nikon d3200

Stephen L · April 19, 2012

I didn't buy the D7000 because I can deal with the way it handles and NOT fit my hands

</blockquote>

Thank God - I thought I was alone on this. Feels like crap in my hands - all angular and sharp.

Meh.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

I think that ship set sail a long time ago to be honest. There is no top of the line FX camera any more. The D800 is not better than the D4 and the D4 is not better than the D800.

</blockquote>

why, whatever do you mean? the d800 just came out. so did the d4. actually, though, if you look at each as a logical progression of the two chains of D3 DNA into 'X' and 'S' models, you're right... but it's confusing from a consumer standpoint as its counter-intuitive logic..."more isnt better, except when it is?"...who can figure that out?

add another 10K for "converting" a 300/4 AF-S into a 500/4 AF-S.

- the only sweet spot is using FX lenses on DX - but usually the focal length range is less than ideal then.

</blockquote>

i hear you, man.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

It's not Nikon's problem if the consumer doesn't have a clue.

</blockquote>

this comment is brilliant on at least a couple of different levels. not much more i can add, LOL.

vince-p · April 20, 2012

Shun -- if you get yerself a D800 you can shoot in 36mp FX when you need, and 15mp DX when you need it. Only 3000US. Problems? None, that I can see.

ShunCheung · April 20, 2012

Shun -- if you get yerself a D800 you can shoot in 36mp FX when you need, and 15mp DX when you need it. Only 3000US. Problems? None, that I can see.

</blockquote>

In the DX crop mode, the D800 maxes out at 5 frames/sec. To me, that is a major problem. You can add an MB-D12 grip and with the right batteries, it goes up to 6 frames/sec. That grip is expensive, and the EN-EL18 batteries for the D4 are expensive, but you can use AA batteries that are not expensive. However, now your D800 with MB-D12 is as big as a D3 or D4. You spend something like $3500 for that outfit and it just matches the $1200 D7000's 6fps performance.

The D300S can achieve 7 fps native. A lot of the world's leading wildlife photographers such as Frans Lanting, Tui De Roy, Wayne Lunch ... prefer DX. Those are just a few I know and have worked with personally. And I prefer DX for that type of work as well.

vince-p · April 20, 2012

Actually it will be Nikon's huge problem if the consumer can't figure out its product line. Fortunately for them, the buyer of the $3000 to $7000 camera is usually pretty well informed. In the $700 market, though, watch out. I see the salesmen at B&H sometimes -- and they're not bad, by any means -- telling people shit that is marginally true but entirely beside the point and has nothing to do with what they need. You can see the fear and confusion in the buyers' eyes.

ariel_s1 · April 20, 2012

Eric, the reason to get a DSLR in 2012 is because megapixels is only part of the equation. If megapixels meant everything, then the shrewd buyer would just get this 24MP D3200, and laugh at all of the fools buying the D4 which has fewer pixels! You would still want a DSLR in 2012 over a cell phone camera because of the sensor size (which leads to better colors/high ISO/dynamic range), manual control, amazing optics, etc. My iphone 4s camera is great, and I'm glad it is there, but it is a fixed-lens camera with no manual controls besides focus point (which also affects exposure).

John, I don't see why Canon has to "catch up." 18MP to 24MP is not that big of a jump. Also, again, resolution isn't everything. If it were, then this Nikon forum should be empty until about a month ago, because even the original 5D had more resolution than the D3 and D700. The 7D, 60D, and T3i all had higher resolution than Nikon's cameras. The buyer that chases megapixels is going to be a busy person with a very worn-out wallet. Canon, with the very modest increase from the 5DII to the 5DIII (21MP to 22MP) has very clearly stated their ideology about trying to engage in a megapickle arms race. It wasn't a good idea during the Cold War, and it's not a good idea today. I think that Nikon, with their D4, have also admitted that there's more to life than resolution.

Curtis, please don't use "retarded" as a derogatory term. I do agree with you that an intro-level full frame camera would make more sense than making a D300 successor.

