If Canon came out with a 7D mkII would Nikon upgrade the D300s?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>If Canon updated their 7D to a 7D mKII would Nikon follow suit and upgrade the D300s? I have a feeling that the Canon upgrade would trigger a Nikon upgrade. If you think about it, Sony has the A77 which is every bit a Pro body that the D300s is and it's a 24mp body and Pentax has the 24mp Pro body in the K3. I love my A77 but would by a D??? if and when it ever comes out.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>no. buy an d7100 or keep what you have. </p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Nikon will only update the D300 after I buy (and keep) one. It will happen within 15 minutes of my purchase.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Yes!<br /> On second thought: No!<br /> Then again: maybe!<br /> Finally: won't see either!<br>

<br /> Canon's 7D upgrade is almost as overdue as Nikon's D300/D300S upgrade - and in both cases, the lower-end cameras have move upward to almost fill the gap. Seems quite likely that neither camera will have a true successor. The D7100 is better than the D300 in nearly every aspect (that stupid small memory being the exception) and the same could be said for the 70D. Smaller and lighter seem to be more important than external controls and fast frame rate.</p>

<p> </p>

[JosvanEekelen]

They wouldn't dare.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yes! Another thread to speculate on the D300 successor.... woohoooo!</p>

<p>Some reading pleasure: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cfvh , http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bh47 , http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c3ex , http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bFfJ , http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Z8ar<br>

A popular subject since 2011.... Do we really need to go on rehashing this decision from Nikon? Whoever has real information on whether or not Nikon plans to replace the D300s and how, won't tell. Whoever tells he knows what Nikon wants to do, doesn't know.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm going with "probably". Likewise, Canon would probably update the 7D if Nikon updated the D300s. Both seem to have been perfectly willing to ignore Sony, Pentax et al. for the intervening period, possibly because the big two still have a lens advantage for people wanting a pro camera (though not so much if we look specifically at DX lenses).<br />

<br />

There are a lot of rumours that Canon will respin the 7D, though the last I saw suggested "not yet". I waited for an original 5D update through several years of rumours before switching to Nikon; Nikon seemed to know exactly when the 5D2 would be launched, and got the D700 ready. I suspect a lot of things are prototyped by both companies so that they're ready to respond if the other one twitches. I suspect, if Canon know what they're doing and when (and, speaking as an employee of a big electronics company, it may be optimistic to think that these decisions are made a long time in advance), Nikon will know at some point thereafter. The reverse may well be true. Otherwise, it's very hard to say with any accuracy what's about to be released, what's a prototype that may or may not become a product, and what's complete myth.<br />

<br />

So I advise, with some trepidation, against waiting for a D300 successor just because there are 7D rumours. If you want to wait for a D7100 successor, the simple fact that it's the oldest current Nikon body suggests that it may get an update, although - beyond the buffer - it's hard to say what might get upgraded.<br />

<br />

There are times when there are good hints about what's coming. For example, the BlackMagic PCC was half price when I looked last week, and gave me a strong feeling that it was going to get a Photokina refresh - though since the price seems to have gone back up, I'm now less sure. Market watching is never reliable.<br />

<br />

But with Photokina coming up, it might not be a bad idea to wait and see, rather than speculating.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Nope. Neither are happening "Pro" DX is over. 7100 and its successors are the closest I think you're gonna get.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

No, I don't think Nikon would answer Canon, they are very innovative in their own right and give us many logical options

to choose from.

That said, I am super happy with the D7100 series. I think Nikon did a fantastic job giving us that small light excellent

machine to work with. For the type of professional assignments and personal work I do, it's an outstanding choice.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Considering how much bigger the FX D600 <strong><em>isn't</em></strong> compared to the DX D7100...are we now saying that DX was only ever a temporary stop gap before full-frame sensors became affordable?</p>

<p>Anyone actually know how much more a FX sensor costs to make compared to a DX sensor?</p>

<p>DX is in no way more pocketable than FX but some of the lenses are undeniable smaller, and in Nikon's case of poorer spec too.</p>

<p>141 x 113 x 82 and 760gm for the D600</p>

<p>136 x 106 x 76 and 675gm for the D7100</p>

<p>Although @ 125 x 98 x 76 and 480gm for the D5300, I expect the D7<em><strong>2</strong></em>00 to be lighter, but not much smaller.</p>

