What to expect next from Nikon?


Last recap for 2017 on what to expect from Nikon:

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

    I predict something new, and am 100% confident about it.

  • Michael Laing

    Nikon will release a 16k video camera, with quad focus technology. It will have an organic sensor and be powered by hamsters.

    or

    The same old s#%t different name (D5S, D760 etc)

    and

    Mirrorless full frame camera professional camera, with a new lens line up and map (which will take years to implement).

    but

    Fingers crossed no natural disasters this year.

    • fanboy fagz

      YOU LIE! it will not be an organic sensor!

  • SGG

    Quite interesting…. NOT!!! What happens with you, Nikon????

    • What do you want/wish/expect?

      • Eric Calabros

        Affordable primes for DX system

        • tonyb

          speaking of DX lenses, how has Nikon not updated the 17-55? couldn’t remember when it came out and was surprised to see 2004.

          • beach

            Maybe because Nikon doesn’t think there’s a market for both, a 17-55 successor and a set of DX primes?

            • The 17-55 needs an update for sure.

              But DX primes are pointless. There’s no size or image quality advantage to targeting DX. There’s no way they can make anything like the Panasonic or Olympus primes that cover DX, and aren’t the same size as equivalent FX lenses. Nor can they get much better performance (like some of the m43 lenses) by concentrating on designs that work on DX, but not FX.

              I could wish for a 2.8 ultrawide zoom, but that’s such a niche lense that it’ll never happen. Their new DX ultrawide is wide enough, and the 14-24mm covers the rest.

            • beach

              To me, the 16-80/2.8-4 IS the much more versatile alternative to those 17/18-50/55 f/2.8 zooms. Nikon’s 17-55 certainly could use an upgrade (actually should have had one ten years ago) – but at the expected price point of at least $1600, who would prefer it over the third-party lenses costing 1/3 of that?

              Nikon tried to move mid-and-high-end DX users onto FX – and screwed that move up pretty badly with the less-than-convincing D600. As well as a lack of low-priced FX zooms.

              Nonetheless, those who clamor for a 17-55/2.8 successor might be better served getting a 24-70/2.8 and an FX body instead of sticking around with DX.

            • HD10

              One should not ignore that the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is build much sturdier than the 24-70mm f2.8G and f2.8E. Without the hood installed, one risks damaging the fragile zoom mechanism of the 24-70mm f2.8s while the 17-55mm f2.8 has no such issue.

              I have replaced my 24-70mm f2.8G twice but my 17-55mm f2.8G soldiers on despite two pretty nasty falls.

            • I’m going to have to disagree with you here–the 17-55mm zoom mechanism is incredibly delicate. The newer ones are very smooth, but I don’t think they’re as fragile. At least that’s what I’ve heard from folks who repair them in my town.

            • HD10

              Not my experience Micah … as well as quite a few others who experienced a grinding in the zoom of their 24-70mm after failing to mount the hood when storing this zoom in their backpack when then required repair work.

            • That’s interesting to hear, since I’ve been eyeing the latest E version.

            • Jebagi Erol Paker

              Also my 24-70G got repaired due to sticky zoom mechanism.The hood should be kept open in the backpack.If the lens is kept with hood retracted,it will cause most probably a noisy zoom mechanism as if there is sand.

            • Pretty much nailed it, except I never liked the long end of that 16-80. Neither for it’s sharpness, nor the lost stop.

              My only complaint with the 17-55 isn’t sharpness or even it’s lack of IS, but its build. I’ve broken mine twice, and I’m scared I will again at some point. The zoom cams are awful delicate.

              If I were redesigning it, I’d address that, and maybe make something a little closer to parfocal–it loses focus terribly when you zoom, which makes it almost impossible to use for video. (Though I’ve learned how to do it if I have to!)

            • Eric Duminil

              DX 35mm 1.8 is a great, affordable lens.

            • TurtleCat

              And yet their competitors with Sigma and Tamron seem to be doing well. Not to mention that Fuji has siphoned off a number of NIkon DX users. If Nikon worked to aggressively keep their DX users…

            • Sigma and Tamron have a couple niche DX lenses. I don’t see them much in the wild, though they clearly must be selling ok.

              The only Sigma and Tamron lenses I regularly see folks with are their midrange zooms and I see a lot of Tamron 70-200 lenses.

              I’ve never seen a Sigma 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 or 50-100mm ƒ/1.8 in person.

              I guess I do see a lot of Tokina wide lenses (and own one!), and the occasional Sigma. But that’s about it. And Nikon has now addressed that segment with their latest (though mediocre still) UWA.

              It seems to me that folks buying Fuji are excited about the body design, not the DX lenses. Basically the mirrorless set, which could also be described as bargain rack Leica enthusiasts.

            • dclivejazz

              I like my Fuji set up for its overall compactness and IQ. Using their primes is a big part of that. I tend to use zooms with my Nikon FX and the primes with my Fuji.

            • My Nikon kit outperforms Fuji in every way, so that’s what I use for most gigs. (Battery life, lenses, buffer, frame rate, AF performance, ergonomics)

              When I want something more portable, my Panasonic kit is far smaller than anything Fuji offers. And to my eye, the IQ is comparable.

              The final strike against Fuji is their wonky sensor format, and the fact that their raw files don’t look great in any software but their own. It wouldn’t take much for them to offer the same type of sensors they use in their pro cameras (GFX uses Bayer).

            • dclivejazz

              I happen to disagree with you re ergonomics and lenses (if one compares DX to Fuji) in comparison to Nikon and I also disagree re IQ in comparison to Panisonic, but if you’re happy with what you use, fine. I also love my Nikon stuff for gigs.

              My point is there would be a market for quality Nikon DX primes, which they are ceding to other manufacturers.

            • TurtleCat

              Respectfully, though, your observations are not compelling. With millions of people around the globe with a Nikon, the odds of running into someone who has any particular lens is pretty small. And if you’re not actively looking for it and inquiring you’ll miss them most likely.

              I was active in various Fuji fora for several years. I would say that you’re not seeing the complete picture on how Fuji people see their lenses, especially primes.

            • Respectfully, neither are yours! And I don’t have much interest in Fuji. You know this is Nikon Rumors, ya?

            • TurtleCat

              Yep, and that was implied.

              I’m not sure what your second comment has to do with anything. You were speaking out of your ignorance of Fuji users. I was speaking from knowledge and experience.

              And what does either have to do with posting here? Is there a Nikon equipment requirement? If that’s important to you, it might make you feel better that I own a D500 and D5300 is that enough or must I own more to post here?

            • Yes, you must own all models of Nikon digital SLR and film SLR bodies, past and present, two of each current lens model, two 13mm ƒ3.5 lenses with original proof of purchase, one Pronea lens, and two large format Nikkor lenses. This can be overlooked if one proves membership on Nikon’s executive board or if your family name rhymes with “talk well”.

            • Ed Hassell

              Guess I don’t qualify, then; I’ve missed a few bodies along the way. I never owned the 13/5.6 but I did own both the 14/2.8D AF and the 15/3.5 AiS. And I still have a 240/5.6 Nikkor W. Does that account for anything? 😉

            • Ed Hassell

              “I’ve never seen a Sigma 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 or 50-100mm ƒ/1.8 in person.” — I’ve got them both and both are very good lenses.

            • I don’t doubt it! I’m a Sigma fan myself, having gone through their 15-30mm ƒ/3.5-4.5, 10-20mm ƒ/4-5.6, original 18-50 ƒ/2.8, and still clinging to my 20mm ƒ/1.8. I’ve tried out the new 50 and 35, and want them. Along with that new 20!

              My point wasn’t that Sigma doesn’t make good gear (I believe they really do), but that some of their lenses are a bit niche. I like their niche lenses! In fact, I don’t think Nikon would have gotten off their laurels and made their own 20mm ƒ/1.8 if it hadn’t been for Sigma doing it first.

              But I also appreciate that Nikon has been a bit more…er…focused. And I see no legit reason for them to waste resources on DX primes. I’m happy to know that they concentrate on FX primes which work on both, and making bodies like the D500 and D850.

            • Ed Hassell

              Twenty-five years ago — even 10 years ago — I wouldn’t have touched a Sigma lens with a ten-foot lens mount. Today, their Art series are generally outstanding. I currently own five and am considering two more for future projects. I already own way too much glass; however, I love accepting projects that allow me to justify buying more. My criteria is that the individual project’s net profit must fully cover the cost of any special equipment I must purchase, figuring that next time, I’m that much better equipped and all the profit goes in my pocket.

            • The 18-35 and 50-100 Sigma Art lenses are pretty much glued to my D500…use them all the time…the only time they come off is when I pop on my 200-500 Nikon…

            • David Peterson

              > “I’ve never seen a Sigma 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 or 50-100mm ƒ/1.8 in person.”

