What to expect from Nikon in early 2016

Nikon-Rumors-Zoltar
Here is another updated "what to expect" list:

I expect the official announcements for most of the products listed above to be in early 2016 - around the CES (January) or CP+ (February) shows.

Few potential rumors for late 2016/2017:

Here is a list of Nikon products I have no reliable information/rumors/details:

This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Nikon D400, Nikon D5, Nikon Flashes, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Point and Shoot, Nikon Software and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • BPhoto

    Forget the D400. Move on already.

    • T.I.M

      The D400 died when the D700 was born.

      • outkasted

        hmmmmm….

      • BPhoto

        I gave up on the mythological D400 in 2010. Let it go!

        • manhattanboy

          Let’s forget the D400 for a second. Now, what cameras or lenses <$4,000 is Nikon introducing in 2016 from the "What to expect" list above that you are excited about?

          • br0xibear

            They’ve got one more lens to complete the new f/1.8G range, although I don’t think it’ll actually be f/1.8…
            AF-S 135mm f2 G ED

            • Two more. They also need an AF-S 105mm f1.8 G ED.

            • Klaas Vaak

              I would LOVE that. Classical portrait length. Ideal for head and head-shoulder portraits 🙂

            • David Peterson

              A 135mm f/2 would be nice!!

            • neversink

              Nice, but heavy…

            • hectorcorderoe

              I think it would be 135mm f/2.5G if it ever happens

          • BPhoto

            I am in on the 8-15 FX fisheye!

          • Max

            A 70mm f/1.4 dx lens

      • DrNo666

        U mean when then the D600 came? Agree… FX was then introduced to average Joe. When it comes to the release cycles of replacements. We should expect a D3400 and a D620.

        We are already flooded with dx and fx zooms. Primes which are still missing are:
        14, 16, 130, 180 and a micro 200mm.

        Phase fresnel alternatives should be introduced to even longer lenses than 300mm also.

        • T.I.M

          The D700 (FX) was release few years before the D600, and did not request oil change.

        • David Peterson

          Hope D620 has 4K

    • Mark

      If they were holding off so they could put the D5 rumored “killer” AF system in the D400, I think a lot of people would be OK with that 🙂 The 7D2 is so riddled with issues I am not sure how reliable the sales data for that camera is, but Nikon was probably watching it closely.

      • KnightPhoto

        Yes completely agree Nikon was likely waiting for the D5 AF for it’s D400 introduction. It then gives a strong differentiation feature for its top of the line DX over the D7200. I’d def buy the D400 with D5 AF – bring it!

        • Thom Hogan

          To my knowledge, they never waited. They were pursuing a D400 to be out with the D4 generation, but the quake/floods somehow seems to have disrupted that, and I’ve never found out why. They also pursued a D400 for the middle of the D4 generation, but I believe that “sensor issues” killed that prototype. At this point, yes, they’d pretty much have to incorporate the D5 AF to make a D400 totally distinguished from the D7200 that has to live for another year-and-a-half in the lineup.

          • Hi Thom,
            They could have released the D400 with a 91k RGB metering sensor and Group AF like what the D750, D810 and D4s have. They didn’t, what makes you think they’ll release it now? They did a press release to announce the D5, they could have done the same for the D400. Some, i know at least 1 wildlife photographer who have jumped to Canon because of the 7d Mark II and another one who bought it and went back to the D7200 because of the better sensor.

            • Wade Marks

              Why do you think the Canon 7d ii is selling so well? Right now at Adorama or B&H I can order the 7dii for $1049 after mail in rebate, with a printer and some other goodies thrown in. So the 7dii is now selling for less than the D7200.

              So Canon has run the experiment with the 7d ii and it shows a limited market apparently. Rumors, and admittedly they are just rumors, are that Canon will not bother with a followup to the 7d ii.

              I’d say the market for pro DX is relatively small and not worth creating a separate model for. If you want a really nice DX go with D7200.

            • Thom Hogan

              Be careful of reading too much into the 7DII (and other Canon) sales. Canon’s fiscal year ends in a week, and they’re desperately trying to get volume up so that it doesn’t look like they’re losing market share. And they’re trying to unload printers that don’t make them a cent of profit unless someone buys inks for them.

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              Yup, some of the low end printers are actually sold at a los because all the profit comes from the liquid gold they call ink.

            • neversink

              So what you are saying actually corroborates what Wade stated. That Canon has to lower prices in order to attract customers’ and then they have to throw in a bunch of extra goodies.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes and no. Yes in the sense that Canon (and Nikon) want to finish their fiscal years showing they didn’t lose market share. No in the sense that Canon had to do that with the 7DII. They CHOSE to do it with 7DII, which tells me that they’ve got cost reductions in making it that keep their GPM up even at the reduced price.

              It would be easier for them to move market share numbers with the least expensive products. But they’re not attempting to do that. I think that’s a combination of a bunch of factors, including what I just mentioned. For example, the fact that Nikon DOESN’T have a competitive product means that by pricing low Canon can suck up ALL the potential buyers in this category.

              Also, let’s be clear about the words “has to.” No, Canon does not have to. They could have produced fewer 7DII’s and left the price up. They could have left inventory sitting on shelves. They chose not to.

              I’ve watched the Japanese CES industry for over 40 years now. The playbooks are well known. Canon is following the playbook.

            • It’s not because of the lower price only, people bought it because it’s got 10 fps, a good buffer and a great AF system. I haven’t tried it myself though. I have the D7100, there’s no reason appart from the buffer for upgrading to the D7200 I believe. A D400 on the other hand would be a great upgrade. fps and AF are key for sports and wildlife, i see a difference between 6 and 7 fps in crop mode so i i’m sure 10 fps is amazing. Also Group AF should be included as well as a a better metering sensor

            • DB White

              The D7200 is an excellent all around camera, but not an ideal camera for shooting fast action sports and wildlife. Nikon still has a huge gap that could be filled with the release of a D400, and possibly a D7300.

            • Thom Hogan

              Actually, I believe that was the plan. But for some reason that plan stopped with a prototype.

              You actually point out a reason why Nikon needs to make a D400: the particular crowd that would buy it is jumpy. They’re looking for every advantage at a lower price point they can get. A better sensor and same other attributes would certainly make some Canon 7DII shooters jump.

              I’ve never ever said there isn’t a market for the D400. Indeed, I think I’ve been like a foghorn that Nikon never hears: they should make a D400. Period. And a few more DX lenses to round it out. Failing to do so is failing. I don’t understand the failure.

            • I think you know the Nikon market better than some of the folks at Nikon Japan. Nikon Japan should ask for you expertise in defining their target markets. Your latest article highlights the difference in mentality between Apple and Nikon. Nikon needs to be more like Apple for it to increase its market share.

            • Thom Hogan

              To be fair to Nikon, I don’t have the company to run while making comments about what should be done. My understanding is that the D400 has a storied, problematic history, but was intended to happen. It just didn’t.

              Sometimes you hit bumps in the road. Sometimes the road turns. Sometimes, the road disappears. Sometimes there’s a traffic jam. Sometimes the road is slippery. And sometimes you hit something that was in the road or an engine fails, which is what I think Nikon must have encountered with the D400.

              I’d also caution people about my view of the market. It’s very Western. I don’t purport to know what’s going on in Asia, particularly India and China. I just don’t have enough experience with those markets. Still, it’s clear to me that the smartphone/social takeover of imaging occurred here in the West. You either have to trump that with something better, or succumb to it, I think.

          • NewsCamera

            As always, interesting insights, Thom!

          • KnightPhoto

            Very interesting to hear about those D400 “almosts” 😉 Thanks Thom and Merry Christmas!

          • CaMeRa QuEsT

            So basically 2 generations of D300s replacements couldn’t come out because it kept hitting walls during development. Here’s hoping 3rd try’s charm.

