Nikon D95, Coolpix P7000

Some interesting information came in today - basically more details on the already existing rumors:

  • The Nikon D90 replacement will probably be called Nikon D95.
  • Magnesium body. Previous reports indicated that parts of the body will be aluminium. My guess here is that the body will be magnesium-alloy, just like the D300s.
  • 1080 HD video.
  • 6 fps (FYI: Nikon D90 does 4.5fps, the D300s - 7fps). The initial report was for 8fps. Let's just say it will be somewhere between 6-8fps.
  • 39 AF points.
  • Price: $1199 for body only.

No idea about a potential announcement date for the D95 (maybe also in August?).

Ok, now the rest of the rumors - Nikon Coolpix P7000 will be the new top-of-the-line point and shoot camera from Nikon, a.k.a. "the G11 killer" (I know, the Canon G12 will be coming in September). It will have a larger sensor (don't know how large) and 8fps continuous shooting(!).

Another tip came in for the 28-300mm full frame zoom lens (initially reported as 18-200 FX zoom).

The Nikon D3100 will be 14MP, the rest of the specs should be right.

The remaining items covered in the my previous "Recap" post seems to be correct.

This entry was posted in Nikon D7000, Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • kljs

    A D90 replacement. wow…. but no news of a D700 replacement?

    • Nope, all quiet on the D700 replacement. This doesn’t necessarily means that there won’t be one – I just have no clue and I don’t want to speculated.

      • Peter (and anyone else who has real knowledge of sensor/video tech)—

        I’ve heard some thoughts that I can’t seem to understand. Can you share why there is a sentiment that 12mp is too low of a mp count for full HD video? I mean, 1080p is just over 2mp, easily under the threshold for cropping a 16:9 image out of a 12mp sensor. All I can think of is something to do with interpolation, but that really doesn’t make sense to me. Why do people believe that you need a 16+mp sensor for full 1080p?

        Thanks for any insight…

        • David Hasselblaff

          I heard that 16 MP thingy too. Does it make any sense? Well, why is it that full HD camcorders have sensors that do a lot less? My guess is that it’s the sensor design itself with the analog to digital converter that might cause difficulties.
          What worries me more is that with a pixel pitch of less than 5 micron digital sensors are starting to outperform most lenses. I mean the D95 will mainly be used with DX zooms right?

        • Bob Howland

          Apparently, 1920 x 1080 is at the BOTTOM end of the professional video capture resolution hierarchy. There is this thing called 4k which is 4096 pixels wide by 2000-3000 pixels high, depending on the aspect ratio. This explains it better than I can.

          Still, 16MP seems a bit excessive. Canon’s 18MP is even more excessive and causes definite issues with noise at ISOs as low as 400.

          • PHB

            Sadly, there is no chance at all that any DSLR is going to be shooting 4K or 8K any time soon. The sheer volume of data coming off the sensor is way too much to be able to store it in real time using current storage technology.

            Even if you can store the data (as the coming versions of SD chips promise) you can’t compress a stream that fast without a lot more cpu power than you can currently put in someone’s hands unless they are wearing asbestos gloves.

            There is a possibility that this will change in a couple of years as USB 3.0 starts to become available. USB 3.0 has an optical channel and supports the necessary data rates quite comfortably. It may well be an option on future cameras. I can imagine a mode where you plug your D400 or D4 into a portable computer module with some serious crunching capability.

            But even so, I would tend to look for the EVIL lineup as being the video format simply because they have a completely clean slate to start from and can support the type of features that you need in video.

            One of these is light weight. Another is lenses that keep their focal length when you focus. Another is motorized zoom.

            • Richard

              We are talking about DSPs not CPUs. The power of DSPs has increased several times over in recent years while the cost for those units has declined several times over. While I do not know the practical limits of in camera data processing, my suspicion is that it is much greater than we believe based on current cameras as the camera companies have lagged behind in this area. Increasing the buffer size is also an issue. With the cost of memory declining over the years this really should not be an issue. Write speed to the storage media will ultimately determine how many frames can be captured before the buffer runs out of space.

              The bandwidth/frame rate may ultimately be the dividing line between sports/PJ cameras and those used for other purposes.

            • PHB

              We are talking about DSPs that you can power off a small Lithium ion battery and squeeze into the confines of a hand held device. That means that you can’t dissipate more than a few watts.

              Yes, there are architectural differences between DSPs and CPUs. But not enough to help here. The enemy is heat, not time. the architecture of a DSP means that you can use more of it at once. So you have more gates making transitions. And that pushes up your power density.

              The real reason the flagship models support faster fps is that they have more surface area to cool over.
              OK it is also because they have more DSPs, but you can’t cram those into a D300 or D700 case without nasty things happening if you try to use it in a hot climate.

              If you look at what Red does, they have a separate storage box to act as a concentrator. That is what Nikon should/would do. Then you would use a storage box with a DirectX10 compatible graphics card that allows you to use the graphics card as a vector processing unit and you could get the necessary bit rates out of reasonably inexpensive, reasonably power efficient devices.

            • Richard

              There are fundamental differences between CPUs and DSPs. Other than that they are micro-processers, they have little in common. By design, DSPs are capable of specific processing at a much greater rate, just like a GPU does a much better job at specific tasks than a CPU.

            • PHB

              As I said, there are differences. But the DSPs in the D90 are already stretched to the limit handling 720p.

              There are many, many different processors that are marketed as ‘DSP’s. If you are in the world of processor design, as I was twenty years ago, the differences matter.

              But really, you are not getting anything for nothing here. A DSP is able to keep more silicon real estate working in parallel on DSP-ish tasks than a general purpose CPU can. It uses tricks like Harvard architecture, direct execute instructions (no microcode) and pipelining. But the side effect of keeping all that processing going in parallel is that you are consuming power and dissipating heat.

              I tend not to see a handheld 4K camera as being very practical at the moment. Sure you could do it with shoulder mount designs or larger. But if it was practical to do it onboard, it would be being done.

            • Richard


              In fairness, I do not have a detailed technical analysis of Nikon’s DSPs, but what I have seen indicates that the entire industry has lagged behind DSP development in the electronics industry. in general. DSPs do benefit from Moore’s observation as die process is “shrunk”. I continue to believe that inadequate attention has been directed to these issues by the camera industry. I know that is a broad generality, but in the electronics industry there are frequently changes per year, not years per change as in the camera industry (for DSPs). There is no fundamental reason a camera body can not have internal improvements in the electronics over the life of the product (assuming that it has a product life cycle of a year or more). If the computer industry moved at the pace of the camera industry, we would still be in the 20th Century in terms of progress.

            • PHB

              Moore’s law works slower for handheld devices.

              The problem is that batteries can only store a certain amount of energy. So if your energy drain goes up, your battery life goes down.

              If you halve the minimum feature size the charge transfered per gate transition drops in half, your clock speed doubles and the number of transistors you can cram in a certain area goes up by a factor of four. What this means is that halving the minimum feature size gives you an eight-fold increase in performance (if you can make full use of those gates) at the cost of a four fold increase in power consumption per unit area.

              When I first started using microprocessors, a 6502 would use less than a watt. Today I have a quadcore pentium that needs water cooling as it is drawing close to 100 watts.

              If you are into serious iron (as I used to be) then you have a scheme to take away the excess heat and you can make full use of that speed. But in a handheld device you either have to supply a lot more battery power (e.g. what the D3 does) or settle for using fewer gates or a slower clock speed.

              At one time in the past they used to drop the rail voltage which allows the power density to be controlled somewhat. But that trick is pretty much used up at this point. Overclockers reverse this of course and re-raise the rail voltages.

              That is why my choice would probably be for one of the DirectX 10 GPUs that are designed to serve double duty as a general purpose vector processor. There are rather more options designed for use in portable devices.

      • The invisible Man

        How long ago did you know before for the D700 release ?

        • The first reliable info came on June 17:

          The D700 was announced on July 1st.

          • I think its very possible now not to see any D700 replacement with Nikon going straight for the D4 either late this year or mid summer next year. Its my gut feeling.

            • I’m wondering if the current lack of D3s bodies is a sign that the D3s sensor line is busy being used for D700s production.

              My guess is D95 + D700s soon with a D400 coming later this fall/winter (Nov. 2010) and then D4 in the 1st qtr of 2011.

              Or, D95 + D400 in the next couple weeks with the D700s coming in Fall/Winter w/ the D4 in 1st qtr 2011. I actually think this version is the more likely of the two. I don’t think they will necessarily do a paired launch like the D3 + D300 last time.

          • LGO

            That means there is still a 2-3 weeks window for Peter to get some news on the D700-replacement before Nikon’s announcement in 3rd-4th week of August.

            I still believe that there will be a D700-replacement. This is logical and reflects the same pattern that Nikon has followed over the years.

            The real question is the timing. If Nikon is having difficulty getting sufficient stocks of the D3s sensor, then the D700-replacement would be delayed. If not, then this would be announced within the next 2 months.

            • elliot

              “I still believe that there will be a D700-replacement. This is logical and reflects the same pattern that Nikon has followed over the years. ”

              Not logical if they don’t have a sufficiently good replacement sensor. Right now it’s obvious that Nikon has a number of quality chips from which to choose in a D90 replacement, but little available at present for a D700 replacement. We’ll probably see a D700s some time later on, but nothing now. Megapixel fiends will be disapponted in the Nikon FF offerings this year.

          • LGO

            I just read the old thread re the D700 and “HZJ105” was spot on regarding the D700 and the SB900.

            Peter … any chance of possibly contacting “HZJ105”?

          • Any D700 followup will come very rapidly after the first legitimate rumor, just as the D700 did. That’s because it will likely use a Nikon sensor (D3s) and is made in Sendai, which has a good track record at keeping things secret. The usual leak points are highly minimized with Sendai releases, and if it’s really a D700s type of camera, even documentation and testing would have been relatively tightly controlled because it doesn’t break any new ground.

            • LGO

              Thom, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

            • PHB

              I agree.

              I would also suggest that it is highly likely that the engineering work on the D700s was done concurrently with the work on the D3s.

              If I was running that project I would have my engineers building both bodies simultaneously so that any adjustments necessary were known about with as long a lead time as possible.

              The launch of the D700s is not going to be blocked on engineering issues, or testing, it is going to be purely a matter of production constraints and cost. And those are not even issues that are likely settled inside Nikon.

              My guess would be that the only thing marketing is thinking about at the moment is the launch of EVIL and the consumer cameras for the Xmas market. However popular the D700 is on these boards, it is not the priority.

              Another thing to consider is that even though the D700 was made in Japan, it is quite possible, likely even that the D700s would be moved to Thailand. Demand for the D3s and D3x remains very strong and next year the factory is going to be tooling for the D4 launch. Moving the D700s to Thailand could allow them to cut costs somewhat and be much more competitive with Canon and that front. That would also open up the option of making a D700x.

              Looking forward, I would expect that rather than try to come out with a D90 equivalent of the D700, Nikon would simply drop the price of the 12MP D700s model so that it was priced closer to the D300. The D700x would then come in at $3000+.

              The next D700 model is going to be in the catalog through 2013 when it gets updated with the D4 sensor.

            • Richard

              Unless there is some fundamental difference in the production process, the cost of the D3S sensor should be pretty much a wash with that already in use in the D700. Price? Well, I guess that depends upon what Nikon thinks they can get away with and not lose sales. I would expect them to keep the current price point. Surely Nikon have recovered most, if not all, of their R&D costs for this sensor already.

            • PHB

              If there is no difference in manufacturing costs for the D3s sensor, then it is surprising that it has not percolated to the D700 line already.

              One possibility is that Nikon has a large existing stock of D700 cameras or D700 sensors.

              Another is that the process being used for the D3s sensor has a lower yield. But that seems unlikely to continue to be a problem at this stage, it is almost a year later and the D3100 and D95 will definitely be built with the new sensor technology if the specs are right.

              Otherwise it all depends on what production slots are available where. If there are orders backed up for D3 and D3x then I would expect those to take priority.

              As for dropping the price, that seems much more likely to me than the idea of coming out with a cheaper model. At the moment the FX line requires a $6000 plus investment in lenses to really get the benefit of it. That looks like it will change with the lens announcements.

            • To my knowledge, Nikon doesn’t use the same team to do multiple bodies simultaneously, even when they’re close in nature. A D700s wouldn’t have been scheduled close to a D3s release for the same reason a D700 was a year behind the D3: it gives time for the higher priced model to sell, and it takes more time to build up enough sensors for a high sales volume body. The Sendai plant now seems “staged.” They haven’t done simultaneously body buildups since the D1h/D1x. Everything since then in the plant has been staggered in introduction.

              R&D costs are not the only thing that comes into play, by the way. On a production line you have both fixed costs and variable costs. Full frame sensors are a bit unusual, in that the same exact equipment takes more time and produces less usable yield when you scale up the sensor size. In other words, the variable costs go up, and not linearly. For a high priced product with a large profit margin, you might tolerate this. For a high volume product with a lower margin you might have to do more R&D to try to control variable costs.

            • elliot

              “Demand for the D3s and D3x remains very strong”

              I’ve seen no evidence of ‘very strong’ demand for the $7400 D3X. It’s a slow-moving, boutique item with low sales volume. The D3S is probably selling about as expected, mainly to the pros who need high ISO capability.

            • Richard


              Not to make too fine a point of it, but the product’s R&D costs are different than the R&D costs associated with manufacturing process control and yields. They are, nonetheless, a real consideration. I was speculating that the D3S sensor probably did not cost appreciably more to actually manufacture than the current D700 sensor. This is pretty much an apples to apples comparison of FX sensors and so I would expect the yields to be similar. The development R&D costs of the D3S sensor should be pretty much covered at this point which should enable Nikon to pass it down to a lower price point product and still maintain a healthy profit.

              The difference in yields would very much come into play if Nikon were to move an FX sensor into the D300 price point. I do not know if the fab for Nikon’s D3S sensor uses 200 mm or 300 mm wafers. (If you know, it would be interesting if you were able to mention it.) Obviously, increasing the yields is a direct path to greater profitability and, one should hope, would be a priority of the fab.

            • PHB

              I don’t dispute that they would be different teams. But think of it from the engineer’s point of view. If the D700s team is going to influence the design of the sensor they are going to be using in their camera, they have to get their comments in before the sensor goes to the foundry.

              Once the masks are cut it costs a great deal of money to make changes.

              And even though the D700s is a cheaper camera, the design constraints are no less severe. In fact it is often rather harder to make the cheaper model than the expensive one.

              Doubling the die size is a known problem in VLSI manufacture, your cost per chip doubles for a start and your yield will go to the square, so 50% yield becomes 50% x 50% = 25%. So the cost per good chip is now four times what it was. Which kind of explains why the D3x sensor costs so much despite having a slightly larger cell size than the D300 sensor.

              And this is all best case, there are other issues that can cut your yield even further. It is much harder to fix flaws on these chips than for designs like RAMs or even CPUs. If a sensor cell is bust, you can’t swap another one in for that same position. You can do some software fixup, but quality suffers.

              My guess, looking at the current prices, is that the yield on these sensors was still a major issue last year. Sony’s ability to produce a 24MP camera earlier might well have more to do with being able to make use of any spare fab capacity at the marginal cost rate. The high price of the D3x is then explained by Sony having to allow Nikon to also launch a 24MP camera but on the understanding that volumes will be very low.

              The really positive news here is that if the D3100 specs are right, Sony must have their smaller minimum feature size CMOS process completely dialed in. They have to make millions of those 14MP and 16MP sensors in the next few months.

              Here is another line of thought for you. With the D95 at 16MP, isn’t a D700s at 12MP going to look a little behind the times? How about Nikon drops the D3s, lowers the price on the D3x closer to the D3s level and brings out an 18MP FX camera at $2600?

              If that was being planned for spring 2011, it would all make sense.

          • Alex

            @admin, I love reading back on that D700 report… all the comments: “fake,” “photoshopped!” etc. 🙂

            • oh, yeah – this happens all the time 🙂 I think I will start posting previous comments after a product has been released – it’s fun 🙂

            • LGO

              Indeed! 🙂

            • Need to get a number-cruncher that loves Excel to make up a spreadsheet of users here and their hit & miss ratios 😉 Start weeding out who’s full o’ crap and who’s on target.

      • PHB

        What would be the point of a 7% reduction in the linear pixel resolution?

        I have no idea how much it costs Nikon to make up a mask set, but prices used to be in the $100K range when I did that stuff and I can’t see how they would have come down.

        Making a new mask set for the D3100 is a no-brainer. $1 million across 1 million bodies is $1 each. A new mask set for the D700x would be spending $1 million to make the camera less attractive.

        I would think that the more likely approach would be to reuse the D3x sensor in the D700x some time next year.

        Another possibility here is that Nikon has gone all out for resolution and the D4 series is going to be 24MP rather than 18MP.

        • Richard

          Could it be that Nikon have discovered that enough of the bad sensors have errors in that outer 7% of what is an otherwise usable sensor to warrant a crop of the bad portion of the sensor and have a salable product?

    • LGO

      A Sony 14mp sensor for the D3100 is logical. The differentiation from the D90-replacement would be some goodies that include built-in focusing motor, absence of Nikon CLS-AWL, fewer focusing points, etc..

      The use of the Sony 14mp sensor in the Nikon D3100 means that this camera will have the same low-light performance as the D90-replacement until Nikon purposely design it to under-perform the D90-replacement. Hopefully, Nikon will not do this.
      Hmmm. absent some of the missing goodies, even this model can out-perform the D90, D5000 and even D300s in megapixel count and low-light performance.

      Given Nikon’s history on its Coolpix, the Canon “G11 killer” will likely be the Canon G12. But I would be willing to be pleasantly surprised on this.

      • Rob

        D3100 starting to look mighty appealing. No video too.

        • LGO

          The Sony implementation of this 14mp sensor in the Sony A33 and A560 is expected to support full HD-video so it is possible that the Nikon 3100 may support full HD-video too.

