Nikon D4 and D400 in August, D700 replacement still in the air

The big announcement in August will be for a new Nikon D4 and D400 DSLR cameras. The Nikon D700 replacement will probably be announced at a later date, maybe even in 2012. I know that this is not the news most of you want to hear, but it actually makes perfect sense because the Nikon D3 was announced together with the D300 back in August of 2007. Nikon is a very methodical company and if the D3 and D300 pro level DSLRs are on a 4 years life cycle, the D700 should be replaced in 2012 since it was announced in 2008. Nikon also likes to announce higher end models before using the same tech in a low end versions (for example 12MP DX sensor in D300->D90, 16.2MP DX sensor in D7000->D5100, 12MP FX sensor D3->D700), so don't expect the Nikon D700 replacement to come out with a better technology before the D4. The D300s replacement will probably use the new 24MP sensor from Sony which further confirms this rule.

Another question here is: does the "S" update count as a replacement? The D3 and the D300 were "replaced" by the D3s and D300s but for the most part those were just minor updates. The D3s and D300s were announced in 2009, approximately two years after the D3/D300. There was never a D700s. Maybe there is still a possibility for a deviation of the D700 this year (let's say D700s: D3s sensor + video), but my source was clear that the "real" D700 replacement will come out in 2012.

[NR] probability ranking: 70%

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • I’m just hanging out for the D4. Been holding off upgrading from my trusty D700 for a few months now in anticipation. Would be awesome if it was 24mp.

    • Yep, I am in the market for two D4’s as well. But I’ll wait at least 6 months and let others be the beta testers. Personally I still hope Nikon will put those interchangeable sensor patents to use. If not a 24 MP body is quite likely, unless Nikon is going to continue a two-body pro line. Maybe the D4 will also have something similar to PhaseOne’s Sensor+ for higher ISO numbers and/or smaller files. The D3x already produces the cleanest images of all current Nikon bodies (downsampled to the 12 MP resolution of the others that is).

      • IanZ28

        Think that anyone expecting 24mp in the D4 is foolish. There is absolutely no reason for a MP jump like when Nikon already has a 24mp camera with the D3x.

        16-18mp maybe.

        • rearranged


          and by the the way, having so many pixels in a d4 would negate a d4x that is coming for shure.

  • eagle eye

    I’m so inclined to just buy a Canon 7d and adopt my Nikkor lenses as ‘Hollywood ‘ does so I can finally shoot video again.
    The wait has been too long for an FX body that can shoot video and stills to maximize use of all the Nikkor lenses I have gathered over 40 years of being a Nikonian.

    • Doesn’t the D3S shoot video ?

      • Mike

        Only 720p … the D7000 is the only full HD capable camera in nikon’s line.

        • The criteria was merely “video”, not HD 1080 video. Eagle Eye is likely not well versed on Nikon’s offerings, trolling, or both.

          Two big flaws in his complaints:
          A) There is no FX body that can shoot video and stills (D3s?), and
          B) The notion that the 1.6x crop 7d (as opposed to Nikon’s less aggressive 1.5x crop DX cameras) fits his criteria of “FX body”

    • erm.. 7d isnt fullframe either…

    • … Just buy a D7000? Honestly, I was thinking the same thing until Nikon released the D7000. I bought one and have been shooting a lot of video with it, and am very impressed.

      • Agreed. The video is incredible. I’ve shot both the 7d and T2i side by side with my D7000 (as well as the D3s), and the Canons don’t hold a candle to these 2 Nikons. The image quality (video and stills) really is a step above.

    • I’m always curious by these types of statements. Are you truly aware of how video is created on a DSLR? It’s sub-sampled (a 7D does not have 1080 vertical pixels, after all, nor do any of the DSLRs with video). The questions are what is it sub-sampled at, and does that have any impact on the image? As many are coming to realize the answers are 720 vertical and yes. The big issue is moire, and it shows up in annoying ways.

      The big rush to DSLR video was caused by one thing: decreased DOF potential at bargain basement prices. Many of those that made that initial rush are now backing out to large sensor dedicated video cameras, and partly because of the sub-sampling issue. Neither the Panasonic AG-AF100 nor the Sony FS-100u use the same sort of sub-sampling, for instance, and both are relatively immune from easily triggered moire. They’re configured with the things that a true video shooter wants (XLR inputs, for instance), and they are quite good as video cameras. We’re going to see more and more of that and the prices will fall further from the US$5000 mark those cameras command today.

      I’m also curious about the need for an FX body to “shoot Hollywood.” Hollywood DOF is about what APS gives you. Super 35mm is close enough to APS to deliver essentially the same DOF with the same lens. By going to an FX body you go beyond the Hollywood look, and are getting very Kubrickish (Barry Lyndon, for example).

      Oh, but you wanted the FX sensor to get lower light capture, right? Well, we’re back to the big-sensor dedicated video cameras again. The FS-100u has a base ISO of 800. What? How is that possible? Well, it doesn’t have 24 zillion pixels. Instead, it covers the video HD format, which is basically 2mp, with large photosites. Very large photosites. In my testing it’s better than the D3s in low light for video.

      • Ken Elliott

        Ah, someone who actually gets it. DSLRs make for poor video cameras, if you know what you’re doing. I have a difficult time understanding those who bash Nikon for being “behind” Canon in video – yet these people don’t seem to already own a professional video camera. If you are in the business, you own or rent a pro camera and have little need for DSLR video.

        I’m old enough to remember the hybrid car/boat and car/airplane shown in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magazines. They had the ability to suck at both tasks, and the fad died quickly. The good thing about DSLRs shooting video is it forced the video camera manufacturers to offer lower cost cameras with interchangeable lenses. Once those become commonplace, the DSLR video craze will diminish.

        • Roland

          +1 to both of you!
          Suddenly I don’t feel so alone anymore…

        • D700guy

          Right. Personally, I wont be heart broken at all if the D4 omits video capability.
          If I want a decent video camera, then I would probably be looking at Sony rigs that do only that; video.

          • Global

            Most people want a HOBBY and a second way to make a (small secondary) buck. They want a “look”, not a profession in film-making.

            I think you guys don’t get it at all:

            If someone is going to buy a D800, they want 2 for 1. The Hobbyist/Student/Experimenter doesn’t have the resources for 2 dedicated systems. Interesting info, though. But it still doesn’t matter worth a dime. There will be APS-C and FX, and someone who buys one of those cameras, simply wants the nicest available video for DSLRs on each.

            If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

            • Oleg

              Global, if you own a DSLR you wasted your money. Why? Well, DSLRs are for people that have more or less sophisticated taste and demands to the image quality. Do you think they want a crappy video capability attached to their fine imaging machines? If you are into cooking would you like your $500 Chef Knife to have a little spoon on the other end? just to make two in one… If you are into sports cars, would you like your $1,000,000 car to have a little beer bottle opener attached to a rear view mirror? If you are into photography, would you like your $2,500 camera have a video mode equal to of a $100 toy camcorder? Just to have two in one? I thought so!

            • tor8472

              I don’t think you get it either, your examples are terrible. Some people want a great stills machine that will also do some OK video. I drive a car that can do more than one thing. I don’t have one for commuting, one for family trips, one for racing, one for driving to the mountains, and one for hauling stuff from the store. Some people do, and that is fine. There is no reason to take away a feature (like remove the back seats when my family isn’t with me) that is already there because of live view just because it isn’t desired by everyone.

            • +1 @tor8472

              But I contend that with the right approach, the DSLRs CAN produce GREAT video, not just good video. I know there are downsides. That doesn’t stop the devoted DSLR shooters that see tremendous value for money. The features/capabilities of these cameras is undeniable. Many big name directors are leveraging the advantages of DSLRs. Most aren’t, sure, but many are. It’s a tool, like anything else. Those that choose to use them aren’t automatically amateurs, morons, or dupes.

              Some may not be able to see past the limitations. That’s fine. I wish the opponents in this discussion would acknowledge the irrefutably great work that has been done by folks determined to shoot primarily or even solely with DSLRs.

            • That “two for one” comment is the giveaway. The minute you put that into the design equation, you’re asking for the camera makers to go towards least common denominator, not highest possible quality. Because two in one becomes three in one. Next thing you know you have…what?…a smart phone or a tablet.

              How many of you bought a Subaru Brat? Or Ford Explorer Sport Trac? Short term, there is usually interest in these crossover types of designs, but long term, we get better non-crossovers built to purpose.

              We’ve now got competent video out of all still cameras (well, almost all). Do you really want the STILL camera makers to keep pushing video as far as they can? And are you willing to have the VIDEO camera makers then respond by pushing still capabilities in their cameras as far as they can? While all that’s going on, of course, we won’t have STILL camera makers making better STILL cameras, nor VIDEO camera makers making better VIDEO cameras.

              I happen to shoot side projects with a Sony FS-100u these days. It blows smoke rings around the best Nikon video capability. So again, the question is: do I want Nikon to take a D700 and make it as good a video camera as the FS-100u, or do I want them to make a better still camera?

            • I wish to defend Oleg here. More universality means less professionality. Of course, there are market goals like goal of a 5D MkII which was gained by obvious reasons. It’s more video camera than still one (in overall market sense, not in technical), so it is selling like a hot cakes even now, before announcement of the MkIII, which is waving at the very close horizon. People are willing to get a cheap shallow DOF video tool and that’s what is DSLR video about.

              But imagine next scenario: you are experienced video-operator now, you have done a bunch of jaw-dropping videos with your photo-gear, you knowing exactly what you want, your needs, understanding how whatever specific piece of gear can help to improve your skills, faciliate the entire workflow, bring some convenience in it, etc. And here goes the question. Is the DSLR-video way so suitable to you that you can easily stay without moving to special-task tools? Professionality of the tool is about convenience. For example, photographic lenses were made with no clue how they would work for precise subject tracking. Focusing ring of conventional AF lens is awful even for pure photographic work, not to mention fine-art filming. I tried to record some hobbyist’s videos with my small park of AF and outdated MF M42 lenses and made a conclusion that they all are not suitable. It works, of course, but this is not the way I wish to do.

