Sony rumored to announce 24MP APS-C sensor, what would Nikon do? (Nikon D400)

The current Sony a700 12.24MP Exmor APS-C CMOS sensor

The current Sony a700 12.24MP Exmor APS-C CMOS sensor

Amateur Photographer is not big on reporting rumors, but today they did just that: the Sony α700 replacement is rumored to have a new APS-C sensor with high ISO "up into the hundreds of thousands" and resolution of 25MP. The potential release is expected to be around September at PMA 2011 (now called CliQ 2011).

This upcoming sensor from Sony could be the base for the D300s replacement (D400?), unless Nikon really is designing and producing their own sensors now. Since the replacement of the α700 will be a direct competitor of the D300s successor, it will be interesting to see who will make the announcement first (my guess is Sony).

There are even some early rumors floating around that the D400 could go back to the PRO body design of the Nikon D2xs (pictured below) - that would be a way of "upping" the D7000 which currently has better specs than the PRO D300s model.

Nikon D2xs body

Nikon D2xs body

If Nikon really goes with a new full-body style for the D400, this will also ensure Sony that they will not have a direct competitor for their α700 replacement.


This entry was posted in Nikon D400. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Matt



    • Tan

      Sony can do what they want, they’re not going to come out with a good camera.
      Nikon has no reason to follow them into the jaws of MP hell with Canon.

      • Eskimo Nikonian

        Ah snap! Couldn’t agree more. Here’s to a 10 MP FX D4 and a 8 MP DX D400…a photojournalist can dream, cant he?

        • There won’t be a 24 MP D400, nor will there be a XX MP D4. Why? Because Nikon will announce a new type of modular pro body: interchangeable sensors, interchangable viewfinder etc. Everyone will then be free to add a 24 MP DX sensor and call it a D400 …

          Personally I think we are at the optical limits of most lenses with the 16 MP of the D7000. Only the sharpest of lenses would be able to resolve even more detail — of course, not stopped down too much. Maybe if they used another type of color filter array than the Bayer one …

          • Arthur

            I don’t know, if the original processor is made for 12MP, how will it handle 30MP if you swap the sensor? Burst rate, high ISO, menu…

          • Sahaja

            The D7000 already makes most DX lenses look mediocre – if Nikon release a camera with such a sensor they need lenses to match. Perhaps they should go back to having a prime lens as the kit lens.

            And please don’t make the camera too big.

            • LGO

              It is most unlikely that Nikon will release a 24mp DX camera.

              Even with the best of lenses, lens diffraction will become apparent beginning at f/6.1. At f/9.0, diffraction will begin to take its toll.

      • Full frame only!

        What a pain to have to store huge files from photos taken with a 24 MP camera! Get ready to plan TB hard drives!!!

        Especially pointless when a 12 MP is amply sufficient. Even 16 MP is already bordering on the limit of the acceptable for an APS-C sensor but 24 MP, it is simply completely unnecessary?!!

        Yes for increasing the DR (Dynamic Range), the color gamut coverage, add pro features like those seen on the Nikon D7000 but no for increasing MP on an APS-C sensor?

        I wait for the update to the Nikon D700, probably called the Nikon D800!!! It takes some time to be announced!

        • Sarge

          A 2TB WD external hard drive is a touch over $100. Storage isn’t a cost concern.

      • Actually, wouldn’t that pixel density be ~55mp on a full frame sensor? Based on previous DX crop factors, it should be anywhere from 50mp-57mp.

        • Grumpy Smurf

          Yes. Where he learned his maths I’ll never know.

    • asdasd

      no way flagship DX would come with 24Mpix. Maybe if announced in flavor D400x and D400s

  • Muh-Kuh


    I hope the D400 have just 16MP

  • Denko

    Not without VR-III lenses and UHS-II cards they are not.

  • aetas

    This might just start the rumor mills going again.

  • price will get full blown too?

    • Was not the D2xs $4k+?

      • another reason why this rumor may turn out to be true 🙂

        • PHB

          I can’t see a full sized body as being a plus. I would much prefer a compact body. If I want to add weight I can always add a grip.

          It is possible that the D400 and D800 will have carbon fiber bodies. But a full sized magnesium body would not be a good move.

          Nikon could easily differentiate the Professional cameras in many ways. They could add built in WiFi support for a start, and GPS. More FPS, better AutoFocus, faster, more resolution.

          I very much doubt that the Sony sensor will have any impact on Nikon’s plans. What is really driving resolution is the amount of CPU power available to pull data off the sensor. The D3x requires a lot of computing power to deliver those fps at 24MP.

