One year with the Nikon D7200

It's been one year since I bought the Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.  It has been a very rough journey learning to get the best of it, even though I've used a number of SLRs and dSLRs and other cameras over the last 40 years.

Back in 2004, I made the jump to a digital SLR, looking at Nikon, Canon, and Pentax ahead of buying an Olympus E-1.  I weighed a great many factors and chose an all-digital system without a legacy.  The images that came from it are still quite wonderful and the body worked nearly like an extension of my arms.  I've yet to find another camera body that feels so right.

By 2007, the Nikon D300 arrived and I was re-thinking a lot of things.  I was fairly invested at this point and declined to jump to Nikon.  When Olympus brought forth the E-3, I was unhappy that it was two years late and two years behind the rest of the market.  In late 2011, I bought the Olympus E-5.  By then, the D300 was older and the E-5 used my equipment quite well, with a fairly modern sensor.  Had there been a D400 at the time, I probably would have jumped ship.

Not quite four years later, I bought the D7200, still waiting on a true D300 replacement, with the well-regarded Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.

I have struggled with the camera body and still struggle with it now.  The last Nikon I used to any larger extent was the F2 film body.  When I recently talked to a Nikon representative, he hinted at the inconsistent nature of the company's interface since they started with dSLRs.

The rear of the body is an ergonomic mess.  The left-side column of five buttons is difficult to use without looking carefully at the buttons.  The button at the bottom, a stylized "i" seems to be for information, but across the rear display is a button marked "info".  Is this confusing?

Sadly, the menus are even more confusing.  They're possibly as bad as the Olympus menus, but at least, Olympus has the interactive Super Control Panel.  Nikon gives me the Informational Panel that is not interactive.  Auto Focus was extremely interesting, due to its reliance on both menu selections and the AF controls to the bottom left of the lens mount.

Thankfully, major functions in the form of four buttons replaced the mode dial on the left shoulder: Quality, Metering, White Balance, and Mode.  The first three are better there than as some sub-functions on those 5 left-hand buttons on the rear of the body.  They can easily be found by position on the D500.

When I first gave up the mode dial with the E-5, I thought that it was the stupidest thing I'd ever seen.  The E-5 relies greatly on the top display, as do the D300 and D500.  Years later, the top display works just fine, thankfully.  Even the top display of the E-1 is still working well.

Well, in a twist, due to my heart defect, I've given away all of the Nikon-related equipment.  Someone else with only Nikon equipment will make the best of the D7200, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, and Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 lenses.

Using the Olympus E-5 as an E-M1 substitute

I've been using Olympus equipment since 1990.  It always felt like the best combination of technologies came together.

I bought a couple of the early Olympus digital cameras and wasn't incredibly happy.  They worked but the time just wasn't right.  When I bought the E-1 in April 2004, nothing else felt right or seemed to produce the right photos, especially the Nikon and Canon alternatives in the price range.  I was annoyed about the 4:3 ratio that Olympus chose, but that mimicked 6x4.5 format cameras and I understood that.  It just didn't make sense to people using 3:2 ratio film.  Kodak may have been instrumental in pushing the shape, as they were in shaping Medium Format digital sensors.

I finally added the E-5 in 2011.  It wasn't the quantum leap forward I had hoped.  It seemed more like the Nikon D300 from 2007, instead of a body introduced in 2010.  It was better than the E-1 but not what I was hoping.  It worked better in so many ways but as I've already mentioned, it felt like a body from 2007.

Later, in 2012, I bought a Panasonic GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  It was somewhat better in lower light, with very good AF functionality down to EV -3 and later EV -4.  The ISO sensitivity seemed better but I suspect that the numbers weren't as accurate.

While waiting for the GH4 to replace it, I traded the GH3 for the E-M1.  I'd already used the E-M1 and it was better than okay, but didn't seem a replacement for the E-5, even though Olympus said that it was.

I've tried it with Four-Thirds lenses on occasion and stop fairly quickly.  It is more likely a easy way to re-use current components than to be a replacement for the E-5.  The size and the functionality is not oriented toward Four-Thirds equipment.  Having phase detect pixels was more a patch than a solution.

Yesterday, I wanted to photograph a graduation for a friend.  I brought the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which was my most-used lens.  I tried it with the E-M1 and this resulted in a lot of frustration.  It hunted and hunted and hunted.  I'd had more success with the E-M1 previously, and also with the GH4.  I retrieved my E-5 and it worked quite well.  So much for the E-M1's world's fastest AF--that doesn't apply to adapted lenses.  The E-5's predecessor was another with "world's fastest AF", but these things fade quickly, don't they?

75+ yards, not bad but dynamic range could be better

At the graduation, the E-5 was heavier but wonderful.  Sure, the older technology isn't quite as able to provide great photos I've been getting from newer sensors but getting the shot was important, especially from almost the other end of the football field, the 25 yard line.

