D300s Successor-D400, what and when

sevencrossing

Main BLOG I want to mention again that there is no Nikon D400 coming any time soon.

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/09/nikon-rumors-what-to-expect-in-the-next-few-months.aspx/#ixzz2eTZ30e6l

So will we ever get a D400 and will have ISO 12,800 with 8-9 FPS, up to 50 shot buffer, the latest focusing and no AA filter.?

Yes but not until the D5 and the D900 have hit the shops

ano

It seems that the pro DX line is the last priority of NIKON ...

snakebunk

It seems that the pro DX line is the last priority of NIKON ...

That's about the only thing we know for sure

donaldejose

Yes ano, it does seem that Nikon has abandoned a DX body with the "pro" control layout, fast focusing and high fps. That is really sad because a DX sensor can now match the last generation FX sensor so Nikon could basically produce a DX "mini" D3 if not a DX "mini" D4 and such a DX body would be perfectly adequate for all the photojournalists, sports and wildlife shooters who are not going to print larger than a magazine page or double spread. I think Nikon could give us a "mini" D3 leval camera for less than half the price (including the battery grip. If you don't need the additional reach offered by DX: an alternative to a D400 could be to pick up a low shutter count D3 for just over $2,000. You will get the pro control layout, fast focusing and high fps. Since the D3 was built to go about 300,000 shutter actuations and non-professionals won't shoot that much, you can get some used D3 bodies at around 70,000 shutter actuations which still have plenty of life left in them. I am always tempted to do just that.

sevencrossing

.....a DX sensor can now match the last generation FX sensor

the one area were Fx still seems to score over Dx, is the high ISO range
This is really important for photojournalists, sports and wildlife shooters
Only when we get a DX sensor capable of cutting the mustard at high ISO settings will see a new Pro DX camera.

If you are prosumer and don't need to shoot is poor light conditions, the D7100 is a very capable camera

donaldejose

sevencrossing is correct. The D7100 is about one stop less capable at high ISO than the D3. If you can shoot under ISO 1,000 you should be ok with DX. If you need ISO 2,000, the D3 is better.

sevencrossing

a lot of the professional stuff I do for web sites, is shot at or below 800 and yes I could get away with Dx

My ( non professional) attempts wild life, sport seem to be at or above ISO 32000

If I was a photojournalist or professional wild life or sport photographer; I would be looking at a D4 not a D400

I honestly feel the market for the D400 is limited.

People are ether

on a budget = D7100 or below
Professional or well heeled amateurs = D800 or D4
For those in between, there is the D610

I think the market for a higher spec D7100 is limited

PB_PM

At one point I wouldn't have agreed in the past, but I do now. The D400 is looking more and more like the camera that will never be. Either that or it wont be a DX camera...

Sports

I can't talk for the birders, but personally, I don't WANT DX.
I NEED high fps and fast auto-focus - that's how I shoot sports - and I can't afford the D4. In the past, the D300 would have been how to get there. Now, Nikon has nothing. If they want to give me a suitable 2000$ FX that does the job, then I'll be very happy, but I just think it'll have to be a DX to be affordable.
The price is an important parameter. Yeah, in the western world and rich parts of eastern Asia, pros can afford the D4 and expensive lenses, but there are pros in the rest of the world, too. And apparently, they don't deserve a proper tool for their work, if you ask Nikon.

Photobug

sevencrossing said:

I honestly feel the market for the D400 is limited.

People are ether
on a budget = D7100 or below
Professional or well heeled amateurs = D800 or D4
For those in between, there is the D610

I think the market for a higher spec D7100 is limited
================================
I reached that same conclusion last month that there won't be a D400 and that the market is limited. I always thought the D300/D300S market was decent size until I got to know the manager of the largest camera dealer with 3 stores where I live. He told me its a small market and he see's a limited market.

Also agree with your categories; those on a budget D7100, Pros and well heeled amateurs using D800s and D4s and the in betweeners using the D610.

I can afford the D800 but bought the D7100 as an Interim body to wait until the new D810 is introduced. Then if it fits my needs better, will buy it.

Sports

He told me its a small market and he see's a limited market.

I can't argue with what the man said ....
But it doesn't fit with the real world. Of the people I know, there's a fairly even spread among D5xxx, D7xxxx, D300, D700, D800 and D3/D4. I know more people with Canon 7D than all 5D and 1D put together.
I just went to Norway on a cruise. And to an airshow. Checking .... And D300 and 7D were well represented. Maybe it's just because the owners actually use them as opposed to consumer bodies, which means that owners buy lenses and other stuff.
But it's simply not true that nobody's buying this kind of body.
You're right about the D600, though, which is in the same price category as a future D400. That's what really undermines the D400 market volume, if anything - even though it's pretty much useless to dedicated D300 users.

Giovannibg

Last week week end I've been at GP F1 in Italy.
I was very close to one of the preferred spots on the track by professional photojournalists and noticed the equipment that they used (I'm speaking about PJ with FIA pass)
The situation was that 80% were with canon.
And between them mostly were shooting with a 7d on the track.
7d was definitely the most used camera by PJ, also with 600 mm fixed lenes.
I seems that few preferred a full frame perhaps with 1.4x or 2x
Full frame instead were used mostly on the boxes and attending to press conference only.

Few nikon user were present and basically with 300s; I noticed 1 only with D3 and 1 only with D4

This is what nikon is loosing without a D400.

Msmoto

Oh, my, more laments on the apparently non-existent D400....at least for present.

I do hope the thinking heads at Nikon are not in some way related to those who ran Eastman Kodak years ago. The thinking at Kodak took them right into the ground. Kodak has emerged from bankruptcy protection only recently with less than 6% of the employees once on board. And, Kodak is no longer in the photographic business except in a stretch of one's imagination.

