I am afraid Nikon is really missing the boat on the D400. I have directly talked to a number of photographers who have PURCHASED
the Sony NEX 7 or the Pentax with the D7000 sensor which THEY claim to have better attributes for stills than the Nikon D7000. There is a pent up demand for the D400 which apparently Nikon has turned a deaf ear to at their expense (and the loyal Nikon buyers). I am still certain there is more money in a DX D400 than in a D600 or a D800, except that Nikon would be building the D400 in Thailand instead of Japan. For their intended lead in digital cameras they seem to be giving a very large lead to Sony's NEX 7???
D400
(862 posts) (98 voices)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
Nikon has already made the decision to make a D400.... or not....so I doubt that anything that we say here could change things.I have been thinking a lot lately about what direction that I will go in should they decide not to produce one.....I really don't want to switch brands,but Nikon will be hanging a lot of us dedicated users out to dry if they have decided not to produce a D400.
If I only knew for sure that they have one in the works, I could breathe easier.....my D90 is being held together with baling wire and duct tape!
D4.......too expensive
D800...,files too large!
D7000 Raw buffer sucks....not a perfectly solid body!D400 for me is the only option.
I don't think that I can be in that big of a minority....as a matter of fact,I just might be in the majority
Posted 10 months ago # -
@ shutterdancer: I use my D90 more than my D7000. The video is way better on the D7000. Can't say I see any other D7000 advantages over the D90 but low light is better on the D7000 but only marginally. So I conclude shutterdancer is right. We NEED a D400. I also totally agree with him that Nikon ALREADY knows what they are going to do here......but we will play a guessing game.
I had my chance to buy a D800 today and decided at least for this month but probably for a long time that the files are just too large. I sure DO NOT want a D4. I am very baffled as to why Nikon would leave such a doubt about their DX digital camera position in the world market. THE REAL COMPETITION IS IN SMALLER GEAR NOT FX.
Having a huge file D800 without keeping pace in DX digital would be an invitation to economic disaster. There are a lot of binocular and IPhone images appearing form the Olympics. Sure the full time pros are using FX and the best DX cameras they can get, but the number of D400 shooting in London would be large if Nikon had gone in that direction. Wait past September Photokina announcement at Nikon's great peril.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Just buy a D300s already. The camera is great and probably more than enough for what you shoot.
Posted 10 months ago # -
What exactly does "for what you shoot" mean?.....that I could get by with a P&S ;>) Yes I know that the D300s is a good camera,but I'm holding out for better resolution and hopefully better high ISO performance.I don't want to replace old technology with old technology!
Posted 10 months ago # -
It is difficult for any of us to know exactly what another really wants in a camera...and as an example is my own rather difficult struggle with never having exactly what I would like. An 80 mega pixel back on a P & S resolving like 4"x 5" format shooting 200 FPS, telephoto of at least 15-20 X and weighing maybe three pounds and costing five hundred dollars. Now that is what I want for what I shoot.
But the D400 may produce in the real world some surprises. And, if it does not, that is, if it is only a native 6400 ISO, only 7 FPS, and too many MP at say, 24, causing the low native ISO, then I think Nikon will have made an error in judgement. In my opinion, it needs to be a sensor with between 16-20 MP, native ISO of 12,800, and 9 FPS. The cost can be in the $2,000 USD range. Unfortunately, the predictions are not in this area but instead in the 24MP range and native ISO of 6400....so, I may end up with the Fujifilm X Pro-1 as my DX body.
We will see as it is almost a certainty that Photokina will bring the D400 introduction. Good news or disappointment, the wait will at least be over.
