pdxflint
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #16 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras? | |
The comment about the D300 having amateur sensor performance just made me laugh out loud..I think hlavo has been reading too much in too many forums  , and hasn't had to earn a living shooting with a D300 (or D300s.) There are clearly performance considerations which don't necessarily translate into purely comparative image quality for pixel peepers, and might not be worth it to some non-pros, but are certainly in demand by many buyers, pro or otherwise.
I can't see how Nikon is confused about the D300(s)'s place in their lineup since they've sold a hell of a lot of them (to pros and non-pros.) And, when the D300 was first released there was no confusion about it being a substantial, and very welcomed upgrade to the popular D200. I believe the first FX bodies from Nikon were barely hitting the market about the same time, primarily the D3 at nearly $5000. To get most of the features and performance of the new D3 in a DX format camera for well under $2000 at the time was certainly no mistake. In fact, at the time the D300 reset the performance bar for all DX format cameras in every important way. The fact that a later release of a D90 series camera had very slightly better high ISO performance means very little in the real world. The 3.5 year old D300 still trumps the D90 in virtually every way a professional photographer would consider important-- AF performance, fps, battery life, durability, weather sealing, controls, custom configurations. And the successor D300s certainly is as good as the D90 in high ISO performance, shares its rather unnecessary 720p video capability, and adds a second storage slot to an already almost ideal camera.
All Nikon really needs to do is upgrade the processing engine and sensor technology to the latest technology (maybe go to 18mp) and video to 1080p 30fps and you'd have the perfect upgrade for the "new" Dxxx in DX format. Do the same to the D700 (new video capability, bump the FX sensor to 18-24mp, new processor... all yielding improved high ISO performance) and basically keep the existing form factor for the "new" Dxxx in FX format. Both upgrades should be mostly centered around the electronics, not the actual physical bodies, which are already very well designed. If you want to segment the market in some way so the unwitting consumer knows which camera to buy, then definitely put the D300s's successor in the "pro" division, if you must, but dumb it down That would be the same as discontinuing it altogether. And that would be a mistake.
I think sometimes marketers (like hlavo, respectfully... ) want to target the market too narrowly. The way I see it, any tool someone uses to earn a living can be considered a professional piece of gear. Does it need to be labeled as such? Not really, in my opinion. The main issue anyone using a tool every day really has is, does it do the job I need it to do? Is it durable enough to withstand my intended use without wearing out or breaking easily? What is it's useful service life? I'm sure there are cases where a so-called "semi-pro" (god, I hate that term...) camera would serve a pro just fine where all that mattered was the image quality, and not weather or durability to withstand constant transportation and use in the field. So, if you were using the camera strictly in the studio, perhaps a D90 would be as good as a D300s--certainly it can produce images just as good-- but it doesn't make it an equal to the D300(s) overall. So, the need for a top of the line DX body still exists, and not one that is 'less good' than previous generations just because it's DX format.
I'd have to agree with the idea that it's about format, not "pro" vs. "amateur" offerings. In every product line you have the cheaper, less durable and often weaker performing models, and perhaps several levels/tiers of quality/performance. Up until now, due to the expense/cost of FX sensor technology, the only reasonable expectation is for products/models to be near, and top of the line. Once sensor technology gets to the point where FX is cheap enough to be in a consumer-oriented, cheaper built camera, you'll see FX "amateur" cameras. Will it spell the end of DX? Not at all, at least I hope not. And likely the top of the line DX dSLR will embody qualities of what you'd generally think of as a "pro" camera. Typically a professional will choose the top of the line (lenses, bodies, strobes, etc) of whatever format he chooses to shoot with because of the performance and robustness of these tools--simple as that. Whether or not Nikon chooses to label them "pro" or not really wouldn't change a thing about this.
|
