fullmetalphotographer wrote:
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.

Still jumping to conclusions I see, and I had an F5 also, which I sold to get a D1.

I said nothing about having a problem with the D3 due to being a heavy body, in fact, I believe I said that I expect that I would like a D3s, which I thought is identical to a D3 in size/weight, but more importantly updated to take care of the functionality issues I don't like with the original D3 bodies.

I won't use the consumer size bodies, which Nikon seems to be moving to with all their DX bodies in the last 4 years and the D600.  I am in complete agreement about the full size, professional grade bodies, in fact, that is what makes many of us mad at Nikon is their apparent abandoning of Professional size/quality bodies for DX.

Maybe you have access to the 800mm f5.6, or the 600mm f4 and would be happy to carry them around all the time on a daily basis.

I like the 600 f4 but I am using it on a DX body, and I don't have access to the $18,000 800mm f5.6, so professional grade DX makes far more sense for what I shoot, sell, and publish, UNFORTUNATELY, Nikon has not given a satisfactory pro-grade DX body in the past 4 years, which IS the point of this thread.

I'm not saying that the D4 is bad, obviously it would be a step up from the D700, but since 75% of the time I am shooting with the D300s, that is the body I want upgraded, and am waiting on Nikon to give that product to us.

Has nothing to do with not knowing what is good for low light or what is good for less shake, or for not liking full-size pro bodies... I actually DO want a full size pro body, just with new DX chip.

Not because I have a favorite camera, but because I use the camera that works best for what I am shooting, for my workflow, and for my clients.  If one of my FX bodies worked best, I would use it, but that is not the case.  I use them when I can, but right now, Nikon has a huge fucking hole in their line up where the D2x and D300s models have been left to die, in favor of consumer DX, consumer FX, and Pro FX, which is why we need a Pro DX body

This is very easy to understand, but if people can't, or don't want to, that is their problem, not mine.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Still jumping to conclusions I see, and I had an F5 also, which I sold to get a D1.

I said nothing about having a problem with the D3 due to being a heavy body, in fact, I believe I said that I expect that I would like a D3s, which I thought is identical to a D3 in size/weight, but more importantly updated to take care of the functionality issues I don't like with the original D3 bodies.

I won't use the consumer size bodies, which Nikon seems to be moving to with all their DX bodies in the last 4 years and the D600.  I am in complete agreement about the full size, professional grade bodies, in fact, that is what makes many of us mad at Nikon is their apparent abandoning of Professional size/quality bodies for DX.

Maybe you have access to the 800mm f5.6, or the 600mm f4 and would be happy to carry them around all the time on a daily basis.

I like the 600 f4 but I am using it on a DX body, and I don't have access to the $18,000 800mm f5.6, so professional grade DX makes far more sense for what I shoot, sell, and publish, UNFORTUNATELY, Nikon has not given a satisfactory pro-grade DX body in the past 4 years, which IS the point of this thread.

I'm not saying that the D4 is bad, obviously it would be a step up from the D700, but since 75% of the time I am shooting with the D300s, that is the body I want upgraded, and am waiting on Nikon to give that product to us.

Has nothing to do with not knowing what is good for low light or what is good for less shake, or for not liking full-size pro bodies... I actually DO want a full size pro body, just with new DX chip.

Not because I have a favorite camera, but because I use the camera that works best for what I am shooting, for my workflow, and for my clients.  If one of my FX bodies worked best, I would use it, but that is not the case.  I use them when I can, but right now, Nikon has a huge fucking hole in their line up where the D2x and D300s models have been left to die, in favor of consumer DX, consumer FX, and Pro FX, which is why we need a Pro DX body

This is very easy to understand, but if people can't, or don't want to, that is their problem, not mine.

Let's agree to disagree, to me it is a crop factor not a magnification and were did I say you preferred smaller bodies, I thou projects to much. I said I prefer larger bodies. I view it as I say tomato, you say tomato. For you it is magnification factor, but I like my wide angles to be wide angles. I do have 300 f/2.8 and for a magnification factor of 1.4x I have a Kenko 1.4X Teleplus.

