Not what I was hoping for out of Nikon for a new DX body. Where is my 300s replacement?
Gives hope for a new pro DX body. But when? And What?
http://www.pictureline.com/blog/niko...ew-d3200-dslr/

They got rid of the nifty drive mode and live view switches that I love so much

Nikon hasn't sold a pro DX body in many years. And I don't think they will start any time soon. A new D400 would be quite welcome though.

Originally Posted by perroneford Nikon hasn't sold a pro DX body in many years. And I don't think they will start any time soon. A new D400 would be quite welcome though.

It sounds like you're going all the way back to the D2X / D2Xs, which I think is not really a proper judgment of Nikons "pro DX" situation. The D300 and D300s have totally eclipsed the D2X's performance, and have retained quite a few flagship-only options such as TIFF capture. A useless feature for most of us, but a subtle statement that the D300 series is effectively the continuation of the flagship DX line. The D300s even added dual card slots, which the D2-series never had. And of course video, but that is ubiquitous now.

My point is, I think the D300s is an un-sung hero, a worthy continuation of the DX pro line, ...and due for an upgrade either this year or VERY early in 2013.

The problem is that Nikon knows that the day they dropped the FX bomb, (August 2007, along with the D300) ...they kissed goodbye any future in high-volume pro DX sales... But, just like the D3X, I hope Nikon ends up deciding that it's worth it despite the lower sales volume. Obviously the D3X had a FAR higher profit margin than the D300 / D300s, ...and to make a D400 sell any volume they're going to have to price it right at $1700 / $1800.

Those who argue that nobody will buy a D400 for that much if the D700 is just $2200, well, to you I say, ...just imagine a DX version of the D800 for $1200+ less than $3K! ...With 6-8 FPS!!!!

The longer you think about it that way, the more you realize it'll sell. Based on the D3200 sample images, I'm really looking forward to the D400. And I'm actually glad that they're doing the D400 second, instead of first; unlike the D300 and D300s which had to play second-fiddle to the D90's improved RAW noise performance... (What I mean to say is, however good the D3200 is, the D400 could only be better.)

=Matt=

Matt you made me feel better. I was bummed about the release of a low end body with this spec. That is a lot of camera for a soccer mom! $699? And you can even get a red one. Hot damn! But it will let them work bugs out and just improve for the D400 or whatever they call it. The 300s is a pro body. It feels every bit of it comparing it to the d700 or D3s. It is just smaller. So yeah it gets underrated.

Not to get too side tracked with this. But Nikon is doing some big moves this year. It seems like they want to really bitch slap every other manufacturer with straight up specmanship. Not real world use. People still look at megapixels as a huge feature. I am so surprised Nikon has left such a gap. The D4 is nice, but not a huge step away from the D3s for still pictures. I got to review one! For photographyreview.com. I got to do a back to back test of the D4 vs D3s in low light at a womens self defense seminar. Shot it at ISO 12,800 with the same lens and settings. Review should be coming out soon. Don't want to spill all the beans but in short, they are really about the same. It is just the D4 has more resolution. But the D4 looses many switches the D3s has that I am fond of. Not a deal breaker, but?? Why??? So for this one, I have a weird feeling about it especially for $6000. If I am really lucky, I am shooting a fight with it too. That is still up in the air. This will be the perfect comparison. The 2 kings of sports photography go head to head in the octagon! It will test everything.

The D800 is a HUGE step from the D700. So much so that it is not an upgrade from the D700 but an entirely new concept. It seemed to be that the D700 was designed to be very versatile. And it might be the best all around DSLR. So Nikon seems to have really departed from this philosophy with the D800. Not really in a good way for most users. Its 36 megapixles are cool on paper, cool for prints, but a nightmare for most computer systems if shot in large volumes. Lower frame rate. Not really better ISO, I am glad I now own a D700. I love it and could have many of those bodies. But for say a portrait photographer, fashion, product, and even some wedding type shots the D800 is the bomb. Almost medium format quality for $2999? Crazy. And you get to use the lenses you already have. Serious bang for the buck for IQ. I also think it is too cheap. It would have been cool to see this as a D4x. The people that need that sort of thing would buy it. I would have liked to see a 16 megapixel FX body that shot 8fps and had ISO at least slightly better than the D700. Maybe ISO 8000 instead of 6400. Even better would be the D3s crammed inside of a D700 size body for about $3000