Some of you guys seem bent on the idea that Nikon owes you a direct upgrade to a current camera, or that they will replace a discontinued model with a directly-better model. This just isn't the case. Since the beginning, Nikon has not been afraid to make a perceived market of camera obsolete. The D800 has clearly been introduced to replace the D3x, despite the D3x having many features and qualities that the D800 lacks. The D50 was discontinued and along came the D40 that had no focus motor and a cheaper AF system; the D50's position in the market as an intro-level body that could AF with older lenses was never filled. The D2x and D2h were discontinued, and no pro-model DX body was introduced to replace them. The D300s is better than the D2 in many ways, but in many ways it is not. Regardless, it held the post of highest-end DX camera. Maybe, with Pentax using the K-5 as its flagship, and Canon using the 7D as its highest-end camera, Nikon has decided that the D7000 line is to be their highest-end DX. The question is really, "Is the D7000 good enough?" Many would argue that it is, and while it's no true replacement for the D300, it moved upmarket enough that Nikon perhaps doesn't feel the need to replace the D300. If the eventual D7100 has an AF-on button, a better buffer, and makes the AF system work a little better, I don't think many people will miss a DX-level D400. And those that do will be in the same camp that miss a DX-level D2x and D2h replacement: i.e. too bad for you, move on. The gap from a D7000 to D700 is no more than the gap in any other company's lineup.

DX isn't dead; as the K-5, 7D, and D7000 showed us, it's here to stay as a format, and the various companies are willing to invest serious R&D into it. However, I doubt you're going to see it have much room in the higher-end market. As John H. enumerated in the thread about Nikon stopping unauthorized service: "Your choice is limited to those that can meet your criteria. In other words, You have a right to seek it, but not the right to get it." Whether you just put up with the shortcomings of the D7000-series cameras or invest tens of thousands of dollars in FX glass is entirely up to you.

Dieter, I would argue that the 14-24 and 24-70 kit on FX is much more versatile than your current 11-16 and 17-55mm. The longer focal lengths for FX give you a shallower depth of field, and FX sensors are much better at higher ISOs, so with FX you can stop down effectively without penalty compared to DX. Plus, the two FX lenses you mention have a much more useful range, as the midrange zoom now goes down to 24mm. Still, I'd say that the 24-120mm f/4 on an FX camera gives you the same performance as your 17-55mm f/2.8 on a DX camera, but with added range on both ends, AND a smaller lens. The 16-35mm f/4 gives you a more realistic alternative to your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. That frees up nearly $2,000 right there, just in planning more realistically, not to mention the value of your current system that you could sell. So, a D800 might make more sense for you thank you'd think; the image quality improvements at wide angle to medium telephoto will be substantial, you'd still be getting the better body that fits your hands, and you'd be able to have your 16MP APS sensor for reach. And as an added bonus, your telephoto lenses will have new life. Your 300mm f/4 will still be a 450mm equivalent, but if something comes close up, a quick flip of a setting and you suddenly have a 300mm lens, without having to physically mount anything.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

Seeing how your a DX shooter, that doesn't surprise me, LOL.

</blockquote>

actually,i shoot both DX and FX. i guess i neglected to mention my D3s and pro FX lenses, probably because they were irrelevant to the earlier discussion. anyways, it seems my original comment, which was somewhat rhetorical/satirical, and perhaps couched in subtlety, went over curtis' head. sometimes it's hard to convey tone over the internet, and easy to take people far too literally, which can lead to assumptions about where they are coming from which may or may not be true. i'd be careful about jumping to conclusions which may be false,however.

The gap from a D7000 to D700 is no more than the gap in any other company's lineup.

</blockquote>

Not so. in fact, this comment is completely inaccurate from a marketing standpoint. the d7k is an $1100 camera; the d700 was introduced at $3000 and currently retails for around $2200. that's a pretty big gap. the d200, 300, and 300s historically retailed in the $1500--$1800 range. so you have a missing body at that price point if you don't replace the d300s with a DX body. if you look at Canon, Pentax and Sony offerings, they all have APS-C DSLRS around that price point. therefore for Nikon to remain competitive it can't afford to leave a critical market segment uncovered.

Maybe, with Pentax using the K-5 as its flagship, and Canon using the 7D as its highest-end camera, Nikon has decided that the D7000 line is to be their highest-end DX.

</blockquote>

if so, that would signal a distinct change in philosophy, since the d300s is a pro-level body and the d7000 is clearly not. i've already explained above why a d7k as a top-shelf DX camera is problematic, but in case you missed the memo, for sports/event/wildlife shooters, the D7000 is lacking in several key areas, on top of being physically smaller and thus having worse ergonomics than big-body cameras. do you really think nikon is just going to ignore this market segment after nurturing it for more then a decade?

Dieter, I would argue that the 14-24 and 24-70 kit on FX is much more versatile than your current 11-16 and 17-55mm.

