Is D400 definitely coming?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by panayotis_papadopoulos, May 31, 2013.

  1. http://photographylife.com/nikon-d400-is-definitely-coming#more-51284

    I found this and I thought to share it with you just in case...I know nothing can be taken for granted but it doesn't harm to know what's going around. Cheers!
     
  2. Oh, you didn't know? Where have you been? It comes with the 800mm F5.6 kit lens.
     
  3. Yes, the world definitely needs more rumours about the D400, and more forumthreads too to discuss the likeliness and validity of those rumours.
     
  4. Definite maybe. If and when Canon release a 7D2, I'll expect a pro-spec DX sports camera from Nikon in response. Personally, I think there's room for one - which doesn't mean that Nikon have to fill it. I doubt they'd launch with at autofocus update before launching a D4 replacement, and I've said elsewhere that it would be much easier to launch (say) an 8fps 24MP DX body if the D4's specs were a little closer to the 1Dx's - but I hardly have a 100% track record in predicting the behaviour of Canikon. Otherwise, it's one rumour among many, and - while I enjoy knowing about them - the policy of this forum seems to be "jus' the facts, ma'am".
     
  5. Mansurov must be desperate to resort to a rumor chum slick(the main source is one of his posts from 2012) to attract hits to his ho-hum site. His "report," like most breathless "insider/trusted sources" malarkey, is pretty much fact-free.
     
  6. Mansurov must be desperate to resort to a rumor chum slick(the main source is one of his posts from 2012) to attract hits to his ho-hum site. His "report," like most breathless "insider/trusted sources" malarkey, is pretty much fact-free.​
    This. A lot.
    He's like Rockwell but with an inflated opinion of his supposed technical knowledge, isn't he?
    And it's hardly insightful to suggest that - sooner or later - there'll be a D400, is it?
    but it doesn't harm to know what's going around.​
    Panayotis, regurgitating unfounded rumours has never been very welcome on Photo.Net, as I recall.
    There are websites for that...
     
  7. With respect, I disagree about Nasim's post.

    I find it perfectly appropriate and well sourced. He established the source's credibility and the report was incredibly detailed, which I
    found helpful. He also then added opinion that I found insightful.

    I for one and glad to see this kind of post.
     
  8. "With respect, I disagree about Nasim's post. I find it perfectly appropriate and well sourced. He established the source's credibility and the report was incredibly detailed, which I found helpful. He also then added opinion that I found insightful. I for one and glad to see this kind of post."
    Well-sourced? We must have wildly differing evidentiary criteria. I saw nothing verifiable or credible in his "report" since he didn't provide any references. As such, Mansurov's just doing what all rumor sites do--providing infotainment.
     
  9. "Is D400 definitely coming?"

    That or cameras with model different numbers.
     
  10. MO (prediction) is, that the name D4xx will appear in the Nikon line, in about 2-3 years time, when the next FF line of products/replacements will be introduced. My opinion is that D400 will be the next "entry level" FF product of Nikon, underneath the D6xx....
    This, (which I am sure of) is not a "crystal ball" thought, but a simple "translation" of the recent name policy they have decided in Nikon.... odd starting number and four digits for DX (3xxx, 5xxx, 7xxx)... even starting number and three digits for FX (4xx, 6xx, 8xx)... That said, if Nikon will decide on a new DX flagship... (possible), it will surely be called the D9xxx and it will follow Nikon's all time policy that no product at a certain price point will bear better body than the next in the line (the D6xx now or the D4xx later).... That name policy, is followed by Nikon after D90 which was the last product of the previous naming marketing strategy (three digit name for the prosumer - two digit name for the consumer) which wasn't too successful since it caused a lot of confusion, especially to the new comers. Now, it is quite clear both the marketing position of a product in the line, the size of sensor it bears and what it replaces or if a new marketing section is created... A marketing analyst (like Mansourov -what a pathetic name ..."man sure off" ...it reminds me of "Iznogud" ..."is no good"- or TH or any another "guru") that cannot see this simple marketing decision of Nikon, is simply not an Analyst but a "guru of crap"...
     
  11. There is no such thing confirmed by any reliable sources at this point, so why is this even a discussion?
     
  12. i dont really see the need for mansurov-bashing. rumors obviously can be taken with a grain of salt. if this one is to be believed, it explains the hole in nikon's lineup that the d7000 and d7100 didnt address. but to take this one step further, if a nikon marketing guy is sourcing to mansurov's blog, that suggests that nikon knows there is confusion about where the heck its going among its consumer base, and thus this can be seen as a gentle attempt at damage control, to reassure those who might be tempted to stray to Canon, Sony, Fuji, etc. also, if those specs hold steady, the camera sounds like it will be a winner, especially for action shooters.
     
  13. Instead of asking a question that no one can answer - if it really is coming, the only people who know have signed non-disclosure agreements - how about listing the features that you would like to see in a soon to be released camera? Who knows? Maybe Nikon will read your list and work on engineering those features.
     
  14. With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.
     
  15. With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.​
    For some people, DX is a better choice - extra reach due to crop-factor, extra DoF for macro work, ownership of existing good DX lenses and so on. I can imagine really well people are looking forward to a D400 type of camera. FX is not the right choice for everybody, simple as that.
    Usually I quite like what is on the Mansurov site; it's not a bad site and at least they own a lens before reviewing it - unlike KR. Even if you disagree what they're doing, their site is a better help for many looking for Nikon gear than many other sites, and in that sense they're not doing any harm at all. Why people see it fit to bash this site because of one crappy rumour and even find it right to mock their family name is a bit beyond me.
     
  16. With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.​
    Because for a lot of photographers, DX/APS-C "reach" is more important than FF bragging rights.
     
  17. and in that sense they're not doing any harm at all​
    Well they kinda are, Wouter.
    Mansurov's tone is frequentlyoverly opinionated, intolerant of other perspectives, fanboyish, and based on the idea that his experiences are the only ones that matter or have any legitimacy - what he does and thinks is all there is.
     
  18. DX format cameras are money makers for Nikon, since most people do not want to carry full-frame cameras or buy the heavy and expensive lenses that go with them.
    In spite of that, let's face reality: most of us won't know what is coming until it is officially announced. There are possible exceptions, but they seem to be quite rare.
    --Lannie
     
  19. Usually I quite like what is on the Mansurov site; it's not a bad site and at least they own a lens before reviewing it - unlike KR. Even if you disagree what they're doing, their site is a better help for many looking for Nikon gear than many other sites, and in that sense they're not doing any harm at all. Why people see it fit to bash this site because of one crappy rumour and even find it right to mock their family name is a bit beyond me.​
    I agree. That site has a few different writers who each seem to be quite good at one or more areas of photography, even if they do get gear-happy (but who among us doesn't) and they usually have helpful things to say, and unlike KR won't "review" equipment before they try it. But this is the second year in a row this guy has written the same rumor. It starts to look like link bait, and seems to be working.
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    But this is the second year in a row this guy has written the same rumor. It starts to look like link bait, and seems to be working.​
    Second year in a row? That is nothing.
    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51256976
    And there are a few responses to that post, some favor it, some don't.
     
  21. It looks to me more like a website that is desperate to rake in some money from those banner ads than an article in which anyone should take any stock.
     
  22. Some folks just prefer to work with DX. I prefer the smaller lighter DX system, and now that it is in the 16-24 mp range it's
    even better! But, it's silly to keep bringing up these cameras that don't exsist.
     
  23. I just don't see a whole of difference between images made with D600/D800 and a D7100, and my customers don't see any difference at all. I do like the extra reach I get with DX, and also the extra DoF. For me to switch from a DX to FX system would cost me net about $3,000 (mostly lenses.) If I shot more weddings a D800 would be a consideration. (I don't consider the D600 because I think the D7100 surpasses that as a package.) I just don't see much gain for me if I spent the money. I won't be making more money, my images won't be any better, and my camera bag will weigh more. I'll also be losing more money to depreciation as the camera value rapidly declines. I have much better uses for the money that will indeed give me more interesting photos, such as spending the difference on tickets to Iceland. I have a D7100 but would buy a D400 if it became available, mostly to get a bigger buffer.
    Kent in SD
     
  24. Minutes ago I posted a picture on PN that I made with my D7000 and the 18-105 lens. It is the cheapest DSLR rig I have, but it consistently brings home good shots. That doesn't mean that I plan to sell my D800E any time soon, but I love to shoot with the D7000, and it never lets me down.
    --Lannie
     
  25. Ok. So I cast stones. I practiced my alectoromancy. (Darn thing keeps me up in the morning but it is useful.) (I would try Extispicy but I don't have the guts.) I saw birds flying east today. We all know what that means. 4 is an unlucky number to the Chinese. (Zeros don't count as we all know. and need I mention that this is 2013?))
    I gazed at my palm, looked into mirrors, read the cards, drank loads of tea, got dice, wore the planchette off of my Ouija board, dropped a crystal on my wife's toe, had my dreams interpreted by a strict Freudian, cast rods, bones, reeds, rice...out a demon or two and asked Shun who probably signed a thingy or something and I can say most definitely that there will be no D400 in 2013 or ever for that matter. Now you know. That's the end of it.
     
