Wed 27-Feb-13 11:19 AM | edited Wed 27-Feb-13 02:15 PM by JohnE Nikon
Neil, Again thanks for your detailed response. For that matter, >how many people here arguing that a D400 is not needed for >birding can even post a 100 species life list? I would argue >that if they can't then they are engaged in an argument when >they should be listening and learning, not opining.
I guess my opinion is Nikon may not make a D400. They made the D7000 then a 7100 before the D400. ?? My opinion came mainly from the above and I was surprised, hence I posted the question on this forum. I wanted to know what others think. For me likely I would not buy a D400 even if it came out as the 7100 has everything I would need. I'm not a birder or wildlife photographer. I probably won't even buy the 7100. I just bought a D600 for landscape and other general photography which is more my passion. Since buying the D600 I still take about half my pictures or more with one of DX camera's for various reasons. ( smaller, need the reach for my li,ited wildlife or sports etc) So I will likely eventually upgrade my DX camera.
> >I'm not interested in a Nikon/Canon debate. And when you >start talking about focus at f/1.4 or f/2 you are a long way >from birding, which was the very narrow focus of the reply I >responded to.
I did not mean to imply that shallow DOF was related to birding but rather focus accuracy. When I have less than an inch of DOF and I nail focus > 50% of the time I thought that was relevant.
> >Nikons do a lot things very well, and that is why I shoot >Nikon. But not birding...
I think Nikon does a good job with wildlife and birds, maybe not compared to the competitive lens line that canon has. When I shoot birds even in flight with my 70-200 lens with my 1.7 TCE attached I can get a sharp image of a bird in flight. I am obviously not a serious wildlife or bird shooter if this lens set up is the best I have. No 400, 500, 600 or even 800 lenses in my bag. So I believe you. You obviously have way more experience in this area.
>In all these discussions, the idea has been raised that >"there isn't a big enough market for the (relatively few) >people that demand the D300 feature set" and perhaps >Nikon does not see that as a profitable market that justifies >continuing the D300 lineage. > >Now, I won't argue with that line of thinking- it may very >well be correct, and it may have a sound accounting basis. >But if it is correct, then we have to accept that we birders >are Nikon's "step-children", to be handed whatever >crumbs come our way, and force fit whatever bodies are made >available to us, as best we can. > >And in terms of who best services niche markets, you don't >even want to think about the astrophotography market. It >doesn't get nichier than that. Yet since the early days of >DSLR, Canon has managed to service that market, where Nikon >has for the most part abdicated it. > >Canon even makes a couple of special purpose astrophotography >models. I seriously doubt that they sell more astro models >than the D400s they would sell if they made that body. > >Those are the facts of the actual situation and accounting >issues may well be the reasoning for this recent turn of >events.
No argument. > >However, when I read suggestions that even subtly suggests >Nikon somehow "owns" the birding market, I have to >respond because it is simply factually incorrect. Both on the >basis of what gear birders really use (among those million or >so visual birders that vastly outnumber us >"photographers"), and what arguments I could field >in a hypothetical debate. > >And, as just suggested, about the only argument I would have >is to buy into the Nikon system, but with a 3rd party Sigma >lens because Nikon can't deliver a competitive lens. That is >not exactly a resounding affirmation of a camera system and I >think that is a losing argument unless perhaps the Nikon >bodies are so good as to make that worthwhile. But if that >were the case we would not be engaged in this thread > >Beware of internet opinions regarding things like focusing >issues. There is a lot of fanboyism out there, and I have >never seen an objective test of focus that cuts through that >fanboyism. And for that reason alone I don't pay much >attention to those "focusing problems". Plus, there >are plenty of focusing problems in our little world (like >D800 left focus issues!).
I don't think I'm a blind fan boy, but I am impressed with my Nikon gear. I am still considered a relatively new photographer. My first DSLR was the D5000. A friend/work colleague and I were progressing as photographers together but he was a couple years ahead of me. At the time he had Canon's version of the D300 (40D) and just bought the 70-200 4.0 lens. He was complaining about focus problems with his previous lens and was just touching on taking bird pictures. He seemed generally happy with his new lens purchase. On day we bought our gear to work and decided to test the camera's against each other. He had his $1500-2000 canon and his new 70-200 4.0, I had a D5000 and my kit 55-200 lens. We stood next to each other and took shots of houses and cars hand held. (I know... a very controlled test).. We downloaded images we viewed 1:1. My D5000 was significantly sharper then his canon. We went back outside and I used his camera and he used mine. I was convinced my hand and technique were better. No same results. Fast forward a year. He bought the 7D and a few other lenses. I bought the D7000. Although we never repeated the test It seemed that all his images were now supersharp and our results seemed superficially comparable.
> >Yet neither does Nikon seem interested in making a D400 so I'm >at a total loss on that one. All they accomplished, in my >view, is to aggravate most of their birder customers and at >least force them to start thinking about the idea of looking >elsewhere. And likely many other shooters interested in other >subjects with the same general problems of reach.
You have convinced me that Nikon has let you down and other pro DX shooters, if they don't upgrade.
"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga