where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Now that we have the D4 (D3s replacement) and the D800 (D700 replacement), is this the end of the FX releases for this generation of cameras?
I would like to see a 24Mpix FX released with specifications and market positioning directly between the D4 and D800. To me 24Mpix is the ideal sweet spot.
Nope. I don't think the market is large or "rich" enough to support that many FX cameras. The D3x is 24mp and will be dropping like a rock for used ones when the D800 gets into people's hands though.
I will speculate thusly:
D4 and D800 and D899e will be enough Nikon FX bodies for the next two years. They will fill the market demand. About 2 years from now Nikon will freshen them by swapping sensors between the two for a 36mp D4x and a 16mp D800s. At that time there will be some other advancements added which improve the performance of the 2 year old sensors somewhat. Four years from now we will move to the D5 and D900 generation. Two new FX bodes every four years with a minor refresh in the middle of that four year cycle will give you 5 FX variations during this generation and that will be enough to satisfy the few people who will pay for FX.
It is possible the D400 will go to FX. However, it the FX sensor really does cost around $500 to produce and the other FX electronics cost over $1,000 you already have a cost of $1,500 and you have not yet added all the other parts. If FX continues to remain 10 or more times more costly to produce than DX, Nikon will not be able to sell an FX camera for around $2,000. The D400 needs to sell for about $2,000 to fill a market gap. If an FX cannot be built for $2,000 and still make money for Nikon they won't take the D400 to FX. That seems to be the economic situation today. The D400 is more likely to be something like a 24mp DX sensor. But just because the D400 isn't FX doesn't mean it won't be very, very good!
I don't believe a D800 is a replacement for a D700, as had been said elsewhere in the forum, they suit two different types of photographers.
IMHO the D400 will replace the D300s and will have a DX sensor. If anybody wants to bet it is going to have an FX not a DX, I'll have some of that action. Other investments haven't done so well recently so I could do with a cert.
Many people did not want to believe that the D7000 was the D90 replacement. Even Nikon said that it was a not a direct replacement but that it was to be a totally different camera in its own right. But yet, there was no forthcoming D90x or D90e or D90s, or D100. I believe that we could be witnessing a paradigm shift in Nikon's practices and that future technology will move down paths that will force US to keep up with IT (i.e. many of us will have to get faster computers and bigger hard drives if we want to shoot a 36MP camera that also takes video).
Just maybe that potential 24MP camera that some people desire will either be a DX D7100 or DX D400. As I type this I'm trying hard to figure where a FX 24MP camera would reasonably fit into the lineup in such a way that it wont destroy the D4 sales.
When I wrote D400 I should have written 'D400'. It may be called D7100 or whatever.
No, I don't think the replacement for the D7000 will also be the replacement for for the D400. Nikon won't merge those two camera lines. Nikon pitched the D400 as the "pro body" of the DX line. That means a larger body, the same size as the D700 body. It also means three buttons on top left for quick access to Quality, White Balance and ISO. The D300 has a different size body and different control layout than the DX cameras falling below it. The D7000 replacement will keep the same body size and control layout as the D7000 or it won't be named the D7100. The D400 will keep the same body size and control layout as the D300 or it won't be named the D400. Four digits and three digits are separate camera lines; hence the naming convention used by Nikon. While a D7100 could have a better sensor than the D300s and thus be considered a "replacement" it won't be seen as such by Nikon. I expect the new D400 to use the same body size and control layout as the D800 but just use a 24mp sensor. In a way it will be about a $1,000 cheaper D800 because it uses the DX sensor.
I beleive the jury is in that the D7000 replaced the D90 and brought the build quality to match Canon's 60D camera. With the Canon releasing the 7d the Nikon D400 will continue to be the "pro" DX camera. The D7000 lacks the AF & metering modules to match the pro level. I wouldn't be surprised to see something close to a 24mp in that camera.
Just like the J1/V1 surprised everyone in the quality, I think everyone will become more comfortable with what Nikon has released.
I agree with Tao. The D400 should be the best value in the Nikon line for serious shooters. The only thing "lacking" or technically "inferior" should be the smaller size sensor but that new DX sensor will be so good that it won't matter to something like 95% of the people 95% of the time in what they shoot and how large they print. With the D400 out something like 95% of shooters really won't have a need to go FX.
