D9300 All Discussions

snakebunk

I think they can make it 16 mp as long as it is fully pro in terms of build quality, has lots of fps and great iso performance. In other words a dx version of D4s; all benefits of D4s and the same pixel density as the D800. To make it a slightly better D7100 is not good enough I believe.

Ironheart

Remember expeed4 is spec'd for 24mp @ 12fps. Nikon has to use that horsepower somewhere, why not the D9300?

Ironheart

They could, but many folks have indicated they want a full pro body, aka a mini-D4.

sevencrossing

Perhaps we should go back to the OP

Nikon is preparing to launch a new D9300 camera. This is all I got for now - just a model name

who knows, it might be Mirrorless
DX Mirrorless ?
FX Mirrorless ?
F mount ?
50mp ?
who knows ???

sevencrossing

<.....<i>I enjoy using the D300 more than a D7000 or any other camera I've ever used ... not that I've tried all the alternatives.
Btw, I often buy beer at 6-7 $ a bottle. Again, not because I need it, but because I enjoy it.

I think this was idea behind the Df, a camera that was enjoyable to own and use
The best camera I have ever owned is my D800
but the most enjoyable to use was a Rollie Marine
(Sadly not mine)

donaldejose

"The D7100 already has that processor. Why not just add some buffer and crank up the speed on the d7100, call it a D7200 and call it a day?" Surely it, the D7200, will come with some added features.

Ade

The D7100 already has that processor. Why not just add some buffer and crank up the speed on the d7100, call it a D7200 and call it a day? Why do you need an entirely new line?

The D7100 has Expeed 3, not the new Expeed 4.

Introduction of a new line is driven by marketing. It's a matter of "want", not "need". Many people really want a "flagship DX pro-oriented camera" somewhere in the $1800-$2000 price range. People want to be able to say "I bought the best (DX) camera money can buy", defined as first-class AF, high FPS, deep buffer, prosumer controls, and superior weather-sealing. The D7100 isn't that camera.

From a "need" perspective, the D7100 is already overkill for most of us.

snakebunk

Well put Ade. There is always a market for the very best. But it has to be the very best with some margin.

spraynpray

I was one of the many who was waiting for the D400 but after low-light testing the D7100, I got that instead. Sure, the rapid buffer fill is a pain, but it only exists as a problem in raw mode, it doesn't happen in .jpg mode. So not being a BIF shooter, I can get round the lack of capacity by shooting motor sport as .jpgs without much risk of needing the raw files.

I can't wait for my next DX body upgrade because it will have to be a super high ISO and DR performing camera which is far more important to me than the fps or button layout. Even more viewfinder coverage by AF points over the D7100 would be good, but not essential.

donaldejose

"super high ISO and DR performing [DX] camera" Yes, that is what Nikon SHOULD produce next!

TaoTeJared

A couple of thoughts from all the above comments:

I do think 16-20ish MP is about the sweet spot for most all of photographed items. Larger Mp has it's uses for sure, but honestly shooting a D800 since it came out and doing my family/friends stuff (not work) with it is just massive overkill. The answer is not "more maga pixels" - if you are cropping too much, get a longer lens, blow-ups not looking right, learn to use software correctly to enlarge images. Both are cheaper and longer lasting than camera bodies.

Observation: M4/3rds are all 16mp, Canon has stuck to a 18mp for years and Samsung is holding steady with 20-22mp systems for years as well. (Keeping the same MP does not mean it is the same sensor.) There are already systems for those who want the resolution - but I don't think it is needed most of the time.

What would be impressive is a DX sensor that can keep the dynamic range up across the ISO like the D4s. Clean (low noise) but dull (de-saturated) images is no better than ones with noise. Keep that DR near 10 through iso 1600-3200, and that is a game changer. Sony's A7s is very impressive, hopefully that technology disseminates to smaller senors and Nikon will utilize them.

Nikon releasing products based on marketing? I think the other threads on the site show they don't listen to many whims and supposed desires of customers. These bodies have been in the works for years.

