Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

No new pro DX bodies yet!

dx pro body

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

Poll: No new pro DX bodies yet! (101 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you purchase a pro spec DX Nikon body now?

  1. Yes (27 votes [26.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.73%

  2. No (48 votes [47.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.52%

  3. Maybe (26 votes [25.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:30

Nikon not updating their DX lenses is not really important, as the FX lenses work perfectly well on the DX bodies. Also, with DX you are using the sweet spot of the FX lens and cropping out the outer portions. You just have to pay a little more for the FX lenses. There are also 3rd party lenses that would be happy to take your money.


For those who want a smaller an lighter setup, it is important to these users for Nikon to make dedicated DX lenses. While FX lenses can be used with DX bodies, these are not optimum and will not result in a smaller and lighter setup that dedicated DX lenses can achieved which may be what some DX shooters would like to use.

Visualize this ... a landscape photographer who generally shoots at Base ISO where DX and FX sensor performance do not vary significantly. An FX user can use a D800 with the 70-200mm f/4.0 while a DX user can use a D5200 with a 50-150mm f/4.0 if such a lens exist. Compare the size and weight advantage of the DX user versus the FX user and one will appreciate the advantages of using DX. The higher resolution of the D800 is less of an advantage if multiple photo stitching will be required anyway regardless of whether FX or DX is used.

Because Nikon does not provide such a DX lens option that yields a smaller and lighter setup, the solution to photographers wanting to go lighter and smaller would be to go and use m4/3 cameras and lens system. This option is now a viable option now that the E-M5 and GH3 performs close to the D7000.

This would now fall under wish list but if Nikon also makes a dedicated DX lens that is say 120-300mm f/2.8 VR or 200-400mm f/4 , these lenses could get a lot of interest from bird photographers and from other DX shooters for whom pixel desnity or "reach" is important. In addition to being smaller, lighter, and less expensive, the higher pixel density of the DX sensors and the DX-specific lenses designed to work with such sensors can theoretically mean that such lenses will perform better than FX lenses.

Nikon is missing out on some good opportunities and ceding the market to the m4/3 system by neglecting the DX system.

Edited by Larry, 02 February 2013 - 14:07 .


#42 retief

retief

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 425 posts
  • LocationPacific NW, USA
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 13:46

:wink: I thought I had detailed well enough the reasons why while FX lenses can be used with DX bodies, these are not optimum and will not result in a smaller and lighter setup that dedicated DX lenses can achieved which may be what some DX shooters would like to use.


The flip side to this, as one who used a 400mm f2.8 AFS-1 on a D300 for years, is cost, especially if you have a mixed FX/DX bag. To have an equivalent 400mm f2.8 in DX format is going to still cost some serious $$$ I think. Totally agree on the "lighter" side of things, no doubt about that, but absent the weight issue the FX lenses are just quite fine and dandy in my opinion.
Bill Dewey

The Focused Eye

"The Older I Get, the Better I Was........"
- aspiring photographer and didgeridooist extraordinaire -

#43 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 14:12

The flip side to this, as one who used a 400mm f2.8 AFS-1 on a D300 for years, is cost, especially if you have a mixed FX/DX bag. To have an equivalent 400mm f2.8 in DX format is going to still cost some serious $$$ I think. Totally agree on the "lighter" side of things, no doubt about that, but absent the weight issue the FX lenses are just quite fine and dandy in my opinion.


Hi Bill,

I edited my comment just before you posted but would say that there is some market potential for DX-specific long lenses. Despite these costing some serious money, these would still cost substantially less than if these were made in FX. There could also be some new innovations ... like a 50-150mm f/2.0 VR which I estimate would be about the same size as a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR but would have a considerable advantage in being one-stop faster than the FX counterpart lens. DX lenses can be made smaller and lighter or if the same size as its FX counterpart, be more capable. Nikon by not making DX-specific lenses to take advantage of the smaller DX sensor size is essentially herding everyone into the FX corral and we all know that this strategy will have a substantial downside, specifically since DX still constitutes the biggest market for Nikon dSLRs.


Larry

Edited by Larry, 02 February 2013 - 14:15 .


#44 Dave Rosser

Dave Rosser

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 664 posts
  • LocationThornbury, near Bristol

Posted 02 February 2013 - 15:42

This would now fall under wish list but if Nikon also makes a dedicated DX lens that is say 120-300mm f/2.8 VR or 200-400mm f/4 , these lenses could get a lot of interest from bird photographers and from other DX shooters for whom pixel desnity or "reach" is important. In addition to being smaller, lighter, and less expensive, the higher pixel density of the DX sensors and the DX-specific lenses designed to work with such sensors can theoretically mean that such lenses will perform better than FX lenses.

