Nikon did not confirm anything in their latest interview with DC.Watch

After DC.Watch published their new interview with Nikon's marketing department executive, several websites started reporting wild speculations based on Kusumoto Shigeru's comments. As usual in such interviews, Nikon did not confirm anything - they just gave us the regular "we are investigating the possibilities and demand for such product". In answer to one of the questions, Kusumoto Shigeru said that Nikon will be moving towards high-megapixel cameras in the future because customers wanted that - this has already been going on for over a decade, not sure why it was still a surprise to some:

"In terms of the Nikon lineup, you will toward the more high-quality image. 36 million to try to release the pixels of the camera, we came up the voice of customers who want a more high pixel."

Read the Google translated version of the interview and see for yourself. If anyone can offer a better translation or a recap of the interview, please post it in the comments below.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Brent

    I may be a bit rusty on my Japanese, but I think he said “Stupid Americans, keep dreaming about true D300 and D700 replacement”

    • Giuseppe De Rossi

      Not only Americans are hoping for that replacement. I feel speechless about the megapixel race, I really don’t know what to do with 20MP and more.

      • Brent

        Same, really (And full disclosure: I am an American). 12-18MP max with a ton of focus points and great at handling noise/low-light is all I need.

        • Giuseppe De Rossi

          Same here! : )

        • koenshaku

          All the MPs are better for cropping and recomposing your images sometimes you can pull something that looks good that you didn’t really intend to shoot. As drives get larger so should megapixels it may be time for both canon and Nikon to move to a medium format sensor though.

        • i am not American, but sometimes some pixels more is really a good stuff 🙂 As there is already very good 24Mpx sensor (in D750) i think something like D5 24Mpx at 10fps would be great camera for all of us. Actually i am having two 12Mpx cameras for speed and documentary + wildlife and D810 for landscape and wildlife under good light conditions. The only limit with D810 is just speed and ISO … 24Mpx sensor is great compromise. Agree having something like 48Mpx in 35mm system is just nonsense…. MF will beat it in every manner…

          • Eric Calabros

            We now have 20mp in 1inch sensor, its equal to 140mp on FF, why 50mp is nonesense?

            • JXVo

              Because even my pro quality Nikkors are not sharp enough to fully utilise 50 Mp or more and it would place an additional burden on technique to avoid blur caused by user and / or mirror slap. Very happy with my D800 but I really can’t use any additional pixels in a convenient way

            • Eric Calabros

              Even in worst case, with softest lens you have, you’ll have at least more S/N ratio and finer edges after downsampling

            • JXVo

              Yes Eric I agree about the downsampling etc but the 36Mp of my D800 is already enough for everything I do with my images which includes the occasional large print.

            • 50mp in 35mm system? yes, this is weird at least. Do you know any of lenses that is capable to fill it up? Are you willing to produce 100-200MB files each and therefore have about 150 pictures capacity in DSLR? What about the ISO? Maximum 800 in such resolution? Already now with 36mp is not easy to make handheld razor sharp image due to micro-shivering. Such tripod needs to be build from concrete etc. etc… that’s why such resolution in 35mm is nonsense.
              Medium format is different story (large cells, sensor, optic) and also workflow is different.
              I found 36Mpx as practical maximum needed even for large prints and would welcome less noise and better dynamic range at higher ISOs than 400 … can you imagine how narrow dynamic range would be at 150mpx in 35mm sensor? Good at base ISO , but every stop higher it will go exponentially down … no i do not want such camera, sorry 🙂

            • boulderghost

              You may not want one but most pros will. The limitations you speak of are nothing for the lenses, electronic and optical stabilization, tripods, software, hard drives, cpu’s and techniques of tomorrow. I plan on selling the photos I make or 10 years at least. I am always looking for any technical advantage that will improve my product and extend the commercial viability of my images for as long as possible. If I am competing against another pro who doesn’t I will dominate in my market against them. Business 101. It’s not just about making great photos its about future proofing your business. A D810 would have been outrageous overkill 5 years ago, today we have a 5K monitors and tomorrow, 8K. Technology constantly redefines your needs as quickly as your clients expectations.

            • Eric Calabros

              You may dont want/need it, but that doesnt make it nonsense. We already shoot at ISO 3200 with D7100 which has same pixel density as a 54mp FF camera, and its ok. Same apllies to shake anxiety. Zeiess and Sigma new lenses also proved that we are yet far from top of 35 format resolution. The funny is that Canon users said all of these about a 36mp and now D810 eats their best DSLR for breakfast. They are crying for a 48mp camera since last time I checked their forums

            • could be. But in my opinion we have medium format (Hasselblad, Mamyia …) for such applications with uncompromised quality. In 35mm this is already too much and proper lenses will be very expensive and hard to develop.
              …and regarding D7100 … ISO 3200 is totally useless, there is already a problem ISO 1600.. maybe i am too demanding, but in low light d7100 images above iso 3200 would go to bin on my computer 🙂
              D810 and ISO 2000 is already at the edge and going more i am very reluctant. Loss of details etc…
              As a bird photographer i can see it in feather and if there are no all details i am not happy 🙂

            • kotozafy

              Because of image quality of course!

            • Diffraction
              Hand-held photography
              Sensor noise

            • Eric Calabros

              – Not an issue with well made lenses
              – Tripod
              – available already, more coming
              – Base ISO

              Nobody said its going to replace D4s

            • I run into denial and lack of knowledge about diffraction limits amongst many professional photographers, so excusing it as a non-issue is very common and not too surprising.

              Unfortunately not every type of photography can be done from a tripod in all situations. Most of the D800/D810 users I know shoot hand-held.

              Zeiss Otus lenses, manually focused from a tripod, while using Live View, can bring out the capabilities of a D800/D810, or a future higher megapixel full frame camera. It’s rare to find someone using this combination. Ming Thein is a good example of someone properly using this combination. He also uses tilt/shift lenses to get around diffraction issues with the D800/D810.

              Read enough white papers on sensors, and you will see that sensor noise is not solely a function of gain (ISO settings). Sensor noise happens at base ISO too, though it may not be noticeable in the final print, though that depends upon other factors too; what one may find acceptable, others may find to be intrusive.

              Absolutely there are reason left why photographers are not using 36MP, and may not use something with more megapixels. Unfortunately many amateurs will buy more megapixels because they think more is better. At a very small pixel size, the wavelength of light becomes a performance limit. As some others have commented, the manufacturer bias towards megapixels has not always produced the best choices. Unfortunately, I think Thom Hogan is right, in that manufacturers will continue to beat the dead horse of more megapixels. 😉

            • Eric Calabros

              So whats your solution for “digital” high resolution photography? 70mm sensor with fan cooled heatsink? Even crop medium 645Z is like a WWII tank.. 35 format DSLRs are already attention magnet in public. Yea, Arri could that because hollywood has no problem with weight, size, price, ..and attention.

            • The solution is near 5µm to 6µm (micron) pixel sizes. Canon did some development with less dead area between pixels, while Nikon and Sony went to shallower wells. Fill factor improvements happen slowly, but the size of the pixel is a limit due to the material used to make the sensor. A different technology may be able to get around some current limitations. I recall while working on a (never launched) future Kodak sensor development project, that the ideal size was thought to be a 100 megapixel 645 sized sensor. We are not that far off from that now.

              Peltier cooling and fan cooling were features in some of the early medium format digital backs. Passive cooling is still being used in some designs. Again, I think we need a change in materials, more than a change in cooling, to see improvements there.

              Professional cameras can be any size, because they are designed to accomplish specified tasks, and perception of the camera is not much of an issue. Smaller cameras in public do seem to be more effective. Alex Majoli is one of the more prominent photojournalists using smaller cameras effectively. Professionally I continue using big and heavy gear, though I have been experimenting with smaller cameras. Definitely agree with you that smaller cameras in public (at least in the US) seem to allow for more interesting image opportunities.

              Several years ago I had a discussion with Alex Bogusky (formerly of Crispin, Porter & Bogusky advertising firm) about cameras and the push for higher resolution. He gave me a long and detailed commentary about his views for the future, though the basic idea was that lower resolution would be the future of professional work. He was right, because more content is moving to smaller screens. Even posters, billboards, and trade show printing needs don’t push technology that far. In motion imaging, I would imagine more 4K content in the future, but that’s an easy target. Larger 8K content is more likely to stay with the higher budgets.

              Of course we will always have the crowd of landscape photographers who want more megapixels. All of them have surpassed Ansel Adams, Weston, et al in technical capabilities. Outside of the photo-educators and book writers, which modern digital high resolution landscape photographers do we champion, and do we consider any of them to have surpassed the masters of the film era?

            • Eric Calabros

              Its like saying why you need a 400hp tourbo charged engine? Louis Chevrolet could win a race with a 200hp car! .. printing photos 10 feet wide doesnt make one Ansel but doesnt mean you have to be Ansel to print your photo that big. at the moment there is no digital solution for those yes-we-know-its-niche-market user problems.
              Please read this PP article and check the author’s replies in comment section. There is also some discussion about f/90! diffraction


            • I suppose some people do buy certain cameras for bragging rights. 😉

              Interesting article, though many of us have known these things for quite some time. The difference is that many of us don’t write articles about it. Some of the a-holes in the comments section are a great example of why these comparisons rarely appear.

          • boulderghost

            Except: Price, speed, features, lens selection, and price again. A 50mp slr with even better ISO sensitivity, same speed, better focus, the ability to print large gallery quality prints and then shoot the inside of a Church will serve many Pros well and with Pros using any recent computer and being able to purchase 8tb hd’s for $275 or less, the size of the files isn’t a problem it is a benefit.

        • Tom Bruno

          Aye, ditto.

        • VikingAesir

          And all anyone needs is 640k of ram too.

        • Paul

          my ;buddy’s half-sister makes $63 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her income was $15548 just working on the laptop for a few hours; this website;.­S­e­e ­h­e­­re­.

        • Tom

          D400 is coming?

