I'm with you. The learning curve between 12.3 and 16 megapixels was bad enough, now an additional 50%, to 24 will likely be another huge investment. I wish they would start working on improving SNR, especially at the higher ISO settings. They have to give us more that just a 24 megapixel sensor, how about a mode dial that will lock?
larrycurrlymoe: not just a funny moniker, I can't dance either!
I think you share a request from a lot of people but it might be unrealistic to expect much better high ISO performance from DX. The D7000 was quite a breakthrough and is not too far, about 1 stop, from the ideal or theoretical limit. One way of getting more low light performance is to go to higher pixel count and average out noise by downsampling which works so well with the D800. All Nikon cameras after April, if the rumor is correct will be 24 or more, except for the D4. As it is, Nikon's entire camera line from entry level to pro has better dynamic range and less artifact than any Canon ever made. The sensor in the D3200 tests better than the $6000 1Dx and every other model ever made in that line. Yet, Canon owners are regularly getting images both for hobby and professional assignments that are great. Maybe the creativity of the user is more important than gear after all. Very few people have outgrown the capabilities of the D7000, although many of us upgraded for the sake of upgrading, which is a bad habit most of us get into in some field. I did a shoot Wednesday night with both a D7000 and D800 and both did all and more than I could have asked of them. Ironically, since the D7000 had the 70-200 mounted and the D800 had a 24-70, the most requests for copies of individual shots were those from the D7000. That I was, I am sure, because the telephoto was used for head shots which turning out like nice portraits with flattering compression effect while the 24-70 was used more for full length or group shots. No one could see a 3 to 1 ratio is cost or 36 to 16 mpx ratio. I can say without reservations, if one can't get the shots they seek with the D7000, upgrading to 24 or 36 or 48mpx is not going to fix that. Neither is 102k ISO going to make 25k of the D7000 obsolete, neither is a usable, practical setting.
What can be improved on is the video mode flexibility, AF, USB3 and the flexibility of 24mpx which allows downsampling and cropping advantages over the D7000. The AF module Multi-CAM4800 is getting strong praise in the D600 so expect some improvements from further tweaking over the D7000 by using a higher res metering sensor. These sorts of additions will probably not warant upgrading from a practical point of view but many will upgrade simply because it is available, plus those who have been sitting out the last severall upgrades or are coming from an entry-level camera. Stan St Petersburg Russia
Stan, I use the D7000 mostly for bird shooting from a kayak. I am hand-holding the camera with a vertical grip attached and a Sigma 50-500 f/6.3 lens hanging on the end.
For me shutter speed is king. When you combined the weight of the camera and the rocking of the kayak, along with trying to keep the focus point on the head of a bird 50-100 yards away, I need to keep the shudder speed at least 1/1000. On top of that, I am often dealing with early morning light and shadows from tree cover.
The D7000 does very well. Probably remarkable. Still, if I push the ISO above 1250 and then crop the picture, I can often see noise. So, the holy grail for me is a camera like the D7000 that allows me to shoot at 1600 ISO and higher with little to no noise.
A pipe dream...probably, at least with today's technology?
Resampling is different than re-sizing. The latter truncates data and the former averages data in a way that random noise is attenuated but not data that is consistent with actual information. Data that is consistent between pixels in an area reinforces the data and random noise will be, well, random so averaging will reduce its calculated value when combining the data from adjacent pixels to get a new value. The D7000 files can produce great 8mpx equivalent files. Resampling to the equivalent to 12mpx on the D800 really makes a difference. On the web, where anything more then 105 pixels/inch is a waste since most monitors would no be able to display more, cropping and downsizing can just about cancel their opposing traits....cropping lowers res and downsizing averages noise.
There are several ways of reducing the data and some are better than others for retaining detail and canceling noise. If you are using Nikon software or Photoshop, select Bi-Cubic when re-sampling.
