Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Future: cheaper FF DSLRs by Nikon
- Thread starter cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I saw that one coming as soon as they put out the D3. I love how Nikon can shake things up a bit even though it takes them four years to do it.
I reckon DX will stay in the consumer market and the tech in the D300 goes down to the next version of the D80 and D40. While FX gets cheaper and Nikon lowers the price on the D3h ad D3x while increasing the resolution slightly and adding more useful features like built in WiFi and puts them into a body that is better sealed and built like the F5 of yester years.
I reckon DX will stay in the consumer market and the tech in the D300 goes down to the next version of the D80 and D40. While FX gets cheaper and Nikon lowers the price on the D3h ad D3x while increasing the resolution slightly and adding more useful features like built in WiFi and puts them into a body that is better sealed and built like the F5 of yester years.
You mean a D300x? Yep, I'm expecting one too. 
Of course, we're supposed to watch out for a 24 MP Nikon, no? I don't know about this one. I'm sure customers would be happy whether the sensor had 18 MP, 21 MP, or 24 MP.
Of course, we're supposed to watch out for a 24 MP Nikon, no? I don't know about this one. I'm sure customers would be happy whether the sensor had 18 MP, 21 MP, or 24 MP.
Man, in a way I hate this. It's most certainly a good thing, but I'm almost 100% guaranteed to be buying a new body in the next 10-12 months; so it's adding more mental stress for me personally.
The D3 is out of my price range, so the D300 is my logical choice right now. However I am finding I really enjoy shooting wide angles; so a full-frame camera that's marginally in my price range (despite the fact that I'd have to replace my DX lenses) would be very nice indeed.
The D3 is out of my price range, so the D300 is my logical choice right now. However I am finding I really enjoy shooting wide angles; so a full-frame camera that's marginally in my price range (despite the fact that I'd have to replace my DX lenses) would be very nice indeed.
That won't be for a couple of years. And the smaller sensor cameras with nice lenses will still be taking great pictures. Don't worry about "what will come". If you take what's available and shoot now, you'll have mediocre to good pics based on your ability. By the time FF is standard (I'm not saying it will be, just hypothetically), you'll be a GREAT photographer and be able to make use of the <5% difference in IQ to your advantage. Or you can wait and still be a mediocre photographer that sits and whines waiting for the next best thing to come out. Then you'll be a mediocre photographer that shoots FF.
(I do not follow this philosophy with computers though. Software demands require faster computers. A computer I have from 3 years ago will NOT allow me the same workflow today it did 3 years ago. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.)
Had a guy at a wedding comment that his Canon 5D was better than our "tiny" Nikon. Okay. Whatever. I know my abilities and they're not limited by much other than lack of available light for what we use our cameras for. (yes, a FF is better in low-light). Got the feeling after his 18th or so tech question that he spends more time comparing specs and researching differences than actually taking pictures. Whatever works for him.
A camera is a tool. The photog is the artist. The camera is limited by the artist. The artist is rarely limited by the camera. It just helps to better express the artists's perspective.
"The Bionics are nothing without the woman."
(if you remember this line, you're lamer than I am!!!)
(I do not follow this philosophy with computers though. Software demands require faster computers. A computer I have from 3 years ago will NOT allow me the same workflow today it did 3 years ago. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.)
Had a guy at a wedding comment that his Canon 5D was better than our "tiny" Nikon. Okay. Whatever. I know my abilities and they're not limited by much other than lack of available light for what we use our cameras for. (yes, a FF is better in low-light). Got the feeling after his 18th or so tech question that he spends more time comparing specs and researching differences than actually taking pictures. Whatever works for him.
A camera is a tool. The photog is the artist. The camera is limited by the artist. The artist is rarely limited by the camera. It just helps to better express the artists's perspective.
"The Bionics are nothing without the woman."