      • Marton

        He sounds like: ‘we think high megapixel count is nonsense, but the customer wants it…’

      • waterengineer

        We need better pixels not more pixels.

        • Dino Brusco

          Possibly without OLPF

        • Eric Calabros

          We need both.

        • boulderghost

          We will need both.

      • i was decade thinking same as well … until i recently needed large prints 70x50cm at 300dpi 🙂 Then i was happy having D810. But yes for most tasks 12Mpx is just enough, thats why i am still keeping D700 and D3s.

        • whisky

          or … just down sample to the IQ of your liking. more pixels downsampled are typically better (lesser) pixels.

      • cppguy16

        The problem is that a camera megapixel is not the same as a display megapixel. The 5K retina iMac is about 14 megapixels, real RGB for each pixel. While a 16 MP camera only has 16 million luminosity values, but not 16 million RGB values. The color is interpolated. If you’re using a 36 MP camera, and resize that to 16 MP, for example, you’ll get a better image quality than an image straight out of a 16 MP camera. In addition, the D800E/D810 doesn’t have an AA filter, while all 16 MP cameras do.

        That said, the reason I like my D800 so much is not even the high MP value. It turns out the #1 most important thing is the dynamic range (shadow recovering ability).

        • Thom Hogan

          It’s even trickier than that, as I noted in a recent article. But basically, yes. We do not have input systems that match output systems, despite both being controlled by many of the same companies ;~).

          • ITN

            Photographs are used in a variety of media with widely varying different resolution capabilities so there can not be any matching of input and output media except by having adequate resolution in the input file and appropriate resizing to make the image suitable for output. Images are also frequently cropped so there is no point in making a camera match some particular output device. It would be like requiring that some agricultural plant produce ready made meals (for whom?)

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes and no. As we move more and more to 16:9 devices to view images–and much if not most of the photo shooting done today is viewed that way–we’re essentially doing a lot of transcoding of image data. That lowers final quality. My own Web site even transcodes, which is a bit of an issue in trying to show specific low-level things in images.

              But I was actually pointing out that no current HD video camera or even 4K video camera actually matches the layout/”pixels” of the displays that they are viewed on. You’d need 32mp arrayed differently than in the current cameras to do so. Instead, we Bayer sub-sample, demosaic, compress, and sometimes transcode, then compress again for output. The relationship between input and output is completely lost in our current systems.

            • ITN

              I suppose you don’t do much portrait photography. 16:9 is quite far from what many regard ideal for portraits (4:5). Four Thirds consortium thought they were clever in copying the typical aspect ratio of monitors used at the time (4:3). That didn’t work out all that well did it. There is no point in trying to match capture device to any particular display medium since the latter vary greatly, the images rarely occupy the whole area and in the end what is important is that the aspect ratio is suitable for the composition and content of the photograph as well as layout of the page. To solve problems at the pixel level what you need is a suitably high resolution input device so that the resizing doesn’t do much damage. And in the end few viewers seem to care about pixels, details and artifacts. They care about the content of the images.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, I don’t do much portrait photography any more.

              But I don’t think that really changes my point: if most images are mostly going to LCD displays, those displays are mostly 16:9. Smartphones have no problems with this. Cameras do.

              When a bride you sent a 4:5 image to wants to show it to friends via their current or future display device, what’s going to happen? If one output method becomes an LCD frame filled with wedding photos instead of a “book,” what’s going to happen?

              Yes, capturing at a far higher resolution than you display is one option, but it actually doesn’t solve the aspect ratio problem, which is a key element to my point. Moreover, current 1080P devices actually display over 10,000 dots horizontally, which means that we’re getting a double interpolation.

              Personally, I think it sad that we’re continually hunting for the “good enough” solution. This allows the product makers to essentially punt on conforming products to high quality demands.

            • ITN

              On a 16:9 screen, in landscape orientation such as seen on laptops and most desktops, you can lay out two 4:5 vertical portraits side by side and effectively use the whole display area. For 9:16 verticals you’d need a lot of images and each image would occupy a small part of the screen. And the aesthetics would be lousy. 2:3 has endured the test of time since it is aesthetically pleasing for many subjects in itself and it can be cropped into panoramic, square or anything in between without too much loss of pixels. Square was popular for medium format film but when with digital the sensor area became much more expensive, the rectangular formats are more popular because they don’t force you to throw as much of the image to reach typical final uses.

    • Binocular Viewfinder

      Yes, very perceptive…

    • MNguy

      He made a comment about the 7D Mark II from Canon. If I understood it right, it sounds like that may have ruffled their feathers a bit. He said something about the need to respond to it.

      • Thom Hogan

        Of course it ruffled their feathers. Probably did much more than that.

        As I’ve been trying to say for some time now, Nikon’s put themselves in a tough position. They WERE trying to become the number one camera company, and flew that plane right into the ground when camera sales retracted. Now they’re in a position where they HAVE to retain market share or else they’ll really be in trouble.

        So when their primary competitor introduces a good product right into the heart of an area they used to be #1 at, they’d better respond. My problem is that they’re already late with this product, and that their recent strategy was particularly targeted away from this product (e.g. “buy FX”).

        • kaptink

          Heaven knows what they were doing for the last 5-6 years if they didn’t realise that a) plenty of D300/s owners were clamouring for an update and b) Canon were already on it. This, to my mind, is one big oversight on Nikon’s part if they want to provide a natural path for ftogs as they go from beginner to serious and beyond.

          The other oversight (IMHO) is the D700 gap; yes, I have one and would consider going totally full-frame (I also have a 300s) if a suitable option was available. But I want to see an AF-ON button, cos that’s how I like to shoot, yet I don’t need or even want 36MP, so nothing in the current range feels just right for me at the moment. (No, I don’t want to reassign the AE/AF-lock button on a D750, thanks). In time, when I have a new computer, I guess I’ll give in to a D8x0.

          Meantime, however, in truth I’m very happy with results from the 12.something million big fat juicy light-absorbing pixels in my 700 (and, though to a lesser extent, my 300s). In all honesty, for the photography I do and the amount of money I make from it (that is, not a lot as yet) and the pleasure I get I don’t really yet feel the need to change up. Though, Nikon, if there were good enough reason…

          • Thom Hogan

            Personally, I think Nikon has been confused for awhile. And I’d call it a management problem mostly.

            In the engineering trenches, most certainly a D300s replacement was planned. The quake/flood definitely impacted the initial replacement plans, and since then I’ve heard of two prototypes that were eventually abandoned. My belief is that there is a team dedicated to such a product. The question is why they haven’t produced something.

            My guess is that sensors and strategy have had a bad intersection. Nikon isn’t exactly a sensor producer. Yes, they have small sensor teams working, but a lot of that R&D eventually went into partner sensors (e.g. the Sony relationship). I’m not sure that Nikon and Sony are “aligned” on where sensors should be going at the moment. And that’s one place where management comes into play.

            But the “sell FX” strategy certainly was a management decision. We’ve gotten more FX cameras than I believe was initially planned in 2009/2010, and it’s because of one of many shifts pushed from above. Meanwhile, Nikon was also trying the race to the bottom with Coolpix and the odd Nikon 1 line (which included the AW model from the beginning, I believe).

            This is not the first time that management has had the “all over the board, every camera” kind of push. They’ve all eventually failed over the 50 years they’ve tried to be all things to all people camera-wise. What has been a steady place for them is the enthusiast/prosumer/pro lines, and the D300 was important in that. Which makes the lack of a follow-up disturbing.

            If Nikon follows form, they’ll revert to serving the enthusiast/prosumer/pro customer while waiting for the “next disruption,” and then they’ll make another run for the consumer. The problem, of course, is that their recent run at the consumer pushed the company into NEEDING that customer to sustain sales levels.

            Frankly, they need to do what I suggested some time ago: split the camera group into two distinct management/priority pieces: (1) consumer (Coolpix, Nikon 1, low-end DSLRs/mirrorless), and (2) prosumer (D300 and up, basically).

            • Andrew

              I think that the future for Nikon is defined by three forces (much more poignant than saying factors):

              1. What the economy is doing in terms of the global impact of the stock market crash of 2008 and how that has impacted consumers spending power,

              2. The competitive landscape which is primarily defined by Sony’s pronouncement of their desire to gain a larger market share, and the Samsung scorched earth practice of dumping products on the market as a means of consuming their own manufactured products such as LCD displays, semiconductor components, and the like; and

              3. Nikon’s own practice of releasing a ton of new products in all segments of the market from (a) compact and compact-zoom cameras, (b) Mirrorless cameras, (c) lower cost DSLR cameras D3300 to D5300, (d) mid cost prosumer or more featured cameras – D5300 to D7100, and (d) prosumer/enthusiast and professional full frame cameras.

              Sony’s ambitions were quite clear. They were losing a lot of sales (I speculate) at their camcorder/movie division because of the video capabilities of primarily full frame DSLR cameras that they had to take the threat seriously. Samsung is a wild card that is all over the place from selling Refrigerators, Dishwashers, Laser Printers, Televisions, Stereos, Watches, Smart Phones, Computers, SSD Hard Drives, Cameras, and the list goes on and on. And these companies had to factor in the Nikon management team’s thinking.

              As a result of these factors, Nikon was forced to develop a strategy of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. You mentioned a few products, and they even tried their hand at an Android camera and a projector camera – the Coolpix S1200pj. We also heard talk at one time of a Nikon branded image sensor / camera inside of a smart phone – a partnership with some Chinese company I believe. The retro features of the Df camera and new body styling with a tilting LCD screen for the D750, a full frame camera is part of that great experiment.

              The stock market crash, natural disasters, prolonged change in consumer behavior, disruption to the compact camera market from smart phones, and the heightened competitive camera landscape have all compounded to create the perfect storm for Nikon. They had to throw away their playbook and simply drive by wire and tried to wipe the windshield with a cloth as the fog gathered while driving straight ahead! The unusually high inventory is a clear sign that they got most if not all of their estimates wrong. But even with the market upheaval, they are in an unusual position to be able to get a lot of things wrong and still land relatively softly because of their strong consumer brand and their engineering expertise.

              Now if Nikon were to stops adding MP to its Nikon 1 cameras and use the enhancements in the Image Sensors technology and Expeed image processor into enhancing the image quality (IQ) of these Mirrorless cameras, then the size advance of these smaller sensor based cameras should help in making the Nikon 1 a more appealing consumer class camera for competing against smartphones and the likes.

              The one thing that is working in Nikon’s favor is that Canon seems pretty lethargic in their anemic release schedule overall and their lack of foray into the Mirrorless market while being hobbled by having to consume their home built image sensor. In contrast, Sony’s image sensor development costs are being subsidized by Nikon, Sony’s own camera division, and third-party smart phone OEM sales. It appears that Sony is giving Nikon some sizable discounts in the image sensor cost which should help their (Nikon’s) bottom line.

              So I tend to agree with you that something significant or a combination of factors must have disrupted Nikon’s release schedule for the D300 replacement since it makes no sense that its replacement is not already here. And I am certain that the development of the Nikon 1 Mirrorless camera product line was a major undertaking that also impacted other parts of their schedule if not the release of the D300 replacement as they shifted its engineering team to working on the Nikon 1. And this brings us to the Nikon management team.

              I think that nothing in terms of personal or professional experience or competency could have prepared the Nikon management team to have handled the market forces any better than they have already done. We are dealing with a company that not only has to develop their own home grown technologies, but have to coordinate the purchasing of components from other manufacturers in order to build each new product. They had to do this while dealing with infrastructure problems that were caused by natural disasters.

              Now that the Nikon management team have released so many new products and some of their core technologies have reached a certain level of maturity in terms of camera performance, they can now look back and analyze the patterns that have formed on their business graphs in terms of accomplishments and challenges, and must be in a much better position to look at and embrace the future.

            • Thom Hogan

              > What the economy is doing in terms of the global impact of the stock
              market crash of 2008 and how that has impacted consumers spending power.

              It’s so easy to blame something else. Given how many companies that produce high-end products that require disposal income have had sales growth during this period, I think we can dismiss this one. It’s being used as an excuse. The fundamental problem with reduced sales is that you aren’t producing something that’s compelling, simple as that. That’s true in economic upswings as well as downturns. Downturns just exacerbate the problem.

              My comments have been and continue to be focused in one way: what’s the optimal growth for a camera company? At present, I don’t think any are executing on that. They’re still iterating something that has outgrown it’s growth period.

              > The competitive landscape which is primarily defined by Sony’s
              pronouncement of their desire to gain a larger market share, and the
              Samsung scorched earth practice of dumping products.

              Canon and Nikon have pricing power over the others. Have for two decades, and continue to have it. Canon/Nikon/Sony effectively make a triopoly in cameras. That’s the competitive landscape.

              > Nikon’s own practice of releasing a ton of new products in all segments.

              And there’s the winner. Nikon went for being a consumer product company. It rode the wave, now it has sales expectations that are higher, but no real products that generate new sales growth.

              I’d argue that their branding ideas are a mess, too. “We are cameras” should be the message, and it really should be “We are the best cameras.” Instead, they allowed Coolpix to become “we are the cheapest, most choices, but they don’t last long” position. Nikon 1 never had a center. Nikon DX was iterated to death at the bottom and abandoned at the top. Only FX really seems to have been thought through with any care, and it, too, seems a bit messy in message.

              The simple question Nikon has to address is this: why would I want to buy a new Nikon camera? Most of us–especially those of us reading this–already have a pretty darned competent camera. So what problem does the new one solve that the old one didn’t? I can already take photos in conditions and light I couldn’t before. What new major problem does the next camera solve that I needed solving?

              This is why I’ve written for some time that Nikon’s lack of direct interaction with its customer base is their biggest problem. They try to deal with customers from afar. They’re paternalistic in their decisions. They’re not engaging the folk that could help them figure out how to solve the next big problems in photography. They have almost no insight into the actual workflows photographers use.

        • P45 is due

          You still think that’s how Nikon views DX?


          Nikon (Japan) are laughing at all the full frame sales that they think the 7DII is costing Canon.

          They’re nuts of course. But they do run the asylum.

          • Thom Hogan

            Given that I have interacted with numerous Nikon executives over several decades and you are an anonymous Internet poster, I’ll take my observations over yours, thank you.

            Also, if you think the D750 will outsell the 7DII, you may be nuts, too.

            • ITN

              On most weeks there have been several full frame DSLRs ahead of the 7D II on’s DSLR best sellers rankings (typically D750, 6D, 5D III, and during the rebate, D810 as well). It is just one store and may not represent world wide sales accurately but it does seem the sales of the 7D II and D750 may be comparable in number of units.

            • Thom Hogan

              Really can’t vouch for Amazon’s best seller rankings. Amazon themselves push promotions (both directly and through their owned entities) that distort those rankings. While both those cameras are new and don’t currently have any real promotions with them, Amazon also will present different prices at different times to different people in order to move inventory out of the warehouse. They seem very “inventory turn” based.

              But more important: we don’t know if those best seller rankings are orders or shipped. Obviously, if you have more of something in inventory, you can ship more, so that can impact such ratings, too. People don’t tend to order from Amazon unless it says “have it tomorrow” ;~).

            • I agree, Amazon rankings doesn’t really mean anything. Not sure why some websites are still using it as a source for any meaningful stats.

            • KnightPhoto

              I too have been following Amazon BestSeller DSLRs for the duration of the D750/7Dii offering. In general the D750 has been much ahead or slightly ahead of the 7Dii with a relatively shorter duration where the 7Dii was ahead of the Nikon.

              I have zero knowledge of how Amazon has been calculating this, but it implies the D750 is doing not that bad at all (as has the 7Dii too of course).

              Would love for Thom or someone to come up with actual sales figures for these two models. And yes I would like a D350, so bring it on Nikon!

    • Nikos Delhanidis

      what about cross type and double cross type af points covering the entire frame? what about some making sense buffers? what about some affordable quality and lightweight making sense lenses like lets say 50-150 f/3.5 or 24 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8, 400 f/5.6 (or f/4.5)?

      • Thom Hogan

        Let’s just get this straight. On mirrored cameras using current phase detect technologies, you’re not going to get more frame coverage than you get with the current cameras. You’d have to completely change the technology to broaden the coverage. Nikon generally doesn’t introduce that sort of thing outside of the pro cameras (F5, F6, D1, D2, D3, D4, etc.).

        • Nikos Delhanidis

          the 7D Mk II coverage though is decent, something like that would suffice

          • KnightPhoto

            Sure the 7Dii coverage is decent, but it is a 1.6-crop camera. I.e. compare like for like to the D7100 and they both have great AF coverage. Then try the D7100 in 1.3 crop mode, gives you pretty much complete frame coverage!

            You seem to be misunderstanding the physical constraints of FX camera AF coverage. There’s some good threads around if you google them… and the other thing you are over-interpreting is the non-central cross AF sensors abilities as compared to non-cross – again there are some good threads around explaining this is delivering less than you think.

    • jaygreen55

      How are the D750 and 800/810 and DF not replacements for the D700?? What are you looking for?

      • Brent

        It’s sarcasm.

  • Duarte Castelo Branco

    it’s a good idea to have more resolution to fight medium format cameras, what if all fashion photographers left their d800s to pentax 645? nikon would be f****
    they should make super high resolution d4-ish cameras to keep people from doing that.

    • MB

      The thing is there very few lenses good enough even for D810 pixel density … medium density camera will allways have the advantage as far as useful lens resolution matters … and it does … very much so …

      • Jeff Hunter

        There are plenty of Nikon pro-grade lenses up to the task of the D810.

        • MB

          Actually no there are not …most reach somewhere around 20Mpix … with some exceptions like 85mm 1.4 that are slightly above … I have D800 for some time now and I really like it but mostly for great dynamic range and low noise … that being sad it seams that lower Mpix does not always mean better pixels …

          • Andrew

            Well, actually there are quite a number of reasonably affordable lenses that are around 30Mpix:


            • fjfjjj

              The entire notion of a lens having a number of megapixels is ridiculous.

            • Albert

              It is simply due to lack of understanding of the relationship between lens sharpness and pixel resolution. Both are interconnected. You can add all the megapixels in the world to a camera, but it will only really show more detail if the lens is sharp enough to resolve it. If the lens is not sharp enough, the image may have more MP, but it will not actually show more detail.

            • The number of pixels represents the file size, and not real resolution. Try sticking a pinhole lens on a D810. 😉

              Technique is another issue. Properly focused while mounted on a tripod can usually provide better results than shooting hand held. The other issue is diffraction limits, which is more closely related to the size of the pixels, and not the footprint of the sensor.


          • Jeff Hunter

            Given the same pro-grade Nikon lens the resolution on the D810 is going to out perform the resolution on the D750. If you’ll notice on these websites that rate lenses, they always note the body that was paired with the lens they’re rating. They even give you the option to select a lower pixel body, and the lens will rate lower in resolution.

          • Thom Hogan

            I suspect you’re trying to cite something like DxO’s claims of “resolution.” I and many others don’t like their approach to trying to reduce resolution to a number (and it’s not particularly well explained as to their methodology).

            Technically, more pixels simply means more sampling of the light presented the sensor. More sampling means you see that information “more accurately.” Even a “weak” lens would be rendered “better” with more information. Whether that would be something the casual observer sees or not is a whole ‘nother story. Generally it takes 15-20% actual resolution increases before you break the median of people being able to see a difference.

            As for lenses, quite a number of them are capable of resolving well beyond what the current sensors can accurately capture. But that also means that their problems are also more accurately captured (e.g. mild CA crosses more pixels).

            Back in 2003 I predicted that 24mp would be about the point for DX where any additional gains would simply fall outside what most people could see and our lenses could produce meaningful differences on. That prediction was based upon plotting a whole bunch of variables that come into play (e.g. diffraction). I don’t think I was far off.

