Christopher Burghardt wrote:
ME TOO.
A D700 with 16-18mpx and I don't need and want another camera for at least a decade to come.

Do you honestly believe that Nikon will release a model inbetween a D700 and 800? Not much chance with a D600 on the loose! And, what exactly would they call it, a D750?

All this talk about the mythical D400 and D700 replacement is very nice, but I would suggest that it's unlikely.

I can see a D4X (50MP+) on the horizon, then a Canon 46MP monster! This seems to be the way it's going as sensor technology has literally sped forward at the speed of light!

Christopher Burghardt wrote:
ME TOO.
A D700 with 16-18mpx and I don't need and want another camera for at least a decade to come.

Select Models wrote:

I see two completely different kind of buyers for those cameras (D800 & D600).  The D800 buyer is an elitest who won't settle for less than what he (or she) considers as 'one of Nikons best'... and will rarely if ever use that camera to its fullest potential... while the D600 buyer wants to save close to $1000 dollars... wants the improved high ISO and dynamic range performance over the D800... and knows that 24 megapixels is more than enough for his (or her) kind of work...

Maybe what you meant to say was that the D800 didnt suit _your_ needs. Since you see no advantage to shooting raw, 14 bit images, and prefer to have the camera process your jpgs for you, maybe you meant to say _you_ saw no need to the advantages of the D800.

Thankfully, Nikon recognizes that there are folks who shoot for different reasons, for different markets and provide tools that suit each.

Just because someone chooses a different tool than you do doesnt automatically make them an elitist who "will rarely if ever use that camera to its fullest potential".

Gary Melton wrote:
I really wonder what the D600 is doing to D800 sales right now.

Select llamas wrote:
I see two completely different kind of buyers for those cameras (D800

John Allan wrote:
Although I realize that there are digital shooters that enjoy particular aspects of a crop sensor, I come from years with film and always viewed the crop sensor as a technological deficiency while digital evolved. So I don't really have much interest in a new crop sensor...

See...here is a major problem when people try to compare film versus full-frame and cropped-frame digital: what the HELL does one have to do with the other??!!

Full frame digital refers to a digital body that has a sensor that is the same size as a frame of 35mm film...so frickin' what?!

Sensor technology has advanced so much in the last couple of years that cropped sensors are capable of producing more resolution, and greater dynamic range than film of an equal or somewhat greater size.

Really - it's pretty arbitrary that we have something called "full frame digital" at all!  They could have just as easily picked any other random size for a larger (than cropped) sensor...though it WAS convenient to make it the same size so that all the lenses developed for 35mm film cameras all those years would work well with it.

Full frame is better than cropped because it is a little more than TWICE the size!  It's not rocket science...however, the current crop of DX sensors are QUITE capable - MORE than equal to 35mm film!

John Allan wrote:
Although I realize that there are digital shooters that enjoy particular aspects of a crop sensor, I come from years with film and always viewed the crop sensor as a technological deficiency while digital evolved.

Many medium & large format film shooters always considered 35mm film a deficiency.

It's all relative.

Different format sizes have been a constant since photography began.

But, film isn't really analogous to digital, as Gary mentioned above, however...

Gary Melton wrote:
Full frame is better than cropped because it is a little more than TWICE the size!  It's not rocket science...however, the current crop of DX sensors are QUITE capable - MORE than equal to 35mm film!

I wouldn't use the word "better", it's just different.  You could say digital 645 is better than 35mm because the sensor is twice the size, but full frame DSLRs still have their advantages over MFD (mainly high ISO performance & speed).

They may be a little more subtle, but I really don't think the differences between DX and FX really are really as big a deal as many make out for the majority of shooters out there.

John Allan wrote:
Although I realize that there are digital shooters that enjoy particular aspects of a crop sensor, I come from years with film and always viewed the crop sensor as a technological deficiency while digital evolved.

Kaouthia wrote:
Many medium & large format film shooters always considered 35mm film a deficiency.

It's all relative.

Different format sizes have been a constant since photography began.

...Very good point!

London Fog wrote:
35mm is soooooooo missed!

Not for me, I've got about 900ft of the stuff here.

Kaouthia wrote:
Not for me, I've got about 900ft of the stuff here.

Down to my last 10 rolls of Provia 100F, maybe 20 odd rolls of Acros, TMax, FP4 etc, no idea when I'll use them!

