Template talk:Nikon DSLR cameras

Vote on template format

Option 1

Nikon Digital SLR Timeline 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Flagship - High Resolution D1 D1X D2X D2Xs D3 Flagship - High Speed D1H D2H D2Hs High-end - FX/Full Frame sensor D700 High-end - DX sensor D100 D200 D300 Midrange - DX sensor D70 D70s D80 D90 Entry-level - DX sensor D50 D40x D60 D40 -Green indicates a camera using an FX Sensor-

---

Option 2

Nikon Digital SLR Timeline 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 High-end - FX/Full Frame sensor D3 Midrange - FX/Full Frame sensor D700 High-end - DX sensor, high resolution D1 D1X D2X D2Xs High-end - DX sensor, high speed D1H D2H D2Hs High-end - DX sensor D100 D200 D300 Midrange - DX sensor D70 D70s D80 D90 Entry-level - DX sensor D50 D40x D60 D40

Placement of D7000

In Nikon's D7000 press release, it says that the D7000 "a model that introduces a new line of mid-class Nikon DX-format digital-SLR cameras.". Should we introduce another class of camera for the template? Or am I interpreting this sentence incorrectly? SCΛRECROW 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, no needs to create a new row now. We will see later is it a new line or a successor of D90. Sergey Shandar (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So should we also call it the D90 replacement in its article? SCΛRECROW 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nikon is not offering drop-in replacements for their model lineup. The D7000 is upmarket from the D90, while the D5000 is downmarket. But the D5000 is also upmarket from the D60. As far as the template is concerned, it's probably safe to treat the D7000 as the replacement for the D90. After all, it has the screw drive motor and top LCD in a midrange SLR. It's hard to believe Nikon would release another midrange camera that does directly replace the D90. Over the last few years they've had two midrange models above the entry level and below the high end D300 line, and this pattern seems to continue. What would be interesting is if the D300 line gets the boot, if too many pros and prosumers have jumped to FX. But I haven't seen evidence that will happen, just the observation that the D7000 is fairly competitive with the D300s. Fletcher (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with placement of D90 and D7000. The current form of the template suggests that D90 is replaced by the D7000 and that D90 is out of production. Nikon Japan currently markets both. I agree with SCΛRECROW that D7000 seems to be a new line of DSLRs. I feel a separate line should be created for the D7000. Jovian Eye _talk 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the D7000 seems to be the start of a new line of DSLR and deserves its own category. However, I'm not sure if this is part of a product line restructuring, which would become more clear down the line.SCΛRECROW 04:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm going ahead and creating a separate line. If things look different in the future we change it back. Jovian Eye _talk 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a little edit war going on over the D7000 line. To reiterate what I said above, we can treat the D7000 as the replacement for the D90. The D90 is an old model, an old sensor, it's on the way out. Nikon expert Thom Hogan says manufacture has stopped and now it's a matter of clearing the remaining inventory.[1]. (See under April 21 news: "Side note: The D3000, D5000, and D90 all live on at the moment mainly because of built-up unsold inventory. As inventories disappear on these items, they'll be removed from Nikon's "current cameras" list. None of these models are still being manufactured.") It's interesting the Nikon website Jovianeye links to at [2] does list the D90 -- but also lists the D3000 and D5000, which I think have pretty clearly been superseded the D5100 and D3100. So I think we need to read the writing on the wall -- these models will stick around on Nikon's website for a while, but that doesn't mean they are a separate product line from the newer models. Fletcher (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The current line-up of models at Nikon Japan doesnt include the D90. So I guess I am restoring the D7000 to the previous version of the template. All in all, I dont agree with this timeline format because it creates a lot of ambiguity. This version of the template is well suited for the marketing done by the company wherein models overlap each other. --Jovian Eye _talk 02:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As of today the Nikon D90 is still listed on Nikons UK and US sites (amongst many others), Amazon (again, amongst many others) is still selling and restocking the D90. If these facts, along with Nikon defining the D7000 as a new camera class, doesn’t confirm that the D7x00 range is distinct from the Dx0 range I don’t know what evidence is required.

The comments of some industry commentator do not override the facts. There may never be a D95, the D90 may be the last in the line – this happens in product lines. Maybe the D90 will be replaced by a D6000, who knows! We can only go on the facts and these are that the D90 is still listed on Nikon sites and it is still being sold (over two years after the D7000’s release) and restocked in parallel to the D7x00.

I think that the D7x00 range should have its own line in the Advanced bracket, the D7100 is certainly a match for the Canon 7D (which is Advanced). Also the D600, also classed Advanced, is virtually identical to the D7x00 range except for it being FX format.Bloodholds (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

D300S discontinued?

D300S is listed as discontinued in Nikon Japan's website . I believe it was discontinued in Jan 2012 around the time D700 was discontinued as per screenshot. -ad. (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It may have been discontinued in Japan. But, Nikon's global site still has the camera in its line-up. --Jovian Eye _storm 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jovianeye. You've done a lot good edits, but in this case:

1. Wikipedia prefers third-party sources. Wikipedia must NOT speak to the MOUTH of a manufacturer
2. Many independent sources state the professional character of this camera. Its minimum as professional as the D700. Even the D7000 is often used by professionals

Please obey Wikipedia rules. Being an expert means one is less biased and has learned from many sources. Tagremover (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

D300s is still being sold (as per september 2014), so it is not discontinued globaly. In US, it was discontinued in early 2014. (I think). According to rumours, it will be replaced by D9300 sometime. TorKr (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to do some more research. There is no doubt that D300S is at the end of its lifecycle. However, it is listed as part of Nikons current DSLR lineup on its global website and is being sold on Amazon UK . To the best of my understanding, D300S is partially discontinued ... :) TorKr (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that D3X, D3S and D90 is still in Nikons official lineup. However, none of those cameras are being sold anymore... TorKr (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Usually this means that the camera is not manufactured anymore, but it is still being sold as long as supplies last. — Edgar.bonet (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikon has confirmed by email that D300S is discontinued, but not when. Searching the internet, you will find a lot of dates when D300s was discontinued: jan'12, jan'14, jun'14..... jun'14 seems to me the most likely date for discontinuation. TorKr (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Formatting

In the Early models section and below. there is text with green background and underlined text. What does that signify? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the table's legend, green background means ca. 24x36mm format, underlined means HD video capable. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Too table doesn't fit well on narrower screens. The quarters for some of the earlier years should be compressed from |1|2|3|4| to |1-4| or |1-2|3-4|. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Fails accessibility. For example, the blue on blue header fails contrast. See MOS:ACCESS. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we are listing MILCs at all in this table. The Nikon-1 system is totally unrelated to the Nikon-F system. Different mounts, different type of cameras, different formats. Who wants to compare and switch between these cameras types so that it might be useful to have them in the same timeline? I think we should remove the MILCs from the table and put them in a table of their own. This would also solve the blue on blue accessibility problem.

Regarding screen width. The table still fits on my CRT screens, except for the right-most column, where the text overlaps, but that may be browser-specific. Before we give up on the granularity (which we will have to do sooner or later), I think we should remove the odd "Professional" / "Consumer" designation. That's just marketing speak. From the vendor's perspective, we are all "consumers", no matter how we use our equipment. This would save us a lot more room. Also, we could reduce the rows downto, say, "Entry-level", "Mid-range", "Advanced", "High-End" or similar categories. IMHO, the Early model's section should remain (including the Still Video models, which are much closer to digital SLRs than MILCs), but we could also remove the unnecessary See Also section. We hardly need these links in any article including the template, but we could add the links to the See Also sections or incorporate them into the text in articles where they are appropriate. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1. It makes sense to split out the MILCs into a new template, possibly called "Template:Nikon MILC cameras". You might want to wait a week or so for comments from other people before doing it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
2. The screen width is ok for now (2013 Q1) but as more quarters are added then it might be a problem in the future. I'm viewing this on 1280x1024, which shows the horizontal a little tight, but I guess it's ok for now. I would rather leave the older models instead of removing them! • Sbmeirow • Talk •
3. I would prefer to stay with the current rows, other than the possible removal of the MILC. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• MILCs: Compared to other DSLR brands this template is small: I surely see the sense to let them in THIS template. Otherwise: Should SLTs excluded from the Sony template?
• For me its not very good to read: Included quarters 2-4: 1. Its obvious for (nearly all) readers. 2. readability is important 3. Template is mostly for navigation
• Support for changing 1999,2000,2001,2002 from |1|2|3|4| to |1-4|. Tagremover (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we all seem to agree that the MILCs should be moved to a new template. I'm not in a hurry with that.