We will soon see.
donaldejose said:
... Four digits and three digits are separate camera lines; hence the naming convention used by Nikon...
Did anyone else ever think that Nikon's camera naming conventions are seriously retarded? First the D1 and D100. The lowest segment, the D70, was replaced by the D80 and then the D90. Which is where the D100 should come in logically. But! - difference in number of digits(?) Then what about the D40, D50 and D60? You can't replace those with a D70 anymore (although being half a decade younger, the were arguably more capable), and neither a D90 with a model named D100. Hence the D7000, which is rather correctly to be replaced by a D7100. D400... is that an early D700 predecessor? And how come the top of the shelf stuff has one digit only, the lowliest line (used to have) 2 and the semi professional segment 3?
Can't blame 'em for not being prophetic with their 2012 sales back in 2001 or whatever. It's a sort of historical growth, I know. Still, at one point they should get it together.
Gets even funnier when you compare current/historical Nikon naming with Canon, which is pretty much the inverse. The Canon 40D and the Nikon D40 are not to be mixed up . Neither the Canon 300D ("Digital Rebel") and the Nikon D300.
Sorry for being off topic. ;-) Back to FX.
"It may be called D7100 or whatever."
Emphasis on whatever - my point being it will be pro and it will be DX.
I'm hoping for excellent ISO 24mp or unbelievable ISO 16mp.
As for DX being technically inferior, that means FX is technically inferior to MF but in fact, it is an entirely different animal.
spraynpray said:
"It may be called D7100 or whatever."Emphasis on whatever - my point being it will be pro and it will be DX.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it seems that what you're still implying is that the next iterations of these cameras will be one camera - a combination of "pro body" and DX. I think just like donalddejose in that there will be 2 separate cameras: prosumer D7100 with the same size body as the current D7000, and D400 with the same size body as the current D300s with DX sensor.
No again sprayandpray. Sorry. The D7000 replacement won't be pro. It will be the top of Nikon's consumer line although certainly capable of taking professional quality photos and with a metal body it will durable enough for some pro use. But it won't be in Nikon's pro line or in Nikon's "prosumer" (lite pro) line. Not in the top line, not in the middle line but top of the bottom line.
Yes kenadams, Nikon's digital camera names have been far too confusing. Perhaps they are starting to sort it out correctly with the D3100 being the lowest and the update being named a D3200. That makes sense. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 makes sense with variations carrying a small letter such as D3s and D3x. The small letter addition was also used by the D300 to become the D300s. Between the one digit top professional or "heavy pro" line and the four digit consumer line falls the three digit "prosumer?" or "lite pro" line. D100, D200, D300, D700 filled that gap with DX and FX models designed for professional use in a professional size body but lightened of standard features in some way (such as no built in battery grip, less FPS, less clean high ISO, etc.) Seen as three separate body lines you can understand why the D90 replacement couldn't follow a numerical logical sequence to become a D100 because that would take it into a different category and why the D300s replacement could not be named the D7200 or D8000 or D thousand anything because that would take it down a category.
I think Nikon is starting to make more logical sense in their camera naming.
I always considered the D7000 to be prosumer. Nps even has it in their lineup. It is just that it is bottom level prosumer... D3100 & D5100 are consumer, D7000 & D300s are prosumer, and D800 & D4 are professional. Because many pros have and do use the D70/D80/D90 class I think nikon pushed the D7000 into the prosumer category to answer those photographers. Naming or not, nikon does hold a higher regard for the D7000 class than it did the D90's.
That sore spot nikon has is in it's top level prosumer category... Ie D400
Yes kyoshinikon: you can divide Nikon camera models that way but I don't think it is the most accurate or what Nikon intends.
I am trying to let the Dx, Dxxx, and Dxxxx be meaningful designations so I am dividing the line-up into three ranges: D followed by one digit which I called the heavy pro: D followed by two digits which I called the lite pro to pro-consumer (prosumer) range between the pro single digit and the consumer four digit: and D followed by four digits which I called the consumer range. If you put the D7000 into the middle category as the bottom of that middle category the numbers Nikon adds after the D don't make sense any more.
