Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

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 ita truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since3 year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

 

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!

Yeah but what really would you need 40MP for? Even shooting for billboards
generally requires less. It would be nice for extreme crops, though. lol

 

the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.

 

An April 1 rumor at that.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

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/

 

no it doesn't.

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.

 

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

by looking at how they are naming their cameras.

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.

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

 

are you actually blaming your inability to count on me?

you also need to read more carefully before you spew.

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.

 

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

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.[/QUOTE]

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

 

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".

 

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

it's not my imagination.

all the evidence supports what i've said.

 

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.

 

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.[/QUOTE]

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

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.

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.

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

 

Below is a more complete list, where you can see that the D300S is the only
combo-breaker in the bunch. D* became FX with the D3, and D*** became FX
with the D700, but the D300S with DX was released after it.

Other than that, they've been pretty consistent. Maybe FX will creep into
the Midrange at one point - depending on the rate of progress vs. the death
of the SLR

Either way, as it is - D**** is DX and D*** is FX in Nikon's lineup since
the last five years at least.

High-end Professional
- D1 DX 1999
- D1X DX 2001
- D1H DX 2001
- D2H DX 2003
- D2X DX 2004
- D2HS DX 2005
- D2XS DX 2006
- D3 FX 2007
- D3X FX 2008
- D3S FX 2009
- D4 FX 2012
- D4S FX 2014

High-end Prosumer
- D100 DX 2002
- D200 DX 2005
- D300 DX 2007
- D700 FX 2008
- D300S DX 2009
- D800 FX 2012
- D800E FX 2012
- D600 FX 2012
- D610 FX 2013
- Df FX 2013

Midrange
- D70 DX 2004
- D70S DX 2005
- D80 DX 2006
- D90 DX 2008
- D7000 DX 2010
- D7100 DX 2013

Upper entry-level
- D5000 DX 2009
- D5100 DX 2011
- D5200 DX 2012
- D5300 DX 2013

Entry-level
- D50 DX 2005
- D40 DX 2006
- D40X DX 2007
- D60 DX 2008
- D3000 DX 2009
- D3100 DX 2010
- D3200 DX 2012
- D3300 DX 2014

 

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. Here's what nospam said:

nospam
05/17/2014 <160520141814238125%>

"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."

nospam is essentially saying that this supposed new camera will not be
named D400 if it's DX, since Nikon has an all-FX 3-digit lineup.

It seems that to counter this, people have brought up past 3-digit Nikon's
from the past that weren't FX, and Andreas is trying to claim that it
wasn't at all obvious that nospam was talking about *current* cameras, but
must have included every camera Nikon ever made.

Well, *all* D* cameras were DX from the beginning, so it's impossible for
nospam to be in reference to a historical perspective.

D*** have been FX since the D700 (with the only exception of D300S). Based
on that, it's really quite logical to assume that Nikon wouldn't introduce
a D400 with a DX sensor.

Having said that, I suppose it's equally logical to assume that D1** - D5**
is DX and D6** - D9** is FX, but it still doesn't seem likely.

 

I provided no evidence. I provided my personal speculation based on
Nikon's naming history.[/QUOTE]

do you think they pick names at random?

there is very clearly an unmistakeable pattern to their naming scheme.

no i didn't. i did not expel anything nor did i say that every 3 digit
name was fx.

i said that nikon has been using 3 digits for fx and 4 digits for dx,
which is exactly what they've been doing.

obviously an fx slr would have to exist for any name to be an fx slr,
so the early 3 digit slrs could never have been fx (nor were the early
1 digit pro slrs fx either).

it's possible, but there's no sign of that being the case.

the d70 was the first 2 digit slr, a less expensive d100. why start
with 70? the d40 was released after the d50 and its successor was the
d60. not much logic there and it basically cut off d10, d20 and d30
from being a possibility. they incremented the d70 to d80 and then d90,
which used up the rest of the 2 digit numbers. now what? what comes
after d90? d100, but that was used already and has another digit
anyway.

certainly someone must have known they'd release more than a handful of
low/midrange dx slrs.

mine also looks pretty good, and oddly enough, it's the same.

 

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.

 

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