Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

donaldejose

I, for one, am looking forward to PitchBlack's pictures of Nesse and then I will post mine of Bigfoot.

proudgeek

@sevencrossing. Great point. It all comes down to that the camera doesn't take the pictures, the photographer does. We don't need to look any further than our own Coastalconn to see what one can accomplish with a "mere" 4fps.

heartyfisher

@sevencrossing. Great point. It all comes down to that the camera doesn't take the pictures, the photographer does. We don't need to look any further than our own Coastalconn to see what one can accomplish with a "mere" 4fps.

Sorry I dont see it.. I totally enjoyed birding with my S5pro which went at an amazing 1.5 FPS ;-).
But the D7200 is not the Pro-DX. Sure you could also use the D3300 and get amazing photos similarly with the D4S. Buts its irrelevant to the discussion, No?

sevencrossing

?? of course we do.. see the 7dm2

I just looked at canons spec for the 7d2
maybe I missing something
were does it say Pro or professional ?

proudgeek

The discussion is "will it happen"? I say no, based on the argument above (not the one you referenced; that was just a side conversation relating to the role of the camera vs. the photographer).

heartyfisher

The discussion is "will it happen"? I say no, based on the argument above (not the one you referenced; that was just a side conversation relating to the role of the camera vs. the photographer).

ok :-) good point .. i accept that logic :-) ..

PS just reread .. I am confused .... :-( please clarify..

faateris

How funny is to read You thoughts about D300 owner's why and what they need ))))
I can tell, what I need. DX like D300, but with more MP, better work in hard conditions(better AF) and price lower 2000 euro. Now I have D300 and I'm thinking abot D750, but this is full frame Camera. I will need one more lense and not cheap one....
Why Nikon can't tell, that they will not make half professional DX Cameras. That would be end of this discussion.

sevencrossing

. ....Now I have D300 and I'm thinking abot D750..........,

Good thinking the D750 has a very big advantage . It exist

spraynpray

13 posts back you said you were done with this thread and off to Scotland to snap nessie @PitchBlack - you just can't keep away from this thread can you... )

heartyfisher

13 posts back you said you were done with this thread and off to Scotland to snap nessie @PitchBlack - you just can't keep away from this thread can you... )

LOL i am sure he means the figurative Scotland and the metaphorical beast that he is going to photograph with the virtual D400 ;-)

manhattanboy

13 posts back you said you were done with this thread and off to Scotland to snap nessie @PitchBlack - you just can't keep away from this thread can you... )

This thread is addicting. So pointless but yet you can't stay away

Anyway, Thom has a full page write up on the D500 (he's now convinced that they will have to skip the 400 all together). Read it here: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-missing-d300s-replaceme.html

heartyfisher

I probably have as much faith as you that the D400 will/willnot exist.. but practically I shoot with my D610 and D7000 and thinking seriously of upgrading to the D7200. Whether the D400 will come or not is for the future to decide. As of now.. we have the D7200, 7Dm2, K3, E-M1, X-Pro1 if they are in your budget decide which system is best for you and take photos. But this thread is to consider the future possibility of the existence of the ProDX it is exactly what it is and just let it be what it is.. !

sevencrossing

Anyway, Thom has a full page write up on the D500

looking at his spec for weatherproofing and toughness
The the D500 will be a replacement for the Nikonos

donaldejose

Thom's article: it could be a great year for us if both a pro DX and new D5 are released this fall.

snakebunk

I like Thom Hogan's suggestion for the D500, especially that he stresses on build quality and that it would be related to the D5. If Nikon would do that and continue with the D8XX series I think they have a very good set of pro cameras.

haroldp

Speaking for myself, If Nikon incorporated the build qualities he mentions into the next (810 replacement) FX body, particularly if they go to a 50+ mp sensor, that would be more useful to me than a DX sensor in that body.

Given that when I am 'birding', the body is attached to a $10,000 lens on a $2,000 tripod / gimbal (just like the 100 other photogs lining the river), a price difference of a few hundred dollars is not worth giving up the versatility of FX frame coverage. A body as TH describes will likely not be smaller or lighter than it's FX equivalent, and attached to a 12 lb. lens, it matters less.

