D300s Successor-D400, what and when

Emcee

FreezeAction
Just focus on doing action sports well...

Simple, get a D4s (3D-Tracking in 9 or 21 points group) and use it in crop mode
No I cant afford one ether
Yes, 50 years on, the D4s suffers from the same problem as the Nikon F, its expensive

That would be silly. Crop in post. If you crop in camera and miss something, it is lost forever.

I thought when you cropped in camera, it just created a separate file?

snakebunk

FreezeAction
Just focus on doing action sports well...

Simple, get a D4s (3D-Tracking in 9 or 21 points group) and use it in crop mode
No I cant afford one ether
Yes, 50 years on, the D4s suffers from the same problem as the Nikon F, its expensive

That would be silly. Crop in post. If you crop in camera and miss something, it is lost forever.

I thought when you cropped in camera, it just created a separate file?

Crop mode is just disabling a number of pixels. Less data and the image file gets smaller and that is why you can sometimes get a little more fps in crop mode.

Sports

I would be happy if Nikon raised the budget for the D7200 and made it the D300s replacement.

True, but D7xxx has been very succesful at its price point, so would Nikon move it to D300 quality teritory and increase the price of the D7200?
They could raise the price a little bit, maybe, but not much. It would then drop, because its competing with Canon and others. Nikon would end up building 100s of 1000s of D72000s at a higher quality level without being able to get their investment back.
At the same time, almost all the D400 whiners (that's us) are actually willing to pay double price. Nikon would not get this premium.
It's highly likely that they've killed D300/D400 but I don't believe they'll ever make D7xxx a proper successor.

manhattanboy

There is a void in the market place as I see it and someone will profit from it. Someone will wake up and build a crop sensor body with a real buffer in it at 8 frames a second or more. More pixels not needed. Just focus on doing action sports well...

The existing 7D fits that description quite nicely. They would have to put in more pixels, the 5DM3 autofocus system, and new Digic processors just to justify selling another camera. But I agree with you, if Canon did those three things and nothing else, they would still sell a lot of them! However, I would hope for wifi, as its awesome on the Canon system.

I thought I would use my D800 in crop mode, but it turns out that I have never even tried it. I think crop mode is pretty much useless for most people.

I disagree. I shoot full frame when I can, but distance shooting is tough. You need the higher pixel density of the crop sensor. And a significant amount of time I am still cropping a DX image. Not having to process and store those extra wasted pixels by shooting in 1.3x crop mode on a DX is very significant. In fact I would say that the 1.3x crop mode is probably my favorite feature of the 7100 by far. I would be willing to even take a further crop mode say 1.6x in exchange for even faster fps and better buffer, as the 1.3x crop files are still around 15 megs a piece.

sevencrossing

blockquote It's highly likely that they've killed D300/D400 but I don't believe they'll ever make D7xxx a proper successor.


agreed . None of my friends who own or have owned a D300 have moved or intend to move to a D7xxx
They have moved or intend to move, back to full frame
(none shoot video and all move from film to a D300)

Nikonhotep

blockquote It's highly likely that they've killed D300/D400 but I don't believe they'll ever make D7xxx a proper successor.


agreed . None of my friends who own or have owned a D300 have moved or intend to move to a D7xxx
They have moved or intend to move, back to full frame
(none shoot video and all move from film to a D300)

My progression has been F100--> D300--> D7100. I had been holding out for a D400, but when the D7100 came along last spring, waiting any longer seemed pointless. Even though the buffer/frame rate is less than ideal, I really needed those 24 megapixels (while keeping the DX "reach") for the bird photography I'd begun to do a few years before.

A camera that doesn't exist also doesn't take photographs! And I needed to take photographs. Sticking with the D300 while waiting for a hypothetical D400 when a body that improved on certain aspects of the D300 (MP, autofocus, noise) and was otherwise adequate for my needs (and within my price range) already existed simply made no sense to me.

