Continue With Nikon?

[ohkphoto]

Just wondering how old that Coolpix was? EVFs have come a long way. When it comes to viewfinders, Fuji is doing some awesome things, such as making hybrids; that is to say, an OVF and EVF combined. Therefore, you can still "see" what you are shooting. Just look at the X100 and the X-Pro1

Pretty old, AC. But actually the viewfinder on the coolpix 5700 (my second digital camera) was the one that I really disliked.

I actually did look at the Fuji line to use instead of my current PS until I got control of myself . . . I also like toys. . . sigh

 

[jdeg]

Forgive my ignorance here, but what can the D300s do that the D7100 can't? (besides the obvious, like buffer size, flash ports)

 

[Eduard]

Helene have you been talking to Laurie again? "Gadget-o-phile"? Guilty as charged.

I totally get your point regarding familiarity. I bought the D300 soon after it came out and after almost 6 years it is comfortable and instinctive. Which is why I wouldn't step down to a non-pro body.

I'm looking at the IQ that the D800 and D7100 are capable of versus the D300. Even the newer mirrorless offerings are starting to be superior. What is driving my consideration is the ability to have the capabilities of the D300 and V1 in a single system. Having used a viable mirrorless system I can't imagine not having that option. I think there may be an opportunity to maximize my spend in a single system.

The choice is really coming down to whether to invest in a pro-level mirrorless system. In an ideal world, a Nikon V3 would be the system for me. If Nikon add pro-level controls like Oly has on the OM-D's I'd be happy to have a V3 supplement the D300. If the V3 is a dud, I'll probably start with a basic OM-D setup and invest in glass over time (like I did with my D300).

My dream scenario would be the pro-DX body and keep the V1 - maybe move to a V2. I really like the Nikon 1 glass.

I'm not adverse to the D800 - actually far from it. I know I would love it. But since my time is pretty split between the two systems, would one pro-level mirrorless make more sense from a cost perspective? I'm only having the cost discussion with myself mind you. I hate to purchase things twice.

 

[Browncoat]

Forgive my ignorance here, but what can the D300s do that the D7100 can't? (besides the obvious, like buffer size, flash ports)

On paper, the D7100 looks better. But after you've held a D300s, the D7100 just feels all wrong in my opinion. The controls are really, really bad. You couldn't GIVE me a D7100. That's just personal opinion of course, but I absolutely hated that camera. Aside from "feel", the only real advantage the D300s has over the D7100 is when shooting sports. New school just can't keep up with the old tried-and-true.

 

[jdeg]

On paper, the D7100 looks better. But after you've held a D300s, the D7100 just feels all wrong in my opinion. The controls are really, really bad. You couldn't GIVE me a D7100. That's just personal opinion of course, but I absolutely hated that camera. Aside from "feel", the only real advantage the D300s has over the D7100 is when shooting sports. New school just can't keep up with the old tried-and-true.

I can understand that. I've never used a D300s, so I can't directly relate, but I have the D7000 (which I assume feels a lot like the D7100 apart from the AF) and the difference between that the the D5000 were like night and day to me. I guess it depends on what you're used to and are comfortable with.

Also, I found this, which explains it a little more.

 

[Eduard]

I actually did look at the Fuji line to use instead of my current PS until I got control of myself . . . I also like toys. . . sigh

I better not come around with the V1 and the 6.7-13mm and 18.5mm lenses then or you'll be online at Adorama or B&H!

 

[emm2600]

Forgive my ignorance here, but what can the D300s do that the D7100 can't? (besides the obvious, like buffer size, flash ports)

(Note: My comments are on slightly different models but still relevant to the spirit of the question in my opinion)

I would say it's mostly not a case of what the pro-cameras can do that the semi-pros can't, just how they do it. Off the top of my head the D2X i use most of the time has got:

• Both AE-L/AF-L and AF-ON buttons
• Toggle dials for metering/AF mode (M/S/C)/AF type
• ​Dedicated buttons for iso/quality/white balance/voice recording (additional buttons for menu control)
• (In my opinion) Better placed flash/bracketing buttons on the top left dial and a lock button as well
• Extra setting display column along right edge looking through viewfinder

It's possible to do without the extra hardware controls but like ohkphoto said once you learn to use them they fit like a glove and are nice to have - i do miss them when i use a semi-pro camera. Then i miss things like the D7000's superior AF points when i go back to the D2X heh.

