where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
msmoto said:
OK, I will ask... what will replace the D300s? Now, bjrichus, I will admit, there is no D700 replacement... so is that what the D400 will be? Or will the D500 replace the D700? Maybe the D7100 will replace the D300s?
According to the Nikon USA website the D800 is the replacement for the D700. I quote: "StaffAnswer: Yes, the D800 is the upgraded model of the D700.
Mar 21, 2012 by
NikonStaff"
Beso said:
According to the Nikon USA website the D800 is the replacement for the D700. I quote: "StaffAnswer: Yes, the D800 is the upgraded model of the D700.
Mar 21, 2012 by
NikonStaff"
Yes, I understand what NIKON says at this time.... but, what a strange way to replace a camera when the FPS is dropped from 5 to 4 and the ISO is the same. What NIKON did was to create a much different camera along an evolutionary path. A true D700 replacement would be to improve performance and have a native ISO of at least 25,000 and FPS up around 7. What is missing in the NIKON lineup is a lower cost FX "sports/action" camera than the D4. This is what I mean when I say the D800 is not a replacement for the D700. However, what has been suggested is the D400 will be an FX camera and thus a real D700 replacement. Hope this makes sense. I guess we will see in the next few weeks what the folks at NIKON have up their sleeve.
Incidentally, when I ask NIKON a question on the "Ask NIKON" link on their website..... quite often they do not answer my question but simply make a statement. An example was about whether the Virtual Horizon would be available with a firmware update in the future so it would show in the Exif data, and their answer was what I knew already... "Virtual Horizon does not show up in the Exif data." which is what I had stated in my question. So, maybe it gets lost in translation somehow with NIKON when we ask questions.
msmoto said:
Yes, I understand what NIKON says at this time.... but, what a strange way to replace a camera when the FPS is dropped from 5 to 4 and the ISO is the same.
We all know that the majority of consumers of these products follow the hype of more Mp is better, and we all know that Nikon have been criticized for only having 12Mp for years, so why are we surprised when they bring out something that answers all of that and more? The fact that the more discerning MINORITY want something different is less important to them of course.
msmoto said:
What is missing in the NIKON lineup is a lower cost .....
I think we all wish for lower prices, but as demand for the D800 is outstripping supply, we may just have to keep on wishing. At least we have a replacement for the grossly overpriced D3x
Dx came about because it was difficult / expensive to produce a full frame sensor, that is no longer the case. Dx will be with us for a few more years, but the 24 x 36 format has stood the test of time and will be with us long after DX has joined the likes of half frame
( just my ten penny worth)
may be we should hibernate this thread for a few years
sevencrossing said:
I think we all wish for lower prices, but as demand for the D800 is outstripping supply, we may just have to keep on wishing. At least we have a replacement for the grossly overpriced D3xDx came about because it was difficult / expensive to produce a full frame sensor, that is no longer the case. Dx will be with us for a few more years, but the 24 x 36 format has stood the test of time and will be with us long after DX has joined the likes of half frame
( just my ten penny worth)
may be we should hibernate this thread for a few years
Bottom line is that the mid-ground (DX) is indeed being squeezed by mirrorless/P&S/EVIL/etc crap from the lower end getting better (still not 'good enough' IMO) and for now, relatively cheaper and better FX from above.
In a couple of years time, the lower end may have evolved to the point where $1500 is what can be charged for the entry level dSLR (not $600 - $800 or thereabouts).
This year, and in response to the latest D800 introduction, we should see the start of the next generation DX (D3200). It is moving up in MP count and overall performance, and I bet price too as marketing decide low end crap displaces CURRENT (i.e. D3100) dSLR models.
Hibernate this thread? Not for more than a few months...
====
Much as I'd love to continue contributing to this thread, I have a magazine deadline looming (end of the 12th) so will be busy doing real work for the next two day :-) which means no or very few comments from me until towards the end of this week.
msmoto said:
Incidentally, when I ask NIKON a question on the "Ask NIKON" link on their website..... quite often they do not answer my question but simply make a statement. An example was about whether the Virtual Horizon would be available with a firmware update in the future so it would show in the Exif data, and their answer was what I knew already... "Virtual Horizon does not show up in the Exif data." which is what I had stated in my question. So, maybe it gets lost in translation somehow with NIKON when we ask questions.
Nikon is just practicing the public relations mantra that has been taught for many years; which is: "answer the question you want to answer to present your company in the best light while avoiding committing the company to anything." Most PR people do not necessarily have intimate familiarity with product development nor do they want to present an expectation that may not be realized. Therefore, it is safer to just state the obvious. Personally I think the entire world has gotten too careful about what they say.
...and when they reply to a question they weren't asked it just makes one wonder what kind of custmer service it is that they think they are giving.
spraynpray said:
...and when they reply to a question they weren't asked it just makes one wonder what kind of custmer service it is that they think they are giving.
Got my text & pics uploaded to publisher, so deadline beaten.
As for Nikon customer service and marketing ... in a word? Ineptitude.