Nikon is missing out on some good opportunities and ceding the market to the m4/3 system by neglecting the DX system.

Nikon already make a 200-400 f/4 and I doubt if a dedicated DX version would be very much lighter or more compact than the current lens. The weight is all in the 100mm (4 inch) diameter front group of lenses and the laws of physics will not let that change at all whatever the coverage of the lens. :dontknow:

#45 bjornthun

bjornthun

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,659 posts
  • LocationFredrikstad, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 16:15

Hi Bill,

I edited my comment just before you posted but would say that there is some market potential for DX-specific long lenses. Despite these costing some serious money, these would still cost substantially less than if these were made in FX. There could also be some new innovations ... like a 50-150mm f/2.0 VR which I estimate would be about the same size as a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR but would have a considerable advantage in being one-stop faster than the FX counterpart lens. DX lenses can be made smaller and lighter or if the same size as its FX counterpart, be more capable. Nikon by not making DX-specific lenses to take advantage of the smaller DX sensor size is essentially herding everyone into the FX corral and we all know that this strategy will have a substantial downside, specifically since DX still constitutes the biggest market for Nikon dSLRs.


Larry

The reason that DX is still the biggest market for Nikon is price, not size. At the price point that Nikon is selling the D600, there is no space for a pro DX body anymore. Use the FX body in crop mode, if that is needed. Sigma makes a 50-150/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 and they cost the same in Norway, so no gain at all in going DX there. The weight of the 50-150/2.8 is 1.34 kg and of the 70-200/2.8 1.43 kg, so no significant weight gain either. And a 50-150/2.0 would of course be heavier and more expensive, so no gain at all, if we take existing Sigma lenses as a starting point. If you need pro DX, it's possible to use an FX body in DX crop mode, and get 10-15 mpix files as well as increased framerate. In DX mode D800 can do 6fps with MB-D12, and D300s can do 7 fps or 8fps depending on battery source, according to nikonimaging.com. For most people either of D800 or D300s should suffice in DX mode, I think.
Bjørn T

#46 bjornthun

bjornthun

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,659 posts
  • LocationFredrikstad, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 16:18

Nikon already make a 200-400 f/4 and I doubt if a dedicated DX version would be very much lighter or more compact than the current lens. The weight is all in the 100mm (4 inch) diameter front group of lenses and the laws of physics will not let that change at all whatever the coverage of the lens. :dontknow:

The only DX lenses that make sense are wide angle lenses: Compare NIkon's 10-24/3.5-4.5 lens to their 16-35/4 lens.
Bjørn T

#47 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 16:45

Nikon already make a 200-400 f/4 and I doubt if a dedicated DX version would be very much lighter or more compact than the current lens. The weight is all in the 100mm (4 inch) diameter front group of lenses and the laws of physics will not let that change at all whatever the coverage of the lens. :dontknow:


Not my experience if I compare the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 versus the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. Moreover, the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 is considerably more robust and rugged compared to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 which can at best be described as "fragile" in relation to the Nikkor 17-55mm /2.8.

I could also cite the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX versus the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G DX in terms of size difference between DX and FX.

#48 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 17:08

The reason that DX is still the biggest market for Nikon is price, not size. At the price point that Nikon is selling the D600, there is no space for a pro DX body anymore. Use the FX body in crop mode, if that is needed. Sigma makes a 50-150/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 and they cost the same in Norway, so no gain at all in going DX there. The weight of the 50-150/2.8 is 1.34 kg and of the 70-200/2.8 1.43 kg, so no significant weight gain either. And a 50-150/2.0 would of course be heavier and more expensive, so no gain at all, if we take existing Sigma lenses as a starting point. If you need pro DX, it's possible to use an FX body in DX crop mode, and get 10-15 mpix files as well as increased framerate. In DX mode D800 can do 6fps with MB-D12, and D300s can do 7 fps or 8fps depending on battery source, according to nikonimaging.com. For most people either of D800 or D300s should suffice in DX mode, I think.


Price in indeed a factor why DX is a bigger market than FX. But smaller. more compact and lighter are merits of its own and there are those who would be willing to pay more and/or sacrifice a bit of performance to get something smaller and lighter, e.g. the Sony 24mp full-frame RX-1 with a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0, or the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 vs the 70-200mm f/2.8.

