Has anybody considered that the "D90 Replacement" may actually replace both the D90 and the D300s (which would explain why that one received such a minimal upgrade). Then the specs would make sense, and the price as well if construction ran somewhere in-between. Essentially it would remove the D300 as a "mistake" and leave the magnesium, weather sealed bodies and full-frame sensors as the "pro" lineup.
hlavo wrote:
Has anybody considered that the "D90 Replacement" may actually replace both the D90 and the D300s (which would explain why that one received such a minimal upgrade). Then the specs would make sense, and the price as well if construction ran somewhere in-between. Essentially it would remove the D300 as a "mistake" and leave the magnesium, weather sealed bodies and full-frame sensors as the "pro" lineup.
The D300 received a mid-cycle refresh to keep it improving, to add video, and to otherwise keep it attractive to people making new purchases at that time. Nikon cannot have a $1000 D90 followed by a $2400 D700... it's too big a pricing gap and its competitors would drive a truckload of stolen customers through it.
Besides, the D300 is not a "mistake"... that's just silly. There are all sorts of good reasons why it's beneficial for Nikon to have a pro-quality and pro-featured DX body, not the least of which is to get people buying pro Nikon glass for it and then potentially moving to the D3-series bodies where better ISO performance is available, but reach is lost and so more glass is needed. As a come-hither foot-in-the-door offering, it's unbeatable. It also offers 50% more reach which is like saying "free money!" in niches like birding, some kinds of wildlife shooting, aviation, and others.
Jul 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
hlavo wrote:
Has anybody considered that the "D90 Replacement" may actually replace both the D90 and the D300s (which would explain why that one received such a minimal upgrade). Then the specs would make sense, and the price as well if construction ran somewhere in-between. Essentially it would remove the D300 as a "mistake" and leave the magnesium, weather sealed bodies and full-frame sensors as the "pro" lineup.
First off, the D300 is a pro body and is part of the "pro" line-up. A camera does not need to be FX to have pro quality and performance.
Sencond, there are some very real benefits to DX over FX (and vice versa). Thus the reason many pro photographers maintain a pro level DX body (i.e. the D300 or a D2X).
Third, There are a range of customers out there demanding a range of price/performance ponts. For Nikon to have a major gat to any of those price/performance points opens the door to the cometition to come in and take customers away. The D90 is at the $1000 price point and offers some pro-level features, but is mainly a consumer grade camera. The D700 is at the $2700 price point, and being FX, suffers from a lack of reach for those not willing to pay the big bucks for super-tele lenses. At $1800, the D300s fills the gap nicely.
Have you ever used a D300 to its limits? A D90, or its replacement would not live up to it.
Jul 25, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
The D300 received a mid-cycle refresh to keep it improving, to add video, and to otherwise keep it attractive to people making new purchases at that time. Nikon cannot have a $1000 D90 followed by a $2400 D700... it's too big a pricing gap and its competitors would drive a truckload of stolen customers through it.
Besides, the D300 is not a "mistake"... that's just silly. There are all sorts of good reasons why it's beneficial for Nikon to have a pro-quality and pro-featured DX body, not the least of which is to get people buying pro Nikon glass for it and then potentially moving to the D3-series bodies where better ISO performance is available, but reach is lost and so more glass is needed. As a come-hither foot-in-the-door offering, it's unbeatable. It also offers 50% more reach which is like saying "free money!" in niches like birding, some kinds of wildlife shooting, aviation, and others....Show more →
HA! I should have read all the posts, it seems you have already explained the value of a D300 to hlavo.
A body a bit larger than the D90....a body a bit smaller than the D300
A body with magnesium, but not necessarily weather sealing.
Advance video features
Better noise supression than either...and perhaps 15mp resolution.
If the two bodies were replaced by one, this could easily be a $1200 body replacing the $900 D90 and the late-model $1500 D300.
It would still be far superior to the D5000....and perhaps leave room for a D5000-like body with the better sensor and video from the new unit to be slotted in above the D5000 at the $900 price point.
