D300s Successor-D400, what and when

sevencrossing

......... waiting for Godot .......

)

Perhaps in few months a mod can change the title of this thread to just that

Msmoto

This thread has gotten so confusing...and the personality issues seem to be contaminating the content....

We are all a bit frustrated by the reality of Nikon not giving us what we want. Please let's not go after each other.....

And, no change in the thread title....or maybe the D500...mmmmm

ricochet

Sorry, did I "bark" or simply disagree with you? I didn't say wildlife photographers don't prefer FX for many situations, not my point at all. I thought our discussion was whether "most wildlife photographers" are happy with the D7000. This is, after all, a thread about a possible DX camera. FX vs. DX is a different thread.

spraynpray

"We are all a bit frustrated by the reality of Nikon not giving us what we want. Please let's not go after each other....."

It is tedious to read guys...

SquamishPhoto

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.

Derp. 1600 on the D7000 is very usable whereas the same could never once have been said for the D300. Seems like a pretty straight forward notion, but you go right ahead and try and make it sound like the D300 wasn't a complete and utter ISO nightmare.

And why hurt your neck? Yes, its a better camera. Takes better photos and allows much more detailed editing work from the resolution increase. Just because you seem to value the "pro" features over resulting image quality doesn't mean that plenty of others didn't find the limitations to be workable. Its all about the situation at hand and your individual shooting style.

PB_PM

...its a better camera. Takes better photos...

I didn't know cameras took photos, I thought people did... :P

TaoTeJared

Still no real argument why the D300 line is dead. All about newer cameras being incrementally better. Big surprise there! :O

No DX lenses still? If you couldn't put FX glass on DX bodies, I could see the argument - but that is not the case and we do use FX lenses all the time and it performs actually better on DX as it uses only the center portion of the lens. The only Range we do not have with a 2.8s is 11-16 (covered by Tokina which is no slouch) and the 50-70mm range. Every other spot is hit - including dedicated DX macros which is a bit of a specialty lens. The only real lens that is missing is a 58mm 1.4/1.8 (85mm equiv) that is in the top sellers of focal range.

And, no change in the thread title....or maybe the D500...mmmmm

Might not be too far off base there. Could see a D8000/9000 opposed to a D400, as Dx00 series will run out at D500.

SquamishPhoto

...its a better camera. Takes better photos...

I didn't know cameras took photos, I thought people did... :P

This is true.

Some levity is nice from time to time in these threads.

donaldejose

The discussion and arguments on both sides are interesting but for me most of them are not as persuasive as this one: money. A large price gap exists between the D7100 and the D600. If Nikon can produce a product to sell in that gap they will. Why wouldn't they? Nikon wants to grow. A product will sell if it offers value at that price point. It has to be able to be advertised as offering some thing or some things significantly better than the D7100 offers and it has to sell for a price significantly lower than a D600. If Nikon can produce a pro-control, robust, DX body with native 12,800 ISO sufficient for publication as jpegs (maybe by just using more aggressive high ISO noise reduction software?) for $1800 it should sell to all the photojournalists and sports shooters needing to produce a quick jpeg to e-mail to their editors for papers or websites. These users don't need RAW or FX for that final print size. Certainly, any possible D400 would also shoot RAW and would have that new 1.3 DX 16mp crop mode found in the D7100. Birders would like it as would sports shooters who could use autofocus points completely covering the frame. Such a camera would sell in sufficient numbers to make money for Nikon so they will produce it if they can. I expect Nikon to release a D400 sometime this year and to follow up with some pro quality DX lenses. To keep size and weight better scaled to DX bodies the pro DX zooms may be f4 or variable zooms rather than f2.8 lenses.

In short, it is not about Nikon trying to push people into FX or about Nikon designating DX for non-pro use only. It is just about money. If Nikon figures they can make money on a D400 they will build it to make that money. So if you want to argue Nikon won't produce a D400 in order to be convincing to me you have to argue that Nikon could not produce a DX body they could sell for about $1,800. Certainly, no one can argue Nikon could put the same senor used in the D7100 into a body modeled after the D800. Same sensor/software in more rugged body with pro controls and more memory for buffer should be very easy to do. But could Nikon include some other feature or features to advertise? If so, they will. If not, they won't. I would not give up on the D400 until Nikon announces they will not build one. There is no time limit within which a certain camera body name must be either used or abandoned.

PB_PM

As I've said for some time now, I think we'll see the D400 in late summer/early fall. It would also mark a perfect time for Nikon to release the 16-85mm F4 DX lens, from the patient we saw a a number of months ago.

TaoTeJared

DX body with native 12,800 ISO sufficient for publication as jpegs (maybe by just using more aggressive high ISO noise reduction software?

I have seen many statements around the various sites (for all camera's) and I really don't quite see just the iso value having any much value. I see what the D4 can do & even the 5DIII, keeping color depth, saturation, and detail much more important than just a "high" number. I know it is somewhat implied but realistically if 6400 was fully usable, that would be more of a step than just the high number value.

donaldejose

Yes TTJ, when I say "native 12,800 ISO" I am using that as a short hand phrase to refer to the image quality of the D3s and D4 at high ISO including the top of the "native range' and above it (say all the way from 3,200 to 25,600). Including a native ISO of 12,800 rather than cutting it off at 6,400 would say to the world that the sensor image quality is so good that even 12,800 remains good enough to use and would be an advertising point to distinguish this sensor from the other DX sensors. I don't expect a DX D400 sensor to equal an FX D4 sensor in all ways. I am just saying that Nikon may well try to distinguish the top DX body with high image quality at high ISO as it has the D3s and D4. I don't mean to suggest Nikon would include poor image quality at 12,800 in the "native ISO range" just for advertising.

sevencrossing

. A large price gap exists between the D7100 and the D600. .

