Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

In article , Sandman
wrote:

...that isn't covered by the D610? I mean, what is the features
you would find in a D400 that isn't in the D7100, I mean - apart
from FX? I'm genuinely interested, regardless of the other
non-content of this subthread.

buffer size.

What we have is this:

D7100 - (rumored product X) - D610

Right? So the thinking here is that if X has FX, then it is probably going
to be named D400 or D500, if it's DX, then it's going to be called D9***
something.

actually the d7100 and d610 are very similar other than sensor size and
a 51 point autofocus in the d7100 versus 39 in the d610. otherwise, the
differences are minor, if any.

But, apart from FX/DX, what features would differentiate a D400 from a
D9300. Only buffer size?

i think you mean d400 versus a future d7200.

the d9300 is the rumoured name of what people want for a d400.

the d7100 is actually quite a bit more advanced than a d300s, but with
a small buffer.

if they do a d9300 they'll need to differentiate it from a future d7200
somehow. buffer is one way but there are no doubt others.

On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:14:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

originally 1 digit was pro (initially dx but later fx when it became
feasible),

F1,F2,F3,F4,F5 & F6 were pro cameras. And 24X36. So even this
affirmation is not accurate.

those were film cameras.

there was no dx with film (and i don't mean aps which had a different
naming scheme anyway), although olympus did have a half-frame film
camera.

there was also no nikon f1, it was a nikon f. canon had an f1 and
later, the new f1.

nikon's naming scheme back then was 1 digit pro (f2, f3, etc.) and
letters (fm, fe, em) or numbers (f100, n80, etc.) for non-pro.

the big difference is that film cameras didn't advance anywhere near as
rapidly so there weren't as many cameras to name (although they did
sometimes have regional variations).

It was more complicated than that and the regional variations were
necessarily in the camera. The F801 was known in the USA as the N8008.
Even though they were identical cameras they were sold to different
markets through completely different distribution systems and with
significantly different warrantys. They were given different model
numbers to ensure there was no confusion in the field.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:33:24 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:14:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

originally 1 digit was pro (initially dx but later fx when it became
feasible),

F1,F2,F3,F4,F5 & F6 were pro cameras. And 24X36. So even this
affirmation is not accurate.

those were film cameras.

there was no dx with film (and i don't mean aps which had a different
naming scheme anyway), although olympus did have a half-frame film
camera.

there was also no nikon f1, it was a nikon f. canon had an f1 and
later, the new f1.

nikon's naming scheme back then was 1 digit pro (f2, f3, etc.) and
letters (fm, fe, em) or numbers (f100, n80, etc.) for non-pro.

the big difference is that film cameras didn't advance anywhere near as
rapidly so there weren't as many cameras to name (although they did
sometimes have regional variations).

It was more complicated than that and the regional variations were
necessarily in the camera. The F801 was known in the USA as the N8008.
Even though they were identical cameras they were sold to different
markets through completely different distribution systems and with
significantly different warrantys. They were given different model
numbers to ensure there was no confusion in the field.

"... were _not_ necessarily in the camera".

Damn!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/18/2014 11:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 17:04:28 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/18/2014 4:39 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 11:22:52 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 18 May 2014 14:22:50 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2014051800445974252-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

He infers that this is current Nikon naming policy,

Implies, you mean.

Both. He infers that Nikon has a particular policy based on his
observation, and then implies that this is policy when he writes about
it here.

Duck's point is that nospam has presented something he has inferred as
fact.

That's how science works. Nospam can use this to predict the style of
future model numbers. If Nikon runs true to nospam's predicted form
then he is likely correct. We will have to wait a while to find out.


The issue isn't whether he is correctly predicting the future numbering
system.
The issue is failure to distinguish fact from speculation.
He claims I pick on words.
If he walked into a medical facility asking for a castration, and they
acted on his request, he would later claim the doctors should have known
that he meant circumcision. After all that's what most people get.

A better analogy is a person claiming that Newton's laws of mechanics
are a fact, only to have another person saying that Newston's laws
have been displaced by Einstein's and that Einsein's laws are a fact.
This is one way that the word 'fact' is used in common speech and this
is how I read nospam's article which started all this.

In fact (hah) neither Newton's laws nor Einstein's nor nospam's
conclusions are facts. However, based on observation of the way the
universe behaves it is reasonable to treat them as facts for the
purpose of ordinary conversation.

All this began when 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."

The subsequent argument is summarised by:

" 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.

You then indicated that you really understood the argument when you
wrote:

"You are right. I do not know the difference between "...nikon has
been using...," and is now using. the difference confuses me."


Your sarcasm meter needs now batteries.


