sebastian_ochoa2

<p>..and a 1.2/1.3x crop D400 would devastate the 7D or its succesor (if it remains FX) and would promote sales of Nikon DX and FX lenses.</p>

<p>Although great cameras, I do no see much need to change my Nikon D700 for either the D800 or the the D600. These clearly have two advantages over de D700: resolution and dynamic range at low ISO. Given that low ISO's are very frequently used (by myself, but not only) and that high dynamic capture capability is very desirable, both cameras do ofer an advantage over the D700. The resolution advantages are there too, but it is not everyone's need.<br /> Now both new models have in turn disadvantages over the D700: briefly, construction and AF on the D600, and SPEED (and file size) on the D800.<br /> There is no camera yet that replaces the last generation's D700. Prosumer body or 4 FPS or huge $6k camera? Perhaps I am very different form everybody else, but I personally do not like the compromises (if if I had to, maybe I would settle with the D800 and sometimes hate the speed and the filesize).<br /> In my very personal opinion I would only be tempted to freely change my magnificient D700 for s a "d700s" (or whatever Nikons brilliant naming gurus come up with) that had >5-6 FPS, D-7/800 level body construction, 100% VF, HQ video, wide AF zone (or a little wider, please), AF speed and accuracy from D700 or better, meter from the D700 or better, around 24 MP super high dynamic range sensor, all for $2799-2899. A quieter shutter would be appreciated too and an extra programmable button.<br /> I find the D7000, "D400" (DX or how about a large 1.3x DX?), "D700s", D800, D4 route much preferable as the actual D7000, D600, D800, D4 lineup, but that's just me. The D800 should have been the "D700x"...<br /> S.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>TR, I fully agree. That's why as must ask myself why they have not done it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I swear, if Nikon built an X100 for about the price of a D3100 (don't worry, they won't), I bet they'd sell like hotcakes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree with both points!<br>

The main problem with the NEX is handling/VF/controls, but I think everyone has his own preferences here. I hope they change (some) of this. There should be a Zeiss 2.8/35 coming, although not small.<br>

I opened the discussion here regarding the market for small big sensor cameras. This has led me to take a closer look at the Fuji, and the more I think of it the more I like some points of this concept. This is clearly a very personal thing and I would not try to convince anyone about it. I like the 35mm focal length and I find it ideal for the type of photography I would be doing with it. In fact, if I bought a leica I would probably use it most of the time with a 35mm lens, only now and then with a 28mm, but I am certain I would never buy a leica unless I win the lottery. The biggest problem, other than the price tag of the X100, is that with a fixed lens body we are forced to buy a lens each time we upgrade the camera. While sensor technology might be now more mature, we are still seeing great advances in some aspects with every new generation.</p>

 

Monica,

if you do children and family, the 70-200 could be somewhat long, specially on the D7000. But it depends on how you photograph people: I have very nice photographs of children (on the beach, on the street, playground) with the 80-200 on a D300s. The 70-200 it is a great lens. For group (family) photographs it is normally too long.

The D700 is a great camera, and you could very well be satisfied with it for many years to come. The 35/1.8 will not work on FF, and perhaps your zoom lenses are also DX and won't work. Would you sell your D7000 or keep it as a back up? The D700 will have a replacement soon, some say it could happen in a couple of weeks (at least the announcement). I - personally - would wait at least to see what camera will be announced, and then make a decision. The D700 will give you low light capabilities and shallower depth of field.

Only you can know what you need.

<blockquote>

<p>Many here now have given solid business reasons why Nikon is unlikely to do it the way you want them too. You do not seem very open to those arguments, solid as they are.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Solid arguments? I accepted the points Ilkka gave as a possible explanation, but if you mean the points that regard market analysis don't find them very solid. Most has been based on the X100, which is a pretty singular product.<br /> Sony went up to 17.9% of the international camera market (2010), thats 1% more than in 2009. Nikon went up 1.5% . Analysts interpret this way the increased share of Sony:<br /> “Sony’s and Samsung’s launching new mirror-less digital cameras helped them obtain more market share,” said Masahiko Ishino, an analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co.<br /> http://www.lpmag.me/themes/2011/04/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models/<br /> I am in no way asserting Nikon is doing everything wrong. The numbers speak for themselves. But that does not mean that they could still be growing more.</p>

