I received this message anonymously (posted as a comment here):
Nikon D400
MSRP $1,999.00
Key Features:
- New 14.8 megapixel DX format CMOS sensor effective 14.3 megapixel
- Self-cleaning sensor unit (low-pass filter vibration)
- ISO 100 – 6400 (with boost up to ISO 25600 and down to ISO 50)
- 14-bit A/D conversion
- Movie capture at up to 1080p 24 fps with stereo sound
- Nikon EXPEED Plus image processor 30% faster than previous EXPEED image processor
- Super fast operation (power-up 13 ms, shutter lag 40 ms, black-out 90 ms)
- Kevlar / carbon fibre composite shutter with 200,000 exposure durability
- Multi-CAM3500DX Auto Focus sensor (51-point, 15 cross-type, more vertical coverage)
- Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE sensor)
- Auto-focus calibration (fine-tuning) now available (fixed body or up to 20 separate lens settings)
- Vignetting control in-camera
- Automatic chromatic aberration correction
- Custom image parameters now support brightness as well as contrast
- Seven frames per second continuous shooting (nine frames per second with battery pack)
- 3.0″ 922,000 pixel LCD monitor
- Live View with either phase detect (mirror up/down) or contrast-detect AF, face detection
- ‘Active D-Lighting’ (adjusts metering as well as applying D-Lighting curve)
- Detailed ‘Control Panel’ type display on LCD monitor, changes color in darkness
- Buttons sealed against moisture
- Same ultra-fast startup and shutter lag as D700
- Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)
- Picture Control image parameter presets
- UDMA compatible single CF card slot
- Virtual horizon indicates if camera is level (like an aircraft cockpit display)
- Extensive in-camera retouching
- HDMI HD video output
- Magnesium alloy body with connections and buttons sealed against moisture
Related posts:
153 Comments
Don’t think so, more MP but higher ISO = noise.
FX sensor is softer? Better DOF?
Not sure if this D400 is true but …
Nikon, if you read this, come on, not again a DX sensor! DX sensors are dead! DX sensors are not what customers want! It is time to move only to full frame FX sensors for all Nikon DSLRs!
We want FX sensors with improved video as a basic feature (1080p and high quality sound). Also adjustments must be made to allow more flexibility with AF, ISO, etc. in order to improve video recording and move it to the next level.
Hrmm, I certainly hope that DX is not dead. I like FX, true, but DX definitely has it’s place. For telephoto work, the DX sensor and it’s crop value are like having a teleconvertor with no f-stop decrease.
The real proof to Nikon’s commitment to this APS-C sized sensor will come if they decide to release additional DX glass below f/3.5 base…. only time will tell.
Personally, I’d love to see a D* that has a silent live-view option much like the 5D has. I hate being the sole noisemaker at quiet ceremonies when I’m doing a job…
Just my $0.02.
jp
if you love so much FX buy a d700 or maybe a d800 (one day) , d300 and next are semipro for who can’t or want affort the expensive FX Lenses,
Once the price of 24-megapixel FF sensors comes down, DX will be dead. But that’s still a little ways off.
The DX crop of a big-megapixel FF sensor has the same pixel count of a DX camera, so at that point all you’re not giving up anything (except viewfinder magnification of the cropped area).
We schlep around these great big cameras with great big F-mounts and use (for the most part) lenses that project an FF image circle. Why toss 60% of the image?
“We want FX …”?
I would be very happy to replace my D300 with a camera with these specs (if they are real) and I’m not interested in video at all.
Auto-focus calibration (fine-tuning) now available ?? This is already available in the D300
Agreed – for DX users that have a few lenses, moving to a FF camera AND replacing all DX with FX lenses would be a VERY expensive upgrade. I’d certainly consider this cam.
Not every one can afford a FX system. I think you just speak for a minority of people.
WEll, that’s your point of view.
I definitely want a DX camera
What I’d like to see is a cheaper D3x in the shape of a D700 – call it the D800. I appreciate dust removal and flash, but am not sure whether movie capture is more than a toy.
Speak for yourself please!
I’m perfectly happy with DX. DX sensor, FX lenses: nog vignetting, less distortion and perfect corner sharpness.
DX is also a nice bonus with tele and macro. If you want FX; go for the D700 / D3 and whatever FX Nikon might release. You have the choice, don’t take mine!
For those of us who have invested several thousands of dollars in DX lenses such as the AF-S 17-55mm, AF-S 12-24mm, AF 10.5mm and AF-S 18-200mm a new Semi-Pro DX body will be welcomed.
I only hope that there is at least 2 or 3 more models of this type over the next 5 or 6 years so my lens investment will last.
The DX sensor is clearly the way to go. When buying lenses it is much more inexpensive to buy wider lenses for a DX sensor then longer lenses for a FX sensor.
DX dead???? Hmmm, the DX format still outsells the FX format by a huge margin.
I really like my DX set-up
Nikon happily announced the 35mm 1.8 , so i don’t think that Nikon does n’t see a future for DX.
Well… I’d buy it, seems like an ideal second body to a D3, at the right price, allowing you to use DX lenses and take advantage of the 1.5 focal length multiplier where it makes sense. When is it coming out
?
Only a wish-list.
It seems premature for a D300 successor to even be rumored about since the product cycles have been at 2 year intervals for awhile now. The D300 was released little more than a year ago.
LMG is wrong. DX is not dead, but it’s definitely not the future. Many pro’s have situations where the 1.5x crop is more valuable than a teleconverter or where a cropped FX image isn’t doable. Nikon has made it clear that there’s room in their stable for both formats (and maybe MX too?), and I appreciate the options.
Back to these specs, though, Steve is right – it seems like a wish list rather than a real possibility.
For those of us who have invested several thousands of dollars in DX lenses such as the AF-S 17-55mm, AF-S 12-24mm, AF 10.5mm and AF-S 18-200mm a new Semi-Pro DX body will be welcomed.
I only hope that there is at least 2 or 3 more models of this type over the next 5 or 6 years so my lens investment will last.
I also agree with the crop factor, I also have the AF-S 70-200mm lens with the AF-S TC-17E teleconverter and with all of this combined, I have a 510mm lens which is quite effective in baseball stadiums.
In addition, I just bought the 2 year warranty extension on my D300. So I would like the life cycle to be at least another year for me.
