I am amazed by the sensors and software technology in the D3100, D5100 and D7000. I am also amazed by the technical quality of Nikon's cheap plastic non-Japanese built DX lenses such as the 18-55mm VR, 40mm Macro and 18-200mm VR. If the D300s replacements sensor and software technology can "take it up a few notches" to give us 24 megapixels for increased sharpness and a stop or two improvement in low light Image Quality then I think a slightly downsized D3 type body would make excellent sense.

Nikon should also design some DX f2.8 (or f4) "pro" lenses to match such as a mid-range zoom and a 70-210 zoom. "Pros" will not wanted to be limited to f3.5-5.6 zooms. Basically, Nikon could produce a professional system which weighs less and costs less than the current FX based system. In the "olden" days metal camera's would easily last more than 10 years. But today digital technology changes so fast that if a camera body is 10 years old you shouldn't be shooting with it anymore because much cheaper "plastic" equipment produces much better Image Quality. For example, a $700 D3100 produces better Image Quality than a $5,000 ten year old D1H.

I suggest a name for this new line of Nikons: Pro Lite
So we would have Nikon Consumer point and shoot cameras, Nikon Semi-Pro or Advanced Amateur, Nikon Pro-Lite and Nikon Pro lines. The replacement for the D700 could be a plastic body in the Nikon Semi-Pro or Advanced Amateur line and the replacement for the Nikon D300s could be in the new Nikon Pro-Lite line.

I hope Nikon does it!

D7000 is a lot of camera. But my hands are TOO BIG. Almost didn't get the D300s and jumped into dogfood and day old bagles and got the D3x. Brighter viewfinder, a real handful. Was traumatized by the price of the D300s even though the last body I had gotten was an F3(no high eye-point shoulda waited but who knew). $1K - $1.5K is likely still a sticking point for a lot of people even for the privilege of owning Nikon glass. I insist on a metal body at that price or above, I don't care if it is lighter, if it is 8 degrees outside and I drop it (heaven forbid) it better not damn well shatter like that last beer mug. NikoDoby, you've scared me a little. Just because the world is downsizing I don't want Nikon to compromise on a tool I use to regain my sanity after a hard work week at the college. I'd actually like to see a D800 with a viewfinder as bright and big as that D3x!

My guess is that there will be D800s working at the upcoming Olympics along with the D4. In fact the D4s are going to be coming in awfully late for even the most pro users to ramp up to using them. The Husband and Wife team that ran media for the 1980 winter games themselves are still using D700s. I do think the D800 will be a great camera for pro media use with a better video mode and great stills for both low light and high ISO. I am waffling on getting a D7000 body or just waiting to see what the D800 will be. Yet that small, light, and packed with power goal is one I totally relate to!!

Thanks DaveyJ, I agree to your opinion on the D800 / D400 expectations too, just wondering what Nikon will do in the "D4"area thinking of the forthcoming Olympics, and their new 800mm tele.. :-)

To DutchNikon: I certainly agree on the Asian preference for "small, light, and packed with power". What this October's announcements will be is I also believe very eagerly awaited. The D800 though will be pretty big. A D400 type camera will hopefully be somewhat more trim.

MMM Do not realy care... I'm happy with my current set-up,
Apart from that could also boil up loads of "What If's" , but i do not think Nikon would switch to Pro-DX without introducing some Pro-DX lenses then..

Here's another "what if"..
What if Nikon continues with the "1" line by adding a "1-DX" , and/or a "1-FX" camera ( possibly rangefinders, competing with Leica..) ??

It will not happen, because Nikon's primary market seems stiil to be the Asian Market , and the Asian's seem to prefer "Small, Light, and packed with power" ....

