T-D-L wrote:
Examples here:
http://markjrebilas.com/blog/?p=7631
Yeah, there's D3's, and D4's, and even D2h's...but for every one of those there's a D200 (5fps), d2x (5fps), d1 (4.5fps), d1x (3fps).  Perhaps tomorrow when you insult me some more I'll look for the site where I saw more d1x photos from SI a while back.  We can look up the names of those guys and email them and laugh at them for using such paltry equipment! hahahaha
Puzzled and holding his sock in anticipation -
T-D-L

I shot with all of those too, I've personally seen the benefits and the issues they pose.

No where did I say that you can't use them, hell there are people using 4x5 press cameras to shoot sports, lots of things "can" be done, and lots of times you need to make decisions to get the best results that you can given the set of restrictions placed on you at the time, and in most cases the restrictions you outlined above are the restrictions of that gear at that day.

My point, which you and others seem incapable of understanding, which isn't just my opinion, it is an opinion shared with a large number of photographers that I have talked to, is that with camera companies constantly trying to outdo each other with cameras with dazzling specs, here is a segment of their consumers that they are ignoring.

If there were not consumers for the D300s, why would they have kept it for sale after the D7000 was released?   Thousands of people have selected the D300s over the D7000 since the D7000 because it was better in the specs that are more critical for their shooting.

That does not mean they are wrong or that you are wrong, because people's needs ARE different.

I simply don't understand why so many people that mostly shoot models or in studios think that magically enables them to a greater understanding of what is important for shooting other genres, and that their assumptions have more merit than the opinions of people actually working in that market segment.

To try to get this all back to the actual topic of the original post, this new camera, the D7100 is not much more than an upgrade for the D7000.

For those who like the D7000, the D7100 will likely be fantastic, and for people who are happy about that, then awesome.

My point is, Nikon has apparently chosen to abandon the market segment/customers that strongly appreciated what the D300/D300s had to offer, and the D7100 is yet another model that fails to address that segment of customers who have been waiting over 4 years for an upgraded camera that gives them what they are looking/hoping for.

When Nikon updates all their consumer cameras so frequently (D3000/D3100/D3200, D5000/D5100/D5200, D7000/D7100) it IS odd that in 4 years they have not touched the D300s.

As AC said above, I think it is safe to assume that Nikon has chosen to abandon that product line and abandon the consumers who found that one of the best niche cameras that Nikon has produced in the past decade, which is why there are many people who are disappointed that Nikon is not addressing their needs.

Saying that the D7100 is a huge disappointment does not detract from the D800 being a wonderful camera, it is, but neither are even close to the D300s that many people are still wishing for.

As to your assumptions about why this or that are not good enough, what is "similar enough", and whatever contortions of trying to justify your opinions about shooting things that you don't shoot, maybe stop long enough to think for just a moment that those are just your assumptions, when you think about what they say about those who assume, and no further explanation is really necessary.

Marty McBride wrote:
If sports photography is your life and you need 8 to 10 frames a second, step up your game and get the real deal, D3, D3s, or D4. There's a pretty good reason for the $4000 difference!

The point is that the D300s (and even D700) were delivering adequate FPS at a fair price.

For many shooters (including myself) we REALLY like what the DX bodies do for shooting certain things that require longer focal lengths.

Of course the D3s and D4 are options, but they are full frame, not DX.

People who love the D7000, the D7100 is a fantastic upgrade for them, and that is awesome.

The PROBLEM is that the D7100 is NOT the fantastic upgrade that D300s users have been wanting for 4+ years, AND the D3/D3s/D4 are ALSO NOT the solution they are looking for either (NOT DX), just like a D800 in crop mode is not.

For roughly $1,500/$1,600 Nikon has been selling a DX body where you can jack it up to shoot 8 FPS.

The D7100 does not address that (certainly not with the lame crop mode), and the full frame $5,000+ bodies do not address that either.

Yes, the D7100 is a nice camera for what it is, no doubt about that.

