So where's the D 400 news announcement. I want to compare it's reviews with the D 700 which is now unavailable at $ 2199. Tough decision between these two. If I had enough money I might consider the D 800.
DaveO
D400
(862 posts) (98 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Hello D400 chat folks... I am here as a genuine buyer for the D400 when announced. I think this will be the ultimate DX camera and will perform like nothing we have seen from DX in the past. But then I thought I was going to win the lottery as well.... mmmmm...
Posted 1 year ago # -
IF it is not 18-20MP with 7fps I will probably buy a D800 even if it shoots slower. That is the sweet spot for me for a DX camera. I hope we hear something by the end of this month. Nothing official from Nikon just a highly likely rumor as we did with the D800.
Posted 1 year ago # -
IndyGeoff said:
IF it is not 18-20MP with 7fps I will probably buy a D800 even if it shoots slower. That is the sweet spot for me for a DX camera. I hope we hear something by the end of this month. Nothing official from Nikon just a highly likely rumor as we did with the D800.Wow, those are the very minimum. For action, I have found 7 FPS is at the low end. And for a DX today... I am guessing it will be at least 20 MP. OK, hoping it will be 20MP. In reality the FPS is the deal breaker for me. If below 7, NIKON has screwed up as the D300s does 8 FPS. Most likely the D400 will be around 9 or 10 FPS. But the sensor may be actually in the 18 MP range so as to obtain higher ISO. The 3200 on the D300s is limiting in today's world.
So, let's all start the chant...."D400, D400, D400, we want the D400" Maybe NIKON will hear us, ha, ha, ha!
Posted 1 year ago # -
So the D300 is $1700 USD, D700 is $2200 USD and the D800 is $3000 USD. If the D400 is priced to high people like me will just move to the D700 or D800. So what's the going guess for price.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The D300s is currently going for around $1300 (if you can find one). My bet is that the D400 would come in between $1800-2000, just like the D300 and D300s before it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
D400 price will be $1799,95....... as if I knew anything, ha, ha, ha. This is an increase of about 6% over the D300s, and just makes sense with the current market. Could be as PB PM says, a bit higher at $1999.95. May be dependent on the sensor they use. Something like a small D4 sensor... may mean the higher price. And the D400 will be the Semi-Pro DX, so, who knows...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am ready for the D400, I have had my money saved for it since July 2011. I continue to use my D80 and wait. I check in everyday to hear of any news about this camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
MY guess 16MP-18MP,D800 type pro body and focus/matrix chips, 8FPS with grip,usable iso 3200, $2K. I'll order one if I have not acquired a used D700 in the mean time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well I am wondering what the D400 has to offer. I don't think it will be an FX camera but then again I don't work for Nikon either. My dream sheet would be say 20MP, D4 autofocus, 9 FPS or higher, at least the low light ablity of the D7000 and the same size as my D700.
I think it really depends on the specs what price point it starts at. I see it being in the 1700-1850 range but if it can make coffee for you as well, it might be an extra 200 or so.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would see it being a D700s with the D4 sensor before I see a D400 with the FX sensor. This might be a smaller crowd that I think but for anyone that has interest in shooting birds/wildlife, race cars/bikes at the track, sporting events and a few special events like a rocket launch were you have to be possibly miles away from your subject, these people want a semi-pro to pro DX body.
At this point for something really far away or a small subject you want to bring closer to you the D7000 is the best camera out there for the moment. The DX crop on the D800 is close but even then its slightly smaller file size than the D7000. Take this example, you want to take a close up picture of the moon. You grab a D800 and a 600mm and a D7000 and a 600mm. You would have to crop both pictures to get rid of all the useless sky around it (unless thats the look you wanted, but remember I said close up shot). If you took both picutres to print the D7000 would have an advantage on how large you could blow it up (its a very small advantage but its there). The advantage the D800 does have is its ability to take that 600mm and use a 2x teleconverter on it. The D7000 would only be able to focus with the 1.4 teleconverter. Granted for this moon shot focus could be manually done but an animal in the woods might be a lot harder to use manual focusing. If your cropping anyway the D800 can give you a slightly better artistic advantage because you will have more of a selection on where to crop, but if your cropping both anyway I don't see it that big of a deal.