  26. Two points
    a. D600 refurbished recently selling about $1600, undercuts D400.
    b. Fast zoom like the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 gives user a chance to
    shoot in low light one EV lower thereby getting even closer to
    FX in regards to noise. Any residual noise should be eliminated with
    the very good PP noise correction software.
    Right now I like the new DX camera, its smaller lighter with better IQ than last gen
    and I would wait and see if a FF mirrorless comes out which will be smaller and lighter
    than the DX DSLR's we have today.
     
  27. I could see fitting a pro DX camera in at around the same price point as the D600 (which is $2000 - refurb and used prices don't count). It would have to be darned good, to fit in the current market. If it were as fast as a D4 with the ergonomics of a D300 and the features of a D7100 it would sell. But if Nikon's got one in the works, nobody who knows is talking. The repeated false rumors should be a giveaway that there's no high quality information behind them.
     
  28. Andy L. has summed it up perfectly.
    -O
     
  29. This thread ran? Okay, I'll play. My theory, as stated before:


    Nikon could make a D7100h - a D7100 with a bigger buffer - for relatively little engineering effort and
    make some, but not all, D400-wanters happy. This would have a premium over the plain D7100, but
    probably not trouble the price of the D600, and probably wouldn't poach too many sales. This would
    do most of what a D300s can do without a grip, trading lower weight (if this is why you want DX) for a
    little handling.


    Nikon could make a D2x grip-body successor - a D4dx. This would replace the D300+grip. It wouldn't
    be all that small, but could do 8-10fps and have 24MP and a big buffer. I'd expect pricing at least in
    the D800 range. For those who want DX reach and a cheaper D4, at the cost of low light. The problem
    is that this is one focal reducer away from killing D4 sales. I think it has a market, but if Nikon ship a
    24MP, higher frame rate (c.f. 1dx, or V2) D5 first it would be less risky.


    A 16MP, 8fps (with grip) D7000-derived D400 feels to me like a body without a home in the current
    line-up. The D7100 gets darned close with more reach. The D800 gives you big camera handling with
    the same reach as the D7000 (you don't HAVE to use FX lenses) and a semi-decent buffer at 6fps
    (with grip). It can't afford to poach sales from the D4, the MP count would make it look bad compared
    with the D7100 and the rest of the DX range. The body would price it near the D600. A lot of people
    who want it would be better with a used D3. Yes, a D7000 sensor in a D300 body has its uses, but is it
    better for a significant number of users than what's already available, or what Nikon could choose to
    make?


    I appreciate the desire for a niche to be filled. Some of it's rational, some of it's "I'd like exactly a D4,
    only cheaper" and isn't going to happen while Nikon think they can make money at the current prices.
    Nikon do try out prototypes, some make it to production, some don't, and some probably just throw
    Canon off the scent. I really think that when and if a 7D2 turns up, Nikon will respond (although the 7D
    can do some things the D300s can't, so how well they respond remains to be seen). Given the D4/1Dx,
    D800/5D3, D600/6D and D7100/700D timing, I think all we can say is that the two big manufacturers
    are likely to release at the same time. On that basis, I'd kind of expect a response to the 100D first,
    and I'm not holding my breath.
     
  30. >>>I have a D7100 but would buy a D400 if it became available, mostly to get a bigger buffer.<<<

    A large buffer and a rugged body would be good selling points for a D400, but it probably would need some new features
    in order to do well in a crowded market. The sensor would probably be about the same, so a D400 can't distinguish itself
    there. Something like 12fps for 36 frames would make it a standout, or the ability to capture stills from 4k video. But the
    latter isn't likely to happen at a D400 price point.

    >>>I just don't see a whole of difference between images made with D600/D800 and a D7100, and my customers don't
    see any difference at all.<<<

    I can't say as I don't own a D7100, but I'm guessing that full frame has the advantage in the IQ department when
    compared closely. That said, today's crop sensor cameras have very impressive IQ, good enough for the majority of
    applications.

    I agree that the price of refurbished gear should not enter the discussion. If you want to buy a refurb, that's up to you, and it may work fine, but you are not going to get the same warranty and support as the owner of a body that was purchased new.
     
  31. Dan: that depends on what "a D400 price point" is. I'm more concerned that Nikon can't really sell a
    24MP 12fps DSLR without killing the D4 - though if the newspapers switch to iphones and
    crowdsourcing anyway, maybe there won't be a D5. I agree that all we might expect between the
    D7100 and the D600 is a D7100 with a bigger buffer. About that suggestion of a used D3...
     
  32. Andrew nailed it. I think Nikon sees the writing on the wall. Since the employers have stopped buying cameras because their employees said they had to have "professional" ones the game has changed. And the D7100 is the changer.
    As a PJ I actually was not happy to see full frame on the D3/D4. I preferred the extra reach from the DX format. I had to go to full frame to get the voice memo (a necessity for me in what I do if I don't want to stuff my pocket with notes). As to the durability factor and frame rate the D300 at 8FPS was just fine and I could get three of them for the price of the D3s and D4. But I wanted that damn $3500.00 voice memo.
    I have always believed that the reputed difference in image quality between FX and DX was highly overrated. All we have to do is look at Nikon Wednesday to see that for 95% of the shots posted there would simply be no difference between the two. We hear the wedding photographers maintaining that they simply can't shoot a wedding with DX but they did 5 years ago. Five years ago they simply had to have the additional low light capability the D300 offered.
    Now Nikon showed us something fun with the D7100. It has almost two stops greater dynamic range than Canon's 1DX and some 30% higher resolution. Hmmmm. 'But Rick, I shoot sports in the rain for a living and need a bazillion more FPS.' Good. Pony up the additional $5500.00 and you can grip it and rip it. The thing is that even the majority of working professionals don't really need this. 'But I shoot weddings in the dark and like to position myself 3' from the bride's nose'! Super. Then pony up the extra $1K for a D600 or $2K for a D800.
    The market for the highest end cameras has always been pretty small and as far as professionals go was pretty much limited to the Photojournalist and Sports folks. In all of the Rodeos I have shot, (and I have shot a bunch), the only in-the-arena shooters I have seen with D2-3-4 series cameras were PJs. I have never seen a PRCA guy with one. So much for durability. It does not get much more challenging than Rodeo. But why do they not use these robust $6000.00 camera's? Because they have to buy their own and the cost/benefit is simply not there. Big lenses yes but big bodies...no.
    I was covering a museum event the other day and had my D7100 and an old D2X hanging around my neck. A guy with a D4 saw the press-pass, walked up and asked me why I chose to use the D7100. I asked him why he chose to spend $6500.00 on his body. He replied, "because I want to have the best." The funning thing is that he didn't. He just had the most expensive. He would only have the best under conditions at the bleeding edge of what any photographer shoots. And then......very infrequently.
    So I think that the D400, (if it comes) will mark the surrendering of the high-end PJ market and relegate the D5 (if it comes) to the realm of the very specific. Sort of like a tilt shift lens. Expensive and rare but just the thing for the few folks who need it for work or for bragging rights.
     
  33. Those are a few good points Rick, and personally I could care less whether the D400 ever shows up. I have already
    made up my mind that the upper consumer class cameras do everything I need and are loaded with features/cost. Even
    for smaller jobs I can get about $150-200 so in three jobs or so I own the $600 body rather than either using three times
    that and either going into cash flow or dropping it on a card to make payments on plus interest, all to say "I have the
    best". BTDT, that's all done for me!

    IF, I need something really top, I shoot film in the Blad and soup/scan, or I just rent and quote in the expenses. I read an
    article back in the 80s where Antonin Kratochvil said he only owned a few Nikons and basic lenses because he didn't
    want to be burdened with ownership and upkeep of bigger cameras and lights, he prefered to rent.

