Nikon in 2010: “We plan to surprise the market”

From an interview with Hiroshi Takashima (General Manger of Imaging Division at Nikon) at Photofair:

Q: What can we expect from Nikon in 2010?

A: We plan to surprise the market. We will concentrate only on better quality and better line-up of cameras. So you can expect surprises.

Me thinks the surprise will be the rumored Nikon EVIL system. What could be considered a "surprise" in the DSLR world?

This entry was posted in Nikon 1. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Great new !!!!
    BTW, I’m firts :o)

  • Bonnes nouvelles !
    En passant, je suis le premier !
    (My French is better than my English 🙂

    • eric

      même pas.
      loser = perdant 🙂

      • WoutK89

        hehe, reminds me of Dutch Voice-over: Arie and Bastiaan 😛 (original, Bassie and Adriaan, some kids show)

        • Sad


          • WoutK89

            You have to be Dutch, and look look for it on youtube 😉

  • hellosunday

    I really hope its a D900. Suspense has been killing me slowly by the day.

    And for some reason, a rather popular camera store just a few blocks from where i live ran out stock for the D700 and apparently they don’t plan on bringing in anymore. They got some word from Nikon Singapore (local) to clear all stock of the D700 by the end of this month.

  • Give me two

    If Nikon wants to surprise the market – well what about two new DSLRs to the market. If I check the recent model line-up: this would surprise the market and the competition.

    “Hello Nikon, please give us new models before the Winter ends.”

    • GlobalGuy

      It would REALLY surprise me if Nikon actually gave us what we were asking for at prices we can afford and free from dust.

      That would be a good surprise compared to last year.

    • Bob

      Nikon needs to release DSLRs 1-2mth after Canon and superior to it. This way at least every 2nd year Nikon will top Canon.
      Given it takes Nikon 2yrs to release a DSLR and Canon 9mths, the 7D will top the D300s series for a long time.
      Since the D400 is expected end Q2, that about 2mths before Canon will do a 7D Mk2 most likely.

      • bla

        Yeah, and Canon would not notice that and try to adopt a different release strategy? Rather simplistic to think this would work.

        But even more simplistic is the “7D tops the D300” view. Most people upgrade to these cameras, and the actual brand selection for normal consumers is made with the more entry levels. The fact that people posting here seem to switch brands for 2 megapixels more or an extra cross-sensitive AF point, does not mean the whole market is equally insane.

        • Excellent post. “Equally Insane,” hehe.

        • Global Guy

          It doesn’t do anyone any good to suggest that people wouldn’t or couldnt very easily switch platforms if the competition offers something better. Not that the OP made any sense. I’m just saying that most people who use a D40 don’t know how to use a DSLR. And they probably only have one lens, two at max. Its pretty easy for them to switch if they like what the other guy is offering. By the way, that kind of competition and consumer pressure is critical to keeping our chosen manufacturers in line towards doing better. It doesn’t make any sense to call people insane, when the point speaks to features and benefits as well as new customers — not just customers that switch. I don’t think Nikon is bad, they are great, of course. But they do make some bone-head moves occassionally and while i dont think the “s” vs. “x” movement is a badthing — i do believe that increasingly lax quality control, huge amounts of factory dust, and some dumb lenses will have impact on their potential market. Some people will try the other guys. Canon, for their part will screw up too. But now that Sony is in the field, its time to step things up a notch. Lowering quality control and being reaaaaally slow to adopt current technology and NEVER upgrading your software as promised OR forcing people to pay for the exact same software the competition gives away for FREE…….. well, Nikon is failing in some regards, even as it innovates in other areas. Don’t rest on your laurels, Nikon. No more dust. No more idiot lenses. For gods sake make a couple more decent P&Ss to save your reputation! And try to think about not being so poor in your software and so nickel and diming in your approach to accessories and ordinary features. Its really getting annoying. You say that people won’t switch for a couple megapixels.. but this thought goes both ways — even if there is a worse camera than Nikon — if that manufacturer offers and overall better value — no one is gonna complain over losing a couple hundred dollars to get out of a troubled system and try an alternative like Sony. Nikon needs to be aware that mature corporations in saturated industries with upcoming stars loaded in cash can easily have huge gashes taken out of their side.

    • STJ

      If they would really surprise us they would relaunch new versions of the old old fixed focal length lenses…. A new high res video capable camera body would be how much surprise? Zero….

    • Anony-mou

      New DSLR are hardly a surprise, this is normal.

  • Alex

    A DSLR that surprises? A built-in toaster? oh wait, these days… that wouldn’t surprise me. Exciting times ahead.

    • SZRimaging

      The Nikon D3Toast! It does everything, including toast your bread with it’s microwave emitting built in flash!

      • David

        I lol’d x-D

      • Rock Kenwell

        yeah and don’t forget to set flash Channels otherwise it will toast every bread in 1 mile radius

  • getanalogue

    waiting for 24 MP D700x/D900 and 18 MP D400(D95?). 24/1.4 is almost fact, 16-40/4 would match my set-up perfectly. More rumors please!

    • Geoff

      we will probably get an 18MP FF and a 16MP FX so they do not challenge the 7500$ D3X camera. Probably be 6k$ for the FF and 1600$ for the FX. My “WAG” and you can quote me as an unnamed speculation. ;- P

      • Mikycoud

        Ok, I’ll quote you:
        ‘1600$ for a 16MP FX camera’
        … yeah sure! I’ll take ten!
        You probably meant to type on the ‘D’ key instead of ‘F’ in your post, because you surely know that FX and FF is the same thing right?
        If not, be aware that expecting a price tag of 1600$ for a Nikon FullFrame (FX) is like asking for a a reliable Canon AF… Just not gonna happen (anytime soon).
        I do admire your enthusiasm though.

        • Eric

          Why exactly can’t there be a $1600 FX camera anytime soon? Sony already has a $2000 FF camera with a magnesium body. Seems like Nikon should be able to produce a full frame version of the D90 for less than the Sony A850. Or even better yet, how about making a digital F3 for around $2000. I’d be all over that, I want FX, but I don’t want a brick of a camera as large as the D700.

  • huh

    they can surprise me by not being yet another year too late on delivering updated fast prime lenses. 24 35 85 105 135 and 180 all need AF-S motors and anything over 85 needs VR. It is no longer excusable, it is shameful. surprise me with that.

    • nobody

      And you would buy all of them? Or do you just want to be entertained with new Nikon stuff? Really shameful that they don’t please you!

      • Dr SCSI

        Mr nobody, huh has it right on the money! Nikon should be ashamed of losing its position in the world of leading edge optics!! The main reason many of us bought into the FX lineup was due to our belief the glass would follow. Granted, they did a phenominal job on their new f/2.8 zoom lenses, but where is the rest of their line up. Canon has got Nikon beaten in their selection of lenses. I also agree with huh, that any lens 85mm and up should have VR, the advantages are just too great to not have it. Owning the outstanding 135 f/2 DC lens, I know I would buy the next model if Nikon added VR II. Yes, the lens is that GOOD…As for the other focal lengths, I would prefer to see screaming FAST FX AF-S lenses, like f/1.2 at 24, 35, 50 and f/1.4 VRII at 85, 105, 135, f/2 VRII at 180. And for icing on my virtual cake, I want a super tele zoom from 300-800 at f/5.6 (like the Sigma) but with VRII and for under $7K. Naturally none of us will buy ALL of them, but I am sure enough of us would buy many of them to make it worth Nikon’s effort.

        • edward nafzger

          Yes nikon make us nikonians happy with 100-500 vr 2 3 or even the 300-800mm vr 3 f 5.6

        • dnerd100

          Why does everyone on this website say the same BS after every posting in the comments. If you removed all the “I want…” postings there would be nothing to talk about on here.

        • I think it’s shameful that Nikon doesn’t just whip up new world class glass to save face. Too bad. I’m sure they could have all of those focal lengths WITH VRII and all at f/1.2 in a matter of two months, three months tops. Why does Nikon not just do what we all know they can do? Why do the engineers think they have to take years to get the optics right???????

