# Looks like we have our d700 replacement, hopefully



## astroNikon (Aug 12, 2014)

read here on Nikon Rumors ---> The upcoming Nikon full frame DSLR will be marketed as an "action" camera | Nikon Rumors

It will still be priced out of my price range .. but at least something to shoot for.


----------



## hamlet (Aug 12, 2014)

The other guy already has a thread about this i think.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2014)

Yeah, except the price is high enough that tens of thousands of people will complain loud and long that they cannot afford it. That is, if the camera really does hit the streets priced at $2,499, as the author hints at. The new Expeed 4 image processing engine has allowed Nikon to bump up the throughput capability, so if they cut the MP from 36 to 24, the Expeed 4 ought to be able to handle the data transfer no problem, even at fast firing rates. There are some very interesting possibilities. Nikon has gained a lot of experience with parts sharing over the last couple of years, with the D7000 and D600, and then the D4 and Df using a common sensor, and the Df also using a re-used 39-point AF module and AF system. Until the D600, it was thought that a full-frame camera could not be built on an APS-C chassis and body; Nikon proved that to be incorrect.

My guess is the NEW FX Nikon action camera could be built piggybacked on another, existing Nikon body--with the D7100 being the most likely, and the D810 being less-likely, yet still a possibility. I see no reason the older D800 could not be fitted with a 24 MP sensor and faster-firing shutter and bigger buffer and BOOM! Already-exisiting manufacturing technology and PAYED-FOR manufacturing equipment used to make a NEW camera out of an older body, using the same parts bin stuff for 95% of the whole camera. Which is why the D7100 and D800 seem like good possible platforms on which to build.

The D610 could be used as well. Or the Df, but I think the Df is unlikely. Using the same old, proven, rock-solid 24MP Sony sensor, all Nikon needs is the new EXPEED 4 engine, and a bit of internal memory for a good buffer, and a DECENT write-to-disk system that can double the 45Mb/second rate the D7100 is saddled with, and BOOM! New, high-speed, 24MP FX Nikon, from a D7100 platform, with big profit upside. If it is built on the D610 body, they tack on another $600 or so and make $400 to $500 more in profit per body sold compared to a D610 at $1899 (accounting for the buffer and write-system upgrade costs).


----------



## runnah (Aug 12, 2014)

Seems like a weird spot to split in their line up. Like adding a size in between medium and large.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2014)

" Mediularge". 

Kinda has a ring to it!!!


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 12, 2014)

If that photo on Nikon Rumors is a correct one for what is being released it has all pro controls.  Mode button for the right finger, the twin ports for flash sync and remote terminals, etc.


----------



## cgw (Aug 12, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> read here on Nikon Rumors ---> The upcoming Nikon full frame DSLR will be marketed as an "action" camera | Nikon Rumors
> 
> It will still be priced out of my price range .. but at least something to shoot for.



Think you need to swap out "hopefully" for "maybe" since photokina might be too early for anything substantial. They need a killer DX camera badly--not a made-over 3000/5000/7000 series body, as Thom Hogan has argued.


----------



## runnah (Aug 12, 2014)

Well since they have used all the numbers I bet this one will be called the "Nikon D-Eleventeen".


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 12, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Yeah, except the price is high enough that tens of thousands of people will complain loud and long that they cannot afford it. That is, if the camera really does hit the streets priced at $2,499, as the author hints at. The new Expeed 4 image processing engine has allowed Nikon to bump up the throughput capability, so if they cut the MP from 36 to 24, the Expeed 4 ought to be able to handle the data transfer no problem, even at fast firing rates. There are some very interesting possibilities. Nikon has gained a lot of experience with parts sharing over the last couple of years, with the D7000 and D600, and then the D4 and Df using a common sensor, and the Df also using a re-used 39-point AF module and AF system. Until the D600, it was thought that a full-frame camera could not be built on an APS-C chassis and body; Nikon proved that to be incorrect.
> 
> My guess is the NEW FX Nikon action camera could be built piggybacked on another, existing Nikon body--with the D7100 being the most likely, and the D810 being less-likely, yet still a possibility. I see no reason the older D800 could not be fitted with a 24 MP sensor and faster-firing shutter and bigger buffer and BOOM! Already-exisiting manufacturing technology and PAYED-FOR manufacturing equipment used to make a NEW camera out of an older body, using the same parts bin stuff for 95% of the whole camera. Which is why the D7100 and D800 seem like good possible platforms on which to build.
> 
> The D610 could be used as well. Or the Df, but I think the Df is unlikely. Using the same old, proven, rock-solid 24MP Sony sensor, all Nikon needs is the new EXPEED 4 engine, and a bit of internal memory for a good buffer, and a DECENT write-to-disk system that can double the 45Mb/second rate the D7100 is saddled with, and BOOM! New, high-speed, 24MP FX Nikon, from a D7100 platform, with big profit upside. If it is built on the D610 body, they tack on another $600 or so and make $400 to $500 more in profit per body sold compared to a D610 at $1899 (accounting for the buffer and write-system upgrade costs).



