D300s Successor-D400, what and when

Paperman

Maybe this guy's images will help - from the NR guest post

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/27/guest-post-shooting-products-with-nikon-tilt-lenses.aspx/

Some suggested reading - D800 Technical Guide by Nikon ( downloadable )... Mention of diffraction / optimum apertures/ why not to stop down on 3-4 pages of a 20 page guide. It may be more important than what some of you think. f8 optimum, f11 suggested not to be exceeded....

Have you ever seen Nikon suggest what aperture to use in a PRO BODY User Manuel before ? They must have felt the need, for so many pros/experienced/old time photographers are not aware of ( or simply ignoring ) its effects on high Mp sensors.

spraynpray

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.

No doubt if one came along you would be among those bleating about it having a small buffer and low fps too!

How about this: D400 to be 16-18MP sport capable (miniD4), D7200 24MP general purpose/portrait (mini D800? No comments about magnesium bodies - it is better not to drop 'em. :P

donaldejose

spraynpray: sure those two would be fine with me and could be quite likely what we will see. But to get to ISO 12,800 in DX Nikon may have to keep the megapixels down more towards 12. I think they cannot go to 10 or below because it just wouldn't sell as seeming to be too few mp in today's maketplace. 16 would be fully acceptable, as it is with the D4.

spraynpray

"16 would be fully acceptable, as it is with the D4."

Surprising that - with the D4 being so expensive. Just goes to show not everybody is impressed by huge Mp.

D4 ISO may be dreaming, but if it happened, it would loosen my resolve to not upgrade this year...

heartyfisher

A 16 MP will not have equal High ISO with the D4 but it sure will be better than the D5200/D7200. At least half a stop maybe more. even if it still says 6400 native.

donaldejose

Remember please, "equal noise" doesn't have to mean equal at 100% pixel viewing since no one actually prints or views that large anymore. Realistically, if the noise looks the same when viewing the two images at 40% or 50% you should have "equally publishable" images and that should be good enough for most users of a D400.

Msmoto

This thread has gone off the deep end with a discussion of tilt/shift lenses. I suppose when we have been waiting for a year or more, this is the result. Maybe someone wants to start a new thread on tilt/shift and DOF???

SquamishPhoto

Remember please, "equal noise" doesn't have to mean equal at 100% pixel viewing since no one actually prints or views that large anymore.

Just because you don't print anything large it most certainly doesn't follow that "no one actually prints or views that large anymore". Suggesting as much is just being obtuse.

donaldejose

DX sensor bodes won't be the body of choice for people who want to print large. No one is going to buy a D400 to print large. They will buy a D800, or at least an FX sensor D600, as they should, and they will be shooting at low ISO, not high ISO, as they should. This whole high ISO on DX discussion doesn't really apply to such people.

"Delusional," "obtuse," - lighten up Squamish and stop the name calling. You seem to have a penchant for desiring to attack me. What is up with that? Why cannot we just politely agree to disagree?

Paperman

This thread has gone off the deep end with a discussion of tilt/shift lenses. I suppose when we have been waiting for a year or more, this is the result. Maybe someone wants to start a new thread on tilt/shift and DOF???

The link was added not for TS lenses but for the f8-f32 range of diffraction examples as that was the subject being discussed. As for the subject of diffraction - that is the result of a +30Mp APS-C sensor on D400 suggested by some.

SquamishPhoto

"Delusional," "obtuse," - lighten up Squamish and stop the name calling. You seem to have a penchant for desiring to attack me. What is up with that? Why cannot we just politely agree to disagree?

Look, you're prone to making outlandish statements and often try and lump everyone into your limited view of photography and I find that very irritating. And I stand by my assessment. Suggesting that no one prints that large is being obtuse. This past year alone I've printed for two separate showings at cafes and restaurants and nothing was smaller than 24" x 36" and went as large as 2.5' x 5'. Would've gone larger if the walls hadn't constrained things. And what I print is peanuts compared to others that I know around town. So, Im sorry if you don't like an honest take down of your statements, but thats all it is.

heartyfisher

lol .. nothing wrong with outlandish statements!.. but target the points not the pointee :-)

PB_PM

Agreed. Lets take it down a notch. Attacking people will not help this discussion, and only reduces peoples willingness to take part.

spraynpray

@Squamish: You may want to get your trigger looked at - you are going bang at the slightest provocation these days. Donald gets under my skin sometimes, but he raises good points generally and on that point I actually agree with him in principle but would say 'the vast majority of people' rather than 'nobody'.

In some ways then, the vast majority are paying for the minority to be able to print large prints.

I am one who would rather have a 16MP DX with great high ISO than 24 with less good high ISO.

PB_PM

I'd love that too! Frankly I'm happy with 12MP. Yet for some reason I still think the marketing department will push the engineers to stuff a 24MP sensor into the D300s and D7000 replacement(s).

sevencrossing

DX sensor bodes won't be the body of choice for people who want to print large. No one is going to buy a D400 to print large.>blockquote>

This is correct

but I think most of use have a dream, one day, may be some of our work, WILL be printed large

So if you bought a D400, you would be admitting your work is always just going to end up on Face book or a small photo in the local rag

Yes Dx will go quite big, but do you ever get your framing wrong, and have to dramatically crop

Photography is a very competitive business
If the picture editor is comparing your work taken with a DX camera, with the guy standing next to you, using a D4. The odds are, the guy with the D4 will "win "
so why not stack the odds in your favor, and and shoot Fx to start with

The Marking guys at Nikon will be well aware, it is not about providing a camera people need; it is about selling the product, people THINK they need
and most professionasl think they need a camera , better than the one that will actually do the job

