Nikon D400 will not be announced before the D800/D4

Nikon D400

Image: Anders Relling

As of today I don't have any details on the Nikon D400 DSLR camera (or whatever the D300s replacement will be called). The only information I received is that the Nikon D400 will be released in 2012 after the D800/D4 announcements (I was told in March). It's just too early to consider this information as reliable. Maybe Nikon will really try to get it out before the London Olympics. The Nikon D400 is supposed to be a "bigger D7000" with a monster burst rate and tweaked AF system from the D4.

In 2012 Nikon will be announcing the D4/D800 plus a D7000 replacement (probably in August). Adding the D400 on top of those three cameras will really make 2012 a "Nikon DSLR year".

I am also getting some tips that a new Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.8G DX (no VR) lens is currently being tested. With the success of the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX, I will not be surprised if Nikon releases another DX prime lens.

[NR] probability rating for everything in this post is low at that point, about 30%.

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

    I would definitely buy another dx 1.8 prime wide! Especially if priced close to what the 35mm is priced.

    • +1
      I really use a lot the DX 35mm f/1.8 indoor, and i really need the 24mm f/1.8 DX.
      I also hope for a new 85mm f/1.8 DX, for portraits.

      • How about a 16mm f/4 DX pancake? A 24 mm lens isn’t really wide-angle on DX.

        • Douglas Adams

          I fully agree. Although I can accept that 24 mm prime would offer a great deal of usability to photographers, and considering that I already have 35mm and 50 mm primes, the addition of 85mm for portraits and true wide 16 mm would be charming. Having dozen primes in my bag and changing them too often doesn’t seem to be pleasing.

        • I’ll buy a 16mm f/4 DX pancake, although I allready have the not-so-small 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DX, which at 16mm is f/4.
          However, I need more a dedicated DX tele prime like a 85mm f/1.8.

          • Sahaja

            If it’s a “pancake” – it probably won’t be faster than f/4.0

            Something like these ,but from Nikon, would be nice…

            * 15mm f/4.0
            *14 mm f/2.8
            *21mm f/3.2

      • Stephen

        A 58mm 1.8 DX would be better for portraits. An 85 works out to be a 127 FX equivalent whereas a 58 is an 87.

        • Sahaja

          60mm (90mm equiv) or 70mm (105mm equiv) wouldn’t be bad as a portrait lens for DX either.

    • Pickerel

      I would surely welcome a 24mm/f1.8 lens! 35mm/f1.8 is a bit narrow for some of the indoor stuff I do, and getting more aperture than the 20mm/f2.8 without having to shell out for the 24mm/f1.4 would be great! (Checked out the Sigma 20-24-28mm/f1.8 lenses but they didn’t feel so hot)

    • iamlucky13

      And don’t stop there:

      24mm F/1.8
      18mm F/2.8
      12mm F/2.8 (might even settle for 3.5)

      CX format debuted with the middle lens equivalent. The DX format has been running for 12 years without a single wide-angle prime being released.

      • Metten

        CX formats’ only prime is a 10mm f2.8, which equals to a 27mm on FX. Still wider than any DX prime though 🙂

        • WoutK89

          You have forgotten about the fish-eye dx lens? I know it is not the same as a wide-angle prime, considering the distortion. But still it is wide and it is a prime.

          • The FX 16 mm f/2.8 FISHEYE is 8 years old. Lets not forget that one.

            • AM

              I believe he’s talking about the DX 10.5mm fisheye. And, what’s wrong with being 8 years old? As long as it delivers I don’t see any issue.

            • Ola

              I don’t see what this _18_ year old lens has to do with anything in this thread!

          • iamlucky13

            No, I haven’t forgotten about the 10.5mm fisheye, but a fisheye really is a different category of lens in my opinion.

            So let me qualify my above post with rectilinear prime.

    • +1!

      This is the single most desirable lens for me! Give us our 24mm DX, a truly versatile prime.

      • rhlpetrus

        That’s 35mm equivalent, I’d prefer a little more wide, maybe an 18mm (~27mm) or 16mm (~24mm). But it makes sense to start with a 24mm.

  • D7000 Fan

    That is the D400 I want to see!

    • D7000 Fan

      Drat. . . 2nd

  • D400

    Seems that D400 takes the place of d700

    • D7000 Fan

      Absolutely. The d400 will be as good or better than d700 for noise control, it will be cheaper and faster than d700, and it will have the crop factor that sports shooters love.
      GO DX!

      I keep having nightmares about an fx d400, so this is good news

    • DX camera instead of FX? No way.

    • Andrew

      The D400 will have a 24 MP Full Frame sensor. Better ISO than D700 (12 MP), but not as high as D4 (16 MP). And finally an FX camera below $1,995.

      • That would be ridiculously great. If that happens I shall love Nikon deeply and truly forever. Gosh. Tasty specs. Well, those specs are what I and many others would have hoped for in the D800. Alas… there is still hope

      • Douglas Adams

        I, on the other hand, would like that to happen. I’m waiting new D400 to upgrade from my d90. If that happens, I won’t be able to buy because I’m stuck with full bag of DX lenses.

        Of course, you might say that that there is also D7000 and its successor in 2012, but I need the specs of semi-pro, and bigger body.

      • The Manatee

        Nice try but this makes NO sense, so full frame, better resolution, high fps and better ISO than the D700 and you really expect it to price for less than the D700?! And that’s not even taking into account Yen appreciation. Keep dreaming.

        • This wouldn’t be too unheard of for Nikon. The D70 was better than the D100 when it came out, and the D7000 better than the D300s. This is Nikon’s way of squeezing more years out of the older camera with the better model number.

          • dave

            How on earth was the D70 and better than the D100? And in the case of the D7000 vs D300s, the ONLY thing the D7000 has over the D300s is a few more pixels. The D300s still beats it in focus speed and accuracy, frame rate and buffer size.

            • This website is a decent D70/D100 comparison ( I’ll admit I was reaching with D7000/D300s. It depends on what you’re looking for: The D7000’s got it in ISO/resolution/processor. Burst firing, focus and full magnesium body go to the D300s

        • The D700 is a camera that is going away. A D400 has to compete with a Sony A77 and whatever they’ve got coming next (along with Canon’s 7DII). Nikon will try to get it right vis-a-vis the competition, and the A77 sets a pretty nice bar to get above.

          • logandiana

            Thom, on your 2011 predictions you said about the D400…

            Hard core pro body (more gasketing, possibly integrated grip)

            Now that we are a little closer to the release date, would you still stand by this prediction?

            I sure hope so, I’d love to have a crop sensor with a full size integrated grip body!

          • UseFilm

            D400 = D300 on steroids with 24MP Sony A77 sensor.
            Price around $1.8-2k, if D800 will be around $2.8-3.2k, if D4 will be around $5-5.5k, if there will be D4x for around $7.5-8k.