I agree with Mike Gunter that Nikon should take a few steps with both DX and FX. I really don't see any point in switching the D700 and D300. I own them both and think improvements will be made on both as they are both great cameras that sell well and their respective replacements are very long awaited. However switching the D300 and D700 would be very confusing.....I am pretty sure. I am bordering on just buying a D7000 to give me better DSLR video since I use DSLR video enough and what I have now is NOT up to D7000 quality. But I also am not going to take a quantum leap in what I am willing to pay and I think that is around $2,200. I'll bet there are quite a few Nikon users who would really have to scrape to go above that price point. The D800 I concede will go at $4,000 and that makes me think my next Nikon WILL be DX not FX. When I put an FX still on a big screen (HDTV) it doesn't look much different than a DX image. However a D90 video just doesn't get it compared to a D7000 video and I rate the D3100 video as better than the D90. Sorry to offend those who do not use and maybe even dislike video on DSLR but in our field use for environmental subjects I need both now. I look back on my D90 video and wish they were all taken with the D7000.

Drab said:
If only there was a 100 option even close to the speed and price of the 85 1.8. :(

How wide are you thinking? Wider than 24 equivalent?

As an equivalent, I would _prefer_ something like a 20, but a 24 would likely be ok. The design bespeaks a style of mobility and agility suited streets and urban use where wide shots will be more useful.

Chances are good, I'll never see any of this anyway. The more at ease I get in my in my affordability in being able to buy these things, the more I realize I don't control my own pocketbook. I doubt I'll be able to justified it to myself, no matter how whizbang it may be.

I hope that Nikon just takes DX and FX a few more steps beyond where it is. I have a great deal of confidence that it can.

My best,

Mike

Drab said:
Pretty sure DX isn't dead this generation. Why introduce a D3100 if you're trying to replace DX with EVIL?
I agree with you that overlap between new DX and new FX offerings makes no sense, and I'll bet that means nothing less expensive than the D700 will show up in FX land and nothing much more than the D300s will show up in DX land. We'll see!

You're right, I was just looking at the DX/FX grey area. I guess they have to keep making cheap DX cameras to accomodate the plurality of DX zooms they seem to churn out.

SquamishPhoto said:
Exactly. DX is dead. D300 maybe gets replaced at the same MSRP and "cheap" FX fills the $1750-2400 range. It would be a pretty stupid move to do otherwise. I mean, what would you rather have? A $2400 DX camera or a $2400 FX?

Pretty sure DX isn't dead this generation. Why introduce a D3100 if you're trying to replace DX with EVIL?
I agree with you that overlap between new DX and new FX offerings makes no sense, and I'll bet that means nothing less expensive than the D700 will show up in FX land and nothing much more than the D300s will show up in DX land. We'll see!

The future of crop sensors, though, I think is in mirrorless. Unleash the real point of crop sensors, smaller lenses!

EDIT:

Egads! If front page rumors are right EVIL might cannibalize DX so no big sensor? DX is here to stay?
Please Nikon, make DX SMALL, not just pseudo-FX, make it FX-lite!

NikoDoby said:
Yes but at the same time the next generation of full frame cameras is going to have that same fairy dust sprinkled all over them too. Only there will be a lot more room on an FX sensor for all that dust to fall on :^)

Exactly. DX is dead. D300 maybe gets replaced at the same MSRP and "cheap" FX fills the $1750-2400 range. It would be a pretty stupid move to do otherwise. I mean, what would you rather have? A $2400 DX camera or a $2400 FX?

Mike Gunter said:
It's all good. I was taught that equivalents would be best in doubling up or there about, so 24, 50, and 100, and did use 28, 50, and 105 as a reporter, and added a replaced the 28 with 24 and added a 200 later. A 24, 50, and 100 would be cool.

If only there was a 100 option even close to the speed and price of the 85 1.8. :(

Mike Gunter said:
A wider option is likely more important than some folks think.

How wide are you thinking? Wider than 24 equivalent?

Hi Drab,

Sorry not to get back to you.

"But which three lenses, Mike? ;) I think the devil is in the details.

"28 equiv, 50 equiv and 85 equiv? That would seem to be the 'classic' lineup."

It's all good. I was taught that equivalents would be best in doubling up or there about, so 24, 50, and 100, and did use 28, 50, and 105 as a reporter, and added a replaced the 28 with 24 and added a 200 later. A 24, 50, and 100 would be cool. (And Niko is right, it would hurt the pocketbook, but it could be priced to hurt, not bleed - and that is where the difference lies.)

A wider option is likely more important than some folks think. A greater number of people tend to grab telephoto lenses first, but really, wide lenses offer them more picture taking opportunities. I haven't done a search, but I'm guessing that if people were to search their favorite pictures, they would see it was a mix of very wides and medium teles.