The poor 300s is left out in the cold. Outdated and underrated. It's AF performance is close to the D3s. Frame rate is high, IQ is great in the right conditions, and ISO very usable up to 3200. It sits in a weird spot. Slightly eclipsed by the D7000 in a lot of ways. ISO is the big one here. And of course video performance. But the rockin AF system of the 300s still makes it a better camera for any sort of action. It it is not in focus, it doesn't matter how good the sensor is. And the navigation is almost identical to the D700 and D3s which makes it very nice to use along with those bodies.

D400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for the long rant. Started typing and couldn't stop.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville It sounds like you're going all the way back to the D2X / D2Xs, which I think is not really a proper judgment of Nikons "pro DX" situation. The D300 and D300s have totally eclipsed the D2X's performance, and have retained quite a few flagship-only options such as TIFF capture. A useless feature for most of us, but a subtle statement that the D300 series is effectively the continuation of the flagship DX line. The D300s even added dual card slots, which the D2-series never had. And of course video, but that is ubiquitous now.

I am going back to the D2x(s), because that was the last PRO DX body that Nikon sold. The D300(s) can be used in pro situations, but that doesn't make it a pro body. D700 is the same. The D7000 eclipses the D300(s) performance as well, but that doesn't make it pro. The ONE feature the D300s brings to the table is dual card slots. That is more an issue of bandwidth capability over time than "pro" vs non-pro. Again the D7000 has dual card slots.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville My point is, I think the D300s is an un-sung hero, a worthy continuation of the DX pro line, ...and due for an upgrade either this year or VERY early in 2013.

I know several pros who shoot a D300. And all of them use it as a back up. I think it is credible in that role. But I'll tell you right now, if I had to choose between an D2x and a D300 when I was going to spend 3-5 hours behind the lens, my choice would be made instantly.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville The problem is that Nikon knows that the day they dropped the FX bomb, (August 2007, along with the D300) ...they kissed goodbye any future in high-volume pro DX sales... But, just like the D3X, I hope Nikon ends up deciding that it's worth it despite the lower sales volume. Obviously the D3X had a FAR higher profit margin than the D300 / D300s, ...and to make a D400 sell any volume they're going to have to price it right at $1700 / $1800.

Since Nikon won't put a DX sensor into a full-sized pro body any longer, I am going to be forced down the road of the D400. DX still has a place for me as a sports shooter. If it does come in with the rumored 24MP Sony sensor, I will be quite pleased to buy one. I don't really care if it's $1800 or $2500. As long as they can produce it and get it to me before the fall sports season starts!

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Those who argue that nobody will buy a D400 for that much if the D700 is just $2200, well, to you I say, ...just imagine a DX version of the D800 for $1200+ less than $3K! ...With 6-8 FPS!!!!

I could care less about the D700. Nice camera, but brings nothing new to the table for me. A DX version of my D800 on the other hand would be most welcome. Even without the high frame rate. I don't find myself missing much because the D800 is slower.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville The longer you think about it that way, the more you realize it'll sell. Based on the D3200 sample images, I'm really looking forward to the D400. And I'm actually glad that they're doing the D400 second, instead of first; unlike the D300 and D300s which had to play second-fiddle to the D90's improved RAW noise performance... (What I mean to say is, however good the D3200 is, the D400 could only be better.) =Matt=

Originally Posted by Zerodog The 300s is a pro body. It feels every bit of it comparing it to the d700 or D3s. It is just smaller. So yeah it gets underrated.

Say WHAT? The D300 may be a fine camera, but it is in NO WAY similar in feel and performance to a D3s. Come on now.

