Underwhelming news from Nikon

[Harry Lavo]

Now that the announcements are out.....does anybody else think the improvements to the D300, 70-200, and 18-200 are underwhelming. All finesse points and no basic improvements?

Only the D3000 appears to be newsworthy, and that only because it upgrades an excellent but obsolete D40.

Just wondering......

 

[DangerKilo]

the general consensus from all the other threads is as follows...

"meh"

with the occasional
"YAAaaaawwwwnn"

and at least one

Does the s in D300s stand for silly?

daniel

 

[CharlesVincentPhotography]

repost. All of this is talked about in general discussion.

 

[C2020]

I agree, there is no reason to upgrade if you already own the D300, 18-200 or 70-200. but for non-upgrade buyers the equipment sounds good. I think it's even better news for those who won't mind used equipment because there are soon to be a large number of D300's and D90's on the market. The same goes with the lenses but probably not to the same degree.

The D3000 seems like a killer body. I'm recommending it to my brother as a great entry into digital SLR.

 

[SP77]

YAWN... back to sleep for me

Where are the fast wide primes?
Where are the fast-focusing AF-S short to medium tele primes?
Where is some f/4 pro-sumer glass?

Rather than dumping $2300 into a D700 that I don't really need, I think I'm going to get a Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS for $500, and then whatever cheap Canon DSLR body I can get used. I knew I'd start dual-shooting eventually. I really do "need" that 70-200/4, and since Nikon won't make any.... I'll have to get that beautiful lens and then plug my nose and see if I can't manage to operate a Canon body without giving myself carpal tunnel syndrome.

 

[OCIR]

What's next? VRX?!?!? How many times do you have to upgrade a stabilization and sell it for hundreds of dollars more???

 

[dL302]

Where are the fast wide primes?
Where are the fast-focusing AF-S short to medium tele primes?
Where is some f/4 pro-sumer glass?

October :wink: hopefully.

dL

 

[joey]

I think that it is great that Nikon continually improves products even if the ones they replace are still good. Isn't that what we all try to do, strive to do better. Might not mean a lot for owners of previous models but if I were to upgrade from a D90 to a d300 type of body, I'd surely take the new over the old one. Same thing w/ the 70-200 or the 18-200.
Good thing for the pre-owned market too. Lots of good old lenses to find at better prices.
It's a win-win situation for us consumers.
With the D3x, D3, D700 & D300s (and D700x in 3mths.), don't think there's any manufacturer with as great a camera line-up for the pro & amateur enthusiast. And no current competitor can match Nikons 14-24/24-70/70-200 trio. If the much sought after fast primes come out w/ the D700x (as Thom predicts), no pro system will be as desirable.
What's there to complain about? Well, the price (I guess)!!! Then again, top quality glass has always been expensive. Look at the Olympus pro-line of lenses. More expensive than Nikons. Not to mention, the Leicas and the zeiss'.

 

[gregDT]

I agree.

I'm glad that Nikon keep tweaking the product range (but more lenses please!) and utterly relieved that the D300s offers nothing I want or need. So I'll not be tearing myself up trying to justify buying a new camera when my existing D300 is only a year old.

Thank you Nikon :biggrin:

 

[joey]

I agree.

I'm glad that Nikon keep tweaking the product range (but more lenses please!) and utterly relieved that the D300s offers nothing I want or need. So I'll not be tearing myself up trying to justify buying a new camera when my existing D300 is only a year old.

Thank you Nikon :biggrin:

Same with me. The new 70-200 really makes me salivate but, for my use, I can't find anything wrong at all w/ my old 70-200. So, I can't justify buying a new one. Good thing, I'll just save up for a 24 or 35/1.4 afs when it gets announced in 3 mths.:biggrin:

 

[Big Daddy]

...

Only the D3000 appears to be newsworthy, and that only because it upgrades an excellent but obsolete D40. ...

I'm not even convinced I'd buy a D3000 over a D40 if I was in the market for a light second body.

Sure, that's not the primary market for the lens -- it's an entry-level dSLR and as such the new cam is probably better for newbies. More in-camera processing to produce nice photos straight out of camera. Bigger LCD, sensor cleaning, and the "more megapixels is better" marketing schtick.

But for someone like me, the in-camera processing doesn't matter as I shoot RAW. The D40's noise should be comparable and doesn't rely on image processing engine improvements to approximate the same high ISO performance. The D3000 has the the same old 10 megapixel sensor from the D80, D40x, and D60 -- just some more modern in-camera processing enhancements to extract more IQ out of it.

Then you've got the basic fact that with a cable or taping the pins, you can fire the D40 at 1/4000 and get full power out of the flash. Not everyone is interested in doing this but I am. And without that trick you can flash-sync to 1/500. The D3000 can't do any of these things with flash.

Anyone who thinks that the D40 will produce inferior photographs (given equivalent photography skills) to a D3000 will be pretty misinformed.

D40 obsolete? Hardly!

 

[joey]

YAWN... back to sleep for me

Where are the fast wide primes?

Coming, really soon:smile:

Where are the fast-focusing AF-S short to medium tele primes?


Just a few more months:smile:

Where is some f/4 pro-sumer glass?

Now, here you have reason for concern. Nikon way has been to make 3.5-4.5 or 5.6 lenses in the 24-120mm. range. I guess that is their preferred way of differentiating bet. their pro and prosumer lenses. The 70-300/ 3.5-5.6 seems like a really good lens for its price. It's not f4 though. If that's important for you, go canon. Nothing wrong w/ that. It's just a brand anyway.

