D400 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D400

(862 posts) (98 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1…141516…35 Next »

R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

D300 user said:
I have no other option than to wait... Money to go FX is no problem but I really need DX for wildlife and birds. D7000 just isn't pro enough (fps, buffer, build quality). 8 fps, 18 MP, clean ISO's up to 1600 is what most of us want.

I really don't get some of this...

Ok 8fps would be nice.
A 2 MP bump will make little to no difference over 16. Stay at 16 or bump to 20-22.
Bigger buffer I agree, but a fast card makes a HUGE difference with the D7k
ISO 1600 on the D7k is pretty damn clean, especially for the price.
Better build quality? Why? How many camera bodies have ever fallen apart in your hands? The build of the D7k is robust enough to make it last for years past when it's sensor is obsolete.

You know what really needs improvement over the D7k?
AF performance. No more hunting in dim light.
Rotating menus in portrait. (even the frickin D5100 does this)
Larger grip area.
Lockable card door that doesn't flip open as you're pulling the camera out of a tight bag.
iTTL CLS radio triggering built in. (COME ON ALREADY)
Bluetooth remote via Android.
Ditch the jingly triangle strap rings already. It's 2012.
Dedicated auto ISO adjustment via the ISO button. Let me dial in auto ISO settings with the sub-command dial.
Make the AF assist light infra red.
Firmware updates and settings load/save via USB, not flash card.
Choice of NEF or DNG when shooting RAW.

Posted 9 months ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

Testing. Having problems posting to nr

Posted 9 months ago #
D300 user

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 34
offline

R8R said:
I really don't get some of this...

Ok 8fps would be nice.
A 2 MP bump will make little to no difference over 16. Stay at 16 or bump to 20-22.
Bigger buffer I agree, but a fast card makes a HUGE difference with the D7k
ISO 1600 on the D7k is pretty damn clean, especially for the price.
Better build quality? Why? How many camera bodies have ever fallen apart in your hands? The build of the D7k is robust enough to make it last for years past when it's sensor is obsolete.

I would be trading up from a D300 (pretty old sensor, 12MP), so 18MP would be a nice improvement. As a nature photographer I spent quite some time on the ground/dirt, sometimes in light rain and therefore need a body that's more or less build like a tank. I know D7000 has some of this but it just isn't quite build like a D300/s.

Posted 9 months ago #
R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

D300 user said:
I would be trading up from a D300 (pretty old sensor, 12MP), so 18MP would be a nice improvement. As a nature photographer I spent quite some time on the ground/dirt, sometimes in light rain and therefore need a body that's more or less build like a tank. I know D7000 has some of this but it just isn't quite build like a D300/s.

I spend quite a bit of time in dirty night clubs, planes, tour buses, shuttle buses, taxis, on the street, in the rain, on a stage with the smoke machines blasting, etc etc. The D7k has been a champ. I never seem to put it down.

But yeah, in comparison, you can use the D300/s as a defensive weapon or in a pinch, an anvil to repair horseshoes. I almost went with the D300s, but the D7k had just that tinsy bit of high ISO advantage.

It's to bad they don't just make the damn bodies modular, so every 3-4 years you just pop in a new sensor back and processor module. Why do medium format guys get all the love?

Posted 9 months ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

R8R said:
Why do medium format guys get all the love?

Because they pay for it. :-)

$40K+ for a Phase 1 IQ160 .... and that is not exactly the top of the range.

Somewhat different in price point from a D800!!!

Posted 9 months ago #
Postman

preferred member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 117
offline

I've lost a little faith in a D400.

I'm inclined to think that this close to Photokina and with everything else that's come out recently, including leaked images of an actual D600, we'd of heard something on a D400 sneak out by now.

Posted 9 months ago #
Philx

junior member
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 6
offline

I agree with Postman, im starting to believe there wont be a D400 now, and that will be a big fail on nikons part, the Canon 7D is better than the D300s in my opinion.

I have a D300s and a D90 and was looking to change the D90 for a D400, but dont look like it`ll be happening and i aint going for a Full frame D600 which wont be nowhere near a D700 quality build.