(if you remember this line, you're lamer than I am!!!)
smaller sensors dSLR take OK pictures and I pretty much disagree with everything in the prior post. Running by that logic, so do even smaller sensors on PnS...I don't buy that logic, especially when there is no good reason for not having full-frame sensors in all dSLRs. And Btw, I think Ken Rockwell will disagree with you about low-light capabilities of the 5D, in the hands of less experienced photogs, Nikon D40 would actually result in better pictures! See this link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/dynamic-range.htm
very obvious the auto contrast circuit got the best picture with the D40, and that KR is an idiot for using a flash in the next pictures below that (sorry, I know it's against forum rules to call someone an idiot, but I can't help it, KR says some really dumb things), I hate the harsh constrast that flash shot imposes in a line up the center of the columns, and yucky white flash 'ball' in the space where he aimed that flash at where the missing TV was.
Isn't the Bionic Woman a new series on TV right now, how old do you have to be to be lame?
===============
Interviewer: Welcome Steve Jobs, the new iCEO of Olympus camera company.
Steve Jobs: Thank you, Im thrilled to be here today for this first ever announcement of a revolutionary product. Im pleased and excited to announce the new iPico digital SLR, the worlds smallest full-frame dSLR. I has a top ISO of speed of 100,000- made possible by proprietary image processing engine co-developed by Olympus and Apple engineers, and the iPico can hold a billion images a billion high-definition images!
Interviewer: But Mr. Jobs, didnt Olympus just announce the smallest 4/3rds format dSLR the Olympus E410 just a few months ago?
Steve Jobs: Its too BIG!!! Its old, obsolete. The new iPico dSLR costs $100 less than the obsolete E410, its a revolutionary product, insanely great!
===================
But seriously, the fact that Nikon will likely put a full-frame sensor in the D300 (and may price it significantly more than the D300) 12 months from now is not difficult to engineer, nor is it much of a cheaper solution as the replacement for the Canon 5D is rumored and could be priced lower than the 5D at around $2k, still too expensive. If Nikon really wanted to shake up the camera world, it would put out a full-frame version of their smallest dSLR, the D40, or better yet come out with an under $1000 full-frame dSLR that is smaller than the D40, like a FX35 (oops, maybe not, Infinity already makes a crossover SUV called that
). There is no reason Nikon could not put a lower MP full-frame sensor into a small dSLR, use a less powerful/fast IP, reduce costs to make it possible for under $1k. The 1st company to put full-frame sensor dSLR into the hands of the masses, for those who would greatly benefit from wider angle zoom lenses and higher ISO 6400 sensitivity in full auto modes.But Im hoping that Sigma and Olympus will do it first with a full-frame 10MP Foveon sensor, in an Olympus dSLR that costs <$1k, that carries on the heritage of the legendary OM1/OM2 series the killer App
See my thread:
Why R APS&4/3rds dSLRs SOOO FAT! Even Oly E-410
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/366562/
I want to see a damned sexy little full-frame dSLR that can do 'sports photography' like the 4th attachment below
, taunt, light-weight, capable of thoroughly exciting both the n00b, and long time devoté of the genre such that you just can't kept from lusting for it, wanting to fondle its lovely form that fits your hands just so right...just like Lee Hyo-ri ...err, what was I talking about, somehow I lost my train of thought Attachments
There will be a day when full frame hits the masses, but not anytime soon. I say about six or more years before it hits cameras like the D40. It will happen, and everyone will be going back to using their DSLRs like their film SLRs, and PnS cameras may get the 1.5x and 1.6x crop sensors.
The biggest thing keeping that from happening is the not-so-limited cropped sensors. They still have a lot of life left in them and they will save the companies more money. Once DX and other formats reach a physical and mechanical limitation that FX won't have Full Frame will be the standard. As for now, which is evident of the Sony A700 and D300 and 40D, cropped sensors are here to stay, and for many years to come.
The biggest thing keeping that from happening is the not-so-limited cropped sensors. They still have a lot of life left in them and they will save the companies more money. Once DX and other formats reach a physical and mechanical limitation that FX won't have Full Frame will be the standard. As for now, which is evident of the Sony A700 and D300 and 40D, cropped sensors are here to stay, and for many years to come.