            Now it very well may be that we get other technologies that come into play that change things. The X-Trans sensors, for instance, produce more luminosity data, and thus aren’t quite as bound to acuity/resolution ceilings that the Bayer ones are, though that gain is smallish. The Foveon approach produces a bigger acuity gain, all else equal. So we could still see advances, but Bayer sensor cameras probably won’t show them.

          • HF
            • It’s difficult to accomplish hand-held shots much above 60 lp/mm in captured detail. This puts us in the realm of just above 12 MP 35mm sized sensors, assuming every pixel actually captures meaningful detail.

              Buying any camera based upon bench tests is similar to buying a car based upon it’s performance on a racetrack. Sure, some users will push the limits, and others will want that capability, but many more users will never get anywhere near the limits in more normal usage. 😉

            • boulderghost

              Why are we even considering the limitations of a shooting a D810 handheld? Its a Landscape/Commercial/Portrait body explicitly. If someone where to criticize a 645 for its poor action photography performance I would feel sorry for them, not the camera. If you are not shooting the 810 on a tripod 90% of the time do yourself a favor and buy a D750 or if its your job, a D4S. Simple really. I still think the extra data from a 46mp sensor could be put to good use in post and is much more interesting than a tilt screen or GPS. Crap, give Nikon some credit, they actually make the cameras that everyone here loves to hate. I for one see the improvement in IQ from the 800 to the 810 much more so than from the 800 to the 800E. I can’t wait for the next body with more MP’s, more Dynamic Range, better ISO and processing. Diffraction be damned, stick it on a good tripod and shoot a 20 1.8 prime at f6.3, I am sure the photos will be nice. All this armchair quarterbacking is embarrassing. Cameras are getting better and megapixels matter.

            • Why? Because that is exactly the way many photographers use a D800/D810.

              Obviously there is a market for other cameras. The problem is that too many people using poor techniques think more megapixels is what they need. That’s why marketing departments keep pushing higher. Sure, a few will find a way to use that, and anyone who buys one will have an explanation to justify purchasing more megapixels. 😉

  • Jeff Hunter

    I have immensely enjoyed my D800 for the past two and one half years. If they make a D5 with 24mp (instead of staying with 16mp) with the same fps and deep buffer as the D4S in a couple of years, I’ll buy one. If not, I won’t.

    • surprisingly just wrote the same in same time 🙂

      • Jeff Hunter

        Great minds thinks alike!

    • AnotherView

      I’ve also enjoyed my D800, though initially I wasn’t convinced I needed 36MP, I find it very useful for cropping options. That said, I’d much rather see a new 36MP sensor in a pro body that can do 10FPS in 1.2 crop mode than a 24MP D5.

      • Jeff Hunter

        Oh yes, that would be ideal! I just wonder if that will be technologically doable in a couple of years. Of course a deep buffer will be essential.

  • Michael Wittman

    I’m all for a higher res body providing there is glass to resolve the pixels,but I would really love to see a 24mp D5,for me that would be hard to resist!!

    • Eric Calabros

      24mp, 20fps with half of that tracked by on sensor AF 🙂

  • Heritage Imaging

    LOL but they’ll still take our money for 20 year old lense designs?

  • stormwatch

    But it’s clear that the Nikon moves to the 36mpix for the masses. It’s a simple logic. They mastered 12mpix, now they mastered 24mpix, the next step is 36mpix in a D3400 and the next D820 or D900 will be a 50 or 60mpix camera.

    • Thom Hogan

      Unfortunately, that logic is the same logic that got the computer makers into trouble. For example, they mastered 1Mhz, now give them 2Mhz, then 3Mhz, etc.

      It’s the issue of diminishing returns. We started with 2.5mp in the DX era. There were clear and undeniable gains to go to 6mp. Even the jump to 12mp was pretty undeniable to most people.

      The problem is that doubling the pixel count is NOT doubling resolution. We’re now in a realm where large additions of pixels are barely getting above the 15-20% resolution gain bar, and that’s well known as the amount you need to gain for even a majority of people to see a change.

      We’ve already started to see the push back, though it’s still a little minimal. I think Sony was surprised at how well the A7s (12mp) did. As far as I can sell, it is currently selling more than the A7r (36mp), and certainly is when price is factored in. All the D800 deny-ers that kept saying “files are too big” are another example. They were actually saying “you’re increasing my storage requirements and workflow times but not giving me enough visual benefit to compensate.”

      That said, camera makers understand “more megapixels,” both in engineering aspects and to some degree in marketing. So they’ll continue to flog that horse until it is obvious that it has keeled over.

      • stormwatch

        Hallo Sir,

        I would go a bit more into the details to explain why I find your post completely out of the reality.

        “Unfortunately, that logic is the same logic that got the computer makers into trouble. For example, they mastered 1Mhz, now give them 2Mhz, then 3Mhz, etc.”

        What actually logic Sir are you talking about here? And in which kind of trouble the chip makers are?

        Faster CPU’s were, an WILL always be needed in order to maintain more complexer and complexer tasks or to do some complex rendering faster and faster, or just to help in little devices we use every day to finish the tasks more promplty, or more tasks at the same time, just take a look into the superb development of Smartphones and Tablets, by the end of 2010. those were just a simple exotical machines for oldschool geeks or poser hipsters, nowadays? The border doesn’t exists any more. Simple as that.

        Then look at the superb development of the CPU arhitecture in PC computers, in 2006 dual core CPU’s were an expensive exotic, and by 2008 quad core’s had became a must have. Then constant upgrading of the complex architecture brought us today some 300% better performance for example in video encoding than we had in the 2008, and the price is mostly lower.

        And in the PC CPU market, there’s not been a true competition from the second part of 2006. because Intel is the world leader in CPU making, whilst AMD is a budget oriented CPU company which shines in GPU world.

        So, about speeding up the CPU’s no company competes anymore (except sometimes in OC challenges with all but one core functioning…), it was nice in 2002, but in 2014-15 it’s useless because CPU’s had became much more sophisticated since that, nowadays the main aspects of CPU’s are performance per watt and instructions per cycle, not a raw speed anymore.

        CPU developers are not in any kind of normal trouble, there is always a steady symbiosis between the two, because they simply know that Moore’s law considering transistor way of making CPU’s will eventually come to the end not from the marketing reasons, but from the simple psyhical limit of the production process. But, developers are preparing themselves for this limit…e.G. Quantum Computers some day, or some other much more advanced architecture with much higher limits.

        But, the conclusion of this talk is that CPU’s are still advancing and advancing, and even with such a limited place for manouvers, there is still a long way to go on the line of advancing, optimisation and efficiency, even if the both main CPU makers would stop at let’s say 4.5ghz limit, you can be sure that every other itteration of new architecture will bring better performance on the same speed as before.

        Then you said this…

        “It’s the issue of diminishing returns. We started with 2.5mp in the DX era. There were clear and undeniable gains to go to 6mp. Even the jump to 12mp was pretty undeniable to most people.”

        I really can’t find a reason why did you chose one of the principal Economics laws in comparing something which is based on a pure laws of physics.

        In the past 15 years I have read so many screams of former Film users how nothing they have tried in Digital world does not even compare to the worst film stock, and they miss their Film cameras so much…:-)

        So, there were only two possible paths of developing the new DSLR camera.

        1. The possibility you’re alluding to, have a Nikon D1 line with 2.7 Mpix, make two more itterations of it until 2007. (D1s and D1s2 for example), they will have the same resoultion, but much much better sensor. Then in 2007. to kick in with the first FF D3 sporting a 5,4 Mpix sensor, and advancing the FF lineyp every two year, leaving the same resolution but advancing the sensor only. By this logic both Nikon and Canon would nowadays have two ~10Mpix Pro DSLR Cameras, and consumer world will be satisfied with 5.4 Mpix superbly done sensors….that would really suck.

        2. Second, possibility is thankfully turned into the reality, that is the sense that DSLR market needs Film comparable cameras, and not only that market needs it better, much better than Film, but when it comes up to the Film quality it has to advance, still to advance, because people need better than film, and it’s the process of advancement which can’t be stopped. So, nice skin tones, big sensors, good resolution, superb low light capatibilities (but with 24 and + mpix resolution), video, and the affordable price after all. That is what we sorta have in 2014-2015.

        “The problem is that doubling the pixel count is NOT doubling resolution. We’re now in a realm where large additions of pixels are barely getting above the 15-20% resolution gain bar, and that’s well known as the amount you need to gain for even a majority of people to see a change.”

        I would just say that manipulation with bigger resolution files is easier when you must crop something out of bigger picture, or make adjustments in framing the composition. So in this case bigger resolution comes as a must have for most of users, and when you want to make a print bigger than 13×18 cm it knows to be very useful.

        Also, I would like to make a tiny digression here and

        praise the 4K capatibility of GH4, not because 4K looks good on this camera, it looks not enought good to be used as a pro 4k shoot, but it’s 4K downsampled to 1080p looks as it was originaly meant for Full HD to lookalike – and said that I’m back into the photo world, NO one on this world can convince me that a Wedding portrait shoot with 85mm 1.4g using Nikon D3’s with 12 mpix looks at least the same than the texture and detail filled shot with 24mpix in D750 (D600, D610 and DX star D7100 also) using the same lens! Also said that, no body in this world can convince me that the same shot with D810 and again the same 85mm 1.4 looks the same as shot with D750, because IT DOES NOT…D3 misses the resolution over the D750 and D750 misses it over the D810. Try from 13x18cm format and go up to 30x40cm, and you will se the difference – and the difference it’s not small.

        So the talk against pushing up the resolution really doesn’t stand here also. Because every advancement of Sensor making technology is only a half used when there is no bigger resolution involved.

        This is also interesting..

        “We’ve already started to see the push back, though it’s still a little minimal.”

        Where actually is the push back?