However, as AC said, for those who have been hoping for a D300s replacement, it looks like just another nail in that coffin, and a group of photographers who will apparently never get the upgrade they want while nearly every other camera/segment gets upgraded.

RIP D300s Upgrade Dreamers

DougBPhoto wrote:
I simply don't understand why so many people that mostly shoot models or in studios think that magically enables them to a greater understanding of what is important for shooting other genres, and that their assumptions have more merit than the opinions of people actually working in that market segment.

This is grossly insulting Doug.

Perhaps it is YOU that doesn't understand that group chomping at the bit for a D400 is simply TOO SMALL OF A MARKET to be as profitable to Nikon as their current lineup is able to provide.

While you're sobbing at the lack of a good replacement for the D300, I feel your pain.  I'm waiting for a "true" replacement of the D700.  It was ALMOST the D800.  But I'm used to the 6 FPS of my D300.  I can handle going to 5, but I do not want to go to 4.  Sure, there's a 6 fps crop mode.  But I'll admit I can be anal about certain things and this is one of them. I do not want a crop mode.

wah wah wah, I want, I want, I want.  Nikon not giving me.  They don't understand. They are stupid. blah blah blah.

Maybe Nikon IS fucking up.  Companies DO make mistakes.  But at the same time, they will never produce a lineup that will meet the needs of every potential future customer or their current customers.  It's not possible.

That's where competition comes in.

That's where competition comes in...

Umm...that's where...hmm...does ANYONE have a camera that is a D300/D400 killer?  Is Canon's 7D that camera?  Pretty close...

Marty McBride wrote:
From the looks of it, the D7100 is almost everything a pro would have killed for just 5 years ago!

Looking strictly at megapixels, yeah, that would have been a "wow".

However, 5 years ago, we had the D300 capable of 8 fps, and the D3 capable of 9 fps (full frame).

I would concede that the presumed higher ISO performance would also be impressive at that time.

However, I do not agree that a pro would have been killing for it.

I did not find the D7000 acceptable for my needs, hopefully/maybe the D7100 will be.

But then, what would I know, I own (or have owned) D1, D1h, D1x, D200, D2x, D70s, D80, D300s, D700, D7000, D800, and of course I have frequently used D3's....   I could not possibly have a valid opinion on Nikon bodies.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I can handle going to 5, but I do not want to go to 4.  Sure, there's a 6 fps crop mode.  But I'll admit I can be anal about certain things and this is one of them. I do not want a crop mode.

There can be one itsy bitsy advantage to this. Many Leica M shooters have always liked the fact the viewfinder shows more of the scene than will be on the final image.. with crop lines allowing you to frame what is actually coming in and out of frame. I actually like this as well but with the D700 I felt the megapixel count was to low with DX mode. D800 has 16 megapixel dx mode? That's darn good and I will likely use it for reception coverage and some action related shooting. Just an observation not trying to convince anyone that this is better or worse.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
This is grossly insulting Doug.

Perhaps it is YOU that doesn't understand that group chomping at the bit for a D400 is simply TOO SMALL OF A MARKET to be as profitable to Nikon as their current lineup is able to provide.

While you're sobbing at the lack of a good replacement for the D300, I feel your pain.  I'm waiting for a "true" replacement of the D700.  It was ALMOST the D800.  But I'm used to the 6 FPS of my D300.  I can handle going to 5, but I do not want to go to 4.  Sure, there's a 6 fps crop mode.  But I'll admit I can be anal about certain things and this is one of them. I do not want a crop mode.

wah wah wah, I want, I want, I want.  Nikon not giving me.  They don't understand. They are stupid. blah blah blah.

Maybe Nikon IS fucking up.  Companies DO make mistakes.  But at the same time, they will never produce a lineup that will meet the needs of every potential future customer or their current customers.  It's not possible.

That's where competition comes in.

That's where competition comes in...

Umm...that's where...hmm...does ANYONE have a camera that is a D300/D400 killer?  Is Canon's 7D that camera?  Pretty close...