Otherwise If I need more there are rental places.

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

I think Ken Rockwell's D600 recommendation is actually quite warranted.  March over to DXOMark.com and do a side by side sensor evaluation between it and the ($6000) D3x.  The D600's sensor performance blows away the D3x's performance, and at 1/3 ($2000) the price...

Select Models wrote:

I think Ken Rockwell's D600 recommendation is actually quite warranted.  March over to DXOMark.com and do a side by side sensor evaluation between it and the ($6000) D3x.  The D600's sensor performance blows away the D3x's performance, and at 1/3 ($2000) the price...

It's not the decision of D600 vs D800 that's being widely criticized. It's the source of information used. Ken Rockwell is widely regarded in various forums as being an entertainer, not a serious reviewer. Many of his articles make sense only if read tongue-in-cheek. Ken has even reviewed gear he has never seen. Relying on Ken Rockwell for camera advice is such a bizzare action that I cannot even come up with a fitting metaphor.

Select Models wrote:
I think Ken Rockwell's D600 recommendation is actually quite warranted.  March over to DXOMark.com and do a side by side sensor evaluation between it and the ($6000) D3x.  The D600's sensor performance blows away the D3x's performance, and at 1/3 ($2000) the price...

While I agree that the D600 is very impressive, I am not sure comparing the D3x (2008) vs the D600 (2012) tells us much. If Nikon hadnt improved things in 4 years we wouldnt be here discussing  new gear. The dollar/performance ratio is a whole new game each generation.... There was a time not all that long ago we were all pretty impressed with the D2H or a 1Ds MkII.

Ken Rockwell reviews gear he has never seen or held in his hands. I find someone who would do that to be about as useful for camera advice as the teenager in the mall photo kiosk. YMMV.

Kaouthia wrote:

entry-level, no frills full frame camera pretty much describes the D600.

Pretty much...

Mike Hemming wrote:

Some of them do but NOT enough or in enough ways to make me want to come up with $3000 to replace 2 camera bodies at this stage..

I proudly own a D300s, and for what I do, I don't really need anything more from a camera. Sure I'd like the D600 to finally use my extreme wide angle lenses to their fullest potential, or the D800 for extreme cropping and composure freedom. But my D300s never misses, and it's focus is dead on every time....till death do us part!

Garys Art wrote:
The D300s is 100 years old in dog (new camera release) years.  I'm convinced now that there will be NO replacement for it.

I don't agree with their strategy, but it appears that Nikon has relegated Pro/Semi-Pro level DX cameras (like the D200/D300) to the junk heap.  I believe they plan to go forward with the D600 at the bottom of their Pro/Semi-Pro line (all FX), and upgrade the D7000 for those people who in the past would have purchased something like the D300.

I think, in Nikon's mind, the D600 is a kind of replacement for the D300s...that they want to put DX behind them (except for consumer cameras) and go all FX for Pro/Semi-Pro.  I find it interesting that Nikon has not said ONE WORD about any D300 replacement (D400), despite all the speculation/controversy for a couple of years now.

I've always been a big Nikon fan, but I'm beginning to wonder about their top management...feeling like they have gotten out of touch with some of their target clients.  They appear to me to be just pushing THEIR agenda - with no regard to what the MARKET actually wants.  It obvious to me that there is still a large market out there for a high-end prosumer DX DSLR (like an upgraded D300s)...but obviously, Nikon is ignoring that.

Some of people are little to conspiratorial.

1. Sometimes management/businesses make poor choices.
2. Sometimes they make great choices that initially seemed crazy/stupid to consumers.
3. Sometimes they may actually want to do want some consumers want but the sales numbers/outlook doesn't look good so it gets panned.
4. Sometimes it's just God(s) meddling.

