DougBPhoto wrote:

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Actually, the D800/E has crop-modes - just like the pro-bodies have. It has a 1.5x crop (DX), that's about 15 MP. It has a 1.2x crop-mode that also retains the same aspect ratio, it's appx 24 MP. It also, of course, has a 5:4 aspect ratio - that is also roughly 24 MP.

While it does have that mode, it can be quite difficult to use, especially for sports, because the area in the viewfinder that you have to look at is exceptionally tiny.

If shooting with a native DX body instead, the DX field of view is filling the entire viewfinder, instead of when a DX crop mode is used and you have 1/3 to 1/2 as large of a viewfinder image to look at as you would otherwise.

It would be SO much better to have a DX body of the same pixel density but a viewfinder that is giving fully enlarged coverage of the actual field of view that you're capturing.


More glass would be awesome, but unfortunately we do NOT have a DX body for professional shooters.  We have an ancient DX body for pro shooters and a new DX body for enthusiast shooters, but nothing near current technology for DX pros.

Long focal length shooters are getting screwed by Nikon, because FX/Full Frame does not satisfy that need (unless someone has a $15,000-$20,000+ budget.)

Full frame is awesome, but not the best solution for everything, besides, there are 3 current models that are all pretty professional, compared to DX where there are zero current professional grade bodies.

I don't use DX mode so I didn't realize this was the case. However, for better or worse, I think DX cameras are a technology of the past, for many (like myself) a painful reality while sensor technology caught up with film. I do think however, maybe the manufacturers could possibly be persuaded (if enough people care about DX going forward) to improve their viewfinder to eliminate this issue.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I don't use DX mode so I didn't realize this was the case. However, for better or worse, I think DX cameras are a technology of the past, for many (like myself) a painful reality while sensor technology caught up with film. I do think however, maybe the manufacturers could possibly be persuaded (if enough people care about DX going forward) to improve their viewfinder to eliminate this issue.

I think 35mm film is a technology of the past
I think 120mm film is a technology of the past
I think 4x5 film is a technology of the past
I think Polaroid/Fuji is a technology of the past

Yet, there is a place for all those things.

It is just funny how we think that 35mm digital sensors MUST be the standard simply because the 35mm film predecessor was so common.

We had years where V8 engines were standard, then we got V6, then flat 6's and 4 cyls, even 3 cyls... and it became pretty known to most people that we had different things to suit different needs.

Yet, when it comes to digital photography, there is this narrow vision that all digital sensors *should* be 35mm and anything else is wrong, or not professional.

Personally, I think what is *right* or *best* depends on what the need is, much like how you would not put a 4 cyl in a Hummer or in an Escalade, and it would also be rather silly to put a 8 cyl into a Geo Metro or VW Bug.

I am happy that Nikon is doing this D750 or whatever we think is a replacement to the D700, as hopefully that means that maybe they will get round to coming up with an upgraded D300s also, because the DX sensors do fit a great need for many photographers.

A photographers, I think we should be able to have what works best for each of us, not assumptions that only one thing is right for everyone's needs.

I own both, but I use the one that suits my needs best and gives me the best images, not what makes me look the most professional in someone else's eyes.

David Stone Imaging wrote:

I recently took pictures at my son's college after-graduation party.  I captured several people at a picnic table some 30 feet away having a laughing good time.  From that I cropped 3 great headshots that were crystal clear.  For me, resolution is a blessing.

Fine. You have a camera which suits you. Others' don't...

Zack Zoll wrote:
Slipping is still not losing money.

Going from what you've said (which is debatable based on your economic outlook, but is not untrue) all tech companies are in a constant cycle of making and losing money. Nikon loses money while doing R&D for the D800, and earns it when the camera is new. Now that it's been out a couple years, Nikon is losing money because sales have slowed, and they're pumping R&D dollars into the D750 or whatnot. Next year sales will be up because of the new model, and the year after that they will be down, as more money is spent on R&D than in coming in from sexy new models.

Ditto for Sony and Olympus. Fuji and Canon don't fluctuate as much, since they've been using the same sensors over and over. So fewer sales from sexy new models, but less R&D costs.

If you take a 2-3 year average, and compare it to a 2-3 year average from 2009 or so, Nikon is up considerably.

Normally I don't do this on message boards but I will make an exception.

Slipping is losing money. I am talking about profits meaning what you are actually making. Not sales. Think of it this way. A dollar that you earn today is worth more than a dollar you earn next because its buying power will be less. If you do not earn more than a dollar next year to keep pace then your position is weaker.

