Anticipating new DSLR

[Sycamoe]

<p>Is anyone else going crazy with anticipation now that the D7000 has dropped in price? I just KNOW my new Nikon is just around the corner, whether it's a "D400" or a "D8000"!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>What will a hypothetical D400 or D8000 help you accomplish that the D300/s or D7000 cannot?</p>

<p>Let's assume Nikon was listening. What would you tell them?</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>D600 is where it is at.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I know that I can use some better high-ISO results than what the D300/D300S provides; that is exactly why I prefer the D7000 in these days, despite some of its other shortcomings. The D300S video capability is primitive; that can also use some enhancement.</p>

<p>I am not sure why people think the D7000 needs any major enhancement at this point. Its AF can get better and its buffer speed and size can be improved, but those improvements would put it into a higher-class camera such as the D300S' update.</p>

<p>The D7000 hit the market in October 2010 and its price first dropped by $100 in October 2011 when a close friend of mine got one with that discount. If one took that as a sign that a replacement were imminent, you would have been waiting for 10 months and counting. Shortly after that, the Thai flood hit and the Nikon Thailand factory stopped production for months. The price for the D7000 shot back up to $1200 or even higher until production resumed early this year.</p>

<p>The D7000 is a two-year-old camera so that a gradual price drop is normal. I am not sure that Nikon will replace it all that soon, and if they do, most likely Nikon will put 24MP on it. Personally, I would much rather have a 16MP DX DSLR instead of 24MP.</p>

[peterd]

<p>D600 is looking like the big announcement. My D80 i think is going to make its last run across Europe next week. I will however wait on the production to avoid any early D800 style growing pains. I have not noticed anything on the next D7000 but I suspect you will see something. I am just curious as they go with another fx where it will lie? Hard sell unless they lower the price point on the new model.<br /><br /></p>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<p>Does anyone actually take photos...</p>

[peterd]

<p>I do. Cynical you are grasshopper.</p>

[leicaglow]

You have to commit eventually. There is another new, better camera already being

worked on.

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"You have to commit eventually. There is another new, better camera already being worked on."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just like marriage. :-) </p>

<p>Unless you're Larry King.. </p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>Swedish dealers are now saying that if you are interested in the D7000 or the D300s, you should wait and see what Nikon might bring to Photokina in September.</p>

<p>Considering the production cycles of the D50/70/80/90, it seems reasonable that Nikon launches a replacement soon.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Shun.....<br>

"I am not sure why people think the D7000 needs any major enhancement at this point"<br>

<br>

C'mon, we always need better cameras...... otherwise the pictures don't get better!! Hehe!! I can't wait for a D900......<br>

</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Perhaps Swedish dealers read rumour sites? :-)<br />

<br />

If a D600 does turn up (which is, of course, not much use to people who want a DX update) it will slightly mess with my strategy of buying FX cameras knowing that the manufacturers take a long time to replace them. With my D700, I didn't have to worry about Nikon producing a replacement just after I got it (although, admittedly, I bought it very early on, in part because I knew that most of the parts had been tested in other cameras). The low end cameras have been replaced much more frequently - if I had a D3000, I'd be far more worried about whether I should have waited for a D3100 or D3200.<br />

<br />

Actually, I'm not so worried that my D800E will be immediately replaced - the rumoured D600 is much more likely to complement it and introduce a new segment (and I'd be surprised if it's superior for my uses) - but I'll be interested in how long it takes for a D610 or D650 to turn up.<br />

<br />

The D90 (especially) and D300s have been around for an extraordinarily long time. For many, the D7000 is a D90 replacement that somehow didn't kill its predecessor - I wonder whether the D90 is simply clearing a massive stock backlog (or a backlog of the sensor, which might explain some of the D300s persistence). I doubt there are many crying out for the D90 to be replaced, because the D7000 exists; there are certainly people wanting a D400.<br />

<br />

As for 24MP sensors... Sony get a pretty good frame rate out of the sensor in the Nex-7, which is presumably a close relative of the D3200's. I don't know how well a (downsampled) D3200 sensor keeps up with the noise handling of the D5100/D7000. I suspect Nikon aren't scared of D400 owners having to buy faster memory cards to keep up with the output, though if a D300 replacement goes to 24MP and can still hit a fast frame rate then Nikon may or may not feel that there might be an effect on D4 sales (whose main advantage, apart from the form factor, would become noise related).<br />

<br />

Or they could do what I wish they'd done with the D800, and put in a downsampled small raw format, of course.<br />