          • Rob

            Ah well, it doesn’t seem to actually get in the way…

    • The invisible Man

      It must be easier to replace a camera like the D90 rather making the D700’s sucessor.
      We may get only a D700″s” now and a D900 next year.
      In any cases, I have a feeling that the D700 sucessor will be a killer, let’s hope so.

  • ChriSin

    So much for buying a used D90….may as well wait I suppose?

    • If the price is correct – the D95 will be almost 2x more expensive than a used D90.

      • Serpiente

        The Nikon D90 was around €1000 (average price here) when it came out.. I think it will be between €1000 and €1100 in Europe.

        • I think they will be selling the Nikon D95 body only for the price of the D90 kit (when it was released).

          • Richard

            Any indications about the metering system on the D95? (The D90 used what, for all intents and purposes, was the same system as the D40.)

          • PHB

            The price will be just under $1000.

            This is competing with the Canon 50D which sells at $989 and replacing the D90 at $850.

            Looks to me like Nikon are dribbling out this information in a very controlled way. First they tell us about a set of killer specs for the D3100 where the only weak point is the ‘low’ 10MP resolution. Then a week later we discover that the resolution is actually 14MP – 40% higher and the camera is a Canon beater on every front.

            Now we are seeing specs for a camera that look a really good buy, essentially a D300s for $250 less. Only the model is replacing the sub $1000, a bit of a problem.

            Now I am not saying anyone is lying here or feeding disinformation. The way that you achieve this type of effect is that you produce all the internal information so that it is consistent with your cover story and the modification is only know to a small number.

            The D3100 specs are likely known to quite a few since the camera is probably in production right now and people in the factory can see the specs on the boxes. The D95 price will not be known to anyone but senior Nikon management until the launch date.

            • Richard

              I think you are correct about the price points. Consumers tend to compare price for price first and feature sets second. Even if the feature set of a somewhat higher priced product is compelling, the problem is getting the mass market to look at it in the first place. There is also a psychological difference between a product with is “less than $1,000” (even if it is $995) and one that is $1,075 which should not be overlooked.

              The D90 has sometimes been called a threshold product in that it is something to get the customer into Nikon’s product line and thereafter sell them “more stuff”. I think that it is important to keep an attractive price point for the D95 for whatever it will be called.

      • ChriSin

        Forgot to mention that I really want manual video and ACHD 🙂

        • danpe

          Why do you want AVCHD? I would like to turn up the bitrate, but much prefer MJPEG due to the ease of editing, no need to convert in the workflow. But then I only publish for web.
          But yeah, manual control without messing about like I have to do on the D90 would be nice.

          • Bob Howland

            Why AVCHD? Answer: to keep the data rates down to something manageable. My Panasonic video camera does AVCHD for 1920 x 1080 and still writes data to the card at 28Mb/sec. The new Canon XF300 and XF305 pro cameras write so data so fast that only the fastest CF cards can keep up but they don’t use AVCHD.

      • Vandyu

        Seems like the rumored specs for the D95 are quite an upgrade, but so is the price. Hasn’t the D70/80/90 kit usually come in around $1199. Looks like this is about a $300 increase since there is no kit lens. Also, any word about increased weather sealing on the D95?

        • Rob

          Well it’s going to have a metal body and given the D90 has reasonable sealing I would imagine the D95 will be a lot better. It will be another D300 iteration a D300 “light” if you like. If only they had left the megapix alone and pushed the sensitivity instead.
          I own a D90 and there will be no reason to purchase this camera, metal body and improved video is nice, but not a deal breaker. Will have to save up for a D700 to see an improvement in picture quality.
          Amateurs wanting to move up from P&S to D40, D80 etc would be better off to buy a d90 and spend the extra on a nice lens or flash.

      • elliot

        For a long time the D90 had to be purchased with kit lens. It was so popular that body-only boxes weren’t available in the USA. When it did come as body-only the pricing was usually a heair under $1,000. The price for the body hovered around $930-950 for many, many months.

        Today, it remains a very competent camera with excellent low-light ability, and I think it’s a super $850 camera (J&R price).

        Nikon (as with most camera manufacturers) have a long history of keeping the initial price of new gear high to soak the early adopters before slowly managing price drops to remain competitive. But considering the changes in the market over the last couple of years (sub-$500 beginner DSLR kits and $500 mirrorless kit cameras) and the downward price-pressures, Nikon will either have to re-price the D90 replacement downward, or soak those early adopters and let the price zoom down by November for Xmas sales.

    • Rob

      Why? The picture quality will probably be the same.

  • Ihsan

    39AF points, that’s a serious step up from the existing 11 in the D90. Maybe I’ll buy the D95 to replace my D60 ! any news on the 85mm?

    • I got some crazy rumors on the 85mm lens – one tipster said f/1.2, together with a new 35mm f/1.2. Now this is serious stuff here – I need more time to dig out some more info. At least 85mm f/1.4 is guaranteed, not sure about f/1.2. The 35mm was supposed to be released in 2011. Don’t hold you breath yet.

      • Kevin

        Hm, that’s interesting, considering all the patents so far are for 1.4!

      • Roger

        Cute rumor, anyone who believes 35/1.2 and 85/1.2 are coming will be soooo disappointed.

      • I will buy them both. I don’t mind if they are 1.2 or 1.4. Important is, that there is actually a lens that I can buy!!!

      • ok, I just got a word back – 1.2 was a mistake, it’s 1.4

        • Still hoping it will have VR. How would you rate the likeliness?

          • Roger

            lol, you really want VR in a 85mm lens? Why, so you can shoot handheld at 1/10 seconds and have your subjects blurred thanks to subject movement? Not to mention it’d mess up the optical design.

            There’s a lesson be learned with 16-35VR lens. Dont put VR where it doesnt belong. 😉

            • Have you ever used the new 16-35mm? It’s a great lens with very good optical performance. It has weak corners at 16mm wide open on FX, but it’s nevertheless better than every ultra wide angle I ever used on DX. So I don’t think the flaws are because of the VR but rather because of the flat front element which enables use of filters. What about all the supertele-lenses or the 70-200mm? They are the best lenses Nikon has ever produced and all are sharp wide open. So I don’t think the VR will have a negative measureable impact on image quality.
              85mm is not only for portrait. You can use this for much more. And even if used as a portrait lens the VR is a good thing. 1/50 is still very practicable if your model doesn’t move excessively.

            • LGO

              The Nikkor 16-35mm shows precisely where VR should be used … in almost all lenses where it can be installed if cost, size and weight are manageable. If you shoot on a tripod, then just shut it off.

            • elliot

              “There’s a lesson be learned with 16-35VR lens. Dont put VR where it doesnt belong.”

              You are sooo wrong. VR is incredibly useful in wide angle, lessening the need for carrying a tripod when shooting many landscapes, for example. Useful in everyday street situations as well — you can see this on Peter Marshall’s blog, where most of the street shots use the 16-35.


  • Serpiente

    I dont mind the name, but 16mp, 6-8fps, 39 AF points, magnesium alloy sounds like the camera I wished for! really! It cant be any better! Thats why it is hard to believe.. That camera would suit me. Its is fast enough for sports, it is strong enough for nature photography and probably small and lightweight to carry with me in the field. 16mp gives me some cropping opportunities.

    If it can handle ISO >3200 by keeping a lot of detail and is the same size as the D90 it would be more than perfect.

    • It will be perfect until you hear about the D300s replacement 🙂
      I am joking – I have not clue about the D300s replacement.

      • Serpiente

        Yeah would be a better one, but it would be too heavy to me. When being in the jungle or other places in nature I dont want to carry too much weight. But also with other kind of travelling its a must to me. But I do want a big viewfinder, control dials and a good grip. 😉

      • Aw…stop teasing me Admin! I was waiting for that :p

  • gsg009

    If the d95 have a FX cmos and this above items,it is excellent!!!! But NIKON give up the idea…..

    • Geoff

      I agree. The above specs with base iso 100, D700 build quality/ viewfinder, and size/weight/price range of D90 is my fantasy camera. (I know it’s unlikely to ever be reality in my lifetime)

  • Daniyar

    As much as I would like for this camera to come out with these specs, there has to be something that is worse than D300s. The way it’s speced right now I see no reason for anybody to buy D300s, they might as well discontinue it. It’s like if Nikon came out with D700 replacement that did everything that D3s does but at 75% of the price. Just not gonna happen, Nikon isn’t that dumb.

    • Again, valid point but the case with the D90 was similar – when released, the D90 had some features (video) that the D300 did not have and the specs were very similar (at least the sensor). It all makes perfect sense if Nikon replaces the Nikon D300s in few months (next year).

      BTW Nikon D300s body only currently sells for around $1500 – not a big difference with the rumored D95 price of $1200:

      • Alex

        @admin, I love reading back on that D700 report… all the comments: “fake,” “photoshopped!” etc. 🙂
        I made a comment a while back that Nikon should change the strategy from just selling watered down old pro models to consumers. Digital cameras need the latest technology at whatever price point it is at. They don’t need all the best features, but the technology has to be current. I think we are going to see that change now.

