Eagerly (and testily) awaiting September?

<p>Sometime back a camera sage noted here that our current cameras work just as well when newer cameras come out to replace them. That was a "Doh!" moment for me... changed me to loving my outdated camera just as much as when I'd opened the box. At only 5,000 shutter actuations with 100,000 within its capabilities, it'll probably outlive me! Does the newest-fandangled body really change photography for most of us all that much? I doubt it. But I join others in advising that anyone who has camera lust and money enough ought to be free to spend it happily.</p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

Currently the best DX bodies, for an enthusiast amateur like you and me on the Nikon camp, are the D7000 and D300s. I assume that you also consider the new D3200 as an entry level camera. D300s actually is a PRO DX body but due to the decreased prices lately has become more affordable to the amateurs/semi pro's.<br>

I happen to own both. From my experience they are both excellent cameras and I am very pleased with them. In fact I am also very glad that the one complements the other so I am never left unsatisfied. Thus, for me, there is no reason to upgrade to a D400 or D7200 if and when Nikon decides to do so, since they are more than sufficient for what I do and I have to be pragmatic about this. <br>

Why I am telling you all these? Because I believe that you can't go wrong with either one. It's true that D300s is considered an "old" or "outdated" camera and that D7000 seems a better bargain for your money right now.<br>

Also I respect your will to have more resolutiuon and probably a better advanced body. I do respect your belief of D7000 having QC issues, albeit I strongly disagree, and the fact that D300s needs upgrading. In that case I am afraid that either you should wait till Nikon comes up with newer DX bodies or look for another brand, Sony as you mentioned. Only you know, it's your decision and your money. Good luck anyways!</p>

<p>Stephen, I get it, but I recently upgraded from a D200 to a D7000 and would like to share some observations. I was pretty frustrated with my D200 for its lack of focus speed and accuracy, especially with moving objects (read that birds). Also the D200 starts to get very noisy at ISO 800 and I sorely needed the ability to get my shutter speeds up because my hands are simply not as stable as they once were. I am an avid hobbyist photographer and love the good stuff as much as anyone else and am not immune to NAS. So I bit the bullet with the D7000 because it was within my price range. It is everything I had hoped it would be and then some. It has astounding resolution and can cover the high ISO stuff with ease. It tracks moving subjects infinitely better and focuses faster and more accurately than the D200 ever did. <br>

However, I was a little unprepared for the massive increase in file sizes, especially RAW, coming out the D7000. I can't imagine the storage issues I would encounter with 24.3 mp. I don't publish and only rarely print something bigger than 16 X 20 for the house or a friend. But I could and did do that easily with my 10 mp D200. And while the D7000 locks on focus much better than my D200, the focus system is both more capable and more complex and understanding it well is something I have yet to master. This is no fault of the camera and is, what I suspect, the cause for a fair number of complaints regarding the D7000. In many ways, it is a harder camera to point and shoot with than the D200 was. With 16 mp you can really see the error of your ways if your technique is lousy or careless.<br>

And since I had the MB-D200 grip on my D200, I thought I would have a big adjustment period moving to the D7000 without a grip. In actuality, I am relieved to carry less weight around and am over the 'look at me and my big camera' mentality I carried for too long.<br>

Your D5100 has the same sensor and were it not for the couple of non-AF-s lenses I have, would have been just as great a purchase as the D7000 was. More mp would not be a good thing for me because 16 seems to be more than enough. I'm sure that the D400 or D7*** will be even more amazing when they come out but I am personally well content with the smaller form factor of the D7000. It's a solid little chunk and I absolutely love it. My 2 cents worth.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Back in the 70's when people looked at my photos, a common response was: "boy, you must have a really good camera." In fact, my camera was always a simple manual focus slr, like many other people had. Some of my cameras didn't even have meters. Right now I am using a D80 and see no need to upgrade yet. I rarely print bigger than 11x14. I shoot a lot at iso 1600 and find no problem with excessive noise. I didn't with the D70 either. I have a stunning 11x14 print on my wall shot with the D70 (6mp), which could pass for a print from a 4x5 ektachrome. I use one zoom lens (18-70) plus all my older manual lenses. If I get a newer camera, I would need to upgrade my photoshop version, and to do that I would need a newer computer, all more total expenses than I want to spend at this time. My point is, cameras don't make better pictures, people do. Unless you expressly need very fast focusing for sports photography, or bird photography, or if you are doing weddings or photojournalism, you probably don't need a pro level camera. Most of the cameras on the market right now are simply amazing and can take amazing photos if you use them creatively.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>the D300s sells for about $1600; d800s are $3,000. thats 2x, not 4x. just saying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Unless you expressly need very fast focusing for sports photography, or bird photography, or if you are doing weddings or photojournalism, you probably don't need a pro level camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>consumerism isnt about needs, it's about wants. regardless, the next generation of cameras promises to be better than the current generation, otherwise why would anyone upgrade?</p>

