D300s Successor-D400, what and when

donaldejose

If we assume that the D7100 will be the sharpest DX sensor to date and that the D400 will be out this year with a better (or at least equal) sensor then I think a hot topic of discussion the last 6 months of this year will be which lenses will give perform best with those bodies. Of course you can use the latest and greatest of the FX pro lenses but people selecting a lighter and cheaper D7100 or D400 are likely to also be looking for lighter and cheaper glass. For example, the new 70-200 f4 might be reasonable DX body substitute for the 70-200 f2.8 on an FX body. The 300mm f4 might be a reasonable DX body substitute for the 500mm f4 on an FX body. Assuming these new DX sensors have a base ISO of 100 but show little reduction in image quality at ISO 200, one may be able to substitute an f4 lens for an f2.8 lens by increasing the ISO one stop. Or perhaps with new sharper DX sensors Nikon will finally produce a line of DX pro glass.

SquamishPhoto

I think your phrasing is a bit off. A good sensor will do well to resolve a sharp lens, not the other way around.

donaldejose

Yes, thanks for the correction. I misspoke. Should have been "the highest resolution DX sensor to date." All the resolution, sharpest lenses, diffraction limitation at f? discussed after the release of the D800/800e will likely be discussed again the context of which lenses are best to use on the D7100 DX sensor.

Paperman

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.

Why does there have to be a "merge" ? Can't they just stop/discontinue a line ?

TaoTeJared

Since no one ever reads all 21 pages and I can't even find my post - Historically the Dx00 comes out in the 2nd half of the year - late July - November. The 7100 is actually "late" due to the normal schedule. D400 is really late but to dance and stomp your feet now is a bit early. I bet august or September till an announcement.

TaoTeJared

It seems those who keep saying the D300 line is dead, merged, D7100 is the D300 are also the same individuals who continually post comments that various Nikon products are too expensive, Nikon needs cheaper options, Nikon needs F/4 constant aperture lenses, Nikon needs DX pro line (that is much much cheaper than the FX pro lenses), etc. It is also mostly the individuals who really enjoy the D7000 and said it was "soo much better" than the D300 - who of course have never used anything more than the D7000.

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.

I have nothing against the D7000 series or people who enjoy it. Some have found that is is all they need. Great - but why dog a D400?

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?

Canon is coming out with their 7Dii - the high end DX evidently is seen as a viable system for them.

The D400 is coming - and soon.

spraynpray

Whoa there Tao! I can tell that was a passionate post by the sevencrossing-esque typos! I would like pro DX lenses, don't believe that DX is dead or dying or should be/is being merged, love my D7000, want a D400 after the dust settles and I do think SOME Nikon products are too expensive (battery grip type accessories) so I think that particular generalisation is a wee bit far reaching to work :P

@Donald You know what I am going to say here: The 14-24, 24-70,70-200 FX lens focal lengths do not fall into the right places on DX really. 10-24 or 11-16 and 16-85 exist and are nicer lens change points on DX don't you think? If there were constant aperture VRIII versions of the 10-24, 16-85 and 80-400 available I would be happy to stay with DX period.

C'mon Nikon, give us some useful lens updates - we'll buy 'em if you make 'em!

heartyfisher

@TaoTeJared : as a sample of 1 i am not in any of your categories and I want a D400 so your postulation holds for me :-)

Msmoto

@ TTJ

I am with you on this one...and appreciate the work in giving us the objective data.

My thoughts are we most likely will see a D400, although I am afraid it may not be exactly what I want. My very strong suspicions are that both Nikon and Canon are working on perfecting the focus issues with the mirrorless and that we are within a year of seeing a new interchangeable lens mirrorless which will be the first in an entirely new camera line, sounding the death knell of the DSLR.

But, again, it is most important to see the history you provide as all the rest of us are primarily day dreaming...at least I am....

donaldejose

spraynpray: Agreed. I have long argued for a line of DX pro glass. See this thread I started a year ago on the old forum which generated lots of discussion. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4820 The D7200 (and D400 when released) should reignite the issue. Some said to just use existing FX glass. But that fails the DX system advantages in two important ways: unnecessarily heavy and unnecessarily expensive. Also, the focal lengths are too long.

TTF: I agree with you. A D400 will soon be here; likely before the "bugs" are worked out of the D7200! None of the arguments raised against it are sufficient for Nikon to abandon that market niche.

MsMoto: I agree on a D400 which can do most of what a D4 does, only with a DX sensor. But I am not yet a believer seeing a Nikon mirrorless body in a year simply because I have not read anything about such a development. Perhaps I am just not reading what is written. I admit to not searching for mirrorless relevant articles on the internet. Perhaps they are there and I just have not seen them. I would like to have a Nikon mirrorless rangefinder with an electronic viewfinder in DX and in FX sensor size. I do agree such a camera would and will eventually replace the current DSLR design.

sevencrossing

D400 is really late .

That really is something of an understatement
Since the D300s came out, Nikon have released
The D3s; D4; D800; D800E; D600; D7000; D7100; D5100; D5200; D3100 and the D3200
Which would indicate a D400 is not high on Nikon's list of priorities
If Nikon really are going to bring out the D400 then yes, it should be next and with in the next few months
time will tell
But if the next Nikon DSLR to be released is Fx
I think we can say good by to a Pro ,or semi pro Dx Nikon

Will Nikon bring out a mirrorless Dx or FX camera, with a an entirely new range of lens ? Yes I think they will but not this year and probably not next year

As ever, these are just my humble opinions
and as ever I could and probably will be wrong
My pediction the next DSLR
will be an upgrade of the D600 or the D800

SquamishPhoto

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.

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? :]

Ironheart

D400 is really late .

That really is something of an understatement
[snip-o-matic]

Is it really late if the 7d mkII isn't here yet?

spraynpray

That right there is either good strategy by Nikon or a stroke of luck.

DaveyJ

I pre-ordered the D7100 and have lens that will allow it to reach pretty good quality levels. Still haven't been able to pull the trigger on the 16-85 lens. I have the 12-24 DX and 18-105, and 18-200, and 70-300 (3 of these). i do think the video of the D7100 will go well with Go Pro Black 3 video. AA filter missing will be a interesting thing to check myself. BUT THERE IS A HUGE SPACE STILL LEFT FOR THE D400!!!! Nikon must be gearing up for this!

donaldejose

I must admit that I was using the D80, D90 and D7000 series and really saw no need for the pro features of the D300, D300s at their increased price (with the exception of durability which didn't apply to me because I will never exceed 100,000 exposures before one or two newer generations are released and i will want to be shooting with them). Thus, the D600 should be all the FX body I ever need. However, I found it lacking in a few respects (primarily autofocus coverage area) for a sports shooting project I was doing so I started shooting with a D800. To keep those D800 file sizes down I shot in medium size and JPEG normal. After a few months I found I greatly preferred the handling of the D800 pro- body. Why? Better autofocus coverage area, more direct access buttons and heaver weight. Yes, I found the heaver weight helpful in stabilizing a constantly moving camera (I think more mass means pressure on the shutter release creates less destabilizing effect). So disreguarding the 36mp, durablity, and control layout the features which mattered most to me were autofocus area coverage and increased weight. Rather than say any one Nikon body is better than other Nikon bodies for this or that reason or say that there is no need for a certain Nikon body because other bodies are good enough I now am thankful Nikon gives us so many choices. Different people may prefer different bodies for different reasons and that is all good. I didn't think I would prefer a D800 to a D600 when shooting sports, but I do and am grateful Nikon gave me those choices. A D400 will be one more great choice when it becomes available.

DaveyJ

Recent posts here clearly demonstrate to value of NRs. Very good data and outlook. I did pre-order the D7100 and long for a GREAT D400. I think TaoTeJared's estimate on finally at long last intro of the D400 is accurate.
I still admit i'd like to shoot the D400 right side by side with the D800 and then decide. But there are some almost must haves to make a D400 or even D7100 sing.......I would start myself with a greatly improved 80-400VR. the ONE lens I wouldn't bother fixing would be the 70-300VR, maybe not perfect but fast and plenty good enough for me. Another lens I will NOT be replacing is the 12-24VR. But a really good DX 10-18 or so???
Bottom line is we need some new up to date lens. Nikon that is your speciality, right???

ricochet

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.

Andrewz

Teo, way to stir to pot! +1

Donaldejose, I agree too like the large body!

As I've said before I really tried to like the smaller bodied DSLR's but the controls are really the most important feature to me.

SquamishPhoto

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.

Well, if I wanted to be more accurate I would have said that most wildlife shooters than I know don't shoot with DX cameras at all. "Extra reach" is meaningless if you have to squint into a dinky viewfinder to see it. Patience, getting up early, good light and hiding yourself well somewhere that you've already seen wildlife is the secret to good wild life photography. People used to do it with film and old manual focus lenses, so barking about "challenges" in todays age seems somewhat silly. ISO 800 and up is just awful on the D300 and far more situations were rendered un-shootable with that camera than any other I've owned. The difference between it and the D7000 is substantial in that regard and the jump in FX is an even larger gap. To me, right place right time with an FX camera wins every time.

shawnino

OK, I'll bite. TTJ wrote in part, and I don't think I'm taking this out of context:

"Great - but why dog a D400?

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? "

Here goes.
I don't happen to own a D7000. I do own a D90 as well as two FX bodies. So I'm not in love with the D7x00. But I do find myself shaking my head on a couple of counts when it comes to this lust for a D400.

