The impressive Nikon D700 turns 2 years old in the Summer of 2010, which is about retirement age for modern DSLR’s. Rumors and speculation are rife as to what will replace it, and earlier this month Nikon sent out a survey to registered D700 owners (myself included) asking questions about what users actually want from their cameras. The survey had a heavy focus on questions about megapixels (one question asked should it be 24mp, stay at 12mp, or in the 18mp range), as well as questions about the importance of autofocus, ISO capabilities, dynamic range etc.

The rumored (speculated?) contenders that have been floating around are the D700x, D700s and D800. Let’s take a look at each:

Nikon D700x
The Nikon D3x was launched in December 2008. In recent years, Nikon has continually developed and reused sensors, often bring out the same sensor in a lower end body around 9 months later. For example, the D200 sensor (or a derivative thereof) found its way into the D80, then D40x, D60 and is still being utilized in the D3000 today. The sensor from the D300 formed the base for the D90, the D5000 and then D300s. The sensor from the Nikon D3 found its way into the D700 (and then a heavily developed version back into the D3s).

Based on this pattern, it’s an easy jump to predict a D700x – basically the 24mp sensor out of the D3x in a D700 body. This camera would not replace the D700, but rather complement it in the same way the D3x compliments the D3(s) – the D700x with its high megapixel count and slow frame rate would be ideal for the landscape/studio photographer, while the D700 is a better low-light, sports, and general photojournalism camera.

However since the launch of the D3x, we’ve maintained that the D700x is a very difficult camera for Nikon to launch from a business/marketing perspective: The D3x has an M.S.R.P. of $3k over the D3, so would a D700x have to maintain a $3k premium over the D700 making it a $5k-$6k camera? Not if they want to be competitive – Canon gets you 21 megapixels for $2,700 with the 5D Mark II, and Sony gets you to 24 megapixels for under $2k with the A850 – so to compete here the D700x would have to be around or a little above the $3k mark. It’s also widely believed that the launch of the D700 hurt high-margin D3 sales. If a D700x did come out, that would likely have a similar, or even bigger effect on D3x sales due to a wider price differential.

The other question that has to be on Nikon’s mind, is can current market conditions really support that many “pro” quality cameras (D300, D700, D700x, D3s, D3x)? While from an engineering standpoint the D700x makes a lot of sense, from a marketing/business standpoint, it may make sense for the D3x sensor to stay in just the D3x (just as the D2x sensor was never reused).

Nikon D700s
Given the recent D3s, if Nikon does what it did with the D3, we should expect the D700s some time in the first half of 2010 – basically an updated D700 with the revised sensor and video functionality out of the D3s. From an engineering standpoint and maximizing your return on sensor development, that makes a lot of sense. However, that will likely hurt high margin D3s sales in the same way the D700 hurt D3 sales. The D700 is undoubtedly a success for Nikon as a camera in its own right, but whether a D700s emerges depends on how Nikon’s upper management saw the bigger picture after factoring in the cameras impact on the D3.

Nikon D800
The rumored D800 is a brand new camera, and if real, will replace the D700 in Nikon’s lineup. If the rumors are true this camera will have a brand new sensor, somewhere around the 18mp mark. Pure speculation, but Nikon have shown what they can do with the sensor in the D3s, so having an 18mp body with similar ISO characteristics to the current D700 should be very doable, with a similar, or perhaps a very modest drop in frame rate (more data to process per image, but then the processing power should increase over the D700 too).

From a business perspective this makes a lot more sense. If you want the absolute highest megapixel count, you have the D3x. For low light/high speed work, the D3s is it. Then the D800 becomes a much more rounded camera, capable of bringing the fight to Canon and Sony in the $3k or less prosumer FX market. An ~18 megapixel, 6-8 f.p.s. body with ISO 25,600 at a competitive price point could be used for studio, landscape, sports, photojournalism and so forth and make a lot of people happy (except possibly people that have just bought a D700).