Why FX sensors? Using a DSLR with a DX sensor is like viewing TV with a normal TV. On the other hand, using a FX sensor on a DSLR is like viewing high-definition TV!!! Just the viewfinder with a FX sensor brings photography to a whole new level compared to DSLRs with DX sensors.
If you want to use telephotos, you can use them on FX sensors fine but of course you will have to get a different focal range but it will be worth it better with an FX sensor than a DX sensor.
Its sounds like it would make sense but Expeed plus? and only 14 mp? I thought it would be 16 mp higher than 50D, not lower. Well this is a rumors site. Wish list of Nikon’s.
IQ matters – not the megapixel race!
i think that this rumor was right to have 14 and not 16 mp. you have to remember that having 16 mp on such a small sensor would be horrible for the noise and it just would work as well.
Did the source provide any info about an approximate intro date? A possible intro in Q1 or Q2 of 2009 would definitely affect purchasing decisions I might make.
As to all the stuff about “DX is dead,” “FX is the future,” etc. — come on, people, you’re being silly. I’m primarily a long-lens shooter, so DX is preferable for me — it lets me get the pixel count I need in a given angle of view with a smaller, less expensive lens.
And yes, I’m very price-sensitive; most of my photo clients are low-budget nonprofits, so I have to be conscious of what I spend on cameras and lenses. FX sensors are always going to be more expensive than DX sensors because of their lower yield rate (and don’t tell me that advancing technology will let FX close the price gap; the same technology applied to DX sensors will maintain the spread.)
Having started out with rangefinder and TLR cameras, I tend to regard the viewfinder as just a way of aiming the camera at the subject, so the bigger VF of an FX-format camera doesn’t excite me. One could argue that the smaller finder image of a DX-format camera makes it easier to visualize the composition at a glance… but then one would be sounding like Ken Rockwell, and one Ken Rockwell is (at least) enough!
no, but maybe if he/she reads this now, we will get more info – again it could just be a wish list – there is no way for me to know, but it looks too detailed for a wish list – this is why I decided to post it.
I have a much more detailed wish list…
(in fact one of the features that makes me think this is a wish list is the Control Panel type display in the LCD changing with light… I never saw it as something very relevant to mention by Nikon, but very handy to use indeed, one of those inexpensive features that you may love to have)
DX is not dead. Not everyone wants FX. Want proof? Look at p&s cameras. Not a traditional frame size among them and they sell pretty darn well. Truth is most people don’t care. They get the camera that fits their budget and accomplishes their goals. There’s nothing inherently special about FX (NOTHING!). Same silly arguments can be had about large and medium format about “full frame.” FX being remarkably better than DX is just bull. It’s just a tool, people!
I can actually see a D400 like this come out someday. The specs aren’t all that ambitious which is what I would expect (think evolutionary changes). I fully expect the video, though. And I think that is a good thing. In the end, I doubt this is an official spec list. I could have come up with it by thinking in evolutions from what’s been released.
You smart guy (?), have you looked into a viewfinder in a DX camera and compared it to looking into a viewfinder in a full frame FX camera? Apparently not! When you do, you will understand why you want a full frame FX camera instead of a DX camera!!!
Take a chill pill dude! – you want FX – go buy D3/D3x or D700 and get lost with your ” FX religion” you want to convert everybody to.
You want FX doesn’t mean everyone want it.
So far you’re alone here
Peace out!
right on…
I”ve worked with a D3. So I know the viewfinder of a FX.
But what is wrong with the very good VF of the D300?
Um, yes, I’ve looked at plenty of 35mm cameras with full coverage. The viewfinder just isn’t that impressive to me compared to a DX. I just don’t see the big deal with FX. It’s just a tool.
Hrmm, what am I missing with the FX viewfinder that seems so obvious to others here?
FX vs DX are the same, really, just the focal length multiplier changes the values.
An FX subject at 75mm is a 50mm subject in DX. Comparatively, the viewfinder looks the same. Really, there is nothing to understand about the difference of FX.
Now, if you want to compare the two on a photosite size level, then I could find this a more legitimate argument since a larger site means greater photon penetration when similar silicon designs are in place at the sensor level. This is the reason the D2H was so popular with sports shooters and why the D3 took major market share from Canon at the olympics: higher ISO w/speed draws a crowd.
If FX gets you all giddy, maybe you should be looking at the 50mp hassy or the proposed new “Red” camera that’ll take both Canon AND Nikon lenses.
Besides, APS-C sensors allow camera manufactures to put out inexpensive glass that would normally vignette, fringe, and distort on FX but when cropped, they do just fine (think about the 24-120 on FX versus the similar 18-200 on DX): crappy FX glass is great DX glass (just see the 70-200 f/2.8 arguments raging on FX for further examples).
jp
I agree, I use the AF-S 70-200mm on my D300 and take great pictures. I have not seen any of the problems that people have stated with this lens on a FX body.
Again there are good full frame lenses that can be great lenses on a DX body for a reasonable price. The AF-S 24-120mm and the discontinued AF-S 24-85 are both great examples.
Sony has a 14 mp DX sensor already… The A 350. It was inevitable that Nikon would use it or tweak it’s design. This Rumour is quite plausable. The Canonites will still gloat that it’s 1080p on a DX sensor.
Both DX and Fx have their strengths. But for the wedding or photojournalist etc what is really important is subject separation. A 50 mm lens at 2.8 on an fx body gives just about the same background OOF as a 30 mm at 1.4. Assuming the frame is filled equally. So suddenly you don’t necessarily need exotic 1.4 lenses to get a nice subject seperation. A 50 will distort less than 35, and you can just do more with creative OOF areas than with DX. Shutter speed aside of course. A 5.6 aperture on Fx looks way different than on DX. So with wedding photogs and the like Fx is the answer and treated as gospel by many. This is why a few of the olympus zoom lenses are F/2. They need that do get some subject seperation.
“Let me guess!”, give it a rest. I came from thirty years of Fs, F2s, F3s and F4s and find the VF on my D300 to be perfectly acceptable.
both can co-exist peacefully, i love swithching back and forth between my 300 and my 700, just for the cropping, my 24-70 on a the d300 looks just as good as it does on the 700, but it more useful for portraits then. i have a feeling your to poor to afford a FX sensor so instead you spend your time complaining on websites
I’d like to see Nikon continue to develop with the DX sensor in mind, but I don’t want to see much new fast DX glass. I mean, you can use regular glass on DX, so why not just make great standard glass that both groups, FX and DX alike, can use? DX is pretty good for some stuff, I think. And I don’t think Nikon should abandon the format, so this is a good thing, I think.