But your lens package is also attractive.

I'm guessing that Lecia made 85 because it was cost effective at the time - it might still be. Hopefully, the 100 or 105 can be, to.

I think the point is that what is made, is made so that it doesn't break anyone's back to own it, so that lots of people can use it to take lots of pictures with it.

My best,

Mike

NikoDoby said:
Yes but at the same time the next generation of full frame cameras is going to have that same fairy dust sprinkled all over them too. Only there will be a lot more room on an FX sensor for all that dust to fall on :^)

It will be interesting to see just how dense (MP count) an affordable FX can be. When affordable (D700, not D3x) FX sensors reach the density of even last generation's DX sensors I think the end of high-end crop DSLRs is neigh.

Higher density = lower yield due to an increase in companion circuitry flaws. (A bum photosite can be remapped, a bum data line can kill a whole line. As the photosites become smaller and smaller they are consuming less of the total area of the die (yes there are more of them, but the companion traces are shrinking in size slower than the photosites, this is ok so long as a microlens array over the sensor ensures no light gets wasted by falling on "wires") increasing the chance of a flaw being fatal.) It is logical for DX (or 1.6, or even 1.3) sensors to densify first as a bum sensor costs significantly less and lower yields can be absorbed without as much pain as a bum full-frame sensor.

spraynpray said:
I don't think the thoughts and opinions of the NR members represent the marketplace.

Probably not.

spraynpray said:
I do think that there are plenty of current and future Nikon owners out there who only want/need DX and would never want to afford FX so I reckon (actually hope) DX has a bright future.

Although, while most consumers will buy D3100s, D5100s, and a few D7000s, for those in the market for D400-class, or D800-class bodies, I think Niko's arguments ring true.

Not too far off-topic I hope, but seeing the way some of the posts are going:

I don't think the thoughts and opinions of the NR members represent the marketplace. I do think that there are plenty of current and future Nikon owners out there who only want/need DX and would never want to afford FX so I reckon (actually hope) DX has a bright future. If there was no DX Nikon, a LOT of those first time buyers would buy c*n*n.

I doubt I'll ever have FX because it all gets way too expensive.

NikoDoby said:
Instead of waiting for a DX="D400", photogs are already being tempted by the D700 which is now under $2400. Even more will buy it on the used market once a replacement arrives. So it would seem that the DX format has an awkward future.

Apparently a "D800" price would be too much to pay for a pro DX camera. However if Nikon doesn't offer a "halo" DX camera then the only path above the D7000 leads towards a full frame camera. I don't think a "D400" with a D7000 sensor and D300 controls will do well against used D700s and new "D800s".

Right. The D7000 is likely my last DX body purchase.

If in fact the D800 comes out, and the D700 drops in price significantly in the used market, unless it's got the D3s sensor, I'll probably opt for the less expensive, used D700.

Niko,
Had a look at your visual price list and I think there are several points I would like to raise.
1) For the DX range, the gap between the D7000 and the D400 is way too big. It would indicate that there is room for something in between or that the price you suggest is too high.
2) Instead of a Pro EV I would think that there is a better chance of a D7000FX in that spot

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,
However, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax and whoever the angels are that have worked their fairy dust on the sensors on the D7000 et. al., have done wonders to improve the image of DX (pun not withstanding).
My best,

Mike

Yes but at the same time the next generation of full frame cameras is going to have that same fairy dust sprinkled all over them too. Only there will be a lot more room on an FX sensor for all that dust to fall on :^)

Hi,

"...So it would seem that the DX format has an awkward future."

Amen.

However, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax and whoever the angels are that have worked their fairy dust on the sensors on the D7000 et. al., have done wonders to improve the image of DX (pun not withstanding).

It seems that there are things at work that are more than just ordinary image quality. You have to believe that the image quality is good, too.

My best,

Mike

shutteredglass said:
Looking at NikoDoby's pricing table, it seems Nikon would run the risk of individuals in the market for a camera on par with the DX-"D400" picking up the cheaper FX-"D800" and using the price difference to make up that 1.5 crop gain with a teleconverter or longer lens. I think a less expensive FX body would capture the market share of a top tier DX body especially when looking at lens offerings - both future and the previous 60 odd years of Nikon glass.

