Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

Msmoto

The D300s is not a current Nikon model. It is listed under "Archived" on Nikon USA website.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/dslr-cameras/index.page#archived

WestEndFoto

I can see the product range has changed since the D3/D300s, but (as I keep saying) for sure they could produce the D400 for a market that is aching for it if they can make a D810a for a literal handful of specialised users. Remember the D810a is no good for anything else whereas the D400 would be a brilliant all round camera as well as the birders delight. Why this perspective that if you could get an FX for the same price or less why buy a DX?

More windmills... more self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Aching for it? Really? Don't confuse the loudness of a few passionate people for a widespread market. The D810a comparison is deeply, deeply flawed. The D810a is an extremely minor modification of an existing product with an extremely production low risk. A D400 would require a major effort and lots of redesign, especially if they wanted to up the FPS with existing processors. There is a REASON why if you do the math (megapixels time fps), the numbers tend to max out in the same area. You are NOT going to shoot 10fps at 24mp with the current processors unless Nikon does a hell of a lot of tweaking, and that doesn't come cheap or easy.

Go buy a D7200. Seriously. Get over it.

I am no better qualified than you or anybody in this instance to know what Nikon can and can't do or when they are going to spring the next step in fps or whatever. We are guessing. Writing your guesses more assertively than everybody else doesn't make you actually know anything more than they do Mark. What I do actually know, is resources are resources and IHMO if they have the resources to spend on a camera that I doubt they will sell a hundred units of in this country, then resources aren't their problem - and that was put up as a reason before the D810a came out.

Look at the D4/D4s - 16mp. The D400 could be a 20mp sensor which would do 10 fps (I 'did the math'), or Nikon could be about to debut a new processor or whatever. Who knows?

As to me buying a D7200, ain't gonna happen - I have the D7100/D750 which I'm happy with and I don't even need a D400 either. I just hate to see a market sector go unsupplied when it apparently exists in greater numbers than making any 'one trip pony' star camera will ever serve. You can look at the 7D2 to see how many canon sells for comparison it may not be as many as a D5500 will sell, but the profit margin should reflect that. Look at the price of the D4s - it isn't worth that price for the majority of owners because they don't need it but that doesn't stop them buying it.

If this thread irritates you, you don't have to read it or contribute to it. Personally, I find contributing to it fun which is why I do. NR would be diminished without threads like this.

He did write his guess assertively, and using your own logic, the fact that he wrote it assertively does not diminish his argument.

Further, I think they are really good guesses and Mark has hit the nail on the head. His observation about the minimal resources required to tweak a current line to produce the 810A versus the resources required to introduce a new line very neatly dismantled your own argument. You countered this by restating your own guess as a fact (you disguised and softened your presentation of a guess as a fact, reinforced with your tone, by inserting "IHMO" - very effective persuasive technique I must say, I bet the majority of readers missed that).

Further, I quite enjoy the passion that Mark displayed in this argument. I think that the tone of his argument, in his very first sentence, very neatly exposed your own guess (aching for it) which in my view was a wild overstatement.

And I do find it a little disrespectful to imply that Mark should leave the thread because it irritates him. If you are irritated because you can't handle the heat of a well said and assertive argument, then what are you doing in this thread?

Anyways, I do enjoy the arguments and contributions from both of you, both better photographers then me in my opinion. The passion I see makes it even more enjoyable.

sevencrossing

.

Sorry@WestEndFoto I cannot separate the quotes from what you are trying to say

donaldejose

It will come, or not. Doesn't make any difference what we say.

heartyfisher

I don't know, why do some people feel compelled to debunk UFOs, haunted houses, or psychics?

It's all time wasted and it pains me to see people drawn into this wait as if it were some kind of realistic possibility with people convincing each other that it's going to happen any day now. I guess that I don't think mass delusion is a good thing.

LOL thats what they said about the 7dm2 ;-) and ..

Andrewz

Sevencrossing said
"1) Cost
The price difference between a DX and FX sensor has diminished."

This is incorrect the cost of the silicone wafer and producing sensors is fixed. The big difference is the number of sensor you can fit on one wafer. Because of the size difference you will always be able to put more DX sensors on one wafer. Further more Nikon seems to use the same Sony sensor in the D3300, D5300, D5500 and perhaps the D7200 and with volume comes reduced cost.

DX camera will always have a significant manufacturing cost savings over an FX camera.