Regarding SLTs, why should we move them elsewhere? SLTs are DSLRs with partially transparent fixed mirror, the cameras use the same mount (A-mount) and are available in the same format as before (full-frame and APS-C). There really isn't much difference. However, we should not include the NEX models in the same table.

I removed the columns past 2013/01 again, as we cannot predict the future. The overlap problem will fix "itself" on 2013-04-01. Alternatively we could add the remaining 2013 columns, but gray them out instead of extrapolating the camera rows into them. However, given the horizontal space constraints we shouldn't add new columns unless absolutely necessary, IMHO.

I don't particularly like the idea of collapsing the early camera model columns as valuable information will get lost this way and it would introduce a degree of inconsistency we can otherwise avoid. However, in a number of years we will certainly have to do this, if we don't want to end up like here: Template:Canon EOS film cameras. ;-)

Therefore I would rather remove the voluminous "professional/consumer" column, because it does not add any real information to the table. And if we really don't want to lose this pseudo-information, we could add it to the other lead-column (f.e. add "(Pro)" to the text of the four top rows), add tags to the corresponding camera models or even color-code the four top-rows to indicate that they are "different". This would save us horizontal space for a number of years to come (until the end of the DSLR era, perhaps). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No agreement for MILCs: Majority likes them here: They fit in here just fine. Tagremover (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you changed your mind and edited your old answer to read the opposite: [3].

Well, given that it was you who added the MILCs to this table, could you please elaborate, why/how you see them fitting in a template about Nikon DSLRs? As far as I know, the Nikon 1 system is a mirrorless system, using a different mount (1-mount rather than F-mount) and a substantially different format factor as well. Actually, about the only thing they have in common with Nikon DSLRs is that they feature a "Nikon" label as well.

If we leave them in here, the table will continue to grow and we will soon run into a situation where we really will have to remove information (either reducing the granularity of the timeline or removing unnecessary columns like "professional/consumer"). If we move the MILCs elsewhere, this template won't need further updates in a number of years when vendors will stop to introduce new DSLRs (and the MILC template would have enough room to grow for more than a decade). Under the given space constraints, I would rather like to keep (and continue to add for as long as new DSLRs are introduced) relevant information to this template instead of removing it in favour to adding unrelated and therefore irrelevant information. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• DSLRs are added right: No problem. Only classes are added below: already 3 MILCs. Discuss again later if there are 5 MILC-classes. MILCs use FT1 adaptor: see photozone.de new reviews (english).
• "collapsing the early camera model columns as valuable information will get lost this way": WRONG: 1999 to |2-4|, 2000,2001,2002 from |1|2|3|4| to |1-4|. Tagremover (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what I propose (much more room, no relevant information lost):

See: Proposed separate templates for Nikon DSLRs and Nikon MILCs

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Added a subsection for easy trials. Done minor quick changes. OK?

• Agree for deleting Professional/Consumer column: But words are good: Changes i made makes it even smaller.
• Again: Support for changing 1999 to |2-4|, 2000,2001,2002 from |1|2|3|4| to |1-4|. Currently version below is NOT preferred, but can be used until other agreements.
• Currently strong disagreement for excluding MILCs until there are 5 MILC-classes. Again: I'm NO user of MILCs: Instead my old Kodak 14NX and Nikon D3. But: New times are coming: Currently integration of MILCs here at Nikon seems best for ALL users. Tagremover (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another version with: (Professional): with or without brackets: IMHO equal. Tagremover (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for MILCs: Child navboxes 6.1 Subgroups example : First column as current: Nikon 1 and background colored MILC, Childs mid-range, upper + entry. used for example in Template:DSLR cameras with movie mode. Tagremover (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage of the subgroups example, but that's probably because I don't see any advantage of keeping / adding Nikon MILCs to the Nikon DSLR template. (Sorry to say that, but the Template:DSLR cameras with movie mode is certainly an example not to follow, it is inaccurate, incomplete, raises many accessibility issues and is wasting a lot of space in many articles where it was included by you, but where it is not in the scope of interest of readers reading these articles.) IMO, there is no reason to mention the 1-system in articles about the F-system by default and vice versa (it's just littering up space), except for if it would somehow be discussed in an article. Both templates might be useful in a generic article about Nikon, but we can always include both individual templates there, and only the relevant one in the system and camera specific articles.