Maybe so many of the D300 users have transitioned to FF that there isn't enough of a market to sustain a pro-level DX camera.  Or maybe there is but they think there isn't.  Maybe some exec thinks only amateurs use DX and so that's why they are pushing FX in the pro line.  I don't know.  But if I felt I knew better than them, I'd try to prove it while getting a job with them.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
Let's agree to disagree, to me it is a crop factor not a magnification and were did I say you preferred smaller bodies, I thou projects to much. I said I prefer larger bodies. I view it as I say tomato, you say tomato. For you it is magnification factor, but I like my wide angles to be wide angles. I do have 300 f/2.8 and for a magnification factor of 1.4x I have a Kenko 1.4X Teleplus.

Otherwise If I need more there are rental places.

What is your point again?   I like my wide angles to be wide angles too, so when I want to shoot wider angles, I use one of my full frame bodies.  I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept.

You like larger bodies, great.  I like professional sized bodies too, and that is one of the reasons many of us felt the D7000 did not replace the D300s, and why we hope for a full-size D400.

Fantastic that you have a 300 f2.8 and cheap-assed teleconverter, and are fine with that on a full-frame body, but for what I shoot and sell, that would not even get me in the ballpark.

I just don't understand why people who like full-frame bodies have to try to feel that they are superior photographers to anyone who who may prefer professional DX bodies for their work.

You tossed in some thinly veiled insults, while Select flat-out insulted D800 users/owners.

Frankly, I'm tired of this bullshit, where people are trying to pat their own backs while dissing others, and trying to turn discussions of DX bodies into FX vs DX pissing contests along the lines of Nikon vs Canon or Raw vs Jpeg.

If you're really that insecure about your photography or your equipment, go out and shoot more, trying to turn these threads into dick measuring contests suggests you feel quite small and feel the need to overcompensate.

This is about the D400, don't want one?  Prefer FX?   

Fine, but don't come in here to insult others, their preferences, or their gear.

Marty McBride wrote:

I proudly own a D300s, and for what I do, I don't really need anything more from a camera. Sure I'd like the D600 to finally use my extreme wide angle lenses to their fullest potential, or the D800 for extreme cropping and composure freedom. But my D300s never misses, and it's focus is dead on every time....till death do us part!

I'm with Marty. If there's one thing I love about the D300s, it's the film feel and look it gives...

DougBPhoto wrote:
What is your point again?   I like my wide angles to be wide angles too, so when I want to shoot wider angles, I use one of my full frame bodies.  I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept.

You like larger bodies, great.  I like professional sized bodies too, and that is one of the reasons many of us felt the D7000 did not replace the D300s, and why we hope for a full-size D400.

Fantastic that you have a 300 f2.8 and cheap-assed teleconverter, and are fine with that on a full-frame body, but for what I shoot and sell, that would not even get me in the ballpark.

I just don't understand why people who like full-frame bodies have to try to feel that they are superior photographers to anyone who who may prefer professional DX bodies for their work.

You tossed in some thinly veiled insults, while Select flat-out insulted D800 users/owners.

Frankly, I'm tired of this bullshit, where people are trying to pat their own backs while dissing others, and trying to turn discussions of DX bodies into FX vs DX pissing contests along the lines of Nikon vs Canon or Raw vs Jpeg.

If you're really that insecure about your photography or your equipment, go out and shoot more, trying to turn these threads into dick measuring contests suggests you feel quite small and feel the need to overcompensate.

This is about the D400, don't want one?  Prefer FX?   

Fine, but don't come in here to insult others, their preferences, or their gear.

Where did I insult D800 users, in fact in future I will be most likely getting one. I think your losing it. I have shot Canon its a fine system except for the D30. I have said that DX is a dead end Tech. I have also said that will be interesting to see how the camera companies adjust to the uses people have found for DX. I also said that a D400 would most likely cannibalize the D600 market which is a strong reason it has not been released.

You brought up 600 f/4, I said I use a 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconvertor. So lets be clear I prefer a optical magnification over digital. Now if that defiles your honor I apologize.  I said that, I don't view the crop factor as a magnification factor but you do so fine. I did say I found the crop factor a negative because i shoot a lot of wide angle shots. Now that is an insult I would not take. I also noted there were no new DX lenses from Nikon this year. Get the the torches for that one.