We have a D300 on pre-order. Waiting for it.
There is a new Bionic Woman on NBC. It really sucks, but I watch it anyway. I really like the blonde (from BSG).
I had the biggest crush on Lindsay Wagner...
There is a new Bionic Woman on NBC. It really sucks, but I watch it anyway. I really like the blonde (from BSG).
I had the biggest crush on Lindsay Wagner...
Yeah, it's not really a big problem - it's just techno-lust (or as they say over on Nikonians, "NAS"). I'm not looking to buy more lenses in the short term; so another DX body isn't committing me to anything new, really. If/when I do buy more glass, I figure I'll probably be moving up to pro-level lenses that'll work with either format anyway (like the 70-200 f/2.8). Of course that's down the road, so it's kind of silly to think ahead like that - who knows what they'll be offering lens-wise then?
I'm not looking to buy more lenses in the short term; so another DX body isn't committing me to anything new, really. If/when I do buy more glass, I figure I'll probably be moving up to pro-level lenses that'll work with either format anyway (like the 70-200 f/2.8). Of course that's down the road, so it's kind of silly to think ahead like that - who knows what they'll be offering lens-wise then?
Small sensor D-SLR's take OK pictures? Wow. First, it's photographers who take pictures.
Second, if you think "small sensor" digital SLR's are in any quantifiable way limited, you need to peruse more galleries, pal. I've seen phenomenal photography from all manner of photographers using all kinds of cameras. Modern consumer level D-SLR's are capable of fantastic output.
It's the individual behind the camera that makes the shot.
There are some times when I could swear I shot better pictures with my now retired Rebel XT compared to my beloved new 5D. I so totally did not really need a new camera body.
Though I definitely notice a marked improvement in low light/high ISO situations.
Though I definitely notice a marked improvement in low light/high ISO situations.
First I think the D3 is a great boost for sports and wedding photographers, the dual memory card feature, high iso, low noise, etc.
For the studio or commercial guy like me, the D3 makes little sense as an upgrade immediately. The DX 1.5x factor still has advantages for studio work.
A) "D" lenses on the DX sensor use the center 75% of the lens and I don't get the chromatic aberrations & softness of the lens edges. This is the sharpest part of a lens.
B) Same depth of field at a larger aperture compared to FF or FX. Thus less diffraction...f/5.6 is sharper than f/16. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm
C) I shoot at 100-400 iso so noise is not a problem or issue.
D) My D2x sensor still hits 90 lines per mm in resolution, which is the highest of all digital slr's http://www.lonestardigital.com/D2X.htm the D3 may beat this when we get a hands on test.
For studio and commercial guys we need a D3x with 18, 20, or 24MP to really see a difference. And THEN Nikon will have to improve on the already great "D" lenses. Todays sensors have much higher resolving power than the lenses available.
So all the D3 will do for me at this time is show the defects of my lenses in the corners of the images. I have yet for an art director or client complain about image sharpness, hell, I run Noise Ninja on all people images just to kill sharpness on skin. Counting pores and hairs on a models face is not exactly attractive for a beauty shot...shoulda waxed above your lip. I spend so much time cleaning up skin blemishes, razor burn, imperfections and dirt on the products, and bruises as it is.
Ok got a little side tracked but you see my point. The D3 has a certain market and it will do it VERY well. FF or FX...please tell me how it will benefit the rest of us....lower noise...I will give in to that. But for lenses...just buy one that is wider, if you want 24mm get a 16mm...and it will be sharper and have less chromatic aberrations at the edges...kinda a win win situation for me.
Oh yeah...we do need more dynamic range in a DSLR...D2x has 9.5 stops when shooting raw format. Works for 80% of my landscape work. The other 20% I shoot a bracket and use HDR software from Photomatix to combine the images into one 16bit file.
