Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

Bokeh_Hunter

No you don't know "exactly" what the gear goes through. Im not the bumble hand that you describe yourself as here so often. I don't smash my gear into door frames o...

I don't care about YOUR gear or your sales pitch why someone on this site here should want to buy it. The fact is that pros use their tools and use them much more than the vast majority of advanced amateurs. Every jolt adds up and can easily over time jiggle lenses out of alignment or start to shake aperture blades loose. The basic action of putting the lens on and off begins to create some "slop" in the fittings. I could list out 100s of items. That is just the lifespan of equipment. It is safe to say pros use their equipment more. And with more use, the equipment starts to wear down and it's useful lifespan diminishes.

Camera repairmen tell me the electronics in a DSLR don't "wear out" with use so you can buy a D3 body with 300,000 exposures quite safely as long as you are willing to spend $400 on a new shutter soon.

Let's not make the major mistake of the differences between pro bodies which are designed to get the snot kicked out of them and the consumer oriented bodies. D3/4, D300/700/800 series are made to be used hard daily. The D7100 on down, no so much, and less so with each level. I have had buttons, joystick pads, pop-up flashes, etc. all bust on cameras until finely spending the cash to get pro bodies. I'm not hard on equipment, and all the systems can take a good beating, but I use the bodies and they rarely get a day off. It comes down to just how often and how much strain they can take.

donaldejose

Speaking of much used bodies I remember the days when a "brassed" Nikon F body was the honored patina of a photojournalist? What is a "brassed" body for those too young to remember? One so worn around the edges that the chrome and black paint has come off and underlying brass was showing. I don't see many of those anymore in the digital era.

Bokeh_Hunter

I have one of those myself (;

It is just a different time my friend, a different time.

donaldejose

I suggest the need for a D3, D4, D700, D800, D810 level metal body is diminishing because the technology changes so fast a body is outdated in 4 years anyway. We don't need bodies that last 10 years anymore. This bodes ill for a D400 built like a D810. BUT just perhaps the build quality of the D750 will be good enough to qualify as professional. Photography Life seems very impressed with the D750. Surely it will last 4 years and could be the basis of a "pro" DX model. Nikon could even add a few more buttons if that is what people want.

Coastalconn

Well, the answer is absolutely yes now. I finally caved and grabbed a D800. The used prices have fallen so far and I found one at a price I just couldn't pass. Since I am one of the last hold outs, I am sure Nikon will have a press release next Wednesday about the new 7Dm2 killer they are about to release. So now I will have the D7100 and D800 tandem to play with. Ordered a DSTE grip with an EN-EL18 so I can get my 6 FPS in crop mode...

manhattanboy

Well, the answer is absolutely yes now. I finally caved and grabbed a D800. The used prices have fallen so far and I found one at a price I just couldn't pass. Since I am one of the last hold outs, I am sure Nikon will have a press release next Wednesday about the new 7Dm2 killer they are about to release. So now I will have the D7100 and D800 tandem to play with. Ordered a DSTE grip with an EN-EL18 so I can get my 6 FPS in crop mode...

Thanks coastalconn for taking one for the team.
Hopefully Nikon saw your post and recent purchase and are now going to release the 9300.
:P

WestEndBoy

I suggest the need for a D3, D4, D700, D800, D810 level metal body is diminishing because the technology changes so fast a body is outdated in 4 years anyway. We don't need bodies that last 10 years anymore. This bodes ill for a D400 built like a D810. BUT just perhaps the build quality of the D750 will be good enough to qualify as professional. Photography Life seems very impressed with the D750. Surely it will last 4 years and could be the basis of a "pro" DX model. Nikon could even add a few more buttons if that is what people want.

I think that we have reached the point where 4 years has turned into 6 and possibly even 8. It is going to get harder and harder to wring much extra performance out of processors.

Sports

We don't need bodies that last 10 years anymore.

This is something to consider for Nikon and others, but on the other hand .... I dropped my D300 once on a concrete floor (from a fairly low position, luckily). It survived. This single incident is part of the reason why I want a "pro body" again. Not the only reason, but I'm not thinking too much about my replacement cycle.
Do I "need" a pro body? No, but I'm still willing to pay a reasonable premium to get it.
Actually, I'll be more tempted to buy replacement bodies on a regular basis (like 4-5 years), if I can get new "pro-build" bodies, than if I can't.

heartyfisher

I suggest the need for a D3, D4, D700, D800, D810 level metal body is diminishing because the technology changes so fast a body is outdated in 4 years anyway. We don't need bodies that last 10 years anymore. This bodes ill for a D400 built like a D810. BUT just perhaps the build quality of the D750 will be good enough to qualify as professional. Photography Life seems very impressed with the D750. Surely it will last 4 years and could be the basis of a "pro" DX model. Nikon could even add a few more buttons if that is what people want.

I think that we have reached the point where 4 years has turned into 6 and possibly even 8. It is going to get harder and harder to wring much extra performance out of processors.