</blockquote>

the validity of this statement sort of depends on your definition of versatility. a 14-24+24-70 FX kit with an FX body is cumbersome to carry. if i'm not shooting a paid event, i'm probably not dragging my D3s and 24-70 out for a casual walk in the park.

however, if we replace the 17-55 in the above scenario with a stabilized tamron or sigma 17-50 (while keeping the 11-16), we now have a DX kit which is much more compact and arguably much more versatile. not only can it can go more places, but a stabilized lens is (obviously) better in low-light/handheld situations than a non-stabilized lens, all else being equal.

now, let's say we trade the 11-16 for an 8-16. we can now go wider than the 14-24 while still maintaining high IQ and compactness. IMO, 2.8 is largely irrelevant in an UWA where you would typically stop down for greater DoF. and, speaking of greater DoF with an UWA, DX has an advantage here since FX is inherently shallower. the 8-16 negates what used to be an FX UWA strength--sheer wideness--while also providing deeper DoF. what all that means is there is essentially no practical advantage in FX over DX for wide-angle shooting. yes, we can nitpick and pixel-peep until the cows come home about dynamic range, pixel density, and sharp corners, but for all intents and purposes, you can do just as much or more in a DX format with an UWA lens, and you can do it in a much more compact form factor. pretty much all of the FX UWA zooms are big and heavy, while the DX UWAs are much more svelte.

also, going back to Dieter's 11-16 and comparing that to a 14-24, there is one thing the tokina can do the nikkor can't: take filters. that right there adds an element of added versatility, most would agree.

while the 14-24 and 24-70 are both great lenses,you still have to transport them from place to place. for travel, i would rather take a compact kit then heavy pro gear. that's one of the reasons i was sad to see the non-OS sigma 50-150 discontinued, since it was just light enough for travel, and thus was more versatile than my 70-200 VRII.

bringing this back full circle, just for the heck of it, let's compare a 24mp D3200 with an 8-16 vs. a 12mp FX D700 with a 14-24. which has greater resolution, dynamic range, IQ, and DoF at base ISO? we already know which combo is more compact, inexpensive, and has the widest focal range...which one would you be more likely to lug through the Grand Canyon? or up a Himalaya?

exposed1 · April 20, 2012

All this confusion about bigger this and more of that just reminds me of a comment I read....

"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase."

I still shoot weddings, senior portraits and a small amount of commercial work using my Nikon D70s, D300 and an Olympus epl-2. All I think about now is lens upgrade and learning photoshop more, camera is just not that important.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

camera is just not that important

</blockquote>

Randy, could you shoot all your paid gigs on a iPhone?

ariel_s1 · April 20, 2012

How is my statement not true? So what cameras do Pentax and Canon have that fill the price point between the D7000 and the D700? Pentax has the K-5, which directly competes with the D7000. That is their highest-end APS DSLR. Canon has the 7D to directly compete with the D7000; they have no higher-end APS DSLRs. Of course, you could argue that those two cameras sit above the D7000, but if that's so, then we have a difference of opinion. I am not as familiar with Sony, and especially with their move towards SLTs, their product line looks muddled to me (not to mention that they've been releasing new models, while Nikon has not), but it seems that the a77 is about the competitor to the D7000. It's $200 more, but it's also brand-new, and as we saw from the D3100 to D3200, Nikon increased the price by $50, so we'd have to wait and see. Regardless, no one has a $1,500-$1,800 APS DSLR, so a market position that existed with the D300s may not exist anymore, especially with full-frame DSLRs currently occupying the sub-$2,500 market position, which didn't exist at the time of the D300s. Again, there is just as big a gap with every other company as there is with Nikon.

So what if the D7000 is a distinct change in philosophy? So was the D3 moving to full-frame, the D800 having higher resolution than the D3X, Nikon's lower-end cameras losing built-in AF motors, etc. As the market changes, Nikon is adapting with it. The full-frame market has created a ceiling that didn't exist when the D200 was out. The D2x was clearly even more of a professional body compared to the D30. When the D2x was discontinued, people made the same arguments about the D300 being too small, not being weather sealed enough, etc. As full frame takes over the professional market segment, Nikon seems to be sizing down the bodies to be "good enough." Do any of the other companies offer a far superior DX camera?