      • elliot

        The D90 is going to have to compete against the 550D the upcoming a560 and the K7. It doesn’t make sense that Nikon thinks it can be competitive with (fairly) similarly-specced cameras that cost $300 less.
        Maybe that $1200 price includes a kit lens, the same way the D90 was only available in a kit with the 18-105 for the first several weeks/months it sold in the USA. Otherwise, unless the IQ or AF is demonstrably superior, it will appear lackluster to the marketplace in terms of price/performance

        • Ed

          THe 550D isn’t even in the same league as the others you name.The 550D is a toy camera that sells only because of the Canon name, price, and the missing 50D replacement.

    • Gary

      Your point is a good one. However, a smart company doesn’t worry so much about its own products competing against each other…the old saying is that a company should want to be the one that makes its own products obsolete, and not leave that to the competition.

      Better that Nikon introduces the product that kills off the D300s than Canon or someone else. Remember, Canon will not stand still, nor Sony, etc.

      Also, the D700 release was indeed a mini-D3 at half the price. Many wondered how Nikon could do that, if the D700 would kill off D3 sales. Well, it didn’t and instead launched many sales in the market where the D700 competes.

      The bottom line is the bottom line: Nikon isn’t worried about protecting a particular product, only its profits. A D95 with these rumored specs would make Nikon a whole lot more money than any lost D300s sales would cost them. a D95 with these specs would cost Canon more in sales than it would Nikon.

      • Enesunkie

        Plus, even though this sounds great, a lot of D40/60 , D90, and D300 owners will be patient and wait for the D400 which will probably be phenomenal!

        • Rob

          Might as well if the D95 doesn’t improve in the ISO dept.

      • robW

        I think Gary has hit the nail on the head. It makes more sense to make life difficult for the competition than to worry about one of the offerings in the Nikon lineup. If the price of the Nikon D95 is accurate as well as the specs, it looks to me like Nikon is aiming to hurt the sales momentum of the canon 7d. They position this camera between the Canon T2i an the 7D and that is a perfect move. This could be a huge seller for Nikon and I can’t wait to get my hands on one.

    • Zupi

      D300s will still have more AF, probably faster AF, dual card slot, lens calibration. better built Q, 100% viewfinder. Price will be almost same as D95. It is not easy choice.

      • Ed

        The D95 better have lens calibration. It’s present down the line in other brands, and is easy to do.

      • jastereo

        Really excellent points Zupi – just enough for Nikon to claim that the D300s is higher up the line for a while. Ed, I don’t think they’re going to include lens calibration, that and support for manual lenses is just too easy for them to lump together and push you up the line (D300/D700, etc).

        But damn, if those specs are correct that D95 is going to hit all the right sales points for consumers…

    • Ben

      Nikon can’t worry about trying to make their new cameras worse than previous models. They have serious competition to deal with and they need to blow everything else they have done out of the water with each new release.

  • Gary

    The rumored specs for the D95 seem to be very aggressive; if true Nikon will have hit a home run sales wise.

    Also, if the D95 ends up being this good, then one wonders how amazing the D4, D400, D800, etc, will be.

    • yes, I think this will smoke out Canon, but they are expected to release new cameras as well

      • Meh

        39 AF points….this camera will be as large and heavy as D300s.

        • LOL! I didn’t realize AF points were so heavy 😀

          • Roger

            LOL !!!

          • No wonder I now have pretty strong thumb from using the D300 in 51 AF mode.

          • Meh

            Errrr do you know the difference between D90 and D300s ?. It’s the AF hardware module that supports the 51 AF points that makes the D300s a lot heavier than D300s…

            Some Nikon users are just s*&!&p.

            • And some people just don’t have a sense o’ humor 😉

        • I Am Nikon

          Putting tons of AF Points won’t make the body heavy. The Magnesium body will.

          • Victor Hassleblood

            And don’t forget all that software . . .

            I am afraid this camera is going to be really heavy.

            • Ding JieXi

              I know what the problem is, all the Nikon development engineers went to the space station!

            • What if they put an actual Nikon engineer in there? Then it’s going to be *reallllly* heavy!


      • Richard

        The rumors surrounding the 1Ds MK III are staggering. If Canon can resolve their auto-focus issues they will have a very competitive camera. Competition is good. 🙂

        • Richard

          Ahh…make that 1Ds MK IV. (28-32 MP rumors)

    • Roger

      If you believe Thom Hogan’s silly speculation, his idea is that D4 will be worse than D3s. 😀

      • gt

        just to clarify:

        Thom hogan believes the D4 will have more megapixels than the D3s, but it won’t be as good at high ISOs.

        • LGO

          Thom is just being conservative. Doing otherwise would ruin the credibility he enjoys in the community.

          Underpromise … overdeliver. This would be better.

          I personally think that Nikon’s goal for the D4 would be 18mp with low-light performance as good as the D3s.

          If Nikon (with the help of Sony) can add 4mp plus 1 stop improved low-light performance over the D90 with this improved D90-replacement, this level of improvement should also be doable with the D4, its flagship model.

          • The point of my comments was that I don’t see how Nikon can do 18mp and have the low-light performance of the D3s. This forces us to believe that Nikon made yet another major breakthrough on noise that no one else has. The trendline on noise improvement would predict that 18mp would get you close to the original D3 level of performance. That’s what I was commenting on.

            As I noted, Nikon is in a bind. They perhaps COULD do better than D3s levels of noise, but they’d be stuck at 12mp. The could do more megapixels, but they’ll slip backwards on noise. Even Nikon executives comments note that they’ll try to come up with a better balance between noise and megapixels, indicating that they can’t do more megapixels at the D3s noise levels.

            • LGO

              An 18mp full-frame sensor with the same low-light performance of the D3/D700 would be a good balance and would be well within the capability of Nikon.

              Yet Nikon cannot ignore that a substantial number of D3s (and possibly D700s ) owners would be so hooked on the low-light performance of the current D3s sensor that getting an 18mp but with one-stop less low-light performance may not be good enough.

              Given that the D90-replacement will have at least 16mp and one-stop improvement, I submit that this would be the same hurdle point for the D4

              If an 18mp sensor with D3s-like low-light capabilities will not be possible in a D4, a 16mp with D3s-like low-light performance would be very acceptable for me.

            • Roger

              And that’s where’s the problem with your idea of D4, it could be a disaster for Nikon:

              If D4 ends up being 18mp, D3 low light performance:

              D3 user = gets 18mp, no improvement in low light. If he wants more megapixels than his 12mp, he can buy the 24mp D3x. End result = D3 users have no reason to upgrade.

              D3s users = gets 18mp, takes an enormous hit on low light performance. No D3s user will ever accept that. End result = D3s users have no reason to upgrade.

              I think Nikon will have to a lot better that what you’re suggesting. Of course, they’re lucky that Canon produced yet another crop camera, 1D IV, that has vastly inferior IQ compared to the D3s.

            • Roger

              Just to add – all I can really tell you, if that’s what D4 ends up being, I wouldnt replace my D3s with that, not even if you paid me. If you gave it to me for free, I’d sell it and buy a used D3s to have as a backup.

              But hey, Nikon might get a few bucks from me if that 85/1.4 AFS ends up better than the current 85, and they restrain themselves from sticking VR in there.

              When I think about it, 16-35VR lens is a proof Nikon should NOT listen to it’s customers. People wanted VR in everything, they wanted an F/4 zoom, and here it is – hugely oversized, overpriced, slow zoom with absurd distortion. Who the hell needed that?

            • David Hasselblaff

              Nobody outside of Nikon even knows whether or not the D4 will be using a Bayer sensor. I guess it depends on what they managed to do with their patented Foveon-like technology.

            • Roger’s comments are exactly the reason why I wrote what I did on my site. Short of Nikon producing the non-Bayer sensor in the D4, they’re in a bit of a pinch sensor-wise. I think most everyone would agree that the D3s is the low-light champ. There’s nothing else out there that has the same low level of noise in raw files. But to expect that same level in a sensor with 18mp simply would mean that Nikon has found another technique at the base of the sensor that no one else has. It’s one thing to say “just give us D3s noise at 18mp.” But as far as I can tell it’s not possible in a sensor that would have to be entering product right about now. Note that Canon hasn’t done it.

              So the question is this: how does Nikon market a D4 successfully? Full video, far better AF, some additional usability, things like USB 3.0 and faster card support, perhaps a smaller or more flexible body, better and positionable LCD, etc. Plus: a balance between D3 and D3x capabilities (low noise, high resolution instead of only one of the two).

              The assertion that the D3 user gets nothing out of a D4 and could just buy a D3x is absurd. First, the D3x is far more money. Second, a D3x doesn’t approach D3 noise levels and we’re talking about a D4 that might come very close. So I’d say, yes, a D3 user might have reason to upgrade, but some of that will come with what else is in the body than the sensor.

              A D3s user isn’t going to upgrade to a D4. But they might supplement their D3s with a D4.

              But one other thing: much of the pro design cycles are catered towards large volume pro customers (AP, NYT, other big press outlets), who upgrade on cycles and buy large quantities at a time. The question is what do they want? And that would be video. And especially low-light video. This is going to be an issue at the 2012 Olympics, I think, as video rights are sold separately from press rights. But if all the still photographers suddenly can shoot 1080P/30 in low light venues, we’re going to have a conflict of major proportions.

