D400 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D400

(862 posts) (98 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1…232425…35 Next »

Buttface

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 10
offline

Well, I'm still waiting for the replacement for the D2Xs.

I'm a wildlife photographer so I genuinely need a faster camera - I've missed many a shot due to the relatively slower frame rate of my D300s - I do NEED 10fps. Yep, the D4 will do that but I also need the DX reach with my 600mm. Yep, a D800 will do that in DX mode but wait it's got low fps. ...and it goes on.

I'll get a D4 if I get a massive well-paid commission but I'd rather have a D400 which has all the attributes of a D4 (except the price) in a DX package. I'd still be happy with 12MP (okay, maybe 14MP).

...add another for the D400.

Posted 8 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

R8R said:
Interesting fallout that I've noticed since the announcement of the D600 - some people are dumping their better DX lenses on Craig's List to go FX - in particular the 17-55mm f/2.8.

If you are a DX shooter, not a bad time to look for some deals on glass.

I have seen lots of Nikon lenses lately. There is a 17-55 F2.8 in my area right now for $875. I paid $925 for mine and thought that was a pretty good price. If I thought I could make money I would buy it and try to sell it, but after fees it usually isn't worth it.

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

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

Buttface said:
Well, I'm still waiting for the replacement for the D2Xs.

I'm a wildlife photographer so I genuinely need a faster camera - I've missed many a shot due to the relatively slower frame rate of my D300s - I do NEED 10fps. Yep, the D4 will do that but I also need the DX reach with my 600mm. Yep, a D800 will do that in DX mode but wait it's got low fps. ...and it goes on.

Someone's full of poo.

D2Xs Top Continuous Shooting Speed at full resolution = 5 frames per second.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Digital-SLR/25414/D2Xs.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

Every DX replacement has had a faster FPS than the D2xs.

The D4 is the first Nikon DSLR that has 10fps. Considering that 1,000s of shooters have made amazing images without 10fps, I'm not sure why anyone thinks they do. I have never had a camera do more than 6fps, and I still get great shoots. Hell, Leica shooters get great shots and they don't have auto focus and only 135mm lenses on the long end and can only get off maybe 2fps.

I know I sound like I am harping on FPS but as a photographer you are going to miss shots. If you need that many frames/sec, shoot video - you can have 25, 30, 60fps. Realistically you have to be shooting above 1/1000 to be firing of that many frames and most I see complain about it are usually only shooting 1/200th or lower.

Posted 8 months ago #
DavidHarsay

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 14
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Someone's full of poo.

D2Xs Top Continuous Shooting Speed at full resolution = 5 frames per second.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Digital-SLR/25414/D2Xs.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

The D4 is the first Nikon DSLR that has 10fps. Considering that 1,000s of shooters have made amazing images without 10fps, I'm not sure why anyone thinks they do. I have never had a camera do more than 6fps, and I still get great shoots. Hell, Leica shooters get great shots and they don't have auto focus and only 135mm lenses on the long end and can only get off maybe 2fps.

I know I sound like I am harping on FPS but as a photographer you are going to miss shots. If you need that many frames/sec, shoot video - you can have 25, 30, 60fps. Realistically you have to be shooting above 1/1000 to be firing of that many frames and most I see complain about it are usually only shooting 1/200th or lower.

The official FPS harper, haha. All sports photographers want high FPS. If a "moment" lasts for less than half of a second, is perhaps getting a quick 3-4 shots in there is sometimes better than just one? Why else would action/sports photographers (and others who can afford it), pay such a large premium price of a D4?

I agree that that technique and timing are significantly more important, but that doesn't change the fact that high FPS is a valid need for some regardless of their need to improve skill level. They always have the option of slowing it down or only taking one shot when appropriate, and in many cases this will yield better results... especially for the less skillful among us - that often includes me.

If a Nitro Funnycar is accelerating to over 100MPH in a very short distance, it's nice to have a high frame rate when panning, but it's a must to have good technique. If a pair of MotoGP bikes are blasting through a chicane at a very high pace, would you use a single shot or a burst to capture the moment? When panning to get that beautiful speed blur of the background (with a sharp image of the object if you're lucky) there may be a few shots in the sequence that come out properly, it's almost beyond human ability to time it just right... it's hard enough to pan and compose properly as things are happening very quickly. And these things can also happen in a quick and hard to predict manner, and having that high FPS is a nice way to push the envelope... after all, beyond the basic point and shoot, all we are doing is pushing the envelope in different directions. This is where some of the wildlife guys may be wanting it... it's hard for me to relate if it's not something I'm doing on a regular basis, so i can't speak for the guys who do landscapes, portraits, street photography as much as I can with the ones who do action, sports, motorsports.

