D300s Successor-D400, what and when

sevencrossing

People on his thread is are often comparing a camera that does not exist with one that does
E.g. should I buy a D800E, D810, D610, D7100 , D300s or wait for the D400
When the question should be. Should I wait the next generation of cameras or make do with the current

It does not matter if the D810 is DX or FX
It does not matter if the D400 turns to be FX or DX, an SLR or Mirrorless
The irrefutable advantage the D810 has over the D400 is that the D810 exists

WestEndBoy

I stand by my position and will buy FX any day of the week over DX
Then please refrain from posting on a thread where we are discussing the merits of a proposed DX camera :P

Why would I do that?

To your point, besides costs and smaller body size, I don't think it has any merits. There is an underlying assumption in this thread (not by all, there are other assumptions to) that DX is better than FX, or why else would the D400's proponents be pining for a $2,000 DX camera). I disagree with that assumption so I think it is fair game to argue an opposing view.

And lacking the merits discussed, it is probably why Nikon or Canon have not produced it.

spraynpray

Nikon has had a steady flow of new sensors from Sony, Aptina etc, while Canon has been sitting on old, warn out sensor tech since 2009. Canon is in a do or die situation, they had to come up with something new sensor wise.

The 7D has a sensor that isn't bad, even today. The 6D has a very good sensor. Some vote it best low light camera.

PB_PM

Nikon has had a steady flow of new sensors from Sony, Aptina etc, while Canon has been sitting on old, warn out sensor tech since 2009. Canon is in a do or die situation, they had to come up with something new sensor wise.

The 7D has a sensor that isn't bad, even today.

Have you actually worked on RAW files from those 18MP crop Canon sensors? I have and they are bad. Not to say you cannot get good output you can, but there are some issues. For example, try recovering shadows details below ISO800, you'll find that there is horrible banding. It was enough that when I had to shoot with a camera equipped with one I purposely blew out the highlights to avoid the problem.

spraynpray

Wow, I can't relate to your experience at all. My mate is heavy into shadow recovery and we haven't noticed any banding issues. He also exposes for highlights a lot so it isn't like he is an ETTR exponent.

manhattanboy

To your point, besides costs and smaller body size, I don't think it has any merits.

Top end DX for tele shooting is awesome.

The 6D has a very good sensor. Some vote it best low light camera.

I got the chance to shoot with a 6D about two weeks ago, and it happened to be indoors, at night, and without a flash. I had no choice but to let the ISO rise. I cringe letting anything go above 6K as big prints and pixel peeping become no-no's. Surprisingly even the 10K+ shots were very good. At standard print sizes you would have no clue that the shot wasn't taken at a low ISO. At 100%, it looks similar to ISO 3K from what I am used to shooting on Nikon. I know Nikon slaughters Canon's DR at low ISO's, but I was impressed by how well the Canon did into higher ISO's. If Canon could just put the 5DM3's autofocus into that body and keep the price at $1.5K that would be one hell of indoor camera for the average Joe.

WestEndBoy

To your point, besides costs and smaller body size, I don't think it has any merits.

Top end DX for tele shooting is awesome.
.

OK, the pixel density argument, which I concede has some merit. The details are in the DX/FX thread.

But think about what you are giving up? Dynamic range, low light performance.....hmmm.......

But how many supertele's of this calibre does Nikon sell? 10,000 per year. Nikon is not going to produce a DX camera that services this market, which is miniscule by DX standards.

And if the next D8xx has 50 or more megapixels, I think it will put this argument to rest.

Ironheart

And if the next D8xx has 50 or more megapixels, I think it will put this argument to rest.

Let's not make it an argument. I'm tired of you stating things as absolute fact when in reality it is just your opinion. Every time someone posts somewhere on this forum that they are using a DX sensor camera for this purpose or that advantage, you show up and shout them down with your "FX is and always will be superior" rhetoric. Can we agree that sensor size is a trade off just like any other? There are times I want or need greater DoF, or a lighter rig, etc... I for one have used FX, DX, CX, MedFrame, and others. Besides your CoolPix A have you ever shot a DX? Please just let it go and let us DX users by choice have a civil discussion without constantly being reminded of how we are loosing a 1/2 a stop of DR.

spraynpray

....And if the next D8xx has 50 or more megapixels, the next D7xxx or the D9xxx will have 36 and so still have a higher pixel density. >-

WestEndBoy

And if the next D8xx has 50 or more megapixels, I think it will put this argument to rest.