R&D is a cost of doing business for Nikon just like every other company that sells things and it is not really a large part of the budget for large corporations. I haven't looked at Nikon's books so I don't know how much they spend on R&D (I think it is around 2 billion).

We all know camera sales are down for everyone. Nikon is doing worse than Canon who is doing bad. They all know that they have to find another product to replace their camera sales because the majority of people around the world are using smartphones instead of cameras even DSLRs. The difference is that Canon and Sony sale other products and Canon is still making money. Nikon is not which is why they are trying to find a new business to enter now before it is too late.

And no Nikon's profits did not increase much when the D800 came out. Their profits spiked before that I would assume because of the D7000 but I have not looked at it closely to see.

So as I said before while Nikon has really been making great cameras they are not doing better on their bottom line which for a corporation is their main concern. They answer to investors not fans of their products. Canon and Nikon both see the hand writing on the wall when it comes to camera sales.

Robb Mann wrote:
If everyone who's said that the Df, D800 and D600 weren't a D700 replacement just bought a new D750 then Nikons financials would be pretty solid.

Haven't mirrorless sales been tanking in the US faster than any other segment aside from P&S? I know both the Nikon and Canon 'mirrorless' solutions were not well received in the US and Europe.

I still think a market exists for a simple digital camera. If the Sensor is the most expensive component than the huge rear LCD screen has to be the second most expensive item, and we simply don't need it. Allow me to use my smartphone for image review and other functions. Saves money, weight and battery.

I suspect pumping out video/images to a smart phone would be more taxing on a camera than its own LCD display.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I suspect pumping out video/images to a smart phone would be more taxing on a camera than its own LCD display.

What's video got to do with a camera?

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I doubt anyone in here really has the credentials to discuss whether or not Nikon is in financial trouble or making dubious management decisions.

Personally, if I had the creds, I'd be looking for a job opening at Nikon so I can tell them how to fix it.  I imagine that kind of position would pay well.

You would be wrong. There are people on MM from all walks of life including doctors, attorneys, fund managers, marketing, financial analysts just to name a few. In fact I would say that most of the people on MM are probably experts in other things and photography is just their hobby.

Its About The Light wrote:
I'm one of the the many waiting for the D300 replacement and initially got really pissed off hearing about another FF camera. I've had the money saved for the D400/D9300 for years, just waiting to buy when it comes out. But I think I may give in and purchase the D750 if the Nikon Rumors specs are accurate. I don't own so many DX lenses that I can't switch.

I have to ask though, why is it so difficult to build a DX with a pro body, AF button, weather sealed, 7-8fps and a good buffer (eat it D7100)? Seriously, what in there is so challenging? Why didn't they do this with the D7100? Why cripple it if there's no D300 replacement? It just doesn't make sense.

The buffer on the D7100 was intentional, as was the sub 8fps. Planned lack.
{|}

Sichenze Photography wrote:
Nikon, uses the same sensor in many different models. They tweak the processor and firmware and add on buffers or other features like bracketing at different rates to meet different price points.

That's smart business if you ask me.  The tilt screen, WiFi, Expeed 4 image processor and low-noise 24 megapixel sensor is making that D5300 (although it's not full frame) the hands down winner for 'best bang for your buck' in the Nikon lineup...

KOLMANS STUDIOS wrote:
Can anybody enlighten me why the D3X is now so expensive,compared to the newer models.

Good question.  I would never buy one over the D600 at about 1/4 of the price.  It may have a few less focus points, but I've never missed focus (even in action shots) on my D600...

KOLMANS STUDIOS wrote:
Can anybody enlighten me why the D3X is now so expensive,compared to the newer models.

Because they (nikon) can.  IT was never worth 8 grand. When the D800/10 can run circles around it. It is 100% a useless camera. Do they even make it?

DougBPhoto wrote:
We had years where V8 engines were standard, then we got V6, then flat 6's and 4 cyls, even 3 cyls... and it became pretty known to most people that we had different things to suit different needs.

How very American

AJScalzitti wrote:
How very American

Right, because only America makes cars 

KOLMANS STUDIOS wrote:
Can anybody enlighten me why the D3X is now so expensive,compared to the newer models.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Because they (nikon) can.  IT was never worth 8 grand. When the D800/10 can run circles around it. It is 100% a useless camera. Do they even make it?

It's really a rip off.  Ergonomics mostly...if you shoot vertical more than the standard horizontal.  Best go for the D4x...I think better all around.  But tilting the D800 90 degrees with a heavy f2.8 lens can be fatiguing.

