YAWN... back to sleep for me

[SP77]

I was looking forward to these product announcements, but....

D3000: I was hoping Nikon would shove the 12MP CMOS in here with the same high ISO performance as the D90, but instead they've recycled the 10MP CCD which I've already got in my D200. No 1/500s flash sync either, so I guess I'll be sticking with my D40 for anything serious over iso 1600, or just get a D90 when the prices come down.

D300s: Nice, and the leaked specs were dead-on, but $1799? A few hundred more buys a D700.

18-200 VR MkII: You've really got to be kidding me, and an MSRP of $849?? I guess Nikon saw what these things were selling for on eBay between 2006-2007 and wanted a piece of the action, except that was not just "so last year" but rather TWO years ago! Come on, Nikon. Wow a zoom lock feature, which should have been on the original model to begin with, and then jacking the price up nearly $200?

70-200VR II: $2399, LMAO. Boy am I glad I got my now old "Mk I" version for a whole $1599 not even a year ago. I'm sorry but the dollar has not slid a full 50% against the yen to justify this. It's actually been rebounding some lately! And while the new lens is improved, I still don't think it's going to satisfy the brick wall shooters based on your posted MTF charts. You're just trying to capitalize on momentum toward the Nikon brand from Canon and milking it for all its worth where you can, but this is just plain arrogant and greedy. I hope it doesn't come back and bite you in the a$$. :smile:

And yes, a 24/28mm f/1.4 AF-S, where's that at? The D3000 is a D60 + more junk. The D300s is a D300 + more junk. The 18-200 already existed. The 70-200VR already existed. The 24/28 f/1.4 AF-S prime doesn't, nor does a fast focusing AF-S 85, 105, 135, etc.

As for me, I think I'm finally going to pickup a Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS on rebate for less than $500, along with a cheaper Canon DSLR body to go with it and start dual-shooting. I love my 70-200VR, but it's too big and heavy to want to carry around all the time with two young children, and the 70-300VR isn't fast enough. I'm tired of waiting and my kids aren't getting any younger. Maybe I'll even be able to sell my 70-200VR for a profit with the absurd prices your asking for the new one if I find that it's sitting around way too much to let it keep sitting. I might even use money sold from that to finance some more "C" glass if I find I like it. Remember what I said about things coming back around and biting you in the a$$? People generally recognize Nikon as having a bit higher quality products than their primary competitor, but believe me, there IS a limit.

 

[neimac]

While I don't don't have much desire to go with Canon, these prices do have a way of making you wake up and look at them as a possibility. Right now I just wished one of the third party lens makers would wake up and put out a real comp. to the 70-200VR. If Tamron would put in a better focus motor and VC I would jump on that.

 

[jonshonda]

I am wondering if I should get rid of mine now, and replace it with a 16-85 before the value goes down!!

 

[sylvesterii]

I guess I am the only one who is very excited about the D300s release. I would buy it in a heartbeat if I had the expendable cash. $500.00 is quite a bit more than a "couple hundred bucks." It is about 30%. You can buy a lot with $500.00 not the least of which is the 35/ 1.8 AND an SB-600 and a good circular polarizer for the 35/1.8 if you didn't have one yet.

No movie on the D700 is a non-starter for me. After playing with a friend's D90, I will never buy a DSLR without it in the future.

Have fun with your f/4 zoom. personally I don't see the point, but that's just me.

 

[dL302]

D300s is exciting, but sounds like a gimmick mid-step kinda like the D60 just to fill the market temporarily before a big launch is coming up.

I sense a D400 will be coming out next year which in turn makes me feel like a D300s isn't really a worthy upgrade. It's kind of like buying the last year model of a car with upgraded features but next year there'll be a totally new design with much more bells and whistles.

Of course, if you don't have a D300 currently and have the money to get the D300s, I'd say go for it. You can always sell it.

As for D3000, despite using the old 10MP CCD sensor, you have to realize that Nikon isn't going to spend R&D on a new sensor JUST for a cheap product like D3000. They already have production on the D60/80/200 sensor, so why not keep the same and push other features to improve overall image quality via accurate metering, exposure and colour rendition? They could have also tweaked ISO performance as well on the D3000 which I think they have.

Remember, if they put a D90 sensor on the D3000 it's gonna be really sweet, but it's going to make D5000 very unattractive and it's going to hurt the D90 quite a bit as people who don't really care about advanced functions will immediately jump to D3000. D3000 sales will skyrocket but the D5000 and D90 will be niche.

