Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 5 6 end

Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

hans98ko wrote:
Finally, I am really sad to see this thread coming to this situation where a group of DX users attacking a FX user who do not think DX still have the market or user advantage.

Can't we all have a civil discussion and let each have their own thought and believe?

Go back and reread the thread. The inflammatory posts are Kitty's ($2 cost difference between DX and FX sensors, DX is has poor quality on an absolute basis, etc.) and she's not being personally attacked, rather her very dramatic statements are being refuted. It's the FX user attacking the DX users, not the other way around.

Kitty is a very skilled photographer in her own right, but her statements about DX are just silly. We each have different needs. Heck, I own well over $30K of Nikon FX gear and at one point was closer to $50K... but only because the last pro DX body I used, the D300, had only 12MP and I needed more at the time. If I had a 24MP DX sensor in a D800 body, I'd prefer to use that instead for many of my photographic needs. I'd have loved to have that reach over the weekend for the Cocoa Beach Airshow, for example, where even 700mm (500/1.4x) was too short most of the time.

Sep 25, 2012 at 05:26 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

I agree - while there is disagreement here, I don't sense any attacking or disrespect.

Sep 25, 2012 at 06:51 PM

DGC1
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

No direct attacks were made. KittyK often has a very know-it-all, condescending tone to her posts and it's very irritating to many readers as is evidenced by the responses here. "My way or the highway" just doesn't cut it.

I am a nature photographer and as such, strongly embrace super telephoto lenses. I find little or no use for certain high quality lenses such as the 400mm f2.8 simply because it doesn't fit my needs. However, I would never say a bad word about it as it's reputation is legendary. I simply have no use for it. The same is true of the 200 f2. Another outstanding lens but useless to me. I don't do wedding photography but I don't make ignorant statements about wedding photographers or their gear. By the way, for the KittyK defenders and apologists, ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, not a measure of intelligence.

Despite her lack of skills with the English language, her attitudes come through loud and clear.

Sep 25, 2012 at 07:24 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

It's not about the size of the body and much as the cost. Also, while the same glass is used on DX and FX except at the UWA, the FOV you get is very different. Put another way, for a given FOV, I need a larger and much more expensive lens on FX than on DX. For those of us that don't need ISO values above 1600 but need all the reach we can get on a budget, DX is the way to go.

Example: Daytime sports with kids from dawn to dusk
Needs: 6fps or greater, f/2.8, 400mm+ FOV (FX equivalent), pro-level auto focus (aquisition & tracking)

DX Option: D300s + 300 f/2.8 $7800
FX Option: D800 + 400 f/2.8 $12000

for a difference of $4200 dollars. That's enough money to buy the rest of my entire kit in DX.

Even at the mid-range level for a good walk-around zoom:

DX Option: D300s + 17-55 $3200
FX Option: D800 + 24-70 $4900

for a difference of $1700

I've spent about $10000 on DX camera equipment and that weighs in at about 25 pounds ... to replicate my needs in FX would take over $25000 and weigh in at close to 50 pounds! That's not to mention the bulk of the FX kit.

DX enables my hobby at a level that FX prohibits due to cost, weight, and bulk.

Sep 25, 2012 at 07:46 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

And attacking the DX/FX choice from the point of reach required, here's what I get with a 200-400 and a 500:

DX: 300-600/4 and 750/4, or 420-840/5.6 and 1050/5.6 with 1.4x TC

FX: 200-400/4 and 500/4, or 280-560/5.6 and 700/5.6 with 1.4x TC

Apart from the obvious fact that one's maximum reach is 50% longer with DX, there's also the fact that I can use the same lenses to get the same FOV, but without the TC, so I get back one full stop of aperture. That extra stop of light partially counters the additional high-ISO noise performance of an FX sensor.

Sep 25, 2012 at 08:07 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #6 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Andre Labonte wrote:
I've spent about $10000 on DX camera equipment and that weighs in at about 25 pounds ... to replicate my needs in FX would take over $25000 and weigh in at close to 50 pounds! That's not to mention the bulk of the FX kit.

