pdxflint wrote:
As already stated, but I\'m in complete alignment with the point that we already have the \"flip a switch\" to DX with the D3x, yielding similar pixel density and resolution as the D300 series. And perhaps the same could be said about the D3/D700 \"flip a switch\" to get the equivalent of a D50 in pixel density and resolution... but the $8k price to get the D300 equivalent is a bit stiff for me...
<snip>
But as full-frame sensor density increases with continued high-iso capability, the \"flip a switch\" carries with it no penalty at all. And the $4-8k price points of these cameras is not all that daunting to a true professional, as it is a capital investment that pays dividends. That was/is my point. That\'s what seperates the pro\'s from even highly-skilled amateurs. And that is why it makes absolute sense for Nikon to consolidate this as THE \"Pro Line\".
pdxflint wrote:
Sorry, that theory about no longer needing DX because the expensive cameras can also do \"DX\" doesn\'t fly very well in my slightly addled brain. Somehow I have a feeling that the demise of the D50/D70/D40 6mp bodies had more to do with advancements in sensor/processor technology in general, which by extension includes DX sensors as a rule. The D50/D70/D80 progression has led to the D90. The D100/D200/D300 progression led to the D300s. DX has had it\'s very own evolution, why should it stop now? Amateur/enthusiast/consumer bodies with backwards capability for older AF lenses as one category (D50/70/80/90,) and serious/hobbyists/semi-pro/professional bodies as another category (D100/200/300/300s.) And, the entry level category (D40/60/3000/5000) which will certainly continue to evolve as DX cameras, benefitting from the same advancements in sensor technology the higher category cameras benefit from--which won\'t negate the need for serious cameras in DX format any more than a hypothetical future D3000 DX which might achieve better resolution and performance than today\'s D3 would negate the need for professional grade cameras, whether DX or FX. There\'s more to it than simply sensor size or having last year\'s camera being upstaged by the latest technology, or we\'ll all be shooting with 30mp HD cellphones in the future because on paper their performance would \"equal\" a pro camera which is a couple years old... We know that ain\'t gonna happen.
I can agree with most everything you say here...and in fact have: the natural extension of the D100/D200/D300 line is a stripped down, semi-pro D400, preferably with an advanced in-between crop or a super-hyped up DX (may not be possible). This then becomes the Semi-Pro Line and is optimized for the advanced amateur \"purist\" shooter.
The other liines continue (along with their mirrorless-to-come brethren as the popularly distributed line for the amateurs who are a cut above or newly-evolved from point-and-shoot.
By differentiating the bodies and features into three separate lines, Nikon can then optimize its marketing and sales for each. This is what they didn\'t do with the D300, and as time passes it fits neither pro line (IQ) or amateur line (cost, complexity) well. That is why I called it currently a marketing \"mistake\".
Jul 28, 2010 at 08:11 PM
Previous versions of hlavo's message #8701955 « what'll this mean for future FX cameras? »
Somehow I have a feeling that the demise of the D50/D70/D40 6mp bodies had more to do with advancements in sensor/processor technology in general, which by extension includes DX sensors as a rule. The D50/D70/D80 progression has led to the D90. The D100/D200/D300 progression led to the D300s. DX has had it\'s very own evolution, why should it stop now? Amateur/enthusiast/consumer bodies with backwards capability for older AF lenses as one category (D50/70/80/90,) and serious/hobbyists/semi-pro/professional bodies as another category (D100/200/300/300s.) And, the entry level category (D40/60/3000/5000) which will certainly continue to evolve as DX cameras, benefitting from the same advancements in sensor technology the higher category cameras benefit from--which won\'t negate the need for serious cameras in DX format any more than a hypothetical future D3000 DX which might achieve better resolution and performance than today\'s D3 would negate the need for professional grade cameras, whether DX or FX. There\'s more to it than simply sensor size or having last year\'s camera being upstaged by the latest technology, or we\'ll all be shooting with 30mp HD cellphones in the future because on paper their performance would \"equal\" a pro camera which is a couple years old... We know that ain\'t gonna happen.