My definition of lens versatility was in regards to similar focal lengths and depth of field. A 14-24mm + 24-70mm f/2.8 gives you a stop better performance to f/2.8 DX zooms and more focal length coverage on the wide ends of each lens, so a fairer comparison for a Tokina 11-16 + Nikon 17-55mm kit would be a theoretical 16.5mm-24mm f/4 and 28-85mm f/4 on FX. Since those theoretical lenses don't exist, we'll have to allow for a bit of give and take in regards to size/versatility. And again, don't forget that with FX, you have greater than 1 stop exposure leeway because of the improved high ISO performance, so to counteract the smaller apertures or vibration reduction, you can turn up the ISO. Since the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses not only provide much greater range, but f/2.8 on full frame, I would claim that it's a completely unfair comparison to look at those lenses as direct replacements. And as I said, substitute the FX midrange zoom for a 24-120mm VR, and the versatility against your 17-50mm VC/OS is much greater. Incredible range, goes as wide as 24mm, and it also has VR. It's a little larger and heavier, but as I said, we have to work with products that exist. Also, substitute the Sigma 12-24mm for the 14-42mm and voila, you now have a slightly heavier, but much more versatile kit that also gives you the image quality advantages of full frame. Why is it that you are only looking at Nikon lenses on full frame, but on crop sensor you will consider any and every lens that exists? Or, alternatively, again, just put up with the shortcomings of a D7000! Maybe some of them will get fixed with the introduction of a D7100, but if you're expecting a D400, I'd tell you to get in line, right behind those that want a direct DX successor to the D2x.

exposed1 · April 20, 2012

Eric, maybe someday, yes. Right now I will just stay with what I have.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

Regardless, no one has a $1,500-$1,800 APS DSLR, so a market position that existed with the D300s may not exist anymore,

</blockquote>

How so? the 7d is currently $1550 at amazon. there's also the olympus E-5 at about $1600. the d300s is still selling at $1700 new. and the sony a77 is just under the $1500 price point, with the pentaxK-5 a smidgen below that. obviously still a viable and highly competitive market segment, unless we're closing our eyes and pretending these cameras don't exist.

So what if the D7000 is a distinct change in philosophy?

</blockquote>

you're missing the point. the d7000 body was not designed with pro specification. the comments on this thread prove that there are still high-end DX shooters for whom the d7k is underwhelming, who are heavily invested in DX. the question becomes, does nikon want to shoehorn this market into FX? and if so, is that a mistake? guess we'll have to wait and see.

As full frame takes over the professional market segment, Nikon seems to be sizing down the bodies to be "good enough."

</blockquote>

so far we've had exactly two generations of FX bodies, none of which have come in at under $2k. this is becoming a circular argument because now we're back to that $1500-$1800 price point currently occupied by the d300s, which nikon has to fill with something. it probably wont be an FX camera because that would break that 2k price barrier. which leaves...wait for it... high-end DX.

The reality of economics is, you can't abandon market segments and also fill them at the same time. a big-body DX shooter whose upgrade path might have been D2x>d300>...???? would either have to downsize to an ergonomically-inferior body (d7000) or upgrade ALL their glass to FX as well as purchase a new body. that's the upshot of your implication, which would be asking a lot IMO. faced with that choice, some might simply choose not to upgrade and hold on to their current bodies, which is a "loss" for nikon.

My definition of lens versatility was in regards to similar focal lengths and depth of field.

</blockquote>

hmm, well, you may want to rethink it, then. you get more DOF with DX than FX,which is advantageous in UWA, perhaps not so much for subject isolation with a standard zoom, but not a dealbreaker.

Since those theoretical lenses don't exist,

</blockquote>

well, let's just stick to actual lenses, then, ok?

In any event, it's difficult to imagine a reasonable definition of 'versatile' which doesnt also factor in weight, size and portability, three real-world factors which almost certainly will come into play in the majority of conceivable shooting scenarios.

don't forget that with FX, you have greater than 1 stop exposure leeway because of the improved high ISO performance, so to counteract the smaller apertures or vibration reduction, you can turn up the ISO.

</blockquote>

this is largely irrelevant with UWA lenses as many are shot at base ISO on a tripod for max. DoF. IQ will always be better at base ISO, whether DX or FX.

I would claim that it's a completely unfair comparison to look at those lenses as direct replacements.

</blockquote>

not unfair at all, although equivalent might be a more appropriate word.

substitute the FX midrange zoom for a 24-120mm VR, and the versatility against your 17-50mm VC/OS is much greater.

</blockquote>

huh? your hypotheticals are starting to make no sense. a f/4 5x zoom against a 2.8 3x zoom is apples and oranges.

Dieter Schaefer · April 20, 2012

The longer focal lengths for FX give you a shallower depth of field, and FX sensors are much better at higher ISOs, so with FX you can stop down effectively without penalty compared to DX.