This is another reason why Nikon should make a D400/D9300, they should be able to make profits on them over an FX camera.

I know I'm the guy who said we won't see a Pro-DX camera. I still say the 2 best arguments for this camera are the gap between the D7200 and D610 and the 7D mk II. It has been unusual for Nikon not to compete in this segment of the market.

heartyfisher

I hope Nikon separates the 2 lines of cameras and treat DX like its own business unit. Let it compete properly with the other DX systems out there... ie make DX cameras the best they can be and have a set of PRO models.

Just thinking further on the Pro models it would be nice if we got a few DX pro cameras in the D800/D300 style bodies.
1) 12 or 16 MP high ISO high FPS !! 1/16000 Flash sync !! ( my D70 can do 1/8000 )
2) 24 MP sensor from the D7200.
3) 36 MP !!

Or just swap sensor modules ;-)

WestEndFoto

Sevencrossing said
"1) Cost
The price difference between a DX and FX sensor has diminished."

This is incorrect the cost of the silicone wafer and producing sensors is fixed. The big difference is the number of sensor you can fit on one wafer. Because of the size difference you will always be able to put more DX sensors on one wafer. Further more Nikon seems to use the same Sony sensor in the D3300, D5300, D5500 and perhaps the D7200 and with volume comes reduced cost.

DX camera will always have a significant manufacturing cost savings over an FX camera.

This is another reason why Nikon should make a D400/D9300, they should be able to make profits on them over an FX camera.

I know I'm the guy who said we won't see a Pro-DX camera. I still say the 2 best arguments for this camera are the gap between the D7200 and D610 and the 7D mk II. It has been unusual for Nikon not to compete in this segment of the market.

It may be fixed in the way that you described but when FX sensors are less than a hundred bucks, it will be a moot point. To Sevencrossing's point, the sensor is becoming an ever smaller and smaller portion of the camera cost.

sevencrossing

To Sevencrossing's point, the sensor is becoming an ever smaller and smaller portion of the camera cost.

Thank you

donaldejose

If you need to shoot today or tomorrow buy today what best works for your needs and go shoot. If you have the bases covered adequately for the work you have to do today and tomorrow you can see what is out when your kit really needs to be replaced. No one should shoot today with a D300 or D300s waiting on a D400 when a D7100 or D7200 would be so much better. Debate about the "mythical" D400 is primarily of academic interest.

sevencrossing

Debate about the "mythical" D400 is primarily of academic interest.

+10
This really should be added to the title of this thread

PB_PM

S
This is incorrect the cost of the silicone wafer and producing sensors is fixed. The big difference is the number of sensor you can fit on one wafer. Because of the size difference you will always be able to put more DX sensors on one wafer. Further more Nikon seems to use the same Sony sensor in the D3300, D5300, D5500 and perhaps the D7200 and with volume comes reduced cost.

DX camera will always have a significant manufacturing cost savings over an FX camera.

Indeed, those who believe that the cost of making an FX sensor will fall into the price of making a D5300 are dreaming. If anything the cost of producing sensors has gone up (inflation, wages etc). Unlike computer CPU's and GPU's, where the die size has shrunk almost every other generation for the last decade or more, the size of camera chips are set in stone and will always require a set of amount of silicon to be used.

The difference in production cost for camera sensors now is volume, and efficiency. When the first FX sensors hit the street volume and efficiency were likely very low. As the process has become more mature with time there are likely fewer faulty chips per wafer, which in itself would lower costs somewhat. Likely that is why we are seeing cameras like the D6xx and Canon 6D. Either that or Canon and Nikon are using them as loss leaders to sell more full frame lenses.

Regardless smaller sensors will always be cheaper to manufacture do to larger production volume. Then again as camera sales continue to drop we may actually see a sharp increase in the cost of larger sensor cameras (DX and FX), unless they somehow get sold in larger numbers than cell phones with cameras (in other words very unlikely).

sevencrossing

S


The difference in production cost for camera sensors now is volume, and efficiency.

