Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the D400...

PerroneFord

Tallahassee, US
2807 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the D400?"

PerroneFord Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011
Wed 09-May-12 01:39 PM

I'll take a stab at this today...

>1. Nikon sold a lot of highly margined "pro light" D
>200's-300's. They made camera of the year, and graced the
>covers of photo mags. The 5000's, 7000's etc, are in a
>crowded, commodity priced sector where voracious competition,
>and excessive model proliferation with little significant
>distinction keep the margins very low.

How much have you worked with a D7000? I suspect not much at all.

>They are in incessant
>feature and mega pixel wars which are required to be
>constantly "upgraded" with marginally useful
>changes.

Prior to the arrival of the D4, the D7000 had the most advanced AF system on any Nikon camera at any price. It also had the best dynamic range of any Nikon at any price. Dual card slots, sensor cleaning, real video capability, 3D focus tracking, etc. In short, the D7000 was the test mule for what we see now in the D4/D800.


>Many such "features", get in the way more
>than they enhance the creative image formation sought by the
>"pro light" photographers. The cost of constant NEW,
>NEW, NEW, could be more productively applied to better image
>formation in the "pro light" market.

Agreed. And the D7000 brought it in spades.

>Would you
>really rather have a bigger number of already sufficient mega
>pixels, or a cleaner, sharper, more natural image in low light
>situations?

Well, when we finally get to sufficient megapixels, I'll let you know. But we are still some ways away from that for me. Why don't you try this. Get out at dusk with a D200 and a D7000. Select ISO 3200 on both, and tell me about the low light performance. I have both cameras, and have done this.


>2. So, are the mass market slr's getting worse as a result of
>all that. Of course not. The constantly improving sensor and
>processing technology keeps getting cheaper and trickles down
>the price scale. It also trickles down to the sensor size
>criteria for image quality, and most importantly, to the
>amount of light required to produce that quality image. I'm a
>Nikon guy since my first Nikon F. Bought my D200 the day it
>became available. My wife just bought a compact sized Canon
>G1X. It has an almost APS sized sensor,a built in lens and
>weighs less than most of my lenses. I tried it out in our
>living room. It took a terrific,sharp,noise free picture with
>the available light coming in from the northern exposure
>window about 10 feet away. Could my "pro light"
>triple the price and triple the weight D200 match it? Not even
>close. So I went to dp review and checked out how it does
>against a D300s at high ISO settings. You may not want to hear
>the answer to that question at 1600 ISO.

Why not. I love the fact that we are advancing abilities. And I have no issue with a compact camera doing as well as an older SLR. In fact, I'd be disappointed if it didn't. Which is why I bought a 1 V1 last week.

>So,here's a question. What percentage of pro and advanced
>ametuers still need FX format and will still need it as much
>in the future.

Well, having sat in a conference room full of photojournalists and top sports shooters 2 weeks ago, I'd say FX is in no danger. Because when you are carrying a 400/2.8 or a 70-200, or a 200-400, saving the marginal amount of weight DX brings over FX really doesn't matter all that much.


>Today's FX format is becoming a studio camera.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Sorry.

>If you are a journalist, with a need for mobility, do you want
>to carry the weight of FX lenses?

I don't remember the F3 and the all metal AI and AIS lenses being any lighter.

What kind of resolution does
>the publication print? What size?

Wrong question. The question is what size do they want to archive for posterity? The 4MP D2h takes an image larger than needed for the front cover of any magazine published today. And it's on-screen image still has to be reduced to be viewed 100% on my 27" computer screen. But I saw zero complaints when we went from 4MP to 12MP.


>If you shoot weddings and
>need to carry a few bodies and lenses, do you have a
>chairopractor on retainer for your shoulder from carring that
>FX format bag? How big are your prints going to be?

I primarily shoot sports these days. A game where carrying a 500/F4 or 600/F4, 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and a 24-70/2.8 is standard fare. So 3-4 bodies and big glass. If the weight is too much a burden, get an assistant or hit the gym.


>3. Between the time of the earliest Leica's and the very
>latest super pro, 35mm slr's the picture quality of the BODIES
>never changed. Lenses evolved to greater versatility. Some
>were a bit sharper, but you could keep your Early Leica, or
>Nikon body working as long as the shutter clicked. I didn't
>mind paying a lot for a beautifully made Nikon F, I can still
>use it. Digitals are different. Your $4000 pro body will be
>obsolete in terms of real function in a few years. Another
>year or two it will succumb to a $800 successor to my wife's
>G1X. Camera's are no longer durables, they are disposables.

