Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

sevencrossing

A 50 megapixel camera is equivalent to medium format film;

I think even 12 mp overtook medium format film years ago
36 mp certainly does

Msmoto

I really want a full line of new lenses which have all the filters built in controlled by a gas chamber which can be electronically altered to achieve any filter characteristic desired, then a 100 mp body, and the entire unit able to be hand held and VR giving about four to six f/stops. The resoiolution of camera and lenses....maybe twice what can be seen by the best optics toady, no CA, no distortion.

Once I have all this in hand, will I be able to shoot better pictures.......probably not.

Oh, she is rocking this morning....maybe too much caffeine.... )

donaldejose

Well . . . at least the caffeine shake will be eliminated by that four to six f/stop VR and clean high ISO! :-))

sevencrossing

all the filters built in .......which can be electronically altered to achieve any filter characteristic desired,

It is called Photoshop

Paperman

When Nikon comes out with the 54Mp FX, there will be no need for a D300 upgrade DX.... One will just use the crop mode as an answer to 7D2.

What you're saying is that the Nikon 54 Mp FX will shoot 8-10 fps and match the 1800$ price point of the 7D2. Wow. Just wanna say that I'm definitely looking forward to that.

In DX mode, high fps should be achievable as file size is the limiting factor ... Pricewise, Nikon might just be thinking those crazy birders ( and sportsers ) spending fortunes on fast 400/600/800mms might easilly throw in an extra couple of thousands without hesitation for the versatility of both FX and DX in one high performance body

WestEndFoto

The shutter is also a limiting factor. High FPS shutters are more expensive than low FPS shutters.

snakebunk

Looking at the title of this thread, we might add, Canon offers the 7DII, Nikon what've you got? The ball would appear to be in Nikon's court now for both pro DX and FX.

Megapixels SCHMEGapixels!! Give me a D400 damn it!

Dave

When Nikon comes out with the 54Mp FX ( current 24 mp DX x 2.25 ) , there will be no need for a D300 upgrade DX.... One will just use the crop mode as an answer to 7D2.

Nail in the coffin for pro DX

I am with you halfways. When Nikon comes out with a camera that can shoot 24 mp DX at 10 fps and has a pro body, I'd say that we have pro DX. It won't be a nail, rather the opposite.

Paperman

I say the demand is no longer there for a DX pro body and that is why Nikon will not go for a D300 upgrade.

The best indicator of a pro DX being in demand or not is probably the sales statistics of a Canon 7D II .... From what I see in best selling DSLRs in Amazon, the 7DII seems to be behind almost all models - sells even less than the 5DMIII, 6D and less than the D810, D610 the full formats. Not even in the first 10 and most importantly, FALLING - which you would not expect from a camera released 4 months ago. Don't know how reliable Amazon statistics are ( there isn't any other ) but should give you an idea if all FF's are selling more.

WestEndFoto

There is a very narrow market for this sort of camera (D300). This camera is best described as a specialist camera. Does the market exist? Sure!

Then a judgement has to be made whether the market is large enough to pay the fixed costs to service the market - consider that the smaller the market, the more fixed costs (design, development, production run set up costs etc.) have to be allocated across a smaller market increasing per unit cost.

Is the market large enough or willing to pay enough for Nikon to profitably produce the camera? Not so sure.

So we are all left with the tools that we can afford and their inherent strengths. Is there a better tool? If so, can we afford it? If not, can we afford to have it custom made for us? Alternatively, can we find a way to get the job done with the tools available?

Most people find a way to get the job done. The great thing about the camera business is that quality is increasing and prices are falling. Many needs will be filled with patience.

WestEndFoto

I say the demand is no longer there for a DX pro body and that is why Nikon will not go for a D300 upgrade.

The best indicator of a pro DX being in demand or not is probably the sales statistics of a Canon 7D II .... From what I see in best selling DSLRs in Amazon, the 7DII seems to be behind almost all models - sells even less than the 5DMIII, 6D and less than the D810, D610 the full formats. Not even in the first 10 and most importantly, FALLING - which you would not expect from a camera released 4 months ago. Don't know how reliable Amazon statistics are ( there isn't any other ) but should give you an idea if all FF's are selling more.

I have been wondering if Canon has been struggling to innovate in a cost competitive way in terms of technology. The 7DII is a repackage of already existing technology (product development innovation say) as opposed to a purely technical advance (engineering innovation say). Possibly innovate. Apple's success is significantly based on this strategy so there is nothing wrong with it. But then I see the new 5D with more megapixels but possibly mediocre dynamic range. I am wondering if I am starting to see a pattern here.