I sometimes need higher frame rate at 1/125 to 1/500 with long lenses even (70-200 - 1.7X - D700 - MB-D10 - RAW) to get the right effect... but you're right, a lot of the time I need it it's much faster.

Taking a "sequence" of a golf swing, you only get maybe two shots at 4FPS. With guy doing a flip on a wakeboard, you may only get 2. I could go on and on.

(edited for numerous spelling and grammar and sentence structure and rambling)

Posted 8 months ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I do think David Harsay has a good point here. In my conversations with Ansel Adams (that does date me) he stressed sequence photos with large format (which I tried to) were in his view very artistic and valuable. I did do a lot of action shots just as TaoTeJared suggests by knowing the subject and getting set up for the shot. And in many ways those certain action frames are almost always better than hammer down action sequences at high frame rate. I operated for years under a business name for photos that implied high speed expertise. Having shot world championship events I have learned both high frame rate and great video are very critical. So I think both viewpoints are valid. I did find that world luge and skeleton and to some degree bobsledding was one of the best proofs that high frame rate is critical. Often at a high speed event (I regard football as not all that fast) you can if you know the sport pick the right time and given that skill I do think high frame rate is often abused and quite unproductive. I say this having done a number of shots like I am going to guess David Harsay does. Indeed I would pick a high frame rate camera in that special application.

My last assurance would be having been there and done that.....I'd rather have a D400 (except that it is a ghost camera right now) than say a D700 which I have used for this kind of shooting. Based on this I THINK the D400 will have a pretty fast frame rate. It sure won't be 4 fps! Very few people shoot a camera this way. In fact many people lack scanning vision required to do the photographing. I do think a foray into large format would cure many of this need for speed. One of the biggest bottlenecks in all of this is write speed to capture cards. I buy only U1 cards and faster.

Obviously this D400 topic is important to me. I HOPE to Nikon. I also Do not want or need shallow depth of field in most cases. Some though thrive on that effect.

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

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

I do see the "special" applications, but there are applications for 300, 500, 1000 FPS as well. 4fps is slow on the 800 for sure, with my D300 and grip I rarely missed a shot and when I do it is because the shutter speed is too slow for it to get to full speed. I think most miss that very important fact.

I just see this "need" is arbitrary and in 3 years that so called need will then be 12fps, then 15fps, and so on. Sorry but I just see it as a misguided arbitrary target for a camera to achieve. Nice if it's there, but it is not any sort of a deal breaker as very few systems achieve it.

Posted 8 months ago #
DavidHarsay

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 14
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I do see the "special" applications, but there are applications for 300, 500, 1000 FPS as well. 4fps is slow on the 800 for sure, with my D300 and grip I rarely missed a shot and when I do it is because the shutter speed is too slow for it to get to full speed. I think most miss that very important fact.

I just see this "need" is arbitrary and in 3 years that so called need will then be 12fps, then 15fps, and so on. Sorry but I just see it as a misguided arbitrary target for a camera to achieve. Nice if it's there, but it is not any sort of a deal breaker as very few systems achieve it.

I agree, the D300 with a grip is 8FPS, so that's not bad at all... the Canon 1DMKIII/IV's and the Nikon D4 are close at 10, not really all that much to be gained. Even WITHOUT the grip you're at 6FPS, faster than both the D600 and D800, and equal to the 5DMKIII which everyone's raving about the speed... 8 is not too shabby, most would be fine with that for the D400 also I would think. More than 10 is sort of a different kind of photography... it would be almost difficult to take a single shot set above that mark in CH.

Posted 8 months ago #
ricochet

member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 12
offline

I'd be happy with a D400 with gripless fps of 8, I'd be even happier if it was in my hand right now.

Posted 8 months ago #
satellites

member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 30
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Someone's full of poo.

D2Xs Top Continuous Shooting Speed at full resolution = 5 frames per second.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Digital-SLR/25414/D2Xs.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

Every DX replacement has had a faster FPS than the D2xs.

The D4 is the first Nikon DSLR that has 10fps. Considering that 1,000s of shooters have made amazing images without 10fps, I'm not sure why anyone thinks they do. I have never had a camera do more than 6fps, and I still get great shoots. Hell, Leica shooters get great shots and they don't have auto focus and only 135mm lenses on the long end and can only get off maybe 2fps.