In Summary
Nikon basically has two approaches here – (1) continue their recent trend, and release a D700x soon and a D700s next summer, making a “mini D3x” and “mini D3s”. They then have to support two cameras in the marketplace. Or option (2) release a single do-it-all (but-not-as-well-as-the-pro-bodies) D800, with more megapixels, and at least similar ISO and frame rates as the D700 it will replace.

The first option is easy to do, but Nikon’s management have to look at how badly the D700 hurt the D3’s sales, will the market support yet another $3k+ camera in their lineup, and the costs of supporting an extra body in their manufacturing, distribution and support chains. The second option goes some way to protect sales of their pro bodies, simplifies the model lineup (and the customers decision process – do I need the D700s or D700x?), and means they only have to support one body in that space.

It’s tough to call, but if we had to bet, an ~18 megapixel D800 in summer 2010 makes a lot of sense and solves some problems for them, despite the costs of developing a new sensor. Given this months survey, it appears Nikon may not have finalized the decision yet, so for now, enjoy the amazing Nikon D700:

Over the past few posts we’ve covered in some depth where the major 3 players in the DSLR space are (Nikon, Canon & Sony), but what about the others?

Both Pentax and Olympus are steadily releasing consumer grade DSLR’s, but as the years go by they appear to be falling further behind – the investment needed to develop a state of the art DSLR is immense, you are now developing a state-of-the-art electronics product. Combined with the current economic woes, there is a good chance we may see some of the smaller players either consolidate in an effort to contain costs, or fail completely – indeed Hoya’s management have gone on record more than once recently, claiming Pentax may need to find a partner to survive and that Pentax may no longer belong under the Hoya umbrella – a far cry from the Pentax we knew 20 years ago (indeed the first SLR I ever used was a Pentax SP1000).

Given Canon is currently introducing new technology, and Nikon is currently releasing updates/improvements to existing models, we expect Canon to have the technological edge for the next 18 months or so, until the Nikon D4/D400 come out. Because of this, we also expect Canon to stop losing market share to Nikon as they have been the past couple of years, maybe they’ll even gain a little back. However with Sony’s aggressive pursuit of the consumer DSLR market, we expect both Canon and Nikon to give up further market share to Sony (worth mentioning, is over 90% of Nikon’s sales is sub $1,000 cameras – the D90 and below.) The next big innovation from Sony we expect is video – Sony has extensive expertise making both pro and consumer video gear, so when they add video to their DSLR line-up, expect them to do it right and be equal too, or possibly ahead of Canon. Nikon will likely take several more years to get video right on their cameras, but they will get it right.

Sony’s next move may be to try and introduce a pro model DSLR – this is a risky move, but they have very successful pro video cameras in the market. However breaking into the pro camera market that has been dominated by Nikon & Canon for decades won’t happen overnight. Their lens line-up also needs beefing up for that to happen.

Another threat is the so-called ‘Hybrid’ camera market, small mirrorless cameras that take interchangeable lenses like the Olympus EP-1. These cameras are small, relatively cheap, “better than a point & shoot but not quite a DSLR” cameras, and if you are never planning to go pro probably sufficient for the vast majority of your shooting, and certainly less intimidating than some DSLR’s currently on the market. So far only Olympus and Panasonic have offerings out there, but that will change, and that may transform the entry-level DSLR market completely over the next few years – given that’s where most of the sales volume for all the big three comes from, at some point they’ll have little choice but to compete in that space.

As the Chinese curse goes, “May You Live In Interesting Times”…

Roll the clock back 20 years, and Nikon was the pro camera. Canon had a very strong reputation in the consumer market, but for pro cameras, Nikon was it.

Then technology started creeping in. First it was autofocus, Canon was more aggressive than Nikon, and some pros started to switch. Then came Image Stabilization – again Canon got their first with a usable implementation, more pros moved over. Then came digital sensors, and by the time you got to the 2004 Olympics in Athens, virtually every pro you saw there was shooting Canon.