All this pre-supposes equal viewing distance and display size, if someone is intent on pixel peeping they are going to find any sort of pixelation, softness or noise that they are searching for. I have to laugh watching pixel peepers who are so used to seeing images way out of normal human scale, visit an art gallery. You can always tell if they are the sort who would pixel peep, they look at a painting from 2 inches away as if that is going to give some hidden meaning or reveal the artist's intention. Any art, has a scale that it meaning dwells in, and far removed or too close and it means nothing. That is the same with photos, but more so since it is so easy to blow it up so beyond recognition as to render it meaningless. Stan St Petersburg Russia
Better buffer, ISO and Bracketing is all they would need to put in D7100 to make it a great seller. IF it had those things i would buy it. If not i won't buy again until i switch to FX, but i would keep my d7k for wildlife. Of course i would love a D400 and be done with buying cameras all together. The D7k is close enough to perfection for me.
#14. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 12 Thu 07-Feb-13 08:07 PM by km6xz
St Petersburg, RU
Adobe says LR uses an "adaptive hybrid of bicubic smoother and bicubic sharper" in export for down sizing. My own experience suggests that leaving it to LR to decide is pretty good but I can see the difference when I have more control of the method as when using PhotoShop CS6 compared to LR 4.3. My workflow is to import with LR due to its very good library function. When evaluating the files, the decision is made as to whether an image deserves more care and control than is possible in LR. All the rest are processed in LR as needed. The ones marked for more serious post are exported to Photoshop or Nikon Capture NX2. The biggest advantage when using NX2 is you start with a RAW file rendered the way the camera would render a JPG, which is often a very good starting point. Rendering is done in NX2 and 16bit TIFF's are made to be imported to PS for Adobe's very good print quality. If an image is going to get a lot of pixel level editing I just open in PS to start with. I believe I am getting better rendering in NX2 and better printing from PS, and getting the most intuitive, easiest adjustments in LR for the majority.
Edit: I forgot one step that makes a difference. In export of Lightroom, you are given a choice of maximum file size. Make sure that box is not checked because the value heavily impacts the resizing method. Set your image size but not the file size. Also, there is some confusion about the resolution box. That does not change the image file at all, that embeds the entered value in the print defaults, which you can change at the time of printing. Leaving the quality slider at some point over 60% and under 100% has little visual impact on the screen appearance so if file size is of concern set it up around 65-75% for the smallest file that shows very little artifacts from compression. Below 60 or so, you will see a negative impact, along with smaller file size. Stan St Petersburg Russia
>Do you think this might be Nikon's final DSLR that's not a >full-frame? If so, I might want this one or another D7000, >just because I don't want to have to invest in all new lenses >for a full-frame.
Not a chance. there will be always a market for low cost DSLR cameras. Until FX glass comes down in price - we will have DX from all major manufacturers.
>I feel a single generation camera jump is virtually >worthless. The D90 was the previous generation of the D7000, >the D90 will do almost what the D7000 will do. > >I upgraded from a D70s, and I still use the D70s some to this >day. > >Camera upgrades today can cause you to need other upgrades, >computer, offsite storage etc.... > >I will be happy with the D7000 for a long time, if mine dies, >I will replace it, not upgrade, if it is still available. > >I gotta reduce the pics to 300K to post them anyway!! LOL
John I do not agree. I went from the D90 to the D7000 and saw significant improvement in dynamic range,colors , ability to shoot at hgher ISO with less grain etc.In my case these improvement were significant to me.
I tip the scales at 230 lbs. (or a little less on a good day. ) Getting in the kayak is easy, you just sort of fall into it. Now getting out is a different story. Generally, I put in and get out in a nice flat area. When returning, I start paddling like mad about 30 yards out and just beach the kayak. I can then climb out the front and not even get my shoes wet.
As for the 1/1000 sec shutter speed, I have found that at that speed I can be assured of getting sharp exposures. I have had to shoot as low as 1/200 of a second. Then I use a burst and hope one of the shots is good.
If I didn't have to crop most of the shots, it wouldn't be so bad. However, no one wants to see a full frame of trees and leaves with a little bird in the lower right corner or center. Rarely am I close enough to not have to crop.
When you crop, all warts and imperfections, like noise, mis-focus, and camera shake are magnified.
