Indeed, back to the topic at hand: we need a D400.

And in the wish-list department... we also need an 80-400 (or 100-500) AF-S, a v3 of the 200-400 with that neat built-in TC that Canon added, and the new 800/5.6 to be released soon. Not that I'm in any way biased toward long lenses, of course.

^^^^ That's fine by me ... just so long as you send me your old long lenses when you upgrade ... you might as well as we all know how quickly they loose any real value

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Indeed, back to the topic at hand: we need a D400.

And in the wish-list department... we also need an 80-400 (or 100-500) AF-S, a v3 of the 200-400 with that neat built-in TC that Canon added, and the new 800/5.6 to be released soon. Not that I'm in any way biased toward long lenses, of course.

I want one of those 200-400 TC lenses! And I bet selling my v1 would cover about a third the price of it too!

With the warm reception for the D600 by both the FX and DX camp, I got a feeling that the elusive D400 DX is really going to be more elusive. Even if the development team wanted to push it out, they will have a hard time convincing their senior management to give the green light to go ahead because marketing will oppose it and will likely want to give the D600 more time to gain market share.
For those who said that the D600 is still too costly to switch, there will be an even cheaper all polycarbonate FX in line to replace the D5100, but will not be call the D5200 (how about calling it the D400 FX ).
By looking at the resell market, one will noticed that not many high end DX lenses are being sold or worth selling, the only noticeable one is the 17-55mm f/2.8G with one or two 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G and 12-24mm f/4G. So if base on these information not many DX users are stuck with much DX investment. All digital cameras depreciate fast anyway.
As for those who need long lenses, it will be cover by newer range of pro and non-pro tele and zoom lenses which are in the pipeline.
So I think either we accept the facts or will only be disappointed by waiting for something that might not even materialise unless...

Maybe I just released the bombs away button.

Your personal opinions do not qualify as "facts."

hans98ko wrote:
With the warm reception for the D600 by both the FX and DX camp, I got a feeling that the elusive D400 DX is really going to be more elusive. Even if the development team wanted to push it out, they will have a hard time convincing their senior management to give the green light to go ahead because marketing will oppose it and will likely want to give the D600 more time to gain market share.
For those who said that the D600 is still too costly to switch, there will be an even cheaper all polycarbonate FX in line to replace the D5100, but will not be call the D5200 (how about calling it the D400 FX ).
By looking at the resell market, one will noticed that not many high end DX lenses are being sold or worth selling, the only noticeable one is the 17-55mm f/2.8G with one or two 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G and 12-24mm f/4G. So if base on these information not many DX users are stuck with much DX investment. All digital cameras depreciate fast anyway.
As for those who need long lenses, it will be cover by newer range of pro and non-pro tele and zoom lenses which are in the pipeline.
So I think either we accept the facts or will only be disappointed by waiting for something that might not even materialise unless...

Maybe I just released the bombs away button.

No, but I don't think they run things like that. The planning and development horizon on these things is very long, and the tooling, testing, etc. is very expensive. They've either got one in their plan or not. I work in the tech industry, and while I've seen things killed during the development phase, even somewhat late in the process, it is very rare, and usually due to a massive market shift. The D600 is off to a great start, but it isn't re-defining the market. It has been easy to get from Day 1. When the D7000 came out, it was months before you could readily get one.

With the recent price drop of the D7000 and the pricing of the D600, Nikon pretty clearly has a price cell left wide open. Canon has a highly successful 7D out there. I'd be shocked if they didn't fill that void.

I'll agree with you that the D600 has been warmly received by the D7000 DX crowd, but all I've heard from the D200/D300/D300s crowd is "That isn't what we wanted". It isn't a small crowd, and for different reasons even beyond body and platform cost they/we aren't seeing the D600 or D800 as good substitutes. If Nikon has product managers/executives who are missing that, they should find other jobs. (I've been in technology sales/product marketing for over 20 years, mainly on the product side)

Maybe there is a "can't" aspect to this - the tsunami and Thailand flooding so disrupted the company that the development of the D400 failed while they tried to preserve halo/profit driving products like the D4/D800 and revenue drivers like the D3200 and D600. I think it created a delay, but I think they'll release a D300s successor. Maybe they are taking the opportunity to bump things a bit in some way.

As for lenses, I think Nikon is fine for their DX-specific lens kit overall. I'd guess they don't feel the need to fill every gap when their DX/FX line is so broad. Only two of my five lenses are DX-specific, and I'm fine with the options available to me. I think they've been pretty smart about their line, and every small gap has at least one good 3rd party alternative available (Tokina, Tamron, et. al.)

Thom Hogan seems to expect a D300s replacement early next year. In the meantime, I'm still very happy with my D300s. The delay has cured me of my NAS for now, and turned me back toward getting the most out of the camera I have in-hand.

hans98ko wrote:

Maybe I just released the bombs away button.

No bombs from me. But, your incessant FX fanboy blather is looking more and more like troll posts, constantly trying to upset people. It's time to hit the hide button and put you in the dufus box with the others.