Right now the consumer lineup is excellent in a business perspective:

Entry level with no video? D3000.
Entry level with video and better ISO? D5000.
Immediate level with more controls, video and better ISO? D90.

What I do think the D3000 lacked imo to compete is a Live View. That would have sealed the deal.

dL

 

[Lurker]

First of all MSRP's are a joke. You should not compare the MSRP's of new products against the street prices of existing products. Compare against the MSRP's of existing products and story changes considerable.

Second of all, why would Nikon introduce an entry-level camera with their TOTL CMOS censor? They already have the D5000. They need a cheap entry model with a price as low as possible and keep the D5000 attractive as well. I think it is impressive that that they managed to develop a model in 2006 (D40) that not only manages to survive in an extremely volatile market with minimal changes (I don't think the sensor upgrade was a big change), but thrives as well - even if it's just at the bottom of the market.

Finally, two lenses and two bodies - there have been times were we'd kill for a "big" announcement like that even when it's "just" upgrades. Not every announcement can eclipse the impact of the D3/D300 intro... :smile:

 

[vinman]

I agree with the notion that a D300s is a "mid-grade" instead of an upgrade - depending on any tangible improvements in AF aquisition and speed. Otherwise, it gives you video capability. That alone makes it an interesting contender if you need or want the feature. Frankly, I'd like to keep a DX body in my bag, but considering how little my D200 is worth, and the liklihood of a D700 supplement coming, I'll wait for a D400 (possibly). I'm just hoping for a hi res, video capable companion for my D700...

As far as the 70-200, aside from the higher than hoped for MSRP (and Bart's right - that's not really what they'll sell for once the market starts getting them), this is a step Nikon needed to take. Whether or not you agree there have been issues with this lens, there has been enough cases documented that it needed to be addressed. Keep in mind, we may all rather see Nikon update other lenses and bring some back, but the 70-200 is probably their most used, most popular, and most desired workhorse lens. They've had this FX vignette gorilla in the room since the D3 came out. Now hopefully they can get us the lenses WE want rather than addressing a marketing problem. Rmember, as a business, the bottom line often comes before the ideal. In the past, Nikon's done a pretty good job of addressing both.

I'm just glad to see more product evolution. The more rounded Nikon keeps their line up and sales climb, the more funding they will have available for r/d which translates into better products and more options for us...

 

[McGunnigle]

I agree with the notion that a D300s is a "mid-grade" instead of an upgrade - depending on any tangible improvements in AF aquisition and speed. Otherwise, it gives you video capability. That alone makes it an interesting contender if you need or want the feature. Frankly, I'd like to keep a DX body in my bag, but considering how little my D200 is worth, and the liklihood of a D700 supplement coming, I'll wait for a D400 (possibly). I'm just hoping for a hi res, video capable companion for my D700...

As far as the 70-200, aside from the higher than hoped for MSRP (and Bart's right - that's not really what they'll sell for once the market starts getting them), this is a step Nikon needed to take. Whether or not you agree there have been issues with this lens, there has been enough cases documented that it needed to be addressed. Keep in mind, we may all rather see Nikon update other lenses and bring some back, but the 70-200 is probably their most used, most popular, and most desired workhorse lens. They've had this FX vignette gorilla in the room since the D3 came out. Now hopefully they can get us the lenses WE want rather than addressing a marketing problem. Rmember, as a business, the bottom line often comes before the ideal. In the past, Nikon's done a pretty good job of addressing both.

I'm just glad to see more product evolution. The more rounded Nikon keeps their line up and sales climb, the more funding they will have available for r/d which translates into better products and more options for us...

Well put... completely agree with that last comment

 

[luke_28]

Thom Hogan stated that Nikon reduced the dealer margin on the D300s by 3%. When Nikon is doing this to the dealers, they have less room to bring the price down on their products. It is unfortunate that Nikon is squeezing the dealers this way.

 

[goffer]

And yes, a 24/28mm f/1.4 AF-S, where's that at ... The 24/28 f/1.4 AF-S prime doesn't, nor does a fast focusing AF-S 85, 105, 135, etc.

Ive been saying the same

 

[Fort Photo]

I could sure go for an AFS 300F4 with VRII or an updated 80-400, perhaps this fall?

