D300s Successor-D400, what and when

spraynpray

Seems reasonable Catfish.

The replacement for the D90 and D700 is the D7100 and D800 of course.Both of those are excellent so let's hope for an excellent D400 soon.

brownie314

Nikon is going to have to come out with some great products by the end of the year in order to have a good fiscal year or at least better than they are forecasting. Nikon's fiscal year ends in March 2014. That means in order to pull that off they will need to have those products announced in Sept/Oct and ship by the end of the year to catch Christmas sales and the beginning of the year for money given as gifts at Christmas. Nikon and Canon DSLR sales are not where they want them to be. They need another camera or series of cameras like the D90, D300, D700. in order to pull that off. Toshiba has just announced blazing fast SD cards with write speed of 240MB/s and reading at 260MB/s. There are rumors that Sony may announce a new full frame mirror-less camera, and Pentax may announce their first full-frame camera. There is just too much going on for Nikon not to be part of it. It won't just be a current model upgrade D4 to D4s, that only appeals to a small segment of the market, they are going to have to come with some big guns by the end of the year or the shareholders will be looking for blood. IMHO

This is true, which makes me wonder if Nikon will have the interest to produce and market such a low interest product as the D400. The people who want one are certainly not low interest, but coming out with a ultra high end DX camera doesn't exactly do a lot to move large amounts of cameras. Not in the same way that a D800 or D4 makes people look at Nikon as a leading edge imaging company. I can imagine that Nikon sells more DX cameras because of the D800 or D4 (because those cameras improve Nikons image and reputation). But DX cameras just don't get the same kind of press coverage as a pro FX body, therefore, don't improve Nikon's image by the same amount. I would love to see the D400 happen, but now I am wondering if it will. I just don't see how it helps Nikon sell more cameras. Sure it will satisfy the pent up demand for the D400, but after those few hundred bodies are sold, who else will be drawn to paying close to $2000 for a pro DX body? And what will the D400 do to help Nikon's reputation, besides satisfying the low numbers of people who even care enough to be here on this forum and others like it?
Lets face it, the sexiness is in mirrorless right now. I don't like it any more than you all do, but that is the way the winds are blowing. Nikon needs to move large amounts of product and a small, high performance mirrorless does that better than a D400.

sevencrossing

brownie314I . Nikon needs to move large amounts of product and a small, high performance mirrorless does that better than a D400.
One might think so
but as far as can make , in the UK at least, this sort of camera is bought by people who all ready have a high end DSL

brownie314

brownie314I . Nikon needs to move large amounts of product and a small, high performance mirrorless does that better than a D400.
One might think so
but as far as can make , in the UK at least, this sort of camera is bought by people who all ready have a high end DSL

Right, but doesn't this support my point. People with high end dslrs are not buying highER end dslrs, they are growing their system with a high end smaller mirrorless system. And right now, Nikon is missing all of those sales. Sure they have the 1 system, but it falls down in one of the most important catagories - image quality. As soon as you start to raise ISO on the 1 system, things fall apart quickly. My point is, Nikon needs a quality mirrorless more than they need the D400. Hopefully we can have both.

donaldejose

Who will buy a D400? 1. Thousands of photojournalists shooting for papers, magazines, and internet content use. You just don't need an FX sensor because the viewing size is so small and a 24 mp DX sensor (I expect the D400 sensor to be better than the D7100 sensor) will be more than adequate. 2. Wildlife photographers who want extra reach in a second camera body. 3. If the image quality is good enough at high ISO thousands of wedding and portrait photographers will also find a D400 sufficient for their work. How many wedding customers order prints larger than 8x10 or 16x20? Nikon may find that a very well done D400 sells better than any other body they produce.

But we will see what happens when it comes out.

sevencrossing

donaldejose.....

....just don't need an FX sensor because the viewing size is so small ...... How many wedding customers order prints larger than 8x10 or 16x20?


True; but am I the only person who, while shooting full fame, frequently severely crops
The flexibly to crop a full frame image, is one of the very big advantages of FX
Yes, I know I should get it right " in camera" but even after 50 years of practice, I still cannot always do this in the few seconds I have to capture some images

donaldejose

You are not the only one. I also have recently been shooting FX and at times severely cropping in post processing for the image I want (sometimes I see a stronger image in a crop which I didn't recognize when I took the shot). This does work great with the D800 because it has the pixel numbers to do this. However, a D800 body is about $2,800 while the D300s body was only $1,700. If Nikon can produce a D400 for $1,000 less than a D800 many people may well elect to use a D400 rather than a D800. Of course, the best would be to have both bodies (or a D600 plus a D7100 body - I suggest these pairings so both you FX and your DX body has a similar control layout).