I love my Nikon D2x, best camera I have ever used...how about a 20-24 MP D3x FX with better lenses and 14-16 stops of dynamic range...I will buy that in a heartbeat.....for $5000-$6000.
Peace!
For the studio or commercial guy like me, the D3 makes little sense as an upgrade immediately. The DX 1.5x factor still has advantages for studio work.
A) "D" lenses on the DX sensor use the center 75% of the lens and I don't get the chromatic aberrations & softness of the lens edges. This is the sharpest part of a lens.
B) Same depth of field at a larger aperture compared to FF or FX. Thus less diffraction...f/5.6 is sharper than f/16. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm
C) I shoot at 100-400 iso so noise is not a problem or issue.
D) My D2x sensor still hits 90 lines per mm in resolution, which is the highest of all digital slr's http://www.lonestardigital.com/D2X.htm the D3 may beat this when we get a hands on test.
For studio and commercial guys we need a D3x with 18, 20, or 24MP to really see a difference. And THEN Nikon will have to improve on the already great "D" lenses. Todays sensors have much higher resolving power than the lenses available.
So all the D3 will do for me at this time is show the defects of my lenses in the corners of the images. I have yet for an art director or client complain about image sharpness, hell, I run Noise Ninja on all people images just to kill sharpness on skin. Counting pores and hairs on a models face is not exactly attractive for a beauty shot...shoulda waxed above your lip. I spend so much time cleaning up skin blemishes, razor burn, imperfections and dirt on the products, and bruises as it is.
Ok got a little side tracked but you see my point. The D3 has a certain market and it will do it VERY well. FF or FX...please tell me how it will benefit the rest of us....lower noise...I will give in to that. But for lenses...just buy one that is wider, if you want 24mm get a 16mm...and it will be sharper and have less chromatic aberrations at the edges...kinda a win win situation for me.
Oh yeah...we do need more dynamic range in a DSLR...D2x has 9.5 stops when shooting raw format. Works for 80% of my landscape work. The other 20% I shoot a bracket and use HDR software from Photomatix to combine the images into one 16bit file.
I love my Nikon D2x, best camera I have ever used...how about a 20-24 MP D3x FX with better lenses and 14-16 stops of dynamic range...I will buy that in a heartbeat.....for $5000-$6000.
Peace!
I love my Nikon D2x, best camera I have ever used...how about a 20-24 MP D3x FX with better lenses and 14-16 stops of dynamic range...I will buy that in a heartbeat.....for $5000-$6000.
Peace!
I think the D3x would be somewhere near $7000, but if Nikon unleashed it at $6500 --> $7000 with all the features of the D3 but containing 24MP I can see a lot of Nikon --> Canon switchers coming back to Nikon, all the Nikon whiners sticking with their bodies and lenses, and a heaping amount weird black telephotos lining the sidelines during games.
I love market fluctuations.
I think the D3x would be somewhere near $7000, but if Nikon unleashed it at $6500 --> $7000 with all the features of the D3 but containing 24MP I can see a lot of Nikon --> Canon switchers coming back to Nikon, all the Nikon whiners sticking with their bodies and lenses, and a heaping amount weird black telephotos lining the sidelines during games.
I love market fluctuations.
I don't know, the D3 is kinda like a super sweet D2Hs. That is it covers photojournalism, wedding, sports...fast action with a smile. This is a huge market for Nikon and it was wise of them to release this D3 model first. In the studio/commercial work, we can wait, well me anyway, for a perfect D3x in the $5000-6000 range...maybe a few less high speed features
For the studio and commercial work I would like 25-50 iso, super low noise in the area of 50-800 iso, and lots of dynamic range and pixels. 10fps hardly enters into anything I shoot...studio lights can't even recycle faster than .3 seconds. I shoot fashion/products and even in daylight I never shoot faster than 2-3 frames per second so current D2x buffer/FPS is fine.