The only thing i can honestly see happening is they are going to stop the d300/d400 line and the d7100 or whatever it`ll be called will take over the top of the line DX range but no matter what they have dragged their heels far to long on a D300s replacement and will need to bring something out the bag that will kick the Canon 7D into touch, i am losing faith in nikon and i think it will be a minor update yet again. :(

Posted 9 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

The idea of a D400 never coming to a reality certainly could be a possibility. But, the D7000 off spring would have to change to a D300s design paradigm. Lightweight metal body, same controls as a "pro" body and a sensor similar to the D4. The question is why would Nikon drop the DXXX series.

Well, if one is reality based, the future of the DX,FX and probably all other digital cameras is in the area of electronic viewfinders. And, as Sony has tried with the semi transparent mirror, and others have tried in various ways, the system is less than perfected. Continuous servo focus has not been figured out...the big drawback of the Fuji X Pro 1.

Thus one might conclude Nikon will continue the DXXX line until such time as the focus issue in the mirrorless camera is solved. And then we will see a revolution in the entire camera industry. The DSLR will eventually disappear. But, until this occurs, I do believe Nikon will not drop the semi-pro DXXX lineup. And Photkina, September 18 is my "best guess".

Posted 9 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

The great thing about Dx is meant to "reach" but did any one see any of the pros using a Dx Camera at the Olympics ? when "reach" is meant to be the order of the day

Most of Nikon's Pro glass is Fx so why would they want to develop a Pro Dx camera

The D300 came out before the D700 at a time when FX sensors were very expensive

but the D600 and the mind boggling D800 would seem to indicate this is no longer the case

and as for future being mirror-less, any one see any of the Press with Mirror less cameras at the The Olympics ?

Posted 9 months ago #
D300 user

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 34
offline

sevencrossing said:
The great thing about Dx is meant to "reach" but did any one see any of the pros using a Dx Camera at the Olympics ? when "reach" is meant to be the order of the day

There's a difference between human sized objects and small birds/wild life from further away. DX is needed for nature photographers, especially those who cannot afford +500mm lenses. FX works pretty well at the Olympics but not in the great outdoors if you're looking at objects at least 100 feet out.

About a D400; read Thom's post of today. His guess is no DX at Photokina but probably within 6 months from now.

Posted 9 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

D300 user said:
especially those who cannot afford +500mm lenses.

I totally accept, cost, is the big advantage of Dx

I can understand people wanting a low cost professional camera

and I feel Nikon answer to this requirement will be the D600

looking at the Nikon winners the the wildlife photographer of the year 75% of winners used FX

Posted 9 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

sevencrossing said:
The great thing about Dx is meant to "reach" but did any one see any of the pros using a Dx Camera at the Olympics ? when "reach" is meant to be the order of the day

Most of Nikon's Pro glass is Fx so why would they want to develop a Pro Dx camera

The D300 came out before the D700 at a time when FX sensors were very expensive

but the D600 and the mind boggling D800 would seem to indicate this is no longer the case

and as for future being mirror-less, any one see any of the Press with Mirror less cameras at the The Olympics ?

I occasionally read Clay Radcliff's site not so much because I'm interested in HDR but just for his worldly photos, but he seems to be migrating to a mirror less camera as his 2nd body. I just might do the same thing. I haven't taken very many pics yet using the DX crop mode with my D800 but those that I have looked so good that I don't see a need to take my D7000 around much anymore.

Posted 9 months ago #
ben_v3

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 76
offline

D300 user said:
There's a difference between human sized objects and small birds/wild life from further away. DX is needed for nature photographers, especially those who cannot afford +500mm lenses. FX works pretty well at the Olympics but not in the great outdoors if you're looking at objects at least 100 feet out.

About a D400; read Thom's post of today. His guess is no DX at Photokina but probably within 6 months from now.

No D400 would really disappoint me. I'm still using a D70 and have been on the verge of buying a D7k quite a few times, but I keep waiting. The rumored specs for the D400 are right up my ally, except for not being FX. I know I should just buy what fits my needs now but with possible releases right around the corner, I would be so disappointing in not waiting.

What Id really love is for the D600 rumors to be wrong. High FPS, big buffer and weather sealing would rock my world in an FX camera that doesn't cost $6k.

Posted 9 months ago #
Eric

senior member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 363
offline

@R8R

R8R said:
Are you equating 100 ppi to actually printing at a density of 100 dpi??

If so, then you have some low standards for print quality. I would not go below 280 dpi for printing, and usually do 300 dpi.

