Next Nikon announcement will be on August 22nd

By [NR] admin | Published: August 14, 2012

Next Nikon announcement will be on August 22, 2012. I expect only Coolpix models to be introduced on that date, including the new Android camera and probably the P7200.

 

 

Related posts:

  1. Next rumored Nikon announcement date: August 22nd-23rd
  2. Next Nikon announcement: Coolpix cameras
  3. Nikon is preparing a major announcement at the end of August
  4. New high end Nikon Coolpix camera to be announced at the end of August
  5. Four new Nikon p&s models will be released on August 6, 2008 (Updated)
This entry was posted in Nikon Point and Shoot. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • D600

    No D600, nothing to see here…

    • Nikon AF SMOKED by..

      Nikon SMOKED by Canon 61 pt AF system

      http://diglloyd.com/

      Don’t click on the link if you are a Die Hard Nikon Fan Boy!

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Hello Troll,
        I am a NIKON fanboy. I just clicked on the link and read through quite a bit of the material available. I found the best shots that were posted were said to be taken by a camera called an RX100. The images seemed to jump out of the screen. I also noted that the Panasonic fisheye seemed very sharp. For all the talk about autofocus precision, it didn’t seem that he was ever able to bring much in focus when using a longer lens on any type of larger sensor, and I don’t know why that is. Particularly bad were the photos taken with the Canon 85 1.2, although, to be fair, he did say he pushed the exposure and shot it wide open.

        I also noted this observation:

        “Megapixels rule, and not just for detail

        Fourth, the megapixel doubters are in gross error. It is my conclusion with extensive use now that the D800 / D800E cross a threshold that makes every image look better. Whether its downsampling or cropping or retouching image details or simply the lifelike results that come with more pixels (not about detail per se!), the D800/D800E images offer an unprecedented versatility and sense of realism that I have never seen before in a DSLR. This cannot be properly understood by someone still shooting a lesser DSLR. It is not something you can read about. You have to shoot the D800 or D800E yourself for a few weeks at least for it to really sink in.”

        Thank you for trolling.

      • El Aura

        But this refers ONLY to f/1.4 lenses used wide-open (or at f/2). And it is much better at close distances (which is where f/1.4 lenses are usually used wide-open).

      • Shawn

        I call B.S.

        There are so many things wrong with this bloggers methods, conclusions, and supporting documentation (by that I mean lack of any real scientific information) I don’t even know where to start.

        My freaking D5100 has razor sharp focus when used correctly, so I’d have to say that this bloggers conclusion that all Nikon’s can’t focus accurately is just one of the many false statements on this blog.

        Despite claiming and refuting scientific accuracy of his own tests, I think this quote really clears it up:

        “I manual focus most of the time, so for me it is less of an issue”

        In other words, this blogger doesn’t know how AF works so they don’t understand how to use it accurately.

        I could refute 90% of these statements easily one-by-one, but I just don’t have time for that.

        This article, from this site actually sums it up:
        https://nikonrumors.com/2011/03/28/auto-focus-accuracy-a-scientific-cross-brand-analysis-guest-post.aspx#more-18839
        This study breaks down significant data from the popular web site lenstip.com. The objective of the study was to identify what qualities most greatly affected autofocus accuracy. The conclusion is that it has nothing to do with camera brand, i.e. Canons aren’t any more accurate than Nikons (yes, a couple of Canon and some other brand bodies showed poor results, but those are generally obsolete models anyways).

        P.S. I’m no Nikon fanboy, I just happen to be invested in Nikon at the moment. Both Nikon and Canon AF systems are now extremely competent.

      • Shawn

        I love this quote too:
        “I have no doubt I’ll get emails claiming good results, which doesn’t mean much to me”

        Other people get razor sharp AF pictures and it doesn’t mean much to this blogger? Uh self-obsessed anyone? So someone else knows how to use phase detect AF and this blogger doesn’t so it’s not important?

        Anyone who is unwilling to accept contrary factual information from others is simply a closed-minded egotistical jerk.

        • don

          “… is simply a closed-minded egotistical jerk.”

          Or a die-hard Canon fan boy!

      • Shawn

        Just saw this posted randomly to another NR story. Looks like this blogger is trolling for hits.

        Don’t waste your time, you’re just feeding his ad revenues.

        • El Aura

          There a number of other people, totally unrelated to Lloyd Chambers that also have reported unreliable AF with the latest f/1.4 lenses on larger distances.
          I am pretty sure that this is a weakness of the current Nikon PD AF, though this probably is somewhat of a problem for all PD systems, f/1.4 on a short-ish focal length means the AF field is covering a fairly large area of the subject.

          • Shawn

            This article supports that anything below f/2 is not as accurate on any body:
            https://nikonrumors.com/2011/03/28/auto-focus-accuracy-a-scientific-cross-brand-analysis-guest-post.aspx#more-18839

            “The difference between Canon and Nikon with >=f/2 lenses is not significant.”

            “Very bright lenses, mainly f/1.4, give poor results. This was predictable because of their shallow depth of field that requires fine calibration. Since the industry is counting mostly on zooms that reach a maximum aperture of 2.8, auto-focus systems are surely calibrated for these apertures and not for larger ones.”

            “Ultrafast lenses (around f/1.4) show higher focus-error than other lenses.”

            The information may be accurate, but the conclusion is wildly distorted and intentionally misleading. Want me to pull all the misleading quotes from that blog? I’d rather not take the time.

            • El Aura

              To me, Lloyd is usually so obviously over-the-top that I don’t consider him misleading but merely annoying.

      • Bob

        Who’s the old wannabe on the bike. Bit too old for BMXs isn’t he?

      • Diglloyd is a measurebaters’ measurebater. I have yet to see a compelling picture from him.

        His site/blog exist to drive his paid content. He looks at some interesting gear, but never has anything useful to say from a practical standpoint.

        I don’t doubt that some of the new Nikon cams have some focus issues. My D700 and every Nikon I’d had before it work flawlessly in terms of AF. I have consistently nailed shots when next to folks working with 5D and 1D series in low light, when they couldn’t. It sounds like the the new Canon gear has stepped up it’s game. However, nobody has done a good comparison of the CAM3500 in the older cams to the new N or C gear. Until then, this is all just classic whining from both camps.

        However, Nikon DOES need to do something about it’s AF in it’s recent cams. QA and support have been abysmal.

      • ken

        DigLloyd = Ken Rockwell

        for those that know, nuff said.

        • Andrew

          -1

          We know and you are wrong! Ken Rockwell knows his stuff. I may not agree with everything he says, but he knows his stuff!

          • d40

            omg I can’t believe you just said that. Obviously you shoot a D40.

          • Good Loyd

            I also believed he knows his stuff. But after seeing some of his oversturated photos and some comments (stating p7100 has no raw etc) I started to doubt… It seems he talks big to be known no matter he knows about that.

        • Shawn

          I kind of agree with Andrew. Rockwell may have different values (like valuing light, quiet cameras with easy to use user custom modes and cheaper lightweight zooms) but I’ve never heard him make any technically false statements/conclusions. Most everything I read from him is just personal opinion (with quite a bit of tongue-in-cheek).

          I have enjoyed reading his ISO, bokeh, and sharpness comparisons. I find he just puts up the pictures and tells you to draw your own conclusions. Much more than I see from “d*ck-lloyd”.

          • Jan

            Really? KR’s site is only good for pictures of lenses.
            6MP good enough for anyone?
            D40 is better than any other camera and nobody ever needs anything else?
            Oh but I also own a D700 and it’s good?
            JPG with saturation +5 are da bomb?
            Why would anyone ever use RAW?
            Then another post where RAW is da bomb?
            I can’t see at screen size so it doesn’t exist?
            100% pixel peepers are stupid?
            Then another post doing 100% pixel peeping?