I agree!
For those of us who have invested several thousands of dollars in DX lenses such as the AF-S 17-55mm, AF-S 12-24mm, AF 10.5mm and AF-S 18-200mm a new Semi-Pro DX body will be welcomed.
I only hope that there is at least 2 or 3 more models of this type over the next 5 or 6 years so my lens investment will last.
Ha was just thinking about such a wish-list camera yesterday!
I’m a D200 shooter with 6 lenses, 4 being DX.
I do a lot of low light stuff and have started stock work, and do bits in the studio, so my dream cam at the mo (with restricted funds) would be :
-DX
-mid teens Mpx (D200 10 is scraping the bottom for stock work)
-HighISO performance of D700/3/3x
As others have said though – don’t know if this last one is a pipe dream if not on a FF snsor. Don’t know huge amount about sensor technology.
For me:
D3x – too big, too expensive
D3 – too big, would like more than 12Mpx
D700 – Would like ~15Mpx, upgrading lenses to FX going to be Expensive.
D300 – not enough of an upgrade to spend the cash.
maybe too good to be true (but I hope is is true
)
even when some people don’t care, I (and many other) really appreciate:
- Movie enhancement (but I strongly suggest an adjustable Frame Rate (24, 25 & 30 fps), bitrate, and Compression level…. Fixed settings only limit the possibilities of use)
- Stereo recording capability for video (mic-in jacks…)
- Faster CPU (good thing)
- the “Detailed ‘Control Panel’ type display on LCD” that changes color in darkness (it is an excellent feature. One of those simple features that make Nikon particularly handy/ergonomic/easy to use. Yes, it is useful. If you don’t care, don’t use it)
- and some other nice ones…
- I would like to see these specs in a FX camera… (but maybe a bit higher res sensor: 18 MP for instance
)
Dear Admin, if you get some other info or estimated release date, please let us know
The only reason why Nikon would want to release this camera soon is to bit canon to the ground. To take total domination so that there wont be any shadow of a doubt in pro slr consumers’ eyes that Nikon is the clear leader.
This is my million dollar post.
ben i think you completely right. the d90 knocks down the 40d against canon and the 50d barley compares to the d300 but if nikon released this camera it would kill canon in this part of the dslr market
I disagree; I used to have a 40d, and returned it after three months, and now I have a d300. I have used a d90 extensively, and if I were to choose between the d90 and the 40d, I would get the Canon. The reason is not to do with image quality, but ergonomics: d90 is far worse than 40d, which is worse than the d300.
Only reason for Nikon to release a higher mp count is to compete with the 50d; while this is pushing the limits of lens resolution, it ’sounds’ better.
I would love to have something called “silent shooting mode” just like Canons.
Sound like a wishlist, but a realistic one.
For me 12 MPx would be perfectly fine, even 10, I prefer high ISOs and high DR.
What would I need FX for? Tests show, and mathematics certainly as well, it increases ISO range by 1 stop. That’s it. In turn the lenses I’d have to use are bigger and twice as heavy!!! Who needs THAT? I wonder why anybody pays more for an FX body. They should be cheaper than DX, really. I hope for some more quality DX 2.8 or lower glass. I own a Sigma 2.8 50-150 and am very happy. But VR would be nice with this kind of lens.
FX just 1 stop over DX ??
hmmm
The image quality of the D700 over D300 is showing more than that I guess
better use a calculator than guessing!
physical principle limits the quality gain to the size gain. quality meaning either resolution OR light sensitivity (at the same dynamic range).
better see the resulting images than just using calculator…
if you don’t use the same sensor in both cameras, then you won’t get the results the calculator tells.
Even using the same sensor, there are many other variables (converters, processors, etc) thay will affect the final result.
For instance (I clearly checked it by myself)
D90 (and D300 in some pictures, their results are not exactly the same even sharing almost the same sensor) shows chroma noise at ISO 200 (the base ISO of those DSLRs).
D700 doesn’t show that chrorma noise even in higher ISO’s. Its colors are more pure.
The chorma noise was observed especially in the red channel, for instance in low light red blurred subjects.
It can also be observed in deep blue skies. (at ISO 200)
I won’t post the links, but that efect (or defect) was one of those which made me decide not to buy those DX cameras, because I often shoot that kind of images.
and in the past years the sensor design has been improved.
… if it was only a math matter, then the D3x should deliver exactly the same image quality than the Sony A900.
Filters, converters, processing, the sensor design (even if they have the same ammount of pixels) affect the final results.
That’s why I prefer to check and compare the images each camera produces, in different situations (light, color, DR, etc).
It’s the best way to know how good it is.
Forget the calculator.
I like it, but not the video recording. All that does is add more crap to go wrong and bring a higher price tag.
I see your viewpoint, but I don’t think adding video recording really adds more crap to go wrong.
I suspect the reason we’re suddenly seeing video recording everywhere is that the customers have been demanding higher and higher pixel counts, and faster and faster framing rates. At some point the engineers must have realized, “Hey, we’re already pushing enough data through the buffer to capture full-motion video… so why not do it?”
Personally, while I wouldn’t replace a current DSLR just to get one that records video… but I might consider it as a tie-breaker feature when choosing my next camera. I do shoot occasional 5-to-10-minute videos, but not enough to make me want to invest in a separate HD camcorder. And you have to spend at least $3000 to get an HD cam with the manual overrides and decently-sized controls we all take for granted on still cameras.
Once a camera has Live View, there’s no good reason not to throw in video recording. In fact, it’s kind of lame not to be able to record the signal you’re already gathering anyway. The additional back-end stuff, like MPEG encoding, are well-understood and do not add significantly to the unit cost.
Live View, incidentally, is awesome for setting up a camera on a short tripod or beanbag.
Well I do not want the video feature, but my wife does. So I bought her the D90 and passed along her P5000 to our daughter.
There is a market for that feature, but probably not for many who post on this site.
I hope its not a wish list.
I really hope that it not has video mode. I don’t like the idea of having a SLR that can do videos, if I want to do a video I buy a camcorder. So if nikon ever is going to put video mode in a camera of D300/D700/D3/D3x class I’m going to change to a F6. Or If You can send it to nikon and they remove the video mode entirely then it’s okay for me, but otherwise no, like if they make compromises on the still image quality for better video quality, the developed has gone wrong somewhere.
rest assured they will put video on Dxxx
You can’t compare a camcorder to a full frame sensor camera able to record video/movie, for lot of techincal reasons (that I won’t bother telling again). It’s like comparing a P&S with a DSLR.
Just don’t use what you don’t need or want.
It’s good to have them. Maybe you start using them later. That also happened with LiveView.
So don’t push the “video” button. Problem solved.
Simple, this is NOT going to happen.
More D800 like, and with 15MP it would have better IQ then 5DMKII
Personally, I think anyone could have come up with this list and while it basically makes sense, there’s no proof behind it.
As for the DX and FX issue…I don’t see what you guys are arguing about. FX is definitely better resolution and has a bigger finder, and less noise. Yay. DX is better for long-range telephoto shots, and most importantly, it’s cheaper. I can’t afford an FX camera. So I use a DX camera, and I also use film. Even if I could afford a D700, I’d rather have a DX camera with a lot of expensive glass than a D700 and a 50 1.8. DX will always be around simply because it’s more affordable, and that’s a fact.
“…and that’s a fact?”
You have no way of knowing that. The DX format has been around less than a decade, for goodness’ sake.
If FX sensors get cheap enough, DX may well go away. Sure, DX sensors will be cheaper, but it would be even cheaper to put 1.4-micron cell-phone sensors in SLRs, and you don’t see that happening.
The market will decide this one (just like it did between 35mm and APS).
I agree!
For those of us who have invested several thousands of dollars in DX lenses such as the AF-S 17-55mm, AF-S 12-24mm, AF 10.5mm and AF-S 18-200mm a new Semi-Pro DX body will be welcomed.
I only hope that there is at least 2 or 3 more models of this type over the next 5 or 6 years so my lens investment will last.
I also agree with the crop factor, I also have the AF-S 70-200mm lens with the AF-S TC-17E teleconverter and with all of this combined, I have a 510mm lens which is quite effective in baseball stadiums.
In addition, I just bought the 2 year warranty extension on my D300. So I would like the life cycle to be at least another year for me.
I started out with Nikon film cameras so the only DX lens I bought was the 10mm fish-eye. If I had not bought a D2X several years ago, I would have been in the market for a D3 — I think the higher ISO is more important than the higher resolution of the D3x; although, will have to wait for tests to see how other quality parameters are effected.
Well this is a rumor site! And not having a source for this specs make it hard to believe but they do seem plausible. The video mode would make things complicated but the 5d mk2 pulled it off. Maybe Nikon getting into camcorders just like Canon but starting with dslr’s and working there way down, expanding their market. haha. I was thinking if the D3X was shooting for medium format users than there is still room to upgrade the D3 to a D4 and have the low noise to high ISO ratio as the D3. Obviously not as high megapixels as the D3x. At around there 2 year anniversary date it would seem likely D4 and D400 dual release.
DX is dead? Perhaps for all you snobs out there who can afford a $2000+ body but for us poor hobby photographers it’s here for a few more years yet.
Not to mention that DX sales FAR AND AWAY outpace FX. For both Nikon and Canon.
Compared to the D300’s changes over the D200, I’m not so impressed with what is proposed/wished for here. I bought a D300 US model (demo with a year’s warranty) for $1200 six weeks ago and I cannot see why I would have opted for spending $2000–or even $1800–to get this “D400.”
My wish list is less modest: a D400 in roughly a year with a Nikon-patent non-Bayer sensor, with significant improvements: more resolution (maybe 16MP) and less noise (similar to today’s D700) both, as the D300 offered vs the D200. The sensor will come first to a DX camera because of the expense of making a larger one. Somehow, an LCD larger than 3″ will be included, maybe a 3.5″. Something will replace the need to move the focus window manually will be included, maybe sensing onto the eye(s) of the subject the way some P&S cameras find faces now. Live view will be improved and the D400 will tether wirelessly with any good laptop without software or hardware accessories being required. When the real D400 comes out, it will answer the question of why more DX DSLRs from Nikon.
A 16mp sensor would have the same density as an FX 36mp sensor. This is ridiculous, as current lenses cannot resolve that much detail (except for the very, very best). The Canon 50d, with its 15.1mp sensor, already suffers from this – even when couple with pro l-series glass.
One thing… 5D MarkII
I’m annoyed from waiting for Nikon to give me a something affordable in the FX sensors, better than my D300 in all specs. D700 = PFFF. I won’t wait another year and will regret my great 24-70
2nd time I’ve seen this same post in two different areas. If you’re that hot and bothered over the mkII, go buy one. No one here’s going to really care one way or another. They’re just tools, If the mkII gets you worked up, then go get one and be done with it.
I’ll take 24-70 if you don’t need it.
Personally, I would love to stay with 12mp. I shoot weddings and a myriad of other things and have not yet needed all that resolution. If Nikon worked on making a 12mp sensor that improved high ISO capabilities and acuity then I would go for it.
I say lets keep a range of cameras [Dxx] that stays around 12mp and improves in other areas. 95% of people on this site dont need more than 12mp anyways.
And if you do, get something else….
Very interesting discussion on the whole DX vs. FX issue. I’ve been toying with the idea of going FX but faced with similar issues of upgrading all my DX lenses.
Here’s my thoughts (as limited as they are). I wonder if Nikon will move to DX for the majority of their consumer-level DSLR line up and leave the FX for the semipro and pro line up. The reason I say this is because there hasn’t been many releases of pro or semipro level (f2.8 – contstant f4.0) glass in the last few years. There has, however, been lots of new glass at the 3.5-5.6 variable range putting it IMHO at a more consumer level.
I think my plan will be to start replacing my DX glass with full frame stuff to use on my D300 and wait for a D800 or better before upgrading. I can’t justify buying a D700 at 12MP (same as D300) since I don’t do much low light shooting.
Great discussion….
Pros don’t care as much about the DX vs FX issue as much as amateurs. They use the tool that accomplishes the job. And they have thing called ROI. They will usually go for the cheapest tool that does what they want, too, not the most expensive!
This whole idea that DX is not suitable to pro work is silly.
