PetaPixel

Nikon USA Moves the D300s to the Retired List: Ready, Set, Hope!

d300s_1

You Nikon APS-C shooters ready to get your hopes up? Almost 5 years after the Nikon D300s was announced, Nikon USA has officially moved it from the active camera list to its archived camera list, leading many to believe that the long-awaited followup is just around the corner.

Whether or not that followup will be called the D400 is still debatable — in early April, Nikon Rumors reported that the D300s would be replaced by a “D9300″ — plus there’s the problem that ONLY Nikon USA has retired the camera, but all of those things aside, it is LONG past time that Nikon releases a new flagship APS-C shooter.

d300sarchive

Combine this news with the increasing frequency of rumors that claim the Canon 7D Mark II (name also debatable) is going to arrive later this year, possibly in August, and it looks like it’s going to be an exciting end to 2014 for APS-C lovers.

(via Northlight Images)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • arachnophilia

    as a D300s owner, no the D7000 series does not fit the same high end DX market segment.

    now, there might be a good argument for this market segment transitioning to full frame, but there’s a general lack of acceptable full frame cameras for the market.

    it’s not that the D400 wouldn’t make sense. it’s that the current camera offerings don’t make sense.

  • arachnophilia

    > The D300s adds Video and a second SDHC slot over the basic D300.

    the D300s as less accurate color, and ever-so-slightly-better ISO performance.

  • fredforward

    DX vs Fx… Why not have both?

  • Mike

    You have like three quarters of it already in the original 7D :)
    We live in evolutionary camera times, hardly any innovation.

  • arachnophilia

    both cameras were announced (released?) in 2009. they’re both 5 years old. granted, the D300s was more of a refresh of an existing camera, but the 7D is pretty long in the tooth as well. it’s due for a replacement too, and i know the canon fanboys are buzzing about a hypothetical 7D2 just as much as the nikon fanboys are buzzing about a hypothetical D400.

    maybe it doesn’t need an update, but i honestly feel the same way about my D300s. there are a few things i’d improve upon, but none of them are the kinds of things nikon would fix in an update.

  • PhotoJoe55

    I’m shooting with DX and FX too, but it seems like a waste of money, buying lenses for each one. Once in a while I get a surprise, like the new 24-120mm F4 FX lens, works better on both the D300 & D300s than it does on the D700 or D800. Other than that, it seems that the lenses are designed, and do work better in the format they were designated for.

  • arachnophilia

    that’s how i feel, yeah. why NOT have both?

    nikon needs actual, rational options in their camera lineup. they’re churning over the lower end of the market so fast they’re competing with their own older models, and not actually offering higher end cameras people want. a more diverse lineup would only help them.

  • arachnophilia

    > but it seems like a waste of money, buying lenses for each one.

    i may own a DX camera, but i own zero DX lenses. every lens i buy, i buy with my D700 in mind. my D300s is pretty much relegated to daytime sports; the lack of a wide angle doesn’t bother me. i do use my 24-70 on it sometimes, and it’s wide enough for that use.

    i used to own a 17-55, but i sold it. my D700 is my primary camera (even though i apparently use my D300s more) and it didn’t make sense for me to have a lens i couldn’t use on it.

  • endoftheQ

    Yup, I own both DX and FX too, and on the rare occasions when a client commissions posters, I rent medium-format. I agree, harking back to a film format as though it’s relevant in today’s market as many have above, is “ridiculous”, especially as no print method, regardless of the number of inks, will ever show a 24mp image as well as a 4k or retina-type screen will with a 1mp one. :)

  • arachnophilia

    > I agree, harking back to film as though it’s relevant in today’s market as many have above, is “ridiculous”,

    it is, but i don’t think that’s necessarily what full frame is doing. or crop for that matter: most people seem to have forgotten that APS-c film was a real thing.

    i think you should weigh the costs and benefits of each format as it pertains to your desired uses. and in many cases, FX will be better, in part because the optics have a much longer (ie: film) history in R&D.

    basically, don’t use FX because it’s like your old 35mm camera. use it because it’s actually better at some things.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    No, its not. It doesn’t have the same resolving power.

