D300s Successor-D400, what and when

spraynpray

Yebbut nearly the same people who reckon the price will be low are saying that it needs to have 'native' (read useable) Hi ISO performance of 12800!

Seems unrealistic to me. Don't get me wrong, I would be very happy if it were true, but I doubt it will.

PB_PM

@spraynpray I agree. You cannot have it both ways. Either that camera will be a $1800 D300s like camera, with similar controls, buffer etc, with the D7100 sensor, or it will be a $2000+ super high performance camera (very unlikely), with a different sensor (lower or high res) and better DR/Noise performance.

donaldejose

Sure, no problem guys. The D400 could be a smaller advance over the D300s for $1,800 or a larger advance over the D300s for $2,000. Maybe it will have a "pro_build and pro controls" but no better IQ. Some people would by it and others not. Or many it will have both pro build/pro controls and better image quality. Then more people will buy it. Nikon has $800 of room in the price gap between the D7100 and the D600 and will do as much as it can do while remaining in that price range. How much can they do at that price point? No one knows. I was very surprised by the lack of an AA filter on the D7100. We could also be surprised at some new feature or new ability Nikon is able to put into the D400. Either way, I think it would sell in large numbers. It will be interesting to see what eventually surfaces.

heartyfisher

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).

Curious . why have you stopped using the D800?. The D800 is a camera i am considering as my "D300 replacement"

Lockon

@heartyfischer: the primary reason was speed... the D800 in DX mode can barely do 6 fps shooting only in raw mode. The D300 can do 7 fps... it doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it actually is. It meant I had a lower total number of frames of any given sequence to choose the best angle, focus/motion blur, composition, etc. In FX mode, the D800 was just hopeless in terms of speed - it felt like my old D70. I knew this going into the purchase, but I was really hoping that in DX mode it would perform adequately for my needs - it didn't.

The D800 in DX mode puts a box in the viewer so that you can see the DX part of the frame - that's a neat thing on one hand because you can see stuff entering the frame before it is actually there, but overall it meant I ended up with more rejects because subjects partially landed outside the DX area more often (in other words, its a lot harder to keep moving objects framed in DX mode). Even turning off the AF point illumination which enables a black box around the DX area didn't help much.

I primarily use the 80-400 VR lens (a way underrated lens), and with that lens the D800 lost focus and hunted significantly more than the D300 does with the identical lens. Furthermore, the photos with the D300/80-400 combination are noticeably sharper than with the D800/80-400 combination (D800 images resized to match D300).

Finally, the D800 DX RAW files are 15 mp vs 12 mp with the D300, but the D800 files took a LOT longer to load in Lightroom than the D300 images... a Lightroom issue? Not sure, but my Lightroom is fully updated.

To be fare, the D800 worked in 80-90% of the situations I shoot in, but it was that 10-20% where I just needed a high burst speed that it let me down (e.g. low light and a moving object). Of course you can pump up the ISO on the D800 to insane levels and still get a useful shot; whereas on the D300 you can't really go much beyond ISO 800. I wish I could carry both on my travels but in the end I had to choose one and I chose the D300 for speed.

Bottom line IMHO: D800 is for indoor, night, portrait, static, still life, landscape, etc. D300 is for fast action. My 2 cents

PS, my son uses the D800 for his indoor sports photography at very high ISO - the shots he gets are stunning. But he is usually using either the 105mm f2.8 or some other fast lens.

Msmoto

@ ricochet

Yes, I fully agree. And, like the V1, Nikon will have an adapter which allows all the newer lenses to be fully functional. Otherwise they would not do it...

My guess is the reason for the fixed lens model is to make a statement and remind folks Nikon is still on the ball with the technology. ho, ho, ho....

sevencrossing

yes... how about blazing speed - 8-10 fps!

fps is the big weakness on the D7100, D600 and D800

looking at the D4, Nikon's way to get fps up is to reduce mega whatnots

but to the consumer market, mp is a big selling point

would a D400 with say, only 12 mp sell in sufficient numbers ?

