D300s Successor-D400, what and when

WestEndBoy

DX is ultimately doomed. As FX prices come down, DX will be pointless, except for high end point and shoots. I remember in film days when the F100, basically a film version of the D800, was around $1,500 and the professional sports action news camera (F3,4 etc) where around $3,000. The only reason cameras are more today is the sensors are expensive and their price is dropping.

With this in mind, is there really a market for a $1,500 DX camera given that the D610 is $2,000 - well there is always a market for anything, but is it sizeable enough to be profitable? In ten years full frame will start at $500. If there is a market for a $1,500 DX, it will be gone in a few short years as full frame pricing drops.

spraynpray

@sevencrossing: What is not to get? My 70-300 on my D7k gives me a 450mm VR lens and the extra working distance is great for nervous subject macro work.

@jshickele: DX will always be cheaper and lighter than FX and to many, that is enough. You cannot deny the movement to smaller and lighter photography, so why is DX not going to be around?

snakebunk

I don't know about the market size, but if Nikon hade a D400 for sale it would be my first choice, my second choice would be the D800. I will probably buy a D800 anyway because I need a new camera, and I'm looking forward to it, but a D400 would have been my first choice due to speed, reach and reasonable file size.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a market of at least one person

sevencrossing

The reach argument is simple; if you have a higher pixel density you can crop harder (given that the image is sharp enough).
.

This is the theory but can find no examples of this
Many people suggest the resolution of sensor in a D800E is close to that of many Nikon lens
If an Fx owner wants the reach of a 70 -300 on D7100 I think he will get better results using the new 80 -400 on a D800

Yes there is a very big price different, but I am happy to amid, the big advantage of Dx is price

When it comes to image quality Fx wins hands down. It is quality, that has always attracted me to Nikon

If a very keen amateur can a afford an Fx system, I see no reason to advice him to buy Dx

snakebunk

@sevencrossing: I wouldn't advice any serious Nikon photographer to buy DX either (and they wouldn't ask me). I think D800 and D4 are the only really good cameras in the current product line. A D400 would have been a nice complement to those two cameras though.

sevencrossing

snakebunk . I will probably buy a D800 anyway

I don't think you will be disappointed
it has some advantages over the D400
it actually exists
it is in stock and available
most, if not all, the bugs have ben sorted
in the UK at least, it is available at considerably less than the launch price

WestEndBoy

I shoot a D800 but would be happy with a D600. Sure I would pine for the extra few features and megapixels, but I can't say I need it. I think as long as you are full frame, you are "there". I saw a review the other day arguing that a Pentax cropped sensor camera "trumped" a D600 (or maybe it was a D800). I found the laughing very cathartic.

It seems that the assumption here is that the D400 will be FX. Given the numbering system, I assume it would be entry level FX, which would trump any DX no matter what they did to dress it up. You can't shine a sneaker. (And medium format would trump FX and large format would trump medium format etc.)

I find the "reach" argument in favor of DX betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. I could use a 24mm on FX and get 2,000 mm if I crop it enough. Somehow the 4 pixels that I would be left with would be unsatisfying however. The same logic, albeit without the extreme example, applies to arguing that a 200mm DX has the same reach as a 300mm FX. I think that if you count the pixels in 200mm FX cropped to 200mm DX, you will see that you have the same thing as a real 200mm DX, probably more when you account for the typical higher resolution (sharpness) of FX lenses.

snakebunk

@sevencrossing, @jshickele: In the example below I have a photograph of a Goldcrest (Nikon D300s, Sigma 500/4.5). It's the smallest bird in Sweden and it's very hard to get it to fill the frame even with a DX camera. The only result of taking this photograph with a bigger sensor would be a bigger file and more pixels cropped away. If I had a higher pixel density on the other hand I would have had more detail in the image. I hope this example can give you a better understanding of why a small sensor can be the better alternative.

sevencrossing

snakebunk

I think, if you had taken the Goldcrest on a D800 with the same lens and cropped; you would have a higher pixel density and higher quality

A D7100 should have similar pixel density with out need to crop

The D800 would have bigger file sizes, which I appreciate may mean a new computer and more expense

but that seems to be the only disadvantage

Again I happily admit, the advantage of Dx is that it is cheaper

But when it comes to pixel density with the current range of sensors, there seems to be little difference between Dx and Fx

what about fps? yes the big files of the D800 means only 4 fps
but I think Nikon will address this with the D810 or D900
rather than a D400

DaveyJ

THe DX advantage over FX is PRIMARILY field carry. I have seen MANY FX Nikon users in the field. I have seen their results. The overall images of a DX camera in these field settings often outperform the FX cameras in that regard. The advantage FX HAS is being able to operate in a controlled environment where you cannot go out and be in the action. Since we here DO NOT photograph or participate in sports that are primarily spectator sports we use DX. We will go in the future to cameras like the D800E for SOME of our work. The other HUGE advantage DX has OVER FX is the price to the consumer which ultimately means to you if Nikon isn't making a PROFIT on cameras to the masses YOU will be paying more for your FX Nikons. That is WHY Nikon needs to be making D7200 and D400 cameras RIGHT NOW.

Sports

Will Nikon make an FX "D400" because DX is just some low-end crap, as some seem to suggest??
You never know with Nikon, but there's one thing wrong with this, seen from Nikon's point of view: It would take away lots and lots of D4 sales. We actually don't know if Nikon makes money on the D4. Maybe, they don't, and then an FX D400 would be very desirable to Nikon. But if they want to keep the D4 business, then how does an FX D400 fit in?
In the D3 days, the D3S got a far superior new sensor when D700 came. But technology has advanced, so this won't be possible again, I'm sure.

sevencrossing

. The overall images of a DX camera in these field settings often outperform the FX cameras in that regard. W.

