D300s Successor-D400, what and when

heartyfisher

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.

Yeah agree with that..

sevencrossing

I fully hope, and expect, D400 can match the D3/D700. h.

But why would Nikon bring out a camera to match the discontinued D700
The D700 was a splendid camera, but has now been superseded by the amazing D800
Many D700 users, including me, have upgraded to a D800 keeping our D700 as a second or spare
The D300 was / is a popular wedding camera
but life moves on, and today clients expect image quality far better than the work produced by " uncle Henry" with his D7000
and that means FX
sorry, you not going to see a new Pro Dx camera
I am doubtful if there will a D7200

donaldejose

Sure, but guessing is fun. It keeps this tread alive. No reason to get all upset over people's guesses or attack them for it or call them names.

If I read Tao's last post right he is guessing a 30+ mp sensor in the next D400? First time I heard that, but it would be another way for Nikon to go. The one thing many of us have in common is the thought that Nikon in some way will offer a significant advancement in DX sensor technology when the D400 finally surfaces and not just offer the same D5100 24mp DX sensor in a "pro" body with the "pro" controls.

Now who is going to be attracted to a DX with robust build? How about all those people whose work requires available light shooting and no enlargements greater than 8x10 or full screen monitor display? Wouldn't that be just about every newspaper photojournalist and every college sports shooter and even some pro sports shooters who work for magazines? And what feature would be most important to them? Good clean images at high ISO, right? Offer as much of a D4 as you can in DX format at a price of around 2k: native ISO up to 12,800, 10 fps, large buffer, use the same battery grip as the D800, etc. So for Nikon to strive for the best it can do in this area is not such a far stretch of the imagination. If Nikon also has developed a good DX 30+ mp sensor, they can produce a D400 and a D400x and get double use out of the D400 body. A good D400 could really stimulate DX sales to "prosumers."

heartyfisher

Lets see what specs we all agree on for a D400.

It should have the pro body capabilities of the D800.ie Robust body, weather sealed, magnesium alloy, metering, AF, dual slots, video, similar button layout and function buttons. Possibly touch screen.
I think the above is not being disputed.

I believe the main contention is the sensor. and here we have the following options.

1) same sensor as the D5200 24 MP dx sensor from toshiba, slightly faster FPS and small enhancements eg: slightly cleaner 6400 ISO images.

2) Higher MP eg 30MP but lower FPS and 6400 native high iso but not as clean noise profile compared with teh D5200. ie a D3X class of camera for DX is sacrifices a bit more noise and lower DR.

3) Lower MP eg 14M or 16 MP. but Higher FPS eg 10 FPS.

4) even lower MP eg 7.1 MP ie the same sensor as that in the D4 but cut down to DX size. high FPS 12-44 FPS, same DR and noise profile as the D4.

5) New sensor tech eg panchromatic or fuji-sensor whith 6x6 pixel formation rather than the 2x2 bayer. the formation should allow for 1 stop high iso advantage iso capability

Ok lets vote ! post which you think it will be and which you would like it to be.

spraynpray

Reliable gets my vote.

Msmoto

I am worn out.....If it is announced in the next three months and is attractive in its features, I will wait three months to see what problems it may have. The the decision between D800 and D400. The comparison is based upon the issue of whether the D800 in crop mode (16 MP) native ISO 6400 is about the equal of the D400 except for FPS. If about equal then the advantage of having the full size for product/studio, landscapes, etc., would sway me toward the D800. Or if the D400 has ISO like a D4 of 12,800 fairly clean, then the D400 gets the go providing no surprises are discovered.

SquamishPhoto

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.

Saying that the D400 will equal the high ISO performance of the D700/D3 sensor is saying that the D400 won't have a native ISO of 12,800 since the D700/D3 had a native ISO range of 200-6400. Im not gonna push back against the idea that the D400 might in fact be able to equal the previous generation of Nikon FX cameras, but realize that you're not actually agreeing with them.

Don't have a clue where you get the idea that using the DX crop with the D800 is a disadvantage. As someone who's shot with every generation but the D1 series of NIkon DX cameras I can tell you that the D800 in DX mode is the best DX camera that Nikon has ever made. Tracking birds is a dream with the improved AF module and the resulting image quality beats the pants off the D7000.

heartyfisher

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.

Saying that the D400 will equal the high ISO performance of the D700/D3 sensor is saying that the D400 won't have a native ISO of 12,800 since the D700/D3 had a native ISO range of 200-6400. Im not gonna push back against the idea that the D400 might in fact be able to equal the previous generation of Nikon FX cameras, but realize that you're not actually agreeing with them.

Don't have a clue where you get the idea that using the DX crop with the D800 is a disadvantage. As someone who's shot with every generation but the D1 series of NIkon DX cameras I can tell you that the D800 in DX mode is the best DX camera that Nikon has ever made. Tracking birds is a dream with the improved AF module and the resulting image quality beats the pants off the D7000.

