In this video (at 17:38) Jared Polin (froknowsphoto) predicts used D700 prices will fall to $1,500. If that happens and in 6 months you can pick up a good condition D700 for $1,500, which will be less than the price of a new D400, perhaps there will be no reason for Nikon to produce an "entry level" FX body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxgHHAN81_s (at 17:38)

In contrast, Jared predicts (at 23.20) used D3s bodies will not fall below $4,000 (for the next year plus) because he feels they will still be so usable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT0Pb5SNXmU&feature=relmfu

The D700 may be kept alive longer than planned to bridge the D800 shortage - but then would enough people buy it when they know the D800 is coming?

The hype about the D800 is sufficient even now to ensure it will be a success - heck, if yous guys can afford the camera, I'm sure a better PC is small potatoes to you.

Rx4Photo: Right. Most likely the D400 will be 24mp DX and most likely the D700 is still in the line simply because Nikon has a lot of D700 parts to still assemble. Nikon will keep making them until they use up those parts, sell them for little more than cost just to get their money out of the parts inventory and then it will be discontinued. What of the 12 to 16 mp FX people want? Will Nikon make one using the still highly respected D3s sensor and just update the electronics such as Expeed 3? Will Nikon cut into D4 sales by using the D4 sensor as they did with the D700? Does Nikon regret that move (as some here believe) or do they think it increased total revenue overall? If there will be an "entry level" FX, what name should it carry? I will suggest D720 to reflect putting the number 2 after the first digit as I think we will see in D3200, D5200, D7200, etc. It could also be D710 was was done when moving from D3000 to D3100 and from D5000 to D5100. Will the D7000 replacement be a D7100 or D7200? If a lower mp FX body does come out what will be the price? I will suggest no more than $2,500. Why? The "entry level" should be a significant step in price below the D800 at $3,000 to make it "entry level." I imagine people at Nikon are "costing out" such a camera to see what they can produce by selecting from currently available parts to see if they can produce an "entry level" FX and still make money on it. Maybe we will know more later this year when the last D700 comes off the assembly line and Nikon determines whether or not it has time available on the FX line to produce another body. Maybe that assembly line will be working 24/7 just to meet the demand for D4 and D800 bodies. It will be a very good year for those of us who are interested in new Nikon bodies. By the end of this year Nikon may have made very significant gains in market share against Canon.

The more I think about it the more I think Nikon would have a real winner if they could put the D3s sensor into a D720 body (some cosmetic changes to copy D4 and D800 style which shouldn't cost any more) with updated electronics/software and sell it for about $2,500 (or less) as a 12mp "entry level" FX body. I don't know if the cost of producing such a body would allow it to be sold for that price. It may be impossible.

I would not expect to see a D700anything from this point on. I think that would be taking a step back for Nikon. Their eyes should be focused on the future and not try to make anything out of the current and aging D700. The more I think of it, the more I think that the D4 and D800 have raised a lot of indecision and controversy within the minds of individuals who wanted to upgrade to the next great FF camera. That being, you either plop down $6000 for a D4 or get a less expensive D800 that shoots way more MegaPixels than many people care to deal with....or go ahead and get a D700 which (my opinion only) will be announced as "discontinued" by Nikon within the 1st half of next year.

The more I think, the more I do believe that there is a gap to be filled with another full frame camera but I don't think it should carry the D700 name. Right now I'm in the same boat as many who think that the D400 will be 24MP DX so where does that gap-filling Full Frame camera come in - I have no clue. I'll just keep watching.

Right. Some Nikon "representative" from some country doesn't always know what the people in corporate headquarters are thinking or planning.

Nikon also said the D7000 wasn't the replacement for the D90, so take such comments with a grain of salt.

That's fine with me, I'd love a D700 if I ever go FX.

I'd probably still go with DX, but I like choice.

From the NR translation of an interview with Nikon France.

"Q: You indicated previously that the D700 remained in the range, so we should not consider the D800 as his replacement
A: That's right."

Later Nikon France said: "The D700 is in the range and would make to photographers who do not need high definition a very affordable housing." which seems to indicate the "entry level" FX is the D700.

