Nikon Introduces D300s, D3000, New Versions of 18-200 and 70-200

[peter_lawrence]

<p>I have a D300 and a D200, so I probably won't be buying a D300s. But if I did, I would probably use the CF slot for storing my still photos and the SD slot (with a Class 6 SDHC card) to capture any HD video I took with the camera.</p>

<p>I have personally found it to be a bit of a pain, housekeeping/workflow wise, downloading and cataloging still images and video clips I've shot with some of my P&S digital cameras that do HD video. One reason is because Lightroom doesn't yet handle (or import) video files from digital cameras. So it would be great to sidestep this issue by storing any video clips I would take with a D300s on a separate card from my still photos. That way it would be more straight-forward managing the two separate types of files. I would import my still photos from the compact flash card into Lightroom, and manage my video clips with a dedicated video application like iMovie or Final Cut Express.</p>

<p> </p>

[sven keil]

<p>I think that it is not the intention to bring people to upgrade from D300 to D300s: Why would somebody do this at the present, given the bad world-wide economics? Your photographs won't get significantly better only by having the newer model. But think about people who now consider buying a new camera, and these people think perhaps that D300 is already slightly dated (which of course is not true), because it has no video and other gimmicks that are found in cameras of other brands. So how to attract the newbies? By keeping your product line up-to-date. With respect to the D3000, this is simply the need for staying competitive in the rapidly evolving low-cost segment. To stay low-cost, they hardly couldn't afford to develop new sensors etc. You preferably will use what you know, and you know how it works, and in this way it is possible to come up with a "new" product at low cost. So, everything to me makes pefectly sense under these considerations.</p>

 

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I think I should post something here!<br>

It's funny, yesterday I had a long drive and on the way I was thinking about the video function on the new cameras.... I am not against it but I don't care about it. I don't really like videos... that's all. So what I was thinking is if there was a better function to be add to a DSLR instead of video... per instance a second card slot, or better body seal, 100% viewfinder, etc. Something that would be useful to photography instead of a video. Then at night I got to my hotel and read about the new stuff coming up... <br>

One question.... personally I used SD cards on my D80 and CF cards on my D300. I never had a problem with either type of cards but somehow I feel more secure using CF cards. They are bigger there for less chances to loose them. They look more solid to me but I am not so sure about those little pins. Over all, I still prefer CF cards. So my question, is one type better than the other? And why?</p>

[epp_b]

<p>The only benefit I can see coming from this announcement is a price reduction for the D300.</p>

[williamting]

<blockquote>

<p>Can anyone offer more information on the quiet shutter mode? If the shutter can be made more quiet, why not have this on all the time? What's the downside - lower frame rate?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D5000 has a quiet mode as well. I believe it slows down the motor mechanisms so there's not as much mirror slap, but adds in shutter delay for a marginal benefit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish the camera manufacturers would make a camera with a higher sync speed, a native ISO 100 and a wider dynamic range but they do not seem to be able to progress in area's that I am interested in.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>To stay low-cost, they hardly couldn't afford to develop new sensors etc. You preferably will use what you know, and you know how it works, and in this way it is possible to come up with a "new" product at low cost. So, everything to me makes pefectly sense under these considerations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two things that people need to take in consideration. First of all, Sony makes the sensors and thus certain features such as a wider dynamic range and ISO 100 are dependent on Sony's progress. Sure Nikon can tweak the hell out of the sensors which is how you see improvements over the years, but some things are fundamentally a sensor problem (like the light gathering potential per pixel, etc.). On a side note, I believe Canon uses Sony sensors as well. Canon seems content in tweaking for more megapixels, while Nikon has been tweaking for better ISO performance.</p>

<p>If you absolutely need high speed sync, Pocket Wizards sync up to 1/8000 now. I still think high speed sync is a niche feature as 1/250 is fast enough for most photographers.</p>

<p>Chip development roadmaps are planned at the minimum 3-4 years down the road. When R&D has come up with new technology and it rolls off the fab plants a few years later, it does no good for the company to sit on new features burning a hole in its pockets regardless of the economy.</p>

<p>The D300s is not aimed at current D300 (or even D200) owners. It is aimed at D80/D90 users looking to move up models. It offers dual slots (great!) while allowing people to use whatever format card they prefer. It offers backup for wedding shooters that previously was limited to the D3. If you don't have SD or CF cards, you don't have to use the second slot. I am able to swap out CF cards fast enough during an event as is, it's just a bonus feature.</p>

<p>I'd argue that most photo.net members are interested in photography only and have no desire for video capabilities on DSLR. However I have helped a few friends buy DSLRs over the past year or so, as well as browsed non-photography forums talking about DSLRs. Video is a big thing to people making the jump to DSLRs. They have it on their phone, they have it on their point and shoot, they want it on their DSLR.</p>

<p>I keep recommending used or older cameras to new DSLR owners, but inevitably they always jump to the 500D or D90 because "they have to have video." Corporations are most interested in generating revenue, it just so happens they make cameras.</p>

[larry n.]

