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.
  • Joe Jaro

    I’m happy coz you’ll see my brand new design on the D4!

  • All I can say is this: I am very happy I did not wait for the “D700 replacement around the corner” when I bought my D700 in October last year (2010) – a great camera to any standard, but especially if you consider its age (originally released in 2008).

    • ElSmurf

      Same here, that ‘old’ camera still amazes me every time I see my images on a big screen. And I still don’t see why Nikon would release the D700 replacement before the D4. Why would they??

      • Global

        I told myself “I’ll keep the D700 for at least 5 years!” when I bought.

        I didn’t know Nikon was going to force me into keeping my agreement.. =D

        • Same here, thanks @nikonrumors for encouraginme not to wait for the D700 replacement. This “old” camera is rocking the scene everywhere for baby pics, even got my wife to admit it was the right purchase at the right time 🙂

    • Gill

      ditto, got mine November last year, I know it’s selfish but I’m kinda relieved I’ve got another year before I have D800-envy.

  • Nathan Shane

    Okay, I thought I’d go ahead and post my comments as well along with everyone else. I have both a D300 and D700, neither of which shoot video. I also own a Canon HV20 camcorder for video. Many years ago I never considered having “high quality” pictures and video (dependent upon your definition of high quality) in one piece of hardware. I bought a digital camera for photos and a camcorder for video and was more than happy to use them for their respective purposes.

    But…here we are many years later and photographers are asking for video and videographers are asking for images in their respective hardware. Hence, a hybrid piece of hardware is born on both fronts. If your primary focus is on still image quality…get a dSLR but if your primary focus is on video, get a HD camcorder. Easy enough to understand…but wait a minute. It sure would be handy if I could have both in one piece of hardware.

    From a “convenience” point of view as a person that desires to capture life in both still and motion media, it would be awesome to have both high quality still images and video in one piece of hardware…that would be the “ideal” piece of hardware. And eventually technology will most likely bring us that ultimate hardware weapon. But until that time, we have to pick our hardware according to our needs.

    For me, I’m looking forward to the D700 replacement and I’m hoping that it “will” include HD video capture. I’m not expecting or looking for the video to be as high quality as I would expect to get from a dedicated camcorder…but at this point I’m looking for convenience. I’m willing to sacrifice some video quality for the convenience of having still images and video capabilities in one piece of hardware.

    If I feel that I’m not able to capture and produce the quality of video that my clients or myself desire, then I’ll use the right tool(s) for the job. If a D700 replacement doesn’t offer the video quality that I would desire, then I’m not going to complain about the hardware, because I know in my mind that Nikon produces “still image” cameras and not video cameras, so I wouldn’t hold them to “my” expectations of what quality of video capture they are able to achieve because their primary focus and products are still photo capture devices.

    I’m just thankful that Nikon is willing to include HD video capture in their cameras…why? Because it’s very convenient.

    • Carl

      I agree: we should look at the video part as a convenience or incentive. True, even Pros make use of the video capabilities of DSLRs but what most forget to say is: for very particular purposes, like a quick interview.
      For lots of other typical applications it’s either “a pain in the ass” or you need a lot of additional equipment. Starting by a clean 180 degree pan, or if the scene includes fast moving objects (like a train for instance) or zooming in or out while trying to keep the focus on the object etc.

      I also believe that the great enthusiasm for video in DSLRs voiced by many in our days is primarily the enthusiasm of the “first adaptors” (wow its new, lets see what we can do with it…). But as soon the typical hype of a new thing is gone and more people have experienced the limitations, then all those who want more than some holiday footage for the family will turn away.

      My point (or my fear if you will) is: video capabilities are not for free. They cost their share on development and hardware, need to operate it conveniently extra buttons etc. All, which otherwise could be invested in the improvement of photo capabilities.
      Therefore I would prefer two kinds of dedicated bodies with the same lens-mount, hence you only have to carry another body using the same lenses and almost the same accessories. Sony went this avenue with their NEX serie and I think that’s the better choice.

  • fakekenrockwell

    Thom Hogan swings and misses. A real camera-man knows that convenience trumps everything. When the tradeoff is a little bit of quality for a lot of convenience, convenience wins.

    • I don’t agree.
      In my own specialist field (woodwind) there are many examples where convenience has been emphasised over quality…and yet the real pros are still choosing instruments where no quality compromises have been made.
      I chose a D700 because I wanted no compromises (within my budget) – and even if I’m never able to fully appreciate its functionality, I know that it’s right there under my fingers waiting for me to discover it.

      But more than that, I wanted a piece of kit that wasn’t going to let me down at those times when you have mere seconds to pick it up, frame, focus and shoot.
      Sure, doesn’t happen very often for most of us and chances are any half-decent camera will make the shot…but when that bee lands on your kid’s nose or that deer takes a leap across your lawn, the feeling you want as you reach for the camera is that the only thing between you and the shot is how quickly you can lift it up.
      I have a video camera – comes with the Sony Cybershot that lives in my jacket pocket. It never gets used these days.

      I could be very wrong indeed, but I reckon there’s a large market out there full of buyers who see the quality/convenience trade-off in the same way. We know what we want, and if it’s not there we won’t make a big fuss…we’ll just buy something else if we can.

      Personally I’d rather they saved the money they might spend on video and put it into the Live View functionality (some decent, free software wouldn’t go unappreciated either).
      I agree with Ben Brickwall (a little further down). Video is fine as long as the still imagery is A+++…and as long as it doesn’t get in the way ( perhaps make any additional buttons programmable).

      • Global

        You don’t get it. You can have a GREAT camera with PRETTY GOOD video. Period. End of story.

        I don’t care about video worth anything more than i’ve seen on an iphone4 — but even I would like to see at least that + decent controls and basic technically feasible options on the next DSLR. Why?

        Cuz its fun. The D700/D800 should be a hobbyist camera. Leave the D3x and D4 to the purist of the pure. Nikon can make a camcorder for all I care, and they can make a pure camera as well. But as long as these things can be integrated extremely (as they can be) — then I want it.

        That’s it. Videos are 10 times greater than stills, when specific kind of emotionally compelling memories arise in real life. Lucky us, we’ll have our dslrs in hand. Being DSLRs, they should be better than that that Canon P&S!

        • > Great still camera with pretty good video

          Well, then we’re done having to add video features to cameras with the D4, then, right? ;~) After all, we’re expecting manual control, all variants of HD ala the D5100 at max AVCHD bit rate. Thus, pretty good video becomes a check mark. We’re done and can move on to adding still features. Wanna bet that isn’t true?

        • ehvangelic

          Like I’ve said before, a Photo can speak a thousand words but a Video creates a story

    • As someone who just spent the day with two large bodies, lenses and flashes hanging off his body on a Black Rapid double strap while doing senior portraits, I can tell you there is always a demand for products that give quality over convenience. I probably could have taken photos with an iPhone, too, or even my wife’s G11, but it’s simply not the same. For Joe Public, they may not care. But for those who make their living off their bodies, the people who buy D1, D2, D3 and eventually D4 series bodies, there is no substitute but the best.