So do you think Nikon is building this as a replacement for the D300/D300s but with a full frame sensor instead of a crop sensor?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2014)

cgw said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > read here on Nikon Rumors ---> The upcoming Nikon full frame DSLR will be marketed as an "action" camera | Nikon Rumors
> ...



Thom has begun listening to his own thoughts,and yet he IGNORES the obvious, kind of like most eccentrics do. He bitches and moans that Nikon has no complete DX lens lineup, and that the Dx lens choices are "not there," and yet he thinks Nikon needs an extraordinary DX camera body. Hmmmm...

DX bodies lead people to be content with low-end DX lenses that have almost zero profit margin. The way the camera business has constricted over the last four years in a row means that for Nikon, DX bodies cost them $400 to $800 in profit lost per body, compared against FX sales. For NIKON, "*Nikon needs*" to boost profits in the face of sagging camera sales, and a market dominated by sales of tons of $400-and-under earlier generation D3xxx new old stock marked-down bodies.

Some of Nikon's BEST sellers for two years in a row have been the earlier-generation, marked-down D3xxx and D5xxx bodies. Consistently. Moving the customer base up-market, in both bodies, and in lenses, is what "Nikon needs" to do to make profit. Hogan seems to be getting *what Nikon needs to do, *and what Nikon customers want, mixed up in his mind, based on my reading of his columns. He keeps telling his readers that HE KNOWS HOW Nikon ought to run their business, as if he has all the answers, and yet, Nikon has not crashed and burned in the 15 years he's been ragging on them.

The DX business leads to little more than kit zooms and cheap flash sales, for the most part. What the camera makers "want" and what the public has spare money for are two different things.


----------



## runnah (Aug 12, 2014)

I was in the D300 replacement camp but then I remembered that at the time that there was a gigantic price difference between FX and DX. Times have changed since then and really the need for a high end DX camera is just not there.


That one thing that has surprised me is that they really haven't focused any attention on the video crowd. Maybe they have just given up that ground to canon.


----------



## KmH (Aug 12, 2014)

Nikon sells several thousands of DX cameras for each FX camera they sell.

Lets say Nikon sells 5000 D3XXX, D5XXX, D7XXX for each FX camera (D600/610, D800/810, D3x, D4) they sell.

If Nikon makes a profit of $1000 on each FX camera they sell and $1 profit on each DX camera they sell ... Well you can do the math.

I bet Nikon makes way more than $1 selling a DX camera.
Over time I have found Nikon Rumors to be less than reliable with their predictions.
So, I rarely visit Nikon Rumors . com.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 12, 2014)

KmH said:


> Nikon sells several thousands of DX cameras for each FX camera they sell.
> 
> Lets say Nikon sells 5000 D3XXX, D5XXX, D7XXX for each FX camera (D600/610, D800/810, D3x, D4) they sell.
> 
> ...