          Mobile chips can’t increase their power consumption so the speed increases rather more slowly than the desktop models. But even so, it is now quite a while since the D300 came out and a 24MP body should now be possible.

          Results would probably be disappointing with the cheaper lenses. But the modern primes and the teles should be up to the job. I would not expect too much from the superzooms or the ultra wide zooms. But thats what FX is for.

          One point to be somewhat cautious of is the promise of 100,000 ISO. That is more likely to be the extended range (HR2) and the base ISO 3200. Which would still be a major advance on the D3x performance but not evidence of some completely new technology.

          If we see a 24MP DX body then expect a 48MP FX body not too long after. Sure the low light performance is going to totally suck unless you downres shadow areas in post processing. But take a look at the ‘blad gear that people still pay $30K to get a single body plus lens. Those only manage ISO 800 and they are too big to use comfortably outside the studio anyway.

          • Lawliet

            I’d guess a full sized body would mean no AAs as fallback option. Not a iusse for the professional, but for the amateur who does only so many extended field trips that would be annoying. :/

            The higher resolution will not only show the flaws of the lenses, but also make shooting technique an important factor.
            Handhold at 1/f won’t get you more details then current cameras…

          • iamlucky13

            If the rumor is true, which I’m skeptical of, I’d wager the top-end ISO would be achieved by pixel binning to get a 1/4 resolution (6 MP) image.

          • c.d.embrey

            I prefer the form factor of a Hasselblad over a Nikon D3. Better weight distribution and shape.

            I also prefer a small body like a D300/D770.

            Anything more than 16Mp and/or a large heavy body will stop my planned migration from Canon to Nikon.

            • PHB

              Get the D7000 then, 16MP and a mag-alloy body.

              At $30,000, the Hassy had better find a better reason to buy it over a D4x than handling preference.

            • Roger

              I hope you’re not talking about film Hasselblads, because a camera that’s shaped like a box and has no ergonomic features to speak of, can not possible be superior to the D3.

          • Roger

            “I can’t see a full sized body as being a plus”

            I can. Those things fit your hands like a glove. Big cameras are ergonomically better, built better, have better batteries.

            I always get a chuckle when I see an adult person complain about 100-200g difference of weight.

            • Eric Pepin

              Being a photography student, that travels with his cameras 5 to 7 days a week, I can promise you the weight different doesent matter too much, but the physical size does.

  • spin

    I’m just sad. I can’t take any good pictures until the D400 comes out!

    I mean, come ON, Nikon!

    • Lardinio

      Dry humour is sometimes lost on me. But not this time Spin. 🙂

  • Bjorn

    Incredible 25mp’s? – we’ll all need faster computers & even more storage devices.

    • gt

      not to mention – better lenses. 25mP is sure to outresolve the current nikon DX line up

      • iamlucky13

        Forget Nikon’s lenses…does Sony have anything that sharp for their own version?

        The rumor strains my belief.

        • Husky


      • PHB

        Then buy the pro lenses.

        The DX lenses are mostly designed for lower cost, its been a while since there has been an out-and-out pro DX lens.

        Might mean you have to use the FX primes rather than the zooms. Which might create some interesting cost tradeoffs. You can save a bit of money on the DX body but to use it you need to buy primes.

        Still, a 24MP DX body would be very big for the birding community.

  • I wonder about the high ISO?

    • Roger

      Better than ever before. Noticed how low light performance improves always as the cameras get more megapixels?

  • I like the title: WWND? T-shirts coming soon 🙂

  • It’s all about my FX

    “What would Nikon do?”

    They’ll come out with 12 mp with a D2X body and charge you $2500 of course!

    What else can they do? come out with a D700 replacement? Ha!

  • Lance

    Second… This is getting ridiculous! 25mp APS-C? I’m pretty sure only the best prime lenses stopped down to f5.6 will be able to take advantage of all those packed in pixels. Give us better ISO performance before resolution!

    • PHB

      If you compare at the same resolution, the low light performance of a higher resolution sensor is actually better, not worse.

      A lower resolution sensor has more surface area per cell to collect light. That translates to more signal and thus better signal to noise.

      But you can get the same effect in software if you average across adjacent pixels.

      • Mind clarifying that? You said low light performance is better on higher resolution sensors, but lower resolution sensors yield better signal to noise ratio? Did you mean low resolution = better low light performance?

        Also, doesn’t heat come into play? More pixels = more power = more heat = more noise, right?