              I own one of them myself, & I see other people with them on tonnes of shoots I work on. They are very VERY popular.

              > “I guess I do see a lot of Tokina wide lenses (and own one!)”

              Ditto. I own one, & frequently see others usually them.

            • Ed Hassell

              Nikon’s 35 f/1.8G AF-S DX and 16-80 f/2.8-4E AF-S VR DX are very good lenses — probably the two best DX lenses they make (although the 16-80 falls apart somewhat at its long end). I’ve got both. I also plunked down the dollars for the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 Pro DX and the pair of Sigma Art f/1.8 DX zooms. Add to those, my full-frame primes and zooms and I’ve got a lot great glass from which to choose.

              But that’s not the point. The optical quality of a prime lens is generally better than its zoom counterparts. Also, it is usually at lease somewhat smaller and lighter than the zooms in which its focal length are incorporated. From normal-ish through telephoto focal lengths, there is little point in DX versions of primes; however, in wide-angle lenses, there most certainly is.

              I’d like 3 wide-angle DX primes: a 9 or 10mm f/3.5, a 13 or 14mm f/2.8 and an 18mm f/2.5 — faster would be nice, maybe f/2.8, f/2.5 & f/2, respectively, but isn’t really necessary. BUT they need to optically superior to their zoom counterparts: better rectilinearity, less barrel distortion, better resolution in the corners, less aberrations, and less vignetting. It’s certainly possible.

              Do I think Nikon will ever give them to me? Highly unlikely. Regardless, they should have done so years ago. All three are lenses that would have sold in the quantities needed to be profitable.

              And if Sigma should read this and announce such lenses as part of its Art series, I’ll put my money where my mouth is and order all three on the day of their announcement.

            • Roger S

              As a minor point, I understand that the DX 10.5mm fisheye can be corrected from fisheye to a rectilinear view reasonably well in software. Because I’d rather have a true rectilinear lens, though, I haven’t bought the 10.5mm.

            • Ed Hassell

              As a fisheye, the 10.5 is quite good; as an adapted rectilinear, yeah, it works — it is not what I consider professional caliber.

            • SteveWithAnS

              A lot of people probably wouldn’t consider a 20-24mp DX camera with a wide angle lens to be professional caliber either…There are plenty of acceptable ultrawide zooms out there for DX or you could stitch some DX images with the 50mm 1.8g for gig panoramas…I’d share some but I don’t think disqus will let me upload a 650mb image…

            • Ed Hassell

              I’ve been shooting for nearly 60 years and being paid for my images for 50 of them. I’ve worked with cameras as small as Minox and as large as an 8×10 Linhof. Although I never owned it, the first digital camera I used was a Kodak modded Nikon body. My first Nikon digital was that CoolPix 900 (with the twist lens) back in 1998. My current digital cameras are a pair of D500 bodies and a D810. Each has its place. I own lenses in F-mount from 8mm to 800 mm, all of which can be used on all my current digital bodies, including zooms designed for DX bodies that are considered to be among the best available.

              The 11mm f/4 Irix (full-frame) prime I purchased recently is optically superior to the 11mm setting of my Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 DX zoom, matched aperture for aperture. Had the Irix been designed for DX coverage rather than full-frame, it could have been about 20% smaller. That’s not so true for focal lengths significantly longer, but it does apply for wide-angle lenses.

              My repeat clients are the test of my professional services and I strive to maintain repeat business. That includes upgrading bodies as technology advances. My point is that lenses can be better, too. And I’ll guarantee you that the sensors in the D7200, D7500 and D500 are better than the Tokina 11-16/2.8 DX, 11-20/2.8 DX, Nikkor 16-80/2.8-4 DX and Sigma 18-35/1.8 DX zooms. And it can easily be demonstrated with three lenses: the Irix 11/4, and Nikon’s own 20/1.8G and 24/1.8G. I’m asking for three primes that match the quality of Nikon’s 20/1.8G and 24/1.8G, designed for DX coverage and with focal lengths corresponding to 14/15mm, 20/21mm and 27/28 on a full-frame body. It’s not an unreasonable request.

              Given the ever increasing quality and resolution of the sensors in digital bodies, is it too much to ask that lenses commensurate with their quality accompany them?

            • SteveWithAnS

              I agree that some UW rectilinear primes would be pretty cool for DX. I’d definitely have bought a Nikon 10mm for DX if it was quality and priced right. I bet if they made those lenses though, they’d be $700+ and most people in the DX market are fine with their 18-55mm. The reason I bought the tokina 11-16mm instead of the nikon 10-24mm was definitely the $500 price difference.

            • Ed Hassell

              My reason: the Tokina’s optics are better.

            • SteveWithAnS

              I think a review I read said that too, so I was fine paying $500 less than the nikon. The $900 Nikon was never in serious consideration for me.

            • David Peterson

              I’d just suggest the Rokinon 10mm instead of the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye and correcting the fisheye in post.

            • Michael Turner

              Yeah, seriously. They have a 35 dx and the 50 and 85 full frame are affordable. The 20 is expensive but amazing.

          • ZoetMB

            Nikon has 22 lenses still in the lineup from 2004 and earlier, plus another 15 from 2005 to 2009. All the lenses released from 2010 (49) are still in the lineup. (Doesn’t include the AI-S lenses, the 100th anniversary lenses, the TC800, the 2-lens kits or 7 lenses that are on the Nikon USA site, but not really available anymore).

            • DrNo666

              14, 16fish, 135, 180 and 200 micro are the primes still in D version. But they are not top sellers so it will take years for them to upgrade. Perhaps the 135 is next….

          • DrNo666

            Not really… they did a 16-80mm

        • A. F.O.

          YES YES YES!

      • Mehdi R

        D750 and 50mm f1.4 successors 🙂

      • SGG

        Peter, let’s face it…. After 100 years what do we have? One outstanding FX (D850) and one DX (D500) bodies. It’s almost none to be desired on these two. The thing is that they came at a time where mirorrless is pushing hard. To invest in DSLR system nowadays is a bad bet imo. Lenses – from all NIkon lenses, really good for the D850 Ifind only these: 20mm 1.8, 24mm 1.8, 28mm 1.4, 58mm 1.4 (because of the outstanding bokeh, not the sharpness), 85mm (both), 105mm, 300mm and the primes beyond that point. Zooms – just two fell in my list – the 14-24 and 70-200 2.8E. And the 14-24 is starting to show it’s age. We don’t have a good mid-range zoom, don’t have good wide angle zoom (16-35 replacement), and not even one Pro DX lenses (besides the old 17-55).
        Instead we get new 3×00… blah blah, 6xx blah blah…. abd Nikon are pushing the crappy 24-105 and 16-35mm as they are the best match… Seriously? Look at this: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-16-35mm-f-4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-16-35mm-F28-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-III-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__373_814_1856_1035_1744_1009 (and the Nikon is tested on the lowest resolution camera from them all).

        • DrNo666

          When it comes to FX zooms, they are likely to do 200-400mm next and then 14-24mm.

          I would like to see some more PF technology in the 500mm area!

          • Dave Faulkner

            That could be a fantastic lens. The 300 PF and 1.7 TC practically live on my camera.

        • ZoetMB

          I know Nikon has theoretically been around for 100 years, but they didn’t make the first rangefinder until 1948, the first SLR until 1959 and the first DSLR (aside from the Kodak and Fuji joint bodies) until 1999, so let’s not get carried away. And the earliest AF lens they still sell is from 1993 and the earliest MF lens they still sell is from 1981. So for all practical purposes, I’d use the 1993 date and say that Nikon is actually only 25 years old.

          Furthermore, body production and lens production have almost nothing to do with each other, so the advent of the D3400, which was released just 120 days after the D5 has nothing to do with lenses and little to do with the release of other high-end bodies. And you forgot the D5, which is a perfectly fine camera as is the D7500 and the D5xxx. They’re just not for you (or me). But without cameras that can sell to the larger market, there’s no Nikon.

          The average number of lenses sold for each Nikon body sold is 1.6. You’ve found 13 lenses suitable for the D850 and others would argue that there’s more. Perhaps you own 13 lenses and there’s probably a few others on here who also have purchased many lenses, but the vast majority of photographers do not.

          In a declining DSLR market, there are also going to be fewer lenses sold and with fewer lenses sold, Nikon is going to produce fewer models. Nikon is projecting to sell a MILLION fewer lenses this fiscal as compared to last (and half-a-million fewer DSLRs). Nikon sold 9.71 million lenses in fiscal 2013. They’re projecting 2.9 million lenses this fiscal. Don’t expect as many new lenses releases as long as the market is in the state it’s in – it’s simply not going to happen, especially as Nikon is not only losing volume but share.

          Maybe you spend your days shooting focus charts, test scenes and pixel peeping, but there’s plenty of really great photography out there using even Nikon’s lowest-level lenses.