Most of us have been saying the D800 is the replacement for the D700. Nikon France says no, it isn't. So is there a D700 replacement coming along this year? And if so, what is it? A D700s? Certainly, it will be an FX camera. Perhaps an FX with a lower megapixel chip as many want? Perhaps about a $2,000 FX?

Or maybe this guy from Nikon France just doesn't know what he is talking about and is not now saying the D700 has been replaced in order to make people still willing to buy it until Nikon runs out of parts to assemble them.

spraynpray: "I want them to have a strong and well thought-through product line that is clearly enough differentiated that each camera sells well to the segment it is designed to"

Tom Hogan agrees with you. He just thinks his proposal, which I quoted above does it better because when the Nikon 1 (and a new Nikon model he has suggested) is included he has "3 CX, 3 DX, and 3 FX: basically an entry, mid, and top in each line, with the lines being spaced nicely." Tom feels the current line up is "more hodge podge, with new/old overlap and essentially four choices in each category." By the way Tom also mentions a larger buffer should be put into the D7000 replacement and I agree. That shouldn't add much cost.

Tom notes: "I keep getting vague hints from anonymous sources that the D400 is indeed not a DX camera but something akin to a D700s." and "The interesting thing is that there are two missing cameras from Nikon's DSLR lineup: a high end DX model, and an entry level FX model." "[T]he D7000 is coming up due for an update late this year. Could it be the new high-end DX?"

I raised the same question here some time ago and many people "flamed" me for it. It is interesting to me that Tom is making a similar suggestion.

Tao: Yes, I have a D800 on order. Just too much camera for the money, too hard to resist for me. But I admit if a 24mp DX D400 were available for half the price I probably would have purchased it instead. Or if a 12/16mp FX were available for 2/3rds the price I probably would have purchased it. The problem, for me, is that neither of those two are available, or announced, so I don't know what they will be or when I can get one. I am looking for clean high ISO about two stops better than my D7000 when enlarged to the same size (not when viewed at 100%). I don't know if the D400 will give me this: maybe Nikon will focus on resolution as it did with the D3x rather than on speed like the D3s. Maybe the D400 will be the DX D3x and I don't want that. I fear if I don't get a D800 on order now they will be in very short supply for a year. If I wait for glowing reviews of actual production models thousands of other people who read those reviews will also be ordering a D800 and the wait will be a year. I understand a D700 is an option, especially if used prices fall to around $1,500, but I am hesitant to buy 2008 technology as my "top" camera. It is fun to have the latest technology, such as the ability to recognize faces, even though I am not sure how important it will be. I suspect I will like it, and other features, a lot and would regret not having them if I bought a used D700. I see NR is reporting a $500 price drop for the D700. Perhaps Nikon can keep it in the line up and "modernize" it by simply replacing some of the internal electronic parts but leave the sensor at 12mp to distinguish it from the D4? For example, they now put an Expeed 2 processor in and make money selling it for $2,200. How much more would an Expeed 3 processor cost Nikon over the Expeed 2? All old parts have a cost and all new parts have a cost but the incremental difference may not be much. Seeing that the D800 with all its new parts is only $3000 the incremental cost of replacing the old D700 internal electronics with new electronics produced for the D4 and D800 might not be that much of a difference. If Nikon spent $100 more to "modernize" the internal electronics without changing the sensor, would they have a viable D700s they could sell for $2,300 or $2,400? I am just suggesting it may not be too expensive for Nikon to offer both a top DX in the D400 and an entry level FX in a modernized D700s. Only Nikon knows production costs for such a thing. But I suspect a strong market exists for both. Look at the NR poll in which more than half the people want a D3s or D4 sensor in a D800 body and complain the D800 has too many megapixels. If they produced it Nikon would be careful to "decontent" such a product sufficient to force working pros to still want the D4.

shawno: It would be nice if Nikon told us where they were going in the future. But I suspect they cannot "promise" anything because their R&D can only tell them what they are working on and what looks like they can produce but cannot guarantee that in 4 years X, Y, or Z will be available. Nikon doesn't want to promise only to disappoint. Better to announce when you are ready to deliver. So we have to speculate.

