anyone know whats happening with Nikon?

[bigsarg7]

Just wondering if anyone on here has those key links to Nikon product devalopment? Reason I ask is, I am over hearing rumours of an upgrade of the d700. The d7000 has been released and seems to be very popular, but I don't think its the replacement for the d700 surely. Will there ever be a d700s /d700x/ d800 / d900 etc? Or are they just going to release a new d3x eg: d4. Will they wait for the canon 5d III release? I hope to get a FX sensor Camera by year end, but I don't want to buy say a d700 and find out afterall there was an updated camera in the works...... I love my Nikon and I don't plan on swapping to Canon but really their gear is looking really good at the moment.

Any thoughts or opinions on this topic? from canon or nikon users? If there are any insiders please reveal the secrets we all want to hear!! lol

[ATJ]

Speculation on what Nikon is doing is an impossible game. Sometimes the pundits get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. Those in the know have signed non-disclosure agreements so won't tell.

The D7000 is a "replacement" for the D90, not the D700. Initially, the Dn0 cameras were the general consumer, dn00 were prosumer and Dn were professional. It appears Nikon have changed to Dn000 for the general consumer - which sort of makes sense as at least now the number of digits means something - the fewer the digits the more "professional" the camera's aim.

Will there be a D700s? Maybe. D700x? Maybe... we'll see when they are announced.

Why do you want to go full frame? i.e. do you have valid practical reasons or just like the idea? (For example, I may never go full frame as it doesn't suit my type of photography).

Does the D700 meet your needs? What could it have that you actually need? The problem with waiting for the next model is there's always a next model and so you could always be waiting.

[bigsarg7]

well the main reason for my posting this topic was to get a discussion going on the subject of what the future is for Nikon. I've been looking personally at upgrading for a few months but can not make a final decision as I just making my way through the info and specs to make sure i make the most practical and informed decision. And well while I've been researching and looking at options I've read numerous places about the soon upgrade etc of the d700 and d300s. Currently owning the d200 I'm likely to go for a d700 as my lenses I currently own suposedly suit the fx format as well. My plans are to set up an actual studio in my house once we sell this one, and having a full sensor camera would actually be better as its a long narrow room ( 15m x 5m) so i figure (correct me if i am wrong) that a FX camera with a lens that says eg 24mm would be 24mm compared to the dx where its equivelant size is over 30mm. I would like to take my photography to a new level in the future years and i think going FX now would be better going into now etc. (once again please correct me if i am wrong). Not just in studio photography but also my wedding photography (just been asked again to do a wedding on the 29th of this month and the 17th april.) so it's getting busier all the time and I would like to one day step up to a d3 or equivelant in the future, so in my mind moving to the d700 or its updated version would be a step to make sooner rather then later!

Anyways, thats my bit..... i didn't really want the thread about me, so please feel free to continue with the main topic of future releases!!

[Aussie Dave]

Only those close to Nikon would know what's going on there.

I would imagine a D400 (D300s replacement), D700s and perhaps even a D4 will be announced/released this year (2011).

As to what specs each will have is anyone's guess.

I'd be inclined to see the D400 take on the D7000's 16MP sensor and much of it's feature set, with perhaps more fps, larger buffer, a continuation of dual card slots along with the better build quality and weather-proofing etc of the Dxxx series, which it's always had over the consumer bodies.
There may even be some video enhancements as well (for those that like to use their dSLR as a camcorder), perhaps a choice of 720p or 1080p along with varying fps....though I wonder if this might come later on down the track on one of the consumer cameras (as many photogs who want a quality dSLR for photography don't often care too much about the video abilities), so it may make more sense that say a D7100 comes out with more video options - who knows ?!?!?

I guess it won't be too long before we all find out for sure...

Dave

[bigsarg7]

yeah i personally don't want a DSLR with video capabilities, I guess thats why i have a mini camcorder for...... I think for the fx series I think they should steer clear of the video side IMO....i figure most fx users wouldn't have much of a need for video footage would they? correct me if i am wrong....i think it's a bit of a waste of time and i'd rather have none!

