D300s Successor-D400, what and when

heartyfisher

Yes, D5100 and D7000 had same sensor and both had DxOMark scores of 80. Maybe the D7000 will have a DxOMark score of 84 like the D5200. Any difference in DxOMark scores between the D5200 and the D7200 may be due to software tweaks. However, the D400 is quite likely to have a different sensor. But the point is well taken, if the D7200 scores equal to the D5200 that leaves a 5 point gap to fill for the D400 to equal the D4s score of 89.

You are right .. there is a fair chance of it using a different sensor.. just like when the D80 was the current model the D300 had a "fancy new" sensor. however that would likely mean that we will have to wait another year for a D400 (argg!). If the D400 is released early this year it should have the D5200 sensor. otherwise it could possibly have a "fancy new" sensor! but the timing is all inconsistent now as the D300/s were release in conjunction or a bit earlier than the D3/s.

As suggested earlier we have already missed the time window for a D400 and we may be getting the successor to the D400 instead (in 2014).. if we ever do get one.

sevencrossing

One of the nice things about this thread is one gets to vote as many times as you like...LOL

I will take a stand and say if the next "pro" DX body does not have a native ISO of 12,800, ............, but my strong suspicion is that before the end of 2014 we will see changes like never before.

So here is my vote. Again

Why would a Pro buy Dx ?
The huge advantage of Dx is cost, not only in bodies but also lenses
but the advantage in lenses is limited due the small number of "pro" DX lenses
A pro staring from scratch today is going to have spend a lot more on lenses than on a body
so the % saving is quite small
When the D300 came out, at lot of photographer were moving from film and were not too sure of the future of digital, they did not want to invest in a D3. Some of us bought a consumer DX , such as the D90 and having been very impressed, moved up to FX (D700 in my case)
The market place today, is very different to when the D300 come out
Yes, there is a demand from wild life photographers for the extra "reach "
but Cannon have dominated the wild life gear for years. Many be Nikon are prepared to let them have this niche market
Most wild life photographers do other work as well ( they will hate to admit it, but a lot of them pay for there gear doing weddings) and most people seem to think FX is an advantage for weddings

what about the consumer who want to upgrade his D7000
Nikon have given him the D600

What will the upgrade to the D600 be called?

Yes some very big changes are round the corner but while we may seem some hints in 2014, the product is not going to hit the market till 2015/ 16

Kuv

TBH, I'd be fine with a D7000 that has a big body. That really is a deal breaker for me. The D300(s) AF unit is also kind of important (but could live without it if the offer was right). There's also the PC port (although a 3.5mm would be nicer).

Msmoto

@ sevencrossing

The term "pro" DX is referring only to the ergonomics of the body...controls like a D4, D800, D300s, etc. I cannot think of a "pro" shooting DX except as you mentioned the "extra reach" But, even this is questionable as one can shoot FX and crop.

As to when the professional mirrorless comes...anyone's guess. But, my suspicions are before the end of 2014. Like Photokina in September 2014. Maybe we should limit this to one vote per day...LOL

donaldejose

I agree with msmoto: If at all possible, and the D600 and D800 falsified the conventional wisdom that high megapixel sensors cannot produce clean high ISO IQ, Nikon will put great native ISO of 12,800 (like the D4 native ISO goes to 12,800) into the D400. Whatever advantage is obtained by the fact that FX needs less enlargement than DX to obtain the same print size will always remain an advantage of FX. The D400 will not equal the D4 in all respects but I think IQ in an 8x10 print size at ISO 12,800 (or computer monitor size) will be virtually indistinguishable. "Not logical from a marketing standpoint?" I would say if the D400 doesn't offer a one stop improvement in native ISO there would be little reason to buy it over a D7200 or over a D600. Of course, if it is not possible to do, Nikon won't do it but I don't think they will deliberately refuse to do so. The D4 need not be so "protected" because Nikon must now be working on D4s and D4x models to sell more D4 bodies. Hopefully, we will soon know.