        • Arthur

          He probably means that if you have a lot of pixels and you decrease the resolution to say 12MP, the noise will decrease too. But I doubt that’s better than a native 12MP sensor with good high ISO capabilities.

        • Roger

          PHB meant exactly what he said – low light performance of the high resolution sensors is BETTER, NOT WORSE. And he’s correct.

          Noticed how 16mp D7k is BETTER than 12mp D300? Go compare the images, if you dont believe me.

          More megapixels equals more noise = M Y T H.
          One of the worst and often repeated myths currently out there. It’s amazing that people still believe in this myth, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

          • PHB

            There are two considerations here. The first is the noise in the raw data coming off the sensor, the second is the noise that ends up in the final picture.

            What I am saying is that if you take a full resolution image from a 24MP sensor and use the best quality algorithm to create a 12MP image you will have a better result than if you start from an identically tuned 12MP sensor using the same technology.

            Let the area of a 24MP camera pixel be A
            The area of a 12MP camera pixel is going to be approx 2A

            So if the light falling on the 24MP pixel is L and the charge generated is S
            The light falling on the 12MP pixel will be 2L and the charge generated is 2S.

            Noise has two components, the first being thermal noise. that is rather complex to model but should not be relevant since if Nikon are advertising 14bits or 16 bits they mean that they are able to distinguish those bits from thermal noise. Smaller pixels mean less noise from the pixel, but they are not the only component to consider. I have not got the data to do the math but I believe that this is not the dominant noise term for low light.

            The noise that has an effect for low light performance is the quantization noise that comes from the fact that light is composed of individual photons.

            When a photon strikes the sensor, one of two things can happen. The first is that the photon misses or is reflected or absorbed in the color filter or goes straight through in which case no signal is created. The second is that it knocks an electron and creates a charge.

            In bright areas of the picture the number of photons hitting is in the millions or billions and the random nature is irrelevant. The random fluctuations are going to be a tiny fraction of a percent.

            In the dark areas the variance may be as large as 10% or more and that becomes visible. In the darkest areas the variance may be greater than the signal.

            Now consider what happens if you average over two adjacent cells, if you average samples from two binomial distributions together, the result is a narrower distribution. The variance is cut in half.

            That is what is happening in the 12MP sensor. Effectively you have pixel binning going on.

            What the camera makers should do is to change the way that they rate ISO on cameras so that they rate the noise that shows through on a fixed size resolution.

            If you apply a Photoshop filter, you can easily smooth out distracting quantization noise in the darkest parts of the image where the sensor was unable to resolve without losing resolution in the bright parts.

            Sure you may not need 24MP prints, but having the pixels means that you can crop. A D3x is pricey, but the additional cost over the D3 is much less than the cost of an ultra-telephoto.

            • Eric Pepin

              The d7000 should be better in lowlight, its two, wait three? years newer technology, also are you saying that the d3x downressed at its highest ISO possible is better then the D3s at the same ISO ? Id love the see that comparison.

      • SZRimaging

        You have it slightly wrong. It is situation dependent on whether better high ISO noise/smaller MP is better than worse high ISO noise/larger MP. Can’t remember if it was Thom Hogan or *gasp* Ken Rockwell who did the shoot, but they found situations where both had an advantage.

    • +1

  • mshi

    it’s not going to be a forgiving camera, folks.

    • Jack

      This is not a forgiving audience.

      • Victor Hassleblood

        Good reply.

  • Roger

    Excellent, this could be the D400 sensor. And even better, you know Nikon will have a better camera than Sony with this same sensor, since Sony will handicap it’s camera with a pellicle mirror.

  • Logan

    D400 leak?

  • JED

    Not sure I believe this..

    If true I suspect the high ISO “up into the hundreds of thousands” is relating to down sampling the image which would be OK given the 25MP starting point.

    The high ISO performance surely could not be another leap past the D7000/K5.

  • Panfruit

    “Since the replacement of the α700 will be a direct competitor of the D300s successor”

    I doubt it. A 60d or d90 competitor is more likely.

  • Hmmmm…… really not quite sure I want a 24MP APC-S sensor…. But if you are really serious Nikon, please give me a D300s size/weight 16MP FX with another stop or two over the D3s, and I’ll be a very happy camper!!

    • Xscream

      I totally agree with you. ISO performance doesn’t even have to be better than D3s (I mean, come on!), but at the level of the D3/D700 would be great.
      24 MP is way too large for me, my lenses, my hard drive, my want for FPS etc. And I’m not the only one.