<br />

The D7000 is still relatively new, and as far as I know popular, although there's no doubt that putting a 24MP sensor in the D3200 might make people ask questions about the benefits of higher-end bodies.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>For many, the D7000 is a D90 replacement that somehow didn't kill its predecessor - I wonder whether the D90 is simply clearing a massive stock backlog</em></p>

<p>Nikon said quite specifically the D7000 isn't intended to replace the D90. The D90 is priced very attractively and has several advantages over the D5100 and D3200. In particular it has a glass prism viewfinder which shows a clearer image than the pentamirror designs. It also avoids the badly designed preflashes of the low end Nikons that trigger prolific eye blinks when TTL flash is used (external hot shoe unit, e.g. SB-700/900). With the D3100 I have at work I get about 2/3 of portraits with half-closed or fully closed eyes if I make the mistake of using the TTL mode. The D80 has a similar problem but D90/D7000/FX cameras do not. I think the difference is in the timing of the preflashes vs. the main flash; the subjects perceive the preflashes from the D3100 distinctly separate and bright vs. the main flash whereas with my own cameras (D700, etc.) these are hard to see as separate. The D90 is the lowest end Nikon that I can recommend to people who plan on making portraits / indoor event shots. Discontinuing it would leave a significant hole in the lineup.</p>

<p><em>downsampled small raw format</em></p>

<p>There is no downsampled "raw" format. Raw is the data from the sensor, and because of the Bayer filter it cannot really be downsampled without losing the essential characteristics of this type of image. AFAIK Canon sRAW files are jpgs wrapped in a file with a different name.</p>

<p><em>there's no doubt that putting a 24MP sensor in the D3200 might make people ask questions about the benefits of higher-end bodies.</em></p>

<p>Why do you think that? A camera with a primitive AF system without focus fine tune combined with a very high pixel density in the main sensor is likely just annoy people tremendously. </p>

[andylynn]

I'm waiting for the D800X. 36 mp is soooo 4 months ago.

[pjdilip]

<p>I'd love a tidy, sturdy, FX body like an F100 but priced like a D7000+. With a fold-out live screeen for low-level macro and candids.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect Nikon aren't scared of D400 owners having to buy faster memory cards to keep up with the output, though if a D300 replacement goes to 24MP and can still hit a fast frame rate then Nikon may or may not feel that there might be an effect on D4 sales (whose main advantage, apart from the form factor, would become noise related).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, Nikon should not worry about any "D400" taking sales away from the D4, just like they didn't worry about the D300 hurting D3 sales; recall that they announced the D3 and D300 simultaneously and they use the same AF module.</p>

<p>If you water down any D400 so that it does not compete against the D4, Canon and Sony are going to produce APS-C sports DSLRs that kill the D400. The D4 has the high-end construction that is catered to the pros and well off photographers that can afford $6K.</p>

<p>The difficulty is that it is expensive to provide the electronics that can move 24MP at 8, 9 frames/sec. Even the D4 only has 16MP. To me, that is more than enough for sports and action photography. Meanwhile, there are people who want 24MP or even more on DX; that is why even the D3200 now has 24MP. Therefore, you may need multiple designs to satisfy both camps.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Has the price of D7000 actually dropped? On another forum someone annouced the D7000 had a drop or was being discontinued, but it turned it they meant D700. I would very much like a D300 replacement, but as time goes on I'm thinking more and more I want a compact system for travel. What puzzles me as much as no D400 is Nikon not coming out with a 70-200mm f4 VR, or upgraded 300mm f4 VR.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Has the price of D7000 actually dropped?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, see the $200 instant savings on the following B&H link?<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735002-REG/Nikon_25468_D7000_DSLR_Camera_Body.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735002-REG/Nikon_25468_D7000_DSLR_Camera_Body.html</a></p>

<p>Nikon announced the D7000 in September 2010 for $1200 (or more precisely, some $1199.95): <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00XHzq">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XHzq</a><br /> That was what I paid for mine later on in 2010. As I mentioned earlier, Nikon started providing a $100 instant rebate around September/October 2011 before the Thai flood hit so that they had to stop production, and the price went back up. Nikon resumed the $100 instant rebate a few months ago when the supply resumed. A few days ago the rebate went up to $200.</p>

[Boppa]