            Anyone reading him for more than 10min will see he contradicts himself and has no clue. False confidence and naivety is what I’d call it.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              I like Ken for the way that he can reduce things to a second grade level discourse. The one thing I noticed about this Lloyd guy is that he contradicts Ken directly by stating “megapixels rule.”>>>I<<< have found that when using a camera with more pixels I can get details that simply aren't there when using less pixels. So I have to give one point to Lloyd for saying that.
              Ken claims that megapixels don't matter and then shows me how the D7000 beats the D700 on detail, admittedly a bit unfair because he is generally showing me something a bit outside the focal plane or half outside it, giving a slight advantage to the smaller sensor. I believe he is an emotional guy and he becomes blinded by the power of a powerful image. I have seen excellent images coming from unlikely sources, and in that sense I agree with him. You can take a compelling photograph with a piece of junk sometimes. Sometimes you can do it all day long. But if you had a better piece of junk on the same given day, you would have even better photos, provided you were comfortable using it.
              I do like what Ken says about the flash synch of the early generation cameras and I almost bought one just for that. I think he was right because you are usually shooting so wide in the dark that resolution is less important as you really aren't getting the best out of your lens. However, the ability of newer cameras to shoot cleanly at what he calls "stupid high ISOs" has probably negated most any advantage the old cameras had and I generally use ambient light and many newer lenses are at or near their best wide open, so you want more than 6 megapixels and you especially want the dynamic range and the better colors as well. Often you aren't near enough to use a flash anyway and I really never liked using a flash. I kind of get annoyed when I see flashes going off in public. That's more of a different strokes kind of thing, really.
              Ken also is rigorous about telling us how we are supposed to use a wide angle lens, but then posts good pictures where he did exactly what he said not to do – what he said that amateurs do. His opinion of some lenses is formed by the fact that he has a bad sample. Most of his "lens comparisons" aren't worth much because he shows you a different spot with each crop and there is a lot of exposure variation. Sometimes he gets bad results with a lens and tweaks something but not with the other lenses. And what he shows you isn't necessarily in the focal plane. He pits an f1.4 lens against an f3.5 lens at full aperture. He does all this to attempt to prove to you that the lenses don't matter and then he makes a recommendation. Of course, if you are looking at his opinion about a different lens, he might then tell you that you really don't need the lens he just recommended.
              He loves wide angles and then won't carry a lens because it is "too wide". I could go on. I would go on about this other guy too, but I'm unfamiliar with his ranting and from what I've seen have not much reason to. I would always look to see what anybody has to say because they might have something surprising and occasionally even say something that is right. But please be CAREFUL.

        • ken

          Each to their own but ‘really’?????? Ken Rockwell supporters????? He is not knowledgible in the sense of photography as a photographer. He is a marketing man, a professional reviewer. To me, when he says ‘us photographers’ he’s lying blatently.

      • Z

        The name of his blog says it all. This “dig” lloyd guy, he sure is a narcissistic know-it-all di*k wad with his numerous goofy mugshots posted all over his blog. He talks of scientific method, blah, blah, blah but doesn’t show anything to back up his claim. You have to be a paid subscriber to his blog to see his “research”. Um …. no thanks.
        I’m guessing “Nikon AF SMOKED by.. ” is either diglloyd or diglloyd fanboy. Oh, wait that’s one and the same. Diglloyd is not a Canon fanboy, he’s diglloyd fanboy.

      • Eva

        A lotta talk for a camera system that until the 5D3 did not have ANY cross points for lenses slower than F2.8.

    • KnightPhoto

      For the record Lloyd is a careful shooter and his main camera is a D800E backed up by a second body D800. He absolutely loves the D800/E 😉

    • Valiant Thor

      +1

    • Ren Kockwell

      All of this AF nonsense is over-hyped. Am i missing something? My D800 is stupid sharp every time, and I am noticing far fewer “technique” issues due to its high MP count than I thought I would after all the talk.

      Buy it, shoot it, make money with it, blog less. Repeat.

  • Zahl

    I really want a D600 release date now. Wondering about replacing my D7000

  • Ole

    But what about the D600? What about the D600, Admin?

    • nuno santacana

      Yes, when do you think it will be announced?

    • No info about the D600 lately – that worries me.

  • D400

    Why are so many people excited about a D600? I’d rather have a pro DX (D400) than an entry level FX (D600). I think the target market for the D600 is DX users who want to get into a FF camera, but if you’ve got that much time into shooting a dSLR, I would think you’d also want to move into more professional features, along with the FF sensor. If I ever go FF, I’ll wait for something more along the lines of a D700 replacement. For me, the D800, while a great camera, is too much of some things and not enough of others and the D4 is too big/expensive/obtrusive.

    • Plug

      I agree, if the D400 and D800 complement each othe in a system.

    • Andrew

      The D800 is the best all around camera on the market today. It gives you sharp pictures, great low light performance, and solid build quality. Sure it would be nice to get more frames per second but apparently the 36 MP sensor is maxing the Expeed 3 image processor. I think Nikon will surprise many with performance of the D600.

      • Big J

        Maxing the EXPEED3, gotta read up on it. Wonder if they’ll pull a Canon 7D “style” (or other models) like dual EXPEED 2 or 3 processors in the new D600. Would be nice, although maybe a just a dream.

  • Michael

    Well hopefully the P7200 will be a big improvement on the P7100. Nikon needs to by a bit more dynamic in their design, maybe take a risk and create something unique, fast and impressive, instead of the what they did with the P7100.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Alright!!!
      The funniest post I read all day.

      • Michael Laing

        Oops, some bad spelling there. The P7100 isn’t a terrible camera, it is just not as good as it should be, the same went with the P7000.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Oops, some bad reading here. I thought you were criticizing the D7100, a camera that has yet to be released. I interpreted your remark as sarcasm about another post and failed to notice your spelling error until you pointed it out. My apologies. You should read some of the stuff people write if your feeling bad about it…
          As a side note you might be the one person on here who DOES care about a coolpix. You might consider a Nikon 1 or the new 18-300 lens on whatever body you want to pay for or a used 18-200 on the same… And keep your old camera.

  • Yeah Im not really understanding the big craze and anticipation for the D600. I have a D700 and a D800 right now. I wouldnt replace my D700 with it, and if I didnt have the D800 I would still want to go with the D800 instead of the D600. It does sound like a nice camera for any DX shooter looking to go fullframe, but besides that I dont know what the excitement is all about.

    • Max

      How about 1600USD at release? vs 2300USD of the D700 right now…

      • d400

        If you can’t afford the additional $700 for a good FF camera, you won’t be able to afford to replace your lenses to take advantage of it. The target market for the D600 already has several DX lenses. That’s not to say nobody should buy a D600, I just don’t understand why so many people are chomping at the bit.

        • booyah

          Why make a D400, when Nikon has clearly indicated by their lens releases that they have moved pros to FF cameras?

          • I see more of a need for a D400 than a D600 to be honest, but that doesnt matter since we already know the D600 is coming, I just hope that there is a professional DX camera on its way for those waiting for a D300s replacement.
            The D600 is an entry level FF camera, which is odd to me because anyone currently shooting DX has DX lenses. So, its only for DX shooters shooting FX lenses, or they will have to upgrade.
            Pros that shoot DX are using DX lenses, but would like a professional body, with higher megapixels, a D7000 with a more pro body and higher mp. At least thats the way I see it.
            I just really dont know where the D600 fits in, and its very odd to me that it seems Nikon is just assuming that every DX shooter out there wants to go to FF, and that really isnt the case.

            • Why ??

              Why does everybody assume that DX users automatically use DX glass ? I’m a DX shooter (D90 and D7000) and don’t have any DX glass at all !!

