[R2D2]

Originally Posted by gd1418

....the choice narrowed down to 800. Now this piece of hardware is in eternal short supply worldwide. And true to the saying - "make hay while the sun shines", Nikon has been increasing its price by 10K every month. How very unethical..!

Since you intend keeping the D300 (smart decision), IMO the 2nd body should be a FX. The reason you don't get the D3, D3s is because Nikon has stopped production of these cameras and what you get in the market are unsold stocks. That is if you manage to locate them. I wouldn't count on getting a brand new D3s at all. The options IMHO are:

a) D800 - Waiting list, depending on the dealer
b) Wait for D600 - Pie in the sky
c) Wait for D400 - Pie in the sky
d) Pre-owned D3s
e) Pre-owned D700 - a brand new one still retails at well over Rs 1 lakh

Also, Nikon has raised the prices of the D800 only once in June 2012. But INR devaluation is leading Nikon India to contemplate another price revision - upwards of course.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I am not interested in FX at the moment because I can't afford all the expensive supporting gear I will need to buy.

Again, IMHO, your investment will be better preserved if you buy a FX camera/lens. DX is facing startling levels of heat from M4/3rds and EVILs.

If you are not neck deep in the DX format in terms of lenses, a reasonably priced and good lens like the 70-300 VR2 (IIRC you have one already?) is good enough to start you off with FX, even a D800. For a fast prime - it is either the 50mm 1.8G or the 50mm 1.4G. If you have good DX lenses, you can also use them with the D800 in crop mode for 15MP pics

[gd1418]

Yes I know that and Nikon stopped production abruptly taking almost everyone by surprise. Some unsold stocks are available worldwide but not in India and to get them from abroad is a logistical nightmare.

D800 - endless wait and now getting frustrating
D600/400 - look like two birds in the bush

My friend has a D700 that he is willing to give to me as he got a D800E, but I'm waiting for the waters to reach the nosetip.

Nikon India on Friday evening increased the price of 800 by 10K to list at 1.6L

Originally Posted by R2D2

The reason you don't get the D3, D3s is because Nikon has stopped production of these cameras and what you get in the market are unsold stocks. That is if you manage to locate them. I wouldn't count on getting a brand new D3s at all. The options IMHO are:

a) D800 - Waiting list, depending on the dealer
b) Wait for D600 - Pie in the sky
c) Wait for D400 - Pie in the sky
d) Pre-owned D3s
e) Pre-owned D700 - a brand new one still retails at well over Rs 1 lakh

Also, Nikon has raised the prices of the D800 only once in June 2012. But INR devaluation is leading Nikon India to contemplate another price revision - upwards of course.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by gd1418

D800 - endless wait and now getting frustrating
D600/400 - look like two birds in the bush

My friend has a D700 that he is willing to give to me as he got a D800E, but I'm waiting for the waters to reach the nosetip.

GD saab, I think if you book the D800 you will find it to be worth the wait. Since you are on a 3 month sabbatical from wildlife parks it should be easier.

Keeping in mind Nikon's 2012 track record on camera deliveries - a D400/600 announcement in Sept would mean these cameras landing on our shores in Oct/Nov that is if demand doesnt outstrip supply.

Originally Posted by gd1418

Nikon India on Friday evening increased the price of 800 by 10K to list at 1.6L

Not quite - they raised the prices on 1st June. See my post of that date. prices are still unchanged from then. Previously the D800 was 149,950 (I got my camera on 6th May) and the D800E was 164,950. They are now Rs 10K (@ Rs 159,950/-) and 15K (@ Rs 174,950) higher respectively.

Originally Posted by R2D2

Nikon has raised prices of the D4 & D800E by Rs 15K, the D800 by 10K from today. Prices of accessories (lenses, flashes) seem to be unchanged so far.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Again, IMHO, your investment will be better preserved if you buy a FX camera/lens. DX is facing startling levels of heat from M4/3rds and EVILs.

If you are not neck deep in the DX format in terms of lenses, a reasonably priced and good lens like the 70-300 VR2 (IIRC you have one already?) is good enough to start you off with FX, even a D800. For a fast prime - it is either the 50mm 1.8G or the 50mm 1.4G. If you have good DX lenses, you can also use them with the D800 in crop mode for 15MP pics

I mostly take outdoors/nature pics - and not very many landscape pics (most landscape photos are taken with my SGS2 camera nowadays because I don't have a second body and can't be bothered to change lenses in dusty/wobbly conditions).

