D300s Successor-D400, what and when

1skully

I read here more than i post and would believe many more do the same. i for one did quit waiting for the magical mythical D400 and bought at first a D3 and now a used D3s, however i would purchase a D400 with the right specs for a crop sensor camera for my wildlife photography. I hear many here say that Dx shooters don't want to buy the expensive tele's. I know many Nikon and Canon shooters who own expensive long glass that shoot Dx. We just want the best Dx camera to go with them. Just my 2cents.

sevencrossing

Well I think Nikon are listening
They do realize people want
11 fps Shooting for 200 Shots
Native ISO 25600, Extended to ISO 409600
and are listing to the sort of people who bought the Nikon F
Full time professionals with deep pockets

Msmoto

Maybe this all means the D400 will have what the D4 has at present…..now that the D4s is improved. I mean we can hope, can't we?

donaldejose

I do think Nikon has been waiting on emerging technologies before producing a D400. If the D4s uses a new sensor plus an Expeed4 processor plus new noise reduction software to yield a native ISO of 25,600 one would think the same technology could be combined in a DX size sensor to yield a native ISO of 12,800; one stop down from the D4s. We can hope.

sevencrossing

If the D4s or the Df had 24mp, then yes may be there is hope of a D400
but most of you seem to want the D400 to have "reach" ( greater pixel density ) high fps and high ISO values
high pixel density and high ISO values do not seem to be very compatible

donaldejose

Conventional wisdom has been that high pixel density is inversely related to clean high ISO ability. However, that may have been in the past. Currently some people report (or prove) that a 36mp D800 has better clean high ISO than a 24mp or 16mp sensor. See. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2012-04-05-High-ISO/#6400 Compare the images at ISO 6,400. The D800 acquits itself very well.

PB_PM

You brought Ken Rockwell into the discussion, your point is invalid.

WestEndBoy

Ken Rockwell causes me some real concern when a newbie reads his site, but I find that I can't disagree with his particular comments in the Analysis section of that post regarding high ISO.

spraynpray

Also compare the D7100 to the D7000 - huge difference in Hi ISO noise - D7100 waaay better.

donaldejose

D7000 has 16 mp while the D7100 has 24 mp yet the D7100 high ISO noise is "waay better," some have said two stops better. So the old conventional wisdom that lower mp are needed for clean high ISO is no longer true. As KR says in his usual overstatement style to emphasize how clean the high ISO files on the D7100 are "OK people, that's enough wasting time worrying about high ISOs. When I can snap constellations of stars in the sky as I walk down the street, complete with full autofocus and exposure and everything, and get clean results like this, DX cameras have come far enough for anything." And the D400, when it arrives, likely will be one stop better than the D7100.

electron

Is this waaaay better ?



http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D7000___919_865_680#measuretabs-2

manhattanboy

Is this waaaay better ?



http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D7000___919_865_680#measuretabs-2

Is it better?
Short answer is yes, as the 24 mp sensor has the same ISO values as the 16 mp sensor without loss in dynamic range.

Is it way better?
That's subjective and up to you!

spraynpray

@electron: As I said in my original post on this, I had no intention of buying a D7100 but after doing side-by-side tests using the same lens, settings and subject, I found a two stop advantage in the IQ of the D7100 in low light (night). The hi ISO noise of the D7100 at 6400 was a fraction better than the hi ISO noise of my D7000 at 1600. This is waaay better, and it was enough that I now have a D7000 and a D7100 in my bag.

In better light, it is awesome. I sent a string of snaps taken at each ISO stop of an item illuminated by the light of a compact fluorescent bulb to a friend and he was shocked that straight out of camera they all looked the same.

I believe my test over DxO Mark's any day as 1/ I did it and it is my money I am spending, and 2/ it is totally relevant to why I bought the body (low light performance) and 3/ there is no 'normalisation' or other jiggery-pokery to confuse the issue.