I find it difficult to believe that a DX-specific lens cannot be smaller and lighter than an FX lens. I do not use Sigma lenses and thus cannot comment much on this but if one is to compare a Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR with a Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6, one would see a difference in size and weight. Same goes with the 35mm f/1.8G DX vs 50mm f/1.8G FX and the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 vs the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 with the caveat that the 17-55mm professional built makes it considerably more rugged than the 24-70mm and perhaps explains the weight of the 17-55mm f/2.8. The 17-55mm f/2.8 could have been made lighter if build to the same specs as the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8.

But here is the question - what does Nikon offer in terms of a smaller and lighter setup for DX users given that there are not much DX lenses available? Asking them to use FX will not achieve the desired smaller and lighter setup. Their alternative? Go to the m4/3 system.

Moreover, for enthusiast, given the improvement in sensor performance in APS-C and m4/3 sized sensor, the primary reason for getting FX which is to get a sensor with better performance is no longer as compelling. The DX sensor in the D7000 has no performance penalty against the D700 and D3s at Base ISO. In fact, the DX D7000 outperforms these two FX in terms of DR at their Base ISO settings. The sensor in the Olympus E-M5 and Panasonic GH3 performs very close to the D7000 and if I must stress this point that landscape shooter will appreciate, the sensor in these m4/3 has better DR than even the FX D3s at Base ISO! Not everyone shoots at high ISO settings, and not everyone is willing to carry the bigger and heavier FX lens so ideally, Nikon should provide for better DX lens choices.

At this point, the lack of smaller and lighter DX lenses essentially means that Nikon does not intend the DX system to be a viable and serious competitor for smaller and lighter system. DX has its own unique sweet spot and ignoring this and herding the enthusiast shooter to go buy FX lenses by denying them good DX lenses could simply make these group go to the m4/3 system if they want small and light, specially as the sensors in the m4/3 system improves even further moving forward.

Moreover, m4/3 cameras like the GH3 has features that even the D4, D800 and D600 does not have - a built-in WiFi with very robust wireless capabilities and unmatched video performance and which will not overheat even when used as a dedicated video camera outdoors in direct sunlight in tropical climes. The image stabilized Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom lenses are small and light and less expensive compared to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

The DX system has been marginalized ... and Nikon is the culprit behind this. The m4/3 system is a beneficiary of this ill-advised move by Nikon.

Edited by Larry, 02 February 2013 - 19:35 .


#49 Akira

Akira

    Homo jezoensis

  • Life Member
  • 4,777 posts
  • LocationTokyo
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 02 February 2013 - 19:44

For me, I don't really see the difference of the size of the lens as one of the advantages of DX cameras anymore. Given the high-ISO performance, FX always has the advantage around one stop over DX, so far as the cameras of the same generation are copared.

So, if you would require the comparable performance from DX, you would always need DX lenses one stop faster than the equivalent FX lenses, which would totally cancel the advantage. Olympus f2.0 zooms are the telltale examples.

Also, the fact that DX and FX DSLRs share the same flange back hinders the lens to become smaller. DX equivalents require shorter focal length, which means that the standard and wideangle zooms as well as wideangle primes needs to be more heavily retro-focused. To me, DX 10-24/3.5-4.5 is not all that smaller than FX 16-35/4.0. Both old and new FX 18-35/3.5-4.5 (though not as wide) look practically the same in size as DX 10-24.

Comparing the 4/3 lenses to those of m4/3 lenses, the flange back seems to be more influential on the size of the lens than the format size. 7-14mm/f4.0 zooms and 25mm/f1.4 are obvious example.

If you really need the DX lenses equivalent to those of FX size that are markedly smaller, you really need mirrorless cameras, I think.

Edited by Akira, 02 February 2013 - 20:42 .

  • jdl45 likes this
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

http://www.flickr.co...tos/akiraphoto/

#50 afoton

afoton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • LocationHovet, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 02 February 2013 - 20:23

For me, I don't really see the difference of the size of the lens as one of the advantages of DX cameras anymore. Given the high-ISO performance, FX always has the advantage around one stop over DX, so far as the cameras of the same generation are copared.

So, if you would require the comparable performance from DX, you would always need DX lenses one stop faster than the equivalent FX lenses, which would totally cancel the advantage.


Thats right. Comparing DX 17-55mm/2.8 with FX 24-85mm/3.5-4.5VR doesn't give DX any size advantage.
But on the other size, 180mm/2.8 is smaller than 300mm/4. 300mm/2.8 is smaller than 400mm/4 and so on.