Perhaps this will become clearer after the D400 replacement. Then the top body category will be the D4 and its variations. The middle body category will be the D400 and D800 (watch to see if the D400 shares the same body as the D800). The bottom body category will be all the models with a D followed by four digits.
There must be a logical reason Nikon is using three digit length categories. It must be to indicate their cameras fall into three different classes.
Rx4Photo said:
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it seems that what you're still implying is that the next iterations of these cameras will be one camera - a combination of "pro body" and DX. I think just like donalddejose in that there will be 2 separate cameras: prosumer D7100 with the same size body as the current D7000, and D400 with the same size body as the current D300s with DX sensor.
Aaaargh! No. LOL!
There will be a D7000 replacement and a D300s replacement. My disagreement is with Donalds comment that the D300s replacement could be FX. I don't even care what numbers the cameras are called!
I would like to see the lineup split in such a way upper level FX (D4 and D800) and lower level FX with the 5 levels of DX (D300s, D7000, D5100, D3100, D3000).
It's doable- just use the same body as the D800 and stick the 16 mp D4 sensor in. Make it do 6 fps natively, 8 fps with the same MB-D11 grip, make it do all the video the D4 did and price it at around $2500 or so.
It would be a direct D700 replacement.
The DX side would see a D300s replacement, possibly with the built in grip or not and if it isn't, it would be MB-D11 compatible.
spraynpray said:
Aaaargh! No. LOL!There will be a D7000 replacement and a D300s replacement. My disagreement is with Donalds comment that the D300s replacement could be FX. I don't even care what numbers the cameras are called!
Your first comment was pretty clear, and I agree. D400 takes over D300s in DX sensor. Body will remain just around the same, as the point of DX is also to carry less bulk.
bjrichus said:
Always been the case with digital. Numbering for film bodies was somewhat easier to understand...
Not much changed if you think about it. The real difference was the film bodies were not updated as often. For example, the F90/F90x bodies (same body, slightly different innards) were in production for 11 years, no digital camera can make that claim. Fx = pro, Fxx = semi pro and consumer. Fxxx only started with the F100. Nikon simply transferred that idea to digital. D1, D100, D70. The real change started with the D5000 (Dxxxx), a year before there was a D7000.
My D400 FX idea had always been to simply extend the life of the D3 or D3s sensor so its cost could be amortized over 8 years rather than 4 years. If longer amortization brought the per unit cost down enough for Nikon to offer a cheap S2,000 FX it would be a hit. But it seems the cost cannot be brought down far enough by double the amortization time period so the D400 will have to be DX to make its price point.
"There needs to be a camera at somewhere between US$1700 and US$2000 in Nikon's lineup. The question is whether that will be a high-end DX or a low-end FX. History and price say that it will be DX and called a D400. But Nikon's been on an aggressive bent lately. It's not out of the question for them to pull an FX rabbit out of the hat. I just don't think it's very likely. " Tom Hogan
If i want FX, Ill buy a D3, D700, D800, D3X, D3s, D4..so many good choices..
I doubt Nikon would take away a DX in a full pro body to add yet another FX for which I HAVE to purchase FX lenses in order to use the camera to its fullest potential.
I rather have a pro DX body camera and choose from both DX and FX lenses.
donaldejose said:
My D400 FX idea had always been to simply extend the life of the D3 or D3s sensor so its cost could be amortized over 8 years rather than 4 years. If longer amortization brought the per unit cost down enough for Nikon to offer a cheap S2,000 FX it would be a hit. But it seems the cost cannot be brought down far enough by double the amortization time period so the D400 will have to be DX to make its price point.
True but you can't crop 12mp for DX so pro DX is lost - ain't going to happen.
Danny Ocean said:
If i want FX, Ill buy a D3, D700, D800, D3X, D3s, D4..so many good choices..I doubt Nikon would take away a DX in a full pro body to add yet another FX for which I HAVE to purchase FX lenses in order to use the camera to its fullest potential.
I rather have a pro DX body camera and choose from both DX and FX lenses.
Exactly.
spraynpray said:
Aaaargh! No. LOL!There will be a D7000 replacement and a D300s replacement. My disagreement is with Donalds comment that the D300s replacement could be FX. I don't even care what numbers the cameras are called!
Late return, but I got it now. I think the 2nd comment where you mentioned the D7100 thew me off.
You must log in to post.
