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.

Well first of all, when the pictures of this lens leaked a couple of weeks ago, I truly believed it was a fake, so I stand corrected. Now that is out of the way, lets move onto this new lens: what on earth are Nikon thinking?

Nikon already has an excellent lens out there in the 12-24mm f/4 – a Gold Band “Pro” lens with constant aperture – the biggest complaint I’ve seen about this lens is the price, especially when compared to the high quality 3rd party lenses with similar zoom ranges. The new 10-24mm Nikon consumer lens competes directly against the existing Nikon 12-24mm, giving a couple of extra millimeters on the wide end, and being a little faster at the wide end, and slower at the long end. Its MSRP of $899.99 is almost exactly where the street price of the current 12-24mm is. Other makers including Sigma offer zooms in a similar range, the highly regarded 10-20mm f4-5.6 has a current street price of just over $400, less than half the price of either Nikon.

Looking at it that way, Nikon is pitching a consumer grade zoom against it’s own pro-grade zoom for the same price, and at a price point high enough that it’s not going to take much business at all away from 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma. Does this mean the Gold Band 12-24mm is being replaced? I must have missed that part in the press release.

At $900, this lens is also out of reach of most consumers: According to Nikon UK, the D40 through D90 make up more than 80% of DSLR sales for Nikon, and Nikon reports that they sell somewhere around 1.5 lenses per body, which means the average consumer often sticks with just the kit lens, while pros and gear-heads hoard dozens of lenses. At $900 this lens clearly isn’t aimed at the D40 users, it’s a more specialized lens aimed more at D90-D300 owners.

Ah, now it begins to make sense: right now the ultimate prosumer/pro setup for wide angle zooms is the already legendary 14-24mm lens on a D700 (or D3). With this new lens on a D300, you are effectively down to 15mm (allowing for the crop factor), so all of a sudden you have a prosumer kit with a D300 and 10-24mm lens that at low ISO’s (landscape shooters) rivals the D700/14-24mm combination at half the cost. That’s compelling. But then that also hits your D700 sales…

How well this lens is received will depend a lot on how well the lens performs – for the price point, it needs to perform as well as the excellent Nikon 12-24mm f4.0. It’s clearly not a mass market lens. It won’t threaten the 3rd part manufacturers. It does threaten the existing Nikon 12-24mm. It potentially threatens the D700/14-24mm combination for some uses, but not for others.

It’s certainly not a home run like the 35mm f1.8G DX was. If the price was in the $500-$600 range it would be a real threat to the 3rd party manufacturers, but at $900 it’s not. It will be very interesting to see how this lens is received.

The much rumored Nikon D5000 and the 10-24mm DX Zoom lens have now been announced, so how exactly do they fit into the DSLR marketplace? Lets start with the D5000:

The Nikon D40 has been discontinued, and the Nikon D60 price has been falling, with street prices in the low $500’s recently, so a new consumer grade camera has been expected. Having the new consumer camera inherit the excellent sensor used by the D300 and D90 made sense, and that is what happened. Video on this camera is an absolute must – while not everyone approves, putting Video capabilities on DSLRs does expand the market and bring more people into the fold, especially at the consumer level.

On the Video front, right now the full frame Canon 5D Mark II is the pro choice, and with the new Canon T1i, Canon released a superior video solution to Nikons then only offering, the D90, by supporting autofocus and 1080p. The Canon T1i’s 1080p is only 20 f.p.s., which is generally considered too slow for decent video, but this won’t necessarily deter the consumer looking for their first DSLR, that already owns a 1080p TV set: a max resolution of only 720p from your DSLR might put you off. So even though the new D5000 is priced below the Canon T1i/500D, the lack of progress on the video solution is disappointing to say the least. Canon remains the clear leader in DSLR Video, for now.

The flip/tilt LCD screen is a nice gimmick – a lot of people will like it, but ultimately it will rarely make that much difference in actual image quality – there are a few circumstances it may help (like holding the camera over your head in a crowd). The disappointing thing about the LCD is it is only 230k dots – anyone that went from a camera like the Nikon D200 to a Nikon D300 will tell you just how much difference the better LCD makes, allowing you to see much more detail in your images – in my opinion, it would be worth spending the extra $100-$150 to get a Nikon D90 over the new D5000 for the LCD alone if you are serious about your photography.

