Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 16, 2014.

  1. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    You left off:
    "Do try to keep up."
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2014 3:07 AM, Sandman wrote:

    "nikon *has been* using...."
    (emphasis supplied)
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Guest Guest

    not applicable in this instance.
     
    Guest, May 17, 2014
    #23
  4. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Yeah, isn't that what he just did? That's how I read:

    "since nikon has been using 3 digits for fx and 4 digits for
    dx, it wouldn't be called a d400."

    "has been using" != "Nikon's official naming scheme" :)
    Sure, everything about the name of an upcoming product is speculation
    unless the one naming it says something explicit, but I really don't see
    the problem here.
    Yes, but WHY? I mean, if it's an assumption, why would there be
    documenation? If it's a CLAIM, then he sure would need to document it, but
    he clearly phrased it as a logical conclusion, based on current affairs. I
    have no idea why he would need official documentation.

    It's like if I were to say "Since Apple has had a X and Xs version of
    every phone, the next phone can't be a iPhone 6S" and you would ask me to
    provide official documentation on Apple's naming conventions. It's just
    logical-
    Shouldn't he first claim that his position is the "official Nikon naming
    convention"?
    What? You asked him where he got the idea about from how Nikon names their
    cameras, and he replied:

    "by looking at how they are naming their cameras"

    In what way, pray tell, is that him claiming that his supposed "insight" is
    the only truth? I think you're blowing this WAY out of proportion.
    Sure, and the problem with that is...?
    Evidence for WHAT? I think I need to ask you for a cite of nospam making an
    absolute claim of knowledge about Nikon's naming convention.

    As far as I can make out, he has been perfectly clear from the beginning
    that his assumption about the naming of an upcoming Nikon product is 100%
    based on observations of how Nikon have named their cameras for the last
    five years.
    Really? What holes do you mean? THe D7** is pretty awesome, and the D6**
    picks up above it, right? Where would the D500 and D400 fit?
     
    Sandman, May 18, 2014
    #24
  5. RichA

    Sandman Guest

     
    Sandman, May 18, 2014
    #25
  6. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    There *are* no DX d*** Nikon cameras. There have been such cameras in the
    past, just as there have been DX D* cameras in the past.
    Which is a logical assumption.
    Or maybe it will be D400 *and* FX? As far as I can make out, he's saying
    that the rumored D9*** camera will not be called D400 if it's DX, which
    surely means that it could be called D400 if it *IS* FX, right?
    No, just as a fact, not as a "Nikon naming policy" fact. There's a
    difference. He is correctly stating that Nikon currently only name FX
    cameras as D***.
    Which all currently are FX. Would you be as offended by this if he had
    claimed that the D5 will be FX as well? I mean, there have been DX D*
    cameras as well, so by the same "countering", you could claim that the
    successor to the D4 would be DX? It's just not very likely though.
    I think you're blowing it way out of proportion. He hasn't claimed to know
    anything, and have been very clear that his claim is based on Nikon's
    current naming of their products and that it's a logical conclusion. DOn't
    be so aggresive.
    His statement started with the word "since", which clearly makes it an
    assumption. It means that "X must be true, since Y is true". It's a logical
    conslusion, not presented as something factual.
    WHEN did he make this claim, mr Duck? I sure can't find it.
    Why? Since he hasn't claimed to have *ANY* knowledge about internal naming
    conventions, and he has been *VER* clear that his statement was based on
    "looking at how they are naming their cameras", how on earth would he
    "back" that up?

    You are free to disagree with his conclusion all you want, and come up with
    a naming scheme you think fot the current lineup even better, but to demand
    proof when someone offers logical speculation is just whacky.
    He didn't say that, now did he? He just said that D*** cameras are FX now.
    If the D9000 is released and is FX, then Nikon quite clearly has released a
    camera that doesn't fit into nospam's view of their naming conventions, and
    if they release a D400 that is DX, it's the same thing. Worst that happens
    - nospam goes "huh, that is illogical". Just as he would if Apple's next
    iPhone is called iPhone 7.
    No hearsay, he clearly based it on his observations on current model names.
    There is a rumor - Nikon will release a D9000, some think it will be the
    D400, but mos trumors peg it as a DX camera, so nospam says it won't be
    named D400 based on his observations on current naming conventions. He is
    free to hold that position and conclusion and you're free to disagree with
    it. I just can't understand why you're so worked up over such a
    insignificant thing.
    Implies, you mean. And yeah, maybe he does. Maybe he is making a statement
    on current Nikon naming policies, even though he can't know for sure.
    That's perfectly fine, you know. I can say that Samsungs next flagship
    phone will probably be named Samsung Galaxy S6 and that Apple's next iPhone
    will be the iPhone 6. Do I know? No. Is the observable data to support a
    logical conslusion? Yes!
    Well, hope you brought a sleeping bag :)
    Ok - so where is that cite, Savageduck? You just said that he has made an
    explciit claim to know how Nikon names their products. I'm going to have to
    ask YOU to back THAT up.
    Huh? You mean other than using "since" and later saying it is based on
    observation? How could it be anything BUT an assumption. I think there's
    some animosity in you that is coloring your appreciation of the situation.
    Wait, what? Isn't this YOU making claims about Nikon's naming policy? Just
    because they didn't make a D400 and D500 doesn't mean that's a hole that
    need to be filled. Or else we have the D10, D20, D30 and D60 to wait for as
    well, right? And when are we going to get the D1000, D2000 and D4000?

