D300s replacement , when expected?

[thakurdalipsingh]

<p>Any body, any thing know about D300s replacement , when expected? <br>

Why ? Just I want it to do. <br>

I have upgraded D800 from D700, now want D300s to upgrade? SOmething in DX format and with higfh FPS rate? </p>

[superinc]

<p>not anytime soon... nikon rumors has been pretty good at on predicting the last current models. but currently they have zero leak information on any D7000/D300S successor.</p>

[robert_kenney3]

<p>My guess (and that is all anyone can offer) is that the D7000 / D300s replacement will be combined into one model. The mid/upper grade DX models heading ultimately to a dead-end street. Clues to the DX demise include the lack of DX lenses being released, the loss of market share for entry-level DX SLR's to Mirrorless models, the march to affordability of FX sensors, and the demand in the pro market for a DX camera mostly being limited to the need for cropped reach, weatherproofing, or higher speed shooting. Attributes that can be adapted to a FF sensor body and lenses. A more likely replacement for the D300s would be the existing body with the D600 sensor, much as they did to the D7000 to create the D600. I would expect to see DX become a obsolete format in just a few years. </p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Sorry, no way to delete my response. Others have a better grip on this than I. Liked your portfolio though. Very inspirational. Best, LM.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>The problem with the "DX demise" tune is that DX is what pays Nikon's bills--it's the bulk of their DSLR sales with FX coming nowhere close to date. Get a 1200-1500 buck FX body to market and that would probably change but not unless/until that happens. So far, the D600 hasn't exactly been a home run, especially undiscounted and subject to lingering apparent QC issues.</p>

<p>I thought something might turn up at the Yokohama CP+ show in a few weeks but no clues yet. Anyone's guess but I suspect late spring/early summer.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since the D300 was introduced in 2007 and then the D300S in 2009, I had expected the D300S' replacement in 2011. Obviously that did not happen. In the mean time, I have been mostly happy using the D7000 to replace my D300 since late 2010.</p>

<p>Given that Nikon added three new FX DSLR models (I consider the D800 and D800E just one model, plus D4 and D600) in 2012, 2013 should be the year when several DX DSLRs and Nikon 1 mirrorless camera are introduced.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>DX ain't goin' nowhere until entry level FX body prices reach the cost of the D3200, i.e sub $700. As C Watson noted, the DX format represents the bulk of Nikon's DSLR sales (and profits), and I would guess that a significant majority of that DX format income (more than 75%) is from the entry level D3100/5100 class.</p>

<p>To the original question, like Shun I would expect something later this year. When is anybody's guess, 'cause them that knows can't say. Them that don't will speculate.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

The D300s replacement has been expected since the D300s was launched (arguably earlier, since the 300s was a minor tweak to the 300).

When it will arrive is another matter. I guess around the time of the 7Dmk2, whenever both manufacturers think they know what the other is

doing (since the D600 is slightly better than the 6D in lots of ways, I suspect Nikon have slightly better spies than Canon). The D7000 is such

a good alternative to the D300, and the D5200 so competitive with the D7000, that I doubt anyone would be shocked by a D7000 and D300s

upgrade (or combination) this year. But we wouldn't have been shocked last year either.

[RaymondC]

<p>Of course there will always be DX cameras, for that D3200 market. I doubt it will happen, but I wonder if something like a D7000 may find itself being the top model DX camera .... </p>

<p>The D4 is a fast camera and low light camera, suited for low light sport stadiums. But I know that's not DX ... </p>

[sener]

<p>Instead of waiting for a dx replacement, I think buying one of the new fx models such as d600 or d800 makes more sense. Why ? Because these fx cameras have sufficient pixels for croping pictures, very good noise performance and other advantages of the fx format over the dx format.</p>

<p>Put it in a simple way, fx has more coverage than dx in every aspect, it makes no sense to me to insist on dx, other than the price difference which is becoming insignificant with recent models.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Goker, how do you get the D800 or D600 to capture at 8 frames/second, in any mode?</p>

[jonb]

<p>I don't really get the argument that there <em>must</em> be a pro-level DX body since Nikon makes so many lower-end DX bodies. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Nikon's evolving market view is that top-end professionals who buy top-end bodies will shoot FX, while Nikon continues to make more affordable entry-level DX cameras.</p>

<p>Now, I know there are plenty of reasons why wildlife, sports etc shooters would like to have more capable DX bodies. That doesn't mean, though, that Nikon will make them. Maybe they will -- I hope they will. But I don't see that it's a logical imperative.</p>