DX enables my hobby at a level that FX prohibits due to cost, weight, and bulk.

And have I mentioned just how hard it is to get those 50 pounds of FX gear into certain places? When on safari in Africa, sometimes it's hugely expensive to take 50 pounds of gear with you... and sometimes they tell you "it'll probably be on the next plane" and you can go without it or miss your flight.

Sep 25, 2012 at 08:11 PM

davidnholtjr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

hans98ko wrote:
For those who have waited so long for the mystical and illusional D300/s replacement or what many called it the D400...hope might be in sight!

Read about it...http://nikond400.org/2012/09/will-nikon-release-nikon-d400-in-setember-2012/

No guarantee that it will actually be here, but at lease there might be hope!

Continue to nag...nag and nag and you might get one at $2799.99 body only

That website is just someones dreams. They must have tons of time on there hands.

I pretty much gave up on a D400. I just bought a D3 and am pretty much FX only now.

Sep 25, 2012 at 08:14 PM

gfinlayson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

lxdesign wrote:
I personally love the DX format for shooting wildlife. I get more focal length bang for my buck. Give me an updated camera with lots of fire power... And I'll be happy.... So far the D7000 does that for me.

+1

If the rumoured D400 comes to fruition though, I'll be first in the queue. More pixels to crop from, 51 point AF and AF at up to f/8 on the centre points (big teles and TCs!!

) I used to have a D700 - miss the better AF of the D700, but love the extra reach of the D7000. I also don't miss the D700's machine gun shutter........

Sep 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM

MP79
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

hans98ko wrote:

... Finally, I am really sad to see this thread coming to this situation where a group of DX users attacking a FX user who do not think DX still have the market or user advantage.

Can't we all have a civil discussion and let each have their own thought and believe?
...

The answer to that question is yes, and I'm sorry you see the situation as being otherwise. I don't see any such attacks myself.

Had this user in question simply put things more along the lines as you did in your interpretation of his/her position and said something like "market demand is and should be moving from DX to FX in my opinion," or "FX now holds enough of an advantage for my shooting that I don't see myself buying another DX body," or other statements of a similar tone, and then added some personal explanations, it wouldn't have stirred up such a quantity of responses.

Remember that one of the cornerstones of a civil discussion is having some measure of respect for those who hold to other beliefs and would make other choices than your own, and one does this in part by choosing one's words with a bit of care to avoid making unnecessary inflammatory statements, such as in this case asserting that one thing is simply bad because another is more suitable to one's own needs.

Better to explain what works for you and why or what doesn't and why not than to simply dismiss what doesn't work for you as simply junk because it's not your choice. In the former discussion we might learn something very valuable about the photographic tools on the market and available to us, in the latter we only learn things about a user here that we would rather not.

Sep 26, 2012 at 04:27 AM

MP79
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

I for one really thought a direct D300s replacement (aka D400) was a sure thing. I still have hope, but I now wonder if the next top of the line DX body will be the d7100 or whatever it will be called, which perhaps will fall somewhere in between the current D7000 and D300s in terms of pro features and build quality.

In any case, be it a D7100 or a D400, I'm waiting for it and will probably buy it right away unless Nikon does something unpredictably crazy with the price or specs.

Edited on Sep 26, 2012 at 02:23 PM · View previous versions

Sep 26, 2012 at 04:41 AM

zoetmb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Bernie wrote:
At those prices, may as well get a D800 and shoot in DX mode...

Really? You think $1700 is the same as $3000?

Considering that the D600 is $2100, I think $1700 is very realistic for the D400, especially if the D400 retains the "semi-pro" body design. If the D400 is a worthy successor to the D200, D300 line and it's $1700, I'd rather have that than the FX D600 in which the body is mostly a D7000.

Sep 26, 2012 at 05:32 AM

hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Thanks! Guys, I think we have a much better discussion now.
At lease from the last 10 posts or so we get to find out more about how each individual photographer is shooting with, the focal length, aperture, with or without TC, the weight difference, the type of condition they shot with, and finally how much they have already invested in. With these info we get to have a better understanding of each individual.