            • Mark

              I’m with Thom. I love my D700 (my first digital and it replaces my beloved by dead F3) just as it is, without video. I expect to replace it in two generations or so. What I want is advances in still filming. I do not know if adding video adds to the weight, but it truly adds to the camera’s complexity which I do not want or need. I suspect adding such complexities takes effort away from the camera design itself.

              It’s a still camera, after all. I hope Nikon focus on the still camera needs and not video needs for its future pro and semi pro cameras.

          • Sony video cameras produce just as the name implies: video. It has never looked filmic. Also, their asinine proprietary 24p’esque’ frame rates are mind-bogglingly messy.

            • Three things:

              First, yes, DSLRs can produce good looking video. They do so today. A lot of productions have been shot with existing video capabilities, even the aging D90’s. That’s not the question at hand here.

              Second, it’s very true that the video makers including Sony ignored their primary clients for a long time. That was a mistake and it is being rapidly corrected. What you and others are asking for still camera makers like Nikon to ignore their primary clients ;~).

              Third, are you referring to 24P being stored in 60i? That’s not “proprietary,” it’s the AVCHD standard and required for Blu-Ray and other things. Yes, it’s messy, but only if you don’t have the right editing tools.

              Finally, a lot of the design direction of both still and video cameras is being dictated by a small number of professionals and organizations that the camera companies do listen to. Bottom line: the still shooters want to shoot video because they think they can take paying work away from them. The video shooters now want to shoot still grabs while filming because they think they can take paying work away from the still shooters. Short term, maybe. But this comes at the expense of those that actually want to specialize, which is the biggest core of users.

            • As for Sony, I’m talking about their “24f” approach to 24p footage. If I recall, it was confusing and complicated for many a video shooters at the time, and there were some image tradeoffs compared to true 24p.

              But that’s only part of it. Even today their dedicated camcorders are intentionally overpriced AND crippled. They KNOW what film folks want, and still bury their heads. I’m glad DSLR makers have adopted video, because they’ve shown up the camcorder makers in the ways that matter most to the market. I don’t agree that quality has been sacrificed in the primary category as I don’t see clear signs of that having taken place.

              This isn’t so much an issue of technology. It’s an issue of technological motivation. The camcorder industry was and still is an entrenched, stodgy group of foges that spend more time thinking about how to string along their customers than how to satisfy their customer’s demands. They held themselves back, and THAT is why the world unequivocally embraced HDSLRs when they arrived on scene. FINALLY someone delivered a “look and feel” that matched what can only be explained as the industry best (thus the standard for decades in Hollywood). Camcorder makers wouldn’t offer the tools that were being asked for. Someone else did. Camcorder makers got owned.

              I agree that dedicated solutions are usually best. But this is a case where non-dedicated solutions are VERY CLEARLY trouncing the competition due to their high relevancy in limited (but important) categories.

      • dave

        Reason with them all you want Thom, but they won’t listen (even if you are the real Thom H). Now that they’ve made the financial investment in the D700 and high end FX glass, they are emotionally incapable of admitting or consciously believing that while the D700 is the best sub-$3K low-light camera, a lot of those other reasons were highly exaggerated or just plain wrong. Although their cry for a D700 replacement is just their subconscious trying to rectify the lies they’ve been telling themselves with the truth that a newer DX body would have served them just as well for a fraction of the cost.

        This is not to say that everyone with a D700 doesn’t need one, but I’ve seen far too many people who use them like a giant point & shoot. Kinda like buying a Porshe Boxter because it gets the kids to school five seconds faster than the minivan.

        Another interesting thing I’ve noticed. A number of those folks who claimed they would never get a DSLR with video, are now demanding it in the D700 replacement.

        When I shot the original FX format (35mm film), I used to lust after Hasselblad and 645 format bodies (That’s 120 film shooting 6cm by 4.5cm format), but soon discovered that aside from poster sized enlargements, I could do pretty much whatever I wanted with my Minolta.

        • zack

          All you guys are living in the past and you can write essays how digital cameras with video features are the thing of the moment, but you’re totally missing a point. Even the PS cams have video that is better than any SD camera could offer 10 years ago. We are living in the era where synergy of all sorts is happening on digital front and you will see more of that, not less of that. Is iPad a hybrid that will go away as well? No, quite the opposite, all these devices will be better and better and you will face the decision many musicians faced some time ago and that is, do you carry around all that ‘analogue’ gear you have, or you take one self-contained multi-purpose device that can do all that even better.
          If you think that in 10 years time, people will still carry big camcorders around, you are all fooling yourself. As for Nikon D7000 video capabilities, it is pretty good. Watch Zacuto latest DSLR shootout where you will also be able to see all these cams together (including RED and ARRI)
          So, get over it. Sorry, if you spent too much time on the gear in the past. So did I, but that’s history.

      • Jabs

        @Thom Hogan.
        Your ignorance is showing. Actually Hollywood DOES NOT record almost anything at 1080p or 1920×1080 as that is considered mediocre and not acceptable. Cinematic FILM was way more dense in resolution than that and even Japan has had HD video, though analog based way beyond 1080p for eons and are now proposing 8K video as their new standard definition.
        Normal analog broadcast WAS 640×480 maximum before digital and 1920×1080 is able to be used NOW due to it perfectly scaling FROM that old standard.
        640->1280>1920 (add 640 lines each time), hence you also have 1280×720 or 720p. The US electrical current is 60Hz or 60 cycle, so you needed 30 or 60 frames per second to properly SYNC the motors and the signal to prevent video crawl or creep.
        Cinema had no such limitations as they shot at 24 frames per second (23.975, if I remember) and used MUCH higher resolution in analog filming. The current DIGITAL Film resolution is 4K and this is what allows them to surpass old analog FILM and YES, old analog film WAS about 35mm or the same as FX or full frame as Kodak used to make a special motion picture film stock packaged in 35mm spools and many shot F3’s, F4’s and such on it, just like they shot Fujichrome, Ektachrome or Kodachrome – thus you are wrong.
        RED the digital cinema camera manufacturer gets it and you don’t. People like FX digital video because it better mimics Cinema FILM and DX sensored cameras mimic TELEVISION video standards and not what you claim. The RED brand is way beyond the resolution of FX cameras now and more like the Hasseblad and other medium format cameras plus there are several Cinematic standards with even bigger sensors or SIZES than even medium format – think IMAX or others.

        • gt

          you missed his point.

          • Jabs

            NO – he flubbed his point as the cameras that he mentioned are indeed small sensor cameras and Cinema film cameras have always been at least 35mm size and ABOVE or FX size in Nikon’s scheme.
            I am an Engineer and Thom is a blogger who reads much but has no answers and I answered and explained why he is wrong from memory.
            No offense meant but you can’t guess about Technology. Moire issues are often a fact of life in VIDEO but not in FILM or Cinema, so hence he goofed.
            Film and video are NOT the same even in the digital world = what he blew or seems to not know!
            Moire comes from an interaction from equipment sync via certain colors or textures – lost on him. It is NOT a limitation of DSLR’s but some sensors have moire filters and others DO NOT.

            • Jabs

              PROOF that Thom is wrong:
              Panasonic camera – The design of the AF100’s micro 4/3-inch sensor —

              Sony camera:

              Now, tell me whether this Sony camera is FX, APS-C (DX) or Micro four thirds in SENSOR size?
              People read web sites and have little Technical knowledge and are unable to ferret up Manufacturer’s misinformation and then try and tell those who know better what to believe – YEAH right!
              WHAT has been the standard Film size in mm for ages?
              DX (APS-C)
              or Micro 4/3rds?

            • Jabs

              Here is your plain answer about what size sensor the Sony uses.

            • c.d.embrey

              You may be an engineer, but I actually worked in Hollywood. Motion pictures (for the most part) have been shot in a 4 perf verticle format. A very few were shot in VistaVision (a 8 perf horizontal format) and some in various 70mm formats. Some were also shot in Techniscope (a 2 perf vertical format).

            • There are so many things wrong with your post, it would take me an hour to fix them all. But let me point out a couple of things:

              Most Hollywood movies get shot in Super 35 format (I’ve worked on two features, how many have you worked on?). That format is a shade over 24mm wide because they fit the image sideways on 35mm film stock.

              Super 35mm is 18.66 x 24.89mm for 3:2, less for wide
              The RED One is 13.7 x 24.4mm
              My Sony FS-100u is 13.3 x 23.6mm
              My Nikon D7000 is 15.8 x 23.6mm

              For widescreen, Super 35mm had about half the “resolution” of 35mm still photography. The RED One is an 8mp camera at it’s 4k “resolution.” My FS-100u is a 2mp camera at it’s max video resolution. My D7000 ditto, but it’s sub-sampled from what’s effectively 720P, which means a bit over 1mp.

              I could go on with all your “you’re wrong” comments that are wrong, but I won’t. Remember this as you’re trying to fight this fight: I have BA and MAs in filmmaking, worked on both Hollywood and television productions, and still shoot video on the side.

            • Pdf Ninja

              Moire is clearly coming from subsampling. You cannot violate the sampling theorem and expect everything to be fine. You can’t keep every Nth pixel and throw away the rest without interpolating.

              Yes, 1080p is often not enough for Hollywood, but the point is that if you can’t afford shooting high resolution RAW movie (RED), you should be using a dedicated 1080p sensor, instead of subsampling.

              Thom is right, I guarantee you that today’s DSLR video is not anti-aliased. It throws away pixels like nearest neighbor in Photoshop, which gives you jagged edges and aliasing artifacts, such as a Moire pattern. If you violate the sampling theorem, you’ll get false readings, that’s a fact. Of course most consumers don’t care too much about that.

