where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Yes, Tao and msmoto I posted the question to interject some humor.
Resurrected from the dead; long live this thread!
It is ok to log on to NR and get a laugh once in a while.
This thread should live as least as long as it takes Nikon to ship the D400!
Willis said:
Dx will continue forever because Nikon can't keep FX in stock.
That and the roughly ten to one cost differential between FX and DX sensors. Unless or until that can be changed there will always be a need for the DX sensor or something very much like it for cost/price reasons.
Interestingly, Canon appear to have abandoned their 1.3 crop factor sensor for FX sensors. (The 1.3 crop sensor was the largest size that could be imaged in a single pass on their equipment at the time of its introduction. Since then their equipment can now image an FX sensor (and larger) in a single pass. Wildlife photogs are still upset at the loss of the crop sensor.)
Ha, ha, ha...... for all who wait.....Nikon will come through with a DX sensor which will knock your socks off....
msmoto said:
Ha, ha, ha...... for all who wait.....Nikon will come through with a DX sensor which will knock your socks off....
And we seem to forget so quickly that the D3200 just came out. Now Nikon you have all your new FX bodies out of the way...get the DX show back on the road :)
TaoTeJared said:
5 months ago....+1 - again!
I have to be honest, this is one of the most idiotic threads on this forum.
You know, I gotta say, your ability to invalidate other's opinions is... impressive!
PS: In 6 months or so, remind me to come back to my post to plus-one it.
Of course, in a sense this thread is stupid: DX will continue in the D3200, D5200, D7200 line and likely in the D400 but it will also migrate down to the top of the compact point and shoot line.
The more precise issue of this thread is not DX dying but whether or not Nikon will abandon the D100,D200, D300, D300s line and not produce a D400 expecting those users to migrate to either the D7200 or the D600. While sufficient image quality and flexibility exists in the D7200 and D600 for advanced amateurs I highly suspect Nikon will produce a D400 early in 2013 for one good reason: "pro" control layout as found in the D4 and D800. The D400 will be the DX second body for D4 and D800 users just as the D600 will be the FX upgrade body for D7000 users because those parings use very similar control layouts. Price? Produce the D400 in Thailand or China like the D600 and get it down to the $1,500 or $1,600 price point. Give it clean high ISO, good buffer, and high fps. If you build it they will by it!
iris chrome said:
You know, I gotta say, your ability to invalidate other's opinions is... impressive!PS: In 6 months or so, remind me to come back to my post to plus-one it.
I have never seen an opinion that says DX is dead - so there doesn't seem to be any invalidation of anyone.
Might I just note that this thread is 3 years old! The answer was evident, say... 2 1/2 years ago. :)
donaldejose said:
Of course, in a sense this thread is stupid: DX will continue in the D3200, D5200, D7200 line and likely in the D400 but it will also migrate down to the top of the compact point and shoot line.The more precise issue of this thread is not DX dying but whether or not Nikon will abandon the D100,D200, D300, D300s line a...
I agree that is a good question - but that is not what the thread title is and should have it's own thread rather than re-purposing a thread that only someone who read the last few comments could understand that it was actually about something else.
Thom Hogan apparently thinks the DX format is far from dead and SEEMS to think there will be a D400 Nikon. Many put that at next year. Hopefully that will be one that is on dealer shelves very soon after the formal announcement. Sorry for responding to such an old topic. But there sure are those who think DX is dead and has no reason to continue to exist. I am even beginning to wonder after the D600 mega price if a D7100 may be what I settle for!
October is DX Month at bytom.com
D400 will be out in early 2013, at least.
Some suspect a Nikon deliberate strategy to put the most expensive model (D4) out first so those who cannot want to buy a new body spend more money. Once that demand is satisfied Nikon offers a less expensive model (D800) and then an even less expensive model (D600). Finally, Nikon puts out the D400 and D7200 which would have been good enough to satisfy the upgrade need of many who purchased one of the higher priced models because they became impatient. Could be. Such a product introduction strategy would increase corporate profits but if Nikon delays too long it will lose customers. If this strategy is in play, the next model up will be the D400 and then the D7200.
WHAT? Spend all that money on a D4 when you already have say, a D300s and want to get a D400? I don't think so. Even if I had 'only' my D5000 or any earlier DX body I would not be changing lenses and spending huge money just out of impatience. That hypothesis is not improbable Donald, more like ridiculous.
Some people have short memories here on this forum - it isn't that long since the disasters in Japan that meant that Nikon had to rationalise their efforts?
I don't know what it is about the 'net that gets people in a frenzy like this, but all the people I know in my club are too busy using what they have to get desperate about the next model! Sure, they may buy it, but will wait until it comes along. When we are having our photos judged in one of our internal or inter-club competitions, no photos are ever critised for being from an older model camera.
