as the d800 is already announced, I'm gonna close this topic. please follow discussion over here:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4860

What a great day for Nikon...and us Nikon owners. Nikon has developed the D800 for people like me...I don't do sports so I don't need 10 FPS [i.e. D4], but if I do my D7000 will do a great job. Added bounce, some of my D7000 camera accessories can be used with the D800, Hence, my memory cards and battery. I have a feeling my CC is going to take it hit this summer.

RIP D700, D3, D3x, D3s. You have been replace by far superior equipment...they are: D800, D800e, and D4.

Canon eat your heart out!!! (Sorry had to throw that on in there....could not resist :p

No LSD here: I just try to think outside the box as to what can or could be possible and I am not afraid to put it out there for discussion. I am not trying to be a realist: more a visionary. So the Steve Jobs comparison is apt. He too tried to conceive of new things outside the box of conventional thinking rather than take the normal evolutionary steps. But he could make it happen and I cannot. I guess you are the Bill Gates then. And you are still alive while I am dead!

We have been talking about this here lately:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4588

Nikon will not be re-using numbers - talk about a mess.

It seems Nikon has changed positions and split the high end cameras like Canon did with the first 5D. High performance, robust built, reportage/sports camera is the D4. For studio, landscape, high resolution images, that is now the D800 and the D#x line will probably be gone or be reserved for the mid-cycle refreshes. From the videos I have seen that has Nikon reps, it seems Nikon has identified that those who desire the high resolution images, the robustness of the D700/800 is more than enough for their use.

Although I agree with Cary on most things, I do fully believe the D800 is the "true" D700 replacement. The D700 cannibalized the D3 so bad that Nikon is not going to make that error twice. The D3x was priced too high, and it appears Nikon has corrected this to what I would think, many pro's delight. Add to the situation where people were clambering about a D700 only 2yrs after it release when the D3s was released. In reality, the D3s was designed to take their own D3 market back - and it did. A 36mp beast should shield from people demanding an update for an additional year or so.

As for the D400 - I seriously doubt we will see an FX sensor in that (for at least another cycle) as that has been the DX "Pro" and the D7000 becoming the DX "Pro light" line. There is just too much of a gap between the D7000 line and the pro line not to have another DX camera in there. I think D400 will be out very soon and all those questions will be answered.

@donaldejose - I'm not sure about your LSD induced camera trips lately but I guess it worked for Steve Jobs. I suppose I'm just a boring realist.

adamz said:
@donald - there's plenty of room to put FX even into d3100, the question is when this will happen

Just no room for the mirror box...

Or, there could still be a D4x. :)I don't think Nikon is going to let the D3x just wither away. Eventually they will stop producing the D3x. The question is will Nikon abandon the idea of a 4Dx all together. Producing only one flagship camera in the D4. Supplying Nikon landscape/studio portrait photographers with the 2 versions of the 36MP D800.

Good thoughts CaryTheLabelGuy.

If the D400 goes FX and uses the D4 sensor, so much the better! We would all love it.

If the D800 price is $2999.00 ($3,299 for the D800E) we would also all love that!

It would mean a D400 has to be priced somewhere in the $2,500 range. Great, new FX technology from the D4 for $2,500 (half the cost).

And top of the line 34mp DX sensor in D7100 or D9000 would have to be priced at $1,999.

The future looks good, that is if the rumor of the D800 price of $3,000 holds true in a few hours.

I don't see Nikon releasing another camera with 12.1 MP. I don't see the D800 as being a direct D700 replacement, either. The D700 was discontinued due to it's battery. I expect a real D700 replacement in a year or so and it "might" be called a D400 and be FX and feature the D4's 16.2MP FX sensor. If there is a D300s replacement, it will most likely be called a D9000 and be DX. Nikon has been slowly changing it's naming conventions, which is why I see things going this way.

As for the D800/D800E replacing the D3x, I believe this to be true. The D3x was targeted at studio and landscape photogs that don't necessarily need a heavy pro body with a built-in grip. The D800 is perfect for such assignments, and is still going to be a durable camera, just like the D4, yet much smaller and lighter. The only camera that needs to be built to D4 standards is the D4/D4s.

Now that the D800/D800E is going to feature the same video features that the D4 features and has the ability to capture 36MP stills, the game has changed......again. I don't see Canon doing the same, it would cripple their ability to sell their cinema cameras. Unlike Nikon, who doesn't have a cinema line to cannibalize. I expect a HUGE influx of Canon defectors, especially the cinematographers. I know several that are making the switch as we speak. Why not? They can now use the Nikon glass they all love, without loosing out on Nikon's metering, auto-focus, high-ISO performance and CLS. I can't say I blame them.

Krevlin: "the D400 being the small-body FX camera"

Sure hope you are right. About 100% of the people here would say +1 to that happening!

Just put the old D3s sensor into the D400 body with Expeed 3 processor and some new software tweaks and you have a killer camera! It sure would be a good way to prolong the D3s sensor run. Since all development costs have now been recovered for that sensor instead of ending the run can continued production be cheap enough to sell the D400 for less than $3,000? People here have answered "NO" to this.

I think the D800 makes a lot of sense.

It will be the D3X replacement because there is no need for a D4X. The flagship line doesn't need to split high ISO and high MP anymore since the technology has advanced where we can have both in one ala D4.

The D800 shows that Nikon is serious about luring more medium format people and I will not be surprised if they will further advance to larger than FX sensors.

I think the way things are moving is the V1 line will now be the entry level and the D3100, D5100 will lines will be the enthusiast with the D7000 line moving up to be the flagship and the D400 being the small-body FX camera and true D700 replacement. Also makes the naming less confusing... D4/D400.

