Is D400 definitely coming?

<p>http://photographylife.com/nikon-d400-is-definitely-coming#more-51284<br>

<br />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!</p>

<p>Oh, you didn't know? Where have you been? It comes with the 800mm F5.6 kit lens.</p>

<p>Yes, the world definitely needs more rumours about the D400, and more forumthreads too to discuss the likeliness and validity of those rumours.</p>

<p>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".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This. A lot.</p>

<p>He's like Rockwell but with an inflated opinion of his supposed technical knowledge, isn't he? </p>

<p>And it's hardly insightful to suggest that - sooner or later - there'll be a D400, is it?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> but it doesn't harm to know what's going around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Panayotis, regurgitating unfounded rumours has never been very welcome on Photo.Net, as I recall.</p>

<p>There are websites for that...</p>

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.

<p>"<em>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.</em>"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

"Is D400 definitely coming?"

 

That or cameras with model different numbers.

<p>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....<br>

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.... <em>odd starting number and four digits for DX (3xxx, 5xxx, 7xxx)... even starting number and three digits for FX (4xx, 6xx, 8xx)... </em>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 <em>all time </em>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 ..."<em>man sure off" ...it reminds me of "Iznogud" ..."is no good"-</em> 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"... <em> </em></p>

There is no such thing confirmed by any reliable sources at this point, so why is this even a discussion?

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.

<blockquote>

<p>With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Because for a lot of photographers, DX/APS-C "reach" is more important than FF bragging rights. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>and in that sense they're not doing any harm at all</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well they kinda are, Wouter.</p>

<p>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 <em>is</em> <em>all there is.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Second year in a row? That is nothing.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51256976</p>

<p>And there are a few responses to that post, some favor it, some don't.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

<p>

With a d600 and d800, I cant imagine why anyone would be looking forward to a d400.

</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Minutes ago I posted<strong><a href="/photo/17407092&size=lg"> a picture on PN</a></strong> 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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>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 20<strong>13</strong>?)) </p>

<p>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. </p>