            • PHB

              Oh it is really easy to do 18MP and give the same ISO performance as the 12MP body.

              Take a lesson from Phase One ‘pixel binning’ basically the camera will internally average four pixels to make one. And that is how they manage to get a barely acceptable ISO rating. It is becoming a really common trick with the compact cameras and it is not unjustified.

              We should stop using maximum ISO at maximum resolution as the measure of low light performance. It is meaningless. The D3s cannot take pictures at 24MP, so why compare the noisiness of the result one for one?

              Instead we should have two measures that are both based on the noise performance at a specific resolution – say 12MP.

              The first would be the noisiness that is seen in the test photos when converted into JPEG on camera. The second would be the noise seen in a lossless format generated using an offline RAW converter provided by the manufacturer.

              If you want to take photos in low light you may well be better off using a higher resolution camera and better offline processing than a low resolution camera with a better ISO rating.

              That probably is not the case for the D3x which appears deliberately tuned differently from the D3 and D3s.

  • Anonymous

    I will be saving for this for sure!

  • I am still trying to find more info on the ISO levels.

    • Roger

      Dont worry, they wont be anything like the D700.

      One has to be absolutely clueless on sensors, to believe that D95 will be as good as any full frame camera. Get ready for rude awakening ….

      • I Am Nikon

        yeah. I highly doubt it’ll be in a D700 level of noise handling at high ISOs.

        APS-C can’t handle that.

        • Technology moves on. You seem very sure – but only Nikon have the answer.

          • Sony knows too… They produce the sensor.

            • They produce the base, but they don’t seem to be getting the results out of their cameras that Nikon does with Sony-provided sensors.

      • LGO

        I think the new D90-replacement will have the same ISO setting as the D3/D700.

        The D700 standard ISO range is ISO 200 – 6400 with 2-steps boost all the way to ISO 25,600.

        The Canon 7D and 550D/T2i are already both top-ISO rated for ISO 12,800 but that is because its starting point is ISO 100. Since Nikon begins at ISO 200, adding one stop to that means that it is very possible for the D90-replacement to have a boosted ISO top-end of ISO 25,600.

        But numbers are simply numbers. The sensor performance at the high-end of the ISO range may not be as clean and usable as the D3/D700. But I am hoping that Nikon will try to make it so as this will give Nikon a one-step advantage over its competitors.

      • PHB

        The D3s gives an extra stop on the D3. It is not at all unreasonable for the D95 to give an extra stop and a little bit extra on the D300.

        D300 is 12MP and ISO 3200, it is not at all unthinkable that the D95 would be ISO 6400.

        At the end of the day, format means absolutely nothing in terms of low light performance. It is your glass that is doing all the work. Big glass means more light, means more signal to noise ratio. It does not matter whether that light is concentrated on a small area or a large one. It is the lens aperture that is the issue.

        If we used f numbers that used the equivalent focal length, the so-called ISO advantage would vanish. 50mm f/1.4(=50/35) would become 75mm f/2 (75/35). Just like using any other type of teleconverter, DX robs you of one f/stop. But to make thinking easier we ignore this and attribute the difference to the sensor performance.

        Given the number of 12MP 1/1.7″ sensor cameras on the market, anyone who thinks DX cannot possibly go above 18MP is a fool. We are nowhere close to fundamental limits here. In the film era we thought ISO 1600 to be incredibly fast. The idea that we cannot cope with less than D3 performance, something only achieved three years ago, is just silly.

  • Anonymous

    If this trumps the same ISO performance as the D700, I have no reason but to wait….(I can also keep my 17-55)…and then wait for the D700 replacement too…Oh Nikon you have got me hooked…

    • Segura

      Impossible. Learn the limitations of sensor size and you will see why it won’t be better . . . keep dreaming

      • Roger


        • LGO

          Could this also have been the thinking of those who might have said the same thing of the sensor used in the D70 (and even D80) …. on the sensor of this D90-replacement?

    • I Am Nikon


      D700 ISO capability on a DX is like 18-200mm FX.

      It’s too good to be true.

      • Ignacio Menevichian

        yeah, but the key word here is “capability”! capability isn´t the same as performance.

        i don´t see why nikon couldn´t just bump the iso rating to d700 levels. sure, it won´t look as good but that’s exactly what the rumor stated. “a d90-like camera with d700 iso level”, again, not performance!

        the wording has “marketing” writen all over it, but isn´t that the whole point of having a marketing department?

  • Gary

    I wonder if Bob Krist will get a new D95 to preview 🙂

    • I am sure somebody somewhere is currently shooting with a D95. The spy shots should not be far away 🙂

      • nick94

        hopefully some sweet spy video as well?

      • preston

        I am more interested to see the spy shots with the new lenses than with new bodies. You can make beautiful shots on a D3000 if you’re using a $2,000 lens!

        • Matt

          True, but you can also make beautiful shots with the kit lens if you’re willing to put the time, effort, patience and photographic skill into the shot. Ansel captured beauty without nearly so much technology.

          • preston

            Yes, there was not as much technology in his camera, but he was also shooting large format. Let’s compare apples to apples here.

            • PHB

              Adams shot pretty much every format that existed in his lifetime. If he was alive today he would have been one of the first to use digital.

              Don’t forget that one of his most famous collaborations was with Land and he even wrote a book on Polaroid Land photography.

              He was best known for the landscapes taken with large format, but his commitment to understanding the technology was tremendous. He was not merely an artist, he was an engineer.

              The reason he stuck with large format was in part because the sites he shot had changed over time and he could not reproduce his earlier work any more than anyone else could. Also he had overcome the technical issues that limited use of large format. Like how to make an enlarger.

    • LGO

      Bob Krist mostly uses DX so he would be a natural candidate for testing this D90-replacement camera.

  • The best thing about cameras (as opposed to cars) is it will always take the same quality of pictures no matter the age. I’ll keep my D300s that I love but am headed toward a full frame since I shoot mostly wide angle. I’m partial to the D3s at the moment but a D700 replacement might be the way to go (and more economical). This D95 sounds pretty cool though.

    • 10-12mm not wide enough on DX for ya??

      • Victor Hassleblood

        Yes, and let’s not forget the 16mm 1.4 DX and the 16mm DX tilt and shift. Who needs full frame for doing WA?

        • preston

          Now if Nikon would release a lens to compete with the 17mm T/S (full frame) from Canon. I know, in my dreams. .

      • I have the 10-24mm. It gets pretty wide but it also has some issues. Mine may be going back to nikon. I’d still rather have a 14-24 mm on a full frame sensor.

    • Gonads

      I didn’t think cars took pictures, at any age 😉

  • If the name D95 is correct, it also suggests that Nikon will not get rid of the D300 product line. Otherwise they would have gone with a different model name. D95 is clearly the D90 replacement.

    • D350?

      • That would be so Canonish.. might as well go D300s MkII.

        • Anonimouse

          Irony at its finest 😀

          I like your style

    • Enesunkie

      I like the ring of D9x. D7000 sound too much like a point & shoot. Ya think they’d use D91 or D92 though. Their haphazard numbering system leaves them no room for future models. Maybe

      • preston

        Model naming is purely determined by marketing. D91 would sound like too little of an improvement to be worthwhile to the average consumer. That’s why the high megapixel version of the D3 got an ‘x’ at the end. Why ‘x’ of all numbers? Because ‘x’ connotes EXTREME!

    • Lolly

      I suspect the future D400 will be FX. This will differentiate D400 more compared to the D90 replacement. If the D4 is at least 18 megapixels like some people think then the D400 will be close to 18 megapixels and D400 (at a higher price point) will probably be better at higher ISOs compared with D90 replacement. Compared to DX at around the same megapixels we all know FX do better at higher ISOs.

      • PHB

        Why on earth would they do that?

        There are professional applications for which a smaller sensor is better. That is the market for the D300 and will be the same market for the D400.

        The only point at which it makes sense to stop making professional DX cameras is when a 24MP sensor becomes economic and an FX camera can double as a DX body.

  • Will the d95 use SDHC or CF?

    • Zblorg

      I’m speculating, but if they introduced SD into the d300 after a d200 with only CF, all future cameras will have sd (at least at this level)

      • Zblorg

        And as a d90 replacement I can’t imagine they would add CF, they seem to be moving the other way

        • Agreed. Memory is getting smaller and faster. The CF card takes up an inordinate amount of space in the camera. At some point, they’ll downsize when they’ve got other crap to cram in there and run out of room.

    • PHB

      I would say that SDXC would be a certainty. That is the next generation format.

      The big disadvantage of CF is that the pins bend and you end up with a broken camera. SD is robust and compact. I would expect every future Nikon to support SD with only the flagship models offering CF compatibility, and that being one CF slot with dual SD slots rather than the other way round.

      Current CF cards are the same chips that are used in SD cards but with a different memory interface. The space means that they can get double the number of chips on one card. The SDXC specification supports faster memory transfer than the CF bus currently does.