[wendellt]

nikon is a more conservative company than cannon
that means when there is new technology cannon uses it

e.g
cannon on had the 24 f1.4
an AF-s version of the 85mm lens at 1.2
which nikon took a while to match

21 megapixels on the 1ds
which nikon took a while to catch up with the d3x

canon is also a bigger company so their gear is cheaper

the nikon 600mm vr2 is about $14,000 compared to cannons 600mm at arond $8000 from b&h

i thought of moving to cannon just for a telephoto system because of the price

its safe to say nikon will be behind cannon on the next round of cameras
but nikon will catch up with a deerer price

[tommyg]

nikon is a more conservative company than cannon
that means when there is new technology cannon uses it

e.g
cannon on had the 24 f1.4
an AF-s version of the 85mm lens at 1.2
which nikon took a while to match

21 megapixels on the 1ds
which nikon took a while to catch up with the d3x

canon is also a bigger company so their gear is cheaper

the nikon 600mm vr2 is about $14,000 compared to cannons 600mm at arond $8000 from b&h

i thought of moving to cannon just for a telephoto system because of the price

its safe to say nikon will be behind cannon on the next round of cameras
but nikon will catch up with a deerer price

I think you are being a little selective in making those statements.

For instance even Canon users agreed when the D700 came out it bettered a lot of things coming from Canon, and the lowlight capabilities of Nikon are still well in front IMHO.

Then there's the 14-24 lens that they don't match yet.

I think they both play a little leapfrog with each other

[aim54x]

Wendell, you are correct in some ways, but I dont buy the "cheaper" argument, there is a certain reflection in the age of the items in question. Nikon upgraded a lot of their telephoto lenses in the last few years whilst they Canon equivalents are ageing in wait of replacements, that explains a bit of the price gulf. If you take the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II vs 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II you will find that they are almost identical in price as both of these lenses are the same age. As for who will be behind, I am not sure anyone will know, the two companies seem to be chasing different objectives in this current generation and the emerging intermediate generation.

What I think is Nikon's direction in the near future?

-D4 arriving in 2011 (mid to late)
-D400 (DX) arriving with or closely behind the D4
-D800 (FX) arriving 6-12 months behind the D4 (esp if it is to share the same sensor)

D700s/x? Well it is getting very late in the cycle for one...so unless Nikon pulls one out for a short production run (ala D40x style) it seems almost unlikely to arrive. There is the slim possibility of a early 2011 announcement for a D700s/x but as it continues to remain absent we may have to be content with the D700 until the D800 and it will have a fairly long production run.

[aim54x]

there's the 14-24 lens that they don't match yet.

I think they both play a little leapfrog with each other

Currently Nikon definitely has a stronger Pro-Zoom range, and are rapidly fixing the Pro-Prime range to edge ahead of Canon. In the Exotic field both have launched a strong contingent recently (Canon announced 200 f/2 in 2008, announced development (500 and 600) and supposed to start to shipping (300 and 400) in 2010, Nikon started shipping (400, 500 and 600) in 2007 some more VRII N lenses shipping in 2009 and 2010 (300 and 200 f/2 respectively))

Nikon
14-24 (2007) + 24-70 (2007) + 70-200 (2009) + 200-400 (2010)
24 (2010) + 35 (2010) + 85 (2010)
200 (2010) + 300 (2010) + 400 (2007) + 500 (2007) + 600 (2007)

Canon
16-35 (2007) + 24-70 (2002) + 70-200 (2010)
24 (2008) + 35 (1998) + 50 (2006) + 85 (2006)
200 (2008) + 300 (2010) + 400 (2010) + 500 (2003 new one coming) + 600 (2003 new one coming) + 800 (2008) PS: tracking release dates is hard!!! but I am surprised by the age of some of these lenses