    • TaoTeJared


      Sony and Canon are always pumping out new test sensors – it doesn’t mean that they will use them anytime soon. At least Nikon has always been concerned with IQ rather than the MP race and I don’t see that changing any time soon. I remember first hearing about the Sony 16mp rumor and the D300/D3 was released just a few months later with 12mp. Nikon seems to test and tweak a sensor rather than just put the newest one in a camera like Canon and Sony.

      I don’t get the desire for the Full size body at all. I add my battery pack and I’m there. And it is big! When I want to go light I take it off.

    • another anonymous

      and for d700 price 🙂 dream with us boy 😉

  • Ronan

    D400 -> 16mp
    D400x -> 25mp

    Both in a ‘full pro body’…

    I would be all over that 😛

  • R R

    Its sad that Nikon follows the megapixel race that Canon (a non photographic but marketing driven company is doing..), they are in for the money not for the art of photography. And that to me is the fake need of megapixels, give us video, high ISO performance, better lenses, but dont follow the money making sole purpose company that makes the ¨white¨ lenses..

    • Ren Kockwell

      You want 12 MP sensors for the rest of the decade? No thanks.

      • I think 12-16 is a great place to be for the next 4-5 years easily.

        Only then do i think that most computers will easily be able to handle 24mpx.

        • SZRimaging

          Wha…? My computer (3 year old Core2 Duo laptop) can easily handle 4 stitched 10MP images. I think a 24MP image is not too large by computing standpoints. Hard drives will be filled, yes, but the computers can handle them.

          • Mike

            Yes, but how will your computer handle stitching 4 24mp images?! :-). You’ll have more time to make and enjoy coffee!

            • PHB

              My four year old computer has no problem dealing with that type of throughput. But then again it was built to do video editing so it was extreme for the day.

              We are talking about professional cameras that cost upwards of $1800 here for the body only. The cost of the computer is not going to be a concern.

              If 12MP is sufficient for your needs then you probably won’t be looking to upgrade at all.

        • I don’t mean to say that computers can’t handle 24mpx. I do 40 and 50mpx panos fairly regularly…

          …but as a wedding photographer, I don’t want to deal with hundreds and thousands of 24+ megapixel images when speed is an issue. 12mpx gives me native 11×14, and i have never been displeased with anything up to 40 inches using genuine fractals or blow up.

          • Mock Kenwell

            You’d get used to handling the bigger files. We always do. I’m not in the wedding biz, but advertising and trade show design. You can see why more than 12MP would be highly desirable in those fields.

          • Geoff_K

            you likely wont have to shoot at 24, but wouldnt it be nice if you could if you wanted ? Not that I think 24 in a crop sensor is the right way to go, but …

      • +1

        And this isn’t about Nikon following Canon, it’s about millions of customers following Canon where Nikon don’t go. Look at the 5DMKII – how many photographers chose that over the D700 because of the available MP? Nikon KNOW they are losing in a space like that whether quality is ultimately compromised or not.

        It’s like if Mercedes built a 5 litre top of the range motor when BMW only built a 3 litre. Even if the Mercedes burnt twice the fuel and being heavier, how many people would still buy the Mercedes over the BMW if it delivered more power? ‘No one needs more than a 3litre’. Canon are playing to the basics of human behaviour and whether people agree here or not Nikon HAVE to follow down this road in my view to remain competitive and at least provide the CHOICE for consumers. At the moment, there hasn’t been any choice with Nikon in sensor size, unless you were in a position to fork out £5000 on a D3X.

        • Very true! But it’s also important to remember that money made from the sales of 5Dii and D700 bodies is chump change compared to what both companies make off the Digital Rebel and Dxxxx models.

          In a perfect world camera companies would separate the entry level from the professional models completely. That way they can focus on the important specs that pros need (like keeping resolution down in favour of noise), while continue the megapixel race in their entry level models and make a lot of money through that. This way, entry level consumers get their 5L engines and are happy, while pros keep their trusty 3L’s.

        • suprchunk

          No one needs more than a 3 liter?

          Worst analogy ever.

          • Discontinued

            “Worst analogy ever.”

            Sure about that?

            There have been so many silly car-camera-analogies here, that I find it quite hard to make up my mind, which one of them to declare worst ever.

          • I forgot this forum is largely filled with U.S. based togs who probably think nothing of burning up our planet in 15 litre Hummers. Petrol and Diesel costs a fortune in the UK and people are dropping vehicles with large engines like they’ve contracted measles. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable analogy 🙂

            • 2cents

              How DARE you call us a bunch of ‘togs!’

              psst: hey, what’s a tog?

