Nikon D750

<p>Does Nikon finally get it right with the D750?<br>

It looks like it to me.</p>

<p>Not aware that Nikon has released anything about a D750. Where is the information that leads you to the conclusion that Nikon finally got it right?</p>

<p>I can't find anything either. If Nikon has come out with a small camera about the size of the Fuji XT1 with better AF and ISO can go to 1600 with no problem, I'd say maybe they got it right. If the supposed new camera is M43 I'm especially interested.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Nikon Rumors has the D750 having a 70% chance of being introduced at Photokina. It is a 24 MP, full frame body positioned between the D610 and the D810. Nikon has teased us with an add about an upcoming sports camera. This part is not rumor. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon has teased us with an add about an upcoming sports camera. This part is not rumor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please provide a link to that teaser - the one on the well-known nikon rumor site (from August 11) certainly is not from Nikon (it says to right below it).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please provide a link to that teaser</p>

</blockquote>

<p>MM Nice one from Nikon Rumours, putting up a picture, subscribted : "This is not a nikon teaser", loads of ppl who read to quickly miss the word "not"... :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon <strong>finally</strong> get it right</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they structurally got it wrong, how come so many people use Nikon cameras? Are both D610 and D810 so backwards and foolish that we really need another FX camera, or wouldn't we be served better if Nikon put that R&D budget somewhere else?</p>

<p>If someone doesn't have the budget for a D4s what are his other choices? Surely not D610 or D810 nor the old D300s. So a "small" D4s might do the trick for some sports and action photographers (among others). This product can find a market especially if Canon introduces something similar as rumoured. Nikon wouldn't want to be out of the game.</p>

<p>The thing I like so much about Photo.net is that it does not condone rumors. Please let's stick with that and leave rumors to the other forums. As behind the times as is professed about the D300s, mine sure does a good job. The most I will say is it would be nice to see a replacement for that; Dx, 24mp, ISO 25,000, 10fps, NOT smaller.</p>

Considering there's been no information from Nikon about a D750, and as far as anybody knows there is no such camera,

I don't see how anybody can make a judgment about whether Nikon got it right.

<p>Yup. C.P.M is correct. I went back and read the ad. It's a fake. </p>

<p>Ye of little faith in rumors! We will know for sure in a few weeks, why not hope?</p>

<p>Nikon got it right with D300 and D700. Should have continued that way.</p>

<p>Of course I have no faith with rumor sites. Their purpose is to generate web traffic at all cost in order to sell advertisements and make money; they are not there to provide accurate information to readers. They typically provide half truths and sometimes even deliberately insert wrong information to give themselves further opportunities to provide "corrections" so that they get two additional round of "news/rumor cycles" out of nothing. Another tactic is that they drip a bit of information at a time so that the announcement of one product becomes headline news half a dozen times.</p>

<p>Just like most other people, I read rumor sites once in a while, but I take them with a large grain of salt. Sometimes I am under Nikon NDA myself and their tactic becomes very obvious since I know what the facts are. For example, four years ago, I was under NDA and knew that Nikon was announcing four lenses. The rumor site was tipped off with info for all four. However, they suddenly changed the 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR for FX to 18-200mm for FX: : http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WtzV<br>

There was no way that they would have gotten correct info for the other three lenses but a technologically impossible 18-200 FX, so I pointed that out on the thread above. Of course, after milking the wrong info for a while, the rumor site turned around and "corrected" themselves. The actual Nikon announcement came a month later: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X6PA</p>

<p>If you treat rumors as facts, when your wishes are shattered, the disappointment and frustration will be serious. It is unwise to let those rumor sites drag you on an emotional roller coaster ride.</p>

<p>Shun, the Nikon Rumor site I visit places probabilities, some of them pretty low, on all their statements about rumored equipment. They seldom say 100% probable except for some Sony models which they absolutely nailed. Even in the auto industry, accurate information about highly anticipated models is leaked, officially, to the public sometimes a year in advance. BTW, the auto industry is having a record year while DSLRs are slowly losing market share to mirrorless. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, the Nikon Rumor site I visit places probabilities, some of them pretty low, on all their statements about rumored equipment. They seldom say 100% probable</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So that is their cover to post a bunch of wrong information, sometimes deliberately? Those probabilities are merely random numbers to cover their back side, not scientifically significant statistics. It doesn't change the fact that they generate false hopes and expectations to benefit themselves, only to get lots of people disappointed. Again, you only have yourself to blame when you fall for those rumors.</p>

<p>Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. In this particular case, I hope they are right because it looks like the camera I have been looking for to replace my duct-taped D300 that has been in too many blizzards and taken to many falls. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Their purpose is to generate web traffic at all cost in order to sell advertisements and make money</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, totally agree to that,!!<br>

But i think both the truthfull sites and rumour sites have their place.. the former for geting / sharing iusefull information, the latter ones for amusement.. Both try to make an income from what they do best, be it information or amusement... and if they do their job well, and they do, i like to visit them both..</p>

<p>It is just the art to use them both to your advantage and know which one to believe.... :-)</p>

<p>It's amazing this thread is still running....bizarre to say the least.</p>

<p>I mentioned the rumoured 'D9300' <strong><em>once</em></strong> in a posting and got stomped on...I was told it triggered the photo.net 'bozo' filter. Guess it's been reset now??</p>

"Finally" implies that Nikon has never gotten anything right before. Given that people have been creating amazing photos with Nikon gear

for nearly sixty years, I would say that the company does plenty of things right.

<blockquote>

<p>I have been looking for to replace my duct-taped D300 that has been in too many blizzards and taken to many falls.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I don't know exactly what kind of camera you are looking to replace that old D300, and more importantly, what you expect from any future Nikon DSLR. My gut feeling is that the rumor sites will let you down, again.</p>

<P>

Personally, I replaced my D300 with the D7000 way back in late 2010. That D7000 has in turn been replaced by a D7100.

</P>

<blockquote>

<p>My gut feeling is that the rumor sites will let you down, again.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, the Rumour Site in question has absolutely nothing on anything to replace your poor taped-up D300.</p>

<p>Sad, but true....it's a funny old World.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This thread is a heck of a lot more entertaining than your standard "should I use a protective filter" thread.</p>

<p>As long as they don't stick it in one of their prosumer bodies and slap a "flip-up" LCD panel on it, I'd be intrigued.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As long as they don't stick it in one of their prosumer bodies and slap a "flip-up" LCD panel on it, I'd be intrigued.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of the rumours is exactly this. </p>