      • Scott

        What are the 7D mkii issues? This is the first I’ve heard of any.

        • sickheadache

          The first issue is that starting 5 years ago..it had18mp and the new version came out, Canon blessed it with an extra 2mp. Slow up Canon, after 5 years..you moving too fast! It scored at DXO Mark, from 5 years ago a Whopping 66 and five long years Canon improved the newer versions scored a 70! Up by just 4points..Canon fan boys be proud!

          • I think if you’re a Canon fanboy you’ve already decided DxO is either (a) biased or (b) emphasizes the wrong things — certainly in its “scores”. Given that, the 7dii is basically a really nice body that shoots 10fps. Does it have any actual *issues*?

            • Dynamic range. I shoot Nikon and Sony 24 MP sensor bodies at college football games (daylight) and the other photographers on the field are Canon shooters. The home team has a lot of black and white on their uniforms and the Canon shooters are always complaining about blown out whites on the uniforms. Not so much with the Sony or Toshiba sensors.

          • Thom Hogan

            My ratings go to 11. What’s your point? ;~)

            The 66 was an arbitrary, biased rating, the 70 is an arbitrary, biased rating. Try asking DxO exactly how they come up with those “overall” ratings. Be prepared for mumbo-jumbo.

            • sickheadache

              like your old website..right..mumbo jumbo…lol a crappy sensor is just that a crappy sensor..no matter how much spinning ones does.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, and just look at all those crappy photos the Canon shooters have been taking.

            • neversink

              I hope you are being cynical, Thom. I shoot mostly with Nikon, but have colleagues who take great photos with Canom — and some who use PhaseOne equipment. In the long term, it is not about the body, but about the eye and the talent.

            • Thom Hogan

              You just can’t recognize a dog on the Internet ;~). Of course I was being sarcastic.

          • outkasted

            DEAD!…lol.

        • KnightPhoto

          I’ve got an experienced Canon friend, 1D iv and all prior 1.6 models too. He gets great results from his 7Dii.

          It’s a pretty complex AF, people may be having issues adjusting to it? On the other hand there were very long threads on NatureScapes of experienced super telephoto guys having troubles. Hard to say 😉

        • CaMeRa QuEsT

          The 7DII with some goodies and a nice 17″ printer thrown in is currently costing less after a mail-in rebate than a plain D7200 body, and even so the D7200 is currently outselling the 7DII! No wonder Nikon is not interested in bringing a D300s replacement to the market.

          • Thom Hogan

            Except that such an analysis is sophomoric when it comes to product lines. You have to analyze your results over an entire line.

            Let me try to put it in simple terms. If Nikon is selling 100 D7200’s to Canon’s 80 7DIIs now, what would they be selling with a D400? Perhaps 75 D7200’s and 25 D400’s? Hmm, those D400’s should fetch a higher price and higher GPM. So why wouldn’t you want to do that?

            This actually gets us to a component of Nikon’s micromanagement. They’re not particularly good at micromanaging multiple things simultaneously. So they often (actually usually) stagger releases considerably so that they don’t have to figure out if that ratio is going to be 75/25, or 80/20, or 90/10, or whatever it would turn out to be. Instead, they project X number of Y sensors and mostly just keep building to that before releasing New Product with A number of B sensors, and so on.

            Which amazingly flies in the face of their biggest DSLR success: offering the D3 and D300 simultaneously. Moreover, it flies in the face of what Sony just did: A7, A7r, A7s in a fairly short period of time, then a Mark II of each in another very short period of time. I really don’t think Sony cares a lot about which A7 you buy, as long as you buy one. Nikon shouldn’t care about which DSLR body you buy as long as you buy one. Thus, the missing D400 is a silly move on their part.

            • Thom, wouldn’t the buyer of a D400 be more likely to purchase a high end telephoto than the buyer of a D7200? I would assume that there is more margin in a 400 F2.8 than a 18-300 zoom.

            • Thom Hogan

              Perhaps, I’d have to do some surveys to try to validate that hypothesis. But anecdotally–including my own use–we’ve got people buying the D7200 and using the long lenses on it. So how much more likely would it be that a D400 buyer bought an exotic instead of a superzoom? Probably not a very large difference.

              Indeed, one of the things I’ve noted for the entire digital era is that we have a lot of people buying the pro bodies (e.g. D4) and putting consumer superzooms on them (e.g. 28-300mm). So I’m not sure that the hypothesis will stand up.

              Indeed, in the Nikon lineup, the more expensive gear tends to do quite well, even though it’s more than people buying it need.

            • I’m one of those amateur photogs that already owns a Nikon 200-400, 500, Sigma 120-300, and 300-800 and bought the D7200 to use with them because I like cropped frame bodies. One of the people I work with is getting into sports shooting (and doesn’t own a bunch of expensive lenses) and just bought the Canon 7DII and now has the opportunity to buy some expensive Canon glass.

      • outkasted

        the issue again with 7D was that it really had no marked improvement outside autofocus. Nikon should understand this and put the same D5 motor in the D500. I am still getting a D5 no matter what because it is what I’ve been waiting for. Nikon stop worrying about cannibalizing D5 sales. The economy has improved and we are ready to spend our hard earned cash. Now Give us what we want…Please!

      • neversink

        Give it up! Please- Can’t you read? No new D400 rumors. Now be satisfied with the number of great bodies Nikon is currently offering.

    • outkasted

      I have forgotten it and I have moved to the D500

    • Klaas Vaak

      I still do get the boatloads of people that keep harping about this D400. Just buy any of the splendid cameras Nikon males and start making pictures already.

      • Thom Hogan

        Okay. That means that most of us will buy a D7200. Which means that Nikon gets fewer dollars from us than they would have from a D400. Yeah, that sounds like great strategy.

        • Klaas Vaak

          ?
          You might have missed I was not talking about Nikon’s strategy, but
          about people’s whining attitude.
          So I guess it’s thank you for beautifully underscoring my point.

      • DB White

        Many of us are still holding onto our D7000’s and taking plenty of photos, but we sure could use a sports-capable DX camera. Loved the image quality of the D7200, hated the very slow continuous frame rate: not a fast action sports camera.

        • Klaas Vaak

          Oh I fully understand the motivation. It’s just that the fanaticism with which people keep hoping, even demanding, seems to have acquired an almost religious fervour :p.

    • Ineluki

      The D400 will never come. It is waiting for Godot.

    • David Peterson

      ah ha! D500 😀

      • BPhoto

        I know, surprise. It looks like an awesome camera. Unfortunately, I am never going back to DX.

    • Reading these comments in hindsight is a pretty funny affair 😀

  • Plug

    Whatever we may get, here’s wishing everyone on this sight a great Christmas and New Year.

    • T.I.M

      For Xmas I got myself a like new Vivitar 28-70mm f/3.5-4.8 AF Nikon mount, extremely rare lens, the AF phase system is inside the lens and need 3 AAA batteries to operate.
      I should receive it today.
      Apparently the seller had no clue of the lens value, I got it for only few dollars !

      • Eric Calabros

        You are outperforming Ken Rockwell with this pace

        • T.I.M

          OMG, I just received it, like new !
          The AF is very fast (phase), it’s incredible for an almost 30 years old design (1988) !
          I tried it with my Nikon lens cope, I have now autofocus binoculars (well, monocular).
          I’ll send some pics to NR after the holidays.
          I can’t believe I got that museum piece for only $60 !
          The best Xmas present of my life so far !

