Nikon will be breaking quite old precedent if they release a D700s in 2012.

Rehashing this thread just to drop another "rumor." A co-worker of mine went to the Nikon school held this past weekend in Miami, Florida and proded one of the Nikon reps. The following text is not verbatim but basically is what he says the conversation went like:

Co-worker: So what's the word on the D800? When's that coming out?

Rep: Where'd you hear about a D800, Nikon Rumors?

Co-worker: yep

Rep: Well, that site is all rumors - that's why it's called nikon rumors. I don't know why everybody is talking about a D800. We don't of know anything named D800. What we have heard about is being called D700S and we're about a year away from releasing that.

Co-worker: What about video...will video be improved in your cameras.

Rep: Right now video in our DSLRs still lacks what people expect because the autofocus is just not the best.

.........

Disclaimer: these were all the words from my co-worker. We don't even know how well connected that rep was to corporate Nikon. After all....this is Nikon Rumors.

@Drdobs - The D300 was better than the D2x in allot of major ways. That didn't stop Nikon before. The whole D3 series is nearing it's life cycle end. Why would it be odd that a new body would outdo a 3-4 year old body?

aetas said:
If the d800 is going the way of high iso I would hope for a better then d3s not the same. I agree though.
I want to see a dx (d400) with some d3s iso abilities. That would be a camera.
~Cheers

I can't imagine Nikon letting their D700 replacement actually have better ISO performance than the D3s, I mean, why would anybody spend twice as much on a D3s then? I know they are going to release the D4 at some point, but I'd have to believe ISO performance will probably fall somewhere between current D700 and D3s - which I think would be perfectly acceptable and welcome to the entry level FX community.

On the D300s replacement (presumably D400) it would be nice to see D700 level of ISO performance... I am quite content on DX, as a D90 shooter, I am quite anxiously waiting for the D400.

Jon

I too, have been waiting for a replacement for the D700. I've been waiting so long, that now I can afford a D4 and will probably buy that when it comes out. I've been preparing for the transition to FX, and have been changing my lenses accordingly. I currently own the holy trinity.

I'm a photography student, aspiring to become a pro. I had a D90 for the longest time, patiently waiting for that D700 replacement, but when the D7k replacement came out, the ISO capabilities was such an improvement that I upgraded to it, and will use it as a 2nd body when the appropriate FX camera comes out.

As for how I like the D7k, it's a great camera. If it wasn't for the fact of that DX crop, I would've just bought another one as a 2nd body.

Well my reasoning for keeping it CF is because I have quite a few of the cards and a couple of readers but if they are more durable then still I want to stick with what works.

About the more MP Vs low light resolution. Say the "D800" came out with a sensor that had 32.4 MP and had the same light resolution of the D7000 made today. The FF sensor has more than twice the area of the DX sensors (for nikon at least). I would more expect to see something like that on a "D4" than a D700 replacment but just wondering everyones thoughts on this (and yes I know enough about sensors to hurt myself, if I am totally off on this feel free to correct my thinking).

I could see if you can make a 32.4 MP sensor with that low light resolution you can make a 20 MP sensor with even better light resolution (and understand why someone would want this, just not my needs).

NikoDoby said:
Not true, canon's pro 1DMk4 and 1DsMk3 have both SD and CF card slots. The D70 used CF cards but it's replacement, the D80, switched to SD memory. HD camcorders don't have any speed problems using SD cards. So yes it could happen soon.

So it's true that they still all use CF cards. ;)- High end Camcorders do have large buffers to compensate. Hook up like SD and CF cards to a computer and start uploading and downloading GB of data - the difference will show quickly. Personally I could care less which cards I use - just stating what the facts are.

Beyond speed, I have used (about 300 high end) SD and CF cards in industrial equipment and SD card fail rapidly <6 months, CF cards >2 years. Granted in camera terms, what those cards went though would be the equivalent of probably 5 years of hard use on a camera but that experience showed which were built better and could handle allot of abuse. It also showed that high end Sandisk and Lexar card (both) were well worth the money.

TheCaz said:
.." How far can Nikon push the DX envelope?"...

Interesting discussion, Right here is the question for me " How far can Nikon push the DX envelope?"... I have a D200 and expected my next camera to be a D700/D800 but with the specs on the D7000, expecting the D400 to be even better and of course depending on price I may say with the DX format longer than I planned. Then I won't have to buy all new lens now.

TaoTeJared said:
SDHC change? - not anytime soon. CF cards are much faster and more durable and always seem to have the higher capacities well before the SD format. All of Canon and Nikon higher end cameras have CF cards for this reason.

Not true, canon's pro 1DMk4 and 1DsMk3 have both SD and CF card slots. The D70 used CF cards but it's replacement, the D80, switched to SD memory. HD camcorders don't have any speed problems using SD cards. So yes it could happen soon.

TaoTeJared said:

I really hope the D800 goes High ISO rather than MP.

