List of not yet announced Nikon cameras registered with various agencies

Here is an updated list of upcoming Nikon cameras that have already been registered with various government agencies but are not yet officially announced:


  • Digital camera
  • Made in China
  • Wi-Fi, Bluetooth installed
  • No updates for more than 9 months - there is a possibility that this camera is canceled


  • Digital camera
  • Made in China
  • Wi-Fi, Bluetooth installed


  • Remote controller
  • Wire type: Bluetooth 4.1 + LE
  • Battery: coin-type lithium battery CR 2032


Via Nokishita

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

    Maybe D760?

    • A. F.O.


      • T.I.M

        I think Nikon will announce a full frame mirror less camera before Christmas.
        I wish it will look like my Fuji X100s, I don’t want something too big and heavy.

        • Nobody Knows

          There is no point making a really tiny FF mirrorless cameras the handling of FF lenses is impaired.Beyond the UWA end FF mirrorlesss lenses of same focal length build and aperture are roughly the same size physics sucks lol

        • Greg

          I hope so… I hope it will be like a leica Q, competitor.

  • Means nothing, Nikon Rumors I work in facts, when I see it I believe it (Like Religion)

    • Shutterbug

      Why do you visit sites dedicated to rumors then?

    • T.I.M

      LOL my first photo teacher was a nun, imagine our surprise when we saw the image on the photo paper (B&W) appear in the developer bin.
      “it’s a miracle!”

      • Pippo

        Welcome back T.I.M ! 🙂

        • Ric of The LBC

          don’t encourage him.

          • A. F.O.

            Drink! 🙂

        • T.I.M

          I was not gone, just busy trying to mount a D100 battery grip on a D800 camera, hoping to get a D… well you know what I mean.

    • Fly Moon

      Why are you here then? Can you read the name of the site?

    • I am not sure I understand your comment.

      • Michael Turner

        I think he wants you to start a Nikon Facts site. It’s easy; just wait until everything is announced and then cut and paste.

        • We have plenty of those already 🙂

          • Andrew

            I think he wanted to say something about Religion and wanted to use a critique of NR to get his staunch views across.

          • Fly Moon

            For example,

        • T.I.M

          Just visit B&H website…

        • Fly Moon

          That’s called

      • Andrew

        I think he wanted to say something about Religion and wanted to use a critique of NR to get his staunch views across…

    • CERO

      this thread feels like a 4chan wannabe cool kid trying to be “edgy” by refusing rumors on a rumours site.
      Thats like a gamer going to a casual gamer site and blaming a new game announcement for looking “casual”.

    • Ric of The LBC

      I keep pressing and nothing happens

    • ZoetMB

      Those are facts. It’s a fact that those Nikon products were registered with the various government agencies. We might not be able to tell what most of them are, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

      Plus all the other comments about if you don’t like rumors, why do you come and post in a rumors site? It’s like going to a rock music site and posting, “I hate rock music.”

    • MB

      So you see her often, I mean the god?

    • Andrew

      Many people who say seeing is believing are not consistent in their views and actions as they quite often form their opinions based upon authority figures who are not infallible. And how often has science been wrong for hundreds of years – passing to future generations beliefs (appropriately called theories) that are taught as facts? Per your statement, it does not take a rocket scientist to believe what they see.

      The biggest problem I have observed is people who have formed the habit of not believing what they are in fact seeing because their perception of reality has been obfuscated by so-called scientific theories that have no basis in reality but are in essence a far-fetched interpretation of the facts.

      Religion is a broad term that includes facts and fiction just like Science is equally a broad term that also includes facts and fiction whether it be Theoretical Physics, String Theory for example, or Evolutionary Biology. I am an Electrical Engineer, and my first misgivings on the far fringes of science came in my University studies in the Physics III class about Relativity. Not surprising, even Einstein had misgivings on how Quantum Theory was evolving in its interpretation of reality.

      • Sammydemon

        Scientific fact and scientific theory are not categorically separable. A scientific theory is the final result of the scientific method after observation, experimentation, collection of data and analysis.

        • Andrew

          It is not accurate to say that a scientific theory is a scientific fact. Theory and fact have two completely different meaning in science which even the average person understands in their everyday usage of these terms. But unfortunately, the evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists have been the worst offenders in confusing the public into believing that their theories (or views on nature and reality) are in actuality facts (and not unproven beliefs), no doubt to sell their populist ideas.