          • T.I.M
          • T.I.M

            I’m surprise by that little lens quality, I did not expect much, but it’s SHARP !
            Here is a picture in macro mode (f/4, D800, SB900)

            • T.I.M

              That lens is amazing, the AF (phase detection) is outside the lens, meaning that you can autofocus with the front cap still on, or while using a ND1000 filter !
              The lens was released in 1987, just when I started to learn photography (I graduated in 1989) and I do remember seen it at that time in Chasseur d’Images but never had a chance to hold a real one in my hands.
              It is a 8 elements lens.
              I’m surprised how fast the AF works (about the same speed as the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8)
              I have a lot of fun using it with the Nikon lens scope attached to it.
              I will give more details and pictures after the holidays.
              I hop you guys will enjoy your Xmas present as much as I do !

            • I used to work for those guys. Before I hired on I didn’t think much of them except maybe the flash gear. But I quickly learned about their products and there was a lot to like. They had some influence on new designs coming out of Japan at the time (mid to late 1970s).

          • dclivejazz

            Enjoy that wacky looking blowfish of a lens! Glad it makes you happy. Happy holidays.

            • T.I.M

              It does look like a blowfish….
              Anyway, I love it but I don’t need it to take pictures so it will go back on Ebay in few weeks to help finance my new 58mm f/1.4G.

          • Neopulse

            Think you should win an award for having bought such a strange and unique lens. Never knew it existed.

  • sickheadache

    Please don’t give up you DX Queens out there..sometime in 2016 there will be a D400 with 32mp, 12fps. If you cannot be a FX King..be a lil DX Queen.

    • P. Turtle

      They(DX and FX), both have their place. I own both and appreciate them for different reasons. A sophisticated DX body with top notch auto focus would fill a glaring hole in the Nikon lineup. The DX sensors Nikon uses now are far superior to the Canon equivalents. 24mp with a min. of 10fps and advanced autofocus would sell extremely well.

  • Still sad about no Coolpix A news…

    • If you want a great fixed lens camera, who cares if it’s from Nikon?

      • Michiel953

        Exactly, mr Q…

      • morcheeba

        The A swayed me with controls that are similar to my DSLR.

      • Oh, I care very much, thank you. There are advantages to staying in the same system; I can still use my SB-700 with the Coolpix A, I still have Nikon nice losslessly-compressed raw files (for which I know how much I can stretch, how Lightroom will process them, etc.), and I still have more-or-less the same UI for the camera.

        It took me just half an hour playing with an RX100M3 to remind me how much importance the camera UI has, and even more, how important is to have a consistent UI across cameras.

        • If you don’t like a camera’s ergonomics then pretty much by definition it’s not “great”. I don’t use flash much, and I certainly don’t prioritize flash system compatibility for a fixed lens camera — surely that’s defeating the point. (Any, won’t your SB-700 work fine on anything with a hot shoe in a pinch?)

          • Oh, I’m not prioritizing the flash. I’m just saying, there’s value in remaining in the same overall system, if the manufacturer actually has a system; and Nikon has. So yes, I’d prefer to have a proper Nikon mirrorless or high-end compact.

        • neversink

          Sorry – but I have one word for your comment — ‘Baloney!”

          • Wow, such eloquence! Also, I’m glad you know more about my needs and preferences than me.

      • Thom Hogan

        This is becoming more and more Nikon’s new problem. The one Japanese camera company that is mostly dependent on cameras (Nikon) isn’t the company that’s making the cameras we’re still buying. See the problem with that?

        • Nikon’s problem with compacts dates back to before digital. Since I started caring about cameras (40 years ago) Nikon has never been a go-to brand for low-end cameras. I don’t remember a Nikon enthusiast-oriented rangefinder, for example. They had a chance to convert their cachet to dominance in the compact market at the dawn of digital (and many folks did buy Nikon compacts simply because they were Nikons in the early aughts) but Canon and Sony soon asserted dominance by making better cameras. For whatever reason Nikon has never (or not since 1970) taken smaller cameras seriously. So they’re seriously late to the party.

          Instead of releasing three new 1″ sensor fixed lens compacts (per the rumors) they should release two new CX bodies with built-in viewfinders and at least one pancake lens — that might actually compete with the RX-100 et al. Almost no-one is going to buy a Nikon fixed lens compact, even if it’s actually good, because Nikon has zero or even negative brand value in that segment.

          (Just checked, and Nikon basically abandoned rangefinder production in the mid-60s. Essentially they gave up trying to compete directly with Leica (et al) but never competed with Minolta, Olympus, Ricoh, Rollei, etc. in the compact but serious 35mm segment.)

    • T.I.M

      Fuji X100s (not the T model)

      • No thanks. I don’t like 35mm that much (compared to 28), and I had a Fuji X100s which sold and was very happy to get rid of.

        • T.I.M

          with a 35mm you still can take portraits, it’s much more difficult with a 28mm (even if I’m shooting my mother-in law).

  • José Felipe Fraile González

    You are right. I do not understand anybody specting more APSc serious cameras. I think a D5xxx FX is more probable than a D400

  • Thom Hogan

    The really scary thing is this: not a single DX product looking like it’s in the near-term queue. Either Nikon has a surprise for us or they are about to shoot themselves squarely in the ankle (which means they’re now aiming higher ;~).

    • How do you make any money selling an entry-level DX with a lens for $450 retail? On the other end of the scale, despite the few folks on camera blogs chirping for a D400, how many photographers REALLY want to spend $1,800 for a DX camera body (my guess at the msrp of a camera that meets the expectations of the D400 crowd)?

      • Thom Hogan

        Funny thing is, that’s where Nikon makes most of its money ;~). Well, DX is where Nikon makes most of its money. And over five years ago Nikon executives said they expected to have to figure out how to make a profit for DX at US$299 retail.

        Look up price elasticity of demand.

        • Yeah, I know it’s a matter of price elasticity, but at these prices it reminds me of the old joke where the production manager complains in the meeting that they’re selling their widget for less than it costs to produce it, and the marketing manager says, “yeah, but we’ll make it up in volume.” Jeez, $299. Leica probably has a lens hood that costs that.

          • Thom Hogan

            While I haven’t published it (and might not), I did an analysis last month about actual likely costs of a DX sensor camera. No, Nikon can make money at US$299, and certainly does so with good margins at US$499 and up. By going mirrorless ala Sony, they could take a fair chunk of additional cost out, too.

            It actually isn’t the cost/price thing that should be worrying Nikon. It’s volume. They simply have no growth potential without restoring additional volume to their lineup. Which means that they SHOULD go for lower cost cameras, but they also have to make them live in the modern, smartphone/social dominated world much, much better.

            • jimh

              You mean, like, take a picture with my camera and be able to immediately access it with my phone? Nah, that’s flying saucer stuff. It would require something like wireless networking over RF – that’s decades away. For camera makers anyway.

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, if you’ve read all my articles on this, you’ll know I actually propose more (which requires that the camera be “programmable”).

              Not only should the image go to the phone, it should continue on its journey without additional interaction to wherever you intended it to go, including multiple destinations.

              Having shot a few event/sports gigs recently, I’m even more convinced of the previous paragraph than ever. Just substituting a wireless move for what currently is sneaker net is just shortening the interaction time for only one small thing in the workflow chain. It’s the entire workflow that must be reworked.

            • jimh

              I’m just more discouraged than ever about the future of camera makers like Nikon. They don’t have the software expertise to even begin to address this problem. It’s been quite a few years now and I still need a USB cable just to get photos to Lightroom. Actually, Adobe should try to attack this from their end – they have the resources, and they sell to camera users, not just people using phones.

            • Kyle

              Def need better software. My buddy’s a7s uploads photos directly to his phone, without having to tell it which ones.

              Hopefully Nikon gets on board with better remote control functions for video like Panasonic too.

            • Thom Hogan

              It’s been discouraging to me, too. I think I see the problem and potential solution pretty clearly. I believe that the camera makers don’t really see the problem, and they aren’t good at the things necessary in the solution (e.g. user-level software).