Kerry

Kerry Pierce wrote:
hans98ko wrote:

Maybe I just released the bombs away button.

No bombs from me. But, your incessant FX fanboy blather is looking more and more like troll posts, constantly trying to upset people. It's time to hit the hide button and put you in the dufus box with the others.

Kerry

No need to be impolite. While I disagree with him, I don't ever get the sense he's baiting. My $0.02...

With regards to facts or not facts, troll or not troll, only time will tell.
But that is how I see it at this moment base on what is going on.
One can agree or disagree with each other, but no one will be sure except for those manufacturers who have the sales figures and the ownership registrations.
From those information they can tell how well their products are doing and which product is selling better than others.
Let's take all the DX models for example, the manufacturer will be able to tell what is the percentage of sales for D3000, D5000, D7000 with respect to D200, D300 and D300s for the same period.
And with the release of the D600 they can also tell from the ownership registration how many of those owner owns the D3000, D5000, D7000, D200, D300, D300s and other FX models. Base on these information they can draw their plans and not depand on website information which are distorted at time.
The other thing is that they can also get direct feedback from users who participate in their functions like product announcement and promotions or even from the NPS program.
So if you are really a professional and have special requirements use the proper feedback channels rather than on forums like this, because you will get a better chance.
I have ever used it for both Canon and Nikon and some of the requests were actually implemented, as expected don't expect that every request will be entertained because they will still base on the number of similar feedbacks.
Just like you wishes here might not all bear fruits.

Now, if you still want to hide me, feel free to do it because there is nothing stopping you.

Like I said these are only friendly discussions.

Thom Hogan has a different take thank you do and it's worth a read:

http://www.bythom.com/stateofdx2012.htm

Also check out his home page for more information posted today:

http://www.bythom.com/

Very good info here. Thanks Andre!

hans98ko wrote:
So I think either we accept the facts or will only be disappointed by waiting for something that might not even materialise unless...

You've made several attempts to talk about "the facts" but you've failed to use a single fact in your statements.

1. Where did this "new and cheaper polycarbonate FX camera" come from? Not announced, certainly, so definitely not a fact. I haven't even heard any rumors of this.

2. Any "new line of long pro and non-pro lenses" -- also not announced or even rumored, hence nowhere near a "fact" -- is going to be the same focal lengths as what we already have: 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800. So DX users would still lose 1/3 of their reach by going to FX. There is nothing in your statement that would console DX users.

3. You said all cameras depreciate fast, as though that means anyone will easily pony up to buy new gear. On the contrary: if gear depreciates very fast, people will tend to hang onto it for longer, because its lower trade-in value means they have to save for a longer time in order to get the money for new gear.

News flash: all cameras cost "a lot of money." To the soccer mom with one D7000 and an 18-200, that's probably a lot of money. To the guy or gal who shelled out $15,000 for three D3s bodies for sports, that was also probably a lot of money. No one is thrilled or happy at the thought of trashing their current gear and having to buy all new stuff, especially if that new stuff is more expensive than the old. People have budgets.

4. You've said that camera manufacturers are the only ones who know because they have registrations and not just "[forum] website information which are distorted". But you also based one of your "facts" (the idea that few DX users are stuck with a large investment in lenses) on looking at the resale market. So, not only not a fact, but also self-contradictory.

As someone said earlier, you are entirely welcome to your opinion... but none of what you said comes remotely close to "fact", and you should not be too dismissive of other opinions which differ from yours.

So when will this be now - before Xmas?

EBH S

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
You've made several attempts to talk about "the facts" but you've failed to use a single fact in your statements.

1. Where did this "new and cheaper polycarbonate FX camera" come from? Not announced, certainly, so definitely not a fact. I haven't even heard any rumors of this.

2. Any "new line of long pro and non-pro lenses" -- also not announced or even rumored, hence nowhere near a "fact" -- is going to be the same focal lengths as what we already have: 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800. So DX users would still lose 1/3 of their reach by going to FX. There is nothing in your statement that would console DX users.

3. You said all cameras depreciate fast, as though that means anyone will easily pony up to buy new gear. On the contrary: if gear depreciates very fast, people will tend to hang onto it for longer, because its lower trade-in value means they have to save for a longer time in order to get the money for new gear.

News flash: all cameras cost "a lot of money." To the soccer mom with one D7000 and an 18-200, that's probably a lot of money. To the guy or gal who shelled out $15,000 for three D3s bodies for sports, that was also probably a lot of money. No one is thrilled or happy at the thought of trashing their current gear and having to buy all new stuff, especially if that new stuff is more expensive than the old. People have budgets.

4. You've said that camera manufacturers are the only ones who know because they have registrations and not just "[forum] website information which are distorted". But you also based one of your "facts" (the idea that few DX users are stuck with a large investment in lenses) on looking at the resale market. So, not only not a fact, but also self-contradictory.

As someone said earlier, you are entirely welcome to your opinion... but none of what you said comes remotely close to "fact", and you should not be too dismissive of other opinions which differ from yours.

