D300s Successor-D400, what and when

heartyfisher

@photobug .. congrats on your 7100 !!

PS: My "waiting" camera is the D7000.. but that D800 is sure tempting..

sevencrossing

Spoken like someone who's never used a D800..

+1 The phrase

or if they offer a lower megapixel version

says it all

The next Pro Nikon will either be a D4x with more MP or a D810E with more fps

sadly for my pocket, I think it will be the D4x

Terry7732

The Pro DX sector may be a comparatively small section of the market but I do not think that Nikon will abandon it.
Up until 2009 Nikon had the upper hand over Canon: D300v40D, D200v30D, D100v20D, and then along came the 7D and blew the D300s out of the water. Why, because Canon listened to what their users wanted.
We already know with a reasonable amount of certainty what the 7D Mk2 specs will be and my guess is that Nikon are taking on board its own users comments before announcing any successor to the D300s so that this time they have a sure fire winner that can compete with anything that Canon have to offer.

scoobysmak

The Pro DX may be a comparatively small section of the market but I do not think that Nikon will abandon it.
Up until 2009 Nikon had the upper hand over Canon: D300v40D, D200v30D, D100v20D, and then along came the 7D and blew the D300s out of the water. Why, because Canon listened to what their users wanted.
We already know with a reasonable amount of certainty what the 7D Mk2 specs will be and my guess is that Nikon are taking on board its own users comments before announcing any successor to the D300s so that this time they have a sure fire winner that can compete with anything that Canon have to offer.

I would love for that to be the case but from reading this, most of the people that want the D400 seem to be a specific market. The need for high FPS with a big buffer and the DX crop factor, we all know Nikon could make it but will they. Lets look at a financial standpoint, at the current moment for buying a new Nikon camera with more than 6 fps and able to hold more than 15 RAW images in the buffer is pretty much the D4 (I admit this is off the hip numbers and I could be wrong). Now if that is your market and you need an 800mm reach well now you purchased a $17k lens and a $6k body to work with. If a pro DX camera came around your 600mm lens is now an 900mm lens, so say the D400 is $2500 and you can get a new 600mm lens for $10k then your at $12.5k. You have plenty of money to spare for that RRS gear you really wanted.

I really want a D400 so I can have a lens I can hand hold and get some distance with, the 300mm F4 or the new 80-400 might work depending on the situation. If I have to carry twice as much equipment just to support what I am shooting with the odds of me getting in the field shrink quite a bit.

SquamishPhoto

Your argument would make a lot more sense if the hypothetical buyer you described wasn't in the market for either a seventeen thousand dollar lens or a ten thousand dollar lens. That guy already owns a D4, D7100, a D3s as a backup, and maybe even a D800e just for shits and giggles. The vast majority of prospective D400 buyers aren't like that guy at all and probably aren't going to want to drop as much money on a camera as Nikon would probably charge them for the this still mythical camera. My guess is that the D610 might have a DX crop mode that allows for the high FPS that everyone is holding out for and because its in crop mode the buffer could possibly tolerate the kind of use that wildlife and sports enthusiasts intend it for.

scoobysmak

Your argument would make a lot more sense if the hypothetical buyer you described wasn't in the market for either a seventeen thousand dollar lens or a ten thousand dollar lens. That guy already owns a D4, D7100, a D3s as a backup, and maybe even a D800e just for shits and giggles. The vast majority of prospective D400 buyers aren't like that guy at all and probably aren't going to want to drop as much money on a camera as Nikon would probably charge them for the this still mythical camera. My guess is that the D610 might have a DX crop mode that allows for the high FPS that everyone is holding out for and because its in crop mode the buffer could possibly tolerate the kind of use that wildlife and sports enthusiasts intend it for.

