What's Next from Nikon--and do i need it?

[eric_arnold]

<p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/">thom hogan</a> has an interesting commentary,posted today, which says: <em>" I keep coming back to a question that haunts me (and may haunt Nikon soon): what do I need in a D4 that I don't have in my D3s and D3x?"</em></p>

<p>essentially, Hogan says, a D3s replacement would have to offer more than just more megapixels, and a D3x replacement would have to increase MP and have better dynamic range throughout the ISO scale. the implication is that a D4--rumored to be 18mp FX-- will do neither.</p>

<p>this is a good point, because it posits that DSLR technology has reached the point of diminishing returns. the d3x (resolution) and the d3s (high-ISO) have everything a serious shooter needs. the limiting factor for both isn't capability, but cost; nikon's current pricing structure has no doubt pushed those with high MP needs and financial constraints to the Canon 5dmkII and Sony A900. by the same token, despite lingering rumors of imminent replacement (which probably won't happen until 2012) the d700 remains a viable option for FX shooters who dont need the D3s' extra ISO or the D3x's extra resolution. <br>

<br /><br>

there's a school of thought which says don't get a d700 now. but honestly, if you don't need more than 12mp, i can't see why not. cost is also the limiting factor in ownership, but any replacement is going to run at least the $2700 MSRP of the d700 at launch, which almost dropped to the $2k break-point before the tsunami, and possibly be more like $3500 (or more) with an 18MP FX sensor. anyone who can't afford a d700 now isn't going to be able to afford a d800 at those prices.<br>

what's actually needed, IMO, is this:</p>

<ul>

<li>a d700s with the D3s sensor at a sub-$3k price point.</li>

<li>an FX body with the D3/d700 sensor at a sub-$2k price point.</li>

<li>an FX body with the D3x sensor at a sub-$5k price point.<br /></li>

</ul>

<p>doesn't look like we're going to get any of those.</p>

<p>it's probably too late, but i would have also liked a 12mp DX pro body with better high-ISO than the d300s at a $1500 price point. other than that, IMO, there's little to improve upon from the d300s.</p>

<p>if Hogan is correct about the d400 being 24mp DX, all i can say is, jeepers, glad i got a d300s while i could. the d7000 at 16mp already causes problems with some lenses. can't Nikon give me better high-ISO without giving me more megapixels than i actually need or want?</p>

<p>what i'd really like to see from nikon is currently being made by other manufacturers: smaller cameras with excellent IQ and high-ISO capabilities, i.e., the Fuji X100. If Sigma could fix its UI and AF issues and make an f/2 DP series Foveon compact with a 24mm fixed lens and usable ISO 3200 for the X100's price point, i'd strongly consider that too.</p>

<p>The point is, except for possibly a d700 if and when the price finally drops, i don't see myself getting another pro Nikon body until my current cameras die.</p>

<p>thoughts, anyone?<br /></p>

<p> </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'm waiting for the D800.</p>

<p>And, IN before this thread is closed.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I'll try to get this in before the thread is closed since this is not a rumor forum and this discussion has taken place many times.<br>

<br />First of all, I own a D700.</p>

<p>It does everything I want EXCEPT fit in my hand as well as a D3(s/x) with it's grip.</p>

<p>What would I like in a D800 or D4?</p>

<ul>

<li>18MP [PROBABLE]</li>

<li>Usable at ISO 12800 [PROBABLE]</li>

<li>An ISO range with a base of 100 that covers ISO 25 all the way up to whatever Nikon decides (see previous comment) [uNLIKELY]</li>

<li>Better dynamic range throughout the ISO range [PROBABLE]</li>

<li>Priced between $3500 and $5000 USD [LIKELY]</li>

<li>10+ FPS</li>

</ul>

<p>As for the D400?</p>

<ul>

<li>MAX resolution of 18MP</li>

<li>Everything the D4 gives in an DX Body</li>

<li>Built in grip</li>

<li>8+ FPS</li>

</ul>

<p>Personally, I am eagerly awaiting the D4 and am ready to order one as soon as it's announced<br>

RS</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Canon has had the 20MP 5D Mark II for almost 3 years. Nikon really needs to provide a higher-pixel option for FX that costs well less than the $8000 D3X. As a sometime landscape photographer, I sure don't want the bulk and weight from the D3X either. While the 5D2 has its shares of drawbacks, it is difficult for Nikon to continue pushing the 12MP D700 without video.</p>

