< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Some fresh Nikon D400 rumors

Nasim Mansurov posted on his blog a list of Nikon D400 specifications that he received from a good source.

At that point I have no reliable information on the D400 and I am not sure if this camera will make sense if Nikon upgrades the D7000 and releases a low priced full frame DSLR (D600). Keep in mind that the D5100 is also due for a refresh, that means that Nikon will have to announce another four DSLR cameras by the end of the year (D400, D600, D7100 and D5200), in addition to the D4 and D800. I still believe that one of the DX DSLR lines will be discontinued, the question is which one. The D3200 already has a 24MP sensor and there are not many upgrade options left for another three DX models, unless we end up with four 24MP DX DSLRs which is highly unlikely (the D600 is also rumored to have a 24MP full frame sensor). We will have an interesting summer ahead of us.

Nikon D400 specs:

  • Sensor: 24.2 MP DX CMOS, 3.82µ pixel pitch (same as on the D3200)
  • Sensor Size: 23.2 x 15.4mm
  • Resolution: 6,016 × 4,000
  • Native ISO Sensitivity: 100-6,400
  • Boost Low ISO Sensitivity: 50
  • Boost High ISO Sensitivity: 12,800-25,600
  • Processor: EXPEED 3
  • Metering System: 3D Color Matrix Meter III with face recognition and a database of 30,000 images
  • Dust Reduction: Yes
  • Weather Sealing/Protection: Yes
  • Body Build: Full Magnesium Alloy
  • White Balance: New White Balance System
  • Shutter: Up to 1/8000 and 30 sec exposure
  • Shutter Durability: 200,000 cycles, self-diagnostic shutter
  • Camera Lag: 0.012 seconds
  • Storage: 1x CF slot and 1x SD slot
  • Viewfinder Coverage: 100%
  • Viewfinder Magnification: 0.94x Approx.
  • Speed: 8 FPS, 9 FPS with optional battery pack and Nikon D4 or alkaline batteries
  • Exposure Meter: 91,000 pixel RGB sensor
  • Built-in Flash: Yes, with Commander Mode, full CLS compatibility
  • Autofocus System: Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX with 51 focus points and 15 cross-type sensors
  • AF Detection: Up to f/8 with 9 focus points (5 in the center, 2 on the left and right)
  • LCD Screen: 3.2 inch diagonal with 921,000 dots
  • Movie Modes: Full 1080p HD @ 30 fps max
  • Movie Exposure Control: Full
  • Movie Recording Limit: 30 minutes @ 30p, 20 minutes @ 24p
  • Movie Output: MOV, Compressed and Uncompressed
  • In-Camera HDR Capability: Yes
  • Two Live View Modes: One for photography and one for videography
  • Camera Editing: Lots of in-camera editing options with HDR capabilities
  • GPS: Not built-in, requires GP-1 GPS unit
  • Battery Type: EN-EL15
  • Battery Life: ~900 shots
  • USB Standard: 3.0
  • Weight: 800g (body only)
  • Price: $1,799 MSRP
This entry was posted in Nikon D400. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • chris

    If this specs are true I am dissapointed for many reasons:

    After five years of waiting we get:

    – 1 FPS more with and withoug grip: This should be 2 FPS after 5 years! I thought Nikon is aggressive going for market share??

    The most dissapointing point for me would be:

    As many have writte it is aimed at semi pro sports and wildlife photographer. So these people want good high iso (bad light, fast shutter speeds). But the 24 MP Sensor (of Sony and of Nikon – D3200) is not good at high iso. Except you reseize it down to 16 MP. But does Nikon really want their customers to reseize the majority of their pictures because it is a 24 MP Sensor with bad high iso??? For me this would miss the mark of a semi pro sports and wildlife camera.

    It more like a mixture: body = semi pro for fast action, sensor = consumer who want more pixels. They should have taken 16 MP instead as they did with the D4.

    In this way I would not understand Nikon, assumed these specs are real.

    Chris

    • Matt

      24 MP is enough for 12×18″ prints @ 300 DPI, so unless you are printing larger than that, you are down-sampling from 24 MP. And given what we know about how down-sampling results in averaging out noise, a 24 MP sensor will beat a 16 MP every time, all other factors being equal.

      • chris

        “nd given what we know about how down-sampling results in averaging out noise, a 24 MP sensor will beat a 16 MP every time, all other factors being equal.”

        – no, it isnt. If you look at dxomark.com you will see, that “all factors being equal” and downsampled to 16 MP it has the same noise.
        At 100 % View of the original 24 mp or 16 mp files the 24 mp files are clearly worse.

        Additionally you can see at dxomark, that the dynamic range is in alle categories (100% or downsampled) worse than the 16 mp sensor.

        This is why I am dissapointed if it is the 24 mp sensor we know.

        • rhlpetrus

          I think you don’t print much, and you don’t know what 13.3 to 13.9 EV means in terms of difference in DR. Most people would never be able to actually use all that DR, or notice the difference. The D4, the highest level Nikon at the moment, has same DR as the D3200. If pros think that’s enough, I can’t see why most of us would need more.

          • Anonymous

            He just wants to complain.

            • Chris

              Hey guys,

              please slow down. You don’t have to get persoanl if you don’t agree with my opinion.

              About FPS:
              – I do have situations where I need every FPS advantage I can get. If you don’t have these situations o.k., but I do have (and I know several others as well). This also can not be changed a lot by right timing.

              – yes I do not print, but sell my pictures to agencies

              – DR is important. Why is everyone excited about the DR of the D800 if it is not so important?

              Chris

          • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

            Actually high dynamic range is propably getting more usefull for amateurs than for pros since it can compensate for sloppy shooting technique. You don’t clip your highlights so easy etc.

            And I guess we can assume that most pros know how to check a histogramm ;)

            • PHB

              The thing that annoys me with blow outs is that the exposure settings for digital cameras still copy those for film.

              What I really want is to have the camera capture good detail across the whole image and balance the final result so that I can see the majority of the scene properly.

              Today I have to habitually set the exposure dial to dial it down a couple of stops to prevent blowouts and then correct the balance on the final print. That should just be a standard shooting option.