Nikon always fires back, and a couple of years later Nikon always comes out with technology that equals or beats the current Canons, and the game of leapfrog continues – you only need to look at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing to see that suddenly there were as many pros shooting D3’s as there were 1D Mark III’s. Indeed, with the Nikon D3’s low light abilities and autofocus system, the D3 has been the pro camera to have for the last couple of years.

This week saw the release of the Canon 1D Mark IV, which on paper matches the new Nikon D3s’s ISO 102,400, while offering 10 fps at 16 mp (vs 9 fps at 12 mp for the Nikon), and with a shiny new autofocus system that Canon insiders believe will set the standard for years to come… About 2 years in our estimation, until the Nikon D4, which will probably then be surpassed by the Canon 1D Mark V a year or so later, and so the game continues.

Out of the big 3 DSLR players currently (Canon, Nikon and Sony), Canon is the clear leader in the latest DSLR trend – video. While many purist shun video on DSLR’s, the fact remains the role of the traditional newspaper photographer is changing – newspapers are downsizing or closing, and the focus is switching to other mediums to deliver news – the internet, iPhone etc. Which means being able to send out your photographer to get video clips as well as still pictures is becoming increasingly important – indeed if DSLR’s don’t add video, media outlets could well switch to using video cameras and pulling still frames out of the video – how many web pages or iPhone apps actually display images larger than a megapixel? On the consumer end, being able to have a single camera that can produce high quality prints as well as make videos of your kids at Disneyworld is compelling too.

When it comes to video on a DSLR Canon is the clear leader. Nikon actually got there first, with the manual focus 720p implementation on the Nikon D90 mere days before Canon introduced its superior 1080p solution on the 5D Mark II. In the year or so since, both companies have continued to evolve their video solution – both systems are clearly capable of producing professional results in the right hands, but Nikon is still stuck on a more crude 720p implementation.

Sony on the other hand, has a tremendous amount of experience when it comes to video cameras, and has yet to put video on a DSLR – various comments from company executives have indicated they believe they will have to, and you can be sure when they do finally introduce it, they will do it right.

So far in 2009 Canon has introduced on 3 new DSLR bodies – the 1D Mark IV, 7D and 500D (T1i) – fewer than either Nikon or Sony.

However these three Canons out-spec their equivalent Nikon’s in all the important areas. Because two of these are brand new, how they perform in the real world remains to be seen, but since they are newer technology than the Nikons, they should perform very well indeed.

While Nikon this year has mainly been introducing “updates” in the form of “s” models to existing cameras, Canons offerings have represented major steps forward, and we expect this to start to reverse the losses in market share than Canon has given up to Nikon over the past couple of years.

Canon has also lost significant market share to Sony on the consumer DSLR end recently – unless Canon starts aggressively launching consumer models to go head to head with Sony, this is a trend we may see continue.

In 2009 so far Canon has released 5 new lenses – a couple of low volume tilt & shift lenses, a new 100mm macro, and a pair of consumer EF-S lenses:

Going forward, a Canon 1Ds Mark IV being released within the next six months or so is pretty much a given – almost certainly in the 30 megapixel plus range, to unseat the Nikon D3x. For the next 18 months to two years, we expect Canon to have a slight advantage in the pro/prosumer DLSR market over Nikon, an advantage Nikon has enjoyed for the last couple of years, and probably won’t enjoy again until the release of the D4/D400. It’s a constant game of leapfrog, and has been as long as I can remember.

To halt the overall slide in Canons market share, what they really need to do is bring the fight to Sony and firm up their entry level offerings – the XS and XSi are getting old, and Sony is aggressively targeting the consumer – Canon execs have to be taking notice.