            • @Jabs & @Thom Hogan:

              I think the confusion here is at least partly coming from the fact that with all the lingo you guys are throwing around, you’re not catching the simple point of misunderstanding (eg “perf”—sure it’s a common term, and it’s fun to say, but it’s not necessarily clear to those not familiar with cine terms).

              Jabs: you are correct that hollywood films use 35mm film stocks. HOWEVER, they run the film vertically, while cropping the frame horizontally (landscape).

              In still cameras, we obviously run the film horizontally, AND we crop the frame horizontally. Therefore we have a full 36mm horizontally for image exposure (24mm vertical by 36mm horizontal) while super35 actually only has 24mm horizontally (~18mm vertical area by 24mm horizontal area) for exposure on the neg.

              Thom is correct that pretty much everything in Hollywood is shot on a DX equivalent sensor.

              Now, if you want to discuss cine primes compared with the lenses we’re using on our VSLRs, that’s an entirely different story. 🙂

            • Jabs

              You know what is weird here – people think that or fail to realize that IF YOU turn your FX camera or film camera sideways, that it still remains a 35mm UNIT.
              If you talk about analog, then yes they were using different sizes WITHIN that 35mm FORMAT.
              If you talk about LOW END digital cinema, then that is one thing while HIGH end uses something else.
              IF I remember right, 70mm is the equivalent of maybe medium format and thus people here are talking AT each other because they are NOT Technical, and I am.
              The concept was being said that both the SONY NEX Video camera and the Panasonic were superior to all DSLR’s in video and the reasoning was given – bigger sensor and lack of moire – I disagreed as they do NOT know what causes moire NOR what Cinematic resolution is? HD VIDEO is not Cinematic resolution and BOTH the Panasonic and Sony cameras have WORSE resolution and ISO response than say a D3s, because they have lower resolution SMALLER sensors (Panasonic is micro 4/3rds and Sony is APS-C). The Panasonic is a glorified GF/GH series camera while the Sony is a NEX camera based system. HENCE, both are worse than a D7000 and inherently inferior to either a Canon 5DMK2 or a Nikon D3s – facts!
              THAT is what they could not answer and tried to bury me in techno-speak. Professional here with over 30 years of experience in my field and I TEACH people how to use, spec and purchase equipment PLUS I build professional equipment for a living.
              Bottom line – video and cinema are two different things recorded differently though digital brings them closer together because they can exchange FILES now easier.

            • @Jabs

              The format we’re accustomed to is indeed as you’ve said, that being a neg where the width of the film stock is the shorter end of the frame. Therefore, it’s understandable that you’ve mistaken how it is used in cinema. I was actually very confused for some time, and never even knew that the area of the neg used in film was much MUCH smaller than in 35mm still photos. Indeed, I didn’t have a clue that the images were actually flipped 90° from what I was accustomed to seeing in 35mm still images.

              Below is a link to wikipedia (super 35 entry) that illustrates various frame sizes and formats:

              And here’s a link to the 135 format (35mm still images):

              If you look at the illustrations/images on both pages, you’ll clearly see that super35 format roughly covers a 3 ‘perf’ area, or the area of 3 sprocket holes in the film. This is compared to 135 still format which covers an entire 8 ‘perf’ area. So, the dimensions are as follows for frame dimensions (super 35 vs. 135):

              Vertical vs. Horizontal:
              Super 35: 18.66mm X 24.89mm
              Still (135): 24mm X 36mm

              Apparently (and I only JUST read this on Wikipedia):

              “Each image is 36×24 mm in the most common “full-frame” format (sometimes called “double-frame” for its relationship to the “single frame” 35 mm movie format).”

              I wasn’t aware that “single frame” was a common term for the 35mm movie format. But there you go. 35mm still format is double the size (or more with successive movie formats).

        • c.d.embrey

          Sorry, but you are wrong about Hollywood shooting in FX. Check-this-out Note the Super 35 (4 perf vertical) dementions of 18.66mm x 24.89mm. About the same size as Nikon DX, 15.7 x 23.6mm.

          VistaVision is the only Hollywood 8 perf horizontal system, same as 35mm still cameras and FX. The last VistaVision picture was released in 1961.

          • Jabs

            Again another person who misreads or misunderstands Technical details via web sites.
            There are:
            What you expose it on does NOT count (as in you can run larger size movie film through smaller film rails to get a different FINAL size in your Movie camera), as the dimensions in millimeter of the FILM are fixed.
            35mm FILM is 35mm Film and many used 35mm Motion Picture film loaded in bulk packs or in reusable 35mm cassettes on their Nikon cameras in the past – FACTS.
            I believe that 16mm is closer to DX size (not sure) while 35mm is exactly the same dimensions as FX, hence 35mm. You see they ran movie film in undersizes and increased widths within the frame rails of various cameras to get different sizes of output and thus the apparent confusion. Film size was fixed BUT camera perspective and USE sizes were not – as that is how they got final or perceived various dimensions while USING the same film stock!

            • c.d.embrey

              16mm is 7.49mm x 10.26. Super 16 is 7.41mm x 12.52mm, The Black Swan was shot in Super 16.

              I didn’t read this on a web site, I have hands-on experience. I’ve worked with 16mm, 35mm 4 perf verticle, Vistavision (StarTrek, the Movie SFX), Quad video (2″ tape), 1″ tape and Betacam field production cameras.

              Have a nice day.

          • Jabs

            Let me perhaps clear up a glaring form of confusion to those not raised in the film era and only know digital.
            In digital, you have electronically selected SIZES and often fixed sensor sizes that can be ‘zoomed’ to make them an equivalent of something.
            In ANALOG film, the film size is FIXED but the slit that you expose the film through varied in MOVIE cameras and panoramic 35mm FILM cameras (sort of like 120 and 220 medium format film or 645 cameras and others like Fuji’s GX680 or a Mamiya RB67) and thus with the identical FILM, you got various formats from the area EXPOSED on the film and THAT dimension while using the same film. Some Movie cameras had multiple ‘slots or masks’ that exposed differing ‘fixed output sizes’ and thus many newer digital shooters are confused.
            ANALOG was based upon various exposure areas within the same film dimensions using the same identical FILM, so a machined part masked the area of the film to give the various dimensions needed.

            • > In digital, you have electronically selected SIZES and often fixed sensor sizes that can be ‘zoomed’ to make them an equivalent of something.

              I suppose you’re referring to what most DSLRs do. Given that they’re subsampling at 720P in the first place, it’s not all that difficult to make them support 720P and 1080P (which is almost always interpolated). But the current HD standards would have you support a range of formats from faux NTSC (480i/60) to the current highest form supported by US broadcast (1080i/60). Underlying YOUR assertion is that there are the right number of photosites generating the 1920×1080 of 1080. That’s actually an incorrect assertion. Nikon and Canon both sub-sample and upsize in their DSLRs.

              > In ANALOG film, the film size is FIXED but the slit that you expose the film through varied in MOVIE cameras and panoramic 35mm FILM cameras

              That’s correct. Plus there’s also the use of anamorphic lenses to consider. Generally speaking one way we handled the format confusion in analog was to frame for worst case through best case. My old Arri had viewfinder markings for four formats.

              But your original assertion was something about the superiority of the 35mm frame size. The most commonly used frame size since I started shooting in the 70’s has been Super 35, which is considerably smaller than the 35mm still frame. Thus, your assertions about resolution of 35mm just don’t fly. My original comment, to which you replied harshly, had to do with DOF. Do the calculations. I do. I’m getting basically the same DOF for my lenses on my FS-100u as I did on my Arri shooting Super 35mm. That was and remains my point.

              If you want to go to the FX sensor size for video, you can get even less DOF than Hollywood typically shoots at. Not sure why you’d want it (unless you’re Kubrick), as it makes for very difficult focus pulling.

          • Jabs

            I think that the confusion here stems from us saying different things.
            I am talking about film STOCK size only and NOT how it is run through a movie camera or even undersized to fit a particular standard dimension in a CAMERA.
            That is what people miss here.
            Have a nice day too.

            • > I am talking about film STOCK size only.

              Go back and read your own words. They were:

              > the cameras that he mentioned are indeed small sensor cameras and Cinema film cameras have always been at least 35mm size and ABOVE or FX size in Nikon’s scheme.

              No, cinema film cameras have not recorded material at least 35mm size and ABOVE or FX size. They used film stock the same size as still cameras, but the Super 35mm format almost everyone has been using is about a 1.4x crop, very close to the DX size, not the FX size.

              You can keep repeating non-sequitors as much as you want, but a film shot on Super 35 film has almost identical DOF to digital shot by a RED One or by my Sony FS-100u. It does NOT have DOF the same as my D3s.

        • Jabs, you make a number of statements that need addressing:

          > Actually Hollywood DOES NOT record almost anything at 1080p or 1920×1080 as that is considered mediocre and not acceptable.

          You seem to think “Hollywood” is only motion pictures and are forgetting how much of it is TV based. And you might want to actually look up the figures for yourself: 1080P/24 is used more than you think. Most digital projection in this country is 2k. 1080P is…oh, 2mp.

          > Cinematic FILM was way more dense in resolution than that and even Japan has had HD video,

          True. But what’s your point? Hollywood FILM was analog/analog, just as Ansel Adams was analog/analog. In both stills and digital we got analog/digital (analog capture, digital output) first. Now we’re at digital/digital. We’re now in a world where we’re matching capture/output again. For most of Hollywood, that’s 2k/2k. Many are shooting 4k and hoping for more 4k output.

          > though analog based way beyond 1080p for eons and are now proposing 8K video as their new standard definition.

