D300s Successor-D400, what and when

WestEndBoy

I have a doubt about that. I am not saying it is not possible, but to say "I have no doubt about that" is a very strong statement.

specs of millebaud ASIC are wellknonw, EXPEED 4 is based on this chip

I am not talking about the processor, but the shutter.

Ironheart

Yes, when the electronics can do 18mp @ 60fps (N1 V3) data movement isn't the issue. Maintaining auto focus, moving the shutter, flipping the mirror, these are the challenges, and one of the cost drivers for the D4. The reason we don't see 1/8000 on more systems, is that the halving of the speed from 1/4000 isn't a simple matter of "cranking 'er up". You need to use lighter weight and more durable material (i.e. more exotic and expensive) for the shutter curtains. You need even more precise tolerances, and since we know F = ma you have more potential vibration and other forces to deal with. It isn't a coincidence that the fastest fps cameras have the fastest speed shutters and the longest life (#'s of actuations). These characteristics go hand-in-hand, and all in all, probably double the cost of the shutter mechanism.

See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal-plane_shutter#The_quest_for_higher_speed

All that being said, a DX shutter should be cheaper than an FX one, if for no other reason than smaller = lighter and F still equals mass times acceleration.

WestEndBoy

Well said Ironheart. Some of the young kids (<45) that have grown up on Moore's law often forget the practicalities of physics and old fashioned material engineering, which do not benefit from Moore's law or anything even close.

sevencrossing

But I believe loyalty has to be earned and in this scenario, Nikon has forsaken their customers.

Perhaps Nikon need a loyalty card
eg If you have owned a D300, since day day one, have three pro lenses, have been a member of nrf for 2 years and have never bought a third party lens; you can buy a D4s and a super telephoto for less than half price

donaldejose

Sign me up!

Andrewz

@rbrylawski Why all the Hate? (Canon mole?)

Really this idea loyalty and anger seems misplaced. I have never been loyal to any corporation and why should I be? I however tend to buy Nikon products becasue they consistantly out perform the compatition. Has Nikon made the perfect camera for me, no. But if my trusty old and still well performing D300 died today there are any number of Nikons that out perform it that would do the job. Why haven't I bought one of them? Why am I waiting for hte D400? Easy answer my D300 is a great camera and except for a few limitation works well for 90% of what I do. When I need, really Need a new camera I will pick from the Nikon line up the camera that best fits my needs.

Loyalty? Forget that. When I jumped from film to Digital (rather late) I decided no need to stay with Nikon and I looked at everything and really tried to like Canon.But the facts remain the Nikons available were and still are better in so many ways.

If any company really make a substantual leap ahead of the pack I may jump ship but history has showen that rarely happens. I may pick up a Fuji X-pro 1 or 2 to fill my desire for a smaller camera.

Sports

Thanks, @Ironheart, some people have been quite busy trying to calculate the (unknown at the time) frame rate of the D750 under the assumption that the CPU was the limitng factor on all Nikon bodies.

This is still relevant in the D400 thread, even though we must remember that the fast shutter is NOT really a problem, as it's already in D7000 and D7100 at much lower prices. And maybe, the fast moving mirror is a problem to Nikon but it really should NOT. The D300S and the Canon 7D had this solved at affordable prices 5 years ago. The new Canon goes to 10 fps. Even the mirror in the lower priced Pentax K-3 handles 8.3 fps.