Sony bought an ailing Konica Minolta in early 2006. Sony has enjoyed a long relationship with Carl Zeiss, using the excellent Zeiss glass in their camcorders since 1996, so extending that partnership with Zeiss to include lenses for their new line of DSLR’s was an obvious step. Combine that with a massive marketing effort, and an attempt to consumerise DSLR like only an electronics manufacturer like Sony could, in less than 3 short years Sony’s market share has come from nowhere to the high teens. This is staggering, especially given the global economy, and means that they currently sell one DSLR for every two Nikons and two Canons sold – a fact that must have those two companies worried.

Canon and Nikon have traditionally taken a top-down approach – they’ve been engaged in a contest for pro photographers and bragging rights as the best DSLR for decades. Traditionally the consumer DSLR buyer has bought on reputation – if they see pro’s using a particular brand, it must be good so they buy the consumer models, even though they are often a far cry from the pro models in terms of both specifications and quality. Nikon in particular introduces technology at the high end, and filters it down to lower/cheaper models over a period of years. The best example of this is probably the sensor in the D200. Several months later it emerged in the D80, then D40x, followed by the D60, and it is still kept alive thanks to the recent D3000 almost 4 years later.

Sony’s coming from the polar opposite direction, and it’s working. Just about everyone has owned something Sony at some point in their life, whether it’s a Walkman, Point & Shoot Camera, PlayStation, a Stereo or a TV – Sony already has a very strong brand, and if you invest in Sony gear you can be pretty confident they are in it for the long haul. So when Sony comes into the market with a very strong brand and competitively priced and spec’ed gear, people buy.

Sony put a 24 megapixel Full Frame sensor in the A900 camera for $3,000. Nikon (who partners with Sony for sensor development and manufacture is some areas) developed the sensor further, and introduced a derivative of the same sensor in their $8,000 D3x. Sony has recently put the 24 megapixel A900 sensor in the sub $2,000 A850, so if all you care about is megapixels, Sony delivers at a quarter of the cost of Nikon.

So far in 2009, Sony has released 6 new bodies, all under $2,000 – the A850, A550, A500, A380, A330 and A230. In the same period Nikon has released only three sub $2k cameras (D300s, D5000, D3000), and Canon only two (7D, T1i/500D).

In addition, Sony has released five new lenses so far this year (28-75mm f2.8, 18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm f1.8 and 30mm f2.8 Macro).

Rather than going for bragging rights and relying on the reputation of the cameras at the high-end, Sony is aggressively going after the consumer, and successfully getting them to part with their hard-earned dollars, at the expense of market share for both Nikon and Canon.

So what is next for Sony? Rumors abound about a potential pro-DSLR being worked on, and they have only just introduced live-view into their cameras. Despite their extensive experience with camcorders, Sony have yet to introduce video onto their DSLR’s, and you know when they do introduce it they will do it right, unlike Nikon’s current attempts to put 720p video on a $5,200 pro body.

Over the next few years, we expect Sony to continue their aggressive push for market share by targeting the consumer, while adding new features in frequent releases. We also believe Sony will starting to go after the pro market, and chances are they will succeed – they’re already a dominant player in the pro-video market. Will they catch Nikon and Canon? It’s too early to tell, but both Nikon and Canon need to look long and hard at their consumer line-up, and prepare themselves for war on a battlefield that right now Sony is defining. Maybe we should send both Nikon and Canon a copy of “The Art Of War”.

We’ve seen 4 new bodies from Nikon this year so far – Nikon has released either 3 or 4 bodies every year since 2005. The D3000 is basically an updated D60, still using the old 10-megapixel CCD sensor: a solid camera but nothing to get really excited about. The D5000 is basically a mini D90, so is a very competent consumer grade camera, but again nothing revolutionary. The other two updates are “s” models – minor updates/refreshes to existing models. The Nikon D300s adds 720p video and an SD card slot to the excellent Nikon D300, as well as improved autofocus. The D3s adds video, larger buffer, sensor shaker/cleaner and ISO 102,400 to what is already a stunning camera.

