D300s Successor-D400, what and when

soap

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.

I'm not sure what ISO on the D7000 you're happy with, but if you look at the objective numbers for the D7000 there isn't 2 stops left to be gained.
http://www.sensorgen.info/

PB_PM

Considering that the D7000 isn't clean colour wise over 3200, I think it's a big leap to think they could somehow achieve more than a 1 stop improvement between generations (1 stop improvement has been the trend).

donaldejose

Personally I am happy with 1SO 1600 on a D7000.: ISOs 3200 is boarderline. ISO 6400 has too much noise. Personally, I am happy with ISO 4,500 on a D800, but up to 6400 is usable (while it is not on a D7000) because the noise "grain" is small and you aren't enlarging each pixel as much when you view the image. Look at the native ISO range of the D7000, D600 and D800. All stop at ISO 6400. Look at the native ISO range of the D4. It stops at 12,800. I am saying the most difficult goal to reach for the D7200 and D400 will be a top native ISO of 12,800. I am saying this will be the hardest of the goals to achieve. I am not saying it will be done. I think Nikon won't do it for the D7200 but will try to do it for the D400 to differientiate the D400 and make it a "DX D4." You only really need an ISO greater than 6400 when you are shooting in low light and need to stop fast movement: i.e. indoor sports shooting. Nikon will try to make the D400 their DX sports shooting camera like the D4 is their FX sports shooting camera. How will they do it, if they can get it done? Pixel binning at high ISO perhaps? Or using D4 sensor technology and software on a DX sensor? Perhaps Nikon can produce a good 16 mp DX sensor, put it into the D800 body and use the same software the D4 uses to process images from its 16mp sensor? We will see. It would be nice if Nikon could give us a choice of the same image quality in DX size and in FX size. The FX size will cost $6,000 and the DX size will cost just over $2,000. The only real difference in the image itself will be the number of pixels and consequently the amount you will need to enlarge each to obtain equal size prints. If this comes about people who shoot sports for magazine publication could use either a $6,000 D4 or a less than $3,000 D400/battery grip combo. It would be great if Nikon gave us that choice. That is what I am saying.

kyoshinikon

The longer nikon waits the higher the expectation of what the D400 will get

soap

Pixel binning can only increase pixel-level ISO which, while different than picture-level ISO, can't be magically pushed past the hard limit defined by quantum efficiency, post-capture noise, and sensor size. Pixel binning as a "cure" for overly small photosites also limits potential dynamic range as you are "filling" photosites to overflow more often.

If you noticed in the link, the D7000 is already at 48% QE. If you were able to double that you only gain one stop of SNR, only one stop of ISO performance.

It also has a minimum read noise of 2.5 electrons per photosite. The math on how that affects SNR isn't a simple linear extrapolation like QE, for if you only collect 5 photons in one photosite that's a SNR of 2:1, but if you collect 50 that's a SNR of 20:1. Regardless, if you cut that down to zero with extraterrestrial technology you've only really gained around a stop.

My only point is that modern sensors perform amazingly well, and I strongly believe that all the evidence points towards the days of a stop gain per generation are over. You can look at the numbers for the older cameras and see just how much of that sweet sweet pie has been claimed already.

spraynpray

"The only real difference in the image itself will be the number of pixels and consequently the amount you will need to enlarge each to obtain equal size prints. If this comes about people who shoot sports for magazine publication could use either a $6,000 D4 or a less than $3,000 D400/battery grip combo. It would be great if Nikon gave us that choice. That is what I am saying."

Hmm, doubt that will happen Donald - D400 sales would detract from D4 too much methinks?

SquamishPhoto

I think Nikon won't do it for the D7200 but will try to do it for the D400 to differientiate the D400 and make it a "DX D4."

This concept gets floated around a lot, mostly from you, but its still a totally ridiculous idea. Nikon never made a DX D3, they made D700. The only "D4 lite" we may ever see is without question going to be an a full frame camera, so let this pipe dream die already. Yes, Nikon will probably release another one or two great DX cameras in the next few and one can imagine that at least one of them is going to have the best DX capabilities that we've yet seen on a Nikon. However, this idea that somehow Nikon is going to work some technological magic and make a crop sensor camera with the abilities of a $6000 full frame camera all for less than $2000 is pure nonsense.

