Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

DaveC

I have been waiting for the D400 but am becoming increasingly convinced that such a camera will never be released. Nikon have all the parts that people are asking for : take the D7200 in a D810 type body and viola an acceptable D400. Why has Nikon not done this?

Do they have data to show that the market for such a camera is too small. Judging by the number of people on sites such as this that have already moved from a D300 or have purchased a second body, Nikon may be right.

Perhaps they feel this would take away sales from the D610 but as far as I can see the only reason why the sale of one body instead of another can be a concern is if the D610 body has a higher profit so I doubt this is the reason.

Perhaps they want to have 4 distinct lines some with sub-levels at different price points and a logical upgrade path. First the DX line of D3XXX, D5XXX and D7XXX in a what is being called a consumer body. The next line would a processor upgrade to the D6XX and D7XX lines in the same body but with the FX sensor. Then a body upgrade to the D8XX with the “pro” body and FX sensor. Finally the DX line of pro body and FX sensor. This reasoning seems to me to be the most likely. There is a logic to it and the D400 that many of us want would muddy the waters.

A month ago I was prepared to bite the bullet and get a D750 but now we have the D7200. Decisions, decisions . Life is not easy. :-)

sevencrossing

I take the D7200 in a D810 type body

The most expensive component would be the D810 body

So after you have taken into account, the cost conversion, testing and marketing a new camera. The cost is going to be very similar to a D810

Is the demand so great for a D400 would pay $3000 for it ? Yes the 10 diehards would but how many others

DaveC

Would the D810 body be that much more expensive than the D7200 body? I looked at some pics and it is very similar to what I now see in my D300 and would the testing and marketing be any different to that of e.g. the D7200? Also the sensor cost would be less. I am not saying you are wrong, I am looking for answers I do not have.

ricochet

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Canon has produced a pro build, crop sensor camera with the specs many of us would like, and they're selling them for $1699. If Canon can do it, why not Nikon?

DaveC

Ricochet: yes. That is another reason why I think that if it has not happened yet, and it could have, it will not happen.

sevencrossing

If Canon can do it, why not Nikon?

There is a thread on this very question

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2284/if-canon-can-do-xyz-why-cant-nikon#Item_32

Andrewz

ricochet said "If Canon can do it, why not Nikon"

This is a great question and one has to remember that Nikon and Canon are very different companies. Nikon is and continues to be primarily a camera manufacture. Nikon does have some other product lines that are optical in nature. Canon on the other hand is a Office equipment manufacture that has a camera division. Canon makes printers, scanners, projectors, X-ray and fluoroscopy equipment and a few others. Canon is more diversity and is able to handle a down turn in the photography market better than Nikon.

Andrewz

Sevencrossing beat me to it :-D

snakebunk

@Andrewz: Are you saying that Canon doesn't make a profit of the 7D Mark II?

WestEndFoto

Upgrading a D7100 with a bigger buffer, faster processor and D4 shutter is likely what Nikon would do to compete with the Canon. They would not start with a D800, but a D7100.

Andrewz

@snakebunk: Oh no, I'm just saying Canon is a much larger and more diverse company. That gives Canon the ability to absorb risks and take chances. 2011 numbers, Canon revenues 3.557 Trillion to Nikons 887.5 Billion. Canon is a lot big and can weather a change in the camera market easier than Nikon.

This just answers the basic question, If Canon can do it why can't Nikon? We can compare Canon and Nikon's products but you run in to problems when you try to compare the company's as equals, they're not.

snakebunk

@Andrewz: Ok, I understand!

@PitchBlack: Sorry, but I can't see what is ridiculous.

snakebunk

35% faster than the D4s (the flagship) would be almost 15 fps. I don't think anybody has sugested that. On the other hand, if Nikon made a 15 fps pro dx camera, I can imagine that more than five people would be interested.

Sports

Can you see how ridiculous this is? RIDICULOUS. These are preposterous numbers.

@Pitchblack I gave you -1 because you present your view on the matter as a fact, and you call other views than your own ridiculou, and you shout at people.

