Eagerly (and testily) awaiting September?

<p>I've been searching the internet avidly for some info about the D300s replacement and it seems that either there is not going to be one or Nikon have a huge trick up their sleeves which is going to make us all gasp in wonder and admiration. If it's the former, I am seriously considering going with Sony's SLT A77. I would have been tempted by the D7000 but Q.C. concerns discount this model for me (rightly or wrongly). I am not too invested in Nikon, having only 2 very affordable lenses apart form the kit one, which I have no real intention of using again, so for me it's relatively painless- besides I'd still have a D5100 with only 11,000 actuations and a 35mm 1.8G on it as a spare system. Does anyone else have the same level of frustration at the pro segment of the DX range being ignored for so long?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rumours, the Internet is full of them, so why spend time thinking about what may, or may not, come? All good things come to those who wait. Are your in a real hurry and suffer badly from the results your current camera delivers or is it more a matter of the dangerous "new-toy-itch"?</p>

<p>While I too am considering a new body, I have no problem waiting since I am not that displeased with what I have. I am curious of what Nikon may replace the D300s and D7000 with. The day a replacement is announced, I will decide what to buy.</p>

<p>i am also interested in the d300s/d7000 replacement, but going by nikons recent track record i would wait at least 6 months after release to see any bugs or issues that arise. i would like a d7000 upgrade with maybe 24 mp dx sensor, (not that the pixel count is that important). weatherproofing, built in motor, better range finder for manual focus, and faster af. </p>

<p>I freely admit I want a new body purely beccause I handled a D300s and absolutely loved it. Compared to it, my D5100 felt dis-satisfying and small. So after much research it is clear that buying a D300S is not a smart move, no matter how great it feels and I am also surprised/disappointed/angry/confused that Nikon has not updated this much-loved model in what, 4 years?<br>

Given the 24MP sensor in the d3200, I assume it's going to be 24, maybe a stripped-down 36 from the D800? This is obviously a waiting game and I know that as soon as I put down the money, there will be an anouncement that Nikon have just released the ultimate camera, but taking into account the lamentable q.c. alluded to by Evan above, it's beginning to feel like I would have been wiser to not have bought into Nikon in the first place. Of course it's unrealistic to expect me to have gleaned the knowledge of 1 year's shooting and internet use in advance, but still. Not feeling too much of a Nikonite at the moment </p>

It may have been due an update, but following the tsunami and Thai floods Nikon probably had to change those plans

and prioritise for the London Olympics. Just a guess of course, but maybe explains the frustrating wait in updating the pro

DX line?

<blockquote>

<p>by the D7000 but Q.C. concerns discount this model for me (rightly or wrongly)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my view, very wrongly, and you're discounting an excellent camera. Consider that people bother to write about bad experiences on the internet, and not the good ones. Second, the D7000 sells very well, and quite some are sold to people who do not have much experience. Sure, not all D7000 leaving the factory will be excellent, which is normal, and with much sales, there will be more complaints. Second, many many QC complaints are users not getting how to set up the AF properly (and frankly, Nikon does not make it too easy either), and blaming the camera. Internet amplifies this, and suddenly Nikon has a QC problem. As Evan does again above.<br>

What Rob said cannot be discounted. Nikon came with a D4, D800 and a few excellent lenses after 2 major disasters, and worked hard to get production up to sufficient levels. And yes, so there have been waiting lists, and yes the D300s remains. But heck, look at what they did do. It's pretty amazing. It actually gives me quite some confidence in Nikon's abilities.</p>

<p>If the Sony does what you want it to do, then fine. Get it, and enjoy it. But blaming Nikon for not delivering a camera that is fairly niche model, and putting priority with other models first, combined with believing all the internet talk is a pretty shaky ground to dismiss them, in my view. Maybe instead of assuming a lot, just wait till there are facts.</p>

<p>The D7000 is probably the best camera value available right now of any camera, perhaps next to the D5100. There are no QC concerns with the D7000 that should prevent anyone from getting one. But I wouldn't suggest getting a new body unless there is a specific feature you need that is not available in the D5100. Keep in mind that regardless of the camera in your hands, and whether it is a Nikon, Sony or Canon, your pictures will likely not look any different than they do now. Vision and technique are the key to producing stunning pictures. Great equipment certainly helps, but it is not the sole reason.</p>

