Comments on: Nikon D400 specs

By: T Peters

T Peters — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:17:35 +0000

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.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:55:51 +0000

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.

By: Pieter

Pieter — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:21:07 +0000

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.

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:17:57 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:53:08 +0000

Personally I enjoy my D200 with 18-200mm (Nikon) & D3 with 12-24mm (Sigma), and extra flash SB 400.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:16:53 +0000

88% accurate

By: brian

brian — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:25:17 +0000

OH and video? No Thanks, I have a video camera for that. I want my still camera to be a still camera.

By: brian

brian — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:23:47 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:47:25 +0000

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.

By: muskons

muskons — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:39:07 +0000

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

By: Pablov

Pablov — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:12:53 +0000

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

By: Paul Davis

Paul Davis — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:38:08 +0000

5D MKII is also full frame…

By: Photoman

Photoman — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:59:13 +0000

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.

By: Les

Les — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:33:31 +0000

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

By: Jack Felis

Jack Felis — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:19:23 +0000

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?

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:59:11 +0000

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

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:19:08 +0000

LOL

By: Ranger 9

Ranger 9 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:34:37 +0000

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.

By: grumps

grumps — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:03:54 +0000

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!

By: grumps

grumps — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:58:47 +0000

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