Good points SquamishPhoto. So it really looks like I will really have to "settle" for a D800 as a D300S replacement.... another point for that is that when I bought my s5pro (because i couldn't wait for a D300 any longer) the price of that camera was equivalent to a refurbished D800. in fact, the introductory price of the D300 is really close to a D800 now, if you include inflation in the calculations. So the D800 is really good value as a D300S replacement.

sevencrossing

etc., would sway me toward the D800.

< So it really looks like I will really have to "settle" for a D800

Hey guys
dont get a D800
that would mean the end of this thread

spraynpray

Msmoto said: "I am worn out....."

This thread does that to you 8-}

donaldejose

I would be such a shame if Nikon abandoned the D400 project as some have predicted. The length of this thread in both the old and new forum demonstrates how much interest exists in such a camera. If people were not interested they wouldn't read the thread or post comments. Some people have high hopes for such a camera. It would be great if Nikon could hit a home run with it. They sure have been working on it long enough!

ricochet

I fully hope, and expect, D400 can match the D3/D700. h.

sorry, you not going to see a new Pro Dx camera
I am doubtful if there will a D7200

I bet you tell little children there is no Santa Claus.

Paperman

I can't catch up with all said in this forum but 2 technical notes ....

We are talking about DIFFRACTION starting somewhere around f5.4 on a 30Mp sensor. Those NOT using primes or f2.8 lenses will not benefit from such a sensor . Remember Nikon's note in D800 tech manual advising below f8 apertures ? - and that was 36Mp ! +30Mp on DX has same density as 67Mp on FX. Besides diffraction problems, it also would not be wise of Nikon to go after such high Mp at the cost of ISO performance.

A comment from last page :

heartyfisher January 22 QuoteFlag+1 -1
Posts: 115Member
spraynpray said:
"** 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.

Not correct ( both ) ....

DOF 's of at 50mm DX and 75mm FX at same apertures are not equal. In this particular example, FX will have LESS/SHALLOWER Depth of Field.

DOF of DX 50mm at f2 would be similar to FX 75mm at f2.8 - one stop difference.

sevencrossing

I would be such a shame if Nikon abandoned the D400 project as some have predicted. !

I think we will see a new Nikon camera that addresses the D800 short falls - low top end ISO value, small buffer, slow fps. but with out the expense of a D4 But it think it may be FX
I have not got the foggiest idea of what it will be called many be a D900
This thread will never die we just find something else to argue about

4thebirds

Hello,
Just wanted to add 1 new voice to the chorus of those anxiously awaiting a new "flagship DX body." I'm a wild bird photographer and I still use the original D300 right now. I was really hoping a new pro DX body would come out early enough in 2013 for me to get it for the spring bird migration and nesting time, especially mid-April and May. As we are almost to February with not even a rumor of an announcement, I now doubt I will have my new body by then? Jeeze I hope Nikon doesn't simply abandon the pro DX concept. My hopes are sinking with every passing month now that they have upgraded and released practically everything *except* what I want.

TaoTeJared

My bet will be a 36mp beast - consider the Dx00s have always had a upgrade cycle of 4 years - 36mp will last easily for 4 years without looking sub standard as most focus on the MP for some reason.

The other thing I am noticing about Nikon, is that they seem not to believe anyone needs ISOs above 6400 (apart of the D4 and those users) and I tend to agree. I would like to see a second camera system close/like the D4 at a lesser price point thought.

Its not how high the ISO can go, but how usable it is for the ISOs it has. I can, and have shot, the D800 at 6400 without fear for anything and everything that is not "art" type poster prints. Even then depending on the subject you could easily get away with it. If the next camera does iso 2000-6400 with expanded color saturation, medium-high contrast and medium noise It will be great. Just like the D800, the "noise" is so small, it doesn't take away from the image like a 12mp sensor noise does.

A couple of notes from above - D800 buffer is the same as the D4 and is huge - but so are the files. 99% of the time, I never feel limited. Only time I have been bogged down is shooting birds with rapid shots and in raw. Fix - shoot jpeg in good light. The files are so good you can't tell the difference.

Diffraction remains at f8-f16 depending on the lens - always been the case, nothing has changed and is not going to for years nor can you see it in a printed photo under 24" wide. 30mp on DX equals about 45mp on FX not 60+. Shoot a 20mp digi cam work out the equivalencies, print on an 8x10 and see if you can tell much of a difference at different apertures. Doing mathematical calculations without considering end-use and how software, printing, and basic editing effects the image is like making a smores sandwich without marshmallows and chocolate.

The D300s came out 2 years (to add video) so if you skip the D400 release, and consider the refresh, it would be at 6 years. We will be hitting that this August/September. If we see a 24mp sensor, this will probably be the last of the x00 series. If we see a 36mp sensor, then we will know it will continue. If we see a D4 Mini-ish sensor (DX) then a new direction for the series is upon us.