As for item 1 and 2 it is no secret at all and is expected, the only thing is the timing for the release.
For those who work in the industry they get to know a little more and a little earlier due to the fact that most manufacturers do not produce everything in house anymore and sub-contract out their works.
For item 3, isn’t it obvious all digital cameras not holding their values as much and as long as film cameras? I will not go into affordability because it really depends on who is buying it? If it is from someone who is running a photographic related business than they will have to replenish their capital equipment every 3-5 years base on the depreciation and write off period for tax incentives, and make it up from their sales. But if it is from someone who could not afford the best, then they will have to look for other alternatives. Just like I would like to own a bigger and better property, if I can’t afford it I will have to look for something that I can afford. Photography is not something like air, water and food that every living thing must have.

As for “There is nothing in your statement that would console DX users.” I don’t really see why I should console anyone because I am just being realistic with what is going on. Just like you said each might have different opinions.
Would anyone cares or will console me if I say that I would like to have an Airbus A380 with a private suite for my business travel? Nope! I am sure.

I always asked myself these questions: Why are people feeling insulted when their demands are not met? Do companies owe them their products?

I think people from much poorer background have a much simpler and happier life than we do, for them it is all about having a roof over their heads and food to fill up their stomachs, while for us we are breaking our heads for what we couldn't have.

I'll just add that registration rates probably aren't much better for cameras than they are in the rest if the tech industry, and the rates are very low. Even if they double the rates I'm aware of, it isn't a big percentage of users - not something you'd use in making product decisions...

@ hans98ko

Again, you predicate your answers to Rodolfo with pure suppositions and supposed implications but no data. You continuosly make claims that only YOU make but there is no foundation for them, even among the less than reliable rumor mills. You also imply some form of inside knowledge without establishing any credentials.

The more I see you write, the more I'm convinced Kerry is right about you ... at best you full of hot air.

@Andre: Yeah, Hans is not really doing a great job of building credibility here.

@Hans: Nothing in this last post of yours helps you. You have neither supported your earlier arguments, nor countered mine. For instance, #2 was about your claim that DX users forced to move to FX would have their long-lens needs served by a new line of long lenses about to be released. I said that's absurd, because focal lengths will not change and the reach problem does not go away. You replied... nothing, really. And similar things happen to your other talking points. When a rebuttal is offered, you change the subject and go off on another unsupported point. You're not making your case very well.

This is suppose to be an open discussion on a product that might or might not get release. The views given are base on how each see it and somehow we end up with asking for credentials.
So may I ask what credentials do you have over here that you need others to provide it?
Do we need to post our education and professional certificates, our corporate IDs and so on to visit here?

Here are some of the facts that were not obvious at the time of writing but is now confirmed:

1) There was a time when people believe that RAW files were never processed and I was one of those few who said that they are and I use the example of Sony and Nikon using the same sensor but have very different results. This was a couple of years back.

2) There was a dispute about camera with on-lens image stabilizer focusing faster than those with in-camera image stabilizer due to shorter data communication and processing time, but there were people who disagreed and even have one telling me that he has a PHD in math and do not think that there should be any difference. He even asked me to provide data to prove it. How can I provide data when the product was not officiallly announce by Sony who were working on it. A few months after our discussion Sony released a couple of SLT products with the focusing module added to the base of the view finder via the use of a translucent mirror to increase the focusing speed.

There are more and I don't think I need to go any further and maybe should just let this thread die out because I just don't see the replacement coming anytime soon, and also before we go any further by calling people names.

One think I noticed over here at FM is that whenever there is a dispute the few of you seems to always throw your weight behind each other just like the recent one at "Annoyed!" which I did not get involved.

@ Hans ... you desprately need to take some courses in logic.

@ everyone else with a brain ... Here's some more worth-while reading on Thom Hogan's site ... it's DX month and he's nailing Nikon HARD over the issue ... as he should.

http://www.bythom.com/

Andre Labonte wrote:
@ Hans ... you desprately need to take some courses in logic.

@ everyone else with a brain ... Here's some more worth-while reading on Thom Hogan's site ... it DX month and he's nailing Nikon HARD over the issue ... as he should.

http://www.bythom.com/

Andre,
I do repect those who read reviews written by both Ken Rockwell as well as Thom Hogan, but the thing is even they put out very informative information at time, I would not take in eveything they said because they do make mistakes or like in Thom's case bias after the D800 incident.
Whatever happened between Thom and Nikon we will not know for sure.

And then with respect to Thom's DX lenses review, he talked about requiring new VR for wide angle zooms. This shows how little understanding of optical design he has.
It is not that it is impossible to add VR onto wide angle lenses, it is the advantage and disadvantages of having IS/VR on WA lenses, and both Canon and Nikon knew it very well.
You see if one adds IS/VR to WA lenses, it will be bigger and heavier because the add IS/VR elements only cover a certain area of the overall image. To have it cover the same image area of the present day f2.8 lenses, the other elements will have to be wider which means heavier and requires more powerful motors with higher current drain to drive those elements.
The other thing is the edge distortion caused by the moving IS/VR elements which are difficult to correct for WA but not so for tele which has less curvature.