The EOS 7D Mark II promises 10fps and 24 mp but it is not here yet

I supect Nikon are working hard to increase fps on the D800 Mark II and this will come out before the D400; time will tell

PB_PM

One issue with what you are suggesting @sevencrossing is that the D300s/ replacement are not "consumer" cameras. From my point of view the D7100 is the top end "consumer" camera. I highly doubt many people, aside from maybe the rich, buy a $1800+ camera on impulse. The issue is thus irreverent.

The target buyers of a "D400" are knowledgeable photographers who want performance, not excessive MP counts. I'd be more than happy with a 16-20MP sensor in the "D400", and I suspect many others would be as well. Put the D800's massive buffer (it has to be big to handle even the few shots it does at 4FPS) and a 16-20MP sensor and the "D400" could easily knock off 15 frames 14bit RAW.

Nikon released the D300s (only 12MP) after the 7D was announced with 18MP, so I doubt they are worried about what Canon is doing in that regard. Unless Canon has really stepped up the game, I doubt their 24MP sensor will even match the D7100.

Why would Nikon be putting out a D800s (this isn't Canon!!!) this year? Waaayyy too soon. You might see one in 2014, but not this year.

sevencrossing

Why would Nikon be putting out a D800s (this isn't Canon!!!) this year? Waaay too soon. You might see one in 2014, but not this year.

I too, don't think we will see a D800 upgrade this year
but then, I don't think we will see a D400 ether
My prediction is that Nikon will increase the fps in the D800 before they bring out the D400
but as ever, this is just my thinking

I was wrong in predicting the D7000 replacement would be called the D7200
I will probably be wrong again

just saying what my thoughts are

spraynpray

What fun it would be if we had a poll thread with all of the likely (and unlikely) options and dates for the D400, like Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4 2013 or the same for 2014, numbering system, Mp, fps etc. etc.

It would be good to get all guesses on record too so we could say "hah-hah!" to the more bizzarre guesses!

Msmoto

Today's guess....Nikon will make a large error and bring out a D300s replacement with some focusing improvements, sensor with ISO 6400 native, and other features similar to the D300s, probably improved video. I say this because of the rather poor judgement in other areas I seem to observe.

Hopefully, I am wrong. What I would like to see is a mirrorless, 55mm throat, tilt/shift adapter along with a straight adapter for all the "F" mount lenses, and the ability to focus in continuous servo mode. FPS at about 15 initially. APSC sensor and ISO 12,800. 20MP. Price at $2200, and introduction in the Fall of 2013.

And when the hot place. freezes over, this is what we will see... )

Kuv

I don't think it would happen with the flagship.
My guess is Q3 2013 16-20MP, ISO 12800 native, video functions like 7100, maybe 1080p@60, D800-like body, price 1800, 8-9fps, possible built-in wifi or gps.

spraynpray

@Kuv: The 12800 may be pushing it but your other points are surprisingly sane for this thread... ;;)

Kuv

Well, Pentax K-5 has 12800 native and it was released December 2010.

TaoTeJared

I go back to my previous comment - the number 12800 for iso means absolutely nothing. It's the quality from 1600-6400 that does mean something.

Just a couple of historic notes: D300s came because of video. No other reason. There really was no other "real" upgrade to the camera but that. 7D had video and Nikon didn't at that level.

FPS is hardly an important number except for the few who need it. And if you need it, the D800 would feel like a boulder strapped to your back. The D300s was the only exception of a mid cycle upgrade in the last 10 years in the advanced amateur level systems. Even Canon doesn't update these level of cameras mid stream.