              It’s like watching a train wreck as it unfolds. You can see what the train is going to hit, you know the train isn’t going to stop, but you’re going to watch what happens anyway.

            • CaMeRa QuEsT

              How much do you think a D300s replacement will cost Nikon?

        • While Nikon makes most of their money from DX, I feel they marginalize DX shooters in comparison to FX. I have DX (D300s) and FX (D800) bodies to shoot Nature (Birds and Landscapes) and would like upgrades in both. I purchased FX glass in anticipation of going FX and now I can simply switch between DX and FX bodies. I look forward to a D400 with Pro controls and weather seals as well as a D850.

      • catinhat

        People who shoot a lot of sports and wildlife in reasonable light may prefer high quality DX over FX even at this price point. When you crop FX to get the same “reach” you pay a lot more than you would have paid for a DX of the same quality, you get a significantly worse viewfinder for the purpose, you get poorer AF point spread, and you probably get a slower camera overall. If you crop FX to DX size you also gain nothing in high ISO and DR benefits. If you want to avoid all that and use FX to its maximum potential, then you’re saddled with a much bigger, heavier, and dramatically more expensive lenses, even if you can afford them. The FX format has many advantages, but it is not uniformly better for everything.

        • Yes, all good points that I recognize. I’m not saying that there aren’t people who would prefer a D300s replacement, I just wonder if there are enough of them for Nikon to justify the expense it will take to develop and tool up for it. You’re talking about a rugged machine that can hold up to the stresses of being attached to long, heavy lenses plus the electronics to process 20-24 Mp images at a high rate. Look at the difficulty they’ve had with buffer size on the D7000-7200. Even my D300s craps out shoving 12 Mp images around at full speed for more than a few seconds.

        • El Aura

          I agree with almost all you said but the AF spread in FX cameras cropped to DX is the same as in DX cameras (using the same class of AF module). In fact the AF in the D8x00 and D4 cropped to DX has a slightly wider spread than what you get in the D7100+.

          • Nikos Delhanidis

            Yes that too

        • Nikos Delhanidis

          Ι think you do gain in terms of image quality, overall iso noise and DR with an fx sensor even cropped, cropping shouldn’t affect those factors.

      • jimh

        There are also a few people who travel, and would like to carry a smaller, lighter camera. Just a few.

        • Wade Marks

          For those who want smaller/lighter DX camera for travel the D7200 or even the D5500 are better options than any D400. Remember, people are asking for the D400 to have a body style and size/weight similar to the D810. That’s quite a bit heftier. If people want a pro build then the camera will not be smaller/lighter.

          I guarantee you that if Nikon came up with a D400 that would meet the expectations of the crowd crowing for one, that it would cost around $1800. And most of that same crowd would reject it on price.

          • I hope you are wrong. Most shooters seeking the D400 are using it for sports an wildlife who already have longer glass that most other shooters. As such I anticipate they have deeper pockets to invest in a D400 at a higher price point.

            • T.I.M

              A D400 does not make sense anymore, the D810 successor (yes Peter, I did not said it) will have a sensor with about 50MP to compete with Canon/Sony.
              So shooting with a FX camera in DX more will make more senses than invest in a pro DX camera (D400)

            • Well Guess what – If you are correct, then I agree with your logic. However, the DX mode will need to be 24mp and 10 fps. I’d have to hold myself back from buying two D850s. The big question is how long will we have to wait to see if it will emerge?

            • T.I.M

              I have no evidence, but I believe that the D810,000 (find the square root) will be release in 2016.
              Computer power and memory capacity increase quickly and Nikon already have the body for it.

          • DB White

            I’m still waiting for a Nikon sports and wildlife capable DX camera. I prefer a pro build and AF-on button. If Nikon can release one at $1650 – $1750 I’m still interested. But, I could live with a D7300 with a reasonable continuous frame rate; the D7200 is just too slow when shooting 14-bit raw plus fine jpg.

    • Mike Gordon

      Why? What is the use of DX anymore? Most people have a camera phone for snapshots. 4x sensor size = ~1″ where you can see visible differences over a cellphone. Another 4x sensor size & another visible beak point is FF.

      Snap shooting = cell phone. If I want to go small and need different than 28mm, I use N1 gear. If I need ultimate quatltiy I grab my FF.

      • Eric Calabros

        Well, what for one who needs reach and ISO 6400 and can’t spend $10k?

        • VanHoff

          Sony A7xx series. Many people whom can’t afford the latest A7 series right now will look for second hand “old” models. That’s why Nikon and Canon are losing a big chunk of the market, and it will continue if they don’t wake up.

          • nwcs

            The performance of which pales in comparison to the Nikon D7xxx or D5xxx series.

            • Sawyerspadre

              Even a D3300 can kick butt, compared to you cell phone, if you need lower light or a focal length that your phone isn’t

            • nwcs

              Definitely but I think roughly on par to a potential mirrorless Sony Axxx camera all tolled.

          • Wade Marks

            Nikon and Canon are not losing market share to Sony or anyone else; market share has held steady for several years. All camera manufacturers are losing business to cellphones.

      • Thom Hogan

        Well, that question needs to be answered in two ways: from Nikon’s point of view, and from the customer’s point of view. From Nikon’s point of view, I’ll bet that over 33% of the total sales of the entire company are DX. So you can’t step away from DX without replacing it with something else, and FX is just simply too expensive to replace it with. CX didn’t do it. Coolpix is cratering. So DX is absolutely of use to Nikon.

        From the customer point of view things get a bit more confusing, partly because Nikon spend so much time recently marketing “you need FX.” Nope, you don’t. But too many people believe that now, so you have to figure out a way to re-market DX if you want to sell it.

        As I’ve been saying for a long time, Nikon brought all this on themselves. To use the analogy I first used five years ago, Nikon didn’t break and turn at the end of the straightaway, despite knowing there was a severe turn ahead. We don’t yet know if they just spun out in the grass or hit the wall and crashed yet. Not doing any new DX in 2016 would basically have me betting on the latter.

        • Karhai

          Yup. You have to wonder what they plan to do with their fab lines, especially at Sendai. The FX cameras are lowish volume, and no matter how good the D5, they won’t sell all that many units. Neither will any interactions of the other FX cameras, although maybe those numbers are better.

          I have a sinking feeling that the current set of Nikon execs are managing the company to oblivion. Not that I have any particular knowledge, but almost every decision they do make seems to be bad, and the obvious good decisions seems not to be forthcoming. (I see this at my workplace too ;))

          Me, I will shoot with what I have for now. There’s zero reason to sink more money in to Nikon products except at sale prices. Sad to say, that’s the brand at the moment.

          • Wade Marks

            Let’s get real. It is so easy to armchair manage a company. Of course Nikon is not perfect. But they have managed to hold steady market share in a very tough environment over the last several years.

            Their D# series is a wonderful pro tool, and only Canon can match that. Their D8xx series has been groundbreaking and the D810 is considered by many, including Thom, to be the best overall dslr on the market today. Their D750 is a terrific and competitively priced FF. Their D7200 is a great crop sensor camera; in fact it’s crop sensor is rated the highest of all APS-C sensors. Their D5500 is a great tool and very small/light; Ming Thein, who is very demanding, has been praising it.

            So sure Nikon is not perfect, but let’s not discount what they’ve accomplished. They and Canon are still the gold standard by far.

        • whisky

          Cx didn’t do it … but properly implemented it could. JMO.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          Thom, but how much of the 33% DX market is actually the high end? I’m sure the DX market share is very close to what you say, but wouldn’t the vast majority of that be made up of D3xxx and D5xxxx with kit lens buyers who neve add lenses or trade up? IS there REALLY a market that would make developing a D400/D9000 or similar (semi)Pro DX body actually progfitable for Nikon?
          How many units of a D400/D9000 would they haveto sell to recoup all the R&D and tooling and production costs?