The issue for Kodak was not understanding the market, and from the current PR and lack of what at least some of us believe to be an important camera body missing in the Nikon lineup, one might think Nikon is also out of touch with reality. Let us all hope not and that once we see a 'D400' it will be a stunner.....

donaldejose

Right Msmoto. If Nikon could produce a D400 that would legitimately be seen as a "DX sensor mini D4 or D3" they would be able to sell a lot of them. Just keep the price down and the fps/ISO up. 24 mp (so you can still crop with sufficient mp left for good image quality) good image quality at ISO 3200, 8fps and a $2,000 price tag should find plenty of buyers. There must be some technological developments not quite yet here which keep Nikon from producing what they know they would need in a D400.

sevencrossing

The situation was that 80% were with canon.
......
.

and most of them would have started with Canon, in the days of film and built up a big collection of lenses

A D400 is not going to persuade them to sell their 7D and jump ship

any more than the lack of one, seems to make any one with a D300, switch to Canon

Nikon are looking at people moving up from a point and shoots to a DSLR

not preaching to the converted

Kodak failed, not because of a lack of marked share; their marked simply vanished

Nikon might go the same way as Kodak , if Apple or Samsung bring out a smart phone, that can compete with a D7100

It might happen but not this year or the next

spraynpray

@sevencrossing: Giovannibg's point wasn't that they would jump ship for a D400, it was that they are shooting the Canon equivalent - so the D400 market exists which goes against Photobugs acquaintances claim that there is no market for the D400.

Photobug

Msmoto & Spraynpray...the local manager is seeing customer trade in their D300 & D300s for other Nikon cameras, i.e. D7100, D600, and D800. The last two got the D800.


Msmoto said:
The issue for Kodak was not understanding the market, and from the current PR and lack of what at least some of us believe to be an important camera body missing in the Nikon lineup, one might think Nikon is also out of touch with reality. Let us all hope not and that once we see a 'D400' it will be a stunner.....

Agree, Kodak did not understand the market and the shift to digital cameras. They stayed with film for point & shoot and and the market disappeared fast.

I am convinced that Nikon is now focusing on entry level bodies and will update the D4 and D800. The D600, D7100 will be updated every two years, their normal cycle. I just don't see the D400 becoming a reality. Hate being negative but that is what it looks like to me.

That is why I gave in and sold my D300 and bought an interim body.

spraynpray

I think that Nikon is being businesslike and focussing on the best projected revenue areas before focussing on the smaller (but still significant) area of DX pro. Whether they are right in their assessment of the size of the DX pro market or not is something they will find out when they launch the D400 - if it goes out of stock very fast and is difficult to get for a while, we will know they were wrong!

SquamishPhoto

If the D610 has 8fps the D400 is dead in the water.

sevencrossing

- so the D400 market exists .

I beg to differ

The Market DID exist and had Nikon bought out the D400, when Canon introduced the 7D, I think it would have sold very well

but things have changed

In my part of the world, the D300 was supplied to the local staffer by the local news paper.
Today, the staffer is an endangered species, replaced by the agency guy with a D3s, the man who on the spot with a D7000, P&S or smart phone or liberty pictures, of last years event

Nikon will be well aware, many D300 owners have bought a D700, a D800, a D4 or a D7100 and if the D610 has 8 fps, few dx diehards will go that way

In short, Nikon are losing very few sales by not introducing the D400

As I have said, IF they could bring out a Dx D4 for less than the price of a D600, it would sell very well

but this would not help Nikon financially, as this would hit sales of their more expensive FX range

Photobug

I agree with Sevencrossing. Things have changed and there are existing models for D300 users to move to. Nikon has covered their basis and are not worried with this pro DX market segment.

The next 9 months should be busy for Nikon..a D610, and a new D810 and D4X.

TaoTeJared

sevencrossing is correct. The D7100 is about one stop less capable at high ISO than the D3. If you can shoot under ISO 1,000 you should be ok with DX. If you need ISO 2,000, the D3 is better.

I have to take an exception to the statement about the D7100 VS D3 - I have been in the market for a new back-up body/2nd body to replace my D300 and have been testing the D7100 & D700 (D3=D700 sensor) and I'm seeing at least 1.5 stops and in particular situations/settings almost 2 stops consistently. In B&W i'm seeing 3 stops easily (better bokeh does wonders with noisy shadows.) I do agree with the D7100 at iso 1000 is about as high I would want to go for "paid" stuff and 1600 for small format web items & B&W but that is kind of stretching stuff. The D700, I'm seeing the same usability (as D7100 @1000iso) at around ISO 2000-3200 and web quality I can get to 4000 to 6400 can work for B&W. I have been a bit surprised by what I have seen as I thought the D7100 would be much closer. All of that is pushing them both. The key for me is I want to be at 1600 and the D700 does that just enough better.

TaoTeJared

I think I have commented about every 200 posts on this thread -

Just a note (something I posted on the blog)
The Canon 7D is also over due to it's upgrade as well.

Any thoughts on why they seem to be abandoning them?

Olympus and Panasonic have released "pro" featured & build quality bodies for their formatt. Any guess why both Canon and Nikon doesn't see the need for a Pro featured DX? They must be looking at the same market research since it is really odd that neither has released an upgrade.

snakebunk

Maybe Nikon is missing pro dx lenses to go with a D400?

Anyhow, a D400 together with the D800 and the D4 would form a perfect pro trinity. There is a market and Nikon should make one.

D7100 and D600 are in another category; too plastic, no cf, small buffer size and not very fast.

donaldejose

Glad to hear about TTJ's test results at high ISO. I made my comment based upon DxOMark tests of high ISO.