There are so many casual shooters who basically want the shooting power of a D4/s (burst, FPS, Speed, AF, ergonomics) but not the tethering and other options built in, and where the crop factor is a boon for extra reach (wildlife, kids or other sports) that I don't see why Nikon keeps neglecting this segment. The newest crop of mirrorless bodies are pumping out very high FPS systems and it seems to me, Nikon is just letting those customers leave. I don't see why a D4 DX model is such a stretch for them to release.

I use to be very interested in what a next-gen D300 would be, but now not so much as Nikon has continually gone in a direction that doesn't particularly fit into what I find useful or as an complement to my D800. Sadly that is just pushing me to another brand, and expensively, more lenses. It is just frustrating.

donaldejose

TTJ, wait, it will come later this year.

Sports

The newest crop of mirrorless bodies are pumping out very high FPS systems and it seems to me, Nikon is just letting those customers leave.

I agree.
According to a lot of knowledable people a year ago, Nikon's plan was to move enthusiasts to FX by not building the DX D400.
Nikon then made the great-value-for-money-D6x0, but they did NOT offer an FX body that actually met the requirements of the D300 users, so the plan was seriously flawed - it was simply not tempting to throw those extra $$ to get an FX.
Instead, the mirrorless kept improving, and now THEY're becoming the ones to offer a D300 successor .... sort of.
Bottom line: Nikon has to offer an affordable mini D4 to keep people from leaking. And to tempt new enthusiasts.

Ade

Nikon releasing products based on marketing? I think the other threads on the site show they don't listen to many whims and supposed desires of customers.

Don't confuse marketing with "listening" to whims or desires of customers.

Steve Jobs was considered one of the Greatest Marketer ever and yet he famously doesn't listen to his customers. He understands that what customers actually want is different from what customers say they want.

Nikon has a marketing strategy that is strongly based on product segmentation. They think having a dozen slightly different variations of the same Nikon 1 camera is an advantage.

In the same vein, the marketing heads at Nikon are salivating to further segment the DX line. They'd like a D9300 at the high-end and a D2300 at the low-end. Heck maybe they'll introduce a DX mirrorless as well to cover all the bases. We might see all three in the next 12 months.

donaldejose

DX mirrorless? Yes, badly needed!

PB_PM

Observation: M4/3rds are all 16mp, Canon has stuck to a 18mp for years and Samsung is holding steady with 20-22mp systems for years as well.

Yet none of them can really touch the quality, both overall and in terms of noise, that Sony's 24 (DX&FX) and 36MP (FX) sensors are outputting.

Don't confuse marketing with "listening" to whims or desires of customers.

Steve Jobs was considered one of the Greatest Marketer ever and yet he famously doesn't listen to his customers. He understands that what customers actually want is different from what customers say they want.

@Ade it is well known, that this is not true. In recent years it came to light that Apple has (yes under Steve Jobs), and continues to rely heavily on customer feedback and focus test groups.

Ade

@PM_PM:

Not really. Apple heavily uses customer feedback to track customer satisfaction, using a metric called net promoter score. This is the same metric virtually all marketers use today. Yes, even Nikon.

But Steve Jobs would never let customers dictate what features to include or to leave out from products, something he learned from his days at NeXT:

"I think really great products come from melding two points of view—the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." --Steve Jobs

Unlike Nikon's feature-segmentation mania, Jobs placed the utmost importance to designing customer experiences. But this is very different from asking customers want they want, or from "listening" to customer demands.

"... Customers can't anticipate what the technology can do. They won't ask for things that they think are impossible. But the technology may be ahead of them. If you happen to mention something, they'll say, "Of course, I'll take that. Do you mean I can have that, too?" It sounds logical to ask customers what they want and then give it to them. But they rarely wind up getting what they really want that way." --Steve Jobs

That doesn't mean Steve Jobs operated in a vacuum. I will repeat what I said above: he understood that what customers actually want is different from what customers say they want.

TaoTeJared

Observation: M4/3rds are all 16mp, Canon has stuck to a 18mp for years and Samsung is holding steady with 20-22mp systems for years as well.