          I do agree though that Nikon is behind in terms of a mirrorless camera. Hopefully it will be worth the wait.

          • Ed Hassell

            I guess I’m a serious outlier in Nikon’s lens ownership equasion: I’ve got enough lenses to open my own camera shop, except that I only have one of each — no backup stock.

      • SGG

        Second – video – Admirable that Nikon is pushing 4k video to all it’s cameras, but WHERE IS THE PHASE AF during video??? The current AF system is pretty much unusable for video – you can only shoot manual.
        Third – Mirorrless – yes – two (maybe) new bodies are expected in 2018. But lenses? No matter how good the adapter will be, the use of the current DSLR lenses will be limited. They will need native mirorrless lenses. And when will we have the setup Sony, Fuji, Lumix or Olympus have?
        So many things to not be happy with Nikon nowadays.
        I love Nikon to death, but their management literally sucks! They don’t have a clue what to do next, and how to solve their problems. Even Sony which was a “laugh target” now have pretty decent lens setup for the E/FE series.

        • Thom Hogan

          I couldn’t care less if video has phase detect focus or not. Serious video shooters are generally only using autofocus to establish a focus. Letting a camera change focus on you is tantamount to having someone randomly yank on the lens when you don’t want them to, and more so, Nikon hasn’t made lenses that don’t focus breath, so you’d see the focus impact in more than focus.

          Video autofocus is not exactly perfect on any camera that has it. Some are too fast to switch context, some too slow, some do the switch too fast (compared to what we’re used to in movies), some too slow. That’s why feature films and most serious TV has focus pullers who take direction from the DP.

          More seriously, Nikon’s lens lineup isn’t suited to video. The primes you might want to use all have very short focus pulls: no easy discrimination. Most Nikkors focus breath.

          • Horshack

            I generally agree with the exception of gimbals – outside of movie and TV production it’s not realistic to have a focus puller for a camera flying on a gimbal. Canon’s dual pixel and Sony’s PDAF aren’t perfect but they’re very good at tracking people so there are applications where they can be relied upon. Also, the AF transition speed is configurable on both Canon’s and Sony’s implementations.

            • Thom Hogan

              True. On gimbal it depends upon how I’m flying. If I’m flying with subject, I prefer fixed focus and keeping subject/gimbal distance fixed (it helps that I rarely fly anything on gimbal that isn’t really wide angle).

          • Adam Brown

            Which came first, chicken or egg.
            Pros don’t use autofocus for video because they will always prefer manual focus.
            Or pros don’t use autofocus for video because video autofocus has generally sucked.

            There was a time in the 80’s when there was a question of whether pro photographers would even want autofocus in stills cameras.

            I suspect as video autofocus improves, more pros will utilize it more often. Especially when doing videos of things like sports, where it can be a real challenge to maintain focus manually.

            And don’t ignore the semi-pro video market — All the vloggers and youtubers out there. Often individuals or small groups putting out semi-professional content. I certainly see this large group adopting autofocus video.

            • Thom Hogan

              What came first is simple: filmmakers and videographers demand control over time. Sequence, speed, pace, and a whole bunch of timing things are part of what generates the style of a motion project.

              When the film/video cameras added automatic zoom, it was at one speed. The filmamakes and videographers didn’t use it because that was rarely the speed they wanted. So we got zooms with two or three speeds. Better, but still generally never exactly what was wanted.

              Bottom line, it is still easier to just do what you want manually at the speed you want it because the alternative is having to program in the speed and pace of the zoom/focus change—which may need to slow or speed up at the tails of the shot—in advance with clumsy interfaces.

              Now for consumers, things are entirely different. But for pros, you want to have 100% control at all times.

            • Adam Brown

              First off, the definition of pros has changed quite a bit. Steven Spielberg is one type of pro, but someone with a successful $$$ earning vlog is also a pro. A videographer doing weddings is also a pro. (And many of them absolutely use autofocus). It’s a vast over-generalization to say that autofocus would not interest any of these pros.

              As to pros wanting to to 100% control at all times…. Is that any different than professional photographers? That sounds exactly like the argument made 30 years ago, “pro photographers will never use autofocus because they want 100% control at all times” — But pro photographers did adapt to autofocus, and learned to use it in a way that gives them even more control.
              I don’t see why pro video should be any different. I’m not saying Steven Spielberg would shoot his next movie relying entirely on autofocus. But when the autofocus becomes good enough, there would certainly be a role for it to play among all types of videographers.

            • Ivanku

              I think qualifying the word “pros” is significant. Professional filmmakers working on a short or a feature may want full control over focus, zoom speed, etc. to effectively communicate mood, style and narrative. For “pros” who are filming documentary, cinema-verite style and are one-person director/operators, video AF is unquestionably useful. That doesn’t mean they will always use it, or that it’s infallible, but certainly handy and will be used often. I think having options is something most pros appreciate. You can override certain features or choose to not use them, but having them available is an asset.

          • David Peterson

            Thom, for many filmmakers autofocus doesn’t matter (for me personally it is a very low priority).

            But there is a sizeable section of buyers (such as one man bands, run & gun, or vloggers. Or… n00bs! Who make a very large portion of the new camera buyers market) who do care a LOT about auto focus. And a lack of good performance is a deal breaker (Canon’s DPAF is surprisingly good for video). Some people can’t even consider anything else than Canon because of this. Sadly.

        • ITN

          You say that nowadays there are many reasons to be unhappy with Nikon and then you mention mirrorless and video. But when was Nikon equipment better than it is today? Are you saying that in some past day Nikon was better for video than it is now and you were happy then?

        • David Peterson

          Good news is Nikon has at last caught up (& arguably exceed) with Canon when it comes to video quality (exception: lack of DPAF, which is a deal breaker for some).

          Bad news: no one cares :-/

          Nikon needs to catch up with the likes of Panasonics and Sony.

          If Nikon next year releases the D750 successor with 4K 60fps 10bit with waveforms & peaking, then that will force people to sit up and notice.

          Otherwise Nikon will be once again lagging behind Panasonic or Sony.

      • SGG

        What I think NIkon needs to do is to release 2 FX mirorrless bodies – one as Image flagship and one more video oriented. One DX body which to replace the 3xxx and 5xxx DSLR series. Then adapt the excellent phase AF from Nikon 1 series to these bodies, add IBIS, and keep the shape of (G9/X-H1) – both size and ergonomic wise. There is no time to shoot in the dark and try to find the optimal shape as Nikon did with each Nikon 1 V body so far…
        Fully articulated screens are must, so as touch screens.
        Adapter would be nice to have but this should not be the primary goal – Nikon need to release (at the start) at least 3-4 primes and 2-3 zoom lenses for the new system – the faster, the better.

        • ITN

          Why do Nikon need to do what is already available from other makers?

        • David Peterson

          Why can’t the FX video orientated body be DX instead?

          I’d love to see Nikon release their own version of the C100/C200/C300 cameras! 🙂

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Good Q – possibly to update some of the older F mount lenses like the Afs 105 f2.8 macro and the really old AF 200mm Macro and to produce an update to the standard zoom 24-120 Afs VR F/4. Then take their time to update any of the F mount exotics to FL and E, e.g., 200 mm Afs f/2, etc.

        Nikon’s focus in 2018 is to relaunch (properly) Nikon 2 Mirrorless system – possibly replacing the D3xxx (DX) and D5xxx (DX) line to MDX series and the lower entry FF (D6xxx) or producing a retro Mirrorless DF ? – MFX series.

        Will be interesting times ahead.

      • peter w

        Eighter a field micro photography lens, like the MP 65 F2,8.
        Or a bellows system, preferably with tilt and shift and a set of appropriate lenses. 20 and 35 mm adjusted for 1:2 to about 4:1. (No autofocus needed, but stacking assistance on the rail would be highly helpful ;). )

        And an optional electronic viewfinder for D850. To be placed on the hotshoe. This one I would actually buy for silent concert photography.

        • ITN

          You can use older Nikon or third party bellows, for example, Novoflex have several bellows some with tilt and shift.

          An EVF can be obtained from Zacuto.

          • peter w

            Yep, I think we both mentioned this before.

            I use a Canon FD-bellows adapted to fit a Nikon camera and reversed FD lenses 28 F2,8 and 50 F1,8.
            I’ll look into the viewfinder thing. Doesn’t have to be electronic it appears.

      • Vosi

        A replacement for Nikon D750 as fast as possible

  • NikonFanboy

    This is all due after feb 2018? Nothing in Jan I suppose…

    • Thom Hogan

      I not sure that Nikon can afford (both financially and PR-wise) to show up at CES with nothing new. I’m pretty sure they’ll launch something there. It just may not be something that this crowd will get over-enthused about.

      • br0xibear

        “I’m pretty sure they’ll launch something there.”
        Because you know but can’t talk about it ?, or is it an educated guess ?

