D300s Successor-D400, what and when

safyre

Why would a Pro buy Dx ?
The huge advantage of Dx is cost, not only in bodies but also lenses
but the advantage in lenses is limited due the small number of "pro" DX lenses
A pro staring from scratch today is going to have spend a lot more on lenses than on a body
so the % saving is quite small

So when I mention pro, I'm talking about someone that makes their living off of photography.
Just because you're a pro does not mean you need to use pro lenses or pro bodies. One of the main things about DX is not only a cost advantage, but a weight advantage as well. There are lots of people that like the size and convenience of not having to lug around tons of gear to shoots. Not everyone shoots things that will fully utilize the benefits of FX, ie, low light situations. There is already a huge following for DX that accumulated over the past decade, and there's many pro photographers out there that are content with what they have and do not see the any reason to upgrade to FX except for gearhead-ery. And regarding price of FX vs DX, there is a significant increase in savings in the current market. You can get a used D7000 for half the price of a used D700. You can get a used D300 for one third the price of a used D700. You can get a used 17-55mm 2.8 for half the price of a used 24-70mm 2.8. Not to mention the cheap primes, ie 35m 1.8. Most pros don't magically start off with all pro gear, they work their way up to it. And somewhere along the line, they may realize that they are just fine with using DX.

heartyfisher

"** Cool to note that using the same lens the DOF of DX is actually shallower ! Tick 1 for DX !!"

If you check DX DoF at 50mm f2.8, you have to compare it to FX 75mm f2.8 as otherwise it isn't comparing eggs with eggs.

I get your point .. but if you have one portrait lens, say 85mm F1.4, using it on DX will get you less DOF, and that's a "pro" rather than a "con" for DX.. esp all the talk of the FX advantage over DX having more DOF. Looks like that is not true in practical terms.

SquamishPhoto

That's like saying the D300s sensor should have matched the D3s, or it wouldn't sell. I just fail to see the logic in your argument.

Its called delusion. Really, there is no other way to explain that level of over the top expectation. Seeing as the ISO performance of the best DX cameras today still pales compared to what the D3 and D700 can do its a pretty simple deduction that whatever they come out with for their new DX model that the last thing its going to do is hold its own with a D4 in low light performance. donald and msmoto seem to just throw around the terms "native ISO" willy nilly without realizing that the implication of that statement is that gain, dynamic range and snr all result in acceptable noise in the stated ISO range. To insist that "Nikon will put great native ISO of 12,800 (like the D4 native ISO goes to 12,800) into the D400" is just plain crazy talk. I know people love to make predictions in this thread, but this pitch is so far fetched that the only logical reaction each time I see it is to facepalm.

PB_PM

Agreed, but logic, and a basic understanding of marketing, seems to be amiss in this thread.

heartyfisher

Agreed, but logic, and a basic understanding of marketing, seems to be amiss in this thread.

OOI ! what do you mean by that ! I can tell you I have a University Degree in ...
.. zoology .. 8-}

PB_PM

Wow, how did you know! ) :P

donaldejose

I don't think msmoto and I are either delusional or crazy. If the D400 cannot be given better high ISO than the D5100's 6,400, Nikon won't do it. If it can be done, Nikon will do it. That is our point. We are not trying to set false expectations. To insist Nikon won't run the ISO up to 12,800 before going to Hi 1 is based upon what logic? If they can, why won't they? What logic or marketing will keep them from doing so? You must just think it is physically impossible to get acceptable 12,800 ISO out of a DX sensor so Nikon will always label 12,800 as Hi 1. Msmoto and I think it will be possible to continue improving sensor technology such that acceptable 12,800 ISO can be obtained from a DX sesnor: if not this year in the D400 than some time in the future. You are the ones who are being too rigid in my opinion.

It will be nice once the D400 is out and we can see how Nikon markets it. Maybe it will offer no greater image quality or ISO than the D5100 and the D7200. Maybe it will only offer a more robust build, and a larger buffer, and additional controls but no advancement in either image quality or ISO over that found in the less expensive bodies. That is possible. I would never be one to say that scenario is impossible.

sevencrossing

I Msmoto and I think it will be possible to continue improving sensor technology such that acceptable 12,800 ISO can be obtained from a DX sensor: .

yes in the far distant future, that may be theoretically possible
but by then 1, 2,800 will be available on the D820 and the D620
and 25600 on the D5

heartyfisher

its most likely that the D400 will have the same sensor as the D5200 and D7200. however if they wanted to up the high ISO to 12800 with current technology, that could be achieved by lowering the MP to 16 instead of 24. Personally I would prefer a 16mp D400 with a full DX sensor size or slightly greater. ie instead of the 23.2 x 15.4 of the D3200 use the DX 24 x 16. or even a fancy new size with 4:5 dx crop capability ie 24x19( yeah dreaming again, sorry) :-)

sevencrossing

x

Kuv

Most pros don't magically start off with all pro gear, they work their way up to it.