      • Global

        Yes, but again, you guys are missing the point — the DSLRs will be and ARE better than the P&S. So while youre thinking compromises, to the rest of the (vast) market, it is an upgrade.

        You can’t be so far at the TOP, while purchasing in the MIDDLE, that you forget what most people want (as opposed to Niche markets). I get that many pros use the D700. I get that. But its only because Nikon completely copied the D3 in the D700 format. Its unlikely that Nikon will lack differentiation this time around.

        Therefore, one place for improvement/differentiation is in video. Make it FX worthy in the D800. Keep the D4 a purist camera, if need be (why not).

        • Carl

          I guess its you, Global, who are missing the point! If your primary concern is convenience and fun, and that’s how I understood your lines, a D7000 will be more than sufficient. Other than you place value on looking more like a pro.
          Many photogs, who do not make equivalent amount of a D3x with one or two days of shooting will most likely be happy with a D3x still quality boiled down to a D700 successor.

        • ehvangelic

          I’m with you on this Global. I’ve been getting into more and more video shooting but still love that I can have the flexibility to shoot still shots with exception quality for both vehicles. I’m holding off on getting a 5DMII because I do think Nikon is a better overall but the big question mark is if the D700 replacement even have video and if yes, will it be even better than the 5DMII video output.

          I understand that a DSLR will not put out the quality level of a solely dedicated HD camcorder but if it comes close and can take breathtaking photos, I’m all for it! Have people seen some of the incredible videos being taken with a DSLR like the 5DMII? Stunning!

  • Magnus

    I believe the D4 wont have video. Why?
    Because the D4 is a top of the line pro camera that will be a workhorse for many (4?) years
    Including video will add more “noise” to the body (more buttons and connections) yet the video produced will never be truly Pro – especially compared to other cameras released within the lifespan of the D4.

    This said, the D800 will probably get video.

    Personally, I am not interested in video in a still camera and was waiting for the D800 (want next gen. FX for low light purposes) – but the D4 will be to expensive (especially since I need to replace my DX glass at the same time. Might get me a D400 while I wait for the D800 though.

    • Doesn’t the D3s have video already? Seems unlikely Nikon will *drop* video functionality on the D3s replacement.

      • El Aura

        Yes, the D3s has video (the D3 and the D700 do not, nor does the D3x). Thus re-using the D3x sensor might be unlikelier than re-using the D3s sensor.

        (But if the D4 sensor matches the D3s sensor in QE at higher resolution there will be little reason to continue the D3s sensor unless Nikon wants to release multiple D700-type models in short succession, eg, first a D700s than a D700x and then a D800 using the D3s, D3x and D4 sensors, respectively. And I don’t think Nikon wants to have too many or too short-lived models in this space.)

        • I highly doubt Nikon will be selling another camera with the D3s chip, unless something changes with Sony (or they stick it in a D7k style body). It’s too late in the game for a simple ‘S’ upgrade IMO.

          I recall hearing something from Sony—essentially that they did not have a 12mp chip that was capable of spitting out true 1080p footage. If my memory is not mistaken, then I think this pretty much ensures we will never see a 12mp FX chip in another camera. The ship on 12mp has likely sailed.

          Today full HD 24p (and inexplicably 30p) are just too sought after for Nikon to avoid including them in all future DSLRs.

          And yes, Magnus—the D4 WILL have video function. You can count on that.

          • BartyL

            If you are correct that’s a pity. The D700 has such an awesome reputation that it would be nice to see it continue in some form. Personally, I’d like a D700c (‘c’ for ‘consumer’). Put the electronics etc into a well-built all polycarbonate body. Not sure where they would position it, and realistically the demand would probably be too low.

            Not holding my breath, but dreaming is free.

            • I don’t see it as a pity, but rather an opportunity for a modest increase in MP (though with that particular model they may be more aggressive). Despite what the mega-megapixel crowd says, I would think Nikon could do quite well with a sub $3k D700 replacement with a modest increase in MP (say 16-20mp), and an evolutionary improvement in DR, high-ISO noise response, and color fidelity.

              It may get pooh-poohed by the mainstream MP chasers and big tech sites that don’t seem to know much more than consumers, but once it was put in people’s hands it would shake things up well enough.

              Some here deride those of us hoping for an extra x stops of ISO from the D3s. But can you imagine what you could do with the current equivalent to 1,600 ISO at 12k ISO? If the current high ISO has taught us anything, it’s that some of the most gorgeous natural light exists in some pretty dark places.

            • >I’d like a D700c

              From what I’ve heard, the D7000 comes pretty close to being that. Haven’t put one through that rigorous fire yet, though, so I can’t say if it’s that good or not.

              And like Ron, I’m one of those hoping for a D700s. D3s sensor in a D700? I’d take that. Video might be nice, but it’s absolutely not necessary to me.

            • Richard


              I have a D7k and I can assure you that its low light performance is no wher near that of a friend’s D700.

            • I agree. I’ve owned and extensively shot both. The D7k is nice, and a minor improvement over the D300s in both noise response and resolution. However, it doesn’t stand up to the D700 in noise performance at high or low ISO.

    • sgmcenroe

      Magnus – as a retired photojournalist, I can tell you that newspapers have been wanting their photographers to be able to shoot both still and video – the video is for the newspaper’s websites. The convenience of being able to shoot both in the same pro body will assure that the D4 has HD video capabilities.

    • sirin

      – video produced will never be truly Pro

      tell that to House MD filming crew.

      • +10

        Keen point, Sirin.

        • chris

          the people who complain about video and say that people should use a camcorder for professional video have absolutly no clue and probably never shoot a decent video in their life : P

      • Eric Pepin

        except the rig used to make the 5dmII into a high end video camera cost a whole lot of money, so its really more of a video rig with a DSLR attached to it as an accesory, because with a stable rig, off board mic and recorder, assistants, lighting, etc, my D90 produces great video, and youd have a hard time picking it out from a 5d or anything else.

    • ffaabb

      You know guys, I’m a video editor, I edit daily for tv.

      Nowadays, a good half (maybe more) of the very good videoclips you see on tv are shot with 5d mark II.

      Nowadays, if you present a video to your clients that doesn’t have this “DSLR look” (in other words, short depth of field), they will ask you why the image are so bad.

      Since Nikon introduced video in D90, everything has changed in my industry. Absolutely everything. and that happened very quickly.

      If DSLR didn’t shoot video, a guy like me would have never bother visiting nikon rumors twice a day, craving a firmware update for better video on D7000 (I want full HD at 25fps, like d5100, please Nikon do it, it’s about time now)

      So now we will have a D400 annoucement in 2 month.

      D400 is supposed to be the best DX camera ever produced, right?

      So, as an operator, film-maker, editor, I expect D400 to have the most amazing, breathtaking, intelligent, convenient, sound capable, best in it’s field video mode.

