D800 replacement ;)

[JR1]

So we can expect the new D800s (ish) in June/July, only again as with the D4s, just a "few" small upgrades.

And if to be believed the D9000 or 9xxx in September the long awaited D300/s replacement.

But as I said, and as stated on many a website like Nikon Rumors, "small" upgrades, so have DSLR manufacturers finally met a brick wall in what to offer.

Do we no longer want 100Mp sensors, 10-1000mm zooms, 20fps.

I was going to get a D4s, but have over a month, and having tried one out decided that all it would be to me would be snob appeal, and not worth the cost.

I would get a D300s replacement IF it had 8fps and a larger sensor say D7100 ish, but it appears innovations are now few and far between.

And finally yet another new lens, wow, big deal

http://nikonrumors.com/

[Manfred M]

Actually, this is not all that surprising. Digital cameras are now a mature product (as they should be as the technology is getting to be 15 or 20 years old), so the pace of technological improvements are evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

[Adrian]

I would think the demand for high end DSLRs is tiny. It can't be worth manufacturers making big steps too often. I would guess there is still a lot of opportunity in software development to make creative functions, such as flexible control over (say) depth of field, or backlit subjects without having to understand aperture, shutter speed, ISO relationships, for example by using the rear screen for true real time and flexible WYSIWYG composition. This will probably not be done by the big camera manufacturers.

[Shadowman]

Considering everything that's been offered in the past (more megapixels, better ISO performance, more advanced features) a few predictions I've read here and there are: better video, wifi capability, and more robust housing.

[ajohnw]

There is something kicking around in the background that will boost ISO dramatically by improving the light loss at the actual sensor. It's mostly venture capitol money driving it - not always a good sign but some times these thing do become jam today rather than tomorrow.

Smaller and smaller pixels and higher ISO don't always gain anything useful as far as noise is concerned. I'll just quote an example of a D7000 against a D7100. The iso gains are above 6400 and up to that point there is little difference but where their is the D7000 is slightly better. Past 6400 noise levels on the D7100 just get worse. Not exactly an improvement. Comparing full frames is more interesting.Sony for instance recently came up with one that works rather well in the dark so as to speak - 12mp if I remember correctly.

I posted a link to a Nikon technical chat on metering. They seem to feel that things can't get much if any better. I'm not so sure. Mirrorless uses the sensor and can show clipping before the shot is taken. A lot easier to use even though on one make the histogram changes colour at the ends if they are clipped. When the clipping is actually shown in the frame it's possible to assess it's importance.

I came across a comment that Canon are trying to make a dslr more mirrorless like by fitting a small tft type screen and projecting it's image into the viewfinder. That would give them a lot more flexabilty on what they can show - even a live view if they wanted to but that sounds a bit silly to me. It's the sort of thing that will happen at some point if mirrorless catches on and certain types of camera appear and they resist changing.

They all work on better and better jpg's out of the box all of the time. Auto shadow correction and other thing have been added to some recently and I have seen comments in reviews of late that perfect jpg's straight out of the box is what's wanted.

Don't know if it's just mature Manfred. I feel the camera developments are also mature - more and more pixels will probably continue even though it's pretty clear that better usable iso ranges could be obtained via bigger and hence less pixels. It's a sort of swings and roundabouts thing and I wonder if they have reached some sort of limit where more pixels and higher iso's aren't such a good idea any more. They either need to improve the light efficiency or reduce the noise levels in the silicone that detects it. Preferably both. The noise aspect might already be bottomed out or very nearly so. I'm not aware of any alternative technologies other than CCD - already beat + too expensive and Foveon which seems to have got stuck. Sony probably have back lit sensors patented so not sure what goes on there. One thing that surprised me is that I have gained the impression that all of them including Canon have on sensor phase detection technology available. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more mirrorless models. Perhaps they will be called eSLR's. And an E-M5 a mini eSLR. It's not far off it really.

John
-