        Maybe in the Sony and surely in Canon’s departments, but NON in the Nikon sensor and IQ department. Nikon fails miserably in their “what user needs” departmenr as well as QC deparment, by in the terms of IQ, Nikon is some 3 steps above Sony and Canon, and that is the only reasonable reason to stick with the company.

        Some months ago posted here on the site, were a youtube video featuring a Pro photographer explaining why he changed from Nikon to Sony. I posted there directly a series of questions about his claims, but never got quite answered on the main points.

        One of the questions was how it’s possible that people are suddenly out of their minds when Sony in 2014. introduced the WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW 12mpix camera, and some 5 years before… so WHOLE HALF DECADE BEFORE, people were looking at Nikon in disquse when the Guys have making 12mpix cameras only, superb 12mpix cameras ranging from D90, D300(s), D700 and D3(s). At that time I clearly remember that people were spitting on Nikon saying how it’s possible that you still stick with the 12mpix when Canon 550 has 18 GREAT MPIX! Yes, great shi..y mpix, and they continued tradition well in 2014.

        “I think Sony was surprised at how well the A7s
        (12mp) did.”

        But not as close as we all would be surprised if Nikon would be enough crazy to make an A7s answer with their brand new designed 12mpix sensor in 2015. Sensor which will be minimum 2 times better than in A7s. Just remember that Sony had only in 2014. figured out how to pull the 2009 Nikon’s IQ. And it’s really paradoxal that Sony still can’t quite get the same IQ from their sensors in their Alpha Cameras like the IQ Nikon is getting in their cameras, but with the same Sony sensors.

        But this I have found the most interesting!

        “All the D800 deny-ers that kept saying “files are too big” are another example. They were actually saying “you’re increasing my storage requirements and workflow times but not giving me enough visual benefit to compensate.”

        In order to explain this the way it should be explained, we must take a quick look in 2012.

        Actually, it was when the first BMC camera had came out of nowhere, people were in 2012. screaming that it’s the real choice for the true professionals because it does raw for a nice price, but the problem was also that it records RAW!?!?!?!? So RAW was both a benefit and a problem?!?!?!…And how are they now supposed to handle RAW files? The same analogy stands with D800 and D810 also.
        Yes, the files are big, Jpegs are big, RAW’s are really big, RAW video is enormous, and?

        So, if you were not able to cope with RAW video or big RAW files in 2010 because it was a huge problem due to the processing power and storage cost.

        If you in 2012 still found handling RAW video and 36mpix RAW photos impossible due to same problem.

        And even now in 2014-2015 STILL finding RAW video and 36mpix RAW files hard to, edit, process and store. Then, you have choosen a completely wrong job and a carrier.

        • Thom Hogan

          What’s happened at least twice in the PC industry is that faster CPUs has not resulted in machine replacement by users. Why? Because if all you’re doing is word processing or email or most common tasks, most of those faster cycles in the CPU are just wasted waiting for you to type a key or move a mouse. Faster CPUs did not result in a user perceiving a faster computer. Just as more megapixels are no longer resulting in a user perceiving a better image.

          Now, if you’re a statistician crunching a lot of numbers, or a videographer transcoding between codecs, faster CPUs certainly are welcome (as are more of them [cores]). But the average user? Nope. And it’s the consumer that buys the most product and makes these large companies. The PC business became mostly about replacement of existing machines, and most people didn’t need to replace theirs. Thus my comment.

          Likewise, if you’re a professional photographer, having more pixels are very welcome. But the average user? Nope. They’re outputting to Facebook,, and their images are rarely looked at with more than 2mp output. The camera business has become mostly about replacement of existing cameras, and most people don’t need to replace theirs. Again, thus my comment.

          • Patrick O’Connor

            A lot of people ask my recommendation for buying cameras, whether new or replacement, and I’m sure a whole lot more ask for yours. The first question they ALL ask is regarding resolution. Certainly, few average users NEED to replace their cameras but most of them are convinced that will result in better images. In fact, for a lot of average users, resolution is the only spec they understand.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, and they’ve been conditioned to ask that by the camera makers. Just as the PC makers conditioned people to ask about clock speed. Thing is, as the market attracts fewer NEW users, it exists mostly on established users replacing or upgrading product, and at that point they’re well aware of how many pixels they’re actually using and the consequences of that. One big financial firm following the camera industry is projecting that 75% of future sales will all be from upgraders.

              So look at what happened when the D800 came out and the you saw many saying they didn’t need that many pixels, they just wanted a 16mp D700 followup (with the D4 sensor). Look at how many are opting for the Df or A7s or LX100, all of which are “lower than expected” pixel counts.

              I’ll repeat what I’ve written many times now: I’ll take pixel count increases, all else equal, because I know that I get more accurate sampling of detail. But personally I’d rather have better pixels if given the choice between “more” or “better.”

              And for that I can use another example: which would you rather have, a 54mp Bayer sensor or a 24mp Foveon-type sensor with the same dynamic range/noise properties? Anyone who answers “more pixel Bayer” is wrong. The acuity of the non-Bayer would be higher.

              So why don’t we all pick up Sigma DSLRs? Because the Foveon sensor doesn’t have the same dynamic range/noise properties. Nor does it have the same color properties. Nor does it have broad and excellent software support for raw files. And it comes in a body that’s underperforming current DSLRs, too.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              What I, or you, would rather have is irrelevant. The majority of dSLR buyers (which is NOT represented by Nikon Rumors readers, don’t even know there’s more than one type of sensor. My comments are in regard to those consumers. When they take a picture, they WON’T blame their inexperience for any disappointing results; it’s all on the camera. And in fact, a lot of them are happy as a pig in slop with their photos, regardless of what you or I would think of them. But since they’ll probably never experience the joy of better results through their efforts, they’ll buy ever newer gear in search of photographic nirvana.
              Or not. 😉

          • stormwatch

            Sir, what did you wrote here, completely oposses the 95% of the forums oppinions. 🙂

            Faster CPU’s and bigger pixel Cameras will be developed in the future even if only 1% of the population would demand it, and even if the 99% of PRO would never use as much as 2% of new technologies benefits, the new CPU’s and Cameras will also be developed.

            If the world was developed according to the needs of the average user, we would be lucky to have a can opener in 2014-2015.

            • Thom Hogan

              I see that you’re now keeping track of the opinions of everyone on the forum. Congratulations. But you also can’t read very well.

              I did not write that faster CPUs and more megapixels wouldn’t continue to be developed. I wrote that those things are no longer driving INCREASED sales (sales growth). The average user doesn’t need them, so is either updating much more slowly than before, or not updating at all.

            • stormwatch

              Sir, the problem is that actually you cannot properly read, or even understand what did you write. And In this development – INCREASED sale corelation there is not anything new. If the average user doesn’t need advancing of the technology in shorter cycles, that doesn’t mean that the whole world does need it.

          • boulderghost

            Today the “average” user is shooting photos with an iPhone. Anyone using a DSLR, is not an average user or simply wants that to be the perception. I welcome progress, incrementally, transformative, or otherwise. Oh and I do shoot vids as well as photos so faster PC’s are a good thing too!

  • KnightPhoto

    How about this one 😉
    “EOS 7D Mark II comes out, you have come a variety of needs. We also must be responded to it, I believe that there is the need. It is ambiguous answer, but it does not deny all the possibilities.”

    • Andrew

      They are simply saying that the D400 is coming but there are no announcements at this time. Now that they have the specs for the 7D Mark II, they already know how competitive their upcoming D400 will be.

      • this could be the D7200, nobody said it will be the D400

        • Eric Calabros

          D7200 cant be a response to 7Dmark2. Why sell that response with $600 discount?

        • Nikos Delhanidis

          Its rather obvious that D7200 cannot be the product to aim at 7D Mk II. Most probably will be a different name camera.

        • Thom Hogan

          If Nikon’s response to the 7DII is a D7200, then Nikon will lose some more credibility points. It’s like taking a Ford Focus and tricking it out and calling it a Ferrari. Might be a decent car, but it’s not the same thing as starting the design approach from scratch for the intended purpose.

      • Insider

        The D400 (or D9300 if your prefer) wasn’t competitive at all.
        That’s why it was pulled from being launched at Photokina and the D750 was rushed out instead.
        The project is now at the back of the queue once more.

        • Nikos Delhanidis

          Thats interesting info. Might come though with the same name (9300) just upgraded to 7D Mk II level

        • Thom Hogan

          I’m not 100% sure that’s true, though I’ve now heard of two DX prosumer prototypes that never saw production.

          I think Nikon may be in a bit of a sensor dilemma. Sony has not yet opened access to 24mp APS sensors to third parties, and Nikon’s own sensor (and Toshiba’s) really need additional engineering to do what would be needed to distinguish a D400 (e.g. 10 fps, better Live View AF, even some of the video aspects, esp. if 4K is considered necessary).

          • Insider

            Well, what I do know is that it’s a near certainty that people will be on here, in a year’s time, bemoaning the lack of anything like a new D300s.

            The doubt is whether the penny will have finally dropped by then or not.

          • Trond Arild Ydersbond

            With no inside information to back it up, I just wonder if on-chip PDAF could be an important issue here? And that it would be introduced with the D5 (and eventually its DX sidekick).

            • Thom Hogan

              If Nikon follows form, any totally new technology would be introduced in the D# models, of which the D5 is the next expected one.

              My understanding of PDAF, however, tells me that getting the same level of accuracy and performance, especially on tracking subjects, just can’t be done on the big sensors in a way that will match current DSLRs. It’s all a geometry problem: the distance between the condenser lens and the actual AF sensor is too small on sensor, and considerably longer in mirrored systems. The mirrored systems give you far more data discrimination. And you need it due to the lower DOF possibilities on the bigger sensors.

              Some of the mirrorless systems solve this by combining PD on sensor with very fast refresh CD information. But as I discovered on the Sony A6000—which focuses quite fast most of the time—the absolute accuracy of a tracking sequence is a bit less than optimal.