<p>I must agree with Shun. The D7000 is a great camera and I've enjoyed the high ISO performance. I am happy with the 16 MP DX format and have been able to take some great soccer photographs of grandkids in low light conditions ... not to mention candle light photos. I am not sure that 24 MP would be that much of a useful upgrade to me.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have been thinking very hard about selling my D300. I've been shooting a Leica IIIc or Rolleiflex all summer, using a d5100 when I wanted digital. I've hardly touched the D300. A D7000 isn't perfect for me, but probably is Nikon's best model at the moment. B&H lists the D7000 right at $1,000 with the rebate, but I hate playing the rebate game. I've found refurbs on eBay for $850. I've had good luck in the past with refurbs--both my D300 and D5100 are refurbs. Even if Nikon came out with a D400 by the end of this year, I probably wouldn't get hurt too badly if I bought a D7000 now and sold it in a few months or whenever a "D400" appears. I will keep the D5100 as back up. I have really come to love that fold out screen!<br />I don't have much interest in a "D600". I don't like having a lot of money tied up in digital camera bodies as they depreciate so fast. I also don't want the inconvenience of trying to share lenses between a DX and FX body. I've been trying to simplify. After using 60-100 yr. old cameras for the past two years, I've learned that my needs from a camera are actually pretty minimal.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

Kent, that is an instant rebate; you don't pay $1200 and then get $200 back; you just pay $1000 (or $996). But at this

point I would just wait for Photokina to start and see what else is announced.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I wonder what the card formats will be for the D700's replacement, as it will be deemed to be PRO not consumer? Another XQD maybe? I'm surprised the D800 didn't have it.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is anyone else going crazy with anticipation now that the D7000 has dropped in price? I just KNOW my new Nikon is just around the corner, whether it's a "D400" or a "D8000"!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't want one even for free. There is no room in the closet for another dust collector. </p>

 

[errol young]

<p>D700 is a fantastic camera but could still use some improvements. That mode dial needs a lock, I would like a physical exposure comp dial like the P7100. A third User setting would be nice. And of course the D3200 sensor. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm going to start this with a disclaimer that I don't own a D90 or a D7000, and only briefly handled both. This is the perspective of a market observer, not a prospective customer.</p>

 

<blockquote>Nikon said quite specifically the D7000 isn't intended to replace the D90.</blockquote>

 

<p>Which I cynically interpreted as "we're not going to discontinue the D90 (yet)", not that "it's aimed at a different market segment". Possibly the D7000 is a lot more expensive to manufacture, but I always considered the D7000 to be very much aimed at the same market segment, but with several updates. It is, admittedly, more "prosumer" than the D90, but I always thought the D90 was the base model for people who wanted high-end handling, in the style of an F100. </p>

 

<p>The D90 is priced very attractively and has several advantages over the D5100 and D3200.[...]The D90 is the lowest end Nikon that I can recommend to people who plan on making portraits / indoor event shots. Discontinuing it would leave a significant hole in the lineup.</p>

 

<p>Not if the D7000 price falls accordingly, which it sort of has. I appreciate that the current positioning favours the D90, assuming that people are still willing to overlook the sensor upgrades of the D3200 and D5100 in return for D90 handling with a 2008-vintage sensor and autofocus module. I don't suggest that the D90 has no advantages over the lower-end cameras, just that, at this stage, its autofocus and sensor are anomalous with respect to its market position (it's only "better" than the lower-end cameras in some respects, and significantly inferior in others). The D7000 fills the same market segment, without compromising on one set of features to get another. Nikon's current problem is that a D90-priced D7000 would kill most of the remaining sales of the D300s, which has some superior features but is itself hampered by the vintage of its sensor. A D400 would make that problem go away, and give D7000 users a viable upgrade path. All IMHO, of course.</p>

 

<blockquote>There is no downsampled "raw" format. Raw is the data from the sensor, and because of the Bayer filter it cannot really be downsampled without losing the essential characteristics of this type of image. AFAIK Canon sRAW files are jpgs wrapped in a file with a different name.</blockquote>

 

<p>That seems extraordinarily unlikely to me, and it's certainly not the case from a file size perspective. My understanding is that S-RAW and M-RAW are simply in-camera downsampled RAW formats. Whether they retain the bayering or, after downsampling, have full RGB values at each sample point, I don't know - nor do I know how the downsampling is done with respect to filtering. I appreciate that Canon's implementation has some unhappy customers. Put another way, I would value the existence of a non-lossily compressed output that records the full dynamic range of the sensor with a lower pixel count than the full RAW format. Nikon's TIFF output is only 8-bit; either 16-bit TIFF or PNG would suffice for me, but so long as something can read it, I'm not too fussy. What I want is raw's ability to handle edits (from a bit depth and lack of artifact perspective) without needing 36MP (or 15MP for a DX crop) on occasions when I know I won't need that resolution. I believe that's the problem that Canon's formats solve, however effectively or ineffectively.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>there's no doubt that putting a 24MP sensor in the D3200 might make people ask questions about the benefits of higher-end bodies.</blockquote>