I know I sound like I am harping on FPS but as a photographer you are going to miss shots. If you need that many frames/sec, shoot video - you can have 25, 30, 60fps. Realistically you have to be shooting above 1/1000 to be firing of that many frames and most I see complain about it are usually only shooting 1/200th or lower.

How many wildlife shooters do you know who are shooting leica? Leicas may be a nice toy for rich tourists or street photographers trying to be discrete or just general photography but you would not use a mallet when you need a jackhammer...I agree with you that you don't need 10fps but for certain aspects of wildlife photography more is better. Like if you are shooting birds in flight...their wings are moving too fast for you to 'time' and the more shots you have the more likelihood of having one that has them in the position you are looking for.

Or what if you are a news photographer and you are shooting someone leaving a courthouse after trial...you have a half second where the subject is not blocked by other people. you shoot thinking you timed the shot perfectly but the guy blinked...I've shot 7fps of someone walking from a door ten feet to a car in this sort of circumstance and half the shots had eyes closed. If I were shooting slower maybe I wouldn't have had a usable frame.

Lots of people look back at the past when people shot action without autofocus, motor drives, whatever, but the fact is when you make your living using a tool you want the best tool possible for the job. Your living is not the place to make an artistic statement and if your livelihood depends upon always getting the shot you do whatever is necessary. This is why all of the sports guys defected to canon a couple of decades ago...because nikon just wasn't keeping up. Luckily the tides have turned, and If ansel were alive today and a photojournalist instead of a landscape photographer he would be shooting a d4 at 10fps no doubt.

Posted 8 months ago #
msmoto

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

I tend to agree with satellites in a couple of areas. I shot John Edwards coming out of the court room.... 8 FPS, but mainly bursts of about three frames to eliminate the blink issue and try to capture the expressions which were constantly changing. Panning at 1/250th with 400mm-800mm, I have a lot of difficulty with just not getting locked on to the vehicle, bird, water skier, whatever, and so I try to catch and synch with the object, but by shooting high FPS, I have a better chance of catching the crisp image. When the object is moving by at 60+ mph, and the speed is changing as in race cars, panning for me is simply made easier by the 10 FPS.

Portraits, bursts of 3-5 shots at 8-10 FPS, again the blink issue is decreased.

Having said all that, and having shot "F" bodies without a motor drive in almost all the situations above, the high FPS merely makes it easier to get the final product. No way is it necessary.

As a neophyte at shooting wildlife, and a great shooter of blank sky when I have tried to capture the flying birds with an 800mm focal length, I am laughing a bit. Maybe old folks need high FPS more than the young guns...ya' think?

So, I want a D400, at least 8 FPS....come on Nikon!

Posted 8 months ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I have never seen a wildlife photographer shooting a Leica. I would also say that the Leica I owned was not my kind of camera. I think the frame rate of my D300 is awesome and very useful. More than that I do not have ANY interest in. TaoTeJared is always right from my point of view. I am for instance following NR almost as much to here what his pronouncement on the D800 and my dear 70-300VR is? If I buy a D600 or a D800 I sure am going to think myself pretty silly for also immediately needing some new lens which will cost more than the camera I add to my "growing family". Of course that is a reference to Ken Rockwell. But I admit i feel guilty buying gear when I am not even sure what lays ahead in terms of photo opportunities. But of all cameras yet unannounced where I LIVE the D400 is by far the most eagerly awaited, and of course the most disappointing. msmotos post saying one of the chiefs of Nikon Europe recently said they have not abandoned their DSLR line is reason for some optimism.

LAST THOUGHT.......What do you think of a 300MM Nikkor f4 with a TC 2.0 for say a D600 or D800?? I have looked long and hard at the 200-400, both in price and weight penalty. I was out photographing Killer Whales from a small day cruise vessel and was the only guy that got a number of shots of an Orca pod feeding we thought on Silver Salmon. I took the pics with a Nikon D300 and a 70-300 Nikkor lens. Then in seconds they submerged. Several guys with big Nikkors came over to see my photos and said their 200-400s and other really big glass was great but they weren't ready quite in time. That to me is the DX advantage and the D400 could do justice to such a fleeting moment. Also Nikons 80-400VR seriously needs updating. And what we get is big expensive cameras and glass. I do predict that the D600 size and weight is a harbinger of the future.

WHERE in the heck is the D400????