        • Thom Hogan

          In this case, Nikon’s original CES plan seems to have been abandoned, so that would be an educated guess on my part. A Coolpix P1000 and a couple of lenses isn’t great, but you really have to give people reasons to come see you.

          • Eric Calabros

            I don’t know what they will bring to the NAB 2018 to give video people reasons to come see them.

            • Thom Hogan

              Nikon withdrew from NAB two years ago.

            • David Peterson

              Meanwhile over in Canon land they have a really strong presence at NAB 🙁

            • Eric Calabros

              Booth C6019 Central Hall

      • NikonFanboy

        Thanks Thom. Again no DSLR announcment. Its very strange to see this kind of negligence on big show isin’t it ?

        • Thom Hogan

          I think I stopped believing that large trade shows were effective use of marketing money back in 1990. I believe that to be even truer for niche products like cameras.

          There is the issue of finding a place to meet with dealers, but it’s not as if there is any significant dealer/manufacturer interaction going on with Nikon anyway. It’s all dictates from Nikon when they finally figure out what they’re doing this month.

          Thus, yes, I find it highly strange that Nikon continues to have a booth at CES and then uses that to launch a US$12,400 lens. And to have the Ambassadors giving talks that probably aren’t much of interest to those attending the show other than as pure entertainment (and a place to rest your feet for awhile).

          Nikon’s commitment to CES would be well into the millions of dollars. For what benefit? Someone would have to show me the clear and convincing bottom line analysis that it even begins to pay back the investment.

          The fear is that Nikon might “disappear” from people’s minds if they don’t do the big shows. But if you’re only selling 4m units a year and you’re spending many millions on big shows, I’d argue that you should just go directly to the consumer with that money. You’d be more effective.

          • DSLRUser

            Hi Thom,

            Off topic but now that Nikon has the 180-400mm, 200-400mm, and the 80-400mm, I assume my chances of seeing a light weight 400MM PF F4.0 are pretty slim.

            Any thoughts on what weight pricing would be on a possible 500 PF

            Thanks

          • Because if they pull out, it will be considered as a weakness. Leica already pulled out of PhotoPlus in NYC and some people started mentioning financial troubles when this was not the case.

  • animalsbybarry

    2 possible new Nikon Mirrorless camera models?
    2 new cameras registered but not yet anounced??
    Could these 2 rumors be connected???
    Could we see a new mirrorless in March ????

    • we also have the new Coolpix

      • A. F.O.

        any chance of the new P9XX have a 1 inch sensor and raw?

        • I doubt that, but it is possible. Basically a new DL.

          • A. F.O.

            one way of using those DL forgotten sensors!….:-)

          • Spy Black

            It might be interesting if they recycle any DL/N1 tech into a “Coolpix”.

      • LOL.

    • ZoetMB

      You won’t see any bodies before April 1. Nikon’s projections for the current fiscal, which ends March 31, 2018, clearly implies that there are no new bodies, at least none that will make any difference to their financials. As I’ve posted before, Nikon has projected sales of 500,000 fewer DSLR bodies than last fiscal, in spite of the D850.

      My guess and it’s only a wild guess, is that those 2 new registrations are Coolpix cameras.

      • 白大福

        Maybe a coolpix with super zoom and the other will be APS-C/FF with prime or shorter zoom.

  • animalsbybarry

    I think Nikon made a big mistake when they introduced a proprietary 1” sensor Nikon 1 system instead of cooperating with other manufacturers and joining the Micro 4/3 system

    I think thier stubbornness was a big part of why Nikon One failed

    It may be too late, but if Nikon does still want a compact system I think they should abandon Nikon One and build a new M4/3 camera

    This M4/3 camera should have 36mp and be capable of 8K video

    Individual frames of the 8K video should be able to be isolated and made into high quality high resolution still pictures

    And of course like all current M4/3 systems everything should be compatable with everything else regardless of who makes the components

    • beach

      Nikon was afraid to compete with themselves and now they are paying the price for their lack of foresight. Instead of that doomed-from-the-start Nikon 1 system, they could have started on an DX mirrorless system, even if it meant competing with their own lower-end (ad eventually also the mid-range) DX DSLR lines. At least then there would have been the chance that a sales lost on DX DLSR might have meant a sale for DX mirrorless keeping the money in Nikon’s pocket. Now, that money is going to Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Fuji, and Sony.

      Fairly certain that that last thing Nikon will do (and should do) is producing an m4/3 system or even a m4/3 camera only.

      • A. F.O.

        Tom thinks it will be DX and FF; not m4/3.

      • I agree on the DX. I am glad that they did not go the MFT route and I am pretty sure they will not go that way in the future. The companies that formed the MFT standard had no other products and this was their only game. Why didn’t Sony or Canon join MFT? Same reason – that had something going on already while Panasonic and Olympus were basically dead before MFT.

      • ITN

        In the meanwhile Nikon made money selling their DSLR equipment. If they had launched a full frame mirrorless possibly they would have gone bankrupt because of the Osborne effect (people wait for the new mirrorless lenses instead of current DSLR lenses => near shutdown of demand, and bankrupcy follows before they can make a new mirrorless lineup with the require 50+ lenses).

        • beach

          So are they in any better shape now – everyone is waiting for them to come out with DX and FX mirrorless and one can count on it that it won’t be a full set of lenses to begin with. All I am saying is that they should have started the process earlier – now they are dead last and with lots of competition.

          The Osborne effect is happening every time when a new model is expected based on a predictable release schedule – people wait either for the new or for the old to drop in price while sales tank in the meantime.

          What makes you think the Osborne effect would have killed Nikon then and would not do the same thing now?

          Speaking strictly for myself, I am certainly holding back on buying anything Nikon-related at this point until their mirrorless cards are on the table. And depending on how that looks, I might have an even closer look at Sony than I already have.

          • ITN

            I think Nikon made more money in selling DSLR products in the past few years than they would have by launching a technologically immature FX mirrorless several years ago. By launching a mirrorless they would have said this is the future and then people would ask where is the performance, why is the AF so poor and where are the lenses? Only with the A9 did mirrorless full frame reach some degree of maturity. Now the playing field is changed and the race is on. If Nikon can make a better mirrorless offering perhaps they can gain back some of their market share from Canon and Sony. If not, they become a smaller company. But by launching a failed mirrorless they sign their death. Not launching such a product is better because it avoids the image damage, and people know that Nikon DSLR products are excellent and get the job done.

    • SteveWithAnS

      What kind of shutter speed do you usually use to shoot video? No matter what resolution a video frame is, I imagine that any moving subject is going to look like garbage unless you’re shooting video at 1/500th or faster in which case the video would look like a stuttery mess.

      • Scott M.

        I may be mistaken but video speed is frames per second not the same as a still photo. There may be an equasion to figure out how fast 24 frames a second would be. 1/24th of a second, I imagine. Slow motion gets it all in focus using massive frames per second.

        • Yeah, you’re a bit off–shutter speed is shutter speed. It is actually just like in still cameras, just at a higher frame rate (fps).

          Video and film still have aperture/shutter/ISO to deal with, just at higher frame rates.

          Slow motion is just very high fps, played back slower than it was captured. For instance 120fps played back at 30fps is 1/4 time.

          The only relationship between fps and shutter speed is that your shutter speed has to be shorter than your fps. If you’re shooting at 1000fps with a Phantom, you can’t have a shutter speed longer than 1/1000th of a second (probably max of 1/1200, but don’t quote me on that).

          So actually, you need lots of light or a large aperture, so it’s the opposite of what you said–you’re can’t “get it all in focus” without absurd amounts of light. Less is in focus, because of large apertures and narrow DOF.

          • SteveWithAnS

            Thanks for clearing that up a bit for Scott. I believe typically people shoot 30fps video with a 1/60th shutter speed and 60fps with a 1/120th shutter speed. You could shoot video with a faster shutter speed, but it will look jittery and horrible as a video, so I don’t know why you would want to do that to extract pictures from a video when you can shoot pictures at 10fps in a camera like the D500. If you extract video frames From a 30fps video that used a 1/60th shutter speed, any moving objects will be blurry and look far worse than an actual photo. From my experiences motion blur is rather noticeable shooting moving subjects at slower than 1/500th and a video with 1/500th shutter speed would look like trash. That is why I thought 8K frame extraction for “high quality high resolution” photos didn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, it depends upon what “30 fps” they’re using. If they’re shooting 1080P/30 for playback at 1080P/30, they’re probably using 1/40 second shutter speed or something near that. If they’ve really got a camera that’s shooting 1080i/60 for 1080P/30 playback, then you’d be correct.

            • SteveWithAnS

              I stopped using 1080i a long time ago after I noticed rectangles in my frames on my laptop. I understand some monitors/tvs can make use of interlaced content, but I’d never waste my time with it again. Also, who still shoots in 1080p/i?

