Yes I know that we don't know exactly what the spec are.. but ...
Why will you be getting the D400?
(52 posts) (24 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
I'll go for D400 if the high iso performance will be as in d3/d700 and some higher Mpx (still using d200 and do a lot of cropping, so this would be very convenient), as for me the other features like HD video are not important at all.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The ISO will be the deciding factor for me. A few more pixels wouldn't hurt but are not a necessity. Movie mode, not a buying point for me although it doesn't bother me so long as it doesn't hurt the rest of the performance.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'd be interested if it had any combination of the following:
- High ISO Performance (a la D700 only DX)
- Any CLS enhancements... specifically enhancements to reliability
- Built in GPS (its gmicky, but I'm kind of a dork about this type of thing.
- Built in WiFi. Not so much to upload pictures but to remote control it from a PC w/ the ability to change any settings. I don't personally need this, but it seems like it would be welcome for many studio photographers.
- Bounceable pop-up flash. Again, no big deal here, because I own a SB-800, but why not? Its already a big camera, so making it a little bigger isn't going to be much of a bother. Coupled w\ high ISO performance, you might not need to bring along a flash (or better yet, use it off camera w/ your pop-up adding the fill).
- Enhanced controls. Nikon does this so well, and it seems like every successive body does it a little bit better than the one before. I picked up a cannon 50D in the store the other day... I'm not very familiar with cannon controls, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone familier with bother would prefer the cannon's ergonomics.Posted 4 years ago # -
I have a D70 and was almost going to upgrade to a D200... but I waited ... when the D80 came out I almost upgraded .. but I waited... I waited and waited for the D300 till I couldn't wait anymore and got the S5pro instead..(wonderful sensor !). The D300 was good but the differences between the D300 and S5pro + D70 was not great enough to warrant an upgrade for me. The D700 is great and has all the features I would want except that the price to Upgrade was too high(including FF lenses). SO if the D400 has improved ISO similar or close to the D700 and maybe a slight increase in MP, I will be most likely to upgrade. The expected HD video will also be nice as I hate having to carry a another video camera.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Personally I would hope that there isn't a megapixel increase. I don't want it to have a High-ISO noise problem + 12.3 mp is just fine for me. The movie mode would be nice, if they implement stereo sound, and tone down the effect of rolling shutter.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Lulz. Why would a D400 have high-iso ability equal to a FF camera? SRSLY U GUIZ.
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/04/13/nikon-d5000-already-on-nikon-sweden-website.aspx#comment-21785
Noone seems to have picked up on this. Sounds plausible to me. How would you improve the D300 without having first dropping a D4 and D700x/D800? Nikon aren't stupid.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I want a step up from my D80, which I love except for the ISO performance (which is poor on anything except about 100, in my opinion). It's worth waiting for the new features, rather than buying a D300 which will be outdated (relatively) soon.
The movie mode would be nice, especially with the interchangeable lenses.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ stephan : I don't get your point.. What has the D5000 thread got to do with this?
Posted 4 years ago # -
I"m wondering now, with the D90 and D5000 so close in price, if the D300 will come down?
I'd prefer a D300 over a D400 simply because you KNOW they'll add some gimicky swivel screen or video option to it. . .here's hoping for a cheap D300?!!
Posted 4 years ago # -
I actually would buy it for the HD video if it comes with that. The high ISO would be nice too, but coming from a D70 everything else is gravy. Thought about pulling the trigger on a D300, but decided to wait and see what the D400 has for video. I do some casual video with a good point and shoot and any upgrade to that without buying a video camera in addition to an SLR would be welcome.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Personally, since I do alot of indoor sports over the winters, I'd love to have the High ISO performance. If it has a similar continuous rate of the D300 (with and without grip), I'm prepared to dig a little into the budget too pick one up. All the little gadgets they've been adding to their new lineups don't interest me in the least. (in camera processing effects, HD video, etc.)
If I wanted HD video, i'd buy a video camera, if I wanted in camera processing I wouldn't be buying a mid range semi pro camera. Some may not agree with my views on in camera processing, but I believe if your going to buy a camera of this price, you'll most likely be doing post-processing afterwards on a mac or PC with proper software.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'll pick up the 400 because it will be full frame. I'm calling it now. You heard it here first folks!
...let the comments begin. :-)
Posted 4 years ago # -
I probably won't ever get a D400 since my D700 and D300 are both pretty new. If I were to get a D400 it would be for one reason only - ISO!
Posted 4 years ago # -
It needs to inherit D700's ISO, HD Video with Auto Focus, 15 Megapixels (same pixel density as D3x), 100% Viewfinder frame, better IQ, good weather protection.
Nice to have: A Full Frame sensor with 10MP DX frame visible in the viewfinder.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I probably won't get it. I'll wait to skip a generation. My D300 is pretty good for now as my primary camera. Only reason for me to get a D400 would be if I decide to add another body.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ Matstar : LOL ... either I am confused or you are confused (more likely me, so please clarify)... D700 does not have video.. The D300 already has the same autofocus system as the D700. the D3x crop mode is only 10MP not 15MP (so I am not clear what you mean by "same Pixel density as D3x").
Also not sure what you mean by better IQ compared to ??
The D300/D400/D700 should have similar weather protection. Are you saying that the D300 and D700 have inadequate weather protection?
FF? Most Agree that the D400 is the successor to the D300. IE. it will be the DX flagship. So by definition not FX.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I agree. D400 should not be a full frame camera. There's no need for that in Nikon's line. The crop sensor is awesome to have if it's making high quality picture with good ISO performance.
Posted 4 years ago # -
matstar - d300 has 100% viewfinder, so I doubt that Nikon will make a step backward with d400 same with weather protection
also I wouldn't bother too much about d400 as a FF, if they put it on the market than it's gonna be a DX - most likely with 15-16Mpx.Posted 4 years ago # -
I agree with adamz and heartyfusher, the D400 will be DX not FX. I think the rumors of it possibly being FX are more wishful thinking by some as the D300 will certainly not be the last DX prosumer camera.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I see no reason for D400 to be FX, if you want full frame with D300 resolution and better ISO go for D700, if there will be FX camera with better resolution let it be D700 successor. Nikon should not offer cheap FX model because there can be no cheap FX lenses with good IQ and I doubt users will want something that cheap, but there is still need and room for better DX model.
DX unfortunately could never be as sharp as full frame, but it could be very good. DX on the other hand has better depth of field.
D400 will almost certainly have swivel display and that is actually very useful if you think about it and we will eventually get used to it and would not be able do live without it, my only wish is that Nikon makes it tough enough.
Video is a must, not by me really, but we are looking at Canon 5Dm2 competitor here hence we will get HD video.
Sensor will surely have couple more megapixels but I am sure Nikon will try not to loose D300 ISO and noise performance (which are actually pretty good) in the process, though I doubt they could do any better then that. For example Canon failed to keep the ISO performance of previous APS-C models when they raised resolution.
One thing is certain, D400 (or whatever the name will be) would be DX camera to wish for.Posted 4 years ago # -
"...Nikon should not offer cheap FX model because there can be no cheap FX lenses with good IQ..." - hmm, how about all film cameras - they were FF, and some of them were cheap and still the quality of scanned negative is as good as from the best dslr on market
as for the sharpness don't get Your point of view - what it has in common with sensor format? take a decent lens, put the camera on tripod, set aperture to f8 and shoot with any camera on the market on a base iso, and You will get same sharp results no matter what camera and format (DX or FX) You used
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yeah, DX/FX has little to do with sharpness, with the possible exception that with the higher pixel density in DX, you can get better crops.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
