What is Nikon doing for Pro DX and for a Pro Sub 20 Mega Pixel FX Camera?

Bought a Nikon D800 used for cheap… and now have to spend a ton on FX lenses in the wide to medium focal lengths… and am not happy…

The 36 Megabyte files are too big for most portraits which most folks like for their web sites…

12-18M seems a very sweet spot for web use images, which more and more clients are demanding.

Why did I buy the D800?

Cause it was only $2300 used in great shape… But… It requires a faster computer and longer wait times for processing EVERYTHING. Why was it only $2300? Because the pro who bought it couldn’t justify the price of ownership when his clients wanted a 50-200 Kilo byte JPG for their Facebook photos…

I really like a number of the pro features and high ISO capability of the D800.

Thing is… for what most of us produce most of the time… we do not require more megapixels.

What we do like and need is less noise, faster shooting (larger buffers and faster write times so we can shoot sports with faster Frames Per Second FPS), and higher ISO capability, and pro body features like more focus points.

Let me repeat “Higher ISO Capability”. This is the largest benefit of the new sensors… Being able to shoot at ISO 3000 and have a usable image, able to focus in low light, etc… These provide salable images for clients who like their pro to produce an image, in any light, that they can display on the web, and maybe even print. HIGHER ISO.

What we also need is good glass.

Where is all the great Nikon DX glass?

DX glass is easier to make than FX glass and with better performance.

All you all physics geniuses who think FX is so much better… Hello take a Nikon D800E, and put it in DX mode. You then effectively have a DX camera with focus points across the entire sensor. And, believe you me, the sharpness of the FX glass on the center part of the D800E sensor will be sharper than the edges… So, it is possible to make better DX sensors than FX sensors…. QED (quod erat demonstratum).

Other than the 17-55MM 2.8, most all the DX glass by Nikon is not pro quality… And the 17-55 could sorely use VR…

I have to use the 70-200MM VRII 2.8 FX on my DX bodies to get great performance. Great lens… Could be much lighter, better and cheaper lens if made for DX.

The D4 is ridiculously priced at $6000-7000 for most applications…

Nikon is fully capable of making a high end FX camera at 16-20 Megapixels and a modern Pro DX at 16-20 Megapixels. These need to be in the $1000-2000 price point area.

They cannot however just make a Pro DX body now without beefing up their pro DX lens line up.

While I just recently have become a Nikon Professional Services ( NPS ) member… It was interesting to note that at The Arizona Professional Photographers Association, very few of the membership are Nikon users… Most are Canon.

It was an interesting ordeal getting into NPS… took about two months.

I have been a loyal Nikon user for over 30 years.

I like the DX format for most of what I do photographically.

I’m frustrated by a lack of adequate Pro DX bodies and lenses from Nikon.

It is causing some difficult choices to be made… I may wait a few months and see what Nikon does to fill in it’s DX gaps. Or if they will offer a low megapixel high performance FX body (The D600 seems unduly dumbed down). I’m looking for a body with all the pro menu features and focus points… With less megapixels, and nice ISO performance.

My D7000 is pretty good at high ISO… But the D5200 is better. It just doesn’t have a pro body.

My D7000 is better at high ISO than the aging D300s, which has some added menu/pro body features… These bodies need to be replaced with a high ISO pro feature laden DX body.

Where is the D400 or the D7200 Nikon…??

Hello? Whatcha gonna do Nikon?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.