I'm pleased to use the correct tool for the job.  Using equipment to advantage always helps.  It's just too bad we can't have a 16MP Sony sensor put into the E-5 to get the best of both worlds.

Nikon D500--no D400 coming

Nikon has just announced the successor to the D300s--the D500.

It has 3 times the auto focus points--153 and uses an Expeed 5-class processor to speed up things, up to ISO 51,200 sensitivity in the normal range, with a Hi5 setting equivalent to 1,640,000.

"Approx. 10 fps continuous shooting (up to 200 shots in 14-bit lossless compress RAW)" using XQD cards.

It has a sliding, touch-enabled rear display of 3.2 inches.

While it does Super35-compatible 4K video at 30p, it doesn't seem better than the Panasonic GH4 at this point, for video.  (Apparently, the D5 does fewer than 4 minutes of 4K video?)

It seems like a great stills camera body, though.  I wish they'd announced this in 2015, instead of the D7200.  At US$1999.95, it's $300 more than I would have expected but the new AF module and better processor are likely worth it.

As I have the D7200, I would like to think that my choice would have been more difficult between the D500 and D7200, especially if the D500 would have been available in April 2015, and at US$1699.95.

I have not found the D7200 enough of a breakthrough model for me, nor the move (for me) to APS-C to be more than marginally better than micro Four-Thirds, unfortunately.  I am pleased with the D7200 for wide work, but it is sufficient, not exceptional.  Perhaps, hopefully, the D500 is exceptional.

Oh, and if you're wondering why there is no D400, it would have arrived at the same time as the D4, but they supposedly couldn't give it enough of a difference to create such a flagship DX model.

Update 2016.06.27: You've probably seen plenty about the D500 by now.  It's quite tempting.  It should be since it securely replaces a model from 2007.  Although opinions differ, for me, it is the pinnacle of APS-C equipment, not the FujiFilm X-Pro 2.

I was quite amused that DxOMark used the Olympus E-30 as a model for comparison.  Was there someone at the company who held tight to the E-30?  Seeing the E-30 at 55 and the Panasonic GH4 at 74 shows how far micro Four-Thirds has come.  I'm not sure I believe a score of 83 for the D500 and 87 for the D7200 because the D7200 doesn't seem quite so wonderful and the newer Expeed 5 class processor along with a slightly lower resolution should give better, not worse results.  Then again, I don't really believe DxOMark numbers, except as a very general guide.

Update 2016.10.05: The more I think about the D500, I appreciate what it does, but wouldn't the Pentax K-1 do a better job, except for the speed?

Nikon has bought (a license to) Samsung's NX technology?

This is a strange rumor, which could explain Samsung's quick exit from several markets.

After years of producing half-baked, mediocre photographic equipment, Samsung has produced desirable equipment, precisely, the NX1.

It has a 28 MP sensor, which is a new density for APS-C, which has been held to 24 MP for a while, equivalent to the 16 MP for (micro) Four-Thirds.  Apparently, the image quality has been impressive and the video is equally impressive, using H.265, rather than H.264.

I don't care for Samsung.  For years, they have produced products that were not complete.  They left buggy firmware in place while introducing products to replace those unfinished products.  This NX1 wasn't so different.  They introduced the body in almost a beta test state.  Almost daily, they were providing firmware updates and now, it's very, very good--desirable.

Unfortunately, the rest of the NX-system is not worthy, which is why this rumor is so interesting.

Obviously, Nikon has a great APS-C presence in the industry.  I even bought a D7200 recently.  What if the emotional successor to the D300 could be based on the technology of the NX1?  I keep seeing the D400 pop up in rumors but no body.

If Nikon called for third parties to supply lenses for APS-C mirror-less bodies, they could certainly move the market more than FujiFilm, even though FujiFilm is very dedicated.  Sony barely has had an impact and Samsung seemed to drag down the market.

What would be even more interesting is a 135 Format/FX sized sensor based on Samsung's technology.  Could the D810 suddenly be supplanted?  Could Sony be removed as a sensor supplier to Nikon?

I wonder if the sensor technology is a one-hit-wonder type of success.  If it moves Nikon into the mirror-less market, it could really change the market and scare the stuffing out of Canon.

Update 2015.12.04: The denial from Samsung tends to dismiss a full sale but seems to suggest that a cooperative use of the technology is possible.  I still don't believe that Samsung's NX mount would be used, even though this would provide a few lenses.  It is more likely that Nikon would want to create a mount, so that they can control everything about it.  Obviously, if they're interesting in APS-C, they've run out of room between CX and DX but they're likely more interested in pushing Sony out of the market than handling the markets of micro Four-Thirds or FujiFilm.