</blockquote>

And I mentioned that both those arguments aren't important to me; I actually like the deeper DOF I get from DX (for almost every aspect of what I shoot).

what all that means is there is essentially no practical advantage in FX over DX for wide-angle shooting. yes, we can nitpick and pixel-peep until the cows come home about dynamic range, pixel density, and sharp corners, but for all intents and purposes, you can do just as much or more in a DX format with an UWA lens, and you can do it in a much more compact form factor. pretty much all of the FX UWA zooms are big and heavy, while the DX UWAs are much more svelte.

</blockquote>

+1 I keep reading about all those advantages FX offers - some of which at least to me vanish into thin air if looked at more closely. Shallow DOF is often mentioned - and to me that isn't always (make that "almost never") the advantage it is made out to be. High ISO: sure it's great if you can shoot a ISO 3200 or even 6400 with impunity. But if I need DOF I don't have to stop a DX lens down as much as an FX lens - and hence gain one or even two stops that way (I am aware that I get into the diffraction limit at larger apertures with DX) - but I can stay out of it more easily since I don't have to stop down as far for equal DOF. The high ISO is irrelevant when shooting static subjects - whether I expose my landscape at 10s or 30s doesn't usually matter; the camera stays at base ISO whenever I can manage it.

I would love to have a 14-24 on an FX body - but I would be scared taking a lens with such a bulbous and protruding front element anywhere. And as sharp as that lens is supposed to be - it also has an Achilles heal in its propensity for flare.

Still, I'd say that the 24-120mm f/4 on an FX camera gives you the same performance as your 17-55mm f/2.8 on a DX camera, but with added range on both ends, AND a smaller lens.

</blockquote>

I haven't shot with the 24-120 but based on reviews I have seen and knowing what the 17-55 can do, I doubt your statement very much. I do agree, however, that the 17-55 could use some more range at the long end (even though it's longer that then 24-70 is on FX). And it certainly could use VR (which the 24-70 also doesn't have and IMO thoroughly lacks). Until recently, Nikon was going the high-end, high-priced road with their FX lenses, but still leaving out VR that a lot of serious amateurs (and I am sure a few pros as well) would love to have. You could spend a lot of money on an FX body - but to preserve the advantage, you had to buy expensive. heavy and large glass too; for the simple reason that there wasn't an alternative. As the 28-300 shows, Nikon thinks that there is a market for an FX mega-zoom - though I doubt that the images it produces are a lot better than using the already overpriced 18-200 on a DX body - but you have the privilege of paying even more for them.

The 16-35mm f/4 gives you a more realistic alternative to your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

</blockquote>

I recently found a good deal on a 16-35 and added it to my collection - now for travel I can choose the 11-16/16-35 combo and for event shooting replace the 16-35 with the 17-55. Unfortunately, the 16-35 doesn't seem to turn out such a great performance, in particular at the longer end. I have done a preliminary comparison with the 17-55 and the 16-85 - and the 16-35 came in dead last except at the shortest focal length. I am gearing up to do my own personal lens comparison of some 10+ lenses to confirm or disprove my initial observations; currently, the sharpness of the 16-35 is no better than the 12-24/4DX. When I am done with my lens test, I will have a critical look at my lenses and will probably sell of a few. I like the build of the 16-35 a lot better than the more flimsy 16-85 - but it might turn out that the latter is the better performer.

I am aware that the D800 will give me a "built-in" 15MP DX sensor - but I am afraid it doesn't give me is a usable size viewfinder to go along with it. The D200 and D300 aren't too bad, but the "cropped" viewfinder I would have to use on a D800 is likely even smaller than that "tunnel vision" one I remember from using a D70. Unlike Shun, I could live with the 5fps of the D800.

In any case, I am not making any camera purchase decision until I see what the D400 looks like - or the D7100.

I strongly doubt (you may also read this as: fervently hope) that the D7000 isn't the top end of DX - the camera is lacking in too many aspects when compared to a D300S. I also doubt that it is intended as the top-end DX - why would Nikon have put a new lower-end AF module in their if they could as easily have used the one from the D300/D300S? Why make this composite type body - they could have just continue to use the one from the D200/D300? About the only thing that makes me envious about the D7000 (except the sensor) is the much quieter mirror operation - the mirror slap of the D200 and D300 is starting to annoy me (and unfortunately, people around me as well).

But you could be right - the question here is whether the "high-end DX market potential" is larger than the "low-end FX market potential" - and I don't know the answer to that.

Now, I don't care if "my" D300 successor is called D400 or D7100. But a lot of changes would be necessary to convert the D7000 to a D7100 that can compete with a D300 in terms of ergonomics and features. And it better have at least a 51-point AF system. If the D400 turns out to be FX - well, then as already mentioned, I've got a problem.