Would rather have medium format digital back color/noise standards in a DSLR, that would be a marvel of Nikon engineering. Canon -> Nikon would be swift.
Don't wanna get on a Canon flame..so I am ending it here.
I do appreciate Nikon getting it right the first time so I can wait for a D3x. Still plenty of life in the DX format for those that choose to shoot with awesome prime lenses and quality raw conversion software.
I don't use half of the advanced features in the D2x, just the speed, great image quality, and ruggedness is what pays the bills for me.
Since consumer/prosumer DSLR's are Nikons bread and butter (80% sales), it may be a short while before we see a D3x, however I do believe the FX sensor will trickle down the pipeline very quick as it equals new FX/D lens sales and income.
I always had this funny suspicion about keeping my "D" lenses and buy the best used "D" glass, shoot, it cost less, less plastic, was sharper, and I think all my lenses increased in value with the FX format release. Thanks again Nikon
I never saw a good reason to buy DX glass. So many folks wanted FF cuz Canon did it, not because of any real engineering reasons. Need a little less noise...Noise Ninja or other programs do this extremely well with custom settings. Even Canon's have noise at 800-6400 iso.
I have seen lots of really crappy images shot with $5000+ cameras and great images shot with $400 cameras.
My words of wisdom, use color management, read the camera manual, take a class...uhmm...and sell the kit lens. I use primes and walk a couple of feet to frame the photo...zooms always seem to have an issue at one focal length or another. Shoot raw, loose the jpeg setting, your throwing away 40-50% of the color info and quality of your digital "pride and joy" camera.
I can hear the flames directed at me already
Peace!
Cheap FF would be great, but what I've been dreaming of lately is a 35mm system modeled after the Hasselblad V series. I know it doesn't fit in with the business models of the big companies who want us to rebuy bodies every 18 months but I can dream.
Maybe a system approach comprised of a couple of bodies and a few backs to choose from and upgrade when needs and funds arise. It seems to me that the usefull lifespan of the bodies we buy is probably greater than the sensor. Not that the sensors are going bad, but the biggest advances seem to be there and not in the body itself so the sensor doesn't remain current as long. While I'm dreaming, a square sensor would be a nice option.
Maybe a system approach comprised of a couple of bodies and a few backs to choose from and upgrade when needs and funds arise. It seems to me that the usefull lifespan of the bodies we buy is probably greater than the sensor. Not that the sensors are going bad, but the biggest advances seem to be there and not in the body itself so the sensor doesn't remain current as long. While I'm dreaming, a square sensor would be a nice option.
I really want to upgrade from my D40, but I'm going to wait until this rumor pans out, or until the successor to the 5D arrives depending on its price.
The D40 is not a bad camera....its got RAW format...but no auto focus.
My suggestion...for what its worth...the sensor is great, so slap on a great lens and use the camera.
Later when you update to FX...you will be ahead of the learning curve. If it makes you feel any better...I shoot my D2x completely manual. Only use the autofocus cuz it is better than my 42 year old eyes and faster.
Nothing wrong with 6MP if you use it in RAW...50% of my food shots were done with a Fuji S2 pro....its 6MP not 12MP as Fuji advertised...but processing the RAW files to 12MP looked better....just a weird Fuji thing....just read past this, the Fuji S2 is old news.
Capture One Pro is what I use to process raw files...kinda pricey...use Adobe Raw for now....many folks like it.
What 6MP in RAW and a Nikkor AF-D 60MM Micro f/2.8 can do http://www.zeroplusplus.com/stilllifeproduct/index.html the last half is all shot with the Fuji S2 pro.
The camera is a tool for the artist as others have stated many times above. I don't take better pics with the D2x....the camera just lets me do it faster and protects my head from stray bullets...its made out of magnesium.
Peace!
Thank you for your suggestions digitaltoaster. I was going to get an 18-200mm Nikkor a while ago but I'm not sure if I want to invest in Nikon lenses as I might end up switching to Canon anyways. I always lose money when I re-sell items also.The D40 is not a bad camera....its got RAW format...but no auto focus.