              FX glass has many plus points for a DX user: 1) less vignetting, 2) using the best part of the lens (center), 3) less CA, 4) wider aperture (find me a f/2.8 300mm DX lens), 5) better build.

              Yes, it can be more expensive. But you will use the glas longer than you will the camera, thus this is not a bad thing. And if I would ever go FX, I don’t need to replace my glass..

            • Howie

              I completely agree with you. I have a D90 and the ONLY DX lens i have is the one that came with it [18-105mm], which is getting replaced anyway.

              I think id be totally happy with a FX D7000. I dont see a need for 36 or 24 mp, so given the choice, ill take the 24.

            • ashwins

              I too use only FX glass with my DX (D7000) and I am looking forward to see what the D600 will be like.

              My biggest gripe about D7000 is its problematic AF with fast primes. I like to shoot more and more with fast primes, so if the upcoming D600 shares the same AF as D7K (as rumored) then it’s not going to be my next camera (please Nikon, don’t do it!)

              I’d also like to shoot at ISO3200 with low noise (my D7K is still OK at ISO1600). The pixel density of 24MP D600 would be the same as 16MP on D7K, so downsampling of D600 images would most likely make it come true (but a 24MP D400 (DX) or D7100, no thanks!)

              If I could choose I would definitely choose a 16MP D600 with the same AF as the D700!!

          • d400

            My wife is Japanese and, against overwhelming odds, I’ve occasionally been able to change her “clearly indicated” course through persistence and not a little whining!
            Also, I don’t necessarily think that Nikon assumes all professional and advanced amateur photographers use FX cameras. I think their use of “Pro” is just a way to classify their products. People, in general, and Japanese, in particular, like to put things in neat little categories. It’s far easier for my in-laws to deal with me as a gaijin than to understand my individual personality idiosyncrasies…

          • KnightPhoto

            We’ve explained to you gentlemen over and over why a pro-featured D400 is still needed. How many times do you need to be told?

            The D600 in no way obviates the need for a pro-features D400. And yes we already have the super-telephotos in hand waiting for the D400 to go with.

            And I totally agree that going FX is costly, not to mention size and weight penalties, so guys quibling about $1600 vs. $2300 are in for a severe shock when dealing with their lens kit. The lens part of converting to FX easily cost me 6 grand. So we’re just saying be prepared for that 😉

            • UpgraderWaiting

              I can use my DX lens on D600 just fine and I’ll just shoot most of the time with my dirt cheap 50mm/1.8g in FF mode anyway. I might write Santa to buy 85mm or similar more expensive lens if Nikon behaved like a good boy and released D600 soon and for a reasonable price.
              Otherwise I’ll just buy D3200 since its a powerful little camera and I can buy some wide angle Tokina. It would be just perfect and cheap solution that wouldn’t bring much profits to Nikon.
              D7000 seems quite old.

              It’s up to you Nikon.

            • Andrew

              KnightPhoto, I understand your point and agree that the overall cost of owning a professional kit should be considered in the grand scheme of things. But…

              You have to consider the overall market. Many amateur photographers who desire a full frame camera do so for obvious reasons… that is, higher ISO so that they can capture those stunning low light photos. It is quite likely that many of these amateurs (or prosumers) would only own one lens, which is the one that came with the camera. On occasion, some may purchase a second lens, something more akin to a zoom lens. Their overall investment with a zoom lens ($700 or $950 for a Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G zoom lens) including the body ($1500), and if Nikon packages it with an inexpensive kit ($300 extra) lens may total no more than $2,500. Nikon may also sell a two lens package to meet this very need! This should get most people started with FX photography allowing them to buy more lens in the future as their needs increase and they save more money.

              So I think many people are underestimating the size of the market for an FX (full frame) camera.

      • michael

        $1600 USD is quite impossible. $1800 or even $1900 will be more like it.

        • KnightPhoto

          Even though I’m not looking for one, yep, it will be interesting to see the D600 price point. Even if they could pull off an $1899 or $1999 price at introduction, it will be a good enough deal for many. And each $100 less than that even more so. Personally I think the D600 will eventually have more of a potential impact on D7100 sales than a D400. I.e. D7100 @ $1199 vs. D600 @ $1799 or less by this time next year.

          When I converted to FX, and spent a pile on lenses, there wasn’t a ton of cheaper FX-line lenses, other than the used stuff, but nowadays you could make go with the new 24-85 and the 70-300 initially and it wouldn’t break the bank. Plus there are all those great new f/1.8 primes. There is still a lens size and weight penalty though, even for these newer, cheaper FX lenses.

          I agree the D600 would be a great travel camera since its ISO capability should still exceed the D7100. And the D600 will be attractive for those just wanting something smaller in an FX camera like all those people clamouring for a digital FM2 over the last few years.

          Anyhow, I’m waiting for a D400…

          • umesh

            I totally agree. Low end wedding PGs and amateurs would use D600 and kit lens or/and atmost one simple tele. They can boast of using ff 24 mp cam at a slight price difference. But for that to happen the built quality has to be at par with 7000.

      • Jake

        D700’s are being sold used for under $2,000 all day long. Lowest I’ve seen from national camera exchange was $1,700

        • Rob

          D700s were on sale NEW for $2000 last week. Full retail is only $2200. $1700 is way overpriced for a used one unless you know exactly where it’s been.

          • Andrew

            If the D700 disappears from stores after the D600 is released, then it may signal to many that the D600 is the D700 replacement. But I personally think that the baby D4 with the D4’s 16 MP sensor and priced at $2500 or less will be the D700 replacement. I don’t see Nikon reducing the D700’s price any further than after its replacement is released.

      • Big J

        Don’t know if you guys have looked at prices lately of the D700. On Amazon it’s going for almost (if not slightly less than) the same price as a D800!

    • Dave

      A ff sensor in a D7000 body is what the big craze and anticipation about, not everyone wants to carry a D3 everyday for casual walk.

      • d400

        Actually, I forgot about that. I think having a D600 as a “walk around” camera, if you already have FX glass, makes perfect sense.

        • And with the extra $700 that I will save, I can use that to buy a 50mm ƒ/1.8G lens.

          • Oops, I meant ƒ/1.4G not ƒ/1.8G

            • 50 1.8G iz good

              Why bother. The 1.8G is fantastic and a steal at the price it is. Put that money towards something else. 😉

      • Andrew

        +1

        Plus the price!

      • Misericorde

        I’m carrying an F4 atm as a walk around camera, and Yes, I’m waiting for the D600 to go digital (again)