      Otherwise Canon will still lead in this field, because they realised how important video is, and if you offer a good video mode to your clients, you just double your sales.
      This is where we are now.

      Thanks for reading this Mr Nikon, and thank you Mr Admin for your great website.

      …..D7000 firmware update please…..

      • ehvangelic

        I’ve been waiting a long time for the D700 replacement to have a video option that trumps the 5DMII because in all honesty, to have the flexibility to do both is a beautiful thing. Pros are using the 5DMII mainly as a recording device and they’re coming up with some amazing HD footage. If Nikon doesn’t take this route, they will be left to cater to a smaller niche market. This is coming from someone who went from photography and is now so intrigued with making videos. Let’s see what Nikon comes out with or else I might have to get a 5DMII.

  • Mark

    I’m super excited about this! I own the D300s now, and I can’t wait to see what they do with the replacement! On the same note, i shudder to think of the price of the D4.

  • crazytalk

    I’m saying if the D400 is announced then a new 17-55 will come along with it. My prediction is with VR and Nano coating…..the question is will it get a wider/longer or both focal range? 16mm would be sweet.

    I’m not looking to move from DX so I would love to have a revamped 2.8 zoom.

    • rhlpetrus

      Yes, 16-60mm f/2.8, VR and Nano, the new APS-C standard zoom, come on Nikon!

  • Ben Brickwall

    People need to stop hating on Thom Hogan. His website has probably been one of the best and most thorough resources of technical knowledge, reviews, and thoughts on this subject we all care about, for many a year now.

    This whole thread has been nothing more than a heated discussion of the merits of video in a still camera. Compromises are fine and necessary to an extent, but we should always remember the goal, or if that’s ever-changing, the original purpose. To personify, if the D4 wants to get a C+/B- in video — that’s fine! — but it BETTER get an A++ in still imagery, otherwise its priorities are misguided.

    • I’m guessing we won’t have to choose. Despite the general misconceptions that get perpetuated by certain folks in the industry, Nikon’s video is very good, and is proving to be better in many ways than the video from Canon. Despite this, can anyone show signs of the inclusion of video hindering image quality?

      • Bingo! The only thing Nikon lacks in comparison to Canon’s video – more options(I.e. 1080p 30fps, 60fps…etc). Other than that, Nikon actually wins in the video dept as well. I much prefer Nikon’s video output, DR, color rendition, high-ISO noise..etc to Canon’s(especially the 5DII). I suspect this one issue will be a thing of the past soon. My money in on Nikon to finally put the nail in the coffin.

        • There are a lot of invalid prejudices that are still around, just like in the Mac vs. Microsoft PC debate. Macs are more expensive, Macs don’t have much software, Macs aren’t popular, etc. These popular myths take a LONG time to die off. In a way, it’s not unlike the phenomenon of racism, where people cling to their ideals long after they’re proven incorrect.

          Likewise, people see Canon as a superior company, largely for one reason: Canon is masterful at selling technology and specs as the highest importance. They’re a masterful marketing machine. I mean that sincerely, and that is one of their most enviable strengths. However, the fact is that Nikon VSLR video is VERY good, and has been progressively improving over the last number of iterations. Nikon has made (and continues to make) a few stupid decisions, but on a whole their video is very competitive, if not leading.

          Similar to a bully getting everyone to notice the pudgy kid’s physique in the schoolyard, most will fail to realize that Mr. Bulge is rather intelligent, hard working, and pre-pubescent—all factors that increase the odds that he will rise above the rest. Still, the bully is loud and a little mean, so he gets buy-in without much effort, and the label easily sticks around through the end of the high-school era.

          But once the game changes…..

          And that’s what Nikon has been engaging in over the last 5 years. Now if we could get the folks in our own camp to stop listening to the increasingly desperate cry of the bully…

          • Eric Pepin

            except.. macs dont have nearly as much software, and are much more expensive, and arent nearly as popular…

            – macbook pro user.

            • These are usually arguments coming from the other side. 🙂

              But really, please check your assumptions, Eric:

              1) It is now becoming common to find apps and titles on the Mac platform that are not available for the wintel crowd. The Mac platform is hot, emerging, and drawing a lot of spectacular talent (and resulting software) that is not filtering down to windows. In fact, it might be just the opposite.

              2) Let’s forget for a moment that Macs, dollar for dollar, are typically: Better build quality; Better specs (and I mean ALL specs, not just the mythical MHz); Better OS; Better integration with peripherals; More innovative (and hence most copied); and More of a joy to use, among other things.

              Instead let’s focus on the biggest spec of them all: price. You can pay $2k and get a really nice MacBook Pro. Let’s assume you can pay $1k for a very decent PC. After 2-3 years of use, how much can you get in resale value for that PC? Right, nada. Giving it away is a chore. Pay to recycle it?

              And the Mac? Resale is usually 50-70%, or (average) about $1,200. So cost of ownership over time is actually lower than the (predictably) lower-end PC.

              3) Coming soon to a theatre near you.

      • PHB

        I think the complaints about video fit in the same box as ‘only FX worth having’ and ‘I don’t want an SD card slot’ and ‘I don’t need any more MP’ and ‘I don’t want WiFi’.

        Well just what DO such people want from a new camera body? That is that Nikon is likely capable of delivering. We would all love ISO 10^9, but that isn’t something that not paying attention to video is going to bring.

        The DSLRs get an A or A+ in picture quality. The weak point is the convenience and handling factors, but even so there are no good reasons I can see to buy a professional camcorder over a DSLR.

        I see the convergence point for the industry being the EVIL format. A dedicated video body taking the same lenses as for stills will be the preferred format for handheld shots. DSLRs will likely continue to be preferred for tripod work. ISO response does not matter so much when the sensor is limited to HD resolution anyway.

        I don’t see why you don’t see the point of 30P, the vast majority of television continues to be broadcast in NTSC format which in the US is at 30Hz.

        • I agree, people seem to demand a whole lot, and a lot of strange things at the same time (speaking practically).

          I also agree that there are no good reasons for dedicated camcorder over VSLR. Not in real world shooting for most people. Moiré can usually be controlled (my first case of uncontrollable moiré occurred a month or so ago, and it was hell—but this was the first serious and damning case in over 2 years of VSLR shooting).

          I think whatever the solution, the assumption that VSLRs will fall out of favor to more dedicated video rigs is wholly dependent on 2 things: one, the idea that camcorder-makers are very soon going to pull their heads from the miles-deep dark hole they are in now. I think this assumption is mighty generous re: their state of market awareness. It also operates on the assumption that VSLR makers are sitting on their laurels and won’t be getting up anytime soon, another flawed idea.

          There is no question that the goal for the major VSLR players is full 4k/5k/6k and greater RAW streams to compete with the likes of RED, Phantom 4k, etc. Sony is actually showing a lot of promise in this field, and I think it’s inevitable that we’ll get more of these major advancements in video. In fact this may be the “next great frontier” in the digital arms race. Don’t kid yourself, video is a H.U.G.E. segment of growth for SLR makers.

          In response to your last question…First, NTSC is 60Hz, no?

          Still, I’m pretty sure most tv shows today, including many reality shows (and even news), are shot at 24p and then converted to 60i where necessary. The Office, 24, Lost, 30 Rock, Psych, and many many others are shot at 24p, and the difference is clear.

          Additionally, I don’t shoot content for TV, nor do I watch much Cable (Don’t even have a TV anymore, I usually consume the downloaded/streaming content or DVD, which are all delivered in 24p).

          But there is a clear difference between 24, 30, and 60fps. 30fps mimicks (roughly) what we see through our own eyes (1/60 and 30fps).

          30fps = reality—bland, normal, slightly eerie but mostly boring.
          24fps = mysterious—slightly slower than what we perceive as “normal”, novel, more immersive, engrossing, and stylistic; art. We can get “lost” in 24p because it is a step removed from reality—it sweeps us away to a virtual place.

          As someone else said once online: “we don’t actually want REALITY from our art. Monet wouldn’t be a household name if the only goal of art was to reproduce things in a quality that mimicked what the human eye could see.”

          • PHB

            I think that the pro camcorder makers have seen the writing on the wall and stopped development. About half the camcorders on the market are still tape based. They might as well be punch card as far as I am concerned.

            What we presume to be Nikon’s first EVIL format, the 2.5x crop loks to me as if it is designed for video. Smart move in my opinion because almost nobody is going to be switching from F-format for a first generation EVIL body for still photography however good it is.

            Probably won’t be seeing a 4K capability out of the gate, but it will come soon enough.

            NTSC is 60Hz to match the mains frequency, but its interlaced so its actually a 30Hz frame. In Europe the mains frequency is 50Hz and so PAL is interlaced on 25Hz. When 35mm films are shown in Europe they are frequently shown at 25fps (yuk).

            As to the 30P thing, I know that there is a view that 24fps is better but the view is mostly held by people who are deeply involved in traditional film. I can’t see why a lower frame rate is going to be better unless people are already conditioned to it and I have never heard of anyone actually doing tests on actual audiences.

            Now if a film is going to be distributed in 35mm you obviously want 24p. But that is going to be a shrinking market. Digital projectors are getting much cheaper. Times are going to get hard for film clubs which used to depend on the ready availability of 35mm prints struck for general distribution.

            But the claim for 24fps seems to come from television broadcast which is plain weird. Upconverting from 24fps to 30 has to be a noisy process. I really can’t see how that noise is going to improve matters. I can see how people might imagine that it would, but without actual empirical evidence it sounds like something that is widely believed but never tested.

            I’ll send Adam Savage a note, sounds like just the sort of thing they should be testing on mythbusters.

            • People are highly conditioned to 24 fps versus 30 fps (which has really been 60 fps interleaved), and there’s plenty of studies that talk about the difference in perception that frame rate makes. James Cameron is currently on a 60 fps progressive crusade, and we had this same debate in the film world when IMAX first appeared.

              Upconverting 24 fps to 30 fps isn’t “noisy,” it’s “jittery.” You use 60 fps and use what’s known as a 2:3 pulldown (has to do with the old telecine projectors and what they did). Most of us who’ve been in the business can immediately spot 24 fps source material on US broadcast because of that. But I wouldn’t agree to your contention that broadcast wants 24 fps. Not unless the rest of the material being shot is at 24 fps.

              The fact that we’ve started disconnecting from traditional broadcast (cable, Web, etc.) gives 24 fps new life. Indeed, it lowers the bandwidth necessary for streaming, amongst other things.

            • 30fps, 50fps, and 60fps have been around for ages. Not only that, but loads of content has been consumed in these frame rates. There is a reason they haven’t been embraced by the general population. I often get comments from complete laymen about how much more “professional” my 24p footage looks. They don’t just mention it—they swoon enviously.

              James Cameron (from everything I’ve read) is interested in 48fps, and is trying to go that route for future films.

              However, Peter Jackson has confirmed that they’re shooting The Hobbit in 48fps, which he says is pretty much indiscernible from 60fps. I had previously wondered about 48fps, whether it would have qualities more like 24fps being the same phase, whereas 30/60 are pretty drastically different. After reading Jackson’s comments, I suspect that unfortunately no, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

              In the end, we’ll know soon enough—a few prominent people are taking the plunge. I’m not holding my breath for 60fps to replace the settled standard of 24fps, nor am I confident that it will ever earn the reputation as “better” than 24fps in narrative context simply by nature if it becoming more ubiquitous. The 30/60fps imagery looks wholly different than 24p, and somehow both eerily and blandly simulates “real life” at the same time. For a horror movie (I don’t enjoy this genre, so have at it) it may add some element of reality that would improve its effectiveness in reaching the audience. But for those aiming to achieving immersive narrative work, I am dubious this will ever become widely accepted.

              At least, that’s my hope. I can’t stand the home-video, soap-opera, UK-sitcom look of 30fps/60fps.

          • Jabs

            @Ron Adair.
            First off, I respect your depth of knowledge PLUS your convictions even if I disagree with them, as you usually tell it like it is – from YOUR perspective, that is and that is refreshing.
            The reason why we HAD 30 fps is that Video consists of two frames and the frequency of electricity in America and elsewhere was and is 60hz or now cycles. (60 divided by 2 = 30 fps) Therefore you had to sync all motors and controls to this frequency to make them run at a certain speed. Same in other areas where the frequency is 50hz or 50 cycles, thus half of that or 25 fps. The problem related to flickering of the old ANALOG video stream.
            In digital you do not need that if you are doing everything digitally from acquiring it on computer based systems to editing/delivering etc,. People confuse 24fps with 25fps or 60 fps and then state that there are now demerits in the equipment due to their ignorance. Actually the Cinematic standard has been 24 fps for eons and since they are projected images unlike video, then they determined years ago that 24fps was perfect for their needs. Now, you have people spouting all over the place unaware as to WHY things are done and then they want what they want or call you crazy for trying to explain the basics to THEM. There is NO conversation going on, IF you do not know the why of a thing, so you have endless arguments and thus somebody needs to shut up – LOL- I did. DSLR video has nothing to do with traditional video but happens to bring into focus DIGITAL video or what it has emerged now as. Editing and acquiring of footage has now changed, so the past descriptions no longer apply, so when you hear people trying to explain the PAST as a reference to the NOW or future, then you know you have an idiot lost on supposed specs or jibberish. Digital Cinema now is at least 2K resolution and going towards 4K resolution and ABOVE in filming or acquisition and thus nothing to relate to in HD VIDEO, as the aspect ration is different in filming from Video, though they are easily scaled, transposed or just edited in and upscaled. So, if you read what Sony says in its’ web site and offer that as evidence that they are building Cinematic equipment, then you are a fool indeed as 1920×1080 is a CONTENT Delivery standard and NOT an acquisition standard in Cinema. Sorry to be long, but I read your posts and thought that you might get why I butt heads with people here. They are clueless as to the differences between Cinema and Video because they read web sites. RED makes digital Cinema gear and Hollywood Movie MAKERS have flocked to it while Independent Movie makers have flocked to DSLR video because they cannot afford a RED Epic or the newer higher resolution models. RED also takes high resolution stills and now they are using it to do Movie still posters from the Cinema footage as well and the images look great – look at their web site – so when people say what they think and then expect while it already HAS occurred, then you know they are blowing smoke at you -LOL. Sorry to be so long, but people need to wake up! Moire came from herringbone patterns when video signals were slow/low or had interference but most of that has been solved digitally via getting rid of the problem – analog video. Like they did with audio – go to 96khz and sample higher, then bring it back down to the lower frequency. Certain colors/textures bring about moire and anti-aliasing often does not remove it, as it usually is frequency related or the inability of a sensor to differentiate fine lines or adjacent colors and is a now VIDEO problem mainly. Have a good one!

