It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
consider this: IF Nikon would have merged the D7000 line and the D300 line they wouldn't have named it a D7100 right? They would have called it something like D8000 to clearly distinguish it from a D7000 and from a D300. The 7100 is clearly just an iteration.Just my 2 cents.
D400 is really late .
Most that are saying this, either A) don't want to spend $2,100 for a camera, Have never experienced pro systems or, C) Simply can't grasp anything more advanced than a 7x00 body. Those of use to maximize systems, dream of the things that could really be useful and found the D7000 not a D300 upgrade by almost all measurements, and lacking features that are used.
D400 is really late .That really is something of an understatement[snip-o-matic]
Sorry, but I disagree with the statement about "most wildlife shooters" being satisfied with the D7000. Most of the wildlife shooters I know still use and prefer their D300, needing a camera with better autofocus and a good buffer. Better IQ is meaningless if the shot is out of focus or you can't take it at all due to a full buffer. Wildlife photography is challenging because you have no control over anything except your camera. Being able to change settings "on the fly" becomes highly important and that's where the pro controls of the D300 shine. On the D7000 the card slot cover comes open too easily and the exposure mode turret gets bumped and changes while moving through vegetation. There are many reasons why the D7000 is NOT the choice of any of the wildlife photographers I know.
Rather elitest of you, don't you think? And for what its worth, most wildlife shooters that used to shoot with a D300 were quite happy with the improvements with the D7000. Most notably the ISO performance simply left the D300 in the dust. Sure, the buffer sucks and its a bit smaller, doesn't have weather sealing, but plain and simple its a way better camera. Results speak for themselves. Just because you're in love with pro body features doesn't mean you have an inherently greater sense of value and understanding regarding photography. Its what you do with it that counts.Buying pro doesn't make us one, so maybe jump off your high horse, eh? :]
Point being, why does it matter to you if there is a D400? But why must you try to tear down a D400? Why must it be dead? Why do people need the D7100 to become the top DX camera? Vanity? I have followed this thread, and there has not been one truly viable well informed answer why Nikon would kill the line. Not one. If the D7000 series was enough, why is this thread 22+ pages long, added to 40+ pages from the old site?
b) Nikon's own marketing people are calling the D7100 a Flagship and the D300s is effectively discontinued: unlike even the D90, it doesn't show up in those monthly bundle rebates...
1) first, and this is a small reason, I'm saddened when I see people labouring under unreasonable expectation. Expecting a D400 is in my view unreasonable on three grounds:a) By TTJ's own helpful chart, it's been either nearly four years (D300s) or nearly six years (D300) since a real update was made to this line, depending on how you score it. Unless there's precedent of such a long refresh time (such as D1-D2-D3-D4), when a product stops getting refreshed, well, in this day and age, it's gone. DX00 was getting updated, according to the chart, every couple years. I'm still waiting for the next Intellivision hardware refresh. Don't bag on Intellivision--it's awesome. But it's gone. On the Gearhead Excuse Bingo card we've already called all the numbers for D400: Tsunami in one country. Flood in another. Quarterly profits. Quarterly losses. The extant product was so good, it's tough to replace. Ad infinitum. It's gone.
b) Nikon's own marketing people are calling the D7100 a Flagship and the D300s is effectively discontinued: unlike even the D90, it doesn't show up in those monthly bundle rebates...http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Q=&pageId=61&A=PromoPage
This should bring an end to the debate on whether the D7100 is the D300s replacement. (A letter to a user on Dpreview from a Nikon Europe rep).
c) When was the last time Nikon put out an interesting piece of dedicated-DX glass? I am aware that DX cameras may use FX glass (looks great on my D90!) but the joy of DX was supposed to be "lighter, cheaper, etc." I don't think Nikon is "abandoning" DX, they just released a body three days ago in fact, but everything the company has done lately points to a relegation of DX to the consumer and advanced-consumer market.
2) The second count, which is much more of an "I feel, I want" part, and therefore more important to me because it's more emotional, is an economic argument. I don't want Nikon developing a D400 because unless it's unrealistically good (mini-D4), I won't buy one. Selfishly, where economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources, I want Nikon putting its R&D resources elsewhere, into things I'd be much more likely to buy. Well, what would I buy? Glad you asked:f/1.2 glass with AFDC glass at 200mm or below 85mmAnything else your garden variety bokeh-whore would want