    • Pablo Ricasso

      I might explain. I started getting into this when the freelance people that frequented the nearest real photo store were deciding amongst themselves that 6 mega pixels was good enough to beat color print film. At that point they felt good if they were able to make decent 11×14 enlargements. At the time I could buy a D100 or similar Canon for over 1500 bucks and would need a whole lot of other now obsolete junk to use it. So I started buying glass instead. With a little chump change here and there I got the 15, 16, 18, and 20 f3.5, the 20 and 24 2.8, the 24 and 28 f2, the 35, 50, and 85 f1.4, the 501.2, the 85 and 105 1.8, the 135 and 200 f2, the 180 and 300 2.8ed, the 400 f3.5 and the first f5.6, the one with the fluorite glass. I also bought all the converters, bellows, the main three focal lengths of micros, some filters and hoods, and constant aperture zooms. I also bought the famous “bokina” and the 90-180 flat field zoom. I even bought a couple autofocus fast zooms, the 35 – 70 and 80 – 200 2.8. I supplemented those with the Sigma 100-300 f4 and Tokina 20-40, which I would put up against anything but a prime or a 14-24. I also bought essentially the entire RB67 system from fisheye to 500 and then went back and got most of the KLL lenses. I got tripods, heads, and monopods that easily support it. I got some light tripods too.
      The thing about all that is that the costliest item was only just over 500 bucks, excepting one or two medium format lens. The other thing is that, excepting the Mamiya system, everything is now worth a whole lot more than it was when I bought it.
      If I had put the same money into a D100 or a Kodak or a EOS1ds, what would I have now??? Also, if I had given in I would have no doubt upgraded half a dozen times and I would have spent as much doing so as I did buying all that glass and support, with only some images to show for it. Since I don’t sell my images I won’t try to justify spending thousands on something guaranteed to become worth hundreds or less.
      I have since bought a Kodak for around 400, or less than a tenth of what it would have cost had I got it immediately. Before that I used film. I can get the other cameras I mentioned for less than a tenth of what they cost then also. I think I see around 120 for the D100 and 600 for the 1ds, but I question the value even at this point.
      I would really like to have a Nikon full frame camera, one that is useful above 100 iso, rather than the Kodak. But I don’t want to sink any more money than I have to. So, yeah, I’m excited about a full frame camera that’s coming out cheaper than the D100 was without even accounting for inflation. It will shake up the market. Companies will quit wasting everyone’s time making redundant zooms that only work on smallish sensors and hopefully everyone will be happy. Even if I don’t buy it I might get a great deal on a used D3x or D700 or maybe I’ll pick up one in a few years for $150. For that I say, “Go Nikon, Go!”
      And thanks, everybody, for selling that excellent glass!

      • d400

        In your case, a D600 makes great sense. I’m not sure a lot of people have followed the same course, though.
        As for “zooms that only work on smallish sensors,” those of us who can’t really afford a FX kit appreciate the lower price and don’t see it as a waste of time.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        And I might add that I agree with most of the above comments and Especially the one by Ron scuberdriver below, about the non-stupid lenses.
        Regarding the need for a D400/7100/7200/whatever they want to call it:
        As long as we are still using optical viewfinders there will always be a need for a heavy duty cropped camera, because the lenses for it will always exist. They are the entire line of full frame telephoto lenses one can simply add something like a 10-24 zoom to that and they are done. The difference between carrying (and buying!) a 300 f4 and a 500 f4 is too great to ignore.
        It is more than equally important for the rest of the market who doesn’t use telephotos very much that they are allowed to buy a full frame camera that is equally easier to buy and carry than the current said professional cameras being offered. Without this advance we might well revert to using the trumped up point and shoot mirrorless EVIL EVIL EVIL things that are invading the market. As it stands, they are poised to wipe out most of the DSLRs anyway, be that full frame or cropped frame. We shouldn’t be arguing about which system is best because they complement one another. There is little size advantage to be gained if someone were to attempt to build a 300 f4 lens that only worked on a small sensor. That’s why nobody has done it.
        If believe that people wanting either camera are soon to be happy, whether the news is presented at this Photokina or shortly after.

        • pete

          totally right

          and while Nikon are at it….

          new 80-400 with VR AND AF-S
          new 300 f4 with AF-S AND VR
          or a 400 f5.6 with AF-S and VR!!

          • Justin

            An 80-400 4-5.6 VR AF-S ED lens is at the top of my list. Second (almost as good, and in some ways better) would be a 400 5.6 VR AF-S ED lens. I’d pay up to 3k for it if it were razor sharp corner to corner at 5.6 and lighter than the old Canon version.

      • EnPassant

        @ Pablo Ricasso

        Oh man, you bought a 200/2 and 400/3.5 (Ai or Ai-S I presume) for just a little more than $ 500? They usually cost at least twice, if not three times as much!

        Except for that I am also waiting for the D600. D700 was just too big for my hands, and while the D800 fit me better it is still huge. D600 on the other hand seem almost perfect. I just hope the grip is better than on D7000 that feels kind of awkward to hold.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          You caught me forgetting. The 200 was about 750. The 400 is rough looking beyond belief… But I also forgot about those great old 200 f4p and pc lenses that cost40 and 50 bucks and are better than the later compact that I tried. The later versions of the 135 2.8 compact can also be had cheaply sometimes, and they better than the early version. I have yet to try the 50 1.8 and the 50 f2, but they are also bargains to this day. The wide manual primes are one of the best things about Nikon, but they seem to be getting more scarce. One could find 35s for under 50 bucks and 24s for around 100. You still might find a cheap 24 if you are patient. None of the slower 35s or 24s are bad, but the early scalloped ones aren’t as good as the later ones, despite having no said changes. The 28 f2 and the 35 1.4 are excellent no matter which version you have. I also haven’t yet tried the 28 f2.8 or f3.5. They were both improved around the time of AIS and said to be great, but after having the f2 I really saw no point. That lens is unbelievable. Also, you want the AIS if you are buying a 50 1.4, rather than one of the many earlier versions.
          I have noticed that the price of the old lenses rises and this is probably because the price of the new lenses rise. Even if a new lens comes out that beats an existing lens, the old lens will continue to rise because the new lens costs more when introduced and if the new lens is any good at all it will continue to increase. I remember I wanted a 70-200 vr. It was 1500 full blown retail and the grey market people would sell it for a little over 1000. I didn’t buy it because I figured that sooner or later I could get a used one for 1000 or less. Well, now I would have to look hard to find a well used one for 1500 and the new version is around 2400. At some point in the near future it will cost more than the D800e. I am also looking at spending more to get a used 14-24 than it cost when it was newly introduced.
          So I tell anyone who will listen to get the best glass they can and then worry about which camera to use later. I’m going to hold off giving my opinion about either camera you mentioned until I get to hold onto one for a while. I think you can get used to using anything sizewise once you start liking the images… Everything is a tradeoff in that area. And yeah, I hope like hell it is in a D300 body.

          • ken

            Pablo, your writing is WAY too long but I agree with most what I skimmed through especially that lenses count, cameras don’t.

            I had a friend here in Brisbane who was so hell bent on upgrading his D90 to a D700 that it took three goes to make him see that DX lenses on a D700 are a silly 5MP joke.

            Lenses first, cameras second, but photographic skill above all.

          • Andrew

            Pablo my man, you’re on a roll… I am posting this before reading your post!

    • Sahaja

      @Cass

      I think the D600 will make a great upgrade for D90 / D7000 users who want to go FX.

      Of course that doesn’t obviate the need for a D400

  • ron scuberdriver

    Um, how about a new non-stupid lens or something actually interesting?

    Not like a 21.7-126mm f/4.5-f/4.6 super consumer zoom, either. How many dozens of those do they have?

    Where in the name of all that is holy is the 135 f/awesome replacement, or something else equally as sexy?

    Come on.

  • D

    Wish you would skip the coolpix stuff or better yet have it’s own site for it. I’m guessing 99% of people that come here could care less about coolpix stuff.

    I’m going nuts with all this coolpix crap! Let’s get some news on “real” camera stuff, like DSLR’s and lenses.

    • E

      Wish you (and the rest of your countrymen) would write “could NOT care less” if that’s what you (obviously) mean.

      Agree about the Coolpix though.

      • D

        LOL! Got to love the internet Teacher’s. 🙂

        • E

          “120-300 os for nikon” had not yet spoken (see further down) so I picked on you 🙂

          Would actually like to know how this “could care less” usage came about, although I suppose most people could not care less.

          • D

            I guess “could care less” is just a shorter version? Who knows? The internet and texting words get shortened because we are lazy I guess. Who know. I could not care less. 🙂

          • um

            “I could care less” is a sarcastic twist on “I couldn’t care less”, one that has been around since the 1960s.

            http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

            • E

              Thanks um!

              Now come on Nikon, liberate me from my pedantry by making some real news.

  • Jim

    Just HOW MANY damn coolpix’s does Nikon have to have on the market.