      Unless you are shooting lots of video with MPEG2 or on 4K, there is really no area where the capacity advantage of CF is relevant. The format may make a return as an interchangeable format for solid state drives, but that is a guess.

      Bottom line is that SD is the convergence format. It is the one format that is going to be ubiquitously supported on laptops and the like. CF will require a kludgy adaptor.

      • Ed

        CF boasts 60MB/s apparently, so in theory can support 4-5fps RAW indefinitely(?)
        Is this true IRL?

  • Phillip

    Any word on what will happen to the rebates in August?

  • This is an unprecedented move for Nikon. Normally they release the better
    sensors in the high end cameras first, then work their way down the line.

    Here are the past sensors they’ve done it with, each one has started in a rather high end camera and gets introduced to progressively cheaper cameras:-
    6Mp D100 -> D70 -> D50 -> D40
    10Mp D200 -> D80 -> D40X -> D60 -> D3000
    12Mp D2X -> D300 -> D90 -> D5000

    12Mp FX D3 -> D700

    So if Nikon continues to follow this pattern shouldn’t we be seeing a 16Mp D400 before we see D95? Unless Nikon is merging the semi-pro line with the advanced amateur line.

    • Merv

      The consumer level cameras generate most of their revenue, and the D90/D5000/D3000 level cameras are where they need to compete to get this revenue.

      This would be consistent with Nikon releasing a 55-300 DX, a typical first-time buyer who has little dSLR experience may have chosen Canon (or whoever) if only because their 55-250 EF-S has longer reach.

      So I think they are relegating the D300s to a highly specialized product.
      It’s also why I think they are leaving the D700 alone for now, it is a good enough camera and it does not generate most of their revenue.

    • Phillip

      Minor nit:

      The 12MP sensor that was used in the D2x is not the same 12MP sensor used in the D300, D90, and D5000; the newer sensor performs better at high ISOs. Nikon usually reuses sensors, but AFAIK, they never used the D2x(s) sensor in any other camera.

      • Segura

        I think the point was that every time a higher MP appeared, it always trickled down

        • preston

          I think Phillip knows this since he prefaced with “Minor nit”. I’m not arguing, just pointing this out in case someone missed it 🙂

    • Phillip

      To me, the biggest surprise isn’t that the rumored D95 would have a better sensor than the D300s, but that some of the other specs would come so close to the D300s: build quality, frame rate, and a more sophisticated AF system than the D90 (or at least one with more points…).

      Metering with AI & AI-S lenses would seem to be the major feature that would be saved for the D300s. I would guess that the D300s would probably also keep a better viewfinder, AF fine-tuning, probably a still somewhat faster and more configurable AF, a larger buffer, maybe a better metering system, and a more “pro” control layout, but those are harder to translate into a marketing message.

  • Tar

    These specs sound reasonable and very good. Magnesium body surprises me, though. FPS sounds more realistic than the 8 fps rumour. 39 point AF – I’m there. However, what I really care about are both AF and metering. I really hope they dump the D90 metering system and put in the D300s system. This will actually improve people’s pictures.

    • Enesunkie

      I’m going to be optomistic and hope that they have even improved the D300S’s AF and metering system and put it in this.

      • LGO

        Expected for the D4. Thus logical to expect on the D300s -replacement.

    • Patros

      … maybe, the “body only” will be 6FPS… and 8FPS with MB-D11 attached…

      • Gruntosaure


  • Huggs

    I will have one of each, tyvm.

  • Charlie Martin

    My concern is will Nikon have corrected their metering issue where the images don’t appear over exposed by 1/3 of a stop. On another note what about accessories mainly the battery grip. Will it use the existing MB D80 grip as the D80/D90 uses or will it have an all new grip. Also will it use the ENEL3e battery or a new battery altogether? I most definately will be getting a D95.

    • preston

      I didn’t realize the overexposure was a known issue – I just assumed that I preferred to slightly underexpose with my D90!

    • I think they’d be smart to release an MB-D10-like grip. The current D80/D90 grip is a PITA to use given that one needs to remove the EN-EL-3a battery *and* the battery compartment lid. The MB-D10 is a screw-on/screw-off attachment, so it’s very handy. Although it might be a bit more expensive and tick off a few owners of the older grip, sometimes you have to bite the bullet when an obviously better design comes out.

  • Rosco

    Maybe the 16mp sensor is the rumoured Sony one; and Nikon has their own spec one up their sleeve for a future D400? Maybe this has something to do with the rumours about them not using Sony sensors in the future? Using the Sony in the D90 replacement because it was in the pipline anyway? Just a thought! 🙂

    • Roger

      It’s no rumor, Nikon themselves have said they will ditch Sony in the future.

  • Kevin

    so, this is the 60D killer

    • Enesunkie

      Hate to say it, but I bet Canons “60D” will have some pretty impressive specs as so does these rumored new Sonys. I’m guessing the second half of 2010 is going to be a LOT more interesting for everyone across the board than the first half of 2010 was!

      • LGO

        The Canon 60D is expected to have an articulating screen that makes it more usable for video.

        A D5000-replacement without the built-in focusing motor and without the Nikon CLS-AWL but with an articulating screen and the sensor of the D90-replacement could logically be Nikon’s video-specific model for those who plan to use their dSLR in large part for taking HD-video.

      • Ed

        The 60D was due out Feb 2010. The line’s dead. There will be no 60D or any xxD since the 7D came out.

  • Greenwood_Geoff

    AF fine tune would be a nice feature to add to this.

    • LGO

      The micro-AF adjustment is likely reserved for higher-end model.

      Nikon has to reserve some goodies to make people buy the higher models.

  • John

    Perhaps the 17mm sensor in the patents is in fact the new P7000? Could make sense – large sensor for better IQ?


  • Wierdo

    So how long after the D90 and the D700 replacement people are gonna start complaining about the replacements replacement! Lol

    • Where’s the replacement for the D95? ;D

      • LGO

        Not available until enough belly aching about the D90-replacement has been heard and how Nikon s loosing the battle against the Canon model xxx have been made. 🙂

    • Give it time- there’ll be someone complaining before release that the camera doesn’t butter their bread or doesn’t wake them up in the morning, etc.

      • SGN

        Well, the camera is certainly keeping me awake at night now !!!

      • Matt

        But will it fry toast?

  • The invisible Man

    Any info about the card ? (SD/CF/double slot)

    • Faiz

      Almost certainly a SD slot.

      This whole series is designed for consumers looking to step up, and the D70, D80 and D90 all had SD cards as well. Also the body is probably not big enough to hold a CF card.

      The question i have is will the D95 have any of the connectivity that has been rumored? Wifi? direct uploading?

      As Nikon has had an agreement with Lexar for Eye-fi compatibility, what if an Eye-fi was built in?

      • Faiz

        Correction, the D80 was the first to have SD cards.

        • D50 was SD as well, IIRC.

          • fork()

            Correct, the D50 has SD (not SDHC). A friend of mine has the D50 and he always has a bunch of 2GB cards with him 😉

    • Enesunkie

      What about some built-in, non-removable memory? It would be a lot easier to incorporate than adding a second slot/connector/SD card interface in a smaller body like the D95? You would need to use a USB (or maybe WIFI) to offload the images.

      • Or bluetooth?

        • Richard

          Too slow.

  • Ron Scubadiver

    My bet on high ISO performance is that it will be simply equal to the D90 as measured by DXO Mark. However, with a 25% increase in pixel count, that is still an achievement and a great camera. If this is all its cracked up to be, there might not be a D300s replacement.

    • Roger

      Of course there’s gonna be a D300s replacement.

      • roos

        Dont be too sure. If the new low end DSLR is truly placed between the D3000 and D5000 to replace them both in the long run they might be doing the same thing in the D300s segment by just skipping the development cost of the D300s and D700 replacements and move down D700 half a segment in price.

        • Enesunkie

          I don’t know., but Canon has 4 Rebels and the 50D all spread out in price range between $550 and $1099 MSRP. If somebody is moving up into DSLRs and has a certain budget in mind, Canon has a kit priced right for for them. If Nikon were to replace the D3000 and D5000 with one body, they run the risk of it being over priced for some and under speced for the others, hence the trend of the D40/D60 and D3000/D5000 for the consumer .

    • Rob

      So what’s the guess for the hi ISO quality of the 3100?

      • James

        That depends on which Sony sensor it has. If it’s the new Exmor sensor used in the NEX-3/NEX-5, then it should be quite good. If it uses the old sensor still used in the A390, then it will be mediocre. Nikon tends to use less high-ISO noise suppression than Sony, so that changes things too.

        If it uses some other sensor, then who knows.

        • Ed

          Sony sensors have always performed much better in a Nikon setup than Sony’s effort. Pretty shameful work by Sony IMHO.

  • Nikoner

    i still think That the D90 Replacement will be D90s . 🙂 if not D100

    • D90s would indicate an upgrade to the existing model instead of a complete refresh (if Nikon were sticking w/ the naming conventions they’ve adopted up until now).

  • thefunk

    let me lie in the bed of funk that is the D95.

    I have been waiting for this moment for too long.

