I agree the odds are the D400 sensor will be a 24 megapixel DX sensor. And that means a dense pixel pattern which contraindicates the great low light performance found in the D3s. I have seen no indication Nikon will put a FX sensor at the top of the old DX line in the D300s successor. I just wish they would! I wish they would "mirror" their new FX dichotomy: a top of the line low light speed demon camera with built in vertical grip and the next step down a higher pixel/high resolution focused camera. I would love to see some way Nikon could give us the D3s low light capability for less then $3,000 in the new D400.

I suppose the answer to my quest will be a used D3s. Perhaps Nikon won't duplicate in a new body what can be bought used for the same price. Perhaps the new D4 and D700 will cause a flood of used D3s and D700 bodies to be dumped on the used camera market with a consequent drop in price. By this time next year we will know.

SquamishPhoto said:
Hardly. The D700 made Nikon a lot of money and Im sure that the D3S sales more than made up for any loss that the D3 may have seen to the D700. Nikon hasn't exactly been consistent with its pro line of DSLRs over the years, so I see no reason to believe that they wont once again fill the niche, in one way or another, that the D700 created for them. Just because you don't see rumors for the camera doesn't mean that its "clear" that nothing is in the works.

Not by the numbers. Many of the D700 customers usually bought pro line bodies but went cheaper. If you look at their annual reports you can see the D700 cannibalized the D3 which was selling at an enormous pace until the D700 was released. Sales tanked and so did profits in that line up. Nikon had to release a D3s to try to sell the pro line but few really upgraded again. The sales all around were fantastic for sure though.

I dream of a D3s chip in a Sub $3000 camera but the realist in me knows it is not going to come unless the used prices drop that low.

donaldejose said:
By D4 "Lite" I don't really mean to limit that idea to a D4 sensor in a lighter D800 body. It can include a camera looking like the D3/D4 body with the built in hand grip but made less robust so it is cheaper to manufacture. "Lite" in weight with some reduced features: a "pro" looking camera at the top of the DX line-up to replace the D300s. Think if it as 85% of a D4 in features and weight. Think of what they could take out of a D4 because advanced amateurs won't really need a shutter that lasts for 200,000 shots, etc.

Not that I don't think you have the right idea or path but everything you want to take away from the D400 is everything I buy one for! I'm over 100,000 clicks - don't forget this body only gets updated every 4 years rather than the 2 years of the D7000 on down. I do fear it will be the 24mp which sony is using already. Nikon and Sony usually share the sensor in this line or at least have in the past.

Still as I was "ranting" about earlier it seems as if it would have been smarter to make the D4 in the d700 body instead of trying to get canuts to dump their 5Dmk2's...

By D4 "Lite" I don't really mean to limit that idea to a D4 sensor in a lighter D800 body. It can include a camera looking like the D3/D4 body with the built in hand grip but made less robust so it is cheaper to manufacture. "Lite" in weight with some reduced features: a "pro" looking camera at the top of the DX line-up to replace the D300s. Think if it as 85% of a D4 in features and weight. Think of what they could take out of a D4 because advanced amateurs won't really need a shutter that lasts for 200,000 shots, etc. Think of what can be used to give professional image quality for as little cost as possible. Maybe a new 24 megapizel DX chip? Or maybe extend the life of the D3s chip and put it into the D400 along with then new Expeed 3processor. What more cost is there to the electronic internals between a DX and a FX? If the D3s chip has come to the end of its expected life cycle, can it now be produced much more cheaply since all research and development costs have not be recovered? But the "megapixel marketing wars" may preclude trying to sell a 12 megapixel FX chip as a "step up" from the D7000's 16.2 megapixel chip. So Nikon may have to place a chip with higher megapixels than the D7000 into the D400. Hence, the rumored 24 megapixel chip seem most likely.

