D300s Successor-D400, what and when

proudgeek

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.

If I thought you were right I'd give you my credit card number right now.

Photobug

Totally left out the reference to higher ISO range and the no AA filter. Thanks Msmoto..

snakebunk

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.

I am hoping for this and what photobug mentioned. In addition there should be some fun extras to make it sell like butter in the sun (swedish expression). Maybe a combined optical / electronical view fiender with live histogram in the view finder? Maybe a new level of water protection? Maybe the same battery and grip as the D800? Maybe a buffer of 100 raw files?

It is also interesting that nobody mentions video.

Sports

In addition there should be some fun extras to make it sell like butter in the sun (swedish expression)..... It is also interesting that nobody mentions video.

I'm sure video is not a widespread reason for wanting a new D400, but video WILL be there, of course, and as long as video doesn't break other features, then fine. All the firmware extensions for video don't add significantly to production cost, but some additional bugs must be expected.
Regarding fun extras, then how about high speed video? Smaller cameras can do this so why not a 2000$ semi-pro sports and action camera? Can this be accomplished using a shutter that doesn't degrade image quality for stills?

sevencrossing

adamz D810 with 10fps in DX mode is also an option, though it will require to use a double expend cpu and bigger cache memory.

but would not a D400 need the same ?

DaveyJ

They will want the D400 if it is the sub-$2,000 DX D400 That donalddejose posted above. Look at the length of the D300 , D300s thread. Many have stated that they would BUY one. No other thread has received this much volume on NR. Fine there have been those who write in mostly to say they think FX is superior. I'd like to see them with our crew in the field and WORK and shoot stills and video too. I would say with no reservation that if you think FX is the only way to go.....you are wrong. Have you ever been in the water when half the surface around you is icing up? And working too? No I didn't think so! I repeat my statement that Nikon NEEDS other income besides its FX sales. The thing I think that eludes us all who are believers in DX format WHY Nikon has failed to produce this camera! For marketing reasons alone ONLY the D400 label would generate this level of sales.

Yet make me CLEAR in saying if sevencrossing prefers FX that makes me "consider" trying FX under conditions that are not so rugged. I do not show up in the field as a "photographer", I show up as a worker who sees advantage in documenting our work. We are working on a project now that has been rebuilt 5 times in 115 years and has quite a storied past. NO PHOTOS can be found of the initial build and the 4 rebuilds. NOT ONE.
WHY?? It is hard work in any weather and would be really tough of cameras and photographers. There are thousands of photos of the edifice itself. Many by photo pros. A number were internationally reported. Yet Not one construction photo. There is a time and place for smaller cameras. Where we have been for the last month would be tough to do with say a D4 and bigger lens. Impossible to do with them? NO! It is just that it would have to be done by a photo pro who had little knowledge of what or when to photograph.

The BIGGEST reason though for a D400 and "lesser" formats is economy of scale. Fact is Nikon SELLS more smaller formats and makes more money in total on such smaller format sales. I have a PhD in Environmental Science but I think as a 14 year old boy I would understand bigger more expensive gear has a price which uses more resources. I submit to you that doing MORE with LESS has it's own majesty. For example show me photos from a modest camera that are worth as much to SOCIETY as those taken with huge camera and I for one would be more impressed with this modest equipment doing so much. Again do NOT misunderstand me. I would love to be able to use big gear all the time. But I would rather not even look like a tourist on many job sites thank you.

Last element to be duly noted: There are times when people you are photographing NEED some respect for the photographer to act normal and be more willing to show what is actually going on. Believe it or not, sometimes big gear will shut off your subjects willingness to be photographed just like a switch. Yes the actions of the photographer enter into this too. I spent some time six or seven years ago on a $128 million dollar construction project and the BEST collection of photos of the work and the final edifice were done by one of the WORKERS with a camera much like the Nikon Coolpix 310 camera. Pros showed up with their large 35mms and medium format, but his collection was the one people talk about today.

sevencrossing

DaveyJ. Have you ever been in the water when half the surface around you is icing up? And working too?


well in fact I have, but I must confess I was using a Nikonos at time

I can understand the advantage of a small camera, particularly if you are working in a harsh environment but several people have said they want /expect Larger pro body, more like D800 instead of D7100/D610 -

My sincere apologies, if my posts have offended you, I am all for smaller, lighter camera's

I have used my D800 up to my neck in muck and bullets, so yes I do know what you are talking about

One reason I don't think we will get a D400 is that there is too many differences in what people want/ expect

manhattanboy

Just laid down the cash for a 7100... the canon specs for the 7D mark II have me wondering if Nikon will follow suit. If they had just boosted the buffer on the 7100 we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints filling up this 64 page thread, and Nikon could have charged more for the 7100 instead of having the price so close to the 7000 right after launch.

After reading through 64 pages of comments it is 100% clear that Nikon doesn't listen to their broad customer base, but rather probably asks only a select few key individuals for their advice on new projects. The new digital fusion product though is likely where they will concentrate their efforts, as their CEO has said they will not play it safe.

Paperman

Don't you think if Nikon had any intention of continuing the pro-sumer DX line, they would have brought this new "Retro" model ( DF ) with an APS-C sensor ?

If they have even gone far enough to skip it ( DX )on a retro model, they surely would do without it on all advanced bodies.

snakebunk

I think it makes sense to make Nikon DF an FX camera. It is not intended for super tele photographing like a D400 partly would be. But the Nikon DF will surely have some new great technique that may be in the D400.