          LAME!!!! I HATE NIKON FOR BEING SLACKERS!!!!!!!!!!

          • Dr SCSI

            Alright, I guess we (I) can’t hammer Nikon too heavily for lack of current glass. As I agree with Ron Adair about the need for them to get it right. However, with 50+ years of optics design in the same F mount, I am just a little upset that they don’t go back and dust off some of their great historical feats and refresh them by add focusing motors, new coatings, and electronics. They have had enough lead time for such development, it’s not like they just put the first full frame digital on the market today. Yes I know f/1.2 is ridculous, but hey why not, they could do it and they have done it. But in order to save them time, and still bring great stuff to market, I will revise my wish list to be more realistic.
            1.) 24mm f/1.2 AF-S G ED N (with great coatings)
            2.) 50mm f/1.2 AF-S G (easy update, would sell well)
            3.) 85mm f/1.4 AF-S G VRII ED (easy update, would sell)
            4.) 135 f/2 AF-S G VR II DC (easy update, would sell well)
            They could drop the 180 f/2 since they already have the super chub at 200 f/2, they can drop the 35 f/1.2 because I can always move forward with the 24 f/1.2, they can also drop the 105 f/1.4 as I can just move forward again with the 85, or back with the 135, and finally they can also drop the 300-800 super tele, I will just buy the Sigma version.
            Development of 4 lenses removed, easy upgrade paths for most others. 🙂

          • Again Dr. SCSI, that sounds simple enough—pull out the old designs and slap a new body on them. But then you must consider:

            Internal focus? Major redesign.
            Autofocus? Significant rework.
            VR? Significant rework.
            New Coatings? That changes lens design too (mostly because digital chips pick up different responses to the coatings than the old films)
            1.2 aperture? Prepare to pay a serious premium

            And this isn’t even considering the steps required for filing new patents, checking legal aspects, etc.

            I could be remembering wrong, but I am pretty sure I heard that lens design can take literally years. But even more significantly, the development of a single lens can take months (or, I think I even recall hearing “years”) to fully manufacture. Either way, it’s not like companies are spitting out thousands of lenses per day. They are very limited due to the precision required to make sure the lenses are built correctly.

            And yes, as soon you start talking apertures of 1.4 and 1.2 and lower, you drastically increase the number of elements you throw away due to defect. This inevitably will raise the cost of each finished unit (and the time required to make it).

            So of course we can sit in our living rooms and pound away on our laptops that Nikon isn’t moving fast enough. But seriously, this crap takes time. I see a lot of parallels between winemakers and lens makers. There is a pretty big gap between the raw materials and the final product.

          • Dr SCSI

            Ron Adair, your points are very well made and I couldn’t agree more with many of them. I too prefer the quality to quantity, otherwise I would just buy the Tokina stuff. You are right about lens design being a time consuming process which has taken years to perfect. However, computers have cut those development times down exponentially. I know that lens design used to be done on drafters tables with lots of math and science applied, and R&D was a trial and error process of hand grinding the glass to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Many decades later, we have computers which can simulate the effects of the radius cut on a lens, the effects of coatings, and how those lens elements play together. There are also new plastics with astounding optical quality that make Aspherical elements a reality in sub $1000 lenses. Every year, Nikon adds to their Knowledge Base, and they get better and faster at what they do. Also, new materials become available, new machining processes, faster processors, beter simulators all help reduce the development time of quality glass. If you take a look at all the lens patents filed for the EVIL camera, you can see they CAN bring out lenses quickly, albeit lesser quality most assured. I imagine all lens manufactures would like everyone to believe that 5 years of R&D go into every lens before they are brought to market; it helps them justify the price they charge. I think Nikon has just spread their engineers a little too thin, FX, DX, and now MX(?). But hey, they have to do what it takes to survive by keeping market share, so I guess I can’t blame them for making lenses based on economies of scale. Lets all just hope that FF trickles downward, or consumers desires for high quality FF lenses sky rocket. That way Nikon will be enticed into doing crazy stuff again, like 300 f/2!

          • PHB

            It takes Nikon over a year just to test a lens design. Computer design and manufacture has speeded the process up, but getting the job done right takes time.

            If you look at the recent Nikon lenses, they have all been superlative for the niche they are aimed at. There are inevitable compromises between cost, weight, performance and so on, but they make compromises that make sense to most of us.

            If you look at the bulk of the lens demands on this site, they are for new versions of lenses that sell less than 5,000 copies a year. Maybe the fast primes will sell faster, but that 35mm f/1.8 DX has already outsold the legacy 35 f/2 AF lens.

            The high end lens fan should not worry though. Within a few years they will have the DSLR field all to themselves, just like Medium Format has gone from being a snapshot format to a high end format, the same will happen with the DSLR

            The first generation EVIL cameras are not going to be cheap enough or flexible enough to compete with a D5000 in the mass market. But within a couple of generations they are going to be the mass market format. The camcorder market and the still photography market will converge on the EVIL formats as the best compromise of performance and weight for 90% of use.

            The EVIL format sensor is larger than typical video camera sensors. A dedicated video sensor with larger sensor sites is going to be able to easily support the type of insane ISO performance we get on the D3s. Who needs larger glass if you can get full HD resolution and ISO12800 response?

            As a still format the EVIL sensor is going to support ISO 3200 or so. Which makes it like the D300, a pretty damn good camera for 95% of still shots.

            And that is going to mean that the only people left using DSLRs are serious photographers. Which is why that high end glass is going to be important.

        • STJ

          Well written Dr SCSI, I could not have said it better!

      • Global

        YES – we would buy ALL of them. Or most of them. And others would buy the rest. Don’t be so hateful on customer demand — its what SHOULD drive the market, not top down corporate preferences!

        • bla


          And that’s why you’re so wrong. The demand for primes is way way smaller than for zooms, and that’s why Nikons rather small R&D resources need to go where the market demand is – zooms.

          Not that I like it that much, but we all need a financial healthy Nikon to delivers those icings on the cake.

          • Jabs

            Many here seem to FORGET why Canon has so much problem with FOCUSING!
            It is because of their focus on F-STOP superiority … duh!
            Digital is NOT at the point NOW wherein you can reliably and consistently focus at F1.0 to F 1.2 … PLUS, most photographers DO NOT know how to focus at such a shallow depth of field – FACTS.

            We want lots BUT can you really reliably use it or are you just dreaming?
            I used the Nikon 58mm F1.2 NOCT on a F3T and F3HP years ago and trust me – razor thin focus plane.
            Autofocus makes it even worse, so perhaps very few of you have used glass such as the DISCONTINUED Canon 50mm F 1.0 EOS lens. It was very hard to also focus and even when these lens do properly focus, the HUMAN EYE is now the problem as in ascertaining what you really focused on.
            Cameras have become so accurate now, that perhaps WE HUMANS need an upgrade in our eyes and brain … LOL!
            I’ve used over the years Nikon’s fast as well as ‘slower’ glass and trust me, the faster glass is more difficult to use and PROPERLY get in focus. THIS has not changed in digital – facts!
            I have used and looked through the 85 F1.4, 105 F1.8, 135 F2.0 (not the DC version) and my favorite 180 F2.8 ED plus the 200 F2.0 and even the 300 F2.0 -all difficult to shoot with BUT superb optics.
            It takes time to UPGRADE digital cameras to do in autofocus mode what a skilled human can do with a fast prime PLUS now cameras are so fast that we humans need to be a better interface to the camera body as in interacting PLUS reacting to these new capabilities.
            Anyone looked at the Canon video examples and realized that the persons who photographed/videographed lots of their examples DID NOT know about the PROPER F-stop to use for VIDEO??? I downloaded and looked at them myself!
            You do NOT use F1.2 or F1.4 for much in video or it will be a blurry out of focus MESS (or just a small center portion is really in focus), as Canon aptly demonstrated. You use the F-stop required to increase the PLANE of focus needed to bring all things in focus in VIDEO.
            LOWER F-stop for single subjects that FILL THE FRAME and HIGHER F-stops for multiple items or things that DO NOT fill the frame.
            Learn that, perhaps!
            Nikon KNOWS this while Canon seems clueless!!!
            Photography and Videography are almost polar opposites in their F-Stop requirements and since I have done BOTH, I support Nikon’s approach.
            24 fps is actually superior to higher frame rates in FILMING as we NO LONGER have analog Broadcast video which needed the higher frame rate to SYNC with the 60 hertz or cycle power in America.
            Canon is pushing OLD ideals as attributes and most buy this, as they DO NOT know about VIDEO or Film making. Now, you see Canon backtracking and giving us 24 frames per second ALSO.

