matthewsaville Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Regarding this overall discussion, by the way, I think that quite the opposite is true about Nikon's alleged lack of a "clear and decisive" lineup these days, compared to the D1 up to the D3.
The D1 thru the D2X was a constant underdog battle in which Nikon was barely keeping up with Canon. Yes, Nikon had awesome feature sets and a decent overall lineup, but no more earth-shatteringly diverse or well-rounded than today.
Then from the D3 onward, Nikon has consistently been king of the hill. The D3s and D4 are as good or better than the 1DX for action. In fact the D3 and D3s were leaps and bounds beyond the competition, especially back in the days of Canon's attempts to use a 1.3x crop for action. (I think it was an awesome system that they shouldn't have eliminated from their lineup, by the way, but I'm just saying that the D3 and D3s were truly incredible cameras...)
The D800 is un-beatable for landscape photographers. Seriously, especially when combined with the 14-24, what else comes even close?
The D700 is old as hell, indeed, but you know what? For it's primary purpose, (IMO wedding and portrait and light action photography) ...it beat the pants off its initial competition the 5D mk2, and still holds a candle to the 5D mk3 for things like photojournalism.
A D700 + D800 combo is completely peerless with regard to performance and image quality for almost any profession. If you want to argue that a two-camera solution doesn't count, especially if one of them is discontinued and has no video, well all I can say is that I work as a photographer full-time in the "real world", and this is just the way I see things. Nikon may be missing out on making a buck if I buy a used D700 on Ebay, but I'm sure they're working on something...
The D600 came as soon as it could, and aside from the wimps who are afraid to clean their sensors, it was a nearly perfect execution of affordable full-frame.
The D300s->D400 situation is pretty annoying for anyone who couldn't afford a D700 right when it came out, or who currently feels that they'd love the reach of a more powerful D7100 for wildlife, but the D7100 simply needed to come first.
And once again, with dual card slots, truly flagship AF and 8 FPS when using a V-grip, the D300s was still way ahead of the curve with the ONLY drawback being high ISO performance, something Nikon DX has always struggled with.
So, what do you want from Nikon, to qualify them as "clearly defining" their market goals or direction, or whatever? A D400 and a D710 and a D4X, all in the same year? Not gonna happen. Sure, maybe we could have used at least one of these cameras within the past few years, but all the other cameras that Nikon DID release were simply more urgent. Maybe the DF could be considered not urgent, and I would agree, however considering Nikon's history of gold-plated lizard-skilled 35mm SLR cameras, I'm frankly quite surprised we didn't see the DF years ago, and with a whole lot more gaudy silliness.
Simply put, the only reason that we're up in arms here is because we're a more advanced, selective crowd and the past few years have not been "our" years. But the D3200 / D5200, the D7100, and the D600 / D610 have all still been class-leading cameras that were very necessary for Nikon to remain on top.
So we're complaining because the previous generation of pro and semi-pro Nikon's were so damn good that Nikon hasn't needed to upgrade them yet. So, go out and shoot some photos and have a little patience!
BTW, Nikon has repeatedly mentioned that this coming winter and next year will see a focus on higher-end bodies. So many of us are probably going to find that our "needs" are met within the next 6-12 months. Long before Canon ever gets around to catching up with the roughly FIFTEEN Nikon DSLR's that rank higher for dynamic range at DXO, for example. I know that for many this is just one tiny aspect of a very complex overall market, but for me as a landscape photographer it is definitely one of the absolute highest priorities.
;-)
=Matt=
|