 

Why do you think that? A camera with a primitive AF system without focus fine tune combined with a very high pixel density in the main sensor is likely just annoy people tremendously.</blockquote>

 

<p>People compare cameras based on megapixel counts - not completely, but significantly (and it's sold a lot of D800s to people who may or may not really have been best served by one). How come the D3200 can make bigger prints (small footprint about technique required to do so) than the D7000? People are trying to decide between the D3200 and D5100, when the latter is clearly more capable. Resolution sometimes matters. The first thing I got asked about my D700 tended to be "how many megapixels does that have?" Sure, an experienced photographer might decide that the D300s is a superior device to a D3200 (for many purposes), but to the inexpert member of the public, currently the low-end Nikon has a specification advantage over everything but the D3x and D800. That's a confusing message to try to get past, especially for consumer-grade cameras. "Enough megapixels" makes sense for the D4, but how does a prospective D5100 owner know what "enough" looks like? That, to me, suggests that Nikon may have to bump its entire range to 24MP, and certainly that the 12MP cameras are hard to justify to a new buyer - you might get away with claiming the D5100 and D7000 are "close enough" and have noise advantages. It was easier when the D3000 was the low end.</p>

 

<blockquote>Andrew, Nikon should not worry about any "D400" taking sales away from the D4, just like they didn't worry about the D300 hurting D3 sales; recall that they announced the D3 and D300 simultaneously and they use the same AF module.</blockquote>

 

<p>The D3 and D300 are the same resolution. I don't think a D400 with a D7000 sensor will affect D4 sales at all, although it might disappoint a few people who want DX for maximum detail at a distance. If a putative D400 matches the D4 frame rate with a 24MP sensor, I suspect a lot of people would at least buy both (tragically, for Nikon), and those sports shooters working in good enough light may well find the D400 a much better option. The D4's big advantages (on paper, I appreciate the handling is not insignificant) are frame rate and low-light performance; a D400 that matches the frame rate and increases the resolution would make people think seriously about resolution vs noise, and not everyone would come down on the side of the D4. That's my concern. It may not be justified.</p>

 

<blockquote>If you water down any D400 so that it does not compete against the D4, Canon and Sony are going to produce APS-C sports DSLRs that kill the D400. The D4 has the high-end construction that is catered to the pros and well off photographers that can afford $6K.</blockquote>

 

<p>That's true. My only concern is that a 24MP D400 might make the D4 owners ask why their camera can't shift pixels that quickly. This assumes the D400 matches the D4's frame rate; if it can only do, say, 8fps, that's less of an issue (but comes back to the "my Sony's better" argument).</p>

 

<blockquote>The difficulty is that it is expensive to provide the electronics that can move 24MP at 8, 9 frames/sec. Even the D4 only has 16MP. To me, that is more than enough for sports and action photography.</blockquote>

 

<p>And yet the NEX-7 can do 24MP at 10fps. Sure, it can't autofocus while it does it, but that's not a function of how fast it can move pixels. (Well it is, but it wouldn't be for a DSLR.) Nikon's image processing may do more work to improve the quality, but shuffling the data from sensor to flash card seems to be possible. Nikon can hit 60fps with a 10MP sensor in the CX cameras, after all.</p>

 

<blockquote>Meanwhile, there are people who want 24MP or even more on DX; that is why even the D3200 now has 24MP. Therefore, you may need multiple designs to satisfy both camps.</blockquote>

 

<p>With the proviso that this is entirely me being a devil's advocate, I imagine that there are a number of wildlife and sports shooters who would like 24MP as fast as the sensor can manage it and with a high-end autofocus system, possibly at the cost of noise handling. I concede that, if a 17MP sensor could shoot faster, that could well also have a place - it's the Nex-7's speed that makes me think the sensor might not be the bottleneck. I wonder whether a 17MP camera whose advantage over a 24MP one is mostly in the noise is actually justifiable - if you want a low noise, fast, 17MP camera, the D4 is <i>much</i> better than any DX camera. That only works if the 24MP sensor is "good enough" in low light, and I've not seen enough of the D3200 to know how much of a retrograde step, if any, it might be.</p>