    • D700guy

      I think 24mp in a pro DX body is the way to go. 16mp can be had by the D7000

      • Global

        I think ADMIN could be right — but that he doesn’t have an accurate calculation of Nikon’s finances and forecasting to be able to predict how many lines can be sustained. In fact, its just too far to say that Nikon can’t handle another line — are you kidding? They added a J series, a V series, and even an E body all while releasing their normal bodies! So Nikon has been shown quite capable of adding series. Admin MIGHT want to consider that Nikon will spread out the shelf life a bit more evenly and does NOT need to panic upgrade the whole line in one year. In fact, the D600 might be a 2 year upgrade, as might the D400. Space them 1 year apart (say, release the D400 NEXT year), and you have a pretty good sequence. Meanwhile, you upgrade the D7000 line enough to keep your DX users happy (which Nikon has done!). This will allow Nikon more time (3-4 years) to make innovative D900 bodies with SEXy features (see below). Of course, the pro-line is probably going to stay more conservative.

        THE RAPID UPGRADES:
        P&S
        –> D3100 -OR- V1 -OR- J1 (CHOICE: Prism, E-Finder or Compact)
        –> D3100/D5100 hybrid (D3200)
        –> D3100/D5100 hybrid (D5200 w/a weird innovation)
        –> D5100/D7000 hybrid (D7100)

        THE SEMI-PRO INTERMEDIATES:
        –> D7000/D300S hybrid (PRO-DX D400)
        –> D300S/D700 hybrid (ENTRY-FX D600)

        THE SEXy PRO-BODIES:
        –> D800 (D900) -OR- D800E (D-SEX –> S body, E body, X body, etc)
        –> D4 (D-SEX –> S body, E body, X body, etc)

        In other words, the D40 line remains the gateway to DSLRs — but it now has competition from the V series. So Nikon needs to fluff upwards ALL the series (especially because of the J series). Nikon understands the significantly value of the PRO-DX body, and will probably fluff up the D400 in an UPWARD direction, as is the trend with all the bodies. In fact, only the J series will probably not be fluffed next round.

        Thus the J-series represents the most entry-level; everything else is fluffed UPWARDS. The D400 is probably going to be increasingly professionalized — as will be the D900 series next round. But the gap in pricing is getting so large, that there is quite enough room for an entry-level D600 — AND with the fluffing up the D7000.. there is also room for the D400 to be the ALTERNATIVE to the D600.

        Nikon makes alternatives ALL THE TIME. There is room. Nikon’s lines not only have room for it — but Nikon loves alternatives. Otherwise it wouldn’t have so many Ses, Ees and Xes. Likewise, a DX-FX alternative body must exist in the cross over point.

      • Jan

        Face it, you need a DX with better ergonomics than the D7000. You need the better 51pt AF system.
        Nikon’s always had 4 DX lines. Why should it stop?

        • Nikonnut

          Because FX is the future for Nikon DSLRs!

    • thomas

      just a rumor.

      agree with u

    • Herman

      i dunno what you’re smoking but for $1,600 this camera will OWN the market.

      i dunno what kinda crap you’re reading about but pros don’t use $1,600 and count on it, especially the wildlife and sports pros who make a living out of it and can’t afford to miss a shot if they can buy better equipment. We’re talking an entry level “semi-pro” you wanna label it; in the past we’re talking D200/D300 area and we’re talking 8-9 FPS and dude, over my entire career I’ve never met anyone complaining 8-9fps is not excessive. So NO, this is not aimed for sports or wildlife PROS who should be shooting D3/D4 ’cause they need to endure extreme temperatures high buffer and high burst rates.

      lastly, for $1,600 and this kind of specs I’ll take TWO without a second thought and stuff them in my camera case as backups to my D800 and lend to my associates when we’re running out of bodies.

      • catinhat

        Honestly, no one needs 10 frames/second, not any sports photog either. Shooting sports is about anticipation and timing more than anything else. Very fast AF helps a whole lot, a million frames a second — not so much, really.

        • Herman

          exactly, and seeing idiots like Chris complaining that adding the battery grip adds “only” 1fps is abso-freaking-lutely ridiculously pointless. Apparently Chris is just another one of those sad GWC having the money to buy a useless grip to add to the camera and troll around boards.

          • joey

            I can’t speak to Chris’s mental capacity; however, I generally agree that timing is important if one is to capture a dramatic sports moment. Having a high frame rate is useful in capturing images of the foot or bat connecting with the ball, so I don’t discount the importance of frame rate. At $2000 a dx camera with quick auto focus, high frame rate, and good low light performance would be very attractive to me. It would pair nicely as a backup with my 70-200mm 2.8 or my 200-400mm 4 lenses.

          • Sports

            Calling others idiots just because they want different features than you, is stupid.
            “You don’t need 10 fps” is the same as saying “you don’t need 2 fps” or “you don’t need this resolution” or “that dynamic range”.
            It depends on what you’re doing.
            I’m sure you can take better pictures with your IPhone than some NR readers … so what?
            And why do you “need” what you claim you need, btw.?
            Let people want what they want.

            • catinhat

              @Sports

              OK, I should have said *I* don’t need 10 fps. Here is the thing. If you shoot someone moving predictably, e.g. running or performing a free kick, then you can take advantage of a crazy frame rate, and later select the most attractive frame. However, these tend to be not the most interesting shots IMO. On the other hand, when you have a player meeting with a flying ball (or a flying player), things tend to happen exceedingly quickly, so your limiting factors are basically your ability to anticipate the place where the event occurs, your AF, and your reaction time pressing the shutter release the first time. Two of the three are entirely human factors. If you miss the moment when the shutter needs to be pressed, then firing two or ten frames a fraction of a second later will not help.

            • Herman

              no you’re not interpreting it properly. Chris is stating, and I quote “1 FPS more with and withoug grip: This should be 2 FPS after 5 years! I thought Nikon is aggressive going for market share??”

              Think, we’re talking about a frigging $1,600 DX camera. Every single pro I work with choose their gears for their own reasons and I can’t speak for everyone, sure. But if you live and die on that high FTP for what you do and you absolutely really need that kind of FTP, you’d be also looking at 1) high buffer and high speed r/w to allow you to shoot consecutively often and allow you to shoot again quickly; 2) the most reliable AF you can buy. And that does not fit into a $1,600 DX body seriously.

              And again, he’s complaining adding a grip only gives him 1 more; in which that 9fps is 1fps slower than that best cameras out there D4/1D4 at 10fps. Excuse me again but, *cough*, I don’t see how he’s making any sense at all here.

      • ramset

        Where do you idiots get off criticising others for expressing an opinion! Stroking your own little egos i suspect. That sort of stuff should be filtered out of the comments.