I never said that i dislike DX system or DX users, I still shoot DX cameras. I have said that Nikon is most likely dividing there sensor into DX for Amateur cameras and FX for the Semi Pro and Pro cameras.

You are trying to make this personal, don't know why don't care.

I can disagree with you it is not personal. I have not insulted you just disagreed with you there is a difference.

The only person I have insulted was Ken Rockwell. That I will stand by.

DougBPhoto wrote:
*snip*

You tossed in some thinly veiled insults, while Select flat-out insulted D800 users/owners.


*snip*

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
Where did I insult D800 users, in fact in future I will be most likely getting one. I think your losing it.

Look above, I said "Select" said it, not you.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
I have said that DX is a dead end Tech. I have also said that will be interesting to see how the camera companies adjust to the uses people have found for DX. I also said that a D400 would most likely cannibalize the D600 market which is a strong reason it has not been released.

It may be "Dead end tech" to you, but it still has value to many photographers (as evidenced by this thread, many others here, and on other sites), and we have seen that Nikon is able to keep updating those sensors, so it isn't dead-end, they have just made a decision to stop putting them into professional grade bodies, which is very unfortunate and frustrating.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
You brought up 600 f/4, I said I use a 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconvertor. So lets be clear I prefer a optical magnification over digital. Now if that defiles your honor I apologize.  I said that, I don't view the crop factor as a magnification factor but you do so fine. I did say I found the crop factor a negative because i shoot a lot of wide angle shots. Now that is an insult I would not take. I also noted there were no new DX lenses from Nikon this year. Get the the torches for that one.

Yes, I brought up a 600 f4 on a DX body (effective 900mm) which you're somehow comparing to a 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC on a FX body, which is 420mm, not even 1/2, why not just compare a 140mm to a 300mm... same ratio... and not even in the same ballpark.

You prefer optical magnification over digital, where did I say that I don't prefer the same?  However, I also understand there is a little thing called REALITY, and that there are not a lot of 900mm FX lenses out there.

Maybe you think that a 3x tele-converter is better than a DX sensor with a prime lens, as that would be what would be required to truly be comparing apples to apples.

Continuing on with reality, on what planet to you think I insulted wide angle shots?  I said no such thing, in fact, I said that when I shoot wide angle shots, I shoot FX.

Let's see, OMG, Nikon has not released DX lenses this year?  It is February 4, 2013, you're haing your hat on 35 days without a DX lens announcement?  Are you claiming they didn't release DX lenses in 2012?

Here is a hint, if you don't want a new DX body, you don't need to buy one.

However, please stop pissing in the Cheerios of those who DO want a D400, aka, a PRO DX body.

Each person should be able to choose what gear best fits their needs, even a DX body, without being harassed or dissed by FX fanboying.

Could we please get this back on track to be about the D400, without attacking DX or those who choose to shoot DX?

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
So lets be clear I prefer a optical magnification over digital.

"Digital magnification" has more to do with the megapixel count than the sensor size.

A Nikon D100 (6MP), for example vs a D800 (36MP).  The D800 is "magnifying" the image much larger than the D100, despite having a sensor twice the size.  The resulting file is 6 times as big (physically).

Ok, so it's a wider field of view, but even if you crop it down to the same field of view as the D100, the file is 3 still times as big.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
The only person I have insulted was Ken Rockwell. That I will stand by.

He brings it on himself.

DougBPhoto wrote:
You tossed in some thinly veiled insults, while Select flat-out insulted D800 users/owners.

What?!?!?!?... Model Mayhem's premiere Nikon fanboy... insulting millions of Nikon shooters?... come onnnnnnnnnnn!... like WOW... I should be tossed in the brig for a few years for that huh... ...

John Allan wrote:
If you said that enlarging a 6MP image in Photoshop to be the equivalent in pixel count to a 36MP image; that would be closer to magnification.