> >A slow shutter speed (say 1 second), in broad daylight, at ISO >100 or 200 will be overexposed. > >An example of this is the great pics of flowing water that >depict motion. > >You could use a ND filter, >You could wait for dusk, >OR, Nikon could give it to us with a real low ISO.
Just checking to see if you knew.
Why not just move the camera a little. You know, on purpose. I'm actually pretty good at panning folks running (showing the runners mostly in focus and the background blurred). Not too good at holding the camera steady, so I often get motion blur without trying.
#26. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 25 Thu 07-Feb-13 07:53 PM by mklass
>>I still would prefer a D400, with the controls and >features >>of the D300 plus higher MP (16-24MP?) and native 100 ISO. >> >>The D7000 still feels and acts like a less than pro >camera. > >Be careful what you ask for, when Nikon sells a >"Pro" camera, they charge a "Pro" price. > >It would be unsettling for a D400 to come out and cost $1825, >to me anyway.
Less than $2000 for a camera with true Pro features would be a bargain.
The features that are expected by those who have been waiting will either be a pro DX at a high price or will be a disappointment for not having all the features of a D4. I have read post after post in other forums about the D400 needing to be 9-12 fps, 24mpx, a stop better than the D7000 in noise, a D300/700/800 body, D4 AF, 9 brackets, and a host of other hi-end features...oh and be $1800 or less.
It makes no sense. The d4 with a smaller sensor and without the grip would be needed to accomplish all that. The sensor difference is about $500 tops, so how are they going to stuff all that and the new subsystems the features require, into a box that sells for $1800 retail? Unless new, as of yet, un-patented technology is hiding out that allows higher than theoretical quantum efficiency levels, it is not going to happen any time soon that a DX camera will have that much sort of high ISO performance. Maybe a difference material or a 100mpx binned sensor resulting in a cleaner 24mpx file. Maybe Gallium nitride or some other semiconductor material that has less noise higher electron mobility than silicon but yields would be low for a while driving up the cost, and larger batteries would be needed. Anyway, a true pro body for less than $2500 is not likely to ever see the light of day. Just how much would it cost for all the subsystems of the D800 be included but speed every thing from electronics to data transfer to get 9-12 fps and deduct the difference in between an Fx and Dx sized sensor and you have a bargain at $3000. A sports shooter who will pay for speed, will not think twice but it would be abother niche product like the D4 is now. If $1800 is the price point, it might have speed enhancements, the same sensor as the D5200, larger buffer and a tweaked Multicam4800 AF module, with a higher res metering sensor for improved blackout tracking. Stan St Petersburg Russia
The d300 was released at $1800 in the US in 2007. The value of the dollar was stronger at the time so is released today is would be $2200-2300. If it is a serious replacement for the D300, featuring speed and pro AF system, meaning the upgraded MulltiCAM3500 with the 91k metering sensor, -2ev AF sensitivity, f/8 AF focusing and was fast, in the 8-10 fps second range IQ could be compromised a little to allow for that sort of speed in maybe a 16 or 18mpx sensor and find lots of buyers who really need speed, reach and pro AF. 24mpx seems to be the new norm for Nikon and the Expeed III is flexible enough to stuff into the full range of cameras from D3200 up, so the question to be answer is whether they can mode that much data in the price range, for 8-10 fps with lots of headroom for long bursts without overrunning the buffer. The technology is here now, but not in that price range or anywhere near it. I am not in the market for one because I do not need speed, the D7000 and D800 are enough of everything I want and still fit into my bag. But if speed and top AF with reach was important to my shooting, I would surely figure out how to come up with $2200-2600. It is all based on priorities, speed is way below eating and partying for me so money would not be diverted for one from those higher priorities. The result of such a camera would be that it would own the market for a pro level speed DX camera. Canon might try to compete but they are the only ones who would or could. There is a market for one, but a lot of current D300s shooter will complain loudly about an outragious price since the web rumor hopes for $1500-1700. Those who set speed as a priority will have no other choice and will sell in reasonable numbers in the mid $2000s. For sports shooters, such a camera in a D2x style body for $3500-4000 would not be ridiculous. In fact I might take a serious look if it had a true pro body with integral grip. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#32. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 31 Fri 08-Feb-13 12:03 AM by William Symonds
It appears that the state of the art Nikon DX sensor is 24mp these days, and I am not sure if there is an upgrade coming for the excellent 16mp sensor on the D7000.