Also, lots of “pro” lenses have come out in the past year: the PC lenses, 2 macro lenses, 3 upgraded super telephotos, 24-70, 14-24, 50 f/1.4, etc.
Sorry…I meant pro level DX lenses..
You’re right, there have been a ton of pro level lenses out but all full frame.
True. That is one thing they are lacking, for wider angles. After a certain point, I think 200mm, the size savings becomes minor for DX format.
I guess you could say that DX users always see the best from FX lenses while FX users have more edge sharpness issues and vignetting.
I think it is probably a wish list. I do believe part of these specs will be on the new D400 whenever it arrives, late 2009, early 2010 or so.
I think some of the specs are too conservative for a major upgrade release. No I don’t think the new D400 will be 24 MP, I do think it will be higher than 14. The D400 and the D4 will probably be released about the same time and share some points. The same reasons why the D3x is not the super sports camera will be the same reason the D4 will probably not be 24 MP. Too much overhead for the spead at current technology. I am not saying it can’t be done but probably not in the next round.
The D4 will probably, just my guess be 16-18 MP. The D400 will be at the same point, just a DX camera. I am not going to get into a Megapixel argument either. As someone has posted before, different people need different specs. I personally don’t think the DX camera is going away any time soon IF ever. That’s okay too.
While I expect to some of those things and maybe more than just some, I think in other areas it will be too conservative for the competition.
We will just have to see.
12mp is more than enough for most work, beyond that I see a need for more sensitivity. I see real photographers pushing for higher clean ISOs than more mp. A clean shot at 12mp will out do a dirty shot at 15mp every time… where’s that black silicon?
I for one could see Nikon only going up to 14Mpix for this camera if it meant getting much cleaner high ISO shots and greater dynamic range. 12Mpix is already considered to resolve more detail than 35mm film, so I think most users would have very little need for much higher megapixels.
I want it to be full frame. I want it to be a video camera. I want it to be GPS for my car. I want it to be a full featured cell phone. I want it to be a toaster. I want it to get 80 miles to the gallon (on water). I want, I want, I want. . . .
Why don’t the tech freaks go back and play with their computers?
Hilarious!
Best posting until now!
The truth, at last;)
There’s already the D3 and D300 and D700 and D90 at 12mpx. Now who would upgrade to a D400 with almost nothing more in the specs than all these camera. The 12mpx DX and FX market is saturated . Then why trying to open a market at 14mpx without offering anything more than what is already there?
If everybody are fine with 12mpx, then you all have all the cameras you want and then stay with Nikon. I’ll go with Canon… But still I’ll wait for the announcement first. It’s still just a rumor
I hope that they change it to a 1.3x crop like the Canon 1D Mark III. I would definitely be all over a D400 with a 1.3x crop factor!
No 1.3 crop from Nikon.
Oh dear.
I grieve for all the poor pixels that died in vain to bring you this utter nonsense..
Please…
Save the innocent pixels… Don’t post this kind of rubbish… And don’t reply to it either. You know what Dithering is? It is Pixels BLEEDING!!! And You are doing it…
Pixels have family! 8 bit pixels have 24 family members. That is harsh… Just imagine the horror of a poor innocent 16 bit pixel. STOP the madness!
If I post my Santa wish list here for Nikon gear, will it become a rumor?
it would be great if it using Back-illuminated cmos sensor or any new tech sensor out there…
i call BS. either that or Nikon are completely stupid.
2more MP, video mode and 1fps improvement does not a d300 successor make.
the next crop body must have an articulating screen, fast AF in LV mode and be 16mp. if it doesnt have that what on earth is the point of the upgrade ?
if this turns out to be true, (which i highly doubt), its more evidence that nikon are losing their way by appealing to gear heads more interested in spec sheets rather than updating their lens’ for people who ACTUALLY buy this stuff and take pictures.
for those that say DX is dead, you must be kidding. DX will be around for many, many years to come. why ? bottom and middle end consumers want ZOOM. why do you think bridge cameras and superzooms are so successful ? cos they have incredible range in a small, tight package.
i don’t get it. first you claim that the specs aernt enough of an upgrade, then you say that Nikon is only appealing to gear heads interested in specs. Wouldn’t fewer MPs mean they aren’t trying to appeal to tech specs?
not enuf of an upgrade for PHOTOGRAPHERS. but the fan-boys will be happy.
OH LOOK…its got VIDEO ! and its got SEVEN fps. and FOURTEEN mp’s.
In camera vitnetting control? No way. This is bogus. The stats just don’t add up. Especially the high ISO numbers.
in camera vignetting is already available in D90, and you have 3 or 4 levels of it.
it’s nothing “new”
1080p? 5DMk2 is 1080i
5D MKII is also full frame…
The wording makes it sound fake.
I don’t understand why people complain about the dx. The top selling dslr cameras are all dx. The FX is a great camera, but there is a demand for both types. Nikon would be foolish to drop a top selling camera.
Somebody posted a pic!!!
http://moviegroovy.com/D400.jpg
hmm, maybe I’m wrong but the “D” doesn’t look like the traditional D in Nikon’s DSLRs
OLD, FAKE.
That appeared on the web long ago and was proven a mockup.
Yes, the picture is an old fake – we discussed it already.
according to the ammount of post here, we can be sure that this camera is something that lot of people are interested in…
Also because it could bring some new features that no other Nikon DSLR have all-in-toghether
I doubt that these specs are real.
- I don’t believe that the ISO speed will go up to 25600, not at a 14 MP DX sensor. The pixel are packed way to closely to obtain a somehow decent result at that sensitivity.
- It also seems to be highly unlikely that the “Automatic chromatic aberration correction” feature would be introduced with the D400, and not be available in the D3x. Or did I miss something at the D3x specs?
Automatic chromatic aberration correction is already a feature of all the Exspeed cameras: D90, D300, D700, D3, and presumably D3x.
This DPReview page from their D90 review includes several example pics. It’s a bit amazing how well it works.
Many of us probably aren’t aware that it’s there because it only gets applied in-camera to JPEG files, not raw files. You can only get it applied to raw files if you use Capture NX to process them; third-party raw converters such as ACR/Lightroom won’t enable it.