  • Tony

    Wait for me D400, I’m goint to get you soon!!

  • Tony888

    No reason for a video equipped camera to add “noise” to the system.

    Anyway, to say that an HD video feature will never be as good as a dedicated camcorder might be(I believe is)premature.

    The $350 Sony HX9V P&S camera has amazing video quality for a camera. The reviews of that camera have said the same. Watch some of the 1080P sample clips & you’ll see. You can find one of many reviews of the Sony on Photography Blog.

    Now imagine what you could get with a much larger sensor, particularly FX with 2011 technology.

  • broxibear

    Just out of interest, how much are those in the market for a D4 happy to pay? (I know it’s difficult since there’s no spec, images, tests etc but most will have a budget in their head).
    Nikon’s list price in the UK for a D3s is £4382, a D3x is £6260…on list price, not street price, I’d expect the D4 to be at least £5000 (around $8000 USD).

    • AnoNemo

      I would pay the D3s price maximum and I believe it will not be more expensive.

    • @broxibear

      Where are you getting your D4/$8k number. That’s way off. Unless Nikon is expecting to bag the DXx lineup, they wouldn’t dare charge $8k for the fast, lean (-h, -s) version. The D4 will list at ~$5k, just as the D3s and D3 have. A major deviation from this as you suggest would be suicide for Nikon.

      • broxibear

        Hi Ron,
        I was going by current UK list prices of the D3 series bodies and converting what I think the D4 would be priced at into dollars.
        I really don’t see it being the same price as the D3s…new models are always more expensive than the ones being replaced.
        I don’t know, maybe you’re right ?

        • Looking at historical prices:

          D1: $5,580

          D1x: $5,500
          D1h: $4,500

          D2h: $3,500
          D2x: $4999.95

          D2hs: $3499.95
          D2xs: $4699.95

          D3: $4999.95
          D3x: $7999.95

          D3s: $5,199.95

          Prices typically seem to drop from the announced prices after demand levels off, but I believe the above prices offer a pretty good picture into what we can expect next go-around.

          First of all, we’ve seen a pretty big increase in prices already from the D2 line to the D3 line.

          The D3 was nearly 1.5x the price of the D2h.
          The D3x was 1.6x the price of the D2x.

          (hey, lookey there, the crop factors of the two biggest players) 🙂

          I don’t think we’ll see a price increase on the D4x. $8,000 bones is a pretty high ticket price, even for their high end market. We might see a price increase on the D4, but I would be surprised. I think it’s much more likely we’ll see (at the most) the D4 launch with a price of under $5,500, and likely $5,199 just like the D3s (moore’s law, etc).

          In the end I’ll admit above all else that I don’t want the price to go above where it roughly sits now. I take comfort knowing I’m probably quite comfortably found among the majority in that particular wish.

          • PHB

            Or maybe the prices look like this

            D3s $5000
            D4 $6200-$7000

            The D3x sells pretty well despite the high price. There seems to be ongoing demand for a 12MP body. So maybe they keep the D3s in the catalogue for a while as the ultimate High ISO model and also to make the D4 price look less outrageous.

            • I’m still staking my hat on the same (general) prices as before, modest increase in MP (up to 20mp MAX), and lower noise, hence higher usable ISO. I think 51k “normal” ISO is not uncalled for, and we may even see 408k “Hi” ISO. They took the D3 Hi-ISO up 3 stops. They took the D3s up 2 stops. New chips in a major model upgrade year could be more on the revolutionary side again. Guess we’ll have to wait to see.

              Fun to debate in the meantime. 🙂

              P.S. It wouldn’t be uncommon for the D3s to stick around for a year or so. I don’t see 12mp FX or DX being refreshed in the lineup, though.

    • sirin

      D4 won’t be $8k.
      $6600 max.

      • Recent Convert

        3 years ago, $8000 amounted to 840,000 Yen. The same 840,000 Yen now require a US$ price of $10,370. My guess: a D4X will come in at $9990 “list” and $9500 “street”.

  • Don Trammell

    My daughter will be a happy camper. She gets my D3S and I get the new D4. Win, win. 🙂

    • Geoff

      adopt me and let me have the D3s, you wont have to pay for college ;- )

    • I was gonna say, care to adopt me as your daughter? 🙂

  • Lulz

    I too am wondering what the d4 will cost. Though this will be my upgrade. Shooting d300 now.

  • Rob

    Lets hope if there is a d300s replacement, they’ll keep the controls the same. Personally I prefer the d300s controls over the pro bodies.
    Maybe nikon will finally smarten up and make a 400mm 5.6 for us bird in flight photographers. Otherwise a new canon body and lens will need to be ordered!

  • Lulz

    Though I will not buy anything that has a Sony sensor in it. I’d sooner sell off all my glass and start over with canon.

    • JED


      • Lulz

        Though I will not buy anything that has a Sony sensor in it. I’d sooner sell off all my glass and start over with canon.

        Because I work for Sony Ericsson and they treat us like crap. Their processes are the most inefficient I have ever seen.

      • Lulz

        I’m an employee of the Ericsson side. I have my reasons, anyways who cares if nikon loses one customer it’s not going to hurt them.

  • NYikon

    This may already have been mentioned, and I could easily be completely wrong but I’m thinking that there will be no D400, but instead a D7000x (24MP). I don’t see Nikon continuing with a pro/semipro DX body.

    • Richard

      No offense, but I hope you are wrong. The D7k is crippled in several ways that cry out for better. While I am not knocking the build quality for what it is, a sturdier body with more external controls is what I believe is needed and expected. The D7k is definitely not a pro level body in my view.

      • TaoTeJared

        I agree. Although a great upgrade to the D70/80/90 series, the D100/200/300 series are many steps above the d7000. Not everything “Pro” deals with the sensor.

    • What kind of odds would you give? If I were a betting man I’d likely take it at ANY odds.

