Nikon Introduces D7100 DSLR with MB-D15 Grip

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Edward: Fair enough. Maybe that's an argument for requesting an arbitrary viewfinder mask! So long as you like 3:2, you can coarsely (sort of) get this effect by zooming in live view. Personally, I always try to fill the frame as best I can, but assume I'm going to be cropping somewhat in software since I pick the aspect ratio for the subject - I may end up over-doing the crop in the field, since I'm a bit too used to my D700's not-100% finder. Still, I can't argue that having crops in the finder is a useful composition aid.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Andrew! The 90%+ something D700 viewfinder has saved my bacon quite a few times where a horse has unexpectedly come closer than intended and my 70-200mm has hit the 70mm stop quite hard and it appears I've de-capitated the rider... NOT SO! It's a technique thing you get used to, often forced by the local terrain/topography..... ie other jumps etc!</p>

<p>I'm sure I'd learn how to use a full 100% VF for action..... a D4 maybe...:-)</p>

[Two23]

<p>I read the links Shun provided, and it does appear I can hook a CyberSync trigger to the D7100 and fire it remotely (from up to 200 yards away!) I'm officially "in" on this camera. Will first buy a D5200 though as I have a trip next month to Chicago. I like to photo on the subways and Loop trains, and that fold out screen is perfect! I hold the camera at my waist and no one pays any attention to me.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[StanleyBeck]

<p>I just noticed on the D7100 photos (and in the specs) that the Mode Dial has Scene Modes. That suggests to me that this camera is indeed NOT a replacement for the D300s. So, time will tell.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Yes, the mode dial has a "scene" setting, like the D600. I'm sure it doesn't count as one of Nikon's "pro" bodies (D300, D700, D800, single-digit D series). It's obviously not aimed at the same market segment as the D300s. The question is whether it can do enough things better than the D300s that the D300s is obsolete, and whether Nikon will feel the need to provide a successor to the D300s or let that market segment disappear (or be owned by any 7D refresh).<br />

<br />

Clearly people on this thread believe that the buffer size is a significant issue compared with the D300s; I'm honestly surprised, given dropping memory prices, that Nikon dropped the ball on that - it costs much less to put a huge buffer in a D7100 than it did to put one in the D300 when it came out, even allowing for doubling the pixel count. There are handling differences as well, but a camera built like the D300 obviously costs more to make and Nikon must be trying to pick up the "better D7000/D5200" market more than the D400 crowd.<br />

<br />

I suspect they could make a lot of people happy by simply offering a D7100h at a premium with a buffer upgrade. I remain confused as to how many of the people wanting a D300 successor just want a (much) cheaper D4, and how many want a <i>dx</i> D4 (at any price). Making a DX version of the D4 that's priced like the D800 ought to be possible; making something cheaper than a D600 and much better in lots of ways might be a marketing problem. I'm not after either, so I'm curious to get a feel for what potential purchasers actually want. (Other than "both", obviously.)</p>

[StanleyBeck]

<p>Andrew, I can understand someone holding out for specific features, such as buffer. I’ve been holding out for four years for some specific upgrades from my D200. The thing that I find most curious is that in the past four years, Nikon has released eight (8) new cameras in the Dxxxx category, and nothing in the DX range of the Dxxx category, but four (4) new FX cameras using the Dxxx model system.<br /><br />Maybe, as it was said above, that the “Flagship” DX camera might be a D9000. Regardless, The D7100 has those things that I was holding out for, so for me, this looks like it. I’m 70, so I can’t hold out forever.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I remain confused as to how many of the people wanting a D300 successor just want a (much) cheaper D4, and how many want a <em>dx</em> D4 (at any price). Making a DX version of the D4 that's priced like the D800 ought to be possible; making something cheaper than a D600 and much better in lots of ways might be a marketing problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am one of those (and I don't know how many there are) that wants a D400 that is a mini-D4 (not necessarily with a built-in battery grip though) - but not at any price. Priced like the D800 - and it's a non-starter for me. And Nikon just announced something significantly cheaper than the D600 that IS much better in lots of ways - it's the D7100 - there is no appeal for me to choose a D600 over a D7100 - none whatsoever. At $1200, the D7100 is much better for me than the $3000 D800 - whose DX crop (on which I would have to rely for all my bird photography) only nets me around 16MP (something I can even get with a $800 D7000 nowadays). If Nikon marketing thinks that I'd spent $3K for a body to have access to the same features I can have in the D300/D7000/D7100 and a potential D400 - then they need to think again.<br>