If Nikon would bring out a new MILC system with F-mount, things might change and it would be more difficult to draw a line for me somewhere, but the existance of an 1-to-F-mount-adapter (with crop factor 2.7x, huh?) does not quality as an argument to include them here, IMHO. Such adapters exists for a multitude of other systems as well, and we hardly want them all in one template.

Given that you stated, the majority would like to have the MILCs included here, I cannot find any past discussions indicating this. What did you use to base your claim on? Anyway, I hope, the majority will voice an opinion now. Again, I am not in a hurry to remove the MILCs from this template, however, I did already create a new template for possible future use: Template:Nikon MILC cameras.

Regarding labeling the left columns, I tried to illustrate my point how to save space by combining the two columns, therefore I did not change their text at this time. At present (with your edit, which BTW was okay with me), they read: "Flag-ship (Professional)", "Compact (Professional)", "Advanced", "Mid-range", "Entry-level". That's fine from the readability point of view raised above and it's good that we have come to a consensus here.

However, I continue to question their accuracy in regard to the different levels of cameras by itself. Listing a D7000 as "advanced", a D300 as "compact professional", or a D5200 as "mid-range", I've to raise more than one eye-brow. In my judgement (based on their feature set and build quality), the D7000 is at most a low mid-range model, the D5200 hardly upper entry level, and the D300 would qualify for something like advanced mid-range, perhaps, but certainly not any kind of "professional" (whatever that means to different people). Therefore, while this will always remain subjective, I propose a different grouping more in line with categories used in independent sources (although there is some variation there as well): Row 1+2: Professional, Row 3: High-end, Row 4: Advanced, Row 5:Mid-range, Row 6: Upper entry, Row 7: Entry-level. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See above, and: I'm not fixed: Proposal: "Flagship (professional)" to just Professional, "compact professional" to "High-end? Fits more to A99 and easier.

Classes MUST be seen relative: D5200 is - except fps and weather (which is the veto) - far more capable than for example Sony A77 or Canon 7D. I absolutely HATE annoying discussions about that classes, this includes Pentax and whatever fans, i have no preference, just analyze, sometimes use Canon (High-end compacts) and my inherited Leica M2. But i think classification at Template:DSLR cameras with movie mode is good and reasonable because comparable. Tagremover (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I liked that one much more, but have done yet another modification: I reduced "High-end" to one row, moved "Advanced" up one row and made "Mid-range" a two-row column. If Nikon really sees the D300 as in the old "professional" group, we might need to add the light-gray color-code to the "Advanced" row as well to reflect that. While I find this grouping more realistic, it is already a derivation of the present grouping preferred by Sbmeirow. Therefore I hope that he and others will comment and possibly work on it as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

MILCs added: You see, quite small. Imho final. Tagremover (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nikon SVC (prototype; 1986) · Nikon QV-1000C (1988) questionable notability; Nikon SVC even a prototype. Tagremover (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For easier comparison, I have added a new section illustrating your proposal: Proposed combined template for Nikon DSLRs and MILCs

The differences to my proposal of two separate templates are that your version includes the MILCs (with blue-colored background) and that you reinserted a See Also line into the template. The header line is slightly different as well, otherwise they are the same. I did not include the MILCs and See Also line for the reasons stated above. I now hope for commentary and/or modifications to the proposals by more editors interested in these templates. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I support MICL & DSLR being together in this template, as they both fit under the umbrella of "interchangeable lens cameras by Nikon". Mathmo ^Talk 10:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed separate templates for Nikon DSLRs and Nikon MILCs