For my usual photos the main problem is the cost of the Nikkor lenses that I will have to get if I forego the extra DX reach. If I had that kind of money to spend on photography I would go for a FX in a heartbeat - who wouldn't, with the added IQ benefit?

I also handhold my camera during wildlife trips, and most shots are spontaneous. So the 70-300VR is ideal right now.

If I move to FX, I will need bigger lenses (with or without TC), tripod or beanbag - which also means having a complete vehicle to myself for flexibility and 360 view. In any case, the costs will become exponentially higher. And most important, those good lenses with the extra reach (with or without TC) - that I lust for - cost as much as a small hatchback .

So the compromise - a higher end DX that will retain the extra reach but will provide me with better MP (for occasional cropping), ISO, DR, FPS, build quality etc.

I feel that the total cost of moving to FX for my kind of needs will be a few lakhs. Unless someone tell me that it will be cheaper. What will be the minimum cost of replicating the 450mm reach (70-300mm lens in DX) in FX with significantly better IQ? Something like the 80-400mm won't cut it. And as it is even 450mm sometimes is not enough...

Originally Posted by gd1418

Since I wasn't interested in the 700, the choice narrowed down to 800. Now this piece of hardware is in eternal short supply worldwide. And true to the saying - "make hay while the sun shines", Nikon has been increasing its price by 10K every month. How very unethical..!

Maybe the Rupee depreciation (or anticipation of depreciation) and the high demand for D800 worldwide mean that they have to increase prices. Also, the greenback @ Rs. 55 means 3000K USD = Rs. 1.65lakhs.

If you have someone coming from abroad, you could ask him to pick one up.

Edit: for the DX mode/crop factor and AF, the D800 is tempting.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

For my usual photos the main problem is the cost of the Nikkor lenses that I will have to get if I forego the extra DX reach. If I had that kind of money to spend on photography I would go for a FX in a heartbeat - who wouldn't, with the added IQ benefit?

I also handhold my camera during wildlife trips, and most shots are spontaneous. So the 70-300VR is ideal right now.

If I move to FX, I will need bigger lenses (with or without TC), tripod or beanbag - which also means having a complete vehicle to myself for flexibility and 360 view. In any case, the costs will become exponentially higher. And most important, those good lenses with the extra reach (with or without TC) - that I lust for - cost as much as a small hatchback .

So the compromise - a higher end DX that will retain the extra reach but will provide me with better MP (for occasional cropping), ISO, DR, FPS, build quality etc.

Edit: for the DX mode/crop factor and AF, the D800 is tempting.

I am not sure what your budget is. But here's my suggestion for FX:

a) D700 - pre owned should cost between 60 to 80K depending on condition and use
b) Nikon 300mm F/4 - About Rs 63K new, pre owned costs less but these are rare. Classic pro level lens but drawback is no VR
c) Nikon TC 1.4x - About Rs 18K new

My relative uses the 300mm + TC (effective FL on FX is 420mm @ F5.6) on his D90 (and now with the D800) with great results. Total outlay Rs - 1.61L assuming the D700 is Rs 80K.

Add 80K for a new D800 and total outlay is Rs 2.41L which is pretty steep.

My relative is also into birding having travelled to many places in the North and Southern India with his kit. He carries a Manfrotto monopod with the 300mm/TC combination..no beanbags and certainly no need of an entire vehicle to himself. That may be the case with some really large super telephotos like the 200-400/400mm F2.8/500mmF4/600mmF4.

As for the lens wishlist - man, I too have my eyes set on a super telephoto. But that will have to wait.

The thing is, the D400 has been talked about for a long time, but there's absolutely no indication of it coming any time soon..not if you consider that Nikon has launched 3 FX bodies already and another (D600) also rumoured to arrive in Sept. Details of the unexpected FX D600 showed up while the 'expected' DX D400 is still under wraps. IF it is introduced it may show up in Sept '12 at Photokina along with the D600.

