Christopher Hartman wrote:
Canon's new 7D mk2?

Nikon already I think matches up well with this camera except for the 10 fps and the buffer.  Two features which are critical for sports and other action related photography.

10 fps for under $2,000 is such a huge feature that I believe that can get Nikon users to switch brands. I already know one wildlife photographer considering ditching his D800e for it.  he does AMAZING work with a 4 fps camera.  He's gonna really knock it out at 10 fps.

Unless Nikon has been very very awesome in keeping secrets and they'll have a huge announcement at the end of this week, I don't think we'll see anything in less than 6 months.

I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Nikon seems to be more focused on full frame.

Exactly!  If Nikon came out with an APS sensored D400 now, I would NEVER consider buying it... regardless of the price.  Once you experience the magic of full frame, you'll laugh at the APS format from ANY manufacturer... be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or whoever.  I've owned several Nikon APS format cameras in the past (D70-D80-D90-D300-D7000)... and although they produce somewhat decent and acceptable quality images... they don't hold a candle to images I've captured from my (former) D700 and (current) D600.  Looking forward to selling off all my APS gear and picking up a D750...

Chris Rifkin wrote:
Sounds like us canon users bitching about Canon spending more time and energy on video in these cameras

Geez..
Both companies are slumping badly when it comes to actually designing something for photography

Amazingly True....enough said!

Select Models wrote:

Exactly!  If Nikon came out with an APS sensored D400 now, I would NEVER consider buying it... regardless of the price.  Once you experience the magic of full frame, you'll laugh at the APS format from ANY manufacturer... be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or whoever.  I've owned several Nikon APS format cameras in the past (D70-D80-D90-D300-D7000)... and although they produce somewhat decent and acceptable quality images... they don't hold a candle to images I've captured from my (former) D700 and (current) D600.  Looking forward to selling off all my APS gear and picking up a D750...

Full frame is a good thing, but they need to get their shit together and make everything around the sensor better. I can't give less than a f**k about a flippy screen, dual amnesic SD-slots and a body made for baby-hands! Not to mention the ever so annoying video features...

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Canon's new 7D mk2?

Nikon already I think matches up well with this camera except for the 10 fps and the buffer.  Two features which are critical for sports and other action related photography.

10 fps for under $2,000 is such a huge feature that I believe that can get Nikon users to switch brands. I already know one wildlife photographer considering ditching his D800e for it.  he does AMAZING work with a 4 fps camera.  He's gonna really knock it out at 10 fps.

Unless Nikon has been very very awesome in keeping secrets and they'll have a huge announcement at the end of this week, I don't think we'll see anything in less than 6 months.

Please get that D400 out your mind..D400 will be High End FX.....and DX cameras will be D7100 and D9300....I am going, when reading the specs and knowing Canon placed the 70d sensor(which only scored a 68 overall score at DXO Mark) what a major letdown, after 5 years of waiting, But don't tell those Canon DX Fan boys that...while it can do 10fps... but a Sony 77ll can do 12fps, and the Samsung NX1 can do 15 fps, plus 4k.

Nikon, what I heard through the Rumor Mill...that the D750 was going to be D9300?? How true that is...I don't know. But Nikon is on this major kick..That they want everyone to enjoy and can afford a Full Frame Camera.

Canon's problem is they make their own censors. But, also...If we are expecting anything radical or out of the box from both Nikon or Canon...Forget about it. They are both frighten kittens, those two companies are scared to shake their own fan base. Yes, the D800 did shake up the world a bit..I have it..and love using it. It changed my shooting style. Slowly! lol

...and I went from Nikon D300 to D800...big jump there...but I would never consider buying another DX Camera. IF I need a back up Camera...it will be a D750..or whatever Nikon has developed next in the Full Frame.

And I never use the Video Feature...at all. No desire.

JohnEnger wrote:
Not to mention the ever so annoying video features...

That isn't a Nikon thing.  Canon pioneered video on the DSLR and it is here to stay.  As it happens, Nikon is the only company that has released a new full frame recently without video  It has sold OK, but not world class.

JohnEnger wrote:
I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

Short of 2 mpx your talking about the 5d MKIII.