  • Enesunkie

    With a magnesium-alloy body, could one assume some type of weater-sealing?

  • Bhaswaran

    I wished separate card slots for Video and Stills….it could be handy to shoot both separately

  • azerty

    We want more info on the video fonction (fps? ; full-manual ? ; bitrate ?)

  • svane

    Admin, do you have any info or speculations related to if the D95 will have a swivel screen like D5000 has?

    • no, I don’t know – my guess is it won’t have a swivel display, otherwise it would have been mentioned to me since this will be a big change from the previous model, again – just a guess

    • Serpiente

      I hope not! Another part that can break in the field! Its nice for the mainstream, but not where I go with it! Let it be a strong weather&dust sealed body!

  • Jim John

    when it comes to video: any info or guestimaes about the audio ? will there be an external microphone jack? how will the audio quality relate to the audio quality of the d90?

  • Bhaswaran

    550D has a handy external mic…..D95 must provide it…I think Nikon will not miss this one

    • Jim John

      the d90’s video recording capabilities were pretty much limited by the audio: only an internal low quality microphone, mono only, no external microphone jack, therefore only usable for close distance interviews or generic sound “landscapes”.
      to become a serious video competitor the d95 would have to address a bunch of questions: is there an internal (nice to have) mic and an external microphone jack? if video recording allows autofocus – will there be autofocus/af motor sounds in the recording? will it be only mono or even stereo- or will it even allow several audio inputs for surround? which compression (if any) will the audio have? will it have a microphone socket ala/same as flash? etc

  • Vladi

    Canon already got similar camera with not too higher price point: 7D.
    18mpx, 39AF points, 1080p video, 8fps, magnesium body…

    • The 7D is 19 cross-type points, very customizable, yes, much better than previous non-1D series, agreed, but yet not as good as the D300 AF system for tracking.

    • Ed

      7D has 19 AF. 1D4 has 39AF selectable, but only cross on f2.8 lenses

  • Phoenix

    This is the update I’ve been waiting for.

    Time has been getting right to consider getting a newer camera, currently my options were the D90, D300s or the D95. I was quite the fan of the D90 while it’s been out but never made the step up to get it, so I considered the D300s, but the main things I didn’t felt I need in comparison was the speed and dual memory card ability so decided to wait on the word for the D95, the specs are really something I would feel happy and comfortable with. While no doubt I’ll have to update my Photoshop to work with RAW, it will definitely be worth the wait if the D95’s specs are the ones we have here 🙂

    • You will like the D300s body. The handling is a step above the D90 body. I only use Aperture priority mode, but I constantly switch metering and focusing mode. The weather sealing is a bonus. It is not as heavy as people make it out to be.. I am regularly out on 2 to 4 hrs walks on weekends, and I am physically weak. The D300 is a very balanced camera in the hands, esp with the battery grip.

      • Agreed. Everyone gets excited about the Dxx models, but after going from a D80 to the D300, I can never go back to those tiny Dxx bodies. They feel like little toys now. Not to say others don’t like that- they just don’t fit me anymore. The usability factor is much, much higher in the Dxxx bodies than the Dxx bodies.

      • Phoenix

        Well I’m still deciding at the moment. I have handled a D300s before and even went back to try out other features. Given I’ve been using a D50 for so long, the D90 works in so much the same way that I wouldn’t get much new elements to learn, but I don’t feel the need to jump to full frame just yet. Maybe I might end up going with the D300s, but will see what the news on the D95 is when it’s announced and make my decision from there.

  • Jim

    D95 makes sense and much easier to say than a ‘7000’.

    Can I place my order now for those specs? 😀

    • No, I’d argue that D95 makes absolutely no sense. D7000 is the name I would pick for the D90 successor, and I’d play the 7 theme to the hilt: “the D70 changed consumer DSLRs, the D700 did that again with full frame, and today the D7000 once again changes what you should expect out of an affordable DSLR.”

      A D95 leaves Nikon with an unexplainable product line: D3100, D5000, D95, D300, D700, D3s, D3x. The single digits are pros, the three digits are prosumer, the four digit is consumer, the two digit is…??? While those of us who are long-time Nikon users would be able to parse that lineup, someone coming to Nikon from another brand or as a first-time DSLR user would not.

      Personally, I’ve never liked this inverse numbering (pro being lower digit value than consumer). But if you’re going to use it, you need to be consistent. Today, that would be:

      Pro: D1, D2, D3, D4 designate generation, x/s/h designate variant
      Prosumer: D100, D200, D300, D400, D700 (should have had FX and DX as variants, I think, as in D300DXs and D700FX)
      Old Consumer: D40, D50, D60, D70, D80, D90
      New Consumer: D3000, D3100, D5000, D7000

      But even this isn’t internally consistent. For pro a higher number indicates generation, for the others higher numbers indicate higher capabilities. Nikon messed this up a long time ago. We should have had:

      D1, D2, D3, D4
      D100, D200, D300DX, D300FX
      D1000/1500/1700, D2000/2400/2600/2800, D3000/3500/3700, 3900

      and so on. In other words: generation first, capability second in the numbering.

      • Though i am a big fan of minding my own business and do not have the arrogance to tell anyone at Nikon how to run theirs, i thought i would give this a try.

        As i run my own small business and have been a student of mechanical and electrical engineering i like to play with numbers.

        Numbering system based on sensor size:

        1) FX sensor:

        Pro models: FX1, FX2, FX3, etc.
        Semi-pro: FX10, FX20, FX30
        Prosumer: FX100, FX200, FX300
        Mirorless: FX1000, FX2000, FX3000

        2)DX sensor:

        Semi-pro models: DX1, DX2, DX3, etc.
        Prosumer: DX10, DX20, DX30
        Amateur consumer: DX100, DX200, DX300
        Mirorless: DX1000, DX2000, DX3000

        If someone at Nikon is reading this and you choose to use this system,
        please note that i am still using a 10 year old, 2 megapixel camera to display my product photographs on my corporate website (nudge, nudge, hint, hint) 🙂

  • Kosta

    Hi to every one [sorry for my English]

    What about a true mirror lock up feature with self timer
    Better ISO performance
    Better DR
    What u think ?

  • Serpiente

    I was thinking.. D95 sounds like a small update from the D90. Some kind of a semi-new model, I know Nikon uses an S after the name but still. The specs say it is a totally new model. Well if the specs are true and not just wishes.

    • Gruntosaure

      D95 sounds like “we’ve got the best selling DSLR on the market, let’s not change it’s name (to D7000 or anything else) and get the consumers lost on which DSLR replacement it is”

      D95 clearly says I’m the new D90, D7000 would have not. The D90 reputation is really good : that’s more sells for Nikon if the consumer can see the paternity.

      • D95 sounds like “we were afraid to change the name much but we changed it a little and hope that everyone will make the association.” However, let’s be clear here: that’s a terrible marketing approach compared to Canon’s far simpler Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV. If it’s the same thing done better, just say “it’s the same thing done better.” Nikon’s marketing would not have gotten a passing grade from my MBA marketing faculty.

        D7000, as I noted earlier, is at least defensible, as Nikon has used the 7 numbers for substantive models that changed the way people thought about Nikon bodies. This is their last chance to use the 7 number for several years (the stupid odd/even model number thing they do to “stay in lockstep” with pro generations–that, too, wouldn’t get a passing grade in any MBA program I know of ;~).

        There’s simply no marketing in Nikon’s marketing…

        • Richard

          Even if Nikon uses the D7000 name, which does make some sense in the short term, they will need a new naming convention much sooner than later. They are just running out of numbers. I can’t see a D11,000, D13,000 and so on. It just doesn’t make that much sense to me. In the short term, a D7000 is plainly a step above a D5000. Nikon should not underestimate the degree to which consumers can be confused by naming conventions.

          Canon have made the 1D into a recognizable product name (like a Chevy Corvette) (even though the professional target market should be fairly savvy no matter what they call it. By using the Mark II, III and IV convention it should be something that anyone can readily “know’ that a Mark IV is a later version than a Mark III (although the “S” model does require a little more knowledge to appreciate).

          Poor marketing will always be a problem.

        • Jabs

          @Thom Hogan.
          I disagree with you about the Canon camera names as being better marketed. Almost no one besides Canon shooters know what the heck is the category of a Canon DSLR via the name at least in the semi-pro or professional cameras. You speak like you are marketing CARS and not cameras to consumers.
          D7000 sounds too much like a D700 and to a neophyte, it might sound like an upmarket camera compared to a D700 (as it is a bigger name), especially if the person looks at the megapixel ratings (sees a higher megapixel count in say a D7000 -vs- a D700) and does not understand what DX and FX means or even cares.
          Canon has been stuck in the MarkII, MarkIII, MarkIV mess and associated names for so long, that it seems like mainly insiders know what is what. That does not speak about marketing prowess to me.
          A D95 would be more logical marketing-wise and lead perhaps to a conclusion that this camera is an updated ‘relative’ of the successful D90.
          Canon lost me back from the film days with its’ plethora of F1, F1n and all that mess, while Nikon was a lot more logical, especially with the F2 and F3 series leading to the F4, F5 and F6.
          I think that because you are so familiar with cameras, the Canon naming convention seems better to you or even understandable, but from a consumer recognition point of view, it is better to have a name like D95 in my opinion. If I want to know what Canon is a higher end camera, I have to ‘google’ it while I can easily figure out the Nikon line without doing that.
          Thus, better marketing or at least better name recognition and name logics to me.