I like DX - FX in itself (aside from the higher cost) holds very little appeal to me. Frankly, I am happy with my D300 - and am only looking for an updated version of it. A few more pixels won't hurt - so 16/18/20 is fine with me. A boost in high-ISO performance (like a usable 3200). Sustained 7-8 fps (wouldn't mind 9-10 - that'll be icing on the cake) even at 14-bit and a buffer that's deep enough to hold at least 20 RAW images. The updated AF module from the D800 (which is already a given since it's already in the D7100). I expect the D400 to be quieter than the D300 is. Throw in the 91K RGB meter from the D800 and I'm there. The entire package shouldn't cost more than $2K though - which is doable in the same way the D300 cut the D2X price in half while beating it in (almost) every aspect. </p>

<p>You think making a D400 at sub-$2K is a marketing problem - I submit that asking $2K+ for a stripped-down D600 is a much bigger one. Nikon thinking that I'd consider a $6K D4 as an alternative to a $2K D400 is lunacy IMO. If I had $6K to spend - it would be for a long tele, not a camera body.</p>

<p>In addition - I don't care how Nikon is marketing something - I look at the specs and how they fit my needs and budget - it's that simple. And to me it seems quite obvious that Nikon can move a boatload of D400 bodies - more per month that the annual production of D4 bodies - so how can producing one be a losing proposition? What fraction of people willing to buy a D400 would opt for a D4 instead? Can Nikon really afford to leave the $1200-$2000 range unoccupied? And I believe we can all agree, that we won't be seeing an FX body occupy that slot this year (or the next).</p>

<p>On another note: Looking at the sample images from the D7100 ( ) and (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/sample.htm), I am surprised how soft they are - quite unexpected for a camera without an AA filter. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Stanley: I'm glad you're happy with the D7100, and I hope you enjoy it when you get it. I wish you fifty happy years with it. :-)<br />

<br />

Dieter: By analysing Nikon's marketing, I'm only trying to predict those products that it would make commercial sense for them to produce - I don't think there's any point discussing how much we'd all like something with the exact specs of the D4 but at $1000.<br />

<br />

I think there are two very distinct user groups here. One wants a better sports camera than the D7100 but not necessarily professional grade - arguably something that is, to the D4, what the D200 was to the D2x. I suspect this group aren't too distraught with the D7100 build (though the D300's handling is nice), they'd be happy with 7-8 fps, and they won't buy it if it costs much more than the D300s. Nikon could make most of them happy by releasing a premium "D7100h" with 2-4x as much memory. A good few may be happy with trading the D7100's sensor for the one from the D7000 if it got a few extra frames buffered. This market would probably buy a D4 if it cost $1500.<br />

<br />

I suspect there's another group who effectively want a D4, but don't want to buy long lenses and don't need the low light performance. These people might go on safari during daylight, or might shoot sports in good light. Build approximating the D4's would matter. I suspect some would prefer an integrated grip. Getting close to the D4's frame rate and certainly buffer size would matter. Some might be after reach and want a 24MP sensor, though I suspect the D7100 picks off a few of the "good autofocus and high pixel density" crowd. For these people, a D4 would be an inferior choice even at the same price - though I'd certainly expect a DX version to be somewhat cheaper. The best option would be a "D4dx", with the body and mechanics of the D4 but with a smaller sensor.<br />

<br />

The 1Dx currently has the lead in several areas over the D4 - not that I'm in the market for either camera, so my opinion may not be very informed. From the reviews I've seen, it has a small but significant frame rate, autofocus and resolution advantage, along with some handling benefits. Not that this makes the D4 a bad camera, but I would expect Nikon to refresh the D4 at least by the 2014 winter Olympics, if not before. If it jumps to match the 12-14fps frame rate of the 1Dx, that leaves room for a DX version to hit 10fps without competing too heavily with its big brother. I suspect it's easier to make a DX mirror hit higher frame rates, which might bode well for the price - although one could argue it's competing with the (even faster) 1-series.<br />

