Why is Nikon Changing?

[jose_angel]

<p>Right, it has always been said that the MD-4 on the F3 makes it a much better camera for the reason you mention, but,</p>

<p>I`m a (wind)surfer, too. The issue with heavy boards (and cameras) is that they are painfully akward to carry! Boards from the eighties are great for control, definitely easier to ride, windsurf ones great to run upwind... but at the end most people prefer faster and lighter ones for enjoyment... :)<br>

(By the way, this <em>Apocalipse Now</em> scene is amazing! What a great film).</p>

[bill_brooks]

<p>I love the hand-held balance of my gripped D800 with the 24-70 f/2.8G ED or 70-200 f/2.8 G ED VRII lens. It was a lot of $$$ to pay for nice balance, but that was an important side-bonus. With the IQ I am enjoying, no complaints! </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p><strong>The size and weight of a camera are not as important to me as reliability, durability, and image quality.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><a href="

<strong> </strong></p><div></div>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>“</strong>By adding the motor drive (I have one on the D700) you get the reassuring heft + easier vertical shots. Also, on the D700, you can carry 2 batteries; one in camera & a 2nd in motor drive, which is convenient for travel.<strong>”</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><strong>Andy Murphy,</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Did you mean battery pack or battery grip instead of motor drive? </strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[sunray1]

<p>I prefer holding an F100 or D700 over a D90 or D7000. <br />But for me it's more about feel and build-quality than sheer weight.<br />I haven't measured it, but to me my D2H feels lighter than my D700 +MB D10 and I prefer the feel of the D2H...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer holding an F100 or D700 over a D90 or D7000. <br />But for me it's more about feel and build-quality than sheer weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly how I feel. Recently, I directly compared the Canon 7D with the Nikon D600 and I am somewhat saddened to state that the Canon felt a lot better. Let's not take about those button arrangements though.</p>

<p>To my surprise, the 70-200/2.8 VR handles quite nicely on the D300 without the MB-D10. But I wouldn't get caught without the grip when I mount the 300/4 or 80-400 - even though weights are about the same. Initially, my D200 and D300 cameras were always gripped - now I quite often take the grip off when I am not using the above mentioned lenses (or do portrait work where the grip really is coming in handy). I also use a D60 with 35/1.8 as my P&S camera - but I really wouldn't want any larger lens on there.</p>

<p>During the film days, I always had to have the motor drive mounted (on FM/FM2/FA and F3) - I just couldn't comfortably hold the camera otherwise. Thankfully, now I have options. But I do realize that the latest generation Nikon bodies (D7000, D800, D600) don't feel that good in my hands - the grip is too narrow and too square. Ergonomics is sacrificed to shave off some millimeters in dimensions - to the detriment of handling. Form is supposed to follow function, not the other way around.</p>

<p>On many occasions, I have to carry the camera in my hand for hours - no problem with the D300 and D200. I can't even hold the D7000 that way for 15 minutes!</p>

<p>I wouldn't mind if the D300 would shed some weight - just keep the form.</p>

[Andy Murphy]

John, I meant the MB-10 battery grip.

[User_6502147]

<p>To OP<br>

<br />It's not about what I like. I have, however, followed the pro-against debate (over several years) on DPR and large percentage of the 'togs prefer lighter cameras, I mean at least there. The D700 was made for that very reason (even Nikon made that public) after D3 surfaced. For many large camera is bothersome and it's usually being left at home....and lighter camera is being used. Indeed, I heard lots and lots of whining, though some people have various health issues and need a lighter model. Apparently, Nikon listened and provided lighter models....with the option of adding battery grip. I tend to look from the <strong>IQ</strong> side of this issue and I'll take my D700 on walkabouts, hikes and even climbing a peak.<br>

In the overall view it's a win win, since Nikon provided the D3s, D4 and also the lighter models as well. Don't know if there is enough variety for everyone, but I think Nikon is trying.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>I have been wanting to upgrade to FX. Really considering the D800. I could not help but notice how light it is, smaller than the D300. The whole reason I chose Nikon over Canon was the weight. I want the camera to be heavy and solid. The D800/D600 feel cheap. I am actually thinking about getting the Canon 5D Mark 11 for $1,700.<br>

Am I like the only person who likes the heavy, durable, old school Nikons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because they are cheap! The D800/600 are meant to give you the most specs for your money. If you like to buy the weight like me go for the D4 or one of the older D3 variety. And reading the posts you will see most people prefer that and would buy them. So how can you fault Nikon for making what they know they can sell????</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Shun's anecdote about the phones reminded me of how Palstar solved a complaint about the "cheap" lightweight feel of the plastic tuning knobs on the early R30 MW/shortwave receivers. They added a heavier metal wheel. As far as I can tell, it only accomplished placing additional strain and wear on the spindle of a complex tuning mechanism. But some owners were convinced it "felt better".</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Another issue to keep in mind is that in the old days, someone may use an F2, F5 for a decade. Today, DSLRs have much shorter life cycle mainly because the electronics inside get out of date fairly quickly, usually after 3, 4 years. The likes of D3 and D4 are routinely abused by pros, and they need to be very durable. Otherwise, there is no point to make a D700, D800 to last a decade. I paid a lot for my D2X back in 2005, and it was great back then. But two years ago, the D300 superseded the D2X is just about every way at a fraction of the cost. My D2X is still in great shape but I haven't used it much since I bought the D300 in 2007, and I haven't used the D300 much in the last year or two.</p>

<p>To me, even the build quality for the D7000 and D600 is perfectly fine, as long as you don't use them to hammer nails.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Wow! 4 pages, normally my topics are dead after 1 page. Just venting. I am too broke to afford the D800. I am happy that FX prices are starting to drop. However,not to happy with D600. Dont get me wrong the specs look good, but SD cards, 1/4000 speed, tiny, light weight body and only $300.00 less than a D700. I am also a little upset about the pricing on whats left of the D700's, $2,500.00. No price drop at all. I can get the 5D 11 and the 17-40mm lens for that price. But most of all I am upset that Nikon still has no replacement for the D300, which is by FAR the oldest camera in their lineup.</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>Having used a Pentax 67 with a pentaprism viewfinder and two lenses as my main camera I appreciate the lower weight of modern DSLRs and DX glass. I am perfectly happy with the IQ and weight of my DX system and do not consider a move to FX.</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Andreas, I'm right with you there. Shot this yesterday with my 4 year old D90 with Kit lens. What more IQ do you need.<br /><br />John</p><div></div>

[alan_bessler]

<p>Bebu I had a Canon 5D2 it doesn't feel any better than my D600,get the get the Canon 1Dx if you want to lug around a heavy camera!</p>