            24mm DX lens is good news. Add 55mm portrait DX lens and it finally will make Nikon DX format useful. :-)))
            Too bad we had to wait for mirrorless market to prove Nikon we need a good prime lenses to make as happy.

      • El Aura

        So, the D400 is actually a D700 with the D3x sensor, except that is a completely new 24 MP sensor (necessary to clearly improve upon the D700 sensor in low-light).
        So, either we have suddenly three new FX sensors (36 MP Sony, 16-18 MP D4 Nikon, another 24 MP) or the D4 will share the same sensor as the D400 which would be like the D3 and D700, except that the sucessor to the D700 would then be called D400 and that the successor to the D300s is actually also the successor to the D700, except that the successor to the D700 is actually the D800.
        I must admit, I am a bit lost with the logic here.

      • GeofFx

        That would likely be my dream camera.

      • Sahaja

        Dream on. I doubt we will ever see another FX DSLR from any manufacturer below 2.5K at launch.

        Perhaps someone like Sony could release a FX camera with an EVF below that price – but even that seems unlikely.

    • I don’t think so. As slow gin said dx vs fx, no way… Except if the d400 become an FX, for me it can’t replace the d700. If they do d400 fx I buy it blindfolded.
      I’ll wait for the specs of the d800 & d400 and make a choice after that. But as I want to go for FX my choice is mostly made…

      • Andrew

        If Nikon does not make the D400 a D700 replacement with a 24 MP/FX camera, many photographers will be looking at the D7100 as their potential D700 replacement or their next camera. This will result in much less revenue for Nikon. This (i.e. D7100) will meet their needs, but their level of passion for all things Nikon will go down. They will feel that Nikon has not given them their best, and in their heart, they will feel that they settled for a compromise. The feeling will be that the 3 year wait for a true D700 replacement was a waste of their time and a big disappointment. Nikon is too smart to ignore this critical customer segment. These are the people whose passion for all things Nikon spills over and results in many new/more customers for Nikon through their recommendations.

  • Felipe Gonzalez

    I want more information about what you post please.
    I’m from chile like your fan of Nikon cameras
    there will post a clue in reality or fiction?

    sorry for my english…. bye NR admin and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

  • This means the D300s has been obsolete for over a year, and no replacement for at least another 6 months.

    • JED

      Yes, so very obsolete…. Strange that mine still works perfectly and still produces very good images (when I momentarily acquire talent)…

    • Anonymus Maximus

      Your D300s might be obsolete.

      Mine is not!

      • Discontinued

        Go and buy another one, if you like it that much. Nobody said they stopped working. Selling is another matter. IQ (among other things) simply sucks compared to the cheaper D7000. Ain’t that hard to get.

        • joe

          image quality from a sensor? Apart from ISO/noise handling, isn’t this the domain of quality lenses?

          I’m still making $$$ with my D200. “Obsolete” tends to take on more meaning with consumers than pros/semi-pros.

          • Discontinued

            Anonymous Maximus was probably talking about the D300s being “obsolete” as a part of Nikon’s lineup. At least that’s my understanding of his comment and I agree. Again, nobody said the D300 or its predecessors stopped working.
            “Image quality from a sensor?” Well, how many images and in what quality do you get without a sensor? Go to DXO and compare the performance of any quality lens of your choice for different cameras. It might broaden your horizon on your question.

  • I have to say that the 24mm/f 1.8 is a dream come true.

    • Paul

      I’d pre-order one of those.

    • I must be dreaming because I would like to see a 24mm f/2 or f/1.8 for FX.

      • Vladimir

        Let’s write a petition to Nikon to stop wasting millions of dollars to promote stuff no one cares about (I mean Nikon 1), and continue creating products people really want. I asked them about 14mm 2.8 dx and they just replied standard ‘no info about that’.

        • nobody

          Pure nonsense! The Nikon 1 cameras sell very well!

        • Douglas Adams

          And while at it, let’s write to Nikon to stop production of other things we don’t need at all. For example, optical equipment for surgeries. I mean – WHO NEEDS THAT!? We’d be better off with some new lenses that shoot around the corner! Yeah!

          • Bernard

            Wait until you are really sick and need this medical equipment ! Then you’ll understand (Hopefully !…)

            • Sergio


            • lolly

              I think Douglas is being sarcastic. Lol

            • enesunkie

              @Segio 🙂 That the sound of that post flying right over his head!?

        • goldaccess

          Wide angle primes are a niche market. Sure they would sell some. But not too many.

          • That is nonsense!

            The 35mm f/1.8 is a true best seller for Nikon.

            And in the past wide angle primes were among the most popular, in each and every mount. Those 35s, 28s and 24s were among the most popular lenses sold. Just look at ebay, and you are swamped with 70ies 35mm or 28mm lenses.

            Today they are less popular simply because there are less to be bought.

            • EnPassant

              Or rather because all the kitzooms buyers got with their cameras the last 25 years started with 35, 28 or 24 mm at the wideangle end.

              But I see a new spring for primes. Influenced by the mirrorless cameras people want an overall smaller camera + lens combination instead of that bulky zoom. Primes are also faster when needed.

  • Jon foster

    Is the proposed D400 a FF camera? That may start to make scense, with the d400 taking place of.d300 and d700 for the pro amd the super d7000 takimg the place of the d7000 and d300 for the dx world.

    • D7000 Fan

      “The Nikon D400 is supposed to be a “bigger D7000″ with a monster burst rate and tweaked AF system from the D4.”

      A bigger d7000 is not an fx camera.

      • WoutK89

        But also at the time of writing he does not know the name. It could well be that the D400 is named D9000 after all and the true D400 will become FX.

        • El Aura

          Why would a new FX camera be called D400?
          (I guess because if it is called D400, it will cost about the same as a D300, and since we all want cheaper FX cameras, we declare the new FX camera D400 and this will force Nikon to offer it at the D300 price. Again, one impeccable logic.)

          • WoutK89

            How else would one call the “budget” FX, if you place it above the D800 in number it is better, if you place it in the Dxx00 range, you put it with the DX cameras. So yes, make the D300(s) successor D9000 and make the budget FX D400-D500 and D600 to fill that numbering. Also, this camera could be on a faster cycle than D700 (apparently about 4 years).

            But to stay with your point on pricepoint, did the name D3X mean it was same price as D3?

            • El Aura

              No, the single digit ‘X’ cameras where always more expensive.
              I get your point about the D9000 (as the D300 successor). But note that with all new naming strategies that Nikon started, it never chose a number that was expected for something else, it chose ‘free’ numbers.

  • A.T.M.

    What about a D4X?

    • the D3X came way after the D3s was announced, so sit tight.

      That is, IF they make it. From the rumors so far, it sounds like the D800 will replace the D3X.

      • A.T.M.

        What are the reasons someone would want a D800 over the D3x? besides the fact that it has more resolution and the physical size of the body. Obviously its hard to say at this point with out better samples then whats been posted already, but just curious what people are thinking. I for one like the bigger body and 24 mp’s seems like its perfect

        • Rob

          More megapixels (you can always resize down), half the price, faster burst rate, 3 more years of technology into the sensor so more dynamic range (look at D7000). Not many people would pay twice as much for a physically larger body with a worse-performing sensor.

          • I would buy D3x in a heartbeat just for $2300. Any suggestions?

            • Andrew

              The D800 (36 MP) is the D3x (24 MP) replacement. It is for people who want high resolution above high ISO, like studio photographers that use lots of artificial lighting, some landscape photographers, and those needing to blow up their pictures big time. Some may even prefer it to give their DX lenses more reach because the cropped images will have a higher MP count. The D800 may be priced as low as $2995, so it may be in your price range.

              For those that want high ISO, the FX based D4 with 16 MP may end up being the new Nikon high-end camera selling at $4,995.

              What may here are hoping for is an FX (full frame) based D400 with 24 MP for $1,995 or less. This will be better than the D3x and be a stunning product. Hopefully, Nikon will release it by March 2012.

          • Steffen Hokland

            The D800 wil most certainly NOT have a faster burst rate. From the specs listed it’s burst rate is on par with my archaic D80. Saying that the rumoured D4-sensor is worse performing than the D800-sensor apparently based only on the lower resolution is – pardon me – rather narrow minded.

            • Rob

              Can you even read? Go back and try to find where I, or anyone in this string of replies, mention the D4.

              I may have been wrong about the frame rate. D3x is only 5FPS, so I assumed D800 would at least match that with grip.

          • uh?

            How can you say its worse performing? we have no way to even compare the two said cameras, those samples look terrible at this point..

    • lolly

      Sony can scale up the 24mp A77 APS-C sensor to fullframe and voila, 48+ mp … an A9xx or a D4X ? As some people suggested it’ll probably come a year (or more) after the D4 intro.

  • FX DX

    I don’t understand the point of a DX lens. Make it a FX lens and both DX and FX users will be happy.

    • D7000 Fan

      FX lenses have to cover a bigger sensor area, and are therefore bulkier. And more expensive.

      • FX DX

        Bigger? Yes. More expensive? Not necessarily; 50mm f/1.8 is a good example.

        • d7000 Fan

          is there a dx 50mm 1.8 lens to compare too? I bet if there was, it would be cheaper than the fx version.

          • Andrew

            d7000 Fan, you are a good communicator and you write well. Not to be picky, “too” is not used correctly in this context (i.e. “to compare too”) unless of course it is a typographical error. It should be “compare to”. You can say “I too am lucky” or “please include me too” etc. So in this example I have provided, “too” means “also” as “in addition to”. Anyway, I notice that many people misuse the “too” and “to” words. Cheers.

        • EAJ

          No, the 50mm 1.8 is not a good example, for starters there isn’t a DX version, and it’s traditionally a low-price-point lens.

        • bp

          you sound like there is a 50mm f/1.8 DX

      • Richard

        My 35mm f2.0 fx is smaller than my 35mm f1.8 dx.

        • Your 35 1.8f DX has got an AF motor, the 2.0f has not.

          • MJr

            AF-S even, which is even more bulky than AF-D. If they wouldn’t gone from MF to AF-S without AF-D in between, people might’ve noticed !

            • MJr


        • noFunBen

          but the 35 2.0 cost more then the 1.8 dx and it is slower by 1/3 of a stop.

      • MJr

        D7000 Fan explained it perfectly, why do you all gotta have to go into argument like you have a point.

        • FX DX

          Make a reasonably priced and reasonably sized FX lens and both DX and FX users will be happy. Just because I prefer FX lenses over DX lenses, doesn’t mean I want to pay 10 times more for all my lenses. FX also provides a good path for DX users to upgrade to FX format in the future.

          Price is the reason Nikon doesn’t have a 50mm DX lens. At ~$200 it doesn’t make sense for Nikon to release a separate DX lens. 50mm f/1.8 is a bit bigger than 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, but not that big that it looks odd on a DX camera and most DX users are happy with their 50mm f/1.8 purchase. If 35mm f/1.8 were a FX lens, I would buy it in a heartbeat. The difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is not that big in my opinion and I am looking forward to see some reasonably priced FX prime lenses from Nikon in the future, so I don’t have to carry around heavy zoom lenses with me everywhere.

          • Retsu

            Because the optics
            A lens is more than 50mm become DX lens is not cheaper and not light weight than FX
            less than 50mm lens become DX can more light and cheaper than FX
            look the Sigma 24mm f1.8 (FX lens )it is very huge and weight

  • Don Pope


    A 24mm f/1.8 in DX would be my perfect lens (as long as the price is reasonable, of course).

    • Even if the price is unreasonable (i.e. this was a premium lens), I might buy it.

  • jerl

    Ok, I find the idea of a DX 24/1.8 interesting depending on its size and price. If they manage to make it similarly in size as the 35, 40, and 50 (which is comparable to the 24/2.8 AI) and keep the same good image quality that they have while keeping the price controllable (lets say around $400-$500), I could see myself going for it.

    • iamlucky13

      The 24mm F/2.8D with a metal mount and a proper aperture ring is $400.

      I’d hope a plastic DX and G version would be less expensive, even when you factor in the AF-S upgrade.

      • Arnstein

        A prime without metal mount wouldn’t make sense. Even the DX 35/1,8 has one, but only lacking a distance scale.

        • Why wouldn’t it make sense?

          I’ve never seen a worn down plastic lens mount (e.g. on a kit
          lens). As much as people complain about all sorts of lens problems in various forums: Plastic lens mounts breaking or
          wearing down is not one of them. It is more cosmetic than functional IMHO.

          • Arnstein

            It wouldn’t make sense, because we are used to the minimum quality of the DX 35/1,8. A DX 24/1,8 would be a good lens for event photographers like me, and I want to use it for many years, changing lenses a lot.

            And yes, I have seen two broken plastic mounts so far.

          • Cass Roads

            I’ve personally seen one plastic lens mount busted on an 18-105 (not my lens) that wasn’t under any extreme use, and heard of more breaking. Although it probably wouldn’t be a big issue on a small prime, I’d still prefer a metal mount.

  • Oh man the D400 sounds like the camera I’ve been waiting for!

    But I am a bit put off my a D7000 replacement. I mean I love my D7000 and it has served me well, why would it be getting replaced so soon?

    Either way I hope the “bigger” D400 also means it has an integrated grip like the D2 family. The return of the giant DX cameras!

    • nobody

      Relax! Your D7000 will not stop working when a successor is announced 🙂

      • enesunkie

        Don’t tell him that. Maybe he’ll sell it cheap in a couple months!

    • Arnstein

      A D400 with included grip wouldn’t be a D400 anymore, since we D300 (and D200, Fuji S5) shooters like the option to shoot more unobtrusive and travel more lightweight.

      What a D400 really needs, is clean ISO 6400 for birds in flight, indoor sports and concerts. And yes, it should take my old MB-D10 power grip. 😉

      • WoutK89

        It won’t be compatible because the en-el3 will not be used in japan anymore. I think it is too expensive to keep two lines of cameras with just difference of batteries

    • WoutK89

      August2012 makes sense, the D80-D90-D7000 line has always been on a 2 year cycle.

    • MJr

      It’s surprising how many think a D400 would replace the D7000. Isn’t this NikonRumors ? You know like, Nikon users would be reading it.

  • satrio

    is D400 gonna be a full frame dslr? Would it be cheaper than d800 or more expensive? I am considering to buy a full frame dslr.

    • I think D400 should be considerably less expensive camera than the D800, considering the fact that the sensor price is much bigger on full frame cameras.

      • satrio

        Cool. So, now I have two options for a full frame DSLR. I am looking forward for the announcement release of these DSLR.

        • javaone

          The D400 is going to be the new top of the line DX sensor.

          D800, D4 are going to be FX.
          The cost of FX is going to always be high because of the Sensor chip yield.

          It looks like they are just upgrading the D300,D3,D700 to 400,4 and 800.
          If the pattern continues we might then get D4x then D4s.

          • satrio

            Whoopsie…I thought D400 has a FX sensor. My bad. I guess back on hoping for D800, hahaha.

  • “Bigger than D7000.” Perhaps the D400 will be a pro body design with integrated battery grip?

    • Oops I meant to quote “bigger D7000”.

      • Image

        It will be bigger but no integrated grip. Nikon wants extra cash for the grip and more people than not want a gripless body. I’m not one of them though.

      • Andrew

        I don’t expect bigger to mean anything more than 25% bigger, or else they would not compare it to the D7000.

    • logandiana

      This is actually what I have been wishing for. I’d love to have a full size pro camera with an integrated grip, but with the crop sensor. They did it with the D2xs back in the day. I would buy one in a heartbeat. The D7000 with battery grip attached just feels flimsy like it could break at any second, especially since I carry it upsidedown from the tripod socket with a black rapid strap. The D80 that I had with the battery grip with the post that went into the battery compartment was much more secure.

      Over on Thom Hogan’s blog he predicted (in his 2011 predictions that the D400 could have ” Hard core pro body (more gasketing, possibly integrated grip) ”

      Let’s hope so! I would rather pay an extra $200 or so to have the integrated grip than to pay $200 or so to buy the add on after the fact.

  • BobWasHere

    Can’t wait to buy D400.

    • ISP


  • Image

    The D400 is sounding really good since we are not getting a proper D700 replacement anytime soon. I hope they tweak the D7000 sensor a little…. enough to persuade me to buy one while keeping my current D7000/D300S.

  • Felipe Gonzalez

    pheraps ultra high definition video 30frames/sec UHD 3840x2160p?mmmm? read this

  • go mirrorless

    Mirrorless is the futre. EVILs are not better than entry and mid range DSLRs and the mirrorless system is getting better everyday. Entry and Mid Level DSLRS should be way cheaper.$900 Panny GH2 with kit lens gets the same image quality as the D7000 . Soon mirrorless will replace the pro bodies ( d3/4 1d 5d )

    • go mirrorless

      typo EVILs are better**

    • D7000 Fan

      DOF. Autofocus. Handholdability. Aesthetics (Imagine trying to shoot weddings professionally with a GH2. noone would take you seriously).

    • devilgunners

      Looking like a pro is always the key, I would agreed majority of DC users with probably shift to mirror less DSLR like V1 or J1. D3, D700, D300s are big for a reason, so you don’t have to go back to menu mode to change your settings.

      • I doubt whether pros would go mirror-less in the near future. I guess they would use the EVILs as a second or third camera as they are lighter and smaller to carry.

        On a medium term, it is possible that the low end DSLR market would be taken over by the EVIL cameras and that would hit Nikon and Canon hard. The J1 and the V1 are still too expensive as compared to the street prices of similar offerings by Panasonic and Olympus.

    • Read by lips: E V I L I S C R A P. Period. It’s not only about technology, but also about handling and convenience. I would never sacrifice my 9 kg setup of cameras, lenses and tripods to lighter setup of those lousy idiotic point and shoots with interchangeable lenses. If you’re not familiar with how does viewfinder work, then buy what you want, but don’t try to impose others to do the same. And one more point. Please, show me that EVIL camera with FX sensor. What? Any? Ha-ha.

      If I hear ‘mirrorless’, I mean ‘rangefinder’. Mechanical rangefinder technology has its serious advantages over SLR and I’m not talking about weight and size. And again, no EVIL can compete with true rangefinder in handling and overall feel, unless you’re just another gadget freak who can’t live without newest and greatest bells and whistles.

      With SLR and rangefinder you have three points of stability: left hand, right hand and your head. Try to shoot at fairly long exposures without stabilizer using two hands like every P&S user does, you’ll barely manage 10/100 keeper rate.

      • A mirrorless pro camera will not be point and shoot size. It will be pro body size, with all the buttons, extra cpu horsepower, gobs of memory, etc. that a pro expects.

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but the inexorable march of technology will make rangefinder and SLR technology look archaic. Solid state, no moving parts. How about a pro camera that doesn’t need to be sent in every 1.5 years because of shutter death? (yes, I shoot a lot)

        It is incorrect to compare current DSLR and rangefinder pro bodies with current consumer mirrorless cameras. In 10-16 years you will be hard pressed to find a newly released pro camera with a shutter. Unless Nikon/Canon want to continue to milk their pro customers and shove inferior technology down their throats.

        • Jimmy


        • I rather prefer to service my shutter than my sensor. If you use a mirrorless camera with the rate a professional shot with an SLR, you will kill your sensor in less than an one and half year. Remember the sensor is always one in that kind of cameras…

          • Anon

            I think you missed his point. He’s talking about the possibility of shutterless (mechanical) camera.

        • Keith

          “A mirrorless pro camera will not be point and shoot size. It will be pro body size, with all the buttons, extra cpu horsepower, gobs of memory, etc. that a pro expects.”

          So what’s the point? Bragging rights?

        • In the seventies people were talking about trip to Mars in 1980-2000 timetable. Where do we now?

          The same would be with cameras.

        • …and try to bury bicycle philosophy in our days of sheer exultation of high technology.

      • R!

        I think you are right nothing can beat the reflex view ,because of the precision of what you shoot at the moment you see it , EVF are to slow and will always be……but I think EVILS are good ways to replace compact cameras , upgrading the quality in a smaller package.

        • Nice to meet someone who do understand. 🙂

          There’s necessary to say that reflex view is absolutely free. You’re not under pressure of battery drain if you’re seeking for capture but do not release shutter yet.

          Newest isn’t always better. It is hard to convince someone who didn’t use film cameras with… to say… detachable prism or even TLR technology which is way more discreet than rangefinder (important for street photography). And I didn’t mention pure joy of looking through large and clear finder of SLR like Olympus OM-4, Nikon FM2 and Minolta X-700. Modern digital technology didn’t bring something equally useful. Live view? Pretty contstrained.

      • Cass Roads

        Most mirrorless cameras now have viewfinders either available or built in, so the old “face-stabilization” argument rings hollow.
        “handling and convenience” is purely personal opinion. Some prefer mirrorless cameras precisely for handling and convenience.
        I don’t understand the hate for either mirrorless or DSLRs. My D200, X100, and GF1 seem to complement each other well. It’s too bad other people who use only DSLRs or mirrorless so often resort to insults.

        • Did you read the post of ‘go mirrorless’ troll? THAT was insult.

          • mooboy

            Yeah, it was. But you then responded in kind.

            But I agree with Cass Roads. I wish I always had my D700 + 70-200 on me at all times, but if the photo from my GH2 45mm 1.8 sucks… it will be my fault, not the camera’s.

            And I would rather walk around with a 300 g small kit than a 3kg bulky one.

            Gotta say though, the GH2 ergonomics are terrible. (Better than Canon’s though 🙂 )

        • WoutK89

          if it is not the face stabilization, then it is the battery consumption argument! An optical viewfinder consumes only – and very little energy – when the shutterbutton is touched and after it shuts off again after a while but you can still see through it.
          An EVF consumes a lot of energy because it has to constantly refresh, and off means nothing to see.

  • nah

    d7000 replacement already? i’ll believe when i see it…unless the focus groups are showing that the morons want to see higher MP’s [but we already know that]

    • enesunkie

      The D80 and the D90 both had a 2 year run (a little longer for the D90) and sometime after the fall of 2012, a replacement for the D7000 can be expected, as well as a D3200. Canon as a few Rebels and the 60D and they updated them often. Whether that’s good, bad, needed or not can be debated, but it does put pressure on Nikon to keep their consumer models “fresh”. One can only hope that some features that didn’t make it into the D7000, will make it into it’s replacement.

    • javaone

      It is not a replacement for the D7000
      Nikon has had about 4 lines of SLR

      They went to the 1000s because they obviously ran out of numbers
      They added the D700->D800 at the high end
      and the D3000 at the low end.

      Still leaves room for a DX D500, D600 in the future and a D900 FX.

      • The D50 came before the D40.

      • Arnstein

        The D100 was the same class as D80. No metering with MF lenses, plastic body and so on.

        The D200 was the first camera of a new line and kind of successor for the F100.

        • Arthur

          D100 same class as D80? That’s like saying the D7000 is as good or better than the D300s, which a lot are saying but is completely nonsense.

          • Arnstein

            I own a D100 and it is not in a line with the D200 and D300 at all. It is more like a D70 or D80. As said above, it has no professional body.

        • umeshrw

          no way. D100 is in the same class as Dxxx all.
          the main difference between dxxx and dxx is that Dxxx cams do not
          get pre exposure prossessing as Dxx cams do. Hence D70 , D80 etc
          images (raws or jpegs) look perfectly printable off the card but not those of D100 or D200 etc. The other Quality differences and ergonomics and af power differences etc also point to same. The only camera which came respectably close to D100 for build quality was D70 (in the class) but still wasn’t good enough.

      • Heribert


        So how would the current D700 fit in?

        Currently there are two three digit models: D300s and D700. The both are considered professional cameras by Nikon (see their website), the one being a DX and the being an FX. This clearly means that Nikon is definitely NOT making the equation DX = consumer, FX = professional.

        From what we have heard so far, the D400 will be a replacement for the D300s. But the rumored D800 regarding the specs is much more than an upgrade of the D700 and will probably not come close to the D700’s current price tag, i.e. ~ $2000.

        As a D300 user I’d really love to an FX camera next, but the the step to a D800 is too big. And if the D400 will be DX as well, that’s no upgrade path for me. Seems like I am trapped. Maybe I should get a D700 now while it’s still available.

        Actually, the D7000 should have gotten the bigger body and then be the real replacement camera for the D300s in DX format. This way they could have placed an additional successor for the D700 with FX but below the rumored specs of the D800. That would have made perfect sense to me. (Maybe a bit later to sell more of the D800 until then.)

        Also they could clean-up their numbering scheme, so that the number of digits clearly shows which line the camera belongs to:

        DX – professional FX, full-size body
        Dxx – professional FX, compact body (the now rumored D800 + a real replacement for current D700)
        Dxxx – semi-professional DX (current D7000, replacement for D300s)
        Dxxxx – consumer DX


        • WoutK89

          If you are so narrowminded that the number determines in which category the camera belongs, then maybe a professional body is too much for you 😉 People that know their camera don’t care about the number, but about the performance.

          The price of the camera and the size + weight you can clearly tell who this camera is aimed at.

          • Heribert

            Then why should they number them at all?

            • WoutK89

              for differentiation reasons, 2 comes after 1, so like this you know, is newer. but the amount of numbers does not mean it is professional or consumer, it is just for separating the cameras. If you want to see less numbers, buy a D90 while they last, they are after all considered better (professional) to his likings.

              or wait, buy the Nikon 1, that is pure professional, it has not even the D anymore. I mean look at this yourself, does a number make you buy a camera, or the specifications of said camera?

          • Andrew

            I do not agree with your analysis. Classifying things in a meaningful way using numbers is a natural practice. So we expect companies to use numbers in a meaningful way when naming their products. As a side note, think about this for a moment, using a five digit number before the decimal point is much less desirable than a six digit number when it comes to your earnings. This example may appear to be unrelated, but simply thinking about it shows how meaningful numbers are and the emotions that may be engendered in them in certain contexts. The human mind likes to see a gradual progression or aesthetics when numbers are used. That is why companies price their products with numbers like $2,400 as opposed to $2,913.61.

            The Nikon 1 is a brilliant move by Nikon in that psychologically, its name represents a fresh start, and a startlingly different approach to using numbers in representing their new camera line. So the issue is not whether you can or cannot identify or distinguish the appropriateness of a particular camera based upon its number designated name. The point is if Nikon messes up its numbering scheme, and you cannot logically trace a products progression based upon its numbering, it makes the who business of conversing about their products quite confusing. Just expressing a difference of opinion. Cheers.

        • El Aura

          It is highly unlikely that the used price of a D700 will rise above the current price of a new D700. Thus it makes no sense to say “to buy a D700 while it is still available”, the D700 will be available in decent quality on the used market for at least five years to come.

        • Rob

          D7000 is not a replacement for the D300s, nor is it considered a true professional body. It is a replacement for the D90, and it is considered a back-up body for a pro (so I guess semi-pro might be a good descriptor).

    • yes, the D90-D7000 line is on a 2 years refresh cycle

      • D7000 Fan

        I am still thinking of the d7k as the latest hot thing, it is hard to think about it being replaced. . . . . .

        • MJr

          Agreed, so it’s probably going to be a relatively simple update when the time comes. Compared to what the D7K was to the D90. I mean what they gonna do, make it a 110% viewfinder, give it 3 QXD slots and underwater sealing ?

          • Arnstein

            Better ISO performance is always welcome. 🙂

          • bdeckert

            My hope is that they add 50p/60p video. That alone would make it compete much better with the Canon equivalent (I realize it already outperforms Canon on the photo front-especially in terms of high ISO).

        • Andrew

          The D7100 will address the main criticism of the excellent D7000, which is the small buffer size. Though its buffer size is good for the all around photographer, and the camera gives you 6 frames per seconds, it needs a larger buffer for sports photographers. So this will make it truly a D300s replacement camera, though in other areas (except rigidity) it is better than the D300s.

  • 24 f/1.8 DX? Awwwwwww. I want an affordable FX wide fast prime SO BADLY! …Sigh… Come on, Nikon! The 50 f/1.8 AFS-G is such a killer lens, you’re on a roll with the new affordable FX primes! Gimme an 85 1.8 AFS-G, a new 135 f/2 AFS-G, plus a 20 or 24 f/2 or f/1.8 AFS-G, and my lightweight prime lineup would be complete.


    • You missed the memo:

      DX is the affordable consumer and enthusiast stuff.

      FX is premium and pro stuff.

      A cheap FX lens makes as much sense as a cheap Gucci bag or Rolex watch 😉

      • MJr

        If you have FX what are you complaining about there’s a ton of great (and affordable) primes that DX just doesn’t have. Or maybe you have a phobia for AF-D ? The 50 is cheap because its a 50, did you think that was going to be the new pricing for everything ? Not to mention 20mm at 1.8 .. are you serious ? Yea that would be a bargain. (not)

        • I do indeed strongly prefer Silent Wave AF lenses. The word “phobia” implies that my preference has no solid foundation though, which is just not correct. I’ve experienced a clear advantage in low-light focus accuracy and reliability when using AFS-G primes compared to AF-D primes. (For qualification- I’ve used every single one of the new AFS-G primes, and 90% of the AF-D primes, on every $1K+ DSLR body from the D70 to the D3X…) …That, and the overall ease of use is just much better on SWM lenses.

          Don’t get me wrong, I could be pretty happy with one of the current AF-D f/2.8 primes, and certainly an AFS-G update to a 2.8 prime like the 20mm or 24mm… I don’t *absolutely* need f/2 or f/1.8.

          To be precise, I’m not expecting a $200 20mm f/1.8 FX. Indeed that’d be big and pricey. But I’d pay ~$700 for a 20 f/2 if it weren’t a total boat anchor, or ~$600 for a 24 f/2.

          What really frustrates me is that Nikon has made a stellar 24 f/2 AIS (manual focus) for decades! It’s light, small, and even affordable considering the “don’t make ’em like they used to” metal construction.

          I don’t think it’s too much to ask for Nikon to make an autofocus update to a 300g f/2 lens they first made in 1977. Do you?


      • “You missed the memo:
        DX is the affordable consumer and enthusiast stuff.
        FX is premium and pro stuff.
        A cheap FX lens makes as much sense as a cheap Gucci bag or Rolex watch”

        I don’t buy into that! Just because I love to use an FX sensor doesn’t mean I *MUST* pay $1500 for a casual prime. The 50 f/1.8 AFS-G and forthcoming 85 f/1.8 AFS-G are perfect examples of that. Heck, the 50 f/1.4 AFS-G isn’t very heavy or expensive, either.

        I’m not asking for a $199 miracle. I’m just asking for something less than the ridiculously priced $2,000 24 f/1.4…

        I’ll settle for the 20 f/2.8 AF-D or 24 f/2.8 AF-D if I must.

        But then again, Nikons’ AIS 24 f/2 is such a great lens, it’s just a shame they never even bothered to make an AF-D version let alone an AFS-G version. I’d pay $500-700 for an AFS-G 24 f/2.


  • devilgunners

    Interesting to see Nikon delayed the announcement of D300s upgrade so late with Canon 7D taking up majority of top tiers APS-C market. Many Nikon users like me who wants to upgrade from D5000 or D90 hesitated in whether to go for D7000. Perhaps, D300s and D90 before were such a big hit back then, Nikon is taking too much cautions in developing their replacement.

  • A bigger D7000 sounds almost like it might be called a D8000.

    • MJr

      That’s stupid.

    • Bill Gates

      Is this your new forum now, Ron? When you get banned from flickr, and then dpreview, you just keep moving on up.

      Good for you.

  • PeterO

    Because of last year’s disasters and accompanying loss of revenue, I would think that Nikon would abandon their usual schedule of releasing cameras and try to get as much out the door as possible. Getting the D4 out 1st makes sense because of the Olympics and the D800 needs to leapfrog the 5D3. So it seems there’s less urgency with the D400 because the D300s is still a solid performer. As for replacing the D7000, I’m guessing that will be a minor “s” upgrade. The only thing holding them back is the logistical nightmare of putting out materials, publicity etc for their top 3 models, thus the staggered reveal.

    Admin will be in his glory in 2012 with some many new products coming out.

    So, for the D400 – yes to a deep buffer and better high iso, but please, keep that shutter quiet.

    • I freaking love the quiet D7000 shutter! Quiet mode? I call it Ninja mode!

      • PeterO

        I shoot a lot of theatre and performing arts so a quiet shutter is a must, as is good high iso. I also do amateur sports so a deep buffer is a blessing, Thus my hope for the D400 to satisfy these needs.

    • WoutK89

      Come on, an s update on the D7000 after his 2 year cycle? it will be called D7100,even assuming there is not much to improve upon.

      • PeterO

        That’s kind of what I meant, call it the D7100 if you will, but it’ll be a small upgrade. It has so much going for it, that it only needs a few tweaks to satisfy that niche.

  • Brian

    What good is a monster burst rate when the buffer is horrendous. Right now you fill the D7000 buffer in about 2-3 seconds. So the burst rate is worthless unless they deal with that.

    • D7000 Fan

      I use a d7000 for action with 2x sandisk 30mb/s cards. I never run out of buffer.

      • D7000 Fan

        And if you want more speed add UHS cards

        • R!

          Wrong,buffer of the D7000 is not great this is the real desapointment with that,even with 45mbs Sandisk card specially in raw mode,the advantage of UHS 1 card is more than 4 G video capacity and faster unloading in an apropriate card reader like an USB 3.0 lexar / sandisk or express card UHS 1 reader like the transcend one for 20 $,UHS 1 do garantees faster recovery between twoo saturated buffer shots ,so you’ re also right.

        • I am also curious about faster SDHC cards augmenting the limited buffer on my D7000. My experience is shooting RAW the camera runs out of buffer at 10 frames.

          I have researched the possibility of the new Sandisk UHS cards offering some relief for this but according to what I have found on Nikonians web site a few people experimenting with the new 95MB Sandisk cards do not seem to be getting performance improvements over the 30MB cards.

          Apparently the reason is that Nikon like other companies have to lock down a feature set to engineer to that R&D does not have a moving target of specs. This being the case, at the time Nikon likely locked down the hardware specifications UHS SD was not ready.

      • I have a D7000 with a Sandisk 8GB 30MBps card and I run out of buffer on 6fps shooting raw at 10 frames.

        I emailed Nikon to ask if the camera could keep up with and fully utilize the new Sandisk 95MB speed SDHC cards that I see on Adorama’s site.

        According to the second response I got (Didn’t care for the first boiler plate response to see the tested card matrix, so I escalated) The D7000 can keep up with any SDHC card. Interesting…

        I have not purchased a Sandisk SDHC 95MB card yet but I am curious if anyone else here has tested these new high speed cards with the D7000 to see if it allows continuous shooting or close to it.


    • MJr

      2-3 good seconds tho. I mean we want ‘some’ skill to come from the photographer right ? or everyone’s gonna do it. Oh wait they already are.

  • My friends are tired of hearing about the D4 and D800 ‘coming soon,’ but I will keep coming back for details on the release…2 weeks to go…until the next 2 weeks.

    • Levi H

      HAHA! My wife is tired of hearing about it. “Hey, today on Nikon Rumors they were talking about the new D800…” – “Just stop, I can’t hear about it anymore. Wasn’t that supposed to come out like a year ago?” haha.

  • Goose

    Wooohooooo just bought my d300s, damn it’s fast, precise, and spot-on (came from an almost dead d200). this is already fantastic of a machine, what more for the d400, christ!

    • Oh yeah, it is a huge leap going from the D200 to D300/s. That will keep you busy for a while and then when yer sick of all the new bells and whistles, you can upgrade with a nice used D400/D800/D4. 🙂

      • goose

        no more second hand for me, i learned it from my d200 😀 d300s was brand new and, hopefully, so will the next purchases be 😀

        • flarp

          Don’t mean to piss on your parade but why a D300s? The D7000 and even the D90 have better IQ.

          • fiod

            There is no difference in image between D300s vs D7000. D7000 only at high iso (2000) is little better, little, everything else is worse.
            D300s is faster, more stable, proven, convenient, has a fully sealed magnesium body, larger buffer memory.
            D7000 is half plastic, slow, uncomfortable, poor seal, and above all, has a manufacturing defect in the mirror revealed that the FF and BF on 1,8-2.8 lenses and oil stains in the matrix.

            • Goose

              yupp, d300s’ large buffer totally got me. dynamic range, iso, and video isnt that much of a need for my kind of work compared to buffer, speed, and reliability. 😀 plus i really dont want a exposure value cap that the d7000 has.

  • D5

    No, you’ve got it wrong. It’s AFS 24 f/2.8G DX.

    • I would buy it anyway, I think. Would have to be cheap as a 2.8 prime though.

  • Gab

    24mm F/1.8 would be awesome

  • Jason

    The D400 will have to have more pixels than the D7000 for marketing reasons – not least because the D7x00 is due out soon afterward, and that will also be forced by marketing to have more pixels. So 24MP for both seems likely, if we assume it’s a Sony sensor.

    What I’d really like (that’s me and about six other people in the world) is a D300+ with the same 12MP but three years more technological development behind it – wider ISO range, more dynamic range, double memory slots (CF or SD, I don’t mind, but both the same!) and a faster burst rate. It could almost be a D3S in DX format.

    • R!

      Best comment today because: If you check on the D90 comparaison with the D7000 on DXO ,you’ll see that some times the D90 beats It, I’d rather have like the pro bodys lower resolution and better image quality, the signature of Nikon , I think…

    • DAvix

      i am one of them!

    • Bernard

      I agree 100% !!!

  • David G.
  • Uff

    Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.8G DX – finaly!

    • Magnus

      Yes, hopefully!

      I’m not a DX user anymore, but this is the very lens I was the most eager to see Nikon make, before I switched to FX. Now I have the small and wonderful 35/2 to my D700.

      I was happy to find a used Sigma 24/1,8 to a very low price (200€) when I switched to a D90 in the spring 2010. But that is otherwise an expensive and bulky lens, and it lacks the autofocus motor that the millions of users of Nikon’s entry-level DSLR’s need.

      I consider a 24/1,8 DX a way more important lens for Nikon than the 35/1,8 DX. If you as a DX user have a 24/1,8 DX and a 50/1,8, that’ll cover virtually anything you need a fast prime for. Most times when I brought only one lens with my D90, I chose the Sigma. It’s hard to find a more versatile focal length for DX than 24mm.

      • A-men!

        If I would have to limit myself to one focal length on DX, 24mm would be it.

        • Arnstein

          like me 🙂 I do have an old AF 24/2,8, but don’t use it very often, because the DX 17-55/2,8 is better, and there is no advantage of more speed. I don’t care, if it has AF-S or is DX, but f 1,8 is all the difference.

  • Yoan

    A Nikkor AF-S 10, 12 or 14mm f/2 DX would be cool, too!

  • SF_Strider

    I understand very well how people “hungry” for D800. However D800 will not help D4 & D400 if they announce together. I expect D800 will do negative effect on marketing for D4 – unless the quality differences are big enough to convince people with relatively good price.

    I’m looking forward to D400 for long long time. It is a very big disappointment that it still cannot come on this Xmas. Actually I don’t want to think of D800 because of its cost. But, now I changed my mind that I will like to buy D800 ASAP instead of keep waiting – I can use DX chop to keep using my DX lenses. I have enough AF-D lenses (I’m using with F80) to do with FX format.

    I expect there will be big success on D800. But D400 I believe Nikon can skip the model, just pass some features to D8000 will be more realistic on marketing. Understand Nikon facing hard time on disasters, but time & opportunity cannot be back and keep going forward.

  • anonymous one

    So much has been asked for the new D700 that price will to high to purchase it. D400 will fill de gap between the new D700 and D7000. Go, purchase de d700 in an ubeateble price this Christas.

    • SF_Strider

      Of course there is a gap between D800 & D7000. Problem is the Market potential left after D800 announced. I really doubt it.

      If do D8000 directly & skip the D400, Nikon can mark a bit higher price on D8000 – as no worry to compete & compare with D400.

      If Nikon announce the D800 before D400, only good timing to go back D400 is about 3-4 years later when series under D4 is going to end. So that D400 can come with more advance features – those can convince people to buy it instead of D800.