All of which means that shutter speeds may be unlikely to get up to 9 or 10 fps. If the D400/7200 matched the D4 for processing speed (no mean achievement) then you would end up with 6.7 fps, which might not impress everyone.
In addition to a D7000, I have a D3s and D800e. For about a year, I was strictly and FX user, having sold a D300s and obtained a D700 to accompany the D3s.
What I found was that I missed some features of DX, particularly as a smaller, lighter travel camera, and the "reach" of a DX sensor. So I swapped the D700 for a D7000, as it was the best DX choice at the time (late 2011), although I would have been willing to go with a D300s again.
So, I could just shoot the D800e in DX crop mode with DX lenses, but it is still a bigger and heavier camera for traveling. And it doesn't get you the burst speed of the D300s or even D7000.
The D7000 does not have the "pro" control layout of the D3s or D800e, so it is always a consciousness shift to use it.
So a D400 (D300s with ISO, MP and EV enhancements) would really fit the bill.
I don't think the D300 series was meant to get people on an upgrade path to the D600/800, as they did not yet exist. The D300 related to the D3 as a DX, small body pro camera. The D700 came along to fit the niche for a smaller body FX camera.
Now we have a full line of FX camera, including the "introductory D600, but no up-to-date DX "pro" body. If Nikon introduced one, I would be glad to buy it and get rid of the D7000.
#35. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 34 Fri 08-Feb-13 03:10 AM by billD80
>The D7000 does not have the "pro" control layout of >the D3s or D800e, so it is always a consciousness shift to use >it. > >So a D400 (D300s with ISO, MP and EV enhancements) would >really fit the bill. > If Nikon introduced one, I would be glad to buy it and >get rid of the D7000. >
As would I...(much as I love the D7000)... I have no need for FX, mainly because I need and use the reach DX provides, without a T/C... I've got an investment in great DX lenses, plus FX ones that work even better on DX. So a DX, solid body, 24mp (or more) high ISO/low noise capable camera would be terrific.
I think it will come in at a street price of $1600. give or take, and if it does, will blow the doors off anything Canon has in the same class.
#36. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 33 Fri 08-Feb-13 03:25 AM by William Symonds
I personally think that the reluctance to upgrade the D300 (and D7000) may have something to do with the Nikon's desire to move "semi-pro" consumers to FX, thereby selling a new body and also most likely a lens or two.
It certainly worked that way for me and also for a friend who just bought a D600. We are both delighted with the move to FX, though there are plenty of downsides, especially if you've lots of DX glass. Vignetting is significant and it takes some time to adjust to the relatively smaller focus area. And what you gain on the short end, to an extent you lose on the long. If I had used the long end a lot I would not have moved to FX.
Another friend just upgraded her D80 to a D7000 and is absolutely delighted with the D7000, and its bargain pricing. She is not in the least bit interested in going FX.
I hope that Nikon gives those DX users a continuous upgrade path, there are lots of them out there and it must be very frustrating waiting for developments.
#37. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 33 Fri 08-Feb-13 04:37 AM by dm1dave
But, why a DX body? If the dollars go north, why have a camera matched to consumer lenses?
Why not a DX body? Who ever said that DX bodies are matched to consumer lenses? The D300 preforms wonderfully on my 400/f2.8VR.
Isn't a camera about getting the image?
For X number of dollars, the customer wants a certain image.
We have been able to “get the image” using the DX format for quite a few years now. Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses but either format is more than capable of creating top caliber image quality.
Read about the stock image sites. They have a search function that sorts out (eliminates) lower size images first. For that application, FX is a must.