Perhaps we need to drink less coffee? ;-/
Actually what Donaldejose (quoting bytom.com) was speaking to is actually a classic marketing strategy. It also just happens to line up with Nikon's usual release schedule, Except for the D3200 which came after the D4 and usually is a precursor to the D400 series. Sparynpray you skipped the D800 and D600 when you made your conclusion of the D4 vs D400. The D600 is about the same price as the D300 when it came out - but then many will need new glass. D800 is a big step, but lets face it, not many have or choose to spend $6,000 on a D4 if they really don't need it. And considering many pros settled on a D700, the D800 is a hell of a good upgrade.
In Nikon world schedule, the D400 usually comes out now and followed by the D7100, (that has just a bit better IQ than the D400) in Jan/Feb, followed by the D5300 in Apr/May which usually has the same IQ of the D7200 or slightly better. July usually sees the D3300 series refresh. Then the D4s for the winter Olympics. What comes next for 2 years are upgrades to match/beat Canon's offerings and just minor improvements. Then the D5. That is the basic schedule for 12 years now.
Interesting Tao, but I don't think that strategy applies because of the lens issue.
IIRC the D4 was being delivered before the D800 and definitely before the D600, so as impatience causing knee-jerk purchasing is the basis of Donalds posting it stands no?
The D600 isn't priced the same in England as it is in the USA so if/when I go FX I will skip it and get the D800. If I win the lotto, then D4 it is :)
D5xxx having better IQ than D7xxx? really? I thought they were exactly the same and the difference was mainly controls/body size?
Few people think logically - great marketing works on that. Getting people to buy something that has a bit more at a greater price than they need.
Interesting Tao, but I don't think that strategy applies because of the lens issue.
Lens issue? How many are moving to a D600 from D300 or D7000s - quite a few. We see everyday here that people waiting for the D400 getting D600s. Same price point, but now many will have to buy lenses so more $$$.
IIRC the D4 was being delivered before the D800 and definitely before the D600, so as impatience causing knee-jerk purchasing is the basis of Donalds posting it stands no?
No. The Knee-jerking is referring to people buying the next product line up as they are impatient for the upgrade of the product line they own. They see how great the unattainable is (D4), then another unattainable product (D800) is released that is wonderful but still too far out of their price range. Now they become impatient waiting for their line version to upgrade, and then the next great product line comes out (D600) that is just a bit more, and they pull the trigger to buy it. Inevitably the upgrade to the product line they owned comes out a few months later. That could be they spent $200-1000 more, but it is still "that" much more Nikon makes. The FX move causes many to buy FX glass and spend more that they would not have if they stayed with DX.
For instance, I had to upgrade for this season. Most of my lenses are FX already but a wide angle. So I will purchase a 16-35mm and probably a 24-120vr in the next year since I have either old glass, or no FX equiv for the range. More $$$ for Nikon. If the D400 came out, I would have probably just got that and no new lenses.
The D600 isn't priced the same in England as it is in the USA so if/when I go FX I will skip it and get the D800. If I win the lotto, then D4 it is :)
UK posts prices with vat/tax correct? US does not. It seems the prices are almost identical.
D5xxx having better IQ than D7xxx? really? I thought they were exactly the same and the difference was mainly controls/body size?
It was slightly better - granted it is probably just software updates. There are obvious differences, but back to how I started; "Few people think logically" and many just look for the sensor scores.
From what you have posted in the past, I know you and I are both logical in our decisions which this type of marketing just blows past us. For the masses who think 24mp is always better than 18mp - not so much. Why do you think Canon is pulling out a 46mp camera?
Aways a nice perspective from you, TTJ. And, I certainly agree about the issue of knee-jerk reactions... purchasing the D600 instead of waiting for a D300s replacement...
The issue of the pixels... it would appear the variability of sensors is due to the pixel characteristics.. My experience with the D4 sensor is that at large sizes on flickr, I cannot see a lot of difference between this and the D800. Maybe at 5' X 8' enlargement?
But, the quality of even a small portion of the D4 sensor is phenomenal, and if Nikon puts their expertise into a new DX sensor for a D400... as I have said before....it will blow your socks off!
I don't really follow the prices that much but I was sure the D600 was priced at £1995 in the UK. I just looked again and it's down to £1665 (near the £1500 rumoured and the $2000 + tax US price) so now there is a more reasonable difference between the D800 and D600 in the UK.
I will still base my change to FX on different reasoning though as I have three DX lenses and two FX. Having justt looked at my images by focal length, I suppose I could sell my 35mm, 18-105VR and 11-16mm Tokina for a 24-70 f2.8 in readiness though... Aaaargh! Now look what's happened!
You are right about me - I find it necessary for my wallet to try to be as marketing cynical as possible! Hell would freeze over before I would fit the profile of a buyer in Donald's posting.
msmoto said:
My experience with the D4 sensor is that at large sizes on flickr, I cannot see a lot of difference between this and the D800.
