Buyers guide says Nikon is up to date, what next?

Myrddin

I just took a look at the buyers guide, right now there is one body (D300s) and two lenses (300 f/4, 200 f/4) that are due for an update (the 80-400 update needs to be acknowledged). Sure looks to me like the whole range is as up to date as it is ever going to be.

At least two of those updates might never arrive. The D800 is a great professional DX camera and the 70-200 f/4 arguably makes the prime unnecessary. The zoom is $1400 so a prime would not fetch more than $900. It is out of stock at all the shops so either an update is imminent or (more likely) there will be no replacement.

A 300 f/4 AFS with VRII or III makes a lot of sense, modern sensors make the extra cost and weight of the f/2.8 unnecessary. But right now that is the only lens left that screams for attention.

All of which makes guessing 'where next' a lot harder. Predicting an update to the 80-400 was pretty easy, it had to happen some time. It is pretty obvious that a D400 is likely simply because there is nothing else needing immediate attention in the DSLR range. A D4x with a higher resolution sensor is another obvious possibility. But that is only two bodies, both essentially a sensor swap to an existing body and one lens. So what else are we likely to see?

One way to predict is to look at what Canon has done. Nikon has matched Canon's f/4 zooms and 800mm bazooka. So a 50mm f/1.2 is one option. Another likely option is more lenses for the Nikon1 system and maybe even some more DX primes.

heartyfisher

Good points .. I was looking at the Buyers Guide too and noticed the same thing.. but didn't think any further ! :-)

shawnino

@myriddin: the 200/4 is a (very lovely) macro. It does double as a perfectly fine, slow 200mm prime, but what it was originally about was close focusing and/or a bit more working distance for macro shots.

That said, I don't claim it'll be updated soon. I think it's probably out-of-stock because it's made in relatively small batches. Aside from my copy, I've seen one in a store window, one in the field, and that's all.

Lorenzo

16mm F2.8 fisheye needs an update in a serious way! A modern FX 16mm F2.8 AF-S G fisheye or a zoom F4 FX fisheye like the Canon would be very welcome!

Also as you alluded to, a fast mid range prime that is sharp wide open and built well. It's a shame they couldn't have made the 50mm F1.4 cost a bit more and made it sharp wide open and given it nano coating like the sweet 28/1.8G, but here is hoping for a 58mm F1.2 AF-S G as seen in a patent. I hope it will cost less than $1,000 but am likely dreaming.

Lorenzo

Also there was a patent for an FX 10mm F4 ultra ultra wide which would be a pretty unique and awesome lens

dissent

@ Myrddin - I'm pretty sure you meant to say "the D800 is a great professional FX camera"

heartyfisher

@ Myrddin - I'm pretty sure you meant to say "the D800 is a great professional FX camera"

I think he did mean DX :-) meaning it could take the role of the High End Pro DX in lieu of the missing D400. I think I am not the only one thinking of not waiting for the D400 anymore and getting the D800 instead.

Golf007sd

I think heartyfisher has it right he meant to say FX vs DX. However, if Myrddin think the D800 is a professional DX then he is mistaken, as well as, many of his other remarks.

From my perspective: Prime and fast 2.8 lenses are necessary, thus I totally disagree with your perception. Moreover, you contradict yourself. Hence, "The D800 is a great professional...camera and the 70-200 f/4 arguably makes the prime unnecessary....Another likely option is more...DX primes." Question: What focal length of a prime are you stating is unnecessary? What focal length of a prime are you talking about that "would not fetch more than $900." On what bases are you even coming up with that figure?

Lastly, I could care less what Canon does...let those that own their product line worry about it. Nikon does not need to keep up with any other manufacture. They should provide us with products that will suit our needs and the gear(s) we already own.

sevencrossing

The next big thing could be flash

built in raido sync ( eg pocket wizard) with really powerful fast recycling flash ( eg .Quantum)

Symphotic

?...: Prime and fast 2.8 lenses are necessary...

Absolutely! VR doesn't freeze subject motion. This can only be done with a strobe at short distances or a high shutter speed. I've been looking at the 300 2.8 because I need faster shutter speeds than I can get with a teleconverter mounted to my 70-200 2.8 zoom.

Re: the other thread, "what have you learned from NRF", I've learned that there are many ways to use a camera, and our needs vary depending on what kind of work we are doing. All broad generalizations are usually wrong, except for this one.

sevencrossing

From my perspective: Prime and fast 2.8 lenses are necessary, .

