Disappointed with Nikon and Photokina

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, I've no interest in a D7100/D300s successor other than from an academic perspective. I'm interested enough in the D810 that I'll probably get one, though there are a few things that it could have done better (most notably, while I'm very glad to have split screen live view, it's not quite implemented as I'd have liked; 4K would have been nice if possible, too) - but I'm not sure whether that counts as "Photokina".<br />

<br />

I'd have been pretty surprised if a "D750" that was an 8fps, 24MP D810 appeared at Photokina, since Nikon haven't shown any sign of pushing that kind of pixel rate. While I believe it's technically easier (in that the Expeed 4 could keep up), I'd be almost as surprised by an 8fps 16MP D700 successor, at least if it could hit 8fps without a grip, since the D4s just isn't that much faster or that much differentiated; I expect more of a D5, assuming the market for one hasn't collapsed before Nikon gets there.<br />

<br />

As for the actual D750, it fixes the biggest complaints about the D610 and is a pretty good spec-for-spec match for a 5D3. To an extent, I'm surprised the D610 is continuing. If Nikon are really trying to get the high end to FX - and I can understand why they would, financially (FX lenses are less wasteful of the mirror box space and there's less mirrorless competition) - then if anything I'd expect a "D500" without the AF motor or aperture ring (not needed by most lenses, though I appreciate them), possibly with a pentamirror and a Df-grade battery to save weight, and maybe a multicam 3500. The FX version of the D3x00 series, priced close® to the D7100. But that's a guess.<br />

<br />

I'm sure the D7100 will get refreshed eventually. Just now, there's a question of what it would be. A bigger buffer is a no-brainer, and going by the D810 the Expeed 4 should be able to provide that. Any AF update is going to be very minor unless Nikon get around to a major autofocus module refresh before the D5 is launched - and the D4s isn't that old. Anything based on the Expeed 4 would surprise me if it could go much faster than the D7100, for the same reason that a 6.5fps D750 surprised me less than an 8fps one would have. Short of actually responding to the 7D2 with a D300-class mini-D800, I really don't see the D7100 being significantly improved without some technological advances that I'd first expect to see in a D5-class camera. Rewarming the D7100 with a bigger buffer, a tweaked multicam 3500 and an Expeed 4 would not set the world on fire, even if it made some people happy.<br />

<br />

So, personally, I wasn't in the market for anything Nikon announced at Photokina, and didn't expect to be. I appreciate that there are some frustrated people wanting a (better) D700 replacement and a (better) D300s/D7100 replacement, but I'm not surprised that they've not been catered to. I didn't predict a D750, but the D610/D600 was getting on a bit, so maybe I should have done. The D7100 <i>may</i> be up next, but what Nikon appears currently able to ship as a D7100 would get swamped by other Photokina announcements. If Nikon had launched an 8fps D7200 against the 10fps 7D2 and 15fps, 28MP NX1 (both with phase-detect sensors), they'd not exactly look cutting edge. They can launch it another time and actually get some positive press.<br />

<br />

I quite like the flicker detect meter thing in the 7D2, though. I'll be interested to see how its sensor stacks up - though only academically.<br />

<br />

I'm reserving judgement on the Nikkor 20 f/1.8 - if it's stellar, I'm interested (but I do have a 14-24 already). I'm not sure that I'd have expected this before a VR 300 f/4, updates to the 105 and 135 f/2 lenses (DC or not), a new 200 f/4 macro, some new tilt/shifts or an update to the 24-70 or 200-400, but then I was hardly expecting a 58mm f/1.4 either.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Seems like the DSLR line-up is very good now, with the D610, D750, Df, and D4s, they cover the range rather nicely I would say.</p>

<p>The lens line-up has seen a good range of f1.8 primes now, although I think all of use could think of a lens or two that we would like (300mm/f4.0G-VR comes to mind ;-)</p>