Its almost 10 years for those of us who "skip a generation" :-(

sevencrossing

. But since such a large percentage of profits comes from DX for Nikon why in the world would they not heavily respond to Canon's latest 7DMarkII??

So here is a comparison of the D7100 vs the 7d2
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/nikon-d7100-vs-canon-eos/ODkzMjU3Mzc_A
If you were moving up from a P&S and getting a new DSLR ( this seems to be the biggest market for dx cameras )
Are you going pay the extra for a 7d2 ?
In the current economic climate, people do indeed expect more and more from a new camera
and if you want a camera with superb IQ or lots of fps and big buffer. Nikon have the D4s and the D810
BUT I here you say I cant afford one of thoes
Are Nikon listening to you
Yes they are?
The offer the D7100 and the D750
If I was on a tight budget and had to replace my battered D800 tomorrow
I would look very closely at the tried and test and highly rated D7100 not the currently unavailable 7D2

brownie314

It seems quite apparent, Nikon has no current DX body which can be considered professional, i.e., the control layout is similar to the D810, D4s. Thus, instead of talking D400 or whatever, the thread is restarted with a more accurate query.

DX DSLRs are just about over with for Nikon. Maybe 1 or 2 more generations, then mirrorless aps-c is next. New mount with adapter to accept legacy lenses. FX DSLRs will be for the pros. aps-c mirrorless for everyone else.

WestEndBoy

In less than 10 years there will be an FX DSLR for $500. But it will feel like a D3300.

PB_PM

In less than 10 years there will be an FX DSLR for $500. But it will feel like a D3300.

Assuming anyone is still making DSLR's in 10 years. But I agree, 35mm frame sensors will see a price drop over time, although maybe not that dramatic. The cost of the silicon at that size will still have a minimum price, which likely won't fall, unless camera makers are willing to have entry level cameras as loss leaders.

brownie314

In less than 10 years there will be an FX DSLR for $500. But it will feel like a D3300.

Assuming anyone is still making DSLR's in 10 years. But I agree, 35mm frame sensors will see a price drop over time, although maybe not that dramatic. The cost of the silicon at that size will still have a minimum price, which likely won't fall, unless camera makers are willing to have entry level cameras as loss leaders.

What I don't understand is how anyone is so sure that FX will survive. It seems to be the consensus among many here that obviously, FX will come out in the end as the only format for bodies, and everything else bellow it will be knocked out all the way down to cell phones. Why FX? Why is FX the "ideal" size. Why not DX? Why not m4/3? What is special about fX?

Ironheart

It's a sweet spot for DR, IQ, shallow DoF, and $$

DX is cheaper, but lower DR, IQ, and larger DoF

MF is expensive

m4/3 is too small

brownie314

It's a sweet spot for DR, IQ, shallow DoF, and $$

DX is cheaper, but lower DR, IQ, and larger DoF

MF is expensive

m4/3 is too small

Today DR, and IQ on DX is lower than on FX. But in 5 years, I suspect the difference will be indistinguishable (I mean it almost is now). DOF - well nothing you can do about that - but not everyone wants razor thin DOF - and if you really want it, it is still possible with DX also.

Ironheart

Any improvements on DX will equally benefit FX, so the gap may get smaller, but never go away.

I agree on DoF and some folks need/want a really large DoF, so a different sensor size may help facilitate that. On the thin side of DoF, in order to equal the DoF an FX sensor has, you need to increase the aperture by 1.5 on a DX or be at the same distance so the subject will be 1.5 times as big in your framing. So a given DoF on FX with a f/1.8 lens means you would have to use a f/1.2 on DX. If you are using a f/1.4 lens on FX, you would need to use a f/0.94 lens to equal the DoF.

So yes, but not in the extreme.

brownie314

Any improvements on DX will equally benefit FX, so the gap may get smaller, but never go away.

I agree on DoF and some folks need/want a really large DoF, so a different sensor size may help facilitate that. On the thin side of DoF, in order to equal the DoF an FX sensor has, you need to increase the aperture by 1.5 on a DX or be at the same distance so the subject will be 1.5 times as big in your framing. So a given DoF on FX with a f/1.8 lens means you would have to use a f/1.2 on DX. If you are using a f/1.4 lens on FX, you would need to use a f/0.94 lens to equal the DoF.

So yes, but not in the extreme.

Sure there will always be that gap, but it is one of diminishing returns. At some point, for all reasonable print sizes - DX will be identical to FX. But yes, for people who have to have a certain small DOF with a specific perspective - they will still need FF. But lets face it - no one really NEEDS it - it is all about artistic choice.

donaldejose

FX will dominate when prices fall enough to make price irrelevant because the FX sensor size equates to a good size for handheld interchangeable lens cameras. Medium format sensor size is too big for convenient hand holding and DX sensor size is smaller than the available space. DX sensor size is the biggest sensor which can fit into the category of compact or pocketable camera. DX is too large for cell phones. When sensor price is no longer a significant factor the "normal" hand held/camera bag camera will be FX: the "normal" pocket camera will be DX and the "normal" cell phone will have a sensor larger than those of today. But "slim line" cell phones will continue to use today's small sensor size. I just think there will be a new category of thicker cell phones with larger sensors for those who are more interested in photography.

