where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Now that we have rumors about a New D3s, so what about a Nikon Pro DX camera
Same body as a D3, please don't tell me to find as used D2H, that's old tech
Frame rate should be faster in DX compared to FX, if a new D3s can get the rumored 14 frames/sec then a smaller mirror/shutter should be faster on the same body
The cropping factor will help with the reach of sports lenses
Pete
What about the D2XS? I wouldn't be interested in a completely new DX "pro" camera. I'm actually hoping the next "D400" goes full frame :^) Everyone wanted a full frame pro when we had the D2 now you say you want a DX because of the D3?! If you want something that shoots more than 14 fps I say get a camcorder :^)
I believe there alrady is a D2XS but I don't think that's what bmxdad may have meant.
I think the semi-pro line we have is already meant to be the DX equivalent of the full frame bodies. For the extra size, they require the battery grip (such as the MB-D200 and the MB-D10).
If I'm missing your point, please feel free to correct me.
Yes I know there is a D2XS that's why I mentioned it. It was the last Nikon DX pro camera. I realize what bmxdad is saying but I don't see a market for a D4 or D5 if it's an APS-C camera. Even if it shoots 14 or 18 frames per second. I'd much rather use a FX camera with that kind of fps. Wow bmxdad, 14fps isn't enough for you?! ;^)
A D200/D300 with a battery grip is not the same as a pro D body! So bmxdad would want an updated D2XS with EXSPEED processor, HD video, and high frame rate. I don't see that happening on a pro DX body. Nikon would be going backwards if they ever did.
Let's try not to start the DX vs FX debate again :^)
I agree that 14 fps seems outrageous for a still camera.
I agree that there wouldn't be much of a market for a D4 or whatever if it were DX. That's why I think the Dxxx line is the DX equivalent.
D300s is as pro as you could get these FX days.
I realized that Nikon had been missing a pro DX camera for a while. I mean, it would certainly make sense for some people- for instance, some people have the 17-55 DX and would like to have a pro body other than the D300s.
However, I'm pretty sure it won't happen, unless Nikon was being really nice. It certainly would be nice though, because I'm sure there's a lot of people with pro DX lenses that don't know what to do. But, on one hand though, if they do make a pro DX camera, then that's absolute proof that DX lenses are not going away anytime soon. I know that DX isn't going anywhere, but if they really do make a pro body DX camera, that would mean that Nikon's absolutely sure that DX is in the future of Nikon.
If by pro you mean humongous body first introduced by F5 then the answer is probably no, but this does not make D300 less pro, it is based and built to the same standards as the F6, best pro film camera ever made.
F4 and F3 were not much different or bigger and they were top pro cameras at the time, so what is it with the size of the camera and it being pro anyway?
I never liked F5, or any other cameras based on its oversized body, and I find smaller bodies more practical and useful and if I need that additional grip and power it is better to have it as a removable optional accessory, at least for me it is.
Hi all, this is my first post here
I am a D200 owner and I am interested in a DX format D400 about 14mp with very good iso performance till iso 1600 and high frame rate, If i ever went to full frame i would only change one lens (nikkor 10-24mm) but I like the reach of the DX format and i rarely shoot over 800 iso and i rarely print billboards, although the 14-24mm f2.8 is a wonderful lens on full frame, but the lack of filters is a major concern to me so the choice would be the old 17-35mm !! (I need wide angles for my work in Interior photography)
overall, the D200 serves me well in my work thats why I waited and didn't buy the excellent D300 and the D300s
Nour El Refai
http://www.nourelrefai.com
"F4 and F3 were not much different or bigger and they were top pro cameras at the time, so what is it with the size of the camera and it being pro anyway?
I never liked F5, or any other cameras based on its oversized body, and I find smaller bodies more practical and useful and if I need that additional grip and power it is better to have it as a removable optional accessory, at least for me it is."
mb, this is kind of what I was getting at too. Why does it have to be huge to be pro? I was basing my opinion on pro on performance just as you are. The D300 is 90 to 95% the same as the D3. It's just slightly slower in some areas (fps, auto AF selection speed and this is due to it's less beefy processor), and that's only a slight difference in speed. It doesn't record sound like the D3 either and of course, it's DX not FX.
