Nikon D3200 with the 24.2 MP DX sensor on 19 April, anyone?

Nikon is stepping up the DSLR market, the D3200 will takeover D5100 place, the D5200 will takeover D7000 place and the new D7100/7200 will take over as top DX body. The D300s however will come in as entry level FX.
I believe the D300s replacement will be another hot seller as the D800 as many DX shooters are upgrading to FX and the D800 is way out of reach for the normal enthuthiast-some jump over to other brands due to this.
My take is a 16/18mp sensor, inheret all of the good stuff from the D700

btw statement above is just a rumour from somewhere I read......

---

Added on April 16, 2012, 11:44 amsuperbikes are meant to sit on, not looked at.........
6 years back, i think this was taken on a 2mp dslr......



This post has been edited by ojtee: Apr 16 2012, 11:44 AM

She is sitting on the superbike just not moving

hahaha......

Just wan to ask how to take this kind of photo and what kind of setting i need to use? So the result is like the link below. The background light is in hexagon shape and not round. 50mm can do this effect?

http://i1.creativecow.net/u/103814/p-bloom-focus-shot.jpg

7 blade prime lens (old ones) usually will have these effect when aperture is stopped down. Example, 50mm f/1.8D.

depend your lens aperture blade....the lesser the blade, the not-roundness the "light bokeh" will shape-it-like...

err...
http://www.diyphotography.net/create-a-shaped-bokeh-lens-cap

this might will clear you how to make this kind of bokeh

D800 and D4 also have AF-A mode.

---

Added on April 16, 2012, 3:58 pmpros who use both FX and DX will want a DX body that has similar control layouts as their FX bodies, so its either nikon redesign the D7000 replacement, or keep D300s replacement as DX.
doubt a redesign will happen, unless its called a D8000

This post has been edited by Everdying: Apr 16 2012, 03:58 PM

Oh~ Thanks~

Perhaps even put a newer body style for the D7000. Not as large as the FX bodies but slightly larger than the current D7k.

But I really feel that the trend will push the D300s replacement to be FX. Heck, a new D700 can be had for abt RM6k. Previously the D300s originally came out about that price IIRC. Even better it'll explain the reason why Nikon has not put out any pro-class DX glass.

pro-class DX class is kinda a oxymoron
with the exception of the 10.5mm and 17-55mm, every other FX lens can be used on DX to cover almost any range needed.
perhaps not so much in the wide areas, where the only gold ring is the 12-24...then again thats what FX is for if u really want wide.

and whats pro-class anyway? some pros still use 20yr old lenses.
more like gold ring, then again nikon can sometimes get abit confusing with their gold ring.
80-400 can get a gold ring, while 60mm af-s macro with nano coat doesnt get.

I'll specify then.

Constant, large aperture lenses (both zoom and prime), with or without a gold ring. High build quality with magnesium alloy and extensive weather sealing. Or at least how I see it. There haven't been any of those for DX for a while other than those you've just quoted. Even then, lenses of moderate, but constant aperture which are well built are absent for DX.

While you're right that yes, you can use FX glass to cover your DX needs, sometimes I do wish that my kit was actually smaller but just as well built. Also, putting out 10k for a FX body to go wide with the associated glass is out of reach for a lot of people, especially enthusiasts. So I do believe that there is a need for some good DX glass.

well, perhaps nikon sees no need in upgrading the current DX lenses...even tho both the 12-24 and 17-55 are 9yrs old.

then again, FX is only 5yrs old, which is why there seem to be more gold ring lenses for FX, but IIRC the last gold ring for FX came out almost 2yrs ago?

there's just not enough reason for Nikon to justify in introducing pro-grade DX lenses. The market for expensive DX lenses is just too small. Trend is easy to spot, most DX user would choose cheaper alternative like Sigma,Tamron and Tokina if they want better glass for DX. It's hard for Nikon to compete in those price range without compromising quality. Hence, the lack of pro-grade DX lenses from Nikon.