I wish Nikon would package something like the D800/10 into a body like the D4x.

KOLMANS STUDIOS wrote:
Can anybody enlighten me why the D3X is now so expensive,compared to the newer models.

Because it's still a relevant camera. A D3x is more compact and has better ergonomics than either a D610 or D810 with battery grip. The D3x has better weather sealing than those cameras too.

Robb Mann wrote:

Because it's still a relevant camera. A D3x is more compact and has better ergonomics than either a D610 or D810 with battery grip. The D3x has better weather sealing than those cameras too.

Built like a tank and still a great performer..... Luv Mind!

KOLMANS STUDIOS wrote:
Can anybody enlighten me why the D3X is now so expensive,compared to the newer models.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Because they (nikon) can.  IT was never worth 8 grand. When the D800/10 can run circles around it. It is 100% a useless camera. Do they even make it?

David Stone Imaging wrote:
It's really a rip off.  Ergonomics mostly...if you shoot vertical more than the standard horizontal.  Best go for the D4x...I think better all around.  But tilting the D800 90 degrees with a heavy f2.8 lens can be fatiguing.

I wish Nikon would package something like the D800/10 into a body like the D4x.

I'm confused by your post.  There is no D4x.  Did you mean the D4s?

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I'm confused by your post.  There is no D4x.  Did you mean the D4s?

People keep speculating about a D4x. We'll see if we get one.

Still... The D3's and D4's are completely different animals than the D8x0 and D6x0.

I just like my D600 and D610 with the battery grips... I think of them as "Chubby D600s."

The Grand Artist wrote:

You would be wrong. There are people on MM from all walks of life including doctors, attorneys, fund managers, marketing, financial analysts just to name a few. In fact I would say that most of the people on MM are probably experts in other things and photography is just their hobby.

I'm not saying there aren't very intelligent business minded people.  But I've been hearing about how Nikon is fucking up their market ever since I got a Nikon camera.  They don't seem to be any where near the horrible shape some of you claim they are in.  It's just sounding like noise to me.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm not saying there aren't very intelligent business minded people.  But I've been hearing about how Nikon is fucking up their market ever since I got a Nikon camera.  They don't seem to be any where near the horrible shape some of you claim they are in.  It's just sounding like noise to me.

If businesses that were doing terrible to the average consumer looked like they were about to shut down today, then they wouldn't do any business. Also keep in mind there is a difference between doing terrible to investors, analysts, and economists and what the average person thinks about a company. The scale is just different. Mega corporations don't just go out of business tomorrow.  Compared to other companies like Canon, Fujifilm, Sony, Rioch and Olympus; Nikon is quite small but the average consumer doesn't know that or even care.

Robb Mann wrote:
If everyone who's said that the Df, D800 and D600 weren't a D700 replacement just bought a new D750 then Nikons financials would be pretty solid.

For me... the D600 WAS the replacement for the D700.  Sold my D700 to buy it... fantastic camera... haven't regretted it.  Higher in resolution... better in low light... would buy another in a heartbeat.  Now looking in the direction of the D810.  The only thing that's going to make me consider a D750 over the D810 is two things... a better low light sensor and a very low price point...

Zack Zoll wrote:
Nikon doesn't need a camera for $2,500. The $1,300 difference between the D610 and the D810 seems like a lot, but expressed a different way, it's about 160%. Does Nikon need a camera at 125% and at 160%?

Think in terms of the line as a whole. Is this 'state of the art' AF the same as the D800? Then how many people would choose to buy it over a D810, which is better built and has more resolution for 130% of the cost? Is it the same as the D4s? Then how many people would pay twice as much for a larger camera with less resolution and better ISO performance?

I'm not saying that Nikon isn't making this camera. I don't know. I'm just saying that it only makes good business sense if they're abandoning the $5k+ cameras as their 'go to' professional line, and trying to push cheaper models.

Resolution (in the manner that you are using the term) doesn't equal image quality.  Pros know this so they use various camera bodies.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Because they (nikon) can.  IT was never worth 8 grand. When the D800/10 can run circles around it. It is 100% a useless camera. Do they even make it?

the D3X has far less grain and noise than the 800/10.  As a professional, buying it when it came out was a no brainer.  So was buying an 800.  When you're doing $20k-$70k shoots, OF COURSE it was worth the money.

When Phase One came out with a full 645 system utilizing the IQ280 for $57,000+/-, it was a no-brainer to buy a pair of them.