It's somewhere in the region of 12.00 - 14.00 to dev & mount a single roll of Provia now!

London Fog wrote:

Down to my last 10 rolls of Provia 100F, maybe 20 odd rolls of Acros, TMax, FP4 etc, no idea when I'll use them!

It's somewhere in the region of 12.00 - 14.00 to dev & mount a single roll of Provia now!

I still have 2 Nikon F5 cameras, Nikon D90s, FM2, FE2 and Canon F1. a brick of AGFA color, 2 bricks Fujicolor 800 and fujicolor 400. Not to mention couple of 100ft rolls of TRI-X.
I still have 4x5 and 70mm for a camera z. I had more 35mm film but donated it to a local High School.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
I still have 2 Nikon F5 cameras, Nikon D90s, FM2, FE2 and Canon F1. a brick of AGFA color, 2 bricks Fujicolor 800 and fujicolor 400. Not to mention couple of 100ft rolls of TRI-X.
I still have 4x5 and 70mm for a camera z. I had more 35mm film but donated it to a local High School.

Will be a sad day when my last roll of Provia get's developed, if it ever does! As for the BW, might use the rest of them up in my F90X.

The F5 can be had for around 150ish, and my 22 year old (from new) F801s would be lucky to fetch 50.00 on eBay! Now that's sad man!

London Fog wrote:
The F5 can be had for around 150ish, and my 22 year old (from new) F801s would be lucky to fetch 50.00 on eBay! Now that's sad man!

The F90x can be had (with the grip) for £30!.  Friend of mine got one for £27 after having a play with my N90s (American version of the F90x - identical except for the name).  Was my first camera.  Love it, but will definitely have to pick up an F5 at some point so I can get full manual control with G lenses.

John Allan wrote:
They were not produced as others were for any direct benefit.

What was the direct benefit of 35mm over medium format?

Cost!

What was the direct benefit of 126 over 35mm?

Cost!

What was the direct benefit of 110 over 126?

Cost!

What was the benefit of larger formats?  Resolution.

What's the direct benefit of DX over FX?

Cost!

The benefit of resolution with the larger sensor isn't quite the same (which is where the film analogy really falls apart).  If you comparing the D5200 to the D600, they're both 24MP.  Under ideal shooting conditions, you can produce identically sized prints from the two, and you'd have no clue which was shot on which camera (unlike 35mm film vs 645 medium format - where the difference is blindingly obvious).

The larger sensor in this case provides one benefit (that doesn't exist in the film realm) - ISO performance.  To those people for which increased performance at higher ISO isn't an issue, it's not really worth the cost difference.

The only other advantage (depending on your perspective) is the same you got with film.  The larger the sensor/film, the shallower you can get your depth of field at a given aperture relative to your field of view.  To some, that's more of a hindrance and an argument against FX than an advantage.

John Allan wrote:
But crop sensors are not just another format in their own right (like 35mm vs MF vs 4x5 vs 8x10).
They were not produced as others were for any direct benefit. They came into being simply because the technology of the day was incapable (or prohibitively costly) to actually produce a 35mm digital camera. So they built the crop sensor to sort of bring to market an ersatz 35mm digital camera.

Some people since then have grown to like (for some purposes), the fact that a lens sort of becomes longer. Others who were raised on digital think that is just the way it is.

But for me, my goal since going digital has always been to get back to equal or better than what I had shooting chrome and it's just recently that technology has made this become a reality. And in the process I had to wade through a few years of the deficient crop-sensor. Although I'm not sorry that the crop sensor was made, if it hadn't been, digital and its wonderful workflow would have been delayed substantially more years.

What were the first sizes in silver-based photography?

Back in the Civil War, were they shooting 35mm or were they shooting other formats?

It is not like 35mm is invariably "better", it just became the standard for film.

Then when digital came along, it was not because 35mm is somehow a superior size, it is because there were millions of lenses out there already made to work with SLR's, so it was decided to make the digital bodies compatible with those lenses.

It would be just as easy to argue that 8x10 and 5x7 are superior to 4x5, which is superior to 120mm films, which is superior to 35mm films, but most people are willing to understand/comprehend that "superior" is based on subjective criteria of each user's needs, because it would obviously be pretty ridiculous to try to use an 8x10 view camera to shoot sports.