<p>to the OP, as a D300s owner, i share your frustration with expectation limbo. the only fault with the d300s IMO is its high-ISO performance. i've considered a d7000 for that reason but i like the feel and pro performance of the d300s and, yes, i do shoot PJ stuff so for me in some ways that would be a step down, in other ways not. i've been waiting to see what nikon is going to do and in the meantime we get the Nex-7 from Sony and OM-D E-5 from Olympus, which appear to be just as capable as the d7000--or moreso. only thing stopping me right now from pulling the trigger on either is the lens selection, although that's less of an issue with m 4/3 than with sony. also the fact i'm invested in nikon glass. probably wont make a move before september, but after that -- who knows?</p>

 

<p>Wow, there must be something wrong with me then, I'm still happy shooting with my D90, and after 2500 shots, I haven't really scraped the surface of it's capabilities. Wish I could develop camera lust, but I can't, I'd rather just go & shoot.</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, I was only talking about manufacturing defects. If you are rough on your equipment (because you shoot professionally or for whatever reason), it is understandable that your Nikon cameras need maintenance.</p>

<p>Once my D700 hit hard rock in the Antarctic because I foolishly left it on a tripod under very windy conditions. That was completely my carelessness and has nothing to do with Nikon quality; actually it does. After it hit hard rock from a fully extended tripod at about 6 feet, there is only a little dent on the left side of the D700. Otherwise, it has been functioning perfectly since that fall almost 3 years ago.</p>

<p>However, it does sound like your D300S is defective out of the box. I had that problem with a SB-800 back in 2005 and a Lexar CF memory card a few year ago. But among camera bodies, I have gone through 15 Nikon DSLRs in the last 10 years plus a bunch of film SLRs since 1977. I have yet to receive one that is defective.</p>

<p>Late last year I really needed (or wanted, because I earn my living doing something else) a camera faster than my D90. I had a 17-55mm DX lens, which is the most expensive DX lens you can buy. I was starting to shoot events and some sports, and my D90's focus system and shooting speed, while not at all bad, just wasn't giving me what I wanted. I "wanted" a camera more capable at that time, and my reasonably priced choices were a D7000, a D300s, and a D700.</p>

<p>I'll start with FX: the D700 was the camera that gave me 85% of what I wanted. With a grip, I got higher FPS and the camera has 51 focus points. I also got very nice high-ISO performance to boot. The problem for me was that this camera was old (started shipping in 2008), needed FX lenses (note I had a 17-55 DX lens), and did not have dual-memory cards (which was important because I was getting some paid jobs). I debated holding off and waiting for an FX replacement because I liked the high-ISO performance. To this day, we still don't have a "true" replacement to the D700 (which would be a D4 sensor in a D800 body and the ability to shoot at 8 FPS with a grip), and we may never have one. But I didn't buy a D700.</p>

<p>On to DX: Between the D7000 and the D300s, it's clear which has the most modern image processing technology. The D7000 was a fairly new camera at the time (just under a year old), but only gave me 6 FPS even with a grip. I found this camera to give me 90% of what I needed and actually bought one. But at the same time I bought a refurbished D300s. The D300s has more or less the same sensor as the D90, shoots at 8 FPS with the grip, has more focus-points, and has dual-card slots...all critical to what I was doing. The d300s gave me 98% of what I was looking for. What would have made it perfect was have a camera with the high-ISO performance of the D700. I compared the high-ISO of the D7000 to the D300s and while it was better, it still wasn't a D700. The D300s (in my opinion) gave me the best option at the time. While I was apprehensive on buying which at that time was a 2-year-old+ camera, it was the one I ended up with and the D7000 got returned. And I'm glad I did. If I was thinking along the lines of should I wait for a "D400", "D9000", or whatever the D300s replacement would be called, I would still be waiting. Just like some who were waiting on a D700 replacement are still waiting. And I would not have been able to enjoy the benefits of having the camera that gave me most of what I needed (or wanted) at the time. And I absolutely love the D300s, and will only get a new camera if there is a direct replacement for it, if there is a direct replacement for the D700, or if I ever have the budget to buy a D3s or a D4. If I broke it tomorrow, I would go buy another one the next day.</p>