Ok.. so 5000 times.. umm.. no wait, 1 plus.. umm.. no..  ah crap.  Nobody said there would be a quiz.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 12, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Yeah, except the price is high enough that tens of thousands of people will complain loud and long that they cannot afford it. That is, if the camera really does hit the streets priced at $2,499, as the author hints at. The new Expeed 4 image processing engine has allowed Nikon to bump up the throughput capability, so if they cut the MP from 36 to 24, the Expeed 4 ought to be able to handle the data transfer no problem, even at fast firing rates. There are some very interesting possibilities. Nikon has gained a lot of experience with parts sharing over the last couple of years, with the D7000 and D600, and then the D4 and Df using a common sensor, and the Df also using a re-used 39-point AF module and AF system. Until the D600, it was thought that a full-frame camera could not be built on an APS-C chassis and body; Nikon proved that to be incorrect.
> 
> My guess is the NEW FX Nikon action camera could be built piggybacked on another, existing Nikon body--with the D7100 being the most likely, and the D810 being less-likely, yet still a possibility. I see no reason the older D800 could not be fitted with a 24 MP sensor and faster-firing shutter and bigger buffer and BOOM! Already-exisiting manufacturing technology and PAYED-FOR manufacturing equipment used to make a NEW camera out of an older body, using the same parts bin stuff for 95% of the whole camera. Which is why the D7100 and D800 seem like good possible platforms on which to build.
> 
> The D610 could be used as well. Or the Df, but I think the Df is unlikely. Using the same old, proven, rock-solid 24MP Sony sensor, all Nikon needs is the new EXPEED 4 engine, and a bit of internal memory for a good buffer, and a DECENT write-to-disk system that can double the 45Mb/second rate the D7100 is saddled with, and BOOM! New, high-speed, 24MP FX Nikon, from a D7100 platform, with big profit upside. If it is built on the D610 body, they tack on another $600 or so and make $400 to $500 more in profit per body sold compared to a D610 at $1899 (accounting for the buffer and write-system upgrade costs).



Well I guess I'm also kind of wondering what is so terrible about the D7100 - not a lot of other crop sensor bodies on the market today that can really go head to head with it in most categories.   I mean granted I'd love to see a D7200 (and for the record I think that will most likely be the next release myself), but really there aren't a lot of other crop sensor bodies out there that can match the 7100 in most categories.  So I guess I'm just a bit confused by the concept that Nikon "needs" a better crop sensor because frankly they already produce one that is pretty darn hard to beat.


----------



## runnah (Aug 12, 2014)

I have to agree. The time tested business strategy is to make lots of cheap products with high margins to afford to make expensive products with low margins.

Maybe I am wrong or maybe Nikon has done something different but it seems like sound logic to me.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 12, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, except the price is high enough that tens of thousands of people will complain loud and long that they cannot afford it. That is, if the camera really does hit the streets priced at $2,499, as the author hints at. The new Expeed 4 image processing engine has allowed Nikon to bump up the throughput capability, so if they cut the MP from 36 to 24, the Expeed 4 ought to be able to handle the data transfer no problem, even at fast firing rates. There are some very interesting possibilities. Nikon has gained a lot of experience with parts sharing over the last couple of years, with the D7000 and D600, and then the D4 and Df using a common sensor, and the Df also using a re-used 39-point AF module and AF system. Until the D600, it was thought that a full-frame camera could not be built on an APS-C chassis and body; Nikon proved that to be incorrect.
> ...



You don't understand the trend.

New camera comes out .... it's the greatest thing since sliced bread
Give the same camera 6 months ... then it's deficient at many features/functions.
Newer camera comes out.  The old one is junk. The new one is the greatest thing since sliced bread

But like bread, it gets old and stale after a short time, then moldy.

but then. a camera still works the same as it did 3 years ago


----------



## hamlet (Aug 12, 2014)

I want to jump to a conclusion i have in my mind, but there are just too many moving pieces for any little internet sage to accurately compensate for. Leading an army is easy when you're not the one in charge.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 12, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well I guess I'm also kind of wondering what is so terrible about the D7100 - not a lot of other crop sensor bodies on the market today that can really go head to head with it in most categories. I mean granted I'd love to see a D7200 (and for the record I think that will most likely be the next release myself), but really there aren't a lot of other crop sensor bodies out there that can match the 7100 in most categories. So I guess I'm just a bit confused by the concept that Nikon "needs" a better crop sensor because frankly they already produce one that is pretty darn hard to beat.



Amen brother, the D7100 while is not a perfect camera is really at the current top of DX cameras and as interesting as a D7200 might be I cant see it being more then a upgraded D7100 fixing very few weekness especially small buffer.


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm not interested in action, but I'm highly interested in a camera that just runs, snapping images most reliably in all circumstances.

Basically a D4s without the myriad of buttons and without the size and weight. Or a Sony A7s with AF performance.

This one sounds a lot like it could be what I was looking for.