You seem to be misunderstanding what they mean by “lower size images.” Once an image is on the computer it is impossible to tell how big the image sensor was that captured the image. This search function would tag a D3200 (a 24 megapixel, entry level DX body) image as being bigger than a D4 (a 16 megapixel, top pro FX body) image.
I am not promoting FX, I do not see my purchase ever of a FX, just because it would be an unnecessary excess.
I have always wondered if the D300 was Nikon's stepping stone to get customers to the D600/D800.
Once they step over, why go back?
DX is not a step back – it is just another format just like medium and large format cameras.
Dave Summers Lowden, Iowa Nikonians Photo Contest Director
Nikonians membership - "My most important photographic investment, after the camera"
>Read about the stock image sites. They have a search function >that sorts out (eliminates) lower size images first. For that >application, FX is a must.
I think you may be misinterpreting their rules. To the stock guys, a 24MP image from a DX D3200 would be equal in "size" to a 24MP image from an FX D600 - there would be no reason to disqualify the D3200 image on that basis.
I don't think so - there are good reasons why an agency mat not accept (say) 6MP images - but as long as the shot is technically up to scratch (exposure, colour, noise, focus, composition...) it should not matter what type of camera was used.
Great shots can be taken with very humble equipment
It the bigger is better principle is extented to other fields, the difference comes into view. If larger IC features were a lot larger, it would handle more current but capacitance would prevent speed, and density so reading the forum would require a computer that would fill a stadium in size and pull more current than a mid sized town, and have top clock speed of megahertz instead of gigahertz. Or sport cars, where lighter cars can carry less tonnage than a heavy all terrain vehicle but can navigate a chicane hardly without lifting from the while generating much higher g-loading. An owner of one often has the other as well. There are advantages when matching needs of work performed with the tools most appropriate. A sports photographer wants speed, low light performance and durability. Image quality is met by a wide range of current cameras. Speed is helped by lower moving mass, a shutter and mirror assembly can be made faster if for DX proportions. Smaller lighter things often need less mass to be durable than heavy things which need more weight for any given construction technique to have the same resistance to most abuse. Drop a 40 megapixel Nokia phone on concrete from 5 feet and then drop a D4 from the same height. The odds are high that the D4 would suffer the most, while the cell phone would be expected to keep working exactly the same without concern. A 400mm 2.8 is a fantastic lens but a monster to attempt hand holding, it is also $14000. Mounted on a D7000 or D300 it has the field of view of a 600mm. On FX, the same animal, bird or play that fills the frame on DX would require a 600mm 2.8 which would weigh about what a small sedan would but 4 times the cost. So FX users, to get that sort of reach have to resort to very expensive lenses, more expensive supports, or use Teleconverters which impact image quality and light transmission more than the difference between a good DX sensor versus a similar technology FX sensor. Not everyone thinks FX is the answer.
The only area that a sports shooter(or wildlife photographer) where is better off with FX is noise at higher ISO. They pay more for a tougher build camera to get the more massive mirror to move fast, to support its own weight and pay much more for lenses which become less transportable. So both systems are used by most photographers who need IQ for some assignments and reach on others at the top priority. FX does not replace DX, it just extends a photographers capabilities by both. I have both and use both where there is an advantage for the needs of the shot. A pro type D400 in the line that is fast and with the great AF system of the D4 will not be cheap but it will be popular with sports and wildlife shooters. There is room for both a D7100 grade camera and a D400 at the $1300-1400 range for the former and $2200-2600 range for the latter. IQ would be about the same. Stan St Petersburg Russia
1) This "rumor" to me is the death knell for a D400. The D7000 is a generation newer than the D300, and yet they are upgrading it first? So it will be 2 generations newer? It lloks like the D7200 will be the top of the line DX camera for the forseeable future.
2) I would love to have the 51 point AF system,...but I'll probably jump if all the D7200 has is 24 MP and one stop of better ISO performance. Since this is probably a new sensor (or at least tweaked from the D5200), I would guess we can expect one stop.
3) I echo above,...the learning curve from 12MP to 16MP was steep for me. But, I think a lot of it was my unrealistic expectations of what the AF system could do with my amature lenses and the weaker (vs the pro bodies) on-board AF motor. Hopefully, if this is the top of the line DX body, they will give us a more robust AF system.
