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 1 234 Next »

Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi all,

An inexpensive and SP-like pro quality mirror-less, interchangeable lens camera with three fast and inexpensive lenses would take over the street photography scene and likely the art and photojournalism niche market - perhaps several markets - faster than Nikon could fill the orders - although that doesn't seem to be a good indicator.

Keys to that are 'inexpensive', 'SP-like', 'pro quality', and 'fast lenses'.

I think a company can put out a camera that will work (Panasonic hasn't done a shabby job at all), but to meet a lot of these criteria, but to hit all these marks, Nikon really needs a home run.

The SP was right after the original Nikon rangefinders that correspondents liked so much they abandoned their Lecias in covering Korea in the early 50's - that made what we think of as "Nikon", Nikon. The lenses were contrasty and considerably cheaper.

There's a chance for Nikon to grow a new customer base and reinforce a old one.

We'll just wait and see.

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

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

Mike Gunter said:
Keys to that are 'inexpensive', 'SP-like', 'pro quality', and 'fast lenses'.

I agree 100%.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

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.

But what about the neo people who feel a 50 equivalent is too long for a standard lens and want a 35 equivelent? That would make the lineup more like 24, 35, 85 - but 24 is hard on a 1.5 crop sensor and the flange depth requirements of a SLR. (Don't know how much easier it is on a mirrorless, everyone says it opens up possibilities, but Micro 4/3rds seems to bottom out at 11mm, about the same as Nikon DX.)

So I think you need four primes (just like Nikon seems to feel there are four primary primes): 24, 35, 50, 85. I think that would keep the old timers and the neos both happy. Just that I think you need to do what Nikon never did for DX and make four (fast) primes at the equivalent lengths: 16, 24, 35, and 50 (Rather it be 60). (I say never as I don't see a 16mm DX prime coming from them beofore DX is set out to pasture as a SLR format and the 14 f/2.8 is an unwieldy hoss.)

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

elvishefer said:
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

You are on the right track but my original post was about switching the D700 and D300 replacements around. So "visually" it would go something like this:

D3X= $6000+
D4H= $5000+
D3S= $5000-
a new DX Pro Body ("D400"-although I doubt such a camera would be called a D400) $3000+/-
"D800"= $2500+/-
"Pro"EVIL= $1800
D7000= $1200
"D5100"=$999
D3100=$700
EVIL COOLPIX?= $600

Whatever the Pro EVIL camera turns out to be, you guys will be disappointed either way. Some of you will be disappointed if it has a smaller than APS-C sensor. Some will be disappointed because it cost "too much" or is "too small". Others will hate that it isn't a full frame. If it is a full frame camera then some of you will hate that it's "too big" and not pocketable. Then some of you will complain that it's a new lens mount, etc. etc.

The same will happen to the D300 and D800 replacements. Regardless of where they are priced and what their specs are, there will be disappointment.

Mike Gunter said:
Keys to that are 'inexpensive', 'SP-like', 'pro quality', and 'fast lenses'.

The words "SP, Pro quality, and fast lenses" don't go with the word "inexpensive". It's just not going to happen.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

TaoTeJared said:
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.

The COOLPIX line is Nikon's life blood. They sell more compacts than DSLR's combined or close to it. They wouldn't just build a COOLPIX to test something out.

TaoTeJared said:
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.)

Exactly why Nikon needs a pro DX camera. Photographers can buy a COOLPIX and then move up to the D3100. Then they can go up to the D7000 or D300 but then where do you upgrade once you have accumulated a camera bag full of DX lenses? I don't think "technology" has surpassed the DX format. If it did then why bother keeping it around? Eventually the price of FX sensors can only come down, right?

For the record I have both FX and DX gear but I consider myself an FX shooter and it's been at least a year since I bought a new DX lens. I wouldn't really shed a tear if DX quietly died. But that's not going to happen. Just ask Heartyfisher :^)

TaoTeJared said:
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

I don't agree because you are thinking in terms of the first generation of EVIL cameras. AF and image quality will only get better. Just look at the performance of the Sony a55 family and remember that they have the "same" sensor as the D7000 and Pentax K-5. Like it or not the reflex mirror is quickly becoming a dinosaur. Remember they got rid of the aperture ring on lenses so why not the DSLR mirror too?

Anyway at this point in the discussion it'll be really funny if Nikon announces a D400 with just a D7000 sensor :^)

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

NikoDoby said:Eventually the price of FX sensors can only come down, right?

No. There have been no significant cost reductions in the price of silicon wafers in the last three decades. The overwhelming cause of cheaper chips over time has been due to miniaturization and the lessening need for silicon.

But I think that may be your point.

NikoDoby said:
For the record I have both FX and DX gear but I consider myself an FX shooter and it's been at least a year since I bought a new DX lens. I wouldn't really shed a tear if DX quietly died. But that's not going to happen. Just ask Heartyfisher :^)

But the promise of DX has always been in its size. (The supposed "free teleconverter" benefit is a symptom of low yields.) Making a FX sized DX body is seeming more and more silly as time progresses.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
shutteredglass

member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 23
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

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".

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

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 :^)

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

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

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

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

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

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

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

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

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

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?

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

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?

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

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!

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #