D300s Successor-D400, what and when

Msmoto

I guess we will have to see what the D400 has. It may be far enough out from eh D4 intro that this body will have a useable ISO of 12,800. Primarily, the 6400 ISO is now in the much less expensive bodies and thus, an ISO of 12,800 is almost necessary to get the camera into a unique category.

spraynpray

I don't get the thought process - the D300 and D300s were no better than the D5000 and D90, so why does the D400 'have' to be superior in that way? Would all the pro controls and full magnesium body not be enough?

Discuss.

jenhan61

The pro controls and full magnesium body is certainly why I would be in the market for a D400. Of course the size of the body also matters. The body would have to be just as well designed and of the same size as my D200. If these criteria are not met, I could very easily be tempted to go for a used D300 since they come very cheap.

donaldejose

NSXTypeR:

You are correct. You are not missing anything other than a false assumption as to the question I was answering. The 18-55 kit lens wouldn't really give me anything much more than I get now with it on the D7000. I was not answering what lenses would give me "more." I was just saying what lenses I currently have that I would use with a D400. The difference is between your assumption of the world "more" when I was using the word "use." I like that 18-55 kit lens for a lightweight general purpose lens in good light. I would use it as such on the D400 also. My main reason for wanting a D400 is high ISO (12,800 or better 6,400) along with the crop mode for sports and wildlife. For those purposes I would not be using the 18-55 kit lens. I don't think the 18-200 VR would give me any "more" also on a D400. It is possible improvements in sensor, internal software or resolution would allow those two lenses to perform slightly better at low ISO on a D400 than they do on a D7000. But that would not be a sufficient reason to use them on a D400. I would try my 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX to see if it has better resolution than the 18-55 for example and combine that with the 70-200 f4. Such a 18 through 200 range combination likely would yield better image quality on a D400. Sometimes you just don't need the highest image quality. You just want lightness and convenience.

sprayandpray:

Yes the pro control layout and magnesium body would be enough reason for some people to purchase a D400, especially if if offers a modicum, but visible, improvement in resolution as the 16mp D4 did over the 12mp D3. However, for some people that would not be enough justification for spending over $2,000 on the body. They would add a few more hundred dollars and get a D800 which they can shoot in both FX and DX mode. I think I am in that camp. If the D400 cannot offer better IQ at 12,800 than my D800 has I will not buy one and just shoot my D800 and crop. Native ISO of 12,800 creates a marking advantage for Nikon.

NSXTypeR

I don't get the thought process - the D300 and D300s were no better than the D5000 and D90, so why does the D400 'have' to be superior in that way? Would all the pro controls and full magnesium body not be enough?

Discuss.

I agree with what you mean too. In most cases the D7000 outdoes the D300s in mostly everything except buffer depth, frame rate and build quality.

That's partly why I bought the D7000, it's because I don't foresee myself ever needing more than that.

For those who actually need the D300s, I can see why there's such pent up demand though- Nikon hasn't produced a proper D2x and D300s successor yet.

From what I can see, if Nikon can make a 36mp FX D4x, it would negate the reason to have a D2x. You would get around what, an 18mp DX crop? That'd be enough for a D2x successor. Nikon is really pushing for FX in my opinion.

NSXTypeR

You are correct. You are not missing anything other than a false assumption as to the question I was answering. The 18-55 kit lens wouldn't really give me anything much more than I get now with it on the D7000. I was not answering what lenses would give me "more." I was just saying what lenses I currently have that I would use with a D400. The difference is between your assumption of the world "more" when I was using the word "use." I like that 18-55 kit lens for a lightweight general purpose lens in good light. I would use it as such on the D400 also. My main reason for wanting a D400 is high ISO (12,800 or better 6,400) along with the crop mode for sports and wildlife. For those purposes I would not be using the 18-55 kit lens. I don't think the 18-200 VR would give me any "more" also on a D400. It is possible improvements in sensor, internal software or resolution would allow those two lenses to perform slightly better at low ISO on a D400 than they do on a D7000. But that would not be a sufficient reason to use them on a D400. I would try my 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX to see if it has better resolution than the 18-55 for example and combine that with the 70-200 f4. Such a 18 through 200 range combination likely would yield better image quality on a D400. Sometimes you just don't need the highest image quality. You just want lightness and convenience.

I see what you mean. But if you want lightness and convenience, wouldn't you want to wait a while longer and get that sensor in a D3000/D5000 type body?

donaldejose

No, if I want lightness I will just pick up my D5100 and put either the 18-55 or 40mm macro or 50mm 1.8D or 35mm 1.8 G on it. As I mentioned in another thread 6 of the 12 photos I posted on PAD this month were taken with my D5100 body because that was all I needed for the task at hand. Also, the last 20 photos I posted on my flicker account were all taken with a D5100. I see no reason to wait for any future D3xxx or D5xxx series or even to upgrade my D3100 to a D3200 or my D5100 to a D5200. If I want to do more serious photography I will grab one of my more serious cameras and lenses. I use the D3100 and D5100 series as "snapshot" type cameras for the types of photos many others would use a coolpix camera for.

Andrewz

spraynpray said:
I don't get the thought process - the D300 and D300s were no better than the D5000 and D90, so why does the D400 'have' to be superior in that way? Would all the pro controls and full magnesium body not be enough?

Nikon doesn't seem to mind leap frogging camera models. No matter what he market for the camera the newer model tends to have higher IQ. When I was looking for my first real Digital camera the D200 and D80 had the same sensor and very similar IQ but the D200 had more Pro type features. Then came the D300, better, the D90 better yet, D7000... and when the D3200 came out it was proclaimed the best DX camera ever until the D5200 came out. The newer camera will always have the next DX sensor. I can imagine that after the D400 comes out the D3300 will be next and it will have batter IQ. But as we all know IQ isn't everything.

I really tried to like the D3200, D5200 and the D600 but none of them felt right. So I got a used D300 (don't care about video so no s model for me) and I'm very pleased. I figuer this camera will hold me over until the D400 is out and all of the bugs are worked out.

So to answer the question for me, yes the pro controls and full sixe body is enough.

heartyfisher

I started with the D70 and its a great camera! . when it was time to upgrade I looked at the D80 and the D200 but the D80 didn't give me enough to be worth the upgrade. and the D200 was getting a bit old and due for an upgrade. so i waited and waited for the D300 but gave up and got the D200 clone, FujiS5pro. and the handling of the D200 body was amazing compared to my old D70. then came the D300, D90 and D300s and they didn't give me enough above my S5pro for an upgrade. waited and waited for the D400.. .. to tide me over I got the D7000. mind you its a great camera! but i still prefer the old D200 clone for the pro body and layouts..

So still waiting for the D400. the new sensors are great but that pro body just makes the shooting go smoothly .. the camera just doesn't get in the way of the shoot. Because of its rugged body and easy access controls. You just worry less about the equipment.

Msmoto

@ heartyfisher

"So still waiting for the D400. the new sensors are great but that pro body just makes the shooting go smoothly .. the camera just doesn't get in the way of the shoot. Because of its rugged body and easy access controls. You just worry less about the equipment"

+1

sevencrossing

started with the D70 I

Same here
but I then went D90 > D700 > D800
The move to the D700 was prompted by a need for better IQ at high ISO
I kept the D90 as a spare but never used it
these days High ISO is less important
The move to the D800 was prompted by its high dynamic range ( most of my landscapes are at ISO 100
I was never temped by the D300 at the time I did not its pro features
I still have my D700 but never use it

ChromiumPrime

EXTRA! EXTRA!
Read All About It!