<p>I sure hope that the successor to the D300/D300S will not be a 24MP DX body. The 16MP D7000 is already so demanding on lenses that it'll be difficult to find a set of lenses that can take full advantage of 24MP within the DX area. For the purposes I use DX, i.e. mainly wildlife photography, 16MP is more than enough. Actually, I am quite happy with the 12MP D300.</p>

<p>

Overall, Thom Hogan is an expert on Nikon cameras and lenses that already exist. His reviews are well done and his e-book are highly recommended. He and I communicate once in a while. However, his ability to predict future products is mediocre, IMO not a whole lot better than any knowledgeable member here. I wouldn't take his comment about future products too seriously. Admittedly, it is always hard to predict the future; I am pretty bad at it as well.

</P>

[eric_arnold]

<p>is it a rumor if the source is hogan? i'd say more speculation/prognostication.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<h1>What's Next from Nikon--and do i need it?</h1>

<p>Just curious - what does one thing have to do with another? Of course I "need it!" :)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, as far as I am concerned, if the source for a future Nikon product is not from Nikon themselves, it is a rumor. Occasionally Nikon themselves leak information (I have no idea whether those are intentional or not), e.g. the 50mm/f1.8 AF-S: <a href="00YYiv">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YYiv</a>. Since that came from a Nikon web site, although they pulled it pretty quickly, it is not a rumor.</p>

<p>When that 50mm/f1.8 AF-S info first appeared, I contacted Nikon and they simply did not reply my e-mail. A few hours later, that web page disappeared (and then re-appeared a couple of weeks later when that lens was formally announced), so I knew it was a leak and my contact at Nikon was not in a position to tell me anything at that time; I wrote to them and said "never mind."</p>

<p>Nikon themselves hates rumors. Once I mentioned to my contact that I had proofread a few of Thom Hogan's e-books, they immediately indicated that they did not care for his rumors at all.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>thom has been wrong before, and i don't hold his writings as gospel. but if anyone knows anything about what could be in Nikon's future, it's him. all i'm saying is, if he's right in his speculation, he has a good point.</p>

<p>i think the issue here is that replacement cycles are market-driven; it doesn't make sense from a marketing standpoint to continue selling a 3 or 4 year-old camera, but when marketing considerations are prioritized over what photographers actually need, bad things happen, like 24mp DX. the bottom line is that the d700 and d3s are both good cameras and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>i agree with shun that nikon has a gap in its FX lineup: a reasonably-priced high MP camera for those that need it. but by deciding to price the D3x at $8k rather than, say, $5k, they committed themselves to what may turn out to be a blunder in the long-term. for those that don't need more than 12mp FX, an 18 mp d4 or d800 wont replace the d700s which never materialized.</p>

<p>i also agree that 24mp on DX is too much. i don't think the d700 necessarily needed video, especially since nikon has much less experience in that format than canon. if nikon did the implementation of video right, that would be one thing. but most of the video DSLR shooters i see use 7ds and/or 5dmkIIs. so nikon obviously wants a piece of that market, but in addressing that, they run the risk of not catering to still shooters which are their core market.</p>

<p>the trend is smaller, and more portable, with better IQ, connectivity, and interactivity. a high-end compact or a camera phone is easier to lug than a DSLR+ a gazillion lenses. this has obvious applications, such as street photography, photojournalism, even landscape. Fuji, Panasonic, and to some extent Olympus have taken aggressive stances. But Nikon may be left in the dust as DSLRs become dinosaurs. Just saying...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>shun, of course nikon hates rumors--except when they''accidentally' leak something on purpose, and especially if the end result of those rumors is speculation which leads to the conclusion that new products may not adequately address the current needs of photographers. why buy a new body with extra bells and whistles if an older model does exactly what you need it to? the only thing wrong with a d300s IMO is the high-ISO performance above 1600. and the only thing wrong with the d700 IMO is that the price of a new one is still above $2k.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I really hope that Nikon will not go in a race with Canon, producing bigger cameras in size, megapixels and costs but rather will bring some diversification in the lineup, at least for FX line. One thing I have in my mind is a small or moderate factor FX body. I dunno if is possible to have a digital FM3A but at least a digital replica of F100 on full frame could be a big blessing. I mean for landscape, travel & street at least such as camera could be a fulfilled dream.<br>

