Nikon D300 became Nikon D300s.

Nikon D3 became Nikon D3s.

Shouldn't we have a D700 becoming a D700s? Seems like a logical progression to me.

- Darrell
(I like Up Quarks better than Down Quarks. They just seem more positive.)

There are much better lens today then this one, it is not all that bad but it would be nice if it is a bit better.

mb - what's wrong with 24-120 vr, I was using this lens couple years ago and never had any problems with it's performance, both on digital and film

I doubt D500, if it is a real thing, would be a DX camera, too early after D300s. More realistic to me would be D90 class FX camera, and they could save D400 for a D300 replacement.
D800 is another story, I would love higher resolution D700, adding just a video would be great disappointment for me and I think it would be called D700s in that case.
As for lens 24-120 VR is around for a while, it has very versatile range but it was never an outstanding lens anyway, so I would really like a similar but much improved FX lens.

Hey the D40X came out like 4 months after the D40 so it can happen.

A D500 in February sounds pretty weird to me...

but it's about time for the D800.

So if there is a "delay" then it'll be announced next year right?

Nikon D800 is firm. Like I said before, it will be launched before this year Christmas if there is no delay.

Another rumors site is saying a D800 is coming in feb/mar 2010. No specs but the "source" is apparently a Nikon "rep". Seems like a pretty weak rumor/source to me but those Melville guys do like to party hard! So maybe a "rep" got wasted and started talking?

Actually you should never buy a camera, as there is always a newer and better model right around the corner.

@bernard, unless the local dealer is a friend of yours, then I think that he is just trying to sell his old stock.

"D500 And Or D800 In Feb 2010?"
D500 might not be possible since Nikon just launched D300s.
In the other hand, we might see D800 before christmas.

Well then I suppose we can't expect a D13 ;^)

Their Melville HQ doesn't have a 13th floor :^)

NikoDoby said:
Nikon had the F4 and D40 so superstition isn't it.

That's what I though too. Has Nikon ever been superstitious?

Nikon had the F4 and D40 so superstition isn't it.

Skipping 400, 500, and 600 makes sense to me as it leaves room for DX x00 bodies below the FF x00 bodies.

Yea, early in the digital age they broke silly with 70 and 50, but they have always been shuffled in the x0 line, see 75 post 80, etc.

I had been _hopeful_ those days were over with the three chronological generations at 100, 200, 300, but I guess not.

soap said:
Did I miss why it's the D500 and not D400?

AFAIK, the number 4 is bad luck, in certain Oriental countries.

Well they did announce the D700 long before the D400,D500, and the D600.

I was wondering that too but then again, Nikon is great at not releasing in chronological order; D50 then D40 then D60. Although they've not yet done that in this line but who knows.

No you didn't Soap, I was wondering the same thing.

Did I miss why it's the D500 and not D400?

Good idea ! I shall try that :o)

Buy him a few rounds of his favorite drink and then ask him again Bernard! :^)

The man in my local shop just advised me that if I felt like spending some money to upgrade my D300, I should NOT buy the D300S ! The reasons: Not worth it (He knows I don't care about video), and the near future release of a real upgrade…

I guess he means this D500 but I don't think he knows any more than what he told me, which is quite significant in my opinion.

Canon has already released firmware to correct the "barely noticeable" problem of the 7D. Nau the D700 didn't make sense either when it was rumored. Why would anyone buy a D3 when you could get a D700?