Another example is say your shooting a soccer game. I don't see a bunch of photogs running up and down the field with the players so most likely your pretty stationary. A DX shooter could load up the 70-200 and it becomes a 105-300. The FX shooter beside him needs a 300mm 2.8 to get the same shot if the action is getting further away. The 300mm 2.8 is much harder to hand hold, probably now use a mono pod, plus you lost your zoom factor.
I believe the crowd screaming for a D400 is the people I mentioned above, they want the DX crop in a pro/semipro body. Then someone pees in my punch bowl of dreams saying the D400 will be an FX sensor. I have a D700 I don't see me running out to get another FX sensor that is slightly better. I use what works for me unless something really revolutionary comes out. For me that would be the D800, now the landscape shots that I need to crop or I wanted to print bigger than 24X36 would be no problem.
If the D400 is an FX sensor but Nikon came out with say a D04 (yes I said zero, four) that was a pro DX camera I would be happy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If NIKON is replacing the D300s, then one might conclude the new camera would have a similar relationship to the D4 as the D300s has to the D3s. And it would not be a large body as this is more costly. The $400 battery grip comes later for the smaller body. But, one might conclude the controls would be very much like those on the D300s/D3. Having had a D200 and now with a D4, I find the controls are almost second nature. NIKON does not want to bring into the market something which calls for relearning the camera controls. This type of change drives folks away. The D400 will have the new focus control of the D4. Left top controls will be the same as the D4. The primary difference will be in the fact one does not have all the info/controls on the back and vertical controls are of course absent. The ISO may go up as high as 12,800 but most likely no higher. FPS at 9. The possibility of two memory slots exists, but probably unlikely due to cost factors.
And there it is, all for $1799,95. And, if I am correct, do not forget where you heard it first.
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
If NIKON is replacing the D300s, then one might conclude the new camera would have a similar relationship to the D4 as the D300s has to the D3s. And it would not be a large body as this is more costly. The $400 battery grip comes later for the smaller body. But, one might conclude the controls would be very much like those on the D300s/D3. Having had a D200 and now with a D4, I find the controls are almost second nature. NIKON does not want to bring into the market something which calls for relearning the camera controls. This type of change drives folks away. The D400 will have the new focus control of the D4. Left top controls will be the same as the D4. The primary difference will be in the fact one does not have all the info/controls on the back and vertical controls are of course absent. The ISO may go up as high as 12,800 but most likely no higher. FPS at 9. The possibility of two memory slots exists, but probably unlikely due to cost factors.And there it is, all for $1799,95. And, if I am correct, do not forget where you heard it first.
So if the flagship DX would be $1799, and the D800 is $3200, what would be between them? Hmmm, how about an entry level, high iso with a D4 sensor for around $2600? I can't imagine Nikon leaving a gap between $1799 to $3200 in the product line?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The D800 is $2999 everywhere I've looked, not $3200 (the D800E is though). Yes, Nikon will have that price gap, just like they had when the D700 and D300 were sold side by side (the D700 entered the maker at $2999, not the $2100-2400 it sits at now and the D300 was $1899).
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
I sure do. While the apparent area captured looks the same, the depth of field is different, which means you are not getting the same image with a 200mm lens on DX as a 300mm lens on FX. Why is that so hard to understand?
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
PB PM said:
I sure do. While the apparent area captured looks the same, the depth of field is different, which means you are not getting the same image with a 200mm lens on DX as a 300mm lens on FX. Why is that so hard to understand?Yup, I think this is exactly the case. The image area is identical, but the DEPTH OF FIELD is shorter with the longer focal length lens. Thus, the image will appear different. Although this may be apparent only on certain subjects and will be more apparent the closer the subject is.
I suppose in a way this is an advantage for the DX format. As the sensors become more sophisticated, it is going to be more and more difficult to distinguish between the different cameras.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Perspective in an image taken with a specific focal length does not change regardless of imager size.
The DX image is identical to a cropped FX image.
Your choice of lens should have eveything to do with the desired perspective, and nothing to do with the imager size.