As for me... as Shun said so well... 16 or 18MP are enough... hopefully the base ISO will never go again over ISO100... but as improvements for the next generation of Nikons I'd welcome a better viewfinder, CLS ability built-in (without the integrate flash) and eventually an integrated GPS unit. Unlike others I really have "0" interest for video but I understand this is important for some.<br>

By no way what I wrote above is a rumor or a prognostication.... it is simply my wish list for Nikon :-)</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I can't imagine a better camera than the D300 - perfection. I couldn't possibly want any more from a digital camera. Everything introduced after it is pure marketing hype. Well, they could fix that loose AF switch. BTW, you D7000 owners, is it that much better than the D300 photo wise?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Going back to the thread about the DX format: <a href="00Yypd?start=30">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Yypd?start=30</a></p>

<p>I posted the LightRoom camera metadata on my own camera usage statistics during my trip to the Galapagos Islands a month ago. I captured about 11K images total; about 8500 using the D7000, 1800 from the D300, and 500 from the D700 (FX).<br>

</P>

<CENTER>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00Yyyt-375595684.jpg" alt="" /><br>

</CENTER>

<P>

My preference is very obvious. I mainly used the D7000 despite its limitations (slower frame rate, slower memory write due to SD cards, slight worse AF) because of its superior high-ISO capability so that I could use ISO 800, ISO 1600 without too much concern about noise. The D7000's ability to capture video was also a plus. I used the D300 mainly when I was in small inflatable boats such that my equipment could get wet by sea water, so if I had to sacraficise a camera, it might as well be my D300, which mainly served a backup role on that trip.</p>

<p>So yes, there is plenty of room for the D300 to improve. A merge of the advantages from the D300 and D7000 would be wonderful.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>well the d300s already has video (only 720p) and two card slots. the only thing it really lacks is high-ISO. what i'm saying is it doesn't need more than 12mp. if a d400 is 18mp, that creates a tricky situation, since not everyone needs that many MP in a DX camera. the d300s obviously will not remain in the lineup, so your choices will be 14 (d3100), 16 (D5100/d7000), and 18mp (d400/4000). there are people still shooting with d40s for whom 6mp in a compact size is all they need. also plenty of d60s and d90s still going. reportedly, an 18-200 is better on a d40 body than a d7k. see the problem? the MP race is marketer-driven not photogapher-driven. also, adding more MPs to high-end pro bodies doesn't address the market trend toward small high-IQ compacts. and an 18mp Fx camera for $3500-$4000 doesnt address the need for a sub-$2k body in that format, besides being possibly 2x the price of a 5dmkII.</p>

<p> </p>

[bikealps]

<p>Eric -- love your thread, very interesting question from Thom, and I'm eager to hear people's thoughts on this.</p>

<p>It's hard to find fault with the current product lineup. That's why I bought a used D3 even though I fully expect a D4 soon.<br /><br />What do we need that isn't in the D3/D3S/D3X? Not much...<br /><br />Still, chip technology moves rapidly and there must be some thing possible that were not possible in 2007...</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>faster write speed and more buffer depth </strong>-- memory is cheap and CF cards have gotten much faster... D3 was designed around serial speeds available 4 years ago (35 Mbps?)</li>

<li><strong>better AF</strong> -- capable of handling faster moving objects at greater magnification -- is this possible?</li>

<li><strong>automatic hyperfocal setting </strong>-- given G lenses do not have markings, how 'bout a button that automatically sets focus from infinity to hyperfocal based on the aperture you select... and then it tells you or shows you the focal limits?</li>

<li>more crop options -- not just 24x36, 24x30, and DX, but square and panorama (16x9 for HDMI, 2x1, 3x1) -- just a gimmick but maybe a nice feature</li>

<li>other gimmicks -- HDR, stitching</li>

<li>VR in the body</li>

<li>bigger sensor (full image circle) -- round sensor so you can do V, H, and square without moving the body?</li>

<li>better dynamic range so highlights don't block</li>

<li><strong>built-in radio triggers </strong>-- honestly, if I buy a pro body, why should I have to pay for radio triggers? and why do I need a separate flash just to act as commander mode?</li>