I love the D700, and I would love it if Nikon would have simply kept the same body and upgraded it (while NOT reducing any of it's specs.)

Therefore I agree with you on the D700...

however, I don't understand how it can be insulting of me to point out the idiocy of people talking about things they have no experience doing, and having them argue with someone who actually does that work and networks with/talks with many other people in that genre.

At least you understand the FPS issue isn't just about machine gun shooting, that it also involves how quickly the camera can capture the next exposure, and that the faster one can take a second photo has a high value for many shooters.

I would hope that ANY photographer could comprehend the value of being able to take a second photo as quickly as possible (when desired) and that they should not presume to tell others what their needs are or are not.

I guess ultimately, Nikon felt that the performance of the D700 and D300s were just too much bang for the buck, thus each are the end of their line.

Unfortunately, both of those bodies were just too awesome.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Looking strictly at megapixels, yeah, that would have been a "wow".

However, 5 years ago, we had the D300 capable of 8 fps, and the D3 capable of 9 fps (full frame).

I would concede that the presumed higher ISO performance would also be impressive at that time.

However, I do not agree that a pro would have been killing for it.

I did not find the D7000 acceptable for my needs, hopefully/maybe the D7100 will be.

But then, what would I know, I own (or have owned) D1, D1h, D1x, D200, D2x, D70s, D80, D300s, D700, D7000, D800, and of course I have frequently used D3's....   I could not possibly have a valid opinion on Nikon bodies.

Depends on what pro you ask Doug. Again not everyone needs 8 fps, and don't forget that the D300 turtled along at 2.5 fps at maximum raw settings. You need, or want maximum fps...I suggest you either buy every D300s you can get your hands on, or a longer lens for your D700/D800/D3s.

DBImagery Toronto wrote:
When I kept referring to the "D400" last year I was anticipating (no substantiating reason), this was the one I meant...almost. Needs CF cards, for one. That minor factor aside, this looks like a truly sick camera! If I hadn't bought a lightly-used D700 a week ago to replace my then-backup, I would've gotten *this brand-new for sure!!!

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 

“Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.”
~ Oscar Wilde

Reading a number of posts that followed mine here, I have one thing to say: People seem to never be happy!

Marty McBride wrote:

Depends on what pro you ask Doug. Again not everyone needs 8 fps, and don't forget that the D300 turtled along at 2.5 fps at maximum raw settings. You need, or want maximum fps...I suggest you either buy every D300s you can get your hands on, or a longer lens for your D700/D800/D3s.

Most sports shooters want/need high FPS... I'm on both sides of the fence as for most things I have my CL set to 4fps and usually keep it there... There are times where I definitely want a higher frame rate. My D700 has been delegated to remote duty and for the first time in almost 5 years of owning it I'm finally considering getting the door for the grip to let me use the D3/s battery for a few more FPS... I'm pretty much holding the button on the PW I'm using to fire it and praying I get the shot since I can't see through it anyway.

ACPhotography wrote:

Most sports shooters want/need high FPS...

I totally understand this, but most pro sport shooters, shoot with the best equipment for the job, and Nikon intended for their very best to handle this. The fact that you've been able to do it with a camera for less than $2000. has just been a blessing! I love my D300s, but when the time comes to replace it, and the choice was between a possible D400 or D600, it would be a no brainer to me. I'd go D600 in a heartbeat for the price difference. But the fact that I can get a 24MP DX camera with double the res of my camera, that is slightly smaller, 1 fps slower, and $500 less...is reason enough to keep me DX for a while!

ACPhotography wrote:
Most sports shooters want/need high FPS...

Marty McBride wrote:
I totally understand this, but most pro sport shooters, shoot with the best equipment for the job, and Nikon intended for their very best to handle this. The fact that you've been able to do it with a camera for less than $2000. has just been a blessing! I love my D300s, but when the time comes to replace it, and the choice was between a possible D400 or D600, it would be a no brainer to me. I'd go D600 in a heartbeat for the price difference. But the fact that I can get a 24MP DX camera with double the res of my camera, that is slightly smaller, 1 fps slower, and $500 less...is reason enough to keep me DX for a while!