              Do you recommend 4Kp/8Kp (does 4Ki even exist?) 30fps 1/40th indoors and outdoors or just indoors due to fluorescent light flicker?

              How do you think an 8K frame extracted shot at 1/40th would look? Way better than an actual photo I bet…

              The only scenario I see 8K frame extraction being worth while for would be with a telephoto lens and high shutter speed focused on a flower waiting for a butterfly to come along and I didnt care if the video was useable as a video.

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, the reason why many of us use dedicated video cameras that are sophisticated is that they have features that allow you to sync to source. So when we shoot a display, it doesn’t matter if it is 60 Hz or 75 Hz refresh, we can dial that in. Likewise (mostly) with light.

              While the most recent frequency-based lighting is a bit different, most require you to use a derivative of the ballast frequency (typically 120 Hz in the US). That means 1/30, 1/60, or 1/125 shutter speeds, but not the intermediaries. That said, most cameras have rolling shutters, which means that you can still get hosed.

              In terms of still frame subtraction, all the things that apply to still photography would apply to the video settings. The butterfly scenario you describe would require a tripod and 1/500 second minimum, I’d think. Focus would be a particularly difficult issue. If the butterfly is parallel to you the focus system is going to see the near wing, and you’re not going to want to focus there.

            • SteveWithAnS

              The OP was talking about extracting 8K frames for good pictures which I thought was a horrible idea. It’d make more sense to just shoot actual photos because the videos would be unusable and who wants 20gb of 8K video to extract a horrible image of whatever?

              Those dedicated video cameras sound cool, but I think they weigh more than what I want to walk around with.

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ef22b106abcf63374472dffbdea723d388b51c18e93732fb66207c6363ebd848.jpg

            • SteveWithAnS

              This extracted 4K frame would look so much better in 8K because then the principles of shutter speed would no longer apply.

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/baed7f363befd5c0af75481bb6216b04bd84decede2e7702642bc622c0b833bd.jpg

            • David Peterson

              No one ever shoots these days in interlace except for historical/legacy reasons.

              Is all progressive now if you can.

            • David Peterson

              There is what is called the 180° rule which filmmakers try to stick to.

              Means shutter speed is double the FPS.

              Thus 1080p25 you’d prefer to shoot at 1/50

      • Thom Hogan

        Video is generally shot at something close to 1/fps. We have a 100+ years of associated “feature film” with interframe motion blur using 1/25 to 1/30 second shutter speeds. There are formats that do the opposite, particularly big screen stuff like dedicated IMAX theaters. You know, the ones that have seats that move and speakers underneath your butt and try to make you throw up ;~)

        • David Peterson

          You’re half off. Shutter speed is generally almost double what you think it is.

    • MiK Images

      IMHO there were no reason(s) to make “another m4/3 by Nikon”. On the other side, 1′ allows to make smaller lenses than m4/3. Sony 1′ BSI sensors are better then m4/3 sensors. But the problem is that Nikon screwed up, mainly by not providing “ecosystem” for their 1′ series (incompatible accessories, batteries, weird gui/firmware, etc.)

      • I agree that Nikon didn’t need to try to compete with m43, but every raw file I’ve ever seen from the one inch sensors has lagged m43. Go check out some raws from Imaging Resource if you don’t believe me. Even the latest RX100

        files don’t match m43 cameras from a couple years ago. Especially as you pump the ISO.

        IMO they needed something like the sensor from that PureVue to compete (40mp). Something nobody was doing. Anything. They had really amazing performance (AF and fps) with CX, but they slacked on ergonomics and lenses.

    • ZoetMB

      8K video and a 36mp sensor in a micro 4/3 sensor? No. It’s too small. You might as well use a smartphone if that’s what you want (even though none have 8K video as yet). Nikon 1 didn’t fail because it was a 1″ sensor as opposed to m4/3. It might have failed because it was 1″ instead of DX. It failed because it was too expensive, too inconsistent and wouldn’t work with the Nikon DSLR accessories, for the most part.

      • Thom Hogan

        Don’t tell Panasonic that.

    • EarlFargis

      I’m not sure the idea behind Nikon 1 was a bad one but Nikon’s execution of that idea was an epic fail.

      The idea is to be as compact as possible. There are so many people calling for a pocketable camera. Certainly cellphones fill this requirement quite nicely but the Nikon 1 system offered the versatility of a DSLR and better image quality.

      However, the 1″ sensor Nikon chose was not particularly good and the cost of the system was too high – other than fire sales to unload bloated inventory.

      In hindsight it’s easy to say Nikon should have done something different like DX/FX mirrorless bodies but it’s obvious internally Nikon is struggling to push that technology out of the door. One success in the Nikon system was putting together a good autofocus mirrorless system. So any DX/FX mirrorless system they design in the future should benefit from that experience.

    • ITN

      For sure Nikon will always use their own, proprietary mounts since they want to sell their own lenses along with the cameras.

  • Unrest

    D5X would be awesome!!

    • Now that they’ve ditched the flash, the D850 is actually it. Unless you mean even higher resolution? I don’t think you’ll see a pro, portrait grip integrated body again. At least not other than the sports targeted high frame rate model. We might see a D850 sensor and higher frame rate in a D5 body, but I think slow+high res won’t happen again, ever.

      • Unrest

        Well I would like higher resolution; say 70 + mp with the integrated grip; optimized for low ISO dynamic range without any of the tradefoffs of high ISO performance; D5 level or better AF. Priced at $6.5K, I believe it would sell. It would be less expensive than investing in the Fuji or Pentax medium format offerings.

        • To be fair, I’d like something like that too!

          But if I’m honest with myself, I know that it takes a linear doubling (4xMP) to make a significant visible difference in resolution. A doubling of MP is only just visible, so 90mp would only be a little better resolution, and a lot worse noise.

          My fantasy is a camera that will shoot slower at full resolution, and faster at downsampled sizes (not crops). So say 4 fps at 100mp, 8fps at 25, and 10fps at 12mp. This would take heavy processing to accomplish but…it sure seems that processing power and efficiency are advancing faster than sensor tech.

          Medium format and larger have always struck me as a red herring. Having shot with them, I know that DOF just gets ridiculously thin at focal lengths that most of us shooting smaller formats take for granted. Even stopped down, it’s tough to get what you want, even if you close down past diffraction limits.

          There’s a reason that T/S lenses and standard movements are popular on the larger formats! It’s because folks have to scrounge for every last bit of DOF.

      • ITN

        But the D850 vertical grip is not yet widely available several months after launch. And the joint is said to not be firm – there is wobble between grip and camera. That is really bad design and it would be ergonomically better to base it around the D5 body and have the grip integrated. The cost difference would be small as the larger battery and charger cost a lot and would be included in a D5X.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Actually, the cost difference would NOT be small. The D3x was ~$8k.

          • ITN

            Yes, because it had specifications which very few people wanted. The sensor was good at low ISO and poor at medium to high ISO. So if you have a product with extremely small buyer base but ones who happen to be very wealthy (fashion photographers), then you end up with a small-volume, high priced product. But today the situation is the reverse and the high resolution sensor is the popular one and almost no one wants a D5 because the sports photography market has collapsed. So a D5X would probably be priced the same or a bit less than the D5, since the high image quality market has not collapsed but is thriving.

    • Agree – even if they just put the D850 sensor in it, added a FPS or two, and increased the buffer. There’s nothing like using a pro body and I’d replace my D850 with a D5x in a heart beat.

      • The only thing I’d want out of a pro body that the D850 doesn’t offer is the integrated portrait grip. If they offered that, and otherwise the exact same specs of the D850, would you still be interested? Say for $1k more than the D850?

        • Same specs with a D5 body for $1000 more? Heck yes. 🙂

          And I agree, the D850 has a far better buffer than past cameras, but it can still use more. It normally gets around 23 frames in 14 bit mode @9FPS – which works about 90% of the time, but in shooting a prolonged landing sequence (birds), I’ve had it dry up just at the last moment.

          In addtion, I don’t think it even has the same amount of buffer memory as the D500. A D500 can do 200 frames in 14 bit mode at about 21 MP. Turn on the D850 crop mode, 14 bit, and it dires up after 46 shots at 19.4MP.

          Don’t get me wrong, I love my D850 and use it all the time – but I really love those D5 ergonomics 🙂

          • Nikuza

            46 @ DX mode doesn’t sound bad at all. To me the more important is how fast does the buffer clear up after that burst?

            • 46 really is fine, but I’m using it as a comparison to the D500’s 200 shots. Just seems to me like the D850 doesn’t have as much buffer memory. since it’s a slightly smaller file and a FPS slower.

              The good news is that it does empty the buffer really fast 🙂

            • Nikuza

              Thanks. I’m assuming cropping the FF shot before buffering it takes it’s toll.