          • Thom Hogan

            I hate to keep using Apple as an example, but they’re a perfect example. To paraphrase your question in Apple-dom, how much of the mobile market is actually high-end laptops? Isn’t the vast majority tablet and low-end laptop users? Is there really a market that would make developing a 15″ Retina profitable for Apple?

            Product lines should be product LINES. Nikon spent a lot of time and energy to develop a DX product line, even past the introduction of the FX D3. Then something broke. The model they used, the expectations of sales they had, the speed at which they iterated, their quality control, the collapse of the camera market, all conspired to put them in a boat load of trouble.

            What they ended up with is a broken DX line, and a broken FX line. Broken in different ways, too. Unlike Apple, which can move someone from a iPhone 5s to 6s to 6s+ to iPad Mini to iPad Air to iPad Pro to MacBook 12″ to MacBook 13″ Retina to MacBook 15″ Retina (and still further), Nikon can’t do much other than move DX users to FX (at a substantial price jump, which reduces the number of people that will make the move). Moreover, a user can’t buy into the Nikon product line at their perceived need. They can only buy in at some preconceived points that don’t mesh together well and aren’t easy to market in terms of differences.

            So my answers to you:

            * Nikon has always sold more of the high end DX than people expected, including Nikon. It’s really the D70 and up that have been truly successful in establishing long term customers that stay with the program and upgrade. In today’s terms that D7200 and up.

            * That doesn’t mean you can’t move the lower end folk up, but you’re NOT going to move a D3300 or D5500 user to FX at US$2000 and up. Simply won’t happen. You might move them up to a D7200 or D400.

            * I’m unaware of ANY Nikon DSLR that wasn’t actually profitable for Nikon, though the D600 sure tested that due to all the recall/replacement things that happened.

            * Nikon reuses parts and technologies. The R&D for a D400 is mostly moving D4/D5 technologies down, with the exception being that a D400 at this point needs a unique, high performance sensor. (By the way, one of the things that isn’t discussed re: the 7DII is that new sensor it has. Why is Canon dropping price to push up volume? Because volume drops sensor costs.)

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              Thanks for taking the time to write such an excellent and clear reply 🙂

            • Daniel Brielmayer

              “a D400 at this point needs a unique, high performance sensor. ” I wonder if this could be a 28mp bsi sensor from Samsung?

        • CaMeRa QuEsT

          The latest interview with Sigma’s CEO reveals one very interesting tidbit: their 2 best selling lenses are #1 their 18-250mm superzoom and #2 their 17-50mm f/2.8. The first one I see being picked-up mostly by the D3*00/D5*00 crowd and the second one by the D7*00/D300s crowd. That means there really is a good customer base for high end DX cameras, which is not being well covered by Nikon with only one body, while Canon is attacking with 3 bodies if you count the T6s which straddles the D5500 and the D7200 and seems to be the sweet spot for Canon.

          • Thom Hogan

            It could also mean that the largest group of lens buyers (crop sensor users) is price conscious.

            • Tony Beach

              I thought the biggest appeal of a superzoom is convenience; considering that someone can get an 18-55 and a 55-300 in a D5300 kit for $300 more than a body only, and a Sigma 18-250 costs $350.

      • P. Turtle

        There is a large number of photographers who shoot mainly wildlife images. A cell phone wont cut it, and although FF has a superior sensor, DX provides 50% more reach. It’s true that the D810 has a crop mode, but most of us can’t afford or wont pay for a $3400 camera. A high end DX body will satisfy the needs of many photographers while costing about half of a D810. It is a real need among a significant percentage of the photo community. Unfortunately Nikon has yet to address it adequately.

        • Coastalconn

          This is very true and Nikon just gave up the fight. I am a wildlife guy and I abandoned Nikon with the release of the D7200. I felt that Nikon had given up on my market segment. I know quite a few people that follow me on FB that also switched to the 7dm2. At the current price point if you shoot birds a lot like I do, there is no better camera than the 7dm2 for fps and buffer with a very good AF system..

          • Wade Marks

            And I know a guy who switched from Nikon to Canon 7dii and in a few short weeks was back to Nikon for image sensor quality. He loves his D7200, now that he is over the “grass is always greener” syndrome.

            • Coastalconn

              If it is an online presence, I probably know who you are talking about.. Many things can enter the equation. 🙂

          • P. Turtle

            I’m still with Nikon, but like you, am disappointed with their decision to abandon/delay the release of a high end crop body. It’s a good marketing ploy by Canon to draw as many disgruntled Nikonians as possible with discount prices. They will try to recoup their losses with the sale of lenses.

        • Michiel953

          Large number? Be specific.

          • P. Turtle

            It’s either 144,637 or 144,638 …

        • whisky

          the N1 system offers 270% reach. personally, i’d rather shoot wildlife with a small state of the art N1 than a Dx. if i wanted just 50% more, i could shoot and crop with an Fx. JMO.

          • P. Turtle

            Although it’s true that you get an incredible amount of reach with the N1 system, the downside is the sensor size. Not enough light gathering capability for consistently good image quality. You require optimum conditions for acceptable images. The N1 sensor is smaller than a micro four thirds. I experimented briefly with the Olympus system(EM5 and 100-300mm lens), a couple of years ago. I was quite disappointed with the results. The D7000 was superior to the Olympus in almost every way except size. I actually found the Olympus to be too small though. The DX felt just about right for my hands. I think the DX cameras strike the right balance of cost, weight and image quality when shooting wildlife… a modest sweet spot, if you will.

            • KnightPhoto

              Agree with P. Turtle. D400=sweet spot for wildlife and sport shooters. And Ruth gave the figures the other day, 10M D300 units sold, 1.xM D300S. So I’d think a D400 with a decent fps, buffer, and the D5 AF is going to sell, let’s say 2 million units at least and maybe due to including the D5 AF unit high-side of 3 million? Don’t forget this D5 AF is going to be killer for any of us action shooters, guys are going to get their wallets out for the D5, D400, and D820. 2016 should be a resurgence year for camera sales for Nikon’s high-end cameras at least. I’d think Nikon can easily get $2299 out of us D400 early adopters. I’ve long stated the camera I need the D5-level of AF, buffer, and fps is my D400. And yes I’ve got lots of FX cameras and will continue to have them (tools for tasks).

              Probably going to leave D5 AF out of the D760, Df2, and D7300 for this generation I would think.

            • Wade Marks

              KnightPhoto: I highly doubt that the D300 sold 10 million units and I don’t know why we should take the figures that a random commenter named Ruth gave. Thom would know more about the numbers from Nikon than I would…but if Nikon sold 10M D300 units, at about $2000 a pop, that would be about $20 billion in sales, which seems very high for a company the size of Nikon, even back then.

              As for Nikon being able to get $2299 for a D400…that again is totally unrealistic. That would be suicide for the model. I don’t care what features it would have, the first thing most buyers would say is that with Canon you can get their model for $1000 less…and they would also compare that price with the price of the Nikon FF models.

              The market has moved on…there may not be that large of a market for a D400 to merit its development and marketing costs.

            • KnightPhoto

              Hmmm I’m gonna have to talk to Ruthie, inconveniently you are right, those D300 sales numbers sound too high. I’ll make my same point about a D400 though – a good offering with D5 AF, decent fps & buffer, and good sensor, and it should do 25% of the lifetime sales that the D300/S achieved.

              Wade you must not be a telephoto action shooter. You and that Sick Headache guy. If you were you would know already that most D400 buyers couldn’t give a darn what the next lowest and highest FX bodies cost – we simply don’t care. We are looking for a high-end DX body (could care less what a D620/D760 body costs). As I stated before I have and use FX bodies and love them, as do many others in the market. We can still use a high-end DX to go along with our FX bodies.