In the UK

D7100 ~ £1000
D600 ~ £1,500
D800 ~£2,000

Prices do flutuate day to day

but from this, it seems a D400 might cost the same a a D600

donaldejose

In the US:

D7100 ~ $1,200
D600 ~ $2,000
D800 ~ $2,800

So there is an $800 gap here between these three bodies. In the UK you have a 500 pound gap between the same three models. The list price of the D300 was $1,799. The list price of the D300s was $1,699. If Nikon can produce a D400 for a list price around $1,600 to $1,800 and make money on it I think they will do so. I don't think they would try to price it at $2,000 in direct competition with the D600 unless it clearly offered some very significant features over the D600.

The marketing points will be 1. more robust build than the D600, 2. a bit cheaper than the D600, 3. more direct access controls than the D600, 4. the best image quality available in DX, 5. the new 16mp 1.3 DX crop mode with "full sensor" AF which makes it "perfect" for birders because it turns the 70-200 f2.8 or f4 into a 140 -400 and the 300mm f4 into a 600mm f4 (giving wildlife shooters big glass on the cheap), 6. and any features they can throw in (built in battery grip would be nice but would add about $200 to the price which would make it $1,900 to $2,000). Not necessarily in that order.

Of course, this is all just my best guess but it makes good sense to me. If Nikon can do these things I believe they will and the body will sell in large numbers.

TaoTeJared

Based from history, the D400 will probably be a D800 with a DX chip and a smaller viewfinder (if they left this large, that would be great but probably won't.) AF system, metering, weather sealing/body build, custom controls, etc. will be the same. I expect it to be $1,900 then drop the usual rate and settle around $1,700 in 6 months.

That will make for a nasty decision, wounded FX or Full featured DX. I'm guessing Nikon will be less concerned/keep the IQ noise just below the D600 - just to make decisions all that much more difficult.

CEBlueclouds

Conceptually I think the pro D400 would be at least as pricy as the D600 considering all the likely features....

spraynpray

What makes us think that the pro DX price would have to be at or less than the consumer FX price? Your thoughts on this make absolutely no sense to me. :-?

sevencrossing

Conceptually I think the pro D400 would be at least as pricy as the D600 considering all the likely features....</</i>blockquote>

Agreed
As a professional I would pay the extra and get a D800
The hard up hobby photographer will go for a D7100 or D600
This leave the D400 with a limited appeal to the enthusiast
who needs some unique feature, not be found in a D800 D600 or D7100

spraynpray

Surely a 'hard-up hobby photographer' would go for the D3200.....?

sevencrossing

What makes us think that the pro DX price would have to be at or less than the consumer FX price? Your thoughts on this make absolutely no sense to me. :-?

looking at UK prices
a consumer DX (D7100) costs £500 less than a Consumer FX ( D600)
so a Pro DX ( D400) MIGHT cost £500 less than a Pro Fx (D800)

Lockon

who needs some unique feature, not be found in a D800 D600 or D7100

yes... how about blazing speed - 8-10 fps! My six year old D300 is faster than all of those cameras (I have a D800 too but stopped using it).

TaoTeJared

What makes us think that the pro DX price would have to be at or less than the consumer FX price? Your thoughts on this make absolutely no sense to me. :-?

I am just going off of historical prices and accounting for a pseudo inflation increase. IF they did a D4 DX with something like a 18mp sensor, better high iso than the D600 with high FPS, I could see it easily above the D600 by a few hundred bucks. Either way, I think it will be close to the same price.

Msmoto

I hope everyone is ready for the new stuff Nikon is bring to the table. It might make our discussions here rather mute.. I think we are at the genesis of a new breed of cameras from Nikon.

ricochet

I hope everyone is ready for the new stuff Nikon is bring to the table. It might make our discussions here rather mute.. I think we are at the genesis of a new breed of cameras from Nikon.

I'm not ready for any new breed of camera unless I can still use my existing lenses. I'm too old and poor to start over buying glass.

donaldejose

Price for a D400? Just continue the price point at which this model has been sold in its different iterations. The D100 was $2,000, the D200 was $1,700, the D300 was $1,800 and the D300s was $1,700. Thus, the price point for the D400 niche is $1,700 to $1,800. Consider the slot below it, the D80, D90, D7000 and D7100 line. D80 was $1,000, the D90 was $1,000, the D7000 was $1,200, the D7100 is $1,200. The D7100 is the same price as the D7000 started at. If the D300s replacement, the D400, is also at the same price as the D300s that would put it at $1,700. I think Nikon has this "price point" in mind when they design the D400 or it wouldn't be a replacement for a D300s.

If Nikon does start a new line of camera, such as mirrorless, we can expect Nikon to also slot various models in that line to different price points.