Point taken, okay I will back it down a notch, say you needed at least 450mm of reach and didn't want to use a teleconverter. The options to me look like D4 and 500mm F4 or D400 and 300mm F4, I would probably prefer to pay for the later option. Overall we all know that you could drop a D7100 sensor and upgrade the controls to the D300s and create a D400, that could be here tomorrow. Maybe the D400 is totally ground breaking but we haven't seen it yet. While people are still buying a D800 and a D7100 just to get buy with until the D400 comes out, Nikon just sold another camera to the same owner. The D610 might have a DX crop mode that allows for faster FPS but what I would really like is a DX body that matches the controls of my D200 and D700. I have a D7000 and it works great but I don't like to use it. I am not saying it will or won't happen, I just wish it would happen but the longer it takes the less faith I have that Nikon will make it.

donaldejose

To quote a famous book: "O ye of little faith . . . "

Photobug

For clarification I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WANT. A Nikon DX camera with at least 20 megapixels more than 6 fps and able to hold more than 15 RAW images in the buffer in a D800 size body.

The D4 meets most of these requirements (although it's an FX body it can provide DX crop mode) it's price is out of my reach. Therefore, the D7100 became the bridge/interim body.

snakebunk

@Photobug: It's kind of what I want to, and it's not cool to tell other people what they need. I understand if you are upset.

This thread is going in circles. Maybe we should relax and see what happens. I'm sure that Nikon either has a great pro dx camera coming up or another camera that will make it redundant (maybe an D900 with high fps and a reasonable price). But there is no way for us to know.

SquamishPhoto

For clarification I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WANT. A Nikon DX camera with at least 20 megapixels more than 6 fps and able to hold more than 15 RAW images in the buffer in a D800 size body.

The D4 meets most of these requirements (although it's an FX body it can provide DX crop mode) it's price is out of my reach. Therefore, the D7100 became the bridge/interim body.

The price isn't really out of your reach if, like you did earlier in this thread, state that you have the funds in hand to purchase a possible future replacement to the D800 and you just blew over a thousand dollars on a D7100. You're pretty damn close to the cost of a used D4 with the new 7100 and your funds.

Photobug

Snakebunk Yea I was upset but I am over that comment. The reference to "spent more time learning how to use what you have as well as possible" burned me up. I have over 5 years shooting the D300 and by the 2nd year had mastered the camera. I have been the Nikon "go to" guy at work and on vacations have helped lots Nikon users who had camera questions. I helped many D300/D300S users on vacation in Alaska 2 years ago on using features on their camera. It's amazing how many don't know how to use the bracket function, spot meter, shutter release delay, etc. When a camera store manager calls you a D300 SME (subject matter expert) I take it with pride.

Anyway thanks for letting me get this off my chest, I'll get off the soap box. The sad thing is there are lots of people that want what you and I want in a Pro DX body. You either wait or as Scoobysmak said, "While people are still buying a D800 and a D7100 just to get buy with until the D400 comes out." That is what I did.

donaldejose

I humbly suggest that most of us tend to lust after additional equipment with attractive features while most of us have not fully used all our current equipment (both hardware and software) to its full potential. Thus, the generic comment that "we could benefit more from learning to better use what we now have than from wishing for or purchasing additional equipment" is generally true for most of us. I plead guilty as charged.

Still that doesn't stop me from thinking about what I would want to see in a D400!

sevencrossing

I humbly suggest that most of us tend to lust after additional equipment with attractive features ......at a price we can afford . eg most of the features of a D4 for less than a D800 and preferably less than a D600

I also plead guilty as charged.

donaldejose

Now that is my ideal D400: "most of the features of a D4 for less than a D800 and preferably less than a D600."

Andrewz

It's been quite here for a while and now it has just gone crazy! And donaldejose is the voice of reason, the world is upside down ;-)

I must say I'm some what amused by those of you who "know" what Nikon is planning. Sometimes I'm not sure Nikon knows what it's planning. Just re-read Thom Hogan's post "what Nikon should fix" I think it's pretty insightful on Nikon's "issues"

http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/what-nikon-should-fix.html

I will guarantee that there will be a D400, it won't be here when we all want it and it will blow away any other APS-C camera until Nikon comes up with a better sensor and throws it in the bottom of the line comsumer camera. Just the way they have in the past.