Correct
This does not just apply to sensors but the whole camera
So unless a camera sells in large numbers, it is going to be expensive
it accounts, in part, for the high price of the D4s and low price of the D3200

The retail price of most things, is affected more by the markup dictated by Senior management, than by production costs

I think we all know, the cost making a pair of designer jeans is not 20 times more than a supermarket pair

WestEndFoto

S
This is incorrect the cost of the silicone wafer and producing sensors is fixed. The big difference is the number of sensor you can fit on one wafer. Because of the size difference you will always be able to put more DX sensors on one wafer. Further more Nikon seems to use the same Sony sensor in the D3300, D5300, D5500 and perhaps the D7200 and with volume comes reduced cost.

DX camera will always have a significant manufacturing cost savings over an FX camera.

Indeed, those who believe that the cost of making an FX sensor will fall into the price of making a D5300 are dreaming. If anything the cost of producing sensors has gone up (inflation, wages etc). Unlike computer CPU's and GPU's, where the die size has shrunk almost every other generation for the last decade or more, the size of camera chips are set in stone and will always require a set of amount of silicon to be used.

The difference in production cost for camera sensors now is volume, and efficiency. When the first FX sensors hit the street volume and efficiency were likely very low. As the process has become more mature with time there are likely fewer faulty chips per wafer, which in itself would lower costs somewhat. Likely that is why we are seeing cameras like the D6xx and Canon 6D. Either that or Canon and Nikon are using them as loss leaders to sell more full frame lenses.

Regardless smaller sensors will always be cheaper to manufacture do to larger production volume. Then again as camera sales continue to drop we may actually see a sharp increase in the cost of larger sensor cameras (DX and FX), unless they somehow get sold in larger numbers than cell phones with cameras (in other words very unlikely).

PB_PM, you are aware of something called Moore's law and the computer revolution aren't you? While Moore's law is not what it used to be, the decline is still occurring and will continue to occur. It applies to chips of any volume, not only high volume chips. And as the price comes down, Nikon can use the same chip in a greater range of cameras, actually increasing volume.

Recall the price of the first D1 (DX) when it came out? About $5,000 in 1999 dollars (about $6,500 or a little more in today's dollars) albeit part of that was related to the professional grade of the camera. And don't mistake temporary variations in the price of sensors based on temporary factors like production volumes and foreign exchange or differences merely due to relative volumes. There is a relentless downward trend in cost. It is not a matter of if, but when.

Ironheart

""Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."
- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
This, unfortunately has little bearing on the cost of a silicon wafer, which has actually gone up in the last few years. Great for microprocessor sizes (and prices) but notsomuch for camera sensors. Couple that with the fact that Moore's law has actually slowed to every three years, and may be broken entirely by the end of the decade, I think it is a bit of a red herring/canard that has little influence on the cost of a production camera.

PB_PM

PB_PM, you are aware of something called Moore's law and the computer revolution aren't you? While Moore's law is not what it used to be, the decline is still occurring and will continue to occur. It applies to chips of any volume, not only high volume chips. And as the price comes down, Nikon can use the same chip in a greater range of cameras, actually increasing volume.

As @Ironheart mentions, Moore's Law has nothing to do with silicon wafer prices. Moore's law applies to CPUs and GPU's for the reason I mentioned in my post, the transistors get smaller and the processor dies get smaller. What does that mean? Less silicon per process chip. Camera sensors on the other hand keep using the same size die and amount of silicon as they did when they first arrived. An FX chip uses the same amount of silicon today as it did in 2007, and will keep using the same amount of silicon in 10 years. Thus inflation will only drive the price up, long term, not down.

Right now prices are lower than they were in 2007 for the two reasons I mentioned in the post you quoted, efficiency of the process (fewer flawed sensors per wafer) and volume. But sales of large sensor cameras are falling, not increasing. Volume of FX sensors likely has increased in resent years, but I doubt that will continue on a linear scale. While they may continue to make a larger amount of sales in large sensor cameras in years to come, total large sensor camera sales are sliding. Therefore, it is simply a matter of time before the price of FX and DX sensor prices increase.

WestEndFoto

OK, you guys are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion this is a good example of knowing enough just to be dangerous.

15 years ago a decent DX camera was $6,500 dollars in current dollars and now it is $399.00. The D3 was the same price in 2008 and now you can buy an FX camera for $1,600. Are you predicting that this deflation is going to stop? And if so, why now? Why did they not come out with a $1,600 FX sensor in 2008 but they can now? Because something has changed. If it is not sensor prices, what has? Volume? If it is simple as that, all Canon and Nikon has to do is discontinue all DX cameras and replace them with FX cameras as the same prices points - say $399 for a D400, the same as the D3300 except FX. They will sell a ton, but go broke.