  • tooma

    - Crop sensor+9fps+decent iso performance+big buffer = excellent sports/wildlife camera!!!
    – It would be disappointing to the see the same sensor as the D3200 in the D400.
    -24mp is good, but the iso range isn’t the best. We will just have to wait and see what kind of files it produces at higher iso’s (not worried this is Nikon after all).
    -9fps is kick ass if the D400 sports a really good buffer. I believe that is where you’ll see a big upgrade in the D400 kind of like the D4 vs the D3s.

    • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

      Wouldn’t it be a new thing having Nikon use the sensor of their cheapest model in the flagship DX camera? Don’t think it’s going to happen especially because of marketing reasons.

      We had D300 in 2007 d90 in 2008 and d5000 in 2009
      So the Sensor moved down a model class per year.

      • rhlpetrus

        There’s very little difference actually from the D3200 to the D4 in the most used ISO range, in all aspects. This is like film now, difference is in body abilities. Sensor tech is almost reaching the possibilities re Physics laws.

        • Herman Au

          you’re dead wrong with your assumption. the lab test jpg might tell you so, but in reality you’re not really experiencing the RAW files and actually tweaking them to see what’s really in there that you don’t see that really matters. Try do a +3EV in post with a low end consumer DSLR and then try a RAW image from D4/D800 and see what the difference is.

      • Jan

        Yes, great story, except the D300 and D90 had different sensors.
        Sorry, the files aren’t even the same res.

        • Nikonuser

          The D90 and D300(s) have/had the same sensor, basically.

    • Dammer

      Think Nikon reads these posts?

      Please dear Nikon: 16mp high, clean ISO pro grade fast “sports and wildlife” (and “child”) camera (pref with a quieter shutter).

      • Geoff_K

        Please NO to 16mp … so few why bother moving from 12

    • Richard

      I do agree that the DX body lineup is getting crowded. It makes sense to sort out the offerings. Nikon really does need to come up with something to respond to the Canon 4Ti as a lower cost video camera (with dedicated video lenses). Nikon is several generations behind Canon in the video sector and is going to have to work very hard to avoid getting left behind.

      The D400 needs to have a high frame rate, good high ISO performance and weather sealing because many of its intended uses involve being outdoors stalking wildlife. Some sports situations also will find use for the crop factor sensor in order to stretch the lenses. There are a number of people presently using the 500mm f4 with 2X TC on the D7000 (and the auto-focus works…at least on the central sensor(s)). That’s 1,500mm equivalent focal length at f8!

      Even though the D800 senses a DX lens, if mounted, and can be shot as a crop sensor with FX lenses, the low frame rate is still a problem. It would be interesting if the D400 got what amounts to a DX size version of the D800 sensor.

      If Nikon cuts corners on the buffer people are going to scream bloody murder.

      It will indeed be interesting to see what happens during the remainder of this year.

  • Dennis

    If these specs are correct, wouldn’t this camera be the true replacement for the D700 ?
    If the D400 and the D600 come to be. Nikon will have pretty much all retail prices covered. A person could pick the spec and price range they want and have a heck of a good camera, which ever one the choose.
    Dennis

    • don

      If these specs are correct, wouldn’t this camera be the true replacement for the D700 ?

      No. D700 is FX. The D400 is supposed to be DX.

  • http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

    This sounds a lot like my current D800…Only better…and cheaper… Hmmm…

    I’ll probably be looking for a backup camera one day and this crop-camera would make a good one.

    • Mark J.

      I’ll give ya the cheaper, but better? Other than FPS what is better about it?

      • GeofFx

        I was wondering the same thing.

      • http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

        Like you mentioned, more FPS (significant amount), more/less shots battery life (pretty close at this point…), lighter body, tied in many other areas, and about half the cost. D800 is probably going to be better overall no doubt, but very close behind the D400 will be.

  • vFunct

    I like this.. but I could really use a D4 with a 24MP DX sensor. (or a 55MP FX sensor, where I use it in DX mode..)

    I could use that smaller sensor with higher pixel density for increased magnification and bigger DoF for event photography.

    I think most sports shooters would prefer the longer reach of a DX sensor.

    • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

      Well the professional sports shooter I know (he shoots 1st league soccer in Germany) is moving from the 1D4 to the 1DX and he doesn’t really mind loosing some of his reach, since he has the lenses he needs. I think it’s mainly the widlife guys who have to hike with their equipment that need a good crop capable camera in order to maintain light equipment. But even for them, the d800 with 6fps is a great camera to pass the time waiting for a d300 replacement (or rather d7000 upgrade – that I rather see comming)

      • PAG

        You’ve also got a lot of lower level sports shooters (high school, college, not for professional news / magazine purposes) who can’t afford something like the 300mm f/2.8. The D400 is perfect for people who want to shoot long but with sub-$2,500 lenses.

        • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

          I agree with you, but what I am thinking is that since the d300/d700 all higher end cameras have gotten so highly performng that I am really tired of hearing people whine on how their d300/700 is a totally outdated piece of crap equipment limiting their shooting skills and they need a new ISO 12800 10fps monster camera for 1200$ in order to be able toproceed with their hobby succefully….

  • vFunct

    Also, the D7000 is terrible at AF… definitely need a D4-class autofocus system.

    • MB

      You never actually used D7000 did you?

      • Peter

        The 51-point auto-focus is far better than the 39-points. But to say that the 39 is terrible is to say too much.

      • Andre

        The D7000 is not as good as the D300s in terms of AF, but I would never call it terrible

    • Drazen B.

      Less time on browsing camera reports and more time out there and actually using D7000 (that is if you own one). Believe me, you might actually like it as a great photographic tool.

      ;)

      • vitamin_s

        Please tell me if the latest firmware of the D7000 has fixed the following issues on LIVEVIEW – Please note that I’ve mentioned liveview

        1. The LCD shows constant brightness regardless of the configured aperture or shutter speed. This can be changed by setting manual movie settings on. But this mode doest allow you to reduce the shutter speed below 1/30th and you cannot change the aperture.

        2. Depth of field preview not available no matter what aperture you select.

      • vitamin_s

        Can anyone tell me if nikon has fixed the D7000’s liveview problems? Which are

        1. The LCD shows constant brightness regardless of the configured aperture or shutter speed. This can be changed by setting manual movie settings on. But this mode doest allow you to reduce the shutter speed below 1/30th and you cannot change the aperture.

        2. Depth of field preview not available no matter what aperture you select.

  • mikils

    I must say that I do not believe in this camera, period. Everything makes me think Nikon is going to push D800 (thus FX) as THE camera for non professional who like me are willing to pay more to get something special; D 600 is another step in the same direction, to be more forthcoming towards people with smaller budget. So all in all, I do not see where this camera would fit.