<p>Ralph, I pretty much agree with you on all your points.<br>

<br />In general: While the X100 is a niche product, the small-cameras-with-large-sensor are not (>=m3/4). This link shows sales in Japan, april 2011: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbcnranking.jp%2Fnews%2F1105%2F110520_20063.html I count 4 of those cameras among the 10 most sold, Nex5 being the third and almost doubling the D7000. Bcn repots 32% of the japanese market goes to mirrorless cameras, between january and and may 2011. So certainly small cameras with a large-ish sensor are not a niche product.</p>

<p>Regarding all the general discussion about the X100: it was only an example of ONE of this kind of cameras. I listed m4/3, Leica and Sony NEX. In no way the camera I am suggesting would only be competing against the X100 (in fact, as an interchangeable lens camera it would barely be competing against it), so concentrating here on the # of X100 units sold or expected to be sold does not contribute to the topic here discussed.</p>

 

<p>Ilkka,<br>

we can only speculate on these things (at least myself), but in my opinion, the points you bring up are the most probable regarding the hesitation or reluctance on Nikon to produce a small large sensor (>=m4/3, preferably >) camera. I suggested a APC sized sensor with a small number of lenses, and I included a zoom. But i completely agree with you that the size of a zoom for such a camera is normally too large.<br>

I would find a system of only 3 small fast primes below 80mm (equiv) to be the way to go for such a camera. Rangefinders and small cameras are more appropriate for these focal lengths, anything above tends to work better with a d-SLR If everything really remains small, the competition against d-slr's wouldn't be as large, and anyways, Nikon would still sell a camera that would probably be between the price of a D5100 and the D7000. So it is not killing sales of expensive items in favor of much lower priced ones.<br>

Another point could be that making a small camera with a new shorter lens-to-sensor mount would the force the need to develop special micro-lenses and sensor tech.</p>

<p>Walt,<br>

<br /> sorry for lumping all those answers in only one post...<br>

<br /> I found this regarding numbers:<br>

<br /> Q26 : the expected sales figures have it?<br /> A26 : We hope that within the next year, global sales to reach 100,000 units. China sales reach 20,000 units.<br>

<br /> This comes from a fuji press conference in feb. 2011. Around march they announced they were surprised with the market reaction.<br /> Now, reading Thom Hogan, nikon should be selling arround 3.5 to 3.8m D-SLRs. So yes 100K is a lot less than 3.5m, but you are taking one model of one brand and comparing it with all nikon D-SLRs. And that for a model (X100) I agree is far from been able to be anyones cup of tea (price, fixed lens, firmware, etc).<br>

<br />But my main point is that I am not concentrating on the X100. It was just one example for a market segment defined by a large sensor in a small camera. If you investigate here, you will see for example that the panasonic g1 sold more than twice units than nikon d3000s in Japan in 2009. (the first introduced in may the second in july). If you look here http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html you will see how m4/3 compete directly with dslrs in Japan and how the japanese market responded to the introduction of m4/3's (compare 2008 to 2009).<br>

<br /> Look also here for some interesting comparisons:<br /> http://dslrphoto.com/dslr/japan-top-10-dslr-camera-sales-ranking-in-august-2010---3-sony-nex-5,19064.html (other months available as well).</p>

<p>Finally, my question here is not "Should I buy a m4/3 or wait Nikon offers something similar?" My question here is why Nikon has not shown interest in a market that is doing very well. The links I posted confirm that. Why is it for you so clear that Nikon "is NOT going to make" the kind of camera I am discussing?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>None of us knows exactly what Nikon has planned for the future - and even if any of us did - we'd be bound by NDA's and attorney's orders up the ying-yang. So they may well have one ready and raring to go - just waiting for the right time to release it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, and i hope they come up with something. Their experience and tradition might allow them to bring a introduce mature product.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Precisely. I read Hogan's review a few days ago trying to figure out the fuzz about the X100. As soon as I found out that it has a fixed 23mm/f2 lens, equivalent to a 35mm slight wide angle on FX, I pretty much stop reading. I am certainly not interested in a camera that has no interchangeable lenses, and worse yet, the lens that is permanently fixed on the camera is not a zoom. 35mm is a useful focal length, but I can't just use 35mm all the time.<br /><br />Additionally, the video capability without a zoom lens makes little sense.<br /><br />Asking people to define what this "great success" on the X100 is the right question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think you (and others here) mix success (=it has sold well) with desirability/versatility/appropriateness of the camera. I too find the camera is WAY to limited with its fixed focal lenght, as I wrote before. And the point is really that EVEN THOUGH the camera is so limited, it has sold in quantities that have surprised even Fuji.</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