Sorry about the inadequate explanation, my point was related to the level of detail that can be resolved at 100ppi as a means of evaluating what a given image sensor could produce. Since everyone on this forum can probably relate to the level of detail that can be seen on a monitor, using a monitor resolution as a comparative measure seemed appropriate.

As for printing, all of the ICC profiles I generate assume either 1440 or 2880 dpi and I print accordingly. However the data to fill all of those pixels is interpolated by the RIP. So while the ink dots are there, they might in fact only represent true image data at 100ppi with the printing engine smoothing them out to eliminate pixelation. (For a low mp image I will often enlarge the image in PS so that I have 288ppi, prior to sending the image on to the printer.)

I agree that you would probably not want to print at 100 dpi. My intent was to point out that if the level of detail that is seen on a monitor is adequate, then most folks already have enough pixels to print as large as they want. ... As print size goes up, so usually does viewing distance, a 60x40 inch print from a 12mp sensor may not look tack sharp from 6 inches away, but from 6 feet it can look pretty good.

A 16mp D400 (same as the D4) makes a lot of sense to me. Trading off more pixels for lower frame rates and smaller buffers seems to defeat the intent of the a top end DX camera. That having been said I can see where nature photographers may want to have more pixels for cropping...

I guess I should have been clearer.

Posted 9 months ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Thom's latest article (The DX Problem, Aug 13) is really interesting to say the least. For whatever reasons he does seem to have some doubt if Nikon would come to release the D400 (or whatever D300s replacement is called). Most of his conclusion though is based on the fact that Nikon has not shown enough support for DX glass over the years. Basically what he's saying is that there isn't enough DX glass to attract the pro shooters and convince them to buy into DX.

However, the point I think we need to ask is this: do we really need DX glass in order to have a pro level DX camera? And the answer, I think, is no. The thing to remember is that pro DX shooters have been shooting with FX glass for years and (for the most part) happily so. For one thing, if you want the best quality then why compromise and buy DX glass. I realize this isn't the best argument because we can easily say that pro DX shooters would easily buy DX glass if Nikon was to make them to the same quality and standards as pro FX glass. However, the other point is that a pro shooter who shoots with a D300/s is also very likely to use a D3 or some other FX camera. Someone like that is unlikely to buy two sets of glasses for his cameras. Cost isn't the problem here but convenience is. If this was the case then Nikon might as well issue a DX mount and a different FX mount but this isn't the case.

In addition to all of this, NR had a rumor a while back saying there will be 3 more DSLRs this year in addition to the D4 and D800:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/15/nikon-will-announce-three-more-dslr-cameras-in-2012.aspx/

One of those cameras has turned out to be the D3200 and the other is looking to be the D600 so this leave one more camera. The chances of that camera being FX (in light of the D800/E, D4 and the presumed D600) are almost nil now. So this leaves us with the following options:

D5200,
D7200,
D400,
or a completely new DX line.

Out of those I don't think it would be a D7200 since D600 is expected to come out and looks to be targeting the same market as the D7000. The D5000 line seems to be on a two year upgrade schedule so it's also unlikely to be updated this year either. So this leaves us with a D400 or a new DX line. Unless Nikon is going to do something crazy now - which I'm not saying is unheard of just unlikely- I think it's a safe bet it will be the D400.

Posted 9 months ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

iris chrome said:
Cost isn't the problem here but convenience is. If this was the case then Nikon might as well issue a DX mount and a different FX mount but this isn't the case.

Just to clarify here, my point is that more than DX or FX, Nikon sells a camera system called the F-mount system. The whole point of that system is the convenience of its use and the flexibility it provides in switching between its different bodies whether it's switching from FX to FX, DX to DX or FX to DX. Nikon does sell cameras but it's not really hard to see that lenses are the true backbone of that system and not the cameras.

If Nikon were to differentiate further between their FX and DX glass then that can potentially create a problem for any photographer who chooses to shoot both FX and DX. The way things are, it already is a hassle schlepping all your gear around. Can you imagine what it's going to be like if photographers starting carrying an FX camera, a DX camera and two sets of lenses (which would most likely overlap) for each camera? We might as well buy a Nikon and a Canon. This way we can at least have the best of both worlds.