These issues explain exactly why "speed" belongs in a D400, but they cannot explain why the D400 doesn't happen.

snakebunk

The cost of 10 fps may be high but I think it will pay of and give the D400 a higher value. I think speed (high fps) and great build quality are important in order to bring value to a pro dx camera.

sevencrossing

Remember dx is about value for money, increase the production cost you have to increase the retail price increase the retail price and you reduce volume, reduce volume and you increase unit cost
For many Pros fps is not the be all and end all . If it was, very few pros would be using a D800/ D810 they would buy a D4/ D4s. instead Yes the D4 is more expensive but by the time you add a a set of Pro lenses the percentage difference is not huge

spraynpray

STILL a load of posts about the reason that we can't have a high spec/high fps DX being cost. I always thought that was exaggerated, and now Canon have the 7D2 at $1800, that proves it is not cost. [-X

The other point about a high spec DX taking away from the D4s is not true either - unless you are saying that there are no other differences between DX and FX than cost. If you are, it kind of blows a hole in the perpetual bleating about how superior to DX FX is...

sevencrossing

Yes Nikon could make a D400 at the same price as a 7D2 but given there is a limit to the number of models Nikon can manufacture and market they appear to believe it will be more profitable to bring out a D750 than a D400. Canon seem to have a different philosophy. which is defiantly a win win for the consumer, as it gives us the choice of a 7D2 or a D750

Or would people prefer Canon and Nikon made a range of identical cameras with the only difference being the badge and the lens mount

The concept that you can add features to a camera with out increasing cost is naive



The other point about a high spec DX taking away from the D4s is not true either - unless you are saying that there are no other differences between DX and FX than cost -

If you are referring me; I don't think i said anything of the sort

donaldejose

As to cost, consider the fact that the price for the D750 is a bit less than many people expected. Perhaps Nikon is finding ways to reduce costs more than many of us thought they could. Perhaps Cannon found ways to cut the cost of that 7D2 more than we realized. A D400 for less than $2000 seems achievable. As to sensors, when Nikon has the excellent D600/D610 sensor why produce a new one for the D750? Why create a new senor for the D810? Especially when the new sensors have the same mp? Perhaps it is easier and cheaper to develop new sensors than many of us thought? Just saying, some assumptions people make about a D400 may not be accurate. Let's hope the 7D2 forces Nikon to produce a model with similar fps and Nikon's much better IQ.

snakebunk

@sevencrossing: Why do you keep repeating that dx is about value for money? Is not everything we buy about value for money?

sevencrossing

@sevencrossing: Why do you keep repeating that dx is about value for money? Is

Fair cop, guilty as changed. But lets be honest, this is entire thread is the same people saying the same things

IMHO the big advantage the D300 had over the D700 was value for money, which is why it was so popular in the UK with regional newspapers

Today IMHO the D7100 is better value for money than the D750 but I suspect the D750 is a better camera

Is the 7D2 better value for money than the Nikon equivalent? If you have a bag full of Canon Lenses with out a doubt

snakebunk

But lets be honest, this is entire thread is the same people saying the same things

That is true. I think we have different views because we use our cameras for different things. For example, I shoot mostly birds and almost always I have to crop away the fx-part of my images, at least. It is a big difference compared to if you can fill your frame. I want the pixels on the bird so to speak. What I don't want is a camera of no good build quality, weak buffer and so on. I am not unhappy, I would just be a slightly, tiny bit happier if Nikon made a D400

sevencrossing

, I shoot mostly birds

If I shot birds I would be seriously looking at the 7D2 and not waiting for the D400
No, none of my lenses would would fit, but as all my friends, who shoot birds, have Canons I could borrow theirs

Incidentally one prediction ( and may be only one) has come true. The 7D2 came out before the D400

proudgeek

I have a friend who's a bird shooter in Costa Rica (currently using both the 5D and the 7D). He's practically wetting his pants over the 7D II. I'm sure it will be awesome. I'm also fairly sure that Nikon at least has something similar in the prototype phase but aren't sure if it's economically viable. If pre-orders for the 7D II are as off the charts as some think they may be, Nikon won't likely sit on the sidelines.

snakebunk

I just read that the Canon 7D was released in September 2009, around the same time as the D300s. So, if Canon could wait five years, I guess Nikon can to.

spraynpray

If you are referring me; I don't think i said anything of the sort

Errr, not particularly, no. But in replying in that way it is clear you've missed the point somewhat. Anyway, if Canon have three FX bodies and Nikon have five, how does your next statement apply? On this forum we have a sample of people who have been screaming for a pro DX D400 replacement and - really - nobody saw the D750 coming as the D610 was such a recent release, but come it did. I really think they screwed up big time at Nikon and should not have bought out the D600/610 but should have just given us the D700 replacement straight away. That would have freed up the resources for a D400. There would most probably have been a tidal wave of D700 replacement buyers, and I'm pretty sure it would have been the same for the D300s replacement. I. for one would have a D400 if it had come out before the D7100.