<p>Nikon's recent track record is certainly not perfect but the problem is well overblown thanks to the internet. Is your D5100 malfunctioning in any way?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...but Q.C. concerns discount this model for me (rightly or wrongly).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your mind is already made up based on the opinion of strangers you read online, and you don't care about the facts, why bring it up at all? Should you become an insignificant statistic and get a bad one, they DO have a warranty program.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone else have the same level of frustration at the pro segment of the DX range being ignored for so long?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm pretty sure I'll get flamed by <em>someone</em> for this, but the fact is that there<em> IS </em>no pro segment of the DX range, and there hasn't been since the last of the D2 series. Then again, maybe the D300s' replacement will be just that camera, integral vertical grip and all, but I wouldn't hold my breath...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is obviously a waiting game...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only way to win the game is to get the tools you need to make the photos you want to make today, and quit worrying about the next/better/latest & greatest. The answer might not be a Nikon - then so be it. Get what you need to fulfill your creative vision. The questions to ask yourself are things like: "What capabilities do I need?" (IMO you could make use of higher ISO performance and more dynamic range for your architectural night shots, but not more megapixels, especially because you hand-hold a lot of street shots). Or ask yourself "How is my current gear limiting me?" Please realize, though, that no single DSLR from any manufacturer is future-proof. That's just advertising illusion and net forum mass hysteria, similar to parroting false 'CW' that there are widespread QC problems with D7000s. In the end, the proof is in the pudding. The year/brand/megapixels of the mixer doesn't matter much. The cook, however, matters a great deal.</p>

<p>BTW, if you really want to get improve, you'll want to change your paradigm on PP. Maybe it'd help to think in terms of a master printer (like from the film days) bringing out the best in your print as opposed to a pulp sci-fi book cover.</p>

<p>DB, do you have Nikon's own figures for % of D7000 models which have been returned and those of other models to compare with?<br>

If you do, then you will be working with the facts which I hope you will share. If you don't you're speculating just like me. If you think it's pointless to listen to "strangers on the internet", there is little point in replying to my post or being a member of any forum.<br>

As to my PP, I am a bit embarassed that I have not managed to get my images to look right online, but printed out and on my own monitor, they're very natural, noise-free and sharp- the images on my portfolio don't show the actual photograph very well. I do as little PP as humanly possible, I do not own Photoshop (having deleted it from my system and given it to a friend), or Gimp (ditto) and in fact am pretty much opposed to all but the most basic PP, such as cropping, straightening, tiny level manipulation and as little sharpening as possible. I see many images on "photography" sites to which I think "OK, your CGI skills are great. Can I see some photographs now please?" </p>

 

<p>IMHO, it makes zero sense for Nikon to develop a "pro" level DX body. With pixel densities what they are now, you can crop an FX image if you want that.</p>

<p>I think DX is going to be the consumer product sold through the big-box retailers, competing a price alone for that business segment.</p>

<p><em>it makes zero sense for Nikon to develop a "pro" level DX body. With pixel densities what they are now, you can crop an FX image if you want that.</em></p>

<p>I also think Nikon is going to drop the "pro DX" camera body as they've stopped developing high end lenses for DX. Nikon said in the D3/D300 intro in 2007 that they have no plans of dropping DX at least not until 2010. Well it's 2012 ...</p>

<p>However, there is some merit to this kind of a camera body. Although you can crop an image from the D800 to DX size, it is more difficult to hold the focus sensor tightly in the exact spot on an eye using the small section of the viewfinder that corresponds to DX crop. It's harder to hold the composition as well and it's impossible to see the subject's expression using the tiny patch of viewfinder of a D800 in DX crop mode. The bigger the viewfinder image the more impact the effects (of bad focus or composition that is a little off) on the viewer will be and the easier the photographer's work is. Thus the full image of the viewfinder of an FX camera is better than dedicated high end DX camera viewfinder which in turn is much better than the crop of an FX camera viewfinder for practical use.</p>

<p>However, Nikon stands to make much more money selling the extensive lineup of FX lenses, including 600/4 and 800/5.6 if the customers can't buy high end DX then some of them will buy a D4/D800 and one of these lenses ... good business. And in return the users do get more features (10-11 fps on the D4), better AF, higher res (36MP) on the D800 etc. Users get more but they also pay more and Nikon will make a lot of money, some of which they will use to strenthen their product portfolio for even happier users in the future. Eventually it may be possible for Nikon to overthrow Canon as the top dog thanks to their lead displayed in the D800's sensor, unless Canon will get their process up to spec. As of now Canon still has a more extensive lens lineup, especially in the telephoto sector.</p>