    • Anonymous

      I’d like a 28mm f/1.4 AF-S at reasonable price.

      • WoutK89

        Sweet dreams 🙂

      • Or Nikon could surprise us with a rocket high price 😀

        • Global

          LOL.. no.. thats the trend. It wouldn’t be surprising. 😉

    • Zograf

      I have just bought the 180 ED-IF, obviously not intending to buy the futuristic AF-S version any time soon. AF speed aside, which is not bad at all, focusing accuracy is very high and IQ is superb. One could only want marginally more.
      But I would be pleasantly surprised if I see the 105 & 135 DC updated — not as much for a new AF-S but rather a correct and precise focusing (which is more important for those two lenses.) That, with a slightly better IQ wide open would let me bye right away a second copy (I’ve already got the 105 DC!)

    • Do you own any of those lenses? Then you probably won’t in the future, even if they do release them. If you realized how useful they were, you’d be using them now.

      I’ve got all the glass I need/want. If they come up with something interesting to replace what I’ve got, I won’t complain.

      I’d love it if Nikon made a 17mm PC-E. But if I really needed it today, I’d just buy or rent a 5d mkii and the 17 TS-E.

      How many of y’all are asking for new versions of stuff that you don’t have the old version of? Hmmmm?

      Now a new body…that IS needed.

      • Dr SCSI

        Micah, being a new (started two years ago) serious amature photographer, I have quickly aquired some top Nikon glass. As I love low light photography, I naturally want ever faster glass, or insane ISOs that are actually useable. Since fast zooms are limited and quite costly, I would like to see Nikon update their primes to cover those same focal lengths, but at a 1 stop or more advantage. Yes, I am asking for versions of stuff I don’t even have the old version of, primarily because I don’t like buying outdated technology, or the older stuff just isn’t available anymore (think 28mm f/1.4). But I also have older primes like the 50 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2 DC. My most frustrating experience in buying Nikon has been the fact that my 70-200 f/2.8 VR I bought early last year was refreshed late last year. My latest aquisition, a 24-70 f/2.8 USED, because it has more value that way and I was afraid Nikon might refresh that one too. I think there are many users out there that are taking the wait and see approach, because they realize Nikon is overdue for product refresh in several of their lenses. Now a 17mm PC-E sounds interesting, but it also sounds insanely expensive as it already costs nearly $2k for the 24mm PC-E. A new camera body??? What do you want it to be? I think their line-up is pretty good now; the only thing I foresee Nikon doing in the near future is a D700X or D700S model. Price points, $4300 and $3200 respectively. A D4 won’t be anounced until Photokina in Europe in the Fall, with availability sometime in 2011, price point (if Dollar/Yen stay the same) $5400. Personally, I want to see the future D900XS at 18MP, with a MAX USEABLE ISO up to 12800, basically 1 stop under whatever Nikon says the top native ISO is. Never having done 35mm film beyond point and shoot cameras, I can’t trully appreciate the ISO capabilities Nikon cameras have brought to the table. I have been spoiled with the D3 and in my opinion Nikon’s published top native ISO of 6400 is overrated; it is too grainy to be useable, thus my term “MAX USEABLE ISO”.

        • I love buying used glass! I almost never lose money on lenses! It’s the smartest way to go. I’ve owned around 30 lenses in the past ten years and only bought 5 new. Every time I sell a used lens I break even or better.

          I have only used the D3 in the studio and full daylight, so I can’t speak to the the higher ISOs there. But my D700 is excellent at 6400–I don’t have to massage the images in post at all because of grain–so good! So clear! 12800 is better than 6400 on my d300/d90 and I get easily useable results there as well. 25,600 is noisy rubbish unless exposed very carefully. But if done so I can make it work too. Just takes more effort.

          Are you shooting JPEG or RAW? I couldn’t live with out-of-the-camera JPEGs at anything above 6400.

          The 50/1.4 is still pretty good optically (I have had a couple) and the new G version is only marginally better. The old one still has the goods to get it done. If you feel the lens isn’t up to something I’m curious to hear what it is.

          The 135/2 is splendidly sharp and now that I’m back to FX, it’s on my list. Screw drive lenses are quite fast on the better Nikon bodies. If I really needed it today, I’d buy it and not worry about what’s coming down the pipe.

          I have the 70-200 VR as well and for what I do, I’m sticking with it and not upgrading. The extra reach when you’re close in is way more valuable to me than any sharpness gains on the newer lens. If I want to do landscape with it (which is pretty rare for me with something that long) then f4-11 are sharp enough for 24″x36″ prints.

          If I had a 24mp body I’d happily dump my Sinar for good. Very happily. But I really don’t need it for my work, so a half price D3X would just make me very happy. But only happy. Doesn’t stop me from getting anything done today.

          If I were you I’d jump on a D3s before the value on your body bottoms out. The files I’ve seen at 12800 and 25,600 alone are worth it. Well, worth it if you shoot ISOs that high for money.

  • low

    a surprise too would be all DX lenses, woot!

  • rhlpetrus

    Yes, Nikon will announce the roadmap for the EVIL MX system next week. Pure uninformed guess ;).

    • Dr SCSI

      I’m with you rhlpetrus, see my detailed post that substatiates your guess! The surprise will be bigger than most are expecting! 🙂

  • Chris_M

    As a matter of fact, I’d like to be surprised with a couple of affordable DX wide primes.

    • Teun

      Yeah, A 9mm 2.8 dx non-fish would we supperb!

      “We plan to surprise the market. We will concentrate only on better quality and better line-up of cameras. So you can expect surprises.”

      If say something like this, you’re actually admitting that your company has failed to improve their products in the past…

  • Nikon making that kind of leak is a little weird.
    1: we will see D900/D700x at the PMA.
    2: or they want us to keep the tax-back money, D900 coming this summer.

    • WoutK89

      They didnt leak anything, but telling they will bring a surprise…

      • They also told us to expect something BIG last February. Heck, I’m *still* waiting to see what that’s s’posed to be 😛

        • That was a disappointment. I suspect it was an idea that sounded great in the boardroom, but wasn’t thought out beyond that. A Blues Traveler concert? What relevance does that have to wedding photographers expecting the biggest announcement they’ve heard all decade? Too bad. It could have been a great lead in to something extraordinary.

          (I do wonder if they were planning on a product launch but weren’t ready in time)

          • D3x is my guess (ie- your last comment). They couldn’t get it out the door in time, so they had to headline the band instead of the product. Ouch.

  • shivas

    haven’t all of their releases recently been surprises?
    who expected the .. . . .

    35 1.8G in DX?
    the redux of the 18-200 VR2?
    the update to the 300 2.8 with VR2?
    the 85 3.5 VR DX?

    I mean, it’s all been a roller coaster. . .a nice one, but I think I’ll sit back and watch this develop for a bit. . .unless these bodies are high iso game changers like the D3s at a reasonable $1500 range, I’ll pass. . .

    • Exactly.

      I don’t think people give Nikon enough credit—they’re making nice, steady progress. Additionally, they’re really setting the bar with some major steps forward. Too bad we photographers have such an insatiable appetite for so much hype and wow.

      As I see it, Nikon is doing a fantastic job. Certainly they’re making more gear that I want than I can afford. And I don’t skimp.