TaoTeJared said:
I think it is fairly clear that there will not be a D4 "light" with that sensor in the D800 body otherwise they would have done it. Looking at released sales, it is clear that the D700 severely cut into the D3 sales and that was not good for business. The D3x cost was too high and people were not willing to pay that premium but really liked the high res option. Nikons solution is what we see. High res pro slower studio camera and the outdoor speed demon. Canon has had this model for years and now Nikon is trying it. Oddly enough some rumors put Canon as flipping doing a low res sensor in its 5D.

Hardly. The D700 made Nikon a lot of money and Im sure that the D3S sales more than made up for any loss that the D3 may have seen to the D700. Nikon hasn't exactly been consistent with its pro line of DSLRs over the years, so I see no reason to believe that they wont once again fill the niche, in one way or another, that the D700 created for them. Just because you don't see rumors for the camera doesn't mean that its "clear" that nothing is in the works.

donaldejose said:
If so, what would you expect the benefit to be from more than two times larger pixel size than is found on the D7000 sensor?

Finally, the D7000 sensor was put into a less robust body, the D5100 and sold for much less money. Perhaps Nikon also can put the new D4 sensor into a less robust body and sell it for much less money? Into a D400 body perhaps? Or into a D800h body? I would like to see some sort of D4 "Lite" for those of us who want the highest possible clean ISO but don't need the robust build of a D4.

I wouldn't read too much into the same pixel count. D3/D300/D3s all had the same pixel counts. More than anything, it probably makes it easier on for developing the "inside camera" software for development.

What we have seen is that the same sensor MP count FX has about two full stops if not better of clean High iso and about 1-2 stops of DR at those ISOs. The D3s has about 3-4 stops (depending on conditions) better than the D300. At ISO 100-400 the DR is maxed out at about 12 stops which is the same for DX and FX. Software pushes it a bit more. They will have to go to 16 bit color to achieve any significant native gains. Higher ISOs on DR tend to be around 10-7 stops and hopefully that will increase a bit.

I think it is fairly clear that there will not be a D4 "light" with that sensor in the D800 body otherwise they would have done it. Looking at released sales, it is clear that the D700 severely cut into the D3 sales and that was not good for business. The D3x cost was too high and people were not willing to pay that premium but really liked the high res option. Nikons solution is what we see. High res pro slower studio camera and the outdoor speed demon. Canon has had this model for years and now Nikon is trying it. Oddly enough some rumors put Canon as flipping doing a low res sensor in its 5D.

The only chance of cheap FX at High ISO is the D400 having an FX sensor but that is very unlikely due to a gap of a "pro" DX camera that has the feature set of the D4 line. I know many love their D7000s but there is a very large gap in that regards and I do not see nikon abandoning that line which it has had for over a decade now even back to film. Who knows though. Putting a FX sensor in a D400 would drop another FX chip down the line and 1-up everyone else. I don't think the cost of FX innards are low enough for this too happen. The rest of the market isn't doing this, so I doubt Nikon will. But we can dream!

donaldejose said:
Perhaps Nikon also can put the new D4 sensor into a less robust body and sell it for much less money? Into a D400 body perhaps? Or into a D800h body? I would like to see some sort of D4 "Lite" for those of us who want the highest possible clean ISO but don't need the robust build of a D4.

I somewhat relate to this comment. First and foremost, I'll admit that I'm a guy that really doesn't need a full frame camera. What I do photographically can be done with my D7000 (although I personally don't like the look of night shots above ISO 1250 on it). But, I've always thought that if the desire becomes strong enough I'd probably get a FF camera and suffer the financial (and marital) consequences. After reading the specs of the proposed D800 and D4 I concluded that what I'd want is the D4. I just don't see enough in the D800 to want it. That said, I would not want the big body of the D4. I'd be very happy with body of the D800 without a battery pack, but with the advancements of the D4.