Had the D7100 not come along, I might have switched to a Canon 7d. However, the D7100 offered sufficient advantages (e.g., more MP, which really matters for bird photography; compatibility with my current lenses) to be my choice. I don't regret it.

If Nikon does someday produce a D400, if it's sufficiently better for my needs than the D7100 to warrant the investment, I'll get it. Ditto a D7200 etc. However, my budget for a new body is not what it would have been last year. I've since put a fair bit of money towards new glass (80-400mm). If a D400 does come out in the next year or two, it will likely be some while before I can afford it!

sevencrossing

towards new glass (80-400mm).
all the hype is true , you will love it

Photobug

My progression has been F100--->D200--->D300--->D7100. Like NIkonhotep I gave up in September and got the D7100 cause I needed the 24 MP. I shoot some birds and more wildlife and needed that "reach" and it's worked for me. So far have not been limited by the FPS and buffer size.

If Nikon shocks us and introduces a D400/D9000 well I assess the improvements and probably buy one. Now, I stay with what I am shooting.

heartyfisher

if we assume that we will never get a D400.. what are the options for equivalent functionality ?

looks like people have mostly opted for the D7100 ? is that right ? while many have just not bought as there is no camera with the expected feature/function sets.

for me I have looked at the following
1) D7000 - I got this as a stop gap hoping for a D400 to come along soon.
2) D7100 - may have got this if i didnt already have a D7000
3) D300S - I have the Fuji S5pro (D200 clone) contemporary to the D300 we are wanting a replacement for .. so that is what I am trying to replace.
4) FUJI X systems (X Pro, XE-1, XE2) almost exactly the feature set we need .. except for the need to change systems. still a good option if the FUJI feature set is a "exact" match for what you want it for right now. cos long term the nikon system is still more viable. and the CLS is too good.
5) Canon - they don't have the 7D replacement either.
6) Pentax K3 what an awesome kit! may have gone with it if I didn't already have so many nikon lenses.
7) Nikon FX : D600/D610 - still a down grade in functionality similar to getting a D7000 but with the better FX sensor. - prices wise would be exactly the same as what a D400 would cost. so its a compromise of features vs functionality. i must say the recent price drops here have got me tempted.
8) Nikon FX : D800/E - almost exactly what a D400 should be. but for the price. and FPS.
9) Nikon FX : Df - totally different direction from the D400.. still an interesting option.. it doesn't quite fit the spot of the D400 at all.. but then it does not fit any current spots at all.
9) keep waiting !

so which option did you take and why ?

rbrylawski

D7100 Here. It does everything I could possibly need and then some.

Photobug

I went with Option 2 and I love it.

I just got tired of waiting and wanted some of the new features and the 24mp. It was a stop gap until the D400 comes along. Got mine in September and wish I had pulled the trigger earlier.

I am surprised how quickly my hands adjusted to the smaller body. Have yet to max out the buffer and last months I shot over 200 BIF shots.

I sold the D300 so my out of pocket cost was less than $600 + $120 for the RSS "L" bracket and some money for a fast 32GB memory card. I just don't see the D400/D9000 coming along. If it does I will immediately preorder the body.

In the mean time I have saved enough money to buy a 24-70mm F2.8 lens and have 2/3 of the money for a D800 if that D400 never happens. That is my plan.

WestEndBoy

Option 8. DX was never an option for me and I made a decision to stick to point and shoots for convenience and film for quality until FX was affordable and had enough megapixels. I was going to hold out for 50, but 36 was close enough.

heartyfisher

LOL @jshickele you dont count .. you were never going to get a D400 anyway :-)

FreezeAction

I went with the newer D5300 to have something to use while collecting FF glass and waiting for a pair. The mystical D400 @ whatever and a 54mp D900E. (If you are going to want a plane might as well want a jet.) If Nikon ditches the D400 I know where to get a 7D Mark II.

Ironheart

... I know where to get a 7D Mark II.

