D300s Successor-D400, what and when

DaveyJ

Nikon better announce and deliver something that can answer the Canon 70D. It to me seems that plain and simple

donaldejose

Here is a comparison between the Canon 70D and the Nikon D7100. Seems Nikon D7100 already beats Canon 70D in all categories (at least in still photography).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/895%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/865%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon

ano

Here is a comparison between the Canon 70D and the Nikon D7100. Seems Nikon D7100 already beats Canon 70D in all categories (at least in still photography).

except the ridiculous buffer ...

sevencrossing

. Any guess why both Canon and Nikon doesn't see the need for a Pro featured DX?

It is important to understand the reason he reason for DX Cameras in the first place:

It was; and still is, cost ( it has nothing to with "reach" or too many mega whatnots )

The Nikon D1 and the D2H were both dx cameras. The cost of a full frame sensor, would have been prohibitive

Nikon abandoned pro Dx cameras for good, in 2007 with the D3

All Nikon DSLR consumer cameras have been Dx ( cost is a vial selling point with a consumer camera)

IMHO Nikon , are simply abandoning the Prosumer Camera, (both Dx and FX )

Why?

nobody admits to being a Prosumer, they want to a professional and they want a professional camera. Nikon have simply listen to customer and granted their wish

TaoTeJared

Canon and Nikon have always had "like" body releases 1-year apart and not in an "answer" but as a function of their usual upgrade cycles. The D7100 came out - and the 70D is Canon's answer. We will probably see a D7200 next year around this time.

Most of you on this thread how I dislike DxO, but like others I use it as a base to go research other things - or rather I look at it out of the lack of anyone else being able to show direct comparisons. I put the comparisons below that I just looked at. (Thanks donaldejose for helping me kill an hour of my day;) ) The "overall scores" are just ridiculous. I have shoot next to people with 7D's and they trounced my D300 while shooting sandhill cranes in the early morning which is about as far on the edge as you can get for testing limits on systems - low light, required shooting at 1/400th++ and cropping 50-75% of the image. To say the D300 is (about) equal is just false. Then to look at the scores and remotely think the 70D is again about the same as the D300 is on a level of absurdity that I can't even think of a parallel.

As much as I hate to say it, Canon's ability at high ISO is better than Nikon. I think Nikon's higher resolutions exaggerate scores. Nikon does seem to edge out (by small amounts) in all the categories, but to say the image quality is 15% better than Canon (as the scores imply) is nowhere near reality.

Imagery junk food for thought:

snakebunk

IMHO Nikon , are simply abandoning the Prosumer Camera, (both Dx and FX )

Aren't D7100 and D600 prosumer cameras? I'm not sure what the prosumer definition is but I'm thinking "most of the functionality but not really pro build quality".

Price is important for everyone (almost). The reason for me to choose a D400 over a D800 would be fps and pixel density (given that a D400 is what we think it will be). I don't understand what you are saying about dx being only about price.

TaoTeJared

It is important to understand the reason he reason for DX Cameras in the first place:
It was; and still is, cost ...
Why? nobody admits to being a Prosumer, they want to a professional and they want a professional camera. Nikon have simply listen to customer and granted their wish

I think you are spot on for the reason of DX systems.

The why? You may speak to some users feelings, but that is not what companies would make business decisions on. The D300/7D are marketed as professional systems with DX sensors - which they are. Companies see a demand in the markets and make products to meet that demand. Either one of two things are happening; 1) Real demand (not people crying about it on blogs) just isn't there or 2) they can't meet the demand at a price point where it will sell, and they make money on it.

Original MSRP of the D300s was $1,800.
Current prices
D4 - $6,000
D800 - $2,800
D800 refurb. - $2,400
D600 - $2,000
D300s - $1,700 ($700 used)
D600 refurb. - $1,600
D7100 - $1,150
D5200 - $800

In essence the consumer FX & Prosumer DX would be equal in price. Companies must have seen or polled that people given that situation would overwhelmingly go FX and give up the "pro" controls. There still is a $800 gap that feels like a pro DX system would fit. Maybe that could be a mirrorless system of some sort as MSmoto has been banging on her drum for a few years now. Personally I want to see a digital FM2N (look and size) that still can use existing lenses.

TaoTeJared

Aren't D7100 and D600 prosumer cameras? I'm not sure what the prosumer definition is but I'm thinking "most of the functionality but not really pro build quality".