            • Wade Marks

              Knight: I get what you are saying and I don’t doubt that you and some others would buy a D400, even at a higher price point. I’m not saying there is no market there, but rather that the market size may not be enough. When Nikon or any company develops a new model, there is the cost of R&D, production, distribution, marketing, etc. They also have to make it in large enough quantities to bring the cost down.

              My point is that the original D300 had a lot of people buying it, not for long telephoto action, but for other reasons as well, simply because if you wanted more than a D90 but didn’t want to spend for a D3, that left you with the D300. These buyers have moved into other models that better fit their needs. For instance, I know a couple who bought a D300 for travel and landscape photography. They are now using a D800 and loving it even more.

              If the long telephoto action shooter market is not big enough, and keep in mind that many of these have gone to the D# series and are happy, then it’s not cost effective for Nikon to produce the product. They don’t want a bunch of unsold inventory sitting on shelves and don’t want to have to discount it towards D7200 pricing, because then they need to lower the price of the D7200. Apparently Canon has run out of long telephoto action shooters to sell the 7d ii to because they are now resorting to some heavy discounting on that model.

              Now if Nikon comes out with a D400, great. No sweat off of my back. But my guess is that the market is not that large or else Nikon would have acted already. And remember it took Canon a while to come out with the 7d ii, probably because they had similar doubts. And Canon has probably a larger market of super telephoto action shooters, because of their big whites.

        • Sawyerspadre

          D7200 is nearing $1000. So how many D400 would sell at $2000, and is it worth twice as much? 7dii is heavily discounted in the market.

          • P. Turtle

            $2000 might be a tough sell. $1600 to $1800 would probably be a more realistic target. I believe one of the reasons the 7DII is discounted, is not lack of demand, but rather lack of a substantial upgrade from the previous model. Its sensor is only slightly improved(the D7000 scores better and it was released in 2010). The auto focus is better though. I think after the initial buzz of its release has worn off, people are realizing its not significantly better than the MKI. At least not enough to warrant an additional $1700 or so. But if Nikon actually created a camera that combined excellent sensor, body, auto focus, and fps … and priced it in the sweet spot, it would sell very well.

            • Sawyerspadre

              So stick the D7200 sensor in a D810 body? Keep everything else D810, in terms of focus,etc. I think it would be more like Nikon to price that at $1895 and then let it adjust downward in price after they have skimmed the market of all the birders and others who have been eagerly awaiting a D400 for years.

            • Wade Marks

              The 7dii is better in every way than the 7d, including a significant improvement in sensor vs the original 7d. As you also mention the AF is far better as is the build quality. So Canon delivered the exact same level of improvement that people are demanding from a D400…and it’s price is now at D7200 levels.

          • Kyle

            Nikon USA had refurb D7200s for $799 a couple weeks ago. Amazing deal! Wish I had gotten one. Or two.

          • sickheadache

            Because the 7Dll(ii is a different deal) is the same old camera with nothing but two more mp, and a lot of bs hype from canon and their fan boys..What? this is it? was the theme of the 7dll..It is not a good camera..no matter how much spinning Canon does..and now today it is there are many major discounts on it. It is a perfect camera for GWC and don’t expect much out of life.

      • Sawyerspadre

        Simple answer. The mass market is between $300 and $1500. The D610 is $1500 and is the low price FX.

        Nikon should be marketing the low light capabilities vs your cell phone. The iPhone 6 sucks in low light.

      • El Aura

        1/3″ to 1″ to FF is more like 8x the sensor area.

    • jimh

      The camera makers spent the last year rolling, smoking and inhaling so much FF hype that they can’t even remember what they were doing with APS-C. They now actually believe what they’ve been telling their customers – that there’s something magical about these dimensions, which date from the 19th century. Nobody even points out anymore that the actual advantages of the larger sensor are small, and limited, and no doubt temporary as well. A massive Full Frame hangover is coming, but may be quite a while.

      • Thom Hogan

        It’s a bit worse than that. The whole one sensor one lens concept has them transfixed, too. Not so the smartphone makers and companies such as Lytro/Light. At some point someone is going to break the one sensor one lens definition of camera successfully, and then what? More FX? ;~)

        • jimh

          I’m not smart enough to predict how this will all play out. But what would happen if someone actually produced an APS-C sensor that matched the performance of FF in every respect? Would the market reject it because it wasn’t “full”? Or would buyers start to shake off this hypnosis?

          And I’m about 80% convinced such a sensor could be produced today 🙂

          • Wade Marks

            Whatever technology could enable an APS-C sensor to achieve results equivalent to today’s FF sensors, could also be applied to a FF sensor for even better results.

            So the physics dictates that a larger sensor will always be better than the smaller one if it uses the same underlying technology.

            But there is no doubt that the quality of all sensors keeps improving; in many ways an APS-C sensor of today can outperform a FF sensor of years back.

            APS-C for most is more than good enough, and it will only get better.

            I do think one problem is that the smartphone has captured most of the more casual photographer market, leaving the dedicated camera market more and more to the enthusiastic hobbyist. For this crowd the status of FF means something, even if they don’t always need it.

            • jimh

              “So the physics dictates that a larger sensor will always be better than the smaller one if it uses the same underlying technology.”

              What physics is that? Seriously. I think it’s more a matter of some current problems with sensor fabrication and silicon technology getting solved, after which sensor size no longer matters.

            • Michiel953

              Dream on

            • SpecialMan

              Silly argument really–you guys are looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope because your sensor size is determined by your shooting requirements. For ultimate quality? It’s still scanned 8×10 sheet film. End of story.
              If you’re photographing buildings and need tilt-shift capabilities your only choices are Canon full-frame or medium-format back on a technical camera. If you’re spending 12 months following Hillary Clinton or covering a war, only Nikon or Canon full-frame pro cameras will stand up to the abuse.
              Backpacking and need beautiful jpgs: Olympus m4/3. Need to shoot 4:2:2 4K video and stills with the same camera? It’s Panasonic m4/3.

              And finally, if you an international spy? Only the Minox subminiature comes with a special 18″ measuring chain to assure perfect focus on those secret documents.

            • Wade Marks

              It’s easy. A bigger sensor gathers more light and thus more information. This results in better IQ.

              That’s the short answer. If you want to know more just google it. There are many many articles explaining why the size of the image sensor matters in terms of picture quality.

            • jimh

              More light equals more “information”? That’s not any physics I’ve ever heard of. It’s hard to argue with Dr. Google, but I think he overlooked quite a few factors, for example the actual size of the light gathering cells, as opposed to the overall dimensions of the sensor; the resolving power the lens; signal/noise ratio as the electronics shrinks; and probably a few others.

            • “That’s not any physics I know of.” …?

              Go to the library and get a high school physics book.

            • jimh

              The information available to the sensor is completely dependent on the lens. Focusing the image on a larger area doesn’t increase it’s information content, unless the larger lens has more resolving power. If the APS-C lens is significantly higher quality than the FF lens, the smaller sensor would have more information to work with; or conversely.

            • Again, you need to do some reading. A larger sensor demands a longer focal length to achieve the same angle of view. The magnification is thus larger. And with that is more information. It’s the same reason astronomers use telescopes…they gather more light and magnify the image.

            • jimh

              Like I said – it all depends on the lens. If the lens delivers more detail, then the sensor has more to work with. If not, not. The difference between FF and APS-C formats is a bit less than the difference between the naked eye and an astronomical telescope – like a few orders of magnitude.
              Wow. The guys marketing full frame have a dream job. FF users basically sell themselves.

            • Like I said, read a physics book.