    BUT, in case it ever comes out, and it is priced on the 1500-1700 range, I think I will postpone jumping on D800 and buy this one instead. I will be able to keep this body permanently attached to my long lens for wildlife and use my old D3s for everything else.

    • Richard

      “Smaller budget” usually translates into DX sensor. The cost difference between a FX and DX sensor is generally believed to be about 10 to 1. ($45 to $50 versus $450 to $500)

      • Jake

        I hear the $50/$500 numbers for DX/FX thrown around a lot. The truth is, the last time we had any confirmation of these numbers was in 2007, where Nikon (I believe) mentioned it during the D3 press conference.

        I have a very hard time believing that 5 years later, it still costs Nikon the same amount that it did then. Economies of scale, people.

        • Richard

          I agree that the numbers are somewhat dated. I have heard them more recently than 2007, but that isn’t the point.

          The economies of scale to which you refer are not the same for image sensor production as they are for CPU production and such. Unlike processor production which benefits from smaller processes (Moore’s observation).

          The majority of sensors have been produced on 200m or smaller wafers. There are supposedly on 20 or so potential FX sensors per wafer less the number that are bad from defects in the wafer or the manufacturing process. Getting the yields up seems to have been a problem for quite a long time. The move to 300mm wafers should increase the production volume and may increase yields as it is to be produced in a newer fab, but that remains to be seen.

          Canon are rumored to be preparing to release a full frame body more in line with the earlier 5D’s price point. Nikon should have been aware that Canon needed to fill that price point and prepared something to compete with it.

          We will see what actually comes to pass.

          Cheers

    • Andre

      I don’t know – I think the D400 is viable…

      For some reason I just can’t see Nikon handing the D300s/7D market to Canon on a silver platter by touting a D7100 as the D300s replacement.

      Maybe they’ll include the 51-point AF in the D7100 if they plan on doing away with the D300s completely.

      If the D400 does come out with the spec list mentioned above, I’m in the line to get it

      • RRRoger

        The D7000 already beats the D7 in most ways.
        A D400 would blow it away.

        It will probably be two years before you see a completely new upgrade to the D7000 or D5100

  • http://www.derekclarkphotography.com Derek Clark Photo

    I’ve thought for a while that the D7000 has made the DX D300s range pointless, and the release of the D800 has left a huge gap for the people that want a smaller raw file. Therefore the only way to go would be a full frame D400. That would make more sense than a D600, which would (name wise) be kind of backward.

    What would they call the camera that replaced the D600, D500? Nikon model numbers (like everybody else’s) go up, not down.

    I know one thing, since the D800 was announced, I’ve been looking over the fence at the Canon garden and thinking it’s looking more and more like what I need. The problem is that I have too much invested in Nikon 1.4G glass. My X-Pro1 is taking on most of my Nikon’s work lately though, and doing a better job! If Fuji decide to bring out a DSLR with an X-Pro1 sensor I think I’ll jump ship…unless the next FF Nikon turns out to be the true D700 successor!!!

    Derek.

    • mikils

      Troll Alert!

    • babola

      You sound like a very confused person…good bye, then.

    • Hunt

      Why was you born?

    • http://www.davidiam.com/journal davidiam

      You’re website, and your photography suck by the way. Just sayin’

      Canon would love to have you. ;)

  • MB

    I am really not sure about this .. the only needed point is very good FPS …
    It seams to me serous DX users would really need lower cost 16mm f/1.8 prime lens and 17-55 VR replacement but I doubt we will ever see those … too bad

    • PAG

      Other reasons for the D400 over the D7000 include better AF for action, deeper buffer (a real problem on the D7000 for me when shooting BIF), weatherproof, and heavier build, and heavier duty shutter (you shoot a lot of junk when shooting wildlife/sport action).

      • MB

        D400 will probably have better bracketing options (like D300 or better), but that does not change the fact that in my opinion it will not be a huge seller when D600 comes out.
        This also does not change the fact that new pro DX body requires new pro DX lenses Nikon lacks at the moment …

  • Pablo Ricasso

    It doesn’t matter much what they decide to do with their numbering scheme. It might be called a D400 or a D7100. Maybe they will call it some other thing. You can figure that every camera released now will have at least the 24 mp that is in the 3200. But this camera will have more low light performance than the 3200. There are people who shoot long distances who want top speed in their sensor, autofocus and framerate, and who want a large, bright viewfinder, weathersealing, and high build quality. There are people will pay extra for this even if they can obtain a full frame camera for less money.

    • PHB

      D400 is the logical name for a camera that replaces the D300s and D7000. They could call it a D7100 but that would label it a consumer camera and it is clearly going to be more than that.

      There really isn’t enough market differentiation to sustain four separate DX bodies any more. The CX line is eating DX from below and FX from above. The D7000 was already almost but not quite a D300s. Having both on the market just has them tread on each other. One had the better resolution and the other better features and handling. Once the decision is taken it becomes a no brainer to give the D7100 all the features that used to be reserved to the D300s. And once that is done there is no good reason not to call it a D400.

      It will of course put the noses of certain FX snobs here out of joint. But they seem to think that Nikon is going to be discontinuing all the Dx00 models apart from the D800/E.

      Nikon can launch that camera without any new pro DX glass as well because there really isn’t any need for it. I am quite happy using my FX telephotos on mys D300. The only reason I am thinking about moving from DX is that I now have a V1.

      DX vs FX is really not the one way street people here seem to imagine. The only real disadvantage with the DX line is that the wides are compromised even more than the usual SLR compromise. I am much more interested in seeing pro CX lenses than pro DX. I would pay a lot for a good CX ultrawide.

  • Srini

    Video capable DSLR is convenient. I do not have to lug a camcorder. Besides, with a manual control, I get a damn good video.

  • http://www.alldigi.com/ Geoff

    I want a DX camera just like my D2H but with the new generation 24MPixel sensor.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    And new releases of cameras have proved fairly consistently that it is possible to increase the pixel density while still improving low light performance. This will likely be repeated and people will still complain about too many pixels when this new camera is eventually replaced with something even better.

  • rhlpetrus

    This looks exactly what to expect for the top DX model. It will have 14bit ADC, thus a little better performance re DR and high ISO than D3200, already excellent. Could be the highest ever score for APS-C at DxO Mark.