Posted 9 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

I agree with what Iris chrome is saying....I think.... Or, maybe the point is this. An FX lens covers DX, but a DX does not cover FX. SO, build pro FX and forget about pro DX as there is no need for them. And incidentally, while we use the "pro" terminology, the only "pro" bodies Nikon has are all FX. Nikon does not consider the D300s a "pro" body.

And most pros shooting both DX and FX bodies do use the same glass. Understand that to get a six times magnification (approximate) on FX requires a 300mm lens...the f/2.8 cost is nearly $6,000. On a DX body, the same magnification requires 200mm and an f/2.8 is $2400. Fisheye...DX is $775, FX is $1000.

If one wants to get ten times magnification....500mm f/4 is $8600 and the 300mm f/4 is $1500 albeit, not VR. Or take the 70-200 and add TC-20EIII and get up to twelve times magnification at a price of $3000 on DX. As to the idea of the award winners being mostly FX, no question a larger format will get the job done...but you better have your Diamond studded Platinum Plus credit card in hand when you call B & H and order all the equipment.

Thom Hogan may be correct about Photkina, but my guess is still on opening day...a big Nikon announcement. And, it could be a new APS-C mirrorless, or the D400.

Posted 9 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

iris chrome said:
Thom's latest article ... Most of his conclusion though is based on the fact that Nikon has not shown enough support for DX glass over the years. Basically what he's saying is that there isn't enough DX glass to attract the pro shooters and convince them to buy into DX.

However, the point I think we need to ask is this: do we really need DX glass in order to have a pro level DX camera? And the answer, I think, is no.

That has long been my thought and why the argument of "no pro DX glass" falls apart.

The thing that I believe DX shooters struggle with (at least I have) the most is the 24-100mm (FX equiv) range and especially a FX equiv 24mm, 35mm, & true 85mm quick (f2-1.8) primes. The only real lens is the 17-55 2.8 which is a great lens, but still not cheap, and less so, if you plan on moving to FX. And you have a gap between 55-70mm (82-105) where most portraits are ideal. 50mm is a FX 75mm, 60mm is fx 90mm and the 85mm is FX 128mm. You can add the 24-85 in there but then that makes 3 lenses rather than the traditional 2. If you look at the M4/3rds, they have all of those covered where really Nikon and Canon have not. I think that is part of the reason they are popular. If Nikon came out with pro 17-70mm 2.8 zoom and 16mm f2, 24mm f1.8, 58mm 1.4 for DX I think they would have many pros pick DX as a second body or for their light kit.

msmoto- I know you would like a APS-C mirror-less (as would the rest of us) but I think that ship sailed and all we get is the J1/2V1.

I'm guessing we will see a D600 & D400 at Photkina and wouldn't be surprised if the D400 is something non of us expect.

Posted 9 months ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I thought the collective wisdom was a D600 and NOT A CHANCE OF A D400!

Posted 9 months ago #
TriShooter

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 53
offline

Geoff_K said:
Maaaaaaaybe it is my monitor. but what is wrong with the colors in the examples you show ? I wont comment on sharpness since they are small images. I would run away from this camera with those as examples.

Good color eye. The cinema type color was not your monitor. I ran those shots through Alien Skin's Color Exposure Plugin, and used the Cinema 4 Color module; so it is not the camera color you were looking at. The shots are way over processed for a movie color look. They were just handy when I was making the post. What I wanted to show is that mirror-less cameras have some features that are beneficial for super telephoto lenses. I WOULD BUY ONE in Nikon with great enthusiasm with a DX format.

Posted 9 months ago #
R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

TaoTeJared said:
msmoto- I know you would like a APS-C mirror-less (as would the rest of us) but I think that ship sailed and all we get is the J1/2V1.

I want more than that. I want a full frame 16MP mirrorless, about the size of the FG film body, with an F mount that includes a focus motor, an AMOLED touch screen display and native clean ISO from 50 to 6400.

I want Nikon to beat Fuji at their own game. Basically a shrunken D600 with retro styling, or vastly improve P7000 with an F mount and FF sensor.

I can dream, right?

Posted 9 months ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

Msmoto, Yes! Nikon needs an APS-C sensor "rangefinder" style camera, like the Fuji Xpro1 only better and Nikon. (this would truly fall in the category of something I don't need but really want and would buy!)

