What IF The D700 And D300 Replacements Reverse Places?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

What IF The D700 And D300 Replacements Reverse Places?

(81 posts) (29 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 123 4 Next »

Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

D300 - One of the best / most selling design prosumer DSLRs . Surely a success story .
D700 - Ditto but FF pro body . So IRREPLACABLE that there are almost no second hand D700s available under $1900-2000 ( I couldn't find a single used D700 3 weeks ago in US ebay see discussion about this in NR ).

And now why change things around & take risks ?? Why fix a running machine ?

That is why we have Sony ; they are the ones to be inconsistent and to try absurd things all the time ( 13 entry level DSLRs in 15 months )

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Moving the D300 to a full pro body with a grip would leave too large a gap in the DX line between the D7000 and the new pro DX.

The buffer of the D7000 fills up too quickly to keep up with fast action, and if you shoot RAW you're in a bind.

Unless the D7000 gets upgraded significantly I don't see how that could work.

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

With the option to shoot Dx on an Fx I don't see this as the most likely route. Im still voting for the D300s D700 combine and another body between the D700 and the D3sish which is kinda similar to what niko is saying but different..

Paperman said:
That is why we have Sony ; they are the ones to be inconsistent and to try absurd things all the time ( 13 entry level DSLRs in 15 months )

The bigger joke is that I know several Sony users clamoring for a a700 replacement to buy now...

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

Really? 13 DSLRs in 15 months?

OMFG. I have no words for that.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

Testing123 said:
Really? 13 DSLRs in 15 months?

Sorry, 12 :-) ..Check the models between May 2009 - Aug 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Alpha

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

Separating the Pro and Consumer markets with FX and DX appeared from comments in 35/1.8DX release to be a strategy Nikon was following. My impression is there are alot more weddings, corporate events, studio portraits and journalists covering non-sports vs. the number of people who want uber-Pro APS-C. Nikon wants Niche markets butultra-high resolution FX with very cropable DX OR sensor swappable Pro body seems more likely way to support this niche market while maintaining Amateur vs. Pro=DX/plastic vs. FX/metal.When market is saturated with better DX cameras with ultra-good high ISO they probably will make plastic FX to entice buyers but I think that is down the road and way below $2000. I think for now anything ?=$2000 will be FX Pro. Even the D7000 had to start dressing up to be seen at $1200...

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

I like Niko's out-of-the-box Nikon product management thinking! Drab's post, while both astute, and utterly logical, simply makes too much damned sense.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Drab said:
Which if we run with this premise (and I see no reason nor evidence that we shouldn't) such a simplistic answer as "new body = old body price + 300" is not going to happen.

Damn! I was SURE that was what Nikon's new product pricing strategy really was!

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Drab said:
There were no FX options, so the fact it was APS-C is meaningless, as there was no full-frame digital Nikon with which to compare.

And that's why a D2X DX camera today would probably cost near $3000.

Drab said:
The D7000 wasn't at the D90's price-point (even exchange-rate adjusted) so why would one expect a new "D2X" camera coming in at the D300(s) price point?

D90=$1000 and D7000=$1200 or $200 dollar difference. Versus D2X=$5000 and D300=$1800 or $3200 dollar difference. So yes the D7000 is in the same price point as the D90.

Drab said:
The problem being I have yet to come up with what I feel is a plausible way for Nikon to "shake things up" as NikoDoby suggests. Likely a lack of creativity on my part.

Must be why you call yourself "Drab"

Papermansaid:
D300 - One of the best / most selling design prosumer DSLRs . Surely a success story .
D700 - Ditto but FF pro body

Exactly why Nikon is in no hurry to make direct replacements for those models and why Nikon continues to sell the D90 after the D7000 came along. They might do the same thing with their next DSLR. It won't really be a replacement so much as an additional model. At least for a while anyway.

Papermansaid:
And now why change things around & take risks ??

You guys always complain that Nikon always plays it safe and never does anything to shake things up. A DX pro camera would not only make waves but it would say that the DX format is not just for amateurs and wanna-be pros. Right now the D300S is the top-of-the-line DX camera. The only path you can upgrade to is full frame. Why not give DX users a halo pro camera to lust after?

I just don't think Nikon would price it like the original D2X. They would have to price it closer to the D700. But if such a camera existed then a "D800" wouldn't be at the same price point. So that's why perhaps the D300 and D700 replacements *might* switch places in Nikon's lineup.