You are probably right that I could sell of some of the glass I have and swing the "upgrade to FX" - but in many aspects, it doesn't feel like an upgrade to me. I also like to have two of the same bodies - out of the question to spend $6K on two D800 bodies; and even "just" $5000 for one D800 and one D700 isn't any better. A mixed FX/DX system is possible, but one body doesn't really serve as backup for the other - and the lens range will be all wrong.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

I keep reading about all those advantages FX offers - some of which at least to me vanish into thin air if looked at more closely.

</blockquote>

as someone who uses both FX and DX systems, i would say this is indeed the case to a large degree in real-world terms. FX has better high ISO which is irrelevant when shooting landscape. you can get shallower DoF with wide aperture lenses. there's more dynamic range at equivalent MP counts. in 2007, when the D3 was introduced there was a much bigger FX advantage than there is now. but DX is catching up, as is mirrorless which now offers compactness, high MP, and high ISO in some cameras. besides the jump in DX sensor resolution, new DX lenses like the 8-16 and 17-50 OS have come out which have changed the game. you cant just ignore this or pretend it doesnt exist. well,you can, but you'd be delusional.

I'd say that the 24-120mm f/4 on an FX camera gives you the same performance as your 17-55mm f/2.8 on a DX camera

</blockquote>

unless you have actually done a direct comparison of 24-120 on FX vs. 17-55 on DX, this is pure conjecture. it's worthless speculation, since it has zero basis in reality.

The 16-35mm f/4 gives you a more realistic alternative to your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

I have done a preliminary comparison with the 17-55 and the 16-85 - and the 16-35 came in dead last except at the shortest focal length.

</blockquote>

huge difference between examining lenses on paper and in the real-world.

I also doubt that it is intended as the top-end DX - why would Nikon have put a new lower-end AF module in their if they could as easily have used the one from the D300/D300S?

</blockquote>

this is a good point.

the question here is whether the "high-end DX market potential" is larger than the "low-end FX market potential" - and I don't know the answer to that.

</blockquote>

the answer, as i've hinted, lies in basic market economics. why would you sell a camera at $2000 if you could get $3000 for it? i doubt nikon wants to offer a sub-$2000 FX camera just yet--though the demand is certainly there. by the same token, they cant leave such a huge gap between the d7000 and d700 without offering something in-between. so whatever the d400 is, it will most likely plug this hole. that's why 24mp high-end DX makes the most sense, not sub-2k 16mp FX. mark my words. or don't. your choice.

Dieter Schaefer · April 20, 2012

the answer, as i've hinted, lies in basic market economics.

</blockquote>

Yep, you did - but I didn't get to read it as I was composing my post when you posted yours. I assume that the use of "you" and "yours" in your latest post is generic and not specifically addressed to me as I believe I have a fairly good grasp at the differences between FX and DX (though without practical experience with the former).

Much like with the D800 introduction - which apparently left half of those D700 users yearning to upgrade with a camera offering that had neither expected nor wanted - the D400 successor might leave a lot of people unhappy - either the "high-end DX crowd" or the "low-end FX crowd".

IF Nikon wanted to put a "low-end FX" (sub-$2000) on the market then they only had to keep producing the D700 - which apparently they are unwilling to sell for less than $2000 even now that the D800 is available. And all those who want video, 100% viewfinder, more MP, better high ISO, or two card slot etc. would be unhappy. So, what are the alternatives for Nikon to produce a low-end FX camera: put in the D3S sensor? Or the D4 sensor? Or even the D3X sensor? Leave what out to make the price cut? Video? 100% viewfinder? Cripple the bracketing as was done with the D7000? Sacrifice fps? No matter what they do, they either create a competition for the D800 or the D4. And as long as the D3S and D3X are still being sold, a competition for those cameras as well. Not to mention the competition from the used FX cameras that are being offered and that would take a substantial hit in resale value if indeed a sub-$2000 FX camera was introduced now (not that Nikon seems to much care as recent history has amply demonstrated).

Now, take a high-end DX D400 by contrast: two choices for a sensor already available: 16MP or 24MP. With the D300 body as base that needs little if any tweaking - put in a two-card slot and change some buttons - good to go. Maybe raise the fps a tad or two. Biggest surprise would be an updated or revamped AF system. Most of the improvements will likely be with video (for which I don't care one iota).