JohnEnger wrote:

I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

switch brands to what?  everyone is including video now.

I would shoot in complete darkness if I could.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
I am not sure why you think Nikon matches up well with the camera save for the frame rate.  Nikon was jealous of the market the 5D had and spent lots on R&D making the D800 at the expense of the market the D300s and D700 held.  I moved from Nikon to the Canon 7D because I felt it offered more overe the D300s and Nikon still has not addressed that.

They forgot that old bird in the hand is wroth two in the bush...

I said "well", not perfectly.  I think the 7100 matches up well against even newly announced 7Dmk2...except for the buffer and FPS.

Select Models wrote:
Exactly!  If Nikon came out with an APS sensored D400 now, I would NEVER consider buying it... regardless of the price.  Once you experience the magic of full frame, you'll laugh at the APS format from ANY manufacturer... be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or whoever.  I've owned several Nikon APS format cameras in the past (D70-D80-D90-D300-D7000)... and although they produce somewhat decent and acceptable quality images... they don't hold a candle to images I've captured from my (former) D700 and (current) D600.  Looking forward to selling off all my APS gear and picking up a D750...

I don't believe this to be true.

If you have two cameras with equal everything except that one is Full frame and the other is crop, there are advantages to both.  With the FF you get a shallower DOF (which is the main draw for me!).  With the Crop, you get more perceived reach because to get the same POV with an FF, you have to crop your image which costs you a little more than half of your resolution.  For sports and wildlife, a crop sensor can be very valuable to them.

And another note, the crop sensors are using the best part of any lens, the center!  Lens issues that may come up on FF cameras are less significant on a crop camera.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I said "well", not perfectly.  I think the 7100 matches up well against even newly announced 7Dmk2...except for the buffer and FPS.

The build quality is not near the 7D or the old D300s, but how about that retro Nikon; I thought it was one of the best low light cameras out (and not video at all)

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't a Nikon thing.  Canon pioneered video on the DSLR and it is here to stay.  As it happens, Nikon is the only company that has released a new full frame recently without video  It has sold OK, but not world class.

I believe the first DSLR with video was the Nikon D90, although Canon popularised it with the 5d2..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_si … lex_camera

"The first DSLR introduced with an HD movie mode, the Nikon D90, captures video at 720p24"

Unless by pioneered your mean popularised?

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I said "well", not perfectly.  I think the 7100 matches up well against even newly announced 7Dmk2...except for the buffer and FPS.

And AF..? And build?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I don't believe this to be true.

If you have two cameras with equal everything except that one is Full frame and the other is crop, there are advantages to both.  With the FF you get a shallower DOF (which is the main draw for me!).  With the Crop, you get more perceived reach because to get the same POV with an FF, you have to crop your image which costs you a little more than half of your resolution.  For sports and wildlife, a crop sensor can be very valuable to them.

And another note, the crop sensors are using the best part of any lens, the center!  Lens issues that may come up on FF cameras are less significant on a crop camera.

Totally agree.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

The build quality is not near the 7D or the old D300s, but how about that retro Nikon; I thought it was one of the best low light cameras out (and not video at all)

Again, I said well.  Not perfectly.

A D750 in the D810 body would be awesome.  It's what I have personally been waiting for.

I'm done waiting.  The specs on a D810 more than suit my needs, so I'm going for it.

If, however, the come out with a "true" successor and it's has significant hire FPS, such as 8 or higher and reduced MP...I will give it series consideration.

I'm not consider the D750 because of the smaller less featured body and while the FPS is higher, it's only 1.5 higher and while it's $1k less expensive, I'm going to pass on it.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

And AF..? And build?

What's wrong with the 7100 AF? Is it as good? I don't know.  But it is the 51 point and worked well when I used it.

Other than it being a smaller camera, I was not bothered by the build and I do not recall if it was weather sealed or not.  That is an important consideration for me.

Again, I said matches up well.  Did not say perfectly.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't a Nikon thing.  Canon pioneered video on the DSLR and it is here to stay.  As it happens, Nikon is the only company that has released a new full frame recently without video  It has sold OK, but not world class.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
I believe the first DSLR with video was the Nikon D90, although Canon popularised it with the 5d2..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_si … lex_camera

"The first DSLR introduced with an HD movie mode, the Nikon D90, captures video at 720p24"

Unless by pioneered your mean popularised?

