D-300s Replacement

[joe_cormier]

<p>Is there any reason to assume that there will be a replacement for the D-300s in DX?</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

Yes. Neither the D7000 nor the D800 fill that role.

[owen_omeara]

<p>I agree with Matt and I eagerly await the camera.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes. Neither the D7000 nor the D800 fill that role.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And with the D300S being phased out, essentially Canon's 7D has no competition from Nikon. Do you think Nikon can afford to leave high-end DX market segment to Canon? The 7D itself is over two years ago. I would expect Canon already has plans to further improve it.</p>

[oded bar-el]

<p>Just thinking here...<br>

Could it be low-end FX ? <br />Or even two versions to the same camera where on the sensor is different (DX and FX) ? <br>

Also, interesting to see what would be the naming convention for this, will it be a D8000 or a D400 (or perhaps D600) ?</p>

[shane_guthrie]

<p>I would love an FX replacement for my D300. The D800 would force another computer upgrade, which getting the D300 did four years ago. A lower spec but FX camera would fit nicely - similar to D700 but 100% viewfinder, slightly better high ISO clarity and basic video. What are the chances of that compared to a DX model being released? </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>No one knows. It's that simple. The ones who do know aren't talking.</p>

<p>I know if I was Nikon I wouldn't replace the D300 per se. I'd be working on migrating my "pro" customers to FX (If I were Canon I'd do the same thing).</p>

<p>So... I'd put out a D8x00 or an updated D7x00 that had everything people wanted in the D300 replacement (AF, shooting speed, 100% viewfinder, etc.) but in the smaller form factor of the D7000... and a $2000 - $2200 "D400" that would be the D700 replacement but with a teeny bit more megapixels (maybe a variation of the D4 sensor). I'd introduce some kind of 24/28 - 70 f4 zoom (at a lower cost, obviously) and a 70-200 f4 zoom at the same time to make FX available to more people and make them feel better about migrating.</p>

<p>I know it won't make everyone happy, but nothing will. And I'm totally pulling this out of thin air. I think a lineup of 3 entry level DX and 3 pro FX cameras would be easier to market and understand and support.</p>

<p>But what do I know...?</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I don't understand why in these financially harder times that the big manufacturers don't offer upgradeable cameras. By offering a sensor and perhaps some hardware upgrades to allow cameras to have a 10 year life you could send the camera in for service and upgrade every 2-3 years and not keep shelling out for a whole new one.<br>

Computers allow (and even encourage) this method and it would offer security to those who are struggling with themselves to spend so much on a SLR.</p>

<p>As long as the basics are there (good button layout and decent viewfinder) then only the internal electronics will date. The Nikon F and F2 followed this route and it worked.</p>

[lwg]

<p>More and more computers are going the non upgradeable route too. It makes more money for the company, and most consumers don't upgrade their systems, except when something breaks, like a harddrive. Just look at the number of all-in-ones and laptops sold.<br>

I look at selling a used body and buying a new one as effectively being the same as upgrading the major components. After 3 years you can usually recoup 1/2 your money, so figure you spend 1/6 the cost of a new camera every year and get a new one every 3 years. Not a bad deal in my mind.<br>

I hope Nikon comes out with a 24MP D400 in DX format. Sony has good sensors in this size and it would be a nice complement to a D800 for use with long lenses. It will need the same AF and higher frame rate for use in sports and wildlife. I also think this is the most likely version to be released.</p>

[rossb]

<p> Well one thing for sure is they always come out with new stuff that does not really fit in with an expected line up. Who knows since more megapixels is what photographer's wants they might come out with a 30mp crop sensor to start a stampede of folks that need such a camera for posting to the web like the D800. </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>To me as a professional DX shooter I have no interest in shooting FX for what I shoot professionally. And just to clear the air I own several FX cameras a Kodak 14NX which I use for studio work as well as F5 F4 three F3's F2 and a F. While I like and appreciate the FX cameras I have they do not let me shoot what I shoot as easily as the D300 does. I need great AF to track moving subjects I need a big buffer so I do not get jammed up waiting for the buffer to clear. I like dual card slots so I can roll over to the second card when I fill the first card.<br>

What I would love is a camera with the quality's of a D4 but in a DX package. If they made it the size of the old D2h I would like that too.<br>

So 16Mp good high ISO good frame rate huge buffer great auto focus in a DX camera and I would be on the list as soon as I heard about it.<br>