How do you reconcile your opinions with reality?

Capt_Spaulding

If you need to shoot today or tomorrow buy today what best works for your needs and go shoot. If you have the bases covered adequately for the work you have to do today and tomorrow you can see what is out when your kit really needs to be replaced. No one should shoot today with a D300 or D300s waiting on a D400 when a D7100 or D7200 would be so much better. Debate about the "mythical" D400 is primarily of academic interest.

While I agree with much of the sentiment you express, I do have a small problem with the higlighed part. In general, this phrase is used to trivialize a discussion as being only of interest to "academics" and, therefore, of little interest or importance to "real people." Angels on heads of pins and that sort of thing.

I have a couple of issues with this. First, it would seem to appear that a fair number of the "real people" do actually care about the issue. Should they? Beats me. Should they spend/waste their time on an internet forum debating it. That beats me, too. As my Budhist friends are fond of saying, "we're attached to a rock flying through space, we have to do something. And, this doesn't hurt anyone." I'm kinda cool with that.

Second, as an "academic," I find a lot of things that go on in my world actually are pretty important to those outside the "ivory tower." I realize this is just a figure of speech and, truthfully, I've heard it for so long from so many places, it's ceased to be more that cause of some small amount of head shaking. Still, it does trivialize what happens in the "academy," and we get enough bad press we actually deserve without it.

Thanks for listening. Sorry for the hijack. Please carry on with the entertaining (IMHO) debate.

As to the original topic, I'm still confused as to what a "Pro" body is. Given the number of people using D800s, 810s, 750s, and 7100s for income producing purposes, it seems to my poor "academic" eyes as a distinction with a disappearing difference.

WestEndFoto

Pro is a marketing term in the camera world. If someone is earning a living with a D3300, then in that instance it is a pro body.

PB_PM

OK, you guys are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion this is a good example of knowing enough just to be dangerous.

15 years ago a decent DX camera was $6,500 dollars in current dollars and now it is $399.00. The D3 was the same price in 2008 and now you can buy an FX camera for $1,600.

Irrelevant. The D1 was the D4s of it's time. That class of camera is now $6900.

You are talking about camera costs, not sensor costs. Totally different subject.

WestEndFoto

Then how do you explain that the opening price for an FX camera is declining. Whatever it is, it is happening and I see no reason for it to stop. If Nikon brings out a $1,000 FX camera in a body similar to a D5300 are you going to dismiss it because it is a consumer body?

Capt_Spaulding

Pro is a marketing term in the camera world. If someone is earning a living with a D3300, then in that instance it is a pro body.

But in most instances they do not use D3300s. And even though I have sold a few images, it doesn't qualify me as a "Pro," I guess a better question would be what proportion of the people who support themselves taking pictures, do with a D3/4/s as opposed to another FX (or DX) body). Without intending to offend anyone and acknowldging that I am truly a neophyte in these matters, if there is an "angels dancing on the head of pin" sort of question, the Pro vs non Pro discussion may be it. Reading your posts, I sense you may not disagree all too seriously.

My thoughts - worth what you paid for them.

WestEndFoto

I suppose you could argue it is a continuem. Maybe take a poll. If 90% of D4 shooters are pro, then it is a 90% pro camera. Hmmm......

One measure I like is two cards. If you are shooting something for me that cannot be rerun (events, sunsets), you better show up with two cameras, each with two cards. I learned that lesson the hard way at my wedding, which had to be done twice.

So no second slot? Definitely not a pro camera in my opinion. But does the second slot make it a pro camera. I don't know.

PB_PM

Then how do you explain that the opening price for an FX camera is declining.

Already did that, in two earlier posts. Volume of unit sales and production efficiency. Then add that to the fact that it is very likely that the D610 and Canon 6D are loss leaders to push higher margin full frame lens sales. Sony tried to do the same thing with their first entry level full frame body, in 2009, they just didn't have the consumer grade lenses to go with it.

Regardless we are dragging this thread way off the topic of a Pro DX body.

donaldejose

By "academic interest" I don't mean to belittle academia. I simply mean to say it is a theoretical discussion at this point and not a real choice anyone has to make today. Today we make a practical choice between bodies which actually exist.

I, for one, believe Nikon will soon produce the "mythical D400" and it will be a great camera. When? Soon.