          I’m sure we’ll have 8k at some point, but you might as well have written about NHK’s Ultra High HD (7680×4320). We’re not there yet in almost any fashion. Capture, display, storing, or distributing. We will get there, but we’re not there. That’s the thing that drives the high budget Hollywood films (but no one else) to use 4k or whatever the max they can find: they’re worried about future royalties on systems that don’t exist yet.

          > Normal analog broadcast WAS 640×480 maximum before digital

          No, it was not. Most people would rate state-of-the-art NTSC at 648×486, or 480i/60 after removing the non useful lines. Pal would be 720×576, or 576i/50.

          > and 1920×1080 is able to be used NOW due to it perfectly scaling FROM that old standard.

          Gee, how do I get perfect scaling of a 3:2 format to a 16:9 one? ;~)

          > Cinema had no such limitations as they shot at 24 frames per second (23.975, if I remember)

          It’s usually referred to as 23.976

          > and used MUCH higher resolution in analog filming. The current DIGITAL Film resolution is 4K and this is what allows them to surpass old analog FILM

          Really? 12 megapixels resolves more than 35mm analog film? Are you absolutely sure? And that’s max 4k. There are actually four different current definitions for 4k that range from about 7mp to 12mp.

          > and YES, old analog film WAS about 35mm or the same as FX or full frame as Kodak used to make a special motion picture film stock packaged in 35mm spools

          Here’s where you show your ignorance. Big time. Hollywood didn’t shot 24×36, which is what a still camera does with 35mm film. Over time the made a number of changes, but the basic standard on which most Hollywood features were shot since I’ve been doing it (and yes, I’ve been involved with two features along the way) is something called Super 35. It runs through the camera 90 degrees different than still film, and the most commonly used size of the frame turns out to be 18.6 x 24.89mm. Nikon’s DX size is 15.7 x 23.7mm. Thus, Hollywood has been shooting on something closer to DX than FX, which was my comment in the first place.

          > RED the digital cinema camera manufacturer gets it and you don’t.

          You might be interested to know that the RED One format is 13.7 x 24.4mm, or just in between DX and Super 35. So, yes, RED gets it, even though you don’t ;~). My Sony FS-100u is 13.3 x 23.6mm, by the way, which is pretty RED-like (and DX-like and Super 35mm-like).

          > The RED brand is way beyond the resolution of FX cameras

          The RED One resolution is 2304 x 4096, or a bit less than a D3s. Except that the D3s subsamples to do video, in which case your comment is correct. But that’s not what you intended to say.

          > The base ISO of the Nikon D3s in video is what?

          Still 200. As I noted, the base ISO of my FS-100u is 800. Look it up.

          > Does either the Panasonic or the Sony have better low light RESPONSE than a D7000 or even a D3s – the best low light DSLR so far?

          In my initial use of the FS-100u, my answer would be for video, yes. Haven’t used the Panasonic so can’t say, but my videographer buddies say it’s close to my Sony. Again, the Sony is a large sensor (about DX size) with only 2mp capture (1920×1080), so the photosites are giant compared to the D7000.

          > Show us some images.

          Try looking at the Zacuto tests. They were done by people even more professional than me ;~).

          • Stephen White


            I don’t know why you’re being attacked so vociferously here, but don’t worry, it’s not detracting from your history of incredibly cogent, insightful, and tempered comments here and elsewhere. I hope you can resist getting dragged down into this sniping and continue to stay above the fray. ; )


            • I’ll keep trying with the facts, but they seem to be escaping Jabs, perhaps because he hasn’t actually used a 35mm motion picture camera, a RED One, or a Sony FS-100u.

              For those of you trying to make sense of all this back and forth: the actual capture size of most motion pictures (especially ones shot in 3-perf widescreen to save money) is much closer to DX than it is FX. Because the usual standard for Depth of Field is Zeiss, and Zeiss uses a CoC of 1/1730 of the diagonal capture area, if the capture size of Super 35 is about the same as DX, we end up with the same depth of field using the same lens and aperture. It’s one of the reasons why everyone wants PL or Nikon mounts on their high-end video cameras, because those are the lenses we’ve been using on our film motion picture cameras. It’s almost a no-brainer to move from Super 35mm to the RED One or the FS-100u (or other Sony Super 35mm video cameras [yes, they even refer to them as that themselves]).

              There’s a sub-note that some people are missing here, though. It very well may be that DX was picked in the first place because of Super 35mm. Nikon thinks very far ahead, and at the time the D1 was being designed, the whole HD video thing was being resolved. It very well may be that some of the design decisions on stills came from knowledge about what was likely to happen next in video. After all, if the video side were to go digital with a Super 35mm-like format, DX lenses would work just perfectly fine on them. As it turned out, that’s what’s happening now.

            • Mock Kenwell

              Most comments escape Jabs if they don’t fit his POV. Don’t feel singled out, Thom.

          • TaoTeJared

            You always leave me in awe Thom.

      • Jabs

        In all honesty, did you even read your post?
        The base ISO of the Nikon D3s in video is what?
        Does either the Panasonic or the Sony have better low light RESPONSE than a D7000 or even a D3s – the best low light DSLR so far?
        Footcandles and ISO are what Cinema equipment is measured in and thus show us how you tested that and got your results.
        Show us some images or a video shot by these two video cameras -vs- a D3s here for all to see at low ISO or a low footcandle shot!
        Does the Canon 5D Mk2 have better RESOLUTION than these two videocameras? This is not about suitability for a particular purpose as in XLR connections, but your not understanding that 1080p is a VIDEO standard and not a Cinematic standard.
        Try RED or Arri digital for Cinematic standards and see why FILM makers are flocking to RED digital and others like that –
        Sorry to be tough on you, but I have done video, some Cinema and photography with Nikon’s for decades.

        • @Admin: seriously consider blocking “Jabs”. He is at his usual crap and now attacking TH of all people. Comments like his filling your blog will scare off higher quality commenters. High quality discussion and comments will attract higher quality readers who will spend more money clicking your links. Jabs will cost you money in the long term.

          Just sayin,..

          • Jabs, you can disagree with anyone here but please try to avoid personal attacks.

            • Jabs

              Sorry to be blunt or debate with others but they are rather clueless, so I prefer to leave them alone.
              Here is what they do NOT understand.
              1. Movies in 35mm = using 35mm FILM stock, same film size as 35mm Film cameras and now Nikon FX in digital.
              2. I believe that the dimensions are 36×24 mm – when you shoot this SAME film in film cameras, the 36 is vertical and the 24 is horizontal, so panoramic 35mm will be 24mm HIGH and whatever width they choose.
              SAME thing in MOVIE or Cinematography – BUT the 36 now becomes the horizontal and the vertical becomes 24. You get varying sizes by varying the horizontal (36mm) in film cameras (F3 for example) and you get varying Cinema sizes by varying the horizontal while the 24mm dimension is the maximum fixed dimension or width of the 35mm film stock. Many Movie cameras thus have various output sizes from that fact while using the exact same film stock.
              3. They do not understand that no DSLR uses the full size of the 35mm IMAGE sensor or we would get above 1080p resolution which equals 1920×1080 and since almost everyone here KNOWS that even a 12 megapixel D3 has a pictorial dimension above that, then they are lost.
              It is not a matter of opinion, but NOT knowing the technical facts and the ‘why and how’ you get the information, hence a clash here.
              4. Same exact thing when you get to 70mm film.
              I prefer to leave people alone in their own ignorance and that is why I come to this web site, as it is largely free of pretenders telling you crap to drive an audience to THEIR own web site with bogus information. That is my perspective and thus I leave them alone!
              Sorry to upset them.

            • c.d.embrey

              I don’t like to be referred to as “clueless”! I started working in Hollywood in the 1970s and have worked on TV Commercials, Music Videos, Movies of The Week, Series Television and Feature Films. I know of what I speak.

              Motion Picture film comes in 24mm width x 400 feet and 24mm width x 1000 feet. It runs through the camera vertically (portrait) and is 4 perf (18.66mm) high, 3 perf (13.9mm) high and 2 perf (9.47mm) high. All three use 24mm width.

              No modern film camera,used in Hollywood, uses a FX (24mm x 36mm) frame as Jabs insists.

              Draw your own conclusions.

            • Jabs

              At whoever –
              The PROOF of Hollywood shooting 35mm STOCK is in the dimensions 36mm X 24mm.
              24mm = the WIDTH, like you turned 35mm sideways or like turning a 35mm DIGITAL FX or 35mm FILM camera in vertical mode.
              Hence, clueless technically!
              Shooting and being technical are two distinctly different things, so I leave people alone!

            • Let’s try one last time and see if Jabs actually gets it this time ;~)

              > 1. Movies in 35mm = using 35mm FILM stock,

              That is 100% correct. No problems so far.

              > 2. I believe that the dimensions are 36×24 mm – when you shoot this SAME film in film cameras, the 36 is vertical and the 24 is horizontal, so panoramic 35mm will be 24mm HIGH and whatever width they choose.

              I’m glad you put “I believe” at the beginning of this, because reality is different. No one I know does what you suggest. Movie cameras have been made differently for quite some time. While they use the same film stock, they use it differently than a still camera. The WIDTH of the Super 35mm frame standard is a bit over 24mm, the height is less (it varies whether you’re shooting 3:2 or 4-perf pulldown or widescreen, which is 3-perf pulldown). The width of a still image using a still camera is 36mm, the height is 24mm. I don’t just BELIEVE that is true, I know that it is true. You would be well-served by reading The Filmmaker’s Handbook, 3rd Edition, by Steven Ascher and Edward Pincus, specifically Chapters 1 and 6.

              > SAME thing in MOVIE or Cinematography – BUT the 36 now becomes the horizontal and the vertical becomes 24.