1 (A)Template:Nikon DSLR cameras:

==See also==

• Nikon MILC cameras
• Nikon 35mm film SLR cameras
• Canon DSLR cameras
• Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony DSLR cameras
• Sony MILC cameras
• Olympus DSLR cameras
• Pentax DSLR cameras
• Sigma DSLR cameras
• Kodak DSLR cameras
• Fujifilm DSLR cameras

1 (B)Template:Nikon MILC cameras:

==See also==

• Nikon DSLR cameras
• Nikon 35mm film SLR cameras
• Canon DSLR cameras
• Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony DSLR cameras
• Sony MILC cameras
• Olympus DSLR cameras
• Pentax DSLR cameras
• Sigma DSLR cameras
• Kodak DSLR cameras
• Fujifilm DSLR cameras

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed combined template for Nikon DSLRs and MILCs

2 Template:Nikon DSLR cameras:

Both variants with fully or partial blue "Nikon 1 MILC" field.

3 Template:Nikon DSLR cameras:

Both variants with fully or partial blue "Nikon 1 MILC" field.

==See also==

• Nikon MILC cameras
• Nikon 35mm film SLR cameras
• Canon DSLR cameras
• Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony DSLR cameras
• Sony MILC cameras
• Olympus DSLR cameras
• Pentax DSLR cameras
• Sigma DSLR cameras
• Kodak DSLR cameras
• Fujifilm DSLR cameras

Voting navigation template

Here is the voting between 3 proposals, additional variants and decision for the actual variant possible. Decision probably in the second half of February? Tagremover (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Variant 3: Integrates all cameras and allows related, important navigation. Tagremover (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why grey? What about orange or some light shade of red? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Orange and red are somehow attention grabbing colors; should be neutral. Tagremover (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Enabling MiszaBot?

Imho a good idea. Tagremover (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean to automatically archive old discussion threads? Can't harm. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

D600 placement

Anywhere that's not where it's currently placed. A new line above the D7000, a new line under the D800, whatever. But the D600 is in no way a successor to the D300s, which does not have a replacement out yet and is still available for sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.108.53 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. This is NO classification template, but a navigation template roughly ordered by classes and time.
2. [4]D300s is discontinued; Availability is no criterion: Currently you can buy not only the D90, but even the D40X as new. Last month i even seen a D80 in a shop-window with a big sign: NEW!
   1. And more: Currently the J2 and V1 are not listed as out of "production". Nikon does normally not provide any worldwide statements to this!
3. As you said, the D600 could be above or below, so the best compromise is in the mid.
4. "Professional": Nikon has its famous Nikon Professional Services : D600 should be (for whatever reason) no part of it.[5] Tagremover (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with changing the template:

A template "roughly ordered" by class and time... is a classification template. You also make it sound like making a better classification is a bad thing or something. Make the "roughly ordered" better!

Your link only applies to Japan due to a legal restriction, there are still units being made in factories, which is markedly different from the D90, etc. See here: [6]

That's a really silly argument, "could be above or below, so the best compromise is in the mid". That's like not knowing where to put a portrait of Grover Cleveland in a hall of portraits of Presidents of the United States, so you chop the Benjamin Harrison portrait in half. Makes no sense, PICK A PLACE.

The famous Nikon Professional Services argument only makes more sense: DON'T PUT THE D300 series AND THE D600 in the same row! They clearly aren't similar to each other, it would be like classifying sharks and whales the same because they're both big seawater animals.

IMO, D300s and D600 should be split with the D300s getting the higher position. --Jovian Eye _storm 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A navigation template stays a navigation template: IMHO there are NO CLASSIFICATION templates necessary: If someone needs that, better make a classification article or list. There were the same discussions on the introduction of the D3, D700, D3X, D5000 and the D7000: I participated as IP and are TIRED of those discussions. NAVIGATION is the main PURPOSE.

Else: Entry level PROFESSIONAL : Whats that?