<p>Peter: you are absolutely right on with the comment about Lightoom and workflow. Having two slots will make it easier: use one card for photos and import with lightroom; a second card for video and import with Nikon Transfer. I am too cheap to buy a second card though!</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>From a technicians perspective, and to answer some of the SD card criticism, plus SD vs. CF questions; <br />I've seen quite a few CF card issues arise recently. (Canon mainly but some Nikons)<br />Because of the male/female design of these <strong>CF cards</strong>, as it relates to their <strong>holes</strong>, you have;</p>

<ol>

<li>Tolerance variations. (Cheaply made cards)</li>

<li>Debris contamination (Dust or grit)</li>

<li>Moisture/humidity adhesion. (Corrosion, growth residue or temperature extreme)</li>

</ol>

<p>These pin "holes", as compared to the contact "lands" of the SD cards, are and have been (In a devastating way) more problematic to the camera bodies.</p>

<p>For these numbered reasons, CF card holes are getting ever so slightly jammed or stuck to the camera pin it mates to, and when the unsuspecting photographer quickly pushes the leveraged manual eject, this <strong>mated pin</strong> comes up with the CF card, which can sometimes then release itself. The pin, with the damage already done, is now in a precarious and critical position. Next to impossible to detect the pending doom; this photographer introduces the next CF card, which bends and flattens the pin that then shorts out the neighboring pins... (Camera usually dies at this point, because juice has gone where it shouldn't) NUTS !!!</p>

<p>For all the comparatively minor problems, SD cards by design, will not have the possibility of leaving you with a dead camera caused by that card. If the SD card is bad, camera still works, just slide in another one.</p>

<p>So, buy quality cards, keep them clean and <em>regularly</em> pull them out <strong>slowly</strong>...</p>

[sam_ellis]

<p>I was waiting to pull the trigger on a video-capable DSLR because of the manual focus. I had been pricing HD camcorders, but the DOF of 2.8 lenses is much better looking. I think it's time to sell my D200 and two D300's to upgrade to the D300s. I like the dual memory card slot, it will make putting slideshows together at the reception a piece of cake. RAW to CF card, JPEGs to SD card, pop the card into a LCD tv and done. Maybe video to SD card. When the D700 revision comes out, if it has any dual card slots, I'll buy that too and sell my D700. I'll probably end up with the new 70-200 too. The 14-24 and 24-70 are awesome lenses and the 70-200 is good, but the vignetting is annoying.<br>

I wonder if I can pre-order yet? :)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>While the pin problem exists with the CF card pins, the cards themselves are robust while the SD cards seem very flimsy and easy to misplace. I think the CF card size and hard enclosure is preferable. If there was a widespread problem with pins breaking then professionals wouldn't be using these cards, right?</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Well, its the CF card "tight tolerance holes" that are at issue here, not the robust question. I've spoken to quite a few disparate & ticked off professionals...</p>

<p>The <em>semi-pros</em> are very angry that they can't get their cameras back <strong>fast</strong> (With a loaner) in a factory warranty situation, because they don't qualify for "VIP" Pro treatment...</p>

[walterh]

<p>"... while the SD cards seem very flimsy and easy to misplace."<br>

And if I may add in your climate Ilkka you must prefer the CF cards when handling at low winter temperatures. I once tried to change a SD card of a friend's camera at -20°C - never will do again :-P<br>

I can change CF cards even with gloves :-)</p>

[bmm]

<p>I do agree in general with Gus questioning the pin interface of the CF cards though guys. All other things aside it is a much more delicate interface than that of the SD.</p>

<p>I once remember an almost nonsensical conversation with a guy here who was paranoid about storage of images while on holidays, even though he was likely to take only 8 to 10GB in total. And when I got to the bottom of why he was making no sense, the real reason was that he was super-worried about a dodgy pin in his camera which meant that he flatly refused to change out his primary card and therefore did all sorts of acrobatics with hard drives, USB cables etc because that 2GB of memory wasn't going anywhere. Whether in reality or psychologically, this issue was costing him the option of just having 3-4 4GB cards and getting on with enjoying himself.</p>

[bobar57]

<p>Well,it looks like finally there is an entry level Nikon that I might buy.I has been saving a bit of money to buy a D40,mainly because I like the 1/500 sync flash speed,but was a bit reluctant yet because the only 3 points focus areas. This D5000 have a nice LCD, 11 points focus points and 10.2 megapixels.Too bad the flash sync speed is not 1/500,but you can't have everything in an entry level camera.<br>

With all these features and the kit lens is quite a bargain.I'll bite.</p>

<p>RPA</p>

[dpbours]

<p>A pity that you need to rob a bank in order to buy the new 70-200.<br>

For the old 70-200 you only needed to rob a money exchange office :-).</p>