    Basic physics.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    If you take an image from a D7100 at 100% on a 200mm lens you will not get nearly the same image quality of as that of the D700 at 100% w/ a 300mm lens, despite the difference in MP size. I’ve done it, the D700 always wins out.

  • arachnophilia

    right, but the argument above was about cropping in post. take a 200mm lens, use it on each camera, and then crop the D700 to roughly the same DX area. let me know what you find out.

  • arachnophilia

    i’m not sure what you mean.

    granted, resolving power varies as both a function of sensor size and pixel density, but… unless you’re making images that are 36x24mm on FX or 24x16mm on DX, you ARE magnifying the image. displayed on your monitor? magnified. printed? magnified. basic, you know, common sense.

    now, it’s not OPTICAL magnification, no. and it’s not magnification in the way that photographers like to talk to about (that is, at the sensor surface). but it IS magnification. if you are reproducing a larger format and a smaller format to the same physical size, then you are magnifying the smaller format more. that this magnification isn’t optical — and so is more limited by optical effects like diffraction etc — is exactly why it’s not necessarily an advantage.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Sorry, but that’s irrelevant. I fully understand that the D7100 has higher pixel density, hence the higher MP count in a smaller sized sensor. But the discussion is about crop factor in the camera, resolving power and image quality. At the end of the day the quality of the image is all that matters, and enlarging an image from the 7100 to match the same optical equivalent of the 700 will yield a lower quality image in IQ, color, noise and a range of qualifiers.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Sensors don’t have resolving power, only lenses do. Resolving power is an optical principle which has an affect on the resolution and pixel density of the sensor.

    My statement is that the 1.5 crop factor is not magnification, its field of view. You are making an semantic argument that isn’t relevant to the original premise. No where was post-magnification mentioned. Even if it were, the denser, higher MP DX sensor will not hold up to the IQ of the crop factor equivalent (200mm @1.5 crop vs 300mm @ no crop) on an FX sensor. You lose too much in the denser pixels.

    The person that Pickle and I are replying to is under the false assumption that the 1.5x crop factor is an advantage, by making the common mistake of equating crop factor with magnification.

    The only thing that matters in the end is the quality of the image, and without the full optical magnification of the lens, the crop factor means nothing.

  • arachnophilia

    > But the discussion is about crop factor in the camera, resolving power and image quality.

    right, but i’m not debating that a 300mm lens on a FX camera is generally superior to a 200mm lens on a DX camera. the question is: what if you only have a 200mm lens? because a $3k camera and $6k lens is less accessible than a $1.5K camera and $1.5K lens.

    pickle, above, was specifically talking about crop sensors, vs cropping in post. and so that’s what i was talking about.

    > and enlarging an image from the 7100 to match the same optical equivalent of the 700 will yield a lower quality image in IQ, color, noise and a range of qualifiers.

    granted. now try the reverse. crop the D700 image down to the 1.5 DX crop, at 5mp. which image has better quality?

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    >granted. now try the reverse. crop the D700 image down to the 1.5 DX crop, at 5mp. which image has better quality?

    There’s no point in doing so.

    But you are right, I mis-read @disqus_gw9Zdzxc4y:disqus’s comment – he is talking about doing it in post – which will work, but is going to result in inferior quality. My mis-read.

  • arachnophilia

    > Sensors don’t have resolving power, only lenses do.

    you’re joking, right? like, this is a send up?

    > My statement is that the 1.5 crop factor is not magnification, its field of view. You are making an semantic argument that isn’t relevant to the original premise.

    you REALLY don’t see how it’s relevant? what’s worse, you really don’t see how it supports your overall point?

    for instance, my FX camera and my DX camera are both 12mp. if i display an image from one filling my monitor, and an image from the other filling my other other monitor, and my two monitors are the same size, which has been magnified more? if i print an 8×10 from each, which has been magnified more? and yeah, it matters.

    > Even if it were, the denser, higher MP DX sensor will not hold up to the IQ of the crop factor equivalent (200mm @1.5 crop vs 300mm @ no crop) on an FX sensor. You lose too much in the denser pixels.

    right, BECAUSE you are magnifying it more. optical magnification and cropping are loosely equivalent, but work a little differently when you get down into the nuts and bolts of things like diffraction and circle of confusion. if all other factors were equal (that is, ignoring magnification) the two would be precisely equivalent actions.