[wendellt]

the only good thing i can see from nikon is it handles iso slightly better than the mark iV
but cannon is bound to counter the d3s very soon before nikon comes out with the d4

also noteworthy is that nikon has a better tone curve in built so the skin tones or generally the whole image has a more pleasing and warmer effect
but this is just software nothing photosop cant fix

as for telephotos yes i know nikons vr2 is more expensive because of the vr mark 2 but seriously do you really need this
lots of kick ass photos were taken on legacy 600mm vr1's and if you compare them to the current cheaper canon 600 is1
canon is much cheaper

for example

i can get a canon mark iV from and a 600mm for 1. $4500 and $7000

opposed to a nikon d3s and 600vr 2 for $6000 + $14000

canon is way cheaper for a telephoto option

as for nikon they are still stuck with the legacy mount which i think is small

canon switched over to the bigger mount which is more stable ages ago

the only disadvantage with canon telephotos is that it has an inherrant flaw with the flurite elements on the lens so they had to make their lenses white to cool down the lens as it was prone to cracking in high temps

i like my d3 with 24-70

but if i had to use a telelphoto ill switch to cannon any day

[gstark]

yeah i personally don't want a DSLR with video capabilities,

Then ignore that feature in terms of your purchasing decisions.

But otherwise, when you are ready to purchase, consider only the models that are then currently available.

Ignore rumours of new models: a D400 is not announced. A D800 is not announced. The Nikon D4 with the wireless Nespresso 3G attachment has still not been announced, despite being widely rumoured for CES.

If you need (or want) full frame capabilities, then the D700 will probably satisfy you today, and if and when a replacement is announced ... (a) it will be slow to hit the backwaters of Australia, and (b) any D700 that you already have will remain 100% fully functional and will lose no features following the release of any newer model.

So, just consider the current market, and buy what suits you best today.

[gstark]

What I think is Nikon's direction in the near future?

-D4 arriving in 2011 (mid to late)
-D400 (DX) arriving with or closely behind the D4
-D800 (FX) arriving 6-12 months behind the D4 (esp if it is to share the same sensor)

A couple of further thoughts ...

What Cameron is saying here basically reflects the release cycle of the D3/D300, a few years ago, and I think that there's some validity in that logic.

Bear in mind also that we have PMA in Sydney in June, but that is NOT a major release venue or cycle. Expect no announcements there.

If there will be something new, it would be announced for PMA in the US, but that has been relocated to the September timeframe. There's no Photokina this year, so that's also not an option.

[ATJ]

My plans are to set up an actual studio in my house once we sell this one, and having a full sensor camera would actually be better as its a long narrow room ( 15m x 5m) so i figure (correct me if i am wrong) that a FX camera with a lens that says eg 24mm would be 24mm compared to the dx where its equivelant size is over 30mm. I would like to take my photography to a new level in the future years and i think going FX now would be better going into now etc. (once again please correct me if i am wrong).

While you could use the room in either direction: long narrow or short wide, the way you have suggested, long narrow, works in favour of the crop sensor not the other way around. As the room is narrow, you don't need the width in the frame so it tips slightly in favour of the crop sensor. Of course, by using different lenses, it is a moot point anyway.

What are you planning on doing in the studio that you want to use a 24mm lens? You can get some interesting effects with a wide-angle lens, but traditionally portraits are taken with a lens longer than 50mm - I think 80-100mm is meant to be the sweet spot for a 35mm frame and so 55-70mm would work equally as well for a crop sensor.

There's nothing wrong with going for a full frame camera but I urge you to consider it for the right reasons. In my mind, the major benefits of full frame are better low light recording and better handling of wide angle. There are some differences with respect to depth of field (DOF is shallower for the same f/stop and magnification with respect to the image file for the same number of megapixels).

Low light might be an advantage for wedding photos, but I'm not sure I see any other advantages for using a full frame camera for weddings. Others may disagree.

[bigsarg7]

well this has turned out to be a very interesting topic indeed! I'm very glad to read about the whole canon vs nikon and the similarities and differences between them. I personally look forward to seeing what Nikon do this year, I think it could be a big year for them, and so to Canon, the 5d is a nice camera and I quite look forward to seeing what their next step will be!

In regards to me, i'm still satisfied with my current set up, so i will see how it all pans out when everything here sorts itself out. But if and when I do decide to upgrade i will be seeking some advice from the forum for its wealth of knowledge is fantastic.

ATJ - I also do a lot of lightning photography whenever there's a storm i am somewhere with my gear trying my darndest to capture it! So i think I can make do for a while with my d200, I still find it works perfectly fine for this type of photography! And in regards to what i'll be shooting in my dream studio, I hope to do portraits of people of all ages and animals etc. And one day even product photography. So thanks for the advice and as I said i will see how i go with my d200 for a few months yet! And I was told by another photographer that the 24mm lens would be perfect for a room as narrow as i plan to use, but we'll see! thanks anyways!