    • Andrew

      Enough to help pay for your DX and FX cameras.

  • Rick James

    I’m trying to understand something here. Why are there so many coolpix cameras getting updated ?

    Do people really give a sh*** about the coolpix cameras ? Do they sell well ?

    • Plug

      They do sell well, enough to make a consistent fat profit. That subsidises R&D. Not of interest to me, the irony is that the perceived excellence of the DSLR cameras gives Coolpix sales a consistent push so they complement each other economically speaking.

      • Sahaja

        I suspect the profit margin on most Coolpix cameras is actually pretty slim.

    • umesh

      It’s like racing tires r&d being used to make better street tires.

  • dbm4891

    Who give a flying fk about the coolpix! D600… NOW.

    If Nikon has an audience at the announcement, you know everybody there will be like… D600?

    • Maji

      You should care about the Coolpixes if you care about Nikon dSLRs. The Coolpix line subsidizes R&D for the dSLR line. So, I tell Nikon make a ton of money selling Coolpix, but spend more on R&D for dSLR. That way, I get my dSLR cheaper.

      • dbm4891

        Oh wow, did not realize that. Makes perfect sense.

  • D400

    I’m with the people who says D400
    We don’t need This FX camera
    Hope we

  • 120-300 os for nikon

    Well Rome and Venice were not build on one day to but i think D400 and D800 as a dream combo. but i invest last december in an Sigma name above because 1 nikon doesn´t have it in it´s collection and 2 ma be was way out of line for the price. but think the D800 is nice beginners price same as D700 was some years ago i am no pro shooter and more prios at home so one by one getting is also nice and after buying feals so good in 2007 i was and stil am happy with my D200 with mb d200 but time flies and so does the technic want more iso up clean and better af .So no D600 for me waiting for D400 .

  • ISOTHINK

    Could any of you guys elaborate on the expected ISO performance of D600?
    How would the rumored ISO range: 100-6400 compare to the same D800 claimed range but on bigger resolution? 24mpx resolution would mean less detail so the same size 36mpx print would be worse, right?
    Let us at least hope that low light video performance is better than the D800 – it should be even if nikon didn’t change the line-skipping video mode algorithm that gives such a poor low light performance. Bigger pixel: better, right?

  • An android camera, we already have those with mobile phones built in.

    • Nikon Sensor

      Instead: why doesn’t Nikon design a sensor for mobile phones ? They all seem to have Zeiss lenses, why not also have a Nikon sensor ?

      They could then downsize the number of Coolpix and still sell 100+ million Nikon designed sensors.

      Seems a win-win situation to me 🙂

      • Good idea, or Nikon could put its name on a mobile phone with a better than average camera.

  • PeterO

    So, here we are again at the big dance. Just for fun, let’s call it Photokina. Excitement grows and everyone is on pins and needles waiting for the big announcement that will satisfy their photographic needs. The only problem is that we the faithful are passionate and emotional about this, while the Canon/Nikon/etc corporations are cold businesses that decide what they need in order to maximize profit.

    In this case, Nikon seems to have decided that the D400 that so many want, will not be forthcoming but the D600 is what we will get. (I personally can use one of each for the work I am doing of late.) Both the D4 and D800 are overkill and too expensive for me (kids in university).

    Why isn’t there a DX uber body like the D300s but with updated innards? I personally know newspaper departments that have gone to the D7000 after their D300’s wore out (you can only fix them so many times). They would have gladly bought D400’s but none was available. Money lost to Nikon. The sports/wildlife crowd need it, but obviously Nikon doesn’t for its bottom line, or it would have been out by now. The earthquake excuse no longer applies.

    There is nothing wrong with bringing out the D600, but by not bringing out the D400 Nikon is showing that the “prosumer” crowd is no longer important. I sure hope I’m wrong.

    • Just A Guy

      Agreed… Nikon, there are a lot of folks out here who need a D400. Everyday people in news and sports departments all over the country, and plenty of freelance and “prosumer” folks too. Even guys who *do* have a D4 but who need a backup body or two. Folks who do not need marketing pablum, but who do need a solid reliable camera with excellent AF, excellent high ISO, a big battery, good metering and low shutter lag. That will work with all our lenses that we’ve collected along the way, from F4 up through D200 and D300. We’re waiting to spend money, and no we don’t want a D7000 or D7000 replacement. If nothing else just crop the D4 sensor and put it in the D300s body.

      • J Clarkson

        D400, how hard can it be?

      • 120-300 os For Nikon

        Totally agreed with that all and DX is not that even at the olympis shooting with it for newspapers etc even an Nikon 1 with the 600 f 4 attached so even smaller sensor we just have to wait and that is not always funny but but when it´s released we dx shooters wil be more than happy !
        And Fx is my list to but not yet prio 1.

  • Likely a good source

    I met a sales rep yesterday who told me the next new DSLR should be about the size of the D300S, since “a FF sensor and outfit would not fit in a small body like the D7000”. This new DSLR should be anounced the day before the Photokina and will retail in the 1700 CAD (he corrected me with an exact amount when I quoted a price above 2000 $ (not sure if he said 1749$ or 1769 $, I forgot…) . He added that the build should be semi pro, like the D300.

    I argued a while about my preference for a semi pro DX, a replacement for the D300$, and he finally said with a smile that I will probably have to wait another year or so.

    I wish he was right about the size of the forthcoming FF.

    • Likely a good source

      The rep also mentionned a firmware update would be released by the end of August to correct focus issue on D800s for two specific lenses, 500mm and another one.

    • Pro Camera

      Great, I can’t hardly wait for D600. I’m glad know that the D600 will be built like the D300. I was afraid Nikon would make it mostly of plastic to make it cheaper. It seems D600 is a winner.

      • Likely a good source

        The rep said it SHOULD be built like the D300. We can only wish it will be so…

    • Josh

      We have already seen pictures of the D600. Unless the rep was talking about another camera, he was wrong. D600 clearly has the same build as the D7000 not the D300.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        You could determine the materials used by looking at pictures that were posted on a rumor site? Clearly, I’ve seen your writing before…

        • umesh

          You can judge the size by no of buttons , placement and general ratios. If more buttons on outside more pro level the camera and more pro level the build. Figures. (Although pre 7000 we would have made a little miscalculation about 7000 but now we have 7000 to compare)

          • Pablo Ricasso

            Hmm. That might work if nothing ever changes. But I say change is inevitable. And you can’t judge a book by it’s cover…or by a photo of an alleged prototype posted on a rumor site.
            We could be discussing three things. One is the actual size. Another is the material qualitly and a third is the ergonomics, including knobs and buttons. I think the third one is highly subjective, with some people wanting things one way and other people wanting something completely different. I believe that the third is also evolving, with some changes coming from models priced below as well as above. The actual size of the camera is somewhat related to this and obviously everybody has different expectations. However, when I think of “pro” verses “non pro” I’m thinking about how much metal is used in the chassis, how good and how serviceable is the shutter, how weather sealed is the body, how tough are the knobs and buttons, how accurate, large, and bright is the viewfinder, and whatnot. I really don’t care about snob factor things like whether or not it has a popup flash either. And to be honest, I could (couldn’t) care less whether or not the button placement resembles that of a camera that costs a little less, as long as it works. I just want a heavy duty camera with tight seals, nice viewfinder, and easy smooth operation. Really, that’s all anyone should want. I would imagine the folks over at Leica feel the same and I could (couldn’t) care less what the people at Canon think.
            So if you’re going to tell me by looking at that photo what the viewfinder looks like, how the camera feels, the toughness of the controls, and the life cycle of the shutter, the quality of the rubber and plastic, and the amount of metal behind the plastic, then you’ve got a pretty good eye, or maybe a sense of clairvoyance that I’m not understanding. But if you’re clairvoyant, then why did you need to look at the photo?
            I’ll develop my opinion of the thing when I get to hold it in my hot little hands.