If you haven't seen the image results of the Canon 5d mkIII's high iso, you really owe it to yourself to take a look. It is very apparent very few have who have been commenting here have, as the descriptions of what they are hoping for, arguments that it can't happen, already have been achieved at this level - just not by Nikon. The Canon 7d II is suppose to have only a stop or two below it - which still is really good IQ at 12,800 and very usable. It is D4 or better territory. If the 7DII hits almost the same level, it's going to take a big bite out of the D400 sales, as people are really tired of waiting. This is Nikon's bar they have missed - massively. It's High ISO that even casual shooters are realizing is the real number, not MP, FPS, wifi, etc. Interestingly, every company but Nikon has stalled on MP counts for their sensors. I think they realize that people are wanting the high iso IQ more than resolution.

spraynpray

You seem to have changed your stance on the likely usability of the 'native' 12800 ISO hopes for the D400 Tao? I thought you were saying only a while ago that 12800 wasn't possible?

kenadams

What's with this 55mm mount throat you keep bringing up, MsMoto? That would be larger than F mount, yet by all accounts mirrorless system lenses can be and are smaller than SLR lenses since they can sit closer to the sensor - at least, that's what I thought...?

Kuv

I'm not sure if I understood Tao correctly, but if he is suggesting that the D4 is a stop (or two) under the 5Dmk3, he's just plain wrong as can be.

Msmoto

I have just looked at the "Studio shot comparison" on DPreview which compare cameras. At ISO 6400, 12,800, 25,600, it is my opinion the 5dMkII cannot hold a candle to the D4. At 12,800 ISO, the D4 looks as good as the 5DMkII at 6400 ISO.

Now, this is just my viewing and of course I may be a bit biased, but the "noise" of the Canon looks larger and more course than the D4.

Re: the 55mm throat.... What this would allow is the use of an adapter between the body and "F" mount lenses which could enable a tilt /shift function. In other words we could have some of the benefits of a view camera especially useful for product photography in the studio. Admittedly, with a non-tilt/shift lens the circle of resolution is quite limited, but could still allow a bit of tilt.

In non retro focus lenses the rear element is often almost as large as the front. I am holding in my hand, a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon which has a 70mm front diameter, 57mm rear diameter. Thus, if we are to have wide angle lenses which are fast, and non-retro focus, we need a fairly wide throat into which the rear elements will fit. Hope this explains my thinking.

It may very well be, Nikon would produce a special body with a wide throat to allow architectural shots.

Again, with the elimination of the mirror, I am of the opinion we are at the beginning of an entirely new era in small format camera design, and that while we see some amazing results from our pro cameras today, within 5 years we will see things we could not have imagined. My guess is, all the major lines, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji,and the ones I forgot, are looking this direction.

Oh, I also have in my hand some "new" Zirconium M25 flash bulbs...these were very powerful... LOL

adamz

I would say that the noise from Nikon is much nicer than the noise from Canon. Don't know like You gals'n guys but for me it reminds me of the old analog times.

scoobysmak

I It may very well be, Nikon would produce a special body with a wide throat to allow architectural shots.

Again, with the elimination of the mirror, I am of the opinion we are at the beginning of an entirely new era in small format camera design, and that while we see some amazing results from our pro cameras today, within 5 years we will see things we could not have imagined. My guess is, all the major lines, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji,and the ones I forgot, are looking this direction.

I totally understand this but I really hope I they would at least keep a line of cameras that could use the same lens mount as I do currently, too much glass to go humm start over. Maybe I read your post wrong but just my thoughts.

Back to the D400 though, the price point, overall it doesn't matter in my mind if Nikon has price gaps between this model and that model. If a D300 replacement appears and has the features that the photographer needs/like to have, they will buy it. Nikon will price it for what they can get for it, I do see most of the people that would buy this camera know what they are after and not going to buy it if its priced like the D3X was. This camera would end up in the middle, the rich guy that had to have the best and bought the D3X won't buy this because they can have a D4, the person starting probably doesn't know what they want and will buy a cheaper camera anway because they wouldn't use half the features (the exception is the bad sales person talking them into it) If it had great ISO, even good at 12800, 10 fps, big buffer, 20 MP, D4 autofocus, and a D4 sized body I could see it selling at the D800 price.

sevencrossing

...... This is Nikon's bar they have missed - massively. It's High ISO that even casual shooters are realizing is the real number, not MP, FPS, wifi, etc. Interestingly, every company but Nikon has stalled on MP counts for their sensors. I think they realize that people are wanting the high iso IQ more than resolution.