At the moment I 'almost' don't see a need for Nikon to make a D400 for what I think it might be - which is the D7000 sensor in a larger body. Perhaps they will make a sensor that's 1/2 of the D800 sensor - 18MP - and put it in the bigger body, make it shoot 11fps and call it D400 but would that be enough to attract buyers if it's still a DX camera? Maybe. For those of us wishing for the "D4 Lite" we'll have to wait and see if Nikon answers along the lines of the D700 or leaves us empty.

Anyone notice the D4 is expected to have 16.2 megapixels and the D7000 has exactly the same number of megapixels?

Does that suggest the new D4 sensor is essentially a D7000 sensor design scaled up from DX to FX?

If so, what would you expect the benefit to be from more than two times larger pixel size than is found on the D7000 sensor?

I suggest moving from DX to FX is good for a one stop improvement in clean high ISO simply because you are not enlarging as much so the noise spots are less noticeable when the same size prints are compared, such as a full page magazine photo from DX and from FX.

Second, I suggest increasing the pixel size two times will give you about two times more sensitivity to low light than in the D7000. This can lead to an improvement in dynamic range since shadow detail can be captured better.

Third, I suggest larger pixels will create a better signal to noise ration.

All in all I suggest the D4 will have more dynamic range and about a two or three stop clean higher ISO than the D7000.

This comparison with the D7000 sensor is not the comparison most people will make. They will compare the D4 sensor to the D3s sensor. I would expect more dynamic range and higher clean ISO than D3s simply because Nikon wouldn't bring out a new camera unless it was a significant improvement over the existing model. If not, no one would feel a need to buy it and that would harm Nikon's reputation.

Finally, the D7000 sensor was put into a less robust body, the D5100 and sold for much less money. Perhaps Nikon also can put the new D4 sensor into a less robust body and sell it for much less money? Into a D400 body perhaps? Or into a D800h body? I would like to see some sort of D4 "Lite" for those of us who want the highest possible clean ISO but don't need the robust build of a D4.

Hi all,

I likely won't get the D4 because it will have the heavier body configuration which doesn't work for me. That's a personal thing.

The D800 promises better video which holds more appeal for me, too. I think that's the point of the 'with' anti-aliasing filter - to prevent moire effects. Of course, I also wonder what kind of impact that will have on still images. I would like my cake and be able to eat it, too.

My best,

Mike

kyoshinikon said:
I just wish they went a more predictable route...

I think we all have to be careful and realize that our desires & expectations drive our assumptions of what a company like Nikon should release when they are trying to fulfill millions of shooters needs.

I don't particularly like that the once affordable gap FX camera (D800) has drastically risen in price and is now focused on resolution rather than speed, low light, etc. but I do understand why Nikon did it. Not all pros want or need the big body or are willing to pay $5-6k price tag. I see it as getting something more than a D3x for a little over half the price. That is a hell of a deal for any studio.

The D4 (And Canon's) seem to focus more on the speed, Iso and "Print industry" as that rarely needs the resolution for that format but speed and low light is the name of the game.

Personally I'm tied in knots in what I'm going to do. For sure I'm waiting to see what the D400 brings and then decide. Right now I'm leaning towards a D3s vs the D800 at the same price.

When I do most client work I have virtually no cropping as it is all done in camera, but trying to shoot every rider on the track at a motocross, as well as crashes and battles that happen on the other side of the track just is hard as a 1 man job. Clients want shots of the weirdest things and I have to be prepared to get it (yes I bring a slew of focal lengths). That is why I am stuck cropping. Also during a startup or a wide shot where somebody needs to be isolated is another reason.

I like what I see in the D3s and may go for that, but the color handling of the d7000(especially mid daylight and night) makes me want to purchase the next gen stuff. 4 fps is too slow, but if the grip brings it up to at least 5 fps I'm sold. The difference between 4fps and 5fps is huge.

I already know that using fx reduces noise (Ive used (borrowed and rented) D700's and D3's on occasion so I know about the noise handling. However if you were to compare the D700 to the D90 and assume it will be what the D800 should be to the D7000 there is a problem. The D90 is just about 2 stops noisier then the D700. All the colors are easily controllable.