WestEndBoy

It's a sweet spot for DR, IQ, shallow DoF, and $$

DX is cheaper, but lower DR, IQ, and larger DoF

MF is expensive

m4/3 is too small

Today DR, and IQ on DX is lower than on FX. But in 5 years, I suspect the difference will be indistinguishable (I mean it almost is now). DOF - well nothing you can do about that - but not everyone wants razor thin DOF - and if you really want it, it is still possible with DX also.

Even if DX sensors could somehow equal FX sensors (which would require a rewrite of the laws of physics to accomplish), there is also lens technology as another limiting factor.

Let's assume that any engineering advance that would apply to DX will apply to FX (I can't imagine what would not)

Then, "All things are equal."

And "all things being equal", format size is the limiting factor for image quality. This is true for both lenses and sensors.

Bokeh_Hunter

BUT I here you say I cant afford one of thoes
Are Nikon listening to you
Yes they are?
The offer the D7100 and the D750
If I was on a tight budget and had to replace my battered D800 tomorrow
I would look very closely at the tried and test and highly rated D7100 not the currently unavailable 7D2

I'll go back to the controls - buttons, menu options etc. Nikon has not listened to others, and the D7100 is not a D300 replacement - it just isn't. I'm looking forward to holding a D750, but it appears to be cut from the same cloth as the D7100 and will suffer from the same issues. I realize that most don't utilize most features on a camera, or even know they exist, but for the class of shooters the always pick up this model of body, usually do.

sevencrossing

. I realize that most don't utilize most features on a camera, or even know they exist,

Correct. This is the reason for the lack of a D400
I think Nikon have made their position very clear
If you want a Nikon with Pro features, you going to have to buy one of our expensive Pro cameras
Cant afford one? No problem, we know we cannot not produce a big enough range of cameras, to please every one. Please feel free to jump ship.

spraynpray

Camera repairmen tell me the electronics in a DSLR don't "wear out" with use so you can buy a D3 body with 300,000 exposures quite safely as long as you are willing to spend $400 on a new shutter soon.

Electronics don't 'wear out' Donald, they fail. All electronics and most items in general are subject to the bathtub curve mode of failure - that is to say they are far more likely to fail when just made or towards the end of life than in the middle of life. Pre-shipping soak testing is often done at elevated temperatures to accelerate the likelihood of a failure before the customer gets it.

Would I buy a 100,000 actuation camera? No. But others obviously do.

donaldejose

spraynpray: Ok, what is the horizontal axis of the bathtub curve for electronics measured in? shutter actuations or years? The camera repairmen I have talked to have replaced shutters in D3 bodies at around 250,000 to 350,000 actuations and then again after another 250,000 to 350,000 actuations. So they were telling me a the electronics in a D3 will last through at least two or three shutters in their experience. I notice Nikon rates shutter longevity but not electronics longevity.

brownie314

It's a sweet spot for DR, IQ, shallow DoF, and $$

DX is cheaper, but lower DR, IQ, and larger DoF

MF is expensive

m4/3 is too small

Today DR, and IQ on DX is lower than on FX. But in 5 years, I suspect the difference will be indistinguishable (I mean it almost is now). DOF - well nothing you can do about that - but not everyone wants razor thin DOF - and if you really want it, it is still possible with DX also.

Even if DX sensors could somehow equal FX sensors (which would require a rewrite of the laws of physics to accomplish), there is also lens technology as another limiting factor.

Let's assume that any engineering advance that would apply to DX will apply to FX (I can't imagine what would not)

Then, "All things are equal."

And "all things being equal", format size is the limiting factor for image quality. This is true for both lenses and sensors.

Agreed - format size will be the limiting factor for IQ. So why not medium format - why not something larger? Why stop at FX? Or why not say DX is "good enough" for 99% of what most photographers do.

And this is what I am getting at. Why do so many people think "when sensor fab price is no longer a big issue" that FX will dominate? BTW - I could make the same argument about sensor price as you make about IQ. You say "any tech advances apply equally to FX and DX". True. And lets say the sensor price is just a linear scaling of sensor area. Then DX will always be cheaper than FX. But we already know that it isn't a linear scaling - meaning larger sensor cost more per area than smaller sensors.

Anyway, I got off track a little. My point is what will shake out in the end - we don't know. I don't think at this point it is "obvious" that any one sensor size will be dominate. Even if in some bizarre twist that FX sensors become just slightly more expensive to make than DX sensors - I still am not sure that the extra size necessary for FX sensor will still cause it to be a drag on sales.

So the question remains - what will be the "optimal" size for a sensor - I don't think anyone can know right now. And about the lens tech issue - true it is harder to make good lenses for smaller sensors - but - many people seem to be pretty happy with the lenses for m4/3 and even some of the lenses Nikon has made for the 1" system.