            • Thom Hogan

              You’re making fallacious arguments. Basically, larger sensor means better data, ALL ELSE EQUAL. So now you’re trying to make the lens UNEQUAL to make your point. Do you work for Olympus? ;~)

            • 24MPistooMuchOnDX

              Yes but it is bigger so it does need more light!
              You’d better google it yourself next time (and you’d
              find out everything is related to pixel pitch)

            • Wade Marks

              Geesh…it’s 2015…do we really have to debate the idea that a bigger sensor produces better images?

              A bigger sensor enables larger photosites and larger pixel pitch. So we’re back to the same idea.

              Image quality is impacted by sensor size. Period. As long as I use the same technology a larger image sensor will be better. Now it may not be needed for many people. And as I have already mentioned, as technology improves the smaller sensors get better and better as well. So for many APS-C, for example, may well be good enough, because today’s APS-C sensors outperform in many respects the FF sensors of years ago.

              But let’s not lose sight of the fact that a larger image sensor is better than a smaller sensor. Think of your sensor as a bucket collecting rain drops..photon rain drops…the bigger the bucket the more photon rain collected. The more photon rain the better the image.

            • 24MPistooMuchOnDX

              No. It also depends on the number of Mega Pixels. So a modern 12MP APS-C sensor could in theory produce better (as long as we refer to S/N which I guess you do) picture than a 50MP FF of the same generation.

              Sure they will be less defined but this is another discussion I guess.

              And we are in 2015 as you said 😉

              I though you were going back in the right direction in your anlaysis but then you get it wrong again with your rain analogy.

            • jimh

              “The more photon rain the better the image”.
              Wow. I just doubled my image quality by going to a larger aperture. Thanks for the tip!

            • Thom Hogan

              Look, go read my article on “exposure.” Exposure is three things: light from lens (aperture), time (shutter speed), light reaching capture (lighting). It’s nothing else.

              Now consider a CONSTANT exposure with different capture sizes. Bigger sensor wins, all else equal.

          • Thom Hogan

            Well, no. If you have sensor tech at one size that’s capable of X, at another size it will be capable of X-Y (smaller) or X+Y (bigger). Has to do with the area of light capture and how the physics/geometry works.

            That said, we’re in another of those “good enough” dilemmas. And we’re already deep into it. Fujifilm X-T1 users, for instance, will insist that their cameras are FX-like in capabilities (not exactly true).

            Which brings us to the critical element of your question and my mantra for, well, it seems like forever: make more DX lenses.

            Again, with Fujifilm, Fujifilm isn’t having any trouble finding new customers. While they’re a small player with a small single digit percentage of the ILC market, they’re growing, their users are happy, they should do just fine with their upcoming line refresh. Why? Because the lenses are there that support the cameras. Indeed, Fujifilm has put a bit of an emphasis on fast aperture lenses, which reduces the FX advantage a bit. Enough so that there are plenty of pros using X systems.

            Compare that to DX: missing lenses everywhere, and Nikon implores you to move to the more expensive FX if you want those lenses.

            My theory (unfortunately untestable) is that the D7200 (and D400 if there were one) would be flying off shelves if there was a full DX lens set. Where there is a “full” lens set for the D7200 (70-200, 80-400, 200-400, 200-500, 300, etc.) those that shoot with are pretty much satisfied with everything except what a missing D400 would give them (body build, higher frame rate).

            The problem is that a full lens set in DX would impact D750 sales. And there’s Nikon’s super micromanagement issue: they’re trying to force people to particular models instead of just producing everything the customer might want and letting them choose. They’re absolutely afraid of cannibalizing their own sales (see my recent article). But who would they rather have cannibalize them? Sony? Fujifilm? ;~)

            I’ve been reporting this trend for several years now. My estimate is that Nikon’s lost at least 5% of their potential sales to switchers and samplers, and probably another 5% or more to waiters. If I’m right, that would pretty much be enough to make Nikon look like a shining gem among camera makers had they got their product line right.

            One problem for Nikon is the way they do products. It’s group versus group, not all-for-the-best. A D7200 design/marketing group doesn’t want a D400, because it would shift some sales from their child, for example. And yes, that type of politics is certainly in play at Nikon, and I’ve observed it firsthand in meetings.

            • “And yes, that type of politics is certainly in play at Nikon, and I’ve observed it firsthand in meetings.” ouch. That’s really sad, and doesn’t bode well…

            • Wade Marks

              In all fairness, that type of politics involving different product divisions is very common in many corporations; it’s not just Nikon.

              I do agree though that the Apple model is best…as Steve Jobs said, if we don’t make our products obsolete then someone else will.

            • Daniel Brielmayer

              Last year I was trying to decide between a Fuji XT-1 and Nikon D7100. I’ve always been a Nikon guy but this time went with the Fuji. I’m just tired of the big block Nikon DSLR’s. A Fuji with the 14mm, new 35mm, and 18-55 all make for a very small and light setup. I ended up having to sell my kit for some immediate cash to pay for surgery for one of my dogs. I’m now in the market for a camera and will wait until Feb to see what comes but I’m already leaning towards the Fuji XPro2. I have no need or desire for FF. I do go on safari every 3-4 years and when I do again I’ll do what I did last year. Bought a D7100 and rented an 80-400. Sold the camera 2 weeks later for a $200 loss which was pretty much the taxes I paid on it. The rental of the lens was $400 for 21 days. So I was out $600 which was a cost I was willing to incur for my safari. For the most part Nikon lost me as a customer.

    • Nikos Delhanidis

      I don’t know how Nikon could get a part off the 7DMk2 pie piece. Its very late. Nikon didn’t even have proper lenses for this group of photography/photographers. They were late with the 80-400 AF-S and its also overpriced. Nikon seems to only starting now since D300 to approach this piece of the market with the 200-500. Maybe they have in plans a D400/9300/500 but it will be probably more expensive than the current 1050 euros tag of the 7D mk2 and already for long now many have made their DX long tele sports sets based on 7D mk2.

  • MichaelSNC

    Admin, do you have a cumulative list of bodies and lenses released this year? I know they released the D5500, D7200, D810A, 300PF, 16-80, 500, 600, 24-70VR, 24, 200-500. Good year for lenses but not as much for bodies.

    Thanks for ALL You do and Merry Christmas!

  • br0xibear

    Meanwhile you can get your “Nikon D5 Pouch” here, not sure what you use it for though, lol…
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/davidj/works/15407148-nikon-d5?p=pouch

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      ….but the “5” is wrong… if the leaked pics are like the final product.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        but that’s no suprise because everything this ‘designer’ sells has been ripped off and copied and frankly he’s an embarassment and should get his balls sued off. Any Nikon/Hasselblad lawyers here? Go check out this douche…

  • animalsbybarry

    I see you do not have a Nikon ff mirrorless camera on your list of expected new cameras.
    What are your expectations for one ?

  • NewsCamera

    No D400, and no Nikon ‘B’ as expected. The 2017 Nikon Df-like model is a surprise. I was sure the Nikon Df was a one-off, loss-leader (I was about to buy a second Df body). One more FPS in the Df would make it a lightweight replacement for my twin D3s event bodies.

  • Hardcore_Fanboy

    D400, D850, D5X; 200mm f4 G micro; 50mm 1.2G – those all are comming… right?

    • Yach

      50mm 1.2G YUMMY

  • Nikita

    so… great, nothing really relevant for at least a year and half, Nikon really knows how to keep its buyer base interested.

  • @NikonRumors:disqus, any more details about the SB-5000? Just switching to LED, or something more? Thanks!

  • Roy Kroon

    I’ve read in the buying guide that the d810/d750/d610 are up for a refresh in 2016.
    Any news on the d750/d610? Or is it too early to expect anything?

    • too early, maybe towards the end of the year

      • Roy Kroon

        Awh, too bad. Thanks for your reply though 🙂

  • Neopulse

    They need to give again attention to DX lenses.

