D300s Successor-D400, what and when

sevencrossing

Depends what the photo is for. When shooting events (e.g. weddings), you can't not take the shot. If it takes ISO 6400, you go 6400.

There is an entire thread on the difference between an amateur photographer and a professional. The fact the professional cannot simply go home, when conditions get tough, high lights one of the big differences .
I think I might also explain why 5 out of 6 of the current range of Nikon professional cameras are FX
( D300s is the only dx in the UK line up )

if the IQ of D3300 get near the IQ of the D4s at ISO 12800 then yes we may see at D400 this year

Sports

It's been mentioned that the Pentax K-3 "is" the D400. At least, some of its specs are just what many Nikon shooters have been waiting for ... even if it's inferior in other areas.
Now, Sony will most likely also release a new "high end" DX body (June). Again, specs will definitely be better than what Nikon offers. (I know all the reservations regarding Sony, but I'm talking about specs.)
So, Nikon ....
"Cheap consumer bodies, we got 'em! Many colors! Oh, I see, sir, you want the best [specs]? I'm sorry, sir, but THEN you are must go to other brand, sir."
- Please tell me this is not how it's gonna be.

donaldejose

"5 out of 6 of the current range of Nikon professional cameras are FX"

"if the IQ of D3300 get near the IQ of the D4s at ISO 12800 then yes we may see at D400 this year"

Interesting comments. Suggests Nikon has set a high bar at ISO 12800 for what a sensor has to be able to do to be placed in a pro body. However, I suggest the comment unrealistically sets the bar too high. A DX sensor with image quality as good as the D600 at ISO 6400 should qualify as good enough to put into a pro body. Usable 6400 ISO should be enough.

sevencrossing

donaldejose A DX sensor with image quality as good as the D600 at ISO 6400 should qualify as good enough to put into a pro body. Usable 6400 ISO should be enough....

yes agree

donaldejose

Upon further reflection I am thinking a good benchmark for a quality and very usable 24 mp pro DX sensor would be for it to perform as well as the 24 mp sensor in the D3x. We are almost there in using DxOMark numbers as a point of comparison and we now exceed the D3x in FX with the D610 for one fourth the cost. Consider the following data.

D3x D7100 D610 D3

Score 88 83 94 81

Portrait 24.7 24.2 25.1 23.5

Landscape 13.7 13.7 14.4 12.2

Sports(ISO) 1992 1256 2925 2290

I am not really suggesting Nikon has any such specific benchmark keeping them from producing the D400 (which I do think we will see later this year). I am just making a comparison to illustrate how far DX has come in one generation and to also suggest that in the span of two generations DX closes the gap with FX except for IQ at high ISO.

spraynpray

Really Donald? That is a surprise. My opinion is that the D7100 IQ at hi ISO is markedly better than the D7000 and has closed on FX.

donaldejose

spraynpray: Yes, I know you feel that way based upon real world (not test charts) testing you have done. I was just using DxOMark sports numbers as a comparison point because they provided a precise number (how precise is open to debate) using the same criteria (I assume). Those number show the D7100 is still basically about a stop behind FX. In Sports DxOMark rates the D7000 at 1167 vs. the D7100 at 1256 showing not much improvement at all; quite a conflict with your observations of a two stop improvement. I suspect they are looking at the image at 100% rather than looking at it the same size and due to the smaller pixel size of the D7100 the noise which it produces has finer grain which tends to be less visible in a comparison of same image sizes. So in the real world when shooting in dim light and viewing the two images in the same size on your monitor or in two 8 x 10 prints lying side by side the visible noise produced by the D7100 is two stops better than that produced by the D7000. We had this same effect when the D800 came out and produces smaller noise spots due to smaller photosites on the sensor. Otherwise, I have no way to explain this apparent contradiction.

WestEndBoy

I believe that in less than four years Nikon will have an FX camera for the same price as the D7100. This is likely in 2016/17 when they update the D610 (D620), D800 (D810) and D4 (D5) (and maybe a DF2).

Again, my opinion, but the market for the D400 is smallish despite the length of this post and the passion behind it. The market for DX professional glass (DX primes in particular) is even smaller (many D400 shooters would use FX glass). There are bigger strategic objectives such as ensuring that FX is shored up against Canon and Sigma, determining how to exploit the market for full frame mirrorless, determining how to manage the decline of point and shoots and how to deal with what looks like a strategic error in hindsight, the Nikon 1 system (probably should have been a DX sized sensor, but if sales hold up in Asia despite their decline in the west, maybe not really an error, but definitely not a long-term 10 plus year strategy).

Finally, one should consider that DX is fundamentally flawed as a long-term strategy. It was a brilliant short-term strategy that enabled Nikon to manage the shift from film to digital, keep their lens line relevant and still serves the consumer market VERY well. However, DX "architecture" is too big for the DX sensor. The flange diameter and flange to focal length are both bigger than they need to be. This prevents Nikon from exploiting to the fullest possible extant the inherent advantage of a DX sized sensor, which is its small size and its ability to accommodate a small camera.

So more likely, in my opinion, than a D400 and DX primes (they may throw one in, but it won't be a serious strategy) is a new line of mirrorless based on the DX sensor which will emphasize small size and image quality. The Coolpix A and the fact that Nikon is pushing it hard (it is still one of the featured items on the Canadian website) is a hint of that strategy.

And then the strategy will be to milk DX but not to invest in it except for refreshes and updates of current models, which will occur naturally as FX full frames continue to decline until an FX body is available for less than $500. The lack of a D400 and professional grade DX glass is consistent with this.

sevencrossing

.....a new line of mirrorless based on the DX sensor which will emphasize small size and image quality. The Coolpix A ........