PB_PM

Lets face it, the sexiness is in mirrorless right now. I don't like it any more than you all do, but that is the way the winds are blowing. Nikon needs to move large amounts of product and a small, high performance mirrorless does that better than a D400.

I think you have misjudged the market. All market research shows that mirrorless sales have flat-lined or are in decline, in Europe, North America and Japan. Yes the camera market as a whole is down this year, but mirrorless has fallen at a faster rate than DSLRs. Only the decline in the market for low end P&S cameras is higher.

brownie314

Lets face it, the sexiness is in mirrorless right now. I don't like it any more than you all do, but that is the way the winds are blowing. Nikon needs to move large amounts of product and a small, high performance mirrorless does that better than a D400.

I think you have misjudged the market. All market research shows that mirrorless sales have flat-lined or are in decline, in Europe, North America and Japan. Yes the camera market as a whole is down this year, but mirrorless has fallen at a faster rate than DSLRs. Only the decline in the market for low end P&S cameras is higher.

Sure, that makes sense, because mirrorless systems are more of an impulse buy than most dslrs. Lets face it, if I didn't know anything about cameras and wanted to step up from my phone camera to a more serious tool, I would probably get a mirrorless. I would not understand why anyone would put up with the extra size and weight of a more bulky system. So, by saying all of that, I mean to say that newcomers to photography are more likely to be mirrorless purchasers than more seasoned photographers. And a seasoned photographer probably is not going to make an impulse buy of a dslr. They will hold their equipment until it doesn't serve their needs any more then upgrade in a planned out fashion. By all of this I mean a mirrorless system is more likely to be purchased on impulse.
So, all of that being said, when an economy is down, or a market is down, the impulse buys go first. Because people have less cash for impulse buys. So of course the mirrorless systems will drop faster.
BTW, we are talking about rates of incline/decline. But where are mirrorless in actual sales numbers? Above, or below dslr? Not a loaded question, I really don't know.
But even if you are right, Nikon has their dslr market, they can't change there sales numbers all that significantly, it is a mature market for dslrs. Mirrorless is not yet mature. And Nikon does not have a strong offering in the mirrorless segment. They don't have a product line like Fuji's x-system or Sony's NEX. If they had something like this, they could GAIN market share rather than just holding their position. Just a thought.

PB_PM

Mirrorless sales have never even come close to DSLRs, outside of Japan. The biggest problem mirrorless cameras face is that they have no established customer base, and most people today are more than happy with cell phone cameras. Those who are stepping up still seem to be choosing DSLR's over mirrorless. If that was not the case, then mirrorless sales would be growing, not declining. Very few people make impulse buys on products over $199, so I doubt that is the reason mirrorless camera sales are falling. If that was the case entry level DSLR sales would be slumping as well, but that does not appear to be the case.

Olympus lost users when they ditched the established DSLR line in favor of M4/3s. To this day Olympus's imaging division is loosing money. Panasonic never had a large market share in the area above high end P&S, so anything is gain for them. Of course Panasonic is going through some tough times as a company (loosing money), so who knows what will happen with them. M4/3s is the most developed mirrorless system, in terms of cameras and lenses, yet it is not making any headway.

Sony NEX has great potential, due to the performance of the sensors, but as a system it is a failure. The lack of lenses, and quality ones at that, is the biggest problem. When the system has more camera types in it than first party lenses, that's a problem.

Fuji has a segment of people who want classic style cameras, hipsters and older photographers who love the look of 1970's-1980's DSLR's or classic rangefinders, but that isn't a growth market either. Fuji's other issue, at least up to this point has been price, with no bodies coming in below $999. Of course that has changed now with the MX-1, but $699 is still a high entry price for a body only kit. IMO Fuji has the most interesting mirrorless system, far more so than Sony, but unlike Sony the price of the products, and firmware bugs, are holding some buyers back.

DSLR's are well established and the brands that sell them have impressive systems in place to insure that people feel comfortable working with them. The D400 might not be a mass consumer product, compared to Sony NEX cameras, but there is still a large market segment that is interested in those cameras. Nikon would be foolish not to sell a D400, as the margins on higher end cameras is far higher than entry level models.

sevencrossing

However, a D800 body is about $2,800 while the D300s body was only $1,700. ...

$1,700 is about the price of refurbished D600
which between the cost of new D7100 and a new D600

brownie314

Mirrorless sales have never even come close to DSLRs, outside of Japan. The biggest problem mirrorless cameras face is that they have no established customer base, and most people today are more than happy with cell phone cameras. Those who are stepping up still seem to be choosing DSLR's over mirrorless. If that was not the case, then mirrorless sales would be growing, not declining. Very few people make impulse buys on products over $199, so I doubt that is the reason mirrorless camera sales are falling. If that was the case entry level DSLR sales would be slumping as well, but that does not appear to be the case.