    Now I'm getting ready to add a D5200 to my kit and it has a few features and capabilities that will be great. When the next
    one comes along, I'll pick that up.
     
  34. Well they kinda are, Wouter.
    Mansurov's tone is frequentlyoverly opinionated, intolerant of other perspectives, fanboyish, and based on the idea that his experiences are the only ones that matter or have any legitimacy - what he does and thinks isall there is.

    I am deeply sorry if I somehow harmed the photography community - certainly not my intent. Would love to see examples of "opinionated, intolerant of other perspectives, fanboyish, and based on the idea that my experience is the only one that matters or have any legitimacy" on my website, so that I could understand what you mean by this.
    If you don't like what I do, please provide feedback on where I need to improve and I will work on it. Although I try to bring some objectivity to my gear reviews (I try to back up my findings using testing tools like Imatest), you have to realize that my experience might be different from yours - I always say that all reviews are subjective for this reason alone. There are always things to consider like background, personal experience/perspective, sample variation, testing methodology, etc. That's why I always recommend to read multiple reviews before making a purchasing decision.
    As for the rumor, I posted it because the person who emailed me the information provided advanced info for earlier cameras like D800, D7100, etc and they turned out to be true. I rarely engage in rumor talks, but I thought the news about a potential D400 might be of interest for those that are waiting. Many are waiting for a D300s replacement and are simply not happy with the D7100's buffer limitations. A rumor is a rumor, it may or may not turn out to be true...
    For those that think I do this for traffic reasons - just to give you a perspective, my site generates about 50K hits a day on average, sometimes spiking up to 60-75K, depending on what I post. The cumulative number of hits I got from other sites has been about 1,000-1,500 hits per day, which will die off completely in a week. If you really think such a post would accumulate long term hits, you are simply wrong. I get much higher long-term hits from reviews I write than short posts that might get a little buzz here and there for a couple of days. People link to my reviews every day and that's what adds to my traffic, little by little. If you want me to show you the detailed stats, I do not mind sharing this info. It is sad that people make assumptions without understanding this.
    My site is nowhere close to be my primary source of income. I don't advertise and I don't get paid for what I do. I am registered as an affiliate with B&H and Adorama, so I only provide links to them and a single banner to support my site. Just to give you a perspective, those affiliate programs typically generate less money than what I pay some of my writers. I started Mansurovs.com (which was later renamed to Photography Life) as a hobby, something I still do in my spare time. I enjoy writing and sharing, which is why I continue to maintain the site. My team is mostly comprised of volunteers, who also enjoy writing and taking pictures like me. Lately I have been teaming up with local Colorado photographers to promote their work and share their knowledge. So please take all this into account when making statements like "Nasim only does this for money", "to get more hits", etc.
    Again, if you guys think I can do better, please provide some feedback on where you think I struggle or fail. I will surely work on it, since my goal is to be better at what I do.
    Sincerely,
    Nasim Mansurov
    http://photographylife.com
     
  35. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If you don't like what I do, please provide feedback on where I need to improve and I will work on it.​
    Nasim, that is your web site and you can do whatever you want there (provided that is legal). But if you want feedback, my suggestion is not to dedicate entire articles to rumors over and over. Once your rumors don't pan out, you lose creditability fairly quickly. In particular, when you have sources that you cannot name; it does not help.
    As I mentioned earlier, some guy on DPReview searched Thom Hogan's web site. It turns out that Thom has been talking about the D400 as a successor to the D300 quite a few times since as early as 2008; that was some 5 years ago: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51256976
    Personally, I have stated several times that it is my personal opinion (which could be wrong, of course) that the D7000 is the merger of the D90 and D300S. Nikon has discontinued the D200-D300-D300S product line over a year ago when they could no longer sell any EN-EL3e-based products in Japan as their safety regulations tightened in November, 2011. Nikon may use the D400 model number some day, but not for a DX-format DSLR as a "successor" to the D300/D300S. Again, that is merely my personal opinion, not based on any insider info from Nikon.
    The problem with rumors is that they generate false expectations, and when they don't pan out, disappointment and sometimes major disappointment. Hopefully few people on this forum still expect this "D300S successor" D400.
    P.S. It is against photo.net policy to put your personal URL as a "signature" in posts. Please see our Community Guidelines #1: http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/
     
  36. For what it's worth, Thom definitely discusses the D400 quite regularly. However, I believe he does so as someone who's watching the camera industry and is making an analysis of what he would expect Nikon to do; I don't believe he tends to claim internal knowledge of release dates, though I could be wrong. Just as I'm happy to speculate here, so long as it's clearly speculation it should be harmless.

    Not commenting on the quality of the rumour posted by Nasim (I follow rumour sites as well, with a probability filter firmly in place; I'm happy if photo.net prefers to stick to other topics so as to avoid confusion) - I'm just making the distinction.
     
  37. The sad thing is that there are people waiting to see what Nikon will do instead of buying a nice new camera or better still, learning to use the one they have to full effect. This is why I have such problems with gear-heads. Being a gear head is not necessarily a reflection on one's photography but there are a significant number of people who still believe they can "buy a game". Golfers are like that too. 'If I could just get a new driver that gets rid of my slice....."
    I have been a member here for 10 years. One of my very favorite things to do is look at the pictures others post. It is, in my opinion, a great education. I can't tell everyone how frequently I have been inspired by these pictures. They reinvigorate me. I frequently read the comments attached to the pictures so I can see if others are seeing what I am seeing or to understand how they believe the shot could be made better. It is delightful. In all of those ten years I have never seen the comment, "gee Mr. Smith, If you just had the new D920 this shot would have been so much better".
    Every month or so we all ought to go to the gallery section of this site and search D100 just to remind ourselves how great talent trumps technical innovation every time. I have owned digital SLRs since the D100 and quite a few of them at that. I have never owned a camera that was not far more capable of capturing beauty or news than I am.
     
  38. Mr. Mansurov,
    Since I first posted about this I would like to add a few things. It's true that that the D400 "project" has been around for a few years. Many things and stories have been written and published all over the web. It was, and still is in fact, one of the most anticipated Nikon cameras ever. That alone give people a reason to keep dealing with this rumor, especially when they find feedback. If nobody would care there wouldn't be any more rumors about the D400. Do we see any rumors of that kind for the D700s?
    The non appearence of the camera though gave mythical dimensions within the Nikon camp. This led to the limits of hyperbole. Thus, many people were tired of these (repeated) rumors. Their idiosyncrasy could not handle it anymore and their tamperament forced some of them to react within a way that was not the most appropriate, generally speaking. And even though they were right in most of their testimony, the way of expressing it was not the most suitable. Please bear in mind that I do not talk specifically about the people whom you have addressed your above post. As I said, I speak generally.
    I think everything should be taken under consideration before reaching to an end. And this is what I suggest to everyone. "Think before you act" was an ancient Hellenic saying said to youngsters who were to grow and become men. No matter if they were destined to become philosophers or fearless soldiers. Still very welcome in our days too.
    Anyhow, I found your post regarding the D400 a worthy one to share with the community. I would love such a camera. My personal belief is that anyhow a better DX than D7100, a new DX flagship for Nikon, will come eventually. Now if the name will be D400 or D9000, I can not say. Only Nikon does. Till that time it's not that harmful to talk about this successor that might help as a Nikon (DX) wish list. But lets keep silly confrontation out of this.
    regards,
    Panayotis Papadopoulos
     
  39. This whole thread is good enough reason why we don't need to start, or leave up for that matter, threads of weak or
    unverified information like this. JMO
     
  40. Then my dear friend David we all should stay home and watch movies...not even the news. Life itself is a rumor, nobody knows where he came from and where is going to. Cheers!
     
  41. Dave: Actually, I enjoy these threads, although I mostly take this thread as an indication of what other people want and (to a lesser extent) predict from Nikon rather than any inside information about what Nikon will do. At least the photo.net community is largely quite informed, compared with a similar discussion that one might have elsewhere. There's a tiny chance that Nikon are listening, too.

    I appreciate that others may have a different opinion, though, and that someone coming to a thread such as this expecting reliable information (which I hope everyone understands is not what any of us have provided here) might leave with a misapprehension about what's happening, so it's not entirely harmless. Maybe we could have a big disclaimer banner for any rumour threads?
     