PB_PM

Agreed. This site may focus on rumors and speculation, but some of the speculation is so far fetched that you could lightly breath on it and it would crumble.

sevencrossing

The sensor is only one part of the equation
the lens also plays an equally important part

The vast majority of Nikon's top lenses are designed for FX
put them on a DX sensor and you throw away a lot of information which inevitably must mean a drop in IQ

Sauron

...
The vast majority of Nikon's top lenses are designed for FX
put them on a DX sensor and you throw away a lot of information which inevitably must mean a drop in IQ

I can't believe that I'm reading this in a forum for photo enthusiasts. :-O

I'm soon logging out for good...
/Roger

donaldejose

"totally ridiculous idea?" Maybe.

Some people said the same thing when I suggested a low price FX priced far below the D700 which could also be considered to be the top of the DX price-range. My comments were panned by some as "never will happen since Nikon cannot produce an FX body for less than about $3,000 which was the cost of the D700." Those people were assuming DX and FX price points would remain constant. Yet, Nikon did produce the D600 and we do see it priced now for $1,700 new or Nikon reconditioned which was the cost of the D300 and D300s. I think time has proven my comments more right than wrong.

Now I have been saying Nikon will try to produce a D400 (or D9000 or whatever name) using a D800 body (maybe with some more plastic like the D600 plastic front) and put a DX sensor in it which will have a native ISO range up to 12,800 which is the native range of the D4. Time will tell if the D400 is differentiated from the D7200 with more robust build, faster fps and a higher native ISO or with just the more robust build and faster fps. I think Nikon will try for a native ISO in the D400 up to 12,800 in the D4. Then, add a battery grip to the D400 and as long as you are producing images magazine size (8x10 or 11x14) there should be little or no difference between low light stop action sports shot from a D400 or a D4. That is what I mean by the concept of a "D4 lite." Of course, the D400 will not be the equal of the D4 in many ways. Let's wait 6 months until the D400 comes out and is tested. Then we can revisit the prediction that this is a "totally ridiculous idea" spread mostly by me.

spraynpray

But that spec is what a lot of photog's are using D4's for - why on earth would Nikon cripple D4 sales with a competing model?

What do you think the D4 is mostly used for if not 11X14 and smaller prints?

donaldejose

Maybe they won't. Porsche has long kept the Boxster engine power lower than it could be just so the Boxster does not out perform the more expensive 911. I don't think a D400 with a native ISO of 12,800 would cripple D4 sales or even put a dent in them. If technological advances allow it, Nikon will produce it to gain market advantage (or say even with Canon) just as they did with the D600. If the D400 were to have a native ISO of 12,800 pros will keep using the D4 for its many other attributes. To a pro the cost of the camera body is not significant when spread over 4 years of hard work. To most of us here, it is. The pro will use the best that can be bought even though 90% of the time they could get by with a lower cost model. I am speaking of a "D4 lite" for people like us who want to produce the best images we can which freez movement in low light. We will spend the few hundreds of additional dollars for a 12,800 ISO DX which can give us one stop faster shutter speed in the same low light but we won't spend the few thousands of additional dollars for a D4: at least I won't. I think there are a lot like me. If Nikon could put a good native ISO of 12,800 in the D7200 that would make it the best camera for parents to photograph their kids school performances and sports. I think that would be a strong marketing point: one more stop greater than any other DX camera you can buy.

Paperman

I saw it in my dream - the D400 is a 24Mp FF ... and it was same as a D700 body ... Wait , wait - just remembered . It said D750 on it.

Who needs a pro/pro-consumer DX when FF is even available in consumer bodies.?

Now, a serious question ...Does anyone have any opinion about the extra manufacturing cost a FF sensor brings over an APS-C one ?

PB_PM

I think we went over all that when people were talking about the D600 (before release).

spraynpray

@ Donald: As Nikon are in competition with Canon, they will have to wring best high ISO performance out of all their new models as otherwise they will be overtaken by Canon because beating Canon trumps worrying about limiting the D400. Maybe they will limit it in some other way and so not tread on D4 sales.

Sauron

...
Who needs a pro/pro-consumer DX when FF is even available in consumer bodies.?

Now, a serious question ...Does anyone have any opinion about the extra manufacturing cost a FF sensor brings over an APS-C one ?

Well not all people want to pay 3 times the price to have high fps in a pro-specified camera body. I read somewhere that the D300/s sold more than all FX-bodies combined until 2012.