      • STJ

        So not upgrading their fixed focal length lenses for how many years is “a fantastic job”??? If you’re a DX shooter or just like zooms I’m sure you’re happy…

        • Two years since FX was introduced. Two. What are you expecting?

          If Nikon were only a glass company, I’d understand your angst. But Nikon is competing in a very tight market, with huge amounts of R&D required to keep up, not just in lenses but in all sorts of tech.

          Face it, digital cameras are 1000x more complex than the film cameras of last century. I’m sure Nikon is trying to figure out how to balance it all now that the game has drastically changed. That they now must put as much (or more) money into developing digital bodies as they have put into lenses in the past is a real shake up for them, I’m sure.

          This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable analysis to me.

          • STJ

            It-s not like Nikon was surprised by FX, they developed it themselves. Also before that thez had FX size film.. Hence they must know that quite a few professional shooters like to use fixed focal length lenses, still they havent upgraded many new lenses below 200mm since the film days. whereas Nikon was also famous for it’s excellent lenses back then it seems that the focus has been moved towards new camera features on the expense of for example primes. On the long term I’m not sure that is a good idea; Nikon has a reputation for pro-glass that they need to give some thoughts…. Only light has been the TS lenses…

          • Anonymous

            are you crazy….?
            digital cameras are far more easy to develop than film ones….consider also that most of the parts and soft are outsourcing now….think..not to mention also that most of the cameras use the same parts….in the past each camera was unice…think…

          • Right. Cause the F5 was remade very two years with virtually new tech. And all those processors, caches, busses, lcds, video features, blah, blah, blah. I see now how I was totally misled to believe that film bodies were actually EASIER to keep up on vs. digital bodies. I’ll try thinking next time.

          • Richard

            “All is on the wind.”

            Nikon is competing against not just traditional competitor Canon, but Sony (Minolta). Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax/Samsung among others. It is fair and accurate to say that, at the present time, only Canon represents a threat at the high end for the Pro PJ/Sports market, but all these other companies stand to siphon off sales of lesser models which contribute to the company’s bottom line and from which the company derives not just revenue, but experience in improving their design and manufacturing processes and then there is the technology that carries over (both ways). Just look at all the P&S cameras that Canon cranks out. That’s a lot of revenue to the company and a lot of customers who probably will look at Canon’s offerings first when/if they decide to move up because of a favorable experience with their P&S.

            Panasonic and Samsung are a part of the new landscape of the industry (and they have considerable resources). Just look at the “hybrid” Samsung NX10. It has a 14 MP APS-C sensor, appears to be competitively priced to compete with the 4/3rds offerings and has fine IQ if one is to believe the early sample images posted. (down toward the bottom) True, it suffers from a limited selection of lenses at this point, but it is an example, I believe, of where Nikon should go with their EVIL project. The NX10 is not as small as the Olympus E-P2, but the potential IQ of the larger sensor provides a sufficient reason for it to justify the difference. Some people may say “both”. Frankly, the E-P2 with its pancake lens is a pocket camera whereas the NX10 would certainly take a larger pocket.

            Anyway, the point is that Nikon is not just competing with Canon. If that is how they view it, they may remain competitive with Canon at the high end while losing the battle to the gathering mob of competitors who carve up the rest of the market. They may need to seek out other companies to give them access to greater choices in technology and so on. What would be so bad about working with, for example, Kodak on sensor technology and TI or someone else on DSPs and perhaps someone else on advanced processes for designing and manufacturing lenses?

        • bla

          And why do need those lenses updates? Do they really?

          I’ve got quite some primes, oldies included, and most of them are plain excellent. And being light and small, AF-S is not going to bring all that much anyway.

          Ron seems to be one of the precious few here who can think levelheaded rather than gear obsessed.

          • Thanks, Bla. It’s nice to hear some more of that flavor.

            And for the record, I’m not saying I wouldn’t welcome the quality of the older high quality 1.4’s with the addition of some sweet AF-S and in some lenses, even VR. But it’s not like my life is over just because I have to use Nikon’s leading class lenses that also happen to be more than a few years old. It’s not like we’re talking cpu’s here that diminish in relevance within a year or two.

        • fotosniper

          Its a reality that professionals will pick a fast sharp zoom over several primes. with the development of the trinity nikon has proved that zooms can meet or exceed prime performance. the people who scream for primes are on the fringe and not a main source of income for nikon. thats not to say that we wont see a few fast primes come out. but its not a priority.

          • STJ

            well, I don’t thing you’re right about the pros using zooms fotosniper. However, I feer that you’re right about Nikon not updating them at any reasonable paste…

  • Joe

    I know how they will surprise us. Since everyone want Nikon to make a 5D mk2 with Nikon AF and build quality.

    D900 will be a 21mp camera with the same sensor as the 5d mk2 improved by Nikon.

    OH ya it will support 1080p. So everyone is happy?

  • JBL

    It says “better quality AND better line-up of cameras”

    To me it goes well with tom’s prediction of the mirrorless format with a new, smaller sensor along with the renewal of the line with changes such as the D90 evolving into a D7000..

    However, the “better quality” part could bring us very interesting things…

    Surprises in DSLR world could be better video and more manual control over the video… or a D900 with 24mpx but with the high ISO performances of the D3s…

    Even better AF, bigger viewfinder..

    I would have been first post but meh.. forgot to post comment.

    • FYI

      FYI, admin started the EVIL rumor and reported the patents with the smaller sensor and lenses months before Thom’s prediction – just check the link above

    • WoutK89

      At least you didnt do first post, but you had some sensible things to tell instead 🙂


    • Will a smaller sensor mean more noise and lower ISO capabilities?

      • Physics.

        • rhlpetrus

          True for fixed technology, but that advances and has advanced fast lately, just check D3s at 5MP (DX crop) compared to a D40’s sensor or even Canon 7D at 18MP.

          I did a quick calculation: if Canon’s 18MP APS-C sensor were cropped to a diagonal of 17mm it’d be about 7.2MP. Increase that to 8 or 10MP and you’d have a very good EVIL, better than anything we had in DX or FF just 3 years ago.

          • Looking at samples, Canon 7D is no dream when it comes to high ISO noise.

            I understand the point you’re making about the advances in technology. Of course there will be a day when a 50mp sensor on DX looks like a dream at 102,000 ISO.

            But to borrow a moment in history: 7+ years ago most of the great cameras sported a CCD sensor. However, due to the cost of manufacturing, the industry switched to the much less expensive CMOS sensor tech. However, CCD was known for being higher quality, and it has taken years for CMOS to really be able to stand up to the CCD in terms of image fidelity (color fidelity, dynamic range, etc). We’re still struggling to match the CCD read response with the current CMOS sensors, and this too will certainly get to a suitable point where CMOS is just as good or better than where we left off with the CCD.

            But the point is that these things DO take a lot of time, years of research, tons of trial and error, and most of all huge amounts of money. To tell yourself that computers can do all that in a fraction of the time for next to nothing is misguided at best. Sure, many processes are hugely expedited by automated programs—but advances in technology bring other unanswered challenges as well.

          • rhlpetrus


            CMOS, even though in principle not as good as CCD for noise, had some advantages that eventually, letd to all dslrs using it. The main one was the read speed, since it doesn’t need the parallel read like CCD. The noise issue was dealt with using in-sensor circuitry, also something you can’t do for CCDs in the same way. The higher DR sensor out there is the D3x’s, at same level as the best MF CCDs.

            Color, actually, has nothing to do with sensor technology, just quality of CFA and algorithms used to turn RGB data into pixels. The reason MF cameras tend to have better color is because they use stronger CFAs and slower algorithms, besides high grade electronic parts (actually, some of the MF sensors one sees around were designed and spec’d for military use by Kodak).

          • rhlpetrus—clearly you know more about sensors than I do, and I’m not afraid to admit it. 🙂

            But I really hope my point isn’t lost on you or others. There still was the time when CMOS was just crap compared to CCD. That has changed, but not overnight. Of course there are advantages to both, and given enough time the disadvantages can be reduced or eliminated. Again, given enough time.