  42. "an indication of what other people want"
    exactly, and there is a lot of people wanting a "D400" as a replacement for the D300/s.
    I, e.g., run a mall business, some weddings, some families and portraits, some events and sports. For my needs the D300 was a perfect baby; I dont shoot in the dark, so the higher ISO of a larger sensor doesnt bring much advantage- compared to analog even the D300 does a superior job in low light.. A big advantage for me is the crop in the longer end, so I want to stay with DX.
    Doing some work outside I need a stable body which is quick and easy to handle.
    IMO lot of people is in the same situation; time is passing by and nothing comes from Nikon.
    If Nikon doesnt come out soon with a"D400", whatever name it will have, I have to look for the new 7D, I need a camera that meets my needs, and a D7100 just doesnt.
     
  43. Nasim, that is your web site and you can do whatever you want there (provided that is legal). But if you want feedback, my suggestion is not to dedicate entire articles to rumors over and over. Once your rumors don't pan out, you lose creditability fairly quickly.​
    Shun, you are right, looks like these rumors do more harm than good. Unless it is something certain, I won't be posting anything anymore.
    As for the signature policy, I apologize - I did not know that. Won't be doing that again.
    Sincerely,
    Nasim Mansurov
     
  44. The sad thing is that there are people waiting to see what Nikon will do instead of buying a nice new camera or better still, learning to use the one they have to full effect. This is why I have such problems with gear-heads. Being a gear head is not necessarily a reflection on one's photography but there are a significant number of people who still believe they can "buy a game". Golfers are like that too. 'If I could just get a new driver that gets rid of my slice....."​
    Rick, I totally agree. We wrote an article on the subject: http://photographylife.com/diseases-that-plague-photographers - might be a fun one to read :)
     
  45. Panayotis, I agree - the D400 is wanted by many. And D300s owners are surely frustrated, since they do not know what to do at this point - buy the D7100 and learn how to deal with buffer limitations, or save to get the D4. It is a tough choice...
     
  46. Theodoros says: "Mansourov-what a
    pathetic name..." Serious, is this where
    we're at, ridiculing someone's proper
    name on the board and it's left to
    stand?
     
  47. Nasim,
    It's not only the buffer limitation, in my humble opinion, that make the D300/300s users (or some of them), not wanting the D7100. It's the structure, the great built of it, the feeling that you get when you hold a D300s body. This is something that people don't seem to understand, that a D700 and D7100 never delivered it. It's not pro-look, period.
    As far as Nikon concerns they could deliver, at least, a D300s II, with a better sensor (16-20 megapix), better low light capabilities, faster frame rates and good buffer and get it done once and for all. They, even, could use the same body (D300s), and common video capabilities found in most of their cameras. Selling it $200-300 dollars more expensive than the D7100 (or whatever price they think that it will not cannibalize D7100 sales), and have everybody pleased, even their own pockets which is their one and only target.
    For the people who claim that D600 "killed" the D400 sales, I am afraid that they ignore why someone is buying DX format.
     
  48. Dave, Theodoros probably did not know that it is my last name, perhaps he thought that it was the name of the site...
     
  49. It matters not, it's rude.
     
  50. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Sorry I missed some posts earlier. Chastising someone's name is not appropriate on this forum and photo.net in general. I have sent e-mail to the appropriate party. Nasim, I apologize about that happening here.
     
  51. If Nikon doesn't come out soon with a"D400", whatever name it will have, I have to look for the new 7D, I need a camera that meets my needs, and a D7100 just doesnt.​
    A 7D huh? Just for fun, what is it that the 7D does that your D300 doesn't? It must be the larger sensor and movies because other than that there is little difference between the two.... Except that the D300 has better color depth, greater dynamic range, longer battery life, (much longer with the grip which evens up the FPS), faster startup and vastly more focus points.
    I don't at all mean to be disrespectful but you would change brands for a pittance? As a professional you know that you would have to fire-sale your bodies and your lens kit, buy two bodies, two flashes, and the whole range of Canon lenses needed for the variety of stuff you do at retail. Then you have to relearn what you do by force of habit right now all while you are on the clock so to speak. A smarter way to go would be to add the D7100 to your D300 and you would have it all. A far better camera for your weddings, 1080 video, more resolution, vastly more dynamic range, much greater color depth, a quieter shutter.....on and on. And you would still have a very capable sports camera in the D300 with a grip.
    I think Nikon knows this. My suspicion is that they are evaluating where the market is for their cameras. I have a D300 in my stable and like it. But it has always been a bit of a niche camera. Once the majority of professionals went to full-frame there remains the very good question of whether there really is a significant market for a $2000.00 DX camera.
    I am thrilled with my D7100 and like most people who bought it, it is not my first rodeo. So it has its place in the stable. Not with me to sports. Its 8 and 10 frame cousins go there. Not in the pouring rain. Its 12 MP grandfather goes there. But for what it is for it is perfect for professional and enthusiast alike.
     
  52. Nasim, sorry about that... I honestly thought (because of the predictions the site and such...) that it was an intentional pseudonym that would direct thoughts to "man sure of..." (exactly like "iznogud" (do you know the comic character?) which is designed to remind of "is no good"). However, I am surprised you didn't comment (or others) on my other part of the post, which of course is "the obvious Nikon naming policy", is it because you disagree, or is it because you made the article without noticing that there is a naming policy that excludes any chance of having a D400 as D300 replacement? ...In other words, doesn't the current naming policy of Nikon (odd-four digits for DX , even-3digits for FX), proves beyond any doubt that if a D400 will ever come, it will be an FX model just underneath D600...? Regards, Theodoros.
     
  53. The odoros, I don't think you're right about the naming "policy". The current scheme is that 1 digit means flagship, 3 digits means mid-grade and 4 digits means consumer. Nikon never said anything like "from now on 3 digits is used only for FX". There is no recent model 3-digit DX camera because Nikon hasn't released anything in that class that's DX recently, but that doesn't mean they've closed the door on it.
    Nikon is a corporation. If they think that they'll gain a commercial advantage by making a new mid-grade DX camera, they'll make a new mid-grade DX camera. If they don't, they won't.
     
  54. Although you are entitled to an opinion Andy, there is such a naming policy! More... it will last for many, many years to come. It is a very wise policy too... Because,
    1. It's easy for the newcomer to understand what is the order of the line
    2. It makes obvious what is DX and what is FX... (think of the confusion Canon 7d creates... a new comer will have to be told it's Aps-C)
    3. It makes obvious what is replaced with what... (e.g. a D810 or D801, can be a replacement of a D800)
    4. It makes obvious if a new marketing section is introduced... (e.g. a D9000 or a D1000 in DX ...or a D400 or D210 (obviously D200 will be skipped) in FX).
    5. It creates no confusion for the ones that read the name on cameras... so, no one can confuse a D5000 for an FX D500... (the first number is enough to show the section that the user has chosen to use). This is more important than you may think... it creates upgrade market...
    6. It provides hundreds of replacement names for the future so that you cannot run out of them... (reason why no 2-digit line? - are they planning to keep the policy until or pass D-10...?!!!!) ...possible, so far it proves a very successful policy! Very wise indeed.
     
  55. Shun, thank you, appreciate your response.
     
  56. Perhaps we are seeing the maturity of the DSLR market. Already we have sensors that challenge the best lenses. We have a more affordable FX in the D600. I am sure that Nikon is waiting to see if there is enough headroom between the D7100 and the D600.
    In the tele end DX is useful, but at the wide end, DX is not so good. But one thing is for sure, Nikon will not introduce a DX camera that just eats into D600 sales. There is no revenue benefit there. A new model needs to fill a gap in the product lineup, not rob other models. That's the challenge for Nikon.
     
  57. Theodoros, no need to apologize, I am not insulted at all - I knew you did not mean to insult my name.
    As for the naming policy, Nikon is pretty inconsistent in that regard. It originally went with D40, D60, D90 for lower-end bodies, D100, D200, D300 for pro DX, D2, D3 for pro FX etc. and then started using four digit numbers at one point for entry-level and mid-range, but excluded the pro FX line (D600, D800). Now they only have D400, D500 and D900 left. Logically, the D800 should have been the D8000 or something similar, while the D600 should have been the D6000. This is all confusing as heck, I really wish Nikon started cleaner with the 4 digit naming policy. Or, if Nikon wants to keep the three digit naming convention for professional DX and FX, they should continue the next iteration like D610, D710, D810, etc. Not sure we will see that, but at this point, noone can tell what Nikon marketing will do :)
    Some people say that the D300s update will be called D400, while others say D9000. I think the best way would be to call it Nikon D310 :) That way, entry-level and mid-range products have 4 digits, pro DX and FX is 3 digits and top of the line is 1 digit...makes more sense I think!
     