I am not a format snob I shoot everything from DX to 8x10 but for the sports I shoot to pay my bills DX is what I want.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote><p>I know if I was Nikon I wouldn't replace the D300 per se. I'd be working on migrating my "pro" customers to FX (If I were Canon I'd do the same thing).</p></blockquote><p>Peter, the problem is that Nikon, as well as Canon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, etc. have sold a lot of DX type lenses (i.e. Canon EF-S) over the last decade. Currently over 90% of Nikon DSLRs are DX (about 95% according to Thom Hogan's estimate).</p><p>If Nikon discontinues the D200, D300, and D300S line of DSLRs and replaces them with a lower-end FX, all of a sudden those who want to upgrade will also have to replace their DX lenses. That would be the 2nd worst thing Nikon can do to their comtomers, after changing the F mount altogether. There is no doubt it will anger a lot of people and drive them to competition such as Canon, etc. or force them to go down a level to the D7000.</p><p>DX has its own share of advantages such as smaller, shorter lenses. Whenver I shoot wildlife and sports, I prefer DX and that is why my DX usage far exceeds FX. Not everybody wants FX.</p><p>Another issue is that FX sensors are still a lot more expensive than DX. The D300 started at $1800 and gradually worked its way down to $1400 or so. I don't think Nikon can introduce a new FX body a lot cheaper than $3000. Currently the 5D Mark II and D700 are cheaper only because they are old, out-of-favor models that are getting dumped.</p><blockquote><p>I don't understand why in these financially harder times that the big manufacturers don't offer upgradeable cameras. By offering a sensor and perhaps some hardware upgrades to allow cameras to have a 10 year life you could send the camera in for service and upgrade every 2-3 years and not keep shelling out for a whole new one.</p></blockquote><p>Previously film SLR could last much longer because film and processing was costly so that most people wouldn't shoot too many unnecessary frames. With digital, that additional "every time you press the shutter" cost is gone. Therefore, people tend to shoot a lot more so that the wear and tare on the shutter and mirror, etc. is a lot worse. Take me as an example, if it weren't digital, I wouldn't be shooting as much sports nowadays.</p><p>On top of that, the sensor and electronics is a large part of the cost. The parts cost and labor cost to replace those every 3, 4 years is not economical.</p><p>Another issue to keep in mind is that the controls on DSLRs also change over time. Take the D300 as an example, it has no video capture and its live view button is very different from that on the D300S, which has a dedicated live view button that also switchs on video. On the D800 it has USB 3.0 connection which is not compatible with the USB 2.0 connector on the D300S and D700. The D4 has an XQD memory card slot that is not available on any previous DSLR.</p><p>I would say changing the sensor is a non starter. There are many other things you need to update in each generation (or even half generation, i.e. D300 to D300S) of DSLRs.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Ian, I think Shun has pretty well established why changing out a sensor is not as simple as you think. Even on computers, one has to worry about the motherboard because of its processor socket, bus speed, ports, power supply, etc. Depending on what kind of computer you buy, it isn't necessarily as future-proof as you make it out to be. What happens in situations like with the D300s, when they wanted to introduce SD cards? That would be prohibitively expensive to retrofit. Or the new regulations in Japan that recently made Nikon have to retire their EN-EL3a batteries in favor of a new one. Also, there is much more than the sensor and processor to worry about. You need the associated electronics to likely be switched out too, and you need to design them to fit in the old electronics' cavities, potentially limiting their capabilities. Then, you take the camera from an assembly line manufacturing to a technician tearing down and rebuilding the camera. Overall, this upgrade option wouldn't offer you any cost savings, and in fact would cost you more if you look at the big picture. Today, I can replace my D200 with a D300s and still have two cameras. In your universe, we would pay the same price as upgrading to the D300s, but at the end we'd be left with a single upgraded camera.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I thought the reason they put that ridiculously high MP sensor in the D800 was so that DX users could use the camera and get a decent MP count just using part of the D800 sensor.</p>

[Two23]

<p>If Nikon were to discontinue the D100/200/300 line, I would be taking a very serious and close look at the Canon 7D. For me, FX has as many negatives as it does positives, so it is a wash at best. I'm not sure that FX is here to stay anyway.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Yes Sanford, but that reasoning is only useful for someone that wants a bit more reach from their FX lenses, for example when on safari. What about shooters like me or the original poster who have mainly DX lenses? It seems ridiculous to pay $3,000 for a camera that we'd use in DX-only mode, or to force the more serious DX shooters to abandon and make the rather large monetary jump to full frame. I think that Nikon would be smart to either release a D400, or make the D7100 a little more towards what the D300s gives you. The D7000 created another position in the lineup that's better than the D90, but for many shooters is not worthwhile to choose over the D300s (buffer, controls, AF system, etc). Those controls (plus money, let's be honest) are a large reason that I'm still using the D200. I was able to pick up a D90 for a song on CL a while back, but I like this camera better, so I got rid of it (making money AND acquiring another spare battery in the process). I'm sure that I'll eventually step up to full frame, but that means replacing my normal lens, midrange lens, telephoto lens, etc. It's just not in the cards for me, but I do hope that the D400 delivers for us lowly DX folk, coming in around $1,700.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I have read that the D800 seamlessly reverts to a DX camera as soon as you put a DX lens on it. I'm betting on a beefed up D7000 as a D300s replacement but I'm usually wrong with my bets.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>I love the speculation here — everyone breathlessly anticipating the D300 replacement the very day of the first unboxing videos of the D4!</p>

<p>One reason I feel Nikon will produce something in the way of a D300 replacement is the huge number of D300 and D300s, even D200 owners who have been entirely satisfied with the IQ and features of those cameras. This seems a large group — but I imagine a demand is building among them as higher usable ISOs at decent frame rates (and for some the video) become the new norm. </p>

<p>Now if Nikon would only offer me an upgrade for my artistic eye — THAT I would buy in a heartbeat!</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Sanford, again, regardless of how seamlessly the D800 can switch to DX mode, it is a <strong>$3,000</strong> camera. For a specifically DX shooter, that is like having to pay an additional needless premium to upgrade camera bodies that could otherwise go towards something spectacular like an 85mm f/1.4 lens. Although, if you're using a lens like the 85mm f/1.4 or 180mm f/2.8, using a D800 is like having another free lens available compared to a DX camera, so it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they don't release a D400. If, however, they share the supposed DX camera layout with the D800 (like they did between the D300s and D700) but modify only what they need to put a smaller sensor into the camera, Nikon should be able to make a DX body relatively cheaply. Reducing the size of the sensor can lead to exponential savings, and for most of us mortals, DX provides enough image quality that we are happy here, but we do desire more of today's features (better sensor performance, more serious video capability, etc).</p>