      Nikon WILL continue on with a D300s replacement. Likely for many, many years.

      • NYikon

        You’ve got a point — I wouldn’t be comfortable betting against a D400 — or for it. Insofar as the D300s series continuing for many many years, I would bet against that.

        • I know this is an oft discussed idea, but I just can’t see it. Think about it this way: if Nikon dumps their prosumer DX line, where does their lineup sit? See for yourself (as noted in an earlier thread:

          $550 (D3100)
          $799 (D5100)
          $1,199 (D7000)
          $3,199 (D800)
          $5,199 (D4)
          $7,999 (D4x)

          Or, shown in visual form.

          That’s a big gap in the most price-senstive segment.

          If anything, I would expect them to add another body between the D400 and the D800 (IF anything).

          • NYikon

            Thanks for the info — I figured this has probably been discussed before! Ideally the gap in the list should be filled with the D400 FX or D9000 FX etc. — not a relatively expensive DX — but maybe that’s just wishful thinking — time will tell!

            • BartyL

              D9000 FX for a sub-AU2k price (I’m assuming you mean an FX sensor in a D7000-grade body?) would be … superb.

            • NYikon

              That’s pretty much what I meant, and yes, at that price it would be superb!

  • Aw….I was so hoping D800 will be out this year 😮

  • Mark

    I had a hunch a few months ago when I said in a comment about the D700 “In the alternative, it may be there is no replacement and instead some other camera will be released, perhaps even after the release of the D4/D400”.

    I suspect Nikon will not release a replacement for the D700, at least in the form of a slightly cut down D4. I believe it sees that approach as a mistake as the D700 was said to compete against the S3. Nor will it produce a D400 full frame so as not to compete against the D300s replacement or to reduce demand for DX lenses.

    Accordingly, it may be that a D7000 full frame camera is released with additions and named D800 or D8000 but be far enough away from the D700 and the D4 that pros will not look to it as a replacement for the D4, but sufficiently more expensive than the D400 that it will not compete with the D400.

    Either way, I am coming to suspect the D700 is a one-off. A great value, nevertheless.

    • TaoTeJared

      That could happen if Canon discontinues it’s 5D line or stops making cameras.

      Canon and Nikon have gone to great lengths and cost in the last 4 years to match each other’s line up. Canon 40D was weather sealed, D90 was not = D7000. D300 was a advanced featured with many pro controls, very robust camera, Canon 40D was lacking = Canon 7d. Canon captured a pro market for a non grip body, ok AF, high resolution, Nikon had nothing = D700.

      We are at least two full releases (8 years) before we see a DX get upgraded to FX. This is a pipe dream for people wanting cheap FX cameras. The size alone, will keep this from a D7000 body. The key to watch is to see if any “Pro” DX glass is released or updated.

  • TaoTeJared

    If the D4 is 24mp than the D3x is obsolete so maybe the price will be the D3x price. Sort of odd when you think of it but maybe they still are not making money off that sensor design yet. If the high iso is not better than the D3s, I think it will be a hard sell.

    I would have expected an 18mp (+/-) with focus on low light, burst speed, and upgraded video that would land the price below the D3x. But then again, the D300 sensor was better than the D2xs and the D3 blew the doors off. If the D400 is as good or better as a D3 and the D4 is better than the D3s, then they will have winners all the way around. The D400 will have to beat the D7000 by at least 1 stop in USEABLE low ISO. No one of any skill cares what the high iso number is if it can’t be used.

    I think the D700 series will always be a orphan just as the 5D series is to Canon. I expect something out of left field again when the D800 is released. If the 5Diii comes out this year, Nikon will still have time to change what they will have.

    • Richard

      The D3X is a pricey camera even for professionals. If there is to be a D4X I would expect something 32 MP or better, depending upon what Nikon believes Canon will be doing and how they can compare with that in terms of IQ rather than merely a matter of MP.

      I expect the D4 will probably fit into the price point of the D3S with adjustments for exchange rates (bad news).

      The D400 needs to be very good at ISO 6,400 which the D3/D700 crowd has become accustomed to using with great regularity. People expect it now.

      • I’ve beat the drum all of last year that Nikon will keep the MP count down on the D3/D3s replacement in order to improve other areas more dramatically. No one can deny that high ISO is a factor in the race now, and 100% of our thanks goes to Nikon.

        But here’s where it gets interesting: The D3x is the highest resolution (and highest quality 20mp+) DSLR on the market today. So they have the best in class for low light high-res (yes, 12mp is high-res), as well as best in class super-high-res body. Now maybe these camera makers are all approaching the higher limits of resolution for FX, but I think there’s more to be had from FX than 32mp (even on this go around.

        Here’s my bet for the fun of it:

        D4: 36mp (my guess is 42-48mp, a doubling isn’t uncalled for)
        D800: same as D4, but possibly higher (24mp?)
        D400: 16mp (D7k sensor with slightly better performance)

        Prices? Same as before, with a possible 5% shift either way.

        At this point, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen with the D800. I think we have all been waiting to get a read on their heading, but since we’re only tracking one point, we have no reliable data on where they’ll end up next. I think it was very likely to see a D3s or D4 clone in a smaller body (ala D700) last year. As each year advances, so too do the technologies, and this creates somewhat of a moving target for us (guessers) and the manufacturers alike.

        Whatever happens, I guarantee it WILL be interesting (one way or another).

        • Oops…the above prediction was supposed to be:

          D4X: 36mp (my guess is 42-48mp, a doubling isn’t uncalled for)

          D4 will be 16-20mp

  • Lulz

    Dear nikon, just say no to Sony Ericsson. Please.

  • Hue

    I overheard that the D400 will have 24 megapixel sensor (Sony?), have usable ISO up to 51,200 and include 30 fps HD video. D400 will shoot up to 11 fps with battery grip installed. The rear screen will be fully articulating. Control layout will differ only slightly from D300S. It will be introduced with new pro-level DX glass – not sure what specs. Of course, no one who mattered (that I’ve heard) said all that – just me.
    As a D300S owner, these are some upgrades that I’d like to see. I do believe the replacement will likely include a 24 mp Sony sensor and at least 12,800 usable ISO. As far as video, I didn’t and wouldn’t make a decision for a still camera based on its video capability. However, after using the D300S for going on 2 years, I’ve come to enjoy at least having the video capability in my hand without changing weapons. I shot some bear video that I wouldn’t have otherwise gotten.
    Anyway… just my nickel’s worth…

    • Eric Pepin

      I agree with liking a possible 24 megapixels, but 20 ish is fine too, just a better sensor then the D5100. Also a full pro body, not the half metal half cheap plastic that the D7000 is. Basically take the perfection that is the D300 / 700 body, slap a better sensor in that natively can also do better video, do some minor changes to some switches and menus and release a few great dx lenses along with it and boom, ill take two… well at least one.