  • Jonathan

    It is about time we see some rumors for this camera! Though I must say I am also somewhat disappointed with some of the specs. Certainly it will be a great camera, but 25,600 iso is a stop too low in my opinion, and why 24 Mp? Sure I would like the extra resolution, but not at the expense of low light performance. 16Mp is more than enough. Another fps for motor drive would be nice too (9fps standard, 10 with grip), but really I am happy with anything over 6. It seems so strange to have an SD card as well, they should make this 2 CF cards.

    As for getting rid of a DX camera, they should eliminate the 5100. There is no point in having it in the line up. (3100 – entry, 7100 – enthusiast, 400 – pro)

    • PHB

      I would prefer two SD slots and no CF slot.

      I am through with CF, its a stupid format with its easy to bend pins and such. I have plenty of CF cards but it isn’t a format I want to invest in any further.

      SD is much superior as it is supported on plenty of laptops. So it is easy to pop out the SD card and upload it onto a MacBook or the like. Which was the original advantage of CF BTW. In the old days laptops came with PCMCIA slots and you would stick the CF card in a little adapter and slide it into the side of the laptop.

      At this point the SD cards are plenty fast enough for video let alone still photography.

  • slr

    Oh please release the cameras already! Whatever, just release the beasts and let the buyer decides!

  • http://www.pbase.com/jctangney John Tangney

    Glad to finally hear some more info on the D400! I will add my vote to those who prefer that it actually appears as a 16-18 MP, but even if 24 MP, I expect it to be very good! We have both a D300 and a D7000. Will sell the D7000 as I hate the mode dial that can be bumped since it does not lock (has happened several times). Good IQ, but that and have seen D300 focus through smoke/haze that through the D7000 off.

  • Tim

    What I want, and what I think is missing from Nikon’s line: A return of the D2x, i.e., a pro-body DX camera. 16mp is plenty. 7- or 8-fps is plenty. Put it in a rugged pro body for $3K or less and I’ll buy two. My D300’s are tired.

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    I am inclined to agree with admin’s statement that a D400 might not make sense in the presence of an upgraded D7000 and the D600.

    • Maji

      Maybe the upgraded D7000 will be called the D400 :)

  • Reno Raines

    I’m afraid the chances of the D400 or whatever they call it being a pro body are slim and none, and slim just left town. I believe Nikon thinks making the top DX camera a pro body camera would reduce its appeal and hurt its sales. Since the D300 and D300s sold well (relatively speaking), Nikon may think there no longer is any demand for a pro body DX camera.

  • Larry

    Of course it does.  The D600 is an attractive entry FF but you get sensor over AF and other features on a comparably priced, but targeted to a different segment DF users.  The D7XXX series is NOT a Pro build body and has lower level AF, buffer and build.  I can see a D600 and D400 at a very similar price level appealing to two groups with very different interests and the D7xxx at $1300 or so as a step down from the D400, as the D7000 would be now if the D300 wasn’t 5 years old technology.
     
    If all three new camera were available now, I would have no interest in the compromised-feature D600, but would be all over this D400, and would not even consider the much more expensive and too specialized D800.

  • forda@dodo.com.au

    D800 4fps
    What a useless camera! Only 4 fps!!!
    D400 9fps
    What a useless camera! Why would anyone buy one???

    btw, where did invisible get to?

    • Andre

      Here’s your shilling… Now back to your bridge, evil troll

  • JonMcG

    I think most people here have it mostly right but it seems quite obvious to me the way this is going to play out…. 6 months from now, this is what the field will look like…

    D4 – $6000 – The ultimate tool, does virtually everything at the highest level possible
    D800 – $3000 – Professional quality high resolution monster, built tough.
    D600 – $2200 – Low End FX Entry, most of the D800 in a cheaper built body, lower resolution, etc
    D400 – $1700 – Professional quality and build with a DX sensor. Built like a D4 (better than D600, similar or better than D800). Essentially a D4 with a DX Sensor
    D7100 – $1300 – Prosumer DX camera, basically a D600 in DX.
    D5100 – $850 – Consumer Toy
    D3200 – $700 – Entry level for beginning DLSR enthusiasts to cut their teeth on.

    The D600 will mostly cut the feet out of the D700 but Nikon will technically be able to market it as a lower end camera because build quality and some other smaller elements won’t be up to par with the D700; though the vast majority of features will be superior.

    The D700 will essentially be in the same situation the D90 is right now. Nikon will *say* the D90 is the model between the D7000 and the D5100, but in reality there will be no market for it because everybody will find a better reason to go with the model above (D800 for instance) or the model below the (D600). This will gracefully allow the D700 to be retired officially over the next 6 months…

    Take this to the bank… :)

    • tifkat

      I think you should swap the D600 and D400, but keep the pricing in those positions. Ie D400 @ $2200 and D600 @ $1700

      • JonMcG

        You may be right but I really don’t think so. The Full Frame sensor alone is estimated to cost Nikon in the $400-$500 range. There just isn’t enough in there for retailers, etc to make that a viable option. This is especially true based on what we are hearing the D600 is going to be capable of.

        Nikon will sell the hot cakes off that camera at a shade over $2K, make many people who couldn’t land a D800 glad they waited and not canabolize their DX lineup.

        Pros on a budget will really be scratching their heads to pay a few hundred more for full frame in a semi stripped body or a full pro style, fast DX body and save a few bucks.. Nikon will LOVE to have that position and controversy/conversation going on and yet there will still be nothing from the folks at Canon to compete in this area…

    • PHB

      Drop the price of the D400 to $1500 and slide some of the D7000 features down into the D5200 and the D7100 isn’t needed any more.

      I think the D800 price will slide down a little as well so $2000 is probably more reasonable for the D600.

      I can’t see the D600 body being any different to the D800 though. They are both relatively low volume and there is really nothing to be saved by trying to cut corners on the D600. Using the same body and circuit board will shave design and tooling costs.

      The D400 would have to be different to account for the different sensor geometry etc. but even that may be more minor than people expect.

    • Big J

      D5200* and ouch calling it a consumer toy :S. It’s a great idea for a backup camera (in my opinion) and a step up from previous D3000/D3100 owners. The D400 looks great so far, but this is the first rumor about it. Maybe in a few weeks to a month, specs will be changed or confirmed as done with the D600 thread.

      • JonMcG

        Ok, so maybe calling the 5100 a consumer cam was a bit tongue and cheek but seriously… It seems like every time I am at a public event of some kind I see an ocean of Nikon straps with usually Dad’s and sometimes Mom’s snapping away in auto mode with their kit lenses and it’s always a 5100 or 3100!