<br />

So, Nikon <i>could</i>, fairly easily, produce a D7100h (assuming the Expeed 3 hasn't run out of address space, but since it's the same as the one used in the D4 one wouldn't expect that to be an issue.) Incidentally, the D5200 seems - according to Wikipedia - to fit 4GB to its Expeed 3, which makes me wonder why it can't buffer more images... If it's cynical marketing, Nikon might be able to make a D7100h just by changing firmware. Probably with a bit more effort, a D2x successor could be made, especially if it a D5 replacement for the D4 makes room for it. I could just about see either - or both - of these happening. A D400 that splits the difference? That now seems a harder sell to me - the D7100 is just too good for its money to justify a mid-price camera that's selectively better in only a few ways. But I could be <i>way</i> off.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm pretty much in Dieter's camp, but for me the D7100 is close enough. Since I shoot a lot of different things, a d400 type camera like he envisions would have all the capabilities I'd want. I've been getting by with a d5100 but it has some limitations that occasionally frustrate me a bit. (No lock on the AF selector is one.) For me, the D7100 will work. It's not really what I wanted but it's better for me than a d5200 and has more res than my current D300. I'll buy one, but the disappointment has further alienated me from Nikon. I will be taking a closer look at Canon's offerings as they appear, for the first time ever.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think there's any point discussing how much we'd all like something with the exact specs of the D4 but at $1000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly - and certainly not something I have proposed to do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>arguably something that is, to the D4, what the D200 was to the D2x</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assume that you meant the D300; the D200 wasn't anywhere near being a competitor to the D2X.</p>

<p>Currently, my one disappointment with the specs of the D7100 is the small buffer which I expect to cause problems; but I will reserve final judgement until I can verify. Similarly, I expect the D7100 to have a similarly poor ergonomics as the D7000 has - it's such a huge difference (step-down) from the D200 and D300. This current trend of miniaturization is really taking things too far. The other day, I saw a SONY NEX with one of the larger zoom lenses (I assume a 55-200) at the camera store - how is one supposed to stably hold something disproportionate like that.</p>

[tony_demonte]

<p>from what I have read on here and other sites, it doesn't seem like it is worth the 500-600 cash to upgrade from my D7000. the expeed 3, 51-point afs, the extra 1.3x crop, and some other things sound great, but, for what I shoot, not worth it. maybe the best bet is to slowly phase out my DX lenses (35mm, 16-85mm, 10-24mm) and eventually move up to FX. that sounds like a good plan.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Again, I'm confused what this debate is really about or why we're having it. There is evidence aplenty (from the Nikon remarks quoted early in the thread, and from the pricing) that a high-end DX camera in the $1500-$1700 price range is on the way, sometime before the end of 2013, one assumes. This is the price point of the D300, just as the D800 is roughly what the D700 was, and the D4... etc. These are the pro cameras. The non-pro high end cameras start with the D600 at $2000 (soon to be $1800 I'd bet) the D7100 at $1200, the D5200 and the D3200 at whatever they are ($800+ and $600? I'm not sure). These scolding apocalyptic lectures of "if Nikon thinks... etc etc" are silly. They had an earthquake, a tsunami, a large nuclear accident and massive flooding of their plants in Thailand. Their currency is betraying them. Things are taking longer than you'd wish. Chill. </p>

[Albins images]

<p>That's a fine summary, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5337017">Vince Passaro</a> ! Thanks for that.<br /><br />For most photographic purposes, the Nikon offerings are not limiting, I dare say. And the D7100 is a nice addition to the series.<br />Although I know some serious photographers that complain about the lack of features/tools for dedicated micro photography, for example. And maybe the (semi-pro) sports photographers have something of a point too. For the rest: enjoy the products and make better images!</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Some nice new features here. Personally I like the UltraCrop with focus points covering ALL the frame. I always thought it was stingy to have them only clustered around the centre as this suggests conventional compositions.<br /> Now let's hope there are no out of left field 'issues' like focussing problems. Or dust and oil on the sensor. Or goo forming in the shutter button. Maybe the threads in the mount wear out after x number of screws. Or the LCD screen shows scenes from someone's camera in Anchorage, Alaska via WiFi. Or....Or... Or... We'll have to see I guess.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>There is evidence aplenty (from the Nikon remarks quoted early in the thread, and from the pricing) that a high-end DX camera in the $1500-$1700 price range is on the way, sometime before the end of 2013, one assumes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We may be seeing the same evidence, but my conclusion is quite the opposite.</p>