<li>better ergonomics in moving the AF point -- with limited D3 experience and now back with my D90, the D90 is easier to move the AF point because the AF points are distributed over more of the frame and you only have to go one or two clicks to get where you want... D3 is just too slow to move AF points from my limited use</li>

</ul>

<p>yes, it does seem like technology has met the user needs. The first generation digitals had all sorts of problem. Next generation DSLRs sounded iffy to me so I stuck with my p&s. The 2007 generation is really fine, better than film, and it doesn't seem like we need anything.</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>I wish Nikon would product a Rangefinger Digital to compete with the Fujifilm, But have it so it would be able to use all there existing Lenses. WOW!</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p >Just a few comments on Allan's ... erm ... comment:<a name="00Z0YL"></a></p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5860108">Allan Armstrong</a>, Jul 07, 2011; 09:15 p.m.</p>

<strong>automatic hyperfocal setting </strong>-- given G lenses do not have markings, how 'bout a button that automatically sets focus from infinity to hyperfocal based on the aperture you select... and then it tells you or shows you the focal limits?

</blockquote>

This is such a good idea that I wish it was mine. The truth is that I never considered it before, but it seems so obvious now. Of course, you would need to be using a new Nikon (or some Tamron) lens, or else the camera wouldn't know what lens was mounted, and thus what the possible DOF was. But if it was, why couldn't the camera zone focus for you?

For those that don't know what we're talking about zone focusing is using the camera's hyperfocal meter to maximize DOF. If you have (for sake of argument) a 1" span of DOF at f/16, yo set the lens so that infinity is just barely in the DOF scale; this puts infinity into focus, along with the closest possible objects at that focal length and aperture. The camera isn't actually focused at infinity and might look 'wrong' in the viewfinder, but ar that setting you're ensured maximum DOF.

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>built-in radio triggers -- honestly, if I buy a pro body, why should I have to pay for radio triggers? and why do I need a separate flash just to act as commander mode?</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>This one I don't see happening. There are just too many triggers out there for it to work with everything, and some of them (Paul C. Buff's Cybercommander comes to mind) are way too good to not use. As far as the commander mode goes, if you'd used the "built in commander" on a D300 or similar and one on an SB-900 or SU-400, you'll see that the built in one is junk. Without even getting into control schemes, I find that using the built-in commander really limits where I can put my slave flashes and still have them fire.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>OK, I would be happy with a 16 Mpixel D700, ISO performance as good as the D700, a 3.5" LCD, 8fps with internal battery, and VIDEO with AUDIO, then, a vertical grip with dual Mini XLR inputs and phantom power for quality external mics, or wireless mics.</p>

<p>Please...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Way back in 1978, I bought my Nikon FE and then 9 years later in 1987, I had finished graduate school and got my first job, I bought an FE2. Comparing the FE2 to the FE, I found the changes were rather minor. I told myself the FE2 would be the best camera I would ever need for the rest of my life. Remember, I wasn't a little kid any more; I already had my graduate degrees in computer science.</p>

<p>Little did I know that the AF era was about to arrive and within a couple of years, I bought my N8008 and then F4 .... As they say, the rest is history.</p>

<p>Now 20+ years later, I am older and hopefully wiser. I would never say again that the D3, D3S, D300, or D7000 would be all the cameras I will ever need. If anybody does, it is strictly due to their lack of imagination.</p>

<p>I am sure that the smart engineers at Nikon will come up with something better. If it is a DX body that is the better of both worlds between the D300S and D7000, and it is within $2000, most likely I'll buy one in a heartbeat. If it is some 24MP DX body, I really need to test it first. At this point, IMO 24MP on DX is not a good idea, but of course I could be wrong.</p>

<p>FX is another story.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have never given the Nikon rumors any credibililty, no matter the source. My plan has always been to wait and see what appears. It seems to take so long between when Nikon acutally announces something and when it's generally available anyway that it ends up not mattering to me. I'm also a little leery of being the first to buy a new Nikon product, due to "bugs." I love these sentiments such as, "What more can they do--things are already about as good as it can get." I remember reading those kinds of statements about film in 1995. I also buy & read antique photo journals going back to the 1880s. Whatever time period I'm reading from, there are those saying, "How could things possibly get any better?" I mean, LOL here! People who were shooting dry plates in the early 1880s really could not conceive of placing a roll of film in a camera and taking 12 shots, and yet that happened just ten years later. As for D700, the 13mp is a serious limitation for me. I'm hoping the D400 does have the 25mp as the rumor says, but 18mp is probably a lot close4r. Remember just a few years ago when everyone was saying how great the 4mp D2h was and how that was plenty big enough to make an 8x10? In some ways, nothing has changed since the 1880s. So, I sit tight and see what shows up, and evaluate what it will do for me that my current gear will not, and what it will cost. If the benefit/cost ratio is there, I'll buy it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Two23]