  58. The odoros, if you have a copy of a Nikon documented naming policy, could you show it to us? If not, I don't see how saying "There can't be a DX camera that's called D400 because anything with 3 digits must be FX according to the naming policy" can make sense. But also, does it really matter? I doubt that what the people who want Nikon to make a D400 really want is simply any camera that's called D400. What they want is an upgrade over the D300S. Whether that would be called a D310 or a D400 or a D9000, all of which sound like perfectly good names for such a camera, doesn't seem to me to be a very big deal.
     
  59. Nasim, Nikon's naming was clear in the past.... and is even clearer (by far) now. In the past, they where using 3-digits for the prosumer and 2-digits for the consumer DSLRs... The D300 will have no replacement (if D9000 will appear it will have nothing to do with the design philosophy/approach behind D-300) simply because when it was introduced it was Nikon's 2nd in line camera! Now 2nd and 3rd in line has been occupied by D800E/plain and 4th by D600... Now, the (very possible) D9000, if it appears, it cannot have the role that Nikon has planned for the FX 400, ( Nikon cannot have 2 prosumer cameras at the same price) and since both cameras (FX D400 & DX D9000) will be at the same price, filling the price gap between D7xxx and D6xx.... I expect that Nikon will highly consider targeting primarily the video users with a video friendly design for the DX camera... Especially now that Cannon discontinued the D7... (because of the confusing name?). One thing is for sure... that price section is a million bodies annually section (for a product to be successful with maker standards)... and a D300 "replacement" cannot do more than 100K sales annually... Also, it will be competing (internal competition) with the cheaper (and traditionally excellent) D7xxx... but video...: 1. That is a "market section" that Nikon does need an important player ...and 2. FX D400 CAN do the million bodies annually. Regards, Theodoros....

    P.S.:Mind you Nasim that: 1. I haven't missed a prediction yet, 2. That I am not sure at all about the D9000 (but I am on the FX D4xx) and 3. No matter if we think (primarily) as photographers, they think (primarily) as "imaging company" and care about future growth and share profit...
     
  60. Well, I learned a few things thanks to this thread.
    1. Alectoromancy. Eventually got the courage to look it up. (Ironically, I was too chicken to do so at first. [rimshot]) Also I misread "I would try Extispicy but I don't have the guts" as "I would try Extraspicy but I don't have the guts" which also kind of makes sense.
    2. Had never heard of Mr Mansurov or his site before this, but after his civil (even gentlemanly) and literate responses here, I'll take a look at his site.
    Incidentally, many excellent points Rick M. Frankly my D300 is all I need (as >90% of the suckage in my photographs is due to me and not equipment), but if a D400 as I imagine it came out, I'd buy it. I am in full agreement with Panayotis about how the D300 feels "right" compared to the D7000 (never bothered to try the 7100). Since this is all a hobby to me, I prefer to use tools I enjoy using, so I am not swayed by better DXOmark ratings or whatever, as the D300 is good enough. But if I could get the advantages of more modern sensor/DSP without giving up the nice ergonomics, then I'd go for it.
     
  61. Andy, by your naming policy then, shouldn't Nikon have named the D600 something in the thousands then, like a D8000? After all, it really is just a D7000 with a different sensor, which is decidedly consumer grade. It didn't even get the upgraded autofocus of the D7100. That the D600 has a "hundreds" naming scheme does seem to suggest that the 3-digit models are FX while the 4-digit models are DX, instead of the 3-digit models being prosumer grade cameras.
    As to the meat of the argument, I'm pretty sure I said in one of these previous hopeful wish threads that Nikon could have quashed any "D400" talk if they had given the D7000 better AF and a larger buffer. They only blessed us with one of the two, so these threads continue. I agree with one of the (many) previous posts, potentially by Rick, that says if you need a larger buffer, then go buy the D3 or D4. Those of you wishing for a D300 successor can go hang out with the guys still waiting for a "true" successor to cameras like the D50 (since the D40-D3200 series cameras have one control wheel and no top LCD or focus motor), D90 (since the D5000 lacks all kinds of features, from a pentaprism viewfinder to wireless flash and top LCD plus controls), and D2 (which I agree with multiple reviews was rendered obsolete in one fell swoop by the D300, whether you leaned more towards the D2h or D2x). I'm going to head out and enjoy what I can hold and buy today. If Nikon releases a D300 successor, then great, because it would be nice to have some better features in a flagship DX camera. But without cameras like the Sony a77 putting pressure on them and failing to take away market share, I just don't see the accountants letting them crowd the market more, even if the engineers DID decide to do so. But they definitely have shown themselves to be willing to tailor their lineup as technology changes.
     
  62. That just means that in the current market Nikon considers all FX cameras to be at least mid-range. It does not mean that a DX camera can't be mid-range. (By mid-range I mean more than consumer but less than full pro, so let's say the $1500-4000 swath of market.)
    Anyway, this naming scheme talk is useless, for two reasons. First, we don't know the rules of the naming scheme (if there are rules) because Nikon never published them. (For all anybody knows, it's all about price and 3 digits just means a camera that intros at over $1500 but less than $4000 or something like that.) Second, it doesn't answer the question, because the question is not whether Nikon is planning to sell a camera called D400, but rather whether Nikon is planning to sell a mid-range DX camera. The only thing that would answer that is a statement from Nikon, and no such thing exists. I don't know the answer, but I'm sure it depends on a bunch of trade-secret numbers the marketing and budget departments have run trying to decide whether such a thing, in the current market, would cause a net gain.
     
  63. Andy, the question is not if Nikon will provide "a mid-range DX camera" as you suggest, it's if Nikon will provide "a D300 successor"... There is a lot of difference between the two.... It's the same with the D800/D700 story actually, where you have a price successor but not at all a replacement....


    OTOH, if you are not convinced for Nikon's naming policy from their 10 last products (d3000/3100/3200, d5000/5100/5200, d7000/7100, d600, d800/e) which are ALL their latest products and you want a ...written proof on the matter, then this won't be provided to you even if you ask the CO of the company... My suggestion is to see if the 11th product obeys the same rule, (4-digit odd for DX - 3digit even for FX) if it does but you still aren't convinced, ...then you better wait for the twelfth.... if this doesn't convince you.... well, keep on looking for one that brakes the naming policy... I suspect you may have to look, until Nikon decides to change their naming policy again, ....which will be nowhere in the near future!
     
  64. My eyes are bleeding reading all this. On the naming convention that seems to be occupying lots of people's minds, have we all forgotten that the latest is the Nikon 1. So maybe the elusive DX champ will be called a 2. How boring would that be?
    "Hey, I just upgraded my D300 to a 2! Isn't that great?"
    On a lighter note, I'm admittedly a Nikon film guy. I did have a D300 and then a D700, but having $2,3,4000 invested in a camera that's going down in value so dramatically was too much to bear. So I've gone to the other extreme. I'm keeping my film gear and I just bought a Leica D-Lux 4 for $300. I want to see what 30 years of photography experience can produce with this camera. I will post pictures and be more engaged in this site as a result.
     
  65. "A 7D huh?"
    read: the upcoming 7D Mk II
     
  66. "between the D7100 and the D600"
    the body of a D300 isnt between these but far superior, thats the point.
     
  67. I turn my back for five minutes and another fifty posts happen...
    If Nikon doesnt come out soon with a"D400", whatever name it will have, I have to look for the new 7D​
    Mag: I can't say whether Nikon will produce a successor (whatever it's called) in terms of market position to the D300s. However, I'm confident that if Canon produce a 7D2 (in the same segment), Nikon will respond. For so long as neither manufacturer has blinked, we're in a waiting game. The current alternative to a four-year-old D300s is a four-year-old 7D. Both Canon and Nikon will want to be the one to counter-punch, but it's clear that neither have been in a hurry to replace their current models.

    Nikon's naming makes sense at the low end, but less so at the high end. Canon are the reverse. Weird, but we've had other threads on how marketing teams don't seem to think through consistent naming conventions. I don't necessarily buy that the naming scheme says much - there's a clear numbering gap between the D300 and D600, but reserving it for ever-more-reduced FX cameras seems unlikely. And I really don't buy that a "DX sensor in a D800 body" (if that's what people want) necessarily has to undercut the pricing of the D600, even if people wish it would.