WOW! My spelling of "ineptitude" was correct first time - LOL.
Nikon are famous for it, which is a real shame as the product range has (IMO) the capability to splat the rest of the mid and upper ends of the market into submission.
Mmm... this is about the DX format and its existence in the future..... But the side issues, Nikon Customer Service, Product Development Plan, seem to have come in. The old "rumor" about Nikon vs Canon used to be Nikon was a better product but Canon had better service..... who knows...
Hopefully, the new D400, in a DX format, will be announced soon. Or if somehow the D400 is FX, as some of the wise folks on NRF have suggested, then the DX00 in DX will be the ultimate camera for the "smaller" format group. Is this something we should be concerned about? I think I predicted an announcement on or about the end of next week.... kinda like those who predict the end of the world.... ha, ha, ha, based on what we all do so well.... guess!
Nikon was a better product but Canon had better service..... who knows...
I know, and I can't agree - I've had some poor service from Nikon, but nothing near as bad as the terrible 'bad customer service by policy' that Canon gave me! How many Canon products of any type do I have now? NONE.
Seems customer service is very important when times are good (read easy), but when times are hard, the wheels fall off pretty quickly.
sevencrossing said:
( just my ten penny worth)
I was reading this week about how most countries (recently Canada) aren't minting the penny anymore. I didn't know thoughts had to be in multiples of 5 cents now, too. ;-)
This thread is as long-lived as DX. Even if Nikon discontinues the DX line (not happening, IMO—else why bring out CX at all?), DX will live on in my heart and I will take fond memories of it to my grave. FX FTW, but DX FMH (for my heart...and wallet).
Will this thread never die? :)
Which thread??? Oh, you mean this one. :)
It is the oldest active thread. Look at its id number in the URL: 5, and the other ones before it all died out at least two years ago (1 doesn't exist, but the others do).
OK, so 9 pages later, what is the answer to the question? Let me guess ,42.
Pretty funny for something that can only be answered by either yes or no, or maybe like the Schrödinger's cat, it is both at the same time.
Answer to the Ultimate Question of DX, FX, and Everything... If you can't get an answer, then the question must be wrong...
"Longevity is a sign of .... "
Even tho' many old chums are bored with this thread, or claim to be, its longevity is an indication of the interest in the subject matter by many readers.
And also the efficacy of writing good "Headlines" or "Subject Lines" in posts or email messages.
I simply say again, don't presume that the subject has been exhausted, don't presume that everyone who reads the Forums does so religiously or daily.
For a content provider (thanks NR admin), this longevity is a sign of great success in a thread and a very useful "pull" factor drawing readers into the Forum.
If you are bored with the topic, stop reading, stop posting and leave the thread to users who are interested.
NikonMick
We're just having fun, Mick. Not a Douglas Adams or quantum physics fan, I take it? ;-)
Present mission is a wildlife shot with an individual bird which is well worth getting a good image of. Gillie suit and careful techniques that usually work, don't work in this case. What it would take to photograph this in FX would be many more pounds of gear and many more dollars. Having seen the results of the approximate same subject taken on DX which were acceptable and never ever done in FX to my knowledge. Granted I am not giving to many specifics but DX is here to stay for a very long time. And Nikon 1 and other cameras without viewfinders rigs can. Many of the pro FX writers (those who think DX is doomed or not worthy) responding to this topic I suspect have not been in the field recording subjects that are this elusive.
Yes dx is dead, for folks that have 3000usd for a body and 10000 usd for lenses. :D
Gabbb said:
Yes dx is dead, for folks that have 3000usd for a body and 10000 usd for lenses. :D
I was way too busy this week with work and stuff to post much about this or anything else for that matter. It is very tempting to say that not everyone can spend many thousands of dollars (upwards of 10k) on camera gear as you suggest. Remember that if someone shoots for a living, then it really does become essential to actually spend on the gear you need for the job you are doing and that does tend to be FX, if only because of the build quality and quality of the glass.
I am lucky to have access to FX gear at work which is wonderful, but I cannot even think about buying any of it now I am married and have to pay for all sorts of other things too.
With the D800 and D4 out I wonder how much the upcoming (next week) D3200 will live up to what appears to be a new (high) standard that these FX bodies set? Not at all? Slightly? A bit better than the competition? A LOT better than the competition?
IQ as good as the D7000 (at twenty something MP it will need to have at least half decent IQ whatever else it is or isn't), or it'll be no better than the average 5DII?
There... That last sentence alone should keep the thread going until 2014...
> We're just having fun, Mick. Not a Douglas Adams or quantum physics fan, I take it? ;-)
Like 'em both Jonny, but some folk here seem to want to off or end the thread, while I think continuous diuscussion, with well-thoughtout posts in a thread's history are very worthwhile.
For me it's a discussion about how people learn and think.
Cheers
Michael
As this has been going on for so long, I will share the real answer...... or a hint. It is found in step 96 of the solution to the Pythagorean theorem.
Good luck.
You must log in to post.