<p>Considering the only real difference* is about 5gm of extra silicon chip, 25 gm of mirror/pentaprism and 5 gm of shutter, the difference is only ever going to get smaller. The screen > flange distance can't get any smaller.</p>

<p>In many cases the battery is the biggest single component (difference) and the smaller, lighter consumer units such as the EnEl14 for 400 shots are indeed tiny compared to a 2000 shot EnEl4.</p>

<p>*Estimates, but you get the idea!</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>DX is in no way more pocketable than FX but some of the lenses are undeniable smaller, and in Nikon's case of poorer spec too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has become my issue. And it's why my camera of choice is no longer DX (although, for now, I've kept my D90 and some lenses) but µ43.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>are we now saying that DX was only ever a temporary stop gap before full-frame sensors became affordable</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes that seems to be quite clear now. The woefully inadequate DX lens system (or should I say lopsided towards consumer-grade zoom solutions) is proof enough (not only Nikon but Canon too).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone actually know how much more a FX sensor costs to make compared to a DX sensor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't know - but am guessing (or have read it somewhere) that it's about 10x. Less FX sensor per wafer and higher percentage of unusable sensor per wafer as the main reasons for the difference? In addition to lower production numbers of FX vs DX cameras?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DX is in no way more pocketable than FX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Part of the blame is that Nikon was stuck with the F-mount (or more precisely the flange-to-sensor distance) - otherwise the camera could be a made a bit smaller. Canon at least made their crop sensor mirrors smaller to allow EF-S lenses to protrude farther into the mirror chamber but had to make their EF-S lenses incompatible with their full frame bodies as a result. Not that using DX lenses on an FX camera is something all that desirable.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote><blockquote>Anyone actually know how much more a FX sensor costs to make compared to a DX sensor?</blockquote>

Don't know - but am guessing (or have read it somewhere) that it's about 10x. Less FX sensor per wafer and higher percentage of unusable sensor per wafer as the main reasons for the difference? In addition to lower production numbers of FX vs DX cameras?</blockquote>

 

<p>I believe I've heard - and this <i>could</i> be my imagination - that silicon cost tends to go up with the square of area. That's partly a function of failures - if a die is perfect 50% of the time and you double its area, you've only got a 25% chance of the bigger die being okay. It's at least going to be a function of area, because that determines the number you can get out of a wafer - and bigger sensors pack less well, so it's slightly worse than one might hope (unless you pack the edges of a circular wafer with DX and compact sensors). Given that an FX sensor has 2.25x the area of a DX one (life would have been less confusing if someone had gone with 1.41x crop), I'd expect the sensor cost to be between three and five times, all else being equal. However, a lot more DX sensors get made, which probably also has an effect.<br />

<br />

I would be surprised if Nikon didn't react <i>somehow</i>, should Canon launch a (useful) 7D update. However, since there are long debates about what a D300 successor should look like, I'm sure the same is true for the 7D. The D7100 may already be a response, in that sense. If Canon actually have a crop sensor pro camera in its own market segment, as the 7D and D300 were when launched, I'd expect Nikon not to risk leaving that market segment to Canon, just in case it's massively profitable. Whether they would respond with what everyone else might expect is another matter.<br />

<br />

For historical perspective, I expected the 5D2 to be a somewhat cut-down 1Ds2 (16MP). I thought Canon wouldn't launch a 5D2 that was fully competitive with a 1Ds3, because it would kill the 1Ds3 sales. Nonetheless, they did - and it did. Nikon responded with an extremely competent camera in the D700, which also hurt D3 sales. I didn't think someone would make a budget FX body, because crippling the features to keep the price down (and differentiate the high-end body) would result in a <i>still</i>-moderately-expensive body because of the sensor, and budget features. Canon released the 6D with crippled features (compared with a 7D, even), and Nikon released the D600/D610 with limitations compared with the D300s and, especially, D7100. And people complained about both of them being too crippled for the money (though they did buy them anyway).<br />

<br />

Do I think it's a good idea for Canon or Nikon to launch a high-end crop-sensor body? Probably not - there <i>is</i> a market for people who justifiably want one (and not just the "you don't really make the camera I want, so I'll punish you by buying a D4s instead" crowd), but the gap between the D7100 and D810 is quite small, and any D7100 successor is bound to close it further, so I'm not expecting vast sales, and the line-up is already bloated. But <i>if</i> Canon decide to make one anyway, I think Nikon would respond, and vice-versa. My track record here has been poor enough that I'd no longer be that surprised if it happened.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Considering the only real difference* is about 5gm of extra silicon chip, 25 gm of mirror/pentaprism</blockquote>