 

[filterxg]

No such thing as a perfect system, but I think you are right that Nikon will consolidate their lineup. I think its a good thing, even if some niches are poorly covered. The market just isn't as big as it used to be.

There is no shame in exploring the options, in fact its important for manufacturers to know that switching costs aren't so high that they can ignore us. The K5ii's are excellent pro level dx cameras. On the mirrorless side Fuji & sony are coming out with very impressive gear. Olympus is too, but their future is a little shaky atm.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Marcel]

On paper, the D7100 looks better. But after you've held a D300s, the D7100 just feels all wrong in my opinion. The controls are really, really bad. You couldn't GIVE me a D7100. That's just personal opinion of course, but I absolutely hated that camera. Aside from "feel", the only real advantage the D300s has over the D7100 is when shooting sports. New school just can't keep up with the old tried-and-true.

I suspect that someone who'd be used to the 7000-7100 button layout would maybe have adaptation problems getting used to the 300-700-800 bodies. I think it's a question of habit and what you use as far as controls. We don't shoot the same way.

 

[jdeg]

Just saw this come across my feed and thought of this thread - haha

 

[slowpoke]

I like bothe my cameras.D300 and D7100.

 

[STM]

Hopefully this isn't a rambling post but I'd like to get other perspectives. I've been a dedicated Nikon shooter in both DSLR and Mirrorless. I use both a D300 and V1. Both are getting a little dated as I look at capabilities of new bodies. I originally purchased the V1 on a whim and have wound up enjoying it much more than expected. And what can you say about the D300, it along with it's D700 FX big brother, are classic pro-level bodies.

Here's my issue: I'm starting to feel like Nikon isn't going to meet my future needs. Why? Let's look at the DSLR situation first. My primary usage of the D300 is for travel and landscape. Which begs the question, why not a D800 or D800E? I could stretch and afford it but as a hobbyist I can't justify it. So why not a D600 or D7100? I've tried them but they don't have the same level of controls or feel as the pro-level D300/D700/D800 to me. I'm resigning myself that Nikon has decided not to introduce a pro-level DX body like the mythical D400.

What about mirrorless? I was an early naysayer of the Nikon 1 system. Then I used it and found out I was very wrong. It is a very capable system even considering some of the limitations. My primary usage of the V1 is as a small system while traveling for work or candid family situations. Nikon has released two amazing lenses (the 6.7-13mm and 18.5mm) that simply bring a smile to my face when using them. The Nikon 1 system's true advantage over the competition was focus speed. Others are swiftly catching up though. The Nikon 1 system is missing a few lenses (a 13mm and 37-39mm micro come to mind) and the pricing on the recently introduced portrait lens (32mm/f1.2) seems exorbitant. A new body (the V3?) is due with some rumblings around the net that the sensor size may increase to DX. If that happens, do the Nikon 1 lenses become orphans?

Now if Nikon isn't going to introduce a pro-level DX and if their mirrorless system greatly changes. . . what to do? When I look around and simplify my requirements to topic (travel, landscape, candids), pro-level controls, great glass selection, small/light weight, bracketing and external flash support Nikon is coming up a bit short for my needs.

I'm comfortable waiting for the next 6 months or so but expect to make a decision within that timeframe. If Nikon introduces a pro-level DX, I'm the first in line and end of story. If Nikon introduces a logical mirrorless body at reasonable price-point, I may be the second or third in line. If I were to make a decision today it wouldn't be Nikon. That makes me sad.

Anyone else thinking along these lines?

A pro-level DX? That is a contradiction in terms. I know dozens of professional photographers and not a one of them uses a DX camera. In fact most would probably chuckle at the thought. And several of your requirements for your ideal pro-level camera are unrealistic as well. There are no real small and lightweight pro cameras, by virtue of the levels of construction that are requited to make them "pro-level". The 24x16mm format is too limited to be considered "pro-level" by today's standards. One area, and not the only one, were DX falls flatly on its sword compared to FX is depth of field control.

Besides, your profile says your a hobbyist, why would you need a pro-level camera if you are only a hobbyist? Isn't that like a casual driver buying an Lamborghini Countach to drive to and from the mall?

 

[480sparky]

A pro-level DX? That is a contradiction in terms. And several of your requirements for your ideal pro-level camera are unrealistic as well. There are no real small and lightweight pro cameras, by virtue of the levels of construction that are requited to make them "pro-level". The 24x16mm format is too limited to be considered "pro-level" by today's standards. One area, and not the only one, were DX falls flatly on its sword compared to FX is depth of field control.