  • nek4life

    I’m thinking about getting a Nikon 35 1.4g so you can expect a refresh soon.

  • Wade Marks

    Thom always notes that Nikon should develop their DX series better both in terms of lenses and a missing D400. While I personally am not sure of the viability of a D400, I do agree that Nikon should come out with more really great DX lenses. Many people want smaller/lighter and are going mirrorless for that, but as Ming Thein’s review of the D5500 makes clear, many more demanding shooters would go for a great DX body with great DX lenses to give them a more portable option.

    But here’s my suggestion: develop a mini Df using a great DX sensor. Use the same 24 MP sensor used in the D7200/D5500 and create a really winning retro design but one smaller/lighter than the Df. Price it half the price: about $1300. If they really want to be aggressive price it at $1000. Come out with some really killer DX lenses for it. I think Nikon would have a competitor that could challenge Fuji and one that would be really popular. If they can create a small DX camera like the D5500 they surely can create a winning retro design around DX.

  • Alaa

    Anything on the D8XX (D900?) front?

  • EnPassant

    The missing rumors are just as revealing as what are rumored.

    Most notable are the complete lack of Nikon 1 rumors. While the J5 was released in April this year the latest lens came out in March 2014! Except for Nikon not leaving any market the Nikon 1 system looks just as dead as the Samsung NX system. No wonder the rumors, true or not, about Nikon and Samsung surfaced!

    The rumors about three 1″ sensor compacts finally being produced by Nikon are all but the final nails in the N1 coffin. Because as long as N1 was promoted Nikon avoided producing any competing 1″ sensor zoom compacts. Propably these compacts already replaced the N1 in the production lines at the China plant.

    The mythical “D400” . Although it is not a camera for me I have nothing personally against a D400 if Nikon think they can sell enough of them to make a profit. It does after all fit the bill perfectly in the areas DX DSLRs excel, fast AF tracking and extended reach with long tele lenses compared to full frame cameras.

    While it is possible Nikon can surprise us all releasing the “D400” (propably under the name D9000) along the D5 I still find it unlikely. Reason is the next generation of cameras.

    First a D820 is expected for the summer with a 50+MP sensor with a DX crop close to 24MP. This means Nikon will have a FF semi-pro camera with same reach advantage as their latest DX cameras. While it propably not will be faster even with a new image processor because of the high MP sensor, 7fps in DX crop is still quite respectable although not as fast as Canon 7DII with 10fps.

    Secondly the D7300 expected for Spring 2017 should be more than an incremental upgrade with body style like D750 and a new sensor with faster redout enabling 8-10fps. While neither alternative is perfect they put doubts on the “D400” ever appearing.

    Next, where is the D3500? It was rather expected for Fall this year. A release along D5 in January seems unlikely. While a spring release is still possible and a time Nikon often release cameras one can start wonder if Nikon have other plans?

    The big question is if this is the year Nikon finally decides to release a serious mirrorless system with a larger sensor. Because even if there existed a few more dedicated primes for the DX DSLRs that wouldn’t stop the leaking and sampling to other mirrorless systems as they are attractive because of smaller size and EVF. Simply put Nikon’s product portfolio have a big hole without a serious mirrorless system. A release at Photokina is possible but can come earlier as well as being pushed forward to the beginning of Nikon’s Jubilee year 2017. While there are a lot of talk about a mirrorless full frame system on forums I think Nikon first will produce cameras with DX sensors.

    The final camera missing from rumors, D760 is expected to be released just before Photokina (20-25 September 2016) just like D750 was in 2014. Question is what upgrades we will see? A new 24MP sensor and image processor with faster AF? Or it will inherit the 36MP sensor or a new version of it from the D810? Given how good the D750 still is and the potential premiere of Nikon mirrorless for Photokina there is also the possibility it gets extended life until 2017.

    As to lenses Nikon usually release at least one DX kit-zoom every year. So which will it be 2016 when most of them recently already have been updated? Well the old 18-200 could do with an optical refresh for the demanding 24MP sensors. The lens I however think Nikon think should do and will sell well is their version of the cheap and good EF-S 10-18 STM lens Canon make. The current 10-24 lens is simply too big and expensive for most DX DSLR consumers.

    For FX we are still waiting for a 135mm VR rounding of the f/1.8 primes at the long end. The other AF-S updates still missing are a Fisheye and 200mm Micro-Nikkor. If we will see any refresh of the 105 and 180mm lenses is however under a cloud.

    The bread and butter 70-200/2.8 lens should also be close to a new update. And why Nikon yet haven’t updated the the 17-35/2.8 is a mystery as Canon are working on the third version of their 16-35/2.8.

    For the longer lenses 200/2 and 300/2.8 are still in que for E-updates. And the PC-lenses should some day get a mechanical update, with new optics for the 24mm.

    Where Nikon must put in an effort is at the wide end. Nikon really must have an answer for the Canon 11-24/4 as well as the Canon TS 17/4 lens. An 18mm f/1.8 for the astrophotographers would also be nice. And maybe some more PF lenses and zoom I didn’t think of, like a refresh of the 70-300 lens.

    That’s 13+ lenses that could be released during the coming 2-3 years. As many lenses are expected to live 10-20 years what new lenses could Nikon release then except a few refreshes? Well, starting a new mirrorless system could easily solve that problem!

  • Nikos Delhanidis
  • Franzo Marruffo

    What we need is a
    New Nikon full frame mirrorless camera !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Allan

    Peter,
    What do you think?

    • Allan

      Peter,
      I saw your answer in another post.

    • If true, this would be the best kept secret since I am running this site. I have not heard anything about a D500. There was some talk few months ago about a possible double launch just like the D3/D300 but this was it.

  • KnightPhoto

    Well would love to see that D400 announced in January as Brad states. Hope he is onto something!

    • If he is right, this would be the best kept Nikon secret since I am running this site.

  • Nikos Delhanidis

    I don’t know how Nikon could get a part off the 7DMk2 pie piece. Its very late. Nikon didn’t even have proper lenses for this group of photography/photographers. They were late with the 80-400 AF-S and its also overpriced. Nikon seems to only starting now since D300 to approach this piece of the market with the 200-500. Maybe they have in plans a D400/9300/500 but it will be probably more expensive than the current 1050 euros tag of the 7D mk2 and already for long now many have made their DX long tele sports sets based on 7D mk2

  • disqus_Z8gYXHTTYC

    A lot of emphasis on camera bodies and tele lenses. The old 135mm DC lens is long overdue for replacement. There is a patent for a 135mm/1.8 lens, so I suspect – and hope – that it is coming in 2016, although it might be a f/2 lens. At the shorter end of the scale, the widest, modern lens that is suitable for modern hi-res sensors is the 24/1.4G lens. I’m eagerly awaiting a new 17mm lens or a 14mm lens replacement.

    • Just curious, you don’t consider the 14-24 2.8 zoom suited for hi-res sensors? AFAIK, it’s very well rated, even on the D8xx bodies.

      • disqus_Z8gYXHTTYC

        It is a zoom, not a prime lens. It is a very good zoom lens, but not as good as a prime can be. It is not all about sharpness, but also about contrast, flare, distortion, chromatic aberration and much more. I have stopped using zoom lenses except for the 24-120 as a convenient “holiday” lens, but use primes for everything serious.

  • MonkeySpanner

    This is a pretty boring list. D5 – meh. Maybe a few are interested. The rest – not at all interesting to most photographers.
    But Nikon must having something up their sleeve that none of the rumor sites know about. If not – then it will be a slow year for Nikon.

    • MonkeySpanner

      Wow, I was right about having “Something up their sleeve”.

  • jimh

    It’s sad to see that Sony has decided to just let the mirrorless ship sail without them.

  • Back to top