<p>D400? C'mon, the D300s was a 2009 revamp of the 2007 D300, so that's 7 years ago. There is never going to be a D400.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems like the DSLR line-up is very good now, with the D610, D750, Df, and D4s, they cover the range rather nicely I would say.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Up to 2007 when Nikon had no FX DSLR while Canon had the 1DS series and the 5D (the latter @ below $3000), there were lots of complaints that Nikon was falling way behind. (Canon introduced the first 1DS in late 2002, @ $8000.) Back then, a Nikon executive gave an interview that it was still not economical for Nikon to produce FX DSLR.</p>

<p>Now the situation has reversed. After the two companies introduced the D600 and 6D within a few days in September 2012, Nikon has added/updated the four models Dan points out while Canon hasn't added anything, in over two years. Suddenly Canon adds a 7D Mark II after 5 full years since the original 7D, all of a sudden it is like Canon has done really great.</p>

<p>It is not clear whether the other camera makers are even profitable (in the photo equipment area). Sony has just announced a $2B loss for the current fiscal year, mainly due to losses in their mobile phone business.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon hasn't added anything, in over two years</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Sales are still strong for the 5D3 and the 6D. It wouldn't make sense to bring out new models when the manufacturing costs should be way down if the products are selling. Also, I think it indicates a changing market. The news that is getting play now is the possibility of a new large sensor MILC from Canon.</p>

[Gup]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon has added/updated the four models Dan points out </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Five, when you add the D810.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A high end large sensor mirrorless from Canon seems somewhat unlikely when they're still introducing high end lenses (400/4 DO IS USM II) with ultrasonic motor instead of STM (which is designed to focus properly on mirrorless and in live view / video).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Sales are still strong for the 5D3 and the 6D. It wouldn't make sense to bring out new models when the manufacturing costs should be way down if the products are selling. Also, I think it indicates a changing market. The news that is getting play now is the possibility of a new large sensor MILC from Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon D810 is merely a very moderate improvement from the D800. There is no reason to believe that manufacturing cost would suddenly shoot up by building essentially the same camera with minor improvements. (In this particular case, Nikon also moved final assembly from Japan to Thailand, so if anything, manufacturing cost might have come down.) What surprises me is that quite a few people on this forum are upgrading from the D800 to D810, even though most of the improvements are evolutionary. So product renewals definitely help sales, even on products that are already very good.</p>

<p>A while back, Josh Root and I had a private discussion about Canon. Both of us were surprised that Canon was quite slow in adding new cameras and lenses back then, which was quite different from the way Canon used to be, as the market leader. Josh left photo.net in early 2013, so it was around two years ago when we had that discussion. In other words, Canon's current situation has been around for a while. On the other hand, Nikon introducing the D600, D610, and D750 in quick succession is not necessarily a good thing, either.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<blockquote>

<p>Five, when you add the D810.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh right!! How did I forget the D810.<br>

<br>

D610, D750, Df, D810 and D4s.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should have listed those five myself, rather than trusting that Dan Brown. :-)</p>

[Spearhead]

 

<blockquote>

<p>A high end large sensor mirrorless from Canon seems somewhat unlikely</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Think what you want, this is from a Canon press release:<br>

<br>

<strong>New PowerShot Digital Compact Camera Under Development</strong><strong> </strong><br /><strong>Featuring large image sensor, high zoom capability and compact body</strong><br>

Canon is developing a new premium digital compact camera that combines the merits of both large image sensor and high-magnification optical zoom lens in response to the demands from users looking for high quality high zoom performance. Offering both convenience from a compact body and excellent super telephoto performance, this camera is perfect for everyday or travel shooting in high quality.</p>

<p>It's definitely mirrorless, although not the IL part.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>PowerShot is Canon's equivalent of Nikon's Coolpix, i.e. digicams. Usually when we (or at least I) talk about mirrorless, we are talking about mirrorless with <strong>interchangeable</strong> lenses. That key word is missing in that description.</p>