The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that there is enough space between a $1200 D7000 and a $3000 D800 for one DX and one FX (assuming that the D700 won't be offered much longer): a DX D400 for $1600-$1700 and an FX D600 (or whatshallwecallit) for $2300-$2400. My bet is that we will see a D400 before we see a D600.

chip_chipowski · April 20, 2012

I think there are compelling arguments for a larger, pro-spec DX model (D400). But if we're assuming that Nikon doesn't want so many DX models, then why not eliminate the D5k series? They could either move the articulated LCD down to the D3k or up to the D7k, and then you would have: Entry Level DX - D3k Advanced Amateur DX - D7k Pro DX - D400

I have no idea if that would be a good/bad business move for Nikon, but it does seem a little crowded in the $500-$1000 range with two DX models and two mirrorless models.

eric_arnold · April 20, 2012

Much like with the D800 introduction - which apparently left half of those D700 users yearning to upgrade with a camera offering that had neither expected nor wanted - the D400 successor might leave a lot of people unhappy - either the "high-end DX crowd" or the "low-end FX crowd".

</blockquote>

right. that's because we're getting an accelerated roadmap which missed a few stops. (i'm assuming you mean d300 successor as no one knows what a d400 even looks like yet).

IF Nikon wanted to put a "low-end FX" (sub-$2000) on the market then they only had to keep producing the D700 - which apparently they are unwilling to sell for less than $2000 even now that the D800 is available.

</blockquote>

one problem with that line of reasoning is nikon had to stop producing the battery the d700 and d300 use. otherwise that logic makes sense -- which also means that folks who want FX for around $2k anytime soon might want to jump on those remaining d700 stock while they still can.

a low-end FX with the d3s sensor sounds pretty good to me, but i dont know that it works like that. they run the risk of alienating heavy DX investors who may not want to spend addituonal thousands on glass. also, once nikon has gone forward, in this case to 16mp FX, we dont know that they'll look back to 12mp FX. as excellent as the d3s sensor is/was, it might be a wrap for that. ditto for the d7k sensor and DX. nikon could also put a d3x sensor in an entry-level FX, but if they do that, people's heads might explode. cant see an FX camera with one control wheel, but you never know...

Now, take a high-end DX D400 by contrast: two choices for a sensor already available: 16MP or 24MP. With the D300 body as base that needs little if any tweaking - put in a two-card slot and change some buttons - good to go. Maybe raise the fps a tad or two. Biggest surprise would be an updated or revamped AF system.

</blockquote>

the problem with the MP race is,it's like the arms race. once you escalate,its hard to de-escalate. 16mp for DX would be plenty for me, but i have a feeling we're going to see 24. as long as high ISO is better than the d300 and not worse than the d7000, that seems like a distinct possibility.

it does seem a little crowded in the $500-$1000 range with two DX models and two mirrorless models.

</blockquote>

that's probably where most of your camera buyers are lodged as well...

from a user standpoint, a lot of things nikon does dont make sense. we dont know why they retire perfectly good sensors, skip expected iterations, or continue to use Ashton Kutcher as a spokesperson. but we're also not in charge of nikon's marketing dept., which has a lot to do with what is released and when it's released...

User_2000406 · April 21, 2012

I'll stick my neck out:

Entry-level DX: 24MP D3200 (D3100 discontinued soon, just as the D90 was discontinued a little while after the D7000 came out)

Entry-level-plus DX: 24MP D5200, similar to the D5100

Enthusiast DX: 24MP D7100, similar to the D7000 and playing the part of the DX 'D800'

Pro DX: 16 MP D9000, successor to the D300s w/ high speed and great high-ISO performance

Entry-level FX: 16MP D400 @$2000US

High-res FX: D800

High-speed, high-ISO DX: D4

That's seven cameras, which sounds like a lot but is no more than the past sequence of D3100-D5100-D7000-D300s-D700-D3s-D3x. Nikon did it before and they will do it again, this time better. The D3200 and D5200 might seem to be redundant, but OTOH volume is higher at the low end of the market so what may sound superfluous to the enthusiasts and pros here at Photo.net may make good market segmentation in the actual DSLR market.

Having a high-end DX and a low-end FX at similar prices is not redundant. Most D300/s users don't want to buy a bunch of expensive new lenses to move to FX, some don't want the extra weight involved, and some want to keep the advantage of the extra effective reach of DX. Other buyers will want a better D700. Why not cater to both markets when past volume was quite adequate in both?

ShunCheung · April 21, 2012

The problem with the D700 is not just the battery, which is of course a "fatal" issue in Japan (end of supply for the D700 and D300S in Japan). 12MP will not cut it any more in 2012 and so is the lack of video capture. To a lesser degree, the lack of dual memory cards is an issue as well.