Let's not make it an argument. I'm tired of you stating things as absolute fact when in reality it is just your opinion. Every time someone posts somewhere on this forum that they are using a DX sensor camera for this purpose or that advantage, you show up and shout them down with your "FX is and always will be superior" rhetoric. Can we agree that sensor size is a trade off just like any other? There are times I want or need greater DoF, or a lighter rig, etc... I for one have used FX, DX, CX, MedFrame, and others. Besides your CoolPix A have you ever shot a DX? Please just let it go and let us DX users by choice have a civil discussion without constantly being reminded of how we are loosing a 1/2 a stop of DR.

Really? I state things as absolute fact?

Consider my post above:

"To your point, besides costs and smaller body size, I don't think it has any merits."

Had I stated it as absolute fact, I would have said:

"To your point, besides costs and smaller body size, DX has no merits."

Of course we can agree that sensor size is a trade off. I have stated that myself in recent posts re: size, cost, pixel density and I will grant you greater depth of field. My first instinct was "just stop down", but when I think about it I can image that DX might produce a better result in some situations.

I will even agree that a $2,000 professional grade DX DSLR may have its uses.

But to my earlier point, I will be surprised if Nikon produces the D400 as desired by many in this forum because "in my opinion" (just so we are clear it is an opinion), there is a very small market due to points I raised.

To your question "Besides your Coolpix A have you ever shot a DX?" Never owned own, but I fooled around with a friend's Canon 7D for a couple of weeks. And I would argue that the Coolpix A has better IQ than any DX DSLR USING A DX LENS (I think 24 megapixels is wasted on a DX lens) because the Coolpix A has an excellent lens. Would my argument be somehow stronger if I was using a different DX camera camera (Say a D7100) using a wide angle lens to shoot landscapes)? What kind of camera are you shooting? Have you owned an FX camera before? Does it somehow invalidate your argument if you have not? In my opinion, no. I will judge your argument on its merits, not your gear.

Did my word "argument" offend you? Would you have felt better if I had said "debate" or started and ended my posts with "Kumbaya". I don't think that an "argument" has to be negative.

And I certainly didn't take offense when you called me a "full frame hocus-pocus person" per your earlier comment that I have quoted below (I smiled actually):

If you are talking pure pixel density, the 36MP D8X0 is equiv to a 16MP FX. Your 24MP D7100 if scaled up would be a 56MP FX. So the full frame hocus-pocus people are just catching up to what us crop sensor folks have known all along: It just doesn't matter. Get the camera and take some photos.

So in response to your request about letting it go, I will do that when I am good and ready. I don't think my right to express a view on this forum is subject to your views. However, I do acknowledge that this is a D400 forum. But my point is the D400. I need to talk about DX's pros and cons to make it.

My regrets to the other readers for my long post, but there were several points to Ironheart's post that I felt were erroneous and/or demanded a rebuttal.

And finally, I don't think DX is bad. I own one (and even a CX for my son). I just think that its ability to compete with FX in image quality is extremely limited. If I owned a D7100 or even a D5300 or D3300 with DX lenses, I would still love photography just like did when I shot an F80 with a 28-200.

WestEndBoy

....And if the next D8xx has 50 or more megapixels, the next D7xxx or the D9xxx will have 36 and so still have a higher pixel density. >-

Yeah, but I struggle with this a bit Spraynpray. I love my D800 with its great resolution. It is certainly better than 24 megapixels. But are lenses good enough to take advantage of more megapixels? I often feel that I am being limited by my lenses, not my D800. I even feel this way with my 85, though I have not shot my 200 for long enough to form a view.

My gut (unscientific) tells me that 48 megapixels would show some improvement with my best lenses, but more would not. This means that I think increasing a DX sensor's resolution past 24 megapixels would not add value. However, I do not have significant experience with Nikon's super sharp superteles, so I am not sure.

I think that DXo's "Perceptual Megapixel" measure has hit upon an essential truth. However, I am not sure that the numbers they are coming up with are the right numbers. They seem like they might be a bit low?

WestEndBoy

And for anybody that thinks I think that DX sucks, a Flickr user sent me the following Flicrkmail:

I love your photos man. GREAT STUFF!!!. wish i had the d800

My response was:

I appreciate your comments. I like a lot of your stuff too.

You don't need a D800 to do what I do. Mostly it is the lenses. And even then, it is often just composition.

I see you have a D5300. That is a great camera. Your 18 to 55 is a good all round lenses. You can do all of my landscape shots with that lens. For my portraits and florals, for $500 you can buy a 50mm 1.4G (which I have) which will be similar to my 85 on FX.

For some of my close ups, you might need a macro lens. I would research extenstion tubes etc.