<p>My point in all this is that Nikon, or Canon, or Sony, or Apple, or Whirlpool, or Citibank, or General Mills, or any other company creates products because of a balanced customer need...that's their job. No collection of products is going to give every person everything they want, and the job for us as consumers is to get the best product available based on what we what or need. In my opinion, I think Nikon should have announced a D300s replacement by now, especially given some of the "what were they thinking" lenses we've seen from them this year (notably the new 18-300mm). As if the 18-200 IQ isn't bad enough, Nikon takes that insanity further. And the people using that lens are likely D3200 and D5100 users, and that huge thing just looks crazy with one of those small cameras. But Nikon sees this as it's best opportunity to earn revenue. I digress...it's frustrating to most of us who shoot DX semi-professionally or at a high-level as an amateur that there hasn't been a D300s replacement. But my advice is not to wait for it, because it may never come. You can be enjoying a D300s, or an alternative Canon or Sony product in the meantime.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents...</p>

I'm awaiting September so I can watch some leaves change color.

<p>Twenty five years ago I picked up my first guitar. In the intervening quarter-century I have had many many guitars, amps, effects pedals and have tried every possible combination of setting (there are approx. 85 in a basic electric guitar/amp rig), pick and strings on the market. Every time I changed something I learned, but if I had to cherry-pick from all that equipment, all that time spent practicing, all that experience I now know exactly what I would have and it would be pretty simple. At one point I was using two 200watt amps connected in stereo and the most advanced rack-based effects on the market, with a MIDI controller that itself took a lot of effort simply to understand and some relearning of co-ordination to get the best out of it.<br>

A few years ago a relative beginner was in the market for some equipment and asked me to help him go round the shops and play the guitars he was thinking of as he was too nervous to play in front of strangers. He ignored all my advice and paid a lot more money than he needed to, for a guitar which did a lot less than the one I recommended. But he loved it and felt a connection to it which he probably would never have with the one I knew without doubt was made of better wood, with better electronics and to higher standards.<br>

In a field as technical as photography, the learning curve is probably similar. Getting the best out of your gear, learning equivalents to "these two volume controls combined produce a certain volume on the speakers, but it's better if this one is pushed and this one is kept low, to ensure effective compression in low gain settings" etc. I know I've just scratched the surface, but I am eager and able to learn, shoot at least 3 times a week for several hours at a time and feel it is natural, a year in, to want a body in which I can have full confidence and on which I can spend a lot of time without worrying about it. I was expecting to be given encouragement and advice and quite frankly have had my nose put out of joint by the responses to both my threads. As someone who has had enough knowledge about other subjects to be in the opposite role to the one I am in now, I always assumed the posted was an intelligent and sincere seeker of knowledge and tried to impart what I could in a friendly and respectful way. I don't think that's too much to ask. So maybe I'll step out of this thread and everyone can put it down to experience for the next time. It doesn't matter how good your photographs are if you're going to make a newbie feel like a fool for asking a simple question.</p>

<p>Hey Stephen,<br>

I think they meant well. As for guitars, people can get some serious GAS as well. 10 years ago I fell in love with the acoustic sound, practiced a few chords on a borrowed guitar so not to embarrass myself with the salesperson, and got a Taylor. A year later my wife surprised me with a Martin. Needless to say, I was way over my head as far as living up to the potential of the guitars. I have no innate musical talent and I don't practice enough. But I do feel an overwhelming rush and connection to the sound of wood and steel whenever I do play. So I say to you: you do not have to pass a test. You do not have to live up to your gears. Do follow your love of gears and the mind-blowing technologies.</p>