 

[SP77]

As for D3000, despite using the old 10MP CCD sensor, you have to realize that Nikon isn't going to spend R&D on a new sensor JUST for a cheap product like D3000. They already have production on the D60/80/200 sensor, so why not keep the same and push other features to improve overall image quality via accurate metering, exposure and colour rendition? They could have also tweaked ISO performance as well on the D3000 which I think they have.

Remember, if they put a D90 sensor on the D3000 it's gonna be really sweet, but it's going to make D5000 very unattractive and it's going to hurt the D90 quite a bit as people who don't really care about advanced functions will immediately jump to D3000. D3000 sales will skyrocket but the D5000 and D90 will be niche.

Right now the consumer lineup is excellent in a business perspective

I agree with you. It does make good business sense. :smile:

But on the metering, sometimes I think Nikon intentionally makes the metering on the D90 and lower cameras all screwy just to annoy the pros and other people that know what they're doing just enough to force them into the higher level bodies. That's not product improvement, it's called intentionally crippling or handicapping something. If I hadn't scored a deal on a D200 I'd probably still be snapping away on my F100 which is never off.

They didn't need to create a whole new sensor for the D3000, I was just hoping they'd continue to trickle down the 12MP CMOS all the way to base end level. 10MP CCD makes sense though since it's probably still cheaper to produce. Although they could have still put the 12MP CMOS in and then crippled the firmware to limit it to only ISO 3200 when the D5000 does 6400. That's another way to cripple things, via intentional firmware limits. I doubt the 10MP CCD high ISO is improved. It wasn't on either the D40x nor on the D60 as far as I could tell, and improving it would be more R&D effort.

 

[SP77]

First of all MSRP's are a joke. You should not compare the MSRP's of new products against the street prices of existing products. Compare against the MSRP's of existing products and story changes considerable.

Per Thom Hogan's site, the 70-200VRI was $1895 MSRP when it came out so maybe you're right. Still, 2399 is nuts!

But then...

Thom Hogan stated that Nikon reduced the dealer margin on the D300s by 3%. When Nikon is doing this to the dealers, they have less room to bring the price down on their products. It is unfortunate that Nikon is squeezing the dealers this way.

So the dealers have less margin drop prices with. Doubtful these things will ever sell below $2000, which is still nuts. Maybe with a sea change in the yen to dollar ratio. Are the good times over?

Glad I bought the 70-200vrI last year when I could actually barely afford it x 10^23. :frown:

Finally, two lenses and two bodies - there have been times were we'd kill for a "big" announcement like that even when it's "just" upgrades. Not every announcement can eclipse the impact of the D3/D300 intro... :smile:

Fair enough, but there's been plenty of people clamoring for things around here for a long time now, like fast wide primes and fast focusing long primes, updated 80-400, "new" f/4 zooms, etc. Does Nikon not even care about these people or these sectors of the market which is why they're coming out with reinventions of old products instead? Nikon is not enticing me to buy more of their products. They're enticing me instead to look at Canon. :Curved:

I bet the REAL motivation for updating the 70-200 is because they were still losing money on selling the old one at full MSRP with the dollar sliding and needed an update to really justify doing a full reset on the MSRP up to profitable levels again. :Curved:

 

[Max Power]

Nikon is not enticing me to buy more of their products. They're enticing me instead to look at Canon. :Curved:

No offense, but it wasn't that long ago that you were taking great pictures with a D40 and telling people that they had gear envy...LOL! :Love:

You don't have to go to Canon. You will be fine.

 

[SP77]

I guess I am the only one who is very excited about the D300s release. I would buy it in a heartbeat if I had the expendable cash. $500.00 is quite a bit more than a "couple hundred bucks." It is about 30%. You can buy a lot with $500.00 not the least of which is the 35/ 1.8 AND an SB-600 and a good circular polarizer for the 35/1.8 if you didn't have one yet.

No movie on the D700 is a non-starter for me. After playing with a friend's D90, I will never buy a DSLR without it in the future.

Have fun with your f/4 zoom. personally I don't see the point, but that's just me.

It's quite simple on the f/4 stuff.

The f/2.8s are heavy tanks that really aren't appropriate for chasing young children around, and the alternative is an f/5.6 (70-300vr) which is too slow to keep up with them once the light starts fading, and doesn't have the build quality to withstand a serious hit if you accidentally knock it around. f/4 is perfect, and the Canon 70-200 is no heavier than the Nikon 70-300vr is while also having a professional build quality to take some abuse. The Canon 70-200/4's are so good and so cheap that even Sigma and Tamron haven't bothered to make a competitor to it. Why bother?