    Whatever Nikon launch next, I'll be interested to see it (as a casual observer). I'll be particularly interested if it's a D400-class system, and even more so if it's a D750 ("true" D700 successor). Especially in the latter case, because I like being proven wrong.
     
  68. The odoros, this naming scheme discussion is moronic and entirely without value so let's all ditch it.
    How would you define a D300 replacement if not as a price point successor in the DX market? Evidently your theory, whatever it is, doesn't work, because I find my D800 to be an excellent replacement for my old D700, and I know a lot of people who would agree.
     
  69. What concerns me is that the lenses being used on >16MP sensors are not up to the task. I use the D7000 and even with a known sharp zoom lens like the 16-85mm when shot on a tripod, 55mm, VR off and at f/8 is clearly worse than the 55mm AF Micro at 100' distant. The smudging of detail is slight in the centre of the frame and obvious at the sides. What DX zoom lenses are up to the task? DX is a wasted opportunity in that there should already be a range of smaller but really excellent lenses ready to be fitted to the D7100 and 'D400'. Apart from users of super tele lenses most users will not get the results that they should be getting.
    As an example I was using the 100mm f/2.8 E on my D800 and I realised that there was nothing like that lens in the current lineup. Small, sharp and capable as the sensor. Bring back a similar range today and they would compliment the new DX cameras. Modest apertures, sharp at almost all settings and small. Add AF-S and VR to taste.
     
  70. Nasim, have you considered the possibility that the info you have been sent is a valid one, but the person that has sent you the information (and perhaps you as well) have assumed that this is a DX camera because you have related the name D400 with the successor of D300? I mean could this be the real FF D400 by any chance? ...Have you consider this possibility?
    If you think about it, the picture looks similar to a D600, the construction looks (although it's difficult to say from a picture) similar too and Nikon has developed a tradition to upgrade their products that are made outside the Sendai plant in Japan, in much shorter intervals that they do in Sendai... I say this, because I have a feeling that D600 is in reality what the D400 will be and that Nikon, has deliberately overpriced the product to A. Set the market position for the future of D6xx series, B. Avoid the cannibalization of D800, C. Prepare the way for the D400.
    I say this, because I believe that the (FX) D400 will not be introduced until the D600 replacement and also, I believe that the D600 successor will be much better specified than the current model, but at the price that they've set at the intro of it.... Regards, Theodoros.
    P.S. The lens on the picture of the camera, is the 24-70 ...no?
     
  71. Theodoros, is the picture of a camera with a D400 badge on Nasim's blog entry the one that you mention looks remarkably similar to a D600?
     
  72. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    That "D400" image is fake. Nasim uses the same fake image on his 2012 and 2013 blogs. It looks more like someone PhotoShoped the 3 from a D300 image and replaced that with a 4. The D600 has no 10-pin connector and therefore looks quite different. Nikon no longer uses that D300-style S/C/M switch on the front left side of the camera (right side if you are facing the camera). New cameras should also have an extra video-start button on top next to the shutter release button. Therefore, that fake image does not resemble reality.
    But then, does that blog resemble reality?

    [​IMG]
     
  73. Theodoros, anything is possible - I simply posted what I was sent. I personally doubt that the D400 will be an FX camera, but who knows? It is hard to guess what will happen next.
    As for the picture, it is a photoshopped version of the D300, with the number 3 replaced with 4. Real pictures won't leak for a while, probably less than a month prior to the announcement. I suspect Nikon will make it look very similarly to the D800.
     
  74. Oh... com'on Shun... you've ruined the best part of it! ...let the answer come first! ...Besides, you forgot to mention the "old design" red plastic part on the grip! If Nikon's obvious naming policy isn't enough for some, then any fake rumor will do! ...but because D300 was a camera with dual part...
    1. To be Nikon's second in line camera at ...2006!
    2. To connect the past (APS-c up to then), with the future (D300 was introduced along with D3 - Nikon's first FF camera), some are still dreaming of a "bullet proof" DX pro...
    Meanwhile, Nikon does have a second in line bulletproof body (the D800) that includes any modern DX D300 in it if wished... and Nikon has a new naming policy which makes obvious what their future intentions are... Now some are dreaming for a replacement of the already replaced... after 7 years! ...Keep on dreaming fellers! ...there is going to be a D4xx camera, but it will be a lower end FF body, nothing to do with D300 replacement whatsoever and this is no crystal ball illusion, it's just obvious from Nikon's "new" (it started 4 years ago) naming policy.
     
  75. Nashim, you've sent your answer while I was quoting to Shun's post... Nikon does have a new second in line body (it's called the D800) and it includes any modern D300 replacement in it in every aspect of it... even the ability to use it in more than APS-c frames, ...and even more additional options than FF! ....I guess it's only the price that may bother some, but again it's not that much more expensive than what D300 "stated" at... especially if you add the extra features, the additional specs and ...inflation.

    P.S. Aaaah and one more thing... TH has failed on ALL his "predictions" ever! You have (if you don't want to have the same reputation) to judge better the "signs" that the makers provide you... Don't take this from a fellow photographer, take it from one that has a British degree in Mech/Prod Eng. and one that knows marketing well enough...
     
  76. The odoros, you deduced from Nasim's last name sort of looking like "Man Sure Of" that he's not a real person, and then reasoned from the fact that Nikon hasn't released a midrange DX camera since the last time they released a midrange DX camera to the conclusion that an extra-low-end FX camera must be coming, and now you're criticizing Thom Hogan for not correctly judging "signs"? Heh. Okay, I have to get back to real work now.
    P.S., Nasim, I looked through you blog and you've got some interesting stuff up there.
     
  77. Theodoros, I cannot comment on Nikon's naming policy, as I have no idea what a heck they are doing :) As for the D800, yes, it can shoot 15 MP images in DX mode, but its burst rate and fps are nowhere close to what the D300 can do. Plus, the D7100 can deliver 24 MP of resolution - that's a 56 MP FX equivalent, which obviously does not exist :) Lastly, the price point of $3K is not the same as $1700 the D300 sold for - that's a different league.
     
  78. Thank you Andy, appreciate for visiting my site :) I am still working on a few things, so hopefully it will get better soon with more content, reviews and other photography articles.
    Have a great week!
     
  79. What are you saying Nasim? Is it that D800 can't replace D300 in what it does, ...because D300 will shoot a lousy 1fps faster? ...which photography will the 1 fps faster fps (6 to 7) will benefit Nasim? ...Did you see anyone using ...D300 in the Olympics 100m final? ...or is it that the "bird shooter" will miss the shot because of that fps? ...I do wonder how these people where ever doing their photography with a ....D200 or how they could manage with film at all... Are we having an argument for the argument's shake here, or is it a supported conversation? I'll tell you what... let's choose 100 (one hundred) D300s users (out of the worst selling Nikon DX camera ever) and ask them "who would like to keep his D300s (your side) and who would prefer the D800 instead (my side)... who do you think will win? ...Now lets add a $800 penalty for the one that chooses to abandon D300... Still, who do you think will win?

    P.S: And about Nikon's (4 year old-"new") naming policy... what is that you cannot understand and find confusing...? Is it the TEN consecutive models under the same policy, or is it that my description of the policy sounds complex? ...Let me repeat it then, "4-digits starting odd means DX, 3-digits starting even means FX"... is that clear now? It really can't be simpler!
     
  80. Theodoros, the D300s shoots 7 fps native and can be pushed to 8 fps with the MB-D10. The Nikon D800 can shoot 5 fps in DX mode and requires the battery grip to get to 6 fps - that's a difference of 2 fps, not 1 as you indicated. Also, you are comparing old technology with the newest one. The biggest problem here is not the features, it is the price.
    I would never argue that the D800 is worse than the D300s. I own the D800 and I will personally never buy a DX camera again. But for those that cannot afford spending $3K on the D800, being able to get a very fast DX camera at half the cost is very intriguing. Would existing D300s owners love the D800? Absolutely! But you are telling them to spend a lot more money than what they spent on their cameras.
    I already expressed my opinion about FX vs DX for wildlife in this article: http://photographylife.com/dx-or-fx-for-sports-and-wildlife-photography and I have written another article on why DX has no future due to the mirrorless market taking over. I am not here to argue that DX is better. At this point, it is all about the existing D300/D300s owners that want to upgrade to a pro version of the same body. They do not want to spend money on FX cameras and lenses, since the price point is much higher.
     
