What if: Nikon's Cunning Master Plan......

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

What if: Nikon's Cunning Master Plan......

(30 posts) (13 voices)

Started 3 years ago by poster
Latest reply from PB PM
Related Topics:
1. How can/will the D7000 be upgraded?
2. [D7000] - Questions Re: Nikon's D7000 Marketing Plan

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

Alright so the rumor has it that there will be a new entry level DSLR and a refresh of D90. There's no word no D700's update at all.

Now think about this,

What if Nikon is going to release the new beginner DSLR to compete against Sony, Panny, and Olympus'micro 4/3 , EVIL cameras.

And the D90 update will be actually a full frame DSLR but in D90's body. So less controls than D700 but lower price point.

Think about it we already have two beginners cameras that came out recently the D5000 and D3000, what's the reason to release the new beginner camera?

maybe Nikon doesn't have anything up it's sleave with new sensors etc, so it would make sense to created an affordable FX DSLR in a D90's body. D700 sales will still be going up due to it's more pro body. Seems like something quite possible, or well I am just too dreamy.

It would be a massive kick to the balls for Canon, if an affordable FX would be released first by Nikon.

Posted 3 years ago #
clillja

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 121
offline

That would be cool, but unless Nikon invented an incredible new process to drastically reduce the cost of producing a 24x36 sensor, I'm doubting it. Then again, if they did that it would be time to buy some Nikon stock. Seriously. 1951 jpy as of 4/15/10 - forget the camera - retire comfortably.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

We've talked about the long rumored "affordable" full frame camera extensively before. We pretty much all agree that if Nikon were to announce a full frame "D90" then it would pretty much mean the end of DX.

Production cost wouldn't be at all a problem for a $1500-2000 full frame camera. Sony already has one with 24mp at $1999 so why not Nikon? Put a new Sony 14 or 16mp full frame sensor in a Nikon D90 plastic body and watch them fly off the shelves even if they don't have an AF motor!

Remember there was a time when there were NO DSLRs below $1000 and canon was the first to break that barrier. Why can't Nikon be the first to break some full frame barriers too?

The "D4000" is going to probably be just a slightly more expensive D3000 with video and swivel screen and perhaps the same 14mp Sony sensor as the NEX cameras.

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

Good point about DX. I was thinking that a DX line would be still around for some time. Mostly aimed at hobbyists etc. But yeah it wouldn't make sense to keep the production lines open for DX.

That's what I don't get about the D4000, is it replacing the D5000? D5000 was released just recently.

D3000 is $450

D5000 is $600

D90 is about $750 without a lens and about 1k with a kit lens

Doesn't make sense to put the D4000 into the line up.

Have the beginner cameras from the competitors actually so much better/cheaper that there's a need for a new D4000? Would it have a new sensor?

I can tell you one thing, used Canon 5Ds go for about $1000 now. it' pretty damn affordable for an FX camera, granted ISO performance isn't all that great, but some people like me, are more than fine with that ISO range.

Nikon better act quickly, because while the initial investment into an affordable fx dslr might be risky and expensive, these cameras would be flying off the shelves like there's no tomorrow. It would give Canon a heart attack for sure,haha.

Posted 3 years ago #
speye_21

member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 21
offline

DX won't disappear for a couple reasons:

1) FX lenses are more expensive to produce.
2) FX lenses are more expensive for the consumer as it's more glass.
3) FX lenses don't have the 1.5x magnification factor of DX lenses. Therefore, to get a comparable FX lens of a DX equivalent will cost even more.
4) FX is much heavier than DX. Pro's deal with it, but consumers won't tolerate it. They'll move to Canon if DX is eliminated.
5) DX sensors pack more resolution into the same surface area as an FX sensor. For certain types of photography, this is beneficial and more cost effective.
6) Eliminating DX means most consumers of Nikon DSLRs from the past 10 years have obsolete equipment - think lenses which won't function on an FX body, or will only work at less than full resolution of the camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I dont know how far a FX D90 with the D700 sensor will fly :-) I guess a bunch of people here would buy it. but the cost of FX lenses will put off many current D90/D5000 users. It would be competing with other DX cameras with the 14mp nex sensors. which will have
* almost the same ISO performance
* Higher resolution
* 1080 video
* Cheaper, lighter and smaller camera size
* Cheaper, lighter and smaller lenses
* 1.5 x for the tele enthusiasts. many non pro comsumers like the tele end.
* Higher FPS
Cant see it happening .. Would be good if it did happen. I would probably get one of each :-)

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

5) DX sensors pack more resolution into the same surface area as an FX sensor. For certain types of photography, this is beneficial and more cost effective

Really?