            • phoTOGraphers

            • 2cents

              Oh, okay, then, yeah, I’m a TOG! 🙂

            • Discontinued


              yeah, perfectly reasonable. Now I understand it all. Thanks a lot …

              let me think again …

              No, I do not understand at all. You say big engines get dropped because of measles whereas Nikon needs to follow the path of big sensors (in the sense of high
              RES), because this is better for the environment ? ? ?

              Could you please explain it again and use a motorcycle-analogy this time ? Maybe I’ll get that one.

          • PHB

            Nobody needs more than a 3litre, whether they want more is something else.

            I have never once had the slightest problem with the power output on my 1999 Jaguar XK8. Unless I took it out on a racetrack (not a good plan for a convertible with no roll bar) I can’t imagine being in a situation where I could floor it.

            The current model has a 4.2 litre engine instead of 4.0 and with the supercharger you can have almost exactly double the power output my car has.

            That said, I would much prefer the Jaguar 3 litre than the GM 5 litre block which takes twice the fuel to deliver less power. There is a reason for that, GM are using a design that they have barely changed since the 50s.

            If Jaguar offered the 3litre engine with a supercharger I would definitely go for it, all the power of the 4litre when you need it plus the fuel economy fo the 3litre. But the reason they don’t offer that in the US is that they are in a horsepower race with Mercedes and Porsche.

            • Victor Hassleblood

              Thanx PHB,

              you just solved one of the greater mysteries in my life. I was always wondering which car PHB drives, what engine he has and if he is taking it to racecourses. But I still can’t really picture it. Could you please add some info on the color of your car?

            • Mock Kenwell

              @ Discontinued—hilarious!
              @Victor—equally hilarious!
              @RussB—way to make sweeping generalities. Isn’t that what us stupid, unenlightened Americans are supposed to do?

              Thank God some posters here still have a sense of humor!

        • Mike

          Hmmm. I guess that’s why I prefer Nikon. I would rather have a 3.6L H-6 Porsche 911 vs a V-10 Dodge Viper. Viper is fastest in a straight line (Canon), but the Porsche (Nikon), just does evvvverything else better. 🙂

          • Discontinued

            “fastest in a straight line” and “evvvverything else”

            Now that was as enlightening as the BMW-Mercedes-analogy.

            I guess some folks here have a car mag left hand of the keyboard and a porno mag right hand of the keyboard. Above the latter and in the middle there is NR on the monitor .

            I still miss a tits-n-ass-analogy that explains the advantages of one or the other camera system on a level that I will finally understand. Maybe next time? Oh, please!

          • Wow! That was hilarious. 😀

        • ja

          ditto , the D3x should be prices along side the D3/D3s its a tool
          as for the d400 rumor well i seriously hope so as i dont like the compact size of the D7000 and it out specs the d300s

      • Geoff_K

        While I would like more than 12MP, 24 on a crop does seem high.

        I’d take a D700 bumped to 20MP and be happy.

    • Ian

      Canon a non photographic company? They’ve been making cameras longer than nikon

      • And printers… In any case Canon and Nikon are both in it for the money, they’re publicly listed companies, not local co-ops…

      • DaveB

        In fact, Nikon (Nippon Kagaku), in the early days, did a lot of their business making lenses for canon rangefinders!

  • adam

    quality over quantity I always say

  • Discontinued

    If Nikon is really going to use a 24 MP DX sensor
    on a 300s replacement, it is placed far above D7000 anyway.

    Why would they need to use a D2X style, sized and priced body for
    further distinction?

    Just because of Sony? Come on, how sad is that? Sony says “jump”
    and Nikon asks “how high (weight, size and price)”? Well, that
    would be just great.

    Hopefully Sony has decided to leave FX to Nikon altogether.
    And maybe the D300s replacement is going to be a small
    FX, as suggested by some NR-readers in comments on
    the D7000?

    • Sony and Nikon are in an interesting position – they are basically competitors, but Sony did provide sensors for them (at least in the past)

    • ja

      nikon isnt run by sony all sony do is proved the sensors to nikon design and spec requirments cost effective , like skodas are audis octavia is an andi A4 jaguars are fords does it stop ppl buying them hell no stop moaning what ever nikon do or dont bring out you’ll all be getting it for your nikon users and if your not happy with how nikon runs things then do one , but you wont cos deep down your nikon till the your no longer able to shoot photographs anymore .