Posted 2 years ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

Really, this seems to be the direction in which Nikon is heading, although I'm not too sure about the pricing. For sure, I think we can expect the D400 to be more than just a D300s with a D7000 sensor, since the difference in build quality and overall parts between the D7000 and the D400 would be too close- Nikon is going to have to add more in order to justify another price point. Adding a built-in grip would be 1 possibility, since there is currently no DX camera with a built-in grip, and the benefit of the grip is that a camera with a built-in grip is smaller than a camera with an add-on grip. I think $3000+ is too much for such a camera though, considering that it is basically a combination of a D300s, D7000 and the grip. $2400 sounds more reasonable, even with currency fluctuations taken into account.

In many ways, a lower end D700 relacement would also be in Nikon's best interest. If they use the same sensors as their higher end cousins, then Nikon will have to differentiate between the two lines some how- a slight reduction in build quality (which also reduces weight), might be one way to do this. In addition, this would allow them to price it closer to a 5D2/a850, which would pick up more that market segment. The problem with this is that I doubt this camera would satisfy most poeple's desire for the D700 replacement- I get the feeling that most people like the camera as it is (including its build quality) and just want to see one with an upgraded sensor, and would be pretty upset if Nikon down-graded on the build quality and/or removed other features. It might open a large price gap between the D4 and the D700 replacement, that would need to be filled with something, but featurewise, it is difficult to spec with a camera that would be appropriate.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Interesting thoughts and comments. I have a hard time thinking that Nikon will divert from the lineup styles.

I think Nikon's lineup matches Canon's way too well for them to deviate much - maybe add a pro DX. Remember what it was like when reviewers compared a Canon D50 vs a Nikon D300 - Granny apples to Golden apples. I do believe in marketing against competitors will drive products - I have seen it way too much.

Pro DX for sports and wildlife shooters? Canon has it's 1.3 crop H sensor so it is plausible Nikon would add a body. I have a hard time believing that the D300 disappears unless they come in with merging the D300 & D700 with a FX sensor at $1800 or so.

If Niko said this is the path for body design over the next 2 cycles (6 years) I could maybe see it.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

What about diffraction limits on the APS-C sensor of an "uber-DX" with ultrahigh Mpixels ?

.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I think Nikon's lineup matches Canon's way too well for them to deviate much - maybe add a pro DX.

Solid point. It's not in the nature (collusion) of Japanese businesses to deviate much from their competition (partners).

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Drab said:
It's not in the nature (collusion) of Japanese businesses to deviate much from their competition (partners).

So how do you explain the COOLPIX S1000PJ and S1100PJ cameras? Where is Canon's camera with a built-in projector? A Pro DX camera wouldn't be that out of place against the competition now would it?

Interesting that you guys wouldn't pay $3000 for a "$5000 D2X" camera in today's market. Apparently the perception that DX is an "amateur" format seems to have stuck with a lot of you.

So what if the "20+" megapixel pro DX camera turns out to be Nikon's new EVIL rangefinder-ish camera instead of a "D400"? What if Nikon gives us a FX "D800" at $3000 and then a pro EVIL camera at $1800-ish? Where would that leave the "D400"? Would it sell for $2400 body only?

Why pay $2400 for a "D400" when you can buy a full frame D700?

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

When you say "pro EVIL" do you mean for pros, or aimed at pros (like the Japanese D300s nikon link). I see a difference between the two.

The X100 is aimed at pros, but I wouldn't call it a pro camera.

A Dx with a DX sensor would be a pro camera IMO and I think $3000 is reasonable (maybe the only one). As I have said, I don't really consider the D300 pro, although it is a very good camera.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Hmm what about the D700 then Gareth? Is the D700 a "pro" camera? It's just a D300 but with a full frame sensor, right? What would you add to the D300 to make it a "pro" camera? Better sealing? Vertical grip? What else?

How could a pro camera NOT be aimed at pros? I don't understand the difference you see? A pro EVIL camera to me would have to have a metal body, weather sealing, "full" external controls and "superior" DSLR image quality (e.g ISO performance). And the price would have to be way up there so that I couldn't possibly be mistaken for an amateur while carrying it :^)

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

NikoDoby said:
So how do you explain the COOLPIX S1000PJ and S1100PJ cameras?