I'm thinking that this move is similar to the move where Apple meant to split their relationship with Samsung, as they didn't trust Samsung not to use their processor design enhancements and went to TSMC for manufacturing.

2015.12.13: You have to wonder if the D610 could be the first to be replaced and there is no D300/D300s replacement at all, but a Sony A7 Mk II-type 135 Format body.

Nikon, I'm confused about your direction

Recently, we've seen the D3300 and the D5300 consumer dSLRs.  The D600 was revised and it became the D610.  The D4 has become the D4s with useful enhancements, also.

I'm just not sure why the D300s was not replaced or why the D7100 comes up short.  Truth be told, the Canon 7D is still hanging in there, and the 70D, while revised, isn't much of a divergence from the 60D.

Without the D400 to replace the D300s, there seems to be a hole in the line that isn't filled by the D610.  A few people might have gone up to the D800 or to the older D700, regardless of resolution.  I've looked at the D700 and D300s several times but don't see a solution.  The Ricoh/Pentax K-3 seems the true successor to the D300/D300s, slight weirdness and all.

I really don't understand where Nikon is going between US$1000 and $2000, or if they're not interested at all.  It almost seems as though we should be seeing the D7100 replaced, along with the D800/D800E pair but it doesn't seem that the company is in any hurry.

Is anyone excited about the D4s?

That huge, top ISO sensitivity number from the D4 has been doubled.  The new Expeed 4 processor is much faster and you can shoot 11 frames per second vs. 10, without being locked into auto focus or auto exposure settings.  After seeing 12 frames per second in burst mode from the Panasonic GH4, it doesn't seem a huge deal, but I'm certain everything is locked down to get 12, versus the 7.2 fps from tracking mode on the GH4.

So, will the D4s be so much better at getting night time football game photos?  I won't know because I don't watch NFL or the other pro ball games, and I won't be buying a D4s, but the possibilities certainly get my imagination started.

Pentax K-3, successor to the Nikon D300?

I've been dissatisfied with the available choices in dSLRs.  I wanted a (mythical?) Nikon D400, but ended up buying an Olympus E-5 to replace/supplement my E-1.  The E-5 was a great body for 2007, but it became available in 2010, replacing the slightly horrible E-3 that was two years late, which anti-aliased its photos to mush.  The Nikon D300 was a great body for 2007, but was more-or-less replaced by the D300s and then, the D7100.

Unfortunately, the D7100 doesn't have enough buffer depth for raw files in burst mode, so you wait more than you should.  That's what happens when you take a buffer from a 12 MP camera body, along with the AF module, etc.  The price of the D7100 is great and the plastics in the exterior are reasonable to hold the price down and it is weather-sealed, but performance (for me) isn't negotiable.

Today, Ricoh (omg, Ricoh?) announced the replacement for the Pentax K-5 II, the K-3.  (I'm waiting to see the follow-on bodies at lower levels since they had the K-50 and K-500--they already used the K-30 name.)

The K-3 puts a APS-C sized  (the same sensor as the D7100, apparently) sensor into a body based on the K-7/K-5, reworks the auto focus, auto exposure, and video, and turns out a camera body seemingly as good as a D300 replacement would be, and for US$1299.99, US$100.00 less expensive than the Olympus E-M1.

They also use the in-body image stabilization/shake reduction to work as an optional anti-aliasing filter, since they've removed one from the mix.   If you're dealing with a situation where moiré patterns will be a problem, you can enable the "filter" to smooth things.  How this works at the same time with the image stabilization going is anyone's guess but it's great, unconventional thinking.

I normally have terrible things to say about Ricoh because they do some things that are beyond weird.  In this case, the mix of Ricoh and Pentax seems to have produced a hellacious camera body that should be able to take on anyone.  It certainly beats the hell out of the Canon 70D and 7D and puts the hurt on Nikon's D7100, and nails the coffin on the D300s.  It also takes some of the shine off the newly-revised Nikon D610, which seems to have changed minimally.

Will anyone buy it?

This is the big question.  The Canikon fanatics don't seem know about other brands, in general.  If they have anything to say, it's that the other brands are inferior, even if they use information incorrectly.  Pentax has for a long time, been a forgotten brand.

I sold the Pentax ME and K-1000 (and the Auto 110 SLR!) and they were very reliable camera bodies.  Given the other choices at the time, Nikon, Olympus, and Fujica/FujiFilm all had better and more interesting equipment.  Pentax' claim to fame at the time was the Gallium Arsenide sensor for the light meter, while Fuji was using something called Silicon Blue, and the others were less advanced.  Pentax were well known for their 6x6 and 6x7 cameras and commercial work beyond what an enthusiast's camera like the Nikon F2 could do.