<p>I think a higher-end digicam with a zoom is a much better idea than Fuji, Sony, and Nikon's versions with one fixed focal length that cannot be changed, though.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>What surprises me is that quite a few people on this forum are upgrading from the D800 to D810, even though most of the improvements are evolutionary.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Let's see. D810, 70-200/4, f/8, 1/15s, ISO 100, tripod, M-UP, MC-30, EFCS off. 100% crop.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Now, the same but with EFCS on.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Both shots are at 200mm focal length (I mistakenly wrote to the caption f = 280mm which is incorrect).</p>

<p>Another reason for me to upgrade to the D810 was that some sources that I trust indicated that AF issues with f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors in low light had been resolved, which turned out to be true. All my f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors focus accurately on my D810, up close and at infinity, without the need for focus fine tune on any lens so far. By contrast, with my D800, the fine tune was mandatory on all lenses f/2.8 and faster, and the variation in optimal fine tune setting varied from lens to lens with standard deviation 9 (on the scale from -20 to +20). Finally the focus fine tune setting that gave accurate focus was dependent on the distance range on these lenses, i.e. I had to adjust to a different setting to work at close distances vs. at longer distances. Additionally, photography of subjects lit by blue sky required a different fine tune setting than tungsten and candle light. (Nikon designers stated in an interview they fixed the spectral dependency of AF offset with hardware changes in the D810.) All of these issues disappeared with the upgrade.</p>

<p>Evolutionary changes, yes, but these changes make life significantly easier for me.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon was quite slow in adding new cameras and lenses back then</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Given that Canon dSLR sales don't seem to doing worse than those from other manufacturers, it seems like a good way to keep up profits. I don't hear complaints from users about the current Canon lineup, other than the 7D, which people have complained about for a couple years. I used it (not mine, belonged to a studio) and found high ISO performance suffering slightly but other than that, it worked as well as anything else I was using. The incremental gain with new models doesn't seem to be impacting the results the way it used to.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't hear complaints from users about the current Canon lineup</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the 6D can certainly use some improvements. As starters, a better AF system (like more than just 1 cross-type AF point? The 7D Mark II has 65 of them) and dual memory cards. If Canon can trigger a bunch of current 6D owners to upgrade to some 6D Mark II, it'll be more additional sales for them, not to mention that improved features can attract new buyers who are not happy enough with the 6D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's see. D810, 70-200/4, f/8, 1/15s, ISO 100, tripod, M-UP, MC-30, EFCS off. 100% crop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, Ilkka, you found one shutter speed with a specific focal length where there can be a difference. Do you have any comparison when the shutter speed is 5 seconds and when the shutter speed is 1/1000 sec.?</p>

<p><br />I find it amusing that all of a sudden, the D800 has so many "problems" that an update to the D810 is a must. After using the D800E for 2.5 years, I never noticed that it couldn't capture a sharp image. Same for many generations of DSLRs without the latest shutters.</p>

<p>And BTW, the AF module on the new D750 is the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500 II, which can work down to -3 EV and has never been available on any previous camera. In other words, the AF systems on the D4S and D810 are "obsolete" so that you must get a D750 now. Otherwise, next time you try to photograph someone working inside a darkroom, that D810 might not work as well as the state of the art AF can be. :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

The results at 1/15s, 1/30s and 1/60s showed similar difference between EFCS on and off. 1/125s and 1/8s showed a bit less

degradation due to shutter shake but it was still clear to see. With a heavier lens, the 200/2 with 1.4X TC (280mm focal length) the effect

of the mechanical shutter was much less marked than with the lighter 70-200/4 (which was mounted on RRS foot and collar) no doubt

because of the mass which is not as easily swayed by the shutter movement. I think the RRS collar on the f/4 zoom is not particularly

useful if a TC is not used.