You are correct, but it was a very limited form of video.  The 5Dii came out almost immediately after and had a much better implementation.  Since then Canon has been much more aggressive than Nikon in terms of video.

You are correct though, the D90 pre-dated the 5Dii by a very short period.

Select Models wrote:

Exactly!  If Nikon came out with an APS sensored D400 now, I would NEVER consider buying it... regardless of the price.  Once you experience the magic of full frame, you'll laugh at the APS format from ANY manufacturer... be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or whoever.  I've owned several Nikon APS format cameras in the past (D70-D80-D90-D300-D7000)... and although they produce somewhat decent and acceptable quality images... they don't hold a candle to images I've captured from my (former) D700 and (current) D600.  Looking forward to selling off all my APS gear and picking up a D750...

That is fantastic, but are you aware that there are a whole world of shooters out there who are not you?

There are types of shooting for which FX is better and types of shooting for which DX is better.

If you're in love with full frame, that is awesome for you... but for those who don't want full frame, and for those who own full frame, but still want DX bodies, shouldn't we have the opportunity to have the gear we want, or just because you have what makes you happy, other customers needs don't matter?

Including gear on loan from Nikon, right now I have D4S, D4, D800, D700, and D300s bodies, and guess what... I still wish Nikon had a professional DX body.

Photographers needs are not identical and narrow in scope, and we should have the opportunity to have the gear we want/need.... not just the gear you (or others totally satisfied with full frame) want, and leave everyone else hanging in the wind.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
What's wrong with the 7100 AF? Is it as good? I don't know.  But it is the 51 point and worked well when I used it.

Other than it being a smaller camera, I was not bothered by the build and I do not recall if it was weather sealed or not.  That is an important consideration for me.

Again, I said matches up well.  Did not say perfectly.

The AF works great. Better than the 7Di in my mind. And weather sealed, though mostly plastic.

John, you gotta' get your head out of the clouds on the D400 business. It doesn't matter how many times you say you 'only', 'just', or 'simply' want something - it doesn't change the fact that what you want from a camera in that price range is very different from what most people want from a camera in that price range.  Despite 'only' wanting certain features, it is a specialized model. The Coolpix A, 1 series AW, and Df were the only specialized models Nikon has made in the last few years ... And none of them are selling terribly well.

If you want a specialized model, switch to Leica. They have a lot of wonderful models to choose from for users with specialized needs. If you want to buy something cheaper and mass-market, stop being so surprised that the cameras are marketed to the masses.

I only want a camera with no AF, since I never use it and it ought to be cheaper. I don't see the big companies making it any time soon though.

Chris Trento wrote:
I never really get involved in these types of threads because I feel they're pointless. That said, between this one and the other rant thread about the 750 I figured I'd jump in lol. When no one is waiting for the new models to come out, people are threading about the good old film days. Well, new model cameras didn't come out as often and the technology didn't change as drastic, yet people took outstanding pictures with them just the same.

Masters of old did fine without what we have today. Where all the purists who said in older posts, the photographer makes the picture, not the camera, it's a tool. If you call yourself (or think of yourself) "a pro" and you don't like these offerings, buy a D4 whatever. If that's out of your budget or price range, well that's the "pro gear"! Don't bitch at Nikon/Canon for not making more affordable mid range cameras that don't make you feel good about owning and carrying around. Work on making more money in your business and go buy the flagship model!

Video… it's here to stay… get over it. YouTube is the 2nd largest search engine on the planet. Plenty of photography businesses need video in their work for clients. You don't want or need it, don't use that feature of it! Do you think people that never shoot low light are actually bitching about not liking their camera because it has good high ISO capability?

I'm no master of photography, but I am a full time photographer and I make my living still with a D300… that's 2008 technology.

I seem to recall that during that period, especially the 1980's and 1990's that there were very frequent revisions in film though, and film was as relevant to the results of a photo as sensors are today.

I also seem to recall that from 1990 to 2000 that I think I had at least 3 different Nikon AF bodies as newer technology came out, and a few non-AF bodies at the start of that period also.