This.
I can shoot a wedding or do a shoot for a magazine or a website just fine with a DX camera. Of course, I would like to move to FX at some point. I just don't want to bury myself in debt before that point. I'm building my gear up piece by piece and the camera is the most difficult piece to fit in.

Msmoto

I think DoF relates to f/stop, focal length, and distance from the focal plane. But as noted, due to different image sizes, we will have a different apparent DOF if we change the format.

SquamishPhoto

To insist Nikon won't run the ISO up to 12,800 before going to Hi 1 is based upon what logic? If they can, why won't they? What logic or marketing will keep them from doing so? You must just think it is physically impossible to get acceptable 12,800 ISO out of a DX sensor so Nikon will always label 12,800 as Hi 1. Msmoto and I think it will be possible to continue improving sensor technology such that acceptable 12,800 ISO can be obtained from a DX sesnor: if not this year in the D400 than some time in the future. You are the ones who are being too rigid in my opinion.

This is so painful to have to go through with you again.

One more time. Nikon's DX line up presently can't even truly handle a low light scenario all that well beyond ISO 1600, so in what fantasy world do you live in where they're suddenly going to usher in amazing new DX technology that literally blows away everything else in the line up and matches the top of the line model in ISO performance. All for under $2000!!!! I didn't use the term delusional lightly. I really mean it. There is no other justifiable way to explain this level of over-expectation. And considering that you own like 7 cameras I don't understand why you're so interested in the camera anyway.

PB_PM

@donaldejose I think what you are getting is that there could be native ISO12800? Like some of the Sony SLT cameras (A77)? Yes they do go that high natively, but look at the actual performance. After ISO3200 it's just mush, like all other DX bodies. Just because it is a native ISO, does not mean it will have D4 performance. I think you could see clean files at ISO3200 and acceptable at 6400. ISO12800 could workable, but would only when cleaned up with extremely good noise reduction software.

Golf007sd

@SquamishPhoto "where [Nikon} suddenly...usher in amazing new DX technology that literally blows away everything else in {their]....top of the line model in ISO performance. All for under $2000...There is no other justifiable way to explain this level of over-expectation."

+1

Msmoto

To clarify what I am saying is...that if Nikon brings out a D300s replacement with a native ISO of only 6400, I think they will find it may fall behind the times. And, that I would most likely not purchase a D400 but instead a D800 or D800s.....LOL.

Let's all face some facts...we are all guessing. My guesses are highly optimistic....and the long delay in introducing a D300s replacement suggests to me Nikon may have something advanced to be introduced. Incidentally, the word delusional has been misused. The more appropriate term may be wishful thinking.

heartyfisher

lol :-* I am all for wishful thinking ! ;-) .. ISO 12800 ? of course its not impossible but the only way i can see for a current technology DX camera to get to 12800 iso native is to reduce MP. ie maybe 14MP even down to 12MP but, will that be acceptable to the market? would you buy a 14MP D400 that shoots 14 FPS at 12800 ISO?

And of course there is the "panchromatic tech" that will easily push it to 12800 even at 24MP (but from what i understand of the tech is its weakness at the Highest ISO will probably be colours ( or lack of ) - ie its probably like the human eye. in low light(high ISO) everything goes Black and White.

PB_PM

@Msmoto I still don't think the D400 is delayed, but rather right on schedule. It may be on a delayed schedule, due to the events of 2011, but on schedule none the less. From what I can see their schedule is no more delayed than Canon's. The only manufacture to update their pro DX body last year was Pentax, and that was only because they didn't have a full frame body to offer.

I expect to see the D400 either in late spring, late August, or early September. Most likely a day or two before or after the Canon 7D MKII is, which in all likelihood will be using the same worn out old 18MP sensor. I say that because Canon has shown no interest in updating their crop sensor. Canon will simply throw in features from the 6D (GPS, WIFI, etc) and call it day. If Nikon puts the D5200 sensor in the D400, give it pro features and speed, it would once again put Nikon on top in terms of semi-pro/pro crop sensor bodies for at least two years.

