Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

sevencrossing

donaldejose However, my point remains true: when cell phones can so easily do what they do there is not good reason why a DSLR cannot also use Wi-Fi to directly send any image by e-mail. Such a direct transmission of an image from the camera could be considered a "pro" feature but may also be used mostly for facebook.

A very good point but What is the advantage of putting these features in a Pro dx body rather then a Pro Fx Body

DaveyJ

THere are so many Nikon DSLR owners that HAVE not bought a FX Nikon DSLR and are awaiting a D7200 with Expeed 4 Processor. IT is that simple. Do not think for a second that customers will just buy say a D750 and use it as a DX camera. I do think if Nikon introduces a D7200 it will OUTSELL the Canon 7DM2! Why,? LESS MONEY, MORE CAMERA for the value. The Thread maybe should read for many of us, WHen is the Nikon D7200 coming out and what will its features be?

donaldejose

No advantage except the DX body will cost less and will be the logical choice of people working on a budget whose photos do not need to be enlarged more than a magazine double spread size. The same connectivity feature should be put on all FX and all DX bodies. Hopefully, it will over the next few years.

DaveyJ

Because of my Large format days with spending BIG bucks and using medium format a lot, My impression of Fuji quality is very good. Fuji is proceeding ahead with DX cameras. If Nikon chooses to abandon this area they are making one of the biggest mistakes they could. Therefore a D7200 is I believe an must do for Nikon. It is the only Nikon I plan on buying upon introduction as I did with the D7100 and before that the D7000, THE D300, THE D200, THE D100, ETC.! IF I WAS NOT ONE OF MANY I KNOW I WOULD NOT BOTHER TO WRITE THIS.

sevencrossing

No advantage except the DX body will cost less .

If you want to keep cost down. the answer is simple a D7100 or D7200
if you are a professional, by the time you have bought all the lenses, accessories, computers and software you need to keep the commissions coming in; the saving on DX is not going to be significant
Pictures editors, like a fairly wide shot, that they can crop. If you happen to have unique shot that they want and no one else has got . it wont matter if its DX FX or a smart phone, but most news desks prefer the highest quality they can get

Emcee

Some people mention a need for DX lenses, what lenses are really needed besides a focal lengths considered ultra wide?

WestEndBoy

Nikon is in business to sell cameras and lenses to make money. If they see a significant market niche for which they can produce a good product they likely will go after it rather than lose those sales for lack of trying. I suggest they see one more round of "pro DX body" sales, as does Cannon, so we will see a pro DX body in the first half of 2015 along with some new DX high megapixel fast lenses. Nikon will elect to gather one more round of $1999 pro body DX sales before the mirrorless era appears. But it is a close question.

What can Nikon offer in a pro DX other than body build, fps and buffer? Can they offer higher image quality than in the D7100? Can they offer more than 24mp in a DX sensor? Can they offer a better direct connection to the internet from the camera so a photojournalist could upload images from the camera to an employer's company website or attach an image from the camera to an e-mail right from the LCD sensor on the back of the camera and send that e-mail to his employer through Wi-Fi? "Pro" doesn't just have to mean "robust body build with more direct access buttons." It could also come to mean "direct link of camera to internet for quick and easy transmission of images to client." The D750 now has built in Wi-Fi. The hardware exists. Now it is a matter of developing the software a professional would like to be able to use so they no longer have to first transfer images to a laptop and then use the laptop to send the image to the employer. Can the step of using a laptop be eliminated? Some consideration should be given to that aspect of a "pro body."

Absolutely Donald.

BUT, why didn't Nikon call the D750 the D620? SURELY there is a bigger gap (gaping even) for a 7D2 counterpart than there ever was for an FX in between the D610 and D810? That's not even touching on the fact that the D750 is what the D600 should have been.

Thinking 5 to 10 years out, I think that Nikon’s strategy is that the D6xx line is going to be the “value FX” camera with an ultimate target price of $1,100 to $1,200. The D7xx line will have a target price in the $1,750 - $2,000 range, the D8xx line will have a target price in the $2,500 - $3,000 range and the D9xx line will be $3,000 plus (the Dx line will be $6,000ish).

So in answer to your question, the D6xx line will not be priced at a point that will be profitable to Nikon given the features and quality that the D7xx line has.

Further, at the end of those 10 years, the D400 line will be introduced and it will be an FX camera with features similar to a D3xxx and priced at $500. The D500 will be introduced just before this and be the FX version of a D5xxx and priced at $750.

Sorry to those pining for a D400. You will get your D400, but it will not be what you expect.