EDIT: I don't understand why they can't publish a road map as other large corporations do. Nothing secret, just dates they will release the next models and update it with any changes to that plan so we aren't all gnashing our teeth.

Photobug

@spraynpray made an excellent point in the "What next for Nikon" forum. Spraynpray said:

At risk of smearing the D400 thread across here, if Nikon can market five FX's to Canon's three, how come they can't replace the D300s with a D400/9300? The differences between D3300/D5300/D7100 are really pretty incremental - the D400/9300 could be a clear jump above them. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3354/what-is-next-for-nikon#Item_3

I agree with you & hope you don't mind me reposting this here where it could be discussed without messing up the other forum. After all we need 7 more pages to break 100 here. If they don't have something on the engineering table and have to start from scratch I bet they will pump up the D7200...larger buffer, faster FPS, D750 AF system to get something into the market place. It won't be as fast FPS, as the new 7D but it would at least be available by Q2 of 2015. My hunch is that if they don't have anything on the drafting table it would be end of 2015 before we would see it. Now if they have a D9300/D400 on the drafting table and waited to see what Canon introduced so they could adjust to out perform Canon 7D Mk II it could be Q1 or Q2 before we would see anything. It depends upon if they invested in the molds for the body for a prototype.

I said it earlier that they will probably watch sales number of the new 7D and then make a decision in January 2015. However, after saying all that, I still don't expect a D9300/D400 in 2015.

spraynpray

The D7200 theory doesn't tick all the boxes though. Without a doubt the 7D2 is equivalent to the D300s in terms of build quality and although the D7100 is well good enough build quality for what I want, it is no D300s. I would say the D300s replacement does need to have a full mag chassis or at the very least CF monocoque and pro button layout.

Photobug

Concur that the D7200 would not match all the 7D2 features. Not enough time to do that. The D7200 becomes a bridge camera until they can introduce a D7300 or D8000 or D9300 to match/exceed the 7DII. More likely a D8000 or D9300.

Sports

I'm pretty sure D7xxx doesn't suddenly jump to the pro layout. Afterall, it has the Canon 70D, Sony A77, Pentax K-3 and all the mirrorless to compete with. Nikon simply can't raise the price enough to pay for the pro-ish build and features.
Doesn't Nikon have three choices?
a) build the D400/D9300
b) build an FX with ALL of its expected qualities
c) leave the segment completely to Canon
IMHO, the D7xxx is not an option.
While b) would end up at a somewhat higher price point, many sports and action shooters would be happy. It's always tempting to get everything you expect and MORE. And it would follow Nikon's desire to move people to FX. But it would require yet another body - priced no more than $1000 above the "D300 price point". Else, forget it. The 7D2 segment would hereby shrink a bit and now hold mostly birders and wildlife shooters, and regular DX upgraders that still haven't reached the point of photo gear price blindness :-)

retread

I would like to see the D9300 as a smaller D810. FX and DX each have there place and I could use them were they work best and to back each other up.
I made the transition from film to digital with a D5100 to see if I would like it. I have started to purchasing mostly pro grade FX glass to use on FX and DX formats.

manhattanboy

IMHO, the D7xxx is not an option.

The 7100 is already a pretty amazing camera. For all except the DX pro's probably the next incarnation of the 7xxx series will be good enough depending on what they do with it. It's the DX pro's that Nikon is spitting into their eyes telling them to go to Canon...