Not really.  That's just resampling, and having the computer interpolate the missing information.

Just look at crop bodies.  D2h, D100, D200, D300s, D7000, D5200.

4.1MP, 6.1MP, 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, 24MP.

If it's producing a larger image from the same source, what's the difference?  It's just using smaller photosites to produce a larger final image.  You print them all out at 300PPI, you're going to get half a dozen differently sized prints, each getting progressively larger.  For all intents and purposes, it is a magnification.

London Fog wrote:
It can hold it's own against any DLSR out there

Except that it can't in a couple of important factors (ok, not important to everybody, but important to those who need them).

Even the lowly D5200 has a higher FPS rate in 14Bit RAW mode (5fps vs. 2.5fps), and has far far far better video capabilities.

Sure, the D300s kicks the D5200's ass in pretty much all other respects (I'm not including megapixel count here, because 12's plenty for most of what I need), but the D300s is far from a perfect camera.

Kaouthia wrote:

Not really.  That's just resampling, and having the computer interpolate the missing information.

Just look at crop bodies.  D2h, D100, D200, D300s, D7000, D5200.

4.1MP, 6.1MP, 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, 24MP.

If it's producing a larger image from the same source, what's the difference?  It's just using smaller photosites to produce a larger final image.  You print them all out at 300PPI, you're going to get half a dozen differently sized prints, each getting progressively larger.  For all intents and purposes, it is a magnification.

Nope it's not magnification. You're not magnifying existing information, as you would be if you resampled. You're gathering more detailed information to begin with. It's not magnification.

John Allan wrote:
Nope it's not magnification. You're not magnifying existing information, as you would be if you resampled. You're gathering more detailed information to begin with. It's not magnification.

Recording at a higher resolution, for all intents and purposes, is a magnification.

Resampling in Photoshop is not magnifying, it's not increasing the amount of ACTUAL data recorded in the scene, it's destroying original data, and generating information it thinks is right to fill in the gaps.

"Magnification is the process of enlarging something only in appearance, not in physical size."

A higher megapixel count does that.

Jumping from 6MP to 24MP without changing the size of the sensor is essentially a 2x magnification (twice as wide and twice as high), and it's actually recording 4x as much real information from the scene.

If you take an 1800x1200 pixel sample from the middle of the 6MP image, and then an 1800x1200 pixel sample from the middle of the 24MP image, and print them both at 300PPI, you've magnified the result by 2.

Kaouthia wrote:

Recording at a higher resolution, for all intents and purposes, is a magnification.

Resampling in Photoshop is not magnifying, it's not increasing the amount of ACTUAL data recorded in the scene, it's destroying original data, and generating information it thinks is right to fill in the gaps.

"Magnification is the process of enlarging something only in appearance, not in physical size."

A higher megapixel count does that.

Jumping from 6MP to 24MP without changing the size of the sensor is essentially a 2x magnification (twice as wide and twice as high), and it's actually recording 4x as much real information from the scene.

If you take an 1800x1200 pixel sample from the middle of the 6MP image, and then an 1800x1200 pixel sample from the middle of the 24MP image, and print them both at 300PPI, you've magnified the result by 2.

I'm not going to argue with you - obviously you have a basic misunderstanding of some principles, as well as word definition. So It's kind of pointless to debate with you.

John Allan wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you - obviously you have a basic misunderstanding of some principles, as well as word definition. So It's kind of pointless to debate with you.

ok

Gary Melton wrote:
Well now I see that some people are comparing film camera model upgrades to digital camera upgrades...and I don't really see ANY comparison there at all.

The reason I say that?  Especially in the last couple of years - the release of new DSLR models has mostly been about new sensors with vastly improved performance...better IQ, better dynamic range, and better low light performance...3 HUGELY important specs for all cameras.  However - these 3 specs have little to do with film camera models.

With film...it's the FILM itself that is mostly responsible for dynamic range and low light performance and even when talking about IQ - it's more about the glass (AND the film itself) than it is about the camera. (Yes - a newer, better film camera has advantages over older, cheaper film cameras...but not in the same way as with DSLR's.)

