It seems to me that the 500D is a D90 w/ more pixels. Roughly 11% more lines of resolution than the D90... yawn. Yes it has 1080p... at 20FPS... perfect if you are filming tortoises. 30fps on the 720p is nice, but I've used the video feature of my D90 all of once... just to play around... so yawn to that too.

I guess my point is that if the D400 is Nikon's answer to the 500D, I'd rather have a D300. I'm looking to Nikon to make an answer to the 5d MK II. We'll see.

NSXType-R. I do not think that current models or some just coming one can "expose flaws in the optics". More pixels per square mm causes that the size of the pixel is smaller. Smaller pixel accommodates less light and needs more amplification. More amplification introduces more noises which needs to be compensated by image processors. There are better from year to year but....too much processing makes images less natural and less detailed. In poor light condition processors make their best to cause the user not see the noise at all but if you magnify the image you will see that your picture lost a lot of details... It may even appear that your 12MP camera will give you more details than new 15MP body with the same lens attached :) Unless they will produce new better technology for sensors...

NSXType-R. The lens resolution issue is really very complex and hard to explain just in few words. Please read
this "http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml" and you will believe that you do not need more than 12MP in your DX format camera..... :)
I wrote below some essential (in my opinion) part of the article:
"(...) take the green-yellow light and f/8-f/11 aperture values as a reference. It represents a realistic, not too demanding case. Consider a 35mm system with a lens at f/11. At best, the maximum resolution you will get is equivalent to 16 MP, even if your camera has 22 or 25 MP. In the case of an APS-C based system the limit goes to 7 MP, and 4 MP considering a Four Thirds format. Stopping down to f/22 the limit of the effective resolution of the 35mm based system goes to 4 MP! (...) To increase the number of pixels in this context is becoming much harder for small format sensors, and senseless from a resolution point of view"

This is very interesting article, giving more knowledge than some of us can actually understand about optics. Anyway its not to difficult to learn that you do not need too much MP if you have entry level lens.

Gregory, what do you mean by the megapixel limit for optics? Could you explain that a little? Did you mean that the megapixels will expose flaws in the optics?

you won't see anything this year IMO. we'll see a d400 and d5000 and if extremelly lucky a d700x. "people on the fence" always go for what's available unless they have a glass investment. the new rebel t1i is actually more enticing than the prececesor of the 400D line. the D90 successor will surely live up to expectations but the d90 remains pretty good.

I do not know why Nikon follows the battle with canon for the pixel density. For me 12MP is quite enough and they should rather work on better low iso performance. According to some tests current lenses (especially DX ones) are not able to exceed the 12MP resolution anyway with their optics.... so what is the reason to put more pixels and loosing the quality in the body if there is no single lens which could give the picture resolution for 15MP?

This megapixel war goes to nowhere look at point and shoot cameras. They go over and over and when you see the 15Mp camera image with high magnification it will occur that it has less details than the image from much older 8MP camera...

So improve the current sensors, improve the quality of the lenses and if the thenology will allow to produce smaller sensors with better performance start to implement it in consumer devices :)

With the amount of D90s being sold, Nikon have nothing to worry about. They know the body is a winner, maybe one of their all time greatest sellers to be. So if they know that and they see competition from Canon - what will they do?

I think this new lens rumoured to be coming out in last 24 hours will bear fruition and we will see more of these.

I think the D90 is already a better buy than the T1i at similar price, and I think the new entry-level (is it still supposed to be the D5000?) will solidify nikon's position on the low end. The area I think Canon has a sweet spot right now is the 5DMkII. Nikon really needs to get a D800 out there to get a high-res body at that price point.

i hope this time Nikon will respond in the same league..
their Spec for their new incoming Body release should dump the 500D..

high ISO 6400
video 1080, 720 AVI or MOV in H.264 / MPEG2
mic input stereo or mono
Brilliant UI & bottons
PRICE? compete the 500D
with a new kit lens 24mm 1.8/1.4 AFS-G

Well I've been wanting a second camera for two reasons. One for when I loan it and another in case, god forbid, my D300 needs repairs.

I've been waiting for the D400. This new Rebel seems tempting and I could get it and a lens for the price that the D400 might be. We'll see though. I hope they release the D400 soon.

I've been thinking about how Nikon may respond to the 500D. It seems to me like the 500D is Canon's answer to the D90, and beefed up a little in response. But I don't think the D90 is on track for a replacement this year, unless I missed something. The common rumor is the D40/60 and D300 upgrades are this year - but neither of those will respond to the 500D directly.

The D400 should definitely best it in every area - more pro body, 15MP sensor I would guess, and better video options (I should hope!). At least 24fps 1080 video with better manual controls, mic input (a must!) and possibly autofocus, though I wouldn't bet on that. Nikon generally gets pixel density right and the high ISO *should* be better than the 500D, though the 500D's ISO 12800 shots were pretty impressive - noisy, yes, but *very* detailed considering, and would clean up beautifully. But I have faith in Nikon - the D400 should have KILLER High ISO.

I don't know if they're going to put video in the D60 replacement, but even if they do, the 500D will still probably be a better camera, simply because it's the next "class" up. But if Nikon doesn't have a D90 replacement scheduled this year, I think a lot of people who are "on the fence" may go toward the 500D. I'm just wondering if this will affect Nikon's game plan at all.

Personally, I'm praying for the D400 with the specs I mentioned above. I've held on to my D80 long enough :)