 

I believe our different opinions of the D800's AF are related to the typical apertures in use. I like the aesthetics of f/1.4 and f/2 and I use

these apertures also for moving subjects, so any AF issues show up in my use quickly. If I were to shoot mostly at f/4 and smaller, I would

see no significant AF issues (I know this since I sometimes shoot like this). For me it is worth it to use wide apertures mainly due to

aesthetic reasons, a secondary reason is low light; another photographer might not see it worth the trouble. With regards to reporting issues now, I reported them before

also but continued to use the D800 because of its nice sensor and image quality. The earlier FX cameras in the previous generation did

not cause me AF issues, the lens to lens variability of focus fine tune in the D3X was about one half of that of the D800 which suggests

that the enhanced sensitivity came with a price.

 

Since the D810 works fine I have no intention of buying the D750 although its sensor and fps specs would be a good match to my needs (and I already have a backup camera which is of much older generation but is reliable which is above all important to me).

I am happy to have something that works well rather than go blindly look something different. Previously I was burned by the naive belief

that increased AF sensitivity in low light in the D800 would not lead to reduced accuracy, which it did. So I am not so easily jumping on

another AF system which might again be less accurate, until fixed years after. I am not saying there will be problems, just that increased

sensitivity does not automatically mean better accuracy. By all means do beta testing on it. I like the D750 based on the specs but I

normally am not interested in buying something if I don't have a problem that it solves. The D750 would alleviate my data storage

problems but that's not enough to buy the camera. Also it doesn't have EFCS which seems to be a useful feature to have for landscape

photography with telephoto lenses. Previously I sold the AF-S 80-400 because of poor sharpness at shutter speeds from 1/2s to 1/80s at

400mm; that seems to have been an unnecessary move since the EFCS of the D810 seems to be so effective. However, I didn't see this

feature coming. It is clear that I will not buy another camera without EFCS (the D750 does not appear to have it; at least I could not find

mention of it in the manual) because in the winter those slow shutter speeds as often necessary in landscape photogarphy in my country.

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p> Usually when we (or at least I) talk about mirrorless, we are talking about mirrorless with <strong>interchangeable</strong> lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup!<br>

I don't want to get flamed but really when people said mirrorless they don't simply mean a camera without mirror. We had camera without mirror for a hundred years already. When they said mirrorless they meant that it is a digital camera, interchangable lens, capable of a viewing system that view thru the lens and yet there is no reflex mirror. So something like the Leica M9 isn't really mirrorless. The M-240 is because it offers a way to view thru the lens. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>BeBu: So, a 5x4 with a scanning back... I wouldn't argue about the M9 being described as "mirrorless". The distinguishing characteristic, for me, is that no space is needed for the mirror box and prism. But each to his own.<br />

<br />

I'm with Ilkka - I love my D800e, and I don't regret its purchase at all, but there's no doubt that it has some minor niggles. By all accounts, the D810 solves many of these niggles, so for me it's worth the upgrade (or will be when the price drops a bit). AF on the D800 has been particularly troublesome for me, which on Ilkka's testimony alone makes the D810 tempting. But the D810 solves a particular list of problems, and if you're not suffering from those problems, there's no point in upgrading - just as my interest in the D750 is purely academic.</p>

 

<blockquote>I don't hear complaints from users about the current Canon lineup</blockquote>

 

<p>Up against the D600, the 6D's specs were pretty poor (lower resolution, lower frame rate, worse autofocus - or at least, fewer AF points, worse dynamic range, only one card slot, no flash, smaller screen...) The thing that wasn't entirely clear from the specs is that the 6D is extremely good in very low light - better than the 5D3 - but that's the sole redeeming feature. I've no idea how they're selling, though. The D750 keeps even the 5D3 pretty honest, so I don't know whether Nikon will continue fighting the 6D on price with the D610, will introduce an even-more-pared-down model below it, or what, but the 6D looks even more outdated against the D750 than against the D600. I guess eventually there'll be a 5D4, although for many users it's not so hugely outclassed by the D750 or D810, mostly because of the autofocus. I'm not so surprised that the 5D3 looks slower than and has inferior autofocus to the 7D2 - the same was very much true of the 5D2 and 7Dmk1 generation. Canon certainly aren't rushing with the full-frame cameras - they've historically taken their sweet time anyway, speaking as someone who got a D700 after giving up waiting for a 5D2 - but maybe they don't feel particularly pressured. The 1Dx still keeps a D4s awfully honest. To me, their biggest limitation is the low-ISO dynamic range, but the dual-ISO Magic Lantern trick helps there a bit.<br />