First of all, it must be said that the price and manufacturing cost are not highly correlated. The price is set from many other factors than just manufacturing cost. The price is set (optimized) from the fact that they (Nikon) want to make as big revenue as possible. Just to make it clear, I’m not an economist, but this is a well known strategy. A low manufacturing cost is however important to be able to compete successfully on a competitive market.

Anyway…

The benefits with smaller sensors are many when it comes to the overall technical specifications of the camera housing, and the reason that e.g., D4 has the highest fps is because Nikon put a lot of effort in cranking up the fps in the D4. This because high fps is important for many photogs (and obviously quite expensive, USD 6000, ouch!), and not because it is easier to do it on an FX-housing.

So if Nikon started to develop the successor of D300s they could utilize some benefits of the smaller sensor (of perhaps 16 – 18 Mpix) giving the following improvements:

1) Smaller mirror
If they put the same effort into a new D400, the fps could easily be around 10 -12 fps (for fast shutter speeds of course) considering the dynamical/mechanical benefits of a smaller mirror (about a factor of 6 less torque needed and about twice as high natural frequency). Buffer speed must be taken into consideration as well, but instead of having much higher fps than the D4, the faster mirror movement can be used to have a more accurate AF since mirror black-out will be shorter.
A smaller mirror in DX can also be utilized to develop DX-lenses with shorter distance to the sensor surface (from the rear lens surface), which can have some benefits that can be used in the lens design (e.g, higher resolution possible). This will, however, not be done unless they make it impossible to mount DX-optics on FX-housings.

2) Lighter/Better/Cheaper shutter
Since the shutter doesn’t need to cover as big surface on a DX-sensor it can of course be made lighter and faster or cheaper.

3) Higher magnification in the viewfinder (already a fact comparing DX with FX) and cheaper/smaller pentaprism (less than half the area to cover).

4) Higher coverage of AF spots (already a fact comparing DX with FX). Doesn’t necessary make it cheaper, but you can have less AF spots and have the same coverage as in the FX-case.

5) Lighter/Smaller body
I.e. cheaper, more sturdy and, well, less weight. The reasons are read under 1, 2 and 3.

6) Smaller sensor
The manufacturing price of a DX-sensor compared to a FX is much smaller. You will have more than double amount of sensors on the same wafer and much higher yield from each wafer.

Other benefits with DX-bodies
Benefits in telephoto (already a fact comparing DX with FX)
With a pixel density in the same league as the D800 but with the speed of a D4, this would be the ultimate sport and wildlife camera.
Cheaper optics available (already a fact comparing DX with FX). You also have a wider range of choices since you can use both FX and DX-optics without loosing quality, on the contrary, putting an FX-lens on a DX-body improves in most cases the optical performance since you use the central part of the image circle which generally has a better optical quality compared to the peripheral part of the FX image circle (less distortion, vignetting and CA, and higher MTF).

Price
Perhaps it is better to compare the price difference between the D300 and D700 when they entered the market, here you can see how big difference it could be on the price tag. I haven’t checked it, but I recall that the D700 was around 50 – 60% more expensive than the D300 (or even more).

If we assume the price of the next DX pro camera housing would be around USD 2000 – 2200, we would have an affordable pro-housing with high-end sport photo specifications. (about USD 4000 less). And, even more is saved on the lenses you would require.

I have not explained all my technical conclusions above, since this would require too much details and text. But since I assume that at least some of you have an engineering background and can understand my thinking (otherwise it is no meaning in explaining anyway), I have left out parts of that.

So – Nikon – show us what you can do!

Best Regards
Roger

Sorry for my English.

Paperman

I know Sauron, I know...I know...I know ... I know why people go for DX. That's not my point.

My argument is - if you give these guys an FX D400 for the same price as a DX D400, the only difference being the sensor size, which one will they go for? What will you go for ?

I would move to FF without hesitation even though APS-C works fine for me. Same price so why not ? My main lenses may be DX but I have the 50mm and an old manual tele so I can survive ... Please note I'm not talking about an inferior body like D600 - that was not enough to convince me to change camps. It has to be ergonomically like the D300.

