Nikon: Another plastic body about to bite the dust

RichA wrote:
The D90 had a good body, as far as plastic goes. But, it had issues
with heavier lenses, flexture and contact losses. The new one won't.

* The Nikon D90 replacement will probably be called Nikon D95.

I doubt that very much. With previous model designations in this line
advancing by tens, "D95" would not only go against the form but would also
suggest a very minor improvement over the D90, which the features mentioned,
such as magnesium body, disagree with.

They cannot go into the hundreds either, since D100 is already taken and the
D200/D300 line is quite different. They might of course skip over D100 and
use D110 or something, especially if it really does have a magnesium body.
Then they could go back to proceeding by tens.

Otherwise, Nikon is running out of useful numbers.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:05:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

RichA wrote:
The D90 had a good body, as far as plastic goes. But, it had issues
with heavier lenses, flexture and contact losses. The new one won't.

* The Nikon D90 replacement will probably be called Nikon D95.

I doubt that very much. With previous model designations in this line
advancing by tens, "D95" would not only go against the form but would also
suggest a very minor improvement over the D90, which the features
mentioned,
such as magnesium body, disagree with.

They cannot go into the hundreds either, since D100 is already taken and
the
D200/D300 line is quite different. They might of course skip over D100 and
use D110 or something, especially if it really does have a magnesium body.
Then they could go back to proceeding by tens.

Otherwise, Nikon is running out of useful numbers.


I agree, it would appear that way.

But Nikon has already made its future numbering direction clear. The
D90 replacement would be more logically numbered D7000 to go with the
already introduced D3000 and D5000.

Yes, I've seen "D7000" suggested as the D90 successor. That may well be the
case, but if Nikon progresses by even thousands they'll soon be out of
numbers again.

If on the other hand the successor to the D3000 is something like "D3100" --
and so on -- that would give Nikon a lot more room. Those low thousands
could then be used by Nikon's small-body entry-level DSLRs, continuing the
D40/D40x/D60/D3000 family -- the middle thousands could be for whatever
follows the slightly larger and more feature-filled D5000 -- and from D7000
up could be for whatever models follow the D90, again progressing by
hundreds from D7000 instead of by thousands.

I don't know why they wouldn't do that. It's the sort of system Nikon used
in their Coolpix lines, and that worked well.



Making sense of Nikon's future strategy is very difficult and most
rumours turn out to be wrong. For example, we have had countless
rumours of a D700X but they were merely wishful thinking.

My take on this is that the claimed specification for the "D95" is
more likely to hint at the specification for the successor to the
D300s. Whether that is likely to be numbered D300X or D400 is
anyone's guess.

So I doubt very much that a D95 will be the next model. However, I
have been wrong before, and I'm sure it won't have been the last time.
;-)

Same here. Oh well, we should know in a few months. :-)

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:33:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
:
: "Bruce" wrote in message
: ...
: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:05:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
: wrote:
:
: RichA wrote:
: The D90 had a good body, as far as plastic goes. But, it had issues
: with heavier lenses, flexture and contact losses. The new one won't.
:
: * The Nikon D90 replacement will probably be called Nikon D95.
:
: I doubt that very much. With previous model designations in this line
: advancing by tens, "D95" would not only go against the form but would also
: suggest a very minor improvement over the D90, which the features
: mentioned,
: such as magnesium body, disagree with.
:
: They cannot go into the hundreds either, since D100 is already taken and
: the
: D200/D300 line is quite different. They might of course skip over D100 and
: use D110 or something, especially if it really does have a magnesium body.
: Then they could go back to proceeding by tens.
:
: Otherwise, Nikon is running out of useful numbers.
:
:
: I agree, it would appear that way.
:
: But Nikon has already made its future numbering direction clear. The
: D90 replacement would be more logically numbered D7000 to go with the
: already introduced D3000 and D5000.
:
: Yes, I've seen "D7000" suggested as the D90 successor. That may well be the
: case, but if Nikon progresses by even thousands they'll soon be out of
: numbers again.
:
: If on the other hand the successor to the D3000 is something like "D3100" --
: and so on -- that would give Nikon a lot more room. Those low thousands
: could then be used by Nikon's small-body entry-level DSLRs, continuing the
: D40/D40x/D60/D3000 family -- the middle thousands could be for whatever
: follows the slightly larger and more feature-filled D5000 -- and from D7000
: up could be for whatever models follow the D90, again progressing by
: hundreds from D7000 instead of by thousands.
:
: I don't know why they wouldn't do that. It's the sort of system Nikon used
: in their Coolpix lines, and that worked well. ...