While these two “s” models make great cameras even greater, there have been no real major advancements this year. Nikon’s 720p video solution is weak – consumer grade at best, and probably doesn’t belong on a $5,000+ professional DSLR in its current form. Before the emails start, yes it can produce very professional results in the right hands, but then so can a cheap consumer camcorder. At this point in time, for most people video on a DSLR falls into the “nice-to-have” category: it can produce some incredible results, but for the most part a DSLR still wouldn’t be your first choice if video is your primary focus.

The most compelling reason to buy the D300s is the improved autofocus. The second memory card slot is nice, video may be useful for some, but the camera hasn’t exactly set the world on fire. It continues where the D300 left off, as a very, very capable and versatile DSLR.

The headline grabbing ISO 102,400 from the new Nikon D3s sounds impressive, but it is a Hi-3 mode. The base ISO has been extended 1 stop, I’ve not seen enough data yet to draw any real conclusions, but I suspect they’ve pulled probably less than a 1 stop improvement out of the sensor (meaning ISO 12,800 on the D3s would be slightly worse than ISO 6,400 on the D3), and the usefulness of results from the new Hi-3 mode will be very limited. That said, the ISO improvements at first glance do look solid, and the marketing department certainly has something to grab headlines with. Canon is expected to release the next iteration of their pro body soon – the Canon 1D Mark IV – and it’s expected to be a big step forward. Prior to the D3, Nikon were considered weaker at high ISO’s – the D3 leapfrogged Canon’s offering, so now two years later the expectation is Canon will leapfrog Nikon and most likely be dominant until the launch of the Nikon D4 in a couple of years.

All four bodies this year from Nikon have been evolutions and improvements of existing technology – nothing really new, no new sensors. With the exception of the cameras at either end of the scale (the $8,000 D3x at 24 mp and the entry-level D3000 at 10 mp), Nikons entire range is based on two 12 megapixel sensors, one FX and one DX. This probably won’t change until late 2010 or 2011 – the Nikon D4 and D400 will almost certainly introduce new sensors and represent major steps forward.

So what is next for Nikon? 2010 should see a D700s (higher ISO, video a-la the D3s) and D90 replacement (perhaps a D90s) with autofocus on video, other minor updates. Possibly a new entry level DSLR as well. The D3x will hit the two-year mark at the end of 2010, so a D3xs is a distinct possibility (add video?).

However the big missing item in the line up right now is a higher resolution Full Frame sensor in a prosumer body to compete with Canon (5D Mark II and to some extent the 7D) and Sony (A900 and A850). Currently Sony will sell you a 24 megapixel DSLR for a quarter of the cost of the D3x ($2,000 vs. $8000). Should it materialize, this potential camera (the rumored ‘D700x’) is the most exciting DSLR on the horizon from Nikon until the arrival of the D4/D400.

However pricing a D700x will be a major challenge: Swapping the sensor in the D3 added $3k to the M.S.R.P ($5k for the D3, $8k for the D3x) – will swapping the sensor in the D700 create a $6k D700x? Not if they want volume sales, Canons 21mp offering with video runs $2,700. Nikon will always be priced a little higher, but to be even considered competition for the 5D Mark II the D700x need to be in the $3k-$4k range.

We also believe video will remain Nikon’s weak point near term – both Sony (who has yet to put video on a DSLR) and Canon has significant expertise when it comes to video and camcorders, Nikon is starting largely from scratch.

On the lens front there have been 5 releases this year – 4 DX lenses and the pro 70-200mm f2.8, further reiterating Nikon’s commitment to DX going forward. Nikon released 7 lenses in both 2008 and 2007, but only 3 in 2006.

Nikon has a very strong pro line of lenses (zooms and telephotos), and a good selection of cheap, light DX lenses. They are however lacking in two key areas:

Firstly, a lot of their primes need updating (the 85mm f1.4 needing AF-S comes to mind, as does the lack of a fast AF-S wide angle), although fast primes these days are largely considered niche products with the quality of the zooms and amazing ISO capabilities of today’s sensors.