  • Ruh

    I heard they are going to the foveon sensors like sigma 😉

    • Panfruit

      Foveon 24mpx? So that’s like 6 or 8 mpx then? 😛

  • John

    I would literally try to fuck that camera.

    • ricardo


    • Panfruit

      Lens mount FTW!

    • PAG

      No THERE’s an option they could add that would differentiate the D400 from the D7000.

    • Duiweeville


    • Mike

      1. That might void your warranty
      2. Pity the Nikon tech who has to clean your camera’s sensor, mirror and removal of pubes. Ha ha hmmm. That was not a visual I needed. Oh the horror.

    • BenS

      LOL ! Damn ! I wonder what the sibling would look like ?

  • shasta_d

    What about diffraction?

  • HDZ

    Very exciting, I mean high-speed crop on this sensor.

  • Jay

    Am i the only one to find that 24MPX is too big for a potential D400 ?
    I’ve got a D300 with its “little” 12MPX …

  • 24MP for a D400 sounds like a jump too big, but not entirely impossible. Will the D800 have the same MP as the D400? 😮


    “The new Nikon mirrorless system would be more professional than what’s offered by other companies“

  • Talkontar

    Seems like I’ll be getting d7000 after all.
    I would never buy 25mp dx, since it’s pointless at the moment (lenses are too weak, diffraction, noise, hot pixels…) and d800 will probably be (unfortunately) a disappointment.
    Why? Since there’s very little chance it will bring together best of both worlds: DR and fabulous high ISO. Either it will have nikon sensor – 18 mp with great high ISO but low DR and I won’t give up extremely useful d7000’s DR for much less useful ISO 12800 and up. Or it will have sony sensor – 24 mp with great DR but high ISO won’t be much better then that of d7000, so the extra cost (I will have to replace my dx lenses) and large files clumsiness kills the purpose of upgrading.
    So most probable future for me – upgrade my d300 (is it really an upgrade?) to d7000 and spend the rest of money saved for FX upgrade on EVIL. I hope nikon’s offering will be interesting enough, otherwise it’s m4/3 with some great panasonic lenses. Or maybe rumoured pentax mirrorless will be nice? They have experience with small pancake lenses…

    • Tonio

      I’m a little curious about the reasoning here and in similar posts. No one minded having lenses that could out resolve sensors, so why are sensors that out resolve lenses so terrible? In any event, 24MP is only 1.4x the linear resolution of 12MP.

      The more legitimate fear is that you get a crappier picture that happens to be higher resolution. Ok. But if the S95 can put out a decent 10MP image from a 1/1.7″ sensor and the GF-1 can get 12MP from an M4/3 then 24MP APS-C is totally doable.

      I don’t care if some of my lenses aren’t going to cut it — if I have the option to stick a good prime on for a specific shot.

      I understand it’s hard to turn 180 having convinced ourselves we didn’t envy canon’s higher resolution now and then, but don’t worry, canon will release a 32MP rebel and you won’t need to live with the cognitive dissonance for too long.

  • A 24 MP DX in a D2x styled body would be a nice way of differentiating the offering from a marketing standpoint. A sort of professional DX camera.

    But then, will anyone buy a FX body anymore? One will get a 1.5x advantage on all your zoom lenses. A 80-200 f2.8 will be actually a 140-300 f2.8 lens with all the resolution necessary. The lenses might become cheaper too… and may be lighter.

    • preston

      Conversely, the people that primarily shoot wide angle (like myself) are only hindered by the crop factor. The ultrawide lenses currently offered for DX have much more distortion and resolving power (important if higher res sensor is used) than the FX equivalents.

      • have you tried the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 ? to me has distortion under control and built quality is awesome!

        • PHB

          Distortion is not the only problem with DX lenses.

          All DSLR wide angle lenses are a compromise. Even the 14-24 is not perfect. That is why the rangefinder design is preferred at wide angle and why a lot of people are interested in an EVIL design.

          It is quite possible to correct for any given quantity. There are lenses that are sharper than Nikons and lenses with less distortion. But the sharpness comes at the cost of double distortion and chromatic aberration and so on.

          Nikon usually offers the best compromise for a particular lens’s intended function.

          The DX wides are never going to be as good as the FX wides. And the FX teles tend to be optimized for a different use than you would want to use a lens of that focal length. The 85mm f/1.4 is great on DX, but its not a good focal length for taking full length portraits indoors.