          Here is Wikipedia’s view on this issue: “In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

          Now when a theory (which is an intelligent guess) is elevated to the same level of certainty as a scientific fact, it becomes a Scientific Law.

          And here is a dictionary definition of a hypothesis (or theory): “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”

          • A. F.O.

            This is not that kind of site. Please. Let Peter say something and … it will become a Nikon law:-)

            • Andrew

              You express your views and then you complain, that is a good one 😉 I get the message, you do not want me to say anything to refute your views… so I will just leave it there.

            • A. F.O.

              “Pray to all the Gods, Just in case.”, someone Said.
              Pick a digital camera and take some photos. See them on your screen, LR, etc and voilá….physics laws aren’t just theories. They really describe our world!
              (If God exists in this Universe then, someday, someone will measure his pH!!!! 🙂

          • A. F.O.

            The quantum electrodynamics is the most reliable theory mankind ever seen. And is a direct product of theoretical physics.

          • Sammydemon

            Hello Andrew,
            I don’t want to get too hung up on this but I would like you to understand that in science, theory and fact do indeed have the same definition. You’re right that the everyday person thinks they have a different meaning: this is exactly the problem! One produces a hypothesis, gathers evidence (also known as facts) and interprets it and then produces a theory. A theory is not baseless guesswork, in fact there is NO “guesswork” at all, it is a calculated understanding of facts. So when someone says “a scientific fact” and “a scientific theory” there is no difference. There is simply no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. The theory should be just as verifiable and observable as the facts, otherwise it would not be a scientific interpretation of those facts!

            Scientific laws are a different matter altogether. I am in the field of biochemistry where we encounter this less, but my understanding is that a law is the result of continuous observation of phenomena that produce a pattern that can be described by one simple rule, such as a mathematical equation.

            • Andrew

              I understand where you are coming from in that a search on Wikipedia describes the following: “Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. “Fact” is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.”

              I do have a problem with scientists using the word “fact” to describe a scientific theory, but I guess it is something that the scientific community embraces as it gives legitimacy to their views in public discourse. In other words, it conveys to the public a different meaning from what it may in reality. And unfortunately, it may lump a bad theory with a good theory as is the case of String Theory in Physics which is maybe the worst offender.

            • Ember Green


          • Sammydemon

            P.S. I guess I should also add (perhaps stating the obvious) that not everybody’s interpretation of facts should be considered “a theory”, only once it is accepted by the scientific community and has been shown to be sufficiently observable and reproducible. This is just a matter of course for good science that has been carried out correctly.

          • In science, hypothesis and theory are NOT the same thing. A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.

            Unfortunately, the word theory is widely misused in common parlance and has been corrupted so that it seems to mean the same as hypothesis.

            As a scientist (my first degree was Physics) I would avoid the expression scientific fact. Perhaps scientific theory or scientific evidence would be more appropriate. To refer to something as a fact could imply that it is incontrovertible. True science questions everything and holds nothing to be incontrovertible. Science is evidence based.

            Even theories which are supported by substantial evidence are not incontrovertible. Some theories are so strong that they are referred to as laws but this doesn’t make them incontrovertible. For example, Newton’s Laws of Motion fail to describe accurately the motion of objects at exceedingly high velocities. They are still an excellent approximation for most every day cases that we experience.

            • Andrew

              Agreed! Let me first thank you for your well-reasoned contribution to this discussion. I am in complete agreement with everything you have stated. I must add though that there are occasions where scientists have developed fields for investigation under the guise of theory like String Theory in order to give credence to their work. This action falls far short of your well-reasoned explanation which elucidates what the standard for establishing a new theory should be. For the proposed theory to be in congruity with the standard, it should have been called the String Hypothesis, but that would not have allowed the opening up or establishment of the new branch of Theoretical Physics called String Theory.

              Now another term that appropriately applies to String Theory is conjecture. A conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. String Theory is so highly mathematical and so speculative that it surprises me that its proponents have not shown similar restraints practiced in the mathematical world with regards to conjectures as mathematicians have done in the case of the Riemann Hypothesis. What if they had called it the Riemann Theory, it would have been incongruent with the facts as all attempts to prove it has failed.

          • You don’t quite understand what theories are. A theory (e.g. theory of evolution) is not an unproven belief and sure as hell isn’t a mere “intelligent guess.” Theories are ideas where all current evidence points to their accuracy but they haven’t been disproven. You may say “no, that’s what a fact is.” In which case I would say you’re just ignorant as to how science terminology works.

