D700 speaks to this - think about it, most marketing strategies (at least from what i've garnered working with my marketing team) are planned 5-7 years out; Nikon introduced the D700 to eventually take the place of the D300 type bodies - FX (so it's pro labeled), 95% VF (to separate from the D3 series), and slow FPS and AF.

I'm sure the next iteration of the D700 series will confirm this, and the D4 will nail it in the coffin.

PB PM said:
Niko, we've covered this before, but sadly you hold to this idea that there is no real difference between the D90 and D300.

I didn't start this thread PB PM, but sadly you hold to the idea that there are no other opinions other than your own.

It's amazing how well the DX marketing has worked on some of you. I guess you guys were very happy when NIkon originally said DX was "enough" and they had no intention of going full frame. Howerever they eventually did andI don't think anyone can argue the D3/S and D700 were stupid moves

As for external controls, the Leica M9 doesn't have very many and yet at $8000 dollars I don't here anyone calling it an amateur camera. So perhaps Nikon should just raise the price of the D7000 even more and then there would be no "debate" :^)

I too believe Nikon will keep the DX prosumer line. Even though the lines seem to be blurring more and more especially if the D7000 has a 100% viewfinder and a dual card slot. But I doubt that they will end that especially with Canon throwing so many different cameras in the mix now at different prices.

Niz said:
What if Nikon took an idea from Canon and made the pro line full frame and Dx. So the D4 can have FF and a DX and then the small body say D400 body would be FF and DX? I like the idea since there are people that want DX but need the full pro body.

The Nikon full frame cameras are already dual format, with 5 mp DX mode. No thanks. To get an 18mp DX camera with dual format, you need a 45 mp full frame camera, probably coming, but $10,000. A dedicated18 mp pro DX camera is 2/3 to 1/2 the price of a full frame camera with the same resolution because of the sensor and shutter/mirror drive requirements.

I would prefer and purchase a pro DX camera, but that requires the lens and accessory support that entails.

adamz said:
PB PM - either You like it or not, it's not only Niko who thinks $600 is not worth for an upgrade from d90 and d300. I had d90, have d300s and after using this camera for almost two months now, I'm still not sure either it was a good decision. I don't see a huge improvement in AF speed - the 3d tracking and more AF points is useless for me, when I shoot animals - where I need speed. I decided to run for d300s only because of three reasons: more fps - it's damm fast with grip and en-el4a battery, dual card slot, light measurement with manual lenses. the sealing and handling is comparable (I know that one is magnesium, and has seals all around but in real life it's comparable, not to mention the buttons), and trust me I have big hands (can lift up basketball)

As for AF speed, that totally depends how many points you use, and what subject. I never use 3D tracking, it's useless for non-human subjects. In practice it is a focus and recompose tool, nothing more, nothing less. I find I get far more in focus birds in flight with the D300 than I did with my D80 or D90, thanks in part to having more than one cross type AF point. I use the center point often, but having the other cross type sensors helps me avoid focus and recompose, which I always hated doing.

When I first got my D300 I though that it wasn't worth having over the D90, but over time, in the year since I bought it, I came to see how much of an improvement it is. As you mentioned the higher frame rate was one of the big differences, along with dust and moisture seals. That's a biggy here in the Vancouver area considering that it rains over half the year. Considering that I have been caught out in heavy rain/snow with my camera, I'm glad I had such a body.

I have the D300, not the "s", so I cannot comment on the dual card slots, but then I've never had a card fail so it has never been an issue. As as mentioned by another, the bigger 100% viewfinder is extremely nice thing to have. Not to mention all the additional shooting information being shown in the viewfinder, such as the ISO. I know you could show the ISO in the D90 finder, but at the expense of knowing how many shots were left on the card. Another biggy for me as a bird photographer, the larger buffer. Being able to take 17 RAW images without slowing down vs. 9 makes a huge difference.

I use non-CPU lenses often, so being able to program them in and not guess at exposures is a big plus. The menu system and customization of the D300 is another reason I love the body. I also like having true mirror lockup for long night expsoures, it can make a difference in image sharpness in my experience.

As you can see it isn't just one or two little buttons that make the D300 better for me than the D90, it is a bunch of different things. Sure the D90 replacement might have some of those things, but I doubt it will have all of them, which would likely keep me from buying it. I'll likely hold onto my D300 until I can afford or justify an FX body, if the D7000 is the direction Nikon is going with DX bodies, and there is no true D300(s) successor.

What if Nikon took an idea from Canon and made the pro line full frame and Dx. So the D4 can have FF and a DX and then the small body say D400 body would be FF and DX? I like the idea since there are people that want DX but need the full pro body.

Another big difference I see between the D90 and D300 is the finder. I considered a D90, and recall looking through the D90 finder at the store and thinking I was looking far away down a dark tube compared to the D300. I wear glasses, and the D90 finder was totally unacceptable to me. The 95% finder coverage is one of the reasons I consider the D700 inferior in user interface to the D200/D300 range and have been reluctant to go to full frame, since the D3 price is more than I would pay to get to full frame. The Dx00 series is in Nikon's pro tradition of having a 100% finder image.