Wendelt -

i can get a canon mark iV from and a 600mm for 1. $4500 and $7000

opposed to a nikon d3s and 600vr 2 for $6000 + $14000

Shucks, thats a massive price difference, i can see where your coming from! Thank goodness the telephoto lenses aren't required yet by myself!!

[ATJ]

And I was told by another photographer that the 24mm lens would be perfect for a room as narrow as i plan to use, but we'll see! thanks anyways!

All I can suggest is take a photo of hubby or one of the kids with a 24mm lens and see how flattering it is.

[gstark]

And I was told by another photographer that the 24mm lens would be perfect for a room as narrow as i plan to use, but we'll see! thanks anyways!

All I can suggest is take a photo of hubby or one of the kids with a 24mm lens and see how flattering it is.

Make sure that you shoot from up close, too.

[bigsarg7]

Well I find my Tamron 28 - 75 in the room ok for portraits but not for full body portraits, It doesn't seem to quite get the full length in hence why my idea with the fx sensor fitting the full frame in at 28 not its dx equivelant. Mind u its not a 24mm, i don't find i have too many issues with the distortion you can get with wide angle lenses. etc. For a cheap lens its pretty darn decent! Do i just by a wider angle lens to go with my dx camera to make it an approx 24mm equivelant? or just wait and see how I manage with current lens?

[gstark]

The widest I'd be using for portraits on an FX body is 35mm.

The problem is greater than just the angle of view; the viewing perspective also plays a part, and that's a part of the reason why some of the longer lenses are better. When/if you need to shoot a full length, then you should try to have more distance between yourself and the subject.

IMHO.

[Remorhaz]

Well I find my Tamron 28 - 75 in the room ok for portraits but not for full body portraits, It doesn't seem to quite get the full length in hence why my idea with the fx sensor fitting the full frame in at 28 not its dx equivelant. Mind u its not a 24mm, i don't find i have too many issues with the distortion you can get with wide angle lenses. etc. For a cheap lens its pretty darn decent! Do i just by a wider angle lens to go with my dx camera to make it an approx 24mm equivelant? or just wait and see how I manage with current lens?

Remember that the 28-75 on your D200 has an equivalent 35mm focal length of 42 (almost normal) to 112mm

I find with portraits (esp head and shoulders) the shortest I'll usually go with my crop sensor camera is a 50mm (75mm equiv) and I might use anything up from that - 70(105), 90(135), etc.

[wendellt]

hi

yea full frame doesn't offer much

it just allows for better iso handling seen in the d700 and d3 +

but DX is fine i use the d700 for press stuff abit slow on the focus compared to a d700 but freaking good regardless
also when the focus is slower you just think more and anticipate the shot
for its price range its like a mini d3 but just slower

i think the replacement for the d7000 is a long way off so for a cheap interim investment the d7000 could be your best bet

or the canon 5D mark 2 more megapixels good camera my assistant marcus uses one and its comparable quality to my d3

[bigsarg7]

Funny you say that wendell

canon 5D mark 2 more megapixels good camera

its actually one that I like quite a bit, but don't know if I want to do the whole nikon swapt to canon as i love nikon's so much! Might have to do some research as to the price of the 5D II, and the lenses......if i am ever going to swap it'd be the better time to do it before I begin to collect more Nikkor Lenses over the next year....... considering I only have the d200, MBd200, sb800 flash and 50mm f1.8 and my tamron.... So not a huge ammount to swap on over......mmmm could consider it quite seriously!

Surely when Canon release the 5d III it wouldn't be a huge difference to the mark 2 would it?

Just did some figures, if i did purchase the d700 and the 24-70mm Nikkor f/2.8 it would cost around $4350 approx , But if I were to buy the 5dII, the 24-70mm 2.8L, 50mm 1.8II and a speedlite it would cost $4529 approx, So it would weigh up to be the same outcome, now my question to the ever so wise, if you were in my situation would you end up upgrading to the d700 now (or waiting until its upgrade decides to arrive) or going for the 5dII or once again waiting for its upgrade...... There are obvious cons about swapping to canon, for example having to get used to a whole new system etc and there are only 9 points AF on the 5dII compared to the 51 on the D700, 12 Megapixels on nikon to the 21 on the canon....... so each con is out weighed with a pro, but this makes it an interesting comparison. So please your thoughts on these issues and what you think the upgraded versions will offer and will the upgraded versions make the choice easier or harder for the consumer to choose between them?