            • I am happy with the buffer compared to the D800 where I got about 16 shots at 4 fps. When I shoot at 4 fps on the D850, I hit the 200 shot threshold. It is a whopping improvement. So far I have not been shooting much at 9 fps.

          • Pro tip: stop shooting uncompressed!!!

            The buffer, even with a slow card, is absolutely bigger than what you describe. Lossless compressed is…well, exactly that. There’s no loss of anything whatsoever with lossless compressed.

            Nobody online shows stats for uncompressed 14-bit…because who shoots that way? I mean, why are you? There’s no legit reason to.

            Better still, test out the lossy compressed and 12-bit options. In most circumstances, there’s nothing to lose, and everything to gain if the buffer is your barrier.

            I think it actually does have the same amount of memory as the D500–which means that it fills it faster! The reason it’s still adequate with the D850 is that it just writes so bleeding fast to the card. In my D500, shooting lossy compressed, there’s literally no end to the buffer. As soon as it hits 200 frames, as fast as I can re-press the shutter button, it’ll go for another 200 frames.

            If you’re seeing less frames than every review ever for a D500, when you shoot your D850 in crop mode, it’s because you’re doing something wrong. It’s one fps slower and a handful of pixels less than a D500.

            Lossless compressed mode is akin to zip compression. Put another way, if you compressed a book with zip compression, and then decompress it, you’ll have the exact same book. It’s nothing like jpeg compression, where parts of the book would become unreadable, or not use exactly the same words.

            Nikon’s “lossy” compression for raws isn’t like jpeg either–it’s more like throwing out the book covers and illustrations. The full text is still there, and it will match other copies of the book, but it’s just missing some information from capture that doesn’t affect the story. (you’ll lose something from the shadows, but in my testing, it’s always just noise that doesn’t have anything useful)

            Hope that helps!

            • Ben Brayev

              watch his video, hes not shooting uncompressed..

            • Well, I’m not shooting uncompressed RAW, not sure why you think I am. 14 bit lossless compressed RAW all the way.

              And yes, 12 bit makes a difference as does using a crop mode. However, that’s not what I’m comparing or why I want a larger buffer in a D5x.

              Do you actually have a D850? If so, try it yourself with a real subject and you’ll see. I’ve had around 70,000 views on my D850 review where I put these numbers out and not a single D850 shooter has come forward saying they are getting different results. (even Matt Granger has shown this with a grip). Look up Steve Perry D850 review.

            • Are you using a slow SD card, or the fastest XQD? Single card or mirrored? What ISO?

              The reason I question is because your results don’t match those of Imaging Resource, or my friend with one. Their results are drastically different than yours.

            • Fast XQD of course (Lexar 440 – can’t say for sure if it was the 2.0 verion, no indication on the card one way or another).

              I can get 51 shots @ 7FPS if the lens cap is on the camera, which may be how some are testing (it’s interesting that my numbers and Imaging Resource look about right with a lens cap on). As soon as you give the camera a normal subject, the size decreases. The numbers get even lower as ISO climbs (even with NR off). I have a complete list on my site of my findings, but I’ll paste it below.

              >>14 bit 7 fps

              FX – 35

              1.2 – 80

              DX -200

              >> 14 bit – 9 FPS

              FX – 23

              1.2 – 36

              DX – 46

              >>12 bit – 7fps

              FX – 84

              1.2 – 200

              DX – 200

              >>12 bit – 9fps

              FX – 44

              1.2 – 70

              DX – 86

              Now, some figures I got with the lens cap on and viewfinder shutter closed. (The results are higher because it’s easy for the camera to compress and create a file when it’s just black.)

              12 bit FX 9 fps = 48

              12 bit FX 7 FPS = 193

              14 bit FX 9 FPS = 26

              14 bit FX 7 FPS = 51

              I also tried a few rounds with higher ISOs. As you can see, the higher the ISO, the shallower the buffer:

              12 bit 7 FPS ISO 6400 = 67

              14 bit FX 6400 = 25

              14 bit FX 5000 = 36

              14 bit FX 3200 = 43

              14 bit FX 1600 = 46

              14 bit ISO 800 = 47

              14 bit ISO 400 = 50

            • Anything in the second slot? Again I ask are you in mirrored or overflow mode?

              For reference, my XQD say “2933x”. They’re the 128gb, but the smaller shouldn’t be that different in speed.

              You have NR turned on…to shoot raw?! Turn it off. That should make a small difference. So should turning off Active D-Lighting, Long ISO NR, and Auto-ISO.

              Yeah, if you’re using a compressed mode, shooting with the cap on will give a big bump to those numbers…and incredibly boring images! ; D

              As an amusing aside, the frame rate of Nikon cameras used to bog down in low light, even in manual focus mode. This started with their film bodies and ended with the D3.

              Your number are still off. Check everything I mentioned.

              If nothing else, you’d probably benefit best from shooting 12-bit lossy compressed. If you’re not shooting at base ISO, there’s little difference between 12 and 14, and lossy don’t ditch any intelligible detail, just some channel noise. Even at base ISO, I dare you to make two identical images at the different bit depths, that show a benefit to 14.

              Every time I get a new camera I do my own tests to see what you lose/gain from the different raw modes. The D500 is the first camera where I can actually see a difference…and it’s still not enough of one to convince me to use 14-bit!

            • No, I have NR off – I guess I worded that funny. Same card number – 2933X, only XQD in the camera when testing. I even reset the camera at one point, but I have also seen othe reorts with numbers like mine. Are you saying you are getting higher numbers with real subjects (not lens caps LOL)?

              Also have everything set as you mention – in fact, tried it wth various combinations with minimal differences in performance.

              And I do switch to 12 bit when I’m over ISO 400 since 14 bit really isn’t helping much anymore. (Like you say, the differences are miniamal most of the time anyway.)

              However, the entire point of this conversation was why I wanted the D5x (if it shows up) to have a deeper buffer – now you know. 🙂

            • fanboy fagz

              ah, didnt see your post here. nothing as close as nikon claims by your numbers.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Steve’s results were appropriate; IR not so much.

            • I spent about 15 minutes on your review Steve and intend to finish. Great so far. Of course I have a D850 having upgraded from a D800. But I like to see how other people use their D850s, especially the new autofocus modes which combined with my 400 2.8E w/all three teleconverters is opening up a whole new world for me.

          • fanboy fagz

            those single digit bodies and the shutter/mirror slap sounds amazing. it feels amazing.as heavy as it may be with a 70-200 and flash/trigger, youre able to hold it well. I love the beefiness of it.

            speaking of buffer. just saw a video from fatt granger who fired the d850 and the buffer filled up very fast. no where near the amount nikon claims.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSeBw7ASyGo

        • ITN

          Well the grip and EN-EL18 and charger already cost 1000€ so heck yes I would take it all integrated in a D5X package at the same cost.

  • pwmorg

    D620 D760 ?

    • A. F.O.

      D610 is a final call. Period. Or not?? The old 24MB sensor is…. old.

      • Seems like they could fill that gap with something DF-ish. Folks that want something smaller, lower resolution than a D8** and care less about AF. A DF with the D5 sensor would do it. Allow for a portrait grip and I’d buy two!

        • bonem

          DF is huge! Nothing small about it. Cool looking, but so awkward to hold. I love the ergonomics of my d800 and d850. If they could make a df with those ergonomics and have a better layout I think it would be a hit.

          • Spy Black

            “DF is huge!”
            Compared to what?
            http://camerasize.com/compare/#495,718

            • bonem

              Huge compared to the film cameras its trying to replicate.
              Have you ever held a DF? Super chunky. The hand grip is very shallow and the camera is thick.

            • Spy Black

              Yes I’ve held one, I find it quite nice. Let’s face it, no one’s shooting with “the film cameras its trying to replicate”, so that point is moot. Compared to any full frame DSLR, it is indeed “the film cameras its trying to replicate”. The only two real faults I find with the camera is the AF system and, for the camera that it is, the lack of OEM manual focus screens. It otherwise rocks.

            • ITN

              Film camera + processor + scanner sure take more space than a Df. Compare like with like. The files come out ready for use from the Df.

              Personally I think the Df is excellent size, though I prefer D5 for ergonomics. I love the Df controls and viewfinder.

            • bonem

              Yes, and everyone carries around a processor and scanner while taking pictures, right? The point of the comment flew over your head like a jet airplane.
              That’s great you like it. I never said anyone couldn’t. I commented on the size which is objective and I’m correct in what I said.

            • ITN

              My point is that you cannot compare the sizes of two devices with very different functionalities and be fair about it. The digital aspect saves a lot of time, money (if you shoot a lot) and you don’t need to depend on third parties to get the images printed or published. A larger size is a consequence of including all the extra functionality in one device.

              Image quality wise a more fair comparison would be between FX DSLR and 645 medium format SLR. MF and large format cameras have been practically replaced by smaller devices. 35mm film was mostly good for a 5×7 inch image in print. For anything larger, a professional would use medium or large format film.