Now going back to the discussion of pricing if it ever get release, I personally think that it will not come down to $1700 or $1800, I think it will more likely be around $2800 closer to when the D300/s or D700 was released and sitting between the D600 and D800.
Because one have to think about the other series in the range, the 3000, 5000, 7000 series. lets say it did come out at $1800 than who will want to buy the D7000 or the D600? It will split their market apart. The other thing is that if it is build like a D300/s or D700 with mostly AlMg alloy it should have a status above that of the D7000 or the D600, don't you all think so?

Maybe we should all divert away from what is already in the box, lets think of what is out of the box that can help us the users as well as the manufacturers.

I was thinking on the line of those who said that they want to have the view of the DX in the view finder rather than a gray off area which is smaller as in FX. I think this can easily be resolved by adding a magnifier eye piece to the VF which will give the FX a full DX view with the same magnification ratio.

The other thing about the cost and reach of the super telephoto lenses. Remember the good old days of film with their mirror lenses? It is not very bulky and costly, the only thing is that it has a fixed aperture mostly with f5.6, f8 or f11 and with a ring or a dark spot on the picture.
Recently I was thinking about the translucent mirror on the Sony cameras. Can't the designers make use of this concept to apply the translucent mirror on a mirror telephoto lens? This way it will be brighter because more light is transmitted towards the sensor which means a larger fixed aperture, and there will be less or almost no ring effect on the picture. The cost of making these lenses will also be cheaper and be more affortable to users like the birdies. The next thing is it will also be smaller as in shorter and lighter then most straight line telephoto lenses.
The only problem I can think of is that the cutoff transmission of light for the translucent mirror, allow just enough light to activate the sensor at a standby state or trashhold but not enough to register any signal until those coming from the center piece. Well just a wild thought.

Any more out of the box suggestion that will make this an even more interesting discussion? Go for it!

Dreams sometime do come through.

Sep 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

D200, D300, and D300s were all under $2000. And it remains true that a DX sensor is significantly less expensive to manufacture than an FX sensor. Plus, Nikon needs to have their cameras spaced by $500-$600 in order for customers to be able to move up or down more easily (ideally, up). So it makes sense to me that you have a pair of DX bodies (D7000 at $1000, D400 at $1700-$1800) to provide both a less-expensive and a more-capable choice for DX shooters, and then you have a pair of FX bodies (D600 at $2100, and D800 at $3000) to provide the same pair of choices for the FX group. From a marketing point of view, that just seems like a well-balanced product line with a high chance of giving every kind of shooter some Nikon to buy.

And I don't want dark spots in my images...

Sep 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Robb Mann
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

A small, light semi-pro in a weather-sealed body with a blazing fast frame rate and good video features would be a great seller. It would have to cost about the same as the D600 to get any sales numbers - yes, DX glass is cheaper, but Nikon has so few pro DX lenses that you're going to end up buying mostly FX glass anyway.

Sep 26, 2012 at 01:16 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

hans98ko wrote:

Now going back to the discussion of pricing if it ever get release, I personally think that it will not come down to $1700 or $1800, I think it will more likely be around $2800 closer to when the D300/s or D700 was released and sitting between the D600 and D800.

What makes you think that they'd price a d400 at $2800? That was about the price of the d700 when it was released, not the d300, which was around $1700-1800 IIRC. Specification wise, the only significant difference between the d700 and d300 was the sensor. Now, you get a d800 for $3000. The cost of the sensor and the market size for same, is why the d700/d800 are so much more expensive than the d300 was. There isn't anything that they could put into a d400 that would make it anywhere close to $2800, except perhaps an integrated body, and that isn't going to happen.

hans98ko wrote:
Because one have to think about the other series in the range, the 3000, 5000, 7000 series. lets say it did come out at $1800 than who will want to buy the D7000 or the D600? It will split their market apart.