#51 ilkka_nissila

ilkka_nissila

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,104 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 20:31

The only DX lenses that make sense are wide angle lenses: Compare NIkon's 10-24/3.5-4.5 lens to their 16-35/4 lens.


In wide angles the benefits are more obvious (yet FX achives far better quality for wide angle, but the cost is relatively large size) but all FX lenses accept light into the lens from a larger angle of view than is actually used for constructive purpose (image formation) by a DX sensor. This extra light is reflected inside the lens between the elements and causes unnecessary flare and ghosting that would be avoided by using a lens that is purpose made for the format used and has no extra coverage at any point in the optical path.

Also, there is a question of appropriate focal ranges. FX zooms such as the 70-200 have angles of view on DX that would not normally be purchased by the FX user because they do not fit the needs of many typical applications. 70mm is far too long for example as the short end for stage photography on DX whereas it is perfect on FX (letting the shooter cover individual performers as verticals at 200mm and the whole stage at 70mm as a landscape format image). Some manufacturers such as Pentax, etc. have made lenses that start from 50mm but Nikon does not see the need (since they probably intend DX to go away).

A nature photographer might actually like the 70-200 on DX, but the bokeh of the 70-200/2.8 II is poor at best at distances typical for people event photography situations; on FX it is a bit better because the distances from the subject would be closer to fill the frame at each focal length (the poor quality out of focus rendition with this lens is mostly at longer distances). Also, since the focus system is mostly designed with the requirements of FX in mind there are a lot higher percentage of slightly out of focus shots on DX cameras in my experience. A lens purpose made for DX could be made with higher precision requirements of the DX format in mind.

#52 Millirehm

Millirehm

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,608 posts
  • LocationVienna Austria
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 02 February 2013 - 20:46

Nikon produced the 75-150 mm f/3,5 which is my cheapest and smallest telezoom, very compact 52 mm filter thread. I am sure Nikon could make something like that as a DX lens starting at 50 mm if they want to. But we have experienced frequently that they don't want to.

Edited by Millirehm, 02 February 2013 - 20:46 .

Wolfgang

#53 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:16

Nikon produced the 75-150 mm f/3,5 which is my cheapest and smallest telezoom, very compact 52 mm filter thread. I am sure Nikon could make something like that as a DX lens starting at 50 mm if they want to. But we have experienced frequently that they don't want to.


A pity really.

I just ordered a 70-200mm f/4.0 as a lighter weight alternative to the 70-200mm f/2.8. for travel and landscape. I intend to get an m4/3 GH3 as soon as it is packaged with the m4/3 35-100mm f/2.8. I think it will be interesting to see how the D7000 and the D800E with the 70-200mm f/4.0 VR will fare against the GH3 with the 35-100mm f/2.8 for landscape and travel. The one-stop advantage of the m4/3 zoom will come in handy in offsetting the advantage of DX/FX when shooting at higher than Base ISO levels. I also have light weight and minature-sized m4/3 f/1.4, f/1.7, nd f/1.8 and f/2.0 primes that will allow the m4/3 to shoot at lower ISO level while maintaining enough DOF so this will be interesting.

The specs of the two zoom lenses which are priced roughly the same:

FX/DX ... 70-200mm f/4.0 ...... 3.10" x 7.0" ...... 850g (does not yet include the tripod collar)
m4/3 ..... 35-100mm f/2.8 ...... 2.70" x 3.9" ...... 360g (no tripod collar needed)

Edited by Larry, 03 February 2013 - 07:32 .


#54 Andrea B.

Andrea B.

    Lost in the Desert

  • Administrators
  • 11,034 posts
  • LocationNuovo Jersey
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 03 February 2013 - 17:54

Wait a minute -- why won't FX lenses work as well over DX sensors as DX lenses would ??
That hasn't been my particular experience. But I'd like to hear the reasons anyway.

Andrea B.
UltravioletPhotography.com


#55 retief

retief

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 425 posts
  • LocationPacific NW, USA
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 03 February 2013 - 18:11

Hi Bill,

I edited my comment just before you posted but would say that there is some market potential for DX-specific long lenses.