          • Dian

            You need to distinguish who you are talking about when naming products. If the product is intended for new users who have never owned Nikon before, then practically any name will do although this could cause confusion in the product line naming in other models. If the product is intended for those familiar with Nikon, it makes no sense to deviate from a established name unless this is to rationalize the model name of the product line. If Nikon simply want to maintain the D90-heritage link, then D95 could be it. But if Nikon wants to rationalize the model line, D7000 makes more sense.

            • Jabs

              Are you aware of the fact that nowadays, people often ‘google’ for information when they are about to purchase something?
              People are savvy and well informed today, thus they check the history of a product often including REVIEWS of previous releases. When you check on a D90, then there is lots of information but if you mistype D700 when you meant D7000, then there goes the problem. Same if you are trying to buy a D700 and mistype D7000.
              The name is too close to be valuable in an Internet connected world.
              Just like how people are confused about the D300 and D3000! No wonder Nikon changed the upgrade of the D300 to D300s and the rumored ‘upgrade’ to the D3000 to D3100. It is too easy to mistype in a Search engine and get confusing information, as the Internet is the largest and best sales force today.
              That is today’s reality!

            • Dian

              @ Jabs

              Most Internet users are savy enough to know that they sometimes mistype words when searching. Are you really going to peg a camera model no. on the concern that a few would mistype the model name? Mistyping is a given ever since a keyboard was included with a computer. =)

              Do you think the prospective buyer will not notice the price difference between the D700 and D7000?

              If the would be buyer and mistypes D700 for D7000, it is likely that he would also get the result for the D7000 as well. Try it with “D300” on Amazon and you will see that you will also get the D3000.

              As I said, it all depends on who Nikon is targeting. If Nikon is trageting the savy-users, they will likely know what the likely successor of the D90 is so a continuity in the name of the D90 is unnecessary. There will be some hiccups but In the long run, Nikon’s rationalizing the model number not only make more sense but will also be beneficial.

  • SNRatio

    1. That this model is called D95 doesn’t mean there will be a DX D400 or even D350 later. DX00, as prosumer models, may be confined to FX. Why? Look at the price points. This new model will cover very much of D300s functionality, and what it cannot cover, will be quite expensive to include – therefore best left to a pro DX model – maybe up in the $2500-3500 range.

    2. While the D3100 will probably not have a Nikon sensor, why shouldn’t this one have it? Nikon has mentioned economics of scale arguments for not using own sensors – in the D95 we have a) higher price b) higher pressure (7D) c) smaller numbers. It does not seem very wise for Nikon to continue to rely almost solely on Sony for their strategic products. And, strategically, the D95 will be an extremely important model.

  • furtian

    my 5 years old Olympus e-500 has two cards-slot in a little body, why two slots for Nikon are so difficult to build in theirs body’s? It’s logic to have separate memory for video and images.

    • Zblorg

      Well, SD cards now have much higher capacities, so one probably doesn’t need 2 slots any more, though you are right about convenience

      • elliot

        Exactly. New cameras are offering SDXC slots which have a maximum capacity of 2 Terabytes.

        As for the Oly E-500 let’s not forget that the 2nd slot was for the slow, nonstandard and expensive xD picture card standard. There’s a reason Olympus has moved away from those cards.

        • BH

          2 slots is also to have a back up (writing to both at the same time), not just for more storage space.

          • elliot

            I seriously doubt that Nikon would ever consider adding to its costs so a consumer-level DSLR can do backups.

            The only reason Olympus offered dual-slots is because they bet on the wrong data standard and found this was the best way to move to a more popular standard while not alienating their upgrading customers.

        • Ed

          Aah the great xD picture card standard. Used by its 2 founders Olympus & Fuji, supports up to 2GB, after which you use microSD in xD adapters (included with the camera).

          What an embarrassment.

  • MK

    i just read 100 posts and not even 1 mentions p7000. i hope nikon is reading this. no one cares about it – they are going to put in a bigger sensor? so, from 1/1.7″ to 1/1.63 (size of lx3/5)?

    nothing new and creative here… while cameras like the lx3 and s90/g11 have almost cult followings. nikon decides to release a competitor for the g11 but there should be a g12 in 2 months. why dont they release a lx2 competitor while they are at it?

    on the bright side a bigger sensor could mean the 17mm sensor right?

    • I like the size and form of the p6000, but bought the lx3 instead. I don’t mind getting another compact. Hope the p7000 is good. I don’t like the ‘Silky’ something for processing raw from the lx3. Also, the shutter-lag on the lx3 is too long. And better batteries please!

      • ewan

        the p6000 is crippled by NRW file format. whoever made that decision at nikon should be SHOT. what a disgrace

    • BornOptimist

      Do you remember WHEN Nikon (the Swedish Rep) said they were going to release a competitor to G11? As far as I remember that was last winter. Nikon does the best they can within their budget for this camera. If that is good enough to compete with the G12 – only time will tell.

    • elliot

      “i just read 100 posts and not even 1 mentions p7000.”

      Because no one trusts Nikon to be on the ball with their compact cam-related choices. They’ve screwed the pooch too many times and no one is paying much attention to that line.

  • pete

    nikon havent released a decent CP since the 5700. if it comes, rest assured it will be complete and utter garbage.

  • Dablaze21

    Am i the only one that thinks that a magnesium body on the D95 is an overkill for this camera, especially since it pushes the price up. I always thought this was a feature reserved for “pro” level camera.

    • Not overkill if you’re trying to outdo the competition (ie- Canon).

    • broxibear

      I don’t see a magnesium body at that price…but then again if it’s going up against the EOS 50D, it’s around £700 and has a two piece magnesium shell.
      The price seems low compared to the D90 when it first appeared ?

      • enesunkie

        Yea, I don’t see that advantage to the magnesium alloy body. Yes if the body takes a drop the shell will survive, but won’t all the delicate internals still be toast?

      • Do believe it was aluminium, not magnesium. Too lazy to scroll up and re-check 😛

  • Jacobus

    I really do not care about if ever the D90 replacement will have magnesium alloy body.. But, those specs are pretty nice. As well as the price. I know I am buying one when it is announced officially. Hopefully August!!!!

  • Denko

    D95…. yuck… brings harrowing memories of Win 95. Even with spectacular specs I won’t buy it because of that number…. D98, DMe and D2000 next? no…

    95 would indicate end of the line kind of number. No more prosumer and no upgrade to it… either you go pro body or stick to the lower end DSLR’s and the price diff can be much higher.

    D400 will be FX for sure and there will not be a next D700 (not needed.)

    Merde, this will get expensive.

    • preston

      That’s quite pathetic (not buying a camera because of it’s model #). I hope you were being facetious. .

      • Denko

        Only slightly facetious. I mean if that is the only thing I can come up with that is bad with the camera then the camera is quite good no? Regardless of that I do not believe it will be called D95… the consumer of the “D70 line” isn’t that fickle that the number must be so close to D90 for them to understand that it is the same commercial tier. Actually I find the name very lacking and yes there is more to a name than we all want to agree with.

        • enesunkie

          It would be interesting if they went away from using numbers to name the cameras (and they they are going to run out of numbers someday unless there is a D20000 in the future) and name them like cars. OK not like 3000GT or 350Z, but like Mustang, Stingray …

  • Laughingbuddha
  • Is the D95 still in the toy department. i.e, no metering with non-CPU lenses, less pixels in the metering array and crippled bracketing options compared to D200/D300(s)?

  • Bart

    If these specs are true I will buy one next year as backup for my recently bought D700.

    And D700 iso specs ?
    ‘If it looks to good to be true it probably is’
    The D700+D90 is exactly what the D700 replacement will be if it ever comes out.

    16 MP
    Full HD video

    And nothing more will be added except some technical stuff.

  • Segura

    What are the odds that we see Nikon release a DX and FX version of the D400 next year?
    D400 (FX) / D400 (DX)
    D4 (High ISO) / D4x (High MP)

    I makes sense to Nikon to consolidate the D300 and the D700 series, but maybe Nikon sees a benefit of using the same body with two different sensors. It cuts down on costs on the chassis and body parts (internals different though). Costs go down the more parts that can be shared between the two.
    Also releasing a D4 / D4x at the same time would cut costs as the bodies are mostly identical, but not exactly. I think Nikon realizes that some want the low ISO and others want the High MP.

    • preston

      If nothing else having a DX and FX version of the same camera would be a FANTASTIC experiment to find out how much customers really value the FX format – much more accurate than any poll would be. Until now all FX cams also have better specs that aren’t related to the sensor (AF, metering, weather sealing, etc.), so it’s probably difficult to tell if people really buy (literally and figuratively) into the full frame concept.

      • Travis

        D700/D300 is exactly that – same body – two different sensors. Other differences are minor.

  • Back to top