[ATJ]

So please your thoughts on these issues and what you think the upgraded versions will offer and will the upgraded versions make the choice easier or harder for the consumer to choose between them?

My thoughts are as follows...

You should think seriously about the shooting you do now with the D200. How is the camera limiting your ability to take the sort of shots you want to take (if it is limiting at all)? Do you need to shoot at a higher ISO without compromising picture quality? Do you need more pixels to manipulate because you want to make large prints or you find you need to crop a lot (note that the latter might mean you need longer lenses, etc.)? Do you need more AF focus points? There may be other things you feel are limiting your abilities.

Once you have a list of these limitations, you can then look at the various cameras out there and see which one is going to best overcome the limitations. If you don't have any limitations, you don't need to replace the camera. If none of the cameras overcome the limitations, you may need to wait longer.

New models will almost certainly make the decision harder as there will be more cameras that can overcome your limitations.

One final point on considering switching to Canon: Have you used a Canon before? Do you think you could cope/adjust the the completely different ergonomics? Note I'm not saying one system has better ergonomics than the other but just they are different - vastly different. Not only will you need to adjust, you might find it unusable.

[surenj]

Surely when Canon release the 5d III it wouldn't be a huge difference to the mark 2 would it?

Cathy, yes. Apparently 28 Mpix, will probably be noisy at ISO 400...

[Aussie Dave]

......Once you have a list of these limitations, you can then look at the various cameras out there and see which one is going to best overcome the limitations.....

Probably the best advice thus far in this thread.

It would be interesting to know what in the D200 is limiting you at the moment and/or what features you'd like to obtain - or dare I say NEED (eg. more resolution, better AF, better ISO abilities, more fps continuous shooting, FX vs DX, etc)...

Dave

[aim54x]

Surely when Canon release the 5d III it wouldn't be a huge difference to the mark 2 would it?

Cathy, yes. Apparently 28 Mpix, will probably be noisy at ISO 400...

 ROFL and coming from a Canon user!

[bigsarg7]

Ok, well as a list of limitations i feel i have with the d200, this is what i've come up with:

only 10 megapixels -i'd like to do more enlargements of my work, currently I find the d200 ok but once i get my studio up and going i'd like to do larger prints etc.
Better focus systems - eg more focus points the better and better auto focus as i find the my current d200 not to be as good as i'd like. - I tend to manually focus nowdays just coz i find even with my dodgy eyes its sharper then the auto focus system (most of the time, not always)
I notice the ISO change at around 800 and I find if i go any further it gets too grainy for me to do what i want to do with it. So the better ISO would be a bonus.
As mentioned the FX sensor would be a bonus, but i guess not essential.
I find the eye cup too small (can't say for sure it'd be better on the d700 or 5dII) So live mode could help aid me in this area in low light where I find my eyes struggle all the more.


Not a massive list - actually i wouldn't call it a list but kind of a brief outline of what i feel my limitations are at the moment. It could be an experience issue rather then camera issues, or a bit of both. Local stores keep throwing new gear at me and saying it would aid me but simply put I just don't trust them. So yeah, but i am not looking at doing anything for probably the next 6 or so months, so who knows news on upgrades could be out by then! I guess we'll wait to hear from Nikon about whats happening with their future cameras and glass and the same with Canon.

Thanks everyone, i do truly appreciate everyones input and questions to me, helping aid me in something that to me is a big decision as I try make the next step with my photography. Once I finish my photography course I hope to look back on this and be able to laugh at my silly little comments and questions and know the answers for myself!

[Mr Darcy]

only 10 megapixels -i'd like to do more enlargements of my work, currently I find the d200 ok but once i get my studio up and going i'd like to do larger prints etc.