4) I can live with 6 FPS, but please give us the option to increase FPS with the vertical grip. Please. Though I doubt they will, unless they give us the 51 point system.
5) One generation in DSLR's is HUGE. The D7000 is an order of magnitude better than the D90/D300 in low light performance and cropping resolution.
If they don't improve low ISO performance by a stop, what would be the point of upgrading from the D7000 (assuming the new camera has the same control layout and AF module)? The D7000 is already about as good as anybody needs in good light. The extra MP for cropping aren't as big a deal at lower ISO's.
And,...anything less than 6FPS would be a step backward for serious DX shooters - another deal-breaker.
What I want: 24MP, 6FPS min, 51 point pro AF system, and one stop better low ISO, in a D7000 ergonomics body. I'd buy this camera for $1,200-1,500 immediately. If a full-blown D400 came out (all of the above but in a D300 body), I'd wait a year until the price dropped and be willing to buy it for $1,500-1,800 max.
What I think we'll get: 24MP, 6 FPS, 39 point AF from the D600 (not bad, but not a vast improvement over the D7000), 1/2 stop better ISO, in a D7000 body. If that camera sold for under $1,300, I'd buy it. If it was more than that, I'd stay with my D7000 for field sports, and upgrade to an FX D600 for basketball next year.
I own both a D7000 and a D800. The density of pixels are the same and at 100% crop of the same scene with the same len,it produces similar pictures ( the D800 is a little nicer but thats probably due to the EXCEED 3 processor)
Just beecause the D5200 has a higher pixel density (equivalent to 57.6 meg in an FX camera) doesnt mean you get less noise etc.
I did find the D7000 a visible stepup in dynamic range ,Noise and color from the D90 but I wonder if the sensors can improve much more due to the size of light waves etc. Clearly advances in signal processing will occur.
>A pro type D400 in the line that is fast and with the great AF >system of the D4 will not be cheap but it will be popular with >sports and wildlife shooters.
As a sports shooter, I'd settle for just having the improved (-2 EV) Multi-CAM 3500 AF system in a D7000-type body. Sure, 8 fps, better high-ISO performance and top-of-the-line build quality would be sweet, but it's the AF performance that tends to keep the D7000 in my bag for fast-action sports.
#51. "RE: D7200 coming" In response to Reply # 46 Sat 09-Feb-13 02:21 PM by agitater
>So, wouldn't it be better (for Nikon) to pull the life support >plug on high end DX (D7000/D7X00), save the development cost, >and sell the D600 for $1600? Then in a year, $1300.
The majority of Nikon digital SLR cameras sales (Canon too for that matter) are APS-C bodies. DX, not FX. There's no good reason for Nikon to kill DX at this time. Nor is there any indication from Nikon or Canon that the APS-C size sensor is going away any time soon. Most of the competition battling Nikon and Canon are using either APS-C (e.g., Fujifilm and Sony) or micro four-thirds (e.g., Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, etc.), so it seeems obvious the competitive trend (except in a still-limited way between Nikon and Canon) is not toward full frame. Nikon has released the popular 1 Nikon line with the smaller-than-APS-C CX sensor, and both the J and V series cameras seem to be doing well.
Among other reasons, DX bodies are less costly to produce than equivalent quality FX bodies because sensor wafer used for DX remains less expensive to manufacture, in part due to lower rejection rates. Economies of scale in production exist for both DX and for FX production lines and supply chains, but it is only recently that Nikon and Canon have eaten into their respective APS-C body sales with full frame bodies - mainly because both companies are still pushing 2-5 year old enthusiast and semi-pro APS-C bodies (except at the entry level - which remains relatively hot, or as hot as anything is given the recessionary state of global retail).
>Why not just make the customer happy? We all would then have a >FX.