Posted 10 months ago # -
msmoto said:
....and too many MP....Davey said:
...that the files are just too large....shutterdancer said:
D800...,files too large!I am really struggling to see why file size and MP is such an issue
I can understand bigger files mean slower write speeds and slower FPS
but as technology move forward these issues will be overcome
Computers like Camera become "out of date" after 3- 4 years Computers with 2Tb hard drives, blistering fast processors, and lots of RAM and very high resolution screens are becoming common
so would you reject the D400 if it produced a 60 mb RAW file but could do 30 continuous shots @16 fps
and how much cheaper / lighter than the D800 would it have to be
Posted 10 months ago # -
I think some folks here have old computers, because they upgrade their cameras too often. ;-)
Posted 10 months ago # -
sevencrossing said:
Computers like Camera become "out of date" after 3- 4 years Computers with 2Tb hard drives, blistering fast processors, and lots of RAM and very high resolution screens are becoming commonAgreed. I have a new-ish (5 months old) laptop with a 600Gb hard drive, 8Gb RAM and a Core i7 CPU that all together kicks the proverbial backside out of all desktop computers I have ever used. Plug it into my calibrated monitor when back at base and all the image files get transferred to my servers when I return to base - Gigabit Ethernet is a help there. The cost was less than a D400 or D600 body will likely be. Once every 3 years is about what I'd expect in this game.
With each generational shift of camera (well, maybe every other shift), all the other gear around the body needs updating too. Only my old Nikon lenses seem to be able to keep up (even if they don't have auto everything) and that is one of the main reasons why Nikon...
Put another way: You wouldn't put a 1930's engine in a 2012 electric hybrid car would you?
Posted 10 months ago # -
sevencrossing said:
I am really struggling to see why file size and MP is such an issueI do have an older Desktop that has held up easily for 5-6 years. The upgrade to LR4 slowed it down drastically. Microsoft release an update that has bogged systems down even more. Add the D800 files and while I'm not at the "pain" level, I do have to close everything to use it without issue. I will have to upgrade soon which I am just dreading since the process of getting everything back to the way I want (software etc) is just a fricken pain.
One thing on file sizes, I use gigabit and a NAS drive on the network and I have moved the D800 files to a usb2.0 drive since the files bogged down the network to much. People forget just because the "peak lab speed" is rated at X, doesn't ever mean it will attain it. I really dislike it when people say "storage is so cheap" - That is not the argument, the argument is that you have to buy it. My Raw files are 70mb. 10 32GB cards of shots with 450 shots per card, = 320GB which would fill a laptop with a 600gb drive in a heartbeat with software loaded. Another way to think of it is, 1,600 shots = 128GB of data. Times that by 10 days a month = 1.28TB times 12 months, 12.8TB of data. So a 12TB raid system? LaCie Network NAS - 10TB, (Refurbished) $1,421. That is not cheap.
So, $2,000-$3,000 for a computer, $1000-1500 for hard-drives, $400 for new CF cards, Added to the cost of a new camera = ouch. Depending on what you do, you probably could get away with less, but if you did it "right" with back-up systems etc. it will cost much more. Some pros already have stuff set up, but the cost for a hobbyist just jumped, and did so in an arena that it really hasn't for a very long time.
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
Thanks for putting my thoughts on the D800 into words TJ ;).......Look guys,if you don't want a D400 don't come on the D400 thread talking smack.....take your D800's,D300s,s,D700's,D7000's D4's and have fun........my crazy one track mind is set on a D400,at my imagined ,not for sure,rumored specs. At the moment all that I want from Nikon is a D400.....I'm obsessive compulsive.....sue me ;>)
Posted 10 months ago # -
I have time to wait for the D400...I just wish we would hear something concrete about specs, announcement and release date. I am still hoping/shooting for Christmas time.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I am actually surprised it didn't come out with the Olympics on stage. Just reading and seeing some of the photos, there seems to be a lot of people using the 7d and 1D Mk III (1.3 crop) from Canon for the crop factor. I have not seen any photos from a D300 or D7000(I'm sure they are there). Having the crop sensor for sports in good light certainly is a bonus.
Maybe there are a few D400s rolling around for a release soon. I'm still in a boat where I would love to see a 16mp high iso D400 that would out-perform my D800. Since I don't do sports enough to justify a D4, that would be a great 2nd body.