Does the Pentax name have enough recognition now to climb out of the hole first dug by the *ist?  Barely, I believe.  When I've been out photographing sports, I've seen a few Pentax models.  That's a big change.  Of course, it's easy to see the Canikon equipment but I think people are realizing that they have to buy higher up with Canikon to get what they really want.  From what I see, you need to buy the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk III to get full-featured models.  Everything below them is cut-rate.

There seem to be quite a few modern lenses now, and with three levels (two of which are weather-sealed) of bodies on which to attach them, they look to have a sensible line.  With Ricoh's imaging (all those copiers have to do something, don't they?) enhancements, it looks quite a bit better.  Certainly, the Hoya people weren't doing a lot for Pentax, except dishing the money.

Barring some weirdness, Pentax/Ricoh seems to have a winner on their hands.  It may be my next dSLR.  Hmm...try to find a Pentax dealer these days.  There might be some medium format Pentax dealers, but no one seems to carry their dSLRs in a physical store.

What happens if/when Nikon responds with a D7200?  Will it correct the buffer issue?

Update 2014.01.11: Apparently, there is some weirdness that could be corrected by firmware updates.  Whether there will be corrections, I wonder, as this is one of the reasons I haven't jumped to Pentax time and again.

As far as the Nikon D7200 goes, Nikon USA tweeted about the D3300 the other day and I replied, asking where the D400 or D7200 was.  I realize that they want to sell the D610, but they need a real replacement for the D300/D300s.  The Pentax K-3 and 60-250mm look like a good combination for me, but I'm just not sure.

Update 2014.04.10: I have to laugh at DPReview's rather late review.  In particular one line caught my attention that they wanted to downplay the K-3's importance in the US$1000 to $2000 sector:

 The Nikon D7100 is a safer bet in this respect, too, though it is somewhat hobbled by its small Raw buffer - 7 images, rather than the K-3's 23-or-so.

3.x to 1 is "somewhat"?

I realize that they don't want to offend their Canikon users, but please, tell it like it is.  They have no trouble complaining about the variable focus speed of various Pentax lenses, but they can't say that there is a problem where the Nikon D7100 has to write and write and write to clear the buffer and the photographer has to wait and wait and wait?  Do all Nikon-made (or Canon-made) lenses focus at the same speed?  I thought that they had differing focusing technologies, as well.

It reminds me of the preview for the Olympus E-M1 where someone slipped a line like "but we don't know if the sensor can go beyond 16 MP" even though we don't know if APS-C sensors can go beyond 24 MP, either.  The line was removed for the review, but it was obvious that brand fanatics often write what they want to defend.

Update 2014.04.29: Seeing Imaging Resource's K-3 review and test images, I'm thinking that Pentax (by Ricoh) have made some odd mistakes.  The images at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show the Olympus E-M1 to be better, which seems damned odd, even given that the sensors have a similar pixel density.  I really would have expected better performance.  Perhaps, it's still possible to re-work the firmware.  Right now, I wouldn't recommend it, sadly, even though Nikon don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the D7100's buffer issues.

Update 2014.12.25: It's unfortunate that there is always a bit of weirdness in Pentax products.  Adding Ricoh to the mix didn't push things toward the center, but thankfully, it didn't made things worse, as Ricoh products are usually more weird.

I wish there was a standard visual interface for cameras.  Pentax makes very desirable products let down by their firmware.  Back in their film days, products like the ME Super and Auto 110 SLR were great.

Pentax could really use a boatload of firmware developers who could put things right.  They should be selling loads of equipment.

Update 2015.03.03: Since Nikon has introduced the D7200, the hope for the Pentax K-3 is diminished.  The K-3 is a very good product, hampered by its firmware.  The company really needs to hire better firmware developers to take a fresh look at what they're doing and remove the quirks.

Update 2015.04.27: The K-3 Mk II is now out in the open.  Regardless, it doesn't seem as much is known, at least, as how the camera body will work in real life.  What I see are good, but minor changes made to a very good body.  What probably hasn't changed is the quirkiness of the firmware and operations.

About a week ago, I got a Pentax K-50 and I'm attempting to familiarize myself with the Pentax way of doing things, which isn't like any other experience I've had so far, except maybe for Canon.  No, I believe it's quite unique.

I hope that Ricoh, the company in charge of Pentax products, will find a way to make things very easy to use.  If they can make the operation of the K-3 Mk II as smooth as Nikon or Olympus, they should be able to gain many customers and make them very happy with their photos and even, their video.

I'm finding from the K-50 that it's very good for still image quality, and it looks as though the video is quite good, even if it's not as great as the Panasonic GH3.  The GH3 is formidable in its video abilities but is a bit lacking for still photography.  Pentax, like Olympus, excels in still photography, not video.