<ol>

<li>The original price point for the D70, D70S, D80, and D90 was $1000.</li>

<li>For the D200, D300, and D300S, it was $1700/$1800.</li>

</ol>

<p>(The D100 was introduced at $2000 in 2002, and I bought one back then; the D100 was my very first digital camera. However, IMO the D100 is a lower-end DSLR based on the $300 F80/N80 film SLR back then, similar to the D70, and does not belong to the same category as the D200/D300.)</p>

<p>Hindsight is 20/20. Now it becomes obvious that the D7000, introduced in September 2010 at $1200, was the merger of those two product lines into one. The D7100, which is obviously the upgrade/replacement of the D7000 at that same $1200 initial price, is the second installment of that merged product line.</p>

<p>I have been posting to the Nikon Forum for over 10 years now. So far Nikon USA has asked me to correct something I posted exactly once. That was during the D7000 introduction on 15th September, 2010. Initially I referred to the D7000 as "the D90's replacement." Nikon e-mailed photo.net that the D7000 did not replace the D90. The D7000 was a new category of DSLRs that was between the D90 and D300S: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00XHzq"><I>Nikon Announces D7000 DSLR, 35mm/f1.4 AF-S, 200mm/f2 AF-S VR2, and SB-700 Flash</I></a></p>

<p>You can still see my correction, in bold font, from back then.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now let's hope there are no out of left field 'issues' like focussing problems. Or dust and oil on the sensor. Or goo forming in the shutter button.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can almost guarantee you that there will be some "major issue" for the D7100 that will be discussed to no end on all sorts of web forums such as this one. I am sure some fairly high percentage (perhaps 20% or so) of D800 have had that left AF issue, but there will always be lots of exaggerations floating around the web. That is how things work in these days.</p>

<p>But somehow I am always lucky. The two D800/D800E I have used have no AF issue. The D600 I used had no dust/oil issue. The two 28mm/f1.8 AF-S I have used have no focus shift issue ....</p>

<p>So hopefully my luck continues.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Vince: there's some mixed messages from Nikon about whether there really will be another DX model above the D7100. However, I'm merely responding to those who don't find the D7100 sufficient for their needs, since I'd like to know what they're really after. I may even be doing Nikon a favour, if they're listening. (So that I don't get told off, I'd like to say that I'm not speculating what Nikon <i>will</i> produce, I'm just putting forth options to help me understand what people want.)<br />

<br />

Nikon <i>could</i> produce a direct successor to the D300, with handling similar to the D800. It could have the sensor out of the D7000 (as many were requesting), a buffer and frame rate comparable to the D300s, and be priced similar to the D300. Let's call this hypothetical device the "D400".<br />

<br />

Since lots of people were calling for that, Nikon have produced:<br />

The D7100, which has a higher resolution sensor than the "D400", the same metering and AF system, is within 1fps of it (2fps if a grip is added to the D300s, the same speed as the grip-less one in crop mode), and is appreciably cheaper and lighter.<br />

The D600, which has D7000-class handling but a full-frame sensor and finder and a large buffer, though slower.<br />

The D800, which has D300/700-class handling and a 16MP DX crop at 5fps, with a large buffer.<br />

<br />

All (unlike the D700) support dual memory cards, which is one major complaint that people had with the D300-D700 "upgrade path".<br />

<br />

The point I'm making is that the market into which a D300s successor might be released is not the same market as that into which the D300s was released. Would a "D400" launched into the price gap between the D7100 and D600 sell? Well, probably to some extent it would, but it would be a small (but present) handling improvement and speed advantage combined with arguably lower image quality at a significant price overhead compared with the D7100.<br />