Posted 8 months ago #
D300 user

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 34
offline

DaveyJ said:
LAST THOUGHT.......What do you think of a 300MM Nikkor f4 with a TC 2.0 for say a D600 or D800?? I have looked long and hard at the 200-400, both in price and weight penalty.

Bad idea :p. Lens not (yet) stabilized, a TC 2.0 leads to no more autofocus + drop in IQ, especially on 24-36MP (FX) where you need higher shutter speeds than you would when used on a 12 MP body. Just go DX and get the 300mm f4 (wait for VR, we saw the patent a while ago...) and use it with a 1.4x.
The 200-400 isn't very heavy by the way. I use a 500mm f4 which I even carry around with me for a few miles. VR works wonders with these lenses.

Posted 8 months ago #
Buttface

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 10
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Someone's full of poo.

Well, that's just a downright rude reply - I am not f***ing impressed. It's my first time on here and very likely my last because of that.

You may not need high frame rate, and I respect that you don't, but just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either, and implying that those that do need high fps are bad photographers is just way off the mark.

I'm a wildlife photographer and that can involve very fast action - everything from ensuring that the bird in flight has it's wings in the right place or capturing the moment when the spiderwasp stings its prey. You cannot predict these because the speed at which it happens is too fast for the human photographer to react to or predict. Clearly you don't photograph said action. Using video is useless as it still has the same restrictions as when taking photo's - video doesn't magically freeze everything frame by frame; indeed it's what you want to avoid unless your shooting a Saving Private Ryan-type movie.

I understand the frame rate being restricted by the available light but then you wouldn't be shooting high speed action in poor light anyway as the subject matter would be blurry as hell at 1/250 or whatever - 10fps is superfluous in such low light situations. When I know I can use 1/1000 I use it with high fps to get what I want from the situation and opportunity that presents itself. As for macro action a flash allows me to use high fps anyway.

You are going to have to accept that photographers of certain genres need high frame rate. Deal with it, get over it, and move on.

As I said I'm still waiting for a replacement to the D2Xs because I need faster frame rate which the D2Xs and D300 didn't have (and the D300 battery grip doesn't push it up to 8fps - I know as I've tried on many occasions, even at 1/2000; at least on my camera I'd be lucky to get 6fps with grip attached). In other words, a D4 in a DX package is what I need, as I said before.

Posted 8 months ago #
DavidHarsay

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 14
offline

Buttface said:
As I said I'm still waiting for a replacement to the D2Xs because I need faster frame rate which the D2Xs and D300 didn't have (and the D300 battery grip doesn't push it up to 8fps - I know as I've tried on many occasions, even at 1/2000; at least on my camera I'd be lucky to get 6fps with grip attached). In other words, a D4 in a DX package is what I need, as I said before.

Please don't let it bother you, most people want the same thing that you do, and we're mostly not about being trigger happy all over the place and hoping that some of the shots make it.

It's pretty clear that the 8-10 FPS is common ground.

With the 12-14 or higher FPS he does have a point, that it would be pretty specialized stuff to warrant that, I would call that superfast frame rate. There's a point of diminishing returns, and for 99.99% it would be overkill to go past that... AND let's not forget that when the masses are asking for something extraordinary that's not needed, superfast framerate or higher, then the more reasonable people feel like what's important to them will be compromised. I'm here for the same reason, and that's why I make a big deal about not wanting video capability/menus/clutter/buttons/connections/expense... and also about having a top tier AF package... and also about not needing too many megapixels.... luckily there's reasonable consensus there someplace between 16-24.

Regarding the grip on the D300, what battery pack are you using in the grip? I owned the D300S for over a year with the slightly higher framerate (see how this is important in Nikon's perception also) and it achieved the 7FPS and 8FPS under ideal conditions. And of course, it's much slower shooting RAW or any non-single-PPG configuration (the D700 is as fast in RAW)?

Posted 8 months ago #
Buttface

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 10
offline

DavidHarsay said:
Please don't let it bother you, most people want the same thing that you do, and we're mostly not about being trigger happy all over the place and hoping that some of the shots make it.

Thanks David. As someone who always discusses and does his best to see both sides of a discussion, I was miffed at the rudeness of the comment given - it's something I can never abide.