  • Bobby Mo

    This announcement is about the software fix for the left AF of the D800.

    • Likely a good source

      Exactly, the rep mentionned twice it was about the left focus issue of the D800.

      • BornOptimist

        That’s BS. You can’t fix misaligned focus points with a “general” firmware update. That’s camera spesific, and what’s need to be updated are the calibration values for each focus point, and that has to measured on each and every camera.

        • fishguy

          Agreed! Just becuase the OP named him/herself “likely a good source” that doesn’t mean they are.

          – fishguy (and not a fish, actually)

          p.s. – Amazon US has the D800 in stock AGAIN

        • umesh

          Maybe it’s just for resetting the individual focus points’ values or maybe to bring them at par with other points.

          • BornOptimist

            …and make them all out of focus. I struggle to see how THAT help Nikon to fix the problem with the left side focus points.

            Like I wrote above. There are absolutely NO WAY this can be fixed with a general firmware upgrade – NO WAY-!

            • stop whining !!!!!!

              STOP WHINING goddamnit !

              The “focus-issue” is gone. No cameras leaving the factory now have it and the small percentage that did, will br fixed for free by Nikon.

              Focus-issue-whiners are SICK!!

            • Mark Trued

              No it’s not gone! Just recieved a brand new D800 ordered from the Nikon Store plagued with one of the focus issues described on the web. Viewfinder grid, data and viewfinder edges are sharp but the image is not. It’s totally blurry. Customers have been complaining about this issue since May but according to Steve of Customer Relations at Nikon Corporate “there is no known issue.”
              This is bad quality control and to keep dumping faulty products onto consumers is wrong.
              So quit calling advocates whinners and enjoy the benefits of a better marketplace by supporting thier efforts.

  • Dfive

    Waiting for the D4S OR the new 200mm Micro ( either f4 perhaps an f3.5 ! ) in 2013…… wake me once it’s both out / announced…

    LOL

  • jason

    Any work on the 16-85mm f4 lens admin?

    • Advisory

      Who cares. 😛

      I want a 16-35 2.8.

      • Dfve

        Same bro…. but make it a 15-35 to screw Canon… LOL 😉

        With corners like the 14-24 !

        • Pablo Ricasso

          12-22

          • Ron KenwellFake

            Why the heck would you want that?

            10-35 2.8 VR II (fx mount of course). Is what we all need.

            Oh and no bulging front element.

            DEFY PHYSICS!

    • Anonymous Maximus

      FX or DX?

      16-85mm for FX would be optically an overkill.

      And we’ve already got a fabulous 16-85mm DX. Having a fixed aperture version is a trivial thing imo.

      We much rather need a compact FX 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 VR similar to the new 24-85mm VR.

  • VDSLR

    This will be Coolpix D600 ))))

  • Joel

    Why are people assuming that the imminent release of the D600 means that there will never be an update to the D300S? These are two completely different bodies for two different uses after all; the D600 as an entry level FF for students and enthusiasts and the D400 as a pro body with a high frame rate for sports and wildlife shooters.

    Nikon will deliver them both, but with the excitement around the D800 and the amount of momentum Nikon have gained from the hero body that is the D800, the market is primed for a cheap, moderate resolution FF body.

    You’ll get your D400, but for various reasons people seem to be salivating over FF at the moment.

  • primeuser

    i want to buy from nikon next year :
    the real replacement of nikon d700

    nikon lens 135mm 1.8g

    nikon 50mm 1.4g nano cristal

    a new nikon 105mm 1.8g but not a macro lens

    • 180mm f/4

      And a compact Nikkor 180mm f/4 like the Voigtlander please…

    • Robert

      Ok, me too.

  • Retsu

    70-200mm f4 !!!

  • PeterT

    The internal codes comprise one character and five digits. My guess is that the character represents the camera line (e.g. DSLR, Nikon 1, p&s) and the first two digits indicate the line.

    In this case I assume that Q stands for P&S and “08xxx”, “10xxx”, “11xxx” and “12xxx” for S-series, L-series, P-series and the so far unknown “Android-series”.

    If so, we can expect five P&S Models to be announced on August, 22nd – two Sxxxx, two Pxxxx and one Axxxx (?). At least from what we saw yesterday…

    Just my 2 cents
    Peter

  • Niram North

    Great, more toxic plastic from China, enjoy….

  • Dave

    If the d400 doesn’t come out soon, I might as well buy a d800 and use the dx crop on it (15mp is decent.) But this D600 doesn’t seem appealing enough for me. Plus why aren’t any of the new cameras going to iso 104k? It’s extreme but sometimes necessary

    • 104k is never necessary…..

  • Nawab

    So far Nikon has successfully kept the new upcoming models secret. Usually by now, someone already leaks the specs and pictures. More guessing for nikonrumors.

  • D400 > D600

    D400 > D600

    We already have the near-perfect D800 and a lesser and a little cheaper D600 won’t make much sense. If you want a hi-res FX, D800 is the way to go. If you want a budget FX, D700 is the choice left.

    But the successor of D300s (that D7000 is not) is still lacking. For same money, I’d prefer a pro D400 over a so-so-but D600 any day.

    • Pro Camera

      I agree with you. The D700 is also my choice. It still is a great camera and you will save $1000.

      But one thing worries though, the D700 is not listed in the Nikon line-up page any more:

      http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/index.htm

      It will be more difficult to find D700 from now on.

      • Halo9

        I got excited for a second as don’t they remove them from the line-up when they run down stocks prior to a replacement announcement.

        But then a quick check and it is still listed on the US and Australian Nikon sites, but it has been removed from Nikon Japan site.

        Interesting….

    • D600

      I agree that little cheaper D600 won’t make much sense. It has to be much cheaper.

    • Joven

      I don’t get why people keep saying that the D600 doesn’t make much sense, yet Canon AND Nikon are both rumored to be developing models in that market. I’m a DX shooter who is looking forward to moving to an FX body (I have nothing but FF glass).

      Cameras are going to continue to increase the MP count as the sensor quality continues to improve, get over it. To act like MP count is the only reason for someone to look forward to the D600 is shortsighted. Better low-light shooting, truer wide angle shots and shallower DOF (yes I know how DOF works, don’t get technical on me, you know what I meant by it) are things that I’m looking forward to having that I can’t get from my DX body. Not to mention it’ll be in a smaller frame than the D700. For the kind of shooting I do, a potential extra $1000 saved is much welcomed (that’s just the cost of the body, not to mention the extra processing power need to develop D800 raw files), especially considering that I carry my camera with me every day.

  • Six days…

    I would love to see a 24mm f/1.8 to go with the other recent f/1.8 AF-S primes.

    • Joven

      Good luck with that. I’m pretty sure the closest Nikon is going to let you get to that is the 28mm 1.8G.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Why is that? My little old 24 f2 uses a 52 filter and the new 28 f1.8 uses a 67 like the new 85 and is still reasonably priced. You don’t think they can gather another 1/3 of a stop with the extra 15mm?
        Canon is on their second 24 f1.4. Nikon has one and now Rokinon has one at a very low price point. I think Nikon will eventually release one that beats the Rokinon at every shared aperture.

  • nabia

    Hi everyone,

    No big expectations for a D7000 replacement soon?

    I’ve been wanting to purchase one, but I wonder if this is a “stupid” time to invest. Do you estimate that its price might drop significantly within the next month? Say, from now till the end of Photokina?

    I’m going on a trip next week and I wanted to upgrade my D50, but the possibility of a (well, relatively) major price decrease in the days to come is giving me second thoughts… The cheapest I could find is 850 euros for a new body (physical store in Germany). I got a bit restless to see it’s no longer available from MediaMarkt.de online shop… so I also fear it may sell out before I make up my mind.