PB_PM

That's like saying the D300s sensor should have matched the D3s, or it wouldn't sell. I just fail to see the logic in your argument.

heartyfisher

That's like saying the D300s sensor should have matched the D3s, or it wouldn't sell. I just fail to see the logic in your argument.

And the D300S as well which was released 1 year after the D90 and with the same sensor.

It is very likely that the D400 will have the same sensor as the D7200. so no one stop advantage.
People who would buy the D400 would be buying it for the handling and and pro body features.

I have a D7000 i will not be "upgrading" to a D600.. but if there was a D400 I will be jumping onto that in a heart beat! i will trust that the sensor will be at least as good as the D5200 and i will be satisfied with that. (Though I am still hoping for 16MP with increased DR and High ISO capability, no AA filter would be nice too)

donaldejose

Ok, each person is entitled to their opinion and different opinions are good because they are thought provoking. When the D400 comes out we will see what Nikon was able to do (or has chosen to do if they deliberately handicapped the body to protect D4 sales).

As to Pro's buying a D400: probably it mostly would see use as a third body for when the increased reach was desired. Some non-pro FX shooters would purchase it as a second body for the same reason. Some DX shooters would purchase it because it will be the best DX body you can buy. Many, many shooter will be fully served with the capabilities of the D7000 or D7200 and will not need either FX or a D400.

shawnino

If the D400 is anything short of "90%-95% of a D4, in a small package", I am far less optimistic than DEJ is that it'll sell. Let me try to answer PB_PM in two parts. For my argument to have any legs, D400 pricepoiint has to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2K:

1) I think we agree that if D400 is in fact a mini-D4 near $2K (that is, good high ISO, good fps), it sells quickly.

2) Suppose you're right, and for whatever reason it's not. The D4 ISO is lacking, or it;'s 6 fps, etc. At this point high-end DX becomes neither fish nor fowl. It's not as feature-laden as high-end FX, and yet it's bulkier than Micro 4/3. Don't look now, but Micro 4/3 is getting a whack of high end dedicated lenses. Anybody who can live with FX effective f/2.8 (90% of us?) can do quite well with a 4/3 set-up. I don't shoot 4/3, but I've seen 11X14 prints that looked super.

Of course DX bodies can use FX glass, but by the time the D400 shows up, the people who want to shoot FX will have good FX options in the same price range:
--D600 dust issues should be ancient history
--There's no guarantee the D400 gets to market before the D610 anyway
--D800, 16MP in DX crop mode, $2800 presently, might be well under $2500
I'm not claiming anybody buys a D600 or D800 to shoot DX all the time, but if they did buy it for either format, the second format comes "for free".

So if D400 is not mini-D4 I don't know who buys it. DEJ suggests FX shooters needing an extra body for extra reach (FOV). That crowd can just turn the DX crop mode on in their D800. That leaves me with photojournalists who don't want to jump to Micro 4/3 or FX (or, heaven forfend, the ultra-high-end P&S stuff... if I was still writing for my local paper and faced the cutback of having to file both stories and matching photos, I'd probably carry a Fuji x100 95% of the time and that's it...). And the occasional consumer jumping up from low-end DX.

D400 has to be a mini D4 or it doesn't sell IMO. To avoid cannibalizing those D4 sales, of course, we'll always have the D4s

PB_PM

Who would by the D400? Lets see the same people who bought the D200, the D300 and D300s...

Your argument ignores a huge segment of the Nikon DSLR market, that 85-90% that only has DX glass. Not everyone desires or has the money to go FX. DX crop mode on an FX body might seem like a good solution, but why pay for full frame if all you want to work with is a DX crop. I'd take D400 with clean files at ISO 6400 over the D600 any day, simply because it would have a superior control layout and buld. It would make a perfect second camera to my D700, and replacement for my aging D300.

donaldejose

I think PB_PM has a point. The "perfect" FX DX combo bodies will be these pairs: FX D4, D3s, D800 matched with a DX D400 because they have the same control layout. Likewise, FX D600 matched with the DX D7000 or D7200 because they have the same control layout. The ease of "muscle memory" control manipulation without much looking or thinking would be a very strong consideration when shooting at a fast pace; not so much so for landscape photographers. But I also think many of the people who were willing to spend about 2k for the DX DXXX series bodies will now be spending 2k on an FX D600 instead. So those DX sales will be lost to FX.