Besides, your profile says your a hobbyist, why would you need a pro-level camera if you are only a hobbyist? Isn't that like a casual driver buying an Lamborghini Countach to drive to and from the mall?

It ain't the camera that makes good images..... its the person running it. FX is not a requirement to be a pro.

And there's no law that says hobbyists can't buy top-shelf gear.

 

[STM]

It ain't the camera that makes good images..... its the person running it. FX is not a requirement to be a pro.

And there's no law that says hobbyists can't buy top-shelf gear.

I never said there was, but how many pros do you know that still shoot DX? I know a couple dozen through my various associations and I cannot think of a single one who is still using DC. DX is just too limited for professional use.

 

[RON_RIP]

I presently shoot with a D7000. Do not feel that I have yet risen to the level of that body's capability. But, if I could afford it, I would have a D4. But regardless of all other considerations I will always use Nikons. to paraphrase another obsessed person, they will have to pry my Nikon from my cold dead fingers. Just saying____:cocksure:

 

[480sparky]

I never said there was, but how many pros do you know that still shoot DX? I know a couple dozen through my various associations and I cannot think of a single one who is still using DC. DX is just too limited for professional use.

What difference does it make whether either one of us knows who uses DX? Neither of us are a wellspring of accurate statistics.

 

[riverside]

It ain't the camera that makes good images..... its the person running it. FX is not a requirement to be a pro.

And there's no law that says hobbyists can't buy top-shelf gear.

So true and let's not forget the number of pros who are going to mirrorless. Check the internet to see how many successful pros are now using 3-4 mirrorless bodies with different lenses for weddings rather than lugging around an FX body and normally choosing between two lenses (that take time to change). Food, art, jewelry and other small product photography doesn't require FX equipment for print or internet purposes.

 

[stmv]

I am going to suggest,,,, a Used D800....really,,, if you are a D300 user,, you will love it,, features that you love,, and the sensor step that makes it worth it.

I have owned the D300, D700, 7000, and D800,,,

and honestly,, once I got the D700,, my D300 collected dust,, I just like the FX better, and when I got the D800,, well,, my D700 collects dust, I find myself using
the D7000 and D800 as my combos..

sure,, get a mirroless for those time when you absolutely need to be mobile,, but for the features/lens options,, and breath of 50 years of lens catalog,, ok,, yeah,, Go Nikon.
​

 

[Sambr]

A pro-level DX? That is a contradiction in terms. I know dozens of professional photographers and not a one of them uses a DX camera. In fact most would probably chuckle at the thought. And several of your requirements for your ideal pro-level camera are unrealistic as well. There are no real small and lightweight pro cameras, by virtue of the levels of construction that are requited to make them "pro-level". The 24x16mm format is too limited to be considered "pro-level" by today's standards. One area, and not the only one, were DX falls flatly on its sword compared to FX is depth of field control.

Besides, your profile says your a hobbyist, why would you need a pro-level camera if you are only a hobbyist? Isn't that like a casual driver buying an Lamborghini Countach to drive to and from the mall?

In Nikon's world before the D3 The D2x, D2H, D1 were all "pro cameras" and were DX - further more I know 2 pros who today still make their living still using D2x's.

 

[Eduard]

A pro-level DX? That is a contradiction in terms. I know dozens of professional photographers and not a one of them uses a DX camera. In fact most would probably chuckle at the thought.

Nikon certainly considers many DX cameras a pro-level if you use the NPS qualifications as a guideline. Sorry but I think your response is ill-informed.

There are no real small and lightweight pro cameras, by virtue of the levels of construction that are requited to make them "pro-level". The 24x16mm format is too limited to be considered "pro-level" by today's standards.

What?!?! Have you paid any attention to the Fuji X, Olympus OM-D, Leica M and/or the Sony NEX offerings? And as riverside pointed out many pros are creating great images with small and lightweight systems. Even one of the largest pro-Nikon guys around, Thom Hogan, is using a Nikon V2 on safari!

Besides, your profile says your a hobbyist, why would you need a pro-level camera if you are only a hobbyist? Isn't that like a casual driver buying an Lamborghini Countach to drive to and from the mall?

Wow. Slightly condescending. By this standard since I'm not a professional driver I should only leave home in my Chrysler K car and make sure I stay out of the way of professional photographers while taking snapshots with my disposable camera from Walgreen's?