Lot's of Nikon product development exists in this way too. One could argue that the D750 is a brilliant repackaging of already existing technology by the product development division, though I have to acknowledge the improved auto-focus seems to qualify as a purely technical advance by the engineering division. But consider the 36 megapixel sensor (made by Sony, designed and developed by Nikon), quiet shutter on the D800, larger buffers, first FX camera - all complements of the engineering department.

Nikon seems to be innovating better and faster than Canon since 2008.

paulr

Not sure about that WEF Nikon were the big leap megapixel wise with the D3X and the d800 but Canon have leaped ahead with a 50 megapixel camera . I have lots of pro friends who think the same about Canon as we do about Nikon. They both get great results. its just a matter of whether your in Red corner or the Yellow one.

4thebirds

Responding to some of the above,

Paperman: "...those crazy birders ( and sportsers ) spending fortunes..."

Response: Guilty as charged. But hey, take it easy on me!

Paperman: "I say the demand is no longer there for a DX pro body..."
WestEndFoto: "There is a very narrow market for this sort of camera (D300). This camera is best described as a specialist camera."

Response: I agree that demand is lower right now for pro DX, but I think that is true partly for reasons that could someday change, including
--> Nikon quit making any serious DX lenses. If they made just a few really great pro DX lenses with the advantage of being smaller than their FX counterparts, there would be more interest in pro DX bodies.
--> Nikon and Canon are caught up in this megapixel race, the pendulum swinging hard to one side to get the maximum possible resolution and quality on a full frame sensor, a format that has considerable legacy and "inertia" with millions of old lenses. Once we finally ride that train all the way to the end and people realize what comes along with those super high megapixel full frame bodies (bigger RAW files, more expensive and larger lenses in order to get all that resolution, etc.), the "craze" for the full frame super high res bodies will eventually subside. More customers will want a smaller but still pro system built around an APS-C sensor, which would STILL be an enormously capable system. Then fewer people will view pro DX as a "specialist" system and more people will see it as simply all the "pro" system they need, and if Nikon has nothing, they will slowly leak to other platforms.
-->The pendulum swinging back will be helped if Nikon's competitors continue to offer better "serious" sub-full frame alternatives, as they currently do. The micro four thirds market will help this. There is a small but vibrant community of "enthusiasts" that get tremendous quality from micro 4/3, which is even smaller than DX.

snakebunk: "When Nikon comes out with a camera that can shoot 24 mp DX at 10 fps and has a pro body, I'd say that we have pro DX."

Response: Such an FX camera would function adequately as a pro DX tool, yes. But I don't think my guess of $4000 for the price is too far off, if it appears any time soon. Right now such a camera would be twice as much as a dedicated pro DX tool.

Dave

snakebunk

snakebunk: "When Nikon comes out with a camera that can shoot 24 mp DX at 10 fps and has a pro body, I'd say that we have pro DX."

Response: Such an FX camera would function adequately as a pro DX tool, yes. But I don't think my guess of $4000 for the price is too far off, if it appears any time soon. Right now such a camera would be twice as much as a dedicated pro DX tool.

Dave

Yes, I guess the pro DX functionality will appear first in the D8XX family (if not as a pure DX camera). I think our best hopes is that the D820 or D830 will have 54 MP and 10 FPS when shot in DX crop mode. It will be an expensive, very late and extremely good upgrade from the D300s I think.

In other words: I hope Nikon gives us double the FPS in crop mode when/if we get the 54 MP camera.

Msmoto

If Nikon simply took D7XXX workings and placed it into a D8XX ergonomic package, this would IMO be a real winner. I think having at a minimum 6-8 FPS would be acceptable as well.

However, at the current level of sensor technology, this would be a camera which would compete with the pro FX bodies to such an extent, sales may be lost. And, somewhere in the boardroom this may be the decision by Nikon which is holding up a pro DX body. All about the money.....

sevencrossing

And, somewhere in the boardroom this may be the decision by Nikon which is holding up a pro DX body.

Can we reopen the D400 thread ?
as the the pro DX subject seems to invade virtually every thread
I-)

retread

If Nikon simply took D7XXX workings and placed it into a D8XX ergonomic package, this would IMO be a real winner. I think having at a minimum 6-8 FPS would be acceptable as well.

However, at the current level of sensor technology, this would be a camera which would compete with the pro FX bodies to such an extent, sales may be lost. And, somewhere in the boardroom this may be the decision by Nikon which is holding up a pro DX body. All about the money.....

I hope to move to FX but also want a pro level DX. A D8XX and a DX with the same body style would work well. I am sure I am not alone. That adds up to lost sales. Lost sales are lose money.

haroldp

I do not know the economics well enough, but if the body were the same, the production cost of a 24mp DX and a 54mp FX might be too close to one another too matter. If the difference is in the range $500 USD, a $ 3,000 54mp FX with 24mp DX crop mode is would probably be chosen by most over a $ 2,500 24 mp DX.