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this discussion seems fixated on the
model number of the putative new camera, with hardly any attention wasted on
whether the predictions regarding its feature set are anywhere near correct?
Over here in The Canon World we don't give a rat's ass how Canon's next camera
is numbered, as long as it has more accurate autofocus, better metering,
higher dynamic range, less noise in low light, etc., etc. The implication
seems to be that what it takes to make Nikon's cameras perform better is that
they be numerologically sound. I'm not sure I buy it, but then I'm not a Nikon
user. Are we Canonites somehow missing the Big Picture? ;^)

Bob

On 2010-08-03 19:52:46 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:33:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
:
: "Bruce" wrote in message
: ...
: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:05:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
: wrote:
:
: RichA wrote:
: The D90 had a good body, as far as plastic goes. But, it had issues
: with heavier lenses, flexture and contact losses. The new one won't.
:
: * The Nikon D90 replacement will probably be called Nikon D95.
:
: I doubt that very much. With previous model designations in this line
: advancing by tens, "D95" would not only go against the form but would also
: suggest a very minor improvement over the D90, which the features
: mentioned,
: such as magnesium body, disagree with.
:
: They cannot go into the hundreds either, since D100 is already taken and
: the
: D200/D300 line is quite different. They might of course skip over D100 and
: use D110 or something, especially if it really does have a magnesium body.
: Then they could go back to proceeding by tens.
:
: Otherwise, Nikon is running out of useful numbers.
:
:
: I agree, it would appear that way.
:
: But Nikon has already made its future numbering direction clear. The
: D90 replacement would be more logically numbered D7000 to go with the
: already introduced D3000 and D5000.
:
: Yes, I've seen "D7000" suggested as the D90 successor. That may well be the
: case, but if Nikon progresses by even thousands they'll soon be out of
: numbers again.
:
: If on the other hand the successor to the D3000 is something like "D3100" --
: and so on -- that would give Nikon a lot more room. Those low thousands
: could then be used by Nikon's small-body entry-level DSLRs, continuing the
: D40/D40x/D60/D3000 family -- the middle thousands could be for whatever
: follows the slightly larger and more feature-filled D5000 -- and from D7000
: up could be for whatever models follow the D90, again progressing by
: hundreds from D7000 instead of by thousands.
:
: I don't know why they wouldn't do that. It's the sort of system Nikon used
: in their Coolpix lines, and that worked well. ...

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this discussion seems fixated on the
model number of the putative new camera, with hardly any attention wasted on
whether the predictions regarding its feature set are anywhere near correct?
Over here in The Canon World we don't give a rat's ass how Canon's next camera
is numbered, as long as it has more accurate autofocus, better metering,
higher dynamic range, less noise in low light, etc., etc. The implication
seems to be that what it takes to make Nikon's cameras perform better is that
they be numerologically sound. I'm not sure I buy it, but then I'm not a Nikon
user. Are we Canonites somehow missing the Big Picture? ;^)

Bob

It is not just the number on the camera. The strange angles of the
corners of the body and the pentaprism are also important in allowing
the Great Old Ones to travel the space between spaces, stealing the
subject's soul and imprinting it on the alien sensor that lurks
menacingly within. When enough souls have been taken in this manner,
Great Cthulhu will arise and feast upon the users of Canon.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010080323502716807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-03 19:52:46 -0700, Robert Coe said:


[ . . . ]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this discussion seems fixated on
the
model number of the putative new camera, with hardly any attention wasted
on
whether the predictions regarding its feature set are anywhere near
correct?
Over here in The Canon World we don't give a rat's ass how Canon's next
camera
is numbered, as long as it has more accurate autofocus, better metering,
higher dynamic range, less noise in low light, etc., etc. The implication
seems to be that what it takes to make Nikon's cameras perform better is
that
they be numerologically sound. I'm not sure I buy it, but then I'm not a
Nikon
user. Are we Canonites somehow missing the Big Picture? ;^)

Bob

It is not just the number on the camera. The strange angles of the corners
of the body and the pentaprism are also important in allowing the Great
Old Ones to travel the space between spaces, stealing the subject's soul
and imprinting it on the alien sensor that lurks menacingly within. When
enough souls have been taken in this manner, Great Cthulhu will arise and
feast upon the users of Canon.

Exactly. I was just about to point that out myself but you beat me to it.

I believe H.P. Lovecraft made all this clear in his last book, "Nikon
Numbers in the Necronomicon," which unfortunately remains unpublished.