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

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.

Summing up this part, we all have unreasonable expectations sometimes. Can you image if we never did? There goes religion, there goes fashion photography, and just about everything in-between (like food photography: my Big Mac never looks like the one on TV, but I still go to McDonalds every Sunday morning while others are in churches).

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 AF
DC glass at 200mm or below 85mm
Anything else your garden variety bokeh-whore would want

I've tried to keep this light, but I'm trying to make my point. Can we all just give up on this D400 stuff and spend our time ranting about why there's no 58mm f/1.2 AF DC? Thanks a bunch.

TaoTeJared

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? :]

Elitist? No - practical, yes.
Respectfully, once more you have overstated, exaggerated and ignored history to attempt to make a point.
Historical context:

D300's iso 800 was the best there was for DX for 3 years and is still suitable today but is finely being eclipsed by real images and not just decimal points in some score. 6 years it has lasted.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/20
The screen shot is not the best but if you go to the link, there is barely a difference and hardly left in the dust.

My own tests to figure out the "top" limit for image quality for paying clients was at 800 for the D300 and when I tested the D7000 that was 1100 - or only 1/3 of a stop. 1600-3200 was a bit more usable for family/friends stuff but not much else.

I do like how you listed major features that it falls way below in, but then contradict it by saying "its a way better camera." I know I'm not the only one who's head tilted sideways for that one.

But once more it brings me to my original point - What you have said is to contradict me, not the camera:

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?

PB_PM

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...

Only Nikon USA is saying this. Go look at page 20, A Nikon Europe rep wrote a letter and said that Nikon Japan said this is NOT the case.

Just a quick quote from the letter (incase you are lazy)... "I can assure you that the D7100 is not positioned to replace the D300s as Nikon's flagship DX-format camera
- such is the information received Nikon Japan on the matter"

TaoTeJared

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.

Yes we have gone though this thoroughly multiple times - you believe companies are fickle, the natural disasters were nothing more than a hick-up and now a dead product from the 80's? Canon's plant was in the same industrial park as Nikon's. The 7Dii is just now coming out as well - I'm sure that is just a random coincidence.
For your memory-

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/10/10/thailand-flooding-reaches-nikons-factories.aspx/

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

It will be the top DX camera for now, but I'll refer to PBPM's excellent post.

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.

I do find this argument quite funny and tired. The first DX came out in 1999 - 13 years ago. Working pros used DX for 8 years and the only lens that was deemed necessary was the 17-55mm 2.8 in 2005 - 6 years later. So what has changed? Nikon nor Canon have a huge investment in DX 2.8 glass. Pentax was the only one who did release 2.8 lenses to match FX focal ranges. If that doesn't tell you anything I'm not sure what would.

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 AF
DC glass at 200mm or below 85mm
Anything else your garden variety bokeh-whore would want

So your end argument is - personal? You don't want one, so why would anyone else? Sorry once more not a reason.

shawnino

@PBPM/TTJ: I rather fear you're grasping at straws here, and a thin straw at that. A letter from Customer Service? I've worked in one tangential form of customer service or another pretty much all my life. One thing we were never supposed to do was tell a customer "fuggedaboudit". So this letter told somebody what he wanted to hear. Whoop-de-do. If I had a dime for every time I did that, well...

The main blog has been projecting for some time that the four DX lines would fold into three. People are welcome to disagree with that prediction. I happen to buy it because I find it logical.

@TTJ specifically:

In re: only Pentax producing a suite of pro DX lenses: Nikon is a for-profit corporation. Corporations don't always get it right (cf. New Coke; cf. the Edsel) but one has to assume they're trying to maximize their own bottom lines. Nikon does not deem a suite of pro-DX glass to be a strongly profitable proposition. As you point out, they never have. There could be many reasons for this; which one is the most logical? I submit that the most logical one is that Nikon is moving DX downmarket and has been planning to for awhile. FX lenses keep coming. FX has gone mid market with the D600 (perhaps too quickly). D300s has, I submit, been effectively discontinued. I don't know what else to say. I find this to be self-evident.

In re: my final argument being "personal": indeed, that's what I said. I want Nikon putting their R&D budget elsewhere. Me. Personally. That's what I want. Yup.

I'll close with a question to TTJ and anyone else who'd dare look in the mirror on this issue:

At what point in time will you stop waiting for Godot on this one? Is there a date on the calendar when you'll say "you know what, maybe it's not coming." Autumn 2013? 2014? Please advise...

...or...

when magnesium (or the next magnesium, whatever we'll call it) gets cheap, buffers get cheap, XQD (or the next XQD) gets cheap, better sensors get cheaper via Moore's Law, and so on, and the D7300 or D7400 truly eclipses the D300s, will y'all say "See, that Shawnino sure was a halfwit. This is the D400, right here."