<p>Let me posit something. If Nikon made a pro-level body (100% pentaprism VF, top-of-the-line AF system, etc) that was 36-megapixel FX but that would shoot DX at 8+ frames per second, with perhaps a slower FX frame rate, would that serve the needs that such shooters have? Sure, those who want to shoot mainly DX would be off-put by the price, but for the professional users that's just a cost of doing business.</p>

<p>What I'm describing isn't a crazy new scheme. It harkens back to the high-speed crop mode of the D2X. To me, it would be a perfectly reasonable approach, granting that those who want a D300 replacement would not be fully satisfied.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really get the argument that there <em>must</em> be a pro-level DX body since Nikon makes so many lower-end DX bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, different people have different things in mind when we talk about "pro level" bodies. Essentially everybody agrees that something like the D2X/D2H, D3, and D4 are pro level. But most of us are not asking for a modern D2X with 16 or 24MP. This thread is about Nikon updating the D300S, which most people consider a "prosumer" body. The D300S has Nikon's best AF in 2009 and can reach 7, 8 frames/sec but is not as robust as the D2 and D3 and also does not have the vertical grip built in.<br>

The D300/D300S are also a fraction of the cost for a D2X, D3 and D4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let me posit something. If Nikon made a pro-level body (100% pentaprism VF, top-of-the-line AF system, etc) that was 36-megapixel FX but that would shoot DX at 8+ frames per second, with perhaps a slower FX frame rate, would that serve the needs that such shooters have?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As we know, the cost of an FX sensor is something like 10 times as much as the cost of a DX senor. As soon as you have an FX sensor inside and you want the best AF, 8 fps, etc., the cost will go way up, way beyond the $1800 price level for the D300/D300S.</p>

<p>The camera will also be unnecessarily big since FX involves a larger prism, mirror, etc. (and you now need to move that larger mirror @ 8fps) and it is also more difficult to use an FX viewfinder in the DX crop mode. If I need to use that occasionally, it is ok. It is not a long-term solution. I still own my D2X. Back then, I occasionally used its crop mode and I had more than enough images where I got mixed up and placed part of the subjects outside of the capture area. We are much better off with a 100% viewfinder that is native to DX.</p>

[jonb]

<p>Yes, it's probably best to eschew the "pro" label since it's a fuzzy definition.</p>

<p>My point is that with FX bodies coming down in cost substantially, it's just not clear to me that Nikon will see a niche for a DX-sensor body that has high-performance features. Granting that a body optimized for DX shooting would have a DX sensor, DX VF, etc, the question remains whether there is a strong enough market for such a thing to make it worth making. Put it this way, if the D300 replacement body approaches the price of the low-end FX bodies, which choice will capture most of the market? (Of course, if Canon makes one, Nikon will sooner or later do so as well.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The camera will also be unnecessarily big since FX involves a larger prism, mirror, etc. and it is also more difficult to use an FX viewfinder in the DX crop mode. If I need to use that occasionally, it is ok. It is not a long-term solution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is if it's the only solution available. While some of us may want a high-performance DX body, if the majority of users are satisfied with D7000-grade bodies at the DX end and D800- or D4-type FX bodies at the high end, would it pay for Nikon to make a true D300 replacement for a relatively small market niche? Just how many models can we expect Nikon to be making simultaneously?</p>

<p>I had the same problems with HSC mode, Shun. I suppose that's why Nikon put crop masking in the VF in the D2Xs and later models. I assume you don't have that problem with later models if you use DX-crop mode?</p>

<p>Please understand that I'm not arguing personally against Nikon making a high-performance DX body. As someone who shoots primarily sports, I'd love to see one, for many of the reasons you mentioned. I'm just not sure that Nikon will see it that way. Time will tell.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have a D700 and D800E. Actually I still don't like to use them on the DX crop mode. Again, if I want to use DX, I prefer a native DX viewfinder that is 100%, not an FX viewfider with the outisde area grayed out.</p>

<p>I believe Nikon will introduce a successor to the D300S. Again, I though that would appear in 2011. After Japan and Thailand were hit by their respective natural disasters, some of us thought it would be 2012 instead. 2012 turned out to be the year of FX, so now it is 2013. Of course, it could be 2014, 2015 ... and your wait will never end. However, I am quite sure that there will be at least one DX model that is above the D5200.</p>

<p>As I said before, Nikon may merge the D7000 and D300S into just model, or they could update both of them individually. There is obviously need to have 24MP on a DX body, and there is also need to have a high-end DX body that can do 8, 9 fps. I don't think you can have both on the same camera while keeping the cost down. E.g., even the $6000 D4 is only 16MP.</p>

<P>

I was surprised that the D5200 has the D7000 and D600's Multi-CAM 4800 AF module. It is 24MP but uses a different sensor as the D3200's. While the D5200 is not quite at the same level as a D7000, e.g. not 100% viewfinder, no dual memory cards,etc, but it makes you wonder if there is a successor to the D7000, how will it differ from the D5200.