As many wish to believe it, No they are not. The term "Pro" is the distinction. They share nothing with the main pro systems. Metering, AF systems, build, software (bracketing, and other items) that the pro bodies have are not in the D600 or D7100. The D300, D700, D3/s shared the major parts minus the sensor and viewfinder (and the D3 pro special additions, etc.)

I would call the D7100 and D600 advanced amateur systems as a category. Just know categories have nothing to do with how people use them or that pros may use them.

Price is important for everyone (almost). The reason for me to choose a D400 over a D800 would be fps and pixel density (given that a D400 is what we think it will be). I don't understand what you are saying about dx being only about price.

To companies, sales are directly related to price. So many spin their wheels on their own desires to justify a product but fail to realize it is inconsequential. They (companies) really don't care how/why people would like a system, but how many will pay for it and how much they are willing to spend. That is the first hurdle. Once that is overcome, then they move forward on looking at what people want.
-Don't take that the wrong way - I have the same feelings of a pro DX, but I also realize they don't care if they can't sell enough to make money. Company's first priority is to survive. If releasing a product doesn't help them do that, then they won't.

snakebunk

I would call the D7100 and D600 advanced amateur systems as a category. Just know categories have nothing to do with how people use them or that pros may use them.

Ok! You can be the term manager

I understand what you say about price. Maybe you're right, I really don't know. For me it's hard to understand how Nikon thinks.

sevencrossing

we have a thread on what makes a "professional" photographer
may be we should have one on" what makes a "professional" camera"

In my experience very few professionals, use a D4. They cant afford one

DaveyJ

I could afford a D4. I have shot with one. I did not like it enough to buy one as it is very expensive. If I bought a "high end" DSLR right now it would be a D800E based on what I have seen. Today I made the "mistake" of pulling out my trusty D300 with a 70-300 Nikkor D lens. It quickly made me wonder if we are making any progress in our quest for well built field cameras.

Yes I admit I avoid the whole prosumer or other labels. Nikon has right now the technology to have produced a D400. The D7100 I own and use and think is amazing. It however lacks key business like features the D300 and D300S both have.

I have shot the D600 and feel it is THE camera I would wait until Nikon gets that design right, because it is NOT yet what I have come to admire in a camera. Plus the D600 has a rep that will be hard to clean up. A D610 COULD get it right and win over me to buying one. All in all, many log onto Nikon Rumors with a pretty limited mission.......Is there YET a D300s successor or NOT???

sevencrossing

If I bought a "high end" DSLR right now it would be a D800E......Is there YET a D300s successor or NOT???

I think you have answered you own question
Yes the D800E is more expensive than the D400 might have been but if you can afford a D4......

heartyfisher

You may say that there may not be a market for a D400.. but i think most D200 and D300 users are waiting for the D400. add to that a whole new generation of D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200, D80, D90, D7000, D7100 users who have matured enough to want a better camera and I think it is clear that the market for a D400 is at least as large as that for the D300 if not more so.

proudgeek

If you'd all like, I can place an order for a D7100. That would make a D400 announcement within the week pretty much a lock.

snakebunk

That's the spirit!

warprints

Proudgeek - I appreciate your sacrifice. When will you be placing your order ? :-?

DXV_Photo

I think the whole problem with the D400 is that Nikon wants people out of DX and into FX. That is the whole point of the D600 is to get people into there higher margin glass. I think in order for NIkon to release a D400 they would have to do so in a way that wouldn't interfere with plans to get people on FX.

I think the D400 would have to be a D800 with a 16MP DX sensor so that they can push ISO performance above the 7100. It would keep the D4 buffer and would shoot at around 8FPS. It would also have to be priced around $2500. Somewhere between D600 and D800 price so that people felt more compelled to go FX but would let people have a pro DX if it was truly what they needed. The big question is if you are Nikon could you sell enough of these cameras to make it worth the expense.

DaveyJ

The market for a D400 will be VERY large. Nikon seems to have a grudge against some of its most faithful.

spraynpray

"nobody admits to being a Prosumer, they want to a professional and they want a professional camera. Nikon have simply listen to customer and granted their wish"

I don't suppose it could just be because DX 'prosumers' want the best gear they can get?

donaldejose

I think the D400 will come in time and will be a D300s upgraded for about $2,000. It won't be priced above a D600. But it will have to have some features (beyond "pro" build and control layout) above and beyond the D7100 including slightly better sensor performance for "top DX sensor" bragging rights. The D7100 sells for about $1.200. The D600 sells for about $2,000. Nikon has about $800 with which to add more content above and beyond the D7100. As soon as Nikon can built it they will and they will sell lots of them. The sooner the better.