<br />

The main significant advantage that a "D400" would offer over a D7100 would, it appears, be one of buffer size. Given how much memory the D5200 contains (according to the Wikipedia article on Expeed 3), I wonder whether the restriction is entirely a marketing one. If not, it's the same chip as the D4, which clearly supports a lot of memory. Nikon <i>could</i> be deliberately differentiating the D7100 from a yet-to-be-released camera (or the D600); if not, they could make a lot of people happy by either fixing this restriction, or releasing a "D7100h" which is identical in all ways to a D7100 except with a larger buffer. There is no reason that a D7100h needs to be significantly more expensive than the D7100 - it may be a premium that some don't want to pay (like the D800e), but not enough to justify the price bracket of a D300 successor.<br />

<br />

Alternatively, Nikon could actually make a camera which is everything a D300s + grip is, but updated. This is what I mean by a "D4dx": something designed for DX sports shooters, as none of Nikon's recent line-up has been - as the D300(s) compared with the D3(s), this would compare with the D4. This camera is squeezed from both ends: It has to be appreciably ahead of the D300s or the D7100 will be "good enough" for many shooters. I don't know how many D4 shooters would give up some low light performance if they had a fast, cheaper option - especially if they could get away with buying cheaper lenses: losing a D4 sale may not lose Nikon much, but losing a 500mm f/4 in favour of a 300mm f/4 probably does. Selling something that does 95% of what the D4 can do at the price of the D300s might not be good marketing, especially if it has a higher resolution sensor in it. Selling something that can do 70% of what the D4 can do at the price of the D300s has a problem - the D7100 can already do 70% of what the D4 can do, for less.<br />

<br />

My take is that a "D4dx" could be aimed way above a "D400", because a "D400" isn't enough of what DX sports shooters really want. Price it like a D600 or D800 and you could make one with an integrated battery grip, built in the style of the D4, and with D4 speed. At 16MP, it would only somewhat compete with the D4 - it would, at least, be no better, even at 10fps. Life would be easier if there was a D5 that matched the 1Dx's 12fps, especially with a 24MP sensor - at the moment, any 16MP "D4dx" would look bad in resolution compared with a D7100 and any 24MP "D4dx" might cost D4 sales through being arguably superior. At some point, someone may get an image with Sony's SLT-A77 (24MP, 12fps, small buffer though not worse than the D7100) which makes Nikon take notice.<br />

<br />

I'm not suggesting that Nikon will (or won't) produce anything but a simple "D400". I'd just like to know how many of the people currently complaining about the limitations of the D7100 (and lack of D300s replacement) would find a "D400" over-priced and would have been happier with a "D7100h", and how many would find a "D400" under-specified and would rather have a "D4dx". No camera can be all things to all people, but I think a "D400" would either need to be "better" than the trivial specification updates in order to justify its price - and maybe justify an even larger price instead, in danger of competing with the D4 - or, if kept "inferior" to the FX cameras, might struggle to justify any significant price premium over the D7100. Nikon <i>could</i> just make a "D400" - I'm just not 100% sure they <i>should</i>, and asking for one may be counterproductive.<br />

<br />

Since I want none of these, I'm only asking because I'd like to know what others want. I think it's useful market research for Nikon, and helpful for other discussions to know what people want (or make people think about what they want). I make feature requests to Nikon, and I'd like to know whether I'm wasting my time in asking for something that would be incompatible with what the general public wants to see, or whether I'm suggesting something that lots of people would find useful. I don't think there's harm in that discussion, especially while the D7100's limitations (and capabilities) are focussing people's minds. I appreciate that I'm subverting the thread a bit by doing it, though - but hopefully we're now done discussing what the D7100 actually <i>is</i>. :-)</p>

 

[StanleyBeck]

<p>There does seem to be a general consensus here that the D7100 is not a “D400”, and that there will possibly be a more serious DX camera in the future. It is my personal opinion, however, that Nikon has too many camera models, too many choices, too many niches trying to be filled. Maybe it is a marketing strategy. Based upon some communications that I have had with Nikon in the past, I also get the feeling that they are not particularly interested in what we think or what we want, and will continue to operate the way they have in the past. Maybe it’s only my opinion. Hope everyone gets the camera that they want.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>There is, to a large degree, a modular nature to Nikon's design and construction strategy for DSLRs.</p>

