D300s Successor-D400, what and when

soap

heck, delete me. No matter how I try to phrase it, this is coming off as picking nits.

Sauron

Just for making it clear when I write "In such a case you should have the same aperture size (DOF), the same shutter speed (i.e. motion blur) and the same AOV." in my earlier post, I do not mean the aperture size as the same f-number, but indeed the same size of the aperture (e.g. in millimeters). In response to soaps comment (which he just deleted I believe)...

@TaoTejared, I agree that Joseph James is a bit hard to follow, but I would definitely say that his conclusions are based on facts and are more than just opinions. There is real physics behind the reasoning (I'm a physicist myself).

Anyway, I hope the D400 (or what ever it will be called) will be released soon. I'm planning a safari in west Africa next summer and I need an update of my camera gear...

/Roger

DaveyJ

From a personal use standpoint I see very little gain from FX Nikons compared to D7000. Having shot some with D800 and especially the D600 I am now beginning to wonder if I wouldn't just be better off buying a D7000 with a 18-200 VRII lens kit. WHY? Price plus what I myself am using these rigs for. Granted I have seen some beautiful stills and video taken with a D800 but when the target is HDTV slideshow I am afraid that line skipping and other variables seem to just go by. However I for one am one who would like to see a DSLR Nikon that could handle low light as well as the human eye can see it. From my use of current Nikon DSLR (DX and FX) they are not there yet. I follow Nikon Rumors a little less recently as the weather up my way has impeded my personal work. But my son and his gal are going to the Caribbean with D7000, 18-200VR a 12-24DX, and a batch of Go Pros set up fro underwater and all kinds of other uses. However I also openly admit that not having used FX as much as I have DX may have distorted my view. The same applies to my extensive testing of RAW versus JPEG Fine Large which pretty much resulted in my sticking with JPEG. So at this point I am waffling on the new Nikon DSLRs. I think donaldejose's reading of the tea leaves about it being named a D9000 is very probable. There was a thread on the new B7H offering of this very D7000 and the 18-200VRII lens (and some other gadgets of little interest to me). So that is here I am today. Nikon needs to get the word out if there is a new Nikon DSLR eminent but that is only from my standpoint as buyer without a functioning crystal ball.

DaveyJ

I mean B&H Photo and Video not B7H

Msmoto

Hey, guys, I am a DX fan...but better than FX is maybe more accurately stated as "having some advantages" over larger format. No question...But all one has to do is examine images from an 80MP back on a Hasselblad...will blow your mind...

spraynpray

Although I have D7K and will keep it for a while, I agree with Msm - "has some advantages" - in some applications (which do become disadvantages in others though).

I have just read of FX as having 'cleaner files'? What is the technical measurement for 'cleaner'?

I prefer to think of it as different, not better or worse.

PB_PM

To me FX is cleaner in the sense that images just have a smoothness or flow to them that DX files lack.

spraynpray

Hi PB. I know what you mean, but could that be differences in sensor manufacture/design/evolution? I remember when the D7000 sensor came out it was quite a lot 'better' that the older sensors. Do you think it could be this? I guess we will know for sure when the D400 sensor is seen.

sevencrossing

I am sure in 5 years time, the 850mp sensor in the new D400, will blow the current sensors in the D4 and D800 out of the water, but just wait for the D5 and D900

PB_PM

@spraynpray The D7000 is the best DX sensor I have seen in that regard, but it is still behind by a significant margin at anything short of base ISO.

In addition, the older CCD sensors were smoother, till the signal to noise ratio become too high.

Msmoto

Well, in a few days we may know something....Nikon may drop something or t least a hint during CES. However, my predictions are not very accurate based upon past performance...so...

But, if we do find out about the D9000...and it has all the pro features including the native 12,800 ISO...Yes...

Sauron

Hey, guys, I am a DX fan...but better than FX is maybe more accurately stated as "having some advantages" over larger format. No question...But all one has to do is examine images from an 80MP back on a Hasselblad...will blow your mind...

Yes, I'm hoping for the CES as well! However, not many reliable rumors in the right direction I'm afraid (D400/D9000 that is).