              I have some information about one way Nikon has been exploring the issue. It’s actually still a mirrored solution, but a much simpler one (and no, not the see-through mirror of the Sony SLTs). But I don’t see how it solves Nikon’s Live View/Video focus performance.

              I have little doubt that we’ll move forward to something new and better. I’m just not sure what it will be yet. Panasonic, for example, uses defocused faux shots and maps of their lenses’ defocus characteristics to decide where to focus in the actual shot. Works quite well, but it’s computationally intensive and requires a data set for every lens you want it to work with, which takes time to compile and space in the camera.

    • this response could be the upcoming D7200

      • KnightPhoto

        Agreed. I’d take an upmarket D350 style D7200 at this point.

      • Nikos Delhanidis

        maybe, but will be surprised if the update of 7100 is not a DX D750 but a whole radical class climb on the 7D Mk II level. Seems more possible that a directly competitive to all features of 7D Mk II could be an entirely new DX camera with a distinct new coding (9X00?, “DX400”?)

    • Binocular Viewfinder

      Well Said!

    • Andrew

      The D750 body style was a pleasant surprise for a full frame camera body. Now it is being incorporated in the upcoming D7200 which will include its advanced AF system with most likely the D810 video capabilities. This affordable camera (i.e. D7200) will take away a lot of sales from the D400. I think the size and weight advantage of the D7200 will be significant.

      With all the statements from the Nikon executives on exceeding customer expectations for the D400, I think we will get more than the standard professional build quality, higher frame rate, larger buffer, and pro video features. The question now is what new features will make the D400 surprisingly innovative and as leading-edge as the new body style, low light AF ability, predictive focus tracking, and exceptional image quality (IQ) at high ISO settings did for the D750.

      • lorenzo

        Who and when said that the D400 is coming?
        I AM | A DREAMER

      • DB White

        …and wait….and wait …and wait.

      • boulderghost

        Hypothetical upon hypothetical upon hypothetical upon hypothetical upon hypothetical upon hypothetical … At some point you have to realize this is just mental masterbation. Or as Louis CK would say: “Of Course, of course….but MAYBE”

  • Espen4u

    If I’m going to buy a new Nikon camera in 2015, then it has to be either the Df-ten (Df done right) or a D850 (d810 with new and better sensor technology plus an electronic shutter, zoned for HDR). Guess none of that will happen.

    • Graham Blaikie

      My ideal set would be the D810 for landscapes, D7200 or D9300 for wildlife / general, Df S for low light / general. The Df S would have a tweaked version of the 16MP sensor and Expeed 4. It would have the AF module from the D750 which is a scaled down and improved version of the module in the D810 so should fit. A sensor with great low light performance should be mated with an AF module with great low light performance. Make sense?

      • KnightPhoto

        A Df with the D750 AF module would be killer. Maybe THE one thing they could do to really ignite Df2 sales!

        • are you looking for those nice flares and reflections on your images? 😀 😉

      • Espen4u

        Yes, better AF and a splitscreen for MF. Reworked controls, faster shutter and a smaller/thinner body that should do it.

        • Yep, I would buy one of those.

          Love my Dƒ now, but you exactly listed the possible improvements.

      • HotDuckZ

        Dfs it’s nice name but Nikon please Dft (Titanium like F3T) after that!! Woohoo

    • fjfjjj

      Sounds like you won’t be buying a new Nikon camera in 2015.

      • Espen4u

        No, I’ll leave that to others and make do with what I have.

    • Michiel953

      You mean any model, if done right? Right…

  • Michele Perillo

    We need somebody put more money into automatic translation… this is useless gibberish to me.

    • fjfjjj

      Google’s funding for translation research is virtually unlimited. Really think money is the problem?

      • Michele Perillo

        I’m more on the line of thought that lack of humor is The real problem here

        • Michiel953

          That’s not just a line of thought, that’s a school of thought!

        • fjfjjj

          Oh, now I get it! “Money!” Hahahaha!

  • lorenzo

    What was the question?

  • Zinchuk

    I am now doing canvas prints up to 96 and even 120 inches. Most are collages, but some are single images, blown up using Perfect Resize and at 240 dpi. These are being made from D700 an D4 images. I’m printing images 18,000 pixels wide. (Photoshop maxes out image size at 20,000 pixels for .PSD, but goes larger for the .PSB format). It would be MUCH better if I was starting from D800 images, but the reality is I now have a huge library of hundreds of thousands of images of 12 and 16 megapixel images. While I will get the D5, with whatever it entails, I am not going to recreate four years worth of work just for the sake of more megapixels. I had really been leaning towards a D810, but I might as well wait for the D5 now. So you make do with what you have.

  • Carleton Foxx

    I can’t believe they want to give us more megapixels. If you’ve never shot with a 36mp full frame camera, it’s hard as heck to get decent focus, edge sharpness, and depth of field once you open up wider than f/5.6 and you need rock-solid support. Even the tiniest camera movement is very apparent. So more megapixels will mean we need even higher shutter speeds, which at smaller apertures ain’t easy to come by. I wish they’d work on high ISO instead. I want ISO 6400 to look as good as ISO 400 does now. Or maybe just jump to sheet film.

    • Michiel953

      That’s a very strict view, that I mostly agree with. Someone here could probably enlighten us on the technical and cost ramifications.

      As far as I understand the AF system will focus on the closest point (of contrast) it sees within the AF point used. That accounts for the eyelashes and not the pupil being in focus, close and with wide lens openings. Not much you can do about it. You see that with an 800/E, you don’t with a 700.

    • Andrew

      I think one consideration is the optical quality of the lens you are using and its resolving power. Another is the technical limitation of constructing a lens that has uniform sharpness from its center to the edges. I think your problem will be solved if you use a higher quality lens with a higher resolving power such as 35 Mpix and attach it to a camera like the Nikon D810 which gives you a 36 MP image sensor. Then simply crop out the edges from the captured image in order to have a picture that is framed towards the center of the lens.

      • Carleton Foxx

        I use pretty good lenses and a decent f-stop, usually f/4 , but the problem is the focusing area seems to be too large. I want the focus on the line between the iris and the pupil or on the edge of the highlight in the eye, but the only way to get that is to focus manually and then you lose the benefits of autofocus. My other wish is that cameras with face recognition would let you choose which eye to focus on.

        • whisky

          sometimes, i believe too many people hope technology will make up for technique. the corollary of such requests is how much higher do people expect camera prices to rise before all their dreams and wishes are stuffed back into them?

          • Well put. And, as a consequence of trying to match the technology to the general population’s misplaced desires, the few who actually CAN exercise the proper technique can’t because the said technology subverts their access to it.

    • I generally agree. Also, they should figure out how to provide a truly useful focusing screen that will still allow good performance of the AF system. I remember being able to make those kinds of very fine focus adjustments manually on cameras like my F2s and F3s.

    • That’s optics. Nothing anybody can do about it.

    • Thom Hogan

      They put the “best tech” into the middle of the focus area because that’s where the best data is generated. Phase detect is geometrically sensitive. The existing DX focus sensors are about as far out from center as you can go using the AF technology we’ve been using for decades. You’d need an entirely new approach to do better. Curiously, Nikon quietly patented such an approach, but I don’t know that it’s even gone into prototype yet.

      • Carleton Foxx

        I don’t care what their corporate rationalization is, i want a focusing system that serves my vision.

        • Thom Hogan

          I want to go to the moon. Sometimes you have to wait for technology to get where you want it to be.

          Look, I never said I don’t want anywhere focus points. I’d say that we all do. I’d also say that the camera makers know that. If they could do it, they’d do it. Indeed, because you CAN do it with contrast detect, you might notice that those CD focus systems actually do tend to have focus anywhere abilities, which indicates that the camera companies recognize our desires.

          But we have other desires, too. Such as precise and fast focusing without hunting, with the ability to track quick, random motion. Right now, no one knows how to give us both things. When they do figure it out, they will.

          • Carleton Foxx

            I’m with you brother, but I’m writing in the hope that the folks at Nikon watch these discussions so as to learn what real-world users might be looking for.

            • whisky

              what they may have learned, if they had watched, is that consumers are fickle beings. they change their minds. they demand all manner of gimmicks to compensate for their poor technique but don’t want to pay the expense to get it right.

              if you can write a substantially better AF tracking algorithm, i’d pay $x extra at the Nikon App store — but you’d better build it the way i want it to focus or all bets are off. 🙂

  • Jeff Downing

    You may not need those extra pixels, but someone might find a use for them. The technology is important because it shows there is proof of our advancement as a civilization – we’re continuing to challenge ourselves to more, bigger, faster, stronger, better, more efficient…

    • Michiel953

      36mp is great; offers so much more smooth detail over a D700 and a Df. A Df image looks both sharper and harsher; a D800/E image looks smoother with more fine detail.

      Does that make sense?

      • mikeswitz


      • Jeff Hunter


  • I would rather see Nikon move to a more professional level mirrorless camera, preferably with 24 MP and an extended dynamic range. No noise or shake from mirror slap, smaller and lighter body and lenses. Less intrusive for street photography, easier to pack (both size and weight) for nature and landscape photography. Lots of friends are moving to Fuji, Olympus and SONY. Takes forever to download and open my D800E files, and 24 MP is more than enough for reasonable cropping and printing to the largest size most (not all) of us print to.

    • Michiel953

      1 Mirrorless requires a whole new lens design, making the entire and extensive range of F mount lenses obsolete. Not an easy step. 2 “Adequate” for your demands ignores the obvious advantages of more pixels. 3 Get an uptodate computer set up.

      • Actually without a mirror, the sensor box is narrower and it is relatively easy to make adapters for lenses like SONY has done for its A-mount lenses. Metabones also makes reasonably good adapters. But the real advantage would be smaller, lighter lenses with full format coverage.

        I am not saying that a mirrorless camera would meet all needs, rather that it is a more potentially productive direction than simply going to a higher pixel count. Regardless of the speed of my computer, it will take about one third longer to download and process 36 mp images than 24 mp images.