What is also missing is a solid mid range/“prosumer” line of AF-S lenses (for D700/D300 users primarily) – the 70-300mm VR is very good, but the 80-400mm needs AF-S, and solid zooms in the ~20mm to 200mm range (smaller, lighter, cheaper, slower than the pro zooms but with solid performance) are largely absent from the current lineup.

Overall Nikon has a very solid line-up, but there has been nothing really exciting from them this year, and probably won’t be until they introduce some new sensors with the D4/D400. In the mean time what we’d like to see, is the 24 megapixel sensor brought to a wider audience by putting it in a prosumer body, and solidifying their mid-range lens lineup.

It’s been an interesting year in DSLR world, against a backdrop of a global recession, so here is a quick summary of where things stand. We’ll focus on the big three – Nikon, Canon and Sony – the “also-rans” (Olympus, Pentax etc) are still in play, but they represent less than 10% of the DSLR market combined, and are coming under serious pressure from Sony in particular. Certainly Pentax’s future is uncertain with Hoya making noises about Pentax either being sold or spun out on its own.

Sony has been the biggest winner over the past few years, gaining serious market share over Nikon and Canon by focusing solely on the consumer market with a very aggressive model release cycle. Since buying Minolta and partnering with Carl Zeiss, Sony currently appears to have a DSLR market share percentage in the high teens, significantly up from around 10% only a year or so ago. Over the past couple of years, Nikon got a bump with the release of the D3, D300 and then D90, but has been in a slide since. Nikon currently has a market share percentage in the mid thirties, down from the high thirties. Canon has had the biggest loss, dropping from a 40% market share a few years back to somewhere in the low-to-mid thirties today.

In discussing market share there is a very important consideration, and one which many industry commentators ignore: While cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II, Sony A900, Nikon D700 etc. grab most of the headlines, as a Nikon exec recently pointed out, over 90% of their sales actually come from sub $1,000 cameras (in Nikon’s case the D90 and below). Thus the reality of any market share discussion is vastly different from the perception most pundits and many ‘forum experts’ have. Also worth noting, is despite the “Full Frame Is The Future/Crop Sensors are Dead” comments on just about every blog and forum, Full Frame camera’s currently represent somewhere around 2-3% of sales for companies like Nikon – everyone likes talking about them/drooling over them, but the vast majority of DSLR users continue to use crop sensors, and we don’t see that changing any time soon. It also explains why Sony is making such massive in-roads into Canon and Nikon’s market share without the plethora of headline-grabbing high-end bodies.

Over the next few parts of this article we’ll take a more in depth look at where the big three stand today, and what we expect from them over the coming months. First up will be Nikon – watch this space.

Since posting our Nikon D200, D90, D300 and D700 High ISO Comparison last week, we’ve had plenty of feedback. I touched on a very critical point in the comparison, which has sparked a lot of the feedback: it takes more than good high-ISO ability to make a great low-light camera.

Most ISO tests on the web are done in lab conditions, where everything is tightly controlled – lighting, focus (manual focusing to ensure sharp focus isn’t uncommon), lens stopped down a little for maximum sharpness etc: basically all the variables are tightly controlled, so the only thing you are really varying is the ISO (and shutter speed). This is great, it gives the reader a very good indication of the output of the camera at High-ISO under optimal conditions. However what it doesn’t do is tell you how well your camera is going to perform when you are shooting a concert, your kids school gym sports, or any other real world lighting condition – conditions that are typically far from optimal. If you are in a studio in a controlled environment you don’t care about high ISO anyway, you should be shooting at the base ISO and cranking up the lights instead.

To make a great low light camera, a clean image at a high ISO value is one part of the equation – a very important one, but just one part. The cameras metering and autofocus need to perform too – a camera is a complex system made up of a sensor, autofocus system, metering system, and a bunch of other stuff that works together to capture and store the image.