Really? Can you enlighten us??

PB_PM

Yup, just use duck tape to put a II beside the 7D on the exiting 7D.

sevencrossing

deleted

Sports

if we assume that we will never get a D400.. what are the options for equivalent functionality ?
For me I have looked at the following

If you really want all options, then a couple of new entries would be Panasonic GH4 and Sony A79 (or whatever the name will be). Both pretty high-end for crop sensor bodies, but I have no idea how they'll perform compared to D300/D7100.

Msmoto

Time for one of my predictions…..LOL )

The D4s has a "native" ISO of 25,600. The DXXX has usually been one stop slower. So, the D400, if it is announced, ISO up to 12,800. Possibly 24 MP, but could be less. Also, the newer focus of the D4s…with some limits so as to not compete fully.

Of course, all depends on the intentions of Canon and the introduction of their new crop sensor prosumer body. The idea of a mirrorless APS-C is a further confounding factor.

My preference would be for Nikon to give us a new APS-C mirrorless and the ability to use all the "F" mount lenses with an adapter. Whatever the new equipment is from Nikon, I do hope we see something with the ergonomics like a D4 or D800 if a DSLR, or a Nikon version of the Fujifilm X-T1.

snakebunk

@heartyfisher:

I went D300s -> D800. Reason was that I didn't want lesser build quality, I didn't want lower pixel density, I wanted better ISO performance and I wanted to keep using my collection of CF cards. With the D800 I got all of this and a bigger sensor as a bonus.

There is only one thing that I miss from the D300s and that is the switch between one or many focuspoints. It took no time to change focuspoints on the D300s and I didn't even have to look at the switch. I could for example follow a bird taking of from a lake and switch to many points as it started to fly.

What I did not get that I wished for in the D400 is even higher pixel density and lots of fps (maybe we will get this in a D810/D900).

I am quite happy with the D800 but for the future I am interested in CX as a complement to FX for the extra rea... I am also hoping for the next generation of the Sigma Foveon cameras. And let us pray that the D800 will not be another great discontinued camera.

sevencrossing

snakebunk

And let us pray that the D800 will not be another great discontinued camera.

The D300s was prosumer camera for people who wanted something better than a D90 but could not afford or needed a D3

The D800 is prosumer camera for people who want something better than a D7100 but cannot afford or do not need a D4

In time we will see a Dx consumer camera getting close to the quality of a D800
In time we will see a D5

and it will be time say a fond farewell to the amazing D800 and move on

FreezeAction

... I know where to get a 7D Mark II.

Really? Can you enlighten us??

Yup, just use duck tape to put a II beside the 7D on the exiting 7D.

What works for a D4s will work for a 7D Mark II ... Just a dab of white paint. At least until B&H has on in stock hopefully by the 3rd quarter. In the meantime one can still hope for a D400.

"> "> %%-

snakebunk

The D300s was prosumer camera for people who wanted something better than a D90 but could not afford or needed a D3

The D800 is prosumer camera for people who want something better than a D7100 but cannot afford or do not need a D4

For me the D3/D4 line of cameras have not been interesting due to the low pixel density, but for a lot of applications I am sure they are the best Nikon DSLRs you can get.

I would not say that a D4 is strictly better than a D800, or that a D800 is better than a D7100. They have different strengths and you have to draw your own conclusions based upon your needs.

WestEndBoy

LOL @jshickele you dont count .. you were never going to get a D400 anyway :-)

Guilty as charged. However, I held out for 4 years for what I wanted. I could have bought a D700, but held out for a higher resolution camera.

proudgeek

I'm with Sevencrossing. I bought a D800 several months ago and have been very pleased using it for what I'd use a D400 for (wildlife), due in large part to the cropping ability. I'll hold out for another few months as I don't "need" a second body presently (although I do have a D90 I could use in a pinch). If someone came to me right now and said I had to have a second body though, I'd buy another D800.