Unless you only shoot JPEG basic, which defeats 24MP to begin with, RAW files from 24MP are huge, maybe not as huge as those from the D800, but they are still huge. I know that very well now after using the D800 for a while. 24MP on these consumer and pro-sumer cameras is problematic. And at least for now there will be compromises in terms of frame rate, as we can see on the D800. For sports and wildlife photographers, whatever succeeds the D300S has to be able to capture 8, 9 frames/second, which rules out 24MP until technology improves. Maybe Nikon can come up with some dual 12/24MP option so that you can get a faster frame rate with a reduced pixel count.

eric_arnold · April 21, 2012

For sports and wildlife photographers, whatever succeeds the D300S has to be able to capture 8, 9 frames/second, which rules out 24MP until technology improves.

</blockquote>

good point. so 16mp pro DX and entry-level FX are looking quite possible, then...

evannorth · April 21, 2012

planned obsolessence, nothing more, nothing less. every time something with a better spec is released the gullible, technophobic public envy it. its not the camera,its the guy behind it and the glass in front of it that makes the result. composition, lighting and sharpness are the key elements as far as i am concerned. 100 megapixels wouldnt mean a thing without these.

john_hawley4 · April 21, 2012

In this thread, as in many where DX vs. FX is part of the subplot, I'm surprised to see no mention of what, to me, is the most significant factor(s) - size and weight! I recently upgraded from a D80, and was really considering FX, but on the basis that the best pictures are taken by the camera you have with you I had to stay with DX and bought a D7000. Not 100% satisfied, I would really like the bigger viewfinder of (then) the D3 or D700, but the extra bulk and weight of not just the camera body (the D800 has changed things in that respect) but also the glass persuaded me. I suppose the argument about DX cameras being too small to hold doesn't work with me (nor the high ISO concerns - HPS for those that remember it doesn't even begin to compare with the D7000 at 1600, and that was only B&W) - my progression towards digital was via Leica IIIA and Olympus OM-2, and I still don't understand why even DX cameras have to be so huge! However, though I still have these earlier cameras and continue to marvel at their quality and precision, I have absolutely no yearning to turn the clock back to the days of film.<div>

00aIeR-459929584.jpg.578e5588deea1bfe3a048aca013657d3.jpg

</div>

Stephen L · April 22, 2012

@ John Hawley - Large doesn't need to be heavy. The D5XXX, D3XXX, even the D7XXX are just too small a body for my hands. Even if they had all the features I needed, they would be very difficult for me to use. A DSLR is going to have to be bigger than a range finder or M4/3 mirrorless - I don't see why they need to be so small that only a child or woman can use them comfortably. They will never be small enough to compete on size. I don't understand why they bother trying.

@ Evan North - While there may be people that fit your description, it doesn't change the fact that if my D90 dies tomorrow, there is no replacement I'm happy with. If I were one of the people you seem to describe, I would have bought the D7000 already. I didn't because it was not enough of an upgrade to justify another $1200 when my D90 works just fine. The D300 is an upgrade to the D90 as well, but having a D90 means that $1600 spent gets me the same sensor with a better body - not worth the $$ in my estimation. A $2200 D700 is an upgrade for sure, but my 17-55 would become useless (if my D90 died, that is) and I would need to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 to replace the 17-55 I can no longer use. That makes the $2200 D700 a $3500 or more investment for 4 year old tech. At that point, my $3500 is better spent on the D800 I don't really need.

So, the point here is not that I want to get the latest and greatest. The point is that 3 years after buying my D90, there is nothing to replace it with when it dies that isn't a waste of cash because it's either too little or too much camera than I need.

ShunCheung · April 22, 2012

Steve L., plenty of women own the D7000. The smaller size fit them just fine, but I am 6'1" and I find the D7000 just fine as well.

If I were one of the people you seem to describe, I would have bought the D7000 already. I didn't because it was not enough of an upgrade to justify another $1200 when my D90 works just fine.

</blockquote>

Not sure why you feel that way, but of course you are entitled to your opinions. After owning the D300 for 3 years, I bought the D7000 because it is a significant upgrade from the D300, let alone D90. The D7000 has these advantages over the D300:

<ul>

<li>Better high-ISO results, by nearly 1 stop</li>

<li>16MP vs. 12MP. I find 16MP almost ideal for me.</li>

<li>Dual memory cards</li>

<li>1080p HD video</li>

</ul>

Compared to the D90, the D7000 also has much better AF and metering capability with AI/AI-S lenses. How many more improvements do you want?

But if you still feel that so many improvements are still not enough, then it is not enough. Only your opinion counts for your case.

Sign In

nikon d3200

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in