I keep hearing about DX for wildlife and sports, but neither Nikon nor Canon have a DX super tele.

I would like to see a very strong lens mount to avoid unfortunate incidents with heavy lenses.

I cannot speak for what others may want, but my needs and priorities are clear and do not include a small sensor in a big body.

... H

donaldejose

No need for a "small sensor in a big body" It that like a pea-sized brain in a body builder"

The benefit of $2,000 pro DX "reach" would be in being able to use a lens like the new $2,000 300mm f4 in place of the $12,000 400mm f2.8 with a $3,200 D810. Not everyone has the extra $13,000 or needs the extra one stop. I have seen plenty of photographers shooting wildlife with the "big guns" and would like to see some shooting the same subjects with "little guns" and getting almost identical images.

sevencrossing

.....and would like to see some shooting the same subjects with "little guns" and getting almost identical images.

Come with me to the hides on the Somerset levels and I will show you such people
They are not professional photographers, so they do not want and cannot afford, a camera such as the D400

They are keen birders. They will indeed use a 300mm lens but they happy with their D7xxx. Yes they they often miss a shot but to the keen amateur, that is not an issue, they just go back next week or next year and try again

I believe Nikon do listen to the customers. Their market research indicates the keen amateur will pay up to £1000 for a first class DX camera but above that price they want full frame

IMHO The reason Nikon have not made a Pro DX camera is simply because they believe the market for one is just too small

I may be wrong but to date, the lack of such a camera indicates might be on the right track

haroldp

If an FX and DX sensor have the same pixel pitch, there is no additional 'reach'
If the lens cannot out resolve the FX pixel pitch (D800/810 are 16mp in DX mode) there is no additional 'reach'
All current long teles (> 200mm) with any hope of such resolution are FX lenses.

Nikon's pattern has been to leapfrog DX sensor topology into FX, (16mp DX became 36mp FX etc.).
If the DX camera is not significantly smaller / lighter (the D300 was same size / weight as D700/800), and still expensive which a 'pro' body wold require, then it is not useful to me.

I travel 140 miles each way at 5:00 AM to spend 2 hours getting eagles while freezing (me not them), I want the best odds possible.

A 400 / 2.8 with tc-20eII is 800 / 5.6, (with 1.4 tce at 560mm it is too short). For best performance I am usually stopped down at least to F6.3, more likely F8. Speeds below 1/2000 are chancy and below 1/1000 highly unlikely, these birds are fast. Being able to crop a DX size image out of an FX frame has saved many shots for me, and I can follow focus on the head with the center point, which has been the most effective for me and crop in PP. Saving $ 500- 800 on a camera of the same size/weight and missing shots does not represent a useful trade-off to me.

A 300 F4 with 2x extender is a 600 F8, and with 2X TC has no chance of out-resolving a D800 let alone a D7200, therefore this 'reach' is nonsense, and it is still too short and too slow.

I see lots of folks using lenses worth much more than the cars they came in, it is a matter of priorities.

We don't spend and schlepp because we like it, it is the minimum gear needed for predatory birds.

When most people who actually do something, do it pretty much the same way, that is a clue that should be observed by those who don't do it and want to.

If you never actually try to shoot predatory BIF, then I imagine anything is good enough.

... H

snakebunk

@haroldp, two comments on your earlier post:

If Nikon make a pro dx camera and give it a better build quality than the D810, I am sure it will eventually also come to the D8XX series of cameras. Don't you think? (otherwise I'll be angry with you)

The aperture can be calculated as the front opening divided by the focal length. In other words, the diameter of the front lense must be at least the focal length divided by the maximum aperture. The sensor size doesn't matter and therefore there is no reason for Nikon to make dx tele lenses.

@donalddejose:

I am totally with you. My first reaction on the new 300/4 lense was that it would be a great lightweight setup for bird photography, or a less expensive alternative, together with a 1.4 converter and a pro dx camera.

sevencrossing

...... My first reaction on the new 300/4 lense was that it would be a great lightweight setup for bird photography, or a less expensive alternative, together with a 1.4 converter and a pro dx camera ....