I don't think that for the purpose of this discussion you were really
confused at all. Nospam's initial comment was not entirely accurate
but it was only a throw away quote from Thom Hogan which could have
done with a little explication. Once it got it, which it did, the
actual state of affairs should have been obvious and the argument
ought to have died there.



--
PeterN

On 5/19/2014 1:14 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Sandman
wrote:

...that isn't covered by the D610? I mean, what is the features
you would find in a D400 that isn't in the D7100, I mean - apart
from FX? I'm genuinely interested, regardless of the other
non-content of this subthread.

buffer size.

What we have is this:

D7100 - (rumored product X) - D610

Right? So the thinking here is that if X has FX, then it is probably going
to be named D400 or D500, if it's DX, then it's going to be called D9***
something.

actually the d7100 and d610 are very similar other than sensor size and
a 51 point autofocus in the d7100 versus 39 in the d610. otherwise, the
differences are minor, if any.

But, apart from FX/DX, what features would differentiate a D400 from a
D9300. Only buffer size?

i think you mean d400 versus a future d7200.

the d9300 is the rumoured name of what people want for a d400.

the d7100 is actually quite a bit more advanced than a d300s, but with
a small buffer.

if they do a d9300 they'll need to differentiate it from a future d7200
somehow. buffer is one way but there are no doubt others.


Like frame rate; card type & capacity, (Nikon just upgraded the firmware
on the D800 to work with cards with cards over 128 g; power consumption;
sensor quality; ease of changing modes; etc.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the d7100 is actually quite a bit more advanced than a d300s, but with
a small buffer.

if they do a d9300 they'll need to differentiate it from a future d7200
somehow. buffer is one way but there are no doubt others.

Like frame rate; card type & capacity, (Nikon just upgraded the firmware
on the D800 to work with cards with cards over 128 g; power consumption;
sensor quality; ease of changing modes; etc.

the d7100 can shoot 6 fps or 7 fps at 1.3x crop, at both 12 or 14 bit
data.

the d300s can shoot 6 fps with the built in battery and 8 fps with a
battery pack, however, if you set it to 14 bit, it drops to 2.5 fps,
which is slower than an old d70.

the d7100 sensor is about as good as it gets for dx at the moment.

in other words, there's not much more they can do in a d9300 with
regards to frame rate or sensor quality to differentiate it from a
d7100 or its successor.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:22:46 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article 2014051701201197865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
: Savageduck wrote:
:
: ...and we still need a D400 and eventually a D500, they are holes in
: the list which need filling.
:
: you might think the hole needs filling but that doesn't mean nikon sees
: it that way.
:
: it's been 5 years since the d300s came out so obviously nikon is not in
: any particular rush.

Where's the incentive? The D400 would be competing against the wildly
successful Canon 7D. Arguably better to wait and see if Canon makes a misstep
(in either features or price) with the 7D Mk II.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: ...and we still need a D400 and eventually a D500, they are holes in
: the list which need filling.
:
: you might think the hole needs filling but that doesn't mean nikon sees
: it that way.
:
: it's been 5 years since the d300s came out so obviously nikon is not in
: any particular rush.

Where's the incentive? The D400 would be competing against the wildly
successful Canon 7D. Arguably better to wait and see if Canon makes a misstep
(in either features or price) with the 7D Mk II.

isn't that the point? to compete with canon?

the 7d competitor would be the wildly successful d7000 and its
successor, the d7100.

the d7100 is 24 mp, versus 18mp in the canon. the d7100 also has a 51
point autofocus system, versus 19 point in the canon.

it's competing just fine.

On Thu, 22 May 2014 22:58:21 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:22:46 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article 2014051701201197865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
: Savageduck wrote:
:
: ...and we still need a D400 and eventually a D500, they are holes in
: the list which need filling.
:
: you might think the hole needs filling but that doesn't mean nikon sees
: it that way.
:
: it's been 5 years since the d300s came out so obviously nikon is not in
: any particular rush.

Where's the incentive? The D400 would be competing against the wildly
successful Canon 7D. Arguably better to wait and see if Canon makes a misstep
(in either features or price) with the 7D Mk II.

The lead time on developing a new camera is such that Nikon couldn't
afford to wait to see what Canon had done before they brought out a
new camera. In effect they are playing scissors-paper-stone with each
other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/22/2014 10:58 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:22:46 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article 2014051701201197865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
: Savageduck wrote:
:
: ...and we still need a D400 and eventually a D500, they are holes in
: the list which need filling.
:
: you might think the hole needs filling but that doesn't mean nikon sees
: it that way.
:
: it's been 5 years since the d300s came out so obviously nikon is not in
: any particular rush.

Where's the incentive? The D400 would be competing against the wildly
successful Canon 7D. Arguably better to wait and see if Canon makes a misstep
(in either features or price) with the 7D Mk II.


I see you're in a button pushing mood. ;-p



--
PeterN