Not quite sure how big you intend to go. I have a D200, and have one print on A2, and another that is 1.8m long. Those that have seen it don't think it is too large for the resolution. I will admit the latter is a stitched panorama. But also consider that LARGE prints are invariably designed to be viewed from a distance. A slight loss of detail is usually neither here nor there. Also keep in mind that to be twice as good as the D200, the Mp count needs to be 4X. i.e. you won't see a huge improvement on anything less than a 40Mp sensor, and then you will be killed by noise. It is no accident that Nikon did not up the megapixel count when moving to FX.

Better focus systems - eg more focus points the better and better auto focus as i find the my current d200 not to be as good as i'd like. - I tend to manually focus nowdays just coz i find even with my dodgy eyes its sharper then the auto focus system (most of the time, not always)

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that all AF cameras will let you down now and again. Full frame is better than DX, but the current crop of DX are better than the D200. Also remember that the lens plays a big part in AF too. My 85 1.4 snaps into focus much more readily than the 18-200, despite the former being an old screwdriver focus lens.

I notice the ISO change at around 800 and I find if i go any further it gets too grainy for me to do what i want to do with it. So the better ISO would be a bonus.

Yep. That irks me too. If you want to shoot by the light of a single candle, then the D700 is the way to go. It is by far the best out there. If you just want normal indoors, then the D7000 & D300 are way better than the D200

As mentioned the FX sensor would be a bonus, but i guess not essential.

Why? If you usually shoot wide, then yes. If you shoot long, then DX is far superior. Look at what you are missing out on. Do you need/want it?

I find the eye cup too small (can't say for sure it'd be better on the d700 or 5dII) So live mode could help aid me in this area in low light where I find my eyes struggle all the more.

You will need to try them out for this one. It will be a very personal thing. Perhaps there will be a D700 or two at the winery. Failing that, you will need to visit a shop.

So yeah, but i am not looking at doing anything for probably the next 6 or so months

In which case, I would wait for six months & see what is available then.

[Wink]

Better focus systems - eg more focus points the better and better auto focus as i find the my current d200 not to be as good as i'd like.

Less is more in my (limited) experience.
My 7D has 19 points and I found it annoying. Now I've always got it set to the centre 5 which I can easily move each way if needed.

[bigsarg7]

Mr Darcy - I think your idea of getting my hands on a d700 is a great idea, but my local store has none so if not at the winery event maybe next time i'm in melbourne maybe. - I did have a look at a d700 at the PMA last year, but didn't really pay a huge amount of attention to the eye cup etc. I do tend to shoot wide more often then not unless in my portraits which i tend to shoot at equivelent of around 70mm. I am unsure if I want to go to another dx body but if i did the d300s would be the one i'd go for! don't like the feel of the d7000 - guess it is a personal thing afterall!

Wink - I prefer the more focus points as I don't tend to keep my subjects in the centre, they're always in different spots and with my current 11 all get good use and i'd probably like more as I often find theres never a focus point where I want one! but thats me, each of us is different I guess. Plus i heard and read that the 5dII may not have as many points but the focus points they have work exceptionally well on Auto Focus for excellent sharp results.....but i haven't heard that so much about the d700 and its auto focus.

ATJ - I've had fiddles with Older eos models and hated their menu and button figurations but I'd have to have a good look at the 5dII or the alike so see if I like the set up etc. Could wipe any possibility of getting a Canon all together! (yay says all the nikon fans!!)

[Murray Foote]

That's a better starting point to focus on.

(I started writing this before Greg's post above so the comment above is somewhat out of synch but the rest can stand).

Autofocus greatly improved from the D200 to the D300 and D3 (not that I've ever used a D200 or D300 but the point still stands). D300 might be better because the autofocus points cover the sensor though I've found autofocus to be very good on a D3 and D3s.

I find with my D3s I can usually shoot at 6400ISO without any need for noise reduction - provided the image is well exposed ("exposed to the right") because noise and shadows (or underexposed images) tend to like each other. The D3 is probably at 3200ISO for that and the D300 at 1600ISO ... but the D7000 is a new generation and maybe OK to 3200ISO (I'm not sure).