 

[pforsell]

I hope Nikon will not spend their already limited R&D funds to make constant f/4 lenses. At least not before the greatly lacking prime lineup has been updated. 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 105/1.8 are missing completely, the 16/2.8 fisheye is BAD on FX when compared to the excellent 10.5/2.8 on DX.

85/1.4 and 135/2 would be great indoors sports lenses with fast AFS (or even VR), but touching the optical formula is a two-edged sword. 300/4 would benefit from VR too, but if that means worse image quality or longer MFD, I'd say better to leave it alone too.

 

[PB_James]

Where is some f/4 pro-sumer glass?

Rather than dumping $2300 into a D700 that I don't really need, I think I'm going to get a Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS for $500, and then whatever cheap Canon DSLR body I can get used. I knew I'd start dual-shooting eventually. I really do "need" that 70-200/4, and since Nikon won't make any.... I'll have to get that beautiful lens and then plug my nose and see if I can't manage to operate a Canon body without giving myself carpal tunnel syndrome.

But, has Nikon EVER made f/4 pro-sumer glass? I can only think of the 12-24.

If you go by Thom's way of thinking about Nikon's conservative design and engineering processes, they're not likely to. For a very long time they've made statement professional grade products, great bang-for-the-buck entry-level products, and a few more "upscale" entry-level products which are usually still in the form of f/3.5-4.5 lenses at best.

Not that it wouldn't be nice if Nikon differentiated their entry-level and mid-level gear a bit more by going with f/4 constant for their mid-level lenses, but I just don't see it happening.

I'm sure we'll probably see a reworking of the primes in the form of the 35/1.8 and 50/1.4 in the near future. Sadly, that means the AF-S lenses everyone is clamoring for will likely end up being slower to focus than the screw-drive lenses they replace.

 

[joey]

I hope Nikon will not spend their already limited R&D funds to make constant f/4 lenses. At least not before the greatly lacking prime lineup has been updated. 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 105/1.8 are missing completely, the 16/2.8 fisheye is BAD on FX when compared to the excellent 10.5/2.8 on DX.

85/1.4 and 135/2 would be great indoors sports lenses with fast AFS (or even VR), but touching the optical formula is a two-edged sword. 300/4 would benefit from VR too, but if that means worse image quality or longer MFD, I'd say better to leave it alone too.

I agree. Need the afs fast primes out. 24/35/85/135. The new 50 is done. Good one too, I must add. Don't forget the nano-magic:smile:

 

[Harry Lavo]

<snip>

D40 obsolete? Hardly!

Obsolete in a technical sense, yes. I didn't say "bad". I gave my D50 to my daughter and wish I hadn't....I may still buy another....partly for the reasons you mention and partly because I own few AF-S lenses and the D50 was a great walkaround.

But I won't defend it as not being technically obsolete.

 

[Harry Lavo]

I hope Nikon will not spend their already limited R&D funds to make constant f/4 lenses. At least not before the greatly lacking prime lineup has been updated. 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 105/1.8 are missing completely, the 16/2.8 fisheye is BAD on FX when compared to the excellent 10.5/2.8 on DX.

85/1.4 and 135/2 would be great indoors sports lenses with fast AFS (or even VR), but touching the optical formula is a two-edged sword. 300/4 would benefit from VR too, but if that means worse image quality or longer MFD, I'd say better to leave it alone too.

Peter, my guess is you will never again see that lineup of f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. Why? Because the high iso performance of the full sensor bodies simply doesn't require that level of performance for good low-light pictures, and that glass is expensive and difficult. One or two for portraits and good bokeh, sure....but across the board? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Leif]

70-200mm : The old one was not up to scratch for some uses due to corner softness. I think the lens sells a lot so this is an important release.
D300: They kept the 12MP rather than go the more is less route of Canon. And they added some tweaks to keep it competitive. Good move. The virtual horizon is small beer but useful for some. Video will help sales IMO.
18-200mm : Some say the old one had too many warranty issues which cost Nikon money.
D3000 : Consumer camera, no idea.

I think if Nikon solved the global warming crisis, resolved all territorial conflicts around the world, and cured all known diseases, some people would be asking "Is that it?".

 

[e_No]

Now that the announcements are out.....does anybody else think the improvements to the D300, 70-200, and 18-200 are underwhelming. All finesse points and no basic improvements?

Only the D3000 appears to be newsworthy, and that only because it upgrades an excellent but obsolete D40.

Actually, from my POV, the D3000 is the most underwhelming of the announcements, essentially an upgrade to the D60 (same 10mp sensor), and not much more exciting than when the D60 "upgraded" the D40x.

But I have been scratching my head, in particular with regards to the D300s. I'm actually tempted to replace my D80 with it so that my D90 has a big brother, but I don't know... I'm not sure. I am also wondering about Nikon's strategy here, much like you are, making minor tweaks while leaving the basic sensor the same. Are they being cautious about the economy? About not jumping to 15mp like Canon before the technology warrants it? Working on an improved 12mp sensor with better IQ (unlikely)? After a glorious 2 years for the D300, I was expecting a D400 -- though not now, maybe in 2-6 months. Now... I'm puzzled.

 

[Dez Santana]

I agree. If you already own a D300, it's not compelling enough to switch but if you were on the fence and were shopping for a D300, the D300s looks attractive and should be the next best Nikon DX camera in the market.

As a D300 owner, I will wait on the next upgrade.