    What do you think?
    Thanks

    • nabia

      … namely, should I at least wait for the 22nd before making a move?

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Why does everybody continue to not notice the D3200? Did they not charge enough? Should it have started with a 5?

        • nabia

          Are you suggesting I should buy a D3200 instead?
          Surely it’s a nice (and much cheaper) camera and I have no doubt I would be really pleased with its image quality (and lightweight) or even the D5100’s. However, you must agree they don’t offer the same as the D7000. One may argue if the price difference justifies it, but that’s another story and depends on each user 😉

          Therefore, if someone has any thoughts on my original question, I would appreciate .

          • Al

            Couldn’t you just rent the D7000 for a week? We have those options in the US for fairly reasonable rates.

            • nabia

              Thanks for the suggestion. I was not thinking about it because I’m estimating it isn’t so cheap. But I’ll try to find out the rates..

  • Pablo Ricasso

    Only you can answer that question. You know the new camera will not be in stores until after it’s announced. You know what will happen to the price of a D7000 once the new one arrives. You also know what happens in the long term. It really depends on how important it is to have a new camera on your trip.
    Given the kind of photographs I see most people taking when visiting far destinations, the higher resolution of the cheaper camera will trump the features of the “better” camera. If you find yourself commonly shooting above ISO 800, you might not like my suggestion. If you are wanting to shoot motorcycle racing, you might not like that or the D7000. But if you are someone who would even consider using a tripod in the daylight you will probably love the cheaper camera for it’s resolution. Consider it to be guaranteed that whenever the new models do roll out that they will have that much in common.

    • nabia

      Well, I don’t want to get a D7000 just to shoot some holiday pics 🙂 For that my D50 has been ok (and I also have a little Sony Nex for portable camera).
      I mentioned the trip because it can trigger a sooner upgrade. I will want to upgrade my dear old D50 some time. Either now, or, if not, I will wait for the D7000 to drop in price eventually.

      During this trip I would like to make some nightsky/nightscape photography – I don’t find myself shooting above ISO800 so much because my D50 produces quite noticeable noise above 400 😉 Since the D7000 appears to perform quite well under lowlight conditions it seems a good bet. Also, the included interval timer option seems quite interesting for this (such as star trails, time lapse).

      Besides, I have some “non motorized” lenses and I would like to have the auto-focus feature while using them.
      The D50 is an old camera, but when I upgrade I want somethig towards a more “professional” level, in terms of functionalities and ease of access to controls. This is 6MP and served me well, so I believe I won’t miss so much the MP’s as the further functionalities.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        People rant about the controls on the D7000. The resolution beats the D300 and D90 but many regard it as inferior to both while some think it’s a bit better than the D90. I have seen well used copies of either selling for less than the D7000but I think that D300 will retain more value. The controls are configured like the “pro” models and the auto focus is raved about, something that cannot be said about the D7000.
        If resale value is a concern, you might look for a pristine used D300 (if you can find it.)
        The Tokina 11-16 can be used to about 15 on a full frame. Beyond that you will get black corners. Obviously the corners will suffer a bit regardless. The D800 will automatically crop the lens unless you override the controls. I have no idea how the viewfinder looks in crop mode.

      • BartyL

        I went from a D50 to a second-hand D300s last year. The sensor in the D7000 is supposedly better, but you would find the D300s an excellent camera and a huuuge step-up from the D50. One with 20 ~ 30,000 ‘clicks’ on it should sell for less than a new D7000 and retain its value better.

        If you mostly view your images on screen (don’t print), then there would also be nothing wrong with simply sticking with your D50 for a bit longer.

  • Al

    Ok, so I’m a DX shooter with a pretty old but reliable D80, looking to upgrade, as I shoot almost everyday. I have several FF lenses including 50mm f1.4, 200mm f4 but I mostly use the Tokina 11 -16mm, and cheap 55-200mm (pretty lousy) which I bought used for $150. As I shoot mostly landscapes the speed isn’t entirely necessary although it would help.

    This D600 announcement anticipation is killing me, as I would like to move to a FX sensor. Any camera is a decided improvement for me, either the D7000, D300s, D700 or D800. My thoughts at this point would be to upgrade to either D800 or D600 and shoot with the Tokina until I could afford the 14-24 or get the 17-35 right now. Then later once the funding is there I would get other components, ie 24-70 and 70-200 etc. Do you guys have any recommendations for me or review/recommendation sites you trust.

    • nabia

      I also have that Tokina. Did you ever try it with an FF camera?
      How did it perform? I never searched about it, but you made curious. Let me know if you had any experience before..

      • Al

        I have not tried it, but am interested to do so. Unfortunately no camera store within 500 miles even has a FF camera.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Al, I think that if you buy the 17-35 you will still wind up wanting to buy the 14-24. Your 11-16 is giving you a 17-24 as it stands.
      I trust photozone for recent stuff. For old stuff, photodo is about all there is. I don’t trust popular photography. I like the “naturograph” with someone Called Bjorn something or other. He is very detailed and speaks more real world experience than tests. However, sometimes I think he might get a bad sample. The main trouble with most reviews is that everybody uses the lens at a different focal length and in different light. Also, some people have good memories from earlier times, when there wasn’t as much good equipment to compare something to. Some people are biased against something if it costs too much, and some people probably can’t hand hold larger lenses as well they can smaller ones. And sometimes they just get a bad sample.
      One example is how people consistently rave about the old 105 f2.5 yet say nothing about the 105 f1.8, yet every test I have conducted and every formal test I have read and every sample I have had show the 1.8 to be better. Prime lenses seem to be optimized for close distances and zooms for infinity. For the shooting I do mostly, the 105 f2.5s that I’ve had couldn’t even beat my series e zooms. I suppose if I shot closer and at wide apertures I might have a better opinion of the lens, but they were so useless to me that I sold my copies. So I look at anybody who tells me that it is an excellent lens and scratch my head. If you try to get the best stuff you will find yourself doing the same.
      I almost never have the same problem with the data from photozone or photodo, especially when I look at the performance FOR EACH APERTURE. One thing tests cannot describe is COLOR and that is maybe more important than anything. They also can’t describe HOW a lens will flare and what impact a little flare has on the color. Some lenses that test well will perform poorly unless you get the exact film combination or do post processing while other lenses look good invariably.

      I usually say to buy the best glass and then worry about the camera later, but the D800 is so compelling you might just buy it and get an old 80-200 f2.8 if you can stand shooting at f8 most of the time. It’s as sharp as the new stuff at f8. If you don’t need a tripod you can get the one without the foot for dirt cheap. 80 will look like your 50 and your 50 will look like a 35. The tokina will look like the 11-16 that it is. If you must zoom the 35-70 f2.8 is about as cheap as a 50 and works well at f4 or 5.6.