 

<p>Is it that small? Comparing a film SLR with a pentamirror to one with a pentaprism - though admittedly, other bits tend to get upgraded as well - it felt like the prism could be a substantial difference. Not that there's strictly anything stopping someone from making an FX camera with a pentamirror.<br />

<br />

The Df is, of course, a bit smaller than the figures you mention for the D600 (as Shun's review showed, it's smaller than the D300). But there's more to that than the sensor.<br />

<br />

I still don't think that the size of the camera in use is an issue: the question is how portable it becomes when travelling. I still want to see someone make a collapsible mirror box, have the grip fold to the right, and have a collapsible pentamirror. Of course, getting the mount straight while it's collapsible is a small matter of engineering, and it wouldn't make the camera <i>small</i> so much as <i>flat</i>. But that might suffice. Add a properly collapsible telephoto lens or two - and ideally a kit lens using diffractive optics so that it folds relatively flat - and you could get a big sensor in a small package.<br />

<br />

Though I recently had my first look at an RX100-III, and I came away really wishing they were affordably cheap. Though I've yet to see a decent review of the lens.<br />

<br />

Still, a big sensor doesn't necessarily mean a big camera. The first 5x4 I handled was notably not much bigger, and much lighter, than my F5. A Mamiya 7 is featherweight, and not that big. A Rolleiflex even more so. But a big sensor is always going to cost <i>somewhat</i> more, and that's likely to be an issue until the cost of a sensor really becomes a negligible part of the cost of a camera - and since Moore's Law doesn't help with camera sensors, that's going to take a long time for anything bigger than micro 4/3.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The smart answers for this sort of thing can be found at <a href="http://www.ask8ball.net/">link</a>.</p>

<p>When I asked, it said<br /> "Better not tell you now"</p>

<p>I really think, quite sincerely, that this is as good an answer as you will get right now, especially, given that you are asking what will happen if some still <em>other</em> counterfactual event takes place.</p>

<p>You don't want to hear what Siri (I think she's Wolfram in drag) had to say about it all.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I question if Nikon has the cash to found the project now. All in all I don't think they will. The momentum seems to be with making smaller cameras, not larger.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>I question if Nikon has the cash to found the project now</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This may be true, but business/common sense says it <strong><em>must</em> </strong>have a prototype <em><strong>IF</strong></em> Canon suddenly produce a 7D MK11...unless there is active complicity between the big two.</p>

<p>Many of the hacking attempts at the lower Nikon DX bodies have revealed that they can <em>all</em> 'do' pretty much the same things but that various features are disabled from the flagship versions....kinda like building a nice powerful V8 engine and offering a V6 and a V4 version just by removing the spark plugs. No different R&D just software crippling.<br>

<br>

It obviously makes sense to do it that way, processor chip manufacturers do the same with locked cores. but it does lead you to think making Frankincameras is actually easier than it would seem.<br>

<br>

Frame rates are a similar case. The D700 can do 5 fps in base mode and 8 with a $300 grip. They could have made it do 8 right out the box but made an active business decision not to. Sure the battery wouldn't have lasted as long, but that's a user option. It already has Single, CL and CH...and CH is supposed to just go flat-out whatever. I don't remember the warning that came with the MB-D10, 'Using the camera @ 8fps will reduce it's expected lifespan'...maybe it was in really small print?<br>