I've been shooting Nikons for over 30 years now and this company has always had the ability to amaze and piss off it most loyal customers. Remember when the EM came out? It was going to be the end of Nikon, well not yet.

donaldejose

I had an EM and some E series lenses. They were great when you wanted to carry less weight (or a very light second body) and I have to admit when shooting under reasonable conditions the photos (actually Kodachrome 25 slides) which it produced were equal to those from a Nikon F shot under the same conditions. The lighter cheaper cameras (film and digital) bodies are only lacking in the extremes; not under normal conditions.

Today I prefer to shoot with a D600 or D800 because I love the FX sensor but I have to downsize the images for facebook. When my wife wants pictures to post on facebook or other internet sites she uses I will often pick up my D7000 or D5100 and set it to small jpeg basic just so I don't have to take the extra step of downsizing the image before she can post it. I could just as well have used my D3100, but I gave it away.

heartyfisher

I had the EM .. well my mom had it and she had the 60mm Macro permanently on it. That EM was sweet !

sevencrossing

but I have to downsize the images for facebook. .

no need. FB does it for you
this was uploaded full size
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151585142810766&l=0c23b801e1

donaldejose

The problem didn't occur when posting one photo. It occurred when posting albums of many photos. Perhaps it just took too long to download many high mp photos and facebook (and others) failed to handle that load. As long as the photos contain about 3 mp the download seems to go smoothly.

SquamishPhoto

If you resize your photos to 2048 pixels wide they wont be resized by facebook and the quality is retained.

Ade

While Facebook might not resize images < 2048px, they will still aggressively re-compress them more often than not, so the image quality is not always retained.

During this re-compression step Facebook will also substitute its own color profile, rename the files, and strip out any metadata.

More recently they've also experimented with creating WEBP versions of the JPEG files, for browsers which support displaying this new file format.

Like donaldejose, I've also seen album uploads fail when there are many high-res files involved.

sevencrossing

While Facebook might not resize images < 2048px, they will still aggressively re-compress them more often than not, so the image quality is not always retained.

.

I quite like this. If people want a quality photo of my images, they come to me rather than copy the FB image.
but, as ever, we digress

darkthrac

I registered here just to say this: if one checks Nikon website for current products, then D300S is there. Using 1+1=2 logic, this means that it's successor is not ready yet for the grand public. (taking into account D300S is a +4 years old product). Products like D700 or D3 are listed as discounted, but this one is not. So do the math.

donaldejose

I have been resizing mine to 2000 pixels wide (or tall - whichever is the longest side) as my default for web applications. It seems to go smoothly at that size. Small size on the D5100 is 2464x1632 pixels. With JPG basic the small file size is about half a megabyte without resizing. JPG normal is about 1 megabyte without resizing. Those seem to work fine. So my experience has been that I can shoot images for my wife's web use at Small size and JPG Basic or Normal without resizing. I cannot really see any difference between JPG Basic or Normal on facebook or most other web sites.

For my own use its different. Flicker can handle large files.

To bring the discussion back to the D400 I think Nikon would be smart to include a setting for small file sizes. We tend to focus only on the upper end of the new camera. Yet, so many photos will be taken for web based use that it is nice to have a low file size setting which works well for the web without having to take the step of resizing each photo.

Now a point of disappointment and personal irritation for me: far too many images are viewed only on cellphones and computer monitors these days. It dilutes the art. I want large monitors capable of displaying at least 6 megapixels so we can see even half of what we produced with a modern sensor. Viewing a 2 megapixel image taken with a 36 megapixel sensor is sad indeed. However, the world is what it is and we are not going to have 6 megapixel cell phone displays. Apple claims it's retina display is the most detail a human eye can see and that is only 5 megapixels for the 15 inch MacBookPro. The iPhone 5 display is less than 1 megapixel. Our high resolution high megapixel images are trapped in a low megapixel world so we may as well have a low megapixel setting on our high megapixel sensor cameras to enable us to "shoot for ultimate use."

spraynpray

Hey @darkthrac: Welcome to NR. It isn't uncommon for Nikon to keep bodies as not discontinued for a while after the new model is actually announced so the fact that the D300s is still listed as current doesn't mean a thing. The D90/D7000/D7100 was an example.

All yous other guys: This is the D400 thread!