Is is also true that a D800 shooter wanting more reach can just crop or use DX mode rather than buy a D400 as a second body UNLESS that D400 offers something the D800 doesn't. What could that extra thing be? How about good native ISO up to 12,800 and faster fps making the D400 the DX preferred body for sports photography over a D800 body shot in DX mode? If the D400 doesn't offer higher ISO and faster fps would not the D4, D3s, D700 owner just buy a D800 for their second body and use it for both its DX crop mode and for its high megapixel mode when they desired those particular features? To appeal as a second body that D400 will have to offer something you cannot get in a D800.

Many different people will purchase a D400 for many different reasons. True. BUT more will purchase it if it is what I, and others, have been calling a "mini-D4" or a "D4 lite" or "native 12,800 ISO," etc. There is nothing wrong with hoping Nikon can produce such a camera. I would like to buy a D400 when it comes out but it will have to offer some justification for doing so other than just a sturdy build.

spraynpray

I cant see how the D400 can possibly equal the D4 high iso without a paradigm shift in sensor design. its always been clear that the same generation DX sensors will be at least 1 stop weaker than the FX counterpart.

Fact is, if you look at the improvements in sensor performance over time, it isn't a big leap for the D400 DX sensor to be pretty close to the D4 FX sensor when you look at the time elapsed between the D4 release and the D400 release.

Tommie: 12800? We'll see. Maybe soon. Maybe later. I don't care much any more, it is like I am past being hungry now.

sevencrossing

I
... UNLESS that D400 offers something the D800 doesn't. What could that extra thing be? How about good native ISO up to 12,800 and faster ..................? To appeal as a second body that D400 will have to offer something you cannot get in a D800.

100 % correct but why limit the D400 with a Dx sensor
The D400 could be a full frame camera sitting between the D800 and the D4

would I buy one? yes I might well
the biggest pain of the D800 is it very limited buffer and very slow fps

DaveyJ

I finally counted up my FX capable Nikkor lens. Nine. I still see very little FX advantages for myself. I guess my absolute waste of many more dollars than any FX camera and lens in large and medium format and how I currently use images (I am no longer printing big images in magazines or for display transparencies. I just see the FX shift as a supreme waste of money and forcing me o use huge lens that I have seen trounced in the field by smaller lens that are FX capable but the 1.5 magnification factor gives a big edge of DX to me.

All the newspaper and journalist people I know shoot in DX. I have unfortunately not used FX Nikons in the same wonderful places and NO studio or bench tests ever convince me to buy a damn thing. It is only the few real keeper images from special places and since that can involve carrying a whole batch of gear through airports and the like DX does seem to have some huge advantages. JUST MAYBE Nikon's market edge slips are due to their FX goose chase. I know this will ring as heresy and again given my failure to be lured to a FX Nikon DSLR my take on this is less than perfect.

I will be buying a D7200 in addition to the two D7000 we have now. Why? Expeed 3 Processor must be worth the price of admission. I surely agree with donalddejose's take on Nikon cost of $1,000 for a D600 sensor. No way they cost Nikon that much or they NEVER would have pitched so hard into FX compared to DX last year. And do you know where the Canon edge is coming from.....my GUESS is P&S and some video edge over Nikon. Obviously my long wait for D400 (D300s successor) is going extinct. Customers go away if you fail to offer what they want. I see this in agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, you think this market loyalty to Nikon is the average consumer penchant? trust me it is NOT!

catfish252

Last night 1/20/2013 I wrote to Nikon marketing support with the following question:

Will there ever be a camera released that will be meant to be the upgrade to the D300s. I have been waiting patiently for over 2 years and I am close to the end of my rope. If something doesn't happen soon I may be forced to move in a different direction. Please give me some hope, I'd like to remain a Nikon customer.