        I’m just sayin…… :)

        • Big J

          Well I’d prefer a 3100 or 5100 (with a decent lens) than a small P&S that’s for sure. They’re not bad cameras at all, just the person who uses them might not be able to bring it’s potential out well enough to hit that wall with it and upgrade. But Nikon appeals as much as possible to those people since they don’t depend on the serious photographer demograph to sustain themselves. The price is good on them in the states for example. Down here (in Argentina), to see a local with a camera like that is very rare (it’s ridiculously more expensive down here) and people think you’re a serious photographer with a camera like that. Sad I know, but I prefer seeing an ocean of Nikon straps then Canons heh.

  • http://www.ebharding.com Eric Harding

    why would anyone buy it? a low cost full-frame makes sense, this does not. just buy a 7000. I did, and love it and have no regrets. my next camera will be the D600 if they announce it.

    • BartyL

      Apparently there are a large number of folk who need to photograph multitudes of tiny bats feeding on-the-wing on moonless nights while standing under a waterfall. The D7000 is not for them.

    • Foolishcfo

      The D7000 feels cheap to me. If they can produce a magnesium body D400 in Sendai then I predict it will be a winner. My local photo club is full of D200/D300/D300s owners who have staunchly waited for a D400 announcement. I just went FF for the first time with the D800 but I would still buy a D400 for underwater macro.

  • RRRoger

    24MP D400 with 51 focus points, bigger, better body with more controls and a larger buffer for $1799 makes sense to me.
    And I think they have the prices right with the striped down D400 at $1499,
    it will outsell the D400 by 10 to 1.

    I expect a 24MP D600FX and 24MP D400DX before PhotoKina this year and no D5100 or D7000 upgrade until next spring at the earliest.

  • http://breningstall.com JB

    I believe this rumor. The D300s is Nikon’s camera most overdue for a replacement. The D7000 is a nice camera but it is not a successor to the D300s, with its better AF and build quality. As Nikon eases the D700 out the door, there won’t be a camera below the D4 with high FPS and a large buffer. Does this make any sense? In fact, I would be shocked if Nikon doesn’t release a high-end DX camera for wildlife and sports shooters on a budget..

  • Andy M

    I love the opinions on here going back and forth.
    There are a lot of people whose opinions are far out of touch with what the market will actually support. The currently available Nikon cameras have carefully controlled feature sets which differentiate between them. These divide users based on their requirements alone. I wouldn’t touch a D800 with a ten foot stick as it would frustrate me with its lousy FPS. I have never been able to see any justification for the FF brigade’s reasoning either. I can’t tell what photos have been taken on what size DSLR sensor, much less brand and nobody else I’ve ever queried has been able to either. But the FF zealots will get their budget FF if the D600 makes it out the door. It will have limited buffers, handling and focus capabilities compared to a more expensive option. I’ll pay the premium for a fast handling D400 with a fast frame rate, dual cards, multiple battery choice, additional battery grip and a far better high ISO performance than I have now. The D400 will drop the price of the D300s and I’ll pick up a second body to save me changing lenses.

    In the end, the designed feature sets will do exactly what they’ve always done and will continue to do. Give people decision points on which to base their purchases. This extracts the most money from the populace. If you haven’t noticed, Nikon is a company. Companies are designed to make money. If you’ve got a model which suits the needs and wants of a type of customer, you’ll get their money. I don’t care about Full Frame as much as FPS and Focus mode changing speed. Thus a D400 fits the bill at the right dollar value. My only next option is a D4. I’m not real keen on spending that much.

  • Billmelater

    Sooooo many cameras to choose from, I think this will confuse the average photographer.

    I love my D7000 and Friday, UPS is delivering my D800 from B&H. I am done for a few years I think, unless I lose or damage my cameras.

  • http://NIKON Dotin
    • Foolishcfo

      Thanks for posting the link. That 18-300mm DX lens is long overdue. Since the D800 came out I bought the 28-300mm FX lens and love it. I’m giving my old 18-200mm lens to my daughter. DX owners should like the 18-300mm lens.

  • Foolishcfo

    As Admin said last week, D800 supply is getting better. Yesterday morning I ordered a 2nd body from Best Buy and it will be here next Tuesday. Tonight I received an email from Amazon stating my D800 through them will arrive next Monday. I finally cancelled my order with B&H today. You don’t have to look very hard if you want this camera it appears.

  • Brian

    Let’s hope the buffer is better then the D7000 which is the camera’s one major flaw..

  • Big J

    Kinda curious to see what interesting specs the future D4s, D4x, D400s might have. The base specs are already amazing at that.

  • Fabian

    dpreview.com just announced the 24-85 and 18-300 lenses:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/14/Nikon-Nikkor-24-85mm-F3-5-4-5-G

  • http://slrlounge.com Matthew Saville

    Blah, blah, whine, whine,

    YES NIKON! Bring on this D400!!! This is the DX camera I have been waiting for…

    =Matt=

  • kinwei
    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      check the last post on the blog

      • kinwei

        just checked ^^ thanks for update it!!

  • polymer

    i think Nikon are on the right track if this is the spec for D300s upgrade, but I might have to agree that if there are ever any upgrade for D7000 then D400 might not be necessary since FF is prob the way to go in the long term, even though APSC is more suited to wildlife photos as you can use less expensive lens and get almost double the distance compare to FF.
    Back to D400 rumors, this camera is intend for D300s user to upgrade their machine, it never really the appetite for D300s users to change to a more compact D7000 in the first place.

  • Nikonnut

    Reading comments on nikon rumors is always entertaining. So much passion!

    Guessing and predicting is fun so heres

    Its my opinion that the D400 will NOT have the exact same sensor as the D3200. Simply because I think nikon can do better for their DX flagship. It will have a 24mpx sensor just not the one used in the D3200.

    There will only be 3 dx cameras ( D3200, D? and D400) to compliment the FX fange (D600

    If these specs are accurate (most probably), i think D400 replaces both the D300s and D7000. There is no reason to update 4 dx cameras now that FX is coming on stronger than ever.

  • Sunburst

    I don’t see why the D400 and the D600 couldn’t both be Nikon’s next offerings, both cameras would fill a need. For some people upgrading to FX might be the next logical step but there are plenty of us (myself included) who don’t have a need for FX. I really like the specs of this D400 and could see myself upgrade from my D7000 at some point, the bigger body for one would be a plus although the D7000 with grip is not too bad.

    As for other body replacements, a D5200 wouldn’t make too much sense IMO at this moment since the D5100 has only been around for a year now. A D7100 to be released around September or October seems more logical since it’s predecessor will be 2 years old by then.