  81. Theodoros, as for the naming policy, ten models or not, the D100, D200 and D300 were all DX models. There is no 100% guarantee that the next DX camera won't be a D400. Again, I am not here to argue about this, I simply do not know how Nikon is planning to name the pro DX, if it comes out.
     
  82. So we agree ....no? A possible metal body DX expensive D300 replacement is a "dead duck" for Nikon... It won't sell more than D300s ever did ...no? Don't forget that the D7K sold more than 10 times the D300s because those that are pretending that the non full metal body bothers them or that the slower fps will ruin their photography are the minority of the minority! You said it yourself... if the choice is FX or DX nothing will bring you back... So it is for everyone (but the SAs that think that can direct Nikon to commit suicide in a market section) ...never the less a number of "gurus" are predicting a Full metal frame pro body DX that would sell peanuts instead of a FF hybrid body FX!
    Mind you that in forum threads, a camera can sell millions in "thin air" you'll find so many talking about the advantages that they admire on D300, while they are the same market that made the D7K sell in many times multiple numbers...
    Now let me ask you this... what a "hybrid body" FF D400 would sell? ..10 times more? ..20 times more? ...or even more? ...That's what the new naming policy is about!
    I hope if naming policy won't convince you, that this may... A combination of D4xx and D6xx FX (hybrid) bodies made at the same factory, in the same production line, sharing many production parts, can sell more than 1.5 million cameras annually... is that good enough to convince you about the new (4 years old) Nikon naming policy?
     
  83. Theodoros, without getting actual insight into product sales, it would be pointless to talk about potential numbers and what the cameras would sell like. For me, a D400 full-frame body makes no sense - the D600 is already at a low price point for FX, I can't imagine Nikon would release an FX body priced at $1700 that would have better features than the D600 - that's just not going to work. FX costs a lot more than DX and looks like Nikon is not willing to sell FX for less than $2K at this point.
    Either way, I believe we are getting nowhere with this discussion, since it is all speculation. Let's just wait and see what happens in September. In my opinion, we will see a high-end DX body, not another FX camera.
     
  84. 1400.... how about that? ...but no September.
     
  85. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Folks, I hope everybody understands that it is meaningless to debate about vapourware that may potentially never see the light of day. For something does not exist, it is easy to make any random claim and not to be wrong.
    May I suggest that people give this debate a rest?
     
  86. D400...I doudbt it
     
  87. well played, Nasim.
     
  88. I'm with Shun.
    It seems to me that there are a lot of lurkers out there who are distressed with the lack(in their minds) of a firm product pathway from Nikon for DX. Nikon have already said to a number of commentators that the D7100 is their flagship DX body (for now). And its obvious to blind Freddy that there is no price headroom between the D7100 and D600. Stuck in between these price points..say $1400 to $1700, are a good supply of hardly used D700's and 5D2's.
     
  89. Shun, fully agreed :)
     
  90. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    It seems to me that there are a lot of lurkers out there who are distressed with the lack(in their minds) of a firm product pathway from Nikon for DX. Nikon have already said to a number of commentators that the D7100 is their flagship DX body (for now).​
    Nikon Canada and USA have made it very clear that the D7100 is the top-of-the-line DX body. In another 2, 3 years, some "D7200" may replace the D7100 as the new flagship DX model. Anybody can understand that.
    What confuses people are those outside (outside of Nikon) claims about this "D400" on various blogs that simply wouldn't stop, such as the topic on this thread, Thom Hogan's blog, etc. As I have pointed out many times, there was a fixed deadline for the D300S (and D700) to get out of the Japanese market due to their usage of the EN-EL3e battery with exposed contacts: November 21, 2011. That Japanese safety regulation was announced on November 21, 2008 with a three-year grace period, which expired on that same day in 2011. If Nikon had any plans to update the D300/D300s to some D400, they would have announced the D400 well ahead of that November, 2011 deadline, at least a few months prior, such that its successor was already on the market before they could no longer sell the D300S. Therefore, the flood in Thailand, which started in early October, 2011 (see this Nikon announcement: http://www.nikon.com/news/2011/1011_01_e.htm), should have no effect on the announcement of the D300s' successor, if there were any.
    Nikon's own creditability is on the line, also. Since they declare the D7100 as the "flagship" DX model in February, 2013, if they turn around and introduce another higher-end DX model within a few months, who is going to believe them again? I have explicitly checked with Nikon USA about that "flagship" designation for the D7100; they definitely mean it. (If that were a careless mistake, I am sure Nikon USA would have removed such terminology from their web site quickly.)
    That is why I hope nobody who reads this forum is still waiting for this D300S-successor "D400"; the chance is that they will be very frustrated. I am not as knowledgeable about Canon and their future announcements, but likewise, any "7D Mark II" is also vaporware at this point.
     
  91. I think the D7100 is a great camera as it is, and it can be made close to perfect with a "D7200" model with a significantly larger buffer 1-2 years down the road (the manufacturers always plan for upgrade options), which will probably make most of the people currently complaining about it happy. I think actually just trying the camera out will make a lot of people lose their resistance. The smaller body makes it attractive to a larger user base and helps keep the price down. The fact that Nikon put their top-of-the-line AF system into the D7100 solved my main complaint about the D7000. I didn't buy the D7100 yet, as all my current cameras are relatively slow and so would like my next camera to be relatively fast with a large buffer. If DX were my primary format I would definitely be using the D7100 and not have second thoughts about it. The upcoming Sigma 18-35/1.8 if priced right may make it possible to obtain close-to-full frame quality wide angle images in available light e.g. for the needs of environmental portraiture and event documentation. In the absence of a fast Nikon DX wide angle solution I think this lens will help complete the DX lens lineup for those who do not want to spend the money on FX solutions. Until now I've felt the wide angle side a definite weakness of DX but I'm hoping once the Sigma becomes available I will be able to recommend it.
    I just purchased a Fuji X100s which is a DX format compact camera with a fixed 23mm f/2 lens and I will be using it to document people in close range. Advantages over my FX DSLRs include AF point coverage through to the edges of the frame, at least 1/500s flash sync with most radio triggers (1/1000s with cord; useful for outdoor full length portraiture and small groups), very quiet operation due to the lack of mirror and the central shutter, and an extremely compact lens. I don't think the image quality is as good as with Nikons, but I needed something that is really quiet for certain situations where the sound from the (FX) DSLR is too much. DX DSLRs such as the D7000/D7100 have smaller mirrors and there the problem of disturbing the mood is not as severe as with FX. The AF point coverage is better, as well, especially in the D7100.
     
  92. The D7100 is a great camera for sure and Shun is right. Wanting or not, it is Nikon's flagship on the DX format. That's a fact. On the other hand, isn't weird that Sony's A77 didn't make any "buzz" all this time? Because it's not a "bad" camera at all...and Pentax decided to stay at 16mpx improving the original K5. Canon (re)released the 650D with a new name now...700D...Do I sense that they want to start pushing the major pack to FX?... Because pros are already there.
     
  93. Except that the D300 has better color depth, greater dynamic range, longer battery life, (much longer with the grip which evens up the FPS), faster startup and vastly more focus points.​
    The only thing true about that list is the number of AF points. More DR? Better colour depth? You've been reading Snapsort's/DxO Lab's nonsense, haven't you? And even if you believe that stuff, half a stop either way is Real World irrelevant.
    As to batteries - gripped, my 7D is still at better than half charge after 2000+ full Raw exposures. For context, I used to own and shoot D200s: the scuttlebutt is that on the standard batteries the D300 has two to three times the battery life of the D200, and that's not even close to the 7D.
    And to "even up" the FPS, you need a completely different battery to the standard EN-EL3/e and a different battery insert (or fistfuls of AA batteries) - hardly "apples to apples".
    Now, just for fun, let's count how many extra-sensitive cross-type AF points (the ones you want) each camera has, and consider their usefulness in the context of where in the AF array they're placed.
    Then maybe discuss the cameras' Raw buffer size?
     
  94. In 1797 the USS Constitution was the flagship of the US Navy, that doesn't mean it was never improved on as time passed. The "flagship" designation is handed off to the next improved version when released. All it means is the D7100 is the latest in the DX line, it doesn't prove something better isn't on the horizon.
     