Right now we have 12mpx FX D700, but what if Nikon will put in the 24mpx sensor from Sony in the next update.

I agree that sports photographers might like the crop factor, but for them speed is probably more important, so high ISO performance would win them over.

Usually people who buy beginner dslrs, they never upgrade their kit lenses, their investment into the equipment isn't that big.

FX is only heavier due to the magnesium alloy dslr bodies, you can put in an FX sensor into a plastic dslr body as well.

I don't think Nikon would shut down the DX line completely at least initially. Probably have two DX bodies. Something like D3000 and D5000.

Posted 3 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

From a newbie who doesn't know as much as some here have forgotten:

How long have DX Nikons been around? Not long? Seems like a massive statement of failure and smack in the chops for customers who have invested in them to drop the concept now or do anything which will precipitate their end commercially (which I don't think the above does given the market they are aimed at. Also, just because Nikon dropped DX doesn't mean Canon would which may be very important.

As Heartyfisher said above the 1.5x crop factor is a powerful seller to a certain sector of the market for the reasons stated plus for me the increased d.o.f. for macro.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

DX has been around since June 1999, when the D1 was release, so almost 11 years now, believe it or not. From a technology standpoint that is a very long time.

I would love to get my hands on a full frame camera, but frankly I'd rather stretch for the D700 than a plastic bodied camera. If I want a light weight body I'll get a EVIL camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I have to admit that poster's idea sounds very probable, it would boost their sales to put an affordable FF in a d90 body, and to put a d90 replacement (aka d4000 with DX sensor) - there will still be plenty of users who will not want to pay the heavy price tag of a FF. Believe me or not, there are some ppl who think DX is better than FX in many aspects. So I wouldn't be surprised what tomorrow will bring to us.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Agreed, even if there was a low cost, under $2000, FX body, I don't see DX suddenly dying off. First of all, there would still the $400-1200 price range for DX bodies, which is the part of the market that has the most sales among consumers.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I wouldn't expect the price to be at $2000 body only, more likely $1500 range body only (same price as pro/semi-pro DX body) - at $2000 it would be to big competitor to d700

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

I would say it would more likely be somewhere between $1600-1800, same price that the D300 original came to the market at. Then Nikon could sell the D700 replacement for $3000 without any hesitation.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

poster said:
5) DX sensors pack more resolution into the same surface area as an FX sensor. For certain types of photography, this is beneficial and more cost effective

Really?

Right now we have 12mpx FX D700, but what if Nikon will put in the 24mpx sensor from Sony in the next update.

Really. Divide the FX pixel count by 2.25 (1.5 x 1.5) to get the number of pixels on a DX sensor with the same resolution. Even that 24MP sensor has a pixel pitch much closer to a D200 than a D300 (for those who care: 6.05 µm on the D200 and 5.94 µm on the D3x compared with 5.49 µm on the D300). Some will say it doesn't matter, but it is a difference.

I don't think DX will disappear because the production benefits are so big; cost doesn't scale linearly with area in semiconductor fabrication, so DX costs much less than 2.25x less money to manufacture than FX.

As I've said on the other threads about this, poster, I really hope you're right.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Thinking about this a bit more it does make sense to have the D3S/D3X lines on the D90 FX ranges as well ... May not sell as many as the D5000/G90 levels but would sure make us enthusiasts happy!

I will get 3 please.
1) D90 with the 14mp nex sensor.
2) D90 with the 12MP D3s sensor.
3) D90 with the 24MP a900/D3X sensor.

Hmmm looking at that list above .. Sure looks like a FUJI S6 pro with a 20 MP FF super CCD sensor in a D700 body. hmmm maybe that Russian camera IS a fuji.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

That is just too many different models to make for a small manufacture like Nikon.

Posted 3 years ago #
alan fischer

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 6
offline

Nikon has been using tweaked Sony sensors and Sony just came out with new ones so maybe Nikon will use those new sensors to upgrade D-90 and other models.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

if they ARE going to do it, it'll happen in a few years, AND it'll be using then "future" 12mpx FX sensor that would essentially be blown to the moon by the newer line of FX sensors introduced back in 2007. . .

so i wouldn't rule out a D90 equivalent with FX sensor (450 matrix metering, slower AF, etc.), and it'll probably "compete" with a D300s type DX body, but lack all of the sealing, nice view-finder options currently available in that line up . . .I would imagine. .

they'll have to cripple it somehow. . .