The new unit would be "good enough" as a back-up pro body or for birding, but would still not have the build quality and bells and whistles of the true full-frame pro bodies. By keeping pro body prices high and increasing the need for longer lenses for these bodies, Nikon increases its "take" from the Pro Community. By offering a better, affordable D90/D300 replacement with semi-pro features, Nikon keeps supporting the amateur bird shooters, sports shooters, etc.
That is what I was saying.....that what will be, or may be, might be a lot different than today's current line up, which Nikon may have just "stumbled into" before the marketing of the full frame lineup crystalized. Hence "the mistake". It's a plausible scenario, whether or not you think it is a wise one for Nikon to pursue.
p.s. By the way, I am a DX shooter, with a D300, D50, D1h, and D1x. So I am not dissing DX.
I wouldn't be surprised if the replacement of the D90 surpasses some of the capabilities of the D300s. Why not? D90 replacement will be in competition, not with the D300s but w/ the Canon, Sony counterparts. Besides D300s is due to be replaced in 2011. That will definitely have even better specs.
To me, if these rumors are true, it is a good sign. If they can put all these in a D90 replacement, can you imagine what will be in store for us with the D4 and D400 next year!
hlavo wrote:
It's a plausible scenario, whether or not you think it is a wise one for Nikon to pursue.
Theoretically, yes it's plausible. I believe it has been proven to be unwise and counterproductive, and that having more products at smaller pricing intervals is far more likely than what you suggest. But as you said, it's plausible even if I think it has near-zero odds of occurring.
Jul 25, 2010 at 09:48 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Theoretically, yes it's plausible. I believe it has been proven to be unwise and counterproductive, and that having more products at smaller pricing intervals is far more likely than what you suggest. But as you said, it's plausible even if I think it has near-zero odds of occurring.
p.3 #11 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
hlavo wrote:
And both of you have completely missed my point.
A body a bit larger than the D90....a body a bit smaller than the D300
A body with magnesium, but not necessarily weather sealing.
Advance video features
Better noise supression than either...and perhaps 15mp resolution.
If the two bodies were replaced by one, this could easily be a $1200 body replacing the $900 D90 and the late-model $1500 D300.
This would be too much overlap. D90 already has better noise compensation than most cameras and from reading is the same or even better than the d300s. Need better iso than either, d700 has it. Not even a bad thing given that nikon's consumer bodies have given high iso performance that is known to even rival other companies mid grade lines. Nikon puts some love into their low end bodies...nice of them. D300(s)....meh its the sports camera and its assumed you'll have some light at a sporting venue....or fast glass to compensate. Nature of the game, body stratifcation. If d90 had better low light capability and could support non cpu glass since I have picked up a love of ai-s glass (even with manual metering).....this d700 sitting on my desk waiting for a battery to charge to get some shots off would not be here. Could have been a d300s but wanted to skip steps 10-23 of the 25 steps tbh.
Same with mega pixels....creeps to 15, we'll give the new new d700 when released 18. Why buy a d3? Want to enjoy pixel peeping at 12 mp....zeiss or nikon ai-s glass like the 50 1.2 or 28 2.8 can get you there with current bodies out there.
And it also would hurt sales beyond body stratification imo. D90 fills a small lighweight niche. Its body is just the right size for the average user and wieght with a zoom is tolerable for most. I for example have tried to get my wife into this hobby...even the d40 is too bulky for her lol. D90 she hates with a passion so I am stuck with pictures of me with the kid on a i-phonr camera lol (least its not too bad a camera).
p.3 #14 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
If the D300 was a mistake... it was a excellent mistake. Going on 3.5 years old, and still hard to beat in overall performance, features, and build quality.
p.3 #15 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
pdxflint wrote:
If the D300 was a mistake... it was a excellent mistake. Going on 3.5 years old, and still hard to beat in overall performance, features, and build quality.