My suggestion...for what its worth...the sensor is great, so slap on a great lens and use the camera.
Later when you update to FX...you will be ahead of the learning curve. If it makes you feel any better...I shoot my D2x completely manual. Only use the autofocus cuz it is better than my 42 year old eyes and faster.
Nothing wrong with 6MP if you use it in RAW...50% of my food shots were done with a Fuji S2 pro....its 6MP not 12MP as Fuji advertised...but processing the RAW files to 12MP looked better....just a weird Fuji thing....just read past this, the Fuji S2 is old news.
Capture One Pro is what I use to process raw files...kinda pricey...use Adobe Raw for now....many folks like it.
What 6MP in RAW and a Nikkor AF-D 60MM Micro f/2.8 can do http://www.zeroplusplus.com/stilllifeproduct/index.html the last half is all shot with the Fuji S2 pro.
The camera is a tool for the artist as others have stated many times above. I don't take better pics with the D2x....the camera just lets me do it faster and protects my head from stray bullets...its made out of magnesium.
Peace!
It's been clear for years that they are plannig to go to full frame.
All the top end lenses, except on the very short end are full
frame. Nikon has never released any pro quality DX glass
(except at the short end) Soit looked like the DX format was
just a "passing fad" and will go away in a decade.
Martin...hmm...I am confused.... what part of my responses say to get a 18-200mm...that is a DX lens. I don't like those...nor is switching to Canon a deal. Jeeze dude, read the post from the top and work your way down.
Um no, the D40 auto-focuses just fine. It has AF, it simply doesn't have the screwdriver focus coupling needed to drive AF-D lenses. My 400mm f/2.8 AFS-II lens works in AF mode on my friends' D40's just like it does on my D2x, just with the limit of 3 AF points.
I don't think the camera companies are forcing anyone to upgrade every 18 months. The D2x is still the flagship until the D3x arrives and most photogs have been shooting with it for 3 years, and will be using it for years to come. Having modular backs is great for studio shooters, photogs that won't submit their bodies to harsh conditions. Weather sealing a camera with a removable back would be difficult, and I know most photogs want a body that was like the F5 in the good old days, one that could be submerged for a short period and still function. I want a digital body that I can get wet, dirty, dented, and tossed without damaging the main guts.
For the most part the bodies have useful lifespans, it's just a matter of knowing when to buy and when to sell. I bought my D70 when it was first let out, then went to the D200. I considered Canon since my Nikon investment wasn't that large and since Nikon wasn't expected to give me a D200 replacement for another year or so, but it came early and it was better than we all expected. As was the D3, so I will grab a D300 in another 6-8 months for so and sell the D200. Currently my cameras stay with me about 24+ months, mainly because every camera I have had so far has limitations I can't live with, or they are replaced by a comparable model. The D70 was too slow, and the D200 will be replaced by the D300. The D2hs will be with me for a number of years, since it's built a lot better than the others.
All in all, going with digital backs may be good for a new format, one with square, FX or larger sensors, but 35mm and DX bodies need to stay the way they are.
It would be a bad move upgrading to Canon right now, I was in the same boat but as it stands (and it will stand for at least another 3 years) Nikon's D3 and D300 are better than what Canon is offering. The successor to the 5D will most likely cost about $3000+ and you will still need to get the L Series lenses to maximize on that investment, so you're looking at spending at least $5000+ for the system. You might as well get the 40D at that point and get an entire system, but the D300 is hand over foot better than the 40D and has a larger sensor. Not Canon bashing, just stating the facts.
Unless you're a serious pro who has specific needs that one company isn't meet, I don't see much reason to really switch from Canon -> Nikon, or vice versa. When it comes down to it, they're both pretty much as good as each other.
On the other hand, if they've got more money than sense... at least by constantly switching back and forth they're providing a source of good quality lightly-used cameras for the rest of us.