<br />

As for the other cameras... well, Canon's only significant sensor update in the crop bodies in a long time has been the 40MP phase detect thing. It remains to be seen how well this works in the 7D2, but from what I read of the 70D I don't think Canon will be throwing away the mirror box just yet (or at least, the M series won't be replacing the DSLRs) - though it's handy for video. Initial reports suggest that we shouldn't expect the 7D2 to fix the low-ISO dynamic range limitation of the other Canons, but I doubt this'll stop them selling - and apparently nor will only having 20MP to play with. The 7D2 has a very high-end AF system (assuming we don't have another 1D3 and it actually works), but there are plenty of comments out there saying that 18-20MP isn't much of a boost, 8-10fps isn't much difference, where's the 4K video, etc. Even in the absence of a "D400" I can't see a huge number of Nikon shooters switching systems to get at the 7D2, though they'd certainly help their cause by upping the buffer and possibly frame rate of the D7100.<br />

<br />

With the possible exception of Leica (whose announcements were equal parts impressive and weird) and Samsung (who are not exactly a proven quantity yet - and as a Nikon user, the dials are in the wrong place), not many companies came out of Photokina with much wow factor. That doesn't excuse Nikon, but it's easy to claim the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Sometimes that's because people have been peeing on it.</p>

[john_holcomb]

<p>The D700 and D300(s) were spectacular and beloved products which Nikon has refused to update. Since the D700 went out of production, and the D300s became obsolete a couple of years prior to going out of production, Nikon sports and action shooters have been left without a budget/step-down sports/action camera.<br>

Nikon appears to be playing a dangerous game with its own customers, trying to force them to ante up for the D4(s). I think the likelier outcome is that they will slowly migrate to Canon, with rich photogs using 7DIIs as second bodies for their EOS 1DS Xs, and poor ones using the 7DII as their primary body.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>To that point, with the Canon 7DMKll out Nikon will lose many of their long time buyers. I don't even think the 7DMKll has to be that great to swamp Nikon. If the 7DMKll does test out well Nikon's going to be in a world of hurt. There's only so much abuse people will stand for before jumping ship no matter how many lenses they have.</p>

[j._steven_ueckert]

<p>My disappointment with Nikon is calling the new body "D750" as if it were a successor to the D700. More appropriately it should be called a D650 as it seems more in line with the D600 & D610.<br>

In 2008 Nikon brought forth the D3, then they took the sensor from the D3 and put it in a smaller form factor body delivering the same IQ as the D3, albeit at a mere 5 fps. BUT, Nikon offered the provision of 8 fps with an accessory battery grip using the same battery as the D3. I sold a pair of D3 bodies replacing them with a pair of D700 bodies and battery grips (and D3 batteries) in the spring of 2009. I loved the smaller form factor of the D700 and added the battery grips for sports and other occasions necessitating a higher cycling rate.<br>

Then Nikon brought out the D3S but didn't offer that sensor in a D700 class body. Then Nikon brought out the D4 but didn't offer that sensor in a D700 class body. True, the Df shares the D4 sensor. I hope no one considers the Df as a successor to the D700, not a chance.<br>