Bottom line - there is a HUGE difference between DSLR's released today and those released 3 years ago.  The difference between film cameras released 3 years apart - VERY little difference, not the same thing AT ALL!

Yeah, it would have been interesting (not in a good way), to see what would have happened to the film camera industry if digital had not come along. They were really starting to struggle with coming up with new gadgets/features to make it make sense to upgrade to the newest film camera.

Kaouthia wrote:
Recording at a higher resolution, for all intents and purposes, is a magnification.

Resampling in Photoshop is not magnifying, it's not increasing the amount of ACTUAL data recorded in the scene, it's destroying original data, and generating information it thinks is right to fill in the gaps.

"Magnification is the process of enlarging something only in appearance, not in physical size."

A higher megapixel count does that.

Jumping from 6MP to 24MP without changing the size of the sensor is essentially a 2x magnification (twice as wide and twice as high), and it's actually recording 4x as much real information from the scene.

If you take an 1800x1200 pixel sample from the middle of the 6MP image, and then an 1800x1200 pixel sample from the middle of the 24MP image, and print them both at 300PPI, you've magnified the result by 2.

I often see this sort of argument when people try to argue that more megapixels is not such a big deal...but the argument has a major flaw.  The argument assumes that the extra megapixels will be used to produce a larger image, when the whole advantage of more megapixels is the ability to capture more detail in same subjects.

What I mean is - if you are taking a photo of a detailed object that is filling the frame of a 16MP sensor camera, and then take a photo of the same detailed object that fills up the frame of a 12MP sensor camera...the object will have 33% more detail with the 16MP camera than with the 12MP camera.

For example: if you take a photo of a very detailed Persian rug with a 12MP camera and a 16MP camera - filling the frame with the rug in both cases - the photo taken with the 16MP camera will produce an image withe 33% more detail than the 12MP camera will.  (There are other factors to consider of course - some 12MP cameras can produce more "quality detail" than others, etc.)

Talking about "magnification differences" when talking about megapixels, IMHO, is a red herring...

More megapixels is about MORE RESOLUTION, not MORE MAGNIFICATION...

Robb Mann wrote:
DX is not dead. I can see a huge market for a F4s sized DX camera (D9000) for sports/wildlife shooters. I can even see it selling for more money than a true entry-level FX camera (D400).

But yes, my only clue that either will exist is the $1300 gap in Nikons current lineup between the D7000 and D600. We need at least two bodies in there.

Sorry, when did the D400 become FX ?

DougBPhoto wrote:

Sorry, when did the D400 become FX ?

Its my thread about an imaginary camera. In my reality the D300s replacement will be the D9000, and the D400 will be an entry level FX model.

Robb Mann wrote:

Its my thread about an imaginary camera. In my reality the D300s replacement will be the D9000, and the D400 will be an entry level FX model.

News just in...

A D500 is in the works?

Robb Mann wrote:

Its my thread about an imaginary camera. In my reality the D300s replacement will be the D9000, and the D400 will be an entry level FX model.

Just wondered, since the D400 has seemed to be a fairly universally understood hoped for/imaginary DX body to replace the D300s.

Thus, it was kinda surprising to hear that it had become FX.

Robb Mann wrote:
To me, the move to D9000 makes sense. All the other DX cameras now fall into the Dxxxx range, and the D9000 naturally sits ontop of the D3200, D5200 and D7000.

I think Rob may have a point, seems to be heading that way. In fact, the gap between Pro and Consumer has widened to such a degree now that maybe they won't bother with the mid-range anymore? It's a helluva investment, especially in times like these to cater for a minority, yes, no?

Robb Mann wrote:
I think Nikon needs a semi-pro DX and an entry-level FX camera to fill the gap between the D7000 and D600. I think the FX could be priced below the DX.

They have a semi-pro DX... it is the D7000

They have a entry-level FX... it is the D600

what they need is a PRO DX... and I don't care what they call it, I just want them to make it.