TaoTeJared

I think DXV_Photo has the right idea (from Nikon's point of view) that eliminating the D400 conveniently pushes people into FX glass at that price point.

I could afford a D4. I have shot with one. I did not like it enough to buy one as it is very expensive. If I bought a "high end" DSLR right now it would be a D800E based on what I have seen. Today I made the "mistake" of pulling out my trusty D300 with a 70-300 Nikkor D lens. It quickly made me wonder if we are making any progress in our quest for well built field cameras.

Yes I admit I avoid the whole prosumer or other labels. Nikon has right now the technology to have produced a D400. The D7100 I own and use and think is amazing. It however lacks key business like features the D300 and D300S both have... /blockquote>

I like what DavyJ said. I too could afford a D4 but I choose the D800 and a major new computer. 80% of the time the D800 either is the perfect camera for the situation, or the situation wouldn't matter which camera, but the better AF, metering, bracketing, custom settings, flash controls, etc. makes life so much better it is worth it. I also would love to see a 16-18mp high ISO pro DX with high FPS and buffer. I would buy that in an instant as that would cover the other 20% easily and would be a great 2nd body. When I need low light shooting, the format doesn't matter and the resolution is rarely a concern but after seeing the Canon 7D, I definitely saw 12mp was low. 18mp did look to be just about right for details even with 50% crops.

Most all D200/300 shooters have moved on - and did so a year ago. Either they went with a D7100 or D600. I have talked to quite a few wildlife shooters who have moved to either Panasonic or Olympus for the 2x factor.

We know in the far past that a D400 was designed but the plant in Thailand that makes them got wiped out before they made any. By the time it was back on line, Nikon must have felt the specs were probably outdated. At this point, I doubt one will come unless Canon announces one.

Terry7732

DaveyJ said
We know in the far past that a D400 was designed but the plant in Thailand that makes them got wiped out before they made any. By the time it was back on line, Nikon must have felt the specs were probably outdated. At this point, I doubt one will come unless Canon announces one.

We already know the specifications of the 7d Mk2, we just don't know when it will appear.

Photobug

heartyfisher said
You may say that there may not be a market for a D400.. but i think most D200 and D300 users are waiting for the D400. add to that a whole new generation of D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200, D80, D90, D7000, D7100 users who have matured enough to want a better camera and I think it is clear that the market for a D400 is at least as large as that for the D300 if not more so.

The key phrase here is "users who have matured enough to want a better camera". The vast majority of owners of these cameras I know like what they have and are NOT interested in replacing them. The users who have mastered their camera and want to move up are smaller than you think. Some of the mature users I know only want to spend a few hundred dollars more than they spent for their current camera.

That is why I think Nikon has not addressed this part of the market. The real market is those D200, D300, and D90 users. They are buying D7100 and D600 bodies with those with deep pockets have bought D800/D800E.

I gave up waiting and bought a D7100 as an interim camera. If the D400 ever comes to market I will buy one. It's better to buy under what you need to enjoy the new technology then staying with the older technology. This way I get to enjoy the higher number of megapixels and all those new features. The D4 and D800 are not what I want. Any way I am enjoying my new camera...all of one day old.

Photobug

Dvx_Photo said:
I think the D400 would have to be a D800 with a 16MP DX sensor so that they can push ISO performance above the 7100. It would keep the D4 buffer and would shoot at around 8FPS. It would also have to be priced around $2500. Somewhere between D600 and D800 price so that people felt more compelled to go FX but would let people have a pro DX if it was truly what they needed. The big question is if you are Nikon could you sell enough of these cameras to make it worth the expense.

On paper this sounds good and this was my thoughts for the past year. Two months ago I gave up on Nikon, especially after they announced they would focus on entry level DSLR cameras. With the Point & Shoot camera sales going down the toilet, they don't have the income to pay for the development of midrange and pro cameras, let alone a Pro DX body.

I really wish you were spot on with your analysis but I just don't see it happening. My contingency plan is in place, I just got a D7100 yesterday and this is my Interim DSLR. When the D800 is updated or if they offer a lower megapixel version or they do introduced a D400, I have the funds to buy one. In the interim, I am enjoying the new technology in the D7100 rather than continuing to use my D300.

SquamishPhoto

Spoken like someone who's never used a D800. And to be honest, it doesn't really sound like you even know what you want, so I'd suggest spending a lot less time concerning yourself with what you believe you'll be buying in the future and more time spent learning how to use what you have as well as possible.