Just my thoughts

Instead of waiting for a DX="D400", photogs are already being tempted by the D700 which is now under $2400. Even more will buy it on the used market once a replacement arrives. So it would seem that the DX format has an awkward future.

Apparently a "D800" price would be too much to pay for a pro DX camera. However if Nikon doesn't offer a "halo" DX camera then the only path above the D7000 leads towards a full frame camera. I don't think a "D400" with a D7000 sensor and D300 controls will do well against used D700s and new "D800s".

Looking at NikoDoby's pricing table, it seems Nikon would run the risk of individuals in the market for a camera on par with the DX-"D400" picking up the cheaper FX-"D800" and using the price difference to make up that 1.5 crop gain with a teleconverter or longer lens. I think a less expensive FX body would capture the market share of a top tier DX body especially when looking at lens offerings - both future and the previous 60 odd years of Nikon glass.

Just my thoughts

NikoDoby said:
Yeah that's why computers have never come down in price in three decades either.

They have come down in price almost entirely due to smaller die sizes. The 80386 started as a 1.5 µm process part.
Current Core i7s are on the 32 nm process. 1/5th the linear scale, 1/25 the area per transistor, and still on-die cache is the most expensive part of a processor.

A secondary cost reduction came with the introduction of 300mm wafers, significantly less wasted edge space (when laying out rectangular dies) than 200mm wafers. 450mm wafers are next, but there have been enough problems with adoption that wafer prices are expected to increase in the near term.

EDIT: Should have said "adaptation" not "introduction" of 300mm (12") wafers. When they were introduced they were 4-5x the cost per square cm when compared to their 200mm brethren. Eventually the price fell enough that the 30-40% yield increases they allowed justified their cost. Last I looked they were still more expensive per cm than old 8"ers but, as I said, they give greater yields. This is actually still a hurdle for small timers looking to produce short-runs of chips. As the 8" factories switch over to 12" it means higher minimum prices per run on short-orders. FWIW this has helped fuel the ARM system-on-a-chip market as it's often cheaper to buy a generic ARM SoC with more capabilities than you need than to custom-order exactly what you need. But that's really neither here nor there.

EDIT 2:
Then there is the introduction of BGA and other compact chip packaging as a significant cost reduction in computer parts. Smaller packages mean smaller printed circuit boards and when PCBs also have a cost directly proportional to layers*area any culling of space there reaps cost savings.
Not to mention the assembly cost reductions caused by modern chip packages and the oven soldering techniques as opposed to robots soldering individual pins.

AND almost none of these causes of decreased PC prices over time did benefit sensors. Larger wafers? Sure, if sensor factories are high-enough volume to switch over. I'd assume many are, but they definitely consume orders of magnitude less silicon than even the most backwater flash memory fab. They'll either be late to the party or we'll pay a price. And it ain't like Sony can call up Sandisk one day and say "can I have the phone number of your most modern fab?" There's a lot more differences between processors and sensors than a simple mask swap.

Drab said:
No. There have been no significant cost reductions in the price of silicon wafers in the last three decades.

Yeah that's why computers have never come down in price in three decades either.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,
I can say that I remember very, very well being in pools of photographers where everyone used Nikon equipment - everyone, plain as the light of day.

That isn't the case anymore by a long shot. Look at any TV news conference or sports game.

Something has happened over time. The game has and is changing. That's clear.

My best,

Mike

Yes I do remember. Nikon took too long to develop their auto focus lenses. Canon just started over with a new mount and left Nikon in the dust. The D3 helped to change that but that's a different topic.

Hi all,

"Inexpensive" is certainly a relative term. If you're eking out a living doing something else, and using your camera as a second income to someone who books their time daily and hasn't enough time to meet requirements.

As far as what Nikon should or could do, it their business. I can say that I remember very, very well being in pools of photographers where everyone used Nikon equipment - everyone, plain as the light of day.

That isn't the case anymore by a long shot. Look at any TV news conference or sports game.

Something has happened over time. The game has and is changing. That's clear.

My best,

Mike