Most people are able to comprehend and accept that 35mm is usually considered to be superior for sports/action photography compared to medium format or view cameras, well, then why can't people grasp that a crop digital sensor may be better for some users needs than a full frame 35mm sensor.

People on this site tend to be so narrow minded in thinking that their genres of photography are the only ones that matter, or are the ones that should determine if a camera or a format is good or bad, but I'm sorry, everyone's needs are different, and therefore what is best for each person, can also be different.

DougBPhoto wrote:
it would obviously be pretty ridiculous to try to use an 8x10 view camera to shoot sports.

oh really?



Ok, so it's a 4x5 view camera, but equally as ridiculous.

Kaouthia wrote:

oh really?



Ok, so it's a 4x5 view camera, but equally as ridiculous.

That's hilarious!

Kaouthia wrote:
oh really?



Ok, so it's a 4x5 view camera, but equally as ridiculous.

I actually saw that while the Olympics were being broadcast and came close to rotflmao.

Now, if they were shooting video at the same time, THAT would prove that they were just the greatest photographer evar!!!

Select Models wrote:
I see two completely different kind of buyers for those cameras (D800 & D600).  The D800 buyer is an elitest who won't settle for less than what he (or she) considers as 'one of Nikons best'... and will rarely if ever use that camera to its fullest potential... while the D600 buyer wants to save close to $1000 dollars... wants the improved high ISO and dynamic range performance over the D800... and knows that 24 megapixels is more than enough for his (or her) kind of work...

As a d800 user that just recently upgraded from the D80 that was my workhorse for many years... you couldn't be further off from the truth. Granted, I'm sure there are photographers out there that feel the way you mention-- but I highly doubt everyone that bought a D800 falls into your little conceived niche. Just because you have, and love, your D600 doesn't mean that the 600 (or the 800) is the right camera for everyone looking to upgrade.

I didn't buy the D800 because it was considered one of Nikon's best. I bought it because it fit in with my needs, and I after my frustrations with my D80, I wanted the high resolution. I enjoy having the option to print extremely large and high res for my nature and wildlife work.

For my purposes, the 800 is absolutely perfect. and I'll be damned if I don't use nearly every feature on that camera when I can (and still exploring new ones) both picture and video.

/end rant

On another note, I wouldn't mind seeing another entry level camera come in- i'm helping my dad to move from film into digital, and I want to give him a good recommendation that comes close to his f5. Haven't been able to find anything i'd really send him to yet in his price point though.

Photo Visions wrote:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recomme … tm#serious


After reading Ken Rockwell's review comparing the D600 vs D800
I purchased the D600 today.

I closed my studio last year and no longer need a high end pro camera.
The D600 seems perfect for my needs, and i saved $1000.00

You based an important decision on info gathered from Ken Rockwell? I have some gorgeous swampland with huge development possibilities. Interested?

Robb Mann wrote:

You based an important decision on info gathered from Ken Rockwell? I have some gorgeous swampland with huge development possibilities. Interested?

I don't see how i would need a D800 and can't justify the cost.
I am moving up from my D300 to the D600 and it seems like it will do what i need, with my first full frame sensor and 24 mps

Robb Mann wrote:

You based an important decision on info gathered from Ken Rockwell? I have some gorgeous swampland with huge development possibilities. Interested?

LOL, was thinking the same!

Photo Visions wrote:
After reading Ken Rockwell's review comparing the D600 vs D800
I purchased the D600 today.

Why? Did he prefer the D800?

Photo Visions wrote:
I don't see how i would need a D800 and can't justify the cost.
I am moving up from my D300 to the D600 and it seems like it will do what i need, with my first full frame sensor and 24 mps

To be nice Ken Rockwell is what I like to call a fountain of misinformation. Simply put I would say at least a 1/3 of his advice is questionable, and his so are his motivations.

His opinion on shooting RAW for example, is completely wrong. I have read enough of his reviews to say he has never shot the gear or at times is trying to suck up to the camera companies for economic gains. Another example is his review of the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and its vignetting issue FX sensors.

That does not mean you made a bad decision on the D600. It means that Ken Rockwell is a dubious source at best.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:

To be nice Ken Rockwell is what I like to call a fountain of misinformation. Simply put I would say at least a 1/3 of his advice is questionable, and his so are his motivations.