          That said, the cost difference between DX and FX is currently of the order of a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom. And while a lens is good for at least a decade, a body is typically obsolete in three. So it is not where I would put my money for the next few years.

      • For that we already have the D3x and probably a D4 coming in 2011 as well.

  • Hell I dont want a D2x body, I want a mini pro body! Could even use smaller batteries. I love my D3 but that thing is a behemoth

  • Kerni

    Give us first a wider dynamic range and more natural colors and clean gradients (16bit). Second, a fast and accurate autofocus. Then a bit more ISO, high FPS…

    And then maybe, give me some more pixel, but please not for than 14-16MP for DX and 24-30 for FX. I think even the 200 f2 can’t use higher pixel density.

    • Kerni

      “for than” means “more than” 😉

    • asu


  • Eric Calabros

    I wonder if Nikon staff read comments here,… to realize how ridiculous is such so called Jump!

    • Mike

      They do. Hi Amanda!

      • Eric Pepin

        they do times two, Hi Bob.

  • Daf

    I’d expect the next Dxxx so 400 to be an upped D7000 – so maybe bigger body, more buttons, etc etc

  • Andy

    This sensor is also expected to be in the Sony A77 , which is thought to be a beefed up A55 and the A700 repplacement.

  • D400 or whatever it’ll called would not be in large body like Dx serie. There’s just no sense to leave D7000 alone in pro segment while it is still in a consumer level. Things wouldn’t change and D300 replacement wolud be in the same position over cheaper models, cause even if Canon 60D painfully suffered from crazy specs of D7000, Nikon have to compete with 7D and the Dxxx serie is what that segment about.

  • francois

    Can’t really see neither happening in the D400 – the cost of a magnesium/carbon fibre full body with dual controls would be horribly expensive.

    The 24MP DX sensor is bordering on ridiculous , and as others have said I simply don’t think the processing horsepower is available to get a decent frame rate out of it. Not least too that the Dxxx bodies will have less processing power than the Dx series , compare AF speed with the full 51-point grid on a D300 and D3…

    • Roger

      Processing power is already getting there, 16-month-old Canon 7D spits out 18mp files at 8fps. Nikon should be able to do 24mp and 8fps this year.

      • PHB

        The shutter won’t move above 8fps unless you go electronic, so thats hardly a limitation that should bother folk.

  • Zorro

    It’s time for a D400s (new 12MP sensor) for normal people, and a D400x (new 24MP sensor) for wankers. Why can’t we have a choice of high-res and normal-res sensors lower down the range?

    • Sergiy

      Absolutely agree. To hell megapixels!

    • Eric Pepin

      being a photography student who couldnt care less about frame rate (as long as i get 1 every few seconds im good) and doesent care much about high ISO, from my perspective, bring on the MP, and bring on the DR. Reason I dont use Canon is because the build quality of there sub 5k bodies leaves a ton to be desired, and the ergonomics are not up to the levels of the nikons, and my camera is a tool end of day.

      plus… I use a 4×5 🙂 so screw canon, a shitty epson can pull more resolution out of a 4×5 then a 1dmV would ever have.

  • The photography magazine that I subscribe to has a 10 page long advertisement on Sony NEX series, shrieking all over the place that DSLR’s are boring, never mind the gargantuan lenses screwed to the faceless Lilliputan bodies of Evil cameras! So is Nikon going BIG since Sony is focusing hard on midgets bodies? I think that is a lot of crap. I love the size my D300 is and any efforts to blot the DX and I am off it. So let it be a 24MP, or a 48MP, if you please -never mind the MTF and Diffraction-, let it be the D300 or the D700 way.

    • Yeah, Umashankar. I tried the NEX as well. It felt like handling a hammer.. lens heavy.

      I like my D300. Perfectly balanced and brilliant IQ.

      For a small carry-everywhere camera, I just picked up a Panasonic G1 @ $399 from last month.

  • Greg Webb

    Madness. You’ll be outresolving almost all lenses at almost all apertures, very possibly giving _less_ effective resolution and sharpness – but by definition with bigger files that put more load on camera and computer, and worse high ISO performance than could be achieved with larger pixels.

    Corporate ‘my one’s bigger than yours’ to have this many pixels at DX. Here’s hoping Nikon ignore it.

    • Roger

      Not true. I can already tell you havent done any tests, you are only repeating the myths you believe to be true.

      You wont be getting less resolution, you’ll get more.
      You wont be getting worse noise, more megapixels does NOT mean more noise. Have you wondered how is possible that 16mp D7k is much better in terms of noise than the 12mp D300? And you still believe 24mp will be worse? That’s just ignoring the facts, and choosing to believe in myths.