As someone who shoots FX and mostly in the field, I find that a very bold statement

I cannot think of a single occasion when I would have been better off with DX

apart from cost please give us some facts why DX is better

given when the D800 was launched, demand far exceeded supply I can only guess Nikon mad a profit on this camera

adamz

let me bite this topic from a FX shooter who had DX cameras before. the first thing is why I've switched to FX. answer is simple: picture quality in higher iso. that's so far the best and most important difference between FX and DX. would I buy a pro DX camera to come along my D800/D3s combo? probably yes. Why? because for animal photography you need mm. I love D3s for its speed and I love D800 for its image rendering but both of them have some drawbacks. D3s - lack of Mpx - 2 years ago I wouldn't said this, but nowadays after being spoiled with d800 that's my statement it's still a great camera for any reportage style shooting, and for night photography (still the best camera for that in the whole Nikon lineup) but for shooting fine art, it lacks details. on the other hand D800 has enough details, however they come with a high price to pay: speed. fps is slow and the buffer size is even smaller, even with sandisk extreme pro on board. so for me a 24Mpx D400 with 7/8fps, 100% vf coverage and 30-35image buffer would be a perfect choice.

sevencrossing

. so for me a 24Mpx D400 with 7/8fps, 100% vf coverage and 30-35image buffer would be a perfect choice.

Do you think that would replace your D800 AND D3s combo ? or would that add a third camera ?
For me the solution is a D810 that would shoot at 8/ 10 fps with a battery pack in dx crop mode
I really only want to carry one camera

spraynpray

My goodness this thread is getting bizarre with some really 'off the wall' posts!

Wot AdamZ said plus the fact that there is a great deal more quality to be gained from using high end FX glass on DX bodies than there is in swapping from say, a D7000 to a D7100 body for instance IMHO. Oh, and a D400 taking D4 sales? I don't think so.

catfish

Don't look now but new specs were posted again on Canon Rumors about the new 7D Mark II :

EOS 7D Mark II in March?
A spec list has shown up for an EOS 7D Mark II with a possible announcement in March of 2014.

According to the rumor, the sensor is not yet confirmed, though it does mention it won’t be the same as the EOS 70D. Also a mention of innovative video features, something we’ve talked about previously. There’s not much new here as far as specs go, but at least the camera is being talked about.

20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF
Auto-Focus system similar to the EOS 5D Mark III (61 points), possibly the same as 5D3
High frame rate, 10-12 fps
“high grade” weather sealing, like Canon’s professional DSLRs
Dual Digic V+ processor
Single card slot
WiFi & GPS
Innovative video features
Price around $2000
Very good ISO performance

proudgeek

so for me a 24Mpx D400 with 7/8fps, 100% vf coverage and 30-35image buffer would be a perfect choice.

This would be the perfect camera for me. I'd plop my 300mm on it and never take it off. It would probably be the cure for my case of NAS. I think that I'd be done shopping for a quite a long time.

snakebunk

Those Canon rumors are hopeful!

They've done waterproof, retro, inexpensive fx, the pixel record camera and all kinds of entry level dx. What could possibly be the next Nikon camera if not a pro level dx?

adamz

@sevencrosing - tough question, as I really love my combo I guess if they release d400 than I'll sooner or later get it and after that decide. D810 with 10fps in DX mode is also an option, though it will require to use a double expend cpu and bigger cache memory.

shawnino

It seems that the assumption here is that the D400 will be FX. Given the numbering system, I assume it would be entry level FX, which would trump any DX no matter what they did to dress it up. You can't shine a sneaker. (And medium format would trump FX and large format would trump medium format etc.)

Unless I mistook the temperature of the thread, I think for the purposes of this exchange we're using "D400" to stand in for:
--DX
--Pro Build
--High FPS
and some other stuff which may be unique to each poster's mind (sensor quality and ISO performance vs. D7100 in my mind... but everyone's different)

We're just calling it "D400" because we don't know what else to call it. But for discussion purposes it is most certainly DX.

donaldejose

People can have all sorts of different opinions for all sorts of different reasons. I say, put a sub-$2,000 DX D400 into the marketplace and let the market determine whether or not people will want it.

adamz

@donaldejose - I doubt that Nikon have the guts to let customers decide of what they want

spraynpray

People can have all sorts of different opinions for all sorts of different reasons. I say, put a sub-$2,000 DX D400 into the marketplace and let the market determine whether or not people will want it.

Bring it on!

Photobug

Spraynpray said it...
My goodness this thread is getting bizarre with some really 'off the wall' posts!

After reading this blog for many months then all of a sudden the D400 is FX. No way is that going to happen.

My requirements for a top of the line DX body, what we are calling D400, is:
Larger pro body, more like D800 instead of D7100/D610
High FPS...8 would be nice, 10 better
Larger Buffer, like the D300S
20 to 24MP
100% view finder
Faster AF
Button flexability like the D7100
Built in GPS
WiFI does not need to be built in but would be nice
Dual card slots: CF and SD card
Dual processor or next generation EXCEEDS
Weather sealed like D800
Price point: $2,100 to $2,300

Three months ago I did a similar list of features but did not go back and do a search, so I may have missed a function or two. Any thing close to the above DSLR would result in an immediate order.

Msmoto

In today's list of cameras....the D400, if produced most certainly will have ISO 12,800, 8-9 FPS, 24MP, no AA filter, Expeed 4 processor. and a buffer to handle 20-30 RAW files. Price....I am guessing about $2200. Size will be possibly identical to the D800.