  • Bob

    Nikon has to bump up a DSLR at least to 18MP. They need a camera with 1080HD and they need to keep it under $2,000. They also need a new FX. D700x or D900. They can’t just make Coolpix.

    • ryan Loewy

      shmobviously dude, of course they aren’t going to JUST make some p&s.

    • Seriously, I love it when people tell Nikon what they need to do.

      But really, chances are you’ll be disappointed, so jump now or get used to their process. For example, I would not be surprised AT ALL if they came out with the D400 and it was hitting 14mp DX. Not at all.

      Nikon’s progress is all about incremental in specs, monumental on quality. If you don’t like this formula, (and prefer more of the Canon approach—exactly opposite) then you might just be more happy with Canon gear. But telling Nikon they should do this or should do that is like telling Toyota they should make more Fords.

      • ryan Loewy

        they are telling them what to do, obviously people realize that Nikon is going to do whatever the hell they want, they just offer feedback and suggestions and all sorts of sh*t, it is what consumers do, and SOMETIMES the business listen to their consumers.

        • ryan Loewy

          aren’t *

          • Reminds me of folks who come to the US from the Middle East (for example) because the US offers greater opportunities, then proceed to complain that the US isn’t more like their old country.

            If you like Nikon, then realize they work in a manner different from the other players. If you don’t like Nikon and how they work, then switch. Offering feedback is one thing. Making unreasonable demands that go against the grain of the company’s philosophies and approach is just silly ludicrousness.

        • bla

          Telling somebody what to do implies you know better.

          Most people who post here “I want 35 megapixels, APS-C sized body with D3 durability for less than 2 dollars” do not know better. They seem to believe their wish is the market. Or that people who post here represent a valuable slice of the market. Well, sorry but no. Nikon makes mistakes, but less than the average poster here (obviously including me).

  • Recent Convert

    A surprise in the high-end DSLR-world would be a sensor that does away with the Bayer-sensor limitations. There are also limitations with the RGB color space as represented by a three-color sensor (Bayer or otherwise). If you wonder what I mean: try getting a decent image of those deep-blue Christmas lights that emit outside of the peaks of an RGB sensor. This lights are always more spectacular to the eye than what a camera can render. An expansion of the RGB space would be a real surprise.

    • Andrew

      I heard about a new 7 colour system being developed about 1 year ago, but at that time I did not think it was likely, now I’m not so sure. 1st one to the market would steal all.

      • WoutK89

        7 colour system is whats being used in satellites. but they capture Infra red and ultra violet as “visible light”

    • It take tweaking in post, but the information is there in RAW with Adobe 1998 space.

      Even the reds that looked clipped in Raw are usually all there. Just gotta know how to work with the information the camera gives ya.

      It’d be nice if the profiles were more dynamic and better out of the box. Then again, I’d lose my edge if the camera did that for me, because it’d be doing it for my competition too. : D

  • Ed

    I just want to see the 100-500mm that is rumored to come out. We already got too many bodies already (D300S and D3S?)

    A few really good prime lenses and Nikon is set to go. Yea…. I was dreaming about that f1.2 or the supposed rarer f1.0 Canon prime lens….. if only Nikon made them….. 24mm 1.4 rumor is still good but faster would be even better.

    • ryan Loewy

      idk duder, they might hold off on that. the 1.2 50mm is MF and i rarely see people using it. in this economy they are looking to produce sh*t that will fly off the shelves, not collect dust. but dont get me wrong, i’d love to see an AF-S 1.2 50mm, that’d be epic no doubt, I just have a feeling that that is the least of Nikon’s concerns. I hope I’m wrong though.

    • Matt

      My understanding was that the reason Canon can make f/1.2 lenses is because their lens mount is slightly larger in diameter than Nikon’s.

      I could be wrong.. but I think that the reason we haven’t seen f/1.2 lenses from Nikon is because they physically cannot make them and still have them fit the F mount of all our DSLR bodies.

      Anyone got any thoughts on this?

      • D90 guy

        I’ve heard the same thing on a podcast

        • I am no engineer, but I have spoken to a few, and I’ve read up what others have said about lens design/construction. The wider the aperture, the more area of the lens elements (and larger piece of glass) you end up using. As you approach the edges you greatly increase the number of points from which the real image is translated into the projected image. Here is a link to an illustration which hopefully helps explain the dynamics of what is happening when you look through your lens:

          As you can see, it’s not trivial. The diagram isn’t even accounting for the variables introduced by spectrum range between the different RGB wavelengths.

          I personally believe the old 70-200 2.8 VR lens is a prime example of poorer lens design. None of the samples I used were ever tack sharp, including my own copy. Comparing the old 70-200 VR to the new 70-200 VRII, it becomes clear that Nikon fixed the flaws in the new lens, and made sure the second version was done right this time.

          And we wonder why it takes literally years to design a perfect lens.

          Also, don’t be fooled by Canon’s 1.2 lenses. They are simply more prone to chromatic aberration when shot wide open. Canon knows most people don’t understand that at certain focal distances, those lenses CANNOT create a sharp image. I laugh when I hear things like: “the focus is so shallow, if you move a millimeter the subject is soft”. Ahhh….

          • Dr SCSI

            Well said Ron Adair…as for your 70-200 VR issues, at what focal lengths is it soft? Short end, middle, long end, or all the above? I have the 70-200 VR, and I have yet to notice the out of focus issue yet; but then again I don’t use the lens that often.

          • SCSI—It was pretty much at all focal lengths, though I didn’t do strict tests. I do believe part of the problem was back focusing, which could have been the D2x/70-200 VR combination.

            Still, even manually focusing I couldn’t get the same sharpness as my 80-200. I quite often got the smudgy look that I’ve seen exhibited on other sites (caused by chromatic aberration) when that lens is shot at 2.8.

            I realize it’s not always reasonable to expect to shoot a lens wide open and expect tack sharp images, but I must say the 80-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8, 17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8, etc are all excellent at wide open sharpness. The 70-200 2.8 VR seemed to be a blip in that legacy.

          • Dr SCSI

            Ron, I went and checked your blog, unfortunately I think your diagram is over simplified with the single lens example. Nikon has a lens (200-400 f/4) with 24 optics in 17 groups to bend and shape the light the way they want. Nikon is trully the master of light, and their other division that specializes in lithography supports this claim. They are manipulating light in the 3-5 nano meter range for making highly integrated circuits, like Intel’s latest processors. I am absolutely convinced that Nikon could make insane optics (f/1.4 at 105mm for example) for the F mount with astounding quality, but I don’t think they are willing to go bankrupt doing so. Just look at SIGMA for what is possible on a Nikon F mount, 200-500mm f/2.8 (only $30K). I have seen pictures taken with that lens and they were very impressive. But at 35 pounds you either need to look like Arnold Schwartzeneger or Popeye. It is as you say, no trivial undertaking, but I don’t think it is as difficult (anymore) as everyone is led to believe.

          • Dr SCSI, I am hoping that people understand that the diagram is HIGHLY TRIVIAL, as the title of the diagram suggests. I realize it is being way oversimplified, but I wanted a diagram that was :

            A) Readable and principle based, (not too complex for non-techies to look at)
            B) Not the resolution of a D3X sensor 🙂
            C) Quickly made to post to the blog so I could link to it from here

            Also, realize I know next to nothing about lens design—just more than the average bloke due to my courses on lens dynamics at Brooks and my research on the web, etc. No doubt there are principles I don’t understand. But I do understand that the reason there are more than 10 elements and numerous coatings in most high quality lenses is due to the fact that when you have light at different wavelengths (between 400nm and 700nm), you have a mess when trying to resolve all of them to the same exact spot across a wide plane. It really is mindblowing.

            And my diagram doesn’t even address different wavelengths of light, just light as a whole.

