What to expect from Nikon?

<p>I just bought my digital camera last December so I would not care what Nikon introduce next. I have my camera I keep using that until I can't use it any more. And until then there is no need for me to find out what's camera are available or will be available. </p>

Maybe integrated radio flash triggers

like the new cannon models?

<p>I can't tell you what to expect from Nikon or than prepare to be underwhelmed whatever it is, with inherent problems (i.e. sensor dust, bad AF, etc) so they can deny it has a problem and introduce a replacement model with fixes six months later. I, on the other hand, expect to buy a Sony a99 soon as my bank account allows.</p>

<p>"DfM with 24 megapixel monochrome only sensor"<br>

Dan, they will sell at least two DfM, yours and mine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan, they will sell at least two DfM, yours and mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They have a Leica for people like you :-)</p>

<p>There are some bloggers out there who seem to think that they know what Nikon should be doing. Bloggers who have never run a high-tech manufacturing company. Bloggers who find fault with every camera and lens in existence. Bloggers who are not particularly impressive photographers.</p>

<p>It's interesting to read their comments. They seem so earnest and so sure of themselves. It's like when someone who doesn't have any money tries to tell you how you should be investing yours. </p>

<p>What to expect from Nikon?....How about listening to their customers needs? </p>

<p>Nikon don't have an amazing track record of giving you new features in firmware updates, presumably because they want you to buy the replacement to any given camera and want all those features to be something you pay for. Of course, this is annoying when it wouldn't cost Nikon much money, I'd be quite happy to pay for an incremental firmware update, and there's no better camera (for me) that Nikon offers. Obviously there's a stability thing as well, but given the time it takes for firmware updates to be released, that's unlikely to be an issue. My understanding is that firmware updates for Nikon are somewhat hard to achieve, so it may be that some of the functionality is a bit hard-wired - though I've still to find time to contribute to a BIOS hack myself, to my shame.<br />

<br />

I don't know whether the live view hang of the D800 can be fixed in software. It's been responsible for me buying some quite expensive memory cards (to minimise the lag), but I'd still not object to a fix. SRAW in the D800 would be a huge improvement (without having seen how good Nikon's SRAW is), though I'm a bit nervous that it doesn't seem to be fully integrated into the D4s, from what I've managed to read in the manual, so maybe it's a work in progress. I've no idea what's taken so long - it's not rocket science.<br />

<br />

I'd love Nikon to listen to the requests I've been trying to send since the D700. They did put in the auto-ISO min shutter by focal length fix in, which was something I asked for (though I doubt it was just me). There's some esoteric stuff I'd really like (split-screen live view, notably). There's stuff that should be easy but seems to be against policy (letting you map ISO and AF mode to a button you can reach with the right hand, enabling trap focus). There's a fix for the weird auto-ISO + flash behaviour. Completely automated AF fine tuning. This shouldn't be ridiculously hard, but I'm not holding my breath for any of it.<br />

<br />

As for hardware, Nikon and Canon don't seem to have felt threatened by the Sonys. I'd like to say I'd like

<br />

I really wasn't expecting a D700 successor (other than the ones we've already got - I mean one with a D4 sensor) because I wasn't expecting a D4s sensor to be a significant jump. I'm still waiting reviews to find out whether it actually is, but I now believe that the Df followed the D700 model (take the sensor from the high end, then upgrade the high end) more closely than I thought. Whether we'd actually get something closer to the D700 (D800 body and AF points, for example) is another matter - and I have doubts they'd allow 8fps with a grip.<br />

<br />

I'm fairly sure a D7200 will have a bigger buffer. I'd not be surprised if Nikon continue their "shrink the DSLR" approach at the low end, though I'd have liked them to take my "collapsing mirror box" suggestion so it wasn't reliant on a collapsing kit lens. They'll probably push the wifi integration. I'd expect the 3300 and 5300 to continue being updated faster than the FX line, though I wouldn't be surprised if a D7200 came sooner rather than later.<br />

