Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

manhattanboy

Want a profession DX for under $2000? Buy a refurbished Nikon D800 camera for $1,779 ( see main BLOG ) set it to DX and cover the D800 and Fx decals with black tape

Big advantage with a D800 no need to wait for it to be announced or become available or for Nikon to get the bugs out. It is here now and it is a bargain. After the D810 it is one of the best cameras in the world ( IMHO)

Go with the 810 if you are buying for DX; slightly faster, better buffer, better AF, quieter shutter.
I am really loving the group AF on the 810; it is near perfect for sticking with erratic subjects like birds while trying to track.

Ironheart

Now that Nikon has got the D7200 out of the way. We're ready for the D400/D9300 7DMII killer. Please. Thank you.

spraynpray

Yes, it is as I thought it would be - not enough of an improvement in any area to be thought of as a D300s replacement.

Now bring on the D400!!!

Photobug

I am really loving the group AF on the 810; it is near perfect for sticking with erratic subjects like birds while trying to track.

Tell me more about the Group AF feature. I have only had my D750 a couple of months and have not tired the Group AF function yet nor have I got that far in the manual. Never would have though about it for BIF. What other subjects have you used in on. Thanks in advance. Don't want to high jack this forum but we can exchange a few tips and move on.

Back to the topic....IMHO, we will not see a D400 or D9300. Nikon wants us to use the D800/D810/D4 in DX mode if you want a pro body.

sevencrossing

Back to the topic....IMHO, we will not see a D400 or D9300.

Now where have I heard that before ?

Photobug

Back to the topic....IMHO, we will not see a D400 or D9300.

Now where have I heard that before ?

It's a "vaporware DSLR"

sevencrossing

Go with the 810

Yes, definitely, if you are actually a professional
but you cannot get a 810 for under $2000, which is what people seem to be prepared to pay for a Pro Dx
If you are not a professional, but want professional gear at an affordable price, you are going to have to accept a reconditioned, last years model

spraynpray

The huge buffer on the D7200 has me properly worried now as it blurs the difference between a prosumer and professional body.

sevencrossing

The huge buffer on the D7200 has me properly worried now as it blurs the difference between a prosumer and professional body.

When using 14-bit lossless RAW in DX- it does 18 shots
The D4 s can do 129 FX

snakebunk

The huge buffer on the D7200 has me properly worried now as it blurs the difference between a prosumer and professional body.

When using 14-bit lossless RAW in DX- it does 18 shots
The D4 s can do 129 FX

Good point! I actually thought the specs of the D7200 would be more impressive.

If Nikon wants to make a pro DX camera there are lots of possibilities. Personally I would like better (D810-ish) build quality, cf cards, larger buffer and more fps, compared to the D7200

spraynpray

The huge buffer on the D7200 has me properly worried now as it blurs the difference between a prosumer and professional body.

When using 14-bit lossless RAW in DX- it does 18 shots
The D4 s can do 129 FX

Good point! I actually thought the specs of the D7200 would be more impressive.

If Nikon wants to make a pro DX camera there are lots of possibilities. Personally I would like better (D810-ish) build quality, cf cards, larger buffer and more fps, compared to the D7200

Yes wouldn't we all, but that would be a D400. Hopefully sevencrossing is right and there is still enough difference to leave space for a 'minigun' D400 in the line-up. I hope so as it would seem bad business to make the D810a and not the D400 when you compare market segments.

Msmoto

Deja Vu

I did a search and found this on a thread from the old forum:

"HELP: Buy D300s or wait for D400?"..... posted over six years ago......LOL

Sports

If Nikon wants to make a pro DX camera there are lots of possibilities. Personally I would like better (D810-ish) build quality, cf cards, larger buffer and more fps, compared to the D7200

You could add the 91,000 pixel RGB sensor instead of the 2,016 RGB metering sensor....
And if the D5 rumors are correct, it'll feature some new AF tech. Nikon cannot put this in another FX body right away, as it would take too much sales from the D5, but they could put it into a pro-DX, making it even more attractive as a second body to D810 owners.

sevencrossing

.. making it even more attractive as a second body to D810 owners.