With competition from EVIL/M43rds, including the Nikon 1, @ the consumer DSLR end, I am really not sure if Nikon intends to introduce a pro or semi pro level DX body (like a D400) or weather and dust sealed DX lenses. They would probably want pro/semi pro DX owners to upgrade to entry level FX i.e D700 and D600 whenever it is introduced

These are just my thoughts - let's see how things pan out in Sept.

[nilanjanray]

R2D2, really appreciate your long post.

However, the kit you are suggesting will cost 1.6L+ with somewhat incremental improvement in IQ, and will involve more compromises than what I am used to now. Guru Dutt has used the 300mm + 1.4 TC combo, so maybe he can comment on its use as the primary lens for wildlife.

I know that often animals come pretty close, and sometimes one needs wider framing. I would also need a longer zoom than 300mm, as well as a wide angle since if I have a FX I would take more landscapes than what I do now. Moreover, I need more MPs than 12 - if I am to spend more than 1L in upgrading - for those crops that come in very handy from time to time. I have a 'two tiger cubs walking' photo in the first post of the Tadoba thread - that was a cropped photo. I saw the opportunity, took the shot but knew that I was too far away. If I had a 500mm f/4 zoom, it would have been a different matter.

Might not be the D800 be a better option instead - spending the same money (~ 1.6L), and using DX mode for wildlife? And I keep my existing lenses...I will just have to buy a wide angle zoom since 18-105mm is a DX lens.

In any case, I think I will wait till October to decide. Let's see what happens with the D400. I don't think Nikon will keep the pro-DX space open for Canon to monopolize.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

will cost 1.6L+ with somewhat incremental improvement in IQ, and will involve more compromises than what I am used to now. Guru Dutt has used the 300mm + 1.4 TC combo, so maybe he can comment on its use as the primary lens for wildlife. .

I believe a D700 + 300mm F4 & TC combo is a more than just an 'incremental' improvement over a D90 + 70-300 VR2.

Components in the former group are superior to that in the latter group by a pretty wide margin. Of course, this is not just my opinion. I'm sure you will find reviews that would help you make the right decision.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Might not be the D800 be a better option instead - spending the same money (~ 1.6L), and using DX mode for wildlife? And I keep my existing lenses...I will just have to buy a wide angle zoom since 18-105mm is a DX lens.

I don't think Nikon will keep the pro-DX space open for Canon to monopolize.

I too believe a D800 will be worth the money but you are losing out on the lenses that you need for wildlife photography. Unless you up the budget correspondingly.

And IMO a lens is higher priority purchase compared to a body. Therefore, a D700 + 300mm F4 + TC is better than a D800 body alone at the same price. Why? It helps you get the photos you want.

If you pair that 300mm lens + TC with a D800 you get a 420MM F/5.6:

a) A 15 MP file in a DX crop mode
b) A 36MP file in FX mode - with options to manually crop your photo to your requirements.

It all boils down to the budget. Going from DX to FX is always going to be a pretty expensive jump. But once you make it the results are worthwhile. There are people, relatives + friends, I know that have made the jump + others like Shajufx on TBHP.

As for losing ground to Canon on crop sensors - I think both mfrs are looking at full frame sensors as the way ahead. The type of Body + lens released/announced in 2012 denote a trend.

I believe that DX users are at a cross road...stick to DX for that so called 'magnification/reach' OR, budget permitting, move over to FX where all the action will actually take place. DX will always get hand-me-down features from their FX cousins.

But let's wait to see how things pan out - A D600, or even a D400, should introduce an interesting mix into Nikon's offerings.

Hope things turn out to your satisfaction.

PS - Sorry about another long post.

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

OK, so I have been wanting to upgrade from my D90, and waiting for the D400 (D7000 and D300s are not that big of a leap for me to make it worth the investment). Sort of like waiting for Godot.

If they release it with 18-24 MP, better fps and buffer than D300s, similar build quality, much better AF. DR and ISO performance (flowing down from the new FX cousins) - it would be the perfect camera for me given my use. I shoot 90% of my stuff outdoors, under uncontrolled circumstances, and often need react fast.

During a recent trip I felt that I am outgrowing the D90.

I am not interested in FX at the moment because I can't afford all the expensive supporting gear I will need to buy.

Any other folks waiting for such a high end-DX camera?

Other parts I get but much better AF??, D300/D300s has same AF as D700/D3/D3s/D3x and is only surpassed by D800/E/D4 and that upgrade is only incremental.