There were, actually, quite a few revisions in their products, especially in the levels below the true professional grade bodies.

As for is it the gear or the photographer, maybe you could propose the same question to a contractor who builds houses.  Sure, he could use a 2 pound hammer, nails and a hand-saw, but they are going to be a lot more productive using modern saws and nail guns.  The better gear may not make the quality of their work any better, they will be able to produce a lot more work in a shorter period of time, and as someone who makes your living at photography, one could presume that you understand that the more quality work you're able to produce in a smaller period of time, the more productive you are, and the greater your potentiality to make a greater living.

Yes, in the hands of many people, better gear likely won't yield better results, but in the hands of someone who is skilled to get the most out of that gear, they CAN achieve superior results.

I certainly understand there are at least 2 schools of thought, and many people believe in "good enough", while others want to try to do the best job they can do, and they are not wanting to compromise on quality, or accept "good enough" when they know they can produce a better result.

For me, my cameras are my tools, and especially shooting things like sports where I can't tell my subject to stop, take a break, or hold a pose, it is far more important to have gear that increases your odds of having the best results.   As a photographer, you still need the ability to get the most out of the gear, but those who have that ability are treated to improved results, while those lacking that ability are unlikely to see nearly as much benefit.

In the end, it isn't about a vanity plate or a fancy name camera, it is about having the gear that allows the user to get the results they want, and for people who DO place high demands on their gear, it is quite logical that they want gear with professional specs.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I seem to recall that during that period, especially the 1980's and 1990's that there were very frequent revisions in film though, and film was as relevant to the results of a photo as sensors are today.

I also seem to recall that from 1990 to 2000 that I think I had at least 3 different Nikon AF bodies as newer technology came out, and a few non-AF bodies at the start of that period also.

There were, actually, quite a few revisions in their products, especially in the levels below the true professional grade bodies.

As for is it the gear or the photographer, maybe you could propose the same question to a contractor who builds houses.  Sure, he could use a 2 pound hammer, nails and a hand-saw, but they are going to be a lot more productive using modern saws and nail guns.  The better gear may not make the quality of their work any better, they will be able to produce a lot more work in a shorter period of time, and as someone who makes your living at photography, one could presume that you understand that the more quality work you're able to produce in a smaller period of time, the more productive you are, and the greater your potentiality to make a greater living.

Yes, in the hands of many people, better gear likely won't yield better results, but in the hands of someone who is skilled to get the most out of that gear, they CAN achieve superior results.

I certainly understand there are at least 2 schools of thought, and many people believe in "good enough", while others want to try to do the best job they can do, and they are not wanting to compromise on quality, or accept "good enough" when they know they can produce a better result.

For me, my cameras are my tools, and especially shooting things like sports where I can't tell my subject to stop, take a break, or hold a pose, it is far more important to have gear that increases your odds of having the best results.   As a photographer, you still need the ability to get the most out of the gear, but those who have that ability are treated to improved results, while those lacking that ability are unlikely to see nearly as much benefit.

In the end, it isn't about a vanity plate or a fancy name camera, it is about having the gear that allows the user to get the results they want, and for people who DO place high demands on their gear, it is quite logical that they want gear with professional specs.

Doug, I couldn't agree more with you. My comments were directed more to people who sound like they would be happier being camera manufacturers than photographers. However, I don't see them being in business very long because they'd build one "perfect camera" and few businesses last making one product lol. Point is, many people will never be happy and always wanting something more or complaining about something. You hear considerably less of that going on with the D4 and similar class flagship models (not that they're "perfect" either.

You mentioned shooting sports. I actually read in a thread the other day someone complaining about high FPS and why would someone even need that… really?? Don't use it! Plenty of people need need it. High ISO, people out there need it, video, plenty of people need it.

I'll make this statement, Nikon is somewhat to blame for some of this complaining. They "treated" us to something that now they seemed to have back-peddled from. They gave us a D200, D300 & D700 that shared a more robust build similar to the pro bodies that were still very affordable cameras. No amount of internal technology will satisfy some people if they can't also use the camera to hammer in nails (and don't get me wrong, I get that). Take this new D750, if it were built more like the 700 people would be more excited. The camera does have a great feature set.