The insane pricing on the new 70-200VRII is more reason than ever for Nikon to come out with a mid-level f/4 lens. Sure they've got the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D at $1100, but that's still in the 'heavy tank' class, and doesn't even focus on the majority of bodies that Nikon is selling these days.

If you've got a lower end body without the internal focusing motor and need a telephoto zoom faster than an f/5.6, there is NO option in Nikon's lineup at the moment other than spending $2400 on a 70-200VRII. Meanwhile the Canon 70-200/4 lenses work just fine on even the cheapest Canon bodies for $500 and will give most people all the speed and performance they care to buy. That's pretty absurd if you ask me.

 

[SP77]

No offense, but it wasn't that long ago that you were taking great pictures with a D40 and telling people that they had gear envy...LOL! :Love:

You don't have to go to Canon. You will be fine.

I think you've got that backwards, but okay.

 

[TristanCardew]

Total disappointment here. The D300s is ridiculous. 24 months later they add video to the D300. Excellent...

Bring on the D4...

 

[ShaunK]

I was looking forward to these product announcements, but....

D3000: I was hoping Nikon would shove the 12MP CMOS in here with the same high ISO performance as the D90, but instead they've recycled the 10MP CCD which I've already got in my D200. No 1/500s flash sync either, so I guess I'll be sticking with my D40 for anything serious over iso 1600, or just get a D90 when the prices come down.

D300s: Nice, and the leaked specs were dead-on, but $1799? A few hundred more buys a D700.

The D3000 is a D60 + more junk. The D300s is a D300 + more junk. The 18-200 already existed. The 70-200VR already existed. The 24/28 f/1.4 AF-S prime doesn't, nor does a fast focusing AF-S 85, 105, 135, etc.

D2H>D2Hs
D70>D70s
D2X>D2Xs
D40>D40x
D300>D300s

It's not like this hasn't been a pattern for Nikon in the past. No, they don't do it with every model, but certainly some of the more popular ones, they will take and "upgrade" after so long. Maybe to entice the would-be-buyers with a little more... maybe to keep the constant-upgraders happy. Who knows. It seems to work for them. Be patient. I'm still shooting my 5 yr. old D70s waiting for a camera that will please me to come around (actually, the D700 is it, but since I can't afford it now anyways, I'll wait for the D--- with video! :wink As to the lenses, well, I agree with you there!!!

 

[drichi]

Cool. Don't have to see the Nikon world go nuts over a "new" model with reports of folks being "blown out of the water" (picture that) by the new D307.5x. Ain't much gonna entice me to pay another 2,000 bucks for a computer which will be obsolete in a year or two until there are truly significant upgrades.

Maybe the days of annual new camera horniness are over?

 

[Paul Dunlop]

It's quite simple on the f/4 stuff.

The f/2.8s are heavy tanks that really aren't appropriate for chasing young children around, and the alternative is an f/5.6 (70-300vr) which is too slow to keep up with them once the light starts fading, and doesn't have the build quality to withstand a serious hit if you accidentally knock it around. f/4 is perfect, and the Canon 70-200 is no heavier than the Nikon 70-300vr is while also having a professional build quality to take some abuse. The Canon 70-200/4's are so good and so cheap that even Sigma and Tamron haven't bothered to make a competitor to it. Why bother?

The insane pricing on the new 70-200VRII is more reason than ever for Nikon to come out with a mid-level f/4 lens. Sure they've got the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D at $1100, but that's still in the 'heavy tank' class, and doesn't even focus on the majority of bodies that Nikon is selling these days.

If you've got a lower end body without the internal focusing motor and need a telephoto zoom faster than an f/5.6, there is NO option in Nikon's lineup at the moment other than spending $2400 on a 70-200VRII. Meanwhile the Canon 70-200/4 lenses work just fine on even the cheapest Canon bodies for $500 and will give most people all the speed and performance they care to buy. That's pretty absurd if you ask me.

Totally agree - an f4 line would be great - I think the Nikon 300f4 has done very well, since it is smaller and cheaper than the Nikon 300f2.8 VR

24-70 f4 , 90 f4 or 100 f4 - 70-200 f4 - 300 f4

That would be a sweet alternate lineup to the f2.8's