<p>The AF module from this, the Exceed processor from that and the sensor from the other. The same chip but less RAM etc etc.. Things in the new 2008 model gently filter down the model number structure as new tech is introduced at the top 2013 model. As many have said, there's nothing wrong with an older camera, it's just not new tech.</p>

<p>This effectively means the actual cost of making a new model, is more the cost of making a new module <strong><em>combo</em></strong> to fit in a new box. I'm not meaning to make it sound simple & 'cheap', far from it, but I'm not sure in these days of R&D and Rapid Prototyping it's as expensive and time consuming as it used to be. Making new camera shells is easy and the 'bits' inside a little harder. By contrast lenses are still hard (and slow) to make with very expensive materials.</p>

<p>Overall, I think this means Nikon can afford to try to fill each market, but maybe not every niche, to extract as much cash from us as possible. Leaving big gaps for the competition is bad practice and can lead to Brand Loyalty..... how many people think about jumping ship? Not many, 'cos of the glass. But to get them young and KEEP them, needs some degree of support by the makers.</p>

<p>My view..... A new sport DX DSLR will appear by Christmas.....what it's called, is anybodies guess! .....:-)</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>I can almost guarantee you that there will be some "major issue" for the D7100 that will be discussed to no end on all sorts of web forums such as this one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nah, by replacing the AF module on the D7100, that AF "major issue" reported on the D7000 may finally be fixed. Wishful thinking?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mike: Agreed. That's why I was confident to pre-order my D700 (all the "modules" had already been used), and waited on the D800E (which had NEW STUFF). I'd hope the D7100 might "just work", since most of the functionality is borrowed from existing cameras.<br />

<br />

I suspect Nikon will release a sports camera around the same time as Canon update the 7D. Nikon's corporate espionage department seem to be pretty effective (given the D600/6D launch). If they "go too soon", Canon can respond. Or maybe Nikon feel they've already dealt with the "lower pixel count, better reach, fast frame rate" market with the 1-series. I just don't know whether Nikon is merely falling slightly short of what people want (and a bigger buffer would do), or whether they really need to aim higher.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Robert K., keep in mind that the D7100 uses the same AF module as the D800, which has a lot of left AF point issues.

 

Meanwhile, the D600 and D5200 have the same AF system as the D7000.

[craig_gillette]

<p>Did that module - used in the D800 - have those issues on the other cameras where it had been used earlier?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Craig, the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module with 51 AF point début with the D3 and D300 on August 23, 2007, as those cameras were announced simultaneously. After those, the D700 (2008), D3X (2008), D300S (2009), D3S (2009), D4 (2012), D800/D800E (2012) and now D7100 all use that AF module.</p>

<p>There are also some changes since 2012 so that certain AF points can work with f8 lenses.</p>

<p>That is why I find it unexpected that an established AF module would suddenly have so many problems on the D800. But the D7100 has even heavier pixel density than the D800, so if you pixel peep, it is easy to find a lot of problems.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun - the AF issue with the 3500 on the D800 was allegedly an alignment issue with mounting or calibrating the AF sensor during manufacture, not with the sensor itself. It's true that things can occasionally go wrong, even with established parts. Nikon do seem to have fixed it, though, and it didn't require a complete camera redesign. The D4 hasn't had the same issues (which are worse than if it were merely masked by the reduced pixel density), and I don't believe there's any reason to expect the D7100 to, so long as the sensor is fundamentally accurate to 24MP (+ no low-pass filter) resolution. Presumably Nikon believes that the AF sensors in the D3200 and D5200 can keep up, and I'd like to think that if the 3500 was insufficiently precise, Nikon might have decided to update it. Besides, there's always live view. :-)</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Kind of what I expected. As "components," the AF system should be satisfactory. For that matter, I'm not sure there is anything groundbreaking or new here. Nikon (or any long term maker) should be able to design a new camera, adding somewhat to their existing feature/function and design set. It may be that they are having more "process" problems, like alignment and testing for AF or perhaps for lube or assembly issues for some of the oil spot type problems. In any event, "process" problems can be as critical to success as the hardware or firmware.</p>