Olympus lost users when they ditched the established DSLR line in favor of M4/3s. To this day Olympus's imaging division is loosing money. Panasonic never had a large market share in the area above high end P&S, so anything is gain for them. Of course Panasonic is going through some tough times as a company (loosing money), so who knows what will happen with them. M4/3s is the most developed mirrorless system, in terms of cameras and lenses, yet it is not making any headway.

Sony NEX has great potential, due to the performance of the sensors, but as a system it is a failure. The lack of lenses, and quality ones at that, is the biggest problem. When the system has more camera types in it than first party lenses, that's a problem.

Fuji has a segment of people who want classic style cameras, hipsters and older photographers who love the look of 1970's-1980's DSLR's or classic rangefinders, but that isn't a growth market either. Fuji's other issue, at least up to this point has been price, with no bodies coming in below $999. Of course that has changed now with the MX-1, but $699 is still a high entry price for a body only kit. IMO Fuji has the most interesting mirrorless system, far more so than Sony, but unlike Sony the price of the products, and firmware bugs, are holding some buyers back.

DSLR's are well established and the brands that sell them have impressive systems in place to insure that people feel comfortable working with them. The D400 might not be a mass consumer product, compared to Sony NEX cameras, but there is still a large market segment that is interested in those cameras. Nikon would be foolish not to sell a D400, as the margins on higher end cameras is far higher than entry level models.

Yes, I think you are right. I have done some research and indeed dslrs have always outsold mirrorless, although mirrorless is a newer product than dslrs and has yet to stabilize itself in the marketplace. And believe me, I am not trying to side track this thread with mirrorless vs. dslr. I was just saying that an announcement is coming. And how many times have we thought a D400 announcement was coming and it was something else. And I was just speculating that maybe Nikon has more to gain by announcing a high end mirrorless than it does by announcing an update to an older product. Anyway, I guess we will know in a month or two if we will have a D400 before Christmas, or something else.

Photobug

Good discussion in the last 12 hours on mirroless and DSLR.

Although Nikon doesn't have the great mirroless camera, based upon what I just read the announcement will be for a new DSLR....now if it was the D400 we can all smile and our credit card..

Msmoto

One more opinion....the 1950's and early 1960's saw Nikon capture a high end 35mm film market and Leitz never saw it coming. They never recovered, IMO.

What we will see in the next five years is the non-mirror camera bodies take over all aspects of digital. Once the perfected focusing techniques are applied to the full frame, the mirror will be a dinosaur and will serve no function.

As beautiful as the two 'F' bodies from the 1960's are, they are the same dinosaurs we will see as my D4 today. And, while this is simply my prediction, based on my minimal understanding of technology and the advances we are seeing at a pace never before seen.

While I doubt the D400 will be anything but an advanced D300s, I doubt if another iteration of this body is anywhere on the horizon. Nikon, hopefully, will not make the same error Leitz did over 50 years ago.

PB_PM

@Msmoto I keep hearing people saying what you are, but mirrorless cameras have been on the market for a number of years and have not made any significant inroads. With sales of mirrorless cameras in decline, I just don't see what you are saying happening in the near future. The digital sensors used for electronic viewfinders still have a long way to go before they match the the optical viewfinder. If anything I see more companies developing hybrid finders like Fuji has.

Msmoto

My suspicions are based upon such interesting developments in sensor technology such as the Nikon patent which combines dedicated AF and imaging sensors. We have seen such a rapid progress since the Nikon D1, introduced about 1998 with 2.8 MP APS-C sensor and 15 years later we have the D800, D7100, etc, not to mention the D4. In 1975, Kodak developed a digital camera and no one, not even Kodak, thought this would be a success......mmmmmm.....

The only reason for a mirror is to focus....we will see electronic viewfinders which will be so real one cannot tell whether it is an image projected on ground glass or generated on an electronic screen. And once the phase contrast focus is perfected for the full frame cameras........

Now, a caveat, my opinions are based on seeing the progression from a Minolta SR-3, Canon 7 (aka Leica M3) with a f/2 50mm Summicron, Nikon F's, and a slurry of Hasselblads, Deardorfs, Sinars, Calumets, Schneider optics, Rodenstock optics, all from the past 54 years. So, this old lady may be totally in error....but....

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com#ixzz2aTRYA9BT

donaldejose

sevencrossing: yes a refurbished D600 is very good buy and an excellent FX body but it should not take the place of a D400 when DX sensor size is enough for contemplated use for these reasons 1. different control layout 2. less robust build 3. smaller buffer 4. the D400 will likely have a better focusing system (at least cover a larger area of the image) 5. more robust buffer 6. and a few other things.