With the D7000 however the blues and magentas seem to have a problem at really high ISO's which make me suspect that the problem might be passed onto the D800.
Noise and color handling in general isn't the issue but a specific channel during post.

As to Iso I can only hope but you cant put a ND on the 14-24mm nor is it very convienent to have to take one on or off in the middle of a shoot, but the ISO 50 is a high expectation.

Like I said before, the D4 will be a fantastic camera but it will only be marginally (If even that) better than the D3s and not worth the upgrade. I could see somebody dumping their D90 for a D7000 and their D200 for either a D90 or D300 based on paper specs but I'm going to have to try the D4 to see if it is that much better.

Thanks for the reply anyway. I just wish they went a more predictable route...

IMHO as an owner of d3s and d300s I''m more than happy with the first one and ready to upgrade the second one either to a used d3x or d800. 4fps is maybe not tha tmuch, but 36mpx is a lot of pixels to crop, not to mention the fact that my d300s is not faster when shooting in 14bit nef. and using fx sensor will take the noise down for sure on one hand and allowed me to use dx mode with decent number of mpx on the other as for iso 50, indeed I would love to see it. heck, I want iso 10. is this gonna happen - unlikely, but there are some ways to get simlar results - get ND filter. as for the rest, well I also would love to see fx sensor in d40 size camera, and I know that sooner or later it's gonna happen. till then I will haul d3s/d4/d5 and be marry.

one more thing, if You crop most of Your images, than maybe tyere's not a problem with camera itself but with the technique?

Its dull in that it doesn't seem to be a huge jump from the D3s. Nikon may be playing the if it ain't broke don't fix it card but the overall "specs" (if they prove to be true) tell me that the detailed stuff probably hasn't been improved on. It seems like nikon is trying to follow canon instead of making unique things that improve still shooting.

Part of my skepticism of it may be the mpx that was posted. While lacking in some ways, the sony a77 can process 24mpx shots at 12fps (sure the buffer is small) but considering Nikon's new Expeed 3 processor is "much" faster I think it would have been more appealing to do 20mpx or an image size larger than 16mpx as it could have been a jack of all trades sure mpx isn't everything but Sony still has the a99 up its sleeve...

Speaking of processors look at the fps of the D800... 4fps? If that is true all I can say is what are they thinking! I am most likely going to buy the camera, but if it is that slow I may go for a used D700 (and I am one of many who wont buy it for that reason if it does in fact happen to be 4 fps)

I personally am somewhat fine with 12mpx. Most of the time it is fine but I often have to crop (alot) and then print that image large (sports photography). I would like for the middle image size to be around 10-12mpx so when I do shoot events that force me to shoot 20 riders in one shot and crop it isn't that noticeable.

Also the set of native ISO 100-12800 seems weak for its flagship for having 2 years to improve on the D3s. Then again I may want them to push more than they have to, but the reason 'Im skeptical is because they seem to be more interested in chasing canon than listening to their customers. I know several nikon shooters including myself who have been asking for an ISO 50 but if they dump the D3x category that leaves no camera that will do it. As to the other end my D7000 may do fine in most low light situations but take a ISO 6400 image into camera raw and the blues sometimes are a monster to work with sometimes unlike any other Nikon I have used (including the Fx bodies) which tells me that this new "bayer" filter may carry the same problem onto future bodies...

I know these are just speculated specs, and I may be one of the few who rant like this) but neither Fx body suits my needs well. I need a small affordable ($2500-$3800) Fx body (D700s)not a 5dmk2 knockup and a D3xs. All in all I know the D4 is going to be a great camera but it doesn't look like something to trade your D3s in for. The D800 seems like Nikon is vainly trying to take what the 5Dmk2 and a900 took but as a consequence dumping what many D700 and D300s users want to go to in the process (aiming for switchees instead of loyal buyers). That is my point.