As an insignificant ripple in the large pond.
The collusionary practices of the Japanese businesses is well known and accepted. It was not a claim I need to defend.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

If it was so insignificant and If it didn't sell in large numbers then why did Nikon make a follow up model? I am very aware of the secret deals large companies make under the table. I don't need you to explain it to me.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

NikoDoby said:
If it was so insignificant and If it didn't sell in large numbers then why did Nikon make a follow up model? I am very aware of the secret deals large companies make under the table. I don't need you to explain it to me.

Were you challenging the accusations of collusion and product line similarity by bringing them up or were you making some unspecified point?

They are insignificant in that they fail to disprove TaoTeJared point that the product lines don't vary much.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

I didn't bring it up, you did. But now that we're on a roll, "Who's On First"

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

NikoDoby said:
I didn't bring it up, you did.

O-o

Posted 2 years ago #
SteveM

member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 14
offline

Tomorrow's pitching, Today's catching and Sunshine's in left field. Nikon has a corporate box and canon's stuck in the bleacher seats ! It's D700 feet to dead center field (no pun intended for dead) and D300 down the left field line. As for me I'm going to go to my camera store today to look at the D700 and the 24-120mm f4 lens. I have a feeling that even when the D700 is replaced/upgraded that the new model won't have the low light capabilities that the D700 has and that the D700 will become one of the classic bodies of lore. what do y'all think? I'm just a dummie swinging a D90 in the batters circle ready to clear the wall in dead center !

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

I may be a bit slow :-) But I didnt quite understand what you meant by switch places. Yeah a bit thick. but after a few days and reading your further comments I now see what you mean. ie you are talking in terms of the literal position in the nikon product line up. :-) I guess why it took me so long to grasp it was that I always considered the DX line up and the FX line up as totally separate product lines, almost as if they were from separate companies. From that point of view you can see my confusion !! lol. But also from that point of view it would be obvious and inevitable that the Top most DX camera will become better than the lowest of the FX product line. So I didnt get what the fuss was about ! Heh!

@ SteveM : D700+24-120F4 , that sounds like a classic set up that will be useful for many years! (nice prose too!)

Posted 2 years ago #
elvishefer

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 496
offline

Now:

D3X
D3S
D700
D300s
D7000
others

Proposed:

D4X - me
D4 - me
D3X
D3S
D800 - modernized FX pro body, $3,000
D400 - balls-out DX, EVIL, D2X (pro) body, etc. $2,400
D700
D300s
D7000
others

And in time:

D4X
D4
D800
D400
D7000
others

Thought I'd try to visualize what you're discussing. Feel free to correct/rework as you see fit. I added the D4 lines because I think it makes sense.

EDIT:

I should point out that the order is

most expensive
\/
least expensive

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

NikoDoby said:
So how do you explain the COOLPIX S1000PJ and S1100PJ cameras? Where is Canon's camera with a built-in projector? A Pro DX camera wouldn't be that out of place against the competition now would it?

Coolpix and the like are testing grounds and designs are more geared towards the "in the moment consumer." I don't see a relationship other than a name badge.

NikoDoby said:
Interesting that you guys wouldn't pay $3000 for a "$5000 D2X" camera in today's market. Apparently the perception that DX is an "amateur" format seems to have stuck with a lot of you.

Simply, No most would not. It is not the stigma of a DX format but the reality that technology has surpassed to such a large degree that it has no longer become a sustainable option. (Two exceptions; Pro DX for sports/wildlife or If video capabilities somehow increase 10-fold that would create a whole new class of system.)

NikoDoby said:
So what if the "20+" megapixel pro DX camera turns out to be Nikon's new EVIL rangefinder-ish camera instead of a "D400"? What if Nikon gives us a FX "D800" at $3000 and then a pro EVIL camera at $1800-ish? Where would that leave the "D400"? Would it sell for $2400 body only?

I think the EVIL system is outside the DSLR line-up and is in it's own class. Intermingling the two overly credits the Micro 4/3, NEX, and other ILCs than they deserve. If you have used any of them, you know they are barely in the same class in performance wise (not image quality) as an entry level DSLR. Nothing different than how other view a Leica.

----
Nikon has rarely came out of nowhere on its DSLRs and has always been steady. They have focused on AF, metering, Flash CLS performance and image quality.

To me there is nothing wrong with this.

Nikon as usually been second to last to the table on most DSLR releases per marketing specs. While others are eating with dull knives, pick-less forks and shallow spoons, and even if Nikon is a little late, I would rather eat with them any day.

Posted 2 years ago #