For all those who say a 16-18 MP D400 would be fine I agree but I'm afraid that marketing will push the need for higher MP's. Tolstoy said "how much land does a man need?" and really does anyone need a car with 500hp, no of course not but boy do they sell! I think we'll see a 24MP D400, not because it's needed or even a good idea but because the D3200 is 24MP and DXO Mark called it the best DX camera yet. From a marketing stand point the flagship DX camera needs to be the best. As for the other features I suspect a lot of you will be disappointed, I get the sense from whats been said, a lot of you are wishing for a mini D4 sort of a sports/journalist camera but I think we'll see more of a compromise. Nikon was brilliant with the D4 and D800,ones the sports/journalist camera and the other is the studio/landscape camera. We're not going to see 2 high end DX cameras, hence the compromise moderately high MP's but not terribly high iso or frame rate. I might be wrong and kind of hope I am, 16MP's with higher iso would suit me just fine. I figure when I really want high resolution I should just jump to an FX body.

With that said I've been watching the prices of lightly used D700's and D3x's start to drop. depending on the price and what you really need/want a used D700 might be the right camera.

Posted 9 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Actually a used D300s may not be such a bad thing if Nikon does not come through with a lot of improvement. 7 FPS, 3200 native. ISO. SO the new D400 will do 8-9 FPS, 6400 or possibly 12,800 native ISO. The real fact is that if we were to take 20 photos with a 24 MP sensor, 20 with a 16 MP sensor and 20 with a 36MP sensor and mix them up, I would not be able to separate them at a 16" x 20" enlargement level. And, I doubt many folks could. So, my D4 will resolve as much as I need. The technique is about 90% of the resolution issue.

It remains to be seen. I may just get more glass and forget the D400 unless it has some really nice features like the 12,800 ISO. and 9 FPS. And, for sure Nikon will give us an APs-C mirrorless within a year I would guess.

Posted 9 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

DaveyJ said:
I thought the collective wisdom was a D600 and NOT A CHANCE OF A D400!

I wouldn't say that at all. That would leave a huge gap of a pro featured DX body as well as nothing with those features until a price point of $3,000. Add to that, a d400 also would leave the opportunity to have better video options that a D7000 and below or a D600 could have making it a choice as a higher end video rig for pros & advanced amateurs. There are more opportunities to push people up a price point with it available.

msmoto said: And, for sure Nikon will give us an APs-C mirrorless within a year I would guess.

I'll bet ya a 32gb CF card that it doesn't happen. ;) Two things point me to "not a chance" category. 1) D3200 release. If there were a DX mirror-less, it would be at the same price point and would cannibalize it. The release of it, as a very good upgrade, shows they are not pitting something against it for that level to fade away. 2) J2 release, more importantly, new lenses and patients being released. If it was just a body, it could be they wanted to let is fade away, but with lenses, accessories and new patients registered, shows they are going full bore forward and not abandoning it.

I too, would love a FG design type of DX system or even FX but that obviously isn't going to happen anytime soon. :(

Posted 9 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

@ TaoTeJared OK, we can agree to disagree....but I think in about a year we will see this. The D3200 will have had its initial run, and it will be the beginning of what IMO will be the revolution of the small format cameras. The break through which will have to occur is the issue of focusing with an electronic viewfinder. And as I study the X Pro-1, this focus issue is the one area where it does not succeed very well.

I believe once the issue of how to obtain a focus in continuous servo mode with a mirrorless camera which performs as well or better than the current DSLR's (D4) we will begin to see the demise of the DSLR. I think the X Pro-1 is the first attempt toward this, but does not adequately deal with the focus issue. And, I think both Nikon and Canon are working on trying to get this technology up and running as the one who gets there first will no doubt have a big advantage.

If we think about the late 1950's, the rangefinder 35mm Leica was the camera. I had a Canon 7 with a 50mm f/2.0 Summicron in the mid 60's along with couple Nikon F's. But it was Nikon who jumped on the new technology and Leitz who waited, resulting in a profound blow to Ernst Leitz as the premier 35mm camera manufacturer. So, I think Nikon will not forget that the new technology is the way to go.

Who knows...maybe the mirrorless DX will be the DX format and FX will be DSLR....both using the F mount lenses. Yes!

Having said all this....you may be entirely correct. But, I can wish at least... kinda like for the D400...

Posted 9 months ago #