Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

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.

are you actually blaming your inability to count on me?

you also need to read more carefully before you spew.

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.

those cameras are 5 years apart. you do realize that since the d300
came out, fx appeared and is now affordable by non-pros, right? and
that nikon needed to give them names?

nikon ran out of 2 digit numbers and released a number of prosumer fx
cameras, deciding to use the 3 digit space for fx and 4 digit space for
dx.

very simple, but apparently it's still too complex for you.

On 2014-05-17 00:44:11 +0000, nospam said:

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.

....and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
....or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
Please cite.

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051618050813496-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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

...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
Please cite.

they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.

there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
(or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.

for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
for fx.

there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
discontinued anyway.

On 2014-05-17 01:31:52 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014051618050813496-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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

...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
Please cite.

they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.

there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
(or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.

for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
for fx.

there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
discontinued anyway.

So to summarize, this is all your idea.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051618362031968-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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

...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
Please cite.

they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.

there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
(or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.

for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
for fx.

there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
discontinued anyway.

So to summarize, this is all your idea.

nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.

On 2014-05-17 01:41:36 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014051618362031968-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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

...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
Please cite.

they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.

there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
(or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.

for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
for fx.

there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
discontinued anyway.

So to summarize, this is all your idea.

nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.

Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
imagination.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051619073575244-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So to summarize, this is all your idea.

nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.

Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
imagination.

it's not my imagination.

all the evidence supports what i've said.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

You begin to see what bothers me? nospam will make an initial
statement that is an incomplete description of what he means.
Challenged, he will add information, but say that you should have
understood what he meant (but did not say) the first time.

It will be *your* fault for not understanding the first incomplete
statement. Never his fault. Never "I should have added...".

Eventually, he will say "it was always about the past 5 years" and/or
"You need to learn to read".

there was absolutely nothing incomplete about what i said.

anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to
nikon's naming would immediately understand it and agree with it.

nevertheless, i was asked to clarify, so i did.

On 2014-05-17 02:49:08 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014051619073575244-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So to summarize, this is all your idea.

nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.

Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
imagination.

it's not my imagination.

all the evidence supports what i've said.

What evidence?
I know evidence when I see it. I used to be a real evidence hound
before I retired, and I see no evidence to support your speculation
here.

You might consider this generalization of mine:

Dx: Pro FX high-end DSLR w/grip body: D1, D2, D3, D4 (I omitted the
various suffixes).
Dxx: Earlier consumer DX DSLR: D60, D70, D80, D90, etc.
Dxxx: Prosumer high-end DX & FX DSLR w/o grip body: D100, D200, D300,
D700, D800, D600, D610
Dxxxx: Consumer DX DSLR; D3000, D5000, D5100, D5300, D6100, D7000,
D7100, D7300, etc.

The exception here is the Df FX.

That is as good as, and about as *Nikon official* as your speculation
without a defining citation which you don't seem able to come up with.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051619535020591-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So to summarize, this is all your idea.

nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.

Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
imagination.

it's not my imagination.

all the evidence supports what i've said.

What evidence?
I know evidence when I see it. I used to be a real evidence hound
before I retired, and I see no evidence to support your speculation
here.

then you need to look more closely, since what you provide below is all
the evidence that's needed, despite some minor errors.

You might consider this generalization of mine:

Dx: Pro FX high-end DSLR w/grip body: D1, D2, D3, D4 (I omitted the
various suffixes).
Dxx: Earlier consumer DX DSLR: D60, D70, D80, D90, etc.
Dxxx: Prosumer high-end DX & FX DSLR w/o grip body: D100, D200, D300,
D700, D800, D600, D610
Dxxxx: Consumer DX DSLR; D3000, D5000, D5100, D5300, D6100, D7000,
D7100, D7300, etc.

what's to consider? it's not a generalization and it's the same as what
i said.

nikon could have planned it all a bit better, but they didn't.

The exception here is the Df FX.

it is an exception, one without a digit at all, which doesn't negate
anything. it is targeting a very specific niche, those who want to
pretend they still have a film camera.

That is as good as, and about as *Nikon official* as your speculation
without a defining citation which you don't seem able to come up with.

it's not speculation. you've presented the same proof as i did.