[iVictor]

Hi guys,

Looking forward to buy my first DSLR. Am excited and quite unsure which one to buy. From various posts on forums, I gather Sony and Nikon are top contenders, not to say Cannon is any less. I'm not a professional user so don't really want the kit, tripod etc stuff. Something to start with, one which is better than my normal cannon cameras, and easy to use.

Of course, not to heavy on cost either. Suggestions please...

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Other parts I get but much better AF??, D300/D300s has same AF as D700/D3/D3s/D3x and is only surpassed by D800/E/D4 and that upgrade is only incremental.

I am assuming that the D400 will have the same AF as D4. I have read that the D4 AF is fantastic, and I haven't used the D300 so I could be wrong about the quantum of difference here.

Originally Posted by R2D2

I believe a D700 + 300mm F4 & TC combo is a more than just an 'incremental' improvement over a D90 + 70-300 VR2.

Components in the former group are superior to that in the latter group by a pretty wide margin. Of course, this is not just my opinion. I'm sure you will find reviews that would help you make the right decision.

And IMO a lens is higher priority purchase compared to a body.

Thanks R2D2.

When I said 'incremental improvement', I weighed the better capabilities of the D700 combo against:
1. Heavier setup, more difficult to handhold without some shake, more dependence on beanbags/tri or mono pod to get a sharper picture
2. Missing out on some interesting shots because of the 300mm-only limitation.
Perhaps I should have used another term.

Btw, I was shooting with some folks who had significantly better kits e.g. 200-400mm lenses. There were too many things to align before they got that good shot given the weight, movement limitations etc. I believe I got many more keepers because I was more flexible. However, if they get everything right, obviously that shot would be far better. That trade-off is making me think.

I agree about lenses being long term assets and bodies being depreciating assets. However, for me, the 300mm is somewhat of a compromise lens due to the limited reach. I lust after the more expensive lenses (like everyone does), but can't get them now. From that perspective, a significantly better body for the near term makes sense till someday I can go for those lenses.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I am assuming that the D400 will have the same AF as D4. I have read that the D4 AF is fantastic, and I haven't used the D300 so I could be wrong about the quantum of difference here..

Long post warning -

Yes, that's what the rumours say. And I found another 'rumour' story at Mansurovs about the detailed specs of the 24MP D400.

Nikon D400 Announcement This Fall?

He calls his source a pretty reliable one - so it must be. Priced at $1799 (Rs 99K at current exch rates). However Mansurov too feels that it kinda contradicts the D600 @ a $1500 price point i.e. where a starter FX body costs less than a high end DX. There are some decisions to me made - FX or DX

Rumoured specs of the D600:

Is Nikon D600 on the Horizon?

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Btw, I was shooting with some folks who had significantly better kits e.g. 200-400mm lenses. There were too many things to align before they got that good shot given the weight, movement limitations etc. I believe I got many more keepers because I was more flexible. However, if they get everything right, obviously that shot would be far better. That trade-off is making me think.

From that perspective, a significantly better body for the near term makes sense till someday I can go for those lenses.

Using a huge 200-400 or any of the super teles in a limited space like the back of a 4x4 is like trying to maneuver a SUV through narrow city bylanes. Super teles aren't flexible and you don't get every shot. But when you do, those pics blow your socks off. If I had that kinda lens I'd probably choose a 4x4 with a minimum number of passengers or preferably hire a 4x4.

I think you have plenty of choices to make - what Lens + body, which is either the upcoming and rumoured D600/D400 or D800. Good luck!

[Ricci]

Originally Posted by R2D2

I believe that DX users are at a cross road...stick to DX for that so called 'magnification/reach' OR, budget permitting, move over to FX where all the action will actually take place. DX will always get hand-me-down features from their FX cousins.

But let's wait to see how things pan out - A D600, or even a D400, should introduce an interesting mix into Nikon's offerings.

Some speculation on line was that Nikon will ditch the professional DX line and have only FX professional bodies. It makes sense in a way, none of the DX lenses are weather sealed and the DX line up does leave unfulfilled focal length-aperture value lenses. This gets more credence since the D600 cheap FX rumours.

However that would force many D300S users to go FX when upgrading, not a problem if they have been using FX lenses which they probably are since Nikon hasn't many pro-level DX lenses.