Ironheart

@Emcee, I'm going with 100mm or less. Anything longer and the DX advantage is minimal, except for that thing called "reach". What DX users really want are primes optimized for the format, and a zoom or two with fast, fixed aperture
@WestEndBoy, go troll on a different thread. We don't need you over here popping our DX bubble. Just remember that DX represents 90% of Nikon's profits and they are not going to kill that cash cow until it has been completely milked. I say at least another 5-10 years, and the D400/D9300 will be announced this calendar year. If I'm wrong, I'll fly up to Vancouver to buy you a beer, if I'm right, you have to fly down to SF and buy me one. Deal?

spraynpray

Some people mention a need for DX lenses, what lenses are really needed besides a focal lengths considered ultra wide?

Pretty much all of them need an update.

proudgeek

I'd say that the fact Nikon is not updating its better DX lenses (12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35 f/1.8 etc.) should tell you a lot about where they think the format is headed. It may very well be that they see the future of the DX body as something better suited for lenses like the 18-105, 18-300, etc. For everyone else, they could be saying "you're better off with FX." And can you blame them? If I were a serious birder with tons of disposable income, would you rather sell me a $1,800 D400 with a 300 f/2.8 (and maybe a TC thrown in) or a D750 with a 500 f/4? I think they're also gambling that a platform switch to Canon is expensive and pain-inducing in its own right.

Ironheart

Quotes from a Nikon exec at Photokina:

"You can expect some new DX lenses in the future. We haven’t forgotten about our DX customers"

Perhaps this got lost above, so I'll requote myself. This is a top level Nikon exec, less than two weeks ago.

sevencrossing

I don't think Nikon are abandoning dx

just dx professional DSLRs ( which is what this thread is about)

Nikon must be aware they are losing Dx lens sales to third parties such as Samyang. I would expect some dx ultra wide angel lenses

proudgeek

Quotes from a Nikon exec at Photokina:

"You can expect some new DX lenses in the future. We haven’t forgotten about our DX customers"

Perhaps this got lost above, so I'll requote myself. This is a top level Nikon exec, less than two weeks ago.

Sorry Ironheart, I didn't mean to ignore it. In fact it may be true (look at the 18-140). But when they say "we haven't forgotten our DX customers," it's not clear who those customers are. I'm with you; I'd very much love to have a D9300; it would perfectly complement everything I own and would be as close to a cure for my NAS as you can get. Just not sure it's there. I hope you're right and that WestEnd has to buy you that beer.

Bokeh_Hunter

Some people mention a need for DX lenses, what lenses are really needed besides a focal lengths considered ultra wide?

Like what @spraynpray said, all of them. Actually, they need to create all of them. They never have released any of the needed DX glass at all. The only 4 good DX dedicated lenses are the 35mm 1.8, 17-55 2.8, 40mm 2.8 macro and the 85mm 3.5 macro that are the equivalents of FX. 17-55 is the only pro quality glass. A 18-85ish f/4 high build quality lens is really needed. They need equiv. fast primes (24,35,85 equiv.) and static aperture zooms at a much higher quality. If the idea is to save weight but Nikon is relying on people buying FX glass. Basically go look at what Fuji has, and that is what Nikon needs.

manhattanboy

Quotes from a Nikon exec at Photokina:

"You can expect some new DX lenses in the future. We haven’t forgotten about our DX customers"

Perhaps this got lost above, so I'll requote myself. This is a top level Nikon exec, less than two weeks ago.

If they were American executives then "We haven't forgotten about our DX customers" means "We have totally forgotten about our DX customers". It's like those statements "We are doubling down on ****", which mean the exact opposite is happening LOL. Let's hope for a little more honesty in Japanese executives.

WestEndBoy

@Emcee, I'm going with 100mm or less. Anything longer and the DX advantage is minimal, except for that thing called "reach". What DX users really want are primes optimized for the format, and a zoom or two with fast, fixed aperture
@WestEndBoy, go troll on a different thread. We don't need you over here popping our DX bubble. Just remember that DX represents 90% of Nikon's profits and they are not going to kill that cash cow until it has been completely milked. I say at least another 5-10 years, and the D400/D9300 will be announced this calendar year. If I'm wrong, I'll fly up to Vancouver to buy you a beer, if I'm right, you have to fly down to SF and buy me one. Deal?

Troll? Spraynpray asked a question and I was trying to answer it as best I could. Sorry for being a bubble popper to you DXers.

In all seriousness, I actually agree with you, except I am not sure about the D400/D9300 announcement.

Hmm....your offer is enticing. May I propose a variation? What subjects do you like shooting?

spraynpray

That's not even touching on the fact that the D750 is what the D600 should have been.

In fact the D750 is what the D700 should have been
Had Nikon produced the D750 in 1999 instead of the D1. Canon would be dead in the water

You must have seen the many posts over the years that Nikon never replaced/upgraded the D700 surely seven? The D600 was nowhere near that camera, the D750 is much closer. If it weren't for the inferior frame count in the buffer and lower fps, it would be exactly what people wanted and more. OK, the D750 wasn't possible when the D700 was discontinued, but it certainly was when the D600 was launched.

