It's Sequel Time at Nikon
First is the Nikon D300s. As the name implies, it is very similar to the Nikon D300. The biggest difference is the addition of video, the same 720p video in the D90 and D5000 -- perhaps Nikon is saving the 1080p for the big, bad professional line? Other big differences are 7 fps shooting even without a battery grip and a dual card slot, with one CF and one SD card. That comes in really handy as backup in situations where you can't afford to lose a shot to corruption, but I prefer the simple card management of the two CF cards on the D3 and D3x.
Next is the D3000, a kid-brother to Nikon's still-new D5000. It breaks Nikon's recent 12-megapixel streak with a 10 megapixel sensor, and is aiming for the entry-level market, people who haven't moved up to DSLRs yet because they didn't want to lose video capabilities, but for whom the current options were too large or expensive. This target is reinforced by the new Guide Mode, essentially a system to teach you how to use a camera as you shoot.
But the real sequels are in the "new" lenses, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II and the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II.
Let's pause for a moment here while I release my traditional, Nikon-release primal scream: WHERE ARE THE FAST WIDE PRIMES? WE'VE BEEN WAITING 28 YEARS FOR A NEW 35mm f/1.4!
Ok, now that that's out of the way, what we can see is that Nikon is upgrading lenses that have been popular workhorses but which have also drawn heavy complaints -- the 70-200 for vignetting and softness on FX cameras and the 18-200 for zoom creep and softness in the mid range. These lenses will be popular eventually if they fix these issues, but at their initial price -- $2400 for the 70-200 II! -- many people will be looking for deals on the old ones.
The 18-200 seems to seek to fix just that one design problem by putting in a "zoom lock" switch, which is the cheap and easy way to do it. Many people have been using thick rubber bands as their zoom locks. The new 70-200, though, is an entirely new design, slightly shorter and fatter and with the "Nano Crystal Coat." It will be interesting to see how it performs, since all of Nikon's current N lenses -- mostly primes and exotic telephotos -- are optically excellent.
What this also means is that the "Nikon roadmap" that has been bandied about camera sites for many weeks, seems to be totally false. Which is why we didn't report on it.
Alen Abdula on July 30, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Ryan, I feel your pain... WHERE ARE THE PRIMES? Nikon!
euphrosyne on July 30, 2009 at 05:08 PM
I second/third the motion for the fast primes :(
Nicholas on July 30, 2009 at 05:15 PM
Fourth (although I can't really afford one right now).
euphrosyne on July 30, 2009 at 05:15 PM
...though I think the answer (as to why we don't see more primes) is simple: I meet a lot of people strapped with nice Nikon bodies and lenses who really don't know the first thing about what they're holding. They just have plenty of disposable income and want a 'nice' camera. These aren't "serious" photo hobbyists--for what they're paying they want zoom lenses, and don't even know what the difference between f/1.4 and f/3.5 would get them.
A plausible market explanation, at least.
Dan Sickles on July 30, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Unlike the D90, the D300s video has autofocus and external sound input. Unlike the D5000, the D3000 does not have video.
john on July 30, 2009 at 07:58 PM
Am I too late? Is anyone interested in F series lenses and bodies?
win on July 31, 2009 at 03:31 AM
John,
You're not the only one interested in film. The new 70-200 N should work beautifully on your f5, f100 or f6.
REN on July 31, 2009 at 11:50 AM
About the "'fast' primes": when your digital ISOs are as high as they are on these same cameras, what is really a "fast" lense anymore? As my uncle put it (who shoots professionally with a Nikon D3, D700, and a D300, while I only shoot with a D200), when we were discussing a f/1.4 v f/1.8 on a 50mm, he asked "why would I want to pay more to shrink my focus to a smaller depth of field when I do not need anything 'faster' than the f/1.8?" Point taken, so I ask "with these extremely high ISO cameras, what is 'fast' anymore?" We all know the f/1.4 is sharper and "faster" but does that really mean what it used to?