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

I believe H.P. Lovecraft made all this clear in his last book, "Nikon
Numbers in the Necronomicon," which unfortunately remains unpublished.

I understand that it was going to be released by Cthulhu Pentagram
Press, but suddenly their website announced that they had been absorbed
by, and were now inextricably a subsidiary of, Canon, Inc.

Your narrator hesitates to speculate on what shades and specters issued
forth from the foetid sewers to work their weird magic on the world of
publishing...

On 2010-08-04 16:45:55 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010080323502716807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-03 19:52:46 -0700, Robert Coe said:


[ . . . ]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this discussion seems fixated on
the
model number of the putative new camera, with hardly any attention wasted
on
whether the predictions regarding its feature set are anywhere near
correct?
Over here in The Canon World we don't give a rat's ass how Canon's next
camera
is numbered, as long as it has more accurate autofocus, better metering,
higher dynamic range, less noise in low light, etc., etc. The implication
seems to be that what it takes to make Nikon's cameras perform better is
that
they be numerologically sound. I'm not sure I buy it, but then I'm not a
Nikon
user. Are we Canonites somehow missing the Big Picture? ;^)

Bob

It is not just the number on the camera. The strange angles of the corners
of the body and the pentaprism are also important in allowing the Great
Old Ones to travel the space between spaces, stealing the subject's soul
and imprinting it on the alien sensor that lurks menacingly within. When
enough souls have been taken in this manner, Great Cthulhu will arise and
feast upon the users of Canon.

Exactly. I was just about to point that out myself but you beat me to it.

I believe H.P. Lovecraft made all this clear in his last book, "Nikon
Numbers in the Necronomicon," which unfortunately remains unpublished.

I found a manuscript in the stacks at Miskatonic University, misfiled
of course, and with the title "Nikonomicon."

Unfortunately, I was attacked by invisible demons before I could read
it. The last thing I heard before losing consciousness was a mysterious
voice whispering "f/64." I woke up six months later in an infirmary in
Haiti. I have no idea how I got there.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010080420534616807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-04 16:45:55 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
news:2010080323502716807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-03 19:52:46 -0700, Robert Coe said:


[ . . . ]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this discussion seems fixated on
the
model number of the putative new camera, with hardly any attention
wasted
on
whether the predictions regarding its feature set are anywhere near
correct?
Over here in The Canon World we don't give a rat's ass how Canon's next
camera
is numbered, as long as it has more accurate autofocus, better
metering,
higher dynamic range, less noise in low light, etc., etc. The
implication
seems to be that what it takes to make Nikon's cameras perform better
is
that
they be numerologically sound. I'm not sure I buy it, but then I'm not
a
Nikon
user. Are we Canonites somehow missing the Big Picture? ;^)

Bob

It is not just the number on the camera. The strange angles of the
corners
of the body and the pentaprism are also important in allowing the Great
Old Ones to travel the space between spaces, stealing the subject's soul
and imprinting it on the alien sensor that lurks menacingly within. When
enough souls have been taken in this manner, Great Cthulhu will arise
and
feast upon the users of Canon.

Exactly. I was just about to point that out myself but you beat me to it.

I believe H.P. Lovecraft made all this clear in his last book, "Nikon
Numbers in the Necronomicon," which unfortunately remains unpublished.

I found a manuscript in the stacks at Miskatonic University, misfiled of
course, and with the title "Nikonomicon."

Wait, I think I have a copy of that right here. . . . Well, no, mine is the
"Nikon Compendium" by Simon Stafford. He may have been associated with
Lovecraft, of course.


Unfortunately, I was attacked by invisible demons before I could read it.
The last thing I heard before losing consciousness was a mysterious voice
whispering "f/64." I woke up six months later in an infirmary in Haiti. I
have no idea how I got there.

I can't tell you how many times that has happened to me.

"Shiva Das" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

I believe H.P. Lovecraft made all this clear in his last book, "Nikon
Numbers in the Necronomicon," which unfortunately remains unpublished.

I understand that it was going to be released by Cthulhu Pentagram
Press, but suddenly their website announced that they had been absorbed
by, and were now inextricably a subsidiary of, Canon, Inc.

Heh. I heard it was the other way around. But then, who can trust the news
nowadays? I suppose we won't know for sure until the Cthulhu Rebel hits the
market.


Your narrator hesitates to speculate on what shades and specters issued
forth from the foetid sewers to work their weird magic on the world of
publishing...