PB_PM

I can't see a 36MP DX sensor doing well at ISO6400, unless they have some secret sauce to make it perform better than the newest 24MP DX sensors. It would also loose the speed that many D300/D300s users are looking for, mind you that didn't bother Nikon when they introduced the D800 to replace the D700.

The last rumor Admin (Peter) posted about this was that the D7000/D300s lines would merge, in a D300 style body. To me that makes the most sense at this point. That is why the D5200 has the D7000 AF system, so that the D300 and D7000 can merge into a single body, with the 51 point AF system.

spraynpray

I think that an fps and useable ISO crippled 36MP DX D400 would be a massive blunder. It has to be lower MP for high ISO performance and fps.

TaoTeJared

I think that rumor came/originated from the one site that has been wrong with every product rumor they post. I just can't see the merge due to pure business economics. There are price points, price gaps and if those are missed, so is a missed opportunity. That added to what Canon is doing, will determine that.
I can't stand the size of the D7000/D600 and can't see myself wanting to use them for longer periods.

I think that an fps and useable ISO crippled 36MP DX D400 would be a massive blunder. It has to be lower MP for high ISO performance and fps.

Everyone has said that with each new sensor since the D70's 6mp sensor. Sensors improve. My 36mp D800 is massively larger MP and smaller diodes than my D300 but it spanks the living hell out of it in the noise department at every ISO.

In my mind's thinking/wonderings it lines up as:
D7000 (upgrade) 24mp DX = D600 24mp FX
D400 36mp DX = D800 36mp FX

D8000 16mp DX = D4 16mp FX (Pure dreaming there!)

Paperman

@TTJ

I have said it many times and you are simply refusing to believe laws of physics. The diffraction is not lens dependent - period. The calculations made are for human eye capability/airy disk thinking of the "perfect" lens and there aren't even lenses that would give the best results you see in tables. You can get a million dollar lens but it will still have diffraction starting at f8 on a 36 Mp D800.

And about DX 30Mp equaling 45Mp in FX .... The pixel size/density is agreed to be what counts and that works out to be (30x1.5x1.5 ) 67Mp equivalent. Yours is just an opinion as it has been in the case of diffraction. You "look" at the prints at 8x10" and trust your eyes in determining equivalent pixel, diffraction etc.

donaldejose

There is something to be said about the "myth" of "high megapixels make clean high ISO impossible" as having been proven false by the D800's ability to offer both high megapixels and low noise at much higher ISO than many people thought possible. I think Tao is right that "small" noise from "small" pixels is less noticeable than the larger noise from a 12 megapixel sensor.

I would love to see a 36mp DX sensor, even if it isn't so good at high ISO. But if they do I would like to see Nikon build that D400 body with two sensor options, one of which produces clean high ISO. Why can't we have a D400s and a D400X? One lower mp model able to go up to 12,800 ISO and the other high mp model capped at 6,400.

SquamishPhoto

@TTJ

You can get a million dollar lens but it will still have diffraction starting at f8 on a 36 Mp D800.

This is one of those things that just doesn't end up being true in real world applications. Here is a portrait shot at f8 on said 36MP D800 sensor with a ZF.2 100mm f2(hardly cheap, but by no means a million dollar lens):



So, you might be right that something is happening there on a very small physical level, but it doesn't seem to impact image quality in any observable way. Here is a shot I did with a PC-E 45mm @ f32 with an ND 8 in front that does show some obvious effects from diffraction, but still makes for a pleasing image:



But you know, go ahead make a big stink about this again. You and Tao are in a pretty epic, long term argument about this so I thought I might try and make the conversation more relevant to actual photographs and not just regurgitated numbers to bolster your point.

donaldejose

Practical real world examples are always good to see because often something which can be calculated or measured by laboratory instruments isn't always detectable in downsized images. And lets face it how often are we every looking at a full image at 100% - not unless we print very big or look at only a very small part of the image on our monitor - by the time you reduce the image small enough to actually view all of the image at once some of the "effects" disappear.

Paperman

You are perfectly at/below the diffraction level in the first shot so I don't get the point. Plus I wouldn't have noticed anything if you had taken it at f16 looking at a 2Mpixel image. But that would not have meant that the diffraction was not there .

I'm talking about diminishing returns - that there is nothing to gain by increasing Mp's to levels above diffraction limits. That is all I am saying - not that photos taken at f16-22 can not be used.

The waterfall shot is beautiful . I prefer small apertures to stacking NDs as well. However, had it been possible to shoot it at f8 ( with no NDs ) , the IQ would have been better - no argument about that. Can I notice that on a 2Mpixel image - probably not ...

TaoTeJared

I see eyelashes, skin pores, sticks, twigs, leaves and moss on two wonderful images.

Diffraction smiffraction - Focus on that and you will miss the opportunity of wonderful images. A cheap or dirty lens filter or even a small breeze will alter your image quality more than diffraction ever will.