D300s Successor-D400, what and when

Photobug

More thoughts on the D400:

Adding these items to the D400 would be nice:: 1/8000 sec. shutter speed and 1/250 sec. flash sync speed, a PC sync port for external flash connectivity, and Nikon’s standard “flagship” 10-pin port for various accessories. Expect to see CF+SD memory cards instead of SD+SD.

Photobug

Spraynpray said:
Nah, if it is a pro lens, why not go the whole hog - upgrade the 16-85 to f2.8, VR3 sealed and robust. To hell with the weight. That would be enough to keep me on DX - for a while, anyway.

I like your suggestion of a 16-85mm F/2.8 VR3. Sounds nice and expensive..

Photobug

My expectations for the D400 are:

Same 24 MP sensor as on the D7100
New EXPEED 4 processor, and faster than what is in the D800
New AF system
Same 51 point Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX as on the D7100
91K metering sensor from the D800
Bigger buffer that is 2-3 times larger than on the D7100
8-9 fps continuous shooting speed
Bigger and heavier full magnesium alloy body
Same controls as on the D800
Mainly for wildlife and sports shooters
$2,000 to $2,300 MSRP. If it's less than $2K, watch out it will go into back order for months.

Photobug

Look what I found at Daily Camera News at:
http://www.dailycameranews.com/2013/05/nikon-d400-announcement-in-september-2013-with-expeed-4-and-new-af-system/

Nikon D400 Rumored Specs

24MP DX-format CMOS sensor
Expeed 4 image processor
New AF system (better than D7100 and will be used on Nikon D4s)
Up to 1/8000 sec and 8fps or 9 fps shutter speed
ISO sensitivity 100-6,400
100% viewfinder coverage
91,000 pixel RGB sensor (from D800)
Same controls as on the D800
Large buffer size (better than D7100)
Advanced video recording capability (up to 60p in HD mode)
No AA filter
Full magnesium alloy body
=========================================
I like the no AA filter, larger buffer, Expeeds 4 and new AF system. Surprised with the ISO range, had expected more.

PB_PM

Why would you expect more ISO range? I'm assuming that is the native range. You cannot expect a DX camera to get a wider, or better performing, ISO range than the current FX models, it just wont happen.

JJ_SO

If I had to buy a camera today and would make a fresh start, I'd go for a Canon EOS 70D, it's just what I was looking for long time. Amazing package what Canon put in there: touchscreen, swivel display, WLAN (also for remote view purposes), 19 cross sensors for AF. Great job!

Now I guess D400 comes closer, but only to the date of announcement. Not performancewise. Now you can punch me

Ironheart

You can't buy the 70D today...

JJ_SO

In Switzerland, you can. Just got a newsletter from my local dealer. It's available... oops, no, you just can order it. Blast. I need it today. Tomorrow, they can keep it. So, I stick with Nikon

brownie314

If I had to buy a camera today and would make a fresh start, I'd go for a Canon EOS 70D, it's just what I was looking for long time. Amazing package what Canon put in there: touchscreen, swivel display, WLAN (also for remote view purposes), 19 cross sensors for AF. Great job!

Now I guess D400 comes closer, but only to the date of announcement. Not performancewise. Now you can punch me

I would like to compare the 70D, a camera that is still unavailable to the public, to the D400, a camera which we only have rumors of an announcement, not even specifications - only guessing. My guess is that the D400 and the 70D are aimed at different audiences. The D400 will be an esoteric product aimed at a few sports and wildlife shooters who need its ultra high performance and ruggedness. The 70D is aimed at a wider audience, so it is not surprising that it will appeal to more people.

Ironheart

The 7DMII Is what will compete with the D400. Both are mythical at this point. The 70D is somewhere between the D5200 and the D7100.

JJ_SO

In which aspects you see the D7100 above the 70D? From what I see, Canon has to offer more than only 20 MP, and in some aspects even more than D7100. But I think you're right, I posted in the wrong thread. The 70D is not on the same level as a whatosever whensoever coming D400

PB_PM

In which aspects you see the D7100 above the 70D?

The D7100 has better build, partial mag alloy vs all plastic, a 51 point AF system vs 19, dual card slots, 100% viewfinder vs 98%, has mic and headphone jacks (only mic jack on 70D) and uses Nikkor lenses. The last point alone makes the D7100 a better camera. :P

Wifi in a camera, frankly is useless to me. Why would I want to send crappy low quality JPEGS from my camera to my smartphone? Unless you do a lot of tethered shooting it is useless. Wifi = meh. The new liveview focusing and 16 frame RAW buffer are the only things that are even remotely impressive about the 70D.

Photobug

PB_PM said:

Why would you expect more ISO range? I'm assuming that is the native range.

I expected 12,400 native range for the ISO. Why is that not possible?

heartyfisher

"I expected 12,400 native range for the ISO. Why is that not possible? "

I think that is expecting too much .. only the D4 has that. The other FX cameras, which are excellent in high ISO performance, even they dont have that. Technically for the same base CMOS tech its is well proven mathematically and in practice that DX will always lag behind by 1-2 EV when it comes to High ISO performance due to the smaller pixel sizes.. the fact that DX is currently about 2/3 ev behind the FX sensors is due to the faster turnover in DX ie its closer to the leading edge. maybe in 3 years time.. we will have a DX with that range. (by which time FX will be another 1 stop above that. and we will have people asking why DX cant have that too .)