This was why I asked about manufacturing cost of FF. If Nikon can produce the FF version of an APS-C body for let's say an extra cost of $50-100 ( which they can easily reflect on the price ), then they do not need to worry about prosumer DX body market loss. Leave the APS-C to D3000/5000/7000 bodies and continue with "the game changing" ( that serious cameras be FF from now on ) started with the D600.

mk2pop

i dont get why so many on here are so taken with FF, it seems to be the minimum requirement or a body is useless, im looking for a DX D400 as i need the speed but dont want to have to change my lenses, i can carry my 100-300 f4 + 1.4x tc all day with no issues and this gives me the reach of 630mm on FX, i wouldnty fancy carrying a 600 all day while hiking

Msmoto

In the old forum all the above were covered. The most likely scenario is that Nikon will produce a "D400" in a similar relationship to the D4 as was the D300s to the D3s. And, as the bar is constantly being set higher, we may see the D4x coming out around the time of the D400. IMO for the D400 to be successful it will have to have about 12,800 native ISO, 8-9 FPS. While some may wonder how Nikon thinks, with all the problems lately in new cameras, my suspicion is we will not be disappointed by the D300s replacement.

SquamishPhoto

IMO for the D400 to be successful it will have to have about 12,800 native ISO, 8-9 FPS. .

I know you and Donald insist upon this being of critical importance for success, but Im afraid you're both a bit off on this assessment. Using the D300s and the D7000 as benchmarks for where the ISO capabilities have been up until now(past 800 is crap on the D300 and 1600 is as far as I would dare) its a huge reach to think that gain at ISO levels of 12,800 will be free of noise on a crop sensor camera. Considering that the high ISO performance of the aged D3 and D700 can still run circles around EVERY DX offering, it seems completely deluded to imagine that your magical DX D4 will be a cheap camera. Since the camera would have to leap many generations of crop sensor tech AND full frame sensor tech my vote is not with you guys. D900 with all these, sure, but wishing a DX camera to be this good is no better than a day dream.

SquamishPhoto

"totally ridiculous idea?" Maybe.

Some people said the same thing when I suggested a low price FX priced far below the D700 which could also be considered to be the top of the DX price-range. My comments were panned by some as "never will happen since Nikon cannot produce an FX body for less than about $3,000 which was the cost of the D700." Those people were assuming DX and FX price points would remain constant. Yet, Nikon did produce the D600 and we do see it priced now for $1,700 new or Nikon reconditioned which was the cost of the D300 and D300s. I think time has proven my comments more right than wrong.

Don't even try. Hundreds of people were throwing out all kinds of ideas about what Nikon would do and you were hardly alone in thinking that they'd make a cheap FX camera available. Dozens of people here were hoping for the same thing. Reading your words now makes it seem like you imagine that either you have ESP or that you're somehow tuned into the collective mind of Nikon engineers and designers.

adamz

either we like it or not, it's not the engineers who pull the triggers. if Nikon decides it will gain the market and make profit they will launch certain product. D600 appeared because Nikon needed market share. who wanted to buy d800 bought it, who was still waiting for d700... got d600, who was waiting for d400... some got d600 - similar price tag. IMHO, d600 didn't cannibalise d800 sales, as this are two different cameras.

as for dx lenses. on one hand, Nikon is missing the point over here and the benefits of dx format, on the other hand Nikon was always about compatibility. You can easily use fx glass on dx and no You are not going to loose any quality on this sevencrossing, honestly that's ridiculous approach as You are using only the sweet spot = IQ is better. the thing Nikon misses here is simple marking on their lenses. 70-200mm lens is 105-300mm lens on dx, 35/1.8 is 50mm with 2.8 bokeh and so on and so on.

d400 - I think we will see a base 8fps with 10fps with battery pack + 24mpx sensor this year

DaveyJ

I certainly agree with Sauron's well defended points. Very important points of view here. And in between all of these camera valid discussions there are nuggets like donalddejose's examples of Porsche Boxer versus 911 remarks which when you know what he is talking about as well as I do (and frankly have almost forgotten!) it does show the depth and wisdom of many on this site. It is points of view, often so well done it is inspiring that keep me coming back to this site. My fast car days are very over. The fact that my son still races quite well in GNCC motorcycles amazes many. Some things seem best turned over to youth. But it is very good to remember when I was young and vital. And to be honest I'd like to go back then with my D7000 and add a D800! I didn't say it was possible, just proves some changes I feel have been good. I sure am looking forward to seeing what this next batch of Nikon introductions will do for us.

DaveyJ

I sure hope adamz is right!!!