But only Nikon knows and I'm trusting they know what they were doing. Look at all the people that panned the V1 but now it looks like more and more people are warming up to the lovely little shooter and in time I think people will do the same about the D800.

All I know is I love my D7000 but I need a bigger buffer and higher FPS so I am hoping the D400 answers my wants, if not... D4 because by the time they are well in stock I'll finally be able to afford one, so in like 3 years.

Great to hear there is room for an FX sensor in a DX size body even allowing for the mirror movement. Now as soon as the price of FX drops enough (and that may be years) we will see an FX sensor appearing in DX size bodies. That will be the true "death of DX."

Anyone hear of Moore's law?

"Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware whereby the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to David House, an Intel executive, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and them being faster)."

Does that apply to sensors? Wikipedia says it does.

"The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.[2] All of these are improving at (roughly) exponential rates as well (see Other formulations and similar laws). This exponential improvement has dramatically enhanced the impact of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy.[3] Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[4][5]"

Interesting to note that if Moore's law says performance doubles every 2 years and if it applies to digital sensor technology and if the D3100 and D7000 are on 2 year refresh cycles it is not hard to believe both the D3200 and the D7100 will have 24 mp sensors.
And what of the D400? 24mp at least. Starts to make the D4 look wimpy! And makes you wonder why Nikon couldn't do better than 4 more mp in 4 years.

@donald - there's plenty of room to put FX even into d3100, the question is when this will happen

low light: I would hazard a guess that in practice the D800 is about one stop better than the D7000 in low light. The sensor is about the same creating about the same low light noise but since you are enlarging each "grain" only half as much you just don't see it as much resulting in an apparent one stop improvement in what you see in the image taken at the same ISO. So if the D7000 has good enough high ISO for you the D800 should not give you any problems. Just a guess. We will see.

Sensor size: "How can a FX camera body use a sensor from a DX one?" The D300 and D300s do already. It is simple since the FX camera body is larger it has plenty of room for the smaller DX sensor.

Could you put an FX sensor into a DX size camera body? I haven't measured it but suspect not since I suspect the DX body was not designed large enough but it really gets down to the light coming into the body and since the same F mount is used on both bodies perhaps there is room enough, with some internal modification, to fit an FX sensor into a DX body as long as you can fit a larger mirror and have room or its swing (or eliminate the mirror and use an electronic viewfinder).

How can a FX camera body use a sensor from a DX one?

Well I would say if the D800 came out 2 months after the D3x then, yep, they would have killed sales but most people were looking for a refresh last year so I doubt that is the case today (it probalby hurt used D3x sales the most, but Nikon doesn't have to worry about that).

Other things that might affect someones choice on this might be which one has better autofocus, I would hope the D800 does just because its newer but then again the D3x was top of the line.

I almost wonder if Nikon wants to test the waters (things like a 24 MP entry level camera: D3200) to see if more MP sells cameras or better ISO ablity, of course if you can do both its a no brainer.

I am caught in the cross hairs in the new product lines. I would really like a D800 to shoot poster sized artwork for my home. This is part of my reason to even enjoy photography is to admire what I have done. The other half of me is scared to death of things I won't be able to capture in low light that I am used to with my D700, such as I went to Guam and they have several shows of people dancing with fire. I am not sure how well the D800 could focus in this situation but really scared of the colors and other things high ISO affect with a camera that might have a hard time with it (I just think back to my D200 days and squirm). A flash would pretty much ruin this photo in my eyes but then again like others have said, people are starting to use high ISO as a crutch and not just another tool if needed.

The D4 would be nice if I get asked by a someone to shoot a highschool football game again but I don't do it often and I still will keep my D700 that did fine before.

Sounds right but what would be the name of the D3s "entry level FX camera?" Cannot be D followed by a single digit because we need the D5 etc for later D models. Shouldn't be D4 followed by a small letter because that has always been used to designate a D body, not some other body. Maybe a D80 or a D40 even though it reuses a D number? So we have:

D + single digit = top FX model
D + double digit = cheaper FX model using sensor from top DX model. If so, D40 would be a good name to point to the D4 from which it is derived.
D + triple digit = high mp FX model at D800+ and pro DX model at D400+.
D + four digits = consumer DX models. This is why the D90 replacement was not the D95 or the D100 but the D7000. D plus triple digit numbers have been reserved for a new cheap D4 sensor model to be released later?

I think the point was the separate the D3x and D3s lines into the D_ and D___ lines. Now we wait to see what comes of an "entry-level" full frame camera... something that's better in low light than a D7000, but not super-high megapixels like the D800. More or less a "proper" refresh of what the D700 was.

In reviewing specs for the D800 and D3x I notice that both sensors are high mp and only rated to 1600 IS0 in their native ISO range. (The Brazilian website says native ISO from 100 to 6,4000 which matches the D7000 range making the D800 sensor basically about a two times larger D7000 sensor.) I suggest the D800 was not intended to be a "lighter" version of the D4 as the D700 was intended to be a lighter (both weight and cost) version of the D3. I suggest Nikon's design philosophy has changed and it is more accurate to think of the D800 as a "lighter" and less costly and even higher resolution (especially the D800E) version of (or replacement for) the D3x. After the D800 is available, why buy a D3x? Do studio and landscape photographers need the ruggedness of the D3 body? I doubt it. While there will be a lot of discussion of why the D800 is better than the D700 I think it could also be argued that the D800 is better than the D3x at about half the cost. One would think the D800 would kill D3x sales.

Anyone see a good reason to purchase a D3x rather than a D800?

Is the D800 better than a D3x at half the cost?