      I assure you that Nikon engineers are well aware that more megapixels does NOT mean more noise, in fact, they know that smallers pixels usually mean LESS read noise. They know what they are doing, dont worry, 24mp D400 will almost surely be the DX camera with the highest ever image quality.

  • albertus

    … and D700 with 12 Mpx?????
    the same people who wonder d7000 with 16Mpx repeat and repeat that 12 Mpx is the best for D700 !!!!!

    For video or trillions of “pictures” on the web is 2 (two) Mpx enough !!!!

    For these who make photography: 12-16 Mpx on APSC is ok, 20 Mpx on 24×36 is now minimalistic, Canon has understood that !

  • I’m very curious about what will happen when we reach the diffraction limit. Are they going to still further escalate their MP war?

    • PHB

      When we reach the diffraction limit they will use programatic filters to cancel out the diffraction effect.

      We used them for astronomy in the 80s. You loose some information but not all.

  • zen-tao

    What kind of lense will we have to buy to put on a level on that kind of CMOS? Up to now it doesn´t exist. Current CMOS have already surpassed the t resolution capabilities of the lenses.

  • Dweeb

    Meh. Nikon have foregone delivering professional DX lenses since they were trying to peddle their half frame D2. Sure 24MP sounds good but what’s the point?

  • Brian Davis

    I certainly hope Sony doesn’t build the sensors…the ISO performance in their cameras is a joke. Anything above ISO 400 is super grainy. Sony sucks.

    • Roger


      Those days are long past, bro, Sony sensors today are bloody wonderful. You know what’s the best and the least noisiest DX sensor available on planet Earth? 16mp Sony sensor, used in Nikon D7k and Pentax K5.

      • Ali

        Part true part wrong, 16mp sensor on the K5 and the D7000 is brilliant, on the A55, and A580 not so great. Sony sensors on Sony bodies are terrible beyond ISO 400, this coming from an A700 owner.

        Can’t wait till the D300s replacement comes out so I can finally decided what to buy 7D, D7000, or D400. Because I actually cannot produce good pictures beyond ISO 800 on my Sony Alpah700 unless I want a grainy black and white picture.

  • ZinhaEq

    It has begun!!!!!

  • SZRimaging

    24MP in DX would out resolve almost any lens in Nikon’s lineup. Honestly, I would say that 16-18MP is the max I would go, and even that begins to push it on normal shooting.

    That said, 24MP would most likely work for photographers who do fine art/landscapes/commercial. This is because they can use tripods most of the time, and are able to use all of the tricks to get the most out of a lens.

    But news, sports, and street photographers would be better served by 12-16MP. They are handheld, fast, run and gun type of applications.

    • JED

      One camera can do both.
      High quality pixel binning and/or down sampling can give you both modes in one camera.

    • Roger

      24mp DX camera can do it all – run and gun photographers who are always on the deadlines (PJ shooters, for example) can always use smaller jpg if they are in a hurry, and use full 24mp when they need the resolution.

      Repeat all of this after me:

      24mp is good. I will refuse from now on, to believe in the myths always repeated how megapixels are bad. Megapixels are my best friend. They are my life. I must master them as I must master my life. My 24mp camera, without me, is useless. Without my 24mp camera, I am useless. I must fire my 24mp camera true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to outshoot me. I must outshoot him before he outshoots me. I will…

  • SZRimaging

    Oh yeah, and if it comes in a pro style body, I’ll take it! Since I always use a grip on my current body, I would love to have one built in and with all the functions I need. And I have decided DX is much more suited to what I do than FX at this point.

  • PAG

    I don’t follow the Sony stuff at all. Do any of you know if they have a lens lineup that could actually make use of 24MP?

    • They have amazing 135 f1.8.

      • Roger

        +1 Excellent lens.

        And to answer PAG question: yes, they have. Nikon does too. Canon does too.

  • le_eiji

    great news. D7000 clearly outresolves D700, even though it has “only” 4 MPs more than D700. D400 with its 25 MP sensor may outresolve both 5D MarkII and D3X. Go Nikon! Go Sony!

    • lolly

      There will be a 24MP+ sensor in a future Nikon camera. If it’s introduced in 2011 in a DX or FX camera, it will kill the D3X. There’s no doubt about that. Maybe Nikon realized over 2 years ago that the D3X will have a short life and priced it accordingly.

  • Back to top