MsMoto: I agree with you. When the stuff the mirror does can be done better without the mirror that mirror will disappear and be replaced with an EVF. I just don't know how many years that will take. Quite likely it will happen before the D400 needs replacement in 5 or 6 years from the D400 launch.

Paperman

"We have seen such a rapid progress since the Nikon D1, introduced about 1998 with 2.8 MP APS-C sensor and 15 years later we have the D800, D7100, etc, not to mention the D4. "

I am not sure if one is to expect similar progress in the next 15 years in Digital Camera technology - enough to wipe out reflex systems. After all, there hasn't been much progress lately. The Mp count has moved maybe 50% ( if that ) but when you consider the pixel densities, there is almost no change. The ability to squeeze today's number of pixels into a sensor has been there for at least 5 years. It is also pointless anymore to go any higher in Mps because

A) we are already limited by diffraction
we are probably limited by lens resolutions
C) and limited simply by the capacity of our eyes to see

So what keeps improving ? ISO performance - yes, but not radically. AF points & speed - no gain there. Lens quality - nope. So everything reaches an end - what they say - point of diminishing returns.

As you've said, the only way mirrorless replaces DSLR is if EVs reach the resolution of optic viewfinders. It is , what - 2 million dots now and is still nowhere near what my eye sees thru an OV . I am just not convinced there will be that much progress in EVs - to match my eyesight.

My guess is we will be seeing less and less improvement in digital cameras - nothing like we saw around 2006-2010 ( and that is not necessarily a bad thing . I look forward to NOT changing cameras every few years )

That is why I have no high expectations from a D400 . If it ever comes out, it will be a D7100 in a D300 body ( + all previous D300 specs on the side )

sevencrossing

May be we need a new thread ( but not too sure what to call it

While most people have heard of the term DSLR

the term Mirrorless is not in common use, Nikon do seem to use it at all

There are several terms:

Compact System Camera (CSC), Mirrorless System Camera (MSC), Digital Single Lens Mirrorless (DSLM), Digital Interchangeable-Lens System camera, and Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lens (EVIL);

So someone new ( or not so new ) to photography, may be confused and decided, to stick to a type of camera they have heard of

JJ_SO

Now, Compact Cameras are already occupied by a niche just above point and shoot and therefore still confusing. And as each marketing department wants to underline how very special their own concept is, we'll have a hard time to make a good job in semantics.

I like DSLM because there's a connection to SLR, DSLR, TLR. Mirrorless are most of the P&S and a lot of other system-cams as well, but MSC is usually used for misceallnous, isn't it? Or is that MISC? And why sparate the thread, it's so nice to have a huge "my crystal ball told me last night" thread. We could rename it in "phantom thread"

spraynpray

You'd think they would have dropped the 'D' for Digital by now, wouldn't you? :-j

JJ_SO

Mirrorless System Camera does fit to the Leica M3 and successors as well... and some Zeiss Ikon (Contax and Contarex) and some Voigtländers. There were press-cameras like Mamiya and Polaroid without mirror, but with interchangeable lenses. Not to forget all large format systems. And lots more I simply don't know enough about. It just depends if you want to create unique semantics or universal ones.

sevencrossing

You'd think they would have dropped the 'D' for Digital by now, wouldn't you? :-j

Film is dying, but it is not dead yet

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-Film-Camera-Body/dp/B0006GQ6K6

Msmoto

Just to clarify, the resolution of the electronic viewfinder is quite good....but the appearance to our eyes is distinctly different than a ground glass image. And, what I see in my old "F" bodies is different than the D4. Considerable different than on an 11" x 14" view camera.

When the EV looks like one is looking through a monocular, yet has an area of "focus" which can be user configured, this will be the time at which I believe we will see the end of the DSLR as we know it today.

The D400 will not have it, but the Nikon D1.0....[my suggestion for nomenclature], will be the one. LOL

All guesses for sure....

SquamishPhoto

"We have seen such a rapid progress since the Nikon D1, introduced about 1998 with 2.8 MP APS-C sensor and 15 years later we have the D800, D7100, etc, not to mention the D4. "

I am not sure if one is to expect similar progress in the next 15 years in Digital Camera technology - enough to wipe out reflex systems. After all, there hasn't been much progress lately. The Mp count has moved maybe 50% ( if that ) but when you consider the pixel densities, there is almost no change. The ability to squeeze today's number of pixels into a sensor has been there for at least 5 years. It is also pointless anymore to go any higher in Mps because

A) we are already limited by diffraction
we are probably limited by lens resolutions
C) and limited simply by the capacity of our eyes to see

I love how you say this with such positive determination, and yet all the major camera companies are testing high megapixel bodies to the order 50+ MP. So, understanding that Canon and Nikon together know significantly more than about camera technology then you ever possibly could, Im going to go ahead and trust them on this one. In other words, you're wrong about MP. Sorry. :]