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.
Showing posts with label D700. Show all posts
Showing posts with label D700. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
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?
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?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
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!
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!
Monday, May 28, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)