Nikon answer to Canon 7D

<p>Will Nikon come up with a DX camera with Canon 7D specs and features, the D300 sensor in low light is not even up to the D90 sensor and if you crop your image the extra pixels are useful.</p>

<p>D300s or even the D300. its a prosumer camera anyway there is only so much they can put in it without hurting sales for higher end models. 6 mega pixel difference = more noise and again at the prosumer range its not that big deal. Nikon simply doesnt need to answer they made this category of dslr with the d300 this is canon's answer. </p>

<p>I can't really be bothered. I'm getting the results I need from my D200 and D300 right now.<br>

This weekend I shoot a fair bit at 1600iso with my "obsolete" d300, through a glass viewing window I might add, and so long as you get the exposure correct, the results are fantastic.<br>

If anything, I want a camera with even more dynamic range - not pixels - the d300's extra dynamic range is very obvious over the d200, and improving that will allow me to grab shots in even tougher conditions. 12 megapixels is already very, very difficult for me to get a tack sharp shot with long lenses.</p>

<p>Alvin <- ps I'm a rank amateur, so I can't say what real professionals need.</p>

<p>I am a Canon shooter. with an interest in the 7D. I have been watching out for reviews and user-reports across several photo-forums. Although it is still early days, I have yet to come across anything that comes anywhere near to something like 'Wow! This is one-helluva-camera ...'<br><br>My gut feeling says that Nikon need not worry too much about this latest Canon! </p>

<p>This is not a zero sum situation, Canon came out with the 5DII and we thought that the 24mp count would mean poor high iso noise. Not what happened it is still very good. <br>

The reason is that the microlens, sensor layout and noise processing are all improving making the performance go up. The size of the pixel can be bigger because support electronics is made smaller.<br>

So what was possible in the era of the D200 a few years back and the D300 is showing its age too is one to two generation behind the 7D sensor/ processor design.<br>

I personally don't need FF or 24mp but making a more compact DX camera with 18mp is attractive.<br>

Good seals and ais lens metering is a must for me too. I don't care about motion pictures in a DSLR.<br>

I would rather have a full featured movie camera.</p>

<p>A couple of people have raised this with me and I'm afraid I don't really see it. The 7D looks pretty nice but if you are shooting a D300 and it is suddenly 'obsolete' are you really going to switch lens mounts for such a small increment in performance?<br>

My D300 has clicked through about 31,000 shots in 18 months, and the damned thing just keeps upgrading itself. If I take care over what I shoot and put some thought into it, each set of photos is better than the last. I bet Canon don't have a camera that can upgrade itself like that, right? >;-></p>

 

<p>Micheal, go to the DXO site www.dxomark and look at the iso noise ranking the D90 beats the D300. I don't know if the 7D is ranked yet but the noise profile should be similar to the 5DII which I am sure by now is ranked.</p>

<p>Its not a Canon vs. Nikon thing, Sony, Samsung and others will be improving their sensors too as an evolution in the design and fabrication process of sensors progress.<br>

Cameras don't per se get outmoded but the latest gen gets the attension because if you can choose which to buy you go for the one that is the most progressive at the time of purchase.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm sure the D90 does beat the D300, but would you sell a D300 to buy a D90? Similarly, would you really jump lens mounts for an increment of performance that is not much larger in the scheme of things? I find these sorts of discussions to be quite damaging to what photography actually is, hence my joke about my perpetually-upgrading D300.<br>

To answer your original question I think that the D300S is Nikon's 'answer' for the 7D, and it will sell handsomely, because it's a remarkably high quality piece of kit. Six megapixels is not as huge an increment over twelve as it would be over, say, six or eight.<br>

Maybe Nikon will choose to answer the 7D with a new camera at some point, but I would hope that they don't. This idea that these two companies must be in some lockstep race to produce identical cameras is tiresome and flawed, and the dxomark thing is just another way for a company to monetise the race for specifications over quality. </p>

<p>It's actually the other way around, the D300 consistently beat the D90, according to the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/page29.asp">conclusions shown in dpreview </a>tests: "Yet, for all the similarities in publically announced sensor specifications and consistent color rendering, there are clear differences in per-pixel-sharpness and contrast. Both are shot with the same lens but no amount of re-shooting could get the D90 to match the D300's output."</p>

<p>As a Canon dslr user, I think that the 7D is Canon's long overdue response to the D300, a camera that I've lusted after since it came out. It has all of the features that many of us Canon shooters wanted in a body that we didn't have to pay $4500 for. I came very close to buying a D300 over the last year simply because it was the camera that had specific features that I wanted on a dslr body, something much closer to my 1v than my 30D was. I'm glad I waited for the 7D--mine will be in my hands next week--because I think it fits the bill as far as coming much closer in performance and handling to my 1v than anything else I've owned. As for any D300 users switching to Canon for the 7D, that seems pointless to me as the D300 has almost everything a photographer would want on a high-performance dslr and is just as outstanding a camera today as it was when it was introduced.</p>

<p>yes they will. there will always be new cameras.</p>

<p>I wrote<br>

Will Nikon come up with a DX camera with Canon 7D specs and features<br>

Micheal, this is not asking if I or any other Nikon user should switch mounts, do you not see I am asking if Nikon appreciates the competition has raised not only the pixel count at decent high iso noise but the FPS and the vf quality and the cross sensor focusing and on and on.<br>

The question is about Nikon responding with an up to date answer for its own user base.<br>

Many of us were only so so on the D300 and when the D90 came out we thought that the better sensor would trickle up to the more costly line, actually now we won't be happy until Nikon yet again at least makes as good and hopefully the best cropped sensor camera.</p>

<p>Berg DXO ranks the D90 15th place and the D300 21st place.<br>

Berg, your facts are wrong, go back and compare the D90 vs. D300 again<br>

Nobody with an extensive Nikkor lens collection would undertake switching mounts without more of a reason than what we are talking about. At this point though I would not buy a D300 since I get the feeling Nikon may be ready to release a new model soon that replaces that 3 year old platform.</p>

<p>I have for years used cameras as a parable: the parable of the camera in an electronic age went like this —<br>

You don't really need a new computer every couple of years if it does what you want. They're like cameras — you get one that makes the images you wish, then hold onto it— the bells and whistles make no difference.<br>

Now along comes the leapfrogging world of megapixels and we begin applying the "leading edge / bleeding edge" principle to cameras as well. <br>

Now what technology can I use to illustrate the point that they do not exist <em>per se</em> , but to accomplish a goal.</p>

 

<p>Again, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/page30.asp">according to dpreview.com</a>, the D90 can't even match the sharpness of the D80 let alone the D300:"<em>Despite the greater pixel count of the D90, there's essentially no resolution difference between the two, with the D80 perhaps edging its younger brother in terms of per-pixel sharpness.</em>" There is no free lunch, you get what you pay for...</p>

Ladies and Gntlemen we are in a Pixel/ISO/Video war between Nikon and Canon. Then there are the other cameras such as Olympus, Pentax and Sony which come with some very good features also.

<p>Harry is of course right unless you have been collecting Nikon or Canon system lenses, speedlights, finders, TC's, extension tubes etc. and are tethered to one of these two companies.<br>

Most of us chose long ago to buy either Nikon or Canon or we switched when Pro level cameras ceased to be available from Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, Contax, Konica etc. and we were force to choose sides long before Sony had a viable camera and system.<br>

For many the new Sony cameras are competition in crop and FF cameras. The others Harry mentions are niche in one way or another.</p>