Not every Nikon user wants FX - not by half. Many travel photographers, street shooters, sports shooters, birders and other sorts of wildlife photographers really like the narrower angle of view they get when using full frame lenses on a DX body. Just as important I think, many other people want the advantages of a digital SLR without the fuss or perceptibly high cost of full frame, and that's why entry-level DX such as the D3XXX and D5XXX series from Nikon and the Txx/Rebel/xxxD series from Canon dominate the overall DSLR sales figures.
I am not interested in a D800 or any other FX camera for nature photography. I like the ability to know that what I see framed is what I will get. I may crop but I don't want to see a smaller image and then later have to crop to size.
But, I do want better dynamic range and ISO performance at higher ISOs. I am limited to what I can handhold in a kayak. Currently that is the Sigma 50-500 lens. That and my D7000 weight in at 7lbs. 11ozs.
I have looked at better zoom lenses. None of them which may have better performance are similar in weight and size to the Sigma.
This morning was a good example why I would buy a D400, regardless of its price. I went out to my favorite birding lake. There is a wonderful rookery there. However, it is closed to boats starting Feb. 15. So, this is my last chance to get up close and personal to Egrets, Herons,and others during the mating season.
Last night the weather prediction was for partly cloudy and getting sunny later on in the morning. I was on the lake at 7:00. It was foggy and total overcast. I stayed till 10:00. It was still overcast as I loaded up the kayak by into my pickup.
I just looked at the pictures. I see ONE (a Killdeer closeup) maybe two keepers. The rest will go to the digital grave. There was just too little light. I was shooting at ISO 1600 and never saw over 1/400 of a second. Most of the time the shutter was around 1/200.
Now, I know there is no camera which will give me 1/1000 sec. at a crystal clear ISO 1600. Still, I will take all that Nikon can give. As I see it, a better performing camera body is at this time the more viable route for me.
If someone had a 200-500 F/4 zoom similar in size and weight to the Sigma, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
#53. "RE: D400 and D7100 coming?" In response to Reply # 50 Mon 11-Feb-13 01:42 AM by RRRoger
Monterey Bay, US
My "guess" is that Nikon intends to use the rumored new Sony 20MP DX Sensor in the D400 and announce it late this Summer. It will be aimed at Sport and Bird Photographers. The body and features will be close to the D300. It will have slightly faster frame rate and a lot higher ISO The processing engine, buffer, and AF will be upgraded. So will the price (between a D600 and D800?). Basically $2500 for a D800 with DX Sensor.
The D7000 will be upgraded this Spring with locking mode dial, 1080P Video at 30 or 60fps, faster processor, and a new or upgraded 24MP Sensor It will not be the top of line or supper fast frames per second DX camera, and will be priced slightly above or near the D7000 released price.
#57. "RE: D7100 & D400 coming" In response to Reply # 56 Tue 12-Feb-13 01:47 AM by RRRoger
Monterey Bay, US
>I just became aware of this thread, so I am excited about the >possibility of the Nikon D400 and Nikon D7200, but did I miss >the coming out of the Nikon D7100? Just curious, hehe. > >Passion 4 Photography<Quote<<<
The D7100 was obsolete before it was supposed to come out so we are skipping to the D7200.
I personally expect the next D7000 upgrade to be called a D7100.
#58. "RE: D7100 & D400 coming" In response to Reply # 57
>The D7100 was obsolete before it was supposed to come out so >we are skipping to the D7200. > >I personally expect the next D7000 upgrade to be called a >D7100.
Roger, I would be interested in kowing why you believe the upgrade would be called a D7100. We are already on the D3200, and the D5200. I believe that it would be bad marketing to come out with a D7100.
I think the question is whether there will be a D400 & a D7200. I suspect there is a battle within Nikon as to whether they should come out with both or whether there will be a merge between the two. I am assuming that they already know which way they are going, and are in the execution phase. I think they are delaying the announcement to keep from cutting into the D600 & to some extent the D800, depending on the features like frame rate.
I am having a difficult time believing there will be a grip built in on a DX camera.
#61. "RE: D7100 & D400 coming" In response to Reply # 59
Okay, I guess I didn't spek Nikon back then. Either that, or I didn't pay much attention to something that expensive, or didn't really have a clue what a crop sensor vs full frame was all about.