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p>the fact that on your bio you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love street work as it is so challenging</p>

</blockquote>

<p>tells me you <em>really</em> need to listen the the folk here.</p>

<p>As others have already pointed out in one way or another, street work is undemanding of image quality, and is about as technically unchallenging a photographic genre as there is.</p>

<p>If you find it so, you have work to do <em>on you</em> before you start worrying about the next <a href="http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/shiny-thing-make-it-all-better-201001282420">Shiny Thing Make It All Better</a>.</p>

<p>You're just embarassing yourself now Keith.</p>

<p>KJ, thank you for your response. It's good to know the D300s isn't automatically trumped by the D7000</p>

<p>All I said was that I think you should get a D300s now if you really like the camera. It's a pretty good camera even today as a three-year old model; just like the D700 is a very good camera today as a four-year old model. Just talking about taking photos, there is very little one cannot do with either camera. For someone who is learning I think either of these cameras are better than their newer higher-res brethren because:<br>

1.) They offer a lower entry cost for a beginner. If you are just learning, you should not really spend a large sum of money on equipment.<br>

2.) You are not handicapping yourself with more megapixels. This will force you to take more control of your composition and technique.<br>

Rumors about new announcements are simply rumors, and the market may never see a true replacement for a D300s or a D700. Don't handicap yourself because you want what you buy to be future-proof. In technology, that's impossible. Just look at Kodak for proof.</p>

<p>Certainly not. Others may disagree because of the camera's 1080 video ability or the higher megapixel count, but a D7000 is in no way a D300s. It may have newer technology, but as far as feature and function go it's inferior in my opinion. Now the differences are not completely night and day, but I've met plenty of folks in the same boat over the past year who went with a D300s over a D7000 for this very reason.</p>

<p>I used to work as a product manager in the technology industry, and I understand what Nikon is trying to do with the its strange D90/D7000/D300s and D700/D800 product arrangements. The D7000 and D800 were put out there in an effort to slightly redefine segmentation.</p>

<p>The D7000 was introduced at roughly the same price point as the D90 at its introduction, but Nikon continued (and still continues) to offer the D90 today two years after the D7000 for two reasons: 1.) the D90 was (and to a lesser degree today still is) one of Nikon's kick-ass selling products and 2.) the D7000 is not a direct replacement to the D90 (which is something Nikon as stated over and over again). But D7000 not a D300s by any means, so from a DX standpoint Nikon is redefining product segmentation. Nikon has continued to offer all three of these cameras for a number of reasons (natural disasters, squeezing out every last penny of revenue, etc.), however I'm sure Nikon is studying how these prosumer to professional DX cameras play out while on the market concurrently. This will help them hone on an accurate the market segmentation. There is currently a D90/D7000/D300s lineup, but in the future we may see this three-model segment end reduced to one model. Or two. Or stay at three. Who knows, and who knows when?</p>

<p>The FX story is a bit simpler with less segmentation adjustment but with a huge shift in technology cost. Others may disagree, but the D800 (on features) is more of a D3x replacement than a D700 replacement (albeit at a much lower price). That price adjustment downward was more of a market shift in technology (i.e., that 36MP sensor has a cheaper base manufacturing cost than the 24MP sensor). The D800's price was set at the D700's initial cost of $2999, which made it price-competitive, even though it's not feature-competitive. Most people find that the D700 and the D800 are very different cameras, even more different than a D7000 to either if its closest DX relatives. A true D700 replacement is a D4 sensor in a non-grip body, much like the D700 was a D3 sensor in a non-grip body. In the end, I think there will be something closer to a D700 replacement than a D800 (i.e., there may be something to the D600 rumors), but I would not hold my breath on timing. Tech companies like to introduce the high-end, expensive models first since these typically provide higher margins and anxious people looking to upgrade will buy these models quickly (even though they may want/need less). This is one reason (along with natural disasters) why I think we haven't seen a 70-200mm f/4 lens from Nikon; the f/2.8 version 2 is three years old, but has only been readily available for about 18 months or so. In the end, the segmentation could pretty much remain as it did for the D700/D3(s)/D3x with an entry-FX/D4/D800 (pricing order not critical here). But again, who knows, and who knows when?</p>