    In the hopes that Nikon reads these pages, how about that AF-S DX 16-85 f/4 huh? ;-)

    • SNRatio

      The D7100 may be more logical, yes, but lineup-wise, a D5200 may be the next step after D400. The D3200 has invaded some of D5100’s territory, and letting a D7100 eat into D400’s niche isn’t too smart this year. Better to have a D5200 eat into D7000’s.

      The 16-85/4 has been patented, and is almost surely coming :-)

  • SNRatio

    Looks like double combos here: D400/D800 and D7000/D600. That’s fine!

    16MP might be more useful than 24, but I’ll wait and see how it works out, high ISO requires downsampling in any case. I can’t really see the fierce competition some envision between the D400 and the D600: It’s PJ’s DX vs PM’s (Poor Man) FX.

    FX is not the way to go for all needs. I think most people having used the D300/D700 combo in a wide variety of shooting situations would agree on that.

  • ralittle2

    Thanks for all the comments. They are very informative. I am an amateur photographer whose pics most of you would cringe at, but I desperately want to improve my photos, by improving my skills and my camera. I’ve been waiting for the D400 for a year now to replace my woefully out of date D80. My perspective is that of a father taking mainly family shots, and with kids, 10, 12 and 14, most of them involve sports. Here is what I need from a camera.

    Faster FPS – 8,9,10… I don’t really care, but at least 8.

    Better low light performance – my current camera is useless at ISO 800 or higher. Native 6400 isn’t bad, but I’d love native 12,800. I disagree with those that wonder why take pics at that high ISO. I’ve seen many terrific shots from a fellow Canon shooter taking sports shots at ISO 10k or so (Canon 1Ds Mk III). I don’t have any 1.4 lenses, but if you are using a 70-200 2.8 then you might need the better low light capability.

    Megapixels? – I’d definitely go for a 16MP over the 24 if it brought better low light performance. Don’t forget the D4 is 16.

    Build quality – I don’t want a consumer build quality camera. I believe in using my equipment and it needs to hold up.

    Better AF – yes, any of the newer Nikons would be better than what I have, but I want a updated D3S not a couple of bells and whistles off the lower consumer line.

    FF or APS-C – I don’t buy the argument that Nikon wants to push the DX users to FF. I might be wrong, but I think they will have left a huge whole that Canon will willingly fill. Both options serve a purpose and have their pros and cons, but for me I want a DX body. Why?

    Reach – I will order a new Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR lens when I get my D400. Hopefully. If you are taking sports shots then you sometimes need more focal length, and not everyone can drop the dime on the $6,000 300mm lens. It would be nice, and I will start saving, but still…

    Of course the low-light performance is better on a FF camera, but I’m not willing to give up the speed of a DX camera. I don’t understand Nikon introducing the D800 before a true D700 body came out. I see the purpose of a D800, but it’s no D700 replacement, and I could see a D800s coming out down the road. Is a D600 really the replacement for the D700? I could see both a D600 & a D800s existing together, with the D600 being geared to the amateur who wants a FF body, but without the size, build quality and price of the D800s.

    So, bring on the D400, and make it quick. To me, there is a huge market for a DX prosumer camera; much larger than the D800 or D4 or even the D600.

  • Sudheer
    • Andre

      Hope it’s real

  • Orb Emmel

    Rumor has it, there’s no such thing as a D400…

    Assuming it exists at all, I wonder :
    – what would be the target “audience” of that body ? Bird/sport photographers ? Any other uses compared to a D700 / D800 ?
    – what, in your opinion, does make sense : calling it D400 to split “pro” (Dx and Dxxx) from “consumer” (Dxxxx), or D8000, to split FX (Dx and Dxxx) and DX (Dxxxx) ?

    As far as I’m concerned, D8000 would make more sense (doesn’t mean Nikon will call it that…), otherwise the D600 does seem incorrectly named…

    And as fare as target audience… all I know is that I’m not in it, I don’t need most of the additional features it would bring compared to the D7000… I’d rather have a D600 as a second body.

  • Phil

    Nikon, just make the D400 with the specs listed above $1799 and D400E $1999 and release it by 09-16-2012…..

    For the non believers of DX, try cutting your salary 75% and tell me you still have no problem affording FX glass, bird shooters won’t ever stop shooting birds just to mention one of dozens of scenarios where a DX format is benificial in my opinion. I’M NOT A BIRDER, I shoot landscapes and much enjoy the light weight of DX glass and bodies. D300s

    • Jason

      +1

      I’m not a birder either, but I want the DX D400. I travel a lot and mostly shoot travel photos, urban landscapes, etc. I like the pro DX format because it’s smaller and lighter but I don’t have to give up any pro features or build quality. I do have a lot of nice FX glass but my main wide angle zoom (11-16 f/2.8) and normal zoom (17-55 f/2.8) are both lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the 14-24 and 24-70 and that’s the main reason I’d like to stick with DX for now.

      I’d be unhappy stepping back to either the D7000 or it’s replacement if it didn’t have the features or build quality as my D300s. The rumored D600 sounds like a step back too for the same reasons.

      I think pro DX still has a place and it’s not just for birders or wildlife shooters.

      (I would like an update to the 17-55 to go with the DX D400 though. 16-60 f/2.8 VR would make me really happy.)

  • Gary

    Why not think of 1080/60p? This would bring a lot of videographers looking for Full HD 60p video in a dslr, today only Sony a77 offers it.

    • RRRoger

      You are right, the best Nikon offers is 1080/60i on the V1

      Probably requires 2 Expeed 3 processors and a lot more memory to get to 60P

  • BEstBuyTrick

    Admin,
    note that Bestbuy always gives an availability of 1 day but if you look at the estimate arrival time, for today’s D4, is up to 6/27.

    Still not bad but good trick to catch new buyers :-)

  • vitamin_s

    Can anyone tell me if nikon has fixed the D7000′s liveview problems? Which are

    1. The LCD shows constant brightness regardless of the configured aperture or shutter speed. This can be changed by setting manual movie settings on. But this mode doest allow you to reduce the shutter speed below 1/30th and you cannot change the aperture.

    2. Depth of field preview not available no matter what aperture you select.

  • Paulo G

    Rumors about the D400 that have arisen in Nikon Rumors come from sources outside the site. I doubt its veracity. And you, Peter, you do not have news for us?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      No, I have not received anything reliable on the D400. In general I cannot guarantee any rumors coming from other websites/blogs.

      • vitamin_s

        I hope the rumors are wrong and it does have the same D3200 image sensor. Sports and wildlife shooters are definitely going to face problems with that number of MP as well as the high ISO performance.