If it weren't for the cost of the move to my new studio I would have jumped to full frame by now, but I am in agreement with you.  I don't think that people understand, completely the real numbers when it comes to frame rate.  Obviously, the D4 is intended for the professional sports shooter.  Many here aren't pros though and can't justify the cost.

The problem though is that the D300/D300s gave their maximum frame rate at 12-bit, JPG.  All the numbers whacked out when you started shooting NEF and 14-bit.  The newer cameras do a better job of holding their frame rate when the parameters change.  It isn't an apples to apples to comparison. 

My suspicion is that, a D7100 at 14-bit NEF is going to outperform the D300s, but that remains to be seen with real world testing.  There is no doubt that the D800 is not a sports camera, but I believe that the D7100 will do fine for a low cost alternative to the D4.  It won't be perfect, but it will do as well as most of the high end APS-C cameras.


The world is changing and we have to change with it.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
The world is changing and we have to change with it.

True...A full size car ain't what it used to be either!

Marty McBride wrote:

I totally understand this, but most pro sport shooters, shoot with the best equipment for the job, and Nikon intended for their very best to handle this. The fact that you've been able to do it with a camera for less than $2000. has just been a blessing! I love my D300s, but when the time comes to replace it, and the choice was between a possible D400 or D600, it would be a no brainer to me. I'd go D600 in a heartbeat for the price difference. But the fact that I can get a 24MP DX camera with double the res of my camera, that is slightly smaller, 1 fps slower, and $500 less...is reason enough to keep me DX for a while!

See, when everything was 12mp the D300s to me was a very effective 1.5 teleconverter, Nikon never made a 600mm 2.8 but my D300s effectively made my 400 2.8 into one. With MP's being all over the place now it's not as simple as it once was. But for me, the D300/s was a backup to my D3/s's... I never really "needed" the reach all the time like I know Doug does. For me, I shoot mostly short track at night and I need the high iso ability that cameras like the D3/s/700 gave me...

I have to say though, I would be interested still in a new small body pro camera with a crop sensor, I still do believe there is a market for it, Nikon just doesn't seem to feel that way anymore and I'm wondering if Canon is going to follow.

Kevin Stenhouse wrote:

There can be one itsy bitsy advantage to this. Many Leica M shooters have always liked the fact the viewfinder shows more of the scene than will be on the final image.. with crop lines allowing you to frame what is actually coming in and out of frame. I actually like this as well but with the D700 I felt the megapixel count was to low with DX mode. D800 has 16 megapixel dx mode? That's darn good and I will likely use it for reception coverage and some action related shooting. Just an observation not trying to convince anyone that this is better or worse.

Very true.  And if I'm shooting fast, do I really need them to be 36 mp?  No, probably very unlikely.  Especially considering I'm doing just fine with 12mp, right?   But, my D300 CAN go to 8 fps if I buy the battery adapter for AAs or he fancy D4 battery for my D300's grip.  In the years I have own this camera, I have not once decided to spend that money.  So even though the D800 max is 6...I should probably be ok with it and quit being such a baby.  Buuuut...I really shouldn't be spending $3k right now.  Especially since I have a 17-55 DX lens that would need to be replaced.  So I'm looking at about $5,000.  I need a new car more than a new camera...but I am really dying for FF.

Marty McBride wrote:
Depends on what pro you ask Doug. Again not everyone needs 8 fps, and don't forget that the D300 turtled along at 2.5 fps at maximum raw settings. You need, or want maximum fps...I suggest you either buy every D300s you can get your hands on, or a longer lens for your D700/D800/D3s.

I own two of them (D300s), I think I'm set (as long as they keep having parts)

Besides, the point is wanting a boy that has everything the D300s has, but also with improved sensor performance.  That does not exist.

As for your longer lens suggestion, yes, by all means I should buy $10,000-$20,000 10-pound lenses because Nikon is too lazy to produce an updated professional grade DX body.