Regarding a Hasselblad comparison, se this site: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Even if it's a comparison between a Hasselblad and a camera from "the other company" it's interesting to read what his (her?) findings was.

Cheers!

/Roger

DaveyJ

I sold all of my medium and large format gear before film practically disappeared. I do not miss bigger
formats at all. In the old days I was making very large prints and duratrans transparencies for commercial exhibits. I never want to go back there in any way. I sincerely regret the expense and lack of speed that bigger gear imposes. I did specialize in action photos using that gear and obviously had to know my subject and have the access to achieve that. In retrospect it was a hugely expensive. Larger formats did command attention
and was popular with editors etc. I would like to go back and make the decision to never go to the big and supposed to be better formats. Let me know how you make out with all this big and better theme 10 years and thousands of bucks later. For me it now is as simple as FX versus DX. Within the 35 mm DSLR sensors lies enough IQ to do any subject well. I must confess I feel sorry for someone still using say a Nikon D40, but at some point bigger is just serious overkill. I guess I view the D800, D7000 as to me the point of almost beyond question excellence but as soon as a clear technical advantage becomes available I will want to get one. Right now I am wondering if I can hold out for the D7200. Hopefully CES will bring some good news.

sevencrossing

Nikon may drop something or at least a hint during CES.

They did indeed

Nikon 1 J3, S1 mirrorless cameras, two new Nikon 1 lenses, a new underwater camera case and two new Coolpix cameras.

PB_PM

Typical. CSE is generally the update cycle for P&S cameras. I suspect you won't see a D400 till March or August.

chrisjakes

I thought Nikon had something to be announced today.....

Sanook

.

PB_PM

You mean re-announced the D5200. It's been shipping outside of North American since December.

Sanook

.

PB_PM

The D5200 wasn't available in North America, thus the North American distributors announced it's release in those markets.

Andrewz

Very excited about the D5200, not because I plan to buy one but it nice to see new sensors come out. When Nikon released the D3200 DXOmark tested it as having the best image quality of any DX format camera, I'm betting the D5200 will be better. This gives me hope for a very exciting D400. I know 2 data points don't make a trend but now my fear is we'll see a D7000 replacement before the D400. I don't know if my D200 can hold on much longer.... I may have to take the intermediate step and buy a used D300/D300s.

Lorenzo

Nikon, please just give us a D7100 or D8000 with..

- 16-20mp sensor with awesome high ISO performance
- killer autofocus that works up to F8 (up to F8 like D600 is key)
- 7-8 FPS
-body size of a D7000 or D600 (I appreciate the small size and light weight for travel...people forget the D7000 still has weather sealing and a fair bit of magnesium alloy)
- dual SD cards
- en-el15 battery

DaveyJ

+1 to Lorenzo's comment

donaldejose

I don't think there is any serious risk of the D7200 NOT having all of those things with one exception: high clean ISO. By that I mean a clean image with solid color at 12,800 native ISO. Surely it will have at least 16mp, more than 5 fps, better autofocus and a body like the D7000 or D600, dual SD card slots. The hardest thing for Nikon to accomplish in the replacement for the D7000 and the replacement for the D300s will be good IQ at a native 12,800 ISO. This requires a combination of improved sensor technology and improved software processing the sensor signal. Hopefully, they can do in DX it because they have been able to do it in the FX D4.

DaveyJ

I myself am probably just going to buy the D7200 or whatever it is called if the first reviews are promising. I would like to be able to justify the purchase of a D4. For me though the choice is purchase of a field capable Nikon versus going bigger and more expensive, and yes, heavier. Our D700 got sold. Too bad as it was an excellent camera. Today my choice of things to do actually better quickly switch to go shovel heavy snow off a number of roofs since rain is predicted here and rain on heavy snow becomes a dangerous snow load and my camera budget might get spent on repairing several roofs instead of buying yet another Nikon DSLR. All these cost equations seem to be pushing me to the D7200 even over a D400 (or whatever it gets called such as possibly D9000 like Impress seems to predict?).