Agreed. I don't care how many more pixels it's gonna have. Megapixel fans, just check the math on your Nyquist theorem. I just hope for the D700 replacement to get as close as economically feasible to D3s noise levels, so they can still keep it priced as low as possible. Please, Nikon, just make a new entry-level, FX body in time for summer!

If the d800 is going the way of high iso I would hope for a better then d3s not the same. I agree though.
I want to see a dx (d400) with some d3s iso abilities. That would be a camera.
~Cheers

Drdobs said:
I would not count on them staying with CF, seems all the new cams are going SDHC - D7000 is a prime example...

Also, on video Canon is really killing Nikon here as they are selling so many cameras based on this feature, Nikon will need to incorporate it to remain competative...

SDHC change? - not anytime soon. CF cards are much faster and more durable and always seem to have the higher capacities well before the SD format. All of Canon and Nikon higher end cameras have CF cards for this reason.

I'm not sure if Nikon could ever catch up with Canon with Video- makes a difference when another division (in Canon) has done pro video cameras for decades.

I really hope the D800 goes High ISO rather than MP. Say something like the D3s. I'll take the IQ of high ISO over MP any day.

I would not count on them staying with CF, seems all the new cams are going SDHC - D7000 is a prime example...

Also, on video Canon is really killing Nikon here as they are selling so many cameras based on this feature, Nikon will need to incorporate it to remain competative...

Well for me I have a D200 and D700 and for the "D400" I would agree with the following:

by Dr Dobs

So bottom line, what features do we realistically expect to come in the D400?

My expectations are the following..
- Pro oriented body (weathersealed, etc) but still comparable in size to 300s.
- Dual memory cards
- 1080/30p & 720/60p video with similiar or better compression ratios than the D7000
- 16.2Mp DX Sensor (Same as D7000 is fine)
- 2016 pixel metering sensor (Same as D7000 is fine)
- 8fps Burst RAW shooting
- ISO/Noise performance equal to or slightly better than D7000
- AF System - Speed of D7000, 51 points like D300s.
- LCD screen & resolution same as D7000.

Desired MSRP? How about $1599.00

I have thought about a D7000 but as everyone else pointed out I do not want to scroll through a menu, I like the layout of my D200 and D700

Now for the "D800" (Full Frame)

-I would like 24Mp or as many as you can get and not screw it up
-I you could get the same ISO capabilities of the D7000
-6FPS RAW, it might have to have a battery grip at this point
-100% viewfinder
-Keep the layout the same
-Hope they keep the price below $3000.00

I do not shoot many sporting events but would use the DX factor for reach if it had good ISO, I mainly shoot still subjects and make art work for my home (this is the need for 24MP). I have thought about a D3x seriously but at that price they can keep it so my opinion of the D800 would be almost a copy cat and will never happen.

I already have a collection of pro lenes, the only one I am really wanting now is the 14-24 but it can wait.

I understand that people won't agree with this but hey this is what I would want.

I would also say I am not much of a video guy so they could leave that feature off and it would not affect my purchase but it would have been handy once or twice. The only thing I really worry about is if the memory cards will stay CF or will they all change over to SD cards (because I already have CF card I hope they stay that way).

The iso button is on the top left on the d700 in a triangle configuration With the white balance and quality button. Under them all is the release mode spinner thingy(thats the scientific name). Its a great setup. I hope the d400 would have this same layout.

I should have noted above that I would very much like to see Nikon also go ahead and make a slight layout modification to get the ISO button up on top of the camera as opposed to the rear next to the LCD. I've always thought the triangle of exposure buttons should all be up close to one another easily accessable for modification while looking through the viewfinder..

Jon

Sorry admin

I wrote DX/FX but really meaning D400/D800 because I wrote also that for me D7000 is not an option as likely D4 incarnations because dimensions and cost.

Personally if the two camera will exit with the previewd specs (dimension weight cost nad performaces) owing the possiblity I would purchase BOTH becasue they are two diffrent tools as I explianed one never can replace completely the other in all situations.

But if I would purchase one only I will select which one based on my preferred use.

The specs sound reasonable as does the price. So I think it is going to be much more when it comes out and settle down to around your $1599 Price. I shoot with a d700 now but I could be in the market for a d400 around that price if the low light was good and I could get a little more reach out of my lenses.
Thanks for getting us back on track...
~Cheers

So bottom line, what features do we realistically expect to come in the D400?

My expectations are the following..
- Pro oriented body (weathersealed, etc) but still comparable in size to 300s.
- Dual memory cards
- 1080/30p & 720/60p video with similiar or better compression ratios than the D7000
- 16.2Mp DX Sensor (Same as D7000 is fine)
- 2016 pixel metering sensor (Same as D7000 is fine)
- 8fps Burst RAW shooting
- ISO/Noise performance equal to or slightly better than D7000
- AF System - Speed of D7000, 51 points like D300s.
- LCD screen & resolution same as D7000.

Desired MSRP? How about $1599.00

I figure for the $400 premium over D7000, you get faster burst shooting, one step better video recording, premium body build, & a few more AF points. Sounds reasonable.