Since the Nikon D7200, there is an answer to the US$1000-$2000 range that was left open by the D300/D300s' retirement.  Is it enough?  The D7200 isn't a huge leap over the D7100, which wasn't a replacement for the D300.   The D7200 is good, but is the K-3 Mk II better?  In general, I think that the K-3 Mk II is better but are the lenses there, and will the firmware be a problem?

Update 2015.07.27: While the Pentax K-50 was very good, I ended up giving it to someone who had their camera stolen.  I looked to buy lenses that could be used with the Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 and the possibilities didn't seem so good with the availability of K-mount lenses or the adapters.

I bought the Nikon D7200 and I'm taking some time to learn how to use it best.  Even small things are a pain to learn.  Given that I have not used Nikon SLRs since film, it isn't a real surprise.  The controls don't exactly seem logical, even compared to the Pentax K-50.  It definitely feels good enough to replace the D300, though.

Update 2016.05.16: Since the K-3 has been revised and there is a new 135 Format K-1, the company has done well for itself.  They've also addressed the lack of familiar focal length lenses with the help of Tamron.  I suspect that they'll still end up a distant third (Sony isn't really involved in dSLRs or APS-C any longer) in the minds of people.  However, the price of the K-1 at around US$800 or $900 lower than the Nikon D810 has raised some eyebrows.

The fact that Nikon has brought to market the D500 pushes the D7200 and the K-3 Mk II further away than they were, if you have the extra money for it and then, only if you don't want the K-1.

I really could have used that Nikon D400

More and more, I keep thinking that the D400 would have solved my problems.

While the D300 was amazing for 2007 and the D300s was a good successor, I find myself wanting a bit more.  I considered buying a D7100 for more than a few moments, but the lack of a generous frame buffer stopped me.  I really don't want the whole operation to stop while I wait for the photos to be written to cards.

The D600 is also not a good substitute, as it's more of a D7000 than the D7100 is, what with the older auto focus module, etc.

That D400 with the guts of the D300s and a slightly enhanced image sensor would have been great.  12 (clean) MP aren't bad at all, but 16 or 18 MP would have put its sensor more eye-to-eye with the Canon 7D.

Why am I thinking about all of this now, again?  The rumored Olympus E-M1, a Four-Thirds substitute body.  If it's real, as they've shown it, it's not good.  It's undersized, a cobbled-together assemblage of good intentions that will work for those Four-Thirds users who have already jumped ship to micro Four-Thirds.  There may be other, casual Four-Thirds users, but I doubt it.  It's very much an all-or-nothing type of system.  (Hmm...new hint "E- series" on a teaser for the announcement coming soon.  It could be a fake, but it would make more sense just to put everything into an already available body and make the combination up to date.

I photograph sports--cross country, track, basketball, wrestling, swimming, lacrosse, and more.  I've been using the Panasonic GH3 to handle some of those, and it sort of works but there are multiple problems.  Even the most expensive micro Four-Thirds zoom lenses aren't good--they're certainly not excellent, which is something the Olympus ZD lenses are.  Switching dSLR brands will cause me to pay 1.5 to 2.0 times the cost to find almost equivalent lenses, and I'll have to buy more to cover my current range.  The electronic viewfinder of today isn't very good.  Panasonic's may not be great, but I don't see any of them with 16 times the resolution, so it looks like real life through an optical viewfinder.  Guessing at focus, and manual focus of fast sports is often necessary, is not likely to be acceptable.  Don't get that?  Try capturing Usain Bolt (not even on one of his good days) with a mirror-less camera.  You may get 1 or 2 decent photos.

When Olympus' E-P2 was arriving, I quipped that the E-P14 would be the first complete mirror-less camera from Olympus.  The E-P5 has come a long way toward shutting my mouth but the viewfinder and continuous focus are less than ideal for a dSLR user.

So, that D400 may never arrive, but I might have to jump ship--back to the future?  The Nikon D300 is still a good camera body and the price is extremely reasonable.  The D300s provides video and some other minor enhancements which I have handled elsewhere, so spending extra money doesn't seem reasonable.

Of course, the D300 has 12.3 MP output.  It's not greater than my Olympus E-5, except that the photos may be a bit cleaner in low light because of the lower density of pixels on the sensor.

Jumping ship, of course, is a bigger deal in the lenses than the camera bodies, unless you're still only working with that kit zoom.  I find that buying a 70-200mm f/2.8 and adding lenses around it is cost-prohibitive.  Certainly the new 24-85mm f/3.5-5.6 135 format normal zoom is reasonable at US$599 (I believe!) for good, but slow glass with an image stabilizer.  Right now, I have two normal zooms that run (equivalent of 135 format) 28-70mm f/2.0 and 28-108mm f/2.8-3.5, both image stabilized because of the image stabilization built into the body.

Would I spend more to take a big leap in image quality, even at the expense of the future?  I'm not sure.  That D300 still looks good and if not that, then the D700 can probably be had still.  Bigger isn't always better but giving peace of mind a chance might be.