I suspect the difference comes in dynamic range. I shoot a lot of sun rises and sunsets. At native ISO the D800's ability to capture detail in the highlights and shadows, in a single exposure, is awesome
I would love to try the D600 as it's a little bit smaller and lighter
I cannot see any reason for me to get a Dx camera
unless Nikon come up with Pro dx compact
Another "conspiracy theory" on Nikon's marketing strategy:
"Holy cow, I just realized Nikon's big deception: the D600, D800, D800E and D4 are all the same cameras designed and produced in parallel at the same time and all have the same insides, producing the same images with the same processing power, same LCDs, same green-shift problems and identical AF controls. They differ only in exterior packaging and when Nikon chose to announce them to make them appear different."
"Today, Nikon's 2012 FX trio of D600, D800 and D4 obviously were all designed and manufactured at the same time with the same innards, and merely announced in descending cost order at different times to try to hide the simple fact that they're the same camera inside."
"What's most astounding is how they all have the same processing power. Simple technology tells us that with the D4's big battery that Nikon would put more computing power in it, but let's compare the computing power of each:
MP FPS Pixels processed per second
D4 16 10 160 MP/s
D800 36 4 144 MP/s
D600 24 5.5 132 MP/s
Yes, there's a small difference, but nothing significant. Heck, Nikon didn't even throw double processors in the D4; it's got about the same processing ability as the D600.
Autofocus? It's all the same. They all have the same stupid pushbutton replacing the real AF controls of all previous cameras."
"Firmware? The same. Same menus, same options, same everything — except that the D600 does away with the dopey Settings Banks and replaces them with its U1 and U2 modes.
LCDs? The same slightly yellow ones.
Color rendition? All three cameras are a little too green, begging us to set M1 for white balance shift. Sadly, in all three, M1 is a little too much, and M0 a little to little.
Metering? The same options. Maybe the Matrix has a few more pixels in the D4 and D800, but with over 2,000 pixels in the D600's meter, it's got way, way more than enough. They're all still based on the same 30,000 image reference as the Matrix meters were back 25 years ago. "
"Flash metering? Same. White Balance? Same. And so it goes...
"16, 24 or 36 MP is all the same. Nikon's simply varied them to segment the market. 10 MP is more than enough for anything. Nikon got the frame rate up in the D4 by reducing resolution instead of putting more processing in the D4, and put way too many pixels in the D800 to attract computer guys who love processing. Honestly, 24 MP is ideal, and we only get that in the D600. I always set my D800 down in resolution; throughput goes to pot trying to work on hundreds of 36 MP images, unless of course you're a guy who builds computers.
So there we have it all blown-open: all of Nikon's current FX cameras are essentially the same thing, put in different bodies."
Quoting Ken Rockwell. Exaggerated? Of course, that is Ken's style to inject some entertainment in his writing. There are many differences in body build which he ignored in this supposed "marketing strategy." Some truth in the sensor affecting fps with the same processing power, sure? Much truth in the commonality of many features? Yes. Still, at the end of the day they serve three different user needs and I am glad we have each of them to select from.
I would add one metric Ken didn't: high ISO lack of noise. Aren't they all about the same at ISO 3200, 6400 and 12,800? Is there really a good reason to list a higher native ISO for the D4 or was that just "marketing strategy?
As much as we love Nikon products we do have to admit the company is out to make as much money as possible by selling as many products as possible and certainly they will use some marketing strategy to accomplish that. And . . . they are not going to share that strategy with the public so we have to infer it from their actions.
Back to DX. What is Nikon's DX marketing strategy? Will all DX bodies use the same 24 megapixel sensor found in the D3200 and increase fps by increasing processing power? Or will all use the same processing power and achieve higher FPS by reducing the megapixels in the D400? Will the most significant difference really be just in the bodies (size, robustness and direct access to a few more controls)? We will see soon. It will be interesting as the D400, D7200 and D5200 should all be out in 2013.
Right, in the US Ford and General Motors earned huge profits by simply changing some trim and thereby giving the car a new identity. Now car companies share "platforms" around the world. Mazda just entered into a deal with Alpha Romero to share the platform of the next Mazda MX5 (Miata).
Thom Hogan perspective:
"It's certainly Nikon's strategy (as well as that of other camera companies) to incite you to upgrade your existing gear. The run from 2007 to the present has actually been a heady one, where clear image quality gains have come with each generation of cameras, which made Nikon's goal of getting you to upgrade easier. But as I've noted before, we're headed into a time of diminishing returns in terms of image quality. 16mp DX and 24mp FX is "good enough" for most people, and the gains we're seeing beyond that come only with discipline and attention to details. While I will always consider more sampling a better thiing, we're now pushing into the realm where much of what we're getting better samples of is diffraction, lens aberrations, focus mis-hits, and more."
Interesting.
I guess "almost the same" or "essentially the same" is more accurate.
You must log in to post.