I do agree that the D4 didn't bring much to the table for my needs. My buddy bought one, and we were shooting last week at a track meet. I had my D800 and D3s with me. He had his D4. I really didn't see anything there to make me want to spend $6k.

Originally Posted by Zerodog ....But the D4 looses many switches the D3s has that I am fond of. Not a deal breaker, but?? Why??? So for this one, I have a weird feeling about it especially for $6000.

Bingo. I think that Nikon has tried a liiiitle too hard to re-program their control layout to accommodate video captureI'm almost okay with the C/S/M switch change, because I've shot with the D7000 and I have to say it's not that hard to get used to, as long as you have a right finger free to change the settings. (Which also "allows" them to remove the dynamic AF switches, which again I can learn to live without but still, ...why add a switch that could COMPLETELY halt my shooting if I accidentally bump it? I suppose I've never bumed the dynamic AF switch before, so I'm safe.

Originally Posted by Zerodog The D800 is a HUGE step from the D700. So much so that it is not an upgrade from the D700 but an entirely new concept. It seemed to be that the D700 was designed to be very versatile. And it might be the best all around DSLR. So Nikon seems to have really departed from this philosophy with the D800.

I totally agree, but it's ironic that (according to DXO) ...the D800 sensor is the best ever. Or at the very least if we don't want to open up that can of worms, we can at least conclude that the 36 megapixel sensor has proven us quite wrong about "more megapixels equals worse ISO performance" ...when considering how close the D800 is to the D4 in high ISO testing.

The TRULY ironic part is, ...they could have avoided all of this by just giving us an sRAW mode. People can argue all they want about how the D800 file sizes aren't that bad, or that sRAW isn't truly RAW, but the bottom line is that I shoot a quarter-million images a year, and going from the D700 to the D800 would triple my memory, hard drive, computer power, and also significant TIME consumption. Also, it reduces the shooting speed. Together, these two things make the D800 borderline un-acceptable as a wedding photography camera, to me at least being so accustomed to the D700's versatility, and also compared to what the 5D mk3 has to offer on the other side of the fence.

Fortunately, all this leads me to believe that we're still due for a D700 "replacement". Many industry pundits have mentioned (including Thom Hogan?) that it is just not cost-effective for Nikon to develop it's own sensors, and then only use them ONCE. Thus the D3, D700, and D3s. This makes me even more confident that the D4 sensor will be re-used, at LEAST once, if not twice.

My only hope is that they don't just make an FX D7000, with all those "advanced amateur" control / function limitations. I want a TRUE D700s-type body. Call it the D800h, call it whatever you need to, just give us the D4 sensor in a $3-$3.5K body!

Originally Posted by Zerodog ...Almost medium format quality for $2999? Crazy. And you get to use the lenses you already have. Serious bang for the buck for IQ. I also think it is too cheap. It would have been cool to see this as a D4x. The people that need that sort of thing would buy it. I would have liked to see a 16 megapixel FX body that shot 8fps and had ISO at least slightly better than the D700. Maybe ISO 8000 instead of 6400. Even better would be the D3s crammed inside of a D700 size body for about $3000

Exactly. Unfortunately I think it's too late for Nikon do re-hash it's 12 MP sensor one final time, which is a total shame but hey I'll happily take 16 megapixels and the D4's ISO performance...

Originally Posted by Zerodog The poor 300s is left out in the cold. Outdated and underrated. It's AF performance is close to the D3s. Frame rate is high, IQ is great in the right conditions, and ISO very usable up to 3200. It sits in a weird spot. Slightly eclipsed by the D7000 in a lot of ways. ISO is the big one here. And of course video performance. But the rockin AF system of the 300s still makes it a better camera for any sort of action. It it is not in focus, it doesn't matter how good the sensor is. And the navigation is almost identical to the D700 and D3s which makes it very nice to use along with those bodies.

Yep, I'm always a little shocked when someone claims that the D7000 totally kills the D300s line. Hardly! I know you of all people can understand just how awesome it is to have three types of cameras with nearly identical controls. I can switch back and forth from the D300 and D700 all day long, but the one time I tried to switch between the D7000 and the D700, it was quite clear how limited the D7000 was for my needs...