  • Phil

    The day Nikon releases there own info on a DX D400 being iminent is the day they can bank on remaining D300s users to stop thinking they have to switch manufactuers. God knows I love my Nikon and dread the day I possibly have to switch brands but if Nikon does infact discontinue the pro body DX line I’m not shelling out $$$ for FX.

    • RRRoger

      The D2x was the last “Pro” DX

      If you want to kid yourself, why don’t you just get a “SemiPro” D7000 now?

      However, your D300 replacement will probably be announced before Photokina this year.

  • happysnapper63

    Well if this rumour proves to be true then not only will I buy one, once prices stablised and some others have ironed out the wrinkles; I do not do bleeding edge, Nikon will also get my cash for the 300 2.8 and converter which I have put on hold, as previously posted.

    Whilst I can see that a D600 as rumoured will be an excellent product and will meet the requirements of some, it is no good to me. But most of the posts I read seem to be from individuals who just want to wear the FX badge and I cannot wait to be along side them at a reserve or sports venue, they will no doubt grin and smile and pretend everything is ok. I will be there with 450 equiv having spent 3.5 K, they will be 50mm shorter having spent 6.5K, now if you can afford to spend 6.5K, then why did they not buy a higher spec body….rather than the D600 in the first place? (ignoring converters as they are a constant which can be applied to either) Such posters never articulate any reasoning, except a dated view on ISO. Some even make naff comments regarding the bigger FX sensor capturing more light, erhmm exposure is about light captured per unit area….Geez. There is some difference in DOF between sensor sizes, whether this is a plus or minus for a given sensor size relative to another depends upon what you are shooting and is not an absolute benefit either way. Plus in the future bokeh will be applied post capture if required.

    The price difference between FX and DX sensors is historically based upon reversing a trend in miniturisation, building bigger components is actually more difficult, there probably was a big difference when Nikon made its first foray into FX. I do not think it is any accident that the pixel pitch on the D7000 and D800 are very close. The sensor which is probably incurring more than an incremental ( same size components requires more to cover a larger surface area) price difference is the D4’s 16mp sensor.

    Sports, wildlife and candid has more to do with the anticipation skills of the photographer, but certainly in the former two this skill is complemented by FPS and buffer sizes and focus systems.

    The point about digital photography is that is is based upon data point mapping, the actual size of the sensor does matter in the way that it did with film, where enlargement was a physical magnification, hence the bigger the negative the better. Digital sensors free us AT LAST from this constraint. The technology path thus far has provided and still provides some benefit from larger photoreceptors but that gap will continue to close as demonstrated by the D800 sensor. (The progress in diesel engines in normal family cars and hot hatches is a good example to consider, look at the convergence in power output between diesel and petrol, petrol still has the edge, but both exceed the requirements of the user and can equally lose their licence for them.)

    Recording at high resolution and resizing images and pixel binning to create images of a size suitable for all but the very few niche photographers, is a totally valid strategy for handling noise and image quality which is almost certainly more cost effective than actually trying to manage noise on the sensor in what has already become a case of diminshing returns. Again building a car that does 150mph, so that it gets between 100 and 120 quicker is an analogy in part.

    I have also noticed responses on these forums where in response to an opinion with which a poster disagrees they start on about the other contributors not having a web site. When this site has anything to do with photography and we are discussing composition and lighting etc then such requests may become valid to settle points related to these topics and associated techniques. But as this site has nothing to do with photography and is entirely focused on abstract capability of technology compared via a set of numeric indicators, these do serve a purpose but we are already at the stage of nearly every DLSR camera exceeding the needs of 99% of the worlds photographers, well at least the ones that could produce a decent image from a roll of plastic. Aspects such as FPS and buffer sizes retain a more direct baring on what can be captured more easily and with more certainty.

    I read a great post on flickr regarding someone being told that you cannot do weddings with a D7000, a D800 or D4 is needed. I am shocked that such professionals have been duping their clients by taking images and charging significant fees, with substandard and inadequate equipment such as a D3S or D700 for so many years. They should have come clean and told their clients the technology did not yet exist to photograph their wedding to a suitable standard. I guess that this also explains why wedding albums from the 90s and earlier contain hand drawn pencil sketches and no photographs, I mean who could possibly have photographed a wedding with a roll of plastic.

    The cameras that seems to be an anomaly are the D5nnn, I use a D5000 sometimes and the articulated screen is useful, but if the rest of range was specified accordingly then the D5nnns could be dispensed with.

    So fingers crossed for the D400 being real and waiting for the first crop factor 5 sensor with a score of >80 on DXO, be sure, it will happen. Also all the best to those opting for the D600 because they understand why it is the best tool for what they shoot and how they want to shoot it. For the clueless FX badge seekers……go get a compact and do us all a favour.

    • happysnapper63

      Correction. does NOT matter as it did for film.

    • Mike Svitek

      Pentax K-5 scored an 82 with DxOMark … So it already happened. Also, it uses the same sensor as the D7000 … If the D400 uses the same sensor and simply increases processing speed then it would be an awesome camera. Stick that into a D800 body and everyone would be happy.

  • planner56

    I’m hoping for some advice. Used to shoot with film SLR (Nikon 8008s, others) and still have a couple of Nikkor lenses – AF 50mm 1:1.8, AF 70-210 mm 1:4-5.6, plus the 8008s. Used to do darkroom stuff also, but have completely moved away from film for several years and am using a Canon P&S Powershot Sx200is 12 MP because of the convince of digital. I don’t do photography for a living or anything, just enjoy taking photos an have since since about 7th grade when I first started with b&W and a Pentax K1000.

    I take a fair number of photos with the P&S and like using the CHDK for the live histogram, ZEBRA features, raw capability, and auto-bracketing for HDR (occasionally).

    I’m thinking of getting back into SLR’s with one of the mid-line Nikon dSLR’s like the d7000 and have been saving up for this. I’m thinking of eventually adding a wide-angle lens at some point also. Is there any reason to wait (assuming a CY2012 purchase) for either an upgraded d7000, or a potential d400 or d600(FX)? I’ve looked at the d5100 and d3200 also, but the lack of AF for the lenses I have and the small body vs my hand size are major detractors. I’d love the d800 – especially because it has a live histogram unlike the d7k, but that is never going to be in my price range. My other thought is that any d7100, d600, or d400 will be pretty much unavailable until next March if released this summer given the lack of availability (IMHO) of the d7k and d800 based on my occasional checks.

    Thanks.

  • Back to top