I suggest however that before you try to get a camera with the best possible low light sensitivity, you learn how to make the most of a noisy image. Lightroom is OK but there are better options, especially since noise reduction priorities may be dofferent in different parts of the images. Some areas you may want to retain as much detail as yu can, even at the expense of some noise, and others you may want to flatten. So I do most of my noise reduction in Photoshop because there is better control there. I use Neat image. Sometimes I use surface masks (from The Light's Right) to avoid sharening the contrast boundaries and when I was using a very noisy digicam i used to blur the colour layers in LAB and sharpen the luminosity.

I'm on FX because I like ultrawides and I shoot a lot of live music images in low light. DX can do the same things but not as well.

If you find the eye cup too small, for the D3 and D3s at least there are screw-in replacements that are a bit larger and give a slightly easier approach to a full view. There are probably equivalents for other models.

I'm sceptical about live view as an ocular substitute. It's place is mainly in landscape and macro, especially with mirror lockup on a D3s or D7000 which more easily allow that combination. Otherwise you need to at least use a monopod I suggest because you'll be holding the camera away from your body.

I wouldn't worry too much about new models that may come out. You never know when they're coming or what they may have. Your criteria are also an argument for Nikon rather than Canon. Nikon has better autofocus and still has a lead in high ISO. There will be new models from both later this year. Which ends up in front for a while is a matter for conjecture.

This post from Thom Hogan may be of use: http://www.bythom.com/blame.htm

[aim54x]

That is a good link Murray.

[bigsarg7]

Definately A good read, well i've been trying to do each of the steps in the past and will continue until I reach point #5. Hence why i'm not going out spending money right now but rather seeking the ever wonderful advice from fellow more experienced users! But definately a good read - and the reason why i've held onto my d200 for so long and for trying to get better quality lenses, which in all honesty has made a massive difference in the past! and no doubt will do in the future. Please don't get me wrong, i don't want to change to the latest technology simply becuase its the latest stuff, i was genuinely posting this main post as a good topic to discuss, and as you can tell there's been a lot of replies on it, I just happened to look into the gossip and some would say got sucked in by the hype and speculation! But currently my plan is to stick with my current gear, finish my course off and see where i am and what I need if anything at the end of it......but i do believe this topic would suit new users and members to the forum in the future.

[ATJ]

I find the eye cup too small (can't say for sure it'd be better on the d700 or 5dII)

Do you mean the size of the rubber eye cap is too small? If so, that's a user replaceable part and you can buy different eye cups. I had this problem with my D70 and bought a new one. When I moved to the D300 I moved the eye cup across. This is easy to fix without buying a new camera.

If you actually mean the size of the hole through which you look, this may be harder to fix, and may actually be worse on an FX camera than a DX camera. As the sensor is larger on the FX camera, the area you look at in the viewfinder is larger. I can notice this easily by swapping between my D300 and FE2. Now, if the hold through which you look is the same size on both cameras, it is more difficult to see the larger area on the FX camera. The only way you are going to be sure is testing the camera.

If you actually mean the size of the area you can see in the viewfinder, a FX will be bigger than a DX camera.

[dviv]

I find the eye cup too small (can't say for sure it'd be better on the d700 or 5dII)

Do you mean the size of the rubber eye cap is too small? If so, that's a user replaceable part and you can buy different eye cups. I had this problem with my D70 and bought a new one. When I moved to the D300 I moved the eye cup across. This is easy to fix without buying a new camera.

If you actually mean the size of the hole through which you look, this may be harder to fix, and may actually be worse on an FX camera than a DX camera. As the sensor is larger on the FX camera, the area you look at in the viewfinder is larger. I can notice this easily by swapping between my D300 and FE2. Now, if the hold through which you look is the same size on both cameras, it is more difficult to see the larger area on the FX camera. The only way you are going to be sure is testing the camera.

If you actually mean the size of the area you can see in the viewfinder, a FX will be bigger than a DX camera.

The other possibility you might be referring to is the viewfinder coverage. Some cameras don't have 100% coverage. This means that the frame you see on your PC is bigger than the one you saw through the viewfinder. It depends on the model and I'm not sure about Nikons, but my 7D has 100%, while my 60D has only 96%. Higher coverage also looks brighter (and therefore "bigger").

