Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

In article ,
RichA wrote:

No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something that
will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might,
being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give it a
truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since 3
year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution
the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.

On 2014-05-16 21:22:27 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something that
will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might,
being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give it a
truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since 3
year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution
the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.

An April 1 rumor at that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051614494345108-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something
that will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might,
being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give it a
truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since 3
year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution
the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.

An April 1 rumor at that.

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

however, it is still a rumour with no guarantee of actually happening
and bashing the specs of a product that doesn't yet exist is stupid.

On 5/16/2014 6:14 PM, nospam wrote:

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.


My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.

Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?

Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.


My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.

no it doesn't.

Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?

no.

Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/

no, you're just confused.

On 2014-05-16 22:14:23 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014051614494345108-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something
that will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might,
being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give it a
truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since 3
year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution
the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.

An April 1 rumor at that.

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

Where on earth did you come up with that idea of what the Nikon
numbering system represents?
So the D100, D200 & D300(S) are FX cameras are they?
What does that make a D70, D90, D3, or D4?

Time for a *nospam* fact check.

however, it is still a rumour with no guarantee of actually happening
and bashing the specs of a product that doesn't yet exist is stupid.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014.05.16, 18:14 , nospam wrote:

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

http://tinyurl.com/ahjywj5

On 5/16/2014 6:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.


My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.

no it doesn't.

Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?

no.

Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/

no, you're just confused.
Any confusion is caused by your alleged statement of fact.


Last time I counted, there are the same number of digits in D300 and
D800. According to you they are both either DX or both FX, since they
both have the same number of digits.

--
PeterN

On Fri, 16 May 2014 18:52:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.05.16, 18:14 , nospam wrote:

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

http://tinyurl.com/ahjywj5

That's OK for them who belong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article 2014051615473518024-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

Where on earth did you come up with that idea of what the Nikon
numbering system represents?

by looking at how they are naming their cameras.

So the D100, D200 & D300(S) are FX cameras are they?

those are old.

originally 1 digit was pro (initially dx but later fx when it became
feasible), 2 digit was entry level/midrange dx and 3 digit was prosumer
dx, but they soon ran out of 2 digit numbers and the 3 digit space was
quickly becoming crowded, plus they wanted fx for prosumers.

that's why they introduced the 4 digit series for entry level/midrange
dx cameras, leaving 3 digit for fx and keeping 1 digit for pro.

it's very straightforward.

the d300s was released almost five years ago, just after the d5000 came
out which was the first of the 4 digit series. the d300s was basically
a minor update to the d300 (from 2007), so it didn't make sense to
rename the d300s at that time since it was really just a bump.

since that time, there have been *five* full frame 3 digit cameras
(d600, d610, d700, d800, d800e) and *zero* dx 3 digit cameras. zero.

the current naming scheme is 1 digit pro, 3 digit fx and 4 digit dx. 2
digit are legacy cameras.

What does that make a D70, D90, D3, or D4?

Time for a *nospam* fact check.

it's not me who needs to fact check and you should read more carefully
too.