<p>As an outdoor night photographer, radio triggers are something I've really been into for the past four years. I have talked to a Nikon district manager and a Canon tech rep about this. Their thinking is there will never be built in radio triggers. The main reason for this is there are different radio frequencies for different parts of the world. Here, it's 2.4gHz. In Europe it's a lower frequency. In the Orient it's yet another. The Nikon guys told me it would be a huge headache to have to build cameras with different frequencies, and the flash too! For most photographers, all they are doing with flash is simple portraits, and a 30 ft. range is usually plenty. The market for guys like me who really need trigger ranges of hundreds of yards is tiny. Add to this that most who are reallly hard core into lighting use monolights or packheads, not wimpy little 4AA flash. How does Nikon make radio triggers that do iTTL with PCB lights, ProFoto, Broncolor, Elinchrom, on & on? They can't. Bottom line is Nikon & Canon stay with current infrared systems for the forseeable future.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[vince-p]

<p>OK keeds, seems Shun mentioned it in passing and Dan nailed it -- the future I think is all about video capacity and integration with photo capacity. This includes memory, mics, power, everything. Nikon is waaay behind in this. The pros are facing this. Once you're up to $8000 for an FX frame why not consider MF digital, with its vastly improved IQ. At the DSLR level the megapixel craze will top out bec as you all note nobody wants it or needs it and the lenses aren't up to it. But don't forget that the D3 is for pros and pros currently weigh it against the Canon D1Mk whatever and many pros have gone for the 5DMkII.... but the real competition is coming in MF, some of which is down to $10 now. It will be as the last 60 years, the appeal of the Nikons will be in mobility and ease of use; but if the camera isn't at the very top of the game in terms of video it will no longer be a pro camera and at those prices it becomes a meaningless item if it's not for the pros. Meanwhile, I'd keel for a D700. Okay not kill. But assault. I ain't a pro.</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>The sub-$2,000 FX body is called the "used market". Nikon will not be going there with a new camera model. That's an easy call...</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Good question Eric, regardless of what cameras might bring next in terms of predictions, it's good to consider what else one needs in a body to advance their photography.<br>

Sure, most of us like new toys, with new options and things to fiddle with. The whole thing is: how does it affect the final image? Things like more advanced AF modules do make a change, more dymanic range does, better high ISO performance helps. Those are advantages any of us, I think, would welcome and that would help any of us in one way or another.</p>

<p>Otherwise....More megapixels? Not for everyone. I think the D3s/D3x split is a fairly good one - each holds a strength and, specification wise, is tuned to deliver that. The point where lenses become a limiting factor, indeed the manufacterers should really rethink whether there is any use in more pixels. 12 MP for me is really enough, I do not print that large and do not crop too much. I can see use for more, but at what cost?<br>

More option, features, in-camera edit options.... pfffff.... for me they do not matter. But most of those are firmware options, so I do not really care: they add little to no cost and only make the menu more complex. So the "My Menu" feature has to stay, and I'm fine with it all.</p>

<p>Still waiting for the D700 prices to settle down a little, but likewise curious to see what a next generation might bring... maybe there is some trick down the hat we did not think of that's going to be completely worth the wait. If not, the D700 is still a mighty fine camera and will remain so for quite some time, I think. But realistically, my D300 is still a better body than I am a photographer, so I fail to see my needs beyond it....</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I'm waiting for an F7!</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I would like to see Nikon come up with more consumer grade lenses appropriate to couple with the Nikon 16MP D7000 and future consumer DX iterations. Several lenses in the Nikon consumer lens line-up do not have the appropriate resolution to couple with the Nikon D7000. Unfortunately, I have some of them. For example, the Nikon 18-200mm VR. </p>

<p> </p>