This comparison would work well, were it not for the fact that film was a VERY mature technology by the time you got your hands on that first Nikon F or that leica. The waters had been plied decades before in France, Germany, Hollywood, etc. The move from acetates to celluloid had been done. The formats became rather standardized. Digital technology is still in it's infancy. And I suspect the changes in the first 10 years of film imagery very much mirrored what we are seeing right now in the digital world.


>I
>would need a lot of convincing to spend more than twice the
>considerable price of a D400 on a body that I know will be as
>obsolete as my poor D200 when the light is low, three years
>from now.

Simple solution. Don't buy it. Not everyone has the same needs. For a large proportion of the camera buying public, the cameras that meet their NEEDS already exists in the market. We may all want more, but few of us NEED more. Those of us who have paying clients are in a slightly different position. We upgrade to provide the absolute best images money can buy. That's what we do. And yes, for many, their needs were well satisfied back with the D200. But the client looks at a submission from someone with a D3s or a D800 and wonders why our photos don't look like that. So you keep up with the advances to remain able to compete. It's not really that complex.

Racing cars of today, in most instances do not go around the tracks much faster (if at all) than the cars did in the 70s. But BILLIONS of dollars later, the cars are safer, more comfortable, and have other added things. Should we have stopped development in the 70s?


>To be honest, I would not choose the added weight of
>FX format even at the same price as a terrific DX, "pro
>light" body.

Well, there you go. You understand your needs. Others may not share your needs.


>4. I've been a Nikon guy since the late 50's. Have a drawer
>full of lenses, and old film pro bodies. Fact is, I only use
>two of my old lenses, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 60mm macro. If there
>is no Nikon replacement for my D200 that takes better pictures
>than my wifes $800 compact, I'll be Canon makes one.

Both Canon and Nikon make them. You simply seem to be uninterested in buying them. That's your personal choice. For $1000 the D7000 will stomp your D200 and your wife's compact camera into the ground with image quality. That is to say nothing of a D3, D3s, D3x, D4, or D800.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This is a hot, active topic! An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the D400... [View all] , richardd300 Silver Member , Thu 26-Apr-12 07:41 PM
Subject
ID
Reply message I got two messages from near the top at Nikon a week ag...
1
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
2
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
3
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
4
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
6
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
9
     Reply message Next time I need ISO 1600 on my D300...
10
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
11
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
5
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
7
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
8
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
12
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
14
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
13
Reply message Yes the D800 has an "inner D7000" except for the viewfi...
15
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
16
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
17
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
18
     Reply message Hmm...
19
          Reply message RE: Hmm...
20
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
21
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
22
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
23
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
92
                    Reply message RE: Hmm...
93
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
24
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
25
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
26
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
27
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
28
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
29
               Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
30
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
34
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
31
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
32
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
33
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
35
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
36
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
37
               Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
38
                    Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
39
                         Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
40
                              Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
41
                              Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
42
                                   Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
43
                                        Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
44
                                             Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
45
                                             Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
47
                                             Reply message We've seen (and heard) this before Neil...
46
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
48
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
49
Reply message There are two types of too close Neil.
50
     Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
51
          Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
52
               Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
53
                    Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
54
                    Reply message I really don't see the relevance of this discussion Nei...
55
                         Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
56
                         Reply message Okay Neil, let's look at the pixel level...
61
                              Reply message RE: Okay Neil, let's look at the pixel level...
63
                                   Reply message I'm not sure where you're headed with this Neil...
68
                                        Reply message RE: I'm not sure where you're headed with this Neil...
72
                                        Reply message RE: I'm not sure where you're headed with this Neil...
73
                         Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
57
                              Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
58
                              Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
59
                              Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
60
                              Reply message I was too polite to comment there Richard...
70
                              Reply message I'm all ears and eyes Neil...
62
                                   Reply message RE: I'm all ears and eyes Neil...
64
                                        Reply message RE: I'm all ears and eyes Neil...
65
                                        Reply message RE: D400
66
                                             Reply message RE: D400
67
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
69
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
71
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
74
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
75
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
76
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
77
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
78
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
79
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
80
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
81
          Reply message That is just plain misleading Neil...
82
               Reply message No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
83
                    Reply message I'm not speaking for Jim or Jay...
84
                    Reply message If you want the best high ISO performance possible...
86
                         Reply message Now that's the truth Neil...
88
                              Reply message RE: Now that's the truth Neil...
90
                                   Reply message Well, I think we've beaten this one to death Neil...
91
                    Reply message RE: No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
85
                         Reply message RE: No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
87
                              Reply message RE: No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
89