11-04-2012, 11:23 AM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1351949664' post='20806']
Higher end bodies have always been on a slower update cycle than lower end ones. So I wouldn't write off the D300s direct replacement yet, although I feel if it doesn't happen by end of 2013 it probably wont. I see parallels in the Nikon world to Canon, as to how many crop bodies are there space for, particularly on the top end. While the D7000 was a strong performer in its space, to me it never replaced the D300. Is there still room for these two higher end crop bodies or will they be merged. A similar question is being asked over the 60D and 7D successor(s). So they're about due from both companies.
As to the supposed cost/size/weight of full frame vs. mirrorless, we have parallels in other areas of the world too. Laptops were supposed to kill desktops. Tablets then were laptop killers. But we still have laptops, and we still have desktops. People using them are different, and they way they are used are changing also. For basic tasks, as technology advances you can do more with less. You don't need a pimped out desktop to check e-mail, but if you want to process gigabytes of data, I don't think anyone would be reaching for a tablet. So in a parallel scenario, a full frame camera still offers tangible benefits that are not practical for smaller sensors. If your uses are undemanding enough, mirrorless may be enough. Even a cameraphone may be enough. But if you need more than that, you can choose that also. Mirrorless can certainly do a lot, but it is far away from doing everything.
[/quote]
You are absolutely right that the D7000 is not a D300(s) replacement. Was clearly worked out in all the reviews. However a D400 with a D7000 sensor never came. Today even the sensor in the D7000 is showing its age. To me, this lack of renewal is what makes the E-M5 shine so much. It is a sensor generation ahead. I thought they (NIkon/Canon) need to do something here and am seriously wondering whether this inactivity is the onset of DSLRs vanishing from the mass market. I am just wondering what Nikon and Canon will offer instead. Catching up with Olympus, Panasonic and Sony will be an interesting challange for them.
My analogy is film. At certain things (e.g. highlight roll off) it is superior to anything digital, but to most not enough to put up with the hassle of getting it developed and finished. So it is now niche. I expect the same will happen to the dSLR. They just die a slow death for being to bulky outside the studio.
Thanks for replying.
Higher end bodies have always been on a slower update cycle than lower end ones. So I wouldn't write off the D300s direct replacement yet, although I feel if it doesn't happen by end of 2013 it probably wont. I see parallels in the Nikon world to Canon, as to how many crop bodies are there space for, particularly on the top end. While the D7000 was a strong performer in its space, to me it never replaced the D300. Is there still room for these two higher end crop bodies or will they be merged. A similar question is being asked over the 60D and 7D successor(s). So they're about due from both companies.
As to the supposed cost/size/weight of full frame vs. mirrorless, we have parallels in other areas of the world too. Laptops were supposed to kill desktops. Tablets then were laptop killers. But we still have laptops, and we still have desktops. People using them are different, and they way they are used are changing also. For basic tasks, as technology advances you can do more with less. You don't need a pimped out desktop to check e-mail, but if you want to process gigabytes of data, I don't think anyone would be reaching for a tablet. So in a parallel scenario, a full frame camera still offers tangible benefits that are not practical for smaller sensors. If your uses are undemanding enough, mirrorless may be enough. Even a cameraphone may be enough. But if you need more than that, you can choose that also. Mirrorless can certainly do a lot, but it is far away from doing everything.
[/quote]
You are absolutely right that the D7000 is not a D300(s) replacement. Was clearly worked out in all the reviews. However a D400 with a D7000 sensor never came. Today even the sensor in the D7000 is showing its age. To me, this lack of renewal is what makes the E-M5 shine so much. It is a sensor generation ahead. I thought they (NIkon/Canon) need to do something here and am seriously wondering whether this inactivity is the onset of DSLRs vanishing from the mass market. I am just wondering what Nikon and Canon will offer instead. Catching up with Olympus, Panasonic and Sony will be an interesting challange for them.
My analogy is film. At certain things (e.g. highlight roll off) it is superior to anything digital, but to most not enough to put up with the hassle of getting it developed and finished. So it is now niche. I expect the same will happen to the dSLR. They just die a slow death for being to bulky outside the studio.
Thanks for replying.
enjoy