  95. I notice folks are divided on the prospect of a D400:
    (1) Because D300(S) has not been updated for so long and Nikon USA claims the D7100 to be the flgship DX, some think there will not be a pro-level D400 ever.
    (2) Others argue that so many folks want a pro-level D400 and Nikon cannot leave money on the table. Also, Nikon Europe claimed the D7100 to be only top Enthusiast-level (not pro-level) DX body. So, there will be a D400.
    I think, it can go either way. But, many (but not all) folks having opinion (1) or (2) as stated above are very sure of their position and almost jump on people stating the other opinion. I find that very amusing!!
     
  96. While it looks like Nikon is only competing with Canon, Sony is lurking in the background with a likely mirrorless, A-mount body in early 2014. Why else would they be introducing new 70-400, 400, and 500 mm lenses. These focal lengths are great for BIF and sports. So far, Sony has not been able to gain any significant market share in this area, but my 10 FPS, 16 MP A57 with 70-400 is significantly faster and sharper than my 8 FPS, 12 MP D300 with 80-400. Recent tests of the new AFS 80-400 indicate that the Sony 70-400 is still sharper at 400 mm.
     
  97. There is one word that is difficult to "attack" in industry and that is the word ...."tradition". Tradition is set by long term experience from expert users and is related to the optimum solution to perform a task. In imaging industry, the tradition with format is APS-c for cinema (after decades of experimantation with formats) and 35mm (FF) for basic serious photography. Now, we do live in the times of imaging convergence for industry and the makers position in the future is closely related on the adaptation of their production (and quality of products) to both photography and video.... As a result, the strategy of each maker is designed to improve the makers position in the future.
    So, IMO, Nikon (the maker under question) has to secure its position as leading image company and to do that, they have to cover the gap from Canon and Sony that are more experienced on motion picture... I believe that in the future, not only Nikon but all makers will be giving emphasis to video for their APS-c products and in return, they will emphasize to FF for photographers... I also believe, that because cinema is traditionally mirrorless and snap photography is related to extended DOF and easy to use cameras (compacts), that the majority of the future APS-c market will balance more towards mirrorless, while serious photography will balance more and more towards FF... I don't expect APS-c DSLRs to disappear, since their lesser cost can provide both a path to traditional photography and a good quality basic hybrid solution for the (expanding) hybrid (video & photography) user, but I do expect it to shrink considerably as the next step for the original users, the basic "enthusiast" market, will be to move to a FF DSLR for their photography and to mirrorless APS-c for video, sharing the lenses on both... If I was to invest from scratch while would still have those those 30 years of experience, I would now start with the solution I ended up, Nikon FF for photography and interchangeable Sony NEX-mount APS-c mirrorless (preferably VG-xxx) for video with adapter for Nikkor lenses... That said, I also expect Nikon (and all others) to soon come up with APS-c mirrorless (similar to Nex mount) and in the near future to advance the appeal of that mount up to professional film making levels again like Sony does with their (Nex mount) FS models... having both dedicated lenses and complete dedication via adapters for their current (and past) DSLR FF lenses. ...just my 2 cents.
     
  98. What are you talking about? APS-C isn't a traditional cine format. APS-C is a 1:1.5 aspect. Cinema uses 1.85:1 and 2.39:1, and video uses 4:3 and 16:9. You buy cine film in 16mm or 35mm. IIRC the most common formats involve the film traveling vertically with the long edge of the frame being either distance between the sprocket holes (about 25mm) or that minus room for an audio track, which comes to roughly 22mm. Usually you'd have 4 sprocket holes per frame, so a bit over 18mm, and you either have the print at the projection aspect and leave space around the image area or fill the frame and use optics to fix the aspect ratio.
    Digital video cameras that are purpose-made for movies are in neither APS-C not FX format. They have sensors the size of standard cine film frames. If somebody goes and uses a DSLR when filming a movie, like with Black Swan (they used a couple of Canon DSLRs in the city when they didn't want to be carrying their Arris) they fix it in post.
     
  99. "with APS-c mirrorless (similar to Nex mount) and in the near future to advance the appeal of that mount up to professional film making"
    professional film making is done wih 3chip cameras, did you eve hear the word Bayer-sensor?
     
  100. Thanks for confirming Andy... APS-c sensors do shoot their video in 1.78:1 (practically equal to 1.85:1) the video can be processed (or shot if the user is experienced) in all 1:78, 1:85 or 1:2.35 (by masking the screen) and the width of the sensor is of size that needs no adaptation of DOF from directors... (APS-c and S35 are practically the same since width is insignificantly different and cameras only shoot in "landscape mode").
    Thanks for the (unnecessary) info also... some may find it useful... BTW, in the "Black Swan" it was 7D that was used in the scenes of the subway (only)... not because "they didn't want to use the Arris" but because the scenes are shot handheld (official excuse)... Personally, I believe it was part of some "promotion agreement" that manufacturers usually do, to promote their products.
    P.S. In my previous post, I forgot to mention that I do expect more modes for video shooting in APS-c sensors in future APS-c cameras (since they cover the sensor's width) and of course someone can use an anamorphic lens and thus shoot whatever aspect ratio is pleasing him, in all Reds or Arris or Canon or Nikon or Nex, APS-c or S35....
     
  101. Mag... you are totally confused... Bayer pattern, has nothing to do with 3-chip sensors... Film making (Arris, Reds, etc...) are all single chip cameras with a single Chip that has Bayer pattern on it... Unless if with "pro cameras" you mean the Panasonics 150/1 or Sony Z5 of the "wedding shooter" around the near corner of your neighborhood... (nothing to do with serious wedding shooters of course)... you know... the ones that "standard lens (50mm FF equivalent) is of... 8mm!!! and that there is practically no need to focus them since everything is in focus anyway.... Great DR these cameras! ...they have that "burn - black - see everything in the background" 5-stop "artistic look" that excites "creative" videographers that can only shoot "touching the button".....
     
  102. Theo, if you have an APS-C camera and you're shooting in a format that's not 1:1.5, you're not shooting in APS-C format. A video that's in 1.78:1 (16:9) is by definition not in APS-C format because APS-C is by definition a 3:2 format. Your APS-C camera that's set to 16:9 is cropping to HD video format. Similarly, if I set my D800 to 24x16 mode and shoot stills, I'm not shooting in FX format, I'm shooting in DX format. The format isn't the size of the sensor, it's the size of the frame.

    If you had any background knowledge of the subject I would not need to explain these things to you which is why I hope you'll forgive my providing more information than is strictly necessary - I don't know precisely how much you don't know so I'm erring on the side of over-explaining.
    There's no tradition of APS-C format being used in cinema. You can look it up - find a list of common cinema formats and there will be dozens but none will be 24x16. 24x18, approximately, is the closest you'd see, and that's only for anamorphic projection. APS-C is a consumer still shooting format that was first introduced in APS film cameras in the mid-90's, which is why it's called APS-C. No professional video camera, to my knowledge, has 24x16 (or any 3:2 format) as its native format and no significant producer of cinema or broadcast delivers in a 3:2 aspect. Even Sony NEX crop-sensor video cameras don't have a 3:2 native aspect, they have frames that correspond to common cine film frame sizes, and the only one that has a 3:2 aspect is the one model that's FX frame - and that's not an industry standard in cine. That's the only 3:2 video camera Sony makes. Red doesn't make any. This is a pattern in the industry.
    Now stop it. You've managed to annoy everybody who's read any part of this thread while getting nearly all facts wrong in the process and using them to reach conclusions that have nothing to do with any part of the original discussion. I imagine you fancy yourself some sort of tech prognosticator. Nobody else thinks that.
     
  103. Thanks (again) for confirming my post that APS-c sensors only shoot 16:9 video (when in video mode - as s35 sensors too) and have (practically) the same "cinema sense/look" , ...I really not see why you have to post all that you agree with! ...thanks, again anyway!
     
  104. Oh, you're trolling again. Back to real work.
     
  105. o_O

    Andy - might that be a little out of proportion given Theodoros's original claim that he thinks APS-C sensors have a place as a mid-ground between stills and video shooting? I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusion (my opinion), but I don't think he tried to assert that dedicated video cameras have the same sensor as APS-C DSLRs. Trying to push the mount for video (which is a bit late for Nikon, and Canon are already clearly doing) is another matter. Not that they're alone in doing so, of course.

    Can we put the last few exchanges down to a misunderstanding, please? I may be in the minority, but I've found this discussion interesting, so if people still have things to contribute to it I'd like to keep it on topic.
     
  106. When I asked a rep in Nikon's PR dept, I was told that even though they are not able to confirm or deny any new product release dates, "I wouldn't wait around for another release in 2013". Kind of bummed about that..
     

Share This Page