Now Nikon brings out the D750, a very worthy competitor to the 5D3, even offering 1/2 fps more than the Canon. How many years already has the 5D3 been available, how much longer until a 5D4 comes to market no doubt with at least a 7 fps cycling rate? The D750 is not a sports or action camera in the year 2014, it might have been in 2010. Had Nikon simply put the D4 sensor in a body the size of the D750 (or even D700) with a native cycling rate of 5 or 6 fps and an option of adding a battery pack providing only a cycling rate of 8 fps, I think they would sell as many as they could make. And with the high IQ (ISO 6400 and up) perhaps not even as good as a 5D3, I'm afraid Nikon has again misjudged the market they once dominated with the D700. Neither the D610, Df or D750 will draw Canon shooters away from the 5D3 like the impact of the D3 & D700 in 2008-2009.<br>

Good luck Nikon, I think you are going to need it.<br>

For the record, I switched from Nikon to Canon when the EOS 1D Mk IIn was overwhelmingly better than both the D2H or D2X I used. When the D3 came out I was glad I had kept most of my Nikon glass which I've always preferred to the comparable offerings from Canon. Sadly, I didn't hold on to my Canon glass and when the 5D3 obviously offered so much more than the D700, I had to reacquire Canon lenses when I moved to the 5D3 from the D700.<br>

I've been watching Nikon wondering if they would ever seriously compete with the 5D3. I don't think they want to as the D750 just isn't that much more especially with the expectation of a 5D4. Canon hasn't always gotten it right though, remembering the AF issues of the 1D Mk III and that many believe the 5D3 is what the 5D2 should have been. But it does seem that Canon realized the market share they lost when the D3 (and subsequently the D700) appeared and they (Canon) seem determined not to let that happen again. Nikon, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand that there is a market segment that cannot justify or otherwise afford either a D4 or 1DX and depend on a prosumer camera such as a D700 or 5D3.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I sold a pair of D3 bodies replacing them with a pair of D700 bodies and battery grips (and D3 batteries) in the spring of 2009.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have just explained why Nikon is not interested in repeating their business mistake by introducing the D700 as the "D3 junior," initially at 60% of the D3's price ($5000 vs $3000) but soon dropped to about half the D3's price.</p>

<p>Consider yourself lucky that the D700 was available around $2500 back in late 2008, early 2009. Back then, I too was all set to buy a D3 but immediately decided to switch to the D700 in the first day I saw one. I bought a D700 on the spot.</p>

<p>I am sure a lot of customers would be delighted if Nikon starts selling the D4S at $1000 each, but that is not a sustainable business model.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>For the record, I switched from Nikon to Canon when the EOS 1D Mk IIn was overwhelmingly better than both the D2H or D2X I used. When the D3 came out I was glad I had kept most of my Nikon glass which I've always preferred to the comparable offerings from Canon. Sadly, I didn't hold on to my Canon glass and when the 5D3 obviously offered so much more than the D700, I had to reacquire Canon lenses when I moved to the 5D3 from the D700.</em><br /> <br /> So Nikon -> Canon -> Nikon -> Canon? <br /> <br /> I haven't switched during the time I've been serious about photography (20 years), even though for a time Canon made better products for my purposes when Nikon didn't have full frame digital cameras (but I didn't like the original 5D's handling, so its existence didn't tempt me to switch after trying it out). I was flexible enough and patient enough for Nikon to make products that help me achieve my vision - which they have, and today they have a product portfolio that is a bit better for my purposes than Canon's. But I don't expect the products to be given away below cost, especially in a time of declining sales of the camera market. I don't want Nikon to go into financial insolvency by insisting on making products that they cannot make money from. What Nikon's manager said in dpreview's interview is (not verbatim) that they're studying the demand for the products that were mentioned by the interviewer, which included successors to the D300s, D3X and a larger sensor mirrorless camera. I think that is very wise to do, not to make products before they have a good grasp of what is requested and how many people really are willing to pay X amount of money for it (X being a variable to be optimized), and if a profit can be made. In the long term I think Nikon is in a better position in the FX market than DX, simply because in DX there are many new competitors and prices are very low (basically in a struggle for market share, several companies are giving away products on the market at low prices without making a profit, which reduces other manufacturers' chances to make money as well).<br /> <br /> Nikon shifted their focus from high speed moderate resolution cameras to generally higher resolution, high image quality, moderate speed cameras, around 2011-2012, no doubt as a result of user feedback. More people requested high resolution than high speed. The wisdom of that can be debated especially in an age where most images never make it beyond the computer screen, but there is no question that they succeeded in making cameras (and lenses) with extremely high image quality. I like what they did, especially in the latest iterations. I liked the previous generation (D3 etc.), too, but not as much, as I could never really take advantage of the high speed mode (CH) and yet the lenses I used could have taken advantage of higher resolution. It was mostly out of focus frames that I got in CH mode. No thanks! S mode works best for me. However, note that since the D800 Nikon hasn't increased the FX pixel count, in fact they have made some more 16MP and 24MP models, and there have been gradual increase in fps rates, so it is likely that eventually the fps rates will get to what it was (8fps) while preserving high resolution and very high image quality in general. So if you are a frequent CH mode user, I wouldn't throw in the towel yet. Patience!</p>