  • Well, if they are not going to replace the D700 they could at least make some!!! they’ve been out of stock forever and the used ones are selling higher then new ones a few monthes ago

  • I wonder if Nikon learned anything from the pricing of the D3x. Seems like many balked at the high price and choose the D700 or D3 instead. I hope they price the D4 more reasonably and make their money in volume of units sold. No doubt it would help Nikon regain market share as well. Trust me, I want to be the only person at a wedding with a D800 or D4, and will pay the extra for the heavy duty body, and bells and whistles that I will never explore. But, I just hope this time Nikon can keep their flagship within the grasp of those of us in this financially strapped occupation.

    • But, isn’t i true that Nikon never had problem selling the D3x even at the higher price?

    • Richard

      You touch on something that seems to completely elude Nikon…the concept of volume. Production volume allows a manufacturer to spread R&D costs over more units which allows more competitive pricing which, in turn, creates the opportunity to capture market share and spend more on R&D which can lead to greater competitive advantage.

      It might even leave the company in the situation where it could be more self-sufficient when it comes to sensors, among other things.

      Even taking into account the reported costs of sensors (frankly, I think the yields of FX sensors are shamefully low and reflect a lack of process control like…say Intel), the actual (marginal) cost of goods sold is bound to be sufficiently low that volume determined (amortized) costs are a major, if not controlling, factor in pricing.

  • fakekenrockwell

    Thom Hogan is a big boy, you folks don’t need to rescue him. My point isn’t that TH is wrong about the inherent compromises one has to make with video out of a still camera. If you need perfect video (pro or otherwise), go get a perfect-ish video cam. The advanced photography market is way bigger than a few pros with pro needs. Focusing on that = fail.

  • Eric Pepin

    ill be buying that D400, especially if it has more resolution then the D7000, but it at least has to give me something more then the D7K

    • And if it doesn’t, then what I wonder?

      • Eric Pepin

        If it doesent have features the D7k doesent? then I buy into canon unfortunately, but I dont see that happening, as a graduating photography student I need professional tools for my business, but I cant afford to buy a D4 let alone two D4’s. Simply put, if Canon releases a 8D and Nikon doesent release a D400 or the other way around there fucked, to be safe they will both release such model. Ive been thinking it for a long time, as much as idiots claimed the D7k made a D400 impossible.

        • I meant if it doesn’t have more resolution. Other features it will surely have a plenty.

    • P.S. Are you this Eric Pepin?

  • JP Dyno

    Well, So much for going FX this year. B-(

    I suppose it’s probably a good idea to buy some FX lenses for my D90 first, but the crop factor has detered me so far on the 24-70. I was hoping to jump into FX with both feet when the D700 replacement reared it’s head.

    • BartyL

      “…the crop factor has deterred me so far on the 24 – 70.”

      Geddit anyway! If you go to FX you’ll have a superb zoom, and if you stay with DX … you’ll still have a superb zoom! Nothing not to like about a 36 – 105mm equivalent. Mild-wide for landscapes with minimal distortion, classic mid and useful portrait lens. It’s all good.

  • David R

    Well I’m really glad they’ve announced the D300 replacement, I was about to buy the D7000 but there seems to be some hardware problems with oil leakage inside the camera lately. For me this will be step up a class from the good old Dxx line. I don’t care about the pixel count of the new D400, I’m just hoping for a good ISO performance, lightning fast AF system and capable FPS output.

    • Michael

      I have both D700 and D7000. Have not had any hardware problems with the D7000, love having it for street shooting and carrying around. If its stolen or I drop it in the lake from my kayak I wouldn’t feel as bad as something happening to my D700. And t has some features I prefer over the D700 such as the autofocus switch… hate that little tab on the front of the D700 😉 Very fast focusing, great metering and low light shooting.

  • Well, interesting times are coming!


    I pray this lineup of bodys do not use sony sensors.

    • LOL

      Why? You afraid some Canon fanboy will tease you?!

  • bluefox101

    Been waiting D800 since last year and one more year of waiting. OK, at least Nikon gives me more time to save up for my lovely D800 + more cool lens

  • Jason

    Still no D800, sucks Nikon.

    Greetings from a very unhappy customer.

    • Karlosak


  • Lulz

    Because Sony Ericsson sucks.

  • Distanted

    If you think the primary advantage of a DSLR with built-in video is having one less item to carry, you probably don’t make a living shooting video. We videographers are bound by the same principles of imagery as that of a still photographer and a few others you don’t have to consider. A limited DoF is just as important to our interviews as it is to your portraits. However, most <$5000 cameras have imagers that are 1/3" or smaller and a fixed lens. The cheapest interchangeable lens video camera prior to the 5D was the Sony EX3 at $8000. It has a 1/2" sensor. When the 5D came out, it was producing cinematic video for under $3000. It's not a perfect system for video, but it's an amazing first round. It's a feature, you can use it or not use it. I don't shoot sports photos, but I don't spend my days complaining about high frame rates and large telephoto lenses.

  • Paul

    Will the d700 be replaced? I was just wondering if interchangeable sensors may appear in d400 and d4. This would be the big leap forward between Dn and Dn+1 that Nikon has usualy done in the past. In that case, d400 could be both d300s and d700 replacement with DX and FX sensors. Of course viewfinder size and AF repartition have to be adressed (mirrorless? please no…).
    And Nikon may sell high margin specialized sensors (high iso, panoramic, squared, high iso, B&W, IR, non bayer,… this is endless).

    And “one more thing” by the end of the year or in 2012 : a D9000 as an FX sensor in a D7000 body.
    This would get a steady line-up for both consumers, advanced users and pro.

    By the way, I won’t change my d70 for quite a while. I’m just a dreamer.
    And sorry for my poor english.

  • Dr Motmot

    I had given up on waiting for a replacement for the D700 and was just about to order a D7000 to replace my D80 but after seeing this I will hang on until August to see what the D400 looks like. Also looking forward to seeing some new glass – 300mm f4 with VR? 200mm macro with VR? 85mm f1.8 G upgrade?

    • Richard

      Plus a bunch on a new 300mm f4.

    • GregD

      Why would you want VR on a macro lens? It is of no use and can only get in the way. Even on the 105mm it has now effect when you are anywhere close to 1:1

      That being said, I own the 200mm f/4 AF lens already, I would imagine any AFS version will have a sloppy focus ring, thus it is likely even without VR I would keep the current lens.

      • Dr Motmot

        I use my 105mm VR for candid shots and the VR is very useful, if you are shooting macro at 1:1 then you really need a tripod because the slightest movement will throw the focus out, and you want a smaller aperture for better DOF. A 200mm would become 300mm on a DX body which I would also use for candids and perhaps the odd wildlife shot but probably not much for macro. Even the 180mm f2.8 would be great with VR.

  • Patrik

    Just give me a D700x (D3x + D700). I know what my friends A900 can do, and know my glass can give more on my D700. The rest can remain the same and I would snap it up in a second! Video, not interested! Higher ISO than D3x? Not that important to me. Details, and less Bayer artifacts. That’s what I want (and will vote for with my wallet!).