Thankfully, when I make an ignorant (not stupid) remark there are folks like you and Stan here to correct me. The next time I say it it will be stupid.
You make an interesting point about never jumping from a 0 to 2. However, someone looking at Nikon from the outside might infer that among the DX line that the D3200 & the D5200 must be later technology than the D7100. Maybe, if they were to merge the D300 & D7000 successors together, it might become the D7400. D370 or D470. I know grasping at straws.
#63. "RE: D7100 & D400 coming" In response to Reply # 60
>The D2 series and D1 had them. Of the top line dx cameras >only the D300 did not have one. >Stan
Perhaps that was one point of differentiation Nikon wanted to make between DX & FX. That way they could sell at a more competitive price point, but still sell grips for those that want them. Not unlike the 70-200mm f4 lens without a collar, but you can buy one if you need/want one.
#64. "RE: D7100 & D400 coming" In response to Reply # 60
I think people are being naive about Nikon will do. Some features you may lust after just arent important to most people.
I own a D7000 and D800. They are similar enough that features other than the sensor probably dont play much of a role in making a choice . Higher burst speed will probably equate to a lower density sensor which for me is a deal breaker.
The marketing strategy for Nikon at times has been very hard to fiqure out at times. I do own a Divination Board for these trying to predict the future.
#65. "RE: D7100 & D400 coming" In response to Reply # 64
>I think people are being naive about Nikon will do. Some >features you may lust after just arent important to most >people. > >I own a D7000 and D800. They are similar enough that features >other than the sensor probably dont play much of a role in >making a choice . Higher burst speed will probably equate to a >lower density sensor which for me is a deal breaker. > >Bob
Bob, you make a good point. However, marketing and features these days seldom have much to do with need. If you don't know & understand features all that well (I would argue that most don't -- not including those on here, of course), a person would look at similarly priced cameras, and pick the one with the most impressive sounding features. Like 8fps is "better" than 5fps. 24mpx is better than 20mpx, etc. Now you may not need the better sounding number, in fact in some ways it may actually be worse for your situation. But, in the majority of cases, the better numbers will sell.
The goal of Nikon isn't to fulfill our needs, but to maximize their profits. Fotunately for us, many times those two goals are complmentary.
>Not every Nikon user wants FX - not by half. Many travel >photographers, street shooters, sports shooters, birders and >other sorts of wildlife photographers really like the narrower >angle of view they get when using full frame lenses on a DX >body. Just as important I think, many other people want the >advantages of a digital SLR without the fuss or perceptibly >high cost of full frame.
Well said, and thanks for making that point. I think many of us are very happy with the DX format, sensor size and available lenses. As someone who grew into photography shooting with old Nikkormat FTn and Nikon F bodies, the D7000 is an embarassment of riches. I'm just glad my early focus on photography (pardon the pun) was on learning the basics of composition, understanding depth-of-field, metering, lighting etc.
I travel a fair amount and tend to shoot a lot of wildlife, birds, nature and travel landscapes. I feel like I'm more than just a casual amateur shooter, but I don't feel I need FX to take good photographs.
>I feel like I'm more than >just a casual amateur shooter, but I don't feel I need FX to >take good photographs.
Well said, and nor should you feel that way. The FX prognosticators, the DX-is-dead mourners, and many other polarized groups, I think must take into account the fact that Nikon (and Canon, and Sony) have put literally billions into R&D for APS-C cameras over the past 15 years. All three companies, now joined again by Fujifilm, have over the past three years in particular produced astonishingly good APS-C/DX camera bodies. The successor to the D7000 will likely be just as remarkable. There's absolutely no reason to belive otherwise.
The wait for a professional DX body to succeed the D300/300s will not be much longer either. It should have been out last year, along with a D7000 successor, but the devastating effects of the March 2011 disasters in Japan and the subsequent massive flooding disaster in Thailand not that long after, set important parts of Nikon's product roadmap on it ear.
Thousands and thousands of photographers all over the world have for many years have been making award winning, contest winning and highly lucrative photographs with DX bodies. Nothing has changed.