<p>The D400 is clearly going to be a Dog Camera®, which will display sensor bloom when shooting the sun at high ISO. It will also suffer from the dreaded bottom-focus error, which will cause images to pixilate when viewed at 400% in Photoshop. I would, therefore, wait for the D400s and be certain there are at least two firmware updates in place before I pulled the trigger. Or I might go full-frame. Or I might point the gun at myself and pull the trigger. Or...</p>

<p>BTW, my D300 must be better than others' because it still takes excellent pictures. </p>

<p>As we all know, there are many highly capable alternatives to The Big Two on the market today. If it weren't for the silly lens:body ratio on micro 4/3 cameras I'd seriously consider an NEX-7 or PEN- potentially great for street work if lens tech catches up with body tech. I personally find that as soon as people start having to speculate about the reasons a company is doing what it's doing/ not giving them what they want/changing the rules/ unpack their "clever business model", I get totally turned off. I am by no means the only person waiting for a replacement for the D300S and if Nikon expect me to opt for a D800 at nearly 4 times the price due to brand loyalty, they've got another thing coming. </p>

<p>To Stephen the OP, 10 days ago you had started this thread: <a href="00aatk">D700, D7000 or D300S</a><br>

Back then, a lot of us were trying to explain that you don't really need another camera at this point.</p>

<p>One thing I can gaurantee is that whatever new camera Nikon introduces next, be it some D400, D600, D900 or D8000, there will be a lot of complaints about "bad copies" and AF issues, just like the D300/D300S, D7000, and D800 before.</p>

<p>What portion of those complaints are facts and what is fiction I don't know, but I have either owned or tested the following Nikon DSLRs since I bought my D100 ten years ago:</p>

<ul>

<li>D100</li>

<li>D2X</li>

<li>D200</li>

<li>D300, two of them</li>

<li>D3, two of them</li>

<li>D700</li>

<li>D3X</li>

<li>D3000</li>

<li>D5000</li>

<li>D3S</li>

<li>D7000</li>

<li>D800/D800E, one each</li>

</ul>

<p>That is 15 new-from-the-box Nikons in total; not even one of them has any issue of any type. And the ones I bought myself are random samples off the store shelf. AF on the lower-end models with only one cross-type AF point can be weak, but those with 9 or 11 cross-type AF points all have excellent AF.</p>

<p>Either I am extremely lucky not to encounter Nikon DSLRs with some defects, and I am sure to some degree I am fotunate, or Nikon DSLRs tend to be well made with few problems. It is typical that only those who encounter problems or those who don't understand how to use their cameras and therefore blame the camera complain on the web.</p>

 

<p>It's all a big game. The DSLR market has become what the PC market used to be - users waiting for better capabilities and fretting over buying too soon or too late. That's what the companies want. In my opinion, product releases are timed so you'll buy one model and then almost immediately want the next one.<br>

All FX AF-S/AF-I lenses also work on all DX cameras so if you need a pro lens, get the FX version and you'll have the glass you need when/if you move to full frame.<br>

I am also a D5100 (and D40) shooter and due to budget and trying to avoid upgrade-itis am simply going to ignore the possibilities until the next DX camera comes out. If DX goes bye-bye (and I seriously doubt it), then I'll wait even longer until FX becomes reasonably affordable.<br>

In the mean time, I'm buying old FD lenses for my 35mm Canon's and having a field day finding bargains and shooting film in addition to DX.</p>

<p>Just to play devils advocate Shun. I have owned 5 Nikon DSLR's D100 D200 D300 D300s D2h. Of the 5 only one the D200 has not been back to Nikon at least once. The D100 and the D2h went back twice for two different problems. The D300s went back to Nikon the day I received it. Charge the battery and put it in and the camera was on even with the switch in the off position. Before you ask it went back to Nikon because that was who I bought it from.<br>

As a caveat I do shoot professionally and under harsh conditions most of the time. When I was using Nikon film SLR's they went in for a CLA every year.</p>