In the early days, the sensor was a huge fraction of the cost which is why four thirds was born. Today, the cost ratio of FX to DX sensor is probably what it was, but represents a much smaller fraction of the camera cost.

For wildlife it would be a no brainer. I very rarely use my D810 in crop mode because I hve lost too many shots where the DX framing cut off some important part as an animal or bird was moving towards me. Having the full FX frame and cropping later has yielded me better results with prime lenses (usually 400/2.8 wiih 2X extender).

... H

sevencrossing

I very rarely use my D810 in crop mode because I hve lost too many shots where the DX framing cut off some important part as an animal or bird was moving towards me. Having the full FX frame and cropping later has yielded me better results with prime lenses (usually 400/2.8 wiih 2X extender).

... H

which is why IMHO using Full Fx frame is a no brainer and why we never see at a Pro Dx from Nikon
( before someone goes on about pixel density and reach, please post a comparison of say a cropped Full frame 36 mp image and 24mp dx; taken with say the 400/2.8 with 2X extender
Going back on subject I am not sure there is going to be big difference if you added a cropped 50mp to the test )

scoobysmak

The only reason I see to have pro DX camera is if they can't make a 54 MP camera that can take more than 5fps (D810 speed or faster). I would agree on a ease of use to just crop a photo rather than put a FX camera in DX mode but if you can only get 2 fps in FX mode and maybe 6 fps in DX mode then you can see what most wildlife photographers will do. I want it all; 54MP that can shoot ISO 32000 at 8fps, lol.

sevencrossing

I want it all; 54MP that can shoot ISO 32000 at 8fps,.

and in a few years time, you get it, but it will be Fx and it will be expensive

donaldejose

Nikon will have to produce a D400 for less than $2,000 to make it viable in the marketplace. Canons' 5D Mark II sells for $1,800. A 54mp D810x would sell for more than a D810 (which is $3,300. If a 54mp D810x carries only a $200 premium over the D810 the price gap between it and a D400 would still be more than $1,500. I don't think a body which is $1,500 more expensive than needed will replace the missing D400. Two camera's in one are nice if you need or use both. But if you only need and use the DX part you really would rather save that additional $1,500 and put it towards glass or something else. A 54 mp FX sensor will be great when it arrives and it will be wonderful to have 24mp DX included. However, it won't be an adequate substitute for those who only need and want a DX sensor in a pro body style.

sevencrossing

But if you only need and use the DX part you really would rather save that additional $1,500 and put it towards glass or something else.

Given Nikons can drop ~ $1000 after launch. Nikon do not make a Dx and a Fx camera with the same specification. Nor do we know if Nikon make the same markup with Dx as FX. It is difficult to calculate the saving on fitting a Dx sensor

We do know a lot of people, on nrf, who wanted a D400, bought something else and in most cases another Nikon

WestEndFoto

If Nikon simply took D7XXX workings and placed it into a D8XX ergonomic package, this would IMO be a real winner. I think having at a minimum 6-8 FPS would be acceptable as well.

However, at the current level of sensor technology, this would be a camera which would compete with the pro FX bodies to such an extent, sales may be lost. And, somewhere in the boardroom this may be the decision by Nikon which is holding up a pro DX body. All about the money.....

It better be all about the money or Nikon will go out of business and all of us will have worthless investments. Note that Nikon had another bad financial quarter.

sevencrossing

No it is not all about money , at least not turnover.
It is about making a profit

IMHO Nikon have too big a product range which can mean, they are sitting on too much slow moving stock

So at a time, when the professional photographer is an endangered species, the last thing they need is yet another pro camera

According to Amazon there bestsellers are all below $1,000

So yes we will get a D7200 and Nikon will be looking at keeping production cost down and profits up
so dont expect lots expensive button and dials

4thebirds

Everybody is making good points. Some people think that the reason Nikon has stubbornly refused to make a pro DX body (or lenses) is that if they force customers to buy a pro FX body & lenses instead, they will make more profit per camera, and right now with camera sales slumping they really need that. Someday the price difference between a theoretical pro DX and an FX camera that gives you the same DX performance may indeed be rather slim. But that day isn't here yet! If a 54 megapixel D900 camera appears soon it will probably cost ~$4000. It is frustrating if that is my only choice if I want something better than a D7XXX. I'm sorry if I got this thread "off track." I know a lot of people are tired of constantly hearing about a D400 and they want "crazy birders" like me to just let it go! But there is a reason that it constantly comes up in one thread after another: A significant number of people still want it. I may be wrong, but if it's all about money, I think Nikon would have made more money on a D400 (and still would) than some other things they've offered, like the Df, or an 800mm lens that runs $18K, or as sevencrossing said, an overabundance of minor iterations on consumer DX bodies.