          • Dr SCSI

            Ron, you are obviously much knowledgeable than I in the science behind lens making. I fall into the average bloke category. 😉 But having a background in metrology, I understand the technological break-throughs in the last 30 years which have brought manufacturing costs down, yields up, and the time to market down. I also imagine that many of the previous complex lens problems that plauged lens designers in the film days, have been easily been corrected in the digital world. I am sure Nikon engineers are using complex tables in the camera that are auto correcting some lens imperfection, based on the lens the camera knows is attached. I’ll take your word on the complexities of bending visible light waves so that they all resolve at the desired location. I just wanted to point out that I don’t believe it takes Nikon nearly as much time to make a lens as it did 30 years ago. As for your diagram on your blog, kudos goes out to you, but you may want to take it to the next level in another follow-on diagram that highlights the complexities of multiple lenses in multiple groups. Something like that would definitely warp the heads of most people (mine included); but it would help stress your point about the complexity of lens design.

          • ryan Loewy

            i love how you bash everyone on here as being stupid assh*les and that you are the only competent individual. narcissism for teh win. god i love photography.

          • ryan Loewy—

            Touché on the narcissism comment; you very well could be right. I’ll take that to heart.

            But I’m not here trying to tell people that they’re wrong just so I can say I’m right. I’ve spent quite a few years hearing about how Canon craps all over Nikon, and Nikon can’t hold a candle to Canon’s omnipotence. I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. Likewise, it’s just as silly to complain that Nikon isn’t doing this or that well enough. Sure, there are valid gripes. As I stated below, I would probably be as concerned as the next guy if I had purchased a 70-200 VRII for $2,500 and found it had a visible aberration inside the lens. But it doesn’t stop at concerned. It turns into a “the sky is falling” carnival. People go nuts before they even know what they should be mad about.

            Likewise, so many people claim that Nikon is not doing enough to satisfy the market, but in reality it’s hard not to think that it’s the whiner’s wet dream that isn’t being satisfied. Of course you want a 30mp camera that shoots 204,000 ISO with the noise that looks like last years 400 ISO. We all do. But do you need it? Really? I am shooting pro work at 12mp just fine, and nobody is questioning my results. No doubt there are others that can truly put more, better, and bigger to good use. But when it comes down to the meat of the matter, most people’s arguments are based on sheer appetite, not need. I am just trying to balance out the silly. Sorry if that’s offensive.

          • Ubiquitous

            Mr. Adair:

            Your explanation is very troubling. You said:

            ” I personally believe the old 70-200 2.8 VR lens is a prime example of poorer lens design. None of the samples I used were ever tack sharp, including my own copy. Comparing the old 70-200 VR to the new 70-200 VRII, it becomes clear that Nikon fixed the flaws in the new lens, and made sure the second version was done right this time.”

            Until the introduction of the 70-200 VRII, the Mark I version of the lens was considered to be among Nikon’s best. What about the other older design lenses that were not as highly regarded as 70-200 VRI? Are they worse or more “prime examples of poorer lens designs.” In other words, what you are suggesting is not buy the older lenses until they come out with the new designs.

          • Ubiquitous: I’m not sure I understand your question. It seems you’re extrapolating quite a bit from my post. I have not mentioned any “other older design lenses”. I was speaking strictly of the 70-200 2.8 VR (original). It was definitely not up to standard for the line of lenses it was replacing, the 80-200 2.8 series.

            The 70-200 was definitely not designed as well as its predecessors. At least as far as I’ve seen the new version has significantly higher resolving power, and overall better OOF rendering and sharpness.

            That’s the long and the short of what I was saying, nothing more.

      • Dr SCSI

        Matt, D90 guy, please go take a look at an article by Ken Rockwell, as he busts this rumor with hard facts. ( FYI, Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.2 lens already. Large aperatures like f/1.4 or f/1.2 are very expensive to make, especially as you increase the focal length. Its all about economics; what good does it do to introduce a lens that a.)costs more than most people earn in a week at 50mm f/1.2, b.)costs more than many people earn in a month at 85mm f/1.2, c.)costs more than many people earn in a year at 300mm f/2. or d.) the quality is sh!t, the pictures suck, and nobody buys it.

        • Quoting KR might not do your argument any good. Not everyone believes his opinion means much o’ anything.

          • Dr SCSI

            It is kind of hard to argue that Nikon can’t do f/1.2 because of the lens mount, especially since they still a 50mm f/1.2 and they built an experimental 5cm f/.95. Also their most outrageous lens was probably the 300mm f/2. When you think about aperature, you should realize it is a function of the focal length. The aperature diamter = focal length of lens divided by the f stop number. So for a 300mm f/2, we would be talking about an aperature diameter of 150mm!! But since the opening diameter of the F mount isn’t 150mm, Nikon achieves wide aperatures in other means, as Ken Rockwell points out. I quote KR, because he makes much sense in many cases, especially the maximum f stop argument. Many people who don’t believe much of what KR says, is because they get turned off by his in-your-face attitude. It is his knowledge in lenses which gives him the confidence to present what he knows in the manner he does. If someone doesn’t believe him, they just need to go find substantiating facts to disprove him. Everyone needs to be civil and keep the intelectual debates going, and to continue to challenge others when they think they are wrong. But if you are going to challenge someone, at least be willing to make a case or reference someone else who has. 🙂

          • Not arguing your points by any means 🙂 Just saying that you presenting the facts would gather you more listeners than by mentioning KR’s name 😉
            (just my not-so-humble opinion there, tho’)

            Would love to see Nikon make some more outrageous lenses. They want to give us a “surprise?” Ok, then DO it! Surprise us! No more of the Blues Traveler bullcrap.


          • Dr SCSI

            Point taken Fried Toast, feedback is welcome and encouraged. 🙂 Although I like to hear myself (hmmm, is that possible) blog, I often find it easier to just paste a link to someone else’s well written explanations. I just linked to KR’s website, since that article was still in my memory bank and easy to find. I doubt we will see outrageous lenses from Nikon any time soon. I think we will see high quality, reasonably priced glass, that fits well into the DSLR segments they have cut out for themselves. Just follow me down my rabbit hole for a second….think how Nikon would think, which lenses are currently available and match up to their DSLRs for the purpose in which they were built. How much inventory did Nikon have in their older style film lenses, which work perfectly well on their new digital cameras, at the point in time when Nikon released digital. “Oh crap, we have a surplus of film lenses, so lets hold off on marketing the digital lenses.” Now that the older lenses are drying up, and the customers are screaming for new glass, let us give ’em what they ask for. 🙂

        • PHB

          It is a pretty silly claim, Canon once made an f/1.0 lens. It was rubbish, they changed to an f/1.2 which is much larger and more expensive than the f/1.4 that Nikon chose to sell.

          There is such a thing as too little depth of field. The f/1.2 is already pretty constraining. The f/1.0 appears to have been practically useless wide open – and whats the point of having such a lens if you then stop it down?

          It isn’t as if a half or a third of a stop is going to be a major game changer for low light photography. The only reason to pay $800 extra to get the f/1.4 version of the 85mm over the f/1.8 is that you want the different optical treatment, the bokeh, the depth of field. The Nikon f/1.4 is a large lens for a prime, but no bigger and a lot lighter than most zooms. The Canon f/1.2 on the other hand is a monster, it is heavier than the camera and big.

          Canon has to resort to gimicks. Nikon design for what they consider the best combination of weight, size and optical performance.

          • ryan Loewy


          • Amen PHB. Sound arguments—look at my post above yours for some more technical reasons why Canon’s 1.2 lens is a misleading product, or check out my blog post here (with an illustration):


          • low

            i dig this.

          • Richard

            Whether the Canon lens has too little DOF might be debated, but posts by users I have read indicate that it is much too slow focusing and is a generally difficult lens to use well…in other words just not worth it.

          • PHB

            Canon’s f/1.2 lens is designed to win bragging rights rather than to fulfill a photographic need.

            Nikon also went after bragging rights back in the day. Only the lenses they produced tended to be exquisite pieces of engineering that were only impractical because of the insane cost and weight. Lenses like the legendary 13mm f/5.6 or the 1200-1700 zoom.