I already use rental 600mm f4 on my D300s and subjects are still too small, so yeah, by all means, I should just go to full-frame instead, that would be a HUGE help. 

Marty McBride wrote:

I totally understand this, but most pro sport shooters, shoot with the best equipment for the job, and Nikon intended for their very best to handle this. The fact that you've been able to do it with a camera for less than $2000. has just been a blessing! I love my D300s, but when the time comes to replace it, and the choice was between a possible D400 or D600, it would be a no brainer to me. I'd go D600 in a heartbeat for the price difference. But the fact that I can get a 24MP DX camera with double the res of my camera, that is slightly smaller, 1 fps slower, and $500 less...is reason enough to keep me DX for a while!

Actually, I know a number of full-time pro sports shooters, while they all own full-frame bodies, they ALSO own a D300s and want exactly what I've been describing.

I am not saying that would be their only body or even their primary body, but they DO want an upgraded D300s as part of their arsenal, and NONE of them thought the D7000 was worthy, and I doubt that any of them will feel that the D7100 is worthy of our needs either.

Of course, MY needs are not everyone else's needs, and certainly not the needs of the average person on this site, but that does not make those wants/needs any less valid.

I would not agree that Nikon "intended" for their very best to handle this, I think that the more accurate word is that Nikon "assumes" that their D4 is the best equipment for every job, and unfortunately that is a false assumption.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I am not holding much hope for the 1.3 DX crop (which they say is 2x of FF).

They had a 2x high-speed crop mode in the D2x, and it was utter crap.

Hurray for D7000 users, they have upgraded AF, but for DX Sports and Wildlife shooters (and those doing DX remotes), we remain SHIT OUT OF LUCK for a good upgrade.... for what, FOUR years?

I don't see them producing the camera either, which is unfortunate as they are continuing to ignore a market segment.

To me the D7100 IS the death knell for the D300 series. They call this model the "DX Flagship". Between that and price point there seems to be no room for a D300s upgrade in their line up. Sad day indeed.

DougBPhoto wrote:

I love the D700, and I would love it if Nikon would have simply kept the same body and upgraded it (while NOT reducing any of it's specs.)

Therefore I agree with you on the D700...

however, I don't understand how it can be insulting of me to point out the idiocy of people talking about things they have no experience doing, and having them argue with someone who actually does that work and networks with/talks with many other people in that genre.

At least you understand the FPS issue isn't just about machine gun shooting, that it also involves how quickly the camera can capture the next exposure, and that the faster one can take a second photo has a high value for many shooters.

I would hope that ANY photographer could comprehend the value of being able to take a second photo as quickly as possible (when desired) and that they should not presume to tell others what their needs are or are not.

I guess ultimately, Nikon felt that the performance of the D700 and D300s were just too much bang for the buck, thus each are the end of their line.

Unfortunately, both of those bodies were just too awesome.

I think that we don't need to tell them how stupid we think they are.  Just perhaps need a few lessons.  Far too often people approach photography issues with "I don't do this" or "I don't need this" and thus anyone that does is stupid.  You'll see that a lot of Megapixel debates and people insisting there is no reason to have more than 6.

I almost said something to that effect with D700 and 300.  Maybe Nikon felt they gave too much for the price point they were released.  But then, if you think about it, the D800 is pretty damn remarkable for $3k.  Why by the $6k D4 if you don't need the FPS?

The D4 is MY dream camera.  But $6k?!  nope.  I won't be having that.

I want a 16-24 mp D700 with 1080P video.  Then it will likely be the last camera I ever buy (assuming it never breaks).  Until then...I think I'm gonna ride my D300 until it breaks.

R Michael Walker wrote:
To me the D7100 IS the death knell for the D300 series. They call this model the "DX Flagship". [b]Between that and price point there seems to be no room for a D300s upgrade[b] in their line up. Sad day indeed.