Ultimately, the new D5000 is going to be compared directly against the Canon T1i (500D):

As you can see above, the Canon outclasses the Nikon on just about all the major fronts, for only $70 more. It’s well established that the consumer grade cameras sell on specifications as much as anything else, and to be honest looking at the above, it’s difficult to get excited about the Nikon. If the Nikon had 1080p and a better LCD, it could have been a killer camera, but as it is, it’s perhaps even overpriced compared to the Canon – a $699 or lower price would have put it in a different space, but if your already in the $700 dollar range, you are going to look at the Canon that’s only a little more but appears to offer a lot more before deciding.

So while this new camera will undoubtedly sell well, it could have been so much more, and this is Canons chance to reverse its recent market share loses in consumer DSLR sales.

Got back in last night from a trip to New Mexico with the kids (spring break and all). I was always under the impression that New Mexico was just somewhere to drive through on the way to Arizona, Nevada and California from Texas, but I stand corrected.

Gila and Lincoln Forests were much more impressive than I was expecting, and Bosque del Apache was a pleasant surprise also, despite being there at the wrong time of day and wrong time of year.

Anyway, lots of news updates, trip reports, several thousand photos to sort through, so expect lots of new posts this week.

We are seeing almost daily reports of newspapers like the Rocky Mountain News shutting down, or doing significant layoffs (Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) as ad revenues and subscriptions fall in the face of a devasting economy and increased online competition. So how is this going to impact the next generation of pro DSLR’s from Nikon and Canon, a tradition that started 50 years ago with the introduction of the legendary Nikon F?

One things for sure – more megapixels aren’t needed. Most people’s monitors are between 1 and 2 megapixels, and it’s rare to publish online news pictures that are much more than one megapixel, so what we have today is already overkill. Even for newspaper print, a couple of megapixels is fine for a front-page color story. A couple of major newspapers demonstrated this recently, one being the LA Times, by using a 2 megapixel image from an Apple iPhone of a jet in the River Hudson for their front page story. If all the next generation of pro bodies offers are more megapixels, they won’t find many buyers from the traditional photojournalist/newspaper crowd.

What about higher ISO bodies? Sure, taking pictures inside and/or needing fast shutter speeds to capture action, better high ISO capabilities will always be welcome. However today’s cameras like the Nikon D3 already have capabilities unheard of a few years ago, so better high-ISO abilities won’t be that compelling of a reason to upgrade for many.

With the shift from print to online, video suddenly becomes more compelling for newspapers and other news services. The problem then becomes, do you send your news crew out with DSLR’s than can capture video, or video cameras that you can pull a still image from if needed? A frame from a 1080p video camera at 1920 x 1080 pixels is plenty for posting online, or even newspaper print. Using that logic, the next generation of pro DSLR’s will almost certainly require an advanced video mode if they stand a chance of competing. As we reported earlier, this could also lead to other problems, for example where sporting events have already contracted out broadcasting rights to a TV station, will they even let a newspaper photographer in with a camera that captures video?

Then there is the ubiquity of cell phone cameras and people carrying pocket sized point & shoot cameras – chances are when news breaks there will be dozens of bystanders taking pictures before your photographer gets there. Websites are relying more and more on their readers for content as CNN has demonstrated with their iReport site.

Then there are the manufacturers own mid range cameras – the Nikon D700 has the same sensor and AF system as the D3, only drops one f.p.s. (9 f.p.s. for the D3, 8 f.p.s for the D700 with battery pack), all for a $2,000 less MSRP. Or even the D300 costing $1,200 less still, with the same resolution, same AF system, and 8 f.p.s.; all are capable of getting the job done in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

The days of the $5k+ uber-body may well be limited. As Nikon did with the F6, a smaller, more compact pro body is clearly possible. The Nikon D4 and Canon 1D Mark IV may well be the last of the large, expensive pro bodies. Or perhaps they’ll be the first of the newer, smaller, more cost effective video/still hybrid pro cameras. Only time will tell, but in this case needs are changing and budgets are shrinking, and the manufacturers have no choice but to respond.