    • Stupid guy

      + 1000 !!!
      but d700 and sony d3x/a900 sensor are 3/4 years old technologies.
      the thing we want (a photograpic engine, not a video thing with GPS, phone, 37 fps, permanent WiFi++ and this and that) must be either low priced or technologically updated !!
      D4 500k ISO will be the best to print 15×20 cm on newspapers kleenex paper, 12 Mp is very sufficient, “pro” users don’t personnallt pay for their camera: Mr Nikon, make it and make cash with that !
      D800 (call it what you want): how many EOS5Dxx worldwide sold? how many D800 (call it what you want) sold if this has 5D killer features in every domain ??

  • Jabs

    Reality 101:
    Many people do viral marketing by coming to a web site that is popular and then attempt to make themselves ‘internet experts’ to gullible persons but usually, they are mere ‘pontificators of the sublime’ or horse manure slingers – LOL.

    The REAL Sony PRO equipment:

    The REAL benefit of DSLR FX video is the large sensor, the better low light response and the better ISO range missing from most other equipment, PLUS the important cost factors which spur more Independent Film Production, as most Cinematic gear is very expensive and complex.

  • C

    Sounds reasonable, but I think some fine-tune is more reasonable

    18MP –> 20MP, 2MP more but the figure looks far better

    51AF –> 87AF, I would not be possible if D4 STILL has 51AF even all cross type is meaningless. If Nikon follow the ratio 11 x 5 – 4 = 51AF points, If D4 has 1 AF point more surrounding the existing 51AF points
    D4 –> 87AF (13 x 7 – 4)
    D5 –> 131AF (15 x 9 – 4)
    D6 –> 183AF, “Full-frame AF” for DX
    D7 –> 243AF (19 x 13 – 4)
    D8 –> 311AF (21 x 15 – 4)
    D9 –> 387AF, “Full-frame AF” for FX

  • Representatives of the Czech Republic Nikon today confirmed that the D800 is certain and confirmed. They’re apparently known as technical parameters. Nothing, however, did not want to tell and probably could not:)

  • Jabs

    Moving on:.
    I wonder if Nikon will use a three prong approach to their new series of Pro FX bodies?
    Could there be a D4, a D4s and then a D4X?
    D4 – general shooter with maybe 24 megapixels and HD video 1080p plus maybe 10fps.
    D4s – low light fast shooter with maybe 18 megapixels and HD video 1080p plus maybe 12 or more fps.
    D4X – high megapixel shooter with maybe 32 megapixels and 4K Cinema output plus maybe 6 to 8 fps.
    It seems like technology is at a cross roads wherein you need multiple bodies aimed at a cross section of people with dissimilar needs and wants. What I like about digital technology is that now specialists and specialized gear is making a comeback from the generic mess of the past few years. The two companies which I personally feel GET IT – are Nikon and RED (The Cinema gear company) as they have both redefined their respective areas and have now walked away from the manufacturer’s of ‘generic spec based’ equipment drooled over by incompetent boasters unaware as to HOW people really do use equipment and what challenges they face daily when they WORK.
    RED uses modularity and reminds me of the F3 series (my all time favorite camera so far) and thus I wish that Nikon would redo that with their upcoming digital Pro bodies and give us all more choices as digital matures and specs alone is not as important to Pro users. Magazines and blogs are filled with non users or those obsessed with specs or their own attempts to drive traffic into ‘their own pockets’ while unable to use or understand an item, so perhaps clueless technically.
    Maybe Nikon will use removable sensors/heads to accomplish this goal or use three or more distinct bodies to span the ever increasing needs of their Pro users. Nikon and RED got it, but most people do NOT as they don’t use equipment in the demanding ways that some use it and thus can afford to purchase all this specialized and very expensive gear. There is NO substitute for equipment, knowledge, experience and hard work and skill plus desire no matter what dreamers chime on all day about.

  • Mock Kenwell

    Wow. What a volatile and bile-producing thread this turned into. I mean, I expected this level of involvement, the vehemently opposing opinions threw me for a bit of a loop.

    • Hhom Togan

      It´s the net, this is the usual stuff: one good man sharing info (NR admin) and tons of brainless trolls talking stuff they don´t know.

  • Mock WenKell: I think the discussion has stirred emotions because “It has begun”.

  • jimmy bottoms

    whatev. i can wait well into 2012 for the D800. my D700s work just fine.

  • Handel

    I bring you my disappointments.

    Today I choose to be disappointed because there’s no D800. When they finally introduce the D800, I will choose to be disappointed because there’s no D900. I will never get to touch a D800 and will only read about it on the internet. I will choose to be disappointed and tell you all how I hated shooting with it and how it made my cat look fat.

    When they introduce the D900, I will be here to tell you all how I am going to buy everything Canon. I choose to be disappointed. Today. Tomorrow.

    Thank you.

    • First “Messiah,” then this. Masterful. 🙂

  • Greg

    No D800 till 2012…..pity

    • Hhom Togan

      Get a D700 and stop crying.

  • Jabs

    A quick question:
    Isn’t the D3s a Nikon designed sensor that replaced the earlier D3 sensor?

    • Hhom Togan

      in reality it is the same design but they added Ken Rockwell´s DNA to make it even more awesome.

      If you enter the “contra” code in the D3s you can actually read Ken Rockwell´s site from any D3s.

      • Jabs

        Then the camera would shoot backwards and blow smoke at us – LOL!

  • Hhom Togan

    I just creamed my pants!!!! dammit… threw the dairy cream of my coffee on my pants!!!!

    Wait a moment… what were you thinking???? 😮 you dirty sick people, shame on you!!! don´t look at my crouch please.

    • BartyL

      Don’t look at your “crouch”? Why should your posture concern us?

  • Walkthru

    At the end of the day, I’ll wait for the D800 & continue to use my D300 in the meantime. Was sorely tempted to buy the D700, but thought “No! This model has been around for a couple of years now, and can’t be too far away from being replaced/upgraded.” That was 18 months ago – how wrong was I.

    As far as the video debate is concerned, video in DSLR’s is a reality now, so get used to it those of you who don’t want it – you’re gonna get it anyway. And if you are gonna get it, it might as well be as good a quality as is possible. You may find you use (and enjoy) it occasionally.

    As for waiting – the D700 is such a great stills camera. It probably follows that the D800 might be just that little bit better – modest increase in MP’s with (hopefully) even better DR and noise reduction across all usable ISO settings.

    As hard as it is, I’ll keep on waiting……………..

  • Walkthru

    Whatever will be, will be…………………………………

  • Paul

    A good photographer does not need video to make a story.

    I think its fun to have video but I can’t think of a situation where I’d use it when I should be taking pictures. For any kind of paid shoot, you should be using a camcorder mounted on a tripod while taking stills with your DSLR.

    Also, while the video features are convenient, the only way to get good quality is with a steady cam attachment. There goes your convenience..

  • Back to top