<p>Hi Shun<br>

I genunely feel it is great that infinitely more experience photographers than I recommend I don't buy another body as a matter of course or simply for the sake of it. I appreciate that and feel this is a measure of the maturity and sincerity of the community. But I do want a better body and if I can find one I'm going to buy it. I did not ask for permission, I asked for<em> advice </em>on which next body to buy. I don't think you have show examples of your work in-store before handing over your debit card nor should the fact that you are massively more experienced and capable at operating a camera give you the right to effectively censure or ban me from getting whatever I like.<br>

</p>

 

<p>[[give you the right to effectively censure or ban me from getting whatever I like.]]</p>

<p>And off the deep-end we go...</p>

<p>If you don't agree with the advice given by people with vastly more experience than you, then don't follow it. But don't resort to absurd hyperbole like this just because you don't like what they have to say. </p>

<p>oh, ok then.<br>

I'll not get another camera until I'm allowed to and not post that I'm not allowed to get one, unless you tell me it's ok. Just email me and I'll save up till authorised will I? Is there a test?<br>

(sigh)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve-<br>

Shun is only trying to help by giving more information....<br>

and he has LOTS of experience to draw from<br>

Personally, I have owned at least 5 Nikons over the last 20 years;<br>

never had a build or quality problem with any of them...I have<br>

found operator errors(my errors) to be my biggest problem....<br>

</p>

<p>I do know that.<br>

I thought my post was quite balanced. But to follow up effectively saying "You have asked this before and been told 'No, you're not good enough to get another camera' is too much.<br>

I am NOT pretending to be anything other than an enthusiastic amateur. I do not for a second think that I know >1% of what Shun does. This is not the point. The point is [in this thread] that I'm very frustrated that Nikon have not updated the most appealing model in their line-up, for me, for so long.<br>

</p>

<p>Stephen<br>

It bugs me that Nikon has not replaced the D300s yet. But that fact did not keep me from buying one three months ago. I needed the capabilities of a D300 class camera and I bought one.<br>

What I said to you in the previous thread (that you thought was harsh) was the truth. If you can not come up with a good reason to buy one you do not need it. If you want a D300 class camera and have a use for those features by all means go ahead and buy one. You will not be disappointed.<br>

If you want to see what I do google my name and you will find my web site. You will see that the D300 and D300s are fine cameras and work well under very rough conditions.</p>

<p>I'm sorry? Have I entered the Twilight Zone or something? So I DO have to pass a test in order to justify a purchase?<br>

I don't chuffing think so.</p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

Nobody is making you pass a test. Many, including me, are just thinking your reason to "upgrade" is just gear lust and nothing else. Which is fine. Follow it if you want, that's all OK. It's your money, spend it any way you like.<br>

Complain about Nikon based on internet hear-say if you want, that's all OK. Get a Sony if you think they're a more solid company. It's your money, spend it any way you like.</p>

<p>But if you ask advice about it, just don't expect people to say you're right. Your first post in this thread was phrased balanced but all the reasons you quote are exeggerated internet reports lacking facts. You can react now like "<em>you don't tell me what to do!</em>", but you asked for advice. Take this advice for what you paid for it.<br>

___</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that I'm very frustrated that Nikon have not updated the most appealing model in their line-up, for me, for so long.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was obvious. But, unfortunately, the D300s is not the biggest seller, and not the key camera to get shipping for professionals. Nikon has to prioritise, and you're not their only customer. Or ex-customer. Nothing to get frustrated over. Make a choice - buy it or move on.<br>

I got a D700 very recent - prices are really nice at the moment, and even if the D800 is better, this aging model still is extremely capable and it turned out to be the camera I really want. If you want a D300s, why just not get a D300s? There is always something better on the horizon, so at some point, you buy it and enjoy it. Simple as that.</p>

<p>Thank you for your considered and reasonable response. There seems to be some sort of disconnection going on. In my previous thread I was asking for advice as to WHICH body to upgrade and was been advised NOT to upgrade. I don't know why this is the case, based on the few shots I've uploaded. No-one asked me anything very specific as far as I can remember. Since this thread is in fact only slightly connected to the previous one I am surprised at some responses which seem to track me down to advise me again that I am not worthy of a D300s upgrade. Why do people assume that I would not benefit from more cross-focus points, a larger sensor, more manual controls, higher pixel count (in the case of ther SLT A65/77) so as to allow more detail or increased print size despite cropping, etc ad nauseum.<br>

It honestly seems like overkill. </p>