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

They could also cripple it via, the same way they did lower end cameras in the film days, a 92% viewfinder.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

I still don't buy the "DX is smaller cheaper than FX" argument. How is the 35mm DX lens smaller and cheaper than the 50mm FX Nikkor? 35mm (FX) lenses have been around for what something like 50 years and during that time nobody complained about the "reach" not being enough. Wildlife photographers did just fine without any 1.5 cropping.

If cropping was so important than why hasn't Olympus become a dominating force with their 2X lenses? Their lenses are smaller than FX, yes, but they are also more expensive. Quality glass is quality glass and whether it's FX or DX has nothing to do with it.

What happens to DX if Nikon's patents for smaller and higher crop lenses become a reality? So then you'll have FX lens with "1X" crop, DX with only a 1.5X crop and then new smaller lighter 2.5X crop lenses. Those of you who want better "reach" wouldn't you go with the 2.5X lenses instead of just 1.5? That's a bigger difference than just .5 between FX and DX. And if you want more pixel density then you'll also want a 2.5X sensor too, right?

Bring on 35mm for the win! :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

And the fact that they've been producing FX lenses for so many years makes it easier to alter designs slightly to add VR or better coatings, etc. I wasn't claiming FX lenses are more difficult or expensive to make (and definitely not telephoto—wide angle there is an argument because of the smaller image circle). My argument was based only on sensor production costs. Maybe it makes sense to put FX in a body like the D90 and have the sensor be 1/4 to 1/3 of the total cost of the camera, but does it make sense to have a full frame D3000, where the cost of the sensor might be more than half of the total cost of the camera? Not yet, anyway, because frankly I don't think the buyers of those cameras would be willing to pay for it. DX won't disappear for a long time.

Posted 3 years ago #
towen7

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 19
offline

I don't understand the argument that a full-fram D90 would kill DX.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

NikoDoby said:
I still don't buy the "DX is smaller cheaper than FX" argument. How is the 35mm DX lens smaller and cheaper than the 50mm FX Nikkor? 35mm (FX) lenses have been around for what something like 50 years and during that time nobody complained about the "reach" not being enough. Wildlife photographers did just fine without any 1.5 cropping.

If cropping was so important than why hasn't Olympus become a dominating force with their 2X lenses? Their lenses are smaller than FX, yes, but they are also more expensive. Quality glass is quality glass and whether it's FX or DX has nothing to do with it.

What happens to DX if Nikon's patents for smaller and higher crop lenses become a reality? So then you'll have FX lens with "1X" crop, DX with only a 1.5X crop and then new smaller lighter 2.5X crop lenses. Those of you who want better "reach" wouldn't you go with the 2.5X lenses instead of just 1.5? That's a bigger difference than just .5 between FX and DX. And if you want more pixel density then you'll also want a 2.5X sensor too, right?

Bring on 35mm for the win! :^)

I agree, most of my lenses are 35mm type not DX. There are lots of older AF-D lenses that have great quality for a lot less than the pro full frame lenses. Many of those lenses were fine for film and still fine for FX bodies. People have this strange idea that you are wasting your money if you don't put F2.8 or faster lenses on an FX body.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

towen7 said:
I don't understand the argument that a full-fram D90 would kill DX.

If a full frame "D90" existed then it would sell like crazy just like the first under $1000 DSLR did for canon. It took Nikon about a year or so to respond with the D70. You can use FX lenses with a DX body but you can't really use DX glass on an FX body. So people who buy an FX "D90" wouldn't want to buy DX lenses. If you currently have a D5000 and you want to move up to the FX body later then you'd buy the D5000 but also only buy FX lenses so that you're not "stuck" with a camera bag full of "worthless" DX glass.

Jonny the entry level cameras like the D3000 will probably "transform" into something smaller and lighter like EVIL cameras. So in essence the entry level DSLRs would start at the D90 range.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

have to dissagree with You, it all depends on price. there are ppl who will get D90 FX and will pay the higher price, and there are ppl for whom d90dx is enough, there are also ppl who buy d700 with kit lens and never upgrade their glass. above of all of this is one, signle and most important factor - PRICE. if dx kit will make You save $200 or more, than there will be a lot of ppl who wouldn't care about the bigger and better FX glass.

as for wildlife photography, sure in the analog times ppl didn't used 1.5 crop, but at the beginning of 19th centure ppl didn't used automatic transitions. dx factor has a lot of pros for wildlifer, and only the (mostly) high iso factor of FX sensor can outshine the crop mode, as any one who ever used a 500mm (or longer) lens will say that the shorter time the better

Posted 3 years ago #