        • Michiel953

          Of course, and I’m sure Nikon is actively considering this route. Maybe they’ll start softly with one careful ff body and a kit zoom (and an adapter), amd see how that goes. Adapters are never the answer of course, and making obsolete and replacing that impressive Nikkor heritage must look pretty daunting.

      • EnPassant

        True, except the Full Frame F mount lenses would be as relevant as before if Nikon based their new “pro” mirrorless camera/CSC on a DX sensor. The only lenses affected would be a handful DX primes and 18-xxx etcetera kit-zooms that would need an adapter.


        My opinion is Nikon should think about replacing most of their DX (Not FX!) DSLR sales with a serious mirrorless DX line. A good start could be similar, but obviously different in design, to what Fujifilm did with an advanced camera and a few prime lenses. Make two of those primes compact but still relative fast wide angle lenses, for exemple 16mm/f2.8 and 23mm/f2.0 (24 and 35mm FF equivalent), what is missing for Nikons DX DSLR system, and many Nikon loyal customers would buy this system rather than leak to Sony, Fujifilm and M4/3.


        If Nikon doesn’t release a DX mirrorless system then they will be reduced to a nishe, albeit still big, DSLR camera producer with a smaller market share than today. Sure, they still have the Nikon 1 mirrorless system. But its sensor is to small to compete with Compact System Cameras using larger sensors. Had Nikon decided to use the 1″ sensor for a line of compacts instead of an Interchangeable Lens Camera system they could have been the leading producer of large sensor compacts. Instead they made the overpriced Coolpix A only few bought as the Ricoh GR was cheaper with better ergonomics.


        I’m not sure Nikon and many others understood how digital technology changed the camera world. Since SLR cameras took over and made rangefinder cameras a nishe system more than 50 years ago they have in practise been the only system of choice for the small image format. Improved LCDs and EVFs now presents a serious alternative.

        Another factor is the improved Image Quality of digital sensors as well as bigger size of FF lenses and DSLR cameras. In practise that means that means the FF digital systems have replaced the film Medium Format market. Sure the FF cameras of today are much more versatile than old MF cameras. But just compare a Nikon DF kit with for exemple A Nikon FE2 with the compact 50mm/f1.8 Ai-S and it is notable how much digital cameras grown in size, more resembling MF Film cameras than manual SLR film cameras.


        The IQ achieved by standard 35mm, small image format film can now be obtained with APS-C, and even smaller sensors. This means MF film is FF in the digital world and 35mm film have been replaced by APS-C (or DX in Nikon words) and smaller sensors.

        So the intriguing question is: Do Nikon really understand that they are no longer provider of full system for the largest market, APS-C, which once in the days of film (35mm format) was their core business?


        As to the question: Couldn’t Nikon just make those missing Wide Angle primes and a few other lenses and have a “full” DX DSLR system? Sure. But because of their DX DSLRs using the same flange distance (from mount to sensor) not only the cameras but also all WA primes will be about the same size or larger than equivalent FF primes with same focal length and aperature.


        Therefore the size difference between a DSLR and Mirrorless camera system using an APS-C (DX) sensor is relative bigger than same comparance with FF systems.

        I explained this and gave exemples in an earlier post here:

        It was one of the last post, so many may not have read it. Sort by newest and it will appear near the top.


          Size differences, sorted by weight with lens. Actually, the lens weight is very close in all these. I chose the Nikon D750, because it is fairly compact, though a D610 is lighter, and a Dƒ is smaller. I don’t see that huge a difference amongst these, though on the internet differences tend to be over-stated for emphasis.

          Do you have any source that indicates the Ricoh GR outsold the Coolpix A? I haven’t seen anything official claiming that. Seems to me, as nice as these were, they were both intended to be niche products.

          Mirrorless means more electronics, which suggests a need for more battery power. The easiest way to downsize any camera is to reduce the battery size. Sure, removing the mirror box can make a camera thinner, and we’ve know that a long time with Leica. The problem is when mirrorless drops to a smaller battery, and the cameras do not run for as long.

          Definitely I would like smaller and lighter cameras and lenses. A Nikon FE had barely anything there in electronics, so it was not going to be big. Manual focus lenses are small, and body driven autofocus also means smaller lenses. The convenience features people expect today means more electronic features, which again means more battery power. Basically, we’re not seeing that much smaller, nor that much lighter, despite what Sony is doing, yet battery life is strained, and some performance is still not quite where we see in DSLRs.

          • EnPassant

            First, I don’t think one should base a comparison on one type of lens only. Better is comparing a set of lenses. That is what I did here:

            comparing camera systems with different sensor sizes from Nikon 1 to Nikon FX. Weights for one camera and six lenses started at just above 1kg for the 1″ system and well above 3kg for the full frame system. Conclusion was that for every step up in sensor size the difference in weight increased. Also a DX DSLR system is heavier than an APS-C mirrorless solution. The Sony FE system was not included because of lack of comparable lenses. But weight difference, when such lenses are available, compared to a DSLR set will propably be less than the difference between APS-C/DX mirrorless and DSLR.

            The main difference between systems based on A7 and a FF DSLR will mostly be the size and weight difference of the cameras, not so much of a comparable set of lenses. Which of course will be enough for some but for others will not matter.

            You may not have noticed it, but the 50mm f/1.8 lens you put on the Sony A7II is an APS-C lens. A more fitting comparision would look like this:,579.395,567.353,ga,t

            Suddenly the A7II combination doesn’t look that much smaller when viewed from the top. And while the Nikon camera is taller and wider the weight difference is now reduced to 146g.

            It’s very difficult to get current sales figures for individual cameras. So my conclusions are based on observations and plausible assumptions.

            If we use percentage rather than actual prices the Coolpix A was introduced at a very high 100% (I think it was $1099 in USA) in my country. But when the Ricoh GR appeared a few weeks later at a reasonable 65% Nikon at least realised they could not sell their camera for such a high price but only lowered it to 80%. Ricoh must have been very happy about that decision as they could continue sell the GR for its introduction price for one and half year while Nikon finally had to lower their price until it had the same price and then cheaper than the GR. Apparently to at all make any sales. Only now when Coolpix A sell for half the introduction price at 50% Ricoh had to lower their price a bit to 58%.

            I think Nikon despite the high price fiasco with the Nikon 1 V1 believed they could sell Coolpix A for a higher price just because of the Nikon name, just as they sold millions me-to compacts mostly because of the Nikon name and heavy advertisement. The difference is that in the 28mm FF equivalent compact world Ricoh have been the king all since the days of the original GR for film with a large and loyal user base who upgraded to different versions of the digital GR. Nikon only made the overpriced retro posh 28 Ti for film most could not afford 20 years ago as the cost was in the region of what one today pay for a Nikon DF with the 50mm kit-lens.

            Based on this and that I personally found the GR much more ergonomic to hold and operate than the squarish designer piece Coolpix A, and the fact that price matters between comparable products, I conclude the Ricoh GR should have sold better.

            It’s the digital sensor, circuitboard and other things, including of course the LCD panel behind it that makes digital cameras much fatter (around half an inch) than analog cameras. The height is mostly a choice of design. If we compare the Sony A7II with a Nikon D5300 (Should be possible to put a FF sensor in that camera!) the main difference is the built-in flash and the much thicker body of the Nikon camera:,490,ha,t

            Coming from film (Started seriously with a Nikon FE2) my ideal size and shape of a camera has always been the classical SLR (though Leica M cameras for film are also nice!), and preferably with a motor drive or winder with a beefy grip attached. Therefore I think all serious mirrorless cameras should have a built-in grip as it gives more space for a good battery.

            That the A7II despite this is reported as having disappointing battery life is because it was not designed to use a new and possibly bigger battery. Improved energy saving electronics could also increase battery life. Meaning it is not impossible to improve things. Though with a battery draining EVF it will never be as good (with same capacity battery) as in a camera using an optical finder. After all the long lasting battery in Nikon Df is only around 12% bigger than the Sony battery. So I think there is room for improvements in the future!

            And to those that try to make the claim that a big grip on a mirrorless camera would make it almost as big as a DSLR I challenge them to look at the camera as a woman. Think of a mirrorless camera without a grip like a very slender woman with small breasts. Do you think a boob job would make her comparable in fatness to a woman with not only big breasts but also a big belly and a big ass?

            My point is we can with digital cameras and all their electronics and use of AF lenses still come back to the ideal size of analog SLR cameras. We only in our minds must accept that the mirrorless camera with an APS-C/DX sensor is the true, modern successor to the analog film SLR cameras. And not full frame cameras using same sensor size as a 35mm film frame. Because the best APS-C sized sensors today in most areas already have surpassed 35mm film when it comes to technical IQ. Full frame sensors on the other hand have replaced most of the MF film market.

            Look for exemple at the Fujifilm system. The X-T1 camera and lenses are despite elecronics same size or smaller than comparable analog SLR cameras and lenses. While the Sony A7 FF cameras are equally small the AF lenses with their electronics are considerably bigger.

            So for me it is quite clear that the future for the mass market of interchangeable lens cameras is mirrorless using APS-C or smaller sensors. (For most uses M4/3 is a more than good enough replacement for film. Systems using 1″ and smaller sensors do however have a more limited control of DOF to be as versatile as larger sensors but is still a good alternative if large DOF is wanted.)

            Qustion is: When will Nikon realise this?

            • Sony A7II Battery is 42.5g
              Nikon D750 Battery is 88g

              Yes, some photographers like a grip built onto a camera body. My point was that if the batteries were more comparable, then not much weight is saved going with mirrorless. Obviously materials choices make a difference, and we could imagine lighter materials in use; as we see in the D750. Compare either to a Leica M, which outweighs these.

              Nikon 1 system lenses, due to the smaller sensor, can be made quite small too. I do think Nikon need to bring out more fast lenses, maybe even an f1,8 selection. Would be nice to see at CES, though I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.