I certainly admit it will be a big surprise if Nikon produces both a D400 DX and a new version of the D700 as an entry level FX. It would also be a big surprise if Nikon took the D7000 "professional" by adding certain features to the D7100 or if Nikon took the D400 into FX. I suspect, if any of these surprised occur, we will see them by the end of 2012. This should be a great year for Nikon and for us!

[later addition] Tom just added more discussion on the rationale for a FX D400 as he sees it. http://bythom.com/ It is interesting to me to follow this discussion. Soon we will see what Nikon does with the D400 and with the "entry level FX" concept. I keep thinking the simplest thing is to make the D400 a 24mp DX and to let used D700 bodies serve as the entry level FX. That is where the odds lie; but Nikon might choose differently.

What spraynpray said, sort of:

I don't begrudge the owners and moderators of this site their daily bread, and I'd come and visit regardless, but wouldn't it be great if Nikon published a 3-year roadmap of exactly where their R&D and releases are going instead of [NR] having to scrabble for information. Is there going to be a D4-junior? I'd love to know, as that's exactly what I want. What are the next few lenses to be updated? Is the D400 going with XQD, or not so much? Etc. Etc.

@spraynpray specifically: there does seem to be quite a lot of D7000 available at the Hong Kong internet resellers. Ordering from HK takes some gonads, but there are one or two places I can reccommend...

Here's a view point: I don't want Nikon to do anything you are saying Donald - I want them to have a strong and well thought-through product line that is clearly enough differentiated that each camera sells well to the segment it is designed to. Know what? When the D400 DX pro level arrives, that is exactly what they will have. With cameras as good as these are, they can then get over the last years problems and grow their market share.

The only problems I have with their product line-up right now is availability of the D7000 - it is a sellers market until (if) they catch up.

donaldejose said:
Personally, I would like to see Nikon add two bodies in the gap between the D7000 and the D800: one a 24mp DX ssnsor (for about $1,700) and the other a 16mp FX sensor D700 replacement for about $2,100.

Really? Haven't heard you desire this before. Still have your D800 on order?

This is just beating a dead horse and has no bennifit. Nikon is not going slaughter it's D4 like it did with it's D3 especially since the D4 was just announced. That would be one of the dumbest moves for a company to do that I have ever seen and would render the D4 a useless release - same camera for $4,000 less? No matter how much you and others want it, it's not going to happen.

Personally, I would like to see Nikon add two bodies in the gap between the D7000 and the D800: one a 24mp DX ssnsor (for about $1,700) and the other a 16mp FX sensor D700 replacement for about $2,100.

That would be over a $1,000 dollar jump from the 7200 to the 400. Better point, it would be a $1500 jump from the D5200 - D400 with only one body. Split the difference that $750 jump from 5200 to 7200. Not going to happen. It would be more likely they add 2 more bodies, one DX & one FX than do that. I don't see that either.

Excerpt from Tom Hogan's blog today:

"Meanwhile, the D7000 is coming up due for an update late this year. Could it be the new high-end DX? Imagine this lineup for a moment:

D3200. Entry DSLR, and entry DX, 24mp.
D5200. Mid-level DX, 24mp.
D7200. High-end DX, 24mp.
D400. Entry FX DSLR, 16mp.
D800. Mid-level FX, 36mp.
D4. Pro FX, 16mp."

More details at http://bythom.com/

The D800 was a surprise to who exactly? Rumors were pointing to a 36MP sensor last spring/summer. Nikon needs to counter the Canon 7D/ upcoming 7D MKII, plain and simple. Nikon must make a D400 or loose a chunk of the market, which frankly they cannot afford to do. Some people (you apparently) might not think so, but the D7000 is not that answer. Why? For reasons that have been given on this form time and time again (search for D400 threads), so I don't feel the need to go over them again.