              Nope. Isn’t done that way. We’d have to turn the cameras on their side, too, in order to do this. ;~)

              > 3. They do not understand that no DSLR uses the full size of the 35mm IMAGE sensor or we would get above 1080p resolution which equals 1920×1080

              No, we actually use (nearly) the full width of the DSLR sensor to get video, but we skip photosites to get 1024 instead of 3064 or 4096 or whatever the sensor has. We skip rows of photosites on the vertical axis, too, typically we use 720 rows out of the possible ~3000 or so on. One reason why it’s done this way is that you can’t pull 12mp off the sensor at 30 fps without one heck of a lot of bandwidth. So we end up with 1024 x 720 data pulled into the imaging ASIC that then generates video output. If you requested 720P, great, we’re already there. If you requested 1080, then the data is interpolated before compression.

              Jabs isn’t paying attention to his camera. Try this: take a still image. Now turn on Live View and take a still image. Now turn on video and record a video. Is the angle of view the same on each? Yes, it is. Thus, we MUST be using the full width of the sensor to get data. We’re just not getting ALL the data across the width for video, just a subset.

              > It is not a matter of opinion, but NOT knowing the technical facts and the ‘why and how’ you get the information, hence a clash here.

              You’re accusing people who work in the industry, deal with this stuff every day, and in one case actually have been involved with designing it of not knowing the facts. Really?

              > I prefer to leave people alone in their own ignorance and that is why I come to this web site, as it is largely free of pretenders telling you crap to drive an audience to THEIR own web site with bogus information. That is my perspective and thus I leave them alone!

              Nonsense. That’s a veiled dig at me. I couldn’t care less if someone comes to my Web site, and surely it would be stupid to try to get them to come to my Web site if I were dishing bogus information, as you suggest. Moreover, you’re not leaving me alone, you continue to post incorrect information and conclusions in response to my posting factual ones.

      • KnightPhoto

        I do own a Ford Explorer Sport Trac and I want my DSLRs to continue to push the envelope on video and sound 😉 I don’t want a separate video-rig and won’t be going down that path. I want to be able to easily flip-flop my camera from still to video and vice versa, just like my D7000 does so today, only continuing to get better. When I have maneuvered an hour to get my 500VR, TCs, tripod, Zoom HN-4, GT5541 and blind in just the right place to encounter a Grasshopper Sparrow, Burrowing Owl, Lark Bunting, Brewers Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, Mountain Plover and you name it (birds I devote entire weekends to finding and filming) I want to capture both stills and video. I am not going manage getting a whole second rig into that spot.

        For future yes I would love a responsive full time DSLR autofocus while shooting video and better sound capability.

        While I am at it my ideal future still camera (in addition to aforementioned continued video improvements) will also have D3S high ISO and D3X detail and IQ 😉

  • Hm.. this is not what I want.. sorry guys, Im going back to film, hello Kodak and Fuji 🙂 And HELLO to NEW PORTRA 400.. Mmm.. Skintones… trees that are green… reds.. skies that are blue instead of white..

  • Well, I was hoping more for the d700 replacement sooner than later, but the post makes sense to me from a business model standpoint. Why change things now?

  • Thom Rockwell

    I hope Nikon updates the 18-55 and 18-200 next. A new 18-300 DX would be great too! This is more needed than the 80-400 that no one will buy

    • ion

      18-200 has been updated recently (seems it got a new VR, but optics are quite similar).
      18-300 ? Don’t think we’re going to see that coming from Nikon.
      Try the Tamron 18-270 and see for yourself how it feels …

      • Jerk, Slow, Hunting,Loud & Build quality not match to a Camera body…

  • Chris P

    On the subject of waiting. I haven’t been waiting for a new camera for nearly 3 years, it was then that I bought my D700 which does all that I want. However I have been waiting for that amount of time for Nikon to update/produce lenses that match its performance and versatility.

    Firstly, an updated 80-400, that has been built up to an optical/mechanical standard and not down to a price and with questionable optical performance at both ends of the zoom range like the 16-35 & 24-120 f4s.

    Secondly a 28-85 or 35-105 f2.8 for portrait/general photography, the 24-70 is too short at the long end and the 70-200 is too heavy and bulky. The dream lens would be an autofocus version of the Ais 50-135, I used to have the Minolta version many years ago, the perfect portrait lens.

    On the subject of video, why would Nikon attempt to match the Canon 5DMkII? The market is a niche one which has been filled by that camera fitted with an adaptor to use Nikkor manual focus lenses. Nikon would be far better off re-introducing a limited number of Ais lenses for use with the 5DMkII

    • because people like me almost switched to Canon just to shoot video, and Nikon knows it! 😉 (Thankfully, Nikon finally released a camera with a decent video mode in the D7000…)

    • dave

      I hate to say this Chris, but sound like you want a DX body. on DX the 24-70mm has the same angle of view as a 36-105mm and makes a great portrait lens. As for the 80-400 you want, well the 70-300mm VR is effectively a 105-450mm or you could spend a bit more and get the 70-200mm 2.8 which effectively gets you 105-300m at 2.8! And a D7000 new is only half the cost of what you can sell your D700 for.

  • Bennyd

    The D700 was developed after a desperate call from the Pro’s to have a full frame (FX) with less MP than the D3 /D3x.
    Don’t think the industry is waiting for a D700 replacement with a MP boost.
    More is not always better….

    • markus

      BennyD: no it wasn’t. The D700 was a call from many Nikon users to come with a ‘payable full frame ‘alternative to the D3, with similar image quality as the D3 in a body format of the Dxxx range. (so with an optional battery pack)

      • …both wrong. The D700 appears to have been developed simultaneously (or maybe even BEFORE) the D3. I did some research on press photos a while back. The D700 was in the hands of test photographers as early as Feb 2007. I don’t have any dates for the D3 earlier than August 2007 (it was released in August 2007).

      • Julian Phillips

        The D3 and D700 have the same sensor in them – I think Micah is probably right – in the D700 probably being in a prototype form at the same time (or even a little before) as the D3. To me the biggest problem with DSLRs at the moment is the limit in dynamic range – forget the Megapixels (although a few extra is always nice). Until dynamic range is significantly improved I won’t be busting into my piggy bank but will stick with my trusty D3.

        • The D3s isa very nice! I dunno about the low end, but the higher ISO do retain more shadow and highlight detail, aka it has a little more DR at the upper end.

          In my limited experience with the D3x, it does actually have a touch more DR at base ISO.

          However…dayum, how much DR you need? Check my latest blog post on my site–you can dl some raws there. The D700 sure seems to have a lot of info to play with at base ISO on a pretty high contrast scene. It’s the higher ISO I wish I could get more DR out of anyway.

    • AnoNemo

      The D700 was developed because Nikon had too much time on its hand! 🙂

      • Mock Kenwell

        It’s the market, the market, the market. Nikon does nothing without clear evidence of a market for it, and the D700 clearly satiated a pent up demand for an affordable FF DSLR. It’s as simple as that. The choice to keep MP low, to make it a low-light superstar, etc. were all secondary tactical considerations to the larger market strategy. Now we have to wait until 2012 for video on that market strategy. For all you still-only shooters who don’t need video, I’m glad you already have what you need in the D700. For the rest of us in this burgeoning new market, Nikon very clearly dropped the ball by not offering an S version in response to the 5D Mk II. Nikon’s disciplined “release method” for their cameras is very logical, but they blew it by not updating this camera, as their “logical method” breaks down when you scratch your head wondering why the D3 & D300 got S updates, but not the one camera that should have received it.

        • Richard


          Nikon’s “logical” release plan might be referred to as rigidly inflexible.

          It is said that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. Yet Nikon persists in adhering to their pre-conceived notions even as what the competition is doing and the market change.

          I understand the Japanese business practice of maintaing long term relationships with their “partners”, but Nikon seems particularly poorly served in being constrained by what Sony develops in the way of sensors (even though some are worked over by Nikon) and the poor yields which Sony have achieved, most particularly for FX sensors. If nothing else, Nikon should have a second source Fab for all the obvious reasons.

          Somehow, all too often, it seems that Nikon is it’s own worst enemy.


          • Yes, Nikon’s release plan is inflexible, for the most part. However, it’s worked for them pretty well, hasn’t it? I suspect they’ll continue to do it that way until it doesn’t.

    • D700guy

      The D700 was developed so that I could take tens of thousands of kick ass images over these last 3 years.

      • Haha! +1!

        …but, pics or it didn’t happen!

  • Stephan

    Some specs in August would be great. I definitely won’t buy a D4 since I find it too expensive for too few extra features over the D800 (same with the D700 which I own compared to the D3) but it will be a big hint of what I can expect from a D800 in 2012. I don’t need a D800 immediately since my D700 is still a great camera but I can’t wait for the specs and reviews considering the image quality of the sensor.

    • Nathan

      Too expensive for too few extra features over the D800? What D800 are you talking about? The one that has features we conjure up in our heads?

      • Stephan

        Like I said: I think the D3 has too few extra features over the D700 to justify the immense amount of extra money. My GUESS is that it will be the same with the D4 and D800. At least for me. Others who really need those extra features might see it differently.

  • Bryan V

    I have been waiting for the D4… my D3 is a workhorse at almost 800k… Hope to get 1 million frames from a D4 and I’ve been told it will be able to do it. 😉

  • Bye bye Nikon, I’m going to buy a 5D. 21MP and full frame since… 2 years…

    A nikon user since… 30 years !

    • Stephan

      Haha, nice joke 🙂

    • Haha! Good luck focusing any fast primes you have the 5D’s spiffy AF system. Oh, you probably don’t have any, because if you did, you’d be using them with current Nikon gear, not posting on a forum. *yawn*

      • Stephan

        So true… Canon AF is so crappy… even focusing the 24-70/2.8 at the long end @ f/2.8 results in 50% misses with the 5D2. I even had some difficulties with the 70-200/4 and the “oh so capable” 7D AF although it was a lot better because of the wider DOF with f/4 and the crop sensor.

        The D700 AF isn’t perfect either but A LOT better (in terms of accuracy and flexibility) than anything I have experienced with 50D, 7D and 5D2.