Other changes: See above. [7]

Tagremover (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the following new format for the navigation. It would be more logical, and not any less good for navigating purpose. The problem with current one is that since D600 clearly is not follower of D300S, the current navigation gives a wrong impression of D600's level (as has already been discussed here). Also, since D600 is basically D7000/D7100 with full frame sensor, it would be logical to link it somehow to D7000 line and keep it below D300S line which is more professional camera line (call it Semi-Professional or Professional Half Body or whatever). In this you version you would right away see that D600 is really advanced camera but not quite professional one.

To show how the navigation would look in the near future, I have added the soon-to-be-released D610 and D5300. Plus I have added D400 which may be released in 2014 when Canon is likely to bring 7D Mark II out. Obviously if new template model would be put live, then those non-existing models should be removed till they do exist.

RMJJRM (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Nikon DSLR cameras → Template:Nikon DSLR and MILC cameras – There aren't only DSLR cameras but MILC too. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2.39.198.180 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support: If you will change the links to this, no matter. But its just the link name, nothing visible to the Wikipedia readers. 77.12.84.189 (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Instead of renaming this template we should split out the MILCs in the existing Template:Nikon MILC cameras as the 1 series it is clearly a different system and technology and it makes no sense at all trying to put them into a single template (otherwise we could also list all Nikon film cameras in there). The DSLR template is already difficult to view and handle given the many Nikon DSLRs (and we will have to fit in more models for a number of years before DSLRs will be abandoned), so we should be happy to have an opportunity to move some stuff elsewhere. Listing the MILCs in a DSLR camera article is irrelevant, and vice versa and in the rare cases where both are relevant, both templates can be included. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that there never was consensus to add the MILCs to the DSLR template in the first place. They were added by Tagremover just a couple of months ago against concerns raised by several other editors, and since then we were discussing how to reorganize the template (see #Formatting thread above) since it is obviously a bad idea to put all interchangeable lens cameras into a single template even if they are not related. Having this huge block of irrelevant information in all articles is highly distracting, sometimes the contents of the template is larger than the article itself.

Perhaps, if Nikon would introduce an F-mount MILC in the future, these cameras should be put into the template, but no 1-mount stuff. We might then rename the templates into "Nikon F-mount digital cameras" and "Nikon 1-mount cameras" instead of "Nikon DSLR cameras" and "Nikon MILC cameras". However, so far, Nikon hasn't released any F-mount MILCs, and we don't know if they ever will. In either case, 1-mount stuff is off-topic in specific articles about F-mount cameras and equipment, it only makes sense to include both templates in generic articles about Nikon photo equipment. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Future layout of this template

Thanks everyone for all the hard work on this template. Currently I'm just a lurker that is watchlisting this template so I can learn about new Nikon DSLR models as they get released. I have a couple of old film Nikon SLR cameras and a pile of Nikon goodies, and have been wanting to upgrade to a DSLR at some point.

1) When will you add 2015 to the table? I noticed the text for "D750" doesn't fit properly, so adding 2015 might fix it.

2) What are the plans for this table as more and more years get added? Do tables with numerous years eventually split into more than one table, or just keep adding years in the same table? I'm not asking you to make a decision, but asking what's the norm?

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So D610, D810, the new D750 or some used Ebay ones make most sense? If you think of some new lenses - probably with VR - tell me what you have and i take a look.

@1 - There are Wikipedians who don't want to predict the future too far: for me latest if a camera is added in the last quarter.

@2 - We see. There is no norm. But imho currently ok. 77.185.38.248 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not buying right now, maybe next year, but I'm not in a big rush. I've waiting a long time, so just waiting for the right features and resolution at the right price. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There won't be much more features: for example the noise is near the theoretical limit. But the price will shrink. 77.185.38.248 (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but talk section isn't meant to be a blog for sales recommendations. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, we would like to keep some level of consistency between such templates for different brands. These templates would include Template:Canon EOS digital cameras, Template:Samsung MILC cameras, Template:Sony MILC cameras, Template:Micro Four Thirds cameras, Template:Fujifilm MILC cameras, Template:Pentax digital interchangeable lens cameras and Template:Sigma DSLR cameras - there are probably others that I've overlooked.