              Closest to 35mm film image quality is probably micro four thirds or apsc cameras and those are either smaller or similar in size to 35mm film cameras, yet they manage to include a screen and all the digital functionality.

            • bonem

              Yes you can compare body size by itself, and I did. Again, you missed the point and are going off on your own tangent here.
              My comment was about size of body alone. Keep making up your own rant as you feel fit, but it has nothing to do with my comment.

            • ITN

              Not ranting, just noting that comparing the size if two devices which perform different functions and offer different output is not fair. Feel free to disagree.

            • bonem

              Both take pictures, yeah? You hold both in your hand, yeah? The function is exactly the same and size can definitely be a direct comparison.

        • RC Jenkins

          I think the next Df should be mirrorless, new mount, smaller, $2000-$2500, and with a D750-like sensor.

          And the next iteration of the D610 DSLR should not exist.

          This way, Nikon has the price point, size, AF performance, controls, and image quality covered, while offering much better manual focusing aids, in a serious mirrorless entry, with a pretty low basic bar set that Nikon can easily crush.

          I think with the right adapters, this camera would appeal to many photographers from many systems.

      • Spy Black

        “The old 24MB sensor is…. old.”

        …and fantastic…

    • Allen_Wentz

      I hope not any D6xx.

  • A. F.O.

    My guess is D760 and P950.
    And by 3rd quarter two mirroless (and ~4 lenses??)…..
    No….I dream.
    Sorry guys. 🙂

  • Claude Mayonnaise

    Nikon scrapped a whole 1 inch compact line. They have looked lost in certain regards. regarding mirrorless, they have their backs against the wall. They just released the best DSLR on the planet and are a very capable company technology wise. My prediction is that they release what will be considered an epic mirrorless system and it will be a very important release in the grand scheme of things. If it’s anything less it might not go over very well. This company has taken a ton of flack the past few years. They have to bring it to the table now with no holds barred.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Nikon released the THREE best DSLRs on the planet: D5, D500, D850.

      • Claude Mayonnaise

        Correct. I think they have DSLR’s covered. They need a mirrorless, GX7/RX100 competitor now. And, they have always needed more crop lenses to go with their D500.

    • Ed Hassell

      Nikon’s problem with their 1-inch cameras was that they were orphans from the beginning. Nikon has always been viewed as a systems company. they fought hard to justify keeping the f-mount to maintain that reputation. Then, with the Nikon 1 series, while they did create an adapter (the right thing to do), they abandoned all the accessories. And modern-day Nikon has a very poor history of keeping accessories, even critical ones, on a timely production schedule. Nikon 1’s AF performance was phenomenal (a harbinger of DX/FX mirrorless performance?), lenses were limited (but could be augmented with F-mount), accessories were hard to find and prices were way out of line.

      Nikon is capable of great things. The D5/D500/D850 prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, Nikon’s marketing & advertising campaigns are poorly executed, their product development synchronization and their attention to ancillary product detail are abysmal. Then there’s Snapbridge … an embarrassment. Nikon need to find another Joe Ehrenreich. And they need to make Thom Hogan a job offer he can’t refuse.

  • Rock Kenwell

    I predict that Nikon will release the D5s and D500s simultaneously. They might name the latter D510.

    • SteveWithAnS

      Mr. Rockson, what would the D500s have that’s not already in the D500? 11fps?

      • Rock Kenwell

        The AF system in D5s, 1 stop of higher ISO, 10.5 fps.

        • SteveWithAnS

          I hope it also has a built in 8mp selfie cam and a pop-up flash.

      • Max

        Full sensor read out 4k?

        • SteveWithAnS

          That’d actually be really helpful if it did not cause too much rolling shutter.

    • Allen_Wentz

      No reason to upgrade the world’s-best-DX D500 yet. Nikon has lots of more important things to do. D5s/x for instance; and Nikon’s response to mirrorless; and lenses…

  • TheMexican

    Here’s a discussion:
    Eversince my D800 got stolen I’m cameraless.

    Got 4 F-mount lenses and wondering if I should buy the D850 which is the one I was waiting for these 2 years, or if I’ve waited so much time just wait for the mirrorless?

    • Michiel953

      Sounds like a standoff to me.

    • Hans J

      I went from the D800 to the D810 to the D850 and each upgrade has been great.
      It all depands on what you want do with it. While the D850 is the best DSLR I’ve ever used and I’ve worked with Canon’s Fuji’s etc. For travel I’ve moved over to the Fuji X-T2 and for work I kept the D850.

      • TheMexican

        Thought about switching to Fuji but didn’t find a good replacement to my nikon200-500mm

        • Hans J

          How about the FUJINON LENS XF100-400mmF4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR

          • TheMexican

            Think about the extra reach when crop is taken into account. Since this is mainly used for mammals and birds watching, most of the times 500mm isn’t close enough. But when using a 36/47mp sensor, even if I punch in at a 1.5x I get great details and an enormous 750mm…

        • That is a good point. We forget that lens should be the starting point, not the camera.

          • Allen_Wentz

            If that lens is a starting point and money is tight consider the awesome D500. That lens excels on DX not on FX D850 unless you are cropping the D850 to DX.

    • Do you shoot for a living? Buy a D850.

      Do you want to take pictures today? Buy a D850.

      Do you want a mirrorless camera just because it’s the “way of the fuchachaCHACHA!”? Then buy a mirrorless camera.

      Do you want mirrorless, but want to use your Nikon lenses? Buy a Sony and adapt it.

      Do you want to use your Nikon lenses with the best AF on the market? Buy a D850.

      Do you want a fast car? Don’t buy a D850. Or at least know that if you do, it is not a fast car. Nor a mirroless camera. It’s just one of the best stills cameras ever made, by almost every measure.

      • TheMexican

        Don’t shoot for a living, I shoot for passion.

        Would have moved to Sony for the amazing features but I really hate the camera itself.

        Don’t need a faster car than the D850. I loved my D800.

        The only mirrorless I liked using was the Fuji X-T1 I burrowed from a friend but that’s a killer for my lenses and I’m not that rich.

        • I’d be surprised if lots of folks weren’t selling their D800 and D810s to buy D850s–I bet you can pick one up for a song. Especially after Christmas!

          ¡Feliz Navidad!

        • Allen_Wentz

          If you liked the D800 and are not looking to spend for highest end just get a D810 at a bargain price after the holidays.

          • TheMexican

            If i’m buying I won’t buy the D810. I have the money to spend on it but not sure that I will have it in case in a matter of a year I’ll want to upgrade to a mirrorless in case it is an amazing breakthrough in tech

            • Allen_Wentz

              Waiting a year with no camera is beyond my comprehension.

            • TheMexican

              I’m using either my pocket cam – RX100V or taking my brother’s A7rII when duty calls. Definitely not ideal but again isn’t work related issue but a hobby, main hobby that I neglected for the past 2 years.

    • ZoetMB

      The first mirrorless might be DX. And it’s not coming until at least April and I personally believe much later. I assume you’re not a pro because you would have bought a new camera already. So the question is, how much do you shoot and are you missing things you would have wanted to shoot. If so, go out and buy the D850 (not that you can easily get one yet). If the mirrorless turns out to be spectacular and what you want and F-mount compatible (which it might not be), you can always sell the D850 if you don’t want to keep both.

    • Sawyerspadre

      You could also buy a D750, with a free grip, to tide you over until the mirrorless is out, or until D850s are more available.

      • TheMexican

        A year ago, I went travelling in New Zealand and bought a D750 just for that (with the intension of selling it when I’m back).
        didn’t like that camera. It does produce great iamges, and has beautiful color retention but it felt too gentle, the eyecup is terrible, the eye piece keeps flying out-of-place. the diopter location is terrible and i found it shifting too many times – things I never encountered with the D800. and you know what, maybe it was just me used to the bulky D800, bulky but fits me.

      • TheMexican

        But thinking about it again. maybe that is a solution for the meantime assuming I would be able to sell it in 6 months time.

  • DieMusik

    Would it be too idealistic to expect them to put IBIS and completely silent shooting on the new mirrorless bodies? The A9 has them all. But i don’t want to move over to Sony and also not a fan of the ergonomics sony bodies have generally. Hope Nikon comes out with a great counter to the mirrorless system Sony has been building for many years.

    • IBIS is nice, but it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Try ABing bodies with and without it side by side, when they’re similar resolution, sensor size, focal length, and aperture. It makes a difference…but the times you really need it are with the lenses that usually have it–read: LONG. My Nikon bodies don’t have IBIS, yet my 70-200 and 200-500 work great!

      (yes, I have an m43 body with IBIS, and it’s great, but that one feature alone hasn’t ever been why I’d choose one over the other)

      • DieMusik

        Thanks. The real usefulness of IBIS seems to be more limited than perceived to be at least by people who haven’t used it actually. That is the general sense coming from YouTubers, so i tend to agree with your comment. Still for video I would guess it’s better than not having it thought not as good as lense VR?

