D300s Successor-D400, what and when

ChromiumPrime

@PB_PM not sure if you were replying to me or Photobug but if it is me then I never said the D7100 was more advanced. I only said it had the better AF module and processor already which was in reply to photobug's comment "...and use the better AF & processor."

But back to the Expeed 3, we know that the D4 and D800 use differently clocked versions of the same processor but I think the D7100 and D800 actually do use the same version or at least very similarly spec'd versions of the Expeed 3 processor:

D800:
36MP @ 4FPS = 144MP/s
D7100:
24MP @ 6 FPS = 144MP/s

I'm going even more off topic here but my spidey senses tell me the 1 second buffer size on the D7100 is an artificial limitation created by Nikon... perhaps we'll see some buffer improvement in a future firmware release :-\"

OT: If Nikon does end up creating a D400 then I think it's safe to assume it will have higher FPS and better buffer than the D7100. I think it's also safe to assume it will have a better AF module as well. If Nikon uses the same 24MP sensor in the D7100 then the only way to raise FPS is to up the processor... the other way (which I think is more plausible btw) is to use the older 16MP sensor (or a new one but around same MP) and keep the same processor, e.g. Expeed 3 @ 144MP/s + 16 MP sensor = 9 FPS... I'm pretty sure this will satisfy almost everybody >-

heartyfisher

" I'm pretty sure this will satisfy almost everybody" yup !

Photobug

Thanks PR_PM for confirming that the Expeed 3 has a better AF system than the D7100. I assumed it did but was not sure. ChromiumPrim is spot on, the FPS and buffer issue has to be addressed in the D400.

One point of clarification, when I said put the 24MP sensor in the D400 I mean with the filter. We don't want to deal with a D400 & D400E.

Anyway I believe if Nikon incorporated these components from other bodies into the existing D800 body it could save $400+ below the cost of a D800. This would be so cost effective and for the first time, Nikon would have a battery attachment for three cameras; D800, D800E, and D400. Another cost savings..

In today's cost environment this approach could save Nikon money by using components from other cameras and provide a new D400 that would sell to advance amateurs and the Pros for backup use. Interchangeability of parts results in lower manufacturing cost and a lower cost to the consumer.

I really believe this is the only way we will see a D400, otherwise Nikon has to design from scratch and that adds development cost and a higher cost to the consumer.

donaldejose

Yes heartyfisher but two problems (or questions) with your approach.

1. What you suggest is not hard for Nikon to do and Nikon could have done so when the D800 first appeared. Why didn't they put out such a D400 then? What have they been waiting for? Maybe final development of a new DX sensor? Maybe factory capacity if the D400 shares most parts with the D800 and is to be built in the same factory? Maybe something else holding it up?

2. One rumor is that Cannon's D400 equivalent may have a built in battery grip. If so, it will be seen as a new category of camera (DX sensor in top of the line form factor body) and Nikon will not have a direct competitor. Perhaps Nikon is waiting to see which way Cannon goes and as soon as Nikon's spies can confirm Canon's direction Nikon will finalize its D400?

PB_PM

The D300 was made in Thailand, the D800 is made in Japan, so it's more likely something more like this. Thailand's plant makes, numerous Coolpix models, the D3200, D5200, D7100, and the D600. So all those products take time and manpower to ramp up. The D400, like the D800 will have a lot of people wanting to buy it, so Nikon needs time to a. wait for the demand of other products to reach normal levels, b. ramp up production, c. Get QC in order, d. Get it to market. It takes time, several months to get a product from final testing to the market. Give them time!

donaldejose

Time is something we all have plenty of considering the only alternative is to die and not have any time anymore to wait for anything. Besides, when the D400 finally arrives I will sort of miss this thread!

PB_PM

We could always start a D900 thread...

Msmoto

I can't believe we are all still talking about the D300s replacement.....

Of course with the delay I now want more than ever a native ISO of 12,800 and all the D800 tricks. I like the idea of a D800 body with different sensor.

donaldejose

Yes to all the D800 tricks, but lets also add all the D7100 tricks, such as the new 1.3 crop mode which is almost 100% covered with AF sensors and which makes all your FX telephotos twice as powerful.

spraynpray

Just checked out the images here:

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/544/d7100#Item_115

If the D7100 is that good then 12800 is a possibility for the D400. I wouldn't be too disappointed by the D7100's performance in the D400 tho.

donaldejose

I had decided to get a D7100 and had pre-ordered one but cancelled it a few days ago because I strongly believe a D400 will soon be here and will be a better use of my funds. So I cast my "vote" for a soon to be released D400 by skipping over the D7100. We will see if it proves to be right or wrong!