    I wanted to know if there was something specifical feature-wise that you
    think would fit a D400 moniker better than, say, a D8000 or D9000. If you
    think it's perfectly valid for the D400 to be DX, then what makes it a D400
    in your mind?
    You don't need nospam to tell you that - just look at their current lineup,
    it's a verifiable fact that Nikon is no longer using D*** for DX cameras.
    Whether or not they will in the future is unknown, though.

    And if I would wager a guess, I'd say that the D600 was feature-wise so
    close to the D800 so naming it D400 felt a bit to wide a gap.
    I'm not "disagreeing" with anything, I'm just asking why this was such a
    huge deal for you, where you would ask nospam to "back up" obvious
    speculation and logical conclusions. I just didn't understand it.

    But yeah, I didn't expect you to back any of your claims up (since you
    can't, and that would only expose your animosity), so run along.
     
    Sandman, May 18, 2014
    #26
  7. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2014
    #27
  8. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    This is the claim of yours you need to back up:

    Savageduck
    Re: Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP
    05/18/2014 <2014051800445974252-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>

    "Not at all, nospam claims to have all this knowledge and
    expertise, it would be nice if he backed that up with
    something more tangible and a little less speculative."

    "nospam makes absolute claims on every subject discussed in
    this NG, much of it without substantiation when challenged.
    This is just one such example."

    I need you to back up your claim that "this" is an example of nospam making
    an absolute claim of knowledge and expertise regarding Nikon's naming
    conventions.

    Here is his claim again:

    nospam
    Re: Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP
    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."
    ....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.
    Just as nospam's comment was pure speculation, based on:

    nospam
    Re: Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP
    05/17/2014 <160520142044117433%>

    "by looking at how they are naming their cameras."
     
    Sandman, May 18, 2014
    #28
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <2014051615473518024-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    :
    : > > 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.

    You've made a fairly compelling case for your interpretation of Nikon's
    current numbering system (and have thereby, I guess we're supposed to believe,
    shed some light on one of the major mysteries of the 21st century). But to
    call your conclusions "facts" dignifies them a bit too much, IMO.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 18, 2014
    #29
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <2014051618050813496-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    :
    : > > 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.

    You'd better hope it isn't. Because if it is, your goose as a Nikon analyst
    and prognosticator will be more or less permanently cooked. That's the price
    of being so conspicuously sure of yourself.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 18, 2014
    #30
  11. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2014-05-17 02:49:08 +0000, nospam <> said:
    :
    : > In article <2014051619073575244-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    : >
    : >>>> 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.

    Stop egging him on. He's dug his hole deep enough as it is. To try to get him
    to dig it deeper is just cruel.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 18, 2014
    #31
  12. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 18/05/2014 20:12, Robert Coe wrote:
    []
    The killfile is the humane answer, then you don't inflict it on the rest
    of us.
     
    David Taylor, May 18, 2014
    #32
  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    that would be your own mistaken interpretation.
    it has always been an observation, where all 3 digit cameras since the
    d700 have been fx, with the lone exception of the d300s, and all dx
    have been 4 digit after the d90.
    it's based on what nikon has been doing for over 10 years.

    ....snip...
    because it's a cheaper d800, not an enhanced d300s.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #33
  14. RichA

    Guest Guest

    mainly a bigger buffer. otherwise, the d7100 is a better camera than
    the d300s.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #34
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    based on what?

    because nikon obviously disagrees. otherwise, they would have made it
    already.

    it's been about 5 years since the d300s came out and based on a 2 year
    cycle, it's 3 years overdue.
    the evidence points to that not being the case.
    no need.

    just look at what nikon is currently offering and what they have been
    doing in the past.

    it's not that hard to see a pattern.

    is it a guarantee? no, but nothing is. however, the odds are *very*
    much in favour of a d300s successor *not* being called a d400, should
    there even be one at all, which there may not be.

    in other words, the speculation is not about its name, but rather *if*
    there will be a d300s successor. they're doing pretty well with the
    d7100/d610 combo, so there might not be.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #35
  16. RichA

    Guest Guest

    buffer size.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #36
  17. RichA

    Guest Guest

    i never said it was a fact. nikon could at any time change their tune
    and do something entirely different. however, the chances of that are
    exceedingly low.

    more of the usual let's twist what he says and bash.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #37
  18. RichA

    Guest Guest

    i don't care one way or the other. if nikon calls it a d400 then so be
    it. i have no problem admitting a mistake.

    however, my money is on it *not* being called a d400.

    and just to be clear, this is a dx model, not an fx model, which
    wouldn't really a d300s successor if it was fx, it would be more of an
    expansion of the fx lineup.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #38
  19. RichA

    Guest Guest

    i never said the d9300 existed.

    i always said it's rumoured to be what people expect in a d300s
    successor.

    there's also no guarantee that it might ever appear. instead, nikon
    could really beef up the d7100 successor and simplify the product
    lineup. a fourth dx category is a bit much (and there's even a rumour
    of a d2300 which would be 5).

    whatever it is, if it is at all, won't have a 3 digit name. those are
    for fx now.
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #39
  20. RichA

    Guest Guest

    what in particular?
     
    Guest, May 18, 2014
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.