Ah, I have gotten my hopes up too often recently. This time I'll just sit and wait.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 13, 2014)

goodguy said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well I guess I'm also kind of wondering what is so terrible about the D7100 - not a lot of other crop sensor bodies on the market today that can really go head to head with it in most categories. I mean granted I'd love to see a D7200 (and for the record I think that will most likely be the next release myself), but really there aren't a lot of other crop sensor bodies out there that can match the 7100 in most categories. So I guess I'm just a bit confused by the concept that Nikon "needs" a better crop sensor because frankly they already produce one that is pretty darn hard to beat.
> ...



I have the D7100 and moved from Canon some time back. I can see why Nikon need a more specced dx model, or more so Nikon users. It is as you say the buffer. Having used a 7d, I prefer the image quality of the D7100 (it's not a major leap but better, for an iso 100 landscape shooter it likely is a major leap), but the 7d could shoot and shoot, very similar I suspect to a d300s. People want improvements as time goes. A d300s performance with d7100 image quality isn't beyond imagination, just look at the Pentax k3.

The fullframe arguement though does not really add up for a lot of people. Crop sensors now give as good images as fullframe did a few years ago, which is great. The price and of ff set ups isn't the only factor for people not wanting them. If you have a crop set up that does everything you want, except you want better image quality, to get the same usability with ff means a complete set of new lenses and camera. Never mind this "focal length is the same on ff and crop nonsense". This doesn't mean anything in real use.


----------



## cgw (Aug 13, 2014)

_The DX business leads to little more than kit zooms and cheap flash sales, for the most part._

For the "most part," that's where Nikon's camera sales revenue is: the "DX business."

Tell me that the D600 fiasco didn't spook potential D610 customers who likely can't/won't pony up for Nikon's pricier FX options. So maybe all Thom's doing is making an argument for a resurrected "D400" pro-grade DX body--not just a pumped-up D7xxx model.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 13, 2014)

jaomul said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


None of which I would argue with, however you have to realize that all of this is looking at it from your perspective as a camera owner.

You have to think more in terms of Nikons perspective if you want to try and understand what they have done and what they will possibly do next.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2014)

cgw said:


> _The DX business leads to little more than kit zooms and cheap flash sales, for the most part._
> 
> For the "most part," that's where Nikon's camera sales revenue is: the "DX business."
> 
> Tell me that the D600 fiasco didn't spook potential D610 customers who likely can't/won't pony up for Nikon's pricier FX options. So maybe all Thom's doing is making an argument for a resurrected "D400" pro-grade DX body--not just a pumped-up D7xxx model.



We agree: the D600 fiasco hurt customer confidence. I would never buy a D600. That product was a disaster for Nikon.

You seem to willfully ignore that *sales revenue and PROFIT centers are wildly different things*. And I know you know that, based on your own former comments that let us all know you follow Nikon financials, and I know you follow Hogan's writings too, so you KNOW, as I know, that the HIGH-profit cameras are NOT the little D3000-series bodies. and you know, as I know, that Nikon has made public announements about its business plants for increasing PROFITS, despite declining unit sales numbers, and declining overall revenues.

Yes, Nikon gets much of its revenue and unit sales on cheap, discounted, three and a half year-old D3100 stock....and on two year old D3200 stock...and a few new D3300's; NIKON itself has stated, in actual written statements, that they want to elevate profit levels! And they HAVE shown increased profits, despite declining unit sales and lower numbers, which is one hell of a feat in this business climate. How has NIKON increased its profits? By selling more higher-priced, FX lenses and FX camera bodies, which have significantly higher built-in profit margins than cheap, DX noob-level products and lenses.

You think Nikon makes more profit on a bargain-priced 18-55 kit lens, or a bargain-basement 55-200mm non VR lens, or on a $2,499 70-200/2.8 VR-II, or an 80-400 AF-S VR lens?

As I stated, the DX business leads to little more than kit zooms and cheap flash sales, for the most part. I qualified it: for the most part. Sure, some DX buyers buy good lenses. But, in the main, the introductory-level camera business has low profits on high volumes. Nikon is one of very few camera makers left. They are primarily an imaging company, not a huge conglomerate like Canon, and Nikon has been INCREASING PROFITS despite declining unit sales and lower revenues--by selling "the good chit", at high profit margin per unit. Whaddaya' suppose the actual production cost of a $6,499 Nikon D4s is as a percentage of wholesale price Nikon rakes in?  Yeah. Uh-huh.