Jon

Personally I feel that a D400 with a more pro body is quite needed. On the other hand those wildlife pros are using both FX or DX and in my experience, the guys are using either one or the other, and not both. I own a D700 and no longer even use it for wildlife despite the fact that I own a lot of high end full frame glass form my Nikon F5 days which I still own, treasure, BUT DO NOT USE.
The days of film are truly over for me. Digital won and that is all there is to it. As to FX versus DX I lean heavy towards DX. However I still have NOT purchased a D7000 as I think a D400 is way more what I want. On the other hand I do NEED video on board that has better than say a D90 video capability. I still prefer my D300 for stills on wildlife and indeed most of my field use. That is precisely why the D400 has such great appeal for me. I have switched to sending Nikon letters about that. Also I predict that the FF D800 which has video would eclipse the D700 since it would have video plus some real still upgrades. Lastly, the D7000 has been somewhat problematic and I base that partly on Nikon Rumors reports and my own tests. Still many will look at the price tag. I will to be certain. Also there is a big time gap between an announcement and a body only reaching "normal inventory levels".

Once again let's NOT turn this thread into an FX versus DX debate. The topic is on the possible D400 and D800 specs. Anyone searching for information about FX versus DX will probably NOT find this thread. Anyone looking for info about the D400 and D800 will instead be reading through two pages of mostly repetitive FX versus DX talk.

I understand it's pointless to debate specs on two cameras that aren't real...yet, but let's keep the focus on how the D400 would/should differ (spec-wise) over the D800. We don't need to continue repeating why FX is better/worse than DX in this thread.

You make some very good points.
Welcome to the forum.
~Cheers

In my opinion D400 and D800 (as D300 and D700) are two different tools for different shooting situations so you cannot compare completely.
In some filed FX wins in other fields DX wins
Real pros use FX or DX depending on situation not only DX or only FX
So the words “if you want to be a pro buy a FX" is simply a non sense
This also explains why despite FX is becoming cheapper all lens producer are developing more and more DX lenses and also NOT cheap DX lenses.
If DX will become shortly a “dead” market it’s no sense in developing new DX lenses in the "quite" expensive range More than (600 Euros)

A simple and short list to choose based on camera use and subject IMHO

Panoramas – DX and FX are similar in performances using good lenses.
Low light panoramas: FX is better unless you have a tripod (in such case also DX can be a good performer)
HDR panoramas – DX can be better because at the same reach the system is lighter so it reduce vibrations etc..
Studio – FX is the way to go because DOF control
Sport Outdoor or Pro Indoor - DX is better because longer reach
Sport Amateur Indoor - FX is better because low light performances
Wildlife - DX is better because longer reach (unless you are shooting your “wild” cat)
Photo-reporter/journalism – DX can be better because total system lower weight if you have to carry the equipment, FX is better if you shoot in short distance.
Travel photography – DX is much much better because much more compact and low weight.
Street photography – with new DX lenses FX and DX are equally usable (DX sometime have an advantage because the availability of some lenses with incredible zoom range that can make the difference not loosing the moment swapping the lenses).
Night street photography – FX is better because high ISO performances.

So different tools for different situations.

Personally I travel a lot with my camera (by plane and on my foots) and having a DX option is simply invaluable. I simply cannot imagine to have an FX system to carry on my shoulder for 20 days or to carry in the hand luggage at check-in.

For me D7000 also is not an option because if you need to shoot quickly with quickly changing subjects you need a Pro design camera with all the immediately available button without to navigate in a menu.

Guys, think wild and wow for both the D400 and D800. The D7000 was a real surprise that surpassed the D300 for $1,100. The D400 is going to do the same. How far can Nikon push the DX envelope? Expect to find out. Personally, I think it will have a full-size, titanium body (D2X) to give DX shooters a "pro" option. Sony is rumored to be introducing a 24mps sensor. Could Nikon use it for the D400? It'll also have the U1 & U2 modes, along with dual cards, but what about an automatic HDR mode as well? Whatever it is, expect more than a D7000 in a slightly upgraded body with a 51 point AF.

Same for the D800. What about a carbon-fiber frame? It works for bikes. Why not cameras? The pace of technology is accelerating and it has already pushed as far as it needs to in sensor megapixels. Look for features that will do things like improve dynamic range, make the camera lighter without compromising the viewfinder, and continue to improve focusing. The bottom line is to expect their engineers to wow us.

gd said:
The main reason why I think a new D800 (and I don't mean a D700 in slightly new clothes) won't appear before a D4 is that Nikon will have a bottom of the range "Pro" camera that is almost the de-facto flagship model.

Hey there, gd!

That was my initial view as well, for precisely the same reasoning. But the Admin that runs this site felt pretty strongly about the recent D800-before-D4 rumors, and I'm now inclined to agree with that prediction. It does make sense, after all. The D4 will likely need much more development time. The D800, Nikon has to push out soon, or else they risk continued loss of market share to Canon 5D sales. I also had a fairly lengthy discussion on this topic with a Nikon rep, whose views also seemed to support these assessments.