[bigsarg7]

ATJ- i've already got another eye piece for my d200 which improved it a lot, but I find the whole image is small, where I think the fx would be larger in size etc, not the actual hole but the image itself i find is too small - i think i've described that ok..... my glasses have helped a little but not as much as i'd hoped! and i hate wearing glasses while shooting, but as i only need them for shooting and don't need them all the time, contact lenses wouldn't work which is annoying! As DVIV said, i think i'll just have to have a good look when that time comes at whats available and if it helps or not.

[ATJ]

The D200 should have a diopter adjustment for the viewfinder. By changing this to suit your eyes, you should be able to avoid wearing glasses while shooting, This will mean you can get your eye much closer to the viewfinder.

[Matt. K]

Digital SLR technology has reached such a pinnacle of perfection that any improvements from now on will be relatively minor. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say......I've been a photographer since the 1960s and have used most camera types since then. Nikon F and F2. Nikkormat. Hasselblad. Mamiya RB67 and other models. Rollieflex 6 x 6 and Linhoff 5 x 4 sheet camera. All of these with a large variety of lenses. I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D300 and it's the finest image making SLR camera I have ever owned. What it loses on the roundabout, (resolution), it picks up on the swing, ( ease of use, high ISO performance, reliability). I know there are better Nikons and Canons available but I don't need them. Any future improvement in digital SLR technology is bound to be built around small increments or added value gimmicks such as video, internet connectivity, inbuilt telephone or microwave stove or such.
Here's my wish list for future improvements in Nikon cameras:

1. A little thumb-wheel on the back with indentations for 1/3rd stop exposure adjustments. Something I can get to fast and without looking for, without having to hold a second button down. A large indent for 0 so I can feel my way in the dark.

2. A much bigger, brighter viewfinder so I can use manual focus lenses with more accuracy.

3. The option of switching to 50+ megapixels for landscape or other fine detail imagery.

4. Just another 2 stops of dynamic range.

That's all I ask for and I probably won't upgrade my D300 until my dream machine comes along.

[aim54x]

Classic Matt K!!!

I like your ideas....but think of the noise of a 50MP chip! I also suspect it is past the resolving limit of even a FX chip as well

[Mr Darcy]

Digital SLR technology has reached such a pinnacle of perfection that any improvements from now on will be relatively minor

I seem to recall Henry Ford saying something similar about cars. Oh and Lord Kelvin about physics

I like your ideas....but think of the noise of a 50MP chip! I also suspect it is past the resolving limit of even a FX chip as well

He forgot to mention #5... being able to shoot noise free by the light of a single, distant candle

[Remorhaz]

He forgot to mention #5... being able to shoot noise free by the light of a single, distant candle

What - a candle!!! - by just the light of just one very distant star please

[Aussie Dave]

I agree. I don't think digital SLR's can go that much further anymore and already give so much to a photographer that knows how to make the most of the camera.

Two areas I see improving are storage (inc. transfer of files) and battery life.

I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing dSLR's coming with on-board SSD chips (with perhaps the option to backup onto SD card or the like, or better wireless connection to PC for those doing studio work) ?

With rising megapixels and bit depth comes with it larger files which need to be transferred off of the memory card to PC. SSD would be significantly faster in transferring files (with the aid of an eSATA port, or perhaps even Intel's LightPeak should this get off the ground).
Although there would be cons to having in-built storage, there would also be pros and if implemented correctly could become a huge advantage (just look at the camcorder sector of today - who wants to use tapes or discs anymore ?).

Battery life is always something that is ever improving and I guess getting more shots out of each charge is one thing but battery weight & size along with re-charging times could all be improved even further which would make life better for the average photog.

Stripped back, things like virtual horizons, live histograms, B&W/Sepia and many of the other in-camera processing extras are nice to have but a photog worth his (or her) weight doesn't need any of it to create wonderful photos.
The photographer is still THE most important and influencial part of the entire process....in which Nikon, Canon or any of the others can "improve".

Dave

[muzz]

Plenty of speculation goes on around here: http://nikonrumors.com/

[Bluey]

I dont know about everyone else but for me its good that Nikon is releasing new models.
I see that as a positive for me because I certainly wouldnt mind having a superseeded D700.
All I have to do is decide if I want a 4th Nikon body in my bag - having three bodies using the same batteries would be nice, and all bar two lens's are FX compatable