And apparently, you're not aware that Nikon themselves process 360 MP/sec in the 1V3.
And the D800 also processed 180 MP/sec, didn't it, and Expeed4 is faster than Expeed3.
So it's, well, surprising that you "know" that all the DSLRs are on the limit of the CPU.
Based on other brands and bodies on the market, it's much more likely that Nikon's fps are limited by other factors like shutter, cost, market segmentation, etc.

snakebunk

@PitchBlack:
Ok, I am with you on that. When you said fast I thought you where talking about fps.

But then we are back to me not understanding what is ridiculous. It may be that Nikon has hit some kind of limit, but then they have to work on that. Raising the throughput from 180 mp/sec to 192 mp/sec doesn't sound strange or ridiculous to me. It should be part of their development to achieve such things.

Samsung NX1 has 28 mp and 15 fps, which gives you 420 mp/sec.

I am shutting down the computer for today, but thank you for discussing with me.

snakebunk

Maybe the Samsung NX1 was not the best example. I just don't understand why it would be ridiculous for Nikon to raise the throughput. And if Sports is correct they already can handle the data traffic of 10 fps for a 24 mp sensor.

It is ok that you think this thread is a waste of time.

spraynpray

None of this is life and death, it is just photography. A lot of what I post is posted to get others responses and views in a positive and enjoyable manner. For the life of me I can't see what the heck there is to get adversarial and shouty about.

I will just say to all those entrenched anti-pro DXer's, you better hope Nikon never make a pro DX DSLR because the mickey taking that you are going to get is getting more than the rest of us will be able to administer LOL!

@sevencrossing: I have a whole pile of hats here that I will send for you to eat! Maybe @PitchBlack will help you out by eating a few when you get full...

snakebunk

@PitchBlack: Peace!

Ironheart

The Fujitsu milbeaut processor that Nikon uses for expeed4 has the publicly stated spec 24MP @ 12 FPS or 288MP/sec. Also the milbeaut already uses a dual-ARM core technology. Let's at least get the facts straight.

Ironheart

It's in the spec sheet from Fujitsu, so what do I know. There is more than one processor core, so it can easily multitask. Usually the core processor isn't involved in the writing of RAW files. I've only worked in this industry for 30 years, so I actually have no idea what I'm talking about :-)
http://jp.fujitsu.com/group/fsl/en/release/20130904-1.html

manhattanboy

All I read is "Maximum image processing speed equivalent to 12fps at 24M pixels." It doesn't say at what bit depth and gives no other information at all. That's a *maximum* as well. The processor on the camera is involved in all kinds of other things beyond just processing files. On the 1Dx for example, there is one entire processor dedicated to just exposure. On the Nikon cameras just one processor has to handle sensor reading and compression, autofocus, exposure. The Digic 6 processor was supposed to allow for up to 14fps, and yet the 7d2 has to have two of them. Why? Because the theoretical limit and the practical limit are very different.

My hunch is there is probably something also related to the power that the processor draws to be handle the computational throughput. For example, putting a battery grip with additional power can "free" up additional fps on some cameras. This new higher fps is still well below the theoretical maximum, but likely shows that the processor may be underclocked or underutilized for better battery life among other purposes in the normal state. In other words, maybe the 7200 could do 10 fps, but would dramatically heat up the internal electronics causing potential noise and image degradation, while rapidly draining the battery in the process. Nonetheless, these are engineering problems that to appease the D400-loving customers, Nikon would be smart to figure out viable solutions. If I could make a super (DX or FX) camera, I would take the optical brilliance from Nikon combine it with the sensor excellence of Sony, the mechanical engineering talent of Canon (and maybe the designers of Leica LOL... although I am sure there will be cries for a Hassie-like wood grip or exotic material like snake skin).

And @PitchBlack sorry to hear you are grumpy lately... maybe some time in the water shooting a model will cheer you up... I know that would work for me

WestEndFoto

Can you see how ridiculous this is? RIDICULOUS. These are preposterous numbers.

@Pitchblack I gave you -1 because you present your view on the matter as a fact, and you call other views than your own ridiculou, and you shout at people.