Actually, they lowered the price of the D7100 as compared to the D7000.  There is now $900 between the D7100 and the D600.  I don't think they will do it, but there is actually some room to add in a $1,600 body.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I will admit that there are a lot of people that would like this mythical D300 replacement.  But what percentage of people would buy it over the D7100?  Do you think a lot more people would buy the camera with less resolution and features, because of the better build quality and slightly higher frame rate?

If there weren't, why would they have kept selling the D300s after they released the D7000.

The D7000 has more resolution and better video.

The D300s has better build and higher frame rate.

They have kept the D300s on the market for 2.5 years after releasing the D7000.

The D300s kept right on selling, DESPITE being 4+ years old resolution/IQ now, PRECISELY because there are customers who DO want that better build and higher frame rate.

The people interested in a D7100 are the D7000 customers, not the D300s customers.

I have yet to hear from a single person who was wanting the upgraded D300s/D300s replacement who feels that the D7100 is what they want.

It is an upgraded D7000, and for their D7000 customers that is great, BUT it is still NOT a D300s replacement.

R Michael Walker wrote:
To me the D7100 IS the death knell for the D300 series. They call this model the "DX Flagship". Between that and price point there seems to be no room for a D300s upgrade in their line up. Sad day indeed.

I agree with you.

It probably is the death blow to the D300 series, which is why the D7100 is such a huge disappointment.

Had they simply given it 8 fps at full resolution/full bit depth, I'd have already placed an order for one.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

Get a Grip! A New Nikon Battery Grip!!! lol


I wonder if Ren Flopwell reviewed it yet. It only has been out 30 minutes!!! lol

LOL!

DougBPhoto wrote:

I own two of them (D300s), I think I'm set (as long as they keep having parts)

Besides, the point is wanting a boy that has everything the D300s has, but also with improved sensor performance.  That does not exist.

As for your longer lens suggestion, yes, by all means I should buy $10,000-$20,000 10-pound lenses because Nikon is too lazy to produce an updated professional grade DX body.

I already use rental 600mm f4 on my D300s and subjects are still too small, so yeah, by all means, I should just go to full-frame instead, that would be a HUGE help. 

Why not buy a bigger lens, Doug? You've bought every Nikon body that was ever released. And you start the anticipation of something newer soon after. Maybe you just can't be pleased. You have every Nikon ever made, but can't find a way to get the job done without a D300 replacement....amazing!  Maybe Nikon isn't just too lazy, as you put it. Maybe it's a sound business decision on their part...they've been around a while now! Maybe if you quit buying or hating everything that came out, and just bought one lens that would cover the longest focal length you feel you need, when actually needed, you'll find happiness in your vast arsenal!

DougBPhoto wrote:
I love the D700, and I would love it if Nikon would have simply kept the same body and upgraded it (while NOT reducing any of it's specs.)

Therefore I agree with you on the D700...

however, I don't understand how it can be insulting of me to point out the idiocy of people talking about things they have no experience doing, and having them argue with someone who actually does that work and networks with/talks with many other people in that genre.

At least you understand the FPS issue isn't just about machine gun shooting, that it also involves how quickly the camera can capture the next exposure, and that the faster one can take a second photo has a high value for many shooters.

I would hope that ANY photographer could comprehend the value of being able to take a second photo as quickly as possible (when desired) and that they should not presume to tell others what their needs are or are not.

I guess ultimately, Nikon felt that the performance of the D700 and D300s were just too much bang for the buck, thus each are the end of their line.

Unfortunately, both of those bodies were just too awesome.

The D700 is about as perfect as a body could ever be, even better than the D800, handling wise! As Doug pointed out, an upgraded D700 (D700s,x) would have been incredible!

Whack a 24MP sensor in that thing and it would be perfection!

DougBPhoto wrote:
I own two of them (D300s), I think I'm set (as long as they keep having parts)

Besides, the point is wanting a boy that has everything the D300s has, but also with improved sensor performance.  That does not exist.

As for your longer lens suggestion, yes, by all means I should buy $10,000-$20,000 10-pound lenses because Nikon is too lazy to produce an updated professional grade DX body.