              Pentaprism and mirror box really do not weigh that much, in the overall design of an SLR. Replace the Pentaprism with a cheap “pentamirror” set-up, and more weight is saved. Moving to an EVF probably not much different than pentamirror weight, though battery consumption increases (how about that, we agree on a few things). 😉

              I don’t think we need to be downsizing batteries. If anything, Sony should have battery sizes comparable to DSLR batteries, and battery life not too far off. I’ve seen an A7 with a grip, and it’s not pretty. 😉 The cool thing is that adding a grip gets around the paying client expectation of the idea that pro cameras need to be big. Fuji should add grip choices to more of the X line.

              I keep hearing the same types of comments, that if only XYZ company would push technology more, then we could get smaller mirrorless with big sensors. Lenses are a different story, and other than manual focus (Leica or Zeiss for example), the lenses on APS-C and 35mm size just don’t get much smaller.

              On sensor focusing provides an ability to use distance information at each pixel pairing. I suspect A/D processing, battery issues, and a few other technology hurdles are holding this back. Once we have this, then the crowd that wants more DoF control will have more options n post processing. As long as products continue to just evolve, we will not see this. Keep in mind that falling camera sales mean R&D spending may be tightly controlled. Post processing software is another issue.

              I suppose you have some logical steps concerning niche products like the Coolpix A and GR, but keep in mind that Ricoh is very unknown in the general population, and there are more places that sell Nikon cameras. I don’t think changes in prices tell us much about sales figures. I suppose we simply disagree on this matter.

              So, why bother with mirrorless then? I would like to see smaller and thinner, even if the weight is not that far off. I have very big hands, so it doesn’t make much difference to me to have a grip, but if it’s on the camera, then it should be comfortable. In mirrorless lenses, I would want smaller lenses, but have no interest in “pancake” lenses. EVF lag needs to improve. Battery life needs to improve. Autofocus performance needs to feel close to what better DSLRs can manage. Responsiveness is my number one priority in using a camera.

              I do think Sony showed some wonderful technology with the RX1. Full frame sensor and reasonable lens. A slightly bigger grip with a bigger battery would’ve been nicer. Sony did push the technology on this, though the price meant many avoided the RX1.

              Understand what you are saying with APS-C, but I don’t agree with you. This appears to be the direction Fuji is headed. I don’t think Nikon should copy Fuji, despite that a Digital Nikon S2 rangefinder style camera would probably gains some praise on internet forums. FX is where it’s at for the future, while DX is more entry level. As nice as the Fuji XT1 was to use, there were a few things that were troublesome for me. Nikon will bring out larger than 1 System mirrorless, and I just hope it arrives better performing that the Canon EOS-M.

            • EnPassant

              Sorry, my mistake. I see now I compared with the battery for Nikon D5300 that despite the small difference in size is rated for 600 exposures versus Sony’s at 350.

              Actually I think we are in agreement that going mirrorless for full frame cameras doesn’t actually save that much weight. Take out the batteries from the A7II and a Canon 6D and the difference is just 140g.

              The thing with Nikon 1 is that most of the lenses are neither much smaller or lighter than comparable M4/3 lenses. Reason is Nikon choose to make the lenses much wider in diameter than they needed be. The mount is big enough for a sensor with the size of a 4/3 sensor. For me it seem be such a waste using a a smaller than 4/3 senser when there is such little gain compared to using a much bigger 4/3 sensor. (or similar size in 3:2 format)

              Nikon already have shown a prototype macro for the Nikon 1 system, so that lens should be ready next year. In my opinion they should also make an AW version of the 6.7-13mm lens.

              Question is however how much money Nikon should pour into the Nikon 1 system. The Nikon product manager here in an interview admitted Nikon 1 needed advertisement to sell. Personally I simply have hard to understand why someone would buy the expensive V3 kit with EVF and grip instead of an Olympus E-M10 or a Sony A6000 with a much better sensor for half the price? Except a few action and bird photographers who want to use it with the 70-300mm lens as a light alternative to the big full frame lenses.

              Maybe the real sales figures for Ricoh GR and Coolpix A will be revealed a few years from now. Until then we can only speculate. Those cameras are too much of niche products to be of any consideration for most ordinary consumers. Among the target group I think Ricoh GR is much more well known and the Nikon name alone is not a reason to choose it over the GR, especially not at a higher price, except for Nikon loyals/fanboys.

              Well, it’s allowed to disagree. However, only something like 15-20% of Nikon’s sales of cameras and lenses comes from the full frame system. I don’t think Nikon want to give up 80% of their sales. Because of the size and prize for a full frame system it will never be the future for most photographers. Only the most advanced and dedicated photographers actually need a full frame camera.

              And I don’t agree DX cameras should be only entry level. There are many who want a smaller, competent system and don’t need the ultimate IQ full frame can offer, just like 35mm film systems was the most popular before, and not medium format. If Nikon think like this the leaking from Nikon DSLRs to mirrorless systems will continue and grow into a flood as those systems get better.

              I never said Nikon should copy Fujifilm. Just took them as an exemple as the X-T1 and lenses is the system of all mirrorless systems that in looks most resemble old analog SLR camera systems. Nikon surely would have their own ideas how things should be done. Just look at how different the Nikon 1 system is compared to Fujifilm. I never held an X-T1 but it just like all Fujifilm cameras in my opinion have too small grips.

            • There is a widespread perception in the general public that full frame sensors are better. I think if companies can move past that perception, then maybe high quality gear can become more common in smaller sensor cameras. In a few ways I agree with Zack Arias in the sensor size viewpoint, but anyone who has used medium format and large format will tell you there is more to the results than the affect of using a larger capture area. (just for example, a 90mm lens is considered a wide angle on 4×5) Anyway, the smartphone makers largely obscure the size of the sensor, and few in public seem to care about the specifications. It was nice to see Apple tout larger pixel sizes as better, though it remains to be seen if that will become the trend. Panasonic putting a big sensor on a smartphone is cool, but this product would gain no traction in North American markets.

              I chose to go Nikon V1 over m4/3 due to the responsiveness. Autofocus performance is quite impressive. The 2.7x multiplier to 35mm is similar to the 2.7x step from 35mm to 645, so in a way it makes sense. Nikon 1 badly needs faster lenses, which would help in low light. The other thing that would help would be a flash adapter for the regular Nikon Speedlights, though I would be happy just to be able to fire off a Pocketwizard.

              The Fuji XT1 size doesn’t bother me. It’s not far off from the old Nikon FM/FE era, though those were heavier. There are some issues I have with the EVF, and the quality of the buttons could be vastly better. I think Sony does a bit better with control buttons, other than the shutter button placement. Somewhere between the Fuji and Sony approaches is room for Canon and Nikon to address the market. The Canon EOS M failed miserably, due to crippled autofocus performance.

              I think Nikon could do a 1 System style of approach to DX or FX mirrorless, but it would be a huge step for the company. Launch an entry level and an enthusiast level at the same time, then the upgrade path appears at the start. If Nikon only did one mirrorless (DX or FX), then the future of the line would be tougher for the public to consider (much like the EOS M). Of course Nikon could go more “DSLR-like”, leave the hump at the top, make the flange distance thinner, and have a mirrorless that looks like some of the DX line. I think that would be a sad approach, in that there is little to gain from the move beyond marketing “mirrorless”, without gaining many benefits. I don’t see Nikon mirrorless in DX or FX succeeding without being clearly different than the current DSLR forms.

        • KnightPhoto

          Continued interesting logic for abandoning the F-mount for DX-mirrorless, and keeping the F-mount for full frame.

          I’d prefer a mirrorless DX at this point, and Nikon is only going to obsolete all those 18-xxx which isn’t a big loss since those consumers don’t buy a lot of lenses anyways (and yes they can offer an adapter for those who don’t want to lose use of their existing DX lenses).

        • Michiel953

          Long post, short post. I think what the more vocal part of the market (four guys here, six on DPR and seven and a half guys on S Huff) really want is an ff mirrorless camera, but more “camera” than the computer that a Sony still is. DX mirrorless helps (I kind of like the V3 as a first step), but it won’t stop there.

  • AYWY

    My JP’s rusty, but still some interesting nuggets. They don’t reveal much in these interviews but we could infer something about their mindsets and positions from the way they phrase their responses.

    – Said that EVFs are beautiful, but there are still things to improve. Said that absence of mirror box makes design easier and the system quiet. However still iterates that 1-inch sensor is a good candidate for their mirrorless system because of the small size when interviewer pressed for hints of a larger mirrorless system.

    – Going bigger than FX is the easy way to improve image quality, but the price of >35mm sensors and lenses will be too high. FX size is the limit. “There are still things to improve on FX.”

    – It is technically feasible to have an electronic shutter. However mechanical shutters will still be used for the foreseeable future.

    – Attributed slower sales to slower evolution of camera tech and less innovation in recent years. Also commented on inventory issues. Customers are less inclined to upgrade. Change-cycle for a camera owner has lengthened.

    – For lenses, lens positioning in the market and price are taken into consideration. The actual statement infers some measure of bean-counting.

    – Acknowledged the 7D-MKII. They consider the competition, but no solid statement about a direct competitor.

    – At least they acknowledged user behaviour has changed.

    • Trond Arild Ydersbond

      I notice that the response about “MX” (>FX) resembles a lot what they said about full format (objections) just prior to releasing the D3..
      I’m pretty sure they are working on it, and they don’t want it to cost a lot.
      And the CX-blessing is not more than he is pretty much forced to say.
      The most disturbing to me are the hints of a 40+ MP FX camera. Unless they combine it with perfect down-sampling, it is only really useful to a few. At base ISO, the pixel quality of my D7100 is pretty good, but still, I would not want more pixels than my D800, just better pixels. In particular, in landscape photo, where you need the resolution, you hit the diffraction limit at f/8-11 with D7100-size pixels. And even though it can be partially reconstructed by sharpening, it is not a good way to proceed.

      On the other hand – double the D750 sensor for a 48 MP medium format.. And scale up the AF of the Nikon 1 V3. You have something that can be used for almost anything..

  • Back to top