I've been attempting sports with the Panasonic GH3.  It isn't bad and sometime, it's even good.  The electronic viewfinder gets in my way and for manual focus, the resolution just isn't there.  I tried it at last Saturday's cross country meet and I was fine with my older Olympus E-5.  Even if the sensor isn't so good in low light situations, that's rarely a problem for cross country running in the sunshine, or even in the rain.  However, a D400 might have taken away any doubts about shooting sports because it would be better in low light than the E-5 and with contrast detection auto focus, could have followed the runners more easily.  Of course, switching to the latest Olympus ZD 50-200mm with the SWD (Supersonic Wave Drive--like any other ultrasonic focusing motor), might have allowed the auto focus to work quite well.

However, going the Nikon route might be desirable, since Olympus seem to be packing up their last Four-Thirds camera body.  We'll see what happens next Monday/Tuesday after the announcements.

Update 2013.10.08: Olympus' E-M1 isn't a dSLR but it focuses the dSLR lenses that the company makes.  Pentax/Ricoh introduced their new APS-C sized flagship, the K-3, and it looks everything that the D400 should have been, had it been made at all.

Update 2013.11.24: Could a D7200 fix the buffer issue and solve the problem?  Surely, they'll find flash memory inexpensive enough to increase the buffer without changing anything else.  Certainly going from D600 to D610 they didn't change much and improved the camera quite a lot.

Update 2015.04.14: The D7200 is finally available in stores, and it fixes a lot about the D7100.  It's still not the D400 but it should impress a lot of people.  They should have introduced it halfway through 2014, but they didn't.  Oh, well.  Given that Canon revised the 7D, at least, there are two refreshed dSLR camera bodies in the category.  Now, if Ricoh Pentax could fix their firmware weirdness, there would be three good APS-C sized sensors in dSLRs bodies.

Update 2015.08.15: The D7200 is available in my bag now, for about one month.  The buffer fix is good, especially using 12-bit raw files.  The Expeed 4-class processor and the updated sensor seem to have given it great power.  I'm still working to learn it but I've only got a few good photos with it.  I'm waiting for firmware updates to fix a lot of ridiculous little problems, such as its choosing ISO 25,600 even in good light.

It will be a good replacement for the D300, finally, even if the build isn't quite as amazing.  I can still take out my Olympus E-5 (or E-1), if I want something that will work in the worst situations.

Update 2015.12.13: The D7200 sits a lot.You'd think that the body and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be great companions, but they're too slow and not good enough in lower light conditions.  How good is the image quality of a photo the camera refuses to take?

 I like it, but it seems to work against me rather than working for me.

Update 2016.01.06: The D500 has been announced and while it looks good, it's not looking great for video, even though it can handle 4K video at some level.  The Panasonic GH4 is better for video overall.  For stills, of course, the D500 image quality is much better than the GH4 or any other micro Four-Thirds body, but is it enough?

Nikon D7000/D300s replacement(s)?

So, I've been asking this question for a rather long time.  It was of real concern to me when I was considering a new Olympus body because I thought that I might jump ship.  At the time, the D300/D300s was a good performer but a bit old in image quality and there wasn't enough difference between it and the E-5 to jump ship.  The D7000 was good but it didn't seem enough in many ways (although it's a great budget body), especially over a used D300.

Now, it's 2013 and the D700 has been replaced and has a cheaper relative in the D600.  The D5100 has been surpassed, as well.  The D7000 has dropped in price to the point where it's a very good choice...for last year.

I've been expecting a switch and I mentioned in the past with the D600 having been on the way that Nikon might just combine the D7000 and D300s replacements into one body, at a very desirable price point.  I'm sure a lot of things delayed the company's progress--a huge earthquake and tidal wave, flooding, and the mirror-less revolution in Japan.

I would hope to see such a camera body soon, given the pricing.  Can they combine a better low light experience with a higher image quality for a great price?  I believe so.  Could the sensors be a problem or are they re-engineering the body to avoid dust and oil contamination, as with the D600 problem?

I'm still unwilling to put US5000 or more into jumping ship, so I'm thinking about it all very carefully.  I'm also waiting to see what solution comes from Olympus this year to replace the E-5.  Even if it's merely the E-M5 sensor in the E-5 body (coordinated, of course), that would be fine with me.  Working at double the ISO image quality would be quite a boost.  When Nikon is only stating an upper limit to their working range as ISO 6400 that sounds good, but do I want to use those images?

Any time now...

Update: Well, that was almost one week until the D7100 to be announced.  It combines the best parts of the D300 into the D7000 body, and even has an extra crop mode to give Four-Thirds users like me, an easy way to jump ship and get the same 2x multiplication of focal length with a bit of a boost in burst shooting speed.  Well done!

