D300s Successor-D400, what and when

1303133353699

Comments

  • blackfoxblackfox Posts: 48Member
    you can suggest it ,but i won't do it ,to be honest i,m happy enough with apeture 3 and elements 10 i have a good workflow from that ,i also as stated have cs6 but find it OTT for me ,but i could learn it ,hopefully by the time my pension allows me to think about another body either the d400 will be out and/or the raw updates will be available
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    Quit the easy road and just learn the program. Its not nearly as difficult as you appear to believe it to be and it will transform your photography.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    sorry to wander off topic
    I can understand your fondness for Aperture
    but if you are also having to use elements; you really should at least try the a trail version of LR
  • NikonhotepNikonhotep Posts: 25Member
    Heartyfisher, I'll be happy to write a little something this weekend.
  • NikonhotepNikonhotep Posts: 25Member
    Some brief and very basic remarks on the D7100, from someone who has been using a D300 since 2008 (and, from 2001-2008, an F100). I'm a rather informal photographer who hasn't played around with the finer controls and who doesn't do formalized experimentation. I can only report on what I've noticed as I've been doing my usual photography, which has been small/medium birds with a 70-300 VR.

    First, the camera body is bigger than I expected and was hoping for. I'm a 5'6" woman with small-ish hands. The D300 was fine for me; the D7100 is just a bit awkward, though that is mitigated by the fact that I almost always must shoot on a monopod because I use the long end of my 70-300 VR frequently and I have a condition that makes it difficult for me to hold a camera steady. But the weight is good. Placement of the controls has taken getting used to, but that's to be expected of any new body. I frequently adjust ISO and really need to move that ISO button to somewhere more convenient... though perhaps I will become accustomed to its current location (second button from the bottom on the left-hand side of the back).

    Now, my D300 has been "dying" for some time. Some of the focal points don't work anymore, the sensor needs professional cleaning (it's as if it suddenly became inspired by reports of the D600's issues!), and it just has not been "itself" for quite some time. So I'm not comparing the D7100 to a pristine D300; mine has been through a lot! (Egyptian deserts, Guatemalan jungles, etc.) I do not have a battery grip for either.

    The D7100 focuses much faster (and better) than my D300 possibly ever did. I have not yet used it in dark conditions yet, so can't compare that aspect of the focusing. It has basically the same focal point coverage as the D300, which is a big plus for me. The "feel" of the shutter took a little bit of getting used to--it doesn't have the same "professional" feel as the D300, if that makes any sense. But this camera is also quieter than my D300. No objection to that!

    The small-ish buffer, however, is another matter. I've had relatively little trouble with it but can tell that it will be an issue when I'm doing more challenging work. I'm using class 10 SD cards; I will at some point have to play around with the settings (14 bit vs 12 bit, compression, etc.) to optimize the speed. I hope I won't need to buy a battery grip, which will make the body even bigger.

    (While I think of it, I will insert here that I wish the video didn't require quite so many steps to start. But maybe all DSLRs are this way with video; my D300 didn't have it at all.)

    As for the results: those files are big! They are also just a tad noisier than I was expecting, even at moderate ISOs (400-800). But I think that the size is a factor here. Downsampling to something closer to what my D300 produces and there is an evident improvement, and even at full size I've been able to take care of things with software (e.g., Topaz Labs DeNoise). The photos are a bit soft, but I attribute that to the fact that I am using the long end of the zoom rather than a fixed-focus lens. The monopod reduces camera shake considerably, as does the lens's VR. And there hasn't been anything so objectionable that a little standard Photoshop sharpening doesn't clear up.

    I am pleased with the color. Exposures seem good, though I need to pay more attention to determine is mine is underexposing just a little. There IS a moire issue. It appeared on my 152nd photo and many others thereafter. (The feathers of white-winged doves especially seem to confound the sensor.) Another bird photographer on Photo.net has said that he's "all but forgotten" this issue. I hope that I will, too!

    My bottom line: I am very pleased with my purchase. But if Nikon does release the D400, I will be selling the D7100 in order to gain what I would hope would be a deeper buffer, less noise, higher-grade body, and different arrangement of controls(?), less difficulty resolving fine detail without moire--but I still would have no regrets about having bought the D7100 to fill the gap.

    I might even keep the D7100 as a back-up body, if my pockets are deep enough. However, despite decent results from the 70-300, I have been eyeing that new 80-400....
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Ah, yes, back to the topic....