.

I think your could be right
the F mount is not best suited for a Dx camera
I am the only one who hoped the Nikon 1 would be DX
Will we get a Coolpix A 400
and will fit in a Jacket pocket and be suitable for winter mountaineering
I hope so

spraynpray

@donaldejose: It is hard to understand, isn't it. I reviewed my results in LR at 100% also BTW. I do agree that at normal size, the noise isn't visible (although the colour noise/cast on my D7000 was pretty bad at 3200 and was awful at 6400.

sevencrossing

even on FX its the colour that suffers at high ISO values
at 6400 I nearly always convert to B&W

Ade

Hmm…


D800E, ISO 6400, 85mm f/1.4G, 1/160s at 1.4.

Available light, handheld, no noise reduction used. ISO 6400 is no reason to pack up and go home.

donaldejose

Ade: Yes, very nice; great advertisement for FX sensor and f1.4 glass. Also, great colors and bokeh from the 85mm f1.4 lens.

jshickele: Well, if Nikon can produce a next generation FX pro body at the historic price point ($1,800 USD) then it can produce a next generation pro body D400 at about $1.400. I would think the relative price advantage of the DX sensor as compared to the FX sensor would likely remain constant.

WestEndBoy

Ade: Yes, very nice; great advertisement for FX sensor and f1.4 glass. Also, great colors and bokeh from the 85mm f1.4 lens.

jshickele: Well, if Nikon can produce a next generation FX pro body at the historic price point ($1,800 USD) then it can produce a next generation pro body D400 at about $1.400. I would think the relative price advantage of the DX sensor as compared to the FX sensor would likely remain constant.

A pro body will always be over a thousand dollars. If FX declines to the point where the difference between FX and DX is 200 or even 100, I think that that calculus changes.

sevencrossing

A lot of this tread is about the expected price of a D400

I think the Df proved, we have absolutely no idea how Nikon price its new products

looking at the rumored spec, did any one guess the Df would cost more than a D800?

rbrylawski

If a 7D MII appears from Canon this year, we can be pretty sure Nikon will be forced to compete, which is where a D400 would make sense.

Sports

D7100 is excellent, no doubt.
But the segment is becoming more and more crowded.
Pentax K-3 a few months back.
Now, Fuji's new body is improving here, there and everywhere. And they're announcing weather sealed lenses! Can't wait to see its AF performance and EVF for myself.
The upcoming Sony has apperantly a price tag on it now, just north to the D7100.
Even if there won't be a D400, the next D7x00 will have to take some attractive steps to stay on top.

WestEndBoy

I will be bold and predict that there will be one more upgrade to the D7xxx and the Nikon will discontinue the D7xxx series and replace it with a FX D500 at a similar price point. And if not that generation, then the one after.

Msmoto

The real mystery is what the next generation of crop sensor bodies will be. I suspect both Canon and Nikon are working on a mirrorless APSC sensor body which will accept the "F" mount lens with an adapter. The decision they have to make is one of marketing. If the introduction is too soon, it will not be a success and if too late…who knows. The dilemma is how to gauge this transition from a reflex body to a mirrorless.

In the end, I think this may be the issue holding up the D400 or whatever it will be called.

snakebunk

Do we think that there will be a new mount in future mirrorless FX/DX cameras?

Sports

Do we think that there will be a new mount in future mirrorless FX/DX cameras?

On the forum, there was this long list of desirable, modern features, that a new mount should support. There's so much to get, if they take the step, and introduce a new mount. There has to be a new mount at some point. Yet another area where Nikon could potentially mess up, if they do too little, too late, too expensive, whatever..
But a) it'll take years to get a proper selection of lenses, of course, b) Nikon prefers to stay conservative and stay compatible, and c) they already introduced Nikon 1 mount.
Who would buy into a system with just a couple of lenses available? Even if a new mount was meant for the full lineup, Nikon could probably consider making some consumer bodies where it's acceptable to only have a kit lens and 2 or 3 more. Does this make sense?
And THIS is why it belongs in the D400 thread ..... the lens selection is not there for the D400 to have a new mount..

spraynpray

Do we think that there will be a new mount in future mirrorless FX/DX cameras?

If they are making new lenses for a new mirrorless camera and mount, that would explain why they are inactive on DX lenses and late on a D400...

manhattanboy

The real mystery is what the next generation of crop sensor bodies will be. I suspect both Canon and Nikon are working on a mirrorless APSC sensor body which will accept the "F" mount lens with an adapter.

Canon already had the EOS-M crop mirrorless body that could accept FF lenses with an adapter. It did not do too well and they decided to release an updated version primarily for the Asian market. The next Canon crop body is said to have a "hybrid" viewfinder where stills can be shot optically and videos shot using an overlay.

IMHO, mirrorless has a long way to go before replacing tele action shooting, but it should start eating away at everything else. Nikon would be foolish to have the D400 as a new mount unless they were going to go after video...why add unnecessary bulk and also would the adapter be strong enough to hold the professional superteles that D400 users would have?

Ade

@manhattanboy

When using superteles, the support (tripod/monopod) would be attached to the lens, not the camera body, so the mount / adapter doesn't have to be any stronger since it's not supporting the weight of the lens. The mount / adapter only has to hold the weight of the camera body, which is typically lighter with a mirrorless design anyway.

Also, an adapter doesn't not add more bulk (depth) than before -- after all the total distance (lens mount flange to sensor distance) has to be exactly the same as we have today, so the depth of a mirrorless body + adapter must equal the depth of a standard SLR.

WestEndBoy

And I am sure that they could make an adapter that would hold an aircraft carrier if they wanted to.