Interesting

Nearly all my professional / commercial work is shot between ISO 100 and 1600
I do shoot at 6400 @f 1.4 but that is usually for personal stuff, when I can't be bothered to use a tripod or flash

so when do you guys need 12800?

I have a D800 and only 4 fps can be a pain for birding
but birding a hobby, If did it professionally, I would get a D4
if I was more serious about birding, I think I would try a Nikon 1 and a digiscope

adamz

I have D3s and I've never went above 6400 and was shooting with this iso at night, so I also don't get why You need native 12800 or 25600 or whatever else

TaoTeJared

I Love how people just take a statement and create a whole story in their head. Or the denial that other companies can out do Nikon in areas. Wait saying that may evoke in other's heads that I like Canon now.

You seem to have changed your stance on the likely usability of the 'native' 12800 ISO hopes for the D400 Tao? I thought you were saying only a while ago that 12800 wasn't possible?

I never said 12800 wasn't possible - I said being usable is the key. The D4 can go to ISO 204,000 - looks like garbage - and that is my point, why have a high number if you were never going to use it. D300's H2 was so bad that I never used it, but I'm sure someone when it was released was impressed by that top number.
It's just a number - not a measurement of how good the higher ISOs are.

I'm not sure if I understood Tao correctly, but if he is suggesting that the D4 is a stop (or two) under the 5Dmk3, he's just plain wrong as can be.

Sorry bud... But although some quality can be objective the MKIII is impressive in the High Noise. Canon does seem to add more NR at default levels but even at that, it is close enough to say their High ISO is very close.

Source: Popular Photo

I would say that the noise from Nikon is much nicer than the noise from Canon. Don't know like You gals'n guys but for me it reminds me of the old analog times.

I agree - and I think Nikon holds detail better. Canon also sets NR higher at default standards to score higher on the tests. Noise looking analog - the "film grain" that I add to really high ISOs for B&W with my D800 finely looks like what "it should" at least in my mind. I love it.

Nearly all my professional / commercial work is shot between ISO 100 and 1600
I do shoot at 6400 @f 1.4 but that is usually for personal stuff, when I can't be bothered to use a tripod or flash

I agree with that - I have been creeping my D800 to 2200 - 2800 and am finding that I can get away with that for some stuff given the variables line up a certain way. Seeing MSmoto's cycle shots at iso 50k+ is quite impressive! But as most, Paid stuff, I'm at iso 100-640 (did not forget a zero there) and maybe 1000 on occasion for 90% of it.

The focus of "higher native ISO" equals nothing. The metric to keep track of is color depth, Dynamic Range and contrast at high isos. In those three measurements, the quality of the ISO value is determined.

donaldejose

Right, when people like me talk about a "native ISO of 12,800" we are not talking about a number in the menu that is useless because the noise is so high at that number. We are talking about good enough image quality at high ISO that it can can actually be used for 8x10 size prints. Cannon can get acceptable noise at ISO 25,600 with a full frame sensor according to Popular Photography. Canon should be able to get acceptable noise at 12,800 on a crop frame sensor. If Canon can do it than it is not technologically impossible for Nikon to do it also.

True, we don't want to use it unless it is necessary. We all want to shoot at the base ISO as much as we can. But sometimes high ISO is needed to freeze action in low light. That is the only time I would use it and it may seem to be rarely needed but I have just been through a entire basketball season shooting many thousands of photos in which I wish I had a good 12,800 ISO. So recently, I would have used it perhaps 70% of the time. While "native 12,800" ISO is just a number it is a reflection of the image quality at high ISO. Nikon will cut off the native ISO at that highest point they think image quality is still acceptable so if Nikon can improve image quality basically one stop at high ISO they will increase native ISO from 6,400 to 12,800 and listing that new top ISO number will be a reflection of better image quality at ISO 3200 and 6400.