    And, Nikonhotep, you have suggested the issues of the D7100 which should be resolved in a D400. The pro body vs, prosumer body. And, the larger buffer. Better focusing. More FOS. I think Nikon is going to have to let us have a native ISO 12,800 on this body as it is so long overdue. But, first, they want to get all the D4's sold they can, so they do not lose any possible D4 sales to D400 folks if this is a real concern.
    Msmoto, mod
  • rmprmp Posts: 586Member
    It seems the coming V3 will be very fast. If it has the low light ISO, will the new V3 change any D400 plans?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    I think Nikon is going to have to let us have a native ISO 12,800 on this body as it is so long overdue.
    Please end this pipe dream now! Just because the camera is late doesn't mean that Nikon is going to pull off a miracle. Its not hard to examine the existing DX line up and assess that the possibility of Nikon giving a DX camera a native ISO(please spend some time learning what they actually mean by that term since you seem to regularly flaunt it as some kind of demand) of 100-12, 800. Its zero. Goose egg. Nada. Zilch.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited April 2013
    Probably the easiest explanation of the term "native ISO" is the range within which the ISO sensitivity of the camera is created by an analog change in the image data. Above this so-called "native ISO" the increase in ISO occurs digitally and noise tends to rapidly increase. A bit like "digital zoom" on a P & S.

    Complicating all this is a suggestion that the "native ISO" is the base ISO and that to have the best resolution with lowest noise one should shoot at multiples of this ISO as intermediate levels are digitally manipulated and noise is increased.

    Unfortunately the term itself is used for many different meanings and the best way to describe the range which is advertised by manufacturers as "Standard ISO" would be to use exactly that term and not "Native ISO".

    Hope this is OK Squamish.

    Oh, I am still pie-in-the sky dreaming about the "Standard ISO" of the D400. Do I believe this will actually became a reality... probably not. But, if Nikon brings out a D400, they are going to have to have something going for it and possibly a new sensor which is better than any other DX sensor will be the answer. Less noise at 6400 ISO, and the ability to push to 12,800 (Hi1) with a low noise increase.

    Incidentally, NASIM MANSUROV mentions the D4 has a "Native ISO Sensitivity" of ISO 100-12,800

    Native ISO Sensitivity ISO 100-12,800
    Boosted ISO Sensitivity ISO 50, ISO 25,600-204,800


    Read more: http://photographylife.com/nikon-d4-vs-d3s#ixzz2R7dekwZ4
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • ricochetricochet Posts: 54Member
    Keep on dreaming, Msmoto, I'd rather be a dreamer than a Grinch any day.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,865Member
    I am with Ms Moto on this one. "Native ISO" is often used to refer to the ISO range Nikon designates with ISO numbers rather than with code (such as High 1 or High 2). I think it is a good term since it indicates the normal range the manufacturer thinks is usable. It they can get 12,800 clean enough and with enough dynamic range to suit Nikon they will give it a number, otherwise it will be High 1. Either way, it will be a setting on the camera. When the D400 comes out we will see what Nikon is able to do.
  • adsads Posts: 93Member
    I think people are getting confused by the "Native" terminology - I think Msmoto is referring to the D400 producing usable shots at 12800. My 5100 shoots at 12800, but the shots aren't remotely usable to my eyes.

    Not sure its possible with the current generation of sensors myself though, and any new advances would be more likely to land in a D4s before it filters down to a camera in the middle of the Nikon range IMO
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited April 2013
    what seems to be relevant is a "usable" high ISO value
    just reading this form, most D4 and D3s users seem to consider 6400 "usable"
    and some D800 and D600 users (including my self ) seem happy with results at 6400
    this does not seem to be the case with D7100
    so hoping for a Dx camera with a usable ISO value of 12800 seems a bit optimistic

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited April 2013
    Agree sevencrossing...the term is useable ISO. And this is quite variable among NRF members. I am looking for a sensor on the D400 which at 12,800 ISO looks similar to the D4 in DX crop mode at 12,800 ISO. And, as we are now into the D4 for over one year, this might be a possibility.

    It just seems that the long time, more than the expected update time, we have waited for the D400 suggests something is happening which is intended by Nikon to be a class leading camera. And, it might be the numbers they release for the D400 show a native ISO range of 100-6,400, yet once we see the camera perform it will be recognized it is performing at 12,800 like I have suggested above. In any case, Nikon may just completely mess up and bring out something not much different than a D7100 except for pro body, larger buffer, higher FPS. In this case I guess I might look to a D800E as a second body and consider Nikon has decided to make DX a non pro line.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited April 2013
    I am looking for a sensor on the D400 which at 12,800 ISO looks similar to the D4 in DX crop mode at 12,800 ISO. .
    Well if they used the existing technology, the sensor in the D400 would have only 12 mp
    While people are beginning to realise mp is not the be all and end all, I don't think there would would be a huge demand of for a camera with only 12 mp