Moving farther or closer to the subject does not change perspective, it only changes framing.
Here is a site with an animated comparison of how focal length changes perspective:
http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective#
In this image the subject is the Lamp post in the foreground.
By changing perspective through focal length, a photographer can tell very different stories about the same subject and its surroundings.
Obviously the photographer had to move farther back as focal length increases.
Note, just moving nearer or farther from the subject does not change perspective, nor does chaging from DX to FX.
Only focal length changes perspective.
Refrences to "Depth of Field" have nothing to do with perspective.
Depth of field relates to the distance between objects (near/far) in the focus field, which is a function of both focal length and aperture.Posted 1 year ago # -
mcd said:
The Perspective in an image taken with a specific focal length does not change regardless of imager size.
The DX image is identical to a cropped FX image.
Your choice of lens should have eveything to do with the desired perspective, and nothing to do with the imager size.
Moving farther or closer to the subject does not change perspective, it only changes framing.
Here is a site with an animated comparison of how focal length changes perspective:
http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective#
In this image the subject is the Lamp post in the foreground.
By changing perspective through focal length, a photographer can tell very different stories about the same subject and its surroundings.
Obviously the photographer had to move farther back as focal length increases.
Note, just moving nearer or farther from the subject does not change perspective, nor does chaging from DX to FX.
Only focal length changes perspective.
Refrences to "Depth of Field" have nothing to do with perspective.
Depth of field relates to the distance between objects (near/far) in the focus field, which is a function of both focal length and aperture.Sorry, the only factor which determines perspective is the distance to the subject. Makes no difference what you do optically, one's perspective is based only on your relative position to the subject. The definition of the word "perspective is "a point of view". And when one changes the optics through which one looks it does not change the point of view, only the degree of magnification. The perspective taken with a camera at twenty feet from a subject will be the same whether one uses a wide angle or normal or telephoto. Now, as the focal length gets longer, the angel of view changes and becomes more narrow. Thus the image size changes and maybe what we are talking about here is more a matter of semantics than differences of opinion.
And my point is demonstrated clearly in this link
http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective#
As the focal length of the camera lens is changed, the photographer moves backward, thus changing the perspective. If the photographer were to have changed the lens but simply remained in one place, the size of the image would have diminished to where the lamp post was gone. But, by moving backward, the photographer "changed the perspective" and thus confirmed what I have said above.
I thought this was a D400 thread. Let's see if we can pull this back toward the fantasies regarding our "dream" D400.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't want a $2,000 perspective I want a D400.
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
Sorry, the only factor which determines perspective is the distance to the subject. Makes no difference what you do optically, one's perspective is based only on your relative position to the subject. The definition of the word "perspective is "a point of view". And when one changes the optics through which one looks it does not change the point of view, only the degree of magnification. The perspective taken with a camera at twenty feet from a subject will be the same whether one uses a wide angle or normal or telephoto. Now, as the focal length gets longer, the angel of view changes and becomes more narrow. Thus the image size changes and maybe what we are talking about here is more a matter of semantics than differences of opinion.And my point is demonstrated clearly in this link
http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective#
As the focal length of the camera lens is changed, the photographer moves backward, thus changing the perspective. If the photographer were to have changed the lens but simply remained in one place, the size of the image would have diminished to where the lamp post was gone. But, by moving backward, the photographer "changed the perspective" and thus confirmed what I have said above.
I thought this was a D400 thread. Let's see if we can pull this back toward the fantasies regarding our "dream" D400.
I think you made my case for me!
CheersPosted 1 year ago # -
-
Sorry, looks like I killed this thread with my snarky reply.
Anyway….. Is there any new intel out there for the D400? Just looking at the D3200 and getting very excited, thinking the D400 should be even better! Maybe the best DX camera ever built!
Anybody know anything?
Posted 1 year ago # -
What a flipping mess of a thread!!!!!!!!!!! Can we keep it to AND ONLY to the D400? :)
Maybe a Admin can clean up this mess that should have been and is discussed extensively on numerous other threads.
Now where is the D@mn D400?!?!?!?!!? :)
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