Nour El Refai
Welcome to the forum. I can only say that you will be happy with your D200 until you shoot with a D300. Despite what some may tell you on this forum, the two are completely different cameras. ISO 800 on a D300 looks much better than on the D200 not to mention some other features. I'm a D300 owner and have been thinking of selling my D90 and two lenses I never use anymore to get a D300s next year, or D400 or whatever if it's available by then.
And I wouldn't mind to have a more pro DX camera, indeed d200,d300,d300s are great but I would love to see bigger viewfinder in my camera, as for size, it really doesn't matter, as anyway I always get battery pack :)
Nour El Reafai - I'm glad You like Your d200 and that You are still working on it, I use it too and really love the output I can get from it; as for this what gentoo wrote, indeed both of them are two different cameras, and at least I'm (as I think gentoo was writing about me) not going to argue with him this time as both of them have their cons and pros.
gentoo - as I wrote above, I'm not going to argue with You this time, but try to compare the same image on iso 100....ups there's no iso 100 on d300 :); as for d300s - it records sound and video too :) btw: I was playing with it yesterday, and really like the output on high iso; IMHO it's around 1/2 to 1 step better than d90, never before I've seen so good 3200iso pictures from dx format camera - good job Nikon, but as for buying I think I'll wait a little bit, till Nikon will launch d400 (or till the time I manage to sell my d90 :) and earn some money :))
BTW:
Nour El Reafai - nice gallery You have, please add some pictures to photo-a-day thread
As for bigger and better viewfinder I really miss good old film era viewfinders and especially focusing ground glass.
"gentoo - as I wrote above, I'm not going to argue with You this time, but try to compare the same image on iso 100....ups there's no iso 100 on d300 :); as for d300s - it records sound and video too :) btw: I was playing with it yesterday, and really like the output on high iso; IMHO it's around 1/2 to 1 step better than d90, never before I've seen so good 3200iso pictures from dx format camera - good job Nikon, but as for buying I think I'll wait a little bit, till Nikon will launch d400 (or till the time I manage to sell my d90 :) and earn some money :)"
If you didn't want to argue with me, you wouldn've responded LOL
We've been over this and you just proved what we've been over. Cameras ARE NOT COMPARED at low ISO's. Nothing else in life is ever compared at base setting, not cars, not stereos, not planes. If something isn't being pushed, you're not making a comparison of any kind. In cameras, it's when you push the ISO as you did when you start to see it's true potential. That is where the improvements are, not at base settings.
The thing about the DX chip now, is that you no longer need a full body to make a PRO DX camera. Just slap the MB-D10 on your D300 or D300s and you get a blazing fast 8 FPS. And that's probably how it will be forever or for a number of years.
Sure, more resolution or FPS would be nice. I don't think very many people would be interested in a $3000-$4000 PRO DX body now days, with the D3 hanging around and with a successor right around the corner that could possibly do 14 FPS.
"The thing about the DX chip now, is that you no longer need a full body to make a PRO DX camera. Just slap the MB-D10 on your D300 or D300s and you get a blazing fast 8 FPS. And that's probably how it will be forever or for a number of years."
That's pretty much what I was saying but apparently we're wrong. Now my experience comparing these two is very limited. I've held a D3 and a D200 with the MB-D200 grip. I guess it's a personal choice though. The size of the D300/D200 bodies to me is perfect without the grip. I do fine with 6fps even when doing wildlife. Won't turn my nose up at more but I often find myself staggering the shutter a bit when I'm shooting a bird in flight now.
If adamz is right and the D300s has even slightly better ISO performance than the D90, I will be happy with that and 7fps and two card slots and auto active D lighting. I really like it on auto and it's smart enough to know when to turn on and off as I switch between metering modes. This would tell me that a D400 will be even better if Nikon continues their current trend. I rarely get a new camera right when they come out anyway (in fact I never do) so I could sell my D90 and lenses and use part of a tax return to get a D300s. That will give me two nearly identical bodies to work with while waiting for a D400.
Gentoo - IMHO there's no need for You to sell Your d90 in order to get d300s, I would hold up for d400, as there's not too much difference between d90 and d300s, at least not as significant as the price is - I would save for 200-400/4 as this will improve Your pictures more (and for the money You would spend on new d300s You would have 1/3 of Your dream lens)
Exactly Gentoo. I fell the same way, I don't really like all the weight of the full size bodies (however the vertical shutter release can be helpful when you need it).
Keep in mind, I think the D300s uses the D90's sensor, so it would prob not be worth going from a D90 to a D300s for just the low light. The D90 is the high-end amateur/semi-pro camera to have right now, you should keep it.