This was the response I received from Nikon today 1/21/2013

In regards to your question Mr. xxxxxx the D5100 camera body is a upgrades from the D300s. Mr. xxxxxx you can log on to nikonusa.com and click on products than scroll down to DSLR cameras click on compare and than click on compare tool. Mr. xxxxxx you can also go to the D5100 camera body and click on tech spec to get specification and receive detail product information.

Obviously written by someone who is not very product line savvy. Really the D5100 not even the current D5200? I'm not sure why they would allow an answer like this to be returned to a customer.

When I worked in IBM Marketing we used issue Statements of Direction on all the products we manufactured. In these statements it was stated: the life of a certain product line, what direction a certain product line was going in, i.e. bigger, faster, more users, etc. Whether newer products were in the works that would replace current products, approximate announcement dates and end of support dates for product lines. The customers loved these and it made our life as marketing people a whole lot easier. Nikon, Canon, and all the other consumer electronics companies could learn from this.

shawnino

There's an award here for Troll of the Year somewhere. It's either catfish's lone post, or the Nikon rep. Either way, hilarious that the D5100 is catfishing as the D300s replacement. Cheers.

catfish252

That was by no means anything but the truth it is what I asked and the answer I received -- I was astonished.
Will be glad to forward the emails for verification.

donaldejose

No doubt some people working for Nikon are this dense!

heartyfisher

the last time i waited for the D300 I gave up and bought a fuji s5pro.... Its true people move on..

I have been looking at the Olympus 4/3 lately .. some nice cameras and lenses there ! a bit expensive but pretty amazing eg
* 28-70 equivalent 14-35 F2.0
* 100-400 equivalent 50-200 F2.8-3.5 <--- now that is delicious ! esp at sport venues that limit the lens mm to 200mm.

The larger aperture capability of the smaller format sensors is really shining through here .. wish the DX lens manufactures take advantage of it too..

Kuv

You are aware that F/2 brings twice as much light as F/2.8, yet MFT is about 2× smaller than DX and 4× than FX? Also, you are aware that [email protected](FX or DX) is shallower than 35@f/2(MFT)? Also, besides the above mentioned, the smaller sensor will always be behind the larger sensor due to diffraction.

sevencrossing

In regards to your question Mr. xxxxxx the D5100 camera body is a upgrades .

May be , just may be, he was not aware the D5200 was now available
Many be, knows ( as reported one the main blog) the D7000 is discontinued
That would leave the D5100 as Nikon's highest spec dx camera
Many be, he was being kind in not suggesting the upgrade for the D300 is the D800

Lets be fair, a guy in Nikon's customer service department, is not going to announce the D400

heartyfisher

You are aware that F/2 brings twice as much light as F/2.8, yet MFT is about 2× smaller than DX and 4× than FX? Also, you are aware that [email protected](FX or DX) is shallower than 35@f/2(MFT)? Also, besides the above mentioned, the smaller sensor will always be behind the larger sensor due to diffraction.

MFT = Micro Four Third -- :-) I had to look that up :-)

The rest of your post I am not sure what you mean. sorry can some one please clarify ..

spraynpray

He is saying that DoF increases for a given aperture as the sensors get smaller.

heartyfisher

Still unclear about 2X and 4X smaller parts and the diffraction parts of his comments

Re DOF at 70 2.8 vs 35 2.0 : I agree that that is the case. checked on online DOF calculators .. for the same distance of 10 feet the DOF of

* FX : D800 at 70mm at F2.8 is 1.03 feet
* 4/3 : Olympus E-5 35mm F2 is 1.48 feet
* DX : D300 at 70mm F2.8 is 0.69 feet

** Cool to note that using the same lens the DOF of DX is actually shallower ! Tick 1 for DX !!

spraynpray

"** Cool to note that using the same lens the DOF of DX is actually shallower ! Tick 1 for DX !!"

If you check DX DoF at 50mm f2.8, you have to compare it to FX 75mm f2.8 as otherwise it isn't comparing eggs with eggs.