JJ_SO

@PB_PM I recognize my mistake, the EOS is more aimed at D7100 class. So I went on to discuss it here if you like.

snakebunk

@heartyfisher: A big pixel capture more light than a small one, but is it ever relevant to compare the ISO performance of single pixels?

In the context of the D400, the reason (I think) to buy one is that you want high pixel density in a pro quality body, for example if you are a serious bird photographer and you often need to crop heavily and/or you want big prints of your photos but can't get close enought to fill an FX sensor.

A relevant way to compare ISO performance would be to compare image crops captured by a, let's say, 5x5 mm part of the sensor and viewed at equal size. Then you could compare FX to DX cameras in a fair way. Of course you also need to know that if you can fill an FX sensor you would get more light on your photograph and hence a better ISO performance.

spraynpray

let's not forget that the D400 - although DX - will be a much new camera than the D4 so with the speed of development these days, the comparison perhaps isn't eggs with eggs.

Photobug

Thanks heartyfisher for the explanation a higher native ISO.

heartyfisher

@snakebunk - sorry but I am not understanding the points in your post. Please clarify ..

"A big pixel capture more light than a small one, but is it ever relevant to compare the ISO performance of single pixels? " of course if you consider the camera as a whole then high iso performance of a single pixel is a minor consideration.. (Thats why I have a DX camera!) however that is not the point of this sub-thread which is regarding a native iso of 12400 in DX.

I am not clear about the rest of your post. please clarify.

heartyfisher

@spraynpray : Totally agree with that. however one generation of computer tech is about 18 months. while one generation of Camera tech seems to be about 3-4 years so we get a D400 in the next month or so we are about 1/3 to 1/2 generation above the D4 tech. as I mentioned in my previous posts the DX tech dev goes much faster than FX so DX tech is always closer to the "leading edge" that is why its usually about 0.7 to 1 ev behind the FX instead of the theoretical 1 to 1.5 ev. Of course there is a small chance that nikon could introduce some next gen tech in the D400 ( eg a Fuji Trans cmos sensor ? or their own patented multicolour pixel ) that would have a performance leap. unlikely but possible.

snakebunk

@heartyfisher:
If we only compare 100% crops the cameras with the lowest resolution will always have the best high ISO performance. I think it would be more relevant to compare images captured with an equal large part of the sensor.

I am mostly a bird photographer and need a high pixel density to be able to crop a lot. With an FX camera I would most often through away the FX part of the image and be stuck with an image of less detail than with a DX camera. For my needs I would like a more relevant comparison of ISO performance than 100% crops (which is the same thing as comparing individual pixels), and for my usage an FX camera does not necessarily have better ISO performance than a DX camera.

Sorry if I quoted you out of context.

Ironheart

FWIW, the next whole stop after 6400 ISO is 12800, not 12400, but I'm sure we'll take either one :-)

heartyfisher

@ Ironheart : 12400 = 12800 ?? sorry ;-) they should just round it like shutter speeds.. 1/8 -1ev = 1/15 ?? :-t

@snakebunk : Thanks for clarifying .. I think i understand a bit more. I don't remember anyone has ever suggest what you are suggesting as a metric for comparison. If i understand right .. you are suggesting comparisons of IQ at High ISO of equal areas eg the D7000 vs the DX crop from the D600 .. I dont remember seeing any such specific comparisons. However, I think you will still see that the 10MP of the D600 DX crop will perform much better than the 16MP from the D7000 even if you down scale the 16MP to 10Mp.

Why do I think that is the case? Its bec the percentage amount of light sensitive material is higher with large pixel sensors. for example if you fill the same area with 4 pixels(2x2) and 9 pixels(3x3). since there is non light sensitive material surrounding each pixel the amount of light sensitive material becomes less. try this. Take a thick marker pen and draw a 2x2 grid and a 3x3 or 4x4 grid on the same area of paper. I think it gets pretty obvious that the amount of white area becomes less the higher the pixel count.

snakebunk

@heartyfisher: I'm happy that I managed to explain what I mean I don't know if you are correct in your further reasoning but it is interesting and this is what I would like to see examined more in camera tests.

DaveO

the

The D7100 is being used by people who own D4s. Why? It is smaller and often can get the job done. .

Dx has three big advantages: price, size and weight


I know some you want the D400 to be similar in size to a D800

but I think the demand is for a lightweight pro camera with 8 fps and a pro light weight fixed aperture zoom say f4 16 -105


the other option for the new DSLR would be a D800 with 8fps

"but I think the demand is for a lightweight pro camera with 8 fps"
Isn't this the D7100? It is light weight and has pro image quality. It doesn't do 8pfs, but really close.

"and a pro light weight fixed aperture zoom say f4 16 -105"
definitely. And can I add - please Nikon take a DX zoom seriously for once and add some sealing and toughness. If they are going to give us a pro DX body, at least give us at least one pro DX lens.

Doesn't the D 7100 fill up it's buffer in just a few seconds though.