Agreed and Nikon make a good range of f 2.8 primes, so I not see any need for updates
I think what Myrddin is saying we should not expect updates to the 200 and 300 f 4 primes

Golf007sd

@sevencrossing: I welcome such a flash. Let us hope it is within a reasonable price range, given the additional features.

Msmoto

I cannot imagine Nikon making a radio control, rapid recycling powerful flash which would be less than a Quantum plus Pocket Wizard price. Thus, the compromise will occur somewhere...

As to recycle times, one could use two or three heads at lower power, and these recycle quite quickly.

sevencrossing

As to recycle times, one could use two or three heads at lower power, and these recycle quite quickly.

this what do at the moment, but looking after 3 + flash heads is quite a challenage in a busy venue
and in a big dark hall, I need full power
yes, white drapes in hall would help but this puts the hall charge up by ~ £5,000
I would be happy to pay Quantum prices but I want radio sync and full CLS

Msmoto

@sevencrossing

I have looked at this issue of radio synch and lots of light, rapid recycling time. Can you drive the Quantum units with a Pocket Wizard? The biggest problem is the cost and even then one has limited power.

Maybe someone should start a thread on Nikon Flash Wish list..... and we can discuss this further.

Myrddin

I said DX because I meant DX.

The D800 has every professional feature and can shoot DX at 15MP or so. That is not 24MP but it is close enough for a lot of purposes. And it is quite possible that Nikon has decided that it is not going to come out with a replacement for the D300 because 'professionals' will buy the D800 instead.

Shooting against my D300, the D800 is a very clear improvement even when in DX crop mode. The pictures are a lot brighter, clearer and less noisy. I have not tried a D300s but extrapolating from the DXO figures, I think most people would find the D800 a better DX camera than the D300s. (Albeit at twice the price)

I would not agree with dropping pro-DX, I think there is plenty of room in the range for the D600 and the D300. It would be a sad choice but it is certainly a possible one. A more interesting question is what the D400 would have to have to differentiate it from the D7100. I think Nikon would need to either make it a 36MP body or add in WiFi and GPS to make a splash.

And a 300 f/2.8 is certainly very nice. But come on, does anyone claim that everyone is going to find it 'necessary'. A 300 f/4 is going to be big and heavy enough for most people. There is very clearly a gap in the Nikon range there. But right now it is the only obvious gap.

People might not think Nikon needs to keep up with Canon but Nikon certainly seems to think they do. They just made that 800mm monster. I don't think Nikon is bound to match Canon lens for lens. But it is a pretty safe bet that they are going to have an answer to every Canon lens that sells in decent quantities.

On the flash thing, the point would be to do away with the separate components so the pocket wizard functionality would be built into the flash and the camera. So instead of costing $250 each and requiring its own battery the feature would add maybe $20 to the cost of both.

ads

"A more interesting question is what the D400 would have to have to differentiate it from the D7100. I think Nikon would need to either make it a 36MP body or add in WiFi and GPS to make a splash."

I agree, the D7100 is pretty much perfect except for the buffer. A pro body, 8fps and a realistic buffer would add some value, sure, but it wouldn't be different enough make a real splash - af, anti-aliasing filter and 2.0 crop have already been done...

Nik0n2011

14-24mm / 2.8G ED
16-35mm / 4G ***
24-70mm / 2.8G ED
70-200mm / 2.8 ED VR II


***
(16-35 2.8G patent :
9.1.2013:
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/09/nikon-patents-for-16-35mm-f2-8-vr-lens-dual-lens-hood.aspx/
and 23.3.2012:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/23/the-patent-for-the-upcoming-nikon-af-s-28mm-f1-8g-full-frame-lens-is-now-online.aspx/
(second lens))


availability for the 4G on Amazon COM UK and DE is 1-2 months
- price should be less than the actual 12-24 2.8G
- FX, 1.4 Primes & 2.8 Zooms Line for the pros / DX, 1.8 & 3.5-5.6 Normal Humans

TaoTeJared

Generally from patent to "existence" never happens. There are literally 1000's of patents that Nikon produces that are just to keep the competition from getting close to what they have (or don't have.) Every once in awhile we will see a patent filed just before a lens is released, but it is very rare. I'm not sure of the purpose of adding a 16-35 2.8 with what is available already. Adding 1-stop is not a whole lot with FX these days.

I agree with others I think a flash with radio built in is really close. SB-910 prices are dropping everywhere almost to a level where the SB900s were before the release of it. Canon has done it (600EX-RT), and they are going for under $550. It is just the next logical step for them in this realm. Why give up sales to 3rd party companies when you could have them? This would also update the SU-800.