So, here's to hoping that we get a D400 and a D700 replacement within the next 12-18 months!

=Matt=

Originally Posted by perroneford I am going back to the D2x(s), because that was the last PRO DX body that Nikon sold. The D300(s) can be used in pro situations, but that doesn't make it a pro body. D700 is the same. The D7000 eclipses the D300(s) performance as well, but that doesn't make it pro. The ONE feature the D300s brings to the table is dual card slots. That is more an issue of bandwidth capability over time than "pro" vs non-pro. Again the D7000 has dual card slots. I know several pros who shoot a D300. And all of them use it as a back up. I think it is credible in that role. But I'll tell you right now, if I had to choose between an D2x and a D300 when I was going to spend 3-5 hours behind the lens, my choice would be made instantly. Since Nikon won't put a DX sensor into a full-sized pro body any longer, I am going to be forced down the road of the D400. DX still has a place for me as a sports shooter. If it does come in with the rumored 24MP Sony sensor, I will be quite pleased to buy one. I don't really care if it's $1800 or $2500. As long as they can produce it and get it to me before the fall sports season starts! I could care less about the D700. Nice camera, but brings nothing new to the table for me. A DX version of my D800 on the other hand would be most welcome. Even without the high frame rate. I don't find myself missing much because the D800 is slower.

Clearly we have different standards AND different shooting needs / styles. I agree that the D300 series lacks a slight amount of the robust build and reliability that the D2-series had, but damn, the D2X couldn't even shoot at 8 FPS without going to 2X crop mode! I'd take a D300s, gripped or un-gripped, any day over a D2Xs. The D300s replaced the D2Xs just like the D800 replaces the D3X. The fact that these cameras lack a permanent vertical grip is just an F6-like evolution of an obsolete (but still flagship) series...

If anything, this is just what happens to a less popular flagship lineup in a down economy. Nikon makes 'em in Thailand etc. instead of Japan.

=Matt=

Originally Posted by perroneford Say WHAT? The D300 may be a fine camera, but it is in NO WAY similar in feel and performance to a D3s. Come on now.

I really think it does have a similar feel to it. Yeah it is not a full size body. But I am talking about how it is built and feels in your hands. Also the control layout. I love having all 3 of my bodies have virtually identical controls and menus. Even though they are 3 completely different cameras.

Also the 300s has virtually the same AF system as the D3s, D3, and D700. That is what sets it apart from the D7000 performance wise.

Originally Posted by Zerodog I really think it does have a similar feel to it. Yeah it is not a full size body. But I am talking about how it is built and feels in your hands. Also the control layout. I love having all 3 of my bodies have virtually identical controls and menus. Even though they are 3 completely different cameras. Also the 300s has virtually the same AF system as the D3s, D3, and D700. That is what sets it apart from the D7000 performance wise.

I actually prefer the D300 / D700 control layout to the D3 etc. layout. I LOVE where the metering switch is, and hate how it's locked on the side of the VF prism on the flagships. I also prefer the D700 / D300 method of image playback, and the less-spread-out controls for ISO etc... (that tiny little screen below the main LCD needs to go IMO; sorry flagship shooters!)

=Matt=

I agree with you Perroneford the full size body is big. But for some reason I am more comfortable with it for really long shoots. Just seems to balance better with heavy lenses.

Originally Posted by Zerodog I agree with you Perroneford the full size body is big. But for some reason I am more comfortable with it for really long shoots. Just seems to balance better with heavy lenses.

And that is the fundamental. When you spend half your day with your eye against the viewfinder, that big camera allows you to relax your grip. Especially on the monopod where you are balancing the camera. When shooting offhand, like with an 85 or a 70-200, you can actually open your hand and just let the body dangle from your fingers without feeling like you are going to lose it. After a few thousand shutter presses on the day, that is a VERY welcome relief.

But hey, to each their own...