        • Gabe


          7D’s AF system outperforms the D700’s AF system. Period.

          • LOL

            Mmm one guy states real experience as proof of his assertations. The other just yells “LIE” and claims the 7D is the best.

            Mmm who’s word should I trust?!?!

          • AS

            In your dreams maybe…

            • D7000 User

              +7000, lol

          • sirin

            yeah, right. 51 AF points in d700 vs Canon’s 19.
            ha. ha. ha.

            • Gabe

              Yeah but only 15 of those are cross type. (In the 7D, all the 19 are cross type)

              The difference is that you are a fanboy nikon user, im just a regular with my eyes open.

        • Timothy Winn

          I agree with the above – and I am speaking from experience! I actually fell into the trap of going over to canon – got the 5D mark II and a 1D IV – (I did this as I wanted more megapixels for a cheaper price) – guess what – 6 months later I swapped back to Nikon – the reason….noise performance on the 1DIV and 5D II are far below what the Nikon FF sensors can deliver (although the 5D is not that far behind). Remember, that lots of MP might be good in studio or well lit environments BUT, on the whole you are losing clarity, colour, depth and overall dynamic range as you go up the ISO range. In short I was very disappointed with the 1D IV performance in this respect. Okay, what about AF performance – again, behind Nikon – period~! The 5D II is great for still subjects and landscape but beyond that it fails – 9 AF points means recomposing which means altering the plane of focus which equals soft subjects at wide open apertures. The outer AF points are appalling in low light! Okay, I hear you say, surely the 1DIV must make up for it…wrong – google it and see what other pros are saying…in low contrast dim light the 1DIV fails – I know because I’ve tried it right next to the D3s (which locked on every time)! Don’t get me wrong there were things I really liked about Canon as well but the grass always appears greener. In my opinion Nikon have the upper hand with stellar lenses, better AF, better build (at semi pro level) and a good enough amount of MP (sure more would be useful – I’ve shot with the D3x on many occassion and it’s probably the best image quality in good light available in FF DSLRS) – in fact canon users are asking for less MP’s! So if you are thinking of swapping, don’t is my advice unless you really do need those MP, are not concerned about low light or action and have optimum lenses to resolve those MP or you’re not really going to see a difference! Just my 2 cents. And remember, I’m not bashing Canon, I’m just stating my findings for my needs, and everyone has different needs – but think about what they are! Oh Nikon, I’ll never abandon you again!!

  • Bryan V

    Personally if I wanted to shoot video I’d get the NEX-FS100EK … its a super35 chip and will shoot video in illumination as low as 1.5lux. JMHO. 😉

    • Greg Ferris

      get a MTF Nikon adapter and you’re set…

      • why not an F3? ;D

        In fact, why not get an Arri Alexa 😀 😀 😀 (get one for me, too!)

        The big thing for me with video is that at the moment I’m a photographer first, and a cinematographer second, and having 1080p video in the same camera that I’m shooting 16MP RAWs in represents great value for me (I’m talking about the D7000). Admittedly, now that I have the D7000 and can shoot full HD video, I would be happy to buy a second stills body that doesn’t shoot video to use as a main stills camera… But why would I when I can have both in one without losing anything? :3

  • Bryan V
  • VJ

    Great news on the D400 (some had doubts a DX would be released still).

    Now just hold off till the announcement, save money and then probably make the jump somewhere next year. It is time to replace my D100 (still working great, although the mode dial sometimes seems to act up and fails to register when I dial it to ISO)… 🙂

    Just an amateur shooter, and I know the D7000 would suffice, but I like the feel and quality of a pro body… It is nice not to have to worry about the equipment when taking photos in heavy snow at -30°, or in humid heat at +40° (compact cameras of other people started failing in those latter conditions!).

  • ummagumma

    I find it fascinating that most comments revolve either around more MP and the supposed “resolution inferiority” compared to Canon or some tech feature or other to justify a price increase…

    What in god’s name will you put in front of a D400 24MP DX sensor?? There simply are VERY FEW lenses that can keep u with that kind of sensor resolution and pixel pitch! The D7000 already has a much higher pixel density than the D3X (4.6 vs 2.8 MP/cm2) and on the D3X, only a handful of lenses keep up: The 14-24 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 II, the 200mm 2.0 of ocurse and the 85mm 1.4. The 24-70 workhorse shows serious rez problems in the corners on the D3X and the recent 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 aren’t even close to corner decency on the D3X, even stopped down to f8! The last wide/std zooms (16-35 and 24-120) were stunning failures for high rez sensors. I may have forgotten one or two, but the bottom line remains the same: GLASS IS THE PROBLEM, NOT SENSOR RESOLUTION!

    And in the dedicated DX corner, things are even worse: What dedicated DX lens can keep up with the rez power of the 16MP D7000 across the image, that is: icluding an acceptable border/corner resolution? The famed 16-85 and the old Tamron 17-50 (yes, Tamron) have reached their limits and are barely keeping up– check The lens stars mentioned above have no problems on the D7000, of course and might be able to keep up with a 24MP DX sensor. But they won’t shine as brightly as on the D3X.

    Unless Nikon decides to release quite a few lenses to satisfy hi-rez-DX sensors very soon, 24MP-D400 buyers will be in for a rude awakening, I think. Since a mass release of new glass is highly unlikely after the recent prime additions and the desasters in Japan, the smart money is on existing bodies and the best glass Nikon can offer (sse above). I for one can’t wait for an update on the 24-70 std zoom with better border/corner performance! 🙂

    I expect to be torn to pieces now, but I had time to spare… 😉 So let’s go….


    BTW: I’ve shot film on Nikon bodies, switched to Canon for the 20D and 5D and happily came back for the D700 and D90. The D3X and D7000 are the best cameras I’ve owned and I own or have rented all of the above lenses. I wouldn’t dream of switching back to Canon, because their sensor/lens gap is even worse – naturally.

    • VJ

      True… but isn’t it so that even if you reach the diffraction limit, aren’t there still some benefits? This reference mentions it:

      Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed; both scenarios still have the same total resolution (although one will produce a larger file). Even though the resolution is the same, the camera with the smaller pixels will render the photo with fewer artifacts (such as color moiré and aliasing).

      Do you have a resource that tells which lenses can keep up with which resolution? I am curious about the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8… 🙂

      • LGO

        VJ, I make it a point not to shoot beyond f/9 on the D7000 when using the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8.

      • ummagumma

        The quote explains the sensor diffraction effect nicely ( is a great resource). Setting aside noise, moiré (mostly concerning fashion/fabrics and rarely architecture), DOF and micro contrast differences for a moment, let’s reverse their conclusion:

        While your file size increases, your effective resolution does not. Not with a lens that had already reached its resolving capacity with the less dense sensor (smaller pixel count). You can of course downsample to sharpen your image or use sharpening filters to suggest sth that wasn’t there (sharpening strictly speaking is just another artifact, altough a highly useful one if not overdone). There’s little point in buying more MP if you intend to downsample. If you need to enlarge by magnitudes anyway, then of course you might prefer the less sharp extra pixels to interpolated pixels (enlarging from a smaller sensor). The limiting factor remains: The lens’ resolving power.

        No, I haven’t found a recent imatest (technical performace test) for the 17-55 for sensors >10MP. It was great on the D200, but after that, I don’t know, sorry.

        • VJ

          In a way it is true that there is little point in getting more MP if you downsample anyway or if the perceived resolution of the image is not increasing any more due to the diffraction limit.

          But on the other hand: while the resolution of the image no longer increases and may be less than what would be expected from the sensor, you do gain a bit in the other side effects (moire for one) and loose as the files are bigger… It is important to know these limitations (and it makes it more important than ever to invest in good class to push the limitations back), but it does not mean high MP are a deal breaker.

          • ummagumma

            I agree. But while more MP aren’t a deal breaker for me, they certainly aren’t a deal maker either, pardon the pun! 😉 In other words: If no other tech factors compell you to buy the new thing, keep your splendid DX/FX body and invest in the best glass available, right? 🙂

            • VJ

              Amazing… a discussion on the internet where people agree… 🙂
              The main reason to upgrade my D100 is speed (small buffer, slow writes), poor iso performance and poor out of camera shots (they don’t need much adjustment, but still quite a lot, and it is difficult to set the adjustment for the whole batch – I know my brother’s D200 is already much better in that). Last argument is resolution, although 6MP is on the low side now…

        • I’ve not done a technical test, but using the 17-55 on the D7000 looks great to my eye.

      • > Are there still benefits when diffraction is recorded?

        Yes. They decline the more you push it, though. 24mp is about the point ABOVE which we’ll get little benefit, but we should get a benefit at 24mp.

        That said, the problem I have is that once diffraction is well recorded into the pixels, it gets more difficult to do pixel-level changes that don’t look false. For instance, both sharpening and noise reduction start to look a bit different on fully diffracted data than they do on non-diffracted data. I alter my sharpening techniques on cameras that produce a lot of diffraction (compacts, for instance) because of that.

        • LGO

          Thom, we are all ears here on how you do sharpening with compacts.

          • Richard

            Hey! A suggestion for a blog article!

        • VJ

          That said, the problem I have is that once diffraction is well recorded into the pixels, it gets more difficult to do pixel-level changes that don’t look false.

          I can imagine (I worked on experimental noise reduction algorithms for ultra sound images); of the top of my head I would think the pixels that are part of the diffraction limited group should be treated as one big pixel…

        • ummagumma

          “Yes. They decline the more you push it, though. 24mp is about the point ABOVE which we’ll get little benefit, but we should get a benefit at 24mp.”

          DX or FX ?? 🙂 Huge difference!