Posted 10 months ago # -
shutterdancer said:
D4.......too expensive
D800...,files too large!
D7000 Raw buffer sucks....not a perfectly solid body!I'm wondering what makes you think the RAW buffer on the D400 is going to be much better? If they bump up the resolution, it might be just a tad better than the D7000 depending on what they do with it internally. (not likely but possible)
Only time I bump into problems with the D7000 is wanting more than 8-10 RAW frames at a time if I'm shooting continuous. If I'm stuck on CH mode for long, I just shoot large fine jpg's with a fast card. It'll slam up to 100 shots no problem.And the D7000 is plenty solid. Not quite a metal brick like the D300/s but it's loads better than a D90.
I do hope they continue with a similar body to the D200/300/300s line for the D400. The D7000 is great but without the grip it's a bit cramped.
Posted 10 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
So, $2,000-$3,000 for a computer, $1000-1500 for hard-drives, $400 for new CF cards, Added to the cost of a new camera = ouch. Depending on what you do, you probably could get away with less, but if you did it "right" with back-up systems etc. it will cost much more.
You really don't need to drop $2k-$3k on a machine to run LR4. You don't need a high end video card or fancy case or anything like that. A decent processor and enough RAM is essential. You don't even need a huge internal drive as most of the storage should be external with that kind of volume.
A new i7 Dell with 8GB of RAM is like $850. (even cheaper if it comes up in their outlet)
Get a Drobo FS and fill it with OEM 3TB drives. You're looking at about $1200 for 15TB of networked RAID storage.
So under $2100 total and you're looking pretty good. Not cheap, but nowhere near the figures you estimated above.
Posted 10 months ago # -
R8R said:
You really don't need to drop $2k-$3k on a machine to run LR4. You don't need a high end video card or fancy case or anything like that. A decent processor and enough RAM is essential. You don't even need a huge internal drive as most of the storage should be external with that kind of volume.A new i7 Dell with 8GB of RAM is like $850. (even cheaper if it comes up in their outlet)
Get a Drobo FS and fill it with OEM 3TB drives. You're looking at about $1200 for 15TB of networked RAID storage.
So under $2100 total and you're looking pretty good. Not cheap, but nowhere near the figures you estimated above.
I got my latest laptop Dell for $1400 (8Gb RAM, 600Gb HDD, i7 CPU) and it runs Photoshop CS and LR4 and all my usual apps and plug ins without trouble. I was tempted to get a larger internal HDD but they seemed to be expensive above about 600Gb... USB3 *external* drives are not expensive now (under $90 for 1Tb Seagate external drives from Best Buy are a good starting point) and larger capacities for $10 - $30 more.
I also have the docking station which connects it into my large screen monitor (purchased a couple of years ago), and my LAN, Mouse, keyboard etc, so it's just like having a desktop when I am in the office. It has the upgraded video card too, which while it isn't the latest and greatest ever, it drives the monitor just fine.
My point? As I said yesterday, the computer is now part of the photographers gear bag. Keeping it upgraded every 3 to 4 years or so is not too terribly bad, if you are spending $3,000 to $6,000 on a camera body as well. The computer is the darkroom and print production workshop these days, I think that if you skimp in there, your results will suffer too.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Yikes, it is still cheaper to build your own PC with similar specs than that Dell.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I just have to wait for the D400 or D600 and see how that goes...but am really looking at d400, if nikon discontinues that line and I don't like D600 and if canon upgrades its 7d with the specs I am looking for then it may force my hand and I will sell my nikon gear and defect to canon...I need to upgrade my d90 in the next few months and I haven't been too happy with my 24-70mm 2.8 as it back focuses esp at the 24mm end...I have taken it to nikon twice for separate issues in regards to autofocus and still not happy, I might need to check my d90 and see if the camera and not the lens is the problem...so I'm waiting for the upgrade...