And apparently, you're not aware that Nikon themselves process 360 MP/sec in the 1V3.
And the D800 also processed 180 MP/sec, didn't it, and Expeed4 is faster than Expeed3.
So it's, well, surprising that you "know" that all the DSLRs are on the limit of the CPU.
Based on other brands and bodies on the market, it's much more likely that Nikon's fps are limited by other factors like shutter, cost, market segmentation, etc.

I don’t think that Pitchblack is yelling either. When I read his prose, I think about myself and how I am feeling when I am writing prose like that. I feel passionate and while the debate is lively, it is not yelling and is even professional. I recall a debate, I think even in this thread, a few days ago. I may have come across as yelling when I think about it. But what I actually felt at the time was an exhilaration about having a lively debate. I felt no ill will toward or offense from other people in the discussion.

That said, discussions like this that are not face to face can be difficult, as there are no body language cues to inform a listener as to the emotional state of the person talking. So maybe in my previous posts from a few days ago, I may have been interpreted incorrectly. Reading Pitchblack’s writing, my interpretation is an individual that is passionate about a subject and cares enough to “put himself out there”. Does that not describe most of us?

heartyfisher

Re : expeed 4 fps. I cant remember where I read cos I read it some time ago now, but the Expeed3 processor performs at a higher spec than its base Fujitsu Chip. So in other words Nikon is capable of "pushing" the chip a bit. I would assume that the same is possible in Expeed 4.

Back to the V3 it runs at 60 FPS at 18mp on an expeed4 processor. Even if that was just 12bits raw that is an impressive throughput. So logically its not the processor that is limiting FPS.

Regarding why they would/could invest more in a D400 vs a D800. The D400 could outsell the D800/D810 easily. even now the D300/S has more users than the D700 on flickr and the DX cameras have at least 5 times the number of users vs the FX cameras.

I am not saying that there will be a D400, I am just saying that logically these arguments have merit.

Re "if canon can why cant nikon" its more than just canon, we have Samsung, Pentax, Fujifilm, olympus .. why cant nikon. There is an obvious gap in the nikon product range... vacuums will be filled.. but its likely its going to be a mirror-less I think. The longer we wait the more likely its the mirrorless that's going to fill the gap.

Re hat eating, lol PRO DX advocates will never have to, cos its always "just around the corner" !!

WestEndFoto

But why would they solve these problems for a lower-priced camera that has no proven market and which Nikon has never shown any real interest in pursuing? Even if these problems could theoretically be solved, why on earth would they solve them for a DX pro body and not solve them for a flagship model that about four times as much? Or the D810 that costs twice as much and is a proven seller? If ever there were a case of wishful thinking....

I think that Pitchblack has a point here that is important not to overlook. We can all come up with theories and technical data to support a position, but our understanding is limited and must be tempered with what is happening in the real world.

If the real world does not line up with our theories, then the theories come into question. The burden of proof to resolve this question is on the person posing the theory, not the person that has pointed out the discrepancy. However, many times the challenger or even an entirely different person will offer a way to resolve the matter.

There are many things that I say on this forum that are my opinion (eg. DX will die.) I do apologize if it comes across as fact, but I do acknowledge that it is just my opinion. But what is the alternative, don’t put forward any opinions, just facts? How will new discoveries be made.

This is the basic scientific principle that is responsible for most of the technical achievements of human civilization and needs to be embraced, not censored.

manhattanboy

Even if these problems could theoretically be solved, why on earth would they solve them for a DX pro body and not solve them for a flagship model that about four times as much?

If I had to take the flip argument, I would say that if you make the breakthrough and can capitalize on it immediately, then why not? Say Nikon made a breakthrough in fps recently and are ready to launch a D400, why not include it? Yes the same technology can go into a D5 the following year, but the only reason Nikon would withhold it is if they were afraid it would cannibalize their sales (in which case they are probably producing cameras that are too similar to each other in the first place!). Apple was not worried about the iPhone eating up iPod sales nor the iPad eating up MacBook sales. If Nikon has something that is better, than it would make sense for them to release it. The entire DSLR market is declining. Now is not the time to be worrying about which order the chairs are lined up on the deck.