Btw I am not one of those complainers who sell on camera to upgrade to another... Heck I still use my D200 often. Any camera is good but If I am to invest in another I need a reason. I have a few qualms with my stable so it is only normal to hope for an improvement...

Canuts don't realize how good the D3s is...

@kyoshinikon - how can You say d4 spec are dull, as... we only have some leaks right now, secondly if You need better specs than d800 will be a choice for You. I have d3s right now, and for more than 50% of my shots it's resolution is more than fine, with 16mpx I would get this number to 90%. apart from that what else is bothering You in d4 specs?

Im surprised still that the D4 just seems so Dull in comparison to what is out there. The 1dx just barely leapfrogged the D3s and while canuts seem ecstatic the specs for the D4 seem like they took half a step to become equal with canon. And the 1D mk4 and 1Dsmk 3 was like taking 5 steps ahead...

aesnakes said:
So filesize doesnt bother me at all, I have a wicked fast computer with an ssd system drive, a revo work drive and network storage. Running a quadro 3800, 24G ram, core i7...you get the point. Im torn between the d4 and D800. Like most I really wanted hi iso in a small package. I found lugging around a d3s and 70-200 could get quite difficult in certain situations. Im almost willing to put up with it over the D800 if its just going to be a hi mpix camera with so so iso. Noise is my biggest concern....what do you guys wager the price of this will be? under 7k?

It will depend on how confident nikon is with its value/performance as awhole compare to the canon 1dx.

So filesize doesnt bother me at all, I have a wicked fast computer with an ssd system drive, a revo work drive and network storage. Running a quadro 3800, 24G ram, core i7...you get the point. Im torn between the d4 and D800. Like most I really wanted hi iso in a small package. I found lugging around a d3s and 70-200 could get quite difficult in certain situations. Im almost willing to put up with it over the D800 if its just going to be a hi mpix camera with so so iso. Noise is my biggest concern....what do you guys wager the price of this will be? under 7k?

I on average do 16-20 gigs on a shooting day all Raw full size onto my Windows xp pro box fine. only 2 gigs of ram and Cs5 running

Hi,

I regularly transfer 2-32GB cards after a theatrical shoot. :-)

RAW + Large/Fine

Windows 7, 64bit, 16GB RAM, Adobe CS5

It does okay.

My best,

Mike

donaldejose said:
Even though it may take your computer twice as long to process each image that additional time may not be significant if you have only a few images to process in the first place.

One factor that greatly affects processing time is RAM
if you are going to do a lot of Post production increasing the RAM should speed things up

I have 12MB* and do not have a problem working on large stitched panorama files

So if you are think of upgrading to a D4, upgrading you computer at the same time might be a good idea

Computers like cameras do get better and faster

*if you are using windows this means 64 bit

Time will tell just how much of a "problem" vs. "benefit" file size will be.

It is quite likely landscape photographers will not be coming home with hundreds of images to process at the end of the day while sports photographers likely will come home with twice the number of images a landscape photographer produces each day.

Even though it may take your computer twice as long to process each image that additional time may not be significant if you have only a few images to process in the first place.

Sorry if I missed something here with regard to 36MP d800, but what is the different of transferring say 8GB of 300 pictures compare to 8GB of 100 pictures? I thought the only issue some has raised was working with such a big individual file? Shouldn't the transfer rate for an 8GB card will be the same, regardless of how big the size of the individual file...

its a disgusting camera indeed...you need to upgrade asap

PaulR thats actually a good point to think about for people like me who are wanting the new D800 for landscape and studio work. With such an upgrade, a person also needs to upgrade his computer as well because your right the files are massive and I can't even imagine how crappy it must be to upload say even an 8GB full memory card onto a computer like my current one. My turn SquamishPhoto *facepalm*

SquamishPhoto said:
Im sure its a real tough struggle. *facepalm*

Lol...when the OP is done struggling with his D3X I will take the horrendous thing off his hands :)

Isn't there always something better in the works?