Don't let your camera hold you back!

Jeff

Ironheart

@WestEndBoy, i think someone whizzed in my cornflakes before I wrote that last one, and I don't want to derail the conversation any further, so we'll leave it at that. BTW, the comment above was on a different thread and not aimed at you, but glad you smiled, as that means you get my strange sense of humor. >-
P.S. I will still yank your chain occasionally so don't think I'm going soft or anything

WestEndBoy

Well maybe I took it a little to heart. I hope that we can engage in debate and not take it personally.

The CEO of a successful large and well know Canadian corporation told me that the firms success was dependent on "constructive disagreement", which is something that I take to heart and may not always come across on a forum like this well.

Besides, I think you take great photos with enthusiasm and that is what counts.

Msmoto

Interesting, the second post on this thread, kyoshinikon suggested the topic was "milked to death". Obviously this thread is now proof there is "life after death."

manhattanboy

Canon is releasing the 7DMII on September 5th.
Maybe we will get something from Nikon in response???? The countdown has been many years for the 300s replacement, but I'm betting that we now have less than 2 months left...

donaldejose

I will go out on a limb and predict a release in September with rumors starting in August.

Ironheart

I hope that limb can hold the two of us, 'cause I'm right there with you.

Sports

I predict a release in August. D9300 and D810 should be close sisters, so if the factory produces only D810, valuable capacity is wasted.
Also, I still think Canon and Nikon are completely in sync wrt. their products. A response is not the right word, as such a product takes a couple of years to develop. Their management probably agreed on this plan several years ago ;-)

Canon is releasing the 7DMII on September 5th

But ... the September 5 has not been properly linked with an actual 7D Mk.II or an actual release, has it?
Things, rumors, speculation point in that direction, but there has been nothing affirmative about naming or specs, except for some vague, disconnected bits. But let the believers believe, and I, too, am a believer.

manhattanboy

But ... the September 5 has not been properly linked with an actual 7D Mk.II or an actual release, has it?
Things, rumors, speculation point in that direction, but there has been nothing affirmative about naming or specs, except for some vague, disconnected bits. But let the believers believe, and I, too, am a believer.

That's when the NDA expires...so it is more or less an effective announcement date. Imagine someone like Thom was playing around with a new Nikon camera and then Nikon said you cannot tell anyone through Sept. 5th. Don't you think he would want to increase traffic to his site by talking about it as soon as legally possible? The same thing is going to happen to the 7DMII NDA recipients. My suspicion is that there are a lucky few doing the same thing for Nikon right now with the 300s replacement.

scoobysmak

I can understand the reasoning for the announcement date but I do wonder. Has a camera company ever done "testing" with a product and never released it period. Maybe the lucky few didn't like it and it went back to the drawing board and will be something else or scrapped.

I will say because Msmoto bought a camera to fill the D400 "gap" we should see something in the next few months, just kidding. I figured because I got a D7100 a few months ago it would have happened sooner.

Sports

I will say because Msmoto bought a camera to fill the D400 "gap" we should see something in the next few months, just kidding. I figured because I got a D7100 a few months ago it would have happened sooner.

Good point :-)
And if we can find a volunteer and get him to switch to Sony, then the D9300 announcement should come within a few days. Oh, maybe this will work only if it's me that does it.

Msmoto

My "D400" aka D800E is doing well and the only issue I might want in a true D300s replacement is the higher FPS. The slow "click, click, click" of the D800E is like my D90, except the D800E in crop mode does not fill the buffer as quickly.

So, if Nikon comes out with a D9300 as rumored earlier, and it has the pro ergonomics, I will be happy for all who go for it. The price should be below $2,000 USD, so it will not be a competitor of the D800/810 except for those who can find a used one for a special price….like me.

As I think about my purchase I think I made a great decision as when desired I can switch to full frame and have a spectacular camera rivaling medium format.

As to the actual release of information, when one looks carefully over the past few years, NRF is pretty much "in the know" and one of the first out with the news.

proudgeek

Canon is releasing the 7DMII on September 5th.
Maybe we will get something from Nikon in response???? The countdown has been many years for the 300s replacement, but I'm betting that we now have less than 2 months left...

For whatever it's worth, just got an email from B&H, with some pretty hefty discounts on the Canon 7D. No reason to discount the D300s I suppose since they probably don't have any (or many) in stock.

Photobug

When I read Tommy bought the D800E, I knew the D9300 would follow soon. After the D9300 is released we can all thank Msmoto for her purchase. We should all send her a $1.00 to thank her to help pay for her new DX tool. ) ) =D>