His opinion on shooting RAW for example, is completely wrong. I have read enough of his reviews to say he has never shot the gear or at times is trying to suck up to the camera companies for economic gains. Another example is his review of the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and its vignetting issue FX sensors.

That does not mean you made a bad decision on the D600. It means that Ken Rockwell is a dubious source at best.

To be fair to Ken, the first version of that lens does vignette pretty badly on FX sensors.  Which is to be expected, as a 2.8 zoom.  And it was ultra-smeary in the corners, particularly on the D700; the D600 doesn't seem quite as bad.  I assume that has more to do with sensor design than lens design, since it doesn't seem to affect FX cameras equally.

And now that I've been fair to him, I should say that he's batshit insane.  I remember more than one occasion where he reviewed a lens that didn't exist (!) hoping it would encourage Nikon to make a lens that met his review at that price point.  He actually got all the way to the end of the review before he said that part.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I think I may have read one of these threads before.  But I can't remember ... does anybody else ever remember reading a thread about how Nikon has forsaken its entire user base by not releasing a D300 replacement with all the best specs currently available?

We can also trot out the old 'Why doesn't Nikon make a digital F3' chestnut too, if you want.  Or 'Why did Kodak kill Kodachrome?'  Or 'Why is there no acceptable replacement for Polaroid's SX-70 film yet?'  Or even, 'Why isn't the F6 built as solidly as the F5?'

Times change.  The market changes.  The D600 is only $200 more than the D300 was when it came out, and the difference in image quality between them is pretty large, to say the least.  Even if you shoot both in jpg and set the D600 to half-resolution, the better sensor still produces a better image.  Nikon and Canon have, either directly or indirectly, made it clear that they feel that their customers are generally more concerned with image quality than speed and ruggedness at that price point.

You're free to disagree of course, and your opinion is totally valid.  But don't think for a minute that you have any more right to complain about being 'forgotten' than your grandma that can't get Polaroid film, because you're in exactly the same boat.

I'm pissed that Kodak is going under, and nobody else makes 4x5 colour negative film anymore.  Not a single manufacturer.  That's kind of a big deal.  At least you have a different model - I have no alternatives at all, other than paying double to shoot slides and get worse exposure latitude until Fuji's warehouse runs out of that too.  After that, it's BW only.  And even though "plenty of people" use colour 4x5 film, at least I understand that the market is changing, and there aren't enough people for manufacturers to bother with it anymore.

It's okay to miss how much better the old days were.  Just don't bitch about how much your company hates you for no longer catering to you, because it happens to everybody that falls in love with a system.  Go gentle into that good night.

And stop making new threads about old topics, as if Nikon didn't already know that replacing the D300 was an option.  Trust me, they know.  Nobody there is going to find this thread and yell across the hall, "Holy shit Fred!  Did you know that there's a guy online that wants a new D300?"  "Really!  Thanks Steve, I'll get right on designing one!"


To be fair to Ken, the first version of that lens does vignette pretty badly on FX sensors.  Which is to be expected, as a 2.8 zoom.  And it was ultra-smeary in the corners, particularly on the D700; the D600 doesn't seem quite as bad.  I assume that has more to do with sensor design than lens design, since it doesn't seem to affect FX cameras equally.

And now that I've been fair to him, I should say that he's batshit insane.  I remember more than one occasion where he reviewed a lens that didn't exist (!) hoping it would encourage Nikon to make a lens that met his review at that price point.  He actually got all the way to the end of the review before he said that part.

This is what he said,"Falloff isn't a problem with the 70-200mm VR, unless you shoot blank walls at 200mm at f/2.8. Shoot normal subjects, or shoot at less than 200mm, or stop down, or shoot in DX, and any falloff becomes invisible. As explained at Overall, the finder shows a lot of vignetting that isn't on the film or sensor.

I've greatly exaggerated the falloff below by shooting a blank target and then presented the images against a gray background. The only time any of this is visible is at f/2.8 at 200mm, and when you're shooting at those extremes, falloff isn't likely to be a concern."


Yes, he does mention it, he also dismissed it. The point of f/2.8 lens is to shoot at f/2.8.

This shot you can plainly see the vignetting.


pismo2008062807 by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr


As far as Crop sensors go I think they have served their purpose and there is not great tech reason for them to continue. I will also say there is a very strong perceived benefit among the consumers. There are also a lot of shooters that built their entire system around DX. So I do understand why people do not want to let go.