    • I put there the same comment last week, but… you can always shoot in lower resolution, hope that Nikon implement something like Canon’s “sRAW” with 12 MP or even less (8) and you than have always at least a bit cleaner image – because of bayer mask and moire and so on. More MP on sensor is not fault… And please if you compare some pictures – compare them in same scale (1:1 on monitor with is not same scale).

    • UA

      You are correct about the resolution part. If you need more resolution, go to the medium format and there is once again less pixel density for optics to draw on. DX easily overrunned typical optics after 8mpix, ff after 18mpix, medium format after +40mpix.

      However, getting corners ultrasharp is very difficult on normal/standard zooms due to the compromises required. Nikon’s 24-70/2.8 is propably the second best in the world. Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8 seems to be a tad sharper in the corners. So, I am afraid that there will not be significantly shaper standard zooms in near future. Maybe a VR update, but I would not expect that much more resolution.

      But if the lack of corner sharpness is problem with 24-70/2.8, then you are using it for wrong purposes. Go ask Ken Rockwell, who seems to live in his landscapes only world. He states that 24-70/2.8 is useless, because you get better results with something like 16-35, 50, 70-200 combo. And he is right, in the landscape world, you really do not do anything with 24-70mm due to its compromises. Studiopotraits? Wrong lense again. Sports? Not enough tele. Birds? Ehe..

      But people in events, especially indoors! For example, I often photograph small club gigs, where I need fast 28, 50, and 70 during each shoot. And there can be even 6 bands per night. The 24-70/2.8 is more in value than gold in its weight for me. Instead of switching lenses +20 times per night, I can shoot the whole evening with one single lens @ f/2.8. And no-one has ever noticed that corners are not that sharp.. heck, even I do not see those unsharp corners.

      In the end, no matter what lense you are using, it is up to the photographers responsibility to know lense’s limits. If the corners are unsharp, you do not put anyhting important there. If the diffraction hits in f/9 already, you do not go slower. If the against light shooting causes terrible flares or ghosts, you use extra effort to avoid them. Soft at 1.8, use only 2.8 onwards. And so on.. there is no such thing as a perfect lens.

      • ummagumma

        I know and we totally agree here. You’ve noticed the smiley next to my “24-70 with sharper corners”, right? And that I said “better border/corner performance” – not outworldly insanely perfect performance… 😉

        But you’re right, each lens for a specific purpose. My only gripe is that there are hardly any lenses fit for decent cross-image sharpness, for landscape/architecture of course. Speed would not be an issue here, that’s why I had high hopes for the 16-35 but let’s not talk about that any more… There are no wide primes with decent FX corner performance. The only Nikon lens with sharp WA corners is the 14-24mm and that means flare from alsmost everywhere if you shoot outside and, of course, no ND filters — bummer. I think a slow 21mm or 24mm optimized for border/corner performance would gather quite a following…

        Until then, I’ll keep shooting the 60mm micro and the 85mm at f8 and stitch! 🙂 As you said: No such thing as a perfect lens (although the 85mm 1.4 comes awfully close)…

        • sade

          Tell us more about 16-35. Is it so bad that you don’t even want to talk about it? I thought that at f/8, the corner sharpness becomes good. (close to 14-24)!

          • ummagumma

            Yep, it is. I so wanted this to be my new std lens, but: Biggest waste of time I tried in a long time. It does okay on the borders / in the corners on the D700/D3 (10MP FX) with good center sharpness. (That’s ok for a kit lens, but not a $1.000 “pro” lens.)

            Different story on a D90 (12MP DX) and worse on the D3X (24MP FX): Borders/corners simply suck. Especially from 21mm-35mm. No way this thing can keep up with even higher pixel densities on the D7000 or cameras to come…

  • ummagumma

    I forgot the micros: 105 2.8 and 60 2.8 are keeping uo nicely, too. Sorry! 🙂 Still: No wide angle and/or std zoom lens…

  • simpleguy

    if its gonna be a decent compettitor to the 5DMark II , it cant be in the price range of 5500-6500$ , i dont care HOW GOOD the D4 will be
    if its in that prices – 5DMark II cannon wins again , even without releasing the Mark III

    i really hope they dont

    • inginerul

      is this a competition for you? would you rather buy a poorly made camera with a poor autofocus and noise in the shadows at ISO200 just because it has more megapixels and better video ?
      is it worth charging your credit card every 3 years for a new body and lenses on a different mount, just because of the hype?

    • Walkthru

      Since when did anybody say that the D4 will be a direct competitor to the 5D MkII?? The D800 will likely fit that bill…..the D4 will more likely compete against the 1DsIII/IV &/or its’ successor (which are in the same sort of price bracket & aimed squarely at pros & wealthy enthusiasts).

    • the 5D isn’t really aimed at the same type of photographers who would normally buy a D3/D3s, though… Sure, the 5D’s better for studio work than the D3s, but give me a D3s any day for field work.

  • Joe

    I’m still so glad I got me a D700 last year when everybody was expecting the D800 to be just around the corner. One year of *using* a great camera, instead of waiting for a cloud-castle to become true…

    • i got fed up waiting and got the d700 a month ago. fantastic camera. only thing i could possibly ask for is a 100% vf. glad i din continue to wait.

      • Stephan

        100% VF would be VERY helpful. There are 4 things that I envy the 5D2 users for:

        -98% VF (comes close enough to 100% for me)
        -higher resolution
        -better live view

        But all of this is not as essential for me as a really good working AF, much better shadow noise and more dynamic range. But in fact I guess Nikon will improve at least the resolution and video with the D800 so the D800 will get as close to perfection as possible. At least in the below 3500$ class.

        • Decision for me was very clear cut cos i have no need for video and hardly use live view(its fun though). the D700’s AF is fantastic coming from a d200. still amazed by the 3D colour tracking. and the ability to pull back shadows was amazing too. now i can safely expose for the highlights and just pull back everything else.

          i envy canon shooter for being able to use old lenses with adapters… i ve gotta hard convert everything i wanna use to nikon mount.. BUT.. i will stick with nikon for the AIS lenses. the 50 1.2 and 135 f2 are phenomenal and i use them on a regular basis, even for paid jobs. gotta try the 85 1.4 next..

    • ummagumma

      You did the right thing. Invest in great glass and then pin-point sharp pictures right out of the camera– instead of wasting your money on MP you cannot “feed” 🙂 … (see my comment above)

  • Rob

    Got tired of waiting for an *affordable* FF with more megapixels than my D700, so I’ve been slowly migrating to medium format film. And all the good DSLR glass sits idle…

    • Yep! I can get high MP scans from medium format film. I bought a Mamiya RB67 Pro Sd with a 90mm KL lens for $200. That is my high MP camera and I use my Nikon for everything else.

      • that’s a very interesting comment. I’ve been shooting a lot of medium format film for uni work, but I’ve yet to scan it… I will likely be making some scans in the coming semester, which will definitely be interesting…

    • Rob

      I have just come to realise the same situation. I have MF cameras and lenses just sitting around including my technorama 617 and noblex 150, stitching digital images is not the same. One reason people don’t want to wait or buy film images as its too expensive. The quality is all in the scan. I still have my E6 processor so here we come 120 film again.

  • DavidB

    PHTHTHBBBTTTT!!!! Incredibly short sighted. We’ve had two APS models updated, as well as the D3 in the D3X. When is Nikon going to make the equivalent of a FE/FA in a FX format — basic, lightweight, full frame? Sigh.

    • Craig

      That is not going to happen so you might as well get over it and relax…….or buy a Leica.

  • Art Mullis

    I believe Nikon announced the D300 on a Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 ? So, if the day of the week holds true, and Nikon has already said its staff can’t take vacations the last two weeks in August, then I think August 25, 2011 is the day to watch for something to pop!

  • Random Child

    I like Turtles.

  • kede

    Oh god, that’s not a good new… Why Nikon doesn’t listen to what users want. They’ll loose lot’s of us 🙁

    • IanZ28

      Nikon follows a pretty straight forward road map for camera releases. Almost like clockwork. Think Nikon will gain more users than they lose anytime they release “pro” level cameras.

      It’s the lens releases and updates that are surprising and seem to come from left field.

  • Daf

    This order was to be expected TBH – they’d never release a D800/D4 the same time – smaller body always follows the larger flagship one.

    Which is annoying and adds to the dilemma – do I go for the 400 or wait EVEN MORE for the 800……
    (currently using a 200)

    • broxibear

      Hi Dafydd,
      If you’re using a D200 at the moment then I’d look into a D7000. It’s a new camera, you could use it for a year, if the D800 comes out, sell the D7000 and you won’t loose too much money ?

      • I’m liking the D7000… In fact, I “upgraded” from the D300! Having said that, the primary motivation was the video functionality, but it is in fact better than the D300 in both resolution and Signal to Noise ratio. (I’ve done tests…)

        • jumpgate911

          The 7000 is just awesome, I have one from the day it was released and it amazes me every day. It put my D80 to rest.

  • Joe Cat

    I am growing old waiting for the latest Nikon FX. Yes, I should have purchased the D700. Shame on me! Mea Culpa. I do not know how much the tsunami and the reactor problems delayed release of new models. Maybe I will settle for the D7000 (a fine tool) and buy FX lenses hoping for the D800 for my B&W work. Or, maybe I will just take up sculpting. Thank the Lord that I kept my Nikon F!

  • The invisible man.

    At Nikon corporate they must have a hell of a good time reading our silly comments !

  • I hope this is wrong, I´m waiting for a D800 for more than one Year….

    • The invisible man.

      The D800 is like French women, you won’t be disapointed but you’ll have to be patient.

      • LOL

        So long as it shaves it’s armpits.

      • Lio

        So it will be a FF800 ! French Female

  • UA

    D700s should be with the sensor from d3x. No point to bring d3s sensor with video, since it would not really give anything to photographers (just a bit higher iso range and D700 is very good at it already). And video is still something akward in dslrs. Yeah 5dmk2 is used for some serious video, but I think that its sales precentage for photography over video is something like tens of thousands per one. And D7000 and D5100 will do okay in that genre.