Nikon is on a roll, like butter and jelly

I'm glad to see Nikon clawing their way back from the depths of despair.

The company seemed forever doomed to produce adequate digital SLRs, until the D300 arrived.

While I was not surprised by the D4 or the D800, the D3200 was a surprise.  The D5200 had to arrive just to hold off Canon's latest consumer entry.  I don't see it as good or bad but with the D7000's metering and auto focus, it should grab mind share and hopefully, market share.

I was really hoping to see the replacements for the D300s and the D7000.  As far as I'm concerned, the D7000 is the entry level, as I won't work without dust and splash protection.  Apparently, a lot of people can't wrap their minds around what seems to be a fact--that the D600 is the entry level (feature-wise) FX/135 format frame model.  It's priced above the D300s for a reason, the sensor is more expensive.  They can't put everything in there and charge a cheaper price.

Does this mean that the D300s won't be replaced?  I believe a replacement is still on the way but it all seems a bit crowded now.  Hopefully, they'll bring a sensor with superior image quality and an extended ISO sensitivity range, rather than push a huge number of pixel sites.  I would expect that the D7000 replacement would share the sensor, but there will be improvements similar to what the D800 got for the D300s replacement and nothing so grand for the D7000 replacement.

I'm still confused about what Nikon are doing with their lenses.  I was reading a few reviews on the 70-200mm Mk II and I wasn't impressed.  For that much money (and weight), I think it should wash the dishes, in addition to cooking a meal.  It's not a bad lens, but I would expect wide open goodness, the kind you couldn't find on another platform.  I'm reading similar reviews for other lenses.  Canon would like you to believe that their lenses are superior, but of course, they're not.  They're just a different exterior colour.  Since Sony are trying something similar with the exterior of their lenses, they should all do it.  I'm sure Pentax with have some Lego-like coloured lens bodies to brighten the day.  I saw the Olympus micro Four-Thirds 12mm f/2.0 has a special edition black body for an extra US$300.  That's serious money, just to match the lens to your camera body.  I'd rather buy some lens from Schneider-Kreuznach for that kind of pricing.

In any case, kudos to Nikon for presenting some fine equipment.  I hope that 2013 finishes their expanded lineup although 2012 would be ideal.

Nikon D600?

The camera business seems most bizarre now.  Low end cameras gain the most pixels.  Mirror-less cameras are crashing the top 10 in Japan, taking spots away from dSLRs.  Point-and-shoot cameras are looking to replace dSLRs, and phone cameras are looking as good as point-and-shoot cameras for most people.

Then, there is this odd rumour about a Nikon D600.

It supposedly has an FX-sized sensor, meaning that it's roughly the size of a 135 format film frame or 24x36mm.  Looking at the model number, I'd guess that they're fitting it between the coming D400 (or forgetting that entirely) and the still-available D700, to have a fourth FX dSLR.  Of course, it would be economical, maybe priced around US$2000.  That might push the D400 down to meet the Canon 60D, retire the D90, update the D7000 to use the D3200's sensor, etc., and also retire the D5100.

Are the loud people who frequently call for a 135 format-sized sensor ready for a camera body that actually has one?  Will they be ready for the back aches of carrying all the big and heavy equipment?  I'm cynical, so I think they'll be complaining about the price of the appropriate lenses.  You're probably not going to get the best resolution out of a 30 year old craptacular Sigma lens that you got from your grandfather but they're not likely to spend the money to commit to the format.  However, I'm cynical, so maybe they'll prove me wrong.

I would welcome a less expensive 135 format body for wide angle work.  As things are relative, the body size will be big for a while, if not for much more than the size of the mirror and the pentaprism.  If large is suddenly light, I'm sure many would be pleased, or shocked, or both.

Nikon has been winning back their advocates since the D300 arrived.  They've shown a willingness to stand up for their business and show that they're not just a company with a long photographic history.  By the end of this year, it should be quite a lot more interesting.

Well, to update this, the D600 arrived and it's everything I would hope to have in an economy shooter for wide angle work.  The D7000 is a good product on which to base a revision, much like the D300 gave birth to the D700.  I'm impressed Nikon.  Keep going, but one thing, fewer bodies make decisions easier, and please, please, make it apparent which lenses are weather-proofed.

Update: Seeing the Canon 6D, Nikon shouldn't be too worried.  I'd think they'd be laughing, actually, but they can't afford to waste time laughing, really.  Eventually, Canon may make a comeback--Nikon did.  Funny how the D7100 is more advanced in AF and other areas than the D600, but since there is no D400, that makes sense.

Where is the Nikon D400?

It's been a bit over a year since the catastrophic earthquake and following tsunami in the Sendai area of Japan.  It's been several months since the devastating floods in Thailand.  Those threw the modern world of manufacturing into chaos.  Should I have said "utter chaos"?  Writing idioms are plentiful elsewhere, wouldn't you say?