My theory, and I think it is right: Nikon has DELIBERATELY ignored the D300s market because of profit margins on selling, first, all-new D700 bodies, and then later, selling $3,200 D800/D800e bodies. Want higher profit margins? STOP selling $1699 solutions that will satisfy serious enthusiasts and semi-pro and professional shooters, and force them to buy $3,200 and up bodies! Notice how the "alleged" new FX Nikon is supposed to come onto the market at $2,500? And not at the D300s $1699 price point? That's another $800 per-unit. Nikon tends to its cash cows much more closely than the little feeder calves. Nikon brings the high-end stuff out, and sells it to make profits to keep Nikon in business. THe low-end stuff is to get people into the system, hopefully for a lifetime.


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 13, 2014)

I got my D600 shutter replaced and ever since I had no new oilspots at f/22 ... so I think I'm good in that respect.

DX cameras dont bother me. Theres just too many holes in the Nikon DX lineup for this.

Now Canon recently did a HUGE fix of their EF-S lineup with their new wideangle zoom for it. So Canon users might view this a bit differently.


----------



## cgw (Aug 13, 2014)

_Whaddaya' suppose the actual production cost of a $6,499 Nikon D4s is as a percentage of wholesale price Nikon rakes in? Yeah. Uh-huh


_Following this logic, Nikon should immediately abandon DX for FX-only products and leave all those BestBuy pedestals vacant, effectively vanishing from public view, right? That'll be a cold day so long as that embarrassing DX schlock is around 3/4s of their DSLR sales. Spreading bets is a time-honored, if not always smart--strategy.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 13, 2014)

cgw said:


> _Whaddaya' suppose the actual production cost of a $6,499 Nikon D4s is as a percentage of wholesale price Nikon rakes in? Yeah. Uh-huh
> 
> 
> _Following this logic, Nikon should immediately abandon DX for FX-only products and leave all those BestBuy pedestals vacant, effectively vanishing from public view, right? That'll be a cold day so long as that embarrassing DX schlock is around 3/4s of their DSLR sales. Spreading bets is a time-honored, if not always smart--strategy.



Nikon needs to DX line up to help reel in new fans who will hopefully buy FX gear in the future. Derrel is just saying their is more meat on the bone with FX vs DX. The most common upgrade on a DX is usually a $100-150 35mm or 50mm lens. The most common upgrades for an FX is a $1,500 24-70, $2,200 70-200 VRII, or a $1,900 14-24mm (filters for this lens isn't cheap either).


----------



## cgw (Aug 13, 2014)

_Derrel is just saying their is more meat on the bone with FX vs DX

_Got it. Problem is--too few FX bones, meat content notwithstanding, to make up the difference. Nikon's plainly struggling to find an FX model post-D600 that will sell in appreciable volume. The dorky Df isn't. The D4 series is way too pricey. The D800 series is just too much for many. Couple all that with the widening perception of insufficient qualitative difference between DX/FX and it's hard not to see where Nikon is up against it.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> I have to agree. The time tested business strategy is to make lots of cheap products with high margins to afford to make expensive products with low margins.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong or maybe Nikon has done something different but it seems like sound logic to me.



The halo effect


----------



## DevC (Aug 14, 2014)

This may show some interest to me


----------



## TheLost (Aug 14, 2014)

This camera better have a dedicated AF-ON button!!!


----------



## greybeard (Aug 14, 2014)

Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format.  Which camp do you think will win?


----------



## TheLost (Aug 14, 2014)

greybeard said:


> Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format. Which camp do you think will win?


FX has already won..

The only thing DX has in its favor is cost.  You can pick up a refurbished D800 for under $2k now... cost is quickly becoming a non-issue.
FX is slowly eating away at the hard-core DX crowed and smaller/lighter mirrorless APS-C systems are slowly eating away the weekend-enthusiast crowed.

For me.. i like my D7100 but struggle with a few of its flaws.. DX is a dead end for me with no other options but to move to FX.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 14, 2014)

greybeard said:


> Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format.  Which camp do you think will win?



FX


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 14, 2014)

TheLost said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format. Which camp do you think will win?
> ...


Well I love my FX for everything low light and in general.