Several of these templates are getting cramped at normal screen widths; there is no current solution for this. My suggestion would be to turn them through 90 degrees and place the legend at the top. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertical orientation: Great idea, but if i am viewing this on 1024 width, it will fit even in 2015. And in future even all Tablets will have 1080 screen width, so probably 2018, but then will be much higher resolutions. we will see. 77.12.183.22 (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We must support all readers, not just those with the latest gadgets. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 12:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the need for consistency among the templates. But I also think they need to be rotated 90 degrees. That way, there will be a constant number of columns (six or seven), and the years can be extended down the screen as far as needed. Perhaps this is a topic for the photo project. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with that idea is that we have had this setup for years, and it's fairly easy to read from left to right. If we have everything go down, it won't be as consistent as what we have going with other templates, such as car models. I won't vehemently object to having things turned 90 degrees, but I think we should keep it the same for consistency's sake. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We are going to run out of horizontal room soon. On my screen, there is room for about 1 more year in the current format. Scrolling vertically is a lot easier than scrolling horizontally, and the vertical format ptobably makes better use of the screen space. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In Pontiac Firebird#Engines_2, the years go down, and that has a limited number of years. Nikon should go on for a long time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a table though, whereas I'm talking about a template such as this one, which then continues to something like this. Granted, cars and cameras are two completely different things, but it's still something to look into if we're looking at options. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, a set of templates like that will work if they are broken up by years. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thought is to eliminate the quarters of a year. This will buy some time. I know many of them came out in the middle of the year, but just having the year would be good enough for the template. If someone wanted a more exact date, they can click to go to the article. (Right now, the D750 entry is running off the right edge of the template on my screen.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should try to keep the horizontally expanding format for as long as possible. It is way more readable than a vertical version.

As technology moves forward, it is likely that Nikon will release full-frame and/or APS-C format MILC cameras in the not too distant future as well. So, if those cameras are put in a new template, we will most probably have to continue extending this template for a limited number of years only. In order to "buy time", we could truncate the text in the voluminous header column and possibly flip the script orientation of the table cells by 90° while still keeping the horizontal layout (see Help:Table#Vertically oriented column headers).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your reply. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss please

After several reverts, it is time to discuss the proposed change or leave the matter be. Samsara (FA • FP) 01:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just adding a datapoint: in a recent interview with DpReview, Toshiaki Akagi, one of Nikon's department managers, said: “We understand that there is still some demand for a successor to the D300S and all we can say at this moment is that we are studying that demand.” This would argue against listing the D600 as a successor of the D300s. — Edgar.bonet (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Edgar, but this is another point. Of course we can discuss about that: I think the D600/D610 could be kept in the same group as the D100... because its somehow the same class.

The actual edit-war is about placing the group D100-D300s above or below the D600-D610. I am the one who think the cameras will be best found in this navigation template if we keep the old APS-Cs below the new full-frames. Additional reasons are the performance: The only really amazing camera in the D100-D300s group are the D300 at entry. Historically it was very good, but there are D100, D200 and the D300s, which was not really amazing any more. See also my comments and talk:

D300 was an amazing camera at entry, but you are moving a whole class with D100 to D300s, which are worse.

This is a navigation template: D600 has higher number and MORE features. OFTEN used by pros.

Hi Samsara, i did not noticed you are an admin. The current state of the template: Is this just random or is this your position? 77.185.44.168 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 18:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems that there isn't much discussion here. I would have expected the other contributor to the edit war to give his opinion. Anyway, for what it is worth, here is my mine.

All seems to boil down to how the D600 should be considered relative to the D300s: higher-end, lower-end or same class. From what I read, there seems to be a consensus that the D600 is inferior to the D300s in terms of build, controls, AF and speed. Actually the D600 is very similar to the D7000 in these respects, while the D300s is most similar to the D700. On the other hand, the D600 has a superior sensor and better image quality, especially at high ISO. Then it is understandable that there is a lot of disagreement out there about which one is overall “better”: a lot of subjectivity is involved in deciding which aspects are more important.