i very much agree with you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> All this and a non-existant or crappy veiwfinder ... they are doing some cutting edge stuff, but they are not there yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nex is not yet there, but it has great potential and I think they CAN have great success. The biggest problem now are lenses and camera interface (including VF).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Define "great success."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Fujifilm announced on Saturday that it has been overwhelmed with orders for the just-released FinePix X100, and cannot keep up with demand for the camera" the published comment is based on a press release by Fuji: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://fujifilm.jp/information/articlead_0088.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, as far as I know, the D3100 and D5100 outsell the NEX bodies in most parts of the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that is most probably true, buy It does not have anything to do with my question. Nikon is able to produce excellent DSLR's and they are doing very well in that segment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Nikon released their latest financial numbers yesterday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I had seen that. Actually, operating income, consolidated general from q1 went up 226.4% against q1 2010, imaging products went 12% up, and operating income on imaging products went up 222%.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why? I actually hope the rumored 2.7X crop IS true. The Sony NEX may be a small body but the lenses are huge. The newest (announced but unavailable) Micro 4/3 bodies are small but if you use the kit zooms they won't fit in a pants pocket. The Nikon with perhaps an even smaller sensor and therefore smaller lenses may actually fit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you find the Leica and the X100 large? Do you find Leica lenses large? Examples that a large sensor small camera system are possible. I agree with you on your point about the NEX lenses (big and few), and that stops me buying one now. That is why I mentioned they opened up to 3rd party manufacturers and the chance to have very nice lenses on that camera. There are some pics floating on the web with Zeiss primes on that mount and they are not very large. m4/3 is very nice, they have small fast and good primes. The two things with that sensor are high iso noise (right now) and DOF (per se). The 2.7 crop will most probably be much worse on the first, and definitely much worse on the second.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...retro toys and what not, but when it comes down to actually taking pictures in any kind of circumstance, there is nothing like a single lens reflex camera to get the job done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Humm... ever heard about Leica? How about the considerable number of photographers (not sunday kids/flower shooters) that have used Leica? I don't have the slightest interest to debate this point, it does not make any sense, because each camera has is strengths and its place. Are Leica and the X100 toys, were the Contax and Mamiya rangefinders also toys?</p>

<p>I think Sony has a big future with their NEX type of cameras. They have opened up the door to third party lens manufacturers and they will probably be getting, in much shorter time, a very complete and line of lenses they could not develop themselves before the competition gets there. The beautiful Fuji X100 has been a great succes, even though it is expensive and has a fixed focal length. Then there is Leica that will announcing an APC camera (same mount) priced between M9 and X1. Not to mention the m4/3 success. Isn't that all indicative of the great market opportunity?<br /> I really do not understand Nikon. They should have been able to detect this market potential long ago. And worst still (if the rumor is right), their coming mirrorless, which should aim at this segment, will be heavily cropped (this is something I really hope is not true).<br /> How long ago were the Ricohs and Epson already successful?<br /> Why wouldn't Nikon offer us a retro style SMALL metal body interchangeble lens Rangefinder/Mirrorles with an ~APC sized sensor? And a set of 4 lenses: 1 all-around consumer zoom, and 4 SMALL primes? For example: 24,28,45,80mm (equiv) f/~2 mm (28 and 45 pancake anyone?). Is that too much to ask for?<br /> I am not trying to say developing such a camera is simple. It sure takes years of development and lots of investment. But I have almost no doubt Nikon wound be able to do this if they wanted to.</p>

<p>Here is a test where one can compare the 28 to the 35 and others. The 35mm is the better one there and has higher contrast. It does quite well already by f/2.8 center, and 5,6 corners. Not bad at all when compared to the 50mm f/1.8!!<br>

Go to the digital picture dot com and select the lens, not allowed to link, don't know why...</p>

<p>Eric, yes. I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 DX from my older DX system, could be a little soft on borders open according to tests, but I have not even noticed that and I don't care about either for my type of photography. I have been very satisfied with that lens, sadly not FF.<br /> Not that I 'really" want the 28, I'am deciding between the 28 and the 35. Other than the negative/mixed comments floating around, I fear it could be a bit too wide.</p>