Why would a D810 owner want a Dx body ?
sensible choice would be another D810 or a D4s
or if on a budget a reconditioned D800

Msmoto

Maybe Nikon recognizes that if they put a lot of pro features in a DX body, it will kill the full frame pro body. Why would one pay over $6,000.00 for a D5 if one could have a pro DX with similar focusing, buffer, etc., for less than 1/3rd the price? The fact is when one reproduces in print, or puts this on the air (television) there is no practical difference between DX and FX. The limitations of the media are far inferior to the image resolution from either source.

sevencrossing

there is no practical difference between DX and FX.

May be a topic for a new interesting thread

DaveyJ

There are professionals who just do not see FX as the most viable photo tool. Why? Many of them are using video gear. DX sensors are big enough and seem to have at least equal standing in wide depth of field to be what we need as a timber framing company. Some of my favorite lens like the Sigma 10-20mm are DX so switching to FX is pretty questionable for me. My VERY expensive foray years ago in large and medium format will be a chapter of my life I do not care to revisit. Still when Nikon comes out with their next full featured FX I will check it out. From the Nikon Company standpoint though it is only sales that count. Very important that Nikon and Canon though have bragging rights high end cameras, and if Coolpix cameras make lots of money for Nikon then fine.

sevencrossing

Why would one pay over $6,000.00 for a D5 if one could have a pro DX with similar focusing, buffer, etc., for less than 1/3rd the price? T.

The difference between the DX D7200 and FX D750 is about $1,000
so a DX D5 ( D500) could cost $5,000

donaldejose

If Nikon produces a D400 it won't be at a $5,000 price point because no one would buy it for that price. It has to come in at about a $2,000 price point or Nikon won't sell them. To keep the price down Nikon will not make it as robust as a D4 or D5. But it may be robust enough to serve its intended use.

Let's see how the sensor in the D7200 (along with the new image processing software used in the D750) performs. It may be the "magic" that allows a DX sensor to do what only an FX sensor could do a few years ago. Remember Nikon is selling the D7200 for just $1,200. If that senor is good enough for use in a D400 that gives Nikon $800 to spend on a "pro" body style and a few internal upgrades. That is the proper price comparson.

spraynpray

If Nikon produces a D400 it won't be at a $5,000 price point because no one would buy it for that price. It has to come in at about a $2,000 price point or Nikon won't sell them. To keep the price down Nikon will not make it as robust as a D4 or D5. But it may be robust enough to serve its intended use.

Let's see how the sensor in the D7200 (along with the new image processing software used in the D750) performs. It may be the "magic" that allows a DX sensor to do what only an FX sensor could do a few years ago. Remember Nikon is selling the D7200 for just $1,200. If that senor is good enough for use in a D400 that gives Nikon $800 to spend on a "pro" body style and a few internal upgrades. That is the proper price comparson.

I think we are already at that performance level aren't we Donald? D7200 with ISO 102600?

Realistically, max price shouldn't be too much more than the 7D2. Maybe $2100?

donaldejose

Agreed on both sensor and price. BUT the improved clean high ISO in the D750, and presumably also now in the D7200, isn't due to sensor technology alone. I remember reading when the D750 came out that someone from Nikon said the improved computing power of Expeed 4 allowed for selective noise reduction in jpgs. I took this to mean that in an area of the image which is mostly one solid color, like sky or deep shadow, where noise would be first noticeable the new software in the camera applied stronger noise reduction and in areas of the image where there was a lot of detail the software applied less noise reduction. Thus, you both preserve detail where it exists which makes noise less conspicuous while also eliminating noise where there is no detail to mask it. If we see nice clean jpgs at 6,400 and 12,800 ISO then we have to look at RAW files processed in lightroom to see if they have the same lack of noise. I am suggesting, but don't know, that a good part of the clean high ISO is due to software and not the sensor. However Nikon achieves it surely the same thing will be done in a D400 which makes me think the D7200 sensor/software package would be adequate for a D400. Of course, it all has to be tested!