      • Al

        Pablo,

        I think you are right. Thanks for your feedback.
        I will always want the 14-24 and it’s not that much more than the 17-35, and am strongly leaning towards getting the D800 now. I have an extended trip coming up in late September and would rather not rent gear, although I’ve done it before. 🙂

        • I can highly recommend the D800 but it has its downside for trips. Be sure to load your pockets with CF/SD cards or external backups cus those files really do take space (Got the d800 myself). One thing i noticed is the battery life isnt very good. Bring extra batteries 🙂
          Good luck!
          My quick tip…

      • Big J

        On the last paragraph, were you referring to the 80-200mm 2.8D ED IF (not the push pull) lens? I was planning on getting it along with a monopod or tripod and save myself money for accesories and other lenses (eg: 85mm 1.4). Looks like a well built solid lens. And if it was, how come at f8? How does it look like wide open from your perspective. I’m interested in knowing and not from Ken Rockwell.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          All of the 80-200s are said to be the same # of elements and the weight of the various different ones supports this. Photodo did tests of at least 3 or maybe 4 different ones. It seems like as they got newer they got tweaked better at wider apertures and longer focal lengths but not quite as well at f8. What I’ve noticed with my early copy supports this. I also see that the later ones sell for A LOT more than my early one.
          While most of the good primes max out at f5.6, my lens definitely needs to be shot at f8 for me to appreciate that it’s any better than a lesser constant aperture zoom. Mine is the early push pull, and while it is usable at f5.6 it isn’t stellar. At f4 it is just OK and I don’t even think about using it at full. This makes it seem like a waste to carry, but then the images are so good at f8 that I sold a whole bunch of mediocre primes and they would be even more weight to carry. That is why I wound up buying the 135 f2 and the 105 f1.8 and finally, after many attempts, found a good copy of the 85 f1.8. I knew, there had to be something to beat a zoom. That’s how good it is. But most of those lenses had to be put at f5.6 to do it. At f8 there generally wasn’t a difference. I was using film when I learned this, so it did take me a while…
          The slow focusing 70-210 f4 has great closeup and is as about as sharp as anything up to about 15o. It may pick up a little again at 200. My ed push pull zoom is just a little better and to just past 180, only getting a little soft at 200. The colors on the f4 are rich and saturated, while the colors on the ed zoom seem a bit colder but more accurate. There is no doubt that the 2.8 zoom would stand up to more enlargement. You have to really look for a long time to see any improvement if you use the 180 f2.8ed ais and almost as long when using the 105 f1.8 or the macro. The only thing that really shows it up is the 135 f2 (2 copies) and my rubber ringed 85 f1.8.
          If you look in the corners the primes probably have a little more advantage, and obviously at wider apertures. They can also be used closer than the zoom, but so can the 70-210. I see the push pulls for as little as 300 bucks, what I paid for mine. The old series e 70-210 f4 that the af lens was based on is probably as sharp but the colors aren’t as good and the “macro function” limited. They remind me of the 20 f2.8 against the 20f3.5 (52 version).
          From what I hear and read, if you want to shoot at f4 or wide open you really want the 80-200 AFS. It costs around 1000. I will probably get one myself sometime. Or maybe I’ll win the lottery and get the 70-200 VRII. Photodo scored the Canon 80-200, the lens that killed Nikon for about 20 years, about the same as the Nikon AFS lens that answered it, and I made my friend buy one because he’s always shooting wide open. Just WOW. It flares and gives muddy Tamron colors much of the time, but it sure is sharp at 2.8. If the AFS one is that sharp I’ll use it and never look back.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            And to clear things up, The AFS lens is completely different and much heavier to carry. The lens I had my friend buy is the Canon one that essentially made Nikon build the AFS lens. I don’t know it the Nikon AFS is as sharp as it wide open, but I can’t imagine it flaring like it does. And finally, my lens is an ED version, probably the earliest AF. Photodo tested one that isn’t listed as an ED but as far as I know they all were ED lenses.
            The early manual focus lens had a 95 filter and some people said it is sharper. I tried one at the place where I found my 85 and it wasn’t very sharp. It was a bear to hold and expensive too. Later I read that there were only about 1500 of them made.
            The lens I have is seriously illogical, being big as it is, without a tripod foot, and then needing to be shot at f8. That and the push pull operation are probably why it is such a bargain. It’s a good thing I don’t use plastic cameras. I also don’t know where they get off calling it “macro.” I believe that they would have kept the stop down performance higher while improving the wide open performance on the newer versions if the thing hadn’t been relegated to being a second tier product by the advent of the AFS lens.
            But if you are willing to handhold it at f8, your not missing a thing.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Big J. I thought further about what you said. It seems you want stuff that is usable on wide and still kind of inexpensive. Then you talked about getting an 85 f1.4.
          Well, the AIS is supposed to be better than all the versions of the AF before they came out with the latest AFS, a lens that fills what I consider to be a permanent hole in Nikon’s lineup. Don’t get ANY of the earlier versions. If you need 1.4 then get the new lens, because, from what I can tell the AIS lens… sucks, for a number of reasons. However, the AF 1.8 can be had for around 300 and is the same optic as my AI, one of my favorites, a shoot it at any aperture and don’t worry about anything kind of lens. The only problem I have with that lens is that it makes everything seem way too easy and I find myself wanting something that will give me a challenge. If you look at photozone you can see that the lens has less chromatic aberration than the new AFS f1.8 that is being raved about. There is only a small improvement at any aperture in their measured resolution from the old to the new. The old lens also uses a 62 filter that is common to some other lenses that you might want, rather than the 67. There is even less difference between the new 1.8 and 1.4 lens, other than 1200 more $$$. I would settle for whichever 1.8 lens you felt best fit with the rest of your gear.
          The cheap lineup is… 35-70 f2.8 & 70-210 f4 for portable quality. Both share the 62 filter. Add a 20 if you like wide angle. It also shares the filter.
          The cheap extended lineup is… the 20, 35-70, the old 85(62 filter again), and the sigma 100-300 f4. That lens has as close to Nikon color as I could expect and also a professional build. At 200 mm I would put it up against anything other than my 200 f2. Even against that lens it may be preferable, depending on what you want. The colors are much more neutral and the depth of field incredibly longer with the zoom. It does well wide open and only improves slightly at f4.5 at the longest end it seems to need f5.6 but I have seen plenty of great wide open shots. It will nail birds with good consistency even on a Canon. The bokeh is limited by the aperture, but the quality is great. It focuses as close as about four feet at all focal lengths so it can do double duty as a macro. You can do outdoor portraits by being close to the subject and having the background far away. It has no problems with flair. I always read about broken Sigma, but not much with this lens. It has an 82 filter and weighs as much as the xx-200 lenses you want. If you find yourself constantly at the long end of your xx-200 then this is what you want.
          The 70-210 f4 Nikon is like a little version of either. The colors are out of this world, more saturated possibly even than the 85, which is about as perfect as can be. It can also be focused very closely at any focal length. I believe 3 feet, and it works well at that distance, also filling in as a macro lens. The 35-70 has a macro function on the wide end, allowing you to go to about one foot and looking alright as it does. For the rest of the lengths, close focus is only a couple inches more than a 5o. You can get the lens for the price of a 50. Some feel constrained by the range, but I find it to be handy and feel comfortable leaving it on for long periods of time. I can’t say the same with a 50. I think the 50 is really only an advantage if you want to shoot at around 2.8 or so. I would never try to use one at less than f2 anyway, so that really leaves a narrow range because the 35-70 is amazing at f4 and above.
          The only one of them available new is the 20, or the 85 if you want the larger AFS one. The Sigma is the only one that will cost more than 500 bucks. The 70-210 is the cheapest. I think it is better at f5.6 and f4 than my 80-200 2.8edif push pull no tripod foot heavy old thing.
          So if you want the best photo, bring the big old thing and shoot at f8… or better yet bring some really BIG HEAVY primes and hope that you can wander around enough to get your framing right. If you want zooming with optical speed, (to a point, but not focus speed), bring the 70-210 f4. If you want blazing wide open performance (to a point) and lightning fast focus, and a longer range, bring the Sigma. (It’s AFS.) If that’s not enough… SPEND MONEY and get one of the AFS 2.8 zooms.
          I really should compare the ed zoom against the Sigma directly, but I don’t want to. I might find the Sigma sharper. But the Ed does something to the colors that I can’t really put words on. The 35-70 is the closest to it in color match. None of the lenses have enough difference in color to make you worry. The Sigma colors are probably closest to the 85 and the 85 a natural extension of the 35-70.

  • Back to top