Going back to our test results, we shot wide open, because it is usually better to open up the lens before pushing ISO values too high, especially if you are using pro glass. Metering worked fine on all the cameras tested – the D200 came out a little darker, but that is not uncommon in our experience, I always find myself using the exposure comp button a little more on the D200 than on any other DSLR we’ve owned. However the difference in AF systems really became apparent.

As you’d expect, the Nikon D300 and D700 nailed the autofocus every time. The D200 with the same lens did OK; a few times it hunted back and forth, but always eventually found focus (if you are shooting indoor sports, it may cause you to miss the shot though, you may be better off anticipating the action and pre-focusing).

The disappointment however was the Nikon D90. To start with it just wouldn’t focus in the available light. The AF illuminator came on, but we had the lens hood on the 24-70mm. The lens hood is big enough to stop the light from the AF illuminator from falling on the target, so it just couldn’t get focus. Removing the hood solved the problem, and when the AF illuminator could light up the subject, it performed marginally better than the D200.

I’ve had problems with the AF on the D90 before. Late last year I was trying to get a shot of the full moon with a 200-400mm f/4 lens (a nice big, bright subject). The Nikon D90 simply wouldn’t focus, just sat there hunting back and forth going through the focal range, with its little AF illuminator light hopelessly glowing away. Switched over to the Nikon D300, virtually instantaneous focus lock.

Another problem I’ve had with the D90’s autofocus system revealed itself when we first got the camera last year. I tried taking some test shots of my then 3-year old daughter, who loves to pose for the camera. I pointed the camera at her, half pressed the shutter, and she’s standing there trying to put on her best smile while squinting and blinking. Took a few seconds to figure out that the AF illuminator was too bright (this was indoors in poor light), it took a while for here eyes to adjust. Less than ideal for those spur of the moment candid shots.

While the D90’s illuminator helps compensate for what is a poor (compared to the D300/D700) autofocus system over short distances, it doesn’t work over larger distances and introduces other potential issues. Even thought the Nikon D90 has a slight edge in high ISO performance over the Nikon D300, if you are shooting in a school gym, poorly lit church, or at a concert where flash is prohibited, the Nikon D300 makes a far better low light camera than the D90, and will give you a much higher keeper rate.

Bottom line, low light photography is about more than just high-ISO ability. The D300 and especially the D700 give you an amazing combination of high ISO performance mated to a truly great autofocus system. The D90 has the ISO ability to match or even slightly exceed the D300, but it’s badly let down by its AF system in low light conditions in comparison.

Going through the leaked Nikon product roadmap (originally pointed out to us by NR, and we have a full translation in our forum), one thing keeps jumping out at me: This person either has the same sources as Thom Hogan, or is basing this on Thom’s predictions.

The D300s and D3000 are widely rumored/leaked already for Aug 4th, and Thom stated the day before this “leak” that the D700x may be here before November, and low and behold, this document has it at October 15th. Thom also indicated some lenses and a strong pro lineup, this has a bunch of lenses being released (too many, is Nikon really going to significantly increase their lens release schedule when they cut back manufacturing due to the economic climate?).

So at first glance, the start of this document looks credible, especially if you’ve read Thom’s site lately. That is until you see the D700x can shoot at 6.5 f.p.s. with a battery grip, when the D3x can only manage 5 f.p.s. So is the D700x going to have more processing power than the top-of-the-line D3x with the same sensor?

Then looking at the 2010 “roadmap”, things just get wacky. a D400/D4 in Q2? Not likely, that would put the D300s production run at just over 6 months, and the D3 at less than 3 years: why accelerate your release schedule in a dire economic environment (unless they have the Canon “roadmap”, and it scares them). Same with the D4x, that would make the D3x a 2 year product cycle, highly unlikely despite its delayed release. Personally I wouldn’t expect the D400/D4 until very late 2010 or more likely 2011, and the D4x in late 2011 if we are lucky.