Kuv

Also, DxO mark testing is severly flawed. The scores favor Nikon heavily and that's just not true. Even some entry-level Nikon DSLRs get better scores than some high-end Canons.

sevencrossing

I believe my test over DxO Mark's any day .

+100

Given the speed of processing an image in the digital age and the fact "film is free" I am surprised more people don't do their own testing. Only you can decided, what is and what is not acceptable, when bumping up the ISO

donaldejose

"Nikon also says that, in terms of visible noise, the new model should show an improvement of around 1EV between ISO 6400-25,600 over the D4. So, results at ISO 6400 on the D4S, for example, should resemble those achievable at ISO 3200 on the D4. This is, at least in part, thanks to the Expeed 4 processing engine which processes noise from different parts of the image in different ways, depending on whether those parts are in focus."

I would guess this software will now be in all new Nikon DSLRs.

manhattanboy

"Nikon also says that, in terms of visible noise, the new model should show an improvement of around 1EV between ISO 6400-25,600 over the D4. So, results at ISO 6400 on the D4S, for example, should resemble those achievable at ISO 3200 on the D4. This is, at least in part, thanks to the Expeed 4 processing engine which processes noise from different parts of the image in different ways, depending on whether those parts are in focus."

I would guess this software will now be in all new Nikon DSLRs.

Expeed 4 is the new processing chip (the D4 has expeed 3).
But I am not sure why Nikon is playing up the new Expeed4.

Do you know how much the Expeed 4 should cost as a premium to the Expeed 3?

About $50.
The 5300 has the 4 and the 5200 has the 3. Price difference is $50:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010023-REG/nikon_1520_d5300_dslr_camera_red.html?sid=cpw-17368116&sub=cpw
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/910171-REG/nikon_1507_d5200_digital_slr_camera.html?sid=cpw-17368118&sub=cpw

Sports

In reality, the price difference between Expeed 3 and 4 is not more than a few dollars. But there's always an artificial "new product premium". In a few months, the real price of the new chip will most likely be the same as the current price of the 3, and Nikon will use it in all new bodies even entry level.
(The 2014 quad core 1.7 GHz smartphone CPU is also more or less the same price as the 2011 single core 1 GHz.)
Actually, D4S is probably cheaper to build than D4 because its Expeed 4 is off-the-shelf, while the processor in D4 was some specially selected and tweaked Expeed 3 .... or something .... if I'm not mistaken.)

Ironheart

Supposedly the D4 and the D800 share the same Expeed 3 variant, the first one capable of uncompressed video out.

manhattanboy

In reality, the price difference between Expeed 3 and 4 is not more than a few dollars. But there's always an artificial "new product premium". In a few months, the real price of the new chip will most likely be the same as the current price of the 3, and Nikon will use it in all new bodies even entry level.
(The 2014 quad core 1.7 GHz smartphone CPU is also more or less the same price as the 2011 single core 1 GHz.)
Actually, D4S is probably cheaper to build than D4 because its Expeed 4 is off-the-shelf, while the processor in D4 was some specially selected and tweaked Expeed 3 .... or something .... if I'm not mistaken.)

while I could be mistaken, the point is that there does not seem to be a lot technically that makes the new D4S so much more expensive to make than the D4. This seems to be another of of Nikon's financial gimmicks to make more money from its users. Let's jack up the price $500-$1000 and claim the ISOs are amazing from the new Expeed 4 engine. 8-} They should be reducing the price not raising it to stay competitive.

PB_PM

The price was raised due to changes in currency and to adjust for inflation. It has nothing to do with the cost of the tech.

spraynpray

+1 Currency fluctuations across the world are very troublesome to local distributors.

Photobug

+1 to what PB_PM said.

manhattanboy

Anyone see the Red Dragon?
http://www.red.com/products/epic-dragon

Better image quality than a D800 at 100 frames per second continuous for hours.

We wouldn't need a D400 if this thing didn't cost so much. Divide by 10 and we got a winner!

Sports

And some say that the D800 produce too much output for their PC :-)

Anyway, I'm waiting for the Red Dragon II to get continuous AF ;-)