# I'm confused about Nikon...



## Tcapp (May 9, 2012)

Canon makes sense to me. The have 1 digit cameras, 2 digit cameras, and 3 digit cameras. 1digit>2digit>3digit
So less digits = better. 


Makes sense. 

in the 1 digit cameras, lower number = better. 2 and 3 digit cameras, higher number = better. Kinda weird but ok. 

Then you have nikon. They have 1 digit, 2 digit, 3 digit, and 4 digit camers. 1 is the best, but 3 is better than 2 and 4? There doen't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their naming scheme. their new low end camera is D5200? Has there been 52 different low end cameras?? I'm so confused. 

Does anyone know their formula?


----------



## poias (May 9, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Does anyone know their formula?



Yes, the formula that always works is.... drum roll.... the price! The higher the price, the higher the model is in the totem pole.


----------



## AndysRollei (May 10, 2012)

Nikon's new (est) camera is the D3200...

Nikon does not have any more (new) two digit cameras, so it goes 1 series, 3 series, and 4 series. 

Does it really matter what cameras are called? 

Andy


----------



## cliffwang (May 12, 2012)

AndysRollei said:


> Nikon's new (est) camera is the D3200...
> 
> Nikon does not have any more (new) two digit cameras, so it goes 1 series, 3 series, and 4 series.
> 
> ...



That's what I heard. Nikon is trying to have the new way for their model. However, it's still very confusing.


----------



## AndysRollei (May 12, 2012)

Not to be an stickler but, it is really not that confusing. 

Andy


----------



## Tcapp (May 12, 2012)

AndysRollei said:


> Not to be an stickler but, it is really not that confusing.
> 
> Andy



If not confusing, then at least inefficient and kinda odd.


----------



## IWLP (May 12, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> If not confusing, then at least inefficient and kinda odd.



It was easier around 2004/2005 or so. There was the D100, which was the crop-sensor camera. 

Then there was the D1 series, which continued on the F1/F2/F3/F4/F5 series of their pro-level bodies. The pro-level digital bodies were sometimes given sensor or feature upgrades mid-lifecycle, so they were given an X or H suffix (1Dx, 2Dh, etc.)

Then, they introduced the D70. Which was better than the D100. But later, they upgraded the D100 and continued its line into the D200/D300/D300s.

The D70 line continued to the D80 and D90. What's the next logical number? That's a problem.

On the lower end of things, Nikon started a lower-end camera below the D70 to compete with the digital Rebels. They started with a D50, added a lower D40, upped that with a D40X and then a D60. Where to go next? That's a problem.

So they seemingly pulled back and went with a new naming scheme: The low-end was renamed the D3000. Successors were the D3100 and now the D3200.

Above that, they went to the D5000, and now the D5100 with a rumored D5200 along the way.

The D70/80/90 also went to a four-digit naming convention with the current D7000.

The D100/200/300 is now the (outdated) 300s, which some people will say could go full-frame, others argue it will stay DX, but who knows at this point.

Then the full-frame below-"pro" body was announced with the D700, and now the D800 series.

And there's still the pro series. They just do a +1 with every new generation, and of course, sometimes a suffix.

So no, not confusing at all ...  The naming madness is due to the fact that digital camera tech is ever-evloving, and cameras need to be updated a wee bit more often than their film counterparts did.


----------



## gmrza (May 12, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Canon makes sense to me. The have 1 digit cameras, 2 digit cameras, and 3 digit cameras. 1digit>2digit>3digit
> So less digits = better.



So what is Canon going to do after the EOS 90D and the EOS 950D? Hmm? Then things will probably get confusing.

Given how Canon uses Roman numerals for the generations of the single digit cameras, things could start looking silly if they keep the 5D and 1DX monikers for a while. Just think of things like 5D mk XXIV (we will have to wait a long time for that one) or 1DX mk IX. *grin*


----------



## psolberg (May 13, 2012)

honestly who gives a rat what they call them. 1DX means 10? who cares!


----------



## Tcapp (May 13, 2012)

IWLP said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > If not confusing, then at least inefficient and kinda odd.
> ...



SO d700 is a separate series from the d800? does that mean that will will see a d710 and d810? Cause if they just go and make a d900, then they run out of names again.


----------



## IWLP (May 13, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> SO d700 is a separate series from the d800? does that mean that will will see a d710 and d810? Cause if they just go and make a d900, then they run out of names again.



The D800 is the successor to the D700, so it's a continuation of the line.

_However,_ there are rumors of a D600 now, to be a lower-end full-frame camera. So on it goes.


----------



## dr croubie (May 20, 2012)

It's just the same as Intel and AMD processors.
Ever tried figuring out what Intel processor does what? Some have 2/3/4/6/8 cores, some have VT, some have XD bit, some have SSE/SSSE3/SSE4, some don't, some use QuickPath, some FSB, some DMI.

I just gave up and bought an AMD Phenom.
(Cheaper too.)


----------



## Tcapp (May 20, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> It's just the same as Intel and AMD processors.
> Ever tried figuring out what Intel processor does what? Some have 2/3/4/6/8 cores, some have VT, some have XD bit, some have SSE/SSSE3/SSE4, some don't, some use QuickPath, some FSB, some DMI.
> 
> I just gave up and bought an AMD Phenom.
> (Cheaper too.)



Haha! True about their naming too! But the current crop of intel processors are FAR better than current AMD. They used to be closer but intel has taken it up a notch lately!


----------



## ScottyP (May 25, 2012)

Nikon's numbering actually reflects how much money (in MM yen) they intend to pay Ashton Kucher to play with each particular camera body on TV.


----------



## Tcapp (May 26, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Nikon's numbering actually reflects how much money (in MM yen) they intend to pay Ashton Kucher to play with each particular camera body on TV.



And Canon pays the model number in yen to Jakie Chan


----------