Things that haven't been updated:
D300s
Updated GPS module
SU-800 flash commander (if radio comes out)
Version III of the 1.4x and 1.7x TCs
16mm Fisheye f/2.8 - 18mm f/2.8 - 20mm f/2.8 - 24mm f/2.8 - 35mm f/2.0 - 105mm f/2.8 VR (Nano Coating) - 105mm DC f/2.8 - 135mm DC f/2.8 - 180mm f/2.8 - 70-180mm Macro - 200mm Macro - 300mm f/4 - 70-300vr
Never been released:
FX: 50mm f/1.2 - 85mm f/1.2 - 400mm f/5.6 - 24-70mm VR
DX: 20/24/35/85/105 primes. Slew of pro line DX glass (I'm doubtful of any being released.)

I just don't know where the D400 lands anymore and have completely given up on it. Interestingly Sony has stated it is moving away from it's trans-whatever mirror and probably moving to a mirrorless DX dslr. Canon also released the mini DSLR (EOS Rebel SL1) which is very small. Maybe that is where Nikon see's the market it going and the 1 series focus speed is an indicator.
Nikon has been pumping out a lot of Glass thoug - I would expect to see more.

Nik0n2011

surely this one might need a refresh (compared to the other little newer brothers :

AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED
dated 1993

Myrddin

On the 200 f/4:

Nikon's approach to macro lenses does not seem to be at all predictable. Like the DC primes, they might be updated, or they might not. Nikon might well decide that the market for macro lenses is at the wide end rather than telephoto.

The whole range of f/2.8 primes could also be updated but I doubt we will see that either.

On the Sony Pelicle camera:

I think Sony has been desperately clutching at straws to get a toehold at the top table and failing miserably. Canon's lack of an EVIL camera system is also pretty odd. Nikon has not got a professional EVIL body yet, but they are a year closer to that than Canon are.

Ade

Canon has an EVIL camera system... just not a very good one (EOS M).

Myrddin

Wow, so they do. Only it is so bad that it isn't worth mentioning in cross comparisons...

2.9 seconds to take a shot is worse than my Coolpix 950. And that was a first generation digital point and shoot. I would always want a DSLR for a sports event. But 2.9 seconds makes a camera unusable for portraits, especially for kids.

It is a typical canon approach. They chose the specs that would make headlines, not the ones that are best for the system. The Nikon 1 line compliments the F-mount line rather than replacing it. A sensor has to be big enough to resolve the number of MP it delivers but lenses collect light, not sensors. The F-mount was designed for an FX sized sensor which is why FX is better. A completely new system does not have the same constraints.

What we can say from the Canon EOS M launch though is that it shows why Nikon is likely to be focusing a lot of new product launches on new CX lenses. Interchangable lenses make a camera bulkier and heavier. It isn't worth that cost if you only have two lenses to choose from.

TaoTeJared

I think Sony has been desperately clutching at straws to get a toehold at the top table and failing miserably.

Sony isn't desperately clutching, they are grabbing hand-over-fist and taking large chunks of different market shares (mirrorless, integrated lens/digi cam, advanced compacts). Much more, and they will really be on solid ground to gain in the DSLR market. They are making a good run even if their DSLRs are lagging a bit.

Everyone's first release mirrorless systems are lack luster but succeeding models become very good. I'm not sure that Nikon or Canon seem to really want to go down this road (put much design $) since it is quite full of mature competition.

FlowtographyBerlin

Generally from patent to "existence" never happens. There are literally 1000's of patents that Nikon produces that are just to keep the competition from getting close to what they have (or don't have.) Every once in awhile we will see a patent filed just before a lens is released, but it is very rare.

Aw, that's too bad – I'm waiting for that 16-35 2.8, and know a couple of people who have the f/4 and would replace it instantly when the 2.8 comes out. And I just noticed that patent was only 2012... I thought it had been a bit longer... Darn!

I'm not sure of the purpose of adding a 16-35 2.8 with what is available already. Adding 1-stop is not a whole lot with FX these days.

I personally wouldn't agree on this. That 1 stop is mostly what makes the difference between being able to get some bokeh (at 35mm, of course) or not really. As for light, I'd agree, it doesn't really make that much of a practical difference.

sevencrossing

I personally wouldn't agree on this. That 1 stop is mostly what makes the difference between being able to get some bokeh (at 35mm, of course) or not really. As for light, I'd agree, it doesn't really make that much of a practical difference.

Nikon seems to going for f 4 vr zooms
and f 1.4 primes
if Bokeh is important (on a wide aperture lens) a f1.4 prime seems to be the answer