Might be that D600 is without weather sealing and such, more as a hobbyist's FX , like a D7000 with FF sensor , while the D400 retains pro-spec - state of the art AF , metering and all the magic of the D800/D4 but in DX format.

The real odd-man out is Canon 1D mk4 , no news on an APS-H followup.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Some speculation on line was that Nikon will ditch the professional DX line and have only FX professional bodies. It makes sense in a way, none of the DX lenses are weather sealed and the DX line up does leave unfulfilled focal length-aperture value lenses. This gets more credence since the D600 cheap FX rumours.

I don't think DX will be ditched - why? They sell a lot more than FX and Nikon needs the volumes to survive. FX cameras are an enthusiast's and a professional's tools. That said, cropped sensors are facing serious competition from EVILs.

Not everyone needs FX though some might choose FX over DX as they came directly from 35mm film SLRs, as I did. My lenses worked flawlessly on my FX camera without that stupid 'conversion' and equivalent focal length issue.

I held out from going digital for many years, in the hope Nikon would introduce FX camera which they did in 2007/8. Unfortunately it was too expensive and I delayed my purchase till 2010.

Originally Posted by Ricci

However that would force many D300S users to go FX when upgrading, not a problem if they have been using FX lenses which they probably are since Nikon hasn't many pro-level DX lenses.

Most DX users have DX lenses, mainly the kit lens, because of the price. Very few DX users have FX lenses. It is quite clear in my mind what Nikon is doing; DX for consumers, and FX for pros and enthusiasts/advanced amateurs who are willing to shell out the large amount of extra cash for cutting edge tech and pro build quality.

Originally Posted by Ricci

Might be that D600 is without weather sealing and such, more as a hobbyist's FX , like a D7000 with FF sensor , while the D400 retains pro-spec - state of the art AF , metering and all the magic of the D800/D4 but in DX format.

There will be takers for the D400 especially those D300/s owners who have waited a long time to upgrade but do not want to spend money shifting to FX. But make no mistake, introduction of new pro level DX DSLRs will be a rare sight. A large majority of new DX releases will be in the D3xxx/D5xxx/D7xxx series.

Originally Posted by Ricci

The real odd-man out is Canon 1D mk4 , no news on an APS-H followup.

Note there are no new crop sensors bodies in the pro range from Canon. I wonder what in the world in going on with the full frame Canon 1 DX. It was announced in Nov '11, and deliveries postponed to start in June '12. But I haven't seen a single real world review of this heavy hitter from Canon. With the Olympic games to start shortly, this is a massive loss for them. There's pretty much no bigger and better camera body and lens showcasing event for a camera manufacturer.

No pro will take the risk of hauling a new untested body to the Olympics. AF issues galore reported with initial batches of the Nikon D800/D4. A lesson learnt I am sure - he'd much rely on his older 1D Mk3/4.

[Ricci]

Originally Posted by R2D2

I don't think DX will be ditched - why? They sell a lot more than FX and Nikon needs the volumes to survive.

No pro will take the risk of hauling a new untested body to the Olympics. AF issues galore reported with initial batches of the Nikon D800/D4. A lesson learnt I am sure - he'd much rely on his older 1D Mk3/4.

I think you misunderstood/misread my post. I said Nikon might ditch the professional DX line , not the entire DX line. The distinction is in terms of the specifications and inclusion in NPS scheme, which D300/300S users can opt for. That is a way made sense because a DX costing as much as FX body makes little sense given the overal gear cost.

As for lenses, yes consumers use kit lenses, but Nikon's DX line up has few high quality DX lenses. 17-55/2.8 , and few DX primes. Whereas professional Nikon DX users more probably use lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200, both FX. For primes there are just few - the 35mm f/1.8 DX , and 60mm macro think ? All the others are older FX lenses, 20mm , 24mm , 28mm etc. So I reckon professional users with D300/300S have few DX lenses anyway.

About the 1DX , there are a few out, probably the CPS ones have been out longer - I did read on Canon Rumors about getting his 1DX. I've heard only of focus issue with the D800 , not the D4 though.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by Ricci

I think you misunderstood/misread my post. I said Nikon might ditch the professional DX line , not the entire DX line.

That's right Ricci you referred to the pro DX cameras. My bad.