<p>Eric,<br /> I meant the 28 f/2.8d seems to do well on apertures below (in number) f/5.6.<br /> Look at the link http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/550-nikkorafd2828ff?start=1<br /> It does better than the 35 f/2 (pretty close together on center, but better on borders) except above f/8 http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/444-nikkor_afd_35_20_ff?start=2<br /> Anyways, I don't take those tests as a final word, and tend to give more importance to my own tests or photographers opinions that have used both. Photozone does not measure contrast and as far as I understand focuses near infinity on all tests. I do find strange their result contradicts many opinions on the web. Their test was made for both tests on a FF camera.<br /> The Af 16-35, which I own, does better in resolution than the 28mm according to photozone (and also better than the 20mm and 24mm), but is behind the 35mm below f/5.6. Except on the 35mm extreme, which is its weakest focal length, the 16-35 does better in resolution as the primes, ableit being limited to f/4. It is 400g (i.e. 3 times) grams heavier than the primes too, and much bigger.<br /> The 28mm is also about $100 less than the 35mm <br /> The Sigma 28 seems to be well regarded, but does not fulfill the need of being small and light. As for the 85, I can only praise the f/1.4. No experience with the f/1.8.</p>

<p>Leslie, I am looking for a 2 (max 3) prime setup for the D700 which should include my 85mm.</p>

<p>Leslie,<br /> what I want is a lightweight lens set. I love the 85 f/1.4 and it is a bit too long on DX for me.</p>

<p>Shun and Eric<br>

Sad Nikon wants is to pay an arm and a leg for the 1.4 and carry the beast.<br>

The AF 28 seems to do well on photozone tests < 5.6.</p>

<p>Mihai,</p>

<p>that's good news, and its seems you type of photography is similar to mine.</p>

<p>Have you tried the AF 28? Or that focal length prime for your photography?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ilkka,</p>

<p>thanks for your reply. How would you compare the AF 28 vs the AF 35, both qualitywise and as a complement for the 85 in street and portrait photography?<br /> The 35 f/1.4 is out of the question for me, I want "small and lightweight" -- no doubt it is a great lens.<br /> And how much better is the 28mm MF to the AF? Not really sure I want another MF lens thou...</p>

<p>Thanks<br /> S.</p>

<p>I have the 85mm f/1.4, the 80-200 f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4 and a D700. I would like to have a set of two or three (preferably 2) primes as a lightweight, compact, easy to carry set-up. The 35mm focal length seems to complement the 85 well on FX and has been my first option.<br /> I would like to hear comments on 2 or 3 prime setup. What i like to do the most is street photography & portraits.<br /> Combinations could be 35+85, 28+85 28+35/50+85. For the very wide angle I have the 16-35.<br /> While many don't find the 35 f/2 bad, I am not sure how good it is. Does anyone "know" if Nikon has planned a replacement? Also very interested in hearing your comments on the f/2.0D.<br /> Thanks,<br /> S.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>D.B Cooper,</p>

<p>yes, it wouldn't work well for overexposure. You should be able or deactivate auto iso per shooting mode, but I would use manual mode with auto iso on, an not only as a bracketing function. We could call this mode "Manual/Auto-ISO".</p>

<p>On my last post I meant Elliot, not Arthur, on the second part of my response!</p>

<p>Dieter,<br /> there are differences in the speed priority and manual modes, grab your D300 and you will see. Try taking a photograph with speed priority at a speed lower that the one you set on auto iso and then look at the actual shutter speed used. In other words: it does not allow you to override the minimum speed from a metering mode that is intended for you to do that... you have to go through the menu. Same for manual mode. Nikon's Auto ISO is related to a minimum defined shutter speed, it should work the same war, but with aperture as a parameter, for the Speed priority mode. Also no data input from lens to the Auto ISO function as Arthur points out.</p>

<p>Arthur:</p>

<p>It does not work that way in manual mode, at least on my D300s which was sadly stolen last Sunday. Try using a shutter speed in manual mode which is lower to the one defined on the Auto ISO menu. In manual mode, the camera should disregard that setting and just compensate with higher ISO for eventual underexposure at certain situations. On each camera mode (Aperture, Speed, Manual) the Auto ISO function should have a different meaning. As it is right now, it is designed for AP mode.</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>I am glad to hear you had thought all that too and I agree completely. I have shot with some friends' Canons (DSLRs) and I have found the Auto ISO very confusing, but I admit never having read the Canon manuals. What you describe is exactly what I had thought, but I would go further and have a minimum defined aperture for the speed priority mode and a special manual mode as described above: auto ISO acquiring a different meaning for each shooting mode. I agree with you the actual implementation would be very simple for Nikon. In summary I think ISO settings should be a variable for exposure that should be more present on every shooting mode through an auto ISO function.</p>