(Being a crusty old-timer with a strict-constructionist approach to photo technology, I still balk at the underlying notion that “chromatic aberration” is simply a synonym for color fringing; it isn’t, although color fringing can be one of its symptoms. But don’t get me started…)
Good reply, and very accurate
I hope Adobe also implements chromatic aberration correction to their Raw processing software
(I now have a doubt that can’t confirm at this very moment : Doesn’t ACR have a chromatic aberration correction ? I guess I saw it but don’t know if it works similarly to Nikon’s built-in correction )
Sorry for the inaccuracy, I can’t check it right now
Lightroom does have a manual “chromatic aberration” correction control. It lets you adjust red/cyan fringing and yellow/blue fringing via separate sliders. (There’s also an on/off control for suppressing highlight fringes or all fringes.)
I believe ACR has similar functions.
The problems I have using them in Lightroom are that (1) it takes time to find the right amount of manual adjustment to each image that needs it, and (2) it’s difficult — sometimes impossible — to find a setting that gets rid of the fringing in one direction without introducing fringing in another direction. Nikon’s built-in correction seems to work better and doesn’t take any extra time. I agree it would be great if the Adobe apps could use it, although I suppose that’s unlikely as long as it’s a one-manufacturer exclusive feature.
I agree with
(a) Everyone who say this spec is pure speculation: it doesn’t show enough imagination, and it includes a bunch of standard D-300 features. In fact, it looks more like an early D-300 wishlist rather than the D-400
(b) Everyone who says DX is here to stay, or at least has more than just a few years left in it. Amateur DX plebs like me are a big chunk of the market, and it would be a foolhardy camera manufacturer who ignored them
(c) Everyone who says FX is great – it is. My ideal all-purpose kit would include two D-300s and a D-700. However, at ISO 200 and with the right exposure, DX is so close in quality that I can hardly tell the difference
DX is not dead; Nikon will probably make a camera with specs similar to these (but I won’t buy it, being very happy with my current DX camera, the D300).
I admit that I want a D700 for low light and ultra-wide digital, but for the time being when I want a larger format, I use my Nikon F4 (“FX”). For a REALLY BIG image (not to mention the viewfinder), I drag out the Mamiya RB67.
Having trained on 4×5 studio cameras, I never thought I’d refer to the F4 as a “larger format.” How times have changed.
D400 for me means “discounted D300″. I’m thinking in and upgrade and that will be about right
Let us be honest. Anyone would buy a full frame FX Nikon camera if NIkon would make them affordable for entry-level DSLR cameras. At the moment, people prefer DX cameras only because of the price!
not really. you get a narrower FOV and a longer tele length with DX. so for sports and wildlife, DX could be a better option. shoot a d300 with a 300/4 and you’re at 450mm. how do you get that with FX at a reasonable cost and great quality ? you cant.
I think it’s true. great! can’t wait to buy one or two.
woot…nice rumor…
Nikon is a company, NOT a camera maker who likes to make cameras and upgrade them when they think the specs are at the time for an upgraded.
The Canon 5d mark 2 selling like hell right now . Nikon also want make money…
If there is a d400, the goal for it, is not to go up against the Canon 50d or anything else. Its there to go against the 5d mark 2 video mode.
I work with video and film and the hype about the 5d mark 2 is enormous. Really gigantic. Noting against you still people, but there might even be a bigger market for d400 video mode out there, then the d400 as a still camera.
So if Nikon is smart… they will make a camera that is 1080p with a frame rate of 24/25p with a good compression and full manual control (where the canon is 30p, has a bad compression and many many other problem as a video camera)
Nikon is working on video. They have many people working only on the “video department” at Nikon.
The times are changing, I know some of you don’t like it. But the “video mode” is the d400, if not, there is no way for the d400 to exist.
If video mode is not there, there is no point to a new d300.
i think Nikon is in a unique position because they don’t have to protect their video cam business –
and a big hole in the market for video cameras in the $1500 range
so i think why not just make a APS-C $1500 video camera that can use F-mount and add a couple of pins for a motorized lens option
I wish some other pro photographers realize it too and don’t complain or argue against video as if it were something so weird to photography (its parent)
- Please, can you tell how are you really sure about ” They have many people working only on the “video department” at Nikon. ” ?
I know Nikon is a business company and not fool, and I can surely guess they are working on video, but I can’t get any really prove of it besides the D90 implementation.
I also encourage them to do it Professionally.
I shoot stills professionally, but also make short movies, CG too. I always loved them both, since movie is an extention of photography.
Take a look at:
http://visualtech-studio.blogspot.com/2008/09/video-movie-feature-in-future-dslrs.html
Let me know any suggestion you may have.
Thanks.
I don’t know why my previous posts don’t appear, so writing the last time:
——————————————————–
I hope more “Pro” photographers realize about it and don’t complain or argue against Movie / Video, because Photography and Movie are so near relatives
- Please could you tell if you have a REAL information about Nikon : ” They have many people working only on the “video department” at Nikon. ”
I’m sure they work on it, because Nikon is a bussines company, but I’m not sure how hard they are doing…
I love and work on both, photography and movie.
- Please take a look at :
visualtech-studio dot blogspot dot com
Especially at the Movie / Video Feature post.
Let me know any suggestions you may have.
Thanks a lot.
Pablo – you started a blog too – congrats!. You can post your whole URL: http://visualtech-studio.blogspot.com/
Thanks a lot Admin for your comment.
I guess the blog software took my URL as spam and didn’t show my previous post by that reason, even when I put the link under my nickname as my “website”
My small blog is just intended to analyze and give / offer some ideas and solutions to improve some devices or systems of many types, as part of my activities. The other ones are artistic
I shoot with a D300 but tried my best to shy away from DX lenses. And I have been able to do just that. The only DX lens I have is the one that came with my D80 a few years ago but I don’t use it anymore since the rest of my glass is faster now anyways. But, I have to consider that I am fortunate in the sense that my budget is larger than the average semi-professional photographer. I don’t want to see Nikon abandon the semi-professional market and force them to lose (essentially, I really FX allows for DX lenses with lower megapixels, but really, how good is the quality there unless you’re pushing 10+ with the D3x) their DX glass investments. I do think that Nikon should concentrate its resources on developing better professional equipment; but, I definitely don’t feel that any sort of abandonment over the foreseeable future of DX-format is called for.
If upcoming D400 is truth…..
I’ll be expecting how good the noise control at ISO6400 compare with D700!