Larry


Larry, I think this may be the really crucial element in the whole discussion, just how big IS that market potential? I believe that it would be far larger if the cost of FX sensors was not coming does, as can be seen in the D600, with some pretty impressive specs. So what Nikon has to determine, I would think, is how many of these "somewhat exotic" lenses will we sell, for the cost of both R&D and production. In looking at this site on Nikon Lenses and Serial Numbers We can see that over the years there have been roughly 10,000 400 f2.8's produced, starting back in 1998. About 40,000 300mm f4's AF-s. Then look at the 70-300mm, just the latest AF-S version, darn near 1 million. And compare the price points. To me this shows where Nikon believes the market potential is, and that is not overall in the over $1,000 per lens range. Tough call on the company to figure out where to allocate resources for the best "bang for the buck".
Bill Dewey

The Focused Eye

"The Older I Get, the Better I Was........"
- aspiring photographer and didgeridooist extraordinaire -

#56 wildoat

wildoat

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 4,856 posts
  • LocationBerkshire, UK
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 03 February 2013 - 18:42

Nikon Rumors is expecting a replacement for the D7000 before april:
http://nikonrumors.c...placement.aspx/

I'm still using a D300S as my main camera, but I'm not sure that this will be the camera that replaces it.

Jan, thanks for this, hadn't seen it!

It says smaller than a D600, why do Nikon keep assuming we want everything in miniature :angry:

Tony

Edited by wildoat, 03 February 2013 - 18:43 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moose says " if you have a very expensive lens and you have a very cheap tripod, you're nuts"  




 


#57 Millirehm

Millirehm

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,608 posts
  • LocationVienna Austria
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 03 February 2013 - 19:44

I also had overlooked it.
That's the point, its a replacement for the D7000 (probably named D7100) but nothing on the level of the D300 series. And the D7000 was somewhat disappointing. (BTW Coolpix P300 series is a good one, hope the replacemet also announced is a good evolution)
Wolfgang

#58 Andrea B.

Andrea B.

    Lost in the Desert

  • Administrators
  • 11,034 posts
  • LocationNuovo Jersey
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:29

I rather like the D7K now that I have finally had a chance to shoot it after initially breaking it in a UVIR conversion attempt. I would def take the D7K over my D300 for a number of reasons - better sensor and 16 MP being two such. I always thought that the D300 had an interesting "painterly" quality in the way it "drew". I think the same of the D7K. I don't believe that I see that same thing in the D3 or D3S - they, of course, have their own image qualities. But it is perhaps the small sensor or denser pixel set that produces this quality which I think I am seeing??

That stuff is hard to describe without sounding all air-headed. <lol>

Although, the D7K and the D600 are THE VERY LAST Nikon dSLRs I will EVER buy with the scrunched up AF points. There is NO reason I can think of to do that when clearly Nikon is quite capable of producing a better spread-out 51 AF points. Those crammed up 39 AF points have turned out to quite annoy me in both cameras. Yes I know that with LiveView one can roam the entire image area, but I just don't want to be using Live View all the time.

So please Nikon spread out those AF points in a new DX cam and I'll be there promptly to buy one.

Andrea B.
UltravioletPhotography.com


#59 Colin-M

Colin-M

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,639 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:01

For those who want a smaller an lighter setup, it is important to these users for Nikon to make dedicated DX lenses. While FX lenses can be used with DX bodies, these are not optimum and will not result in a smaller and lighter setup that dedicated DX lenses can achieved which may be what some DX shooters would like to use.

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't agree.

I have a d300 and out of 5 lenses, only 1 is DX (18-50mm). I didn't buy the D300 for the size or weight and this isn't a consideration for any future lens purchase. But my needs are probably different from some other people as all my others are primes. I'm happy that Nikon concentrates on one format for these.

After all with some people asking Nikon to make a VR version of the 300mm f4, or a 400mm f5.6, it seems unrealistic to expect both DX *and* FX versions as well.

I know what I'd choose out of these two options.
Colin
--------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/celidh

#60 Millirehm

Millirehm

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,608 posts
  • LocationVienna Austria
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:37

AF-S DX 35mm 1,8 G, AF-S DX 40mm 2,8 G Micro, AF-S DX VR Micro 85mm 3,5G IF-ED, they are all primes and they are all DX. I have got just 1 DX lens , the 12-24mm f/2,8 bought to go wide in the D200 era. Always thought to add a compact 18-200 mm lens, but it is not good enough to buy it new, and not cheap enough for its limitations at second hand, because of the attractiveness of sheer zoom range digicam consumers are trained.

For DX lightweight travel combo a D300 is not ideal and something like a D5200 is required, meaning different controls and probably beginners menu.


Given what is expected here in the thread and what the new name systematics of Nikon indicate, we probably wait for what would be called D9000 and there is no indication for that.

Edited by Millirehm, 03 February 2013 - 22:58 .

Wolfgang





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: dx, pro body

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users