I agree that the ideal frame rate would be 8 to 10 a second. That's enough to give me a good chance of getting the shot I want. As you say, anything above that and you're probably starting to compromise some other aspect of the technology that's in the camera. 12MP is good enough for an A3 spread in a magazine while 14MP will give enough room for any necessary cropping. I'm not a great fan of high pixel counts especially when it limits usable ISO (a definite must in sport and wildlife) and other aspects such as frame rate. I've also never understood the presence of video. I can understand it for the consumer cameras but for the pro' cameras we don't need it or use it. We want a still camera. Anyway, Nikon still haven't sorted out the automatic exposure issue making any serious use of the video capability redundant.

DavidHarsay said:
Regarding the grip on the D300, what battery pack are you using in the grip? I owned the D300S for over a year with the slightly higher framerate (see how this is important in Nikon's perception also) and it achieved the 7FPS and 8FPS under ideal conditions. And of course, it's much slower shooting RAW or any non-single-PPG configuration (the D700 is as fast in RAW)?

The battery grip is the MB-D10. However, you knocked the nail on the head when you said that the D300 shoots slower in RAW. I always use RAW (and 14 bit) to get the best out of any shots (I have an aversion to shooting in JPEG for professional reasons) so hence I never get the frame rate I want. Most of my shots are in the 4-5fps in such a set-up. I did borrow a D4 a few weeks ago and frightened the life out of me when I used the camera at full frame rate. In a test down the local park I managed to test this on some flying gulls. On each burst I was able to record a pic or two of the bird in the right position (say 10/10 success rate). On the D300 this would be about 3/10 - a huge difference.

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

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

DaveyJ said:
I am for instance following NR almost as much to here what his pronouncement on the D800 and my dear 70-300VR is?

Both thumbs up for the combo! I think it actually focuses better and quicker before. What is really nice is with the new AF in the D800 that can focus to F8, stopping down the lens to f8-11 it still focuses really fast.

"What do you think of a 300MM Nikkor f4 with a TC 2.0 for say a D600 or D800?" I would assume same F8 auto-focus applies here as well. The AF in low light on the D800 is really good. It locks all the time when I assume that it couldn't or will hunt for a while.

Buttface said:
Well, that's just a downright rude reply - I am not f***ing impressed. It's my first time on here and very likely my last because of that.

The manner that you wrote you comment implied that the D2Xs had that type of frame rate - which it did not. By almost every measurement including FPS the D300 outperformed the D2Xs thus it was the DX replacement.

Considering someone who willingly chooses a name like yours, I seriously doubt you were going to stay here anyway or were here to be a troll.

@DavidHarsay - I have had the same experience with my D300 and Nikon grip. It can fire frames off at near 7fps for sure.

Posted 8 months ago #
Buttface

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 10
offline

TaoTeJared said:
The manner that you wrote you comment implied that the D2Xs had that type of frame rate - which it did not. By almost every measurement including FPS the D300 outperformed the D2Xs thus it was the DX replacement.

No, I wasn't implying that the D2Xs had the frame rate I was looking for. When it came out it was one of the best available but it, along with others of that era, fell short. Hence I'm still waiting for the replacement (upgrade[?] may have been a better word to use).

The D300 was replacement for the D200. The only thing in common with the D2Xs was the DX size chip. The D3 was the replacement for the D2Xs but it came in full frame (as would be expected when such sized chips became cheaper and more economical to produce).

TaoTeJared said:
Considering someone who willingly chooses a name like yours, I seriously doubt you were going to stay here anyway or were here to be a troll.

...and now you're doing your best to take the piss out of me!!!

How's about being a man and apologising for being rude to me?

Posted 8 months ago #
R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

We're discussing cameras here people, AND it's the internet. Calm down, life is short.

I will throw this in the ring: if the frame rates of the current batch of Nikon AP-C bodies isn't working for you: Sony a57

Or wait for the D400, or whatever the update will be.

Posted 8 months ago #
DavidHarsay

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 14
offline

Buttface said:
...The battery grip is the MB-D10...

Which batteries did you put in it? If you just use EN-EL3e battery pack in the grip, it will not take the frame rates up to 8FPS either.

Buttface said:
...I always use RAW (and 14 bit) to get the best out of any shots (I have an aversion to shooting in JPEG for professional reasons) so hence I never get the frame rate I want...