I think it less of an issue for people went from film to DX to FX. I think people who started DX is is more shock to the system, that they may have to move to FX because there may not be a D400.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
As far as Crop sensors go I think they have served their purpose and there is not great tech reason for them to continue. I will also say there is a very strong perceived benefit among the consumers. There are also a lot of shooters that built their entire system around DX. So I do understand why people do not want to let go.

I think it less of an issue for people went from film to DX to FX. I think people who started DX is is more shock to the system, that they may have to move to FX because there may not be a D400.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if I disagree with you completely, and I started shooting 35mm film when I was 5.

My system is not build around DX, I only have one DX lens, and I've never liked it, but I keep it for remote bodies as a possible sacrifice to the camera gods.

I have a D800, D700, and 2 D300s's... and I am still wanting a D400/professional DX upgrade to the D300s.

There is no shock to my system, I simply want to use the best tool for my shooting, and for a very large percentage of the time, that is a professional quality DX body.

I don't expect what works best for me to be what works best for everyone else, but I would appreciate the same consideration for others to not be disrespectful or insulting in assuming that what they prefer is best for other people or that they don't know any better.

DougBPhoto wrote:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if I disagree with you completely, and I started shooting 35mm film when I was 5.

My system is not build around DX, I only have one DX lens, and I've never liked it, but I keep it for remote bodies as a possible sacrifice to the camera gods.

I have a D800, D700, and 2 D300s's... and I am still wanting a D400/professional DX upgrade to the D300s.

There is no shock to my system, I simply want to use the best tool for my shooting, and for a very large percentage of the time, that is a professional quality DX body.

I don't expect what works best for me to be what works best for everyone else, but I would appreciate the same consideration for others to not be disrespectful or insulting in assuming that what they prefer is best for other people or that they don't know any better.

I do not think there is anything wrong with DX I still shot a D2x and a d70's on occasion. I also think a lot people have found unique uses and benefits for that format. But with all do respect the main purpose of the design is not needed, what is interesting is how the companies deal with consumer needs that were not there at inception.

I have two D3 cameras, 1 D2x and One D70s, I will most like add a couple of D4s and a D800 in the time to come.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
I do not think there is anything wrong with DX I still shot a D2x and a d70's on occasion. I also think a lot people have found unique uses and benefits for that format. But with all do respect the main purpose of the design is not needed, what is interesting is how the companies deal with consumer needs that were not there at inception.

I have two D3 cameras, 1 D2x and One D70s, I will most like add a couple of D4s and a D800 in the time to come.

I hated the D3's ever time I have used them.

(I've not used a D3s, and I think I would actually like that one.)

I have no desire to own a D4.

If I had my choice between someone giving me a D4 for free or Nikon making a D400 DX body using the D300s or D700 as the body style but with updated sensor and same FPS or higher, and I had to pay full retail for it.   I would rather buy that than have a D4 given to me.

Does not mean that I don't respect the D4's capabilities, it means that I would benefit far more from the updated DX body, which is why I, like many others, wish Nikon would get off their lazy asses and upgrade/update the D300s already and give us the D400 we have been waiting on for around 4 years.

-fpc- wrote:
Im still waiting on the D700 replacement

the D800 isn't it
the D600 isn't it

+1

Seems like Nikon's new focus is on entry level gear for low prices or high end bodies for prices higher than most shooters care to pay.

DougBPhoto wrote:

I hated the D3's ever time I have used them.

(I've not used a D3s, and I think I would actually like that one.)

I have no desire to own a D4.

If I had my choice between someone giving me a D4 for free or Nikon making a D400 DX body using the D300s or D700 as the body style but with updated sensor and same FPS or higher, and I had to pay full retail for it.   I would rather buy that than have a D4 given to me.

Does not mean that I don't respect the D4's capabilities, it means that I would benefit far more from the updated DX body, which is why I, like many others, wish Nikon would get off their lazy asses and upgrade/update the D300s already and give us the D400 we have been waiting on for around 4 years.

LOL

Everyone has their favorite camera.
The D3 for me, is a very comfortable heavy duty body to shoot. It was the first DSLR that for me was as good as my Nikon F5.

I should mention the first Pro Nikon I shoot was a Nikon F2 with motordrive.  oops Dated my self on that one. So I feel comfortable with larger cameras. There easier for me to shot in low light with less camera shake which is good for journalism.