Future FX cameras at 20+MPs; you can still use your DX lenses at half the MPs which is the same as the most current DX cameras.
hopefully this is true, and it comes out soon…i’ll be buying a D300 on the cheap then
II have the D300 and am certainly attracted by the low noise of the D700. But, when I think of the lenses available for DX that just dont exist for FX AND the loss of the long distance crop factor, I am happy staying with DX and waiting for the D400. Two key lenses for me are the 18-200 which has no Nikon equivalent in FX and the Tokina 11-17 Fisheye zoom. While the 18-200 have distortion it can be corrected easily with with PT Lens and it is very sharp. But the big key to me is that the best glass in the world is no good if you miss the shot. With the 18-200 I dont get caught out with the wrong focal length on the camera. For this reason, I also like the popup flash. It’s instantly there if you need it in a pinch. THe best argument for the FX for me is again the lenses available. The 14-24 on full frame creates some ultrawide opportunities that ont exist in Nikon DX lenses.
I think a camera featuring DX sensor in a “PRO” (more resistent) body will have its market place for (at last) several more years.
I will not go to D400 if it is FX.
For people wanting FX, there is several options: D700, D3, D3x, and probably in short terms D700x (or something similar).
Regards,
OCristo
The more I think about it the more likely it seems that info at top is a wish list and not real hardware. Yet. Would be great if an upcoming DX camera had all those specs and could deliver very respectable high ISO photos. Not as good as D3/700 realistically, but if it could give low noise up to 1600, that would meet my requirements there. But I rarely need to go beyond 400.
I don’t believe someone would deliberately jeopardize his career at Nikon in these increasingly tough economic times by releasing that much detailed info about a future product. Especially if an intro is not due for another few months. Say February @ PMA for instance. If it were next week, that would be another thing. But don’t hold your breath.
I’d like to have a D400 if all that is true. It would mean I could keep my 12-24 & 17-55mm and not have to go through the hassle of selling them and getting the 24-70 & 17-35, the latter of which I used to own. Although, to this day, I believe it’s the sharpest lens I have ever owned.
I wonder if that 14.8 MP is a Sony sensor. And if it is than will it be used as well on the a700 replacment? Since they are both 1.5 crop. They just might do it like the D3x / a900 sensors. Made by Sony design by Nikon. There might be a serious partnership between those two. I thought it would be Fujifilm not Sony.
I am tired of this nonsence. I enjoy shooting my 24MP Nikons. D700 + D90, that is. Who could ask for more?
I think this D400 spec rumour looks really good if true, especially for a DX camera. A good follow up for the D300.
If people want a FX camera, it’s here, the D700 costing very little more. My problem isn’t with the cameras so much as with ’standard zoom’ FX lenses, for the price there are no good ones. Nikon needs to bring out a good mid-price all in one carry-around f/4 (trying to be realistic) FX lens for about $650 or so!
Most of the other concerns are to do with costs, mostly our inability to spend so much on those fabulous N lenses that cost about $1.5k each. They should allow our med insurance to go towards camera lenses instead if we choose ;p
Current D300 shows too many noise at the low ISO. so I hope taht new one will be improved this weakpoint.
Another way of looking at this wish list is that it’s basically the D700’s electronic improvements (faster 14-bit shooting, virtual horizon, etc.) with a DX-size sensor.
This would be a very logical move for Nikon; it would help them rationalize their product line so that you could choose basically the same camera with either a DX sensor and a lower price point, or an FX sensor and a higher price point. It wouldn’t require a lot of extra engineering effort to introduce, and it might also reduce production costs by enabling some electronic component-sharing as well.
So from that perspective, it seems like not so much a “wish list” as an obvious next step on the development cycle. The main question would be when Nikon would want to take that step. They don’t seem to be in any hurry to rush down the development path — for example, they still list the D200 as a current product even though the D300 seems to be its logical successor.
Incidentally, I agree with the person who said that video mode is going to be standard equipment on future prosumer DSLRs. I suspect it’s already baked into the latest OEM chipsets; it’s just a matter of whether the individual camera manufacturer wants to add the switches, menus and firmware to enable it.
An increase fron 12 mpx to 14 would not make sense.
Unless there is a big step in technology – semiconductor’s light sensitivity, microlenses and filters. Even so, why not stick to 12mpx, if there’s a visible step in IQ?
it seems as if Nikon may be becoming a victim of their own success, within the last year, they introduced a new product line (d700) they released the d300 (which won some outstanding awards this year) in early March if I am not mistaken… and the D90 in August. There are too many new bodies floating around, and they should expand their product shelf life. My studio is finally switched to all d300’s and d700’s after they had been released for a few months, now Nikon is already conceptualizing replacing them? Cameras are not cars… they dont need to be replaced every year, and they shouldn’t be.
Nikon, I like you a lot, but don’t get greedy.
With the new launching of new model, definately the previous model price will drop significantly, not a bad idea for poor ppl like me to buy the older model
Can’t agree with you more.
D200 is still selling in my part of the world at 50% off its intro price
D300 is selling at least 20% off its intro price.
Both are good cameras, they don’t become less good because later Nikon pulls out newer models from its hat
If this is not a wish list than its a nikon R&D marketing technique to leak specs that are right or similar to what they are working on. Maybe they are at there last stage of development or something. Nikon has a creative marketing firm.
The more I think about it the more I think we really could see a D400 sooner than the usual 2 year cycle. The D90 has equal to or better than image quality for less money. There has to be a differentiation between the D#0 and the D#00 product lines and waiting another year seems like a long time – especially when the D90 also has video and the D300 does not.
I was looking at the Pop Photo test of the D300 http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4911/camera-test-nikon-d300-vital-statistics-test-results-page3.html
And D700. The D300 is 1 stop behind the D700 in noise above ISO 1600. It can be possible for Nikon to match the noise of the D700 be remaking the 12 mp aps sensor and improving its IQ. But to match that of the D700 and add 2 mp’s more at aps size sensor, I don’t think they can. It would be well above the noise level that will be acceptable. So the reaonable ISO would be 12800 max. But Nikon is know for the low noise/high ISO champion. Overall this is not what i see the D400. Less of some specs, but close to the real thing. Lets say May-september 09′ before the D4 release.