    so lets look at new technology if they produced a DX camera with 16 mp and 12,800 ISO would that sell? yes but still to a very limited market. This would be a prosumer camera, and the prosumers have become used to 24 mp

    as ads says


    any new advances would be more likely to land in a D4s before it filters down to a camera in the middle of the Nikon range

    and or hopefully the D800s





    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @evencrossing

    My fears are that you are absolutely correct. The marketing will not allow a DX pro body camera. And, I must admit I am secretly waiting for the D800s or what ever it is, with an FPS in DX mode of maybe 7 or 8 FPS. This I would purchase in an instant.

    But, this is a thread which due to the long delay allows a lot of day dreaming.... :))
    Msmoto, mod
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,865Member
    Speculation if both fun and interesting.
  • adsads Posts: 93Member
    edited April 2013
    "I don't think there would would be a huge demand of for a camera with only 12 mp"

    I'm afraid you're right @sevencrossing. My brother in law shoots full time (architecture and weddings), has done for around 15 years.

    He just bought a D800. Great camera, don't get me wrong, but when I asked why he said "because it has the most megapixels" - that was his only criteria. So there are even people who shoot for a living just look at megapixels, making the market for quality over megapixels pretty small.
    Post edited by ads on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited April 2013
    "......
    He just bought a D800. ........... making the market for quality over mega pixels pretty small.
    So when it comes to quality , apart from very a expensive Hasselblad or Leaf, which have even more mega pixels, does anything beat the D800 for quality ?

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • adsads Posts: 93Member
    @sevencrossing my point was that if Nikon made a 200mp camera that produced utterly awful photos he would have bought that instead - he considered no other factors at all, didn't even fire a single test shot, bought online so he had never actually held a D800 in his hands.

    I was pointing out that the marketing value of mp in the eyes of many meant it was less likely the D400 would have lower mp than the other DX models. Only nikon knows whether there will be a D400, and what it would finally be spec-wise, everything on this thread is speculation obviously.

    As I said in my comment the D800 is great camera, I was highlighting his decision process.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member

    this does not seem to be the case with D7100
    so hoping for a Dx camera with a usable ISO value of 12800 seems a bit optimistic

    This is my point. "A bit optimistic" is putting it mildly. If Nikon ever makes another camera with the same usable ISO as a D4 it will without a doubt be an FX camera, not a DX. If the D400 does come to fruition then it probably have a similar MP count to the D7100 and it will probably perform slightly better in low light settings. In other words, not even remotely close to a native ISO of 100-12, 800.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited April 2013
    point was that if Nikon made a 200mp camera that produced utterly awful photos he would have bought that instead - he considered no other factors at all, didn't even fire a single test shot, bought online so he had never actually held a D800 in his hands
    .
    I ordered my D800 the day it came, also with out a single test shot

    I have to confess, I told my friends I only bought it because, it had more mega whatnot's than my mates Canon :)

    on a serious note

    as a geneall rule, with landscape photography, the the more mp the better the IQ and the higher the dynamic range

    but if you want a high ISO then mp have to be sacrificed. my passion is landscapes, so i bough a D800,
    if I was a photojournalist, I would have bought a D4

    but if ether of them had only 12 mp I would have stayed with my D700





    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    It would be interesting to compare side by side a D700 12mp sensor and a brand new latest tech 12 mp sensor (if one were made). I'm betting the modern one would be better at hi ISO and dynamic range etc.

    If somebody started a sensor replacement company, there would be a scramble for used D700's and D300/D300s's!
    Always learning.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    I'd hazard a guess and say that with the modern tech a FX 12MP sensor would most likely be a stop faster than the D4/D3s. The question is, who would buy it? People who shoot in extreme low light conditions on a regular basis. As for a modern DX 12MP sensor, I suspect it would match the D3s/D4.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • adsads Posts: 93Member
    "I'd hazard a guess and say that with the modern tech a FX 12MP sensor would most likely be a stop faster than the D4/D3s."

    There's actually a pretty comprehensive discussion on it on the ISO thread - counterintuitively there is virtually no difference in ISO performance between any of the current generation FX sensors when they are viewed at the same size as the downsizing process eliminates the differences in noise (though obviously if you want to go above 25600, the only option is a D4). On that basis I doubt a *current generation* 12mp FX sensor would be any less noisy than a D800 downsampled to 12mp.

    Not sure if that holds for the DX sensors though - someone who has access to a D7000 & a D7100 may be able to check...
This discussion has been closed.