Ironheart

I grew up outside NYC @manhattenboy, so as one New Yorker to another, whadda ya talkin bout? In all seriousness, if you went back to my original post, just one page back, I gave the sources of my quotes. They are from Toshiaki Akagi, Department Manager in Nikon's 1st Designing Department.
@WestEndBoy, I assumed that photography would somehow be involved as well, the beer usually happens every 1000 frames or so... =P~

WestEndBoy

OK, D400/D9300 will be announced this calendar year. D9000 will work to. Let's just assume a professional DX DSLR in the spirit of the D300. Not an upgrade to the D7100, unless it is the above.

Do you accept this clarification Ironheart?

Ironheart

Makes sense to me. I accept :-)
I just think Nikon cannot let the 7dmii go unanswered.

NSXTypeR

Some people mention a need for DX lenses, what lenses are really needed besides a focal lengths considered ultra wide?

Like what @spraynpray said, all of them. Actually, they need to create all of them. They never have released any of the needed DX glass at all. The only 4 good DX dedicated lenses are the 35mm 1.8, 17-55 2.8, 40mm 2.8 macro and the 85mm 3.5 macro that are the equivalents of FX. 17-55 is the only pro quality glass. A 18-85ish f/4 high build quality lens is really needed. They need equiv. fast primes (24,35,85 equiv.) and static aperture zooms at a much higher quality. If the idea is to save weight but Nikon is relying on people buying FX glass. Basically go look at what Fuji has, and that is what Nikon needs.

They did build the wide zooms, the 10-24 and the 12-24 for DX, but those have been out for some time. The DX macros are nice I guess, but a little redundant considering the FX ones are available.

Bokeh_Hunter

Makes sense to me. I accept :-)
I just think Nikon cannot let the 7dmii go unanswered.

Over on the Cannuts pages they are not overly excited with the 7D ii at all. They don't see a real increase at all other than normal basic tech advances. If Nikon is doing something, may not be doing something much different.
______________________________________________________________________________

I'm not really seeing any real suggested specs or a whole lot of "uses" people want a Pro DX for, and what it needs to achieve what they are trying to shoot.

To me, I love my D300 (long in the tooth now) but I like the larger body, with the full Pro feature set of the D800. The D7xxx series was never a good replacement for the D300 at all for me just because of that. After using the "pro" set of features, I just can't stand the neutered consumer set - there are things I use daily that are not in them. But that isn't really a huge reason for a pro DX. I went back through the pages and even the D400 thread and I'm just not seeing a whole lot of "real" needs.

Beyond a pro body size/feel, and a feature set, is what everyone saying they just want a a D7100 in a pro body? Out side of the basic usual updates (a few FPS, updated AF, Metering, video, etc.) I am not seeing any real need for anything particular or even groundbreaking. A pro DX will cost about $2,000. Every D100,200,300 all where $1,800+...That is this class's price range, $1,000 more than a D7100. There is no debating that price, that-is-what-it-will-be, and always has been. The only thing they really could add is a 36mp DX chip. But that will slow it down considerably and wouldn't be ideal for sports. They could drop the MP count to 16 and add 4fps - but that loses resolution. Is one of those what most want?


So the question is, are people willing to pay $1,000 more for a D7100 in a pro body?

snakebunk

The D300s was my first DSLR camera and if Nikon had not made it I would probably have choosen a Canon camera instead. I didn't know a lot except that I wanted the best build quality since I would be out in the nature for many hours each week. I also wanted the crop factor and I didn't want to pay more than necessary.

Now I feel as if Nikon has a hole in the product line. Not sure if I will ever by a pro dx camera again but I would like to have the option without going through the trouble of changing to another brand.

I've been positive for a long time, but I've turned into a non believer. I don't think Nikon will make a pro dx camera.

I am very happy that Nikon continues the D8XX line. It can serve as a D300s replacement, but I don't think it will attract first time camera buyers that are looking for a pro quality dx camera.

SquamishPhoto

Makes sense to me. I accept :-)
I just think Nikon cannot let the 7dmii go unanswered.

Over on the Cannuts pages they are not overly excited with the 7D ii at all. They don't see a real increase at all other than normal basic tech advances. If Nikon is doing something, may not be doing something much different.

Im sure some people are whining for whatever reason, but if you can read the comparison below and still think that its only marginal increases then I don't know what to tell you. It has a better processor than the 1DX, RAW buffer to 35(JPEG to 1090), improved metering that includes infrared not found on either the 5DMK3 or 1DX, auto focus @ f8, AF lock feature that allows the user to toggle between continuous AF and AF lock, etc.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/7d/vs/canon/7d-mark-ii/

Photobug

So the question is, are people willing to pay $1,000 more for a D7100 in a pro body?

No way would I pay a $1,000 more than the D7100 for a pro body. I would pay a few hundred more than that and buy the D750 and keep the D7100 for reach (above 200mm).

I love the pro body D300 but not that must. Personally I would rather spend the extra $$$$ and buy the D750 to take advantage of it's strengths.