Photobug

Check out my post in the D7100 blog. I got my hands on one yesterday and yes its a good camera but not a replacement for the D300/D300s.

Yes I would buy one to replace my wife's D90 BUT NOT my D300.

DaveyJ

Well I will say that the D7100 is a great camera for the price. The D400 if it isn't really heavily priced should be quite a camera. Compared to the D300 I have and will never sell because of where it has been with me, the D7100 is what I would take right now. We made the same decision by the way the last important trip when the D7000 was the only DSLR taken. I am CERTAIN that Nikon KNOWS how potentially big the D400 will be and it will be a move ahead. For DX DSLRs I think it will set the new standard. I just hope that the keep the price realistic. The DX advantage must be smaller, lighter, packed with power, and lens that are better geared to the field and vacations without turning the whole trip into WORK.

DaveyJ

A comment on donalddejose's post: I think though Donald really does have a very valid point. The D400 should be out pretty soon. Nikon could really use this boost. I also am certain the D400 is going to have some features that the D7100 just does not have. All in all, the D7100 has sort of the D90, D7000 feel. Not the feel of the D300. So I do think if you don't have use for several cameras, waiting for the D400 is just plain smart!

tc88

I'm going even more off topic here but my spidey senses tell me the 1 second buffer size on the D7100 is an artificial limitation created by Nikon...

I completely agree here. The cost of memory chips to increase the buffer is not much at all, and if D7100 is top of the line, they sure will make it more that 6 frames. The buffer size is a differentiation between D7100 and the to be released top of line DX model. So for sure there will be a D400.

Another telltale is the bracket count of 5. Top of the line models currently have 9. This is purely a software control and artificially limited for differentiation purpose again.

So there will be a D400. I would imagine sometime around Sep/Oct.

Msmoto

Scott Kelby is replacing his D300s with the new D7100. He states it is the best DX camera Nikon has made.

Having said that.....the D400, if it comes to fruition, should be a mind bender. IMO Nikon will have to come out with something distinctly better, pro features, including 8-9 FPS at full res. And, I would think they will possibly have an 18-20MP sensor with a native ISO of 12,800. (Slightly more pixels in DX than a D800 with higher ISO)

The downside may be in the price. Over $2,000 is my guess and I can even imagine $2,200. Hopefully this will not be the case, but if the specs are better than the D7100, Nikon may do what some think they did with the new 80-400, price it high initially.

1skully

@Msmoto
I agree, if the features are there I believe Nikon will take advantage of the large number of D300 fans that
are waiting for this camera and price it accordingly. I still think the D7100 leaves to many things to be
desired to be considered the flagship DX camera.

sevencrossing

Scott Kelby is replacing his D300s with the new D7100. He states it is the best DX camera Nikon has made.

.

what was interesting was the comparison between his photos taken with the D7100 and his usual work camera, a D4
for those of you who not seen his video
the difference IMHO seemed enormous
( he used the new 80- 400 on both )

donaldejose

Agreed, the difference between D4 photos and D7100 photos with the same lens is apparent. More so than I would have thought.

PB_PM

Why? The performance of the D4 shouldn't have too much trouble trouncing any modern DX sensor. I always find it a amusing when people think that Nikon is going to release a DX body that will even come remotely close to their top end body.

sevencrossing

.....I always find it a amusing .....

Excellent
The entire point of thread to provide amusement , when we know we should really be getting on with putting all the key words into yesterdays shoot

Msmoto

@sevencrossing

How very true..."when we know we should really be getting on with putting all the key words into yesterdays shoot "


been there, done that

PB_PM

.....I always find it a amusing .....

Excellent
The entire point of thread to provide amusement , when we know we should really be getting on with putting all the key words into yesterdays shoot

True, I need to process images from this mornings shoot.

donaldejose

PB_PM: I mean "apparent" and "more so than I would have thought" in the context of the video demonstration; not as an absolute or in the abstract. The context is a video where Scott Kelby shows two images side by side so each is taking up only half of my monitor; each displayed at just 1mb. In the context of that demonstration there was more difference than I had thought would show up at that size. Remember, in that context the D7100's 24 mp sensor image is being reduced to just 1 mp for display and the D4s 16 mp sensor image is being reduced to just 1 mp for display. When you are reducing so drastically and displaying at such a small size I was surprised any difference could be detected.

PB_PM

And my response was in that context, and is still valid. I ask, why are you surprised? I'm not.