For fast frame rates on the D300 you need to switch it to L/Fine. There are a couple of workarounds for doing this and not giving up the picture quality you're looking for... follow me here and I may be able to explain how I would do it. First, have a shooting bank for RAW as you normally shoot, and another one for SPEED. Then in My Menu you set up shooting banks as item 1, and Picture Controls as item #2 (more on that later). Set up the top custom function button ready for your right hand index finger to switch by directing it to My Menu. Then for the SPEED shooting bank, set the picture controls to the typical changes you make in your RAW file editor, except don't over sharpen. Your JPEG's will look good. Picture Controls could have several custom settings for doing this for different occasions, so they will be there for you too. If done right, the pictures will look vivid and alive compared to RAW, and the compromise is that you set things up ahead of time rather than later.

Buttface said:
... I agree that the ideal frame rate would be 8 to 10 a second. That's enough to give me a good chance of getting the shot I want. As you say, anything above that and you're probably starting to compromise some other aspect of the technology that's in the camera. 12MP is good enough for an A3 spread in a magazine while 14MP will give enough room for any necessary cropping. I'm not a great fan of high pixel counts especially when it limits usable ISO...

Bravo, more consensus on what we want and don't want.

Let's see...
8-10 FPS at the most (8FPS is very freaking fast, 10 is over the top).
6-8FPS RAW or better.
14MP
No Video
Good ISO performance
Fast and accurate AF performance. Speaking of which...

Jared: Stopping down the aperture has no affect on AF performance for a modern SLR setup (not antique lenses here), as the focus is happening wide open and the aperture stops down for the shot. The value in having a highly sensitive AF system is so that someone can use AF with say a 300mm F4 lens and a TC20eIII.

Posted 8 months ago #
JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

Amazing how quick the D600 got into the stores, there's more stock of those than the D800 in my local stores.

While, the D600 is quite the good camera, I'm still prepared to wait a few months for the D400...My D90 is still doing the job for me at the moment but if no news by early 2013, I've gotta think D600 or look for another brand...

Posted 7 months ago #
sevencrossing

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

It is all a matter of zeros

Take a D4 and add two zeros = D400

Take the price of the D4 subtract one zero = $600

Come on Nikon, listen to us, we want a Dx camera with all the features of a D4 for the price of a D3200

Posted 7 months ago #
Postman

preferred member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 117
offline

sevencrossing said:
It is all a matter of zeros

Take a D4 and add two zeros = D400

Take the price of the D4 subtract one zero = $600

Come on Nikon, listen to us, we want a Dx camera with all the features of a D4 for the price of a D3200

Corrent, in fact I think it was Einstein that said "Zeros cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be moved from the price and added to the model number."

There we go then, proof. The D400 will be $600.

Posted 7 months ago #
msmoto

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

The pricing formula is simple. One takes the D4 and squares the price. $36,000,000. Then divide by the month we thought the D400 might be here, 9 and get $4,000,000. Taking the square root of this we get $2,000, but there is a $200 penalty of late announcement, thus $1800 will be the price of the D400 when it is introduced in late November or early December.

Of course this post may be in the wrong thread....maybe it should go into the "How do you pronounce Nikon," and the answer is Frus...Trait....Ing.

Posted 7 months ago #
Buttface

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 10
offline

DavidHarsay said:
Which batteries did you put in it? If you just use EN-EL3e battery pack in the grip, it will not take the frame rates up to 8FPS either.

I do use an EN-EL3e, and explains why I never 'heard' a difference in frame rate when I used it. I never knew the extra battery didn't make a difference. May I ask why that is?

DavidHarsay said:
For fast frame rates on the D300 you need to switch it to L/Fine. There are a couple of workarounds for doing this and not giving up the picture quality you're looking for... follow me here and I may be able to explain how I would do it. First, have a shooting bank for RAW as you normally shoot, and another one for SPEED. Then in My Menu you set up shooting banks as item 1, and Picture Controls as item #2 (more on that later). Set up the top custom function button ready for your right hand index finger to switch by directing it to My Menu. Then for the SPEED shooting bank, set the picture controls to the typical changes you make in your RAW file editor, except don't over sharpen. Your JPEG's will look good. Picture Controls could have several custom settings for doing this for different occasions, so they will be there for you too. If done right, the pictures will look vivid and alive compared to RAW, and the compromise is that you set things up ahead of time rather than later.

I'm a little wary of doing that (old habits die hard) but I'll definitely give it a go. At least I can compare the above with RAW and see if I am missing anything in the final picture.

Thanks for your help David.

Posted 7 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Thom Hogan quote: "Nikon is being a little tricky with their rollouts. It's going to go D800, D600, D400, in that order." September 20, 2012. So Thom doesn't think Nikon has abandoned the D400; just introducing it last.

Posted 7 months ago #