            At this point, Nikon does not need to make showcase lenses designed to sell a few hundred a year. And as Canon’s efforts demonstrate, trying to make optics that extreme for a sane price merely ends up creating expensive trash.

            I expect that after Nikon launches some fast primes we will see Canon launch another lens whose principal purpose is to be something that Nikon don’t make. It will sell maybe a thousand copies a year but the Canon fans will tell us that it is the absolute must-have photographic essential – much as they used to bleat on about the tilt-shift lenses.

            It is really easy to make this stuff if you have computer aided design and manufacture and don’t much care about the quality of what you produce.

          • Well said, PHB. Well said.

  • Nathan Shane

    Nikon plans on surprising the market by producing an FX camera called the “Kryten” that has all the episodes of “Red Dwarf” ready for instant playback. Ahhhh…nothing better than taking photos and then relaxing to some British comedies. LOL!!! 🙂

    • LC Ken

      Hitting hitting the Mango Juice a little hard, Nathan?

      • LC Ken


  • DavidinSydney

    The surprise would be coolpix cameras that pro’s would actually want to buy!

    • enesunkie

      The surprise would be Coolpix cameras that amateurs would want to buy!

      • STJ

        Ha ha ha! Good one!

  • myself

    If he really wants to surprise the market then have Nikon come out with DSLR’s and lenses that are CHEAPER than all the competition. Would you be surprised? Heck yeah!

  • woble

    FFS.. bring on upgrades for the ultrafast FX lenses already. Couldn’t care less for new bodies. And don’t get me wrong, old lenses are great, especially some AI(S) lenses. But seeing how most of them being manual focus, it sometimes could be pain in the ass.

  • I don’t care about surprises; I am still waiting for the mid-range zoom. Why am I *not* surprised by the interview?

    • Gerry

      what “mid range zoom” do you speak of…. if Nikon doesn’t have a zoom lens that is suitable for you, I think you are being unreasonable.

      • 24-120 mm or 35-105 mm or something similar. As it is you would need two zooms to cover this range. The 24-70 mm is too short for my needs, the 70-200 mm is too long, the 24-120 mm is, according to all reviews, a terrible lens. There is nothing usable in this range.

        I would hesitate to label *anyone’s* wishes “unreasonable”. For example, I do not share the desire of many photographers for fast primes (or any primes, for that matter), yet I would never say it is “unreasonable”. It is just different from what I need.

      • nobody

        No, VeronikaB is completely right, Nikon don’t have a standard zoom that matches the D700 body regarding size, weight, and quality.

        The 24-70 is a match regarding quality. But it’s as big and heavy as a 180mm f2.8, that’s too big and heavy as a standard lens for the mid-sized body.

        The 24-85 and 24-120 are matching regarding size and weight, but their quality is not in the same league as the D700.

        Nikon really need a fairly compact high quality zoom, maybe 28-105 f4, with VR and Nano coating, good enough for 24mp. I hope it’s coming soon!

        • Richard

          (28-105) That would be a very sweet lens. I have used a 35-105 in another format and always found myself wanting it to be a little bit wider. I would not argue if it came out as a 28-135, but there probably would be some compromises to get that zoom range.

          • bla

            The nikon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. It exists.

            But oh nooooo!!! No nano coating, and you have to keep it steady yourself!
            Otherwise, it’s a well regarded lens and cheap 2nd hand.

        • CDM


          Nikon will really suprise everyone (in the sense of actually releasing what has been asked for for such a long time) by selling an entire range of highest-quality F4 VR zooms at prices matching (OK, slightly more, as usual) those in the Canon lineup.

          With the D700 and even more the D3s type sensors, an F4 lens is really all you need, even for most indoor photography. If things go really dark, use an 85mm F1.4 or similar, which will be better than an F2.8 zoom anyday.

          But here is the problem: Nikon know that by introducing an outstanding line of F4 zooms they will immediately reduce the number of the more profitable F 2.8 zooms. And so, if we ever see an F4 line, it will probably be quite lower in quality than the F 2.8 versions. (it is just the reverse for Canon, the 70-200 F4IS being better quality @ F4 then the F2.8 versions @ F4).

      • Dr SCSI

        Gerry, based on another post by VeronikaB, I think she is talking about an all around mid-range zoom; one (just one) you mount on an FX body, go walk about and take pictures. She asked for a 24-120, but I upped her anty to 135. I think everyone would benefit from such a lens. 24-135 with f/3.5 continuous (or f/3.5-f/4 for cost reasons) and VR II optimized for FX. FX shooters would get their all arounder, and DX shooters would get an outstanding 36-200 lens with a 1.5 stop advantage over the 18-200 at the long end. The problem with FX zooms is the weight and space factor. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a monster and the 24-70 f/2.8 is also quite large. But for outdoor, walk about shooting, most of us don’t need the f/2.8, where 1/2 stop (or even a full stop) loss would still be ok. In low light, boost your ISO and you still have a VERY capable all arounder.

  • A modular system DSLR
    That would be a nice surprise.
    (Pick your sensor)

    • RED

      But that said it would be a surprise, and something I think Nikon could consider for its more “professional” grade of cameras.

      • Anonymous

        I’ve researched the RED gear. It is video gear first, photo gear second. So it isn’t a direct comparison. A direct comparison is a Hassie H1.Yes, MF is a bit bigger, but it is a modular dslr.

        • Totally agree that it is video first, photo second. But if you look at what there new sensors and offerings planned for mid-2010, its getting close.

  • OK

    They had better…I’m ready to leave to another maker. D300s maybe??? D700 replacement with a reasonable price. or evil if it can compete or excel over the competitors.

  • Anonymous

    A lens that doubles as a fleshlight.

    • ryan Loewy

      hahahaha this! this right here!

    • WoutK89


      officially rated M for Mature 😮

    • NikoDoby

      So which “Nikkor fleshlight” one would you guys buy? The 35mm f1.8 or the 200mm f2 ?

  • tibor

    well the “SURPRISE” as a bitter taste now… it really has to be “surprising” in the good way , otherwhise…

  • He also claimed D3000 is very well accepted camera.

    Thom Hogans says “The D3000 gets the first Not Recommended rating I’ve given to a Nikon DSLR.”. Ken Rockwell says about D3000: “It’s a good camera all by itself, but it’s the worst DSLR Nikon has ever made.”

    So it is just a boring PR stuff. No news.

    • bla

      There is a difference between the rating of reviewers and actual sales figures. I think a CEO of Nikon is more referring to the sales figures than the findings of reviewers.

  • Killa

    I’m waiting for D90’s successor. The rest are (is) not interest me.

  • ich bins wieder

    Haha, quite clear what he meant: the surprise will be definitely no DSLR with a higher resolution.

    • WoutK89

      They will go 6MP from now on 😀

  • mantom

    Considering most of the interview is about the India market and the India market mostly consumes the lower end Nikon models, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the “we’ll surprise” comments. the salesman doesn’t sound too tech savvy, so a ‘surprise’ by his standards is probably not much to talk about to us gearheads.

    • Jim


      This interview was specific to the Inida marked – where he says only slr is the d300 many dslrs sold in other markets may be a “surprise” to that marked.

  • alvix

    ok for for the dslr market..but I d like to see a surprise for MY mini-market ..a little digiback that outputs .nef files…with two d3x sensors paired, 36×48 ..just a back..with various conversion options….not a complete system…but i know its impossible..given the recent interview with Mr. Tetsuro Goto..

  • Dylan

    a surprise: RAW VIDEO.

    • That wouldn’t be a surprise. It would be caviar.

  • Ryan Loewy

    a nice surprise would a full frame under 2k for christ’s sake. get on that sh*t.

  • Zorro

    D40s would be a nice surprise.

  • giz

    A suprise for me would be a smaller Body (like D90) with an FX sensor or some improvements in sensor technology like super-ccd in nikon cameras.

  • Steve

    “We will concentrate only on better quality and better line-up of cameras. ”

    give me some primes , damn it !