After the 600, 610 and this new 750, I don't think people will be happy with a Nikon D400 if that build quality isn't equal regardless of the features. That word "prosumer" did seem to fit those models better and my guess is people are missing that prosumer feel of those cameras.

Photos by Lorrin wrote:
Some of us just do not have the extra money for full frame over the price of a pro level DX camera.

Your joking right?
Look at this wonderful Deal on a Nikon D800 used....
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20652792.html
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q … yMzFqDzEdw

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-FX-Format-D … nikon+d600


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q … nS8Iv82q_A


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q … CsPcMqAk5Q

here is a deal on a used D600...
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20643242.html

Chris Trento wrote:
After the 600, 610 and this new 750, I don't think people will be happy with a Nikon D400 if that build quality isn't equal regardless of the features. That word "prosumer" did seem to fit those models better and my guess is people are missing that prosumer feel of those cameras.

I, for one, don't want a D400 with a build quality like that of the D600, D610, or D750 - we already have that in the D7100. What's wanted is a D400 that's a "DX mode only" D800 or D810, priced at $2000 because it has a DX sensor rather than a much more expensive FX sensor.

Likewise, what a lot of people want is a D700 replacement that's a "D810h" - a D810 with the megapixels cut down to 16 or 24MP in order to boost up the FPS to 8+. Even if it costs $3300 the way the existing D810 does. 

But Nikon seems to have this taboo against releasing two different models at the same price point. They couldn't give the D3x the same price as the D3s, or the D800e the same price as the D800, and now they can't bring themselves to do a D700 replacement at the same price as the D810 or even the Df - the D750 had to be feature-cheapened to fit into its own price point between the D610 and the Df. Likewise they can't bring themselves to do a high-end DX D400 because that would have the same price point as the D610.

And Nikon also seems determined to push enthusiasts to FX. Which to be fair to Nikon is what roughly half of the enthusiast market wants. The complaints are coming from the other half of the enthusiast market. The half that finds DX to be a sweet spot: Not as good as FX, no, but still plenty good enough for our needs (and skills) and with a much better price/performance ratio to boot.

JohnEnger wrote:
I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

"essentials"

AJ Garcia wrote:
I think what we are going to see is the phase out of DX sensors in general. When it comes down to it, besides cost and some added "zoom" (the last part being a negative if you want wide angle), there is no inherent technological benefit to APS-C sized sensors over FX. This is not a bash on them, it's just true. And as the price of Full Framed sensors continues to drop, eventually, business wise, it seems prudent to switch fully to a purely full frame line. It will further reduce manufacturing costs since they can focus on single form factor rather than 2.

I'm not sure that's entirely true...Weight. That's one clear benefit of a smaller sensor.

Lots of photographers are choosing mirrorless cameras with smaller sensors and lenses in order to reduce the weight of their kit. If CaNikon provided a set of EFS (in Canon mount) lenses for APS C, I'd sell my full frame kit and move to APS C without a seconds thought.

There are so many photographers struggling with bad backs that weight is a real issue for a portion of the market.

The other one is cost when using long lenses. Yes you could get a 600mm lens but it's likely to be more expensive than buying aps c with a 400mm and for little to no discernible difference.

I'd say aps c is going to make something of a comeback, now the sensors are good enough for the majority of work.

Caitin Bre  wrote:

Short of 2 mpx your talking about the 5d MKIII.

But don't try to pull anything out of shadow detail ... just sayin

Sablesword wrote:

I, for one, don't want a D400 with a build quality like that of the D600, D610, or D750 - we already have that in the D7100. What's wanted is a D400 that's a "DX mode only" D800 or D810, priced at $2000 because it has a DX sensor rather than a much more expensive FX sensor.

Likewise, what a lot of people want is a D700 replacement that's a "D810h" - a D810 with the megapixels cut down to 16 or 24MP in order to boost up the FPS to 8+. Even if it costs $3300 the way the existing D810 does. 