New cameras have been arriving in a trickle.  Nikon has brought a lot of the excitement lately with the D800/D800E and the D4.  I'm waiting to see the D400.  No, I'm not a Nikon fan so perhaps, a bit of history will help.  I chose an Olympus E-1 over the D70 or D100.  At that time, there wasn't much comparison.  Even with the smaller sensor, the E-1 had better image quality.  Another factor was that you couldn't pair it with cheap, rubbish or old lenses.  It was all digital and required new lenses, all of which had outstanding quality.  Given the cost of equivalent lenses, Nikon would have cost me about twice as much.

Fast forward (okay, a writing idiom) to 2007 and the Olympus E-1 successor had finally arrived.  So had the Nikon D300.  The Olympus E-3 looked somewhat less than adequate against the D300.  Mind you, the auto focus was not pathetic, finally.  11 cross-point auto focus sensors were brilliant.  Contrast that to the D300's on-again-off-again-are-we-in-the-correct-situation 51 AF sensors and people see the sheer number of sensors and forget the rest.  The D300's 51 AF sensors aren't always all in use and the remaining number is much more humble.  Still, it's quite amazing as a system, but overly complicated.  The Olympus AF works its best with certain lenses marked "SWD" for SuperSonic Wave Drive, of which the 12-60mm was represented as the fastest AF in combination with the E-3.

The E-3 had one truly pathetic downfall--the anti-aliasing filter was too strong and the images were not very sharp, even in studio lighting.  Sure, it had a 10 MP sensor, but you could get great images from the E-1, being careful about the 5.1 MP size.  You just couldn't fix the anti-aliasing filter of the E-3, no matter what.  Cue the funeral march.

In 2010, Olympus introduced the E-5.  It fixed the critical issue with the E-3, brought a higher resolution LCD, kept the brilliant AF system, used a dual-core CPU and 12 MP sensor, and made Four-Thirds shooting good again.  It still used the poor ergonomics of the E-3 but so what?  Set things ahead of time and plan around the problems.  I made the jump in November 2011.

I want to say that I'm incredibly pleased but there is an underlying noise from ISO 400 up and I'm not comfortable with ISO 1600 images at all.  Looking at some images from a D300, they're no better at ISO 2500.  It wouldn't have helped to jump ship.

So, where is the D400?  Given that the D7000 is arguably better than the D90, I'm wondering how much better the D400 will be.  The exposure metering system will have been improved, probably with double (or more) sensors.  I doubt the AF system will have been improved, except for tweaks.  (I don't use AF, by the way, but it's important to many people, especially the professionals who keep everything on automatic.)  Of course, the big change will be the image sensor.  Will it be the 16.x MP sensor from the D7000 or something newer but equal in number?  I suspect Sony will supply a slightly enhanced version for the D400 and it will also go into the D7000's successor.  I still haven't heard any rumor about the D400, except that it's delayed until the D4 and D800/D800E bodies can be put to full capacity in the factories.

Considering Olympus' new OM-D series, I'm wondering if many people will jump ship the other way and take advantage of some good fixed focal length (prime) lenses.  The E-M5 was just given What Digital Camera's Gold Award in their review of the camera and that says a lot to me.  Now the final total was 90 % which puts it dead even with the E-3 and three points behind the E-1.  Considering how mirror-less system cameras were doing poorly at the beginning, I'm shocked.

It's a matter of time until dSLRs become a thing of the past.  I suspect they'll be there in medium format for a while but for handheld jobs, smaller and lighter are better.  Olympus showed the world that back in the 1970s with the OM-system and Nikon complied with demand and went smaller.  I can't wait until all brands announce smaller systems with exceptional image quality.  I know that the Nikon D400 won't be smaller, but I'd like to see it, just the same.

Update 2012.11.11: Still waiting, and with the D600 out, plus the D5200, everyone is wondering, I'm sure. 

Update 2013.10.08: The D610 has been announced.  It's likely a matter of manufacturing capacity and anticipated demand.  I suspect that Nikon feel that the "full frame" fanatics who would have bought the D400 have gone to the D600 already, the majority of the remainder might have gone to the D800, and the remainder are complaining that there is no D400 yet.

Given that Ricoh/Pentax have announced the Pentax K-3, I think the wait is over for those who wanted to switch because of the D400.  This new body has an amazing array of technology and seems quite capable of going where the D7100 has not--sports, what I photograph. 

Update 2015.11.29: Holy shhhhh!  In the last few months, there have been rumors about the D400 again, especially since the Canon 7D Mk II was put on sale.

Back in April, the D7200 was introduced to supplant the D7100 and D300s.  I have one and it's good, but whether it could replace the D300 in all ways, I'm not sure.   The body isn't nearly as strong.