    • Zorro

      Yes – DX

  • tchar

    The surprise probably is an update to the D3X and D700 along with D90. Higher resoloutions and iso for the first two, higher video and better proccessor for all of them . Maybe better iso capabilities to the D90. . D3s and D300s would remain for sport photographers pros and amateurs. Maybe an intrusion of the D3X to the medium format. D700 would replace D3X in high resoloution FX format. That is why they name it D900 and may have lower fps than the D700 so can’t compete with D3s, D300s. A cheap good quality D3x replacement. They will throw GPSin camera , wi-fi, mobile internet, mini hard-disk in modules etc.,

    • WoutK89


      • tchar

        mobile telephone as well lol

    • And I’m sure Nikon doesn’t mind losing money on the cameras, either.

      Asking for higher resolution and lower noise is like asking for higher quality crap at walmart for an even lower price. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon.

  • Anonymous

    Big whoop. What else is he going to say.

  • kaki

    Yea, dandruff 70-200 VR II with focal lenth shortage was a real suprise. I hope he did not mean more of this kind of suprise.

  • Dweeb

    I think the big surprise here was someone from Nikon was allowed to actually say something in public. Yeah, no more surprises like the 70-200 pixie dust.

  • MM

    18mp FX
    1080 HD
    dual CF slot

    That would be a suprise. 😀 lol

    • Dr SCSI

      MM, you just described the upcoming D4, but you forgot to mention the tilt swivel 1.2 million pixel display back with greater color bit depth. I miss tilt swivel on my D3. 🙁

  • sixbysix

    Surprise? It would have to be a min-blowing announcement to be outside the realms of the imagination of the Rumors forums. Seriously, seriously crazy.

    “Surprise! A Nikon EVIL!” Well no, it’s a hugely lucrative market area that someone else has already dipped their toes into first.

    “Surprise! A Nikon classic manual focus digital body!” Well no, it’s a quietly lucrative market area that Leica has already dipped their toes into first (I do have my fingers crossed for this one though).

    “Surprise! All the FF fast aperture lenses and f4 zooms you can eat!” Well no, it’s a moderately lucrative market area that Canon has been splashing around in on lilos, wearing pirate hats, for over a decade.

    “Surprise! More pixels/better high ISO performance (delete according to personal taste), less money!” No no no no no, this is EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE EXPECTING YOU TO DO! And have been for YEARS! That is NO surprise to ANYONE!

    So what’s left? Leaving Bayer? Leaving F-mount? Medium Format? 3D? A useable Coolpix (heaven forbid)? Go on Nikon, shock us. Do something revolutionary.

    • enesunkie

      Well said!

    • lox

      Well, Nikon’s very strength in this market grows from all the excellent lenses available even for newest DSLR bodies. So leaving the F-mount behind would surely be not a good idea. Even though I do not believe in a tremendous technical change, a black silicon(1) based sensor would be a great deal.


    • ryan Loewy

      If nikon ditches the f-mount i am going to be f*cking furious, and I’m sure a good amount of other Nikon shooters would be too.

      • Wow. Relax. A little conjecture isn’t reason enough to get one’s panties in a bunch.

        • ryan Loewy

          uh, it is buddy, it is. cause, apparently unlike you, i cant afford to ditch all of my glass. just cause you know how ever bit of nikon technology works in their systems doesn’t qualify you to tell me not to be pissed off at a possible mount redesign. one of the reasons i shoot nikon is that i can use older, manual focus lenses on my digital body. so, sorry, mr. know-it-all, i just can’t afford it, thus, i’d be f*cking pissed. so, please, go cry about how people here suggest things to someone who will actually care to listen. this is a rumor site. people speculate. people b*tch. people moan. get used to it. if you dont like it, don’t read/post here then.

          • bla

            Wow, touchy!

            But yeah, of course after 50 years of keeping compatibility as much as possible, Nikon will suddenly loose the F-mount for not a single good reason on DX and FX DSLRs.

            Moaning is fine, but use your brain first please, then your enormous ego does not have to take such substantial blows if somebody disagrees with your ramblings.

    • WillHappenButWhen


      My vote is with Thom for a Redesque modular system, thus “making obsolescence obselete.”

  • Ionceknewyou

    We switched to the darkside.

    Cankon D700s with ef mount.

    Because our lens line up is old and mostly outdated.

    • CDM

      Ohhhhh…! A D700 with EF mount? Half of Canon’s userbase’ dream-come-true? No, this has to be left to Canon. Their D700 will be as good as the Nikon’s. In 10 years’ time. With only minor problems with the AF by then… And yes you guessed it right, I use a 5D…

  • Mike

    Why are so many people on about DX primes? I don’t get it! Outside of price point what are the benefits? FX primes work equally well on both systems. DX on FX, not so much. Why limit yourselves? Sigma has a great 30 1.4. I doubt a 16 1.4 DX will be cheap (24 mm equiv’t). And we are all aware Nikon has 5 DX zoom lenses that are f/3.5 at 18 mm. Clearly, wide fast FX primes are a bigger need than anything DX right now. A 24 1.4 AF-S is going to be expensive regardless if it’s DX or FX, why not just make it FX and keep it relevant for the next 20 years?

    • Ionceknewyou

      Why are so many people on about DX primes?

      Many reasons.
      1. crop factor (i guess)
      2. weight issues (i guess)
      3. obvious price point (i guess)
      4. they have no need for fx (i guess)
      5. and well most photographers are not professionals and dont need fx lenses nor fx cameras.

      • Dr SCSI

        I think the reason so many people are on DX primes, is because so many more people own DX cameras. Nikon will focus their efforts on economies of scale that bring them the most buck for the least bang.

        1. crop factor (you have the 1.5x crop factor on DX and FX)
        2. weight issues (i’m not so sure, compare equally when using the 35mm equiv. focal lengths and aperatures and you will find there are small weight differences in many lenses offered.)
        3. Price point (you get what you pay for; rugadized FX lenses with better coatings, optics, and resale)
        4. they have no need….(I can’t argue with that)
        5. don’t need fx, as most people aren’t professionals…(amatures may not need fx, but their photography can definitely benefit from it; even though it isn’t the equipment that makes a photograph, its the photographer using the tools that are available, better tools help achieve better results.)

        I would like to see Nikon market both the DX and FX lenses specific to their targeted audiance; that way everyone is happy. 🙂

    • enesunkie
      • LOL, I have Nikkor Lenses that aren’t even listed there…

      • Dr SCSI

        Its only logical that there are more primes for the FX format, as Nikon has only been working on it for 50 years! Many of the FX prime lenses were made before digital was a reality. The problem many FX users have is that their prime lenses for digital are slow and outdated.

  • Zoetmb

    Isn’t this what they said last year?? They said they were going to support the high-end, not worry about market share, but worry about margin, implying more expensive equipment. Well..they did produce more expensive equipment and they did lose margin.

  • low

    everything that TH predicted. that would be a surprise! :O whaaaaaaaat????

  • Matt

    Nikon floors us all by producing the first full-frame digital Twin Lens Reflex! The sensor is 56mm a side with 42 megapxels and, to everyone’s amazement, 2160p video! Heck, I’d dump my Rolleicord in an instant for that!

    BTW, my brother in law has a Nikon 55 f/1.2, so I don’t think the F mount keeps Nikon from making f/1.2 primes. I think back in the old days, the Pentax scree mount (M42) was too small. Fuji announced a 50 f/1.2 for the Fujica ST-801 but never released it. Word at the time was the mount was too small.

    What would be great is a Nikon FE sized FX camera.

    • I got the 58mm f/1.2, so yeah. There is even a f/0.95 if memory serves me correct, so I agree, its not the F-mount that is stopping them.

  • BooBoo

    I’m surprised by your face, Nikon. You’ve been served BooBoo-style.

  • Nau

    usual marketing talk…

  • bob

    Hey Nikkon, If you don’t like the weather in Seatle, wait five minutes and then shoot your face off. You have been served boo boo style

  • Back to top