WestEndFoto

If Nikon produces a D400 it won't be at a $5,000 price point because no one would buy it for that price. It has to come in at about a $2,000 price point or Nikon won't sell them. To keep the price down Nikon will not make it as robust as a D4 or D5. But it may be robust enough to serve its intended use.

Let's see how the sensor in the D7200 (along with the new image processing software used in the D750) performs. It may be the "magic" that allows a DX sensor to do what only an FX sensor could do a few years ago. Remember Nikon is selling the D7200 for just $1,200. If that senor is good enough for use in a D400 that gives Nikon $800 to spend on a "pro" body style and a few internal upgrades. That is the proper price comparson.

I think we are already at that performance level aren't we Donald? D7200 with ISO 102600?

Realistically, max price shouldn't be too much more than the 7D2. Maybe $2100?

ISO 102600 is not a performance level, but a marketing level.

spraynpray

Agreed on both sensor and price. BUT the improved clean high ISO in the D750, and presumably also now in the D7200, isn't due to sensor technology alone. I remember reading when the D750 came out that someone from Nikon said the improved computing power of Expeed 4 allowed for selective noise reduction in jpgs. I took this to mean that in an area of the image which is mostly one solid color, like sky or deep shadow, where noise would be first noticeable the new software in the camera applied stronger noise reduction and in areas of the image where there was a lot of detail the software applied less noise reduction. Thus, you both preserve detail where it exists which makes noise less conspicuous while also eliminating noise where there is no detail to mask it. If we see nice clean jpgs at 6,400 and 12,800 ISO then we have to look at RAW files processed in lightroom to see if they have the same lack of noise. I am suggesting, but don't know, that a good part of the clean high ISO is due to software and not the sensor. However Nikon achieves it surely the same thing will be done in a D400 which makes me think the D7200 sensor/software package would be adequate for a D400. Of course, it all has to be tested!

I agree with that because it echos my own findings. The treatment of the image by the in camera software took a noticeable jump to me with some areas of my D7100's night photographs having a 'plastic' look to me. It will be interesting to see D7200 shots.

If Nikon produces a D400 it won't be at a $5,000 price point because no one would buy it for that price. It has to come in at about a $2,000 price point or Nikon won't sell them. To keep the price down Nikon will not make it as robust as a D4 or D5. But it may be robust enough to serve its intended use.

Let's see how the sensor in the D7200 (along with the new image processing software used in the D750) performs. It may be the "magic" that allows a DX sensor to do what only an FX sensor could do a few years ago. Remember Nikon is selling the D7200 for just $1,200. If that senor is good enough for use in a D400 that gives Nikon $800 to spend on a "pro" body style and a few internal upgrades. That is the proper price comparson.

I think we are already at that performance level aren't we Donald? D7200 with ISO 102600?

Realistically, max price shouldn't be too much more than the 7D2. Maybe $2100?

ISO 102600 is not a performance level, but a marketing level.

You may be right, but is too soon to say at this stage due to the fact that I have used my D750 and D7100 flat out and got acceptable results (in VERY low light (moonless night)). We will have to wait and see but it seems to me that sensor and software advances have disproportionately improved the usefulness of high ISO on recent bodies. My D5000/D90 were shot away above 800/1250, my D7000 looked shabby above 1600 (bad colour noise). My D7100 looked slightly better at 6400 than my D7000 at 1600, so if the D7200 is as good at 12800 as the D7100 is at 6400, then I expect to find 102600 useable in very low light if pushed to the right. Nowhere near D4s standard of course, but I would think users will be very happy if it was as usable as 12800 is on my D7100.

I don't want to upgrade (in the interests of staying married) so it is only of academic interest to me.

sevencrossing

I don't want to upgrade (in the interests of staying married) so it is only of academic interest to me.

Thanks for the warning S&P
Will the D400 come out before I get married in September
:-\"

sevencrossing

that gives Nikon $800 to spend on a "pro" body style and a few internal upgrades.

$800 is about the price difference between the D750 and the D810
so that is possible
but you still only get 6 fps