    > The person that Pickle and I are replying to is under the false assumption that the 1.5x crop factor is an advantage, by making the common mistake of equating crop factor with magnification.

    let’s be totally clear for a second here. we’re talking about angle of view. and in terms of angle of view, it actually doesn’t matter how get there, cropping more or optically magnifying more. they are equivalent actions, resolution and diffraction and CoC issues aside.

    > without the full optical magnification of the lens, the crop factor means nothing.

    i don’t even understand what you think that means.

    “crop factor” itself is kind of a silly term. it just relates one angle of view to another. but what do you think “full optical magnification” means? i mean… have you really never shot any other format? my mamiya RB67′s standard “normal” lens is 90mm. FF, in comparison, has a 2x crop factor. if i shot 8×10, “normal” there would be like 320mm. FF, in comparison, has like a 7.5x crop factor.

    think of how much “full optical magnification” you’re missing out on for that 300mm lens by only shooting full frame!

  • arachnophilia

    > which will work, but is going to result in inferior quality.

    well, no, not necessarily. like i said, it depends on pixel density. for instance, if you’re comparing a D7000 and a D800 cropped to 1.5, they’ll look basically identical. if you’re comparing a D800 to a D300s, the D800 will be better.

  • endoftheQ

    Yup, I have both too, but it’s a bit of a privileged position. I’m also surprised at some of the “geeky” arguments that imply that a better spec’d camera is a better camera. I certainly wouldn’t buy a fleet of Ferraris if I was opening a taxi cab firm. As @arachnophilia:disqus and others have said, Nikon seems determined to push the DX crew to FX even though FX is now very much a niche format. I guess Nikon may well go the way of Kodak et al, if it doesn’t get to grips with the changing world of commercial digital photography.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Actually they won’t – the D800 sensor is a much better sensor in almost all respects than the D7000. In crop mode will out perform the D7000 – there are plenty of examples and tests you can find online that will confirm this; and I can tell you non-anecdotally, as I own both and have shot extensively with both in the above combination.

    Scientifically, the D800 will show better luminance noise, micro-contrast and much less chrominance noise – and the results become more exaggerated as you increase sensitivity (ISO).

    You may be coming at this from theory, but I’m working from actual tests, and real world experience working with the tools.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    I give up. You’ve completely missed the point of my original comment which is very simple.

    A crop factor of 1.5 does not improve optical magnification, which is the point/mis-conception of the original commenter. It only changes the relational angle of view (and DoF, but that’s a whole different discussion)

    Higher pixel density on a smaller sensor will not bridge the gap and give an equal result in image quality. Your supposition seems common sense, but there are more factors at play than this, and both lab testing and real work experience show that even shooting in crop mode, the FX sensors out-perform the DX sensors of the relative equivalent (likely because FX sensors are built to a more demanding standard).

    You want to seem to argue the magnification point, but it has no bearing on the original comment (and is incorrect).

  • arachnophilia

    > A crop factor of 1.5 does not improve optical magnification, which is the point/mis-conception of the original commenter.

    i think you are missing MY point. i understand that it is not optical magnification, and that the difference between optical magnification and enlargement after the fact contributes to a quality loss. my point is that in practice, this difference is frequently negligible. that the two actions are roughly equivalent, so long as your lens’s resolving power exceeds that of your sensor, and you’re shooting below your diffraction limits.

    > It only changes the relational angle of view (and DoF, but that’s a whole different discussion)

    in fact, it is not. DoF changes because CoC changes, and CoC changes because, drumroll please, enlargement changes.

    > and both lab testing and real work experience show that even shooting in crop mode, the FX sensors out-perform the DX sensors of the relative equivalent

    what do you mean by “relative equivalent”? because, as i pointed out above, there’s almost zero difference between cropping a D800 image to 15mp, and taking an image with a D7000. very similar sensor technologies, very similar pixel densities. the only thing you are changing is whether or not there are other pixels you are discarding.