<br />

I'm not holding my breath for Nikon making some small, wide, DX primes, either. (Now I've seen how big the 18-35 f/1.8 is, I'm more sympathetic to the need.)<br />

<br />

However. I'm a useless predictor, and I think Nikon enjoy being unpredictable. The only thing I'd put money on is that, if Canon produce a 7D2, Nikon would make a D400. I didn't expect the Df, I didn't expect the D4s to be quite so... warmed over, I didn't expect the 58mm (let alone the silver ring 50mm f/1.8). Nikon might get around to a 135 f/2 refresh (but the Zeiss is <i>very</i> good) and do a VR 300 f/4 at some point, but I'd honestly rather see them revisit the 24-70 and possibly 70-200 and 200-400. Though history suggests they'll make yet more 18-xxx superzooms that can't max out a 24MP sensor instead...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...the D7200 and 7300 to get close enough to what a D400 would have offered to make people happy...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>its not the same, in no aspect</p>

<p>I don't know. Nothing I really need because I already have more than I need, as do most people I would guess. I still want a full frame FM2D. No, not a Sony mirrorless. The Df comes close, and eventually I might get one of those. Beautiful camera. It matches the shutter speed of an FM2, and most people say the sensor is fantastic. But I don't want to pay $2700+. And there's the rub. I want it for the price of a D600. You know what they say, "Wish in one hand and.......in the other, see which one fills fastest."</p>

<p>So there you are, Nikon. Surprise me. It's all good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I don't want to pay $2700+.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah many people wanted the FM2D but not willing to pay the price thinking it must be less expensive because it's just the FM2 plus the sensor right? But no making something like that cost more than main stream products. </p>

<p>Mag: I feel you may be jumping the gun slightly. You're complaining, on the basis of a current camera that does 90% of things better than a D300s (and, yes, 10% worse) that neither the a camera that hasn't been announced yet which is a successor to the current one, nor the successor to <i>that</i> camera will be a sufficient substitute for a fictional replacement to a four-and-a-half-year-old camera (itself a mild rewarming of a camera two years older). That's a lot of assumptions.<br />

<br />

I appreciate that there's a convention in how Nikon have branded and positioned things. There are handling differences between the D7100 and D300s (some of them happened between the D3 and D4 as well - don't expect them to go away), there's a buffer difference that Nikon may or may not have fixed by then anyway, and there's a small shutter speed difference in favour of the D300s (with a grip) for those who aren't happy with a 1-series and who can't afford a single-digit D camera. There are a few other differences too - IIRC the D7100 doesn't have a PC-sync socket, for example - but who knows what will have changed between now and when Nikon launches something?<br />

<br />

Let's wait and see. I worry that there are a lot of D700 owners - at least on internet fora - who are holding out for an exact replacement for the D700 that is better in every way, while the available options (D610, D800, even Df) are already better in 90% of ways. I speak as a D700 and D800 owner. Sure, if you really care about that 10% above all other things, Nikon doesn't cater to you all that well; I just think many are blinded by the small steps back compared with the large steps forward. Canon have done somewhat better in ensuring that the 5D3 is in no way worse than the 5D2 (though the same is not so true of the 6D), but that has made it a much smaller upgrade in other areas than the D700/D800 step.</p>

<p><em>..its not the same, in no aspect...</em><br>

<em><br /></em>That’s right ! They are not the same but the D7100 is much better ISO camera than the D300, more pixels and much better sensor. If Nikon fix the buffer issue, keep the 51 AF points, give us 6 fps ( and with the grip to reach 8 probably ) and .... the most important to me : let us shoot with ISO 6400 and get very clean pics out of the camera ( and very usable shots at ISO 12500 ) then, I really do not care what the name of the next DX camera should be. I hope the next DX, introduce all of that so that will be my next camera and the one that will replace my D300. <br>