In an attempt to get some objective data, I checked the launch prices. The D600 seems to be ~ 20% above the D300s (2100 v.s. 1800 USD). Not a huge difference, but certainly enough to rule out listing the D600 as lower class than the D300s. Then I would put the D600 either in the same line or on the line above the D300s. I do not have strong feelings either way:

• On the one hand, there is the argument I pointed out before: Nikon acknowledges that the D600 is not a true successor of the D300s. Then the D600 should be listed above the D300s.
• On the other hand, as of today, there is no evidence the D300s will ever have a “true” successor. Rather it seems that Nikon is pushing this category of customers towards full-frame. Also, the price difference is small, and keeping both on the same line would make the table shorter.

I think I would rather keep them in the same line, at least until Nikon releases a D400, if this ever happens. But that's just personal preference, it would be good to hear other voices. — Edgar.bonet (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this debate needs more reliable sources. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do such sources exist? — Edgar.bonet (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikon D750

The D750 is the first of its kind in a new line. http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0912_dslr_01.htm  ■ MMXX ^talk 15:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

D7100 replaces ...

According to this, the D7100 replaces the 7000 (of course) and also the 300s. So that kind of juggles up things in the chart. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, that looks like a blog and not necessarily a reliable source. FWIW, Nikon Rumors directly contradicts that claim, although their source is rather roundabout. The press release merely mentions that the weather sealing standard is the same for both cameras. Samsara 08:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know about the Nikon Rumors website. The items show a few sentences, then [...] - I can't figure out how to see the rest of it. How do you do that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm as puzzled as you must have been, because it doesn't show that for me. I use Firefox and have scripting turned off - maybe that helps? Samsara 00:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Now it's 2017, D7200 and D7500 have already released. Nikon do want D7100 to replace both D7000 and D300s however D7100 was still relatively lower than D300s on status. D7200 was an upgraded version of D7100 but something get shrank foe example the shoulder screen. D7500 is a completely shrank model which only has one SD card slot, lower resolution screen, no battery grip support and other decreased function because of the existence of new D500. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIAXUE GONG (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

video properties

I think the way that video properties (HD video / Video AF / Uncompressed) is indicated (the underlining) should be changed to something else, probably superscript or subscript notes. The plain link underlining looks exactly the same as "video AF". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

D5500

The D5500 has been added, but it shows the fourth quarter of 2014, and it wasn't announced until Jan 2015, right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Either your browser is broken or you are mistaken, because it appears as Q1 2015 in Chrome v40 and IE v11 on my Windows 7 (64-bit) computer. Please clarify. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. I looked at the bars above and below it and thought they ended at the end of 2014/Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No big deal. It's likely a visual illusion, because I had to zoom the screen and move my cursor up/down when I verified my edit the first time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

D50 and D40

The D50 article says that it was succeeded by the D40. The D50 was the entry-level model at that time - should it be listed on the same line as the D40? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, photographyblog agrees with you, and I found no dissenting sources, so I think it would be safe to make that change. Samsara 11:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

“Upper-entry” becoming “Mid-range”

On May 29, an anonymous editor replaced the Upper-entry header with Mid-range. The edit summary is:

All the cameras in this range are listed in the Mid-range category in the "DSLR, SLT and MILC cameras with HD video" section in Wikipedia.

Although the edit could in principle make sense, it creates a duplicate header. And it is not clear what the editor means by “"DSLR, SLT and MILC cameras with HD video" section in Wikipedia”. A search for that section title did not reveal anything relevant.

On May 30, I reverted the edit for the second time, while inviting the editor to discuss his/her intent here. A few minutes later, the same edit was re-introduced with the same edit summary by a different IP, with no discussion. I assume it's the same editor. I am, again, inviting the anonymous editor to explain the intent of that edit, and the meaning of “"DSLR, SLT and MILC cameras with HD video" section in Wikipedia”.

— Edgar.bonet (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks edgar. The D5XXX series is quite different from especially D6XX. Other tables use different and fewer classes because of different usage. 217.250.189.141 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Edgar.bonet: I believe the user is referring to Template:DSLR cameras with movie mode. Samsara 09:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course he did. Its a different template mainly done by me. 217.250.164.240 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)