Didn't say it wasn't. But I spent years as a marketer, and from the standpoint of clearly delineating pro vs enthusiast lines, it was a "mistake" that Nikon now has to somehow either incorporate or work around. I think if the former, we would have seen a bit more in the "S", rather than having a D90 that outperforms it in some important ways.
If it were me, I'd build a three-tier structure: Amateurt, Semi-Pro, and Pro, and I'd evolve the D300(s) into a 1.3x crop, higher resolution, low-noise Semi-Pro line for those who want/need to shoot with a more limited lens budget than the full-frame Pros, but still want/need the resolution and to some degree low-light capabilities of a higher resolution camera. Also if it were up to me, I'd leave video out of these two upper tiers, and do something like Panasonic with a video-specific camera that could use any Nikon electronic lens. For those Pros/Semi-Pros who want to shoot video...give them a real Nikon option.
p.3 #16 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
There is a need (and a market) for a weather-sealed, professional dx camera. In the same way as there is a need for a semi-pro dx type dslr, like the D90. The D300 is not a mistake.
If the replacement to the D90 outperforms the D300s in some areas, that too is not a mistake. It is but natural. The d300s is just an upgraded D300 which is 3.5 yrs. old now. The replacement to the D90 is a new camera, not an upgrade. For Nikon to dumb it down just so a 3.5 yr. old camera would perform better would be... well, dumb! How can it compete with the cameras of its class from other camera makers for the next 2 (or 3) years? That's just like saying that the D300 should not have been better, in any way, than the D2xs when it came out. We all know it is better in a lot of areas.
p.3 #17 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
In what important ways does the D90 outperform the D300s?
I think the D300 was a lovely idea, it gave legions of D2x & D200 shooters a way to get cleaner high-ISO while keeping their DX lens lineup with an upgrade in AF tracking. Remember for years Nikon insisted DX was how it was going to be and was here to stay for pro work.
I disagree about leaving video out of bodies too, it's value add for the camera, and value add as a potential product for many pros.
p.3 #18 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
Jammy Straub wrote:
Remember for years Nikon insisted DX was how it was going to be and was here to stay for pro work.
The DX format will probably be around for a lot longer than Nikon (or anyone else) thought, if what Thom is reporting about Sony killing FX sensor fabrication is true...
p.3 #19 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
hlavo wrote:
I spent years as a marketer, and from the standpoint of clearly delineating pro vs enthusiast lines, it was a "mistake" that Nikon now has to somehow either incorporate or work around. I think if the former, we would have seen a bit more in the "S", rather than having a D90 that outperforms it in some important ways.
Two things your marketing experience should have taught you: there is no single and unique "right" answer, and a too-strong adherence to theory and dogma will get your company and products turned into competitive roadkill as the other people focus on what works rather than what is supposed to work.
The D300 was a pro camera, marked and marketed that way at all times and in every way. Weathersealing, metal body construction, AF engine, frame rate, shutter life, and other features, along with every single piece of Nikon marketing, clearly placed the D300 as a pro camera. So even from the dogmatic point of view, I see no weakness in "clearly delineating pro vs enthusiast lines"... the D300 was a pro camera, period.
But if you "clearly delineate" your clients and products too well, then members of one client segment rarely/never jump to being members of the other. The D300 was also a beautiful connecting point in the overall product line: it was simultaneously the best DX camera and the entry-level pro camera. It had a compact body, but a killer top-quality vertical grip (with a second thumbpad I still miss), so it was versatile. It gave the enthusiasts an upgrade path by tempting them (us!) with a pro camera they (we) could actually afford, but gave the pros a DX body too with which to get more reach or a lower cost of operation.
I bought a D300 precisely because it was a pro camera that I could actually afford. Based on my current arsenal of gear, I think Nikon's "teaser" of a pro camera worked pretty well...
. Loved film with my N80 and then graduated to a D700 a year ago at the end of this month.
lol (least its not too bad a camera). 