And then there are the lenses. Just too many of them, and we suddenly get all the lenses people have been crying out for over the past few years (fast wide angle, AF-S 85mm, 70-200 update, a 120-450mm presumably to replace the 80-400mm, some slower and presumably cheaper telephoto primes) – would be nice, but this is a lot more than anyone is realistically expecting from Nikon in the next 18 months.

The net result is that this screams of a fanboy wish list, based largely (at least short term) on Thom Hogans recent predictions.

Update:
The same poster who posted the original message, also posted this further down the thread when someone asked him to produce the document – basically saying he found out it was a ‘little joke’ after spending 3 hours translating it (via Google Translate):

The answer came to me by mail:

• I idiot when I disclose
  
• It’s little joke allegedly staff with responsibilities for their beloved colleagues and supervisors with shipper from the center
  
• So it’s supposedly fancy, but had to give mad work was concerned about his colleagues were extremely happy and very creative. And from me therefore I did laugh and I to 3 hours to translate.
  

There are a couple of very interesting threads on DPReview (here and here), speculating on Nikon’s potential product roadmap (or lack thereof), and in particular on the recently rumored Nikon D300s. The threads are pretty long, fueled by opinion from the usually well informed Thom Hogan, who even has the Nikon Rumors admin on the defensive at one point in one of the threads.

Up until a week ago, everyone was expecting a Nikon D400 later this year, following the 2-year release cycle for the DXXX bodies, based largely on the 2 year run the Nikon D200 had. However, as Thom and others point out, the D100 followed the D1, the D200 followed the D2, the D300 came at the same time as the D3, so wouldn’t it make sense for the D400 to come out at the same time (or slightly after) the D4? Following that line of thought, the pro line appears to be on about a 4 year release cycle, so does that put the Nikon D400 into late 2011?

So what does that mean? By 2011 the Nikon D300 would be very long in the tooth, especially since it lacks video, so roll in a Nikon D300s using the same sensor: add video and a couple of other features (maybe even a small improvement in IQ, taking what the Nikon D90 can do a small step further perhaps), and you’ve kept your 2-year release cycle and your pro and prosumer lines in sync. Suddenly the idea of a Nikon D300s makes a lot of sense.

Throw in people getting tired of upgrading every couple of years, especially given these economic conditions, and the fact the Nikon D300 doesn’t really have a direct competitor from Canon (the EOS 50D is somewhere below the D300 and above the D90 in most peoples opinion), and everything fits.

If the rumors are to be believed, the Nikon D300s will have 720p video with Autofocus, which is clearly a step up from the Nikon D90, but a 1080p mode would make the camera a lot more compelling, taking the fight directly to the Canon 5D Mark II on the video front: 720p would feel like a missed opportunity – many buyers base their decisions on easily understandable numbers (megapixels, ISO range, video resolution), especially if in recent years they’ve researched/bought flat screen TV’s or Bluray disks and settled on 1080p. And don’t forget, if Canon release a 60D later this year with 1080p video, that will compete directly against any Nikon D300s.

Based on these recent developments, if I were a gambling man, from looking at the rumors, what the competition is doing, and how Nikon traditionally rolls out products, I’d have to bet on a D300s in the next few months, and the D400 most likely in 2011 or whenever the Nikon D4 comes out.

Now if only they can squeeze 1080p video into the Nikon D300s…

There have been a number of image leaks of potential new lenses over the past few months, and every time there is a lot of speculation as to whether it’s a real photo, or Photoshop (most likely not actually Photoshop, but more likely a 3D rendering package, but the term is used anyway). In virtually all cases, there are many people swearing it’s fake, and others claiming “If it’s fake, it’s the best Photoshop job I’ve ever seen!”.

It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference, as Autodesk.com points out with their new “Fake or Photo” site:
Fake or Photo, in which they show 10 images, some real, some renderings. A couple are obvious, but others may surprise you – they did me. Definitely worth a look, especially if you ever follow the rumor sites.