Yet none of them can really touch the quality, both overall and in terms of noise, that Sony's 24 (DX&FX) and 36MP (FX) sensors are outputting.

I would challenge you to go out and try the newest bodies in m4/3rds - they are very impressive. Are they close to a 36mp FX sensor? Of course not, but that is not what I mentioned nor the market this is aimed for. Those people already have a D800. For a $1,500-$2,500 system (give or take lenses) DX & M4/3rds are about even for what the masses use them for. The masses are not overly critical photographers that zoom to 1600% in photoshop.

Taking a picture of your son's or daughter's ball game, taking a photo of backyard birds, you will be hard pressed to pick the difference between a M4/3 16mp and a DX 24mp sensor on a facebook post.

Coastalconn

I'm wondering what the D9300 would really offer that would make it worth 6-700+ more than the D7100. Obviously, speed, buffer and a D300 type body. After shooting with the D7100 for 8 months, I have learned to deal with the speed and the buffer issues(occasionally with Osprey dives I do miss the speed). I had really missed the D300 build, but I have gotten so used to the D7100, that I no longer miss the dedicated knobs to change the settings that I use every day. So for me a D9300 would have to be something very different to justify changing from the D7100. I mentioned it someplace a long time ago, but to really interest me I would l would like to see a 1.2x camera with the pixel density of the D800 and ISO performance of the D800, with 8 fps and a 24+ frame buffer. Wrap that into a D300 style body and I would probably be near the head of the line. Otherwise Nikon has waited too long and when a D7200 comes out with a slightly higher frame rate and larger buffer, it will be just fine for me. One thing I have grown to appreciate with the D7100 is that it is a very light combo with the 150-600 and it has been producing images that I am very pleased with...

spraynpray

@PM_PM:

Not really. Apple heavily uses customer feedback to track customer satisfaction, using a metric called net promoter score. This is the same metric virtually all marketers use today. Yes, even Nikon.

But Steve Jobs would never let customers dictate what features to include or to leave out from products, something he learned from his days at NeXT:

"I think really great products come from melding two points of view—the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." --Steve Jobs

Unlike Nikon's feature-segmentation mania, Jobs placed the utmost importance to designing customer experiences. But this is very different from asking customers want they want, or from "listening" to customer demands.

"... Customers can't anticipate what the technology can do. They won't ask for things that they think are impossible. But the technology may be ahead of them. If you happen to mention something, they'll say, "Of course, I'll take that. Do you mean I can have that, too?" It sounds logical to ask customers what they want and then give it to them. But they rarely wind up getting what they really want that way." --Steve Jobs

That doesn't mean Steve Jobs operated in a vacuum. I will repeat what I said above: he understood that what customers actually want is different from what customers say they want.

All due respect Ade, but that post just doesn't resonate with reality. We customers aren't asking (as a minimum) for anything radically out of line with what we know they can produce - nobody is going to complain what extra they put in it, so how exactly can customers want something different to the D400 once launched? The D400 would be an evolution not a revolution.

Ade

@spraynpray

That post is about how Apple approaches products. Nikon does it differently: they have been driven primarily by market segmentation. Neither company just delivers to what their customers are asking for.

(Not closely responding to customer wants isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself.)

sevencrossing

Well put Ade. There is always a market for the very best. But it has to be the very best with some margin.

Which is why Nikon make the D4s the Df and the D800E

The overwhelming advantage of Dx is it is cheaper

Best bangs for your bucks - Yes

But on average, cheaper does not normally equate with the best

snakebunk

@sevencrossing: Some day, and that day may never come, there will be an inexpensive, manageable camera with a huge sensor, extreme pixel density and infinite fps. But until that day, consider all cameras a compromise between price, sensor size, pixel density and fps.

snakebunk

@sevencrossing, part 2: What I mean is that there is no magic sensor size. There are positive and negative sides to both FX and DX, and there is no reason there should not be a super great pro DX camera.

donaldejose

I agree, a "mini-D4s for about $2.500. Or a better than D7100 for about $1.800.