Originally Posted by Zerodog I really think it does have a similar feel to it. Yeah it is not a full size body. But I am talking about how it is built and feels in your hands. Also the control layout. I love having all 3 of my bodies have virtually identical controls and menus. Even though they are 3 completely different cameras.

Ok. When I was shopping bodies last year, I picked up a D7000, a D300s, and a D700. I was shooting a D2x and a D2H at the time. For me, the D300 and D700 felt much the same, the D7000 felt like a toy in comparison, and none of them felt or handled like a pro body. BUT, if you spend your day with a 50mm, 85mm, or a 24-70mm on the camera I think they are all ok. If you spend your day with a 300, 400, or 600 hanging off your monopod all day, the heft of the pro bodies means a LOT.

Originally Posted by Zerodog Also the 300s has virtually the same AF system as the D3s, D3, and D700. That is what sets it apart from the D7000 performance wise.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I don't shoot a D300. I do have a gripped D200 that feels pretty good. My gripped D7000... not so much. Good for 10-15 minutes at a time.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Clearly we have different standards AND different shooting needs / styles. I agree that the D300 series lacks a slight amount of the robust build and reliability that the D2-series had, but damn, the D2X couldn't even shoot at 8 FPS without going to 2X crop mode!

I could count on one hand the number of times I've needed 8fps in the past year. I typically am shooting sports either as single frames or bursts of 2-3 shots.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville I'd take a D300s, gripped or un-gripped, any day over a D2Xs.

I couldn't hold onto a D300 for more than half an hour without my hand cramping up. Ungripped is worse.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville The D300s replaced the D2Xs just like the D800 replaces the D3X. The fact that these cameras lack a permanent vertical grip is just an F6-like evolution of an obsolete (but still flagship) series...

And why I never bought an F6, and most sports pros didn't either. I spend 85% of my time in vertical orientation for volleyball. I am DYING without the grip for the D800, but fortunately, the season is now over. Hopefully, I can get the grip before indoor season starts in August.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville If anything, this is just what happens to a less popular flagship lineup in a down economy. Nikon makes 'em in Thailand etc. instead of Japan. =Matt=

Yea, I guess so.

I can't imagine what an entry-level DSLR buyer needs with 24mp. Seems 16 would be plenty for a first timer. Save the 24 for the D400 and/or D7100. But I guess what's done is done.

I think Nikon is simply spreading sensor costs over as many cameras as it can. I can't really blame them for that. I think that is why we are seeing the prices we are. No, the entry level buyer doesn't need 24MP. But neither did they need 18.2 like the Canon T2i had a few years ago. Logical progression.

The problem with this logical progression is computer speed of the average user. Will the buyer of a $699 DSLR have the computer and software to not even make the most out of, but just deal with, a 24MP image? It would drive me batshit crazy how slow that would be on most computer systems. Probably even my own computers that are pretty fast.

What sounds good on paper isn't always good.

Originally Posted by Zerodog The problem with this logical progression is computer speed of the average user. Will the buyer of a $699 DSLR have the computer and software to not even make the most out of, but just deal with, a 24MP image? It would drive me batshit crazy how slow that would be on most computer systems. Probably even my own computers that are pretty fast. What sounds good on paper isn't always good.

I guess Nikon assumes these people won't be shooting and processing RAW.

24mp jpegs will be no problem.

Originally Posted by Zerodog The problem with this logical progression is computer speed of the average user. Will the buyer of a $699 DSLR have the computer and software to not even make the most out of, but just deal with, a 24MP image? It would drive me batshit crazy how slow that would be on most computer systems. Probably even my own computers that are pretty fast. What sounds good on paper isn't always good.

Have to disagree. I've been hearing this tale of woe since I started with digital. The simple fact is that technology progresses. I started out with a 2 mp camera and a PC with storage that wasn't measured in GBs. As my cameras progressed so did PCs and storage. I probably upgrade my PC faster than I upgrade my camera bodies.

At one time a 24 inch TV was considered enormous now they take up whoie walls. Of course instead of watching movies on them we view movies on the 3 inch screen of our IPhone or Android.