But Nikon seems to have this taboo against releasing two different models at the same price point. They couldn't give the D3x the same price as the D3s, or the D800e the same price as the D800, and now they can't bring themselves to do a D700 replacement at the same price as the D810 or even the Df - the D750 had to be feature-cheapened to fit into its own price point between the D610 and the Df. Likewise they can't bring themselves to do a high-end DX D400 because that would have the same price point as the D610.

And Nikon also seems determined to push enthusiasts to FX. Which to be fair to Nikon is what roughly half of the enthusiast market wants. The complaints are coming from the other half of the enthusiast market. The half that finds DX to be a sweet spot: Not as good as FX, no, but still plenty good enough for our needs (and skills) and with a much better price/performance ratio to boot.

You're in denial. The D800 is the replacement for the D700. Done.

JohnEnger wrote:

I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

Sounds like you want a D4.

Wtf is a "proper physical size body"?

The people who complain that their chosen brand doesn't make their fantasy camera irritate me. Chances are, they do, you just refuse to make any compromise at all on the ONE criteria that doesn't make sense to the rest of the people buying cameras.  Or they don't want to pay the price premium for the existing product.

How does video on your still camera affect your ability to use the camera effectively?

Select Models wrote:

Exactly!  If Nikon came out with an APS sensored D400 now, I would NEVER consider buying it... regardless of the price.  Once you experience the magic of full frame, you'll laugh at the APS format from ANY manufacturer... be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or whoever.  I've owned several Nikon APS format cameras in the past (D70-D80-D90-D300-D7000)... and although they produce somewhat decent and acceptable quality images... they don't hold a candle to images I've captured from my (former) D700 and (current) D600.  Looking forward to selling off all my APS gear and picking up a D750...

Love my D300 & D7000 but I have been waiting for a full frame that meets my needs as a portrait & event shooter and the D750 full frame is just what I have been waiting for. Pre-ordered it the day they announced it!

Don't care about more than 6 fps as it is not needed for portraits or events, don't care about CF cards anymore as they will soon be going the way of VHS tapes. Interested in great autofocus, good low light performance, full frame and the D750 has all that and more. Plus the price point at 2,300.00 is spot on for the feature set.

Can't wait until it arrives!

Chris Trento wrote:
I'll make this statement, Nikon is somewhat to blame for some of this complaining. They "treated" us to something that now they seemed to have back-peddled from. They gave us a D200, D300 & D700 that shared a more robust build similar to the pro bodies that were still very affordable cameras. No amount of internal technology will satisfy some people if they can't also use the camera to hammer in nails (and don't get me wrong, I get that). Take this new D750, if it were built more like the 700 people would be more excited. The camera does have a great feature set.

After the 600, 610 and this new 750, I don't think people will be happy with a Nikon D400 if that build quality isn't equal regardless of the features. That word "prosumer" did seem to fit those models better and my guess is people are missing that prosumer feel of those cameras.

If the 750 came in a body type equal to the D700/D800, I think people would be shitting themselves quite joyfully and talking of the second coming of Christ.   That really seems to be its only downfall.

And because of the D300, people want that line continued.  The 7100 blows it away, but it's that damn small body, smaller buffer, and SD cards that is turning people off.

*I* think there is a market for a D400...but I'm almost not a business person.  I could be totally wrong and if they did make a D400, maybe it won't sell well.

I started this thread because that's essentially what I felt.  The market for a D400 is likely just TOO small.  But with Canon releasing this 7D mk2...Canon obviously believes that market is NOT too small.  And because of its specs, I can see Nikon users changing brands.  On paper, that camera looks phenomenal.  If I was shopping for a camera and brand didn't matter, my two considerations would likely be the Canon 7Dmk2 and the 5Dmk3.

But, I love Nikon and I think the D810 is going to be a better camera than the 5Dmk3.  The 750 is VERY tempting for the cost savings.  And if it was 8 fps, I'd probably pull the trigger for it.  But at only 6.5 and 24mp...I think the extra 12 outweighs the 1.5 fps difference.  Although it will cost me $1,000 more.

Latent Images wrote:

But don't try to pull anything out of shadow detail ... just sayin

As long as you keep your shadows in zone III and above no problems at all with details. I do notice however that my 6d does better with shadow details. Ive just been thinking that it is better due to the lack of the anti-aliasing filter. But I'm not sure.