            In fact, for fun I just wiki’ed “theory”. Here’s an excerpt that shuts down essentially everything you just said:

            “Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word ‘hypothesis’).”


            “The formal scientific definition of “theory” is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)”

            And I bet you thought the Earth orbiting the sun was a fact.

            • Andrew

              When arguing a point, it is wise to set aside all traces of arrogance. Science is undermined when theories are promulgated based upon the authority of its proponents irrespective of the merits of the evidence. If you think that Wikipedia is the arbiter of scientific truths, or the general consensus is the final word on science, then you have no conception of the long history of failed scientific theories.

              I am not impressed by your suggestion that I somehow do not grasp the concept of what a theory is and doing your utmost shameful best to mock me. The fact that I was a top university student among my peers in Electrical, Mechanical, Chemical, and Civil Engineering gives me the confidence that I am intellectually capable of evaluating what a sound theory is. But you, in contrast, are under the illusion that a theory cannot be false in order to push your views on Evolution. For your information, in science, Laws are held in higher regard than Theories, and yet “Newton’s Laws of Motion fail to describe accurately the motion of objects at exceedingly high velocities” as correctly posited by Richard M in his comment above on this matter. You need to read what he said before obfuscating the issue by your ill-informed views on science.

              Now with regards to Evolution or more precisely the Theory of Evolution, it is the best proof of a failed Scientific Theory. It is the biggest rubbish being pushed upon the public by a branch of biology that is utterly void of sound scientific underpinning. No wonder that most people in our society reject it, they have too much sense to believe that a complex biological machine like the human body can evolve naturally when scientist are unable to understand its mechanism much less create one. The human body behaves like a machine that was designed and created by an intelligent being just like how computers are created by intelligent beings.

              With regards to the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” His theory did break down over a decade ago when the human DNA successfully showed that such a complex machine does exist. But Biologists have dug in their heels and threatened to extricate from their company anyone that challenges the failed Theory of Evolution.

              So if you are having a hard time deciphering the above quote of Darwin of what a theory is, let me explain it to you. Darwin himself is calling his “intellectual musings” a Theory. His statement sheds light to how the term theory is often misappropriated in science. Nothing about this bogus Theory of Evolution is remotely plausible. Ever since it was controversially proposed in 1859 by a very weak branch of science called Biology, it has been rammed up the throat university students until it has now attained a cult-like following. Modern genetics totally undermines the Darwinian theory of evolution. The machinery of the human body is orders of magnitude more advanced than the most advanced technology conceived or developed by man. To say that it all came together naturally through a process called “natural selection” it total hogwash. It is akin to saying that a super-computer type of an organism can evolve naturally. You can believe that all you want, but I will not be a party to such chicanery.

      • A. F.O.

        Einstein died! Yes. The man was wrong in many things. He didn’t care if He, himself was wrong many times. He was only concern about the physics laws. He tried unification of gravity and electromagnetism and….failed. That’s the scientist living.
        Perception of reality!?
        Just type your answer in your laptop….quantum physics laws permits you to do just that.
        How real is your typing?
        I’m a physicist.

  • T.I.M

    What Nikon need is a good sharp 14mm f/2.8 AF to replace the actual one who is an outdated design (a 15mm or 16mm would be ok)
    By the way, the Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 is for sale at $1800 at B&H

    • Chris Phillips

      Agree , also an E 50mm f1.4 , and a proper 200mm micro @f2.8

      • Sammydemon

        E so that it no longer works on my F6? Plsno

        • T.I.M

          It will at f/1.4
          I know, it’s a pain, I have several E lenses, can’t really use them on my F6 (I got great slides from last month total solar eclipse, AF-i 400mm f/2.8 + TC20EIII converter)

    • Ed Hassell

      I’ve seen really good reports about the Irix 15mm f/2.4 — it’s a “P” lens (manual focus with CPU chip) like the current Zeiss offerings. And it is a LOT less expensive.

    • de Wit

      That would be great ! But a good and sharp 16-35 f2,8 like the new Canon and the new Sony really is the thing I am waiting for !

    • C_QQ_C

      And also a fast AF 135mm version, now there is only the outdated AF-DC 135 f/2.0 , i want a 135 F/1.8 or even a F2.8 with an up to date autofocus motor in it..

  • Chris Phillips

    I think a FF mirrorless is just round the corner……..