Why would it be any different than it was for the previous models, especially such a *huge* price increase? There are always a few hundred between models and the feature sets are what determine the price. The d400 will likely come in at $1700-1800 and the d7100 will likely come in at $1200-1300 and so on down the line. Look at the consumer digicam market. Nikon has already released 14 Coolpix models this year.... There's no reason to believe that they couldn't/wouldn't do the same thing with their consumer line of dslrs, which according to Nikon NPS, is the d7000 and below.

When you're looking at a camera, don't you consider all of the specifications of the model to see if it will suit your wants/needs or is it just an FX thing, with everything else below it?

hans98ko wrote:
The other thing is that if it is build like a D300/s or D700 with mostly AlMg alloy it should have a status above that of the D7000 or the D600, don't you all think so?

Of course it would, it's one of the features of the d200, d300 line. Add to that the higher FPS, pro AF CAM 3500 and all of the other high performance, high level features of the d400 and it will certainly out spec the d600, by a significant margin. Even the d300s easily out specs the d600.

With all due respect, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the DX model line and how Nikon differentiates the models and their pricing. The d300 was the replacement for the d2x. It had better specs/performance in almost every way. The only significant difference was the lack of the integrated body on the d300. Even though I'd have liked an integrated body, I'd guess that most d300 users are happy with the current body.

hans98ko wrote:
I was thinking on the line of those who said that they want to have the view of the DX in the view finder rather than a gray off area which is smaller as in FX. I think this can easily be resolved by adding a magnifier eye piece to the VF which will give the FX a full DX view with the same magnification ratio.

Have you ever tried this? I have and I won't use it because you can no longer see the entire viewfinder. You have to move your head/eye to be able to see all of the info in the VF. The only thing that improves the FX viewfinder in DX mode, is a 1.4x TC, with all of the issues that can bring.

Kerry

Sep 26, 2012 at 01:49 PM

DGC1
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #16 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Anyone else notice who's now missing from this discussion??

Sep 26, 2012 at 01:58 PM

hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Kerry Pierce wrote:
Why would it be any different than it was for the previous models, especially such a *huge* price increase?

Ha...ha..I was thinking of the recent price increase for both Canon and Nikon products as well as the depreciation of the US$. The next thing is to fulfill a special group of nature photogs with $$$.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
Have you ever tried this? I have and I won't use it because you can no longer see the entire viewfinder. You have to move your head/eye to be able to see all of the info in the VF. The only thing that improves the FX viewfinder in DX mode, is a 1.4x TC, with all of the issues that can bring.

That was my intention to cut off the gray out area so that one does not have to move around to see the full DX area, and the view will look bigger at the same time.

By the way Kerry, how did you get to reply in segment and still get it to be printed white?

Edited on Sep 26, 2012 at 03:19 PM · View previous versions

Sep 26, 2012 at 03:10 PM

hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

DGC1 wrote:
Anyone else notice who's now missing from this discussion??

You are a bad bad boy trying to pick another fight.
Give her a break and maybe she is busy shooting while we are fighting here now

Sep 26, 2012 at 03:16 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

hans98ko wrote:
By the way Kerry, how did you get to reply in segment and still get it to be printed white?

Just add [ quote ] tags to the text you want to be printed in yellow. Ideally, also copy the "[ b ] Joe wrote [ / b ]:" text as well to identify whom you're quoting. It's easier to read than using the "marker" tag and more intuitively follows the discussion.

Sep 26, 2012 at 04:01 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon

Robb Mann wrote:
A small, light semi-pro in a weather-sealed body with a blazing fast frame rate and good video features would be a great seller. It would have to cost about the same as the D600 to get any sales numbers - yes, DX glass is cheaper, but Nikon has so few pro DX lenses that you're going to end up buying mostly FX glass anyway.

True, but Nikon has the DX glass where needed. The UWA zooms are cheeper and smaller, the mid range is cheeper and smaller, the 70-200 is the same but acts differently (105-300 on DX). The real gain is at the long end,

My 300 f/2.8 costs $6K new and gives me a 450mm FOV. A 400 f/2.8 costs $9K.

Also, while lenses last decades if cared for properly, camera bodies have to be replaced more often, so over time the premium you pay for FX bodies adds up.

Sep 26, 2012 at 04:55 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end