Please can someone explain to me why they need a Pro camera??
Most birders I meet are amateurs The spec of the D7200 way exceeds any film camera used by professionals a few years ago
the pros seem to use something like the EOS-1D
If you think the D400 is going to match this, dream on

snakebunk

Please can someone explain to me why they need a Pro camera??
Most birders I meet are amateurs The spec of the D7200 way exceeds any film camera used by professionals a few years ago

A pro camera is important for me because I crawl around in the dirt and go on trips and it's important that I can rely on its functionality. I also don't want to exchange my collection of cf cards if that is possible, and I take a lot of photographs so I need a shutter that lasts.

I am sure though that the D7200 together with the 300/4 and a converter will be great for many bird photographers.

If you think the D400 is going to match this, dream on

It's hard to discuss with argumentation that doesn't contain any arguments. But, personally I doubt that Nikon will make a D400 at all, mainly because they haven't done so already. However, I lilke the specs that Thom stated.

Hallvardk

...... My first reaction on the new 300/4 lense was that it would be a great lightweight setup for bird photography, or a less expensive alternative, together with a 1.4 converter and a pro dx camera ....

Please can someone explain to me why they need a Pro camera??
Most birders I meet are amateurs The spec of the D7200 way exceeds any film camera used by professionals a few years ago
the pros seem to use something like the EOS-1D
If you think the D400 is going to match this, dream on

It's about speed and buffer. At least for me it is. Yes, the D7200 has image quality and certain specs that are more than enough for most people out there, but what it lacks is the speed of for example the 7DII. If you want a sports camera today, you have to buy a D4s - there's no other that can do a proper job in the current Nikon lineup.

I don't care too much about DX or FX, or build quality for that sake. I mean, who has ever broken their camera because of bad build quality? I shoot surf in windy, sandy and salty environments, and have never had a problem with anything. It's about taking care of the equipment. Just give me a camera that can do 10fps without a grip, a big buffer, and a good autofocus system.

haroldp

@haroldp, two comments on your earlier post:

If Nikon make a pro dx camera and give it a better build quality than the D810, I am sure it will eventually also come to the D8XX series of cameras. Don't you think? (otherwise I'll be angry with you)

The aperture can be calculated as the front opening divided by the focal length. In other words, the diameter of the front lense must be at least the focal length divided by the maximum aperture. The sensor size doesn't matter and therefore there is no reason for Nikon to make dx tele lenses.

Your first point is exactly my point (except the part about being angry with me).

If the 'pro' DX camera and the D810 replacement are matched in build and features, differing only in sensor size, they will likely be close in size and weight, and not far apart in price, as the cost of sensors goes down (as all semi-conductors do), the body is a larger fraction of the price. That is why Sony's 36mp A series are so cheap, smaller body no mirror.

Pixel pitch in that generation will likely be the same at 24mp DX and 54mp FX.

If the only difference then is $ 500-800 in price, for my needs and style of shooting, I will opt for the versatility of the larger sensor.
As always, I have no opinion as to what others should do, but will dispel technical nonsense like 'reach' with sensors of today's density and current lenses.

Your second point parallels mine but is not complete.

One advantage of smaller sensors can be smaller lenses, in Nikon and Canon super teles that does not exist.

There is however more to lens design than focal length and aperture, the smaller the 'light circle' that the designer has to correct for, the tighter the correction can be since a correction that tightens the center may degrade an edge and vice versa. That is one of the reasons Olympus FT lenses are so sharp, they correct for a very small image circle.

This is why Nikon had to quickly replace the original 70-200 2.8 VR1 when the D3 came out, it was designed when Nikon thought they would never produce a full frame digital, and optimized for DX, therefore vignetting badly and poor edge performance on FX.

The likelihood that Nikon or Canon will ever actually produce long teles corrected for DX size sensors rounds to zero.

Another theoretical advantage to DX that will not materialize.

Regards .. H

heartyfisher

@Hallvardk "Just give me a camera that can do 10fps without a grip, a big buffer, and a good autofocus system."

Have you looked at the Olympus OMD E-M1?