</P>

<p>We'll just have to see how Nikon plays this out. No amount of discussion on this forum or other forums will ever generate any useful information until it comes from Nikon.</p>

[jonb]

<p>I hope you are right, Shun. I just don't think it's inevitable, the way some people do. Over the years that I've watched Nikon they have surprised me many times, mostly in a positive way but not always.</p>

<p>One thing that I do think argues for higher-end DX is that the lower end will increasingly be nibbled away by mirrorless cameras that are ever more capable. As smaller sensors improve and more manufacturers integrate phase-detect AF into the sensors of their mirrorless cameras, the case for a low-end DSLR becomes harder for a consumer to make. That may make DX DSLRs skew toward higher-performance models.</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>I think the D7000 replacement will feature the D5200 sensor tweaked to 6 fps, perhaps a larger buffer and the rest will stay the same. The dual cards, the 100% viewfinder, dual command dials, top lcd, support for screw driver lenses, support for AI/AI-S lenses is enough to differentiate it from the D5200. Probably call it D7200 so the current line up will become D3200, D5200 and D7200.</p>

<p>A D300 replacement could offer slightly higher frame rate, possibly a slightly better AF and D300/D700/D800 type ergonomics. Is that enough to differentiate from the "D7200"? Perhaps. But it seems like this would be a pure sports camera so maybe a DX version of the D4 would have been more suitable. DX format but the same full size D4 body (slightly smaller) and the same button layout, 16 megapixels or so and around 10 fps. A poor mans D4 :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Mike D]

<p>I used my D300 with 80-400 for sports. I gave up waiting a year ago for both a higher MP replacement D300 and 80-400 with AFS. I ended up buying an 10/12 FPS, 16MP Sony A57 with Sony 70-400. The lens is utterly fantastic and the body very fast but not quite as well built as a D300 and you have to get used to an SLT (OVF is superior for fast action). I refuse to be limited to a single brand. I guess my statement above is moot now because both the A57 and 70-400 have been discontiued. Oh well. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I think DX was always a compromise made to the challenges of semiconductor manufacturing ca. 2000. Now that FX sensors are affordable and offer DX mode cropping, DX pro bodies fade away, as would be expected. I understand the advantage of the crop factor for long lenses, but if that is the real professional market need, then why not urge Nikon to come out with a 16 megapixel CX sensor based D4 body that does, oh say, 24 frames per second.</p>

[sener]

<blockquote>

<p>Goker, how do you get the D800 or D600 to capture at 8 frames/second, in any mode?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, as you know, with the d600, it is possible to get almost 6 frames/sec. which is ok for most folks. Actually, in dx mode, these cameras can be made much faster since the file sizes are reduced. Appereantly, Nikon did not incorporate this feature into these cameras yet, but I am sure they can in the future models. As the prices go down for fx cameras, eventually fx should dominate all dx market. That being said, I also expect a new dx camera to be announced this year because there is a high demand for it. But again, gradually, fx should dominate the market, that's how I see it.</p>

[thakurdalipsingh]

<p>I want crop factor 1.5x of DX format for wild life etc, which makes 200mm -300mm . high 8FPS or faster rate of DX. Thus FX is not substitute for DX. <br>

Thanks to everybody.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Right, I too would like to have 8 or perhaps 9. 10 fps, similar to the D300 with the MB-D10.</p>

<p>And there are additional issues. The mirror and shutter have to be a little more robust to sustain that kind of frame rate, and that adds to the cost. The lower-end bodies such as the D600 and D7000 are not quite at that level.</p>

<p>Wish I could afford a D4.</p>

[israel1]

<p>My D300 upgrade will be a D700, sometime towards the end of this year. And I won't so much upgrade as have two high end cameras that complement each other for a variety of tasks.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Gossip sites are talking about an April 2013 roll-out of a D7000 replacement.</p>