    I still do not get the idea of D400 though. It is suppose to be pro-camera, but new pro lenses are for FX, not DX. For example, there is no high quality FAST ultrawide lense for DX from Nikon. There’s a 10.5/2.8 FISHEYE and 12-24/f4. Only real option is Tokina 11-16/2.8 (which is fantastic, though). FX will work fine on DX, but not the ultrawides. Thus, it’s really hard to be pro indoor shooter with only DX camera.

    So Nikon should bring some fast ultrawide to DX, but that might not be valuable to do, since most pros use already FX… and so there’s no point for D400 really (just for backup camera maybe)… well maybe the bird photographes like them due to the 1.5 crop factor, when you can come along with 70-200/300/2.8 +1.5 TC very well.

    • ummagumma

      If you don’t mind trying 4-5 lenses until finding a decent sample, the Sigma 8-16mm is very much worth trying — after my “selection process”, I’ve had amazing results on the D90 and D7000… It’s not fast, but at least it’s affordable.

  • LarryBam

    i dont belive in a D800.

    (or D700s/x or whatever replaces a D700)
    gave up. i think it will be just the D4/D400 release for 2011/1012/2013.

    though i really, really would like to be proven wrong on this.

  • Nathan

    Yay, it means that my D700 will work for another year before it suddenly stops working when the replacement hits the shelves.

  • Not the news i want to here!!!! 🙁
    I think i´m well adviced to look for a 5D Mark II … 🙁

    • Ace

      If you don’t mind watching for the easy accidental hitting of the lens lock so your lenses don’t fall off … and being patient for the autofocus ‘challenges’ this camera is known for …. then by all means.

  • xaphod

    Supposing that eventually there’s both a D4 and a D800 on the market, what do you think the advantages of the D4 will be over the D800? Of course i’m waiting for the D800 but if it is an extra year between the D4 -> D800, then maybe i could be convinced to go for the D4. But it is a lot more money, so I really would need to understand why the D4 would be better. Of course, it’s guessing at this point, but then it would be guessing until the point when the D800 would be released anyways!

    • broxibear

      Hi xaphod,
      Compare the D3 and the D700…that’ll give you an idea of what the differences might be ?

  • I don’t get the post’s premise that Pro bodies are on 4 year cycle… yes, but with a mid-life update! d3 had d3s, even d300 had d300s [sucky update really, but there it was. Meanwhile, d700 carries the torch for 4 years?

    I don’t need a d800, I just want my d700s [d700 with d3s’ sensor]! 🙂

  • D700guy

    Au contrare! This is exactly the news I want to hear. Of course orders for a D4 will be backlogged until the next ice age. So, nothing to get too excited about.

  • Q

    I can see the business sense to release the flagship model (D4) after the semi-pro (D400/D800). If the product cycle is going to be 4 years is a gives the buyer a good feeling for the extra money to know that they bought the BEST. If you release the semipro after the pro there is always the sense that its more modern.

    • simpleguy

      it makes no sense at all , if you can manufacture the d4 flagship model , so what is the problem and the delay in producing a lower semi pro model at the same time ????

  • henry

    I thought the “s” suffix stood for “special” like the monikers Japanese automakers put at the end of sport versions of a particular model whose purpose is to differentiate an existing product enough to attract new customers. In case of D3s, to reposition D3 between D700 and and D3x and to fill the gap during the two years in which no new significant professional models come out, just enough to whet appetites even for existing owners of D3.

    D700s would not happen because “s” models occur in three year cycles and during “dry” years. Introduction of D4 and D400 makes the third of D700 a non-dry year for Nikon. It would only confuse the consumers. Confused consumer == unhappy consumer.

  • One More Thought

    So after all is said and done, and after all of the rumors, it turns out that Nikon is pretty predictable after all in their release schedule. Of course, even that one Nikon exec mentioned that the company is entirely predictable in releasing its products.

    While I would dearly love the D800 to be introduced soon, it makes every sense for Nikon to release the D4 first. Imagine if the D700 had been released before the D3; that would have eaten into D3 sales and made that camera look a bit disappointing by comparison.

    If the D800 is released first, it undermines sales of the D3s, and even the D4 when it would be released. Release the D4 first, you sell a lot of those, as many as you can make…and when the D800 is released you gain the purchases from that market.

    The only risk I believe Nikon makes is that if Canon releases their 5diii this year, then that may eat into sales of the eventual D800. I think there are many buyers wanting to go FF who will go into whichever comes first.

    • zz

      “The only risk I believe Nikon makes is that if Canon releases their 5diii this year, then that may eat into sales of the eventual D800.”

      I agree with this statement. The 5DII and D700 are the only two mainstream FF cameras and target the largest segment of the enthusiast / pro market. These buyers have been waiting years for an upgrade. The anticipation is so great that it’s likely these buyers will just snap up whichever FF camera, for $3K, that comes out first. Changing brands isn’t as painful as most people think. The 5DIII will definitely be eating into Nikon’s potential D800 customers. If the D800 comes out 1 year after the 5DIII that’s a lot of lost revenues.

    • Gonads

      “The only risk I believe Nikon makes is that if Canon releases their 5diii this year, then that may eat into sales of the eventual D800.”


  • Kingyo

    WTF!!!!!? 🙁

  • Zim

    Bring on the D400.

  • i just put more money in the piggy bank

  • Ok Nikon, i give up. I will stay with my D700 & D7000 for more two years, and buy a XF 100/300 video camera or similar. I´m tired of waiting for my D700s/D800… see you in two years. Butt kiss!


  • The invisible man.

    Right now I’m broke so I can wait for the D800/900, no hurry for me.

  • sean sebastian

    I just want to replace my d300s and have been waiting for the d400 for a while. I was going to purchase a d7000 but have been holding out.

  • TaoTeJared

    How about a 5 minute brake from all this debate
    We have everyone here.
    The wah wah wah want my D800
    The “I’m switching to Canon”
    The “Lenses can’t resolve that small”
    The “Nikon Video better improve”
    The “Nikon is missing the real point and I have the answers”
    The “Where is my Nikon 4/3 camera”
    and as always
    The “I’m shooting film because it’s better.”

    Let’s cover some points that many don’t follow, track or the conundrum of people who really not in the market for one of these bad boys:

    -For 12 + years Nikon has released pro bodies every 4 years with mid-term camera updates for burst speed, Low iso camera & a high resolution camera. Give or take 60 days, this has always been the case.
    -The flagship Pro body and Pro/Amateur camera almost always are released about the same time if not the same time.
    -If you are willing to loose your butt by selling thousands of dollars of glass to switch brands – Congratulations, you are in the top 1% of photographers who make a ton of money. So why aren’t you shooting a Hasselblad system then? What’s that, you only have a 18-200mm VR lens and a 35mm 1.8? Yeah, you are really going to spend $2k-6k on a body – keep dreaming buddy.
    – Lenses can’t resolve? Just like your wardrobe, its time to upgrade your lenses from the 70’s & 80’s.
    – Seriously, no one like a pixel peeper. Anyway, how do you account for the concentration of pixels in my iPhone or compact camera with an ok lens. It wasn’t out resolved.
    -Video – You got me there. Canon, Panasonic, and Sony has been doing this a lot longer.
    -I’m sure you have all the answers on how Nikon should run their business. So what key metrics would you suggest to employ a strategy to meet your needs and no one else’s?
    -Not another overpriced digi camera to meet individuals needs for more gadgets that other people don’t choose to buy.
    -Film – Flagrant Inadvertence of weLcoming Maturation (In more ways than one.)
    -Hay I could have put: Foolish Imbecile Lamenting Moore’s law. 😉

    Ok, back to everyone’s:
    -“No Your’re wrong
    – That’s not what I wanted!
    – These guys are dumb
    – I’m going to stomp my feet”

    As Wayne and Garth said “Game On!”

  • LOL

    So I guess Chase Jarvis is/was testing the D400. 😉

  • Can Wishingwell

    24mp on a DX sensor! No thanks, I’ll go with a second D300s at bargain prices.

  • 4 years life cycle? look at nikon timeline

    D3 – 2 and 1/4 years
    D3s – 2 years and counting
    D2Hs – 2 and 1/2
    D2H – 1 and 1/2
    D1H – 2 and 1/2
    D1 – 1 and 3/4

    the X versions exists longer in production
    D1X – 3 and 1/2
    D2X – 1 and 3/4
    D3X – 3 and counting

    3 digit caneras DXXX
    D100 – 3 and 3/4
    D200 – 1 and 3/4
    D300 – 2 years
    D300s – 2 and 1/4 and still counting
    D700 – 3 and 1/4 and counting

  • Brock Kentwell

    2012?! By that time my D800 fund will have gone towards something useless, like an engagement ring or a mortgage. Oh Nikon. The things we could have done together.

  • For some time now I anxiously await the replacement of the D700. Would be a shame just do a simple upgrade where you include video. It would take at least an improvement in its system approach, more megapixels (bearing in mind that this girl has become the face of competition) and a sensor with less noise to tolerate higher ISOs …

    anyway … I want the D800;)

  • The D7000 is no replacement for the D300s. I tried one and took it back. I used the D300s for a wedding when I foolishly managed to leave the D700 at the bride’s house that morning! Yes, I’d have liked the D700 but I made do for the whole day with the D300s and it did a great job. I had a brand-new D7000 in the boot of the car which I could have used but no way would I have been happy with using it for a wedding, with its tiny viewfinder and inability to zoom instantly on playback. Plus I don’t feel happy with its focusing compared to the D300s.

  • wongsimage

    yay…can’t wait to see ‘leaked’ specs….Surely won’t afford D4 (still enjoying my D700) but D400 might be interesting for travel if the size is smaller than D700 and lighter…

  • Back to top