In my mind the Nikon DF looks like a replacement for Nikon D610, or like a fun second camera, and not like a replacement for the D300s.

adamz

@snakebunk - who said the Df is a D610. is an entirely new camera lineup - retro style.

snakebunk

@snakebunk - who said the Df is a D610. is an entirely new camera lineup - retro style.

Yes, you are correct. I should not be talking about the DF since I do not uderstand it. My main point however is that the DF does not fit as a D300s replacement. At least not for me. And I hope Nikon DF has nothing to do with the plans for the D400.

PB_PM

The DF is not meant to replace the D300s, where on earth did you get that from? I know I said a while ago that I think the DF puts a nail in the coffin of a possible D400, but thats just my point of view. I say that because Nikon is simply focusing on other projects, and ignoring the Dxxx DX body. Looking back now, it's clear to see that the D7000 and D7100 are the real nails in the coffin for the D400 (whether they meet peoples needs or not), but I think the release of a niche product like the DF just cements that.

DaveyJ

I myself am very happy with the D7100 HOWEVER my son prefers the D200 and D300 style camera. I am setting him up with my D7100 and 2DX as much as the people on NR! Why? Sales and Income! I better admit right here and now I think the new DF Nikon retro was not the camera that Nikon should have produced if they have to devote that much in resources to it. I truly do not understand why Nikon has drawn the line on the D400 they have. Obviously they do not listen to MAJORITY views of serious Nikon users. I think they take counsel in a VERY select few (who have really failed them in the D400 decision).

DaveyJ

The sentence on 2DX is erroneous and should read setting up my son with my D7100 and some of my best lens and capture cards off on a wonderful vacation. I also added that that Nikon is not listening to NR and that NIKON needs DX for sales and income. They CANNOT float their whole boat on FX!

PB_PM

Nikon's DX sales depend far more on the D3200, D5300 and kit lenses, far more than they ever have on the Dxxx DX bodies. If a D400 eventually comes out, great. If not? I doubt Nikon will go belly up as a result.

snakebunk

I am looking forward to the Nikon DF300, a retro DX camera with the looks of the good old D300.

Msmoto

In this thread which has now taken on a life of its own......almost anything Nikon does is going to be unacceptable unless we see a D400....or, something which will be the net generation of pro DX from Nikon.

At this point in time, I would guess anything is possible including a mirrorless DX body with the adapter for the F lenses, and built to a professional standard. The critical factor will be in how well the continuous servo focus works. It will have to be as good as or better than the D4.

Or, we are never going to see a D400. Maybe the D7XXX is the only DX Nikon will make until they introduce the pro mirrorless. And, maybe Nikon is going to be full frame for any of the pro bodies.

I certainly cannot figure out the way Nikon thinks. And that used to be my profession...LOL

spraynpray

I think snakebunk makes an interesting point with his comment about 'the good old D300'. Why do we need to have each body iteration so aesthetically different to the one it replaces? It's like cars, they go from 'latest 'n' greatest' to 'eeuw, that is so last year' and then 'OMG that is so sad' before 'Wow, look at that lovely old nnnnn, that is so cool!'

Keeping the same body for longer would reduce costs so we could pay even less for our new body. Nikon hit the spot with their pro layout on the D3 and D300 (possibly before but I have never seen one) so why not concentrate on developing the innards only? The answer of course is because we are such a bunch of fashion victims that when we spend money, we want everybody to know so we feel adequate. )

sevencrossing

Perhaps we could dedicate this thread to St Jude the Apostle

proudgeek

Perhaps we could dedicate this thread to St Jude the Apostle

I was thinking Don Quixote, given the futility of our desired camera ever arriving.

Sports

I certainly cannot figure out the way Nikon thinks.

When a company is competing with others, it should not reveal secrets or plans that can help its competitors too much, of course.
But hasn't it become too weird and dark and secret in this case? Is it a good thing for a professional supplier to be unpredictable? I don't think so.
If they can silently kill D400, who knows what they'll kill next?
Nikon 1?
High-res pro body?
And where is the actual advantage of being so mute? These days, tech takes years to develop, so there's not much chance Canon or others will be able to do anything much differently, even if Nikon was more open.

sevencrossing

I certainly cannot figure out the way Nikon thinks.

let's have a recap of what people seem want
Pro body like the D800 - well the D800 ticks this box
Pro controls like the D800 again the D800 ticks this box
51 point focusing - the D800 ticks this box
High ISO performance - the D800, even in crop mode, easily out performers the D300s
Use my existing dx lenses - use the D800, in crop mode
Price ??? when the D300s came out, in the UK, it was about £1400, which taken inflation into account is close to the cost of a D800 in the UK today, £1800
pixel density (reach) The D800 in crop mode has similar reach to Nikon's best DX camera

fps, this I agree is a falling, but at the moment Nikon do seem to have the processing power to give us what we want

Yes that will come, time will tell if its the form of a D810 or D400, who knows we might get both

spraynpray

In all seriousness (for a change ) ), The 7D2 rumours must give us a good degree of certainty that there will be a D400? Before I read the rumours, I was beginning to think @sevencrossing was going to be proved right and I stated early on that I was sure he was wrong so I would be eating crow otherwise (which I don't like).

I'm jumping straight to D800 so I am out anyway. My interest is only in seeing Nikon bring out another Canon eater. :P

manhattanboy

Nutshell of what I wrote that got deleted by the posting system...frustrating!

Simplify DX lineup: one cheapest as humanly possible DX DSLR and one professional, fast DX DSLR at around the price point of the 7100.

Nikon's core strength is in optics. They should lead with new, cheaper fast lenses than crap on the market place with a million camera bodies.