Posted 10 months ago # -
I appreciate the points on cost but I don't buy or upgrade stuff that is only marginally better than what I have currently. I use to build my own PCs for years, tried to convince myself sub $1,000 PCs were enough but always with a mixed bag of good with bad.
If you price out Mac book pro, Dell, Lenovo business class systems (much more robust and faster) with high end screens, 16-32gb of ram, SSd boot-drives, upgraded video for any editing, and all the systems are $2,000-$3500. Just as a D3200 may have similar IQ of a D400 (assuming specs) many want the D400 for numerous "upgrades."
Posted 10 months ago # -
You are saying you have a 5 year old machine, and that new ones aren't faster? Huh, raw clock speed (2.1Ghz for example) isn't the same between generations. A 2Ghz Core i5 is 40-50% faster than a 2.1Ghz Core 2 Duo from 4 years ago, so marginally better is an understatement. Memory speed in new systems is also much faster, making tasks like photo editing smoother.
I wouldn't build a PC today either, I have a quad core 2.7Ghz 27" iMac.
Posted 10 months ago # -
PB PM said:
, raw clock speed (2.1Ghz for example) isn't the same between generations. A 2Ghz Core i5 is 40-50% faster than a 2.1Ghz Core 2 Duo from 4 years ago,May be a separate thread,
but am i the only one who gets confused by processor specification
eg
an Intel® Xeon® E5-1660 (Six Core, 3.3GHz, 15MB Cache,
is £1000 more than
Intel® Xeon® E5-1620 Quad Core, 3.6GHz, 10MB Cache,
RAM I think I understand, they a bit like mega whatnots, the more the merrier (but don't buy more than you really need)
Posted 10 months ago # -
Well since there is no decent new info on the D400 this thread keeps getting way off topic. If someone wanted a D800 they would most likely have ordered or have one by now. Large files are a pain even if you have the biggest and best computer. Who would argue that? It takes more of everything...more time to load, more time to process, more space, more resources. If the average Joe wants to take pictures to get printed...now your 4 GB USB drive that used to hold all the pictures you wanted to print now only holds a handful. Or you want to upload them to a site to share or order prints it will take longer.
As for computers. I built my own ~5 years ago and it is still decently fast. I got most of the top of the line stuff at the time and I would say it is still as fast as our new computers we got at work. That being said I have had to add a couple of hard drives, but I haven't made any other additions. It will have to be upgraded some time in the next couple years, but I am putting a new camera body (Egh hum...D400) first.
Lastly I want a D400. I would not spend over $1000 on the D300S that is now 3 years old technology with about the same performance as my D5000 with the pro features. I also don't want a D7000 as it is bound to be replaced soon. I want a more robust DX body, more FPS, better ISO performance, better AF, and more MP (24 seems nice). There aren't any other options...
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
sevencrossing said:
May be a separate thread,but am i the only one who gets confused by processor specification
We do need this in a separate thread, don't we?
@TTJ also raises a good point about robustness - all my DIY builds are cases made out of lower quality (thin) tin-like metal but our servers at work are solid steel that don't flex when you pick them up and have all named components inside, not low spec unbranded parts. As you say; Entry level vs pro build quality.
As for CPU's lets keep the differences simple:
Core i (then a number) CPUs from Intel are designed for desktops and Xeon CPUs are designed for servers. The Xeon CPUs do more, run hotter, have stuff that interfaces internally that is more likely to be in server gear than in end user gear, they are supposed to do more, be faster and so on, but also cost more.
Clock speed isn't the only thing that helps with performance. With the Xeon range where you have more cores, you also need more top speed cache RAM on chip too or the thing maxes out earlier and you don't realize the throughput potential. This costs more to make - way more to make - and lets also not forget that they are also charging for gear that will go into a $8,000 box that will run 100 concurrent users, not a $700 home-brew single-user machine.
Being cynical, remember in the capitalist system, someone has to make obscene profits too! Bwahahahah....
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