I already use rental 600mm f4 on my D300s and subjects are still too small, so yeah, by all means, I should just go to full-frame instead, that would be a HUGE help. 

Marty McBride wrote:
Why not buy a bigger lens, Doug? You've bought every Nikon body that was ever released. And you start the anticipation of something newer soon after. Maybe you just can't be pleased. You have every Nikon ever made, but can't find a way to get the job done without a D300 replacement....amazing!  Maybe Nikon isn't just too lazy, as you put it. Maybe it's a sound business decision on their part...they've been around a while now! Maybe if you quit buying or hating everything that came out, and just bought one lens that would cover the longest focal length you feel you need, when actually needed, you'll find happiness in your vast arsenal!

I'm sorry if you are incapable of reading, or reading AND comprehending.

Yeah, I've owned a lot of bodies... for example, I owned a D70s while I was playing with strobist stuff, and then I traded it for a D80 hoping to try that as a backup body, but guess what, the FPS was too slow... so I sold/traded that for a D200 as a backup body, and guess what, that was too slow of FPS also.

However, I sold the D70s for more than I bought it for, the same for the D80 and D200, so it is not like I spent tones of money in testing them.

When I sold the D200, that was also a chunk of the change I spent on a D7000.  I could not stand the D7000, so I returned it for all my money back, and I bought a second D300s.

Maybe I can't be pleased?

Where did I say I am not pleased with the D300s?   I love it.  I am very pleased with it.  However, it is basically 5 years old IQ.

I am very pleased with the D700.  I LOVE it.  I wish it had 2 slots, but it is great.  I actually prefer it to the D3 as I prefer the image review options on the D700 (upgraded from the D3) and the sensor cleaner (too many dirty D3's from NPS.)

I also love the D800.... for what it is designed to be.   It is a great tool for some jobs, but it is not going to work for others, and that is okay.

I would even say that the D7100 is a great replacement/upgrade for the D7000, and that is fantastic.

The problem is that despite many rumors and pre-release specs, the D7100 does not measure up to the combined D300s/D7000 replacement that was rumored.

It is ONLY a D7000 replacement, AND, almost more importantly, it make it appear more likely that Nikon does not plan to EVER upgrade the D300s.

Meanwhile, try reading and comprehending that I can't just go out and buy a lens that does not exist, and it also ignores that those giant primes are also often not very practical.... but I would be aware of that from actually having used them, and having first-hand experience with their strengths and weaknesses.

At least I have actually used what I'm talking about, it appears there are many in this thread trying to tell others what they should do, even though they have no experience with what they are talking about.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Doug....I hope this helps!!!

Mmmmm, thank you !!!!    *swoon*

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
I used to own a Nikon D300.....I liked it. It was trust worthy and it always felt solid in my hands, with a nikon battery grip. I was very happy with it. But....something was missing in my life....FX!! So now I own a D800.  Wait...before anyone tells me otherwise...I like the D800 and never had issues with left out of focused, green tint, oil drippings..and how many more issues. It works. And I am very happy, and love The D800.

Hehe, oil drippings, which variety Thomas, olive, car or baby?

Marty McBride wrote:

Depends on what pro you ask Doug. Again not everyone needs 8 fps, and don't forget that the D300 turtled along at 2.5 fps at maximum raw settings. You need, or want maximum fps...I suggest you either buy every D300s you can get your hands on, or a longer lens for your D700/D800/D3s.

D300 only tanked at 2.5 fps when shooting 14-bit RAW.

London Fog wrote:
I think that the next body will be a D4s or D4X, as Canon clearly have something up their sleeve, and you know how these two like to slug it out, never letting each other pull too far ahead?

All the better for us!

Two Versions...to this...54.1MP for the D4x...but NR says it is going to be 36.4 the same in the D800.  I keep hearing 54.1mp.   This year.

The D4s...24.1mp

But...Canon..is different. I don't think Canon anything near ready. No big MP to combat Nikon. Nothing until 2014. ..And the MP count?? who knows..from 40-60mp.