But I still use my DX for the reach and such. I'm still contemplating upgrading my d7000 to a d7100 for the improved reach to get Saturn/Jupiter shots.  But I'm curious in the low light scenario how it compares to my d600 or even a d8x0.  basically for astro stuff .. is low light + cropping more useful than 1.5x reach ??


----------



## chuasam (Aug 14, 2014)

Astro, I'm suspecting the 12megapixel uber sensor from the A7s 
Right up your alley


----------



## TheLost (Aug 14, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> But I still use my DX for the reach and such. I'm still contemplating upgrading my d7000 to a d7100 for the improved reach to get Saturn/Jupiter shots.  But I'm curious in the low light scenario how it compares to my d600 or even a d8x0.  basically for astro stuff .. is low light + cropping more useful than 1.5x reach ??



I have to agree with everything in this article..
DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography
With modern high pixel density cameras... 'DX for reach' is a myth. 

The better ISO handling of your D600 will produce cleaner astrophotography images then your D7000 or a D7100.


----------



## Tee (Aug 14, 2014)

How can it be a D700 replacement if there's alleged video?


----------



## cgw (Aug 14, 2014)

greybeard said:


> Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format. Which camp do you think will win?



That's not really the case, though you'd never guess it from this thread.

Some clarification here:

DX versus FX (Again) | byThom | Thom Hogan


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 14, 2014)

FX!!!

I'm hopeful this will be a D710...


----------



## TWright33 (Aug 14, 2014)

TheLost said:


> You can pick up a refurbished D800 for under $2k now...




Link?


----------



## bc_steve (Aug 14, 2014)

TheLost said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format. Which camp do you think will win?
> ...



There's a lot of people who want their first DSLR + kit lens and budget around $400.  Derrel makes the excellent point that this part of the business is essential to bring new customers into the Nikon system.  Some of whom will upgrade, and upgrade, and upgrade...


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 14, 2014)

TheLost said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > But I still use my DX for the reach and such. I'm still contemplating upgrading my d7000 to a d7100 for the improved reach to get Saturn/Jupiter shots.  But I'm curious in the low light scenario how it compares to my d600 or even a d8x0.  basically for astro stuff .. is low light + cropping more useful than 1.5x reach ??
> ...


As soon as I finish my pizza I'll be testing this on Saturn which is only about 750 million miles away.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2014)

When they can build a 24 mp or higher FX camera and market it for under $500 new then you might finally see the end of DX, but not one second before.  

Same with the Ford Focus or the Toyota Camry.  The minute you see Mercedes, BMW, Lotus, Royal's Royce and Ferrari all come out high end, super awesome luxury vehicles that cost the same as the Focus, well then maybe you'll see an end to them.  Until then though their will be a market for them, and believe me Ford will sell a hell of a lot more of those than Ferrari ever will of any of it's models.  For some folks spending 100 grand and up on a car just so they can go back and forth to the supermarket or get there kids to soccer practice just doesn't make that much sense.

And yes, there are a ton of people out there for whom $2000 and up is just too much to consider spending on a camera.  I know... it's shocking, but it's true.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 14, 2014)

TheLost said:


> I have to agree with everything in this article..
> DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography
> With modern high pixel density cameras... 'DX for reach' is a myth.


I don't agree.  I have shot the D7100, D600 and D3S now.  When you crop a D600 or D3S (I haven't shot a D800) to the same size as a D7100, the detail is way better on the D7100 for sure.  The noise advantage seems to dissapear.  All this stuff about FX being so much better is based on using a different lens or a different distance to "frame the same shot"  What I shoot, I'm at 600mm regardless and often I can not get closer.  So therefore the FF will always be cropped.  Don't get me wrong, I'm really interested in this new camera but it will be at the expense of loosing 33% linear resolution that could adversely affect my prints...



robbins.photo said:


> When they can build a 24 mp or higher FX camera and market it for under $500 new then you might finally see the end of DX, but not one second before.
> 
> Same with the Ford Focus or the Toyota Camry.  The minute you see Mercedes, BMW, Lotus, Royal's Royce and Ferrari all come out high end, super awesome luxury vehicles that cost the same as the Focus, well then maybe you'll see an end to them.  Until then though their will be a market for them, and believe me Ford will sell a hell of a lot more of those than Ferrari ever will of any of it's models.  For some folks spending 100 grand and up on a car just so they can go back and forth to the supermarket or get there kids to soccer practice just doesn't make that much sense.
> 
> And yes, there are a ton of people out there for whom $2000 and up is just too much to consider spending on a camera.  I know... it's shocking, but it's true.