D400 being a FX is more like fantasy from those who hate the spec of D800 and also wish FX could come at the price of a DX dslr. Wishful thinking I'm suppose. Make no sense to introduce another FX that would only hurt the sales of their current FX line while not making any significant damage on competitors sales. A 16MP FX would hurt the sales of D4 like what D700 did to D3, a 24MP would hurt the sales of D800; while a 16MP/24MP would not attract much attention from Canon camp unless it's dirt cheap. If they could sell it cheap enough I see no reason why won't they jusr continue the D700 line with new processor and sell it at the price those ppl wish for.

This is only my opinion. Time would tell.

---

Added on April 16, 2012, 6:42 pmlatest gold ring is the 35mm 1.4G & 16-35mm f4 VR I think . . .

This post has been edited by hkenh: Apr 16 2012, 06:42 PM

I'm still putting hope on an upgraded D700... D4 sensor but with a D800 form factor. Oh well, maybe it will come after a year D4 has been introduced just like D700/D3 timeline? Time will tell...

Oh well, Nikon isn't the only one not making pro grade crop sensor lens. Heck even Canon have very limited range of pro grade lens for their crop sensors.

well like mentioned, DX only loses out on the wide end.
which is where the 12-24 comes in for gold ring.
for wider still, there is the 10-24, and of cos the general purpose 17-55.
imo, those dont really need updating.
unless if nikon decides to stick VR in it or something.

the telephoto side, of cos there is no need for DX specific lenses as the FX ones work perfectly fine and even better since only the center is used.

in short, imo there is no need for a whole range of pro grade DX lenses, only at the wide area, and those are somewhat covered decently.

even for FX, at that same end, currently in production there is only 14-24 and 24-70 right?
not sure if 16-35 is still in production or not...or is it the 14-24 that has been discon?
either way, at that same end its still covered decently.

This post has been edited by Everdying: Apr 16 2012, 07:25 PM

Both 14-24 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4 are still in production... the one that went out of production is the old 17-35 f/2.8 which was replaced by 14-24.

ohh ok.
so both still in production.
but anyway, imo the DX ones dont need that much upgrading, compared to FX which needs much better glass in order to get corner sharpness etc...guess thats why the 17-35 got discon.
i dont think the 24-70 needs replacing tho

This post has been edited by Everdying: Apr 16 2012, 07:35 PM

the FX market IMO is just too small for another FX camera in nikon FX lineup.
the potential buyer of D700s/x would be the same buyer that would have bought the D800/D4
so a new lower MP/higher fps D800 would do no good for Nikon

and with D800 priced at usd3000, it's hard to see another FX in that lineup. Price it below 3k, the D800 won't sell on the minute the cheaper FX is introduced. Sell it above 3k, the new FX won't sell well. Even the 4yr old D700 could have affect the sales of D4/D800, or else they won't have discontinued it considering it still have some pretty good demand especially if they could lower the price slightly.

A prosumer constant aperture zoom and a couple of primes would be nice for the hobbyist actually.

In fact, the high end market is all FX already. If they're going to cannibalize their lower end DX with the Nikon 1, I'd be pretty sure that the mid end will start shifting upwards in response as an upgrade path from the Nikon 1. Look at the D7000, when it came out it practically rivalled or even some ways superceded the D300s in specs, and startled the heck out of Canon when their 60D came out. That there is proof that Nikon would be quite happy to get the jump on their competitor in each target market, hence the FX shift.

Then, I also think it's quite hard to continuously iterate the D300s in DX form. What more can you throw in? Improved video, a better AF system? When the D7000 already is close to the D300s in specs, the differentiator then becomes either number of pixels, or upping the size of the sensor.

Also, I believe that the target market for the D700s and the D800 is different in terms of the amount they are willing to pay and their requirements. Going through the bythom poll and the nikonrumors polls, you can see that the feedback is split in half. Half want the high res D800, some just want a D700s. It is quite possible to just keep a slightly improved D700 with the D3s sensor, and improvements from the D800. Simply by keeping the pricing where it currently is, the gaps in the lineup are filled. The people who want 36mpix will go for the D800, the people who don't need it go for the D700s. And I also think that simple economics can come into play. Sell more of the lower end camera and get higher profit instead of selling less of the higher end one. The current D700 demand is proof, even though the camera is considered last generation.

Well...thats just my 2c why the there would be a cheaper FX body.