Is D400 definitely coming?

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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 "<em>the obvious Nikon naming policy", </em>is it because you disagree, or is it because you made the article without noticing that <em>there is a naming policy that <strong>excludes any chance </strong>of having a D400 as D300 replacement? ...</em>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.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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 <em>very wise policy </em>too... Because,<br>

1. It's easy for the newcomer to understand what is the order of the line<br>

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)<br>

3. It makes obvious what is replaced with what... (e.g. a D810 or D801, can be a replacement of a D800)<br>

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).<br>

5. It creates <strong><em>no confusion for the ones that read the name on cameras</em></strong>... 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...<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

[mansurov]

<p>Shun, thank you, appreciate your response.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[mansurov]

<p>Theodoros, no need to apologize, I am not insulted at all - I knew you did not mean to insult my name.</p>

<p>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 :)</p>

<p>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!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>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.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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 <em>when it was introduced it was Nikon's 2nd in line camera! </em>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 <strong><em>million bodies annually</em> </strong>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 <em>does need an important player ...and</em> 2. FX<em> D400 CAN do the million bodies annually. </em>Regards, Theodoros....<br>

<br /> 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. <em>No</em><em> matter if we think (primarily) as photographers, they think (primarily) as "imaging company" and care about future growth and share profit...</em></p>

[michael_chuang1]

<p>Well, I learned a few things thanks to this thread.<br>

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 <strong>Extispicy</strong> but I don't have the guts" as "I would try <strong>Extraspicy</strong> but I don't have the guts" which also kind of makes sense.<br>

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. </p>

<p>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 <em>as I imagine it </em>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.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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 <em>successor</em> but not at <em>all</em> a <em>replacement.... </em><em><br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em>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) <em>which are ALL their latest products </em>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!</p>

 

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>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?</p>

<p>"Hey, I just upgraded my D300 to a 2! Isn't that great?"</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[mag_miksch]

<p><em>"A 7D huh?"</em><br>

read: the upcoming 7D Mk II</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>"<em>between the D7100 and the D600</em>"</p>

<p>the body of a D300 isnt between these but far superior, thats the point.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I turn my back for five minutes and another fifty posts happen...</p>

 

<blockquote>If Nikon doesnt come out soon with a"D400", whatever name it will have, I have to look for the new 7D</blockquote>

 

<p>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 <i>if</i> 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.<br />

<br />

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.<br />

<br />

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.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The odoros, this naming scheme discussion is moronic and entirely without value so let's all ditch it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Nasim, have you considered the possibility that the info you have been sent <em>is a valid one, </em>but the person that has sent you the information (and perhaps you as well) have <em>assumed </em>that this is a DX camera because you have related the name D400 with the successor of D300? I mean <em>could this be the real FF D400 by any chance? ...Have you consider this possibility? </em><br /> 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 <em>is in reality </em>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.<br /> 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.<br>

P.S. The lens on the picture of the camera, is the 24-70 ...no?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>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?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<P>

But then, does that blog resemble reality?

</P>

<center>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16598373-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

</center>

[mansurov]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>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... <br>

1. To be Nikon's second in line camera at ...2006!<br>

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... <br>

Meanwhile, Nikon does have a second in line bulletproof body (the D800) that <em>includes any modern DX D300 in it if wished... and Nikon has a new naming policy which makes obvious what their future intentions are... </em>Now some are dreaming for a replacement of the <em>already replaced... </em>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.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Nashim, you've sent your answer while I was quoting to Shun's post... Nikon <em>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! ....</em>I guess it's only the price that may bother some, but again<em> it's not that much more expensive than what D300 "stated" at... </em>especially if you add the extra features, the additional specs and ...inflation.<br /> <br /> 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...</p>