<br>

Buffer issues still confuse me. I don't get the way it's been implemented; as I see it, the shot it taken, the data stream from the sensor is processed and goes to the buffer before being written to the card. Any processor intensive job slows down the frame rate. You can't get to top speed with Hi ISO NR set or ADL set. Why can't you buffer the sensor data and then process it and write it to card? Why bottleneck the camera's job of taking pictures??</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>From what I understand the D700 can do 8fps with the standard battery only if both exposure and focus are manual. Activating either autoexposure, autofocus or both together with the very short time interval for performing these functions in a 8fps sequency would require more current than can be provided by the single battery, so the grip with EN-EL4a or AA batteries is required to perform all these functions together. No conspiracy.</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I know it's DX, so the mirror/shutter will be a little smaller, but they managed to get 7fps out of a single EnEl3e for the D300<strong>S</strong>.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Yes, I think the smaller shutter and mirror can be moved quickly with less power. The power consumption of the main image processor (Expeed) has been reduced with newer camera iterations even though the processing is faster. By reducing the time it takes to process the AF data (faster processor, more advanced algorithms) it may be possible to reduce the mirror down time a bit, resulting in a slight increase in fps. Also by having the main processor consume less power, a greater part of the current that can be drawn from the battery can be used to speed up the mirror movement. I think these things may be responsible for the slight increases in fps from the D4 to the D4s, D600 to D610, D800 to D810, and maybe also D300->D300s.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Many of the hacking attempts at the lower Nikon DX bodies have revealed that they can all 'do' pretty much the same things but that various features are disabled from the flagship versions....kinda like building a nice powerful V8 engine and offering a V6 and a V4 version just by removing the spark plugs. No different R&D just software crippling.</blockquote>

 

<p>That's a bit harsh. Sometimes it's true - Canon absolutely crippled the 300D compared with the 10D for no very good reason (speaking as a 300D owner, that hurt). Most of Nikon's changes between ranges actually cost money (the flip out screen, the pentaprism, the second dial, the motor, the AF module...) There's a little bit of stuff in the BIOS that is simplified for the lower-end cameras in part to make the interface more beginner-friendly, but I don't think there's a lot of it. (Speaking as someone without a low-end Nikon so I can't see the limitations...) Occasionally Nikon have crippled something (trap focus, camera aperture control with AI-S lenses, etc.) but I'm not sure much of it is determined by range. Honestly, if Nikon let me pay an extra £500 for a D810 with an "unlocked BIOS" that I can tweak, I'd be there like a shot.<br />

<br />

As Ilkka says, I think the battery pack situation with higher frame rates is a bit odd. I don't know whether it's the AE/AF drive so much as whether the mirror mechanism is actually in place for long enough to allow those features without the extra current flapping the mirror about. That's a guess - it would be interesting to see a high-speed comparison of the mirror movement. The mirror does move faster on the D800 and D4 (reduced black-out time), so I'm not sure how much that experience translates. Not that Canon seem to have had a problem reaching 12fps with a full-frame mirror in place.</p>

<blockquote>Buffer issues still confuse me. I don't get the way it's been implemented; as I see it, the shot it taken, the data stream from the sensor is processed and goes to the buffer before being written to the card. Any processor intensive job slows down the frame rate. You can't get to top speed with Hi ISO NR set or ADL set. Why can't you buffer the sensor data and then process it and write it to card? Why bottleneck the camera's job of taking pictures??</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure. It may be that the processing is bandwidth-limited, and that hogging the memory bus reduces the frame rate. It's possible that the Expeed is actively busy in transferring data. The buffer size limit for D810 small raw is particularly mind-boggling. I assume there's something complicated about hardware and system resources - and that this is also responsible for the D800 "live view lag". Especially since it seems to have been fixed on the D810, which may or may not actually have a substantially different Expeed in it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the larger issue here is the lack of a truly competent DX lens selection. we've got an aging, unstablized 17-55, the 12-24 and 10-24 wide angles, umpteen 18-xx and -xxx zooms, the slowish, pricey 16-85 VR, the 35/1.8, the 85/3.5 macro and the nearly forgotten 10.5 fisheye. this for a system which is 10+ years on in maturity. so even if Nikon did revive the prosumer DX line, the lenses for it are incomplete.</p>

<p>the problem with this is that mirrorless cameras are smaller, lighter, and are starting to have very robust lens selections (as well as a choice of entry-level or high-end bodies). fuji just announced a 16/1.4 (24mm equiv.), as well as a 90/2 (135 equiv.) -- two focal lengths which should be available in Nikon DX, as should a fast 56 or 58. the 16/1.4 probably wont be cheap, but it should come in under the arm, leg, and buttock Nikon wants for its 24/1.4, which is only 36mm on DX. if you want something fast and wide for a nikon DX body nowadays, your ONLY option is the 3rd-party sigma 18-35/1.8. fuji is also planning a 55-140/2.8 zoom which is another no-brainer focal length for crop bodies.</p>