Does Nikon really need a pro DX sensor body? Is there something special about DX which requires Nikon to make one in a pro body. Even if Nikon could produce a $2,000 FX D400 (and I admit consensus thinking is they cannot) my question is would they still need to offer a pro DX body and therefore refuse to produce the D400 in FX? I am just saying, is there really a need any more for a DX sensor in a pro level body, other than cost?

It used to be all sensors, pro and amateur were DX. Then we had pro FX and amateur DX due to cost. In the future it may be all pro FX and all amateur DX, unless there is some reason other than cost for a pro DX. For the first time in the D800 it seems we will have an FX sensor with and adequate 16mp DX mode for pro use. An 12mp FX sensor which could be cropped 5mp DX wouldn't work because the 5mp is too small. How many D3 users shot in DX much? A 16mp FX sensor with a 7mp? DX mode would be boarderline, maybe?

Here is one reason for to make a pro DX body. People who have been shooting the D300 and the D300s will have a mix of DX and FX lenses. If Nikon produced a pro level body with FX which had inadequate DX mp mode, those people would not be able to use their DX lenses and they would be unhappy. They now can shoot 12mp in DX. If the new D400 only gave them 5 or 7 mp in DX all their DX lenses would no longer produce the same mp imagea. Nikon is already offering the option of 16mp DX inside 36mp FX in the D800 so people with both FX and DX lenses have that option.

The D800 was quite a surprise to many because they expected a 16mp sensor. Perhaps the D400 could be quite a surprise also? Whatever sensor it uses, let's hope it is really great.

Considering the few leaks about the D400 have all pointed to a 24MP DX sensor, that seems extremely unlikely. I like his line of thinking, but a $2000 FX body just isn't going to happen in this economy.

It sure looked like an leak from the title, didn't it?

Why do we do this to ourselves? Here is the one quote from the whole thing that boils it all down..."it's fun to speculate on what the D400 could look like, so here goes . . ."

After I scanned down and read that, I didn't bother to read the whole thing.

Interesting: http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-cleveland/nikon-d400-to-be-16mp-full-frame-16mp-d4-lite

hes good at giving information about gear, sure...but he contradicts himself a lot as well. I.E praising the D300 (which he also used) and then downing the D300s when the D7000 came out...

As for his pictures..well..no.

I appreciate all the info. What Tao says makes sense and makes the Nikon model numbering a rigid system, which is good in my opinion.

And by the way Tao, I do have a progressive eye disease which usually leads to blindness. Hopefully, slowly in my case.

KR: His images have won some prizes; but his taste in color and design is not my taste. I think a graphic artist would appreciate his bold colors and shapes more than I do. To me he is just taking pictures of stuff I would mostly rather not see at all. I think his D40 comment was related to it being all you need for family snapshot photos which can be blown up slightly larger than 11x14. Probably true. It was really a megapixel comment to the effect that for most uses the current massive megapixels aren't necessary. If you read his comments he uses a D3, Leica gear and a 4x5 view camera for "serious" or "professional" work, not a D40, and he just ordered a D4 and a D800.

Danny Ocean said:
I see in the pictures thread lots of photographers using basic gear and delivering quality images, and others using "pro" gear and delivering uninteresting images that look good right off the camera, but do nothing to impress asides from that.

Take Ken Rockwell for example, hes always talking about gear and tests a lot of it, but his images leave a lot to be desired.

D40 is all you need! LOL

When friends (non photog-aholics) ask moving to more "pro" gear I ask "Why?" I have yet to have one be able to answer that simple question. Those who need it, know why they need it.

I agree, no one should really get caught up on "pro standards" in gear. Of course you pay more for well built equipment, but It does not mean you cant produce professional images using a plastic body and lens. It seems to me that a lot of people worry about having pro gear instead of worrying about how to create professional images with whatever gear they currently have.

I see in the pictures thread lots of photographers using basic gear and delivering quality images, and others using "pro" gear and delivering uninteresting images that look good right off the camera, but do nothing to impress asides from that.

Take Ken Rockwell for example, hes always talking about gear and tests a lot of it, but his images leave a lot to be desired.