Marketing is about selling the dream
and for most people, the dream is full frame. Even if they cant afford it and don't need it

donaldejose

Squamish: Your actions just prove my point. You print big, so what is the last camera you purchased? A D800, which is the correct choice. DX is not for you. This whole thread is irrelevant to your needs.

spraynpray: Yes, I stand corrected. It would have been more accurate to say "the vast majority" rather than "nobody." Using the term "nobody" was an overstatement for effect I thought would be obvious as relates to the item under discussion: a DX sensor D400. Or I should have phrased it that nobody considering a new DX sensor body will be planning on printing large. Large printers will spend their $2,000 on the FX D600 instead.

sevencrossing: Yes, we all have dreams. I am currently shooting a season of High School basketball and dream of having a D4 for that task but I (like most of us, I expect) cannot have a top dollar body specialized for every type of shooting we do so I am making do with the limitations of my D800. I tried using a D600 as a less expensive alternative but have been very unhappy with it. The problem is the autofocus: covers too small an area and is too slow. The D800 works better for this task which surprised me. Of course, the D4 would be the best but I cannot justify spending $6,000 so I can have the perfect camera for each type of shooting I do. A $2000 D400 capable of shooing clean at 12,800 ISO is a significantly different outlay of cash to have an additional body better suited for the task than the D800. That is my basic point with the D400. Nikon could offer us the ability to team a D800 with a D400 (both using the same control layout) for a total of $5,000 which still puts us $1,000 under the price of one D4. I champion Nikon giving us that choice.

sevencrossing

The D800 works better for this task which surprised me. Of course, the D4 would be the best but I cannot justify spending $6,000

Same here
But I think Nikon may answer our payers
but it will a full frame camera not DX

That said, the pennies I have earned from my D800 are adding up, may be we will see a nice D4 cash back offer for D800 users wanting a second camera

After using a D800 are you sure you want to back to DX ?

I was taught NEVER GO BACK

donaldejose

I don't see it as "going back" because I would not be selling my D800 to buy a D400. Rather, I see it as adding a tool better suited to the task at hand. I enjoy the "mechanical" (guess that's not the correct word anymore in the digital era) aspects of different bodies so I enjoy being able to use many different cameras for different tasks. Maybe I am an equipment junkie. If I thought the image would be printed large or severely cropped, I would simply use my D800, which is a fantastic camera. But if I was forced to freeze action in poor light and didn't think the images would ever be printed large, I would like to have a body which produces clean images at ISO 12,800. If I can get that in FX for 2k (such as in a D600s with better autofocus) I would be very happy with that. Just put the D4 sensor and the D800 autofocus into the D600 body (call it the D600s) and sell it for 2K and I will be very, very happy! (Now before anyone jumps on me for that last sentence, of course I realize it is an overstatement, that is why I used the exclamation point.)

spraynpray

Correct Donald - you are an equipment junkie (gearhead)!

Ironheart

Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Oops, wrong forum.

sevencrossing

I am also an equipment junkie
In days of film
I had, two large , two medium and four 35mm cameras
All have been replaced by one D800
In the days of film I would have loved, but could not afford a Hasselblad
Today, I would love, but cannot afford a D4
nothing changes

SquamishPhoto

Getting all

Squamish: Your actions just prove my point. You print big, so what is the last camera you purchased? A D800, which is the correct choice. DX is not for you. This whole thread is irrelevant to your needs.

donald, you have absolutely no idea what my needs are, so please don't pretend that you do. You are not the arbiter of what is relevant to anybody but yourself. I realize that I've chosen a few poor terms with which to describe your actions, but you need to realize that what you say sometimes comes off as a smug or dismissive, which I find just as offensive as colorful language. Lets flip the logic on you:

You own a D800. DX is not for you. This whole thread is irrelevant to your needs.

Tell me why this is true for me and not for you?

D300user

The latest info at canonrumors.com seems to point at a 7DII release in second half of 2013... just as Thoms predictions of a D400 release in August. But hey, haven't we all been predicting a D400 release for the past two years now.... I'm not going to wait until August though, that's for sure. I'd have to buy something I don't really want (D800, too slow + too many pixels, D7200 not quite up to a D400 with regards to build quality/speed...). Some transparency in Nikon's decision taking would be seriously awesome right now..

donaldejose

Squamish: You are correct. I don't know your needs or desires. If you want a DX body, that is great and I hope the new D400 will be exactly what you want. I just meant to say that if you desired to print as large as you mentioned, you wouldn't be selecting DX as your first choice for that task and the D400 would be irrelevant when the issue is printing large. I was trying to limit my comment about "not printing large" to those people who were looking at a DX sensor body, that's all. People who do what to print large, I think, will be looking for an FX body. Someone looking for a DX sensor when they intend to print 2.5' x 5' I think is asking too much of the sensor and would be better served by FX, that's all. It shouldn't be a controversial statement. By the way, congratulations on your exhibits. I would have enjoyed seeing them, especially those huge prints.

As to me: One camera body need not suit all needs. Just because I own a D800 doesn't mean it is the best for all tasks or that I want to use it for all tasks. I want good clean IQ at as high an ISO as I can get for stopping action in low light. So do some other people. The D4 would be great but is too costly. Any DX or FX body which can shoot clean at 12,800 ISO will work for me since I am never going to print those files as large as you do. 24 x 36 inches is the largest they would ever be printed. Thus, I am highly interested in a $2,000 D400 or a D600s and hope Nikon is able to get it to a good 12,800 ISO. That shouldn't be so controversial either. If it cannot be done, they obviously won't do it. That's all.