donaldejose

Heartyfisher: Yes, you get it! Take a D4 sensor and just produce it in DX size. Use the same Expeed 3 processor and nearly the same software. Now what do you have? A 'mini-D4" which should be able to produce 12,800 ISO images at 8x10 size or displayed in 2 megapixels on a computer monitor which are virtually indistinguishable from D4 images viewed at the same size. After all, it is the same sensor and the same processor and the same software, just simplified. Far from being impossible, it seems it could be done with just under half the mp in the D4. How many megapixels would be in that DX sized D4 sensor? About 6 or 7 megapixels? Would that be enough mp to produce a virtually indistingishable image at 8x10 size or at 2 megapixel display size? Why not? Your computer monitor and HGTV can only display about 2 megapixels anyway so the 16 mp D4 image has to be downsized for you to view it. 6 to 7 megapixels will have to be downsized also. Won't those 2 mp downsized images be about the same? Could sensor and software advancements allow an 8 or 10 megapixel senor to perform as well as half a D4 sensor? Don't know. Could Nikon sell a 6 to 7 mp D400 for more money than a much higher mp D7200? Well, they do sell a D4 for three times the cost of a D800 and the D4 has less than half the mp of the D800, so you are paying three times more for half the mp. Could that also work in DX? Maybe? Let us just assume for a moment that using current technology Nikon can produce a 6 to 7 mp D400 with ISO virtually equal to the D4 (since it is using D4 technology). Wouldn't those 6 to 7 mp be enough to fill an 8x10 magazine page adequately? 6 or 7 mp should print an 8x10 at about 300 dpi. Now isn't that good enough for magazine publication? Remember the important qualification. I am not talking about viewing and comparing the D4 image and the D400 image at 100%. i am talking about viewing and comparing them in a 8x10 print (a magazine page) or displayed at 2mp on your computer monitor.

We will all just have to hope for the best and see what Nikon can do. For now we can simply agree to disagree. No harm in that. Soon enough he D400 will be here and then we can all simply see what the range of native ISO is and how the images look if it is 12,800.

PB_PM

Umm, yeah... I don't even need to say anything in reply to that, it speaks for itself. )

heartyfisher

Umm, yeah... I don't even need to say anything in reply to that, it speaks for itself. )

Yeah ? read my mind then :-)

heartyfisher

@ donaldejose :if my calculation are right it is a 7.1 MP DX sensor that is equivalent to a reduced FX 16 MP. i was pretty happy with my D70 6MP s :-) .. still am .

TaoTeJared

This thread is just funny - same poor informed comments that took the same thread to what, 30+ pages on the old forum. Much guessing can be removed easily since Nikon always sticks to the same game plan and never changes drastically - a D400 just like in the past will have the AF, metering, basic body size and features of the D800 & D4 with the performance (fps) closer to the D4. Always been the case, always will be.

I think Video will be that catcher here if it equals the D4/D800 features plus a few more. People (primarily photographers) seem to always forget there are many commercial/pro videographers that are using DSLRs (Panasonic 4/3rds for documentary/wildlife) due to the extra reach. They don't need 24mp resolution, 4k video is only 2160 high which is only 8-9mp images. High quality (noise & COLOR) is key for those applications. I have played with video on my D800 and trying to shoot at 1.4 is ridiculously hard. That extra little DOF room probably makes quite a difference in many individuals work.

M4/3rds still do not have the same performance in AF or metering that a DSLR does. If you have used them you know that their metering and focus only come from the first shot on the fast FPS, AF tracking is not good, and neither is the metering for fast changing light. They still lag in other categories on the "sports" type of performance. That is where DX still is very viable. There is a reason the new Panasonic G5 body is built more like a D300 than past models.

Who would buy one? Easy, anyone who wants a robust system, with the build quality of a pro body, and all the controls, menus, customization, advanced metering, AF. If you shoot studio work (like macro or stock) where you are at f/5.6-11 and low isos (100-400) FX sensors don't matter at all.

I don't think msmoto and I are either delusional or crazy. If the D400 cannot be given better high ISO than the D5100's 6,400, Nikon won't do it. If it can be done, Nikon will do it.

I have to admit I'm with Donald and Msmoto here. A D400 will have to equal High iso noise of the D700/D3 for anyone to buy it. If they really want to sell them like hotcakes, they would release one that is 16-20mp that beats the D600 & D800 ISO noise if just by a little. Considering what M4/3rds and Fuji has done, the technology is close to doing it. I would love that, and pick one up over a D600 as a second back up, and it would probably get used much more due to the extra reach. I'm sorry but saying "shoot in DX" just is not a viable argument as there is no real advantage and the disadvantages outweigh it. That feature is really more of a gimmick that marketing has made people think they want it more than anything else.

Nikon has skipped almost a full generation in this system. Whatever they had on the board seems to be scrapped after the Thailand floods and Tsunami. Realistically and logically, I'm betting we see a 30mp+ sensor in the next version.

I still think if Nikon released a D400 that looked like a FM2n, and forget about the past - that would outsell everything out there.

PB_PM

I fully hope, and expect, D400 can match the D3/D700. To suggest it would be a stop or more better than that, at this stage (D4/D3s) is what I see as being a little much.

ChromiumPrime

Let's all face some facts...we are all guessing. My guesses are highly optimistic....and the long delay in introducing a D300s replacement suggests to me Nikon may have something advanced to be introduced. Incidentally, the word delusional has been misused. The more appropriate term may be wishful thinking.

+1