I agree with you 100%!


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



Your flying all the way to Saturn just to test your lens? Whacky.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 14, 2014)

TheLost said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like there are 2 different camps at Nikon, FX and DX. The FX camp wants to eventually do away with DX entirely and of course the DX camp wants to keep developing the format. Which camp do you think will win?
> ...




Low end DX d3100 is $300 - New body only
Low end FX d600 is $1,550 - New body only

$1,250 difference

I don't get the "cost is quickly becoming a non-issue". Even that article said that.
But for non-professionals who are not used to buying a $6k body, $1250 is a BIG amount of money difference.  So much so that cost IS AN ISSUE.

For me it was a gigantic struggle to go to FX.  But I had planned it all along only buying screw focus lenses.  And it helped that the d600 was a problem which lowered it's used price.  I was looking at a new d7100 which was a big price problem, but with the used d600s just a couple hundred more I bit the bullet, and a few others.  

So maybe going from new d7100 to used d600 isn't much ... but then we didn't compare the d7100 new at $1,100 versus the d4s at $6,500 .. and is the d3x new at $9,000 ?  The top DX to the top FX is even a wider margin.

Ugh.   at least I have the cameras I have now and I don't have to worry about it.  As long as I have my built-in intervalometer and multiple exposure abilities I'm happy  

Of course, lens price is another matter altogether.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 15, 2014)

TheLost said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > But I still use my DX for the reach and such. I'm still contemplating upgrading my d7000 to a d7100 for the improved reach to get Saturn/Jupiter shots.  But I'm curious in the low light scenario how it compares to my d600 or even a d8x0.  basically for astro stuff .. is low light + cropping more useful than 1.5x reach ??
> ...



Yeah, the d600 was better than the d7000.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 19, 2014)

The D750 is coming.

Source:
The upcoming full frame DSLR camera will be called Nikon D750 | Nikon Rumors



The upcoming full frame DSLR camera will be called Nikon D750

_By [NR] ADMIN | Published: AUGUST 18, 2014_



I can now confirm the name of the upcoming full frame DSLR camera: Nikon D750 (see also the rumored specifications).


I am also pretty confident (over 95% probability) that the new Nikon D750 camera will have a 24.3MP full frame sensor and will be released for Photokina. I am still not sure about the focusing system and whether or not the sensor will have an AA filter.


If you have any more details on this new camera, you can contact me anonymously here. You can also anonymously submit any pictures by using any of the listed services (Bayimg, Rapidshare, Anonfiles).




Read more on NikonRumors.com: The upcoming full frame DSLR camera will be called Nikon D750 | Nikon Rumors






Rumored specifications:
- 24MP full frame sensor
- Tilting LCD screen
- Wi-Fi support
- Expeed 4 imaging processor
- Very light body (probably similar to the D610 and Df, maybe even lighter)
- Priced around $2,500 (the current Nikon FX camera price points are - D610: $1,896.95, Df: $2,746.95, D810: $3,296.95, D4s: $6,496.95)
- Potential announcement at the end of August or early September
- No idea on the model name - it could be D620, D750 or something completely different
- The probability rating on this rumor is currently at 70% - I am pretty confident that this camera is coming, I am just not sure about the detailed specifications (if you have any more details, you can contact me anonymously here)




Read more on NikonRumors.com: Another full frame Nikon DSLR camera coming for Photokina | Nikon Rumors


----------



## hamlet (Aug 22, 2014)

I really hope it comes out soon. I'm gonna be giving away my d3200.


----------



## LifeORiley (Aug 23, 2014)

I don't understand why DX* must *go away. 

I've been fiddling about with entry level Nikons and buying some good quality FX glass in the process. However, if Nikon decides to cancel DX and only offer "high end" FX cameras , as some have suggested - I'm out and never to return.

 Hello Canon.

Price matters. It could be a strategy that works for Nikon - you can't sell "junk" with no profit margin and maybe brand name and brand recognition isn't as important as it used to be. 

Even so...