I think Nikon's pre-eminence in the DX (APS-C) format may be about to be challenged by the Canon 7D. With 18mp and 8 fps, without the need for a booster, the stakes may be lifted a bit. Why else would Canon suddenly produce a much-more expensive rival to its own recent-ish 50D? The 7D will surely produce better A2+ prints than the 12 mp D300s, so perhaps a little more development in the direction the OP was seeking may already be happening. Having lugged D1 and D2h bodies around with fairly big lenses (80-200 AFS, 300 f4, 80-400 AFD) I find lighter bodies to be a most attractive option!
OK so maybe my wish for a PRO DX Nikon could be done a bit different:
Our current D3 can should 11 frames/sec in DX mode, so to keep cost down lets use old D3 and D2 parts
The sensor would be the current D300/400 used at the time of this camera being made
The cost of a PRO DX camera could then be around $ 3500 maybe less, which for the right user would be a great value, a better value than the Canon MkIII (10frame/sec and have been having issues with its AF system)
This is not a camera for every one but a less costly pro option for sports with a crop factor that some pros prefer. That is actual why some people shot Canon MkIII with their 1.3 crop factor.
Anyway I love my D300, which with grip installed is app the same size as a D3, I would be tempted to get a PRO DX body if it was made.
Pete
As an old F3hp shooter, I truly disliked Nikon's successors. They added nothing I needed (I already had motor drives) and increased size and weight enormously.
I'm also very happy with the DX format. I now primarily shoot macros and I prefer the 1.5x factor. If wanted to fill the frame with a D700, I'd need to replace my 200/4 macro with the non-existent 300/4, which I probably wouldn't want to use anyway. When I don't shoot macro, I do a lot landscape work. Here I would use FX for it's better wide angle performance, but I don't like the lack of filter attachment on the 14-24, its size and price. The 10-24 is serving me very well now and takes filters.
I plan to buy a D300s fairly soon (based on saving my pennies) because I also want to work with the 85/2.8 PC. Here again, I prefer a DX body, since for macro work the 1.5x is an advantage for me.
Re pro bodies I always thought they were pro if: image quality satisfied artistic or commercial uses and pros found them sufficiently durable for their price point to buy.
For my use the D300s is quite satisfactory, metal body, more features, better weather sealing, 100% viewfinder.
I personally think the D300s a more "pro" camera than the D700 because of it's better finder accuracy, but having spent weeks years ago doing copy work with slide film, that may just be a hot button for me. My D90 is 1% better at finder accuracy than a D700.
So far Nikon doesn't make an FX body I'd buy. The D3 series is huge and the D700 doesn't have the finder accuracy I require. No thanks, not now, not for me.
Yes, they should make a true Pro-series DX body. For one thing, it will end the question about continuing DX support for Nikon, for another, it's a hole in their lineup right now. A pro DX body would go over very well with sports and nature shooters.
The D300s is very close in features and capability to what I'd want in a pro body (dual memory cards was an unexpected surprise. However, I really would need better weather sealing and higher FPS in a pro body. Easy to do. Price should be right around what the entry-level pro FX body is.
I don't think there are many improvements you could make to the D300s to make it "Pro". It's got excellent build quality already.
You could add a few megapixels, but with DX, you only have room for about a 20%-30% increase in resolution... nice, but not game changing. The improvement will probably come at the expense of high ISO performance.
You could also add some FPS, although that will make it difficult to increase resolution (Larger file sizes will clearly slow down the processing). Also, not having the higher ISO options would make the higher frame rates worthless in low light, because you won't have enough time to expose your image.
So basically, you are going to carry around a camera that is either higher resolution, or slightly faster, but not both. How much more than $1800 is that worth to you? Don't you think the D400 will have some combination of both anyway?
I think there is much more demand for a consumer FX camera than there is for a Pro DX camera.
A Pro DX camera will not be a high demand camera neither is the current D3(or its replacement). Anyway a Pro DX camera could be priced app $1000 to $ 1500 above the cost of a D300s with Battery Grip, EN-EL4a battery and charger. Now you have a more solid camera with double the shutter life etc. Why not the absolute best DX camera on the market, it will not be a big seller but there will buyers for it and DX lenses cost less and the crop factor will give a 300mm a longer reach
Pete
You must log in to post.