I don’t care whether they release the D400 before the D4 or vice-versa. What I want to know is, should they release the D900 before or after the D9? Keep in mind that by then the Canon EOS 5D Mk MCMLXVI will have 128.8 gigapixels, ISOs to 64 million and anti-gravity neckstrap lugs, so as usual, Nikon will have a lot of catching up to do.
LOL
I found chroma noise in 12MP DX sensor at ISO 200 (base iso for those cameras).
Especially in blurred red objects in low light conditions, and (less noticeable) in deep blue skies (all at ISO 200)
The FX instead didn’t show that chroma noise.
Maybe as result of different color treatments of the sensor signals, but the D90/D300 and D700 are different in more than “just” 1 ISO stop.
– If the difference in lighting is just 1 ISO stop between 12MP DX and FX, then the FX sensor could be around 18 MP without any real noise problems
Well i think most of the paper spec comparisons just show the D700 to be a FX over the D300 DX. Meaning it’s mostly sensor size. Agreed, that translates also to the other factors of Noise, DR, and low light capabilities, etc.
I also guess that for any tech advances, the D400 will need to improve over the D300, hence improving the specs over the D700 but as a DX camera.
I know speculators (including myself) will think this is shooting themselves in the foot, but this happens or needs to happen sooner or later (that’s upto their sales and business decisions). And any future D700 (D700x or D800) improvements will improve over it’s predecessors. As a consumer I am excited to see what happens.
As far as the carbon fibre construction, if true, is very interesting as well. I love the idea of increased durability and material science!
As fas I am concerned, I know I need more than the D40 in what it delivers (IQ, noise etc) but but at the same time I don’t need a D3x (size and weight, and memory capacity since i don’t shoot/need that size)! This is me! So for myself the D300 and D700 hits the sweet spots (I have a wide-ish one) ;p
I do agree it sounds like a wishlist, but don’t we all dream, hence us using this place: Nikon-Rumors! So if this dream does become true, great!
So, let’s say this thing is real, whether the specs are spot on or a bit off (ie. 16mp instead of 14, etc.), when would be the release date at this point?
Although I don’t have an issue with updating light sensitivity of the D300, but amping up megpix by 2 + video addresses Nikon’s competition, and not photographers. It remains to be seen if the D400 will address all those projected rumors. Personally I’d prefer a hybrid like D700 ( a D701 or 301), having FX function (X megpix) combined with DX quality sensor of 12MB+…..and that would permit both types of lenses to be utilized on one camera. This is likely bit out of the box for Nikon. Though I’d like for the rig to include 1080p video, I’d probably wait till 5D MK II is replaced several times in the future, so I could get it for $1000, adopt my Nikon lenses to it, and still *have* the video capability
.
doesn’t seem to address real issues of be doing all thaty mBut, my own preference would be D701 with
here’s my “problem”, i want to buy D300, actually i’m buying it for the last 3 months, not new one used one…but now that i finally have 3 offers…for half of the price of new one and basicly they are like new (body without scraches and from 4000-8000 clicks). So i would really like the info about D400…and because it will probably still be dx format i will be able to use all of my lenses from d300..but i will have to sell my d300 ..and lose some more money:) so anyone..?.where is the info from nikon that d400 will be out in march? …or july?:) i would prefer july:) if i buy d300 this week..if not..then i hope march?:) well….anyone from nikon here that actually knows what is going to be?:)
well have fun
I own a D300 and love it. FX isn’t a “savior” to photography. DX format still has its needs. I shoot professional hockey and love that I can do it with a 70-300 VR and not need to spend a load of money on a much higher dollar lens to get good telephoto. As for the cropping of a DX sensor. Most of my shots get cropped down anyways to get a specific individual player or action of the games. I see people with $4000 lenses at the games and the shots re no better than what I get. I also use the MBD10 grip to get the 8 frames a second so gaining 1 frame also has no real reason behind it to spend more. 12.3 mp is enough for me. I will have to have my 300 pried from my dead hands unless the 400 is substantially better and I mean very substantial.
OH and video? No Thanks, I have a video camera for that. I want my still camera to be a still camera.
88% accurate
Personally I enjoy my D200 with 18-200mm (Nikon) & D3 with 12-24mm (Sigma), and extra flash SB 400.
This argument about DX vs. FX is akin to arguing the direction of film versus digital. In time, film will lose its remaining vested support, and the same will be true of DX. Physics may limit evolution from FX to FF in a small camera body.
I shot with 8×10 view cameras for years. Also Fuji GX617, Linhof 617 with quite a few great lenses. Often shots with 35mm film cameras I used for METERING for the big rigs turned out to be more useful. I would rate my Nikon D300 as the best camera I have ever owned. I own lots of Nikkor lenses from 60 micro to telephoto.
I would rate the 18-200 VR and 70-300 both D and VR as exceptional lenses to be there at the right time and the right place. Both DX and FX both have a very long lasting place in DSLR cameras. I have a lot of hardcore non-DX lenses but the midrange Nikkor in 24-135 or so in a highly rated lenses is actually one of Nikon’s biggest hurdles in getting pros to switch to FX. Personally owning from D100s,D200s (still in use and still flawless) plus D70-D90….and I still keep but do not use the F5s……I INTEND to keep using DX and FX no matter what offerings Nikon and Canon make. I will buy two D400s before I purchase a D800…..just my view on value. It is who uses the camera and how well. I never look down my nose on a Nikon user with a more modest Nikon like a D40. I use a D40X with a 18-135mm Nikkor when I need a camera I would risk damaging. I have drowned four nice SLRs and use underwater housings for still and video. The D400 WILL HAVE VIDEO or it will have fewer sales! Cameras that can shoot video and still bot and do it WELL will command the market SOON. I personally shoot mostly still. My guys who work with me shoot both. NO doubt it simply is REQUIRED for sales soon.
Dear Guys,
One of the points that seems to be overlooked is the need for a consistent set of Nikon lenses. I was brought up on a NKKORMAT ( using that film stuff) and have an odd collection of lenses, 24,35,50,200,500.
There seems to be a great deal of development on bodies – D90/D400/DXXX but lenses have fallen behind. The great ISO performance of the D700 means that you can use lenses with a max aperture of f4 and still have a number of stops left over. Cheaper full frame lenses would move a lot of people to the D700. Save costs with less glass and make a series of lenses that are similar to the DX lenses ( these are cheaper because the sensor is smaller) and you will have a winner.