<p>And all of this is considered with Nikon operating in a competitive vacuum. In reality, the company has to respond to anything Canon, Sony, and others do. The company also has to deal with macro-economic factors as well.</p>

<p>So, it's a crap shoot to which I say if you want a D300s, it's still a great camera. You can get one, grow into it functionally, and definitely be very happy.</p>

<p>Thank you very much indeed.<br>

;-)</p>

<p>Not to knock the D300 but now is probably not the best time to buy one unless you get a great deal on a used one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to knock the D300 but now is probably not the best time to buy one unless you get a great deal on a used one.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Many people told me this last year at this time saying that a D300s follow-on was due in a couple of months. "Just wait", "The camera is pretty dated" is what they said. Here we are a year later with nothing. I'm glad I bought something when I did, or I would still be waiting and wouldn't be shooting the things I enjoy today. There might be something on the horizon in the fall, but no one knows for sure. Now I didn't buy my camera "new"; it was refurbished for about $1250. But this is my practice for buying camera bodies anyway, while all of my lenses are bought new.</p>

<p>There are many people out there buying brand-new D700 cameras right now, which is an even older camera. This is despite numerous D600 rumors flying around.</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, chill out man! and you will never need to apologize (I'm sorry?) if you chill :)</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>stephen: "oh, ok then.<br />I'll not get another camera until I'm allowed to..."</p>

<p>stephen, good news! i just checked with the "great allowed" and she says, it's all good. your request has been approved. please buy whatever you feel like..</p>

<p>stephen, it's all in the tone and expectations...it appears you are expecting to be disappointed...by Nikon, folks who offer advice etc...<br>

check this out: "I was expecting to be given encouragement and advice and quite frankly have had my nose put out of joint by the responses to both my threads."<br>

plenty of advice has been dispensed. as for encouragement, you need none. you seem to have enough self-confidence since you have dispensed all the dispensed advice...or so it would appear</p>

 

<p><em>the D800 (on features) is more of a D3x replacement than a D700 replacement (albeit at a much lower price).</em></p>

<p>I have both cameras and technologically you're correct but IMO the D800 ergonomics are poor; the design of the chassis has weird sharp corners and bumps. The MB-D12 I'd like to throw to the birds, as the grip makes the whole feel unbalanced (almost all the weight is in the camera part - it's as if the grip really were meant as an afterthought) whereas the D3X is balanced (when you turn it from vertical to horizontal, the center of gravity does not move), round and feels good in the hand, not to mention has better viewfinder viewing comfort. IMO the D800 can never be a D3X replacement even though it's technologically much more advanced and yields better image quality - as you said, others may disagree. ;-) I think a replacement is something which is in every way better or equal than its predecessor.</p>

<p>Stephen--<br>

Honesly, the more experienced I've become, the more I've come to see the camera as the least important thing in photography. That said, I do own a D5100 which I now use as my "main" camera, and now only use the D300 when I need reall fast AF or am using a non-AFS lens (I own two.) I am simply waiting for a replacement for D300 to show up, and I'm sure it will. I'm not in a real hurry--the D5100 does 90% of what I need. If Nikon were to drop DX (something I find extremely unlikely,) I would likely move to Canon and the 7D line of cameras. If Nikon thinks I'll replace all my lenses with all new FX, screw that. The advantages of DX works well for me.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>There is no doubt that gear lust was/is a huge part of my enquiring about the D300S, but rather than simply going out and paying 8,5k yuan for one, I thought a sensible step was to seek advice about it's capabilities vis a vis alternative models. The price of the bodies under discussion is significant for me, further complicated by the fact that I am currently living in China. I can't speak Mandarin, apart from the very basics, so the possibility of having a discussion about technical aspects/faults of a camera with a non-English speaker is nil. However, as this thread has continued, I am getting the information I need, for which I am extremely grateful.<br>

As an aside, I have never, even in my own mind, disagreed with the view that it's the photographer who takes the photograph, rather than the camera. But I would contend that many of these comments are made by people who in fact own loads of gear! Maybe you have to have had loads of gear to fully understand this. Maybe these people are in fact trying to do me a favour. But it is somewhat tickling to be the recipient of these comments then read other threads in which members have recently taken ownership of thousands of pounds worth of equipment, to no comment. <br>

</p>