CR gets first 7D MkII rumored specs from a known source. Following is direct from CR:

Specifications

24.1mp APS-C Sensor
Dual DIGIC V
10fps
Dual Memory Card Slots (Unknown configuration)
61 AF Points (I wonder if we’ll get red focus points in AIS?)
3.2″ LCD
Build quality like 5D3
GPS & Wifi
$2199 ($500 more than the 7D at launch, I’d like to see such a camera come in under $2000)
ISO Performance to get close to the 5D3
“Lots of video features”

As we’ve been told before, this camera will basically be a mini EOS-1D X, and with that, comes a price increase. It was also stressed that about the only spec that may change is the sensor, as they have a few APS-C sensors available. I wonder about the megapixel count, though if Canon gets back to making industry leading sensors, I have no doubt 24mp could be a real winner.

And before anyone tries to give me a hard time about this being Canon and why I'm posting it in NRF... if this does turn out to be true and Canon does release a "mini EOS-1D X" then you can bet Nikon will be following with something similar real soon

donaldejose

Hope they do and hope Nikon follows suit with a DX "mini-D4" and if Nikon does it might be worth $2,200 as compared to $6,000 for the D4.

catfish252

I sure hope this is indicative of what might be in store from Nikon -- The new 7D II sounds like it should be a phenomenal camera, I wonder why Canon has a few models with dual processors in their lineup and what it buys them or maybe what it makes up for? As far as I know Nikon has never put 2 processors in any camera and if Nikon would ever consider having dual Expeed 3 processors in a camera, Kind of cool to think what kind of monster that would be? and 'ChromiumPrime' -- I think that Nikon seeing good Canon press in NRF is good for them it will help them remember they have well informed customers.

Andrewz

I think admin is wrong! We must have a D400!

ricochet

I think admin is wrong! We must have a D400!

Agree! While the D7100 is a great upgrade from the D7000, it won't compete with the rumored specs of the 7DMKII. Is Nikon ready to concede Canon has the best crop sensor camera?

PB_PM

Agreed, the D7100 is not even close to being a D300s replacement.

sevencrossing

Agreed, the D7100 is not even close to being a D300s replacement.

like it or not the D7100 is going to remain Nikon's top of the range dx until the D7200 comes out
I know many on this thread, including me are disapointed that Nikon did not announced a Dx version of the D4 that sold for the price of a D600 but IMHO the D7100 is the best you are going to get
want something better ? sorry you are going to have to buy a D800 or D4

PB_PM

Never wanted a D4 like body, for DX. Simply a D400. I have absolutely no interest in the D800 or D4. Guess Nikon just looses a sale. Good news to me, my wallet stays thicker.

donaldejose

Well, just consider price points for a minute. D7100 at $1,199. D600 at $2,100. Nikon left a $900 gap. Surely there is adequate room for a D400 at $1,700 to $1,800. Don't count Nikon out just yet. They well may not want to abandon the $1,700 to $1,800 price point if they can produce a camera to fill it.

Paperman

It is called the " New Flagship DX camera "

PB_PM

Typical marketing mobo jumbo.

Kuv

Well, I'm not buying it (the flagship DX story nor the camera). I bought a used D300 with an 18-70 for just under $600 yesterday.

I'd really hate to change brands because Nikon is great for what I need, but if this is true, it looks like the next step for me is FX.

spraynpray

One day, maybe one day, the people on this site will stop wildly guessing. Rumours are one thing, wild guesses and speculation are another. It is never a case of 'maybe', it is usually 'will' or 'will not'.

There was a D7100, it was approximately on time, it was not mirrorless (although that was a less emphatic 'possiblity'), it was not an amalgamation of the D7xxx/D3xx lines and it did leave room for the D400 which looks like it may appear to compete against the 7DII. I wonder how many of the people who emphatically believed differently will now come on thread saying they were wrong? If not now, maybe after the D400 announcement?

Kuv

CR predicts March for the 70D and August for the 7DII.

If this is correct, I assume the D400 would be announced between July and September since they almost always make announcements within a month apart.

adamz

guys - what You really need it to be a DX flagship, what's wrong with it apart from 6fps... and is this really such a tragedy for wildlifers?