<p>BTW Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I think that higher end DX DSLRs (including D7100, 7D Mk II) are, for some photographic tasks, the best tools available, and I wouldn't be driving down their production or starving anyone from their favorite tools. But I am not an economist or executive - I just look at things from a technical and aesthetic point of view, and in the absence of financial data and user feedback that only the manufacturers have, it would not be possible for me to make the decisions of whether it is in the best interests of the company to make or not make such a camera in the future.</p>

[j._steven_ueckert]

<p>"So Nikon -> Canon -> Nikon -> Canon? "</p>

<p>For 33 years I supported my family and myself as a photographer for the two largest newspapers in Texas, both among the half dozen largest in the USA. When I embarked on that career I decided to use the best tools available to get the job done. During the film era that was Nikon for SLRs and RF Leicas. When my paper went digital, the Nikon shooters were issued first the D1 and then the D2 series, Canon shooters got the current Canon 1D cameras. Due to staffing changes and budget options, after a year with the D2H & D2X bodies, I had the opportunity to change to Canon 1D Mk IIn bodies. For me that was a huge improvement, and a no brainer. Knowing I was going to retire at the end of 2008 I weighed my options, the Nikon D3 was again a no brainer for me, even though I was an early adopter of the original 5D. After using a 5D and D40 from early 2007 to mid-2008 for most assignments and the aging Mk IIn bodies for sports, it was obvious in mid-2008 when I contemplated freelance work after retirement, that the D3 was best for me. Then the D700 and battery packs (with D3 batteries) became even better. The D700 bodies carried me through mid-2013. When it was obvious that Nikon was not going to update the D700 with another actual prosumer camera, and the 5D3 was the real deal, not like the 1D Mk III that badly hurt Canon's reputation, begrudgingly I invested in a pair of 5D3 bodies.<br>

Given Nikon's most recent offerings of a potential prosumer camera: D600, D610, Df and D750, my opinion is Nikon does not want to threaten flagship sales be it the D3S, D4 or D4 successor, with a true successor to the D700. Fortunately for me and a plethora of students, wedding shooters and those who can't or won't justify the 1DX, Canon updated the 5D2 with the 5D3 and now there are rumors of a 5D4.<br>

I still love my old Nikkors and have yet to dispose of my D700s (haven't touched them in more than a year now). It pains me to consider them and a D700 knowing how much better is the 5D3 for what I shoot. I've looked at the Df and thought if only it could do 8 fps, or even 7 fps. I have absolutely no use for either a D600 or D610 and don't consider the D750 as any rival to the 5D3. I've actually used my long Nikkors with Rayqual adapters on my 5D3 bodies. While the images are excellent, losing their AF, auto aperture and EXIF data with the 5D3 is one step forward and two or more steps backwards.<br>

A long answer to a short question.</p>