I do not think that Nikon will create the expected D400 or the replacement for the D700. They already created the D800, the Df, the D610 and the D7100. None of them call my attention at all though, except the D7100 that I hope, Nikon replaces it with the expected D7200. I do believe the most versatile Nikon camera out there is the D4 ( D4s). This camera has it all that you need to shoot any type of photography in my humble opinion and I do not think that we need more than 24mp. Perhaps the only thing the D4 is missing, is the mp that should be nice to increase to 24. If I would have enough wallet, that would be my camera.</p>

<p>I expect Nikon to give us : a new 24-70 with VR, a new 300 f/4 ... and a new 16-85 f/4 VR II. I personally have the new 70-200 f/4 VR III and I would love to pair it with either the 16-85 f/4 or the new 24-70 f/2.8 VR to be complete ( yeah, I know that some will say : the 24-70 on a DX is not the best choice but it is for me, and if Nikon does not replace the 16-85 to be a f/4 lens, and introduce the 24-70 VR, then, this will be my middle range lens ). We also have the 16-35 f/4 and it is an excellent choice for DX but I need a zoom lens that covers up to 70 or a bit more, so I pass on this lens. </p>

<p>For wide angle shots, we have some options : 10-24, 12-24, 14-24, Tokina 11-16 ( 12-24 and the new 12-28 ). Either one is more than ok so I don’t think we need anything else on that area, but the middle range ( between 16-70 ) is not that good, except for the 24-70 that is lacking the VR and that is very silly from Nikon. Yes, I need VR and I guess a lot of photographers will welcome the introduction of VR on this lens, the 24-70. <br>

When I shoot weddings with my D300, I need more ISO and more pixels, especially when they do not let me use my speedlights. Give me that and fix the buffer issue on the new DX and I’ll be half happy. Add the 16-85 f/4 or add VR to the 24-70 and then, I’ll be completely happy. </p>

<p>Well Nikon messed up their number so that they can't release the D400. Because after the D400 and next year it's D500 and then what? D600??.<br>

So I think the D7100 is the updated D300 as it's the lop of the line APS-C camera. </p>

BeBu, thanks for the laugh :-)

 

D400, LOL, LOL!

<p>actually I think because the D300s still listed for more money than the D7100 so it's not the D300s replacement. The replacement must be the same price or a little higher like the D4 vs D4s.</p>

<p>There will never, ever, be a D300 replacement.</p>

<p>In the past couple of years I witnessed on various forums, people asking for a lot of Mpx on new cameras, they said they needed to have the crop possibility. I remember years before the D800 was launched, they wanted 36 Mpx on the new Nikons. Nowdays very frequently you can see how some people want even more than 54 Mpx.<br>

On the other hand people wanted an affordable FX camera and wanted Nikon to minimize the difference in the level of performance between the FX and DX cameras.<br>

So I would say Nikon listened to them and now we have the D800 with 36 Mpx. Most of us we do not need that many Mpx, but it is there. I certainly think that my D4 is better than the D800 in every way including the well praised DR but that is not important.<br>

Then you have the D610 as an affordable DX camera for everybody.They fixed the shutter, you can have it at a reasonable price.<br>

Last but not least you have the D7100 that is nearly as good as an FX.<br>

Is not this what we wished for ? Because to me it seems, pretty much yes, it is.</p>

<p>I'd like to Nikon create a truly configurable system, possibly modular, taking the best features from any format - this appeals</p>

<p>http://petapixel.com/2013/03/13/equinox-a-versatile-module-camera-that-can-take-on-various-form-factors/ </p>

<p>but I'd like a single lens reflex module, maybe a massive upgrade from the Leica Visoflex idea and a tilt shift module</p>

<p>I could go on but this'll do for starters</p>

 

 

<p>BeBu said,"I just bought my digital camera last December so I would not care what Nikon introduce next. I have my camera I keep using that until I can't use it any more. And until then there is no need for me to find out what's camera are available or will be available."</p>

I wish I had that type of restraint.....Only restraint I have is the size of my wallet :)

 

 

 

 

<p>Who really cares I'm too busy using my D7100 !!!!!</p>