    • T.I.M

      Just around the corner…song good to me!

      • T.I.M

        It’s probably my worst joke ever, so I put a thumb up for myself.

        • silmasan

          So has your thumb healed or is it numbed?

      • A. F.O.

        You’re back! 🙂

  • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

    Hopefully we’ll get a real D700 replacement………………………………..

    • Fly Moon

      What do you need? What do you expect to have in the D700 replacement?

      • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

        I was only kidding… lol

        • Fly Moon

          OK. We get lots of those people around here 🙂

          • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

            I know… and they are serious about it too…
            But I do think for them, the D850 for closer to a replacement of D700 than the D800 was. (because of its fps) I think that was their argument. and if they dont like 46mp, then they can shoot small raw at 11…

            • Fly Moon

              I am sure some of them still going to complain.

              In reality they’re those people who buy one camera every 6-8 years. They pretend it’s because they don’t see the perfect camera in the market but there’s no actual intention to buy any.

            • Willy Marthinsen

              I must be very outdated then, still using my D4, D800 and D7100 🙂 They still get me salt on the table.

            • Fly Moon

              D4 is not that old!. Is it?

            • Willy Marthinsen

              Some time after christmas it turns 6 years 🙂

            • Fly Moon

              Hmmm. It feels newer! Maybe I should’ve said 9-10 years instead.

            • Willy Marthinsen


    • beavertooth

      The D760 i believe was hinted at being such, however it’s development yet alone a reveal date has gone dormant.

      • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

        Isn’t the D750 small tho?
        I remember holding it in my hands and it felt small like a D600.

  • Mehdi R

    D750 and D5600 replacements 🙂

  • I81U812

    Amazing reporting. Thank you.

  • Eric Calabros

    Maybe N1546 was J5 replacement.

  • Naacryl

    Interesting that they now outsource to 3 different countries.

    China, Indonesia, Thailand.

    Chinese wages are getting too expensive I guess.

    • Mike Gordon

      Nikon has been manufacturing in Thailand for a long time. My 2005 D70 was made in Thailand.

  • jonebize

    They’re not playing the 100th anniversary very well. There is no build of anticipation toward full-frame mirrorless, which a lot of people expect to be a landmark announcement. This anniversary year feels very “stalwart” in nature, like it could be the 100th of IBM — booorrrrrinnnng

    • D700s

      I think it’s going well. I had no expectations and yet they delivered the D850. I don’t fancy myself as a movie maker and I can still hold a DSLR without collapsing at the end of the day so I’m happy.

      • ZoetMB

        But they didn’t promote the D850 as “our 100th anniversary celebratory camera”, which they should have done IMO. Plus, they had to pull the (rip-off) anniversary editions of the lenses off of the market because the logos were falling off or fading or something. Plus, even though the D850 has initially received fantastic reviews and almost everyone (including myself) expected a higher price, they blew the launch by not having enough inventory. And in addition, as of my last check on 9/11/17, 30% of their lenses were out-of-stock at B&H including a lot of the lenses that a D850 owner might purchase.

        If Nikon believes that being a 100-year-old company is a positive and not a curse, then every release this year should have been promoted as “100 Years of Nikon”.

  • Mike

    Where’s the D850E? Bwahhhhahhha!!

  • Robert Krasser

    Peter, does any of those cameras have a GPS? And can you identify somhow if it is a DSLR?

    • Someone

      GPS only receives signals, while those agencies concern is signal emission. Bluetooth and WiFi emit radio signals, and thus have to be certified, but GPS does not. Because of that presence of GPS is not specified in those listings.

    • No and no 🙂

  • i am still waiting for D760

    • Tom Bartol

      if they don’t announce 760 to end of the year i will sell everything and go sony

      • I seriously doubt they will announce the D760 by the end of the year right after the D850.

  • Since nobody asked, I’m going to force my thoughts on everyone. 🙂

    I want a D760(?)
    Just give me a 750 without shutter issues or any other bugs that has…
    4k video
    Current 153 AF system
    51,200 ISO
    And 8 fps without a battery grip.
    Touch screen.

    Is that too much to ask? Oh and $2k or less.

    • Ok. But for $2299, I’d like back lit buttons, 1/8000 and much more subdued shutter noise.


  • wapru

    All of the company in that lists (digital cameras) are from indonesia.
    That lists is for my country (indonesia) which not release all nikon cameras yet.
    So that is not for a new cameras.

  • Back to top