<p>it's clear that nikon's game is about protecting its market share, rather than making its customers happy. unfortunately, that market share is dwindling -- many d300 or d300s purchasers who dont need or cant afford FX have already moved on to mirrorless systems. that's what happens when you dont clear a logical upgrade path. if nikon released a d400 tomorrow, along with some less-boring DX lenses, they could plug this hole and restore confidence in their future direction. but since they havent yet, they probably wont.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Eric, you forgot the three 55-xxx lenses and the 40mm macro! Canon has even less! But the advantage that all their primes work on all their crop sensor cameras without restriction - whereas most Nikon primes don't AF on the lower-end bodies. In more than a decade Nikon has not managed to update many of their FX primes to AF-S - so how can we possibly expect them to focus on DX primes?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>90/2 (135 equiv.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The FX 85/1.8 isn't all that big - and I doubt that it would shrink substantially if it was designed for the smaller image circle of DX. And dare I say that there is now a 58/1.4 lens that's "perfect" for portraits on DX - with the only caveat that it costs more than any of the DX camera bodies currently available. But I am sure there are many takers - maybe even a few more than those who purchased the FX 24/1.4 so that they can have the 35-mm equivalent FOV on DX.</p>

<p>As soon as Nikon had an FX sensor, high-end DX was doomed (how's that for hindsight being 20/20?). Nikon concentrated on lower priced FX primes and zooms so that they had something to offer to those who were now forced into upgrading to FX. Too bad that the D600 backfired so badly and that the D800 wasn't the D700 replacement many had hoped for.</p>

<p>I was really surprised by the 18-35/1.8 - not only that it is even possible but by the quality of the optics. Of course, the lens is large and heavy (but so is the Otus 55/1.4 compared to other 50mm lenses). Now I am wondering why there isn't a 24-85/2.8 for FX - or a 16-70/2.8 for DX. I bet there won't even be a 16-85/4! Fairly certain Nikon will see the need to bring out another 18-xx(x) though. And another 55-xxx...</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Some reality regarding full frame and the photo enthusiast. New D810s are easy to find available for sale unlike when the D800 was originally introduced. I just did a search for used D800/e on the internet and there are over 300 for sale, one starting at $510. I know I sold my D800 to get the D810. My point is that while Nikon may not introduce a D400, the future for full frame is not that strong and there appears to be a lot of churning going on. <br>

For those that don't want full frame, and since there is no D400, potential buyers may start looking at high end mirrorless cameras, not an area where Nikon excels. I don't know about others, but my D810 with Sigma 24-105 is no light weight and takes up a lot of space in my backpack although the high quality of the images looks like it's worth it. It's not as big and heavy as a D4S but it is much heavier than a mirrorless counter part. <br>

As far as a high speed, sports oriented, cropped frame body is concerned, I gave up on Nikon and bought the 24 MP, 12 FPS A77 II. After shooting surfing action at the Wedge at 12 FPS, a D400 at 8 FPS is simply too slow. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, you forgot the three 55-xxx lenses and the 40mm macro!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you're right. does that really change things all that much? the proliferation of different iterations of consumer lenses represents a wall for DX users, to where you have to go to 3rd parties to get something which pushes the envelope even a bit, such as the tamron 60/2 macro or the aforementioned sigma 18-35.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The FX 85/1.8 isn't all that big - and I doubt that it would shrink substantially if it was designed for the smaller image circle of DX. And dare I say that there is now a 58/1.4 lens that's "perfect" for portraits on DX - with the only caveat that it costs more than any of the DX camera bodies currently available. But I am sure there are many takers - maybe even a few more than those who purchased the FX 24/1.4 so that they can have the 35-mm equivalent FOV on DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i havent seen the Fuji 90mm yet, but the point is with mirrorless' increasing options, there's less and less reason to be chained to DSLRs. as for the 58mm, there was already a less expensive manual focus option (the Voigtlander), but it just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to pay $1700 for a DX lens just to get AF, especially because you can get a fuji body AND their 56/1.2 for the same price. Ditto the 24/1.4 -- i dont think that's been a high-volume DX seller, and it makes little sense to me why nikon cant make a 16/1.8 and a 24/1.8 for DX, both of which are focal lengths which Fuji has accommodated (or will soon, with the 16/1.4.) Nikon wont even give DX customers a roadmap!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I bet there won't even be a 16-85/4! </p>

</blockquote>

<p>releasing this ^ would have earned nikon some goodwill points. alas...</p>