        I thought about adding a M43 body just for video but that would be another collection of lenses and equipment, so I would rather put money towards expanding my current collection of Nikkors. Also coming out with a very advanced mirrorless body will be a perfect excuse for me to buy another camera. lately Nikon hasn’t given me one. lol. If nothing comes from them in the future I think I will buy the F6 🙂

        • Oh I agree it’s great for video–when available! Older models didn’t always use the mechanical IBIS for video. I’m glad to see newer ones using it.

  • Proto
  • Tieu Ngao

    I’m still waiting for a Nikon mirrorless DX to complement my D750, but my patience is running thin.

  • DrNo666

    looking at the history, we should at least expect 5 new lenses 2018. 60mm and 200-400mm replacements seem to be set out. but what more?

    • The rest could be mirrorless lenses.

      • Plug

        I thought the big telephotos were being updated. Things like a more lightweight 300mm f2.8 FL E, etc.

        • I think they still are, it’s a long term process.

        • Bob Thane

          The 300mm and 200mm probably aren’t huge priorities since they’re already pretty light and sharp enough to compete well with the Canon ones. They’ll be done, but hard to say when.

          • The Nikon 300mm f/2.8 is 2.9 kg which is 0.5 kg more than the canon with is only 2.4 kg. I would call that heavy in comparison.

            • Bob Thane

              True, but it’s still handholdable for most. The 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 needed FL elements in order to be useable by most people.

            • Allen_Wentz

              And really really heavy in comparison to the 0.755 kilo f/4E. I have the f/4D but lust after the _sweet_ light weight of the f/4E.

        • Yup – wating on that 300 FL myself. I keep stopping myself from getting the current one, although I might just go for it – heck of a lens.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Same here. I have the f/4D but lust after the light weight of the f/4E.

        • DrNo666

          Agree… that is probably a more important lens to update but its G version

      • Tony

        Any idea on the timing of the two rumored F-mount lenses? You may well be right that the introduction of a new mirrorless mount will lead to a hiatus in F-mount releases. Depending on how ambitious Nikon are with their mirrorless system this could be quite a long pause …

        • Allen_Wentz

          Nikon is fully capable of doing both – – IF both sell well.

      • If they convert their current rate of lens production to part f-mount, part mirrorless, then that is not good for the f-mount. They need to keep iterating the f-mount.

  • sickheadache

    What do I expect? A Big Nothing!

  • sickheadache

    What is coming from a Nikon? Another exciting 24 mp Camera..including a Mirrorless.

  • maazouz fouad

    nikon X 1 Tera pixel new lens 8-10.000 mm f0,75 and a life time battery
    A flash system thunderbolt …. please don’t wake me up

  • Photobug

    Its rare that I differ with Peter, the first line is wrong. A Nikon Regional representative told me to expect a replacement for the D750 in Q1.

    • TurtleCat

      They’re the last to know.

    • ZoetMB

      If that’s the case, then Nikon doesn’t expect to sell very many because as I wrote above, their projection for this fiscal, which ends 3/31, is 500,000 FEWER units than last fiscal. Based on that projection, I would say you will see no bodies in the first quarter. Maybe an announcement, but nothing for actual sale.

      • Photobug

        That is definitely a possibility. With three new cameras coming in 2018 and a couple of lens, Nikon should continue to draw interest, especially with the FF mirror-less camera in late 2018.

  • unimo36090

    their compact line up up to the entry level dslrs have not been updated..they are definitely busy with something.

  • localmile

    300 f/2.8 FL has been rumored for past 3 years and at least 2 patents filed. Would love to see an actual product.

    Are we on the cusp of Mirrorless replacing DSLR? I wouldn’t mind a mirrorless D850 option.

  • Carlo

    The problem with Nikon those years is when they renew a lens the price gets a massive increase …. Don’t know what’s their plan.

    Maybe they think loyal customer will stay with them … But then quality must be second to none and service first class.

  • Someone

    Either a camera or a lens, that’s for sure!

  • br0xibear

    For what it’s worth, I’m still expecting a D5s, I just don’t think Nikon will change their flagship camera schedule. It’s been linked with major sports events, those photographers are the main buyers, and changes to timing, or skipping a D5s model, would cause a lot of disruption to them.
    Look for a few photographers at the Winter Olympics to be using pre release D5s bodies, and a March 2018 announcement. (image below is a mockup)

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c60dd17d928b587bf8f79414d54f0b687cc951c4a6e3c128e6cbf577d545c7c.jpg

    • I think the question is how many pros will update to the D5s? I somehow think there will not be many. But yes, everything is possible – I just have not received any info on the D5s but this doesn’t mean there will be no announcement.

      • br0xibear

        “how many pros will update to the D5s?”
        I think it’s different for different photographers.
        Some will always upgrade to the latest body, some are on a cycle that misses one upgrade (they miss the D4/D5 and buy D4s/D5s), some replace their older body with the new model (they have a D5 and D4, and replace the D4 with the D5s, then in two years replace the D5 with D6).

        From my experience they’re not upgrading because of particular new features, but because their cameras are wearing out from use and they’d rather replace bodies than replace parts…other people’s experience may well be different.
        If it’s going to show up anywhere first, it’ll be in the EXIF data from the Winter Olympics pictures in Feb.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I agree fully, and also think there is a chance of a D5x. Nikon does pairs of high end bodies fairly well and I frankly do not think the D500 should be upgraded yet because it is so damn good. Of course you could say that about the D5 too, but the D5 has been in photogs hands longer and the new D850 features need to be added.

  • Ariel Glaze

    Nikon will not do Mirrorless. They’re still sore from their 1 inch sensor.

    • RC Jenkins

      …which was mirrorless.

    • They will, even they confirmed that on several occasions already.

      • Ariel Glaze

        The problem isn’t making a new Mirrorless. The problem is that they’re afraid of redundancy in their products and they’re afraid to compete with themselves.

        The Nikon A was a great idea, but unimpressive when compared to competitors.

        Nikon 1 series was great except It’s too much bulk for the sensor size when compared to a Sony RX100M4.

        Dx is the next step up, and they’re not bad, but I’d rather carry my Fx at that point. I love my Fuji, but it doesn’t work with DxO labs. So if Nikon made a new Mirrorless system with new quality fast lenses like Fuji, I’d dump Fuji.

  • Saikat Chaudhuri

    A new nikkor 400 f5.6 telelens for bird photographers in budget like me, in the year 2018

    • Allen_Wentz

      That is what the 200-500mm f/5.6E is for.

      • Saikat Chaudhuri

        I have both 200-500 f5.6 and af-s 300f4 non-vr. But what I envy my cannon user friends, that they have 400f5.6 prime in their kitty, which has a better reach than 300f4 prime.

  • AYWY

    The 60mm micro rumour still surprises me. There are other lenses that will be more popular. I think re-designs for 105 micro, 18-35mm (add VR), the seemingly discontinued 180, update the spectacular 14-24, fill in the missing 17-35 f/2.8, etc. Why of all lenses the 60 micro? Even an updated 24-85 or 24-120 might sell better… I like the 60M, but considering its age, performance and demand, there are other lenses that will benefit more from an update…

    Unless:
    – it is for a different mount.
    – Nikon intends to re-use F-mount for MILC
    – product planning and management is so out-of-touch with users. Sigh.

    • EnPassant

      The current AF-S 60 micro suffer from focus breathing because of the internal focus mechanism. That is a problem with the new focus stacking feature in D850 and may be the reason we will see a new AF-P 60mm micro as well as later a new 105mm micro.

      • AYWY

        I use the 60M. Focus breathing is so well controlled it is invisible during close focus. At least for my use, it is a non-issue.

        For reference, the Tamron 90Ms focus breathe badly – plenty of experience with them. The Nikkor 105 reportedly as well. That is a more popular lens in need of an update, if focus breathing is to be addressed.

  • SkyMeow

    If no FF mirrorless from Nikon, my money for mirrorless will go to Sony. But I’m not ditching my D5, at least not anytime soon.

  • Vinnypimages

    Interested to see what they can do with mirrorless.

    I think a few other lenses might be due a refresh, 24mm PCE is looking dated next to the 19mm; 50 & 85mm 1.4g could possibly benefit from the E treatment. 200mm F2 and especially 300mm F2.8 still need upgrading to FL elements. I am also surprised there has not been another PF lens.

    But, given their recent release frequency, when mirrorless comes there will obviously be a need to priorities lenses suitable for them.

    I would really welcome something smaller than the SB5000 that works with the radio remote.

    • Tadao_Isogai

      “200mm F2 and especially 300mm F2.8 still need upgrading to FL elements.”
      +1

  • Back to top