----------



## cgw (Aug 23, 2014)

LifeORiley said:


> I don't understand why DX* must *go away.
> 
> I've been fiddling about with entry level Nikons and buying some good quality FX glass in the process. However, if Nikon decides to cancel DX and only offer "high end" FX cameras , as some have suggested - I'm out and never to return.
> 
> ...




Whoever said DX was toast? Fuji seems to be doing just fine with 16mp APS-C sensors in cameras no one would consider "junk."


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 23, 2014)

LifeORiley said:


> I don't understand why DX* must *go away.
> 
> I've been fiddling about with entry level Nikons and buying some good quality FX glass in the process. However, if Nikon decides to cancel DX and only offer "high end" FX cameras , as some have suggested - I'm out and never to return.
> 
> ...


Me either
Until an FX has the resolution to also offer 24mp at crop (and at the same price points) I don't think DX is going away.
Think of all the Christmas sales LOST of the d3x00, d5x00 and d7x00 bodies that are sold.  Those people, especially on the low end are NOT going to be buying a d610. They're going to buy a Canon t1i, t2i, t3i, t4i or whatever model is in their price range.

I think nikon has a problem. They build xx million of a model and stick it in inventory.  Then when it doesn't sell, they end up having to compete against themselves against the next version, and the next version.  At least they have several price points at one time.  but it seems to be they are using the manufacturing models from 20+ years ago.  Which was just build and then worry about selling it later.


----------



## LifeORiley (Aug 23, 2014)

I'm not marketing expert or camera expert but I can tell you this - different customers must be treated differently.

I worked as a salesmen selling high end speakers. There are 3 customers...

1) 200.00 - 600.00ish
2)1000.00 - 2000.00
3) rich guy 5000.00, 10,000.00  + show them anything and everything. 

Trying to move customers around willy-nilly is a fools game. A 1 customer will not buy a 10,000 pair of speakers - period. And will be angered at a 1500.00 pair that you are pushing.

Does this sort of thing apply to cameras, blue jeans and imported cheeses? - you bet it does.


----------



## pab (Aug 25, 2014)

LifeORiley said:


> I'm not marketing expert or camera expert but I can tell you this - different customers must be treated differently.
> 
> I worked as a salesmen selling high end speakers. There are 3 customers...
> 
> ...



Thats why you dont sell speakers anymore.   You build value in the high end product and when you show the customer the reasons why they "need" the higher end model the customer will agree.    Been in sales for 15 years now and I can tell you I have learned to never judge a book by its cover.       Upselling is done every day from the waiter asking you to get desert to the dealer selling warranties.  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Aug 25, 2014)

astroNikon said:
			
		

> Until an FX has the resolution to also offer 24mp at crop (and at the same price points) I don't think DX is going away.
> Think of all the Christmas sales LOST of the d3x00, d5x00 and d7x00 bodies that are sold.  Those people, especially on the low end are NOT going to be buying a d610. They're going to buy a Canon t1i, t2i, t3i, t4i or whatever model is in their price range.
> 
> I think nikon has a problem. They build xx million of a model and stick it in inventory.  Then when it doesn't sell, they end up having to compete against themselves against the next version, and the next version.  At least they have several price points at one time.  but it seems to be they are using the manufacturing models from 20+ years ago.  Which was just build and then worry about selling it later.



One generation ahead, I expect 54 or 56 MP on FX. Two generations ahead might see 85 MP on FX. So, it might be in the next-gen models that we get a 24-megapixel crop sensor camera that also offers FX, as well as then 5:4 and also the 1.2x crop options (four distinct capture formats!) in affordable bodies. I honestly do not see much more point in going higher in MP count on APS-C sized sensors...the pixels are getting smaller and smaller, and the area smaller and smaller; FX has now become "where it's at" for that extra stop or even two stop's worth of low-light capability at elevated ISO values. But FX will never be able to equal DX in price; the FX sensor will ALWAYS, as in always cost more to manufacture, and will I think almost always have a higher perceived value.


And it *is true* that Nikon cameras have been piling up in inventory, world-wide, and older models sold at discounted prices have in fact become top sellers! people love "a deal" or "a mark-down". Nikon has sort of been conditioning its buyers to WAIT for discounts...for the budget-minded, that mans if one waits until a new model becomes a discontinued model , it can be bought for a very low price. As time goes on, and cameras get better and better, that strategy of buying behind the curve makes more and more sense for many people.


----------