    Really hope D400 is DX. Would like to see 16mm f1.8 too

  • I’ve been eagerly waiting for a D300 replacement since the D7000 fell short of what I wanted. It looks like I’ll have to wait until at least next summer before the price settles. I wish the D7000 sensor could be fitted into my D300 because, although I love the camera, I want some of that new technology to enable me to shoot with lower noise in lower light, handheld.

    So, a new sensor, a quieter shutter, a couple of ounces lighter (if possible) and I’ll buy one. Hell, they can even call it D9000 if they want, I don’t care—as long as they don’t skimp on body controls and do a “D5100” on it, or sacrifice ISO for pixels.

  • Gordon

    So any news on a D3X replacement? It’s overdue for an update as well. Maybe 2012 will be the year of the Nikon 1st and 2nd tier camera releases: D4, D800, D400 & D4X?

    • SF_Strider

      As the Marketing potential of D3X that Nikon experienced, I think it need 2-3 years for D4X to come. Nikon may treat D4x as a “show model” with more crazy price instead.

  • Yes, please, 24mm DX!!!!!! That would be a great walking combo.
    35mm is too near to 50mm and has an ugly distortion, I’ve never quite understood it’s popularity.

    • The popularity is probably about lack of alternatives at that price point. There is simply no affordable, sensible prime with a shorter focal lenght in the Nikon lineup.

  • Arthur

    Since the announcement I’m waiting for that Samyang 24/1.4, but I still don’t see any concrete release date or any news at all. Anybody?

  • Kevin Osmond

    Whats with all the fuss over the D7000 buffer…
    What happen to wait for the perfect moment and taking pics?
    I shoot tons of images, but I don’t do max burst mode every second. LOL

    You guys would be so broke back in the film days! Ha ha ha

    PS I want my D800, I’m to cheap to buy a hassy 😀

  • Bob from Ohio

    It’s now looking like the D400 is going to be the camera to own.

    D800 – Not enough low light and speed capabilities. (pretty much landscapes only).

    D4 – Too heavy and not enough resolution.

    D400 – A nice balance between lower size and weight, high resolution (it will almost certainly use the Sony 24mp sensor), good speed ( above 6 fps without a battery pack), great metering & focusing, and very good low light capabilities (better than what Sony got out of that sensor).
    Plus it will have a 100% viewfinder and a pop-up flash!

    None of the other cameras can give you all that!

    That’s the Way It Looks to Me!

    • Any Anon

      D800 will have a pop-up flash and 36mp FX should have better high iso than 24mp DX.

      • Hizo


        funny to see that when cameras as nearly known such as the D800/D4 is everybody’s fancing on the one that does not exist already. Long live to NR 😀

      • Bob from Ohio

        Through all of this, there has been absolutely no mention by NR of a “pop-up flash” being on the D800.

        In fact, there have been a few posts that have said that the D800 won’t have it.

        (Don’t get me wrong, I might buy a D800 just to permanently throw a 14-24mm f/2.8 on. But other than landscape photography and super wide angle, I don’t know what else I would use it for.)

        • Job

          D800 is for landscape mostly, very narrow target of clients…

          Disappointed that we will not get the D700 successor we are ALL (alsmost) waiting for. D4 is for wealthy photographers (i mean people selling a lot of pictures ..or people working for press agencies).

    • 24MP FX? I suppose I need to add a new computer and lenses on my shopping list if that’s the case. Oh wait … I won’t. Will be very cheesed off if I’ve had to wait another year for a new camera that is FX, and my computer processes images at half the speed. Maybe I should buy a D7000.

      • Job

        D400 will be a DX camera not an FX camera.

      • Bob from Ohio

        Listen to me…

        The D400 will NOT be a FX camera.

        Let me repeat that…

        The D400 WILL BE A FX CAMERA!!!

        All this talk about the D400 being an FX is just foolish jibber jabber.

        Now, can we please get back to a serious discussion. 🙂

        • Bob from Ohio


          I forgot the word “NOT” in the second sentence. LOL 🙂

          • Freddie

            100% with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Josh

          You sound stoned man. Set the bong aside and take a breather.

        • Good. I read somewhere that it was going to be FX, and I found it hard to believe. But, in the absence of more information, it was a worry. Doesn’t make sense to me anyway, changing crop in an upgrade.

          So, the only other factor to worry about is pixel count vs. ISO. If they’re going to pitch midway between the D7000’s 16MP and the possible silly 36MP of the D800, then 24MP starts to sound likely.

          The thing is, we don’t all upgrade out computers every couple of years, nor think it’s reasonable to have to change your computer just because someone in marketing thought that 24MP sounded impressive. I’d rather have 16MP and 12800 ISO, thanks very much.

          • enesunkie

            That 16MP sensor in a D300s body with updated video, larger buffer and U1, U2 and U3 would be a big hit.

  • I can’t wait….I need more megapixel, D800! 🙂 I had enough to use perfect resize for stock photo. i prefer to crop 🙂

  • T.I.M

    “It’s just too early to consider this information as reliable”

    I love it !

  • D400 with a monster burst rate and 24mm f/1.8!? I AM IN HEAVEN! If the D400 bursts over 8FPS with some huge processing power and RAM to buffer, I’ll go bananas. Gosh, this time next year I’ll finally have an 85mm and 24mm that can focus worth a damn (currently using Nikon’s old 85 1.8 and Sigma’s 24 1.8) and some great new bodies!

  • DavidB

    The proshops in DC told me that they would be sorely disappointed if the D800 came in at an MSRP of $4000. They said its too much of a jump in price and the Canon is likely to undercut it in price if not in performance. The performance would likely be comparable so the question remains whether the polling indicating Nikon users are willing to pay more for a Nikon than Canon owners will hold for the D800 at such a markedly different price point than the camera it appears to be replacing. Right now the information on the D800 is incomplete and the image quality yet to be determined (prior posted samples notwithstanding). I’m disappointed with current camera marketing wanting DSLRS to be all things to all people, namely in the unfortunate inclusion of video. I just want a straight up FX camera, as close to an equivalent to my FE — light, flexible, utilitarian.

    • DAvix

      If nikon is sometime benchmarking here it is obvious that some people are in a need for a urge MP camera such as D800 but what i observe is that we are a lot just regretting that there will be no D800 being an update from D700 using the D3S ISO capabilities even at 12MP.

      My thought that because there is this stupid MP race this is now impossible to have a D700 like with 16MP and improved ISO because it would eat the market shares of the D4 (just as D700 did with D3). This being said the price difference is such that i am not even sure that if we had an improved D700 on the market it would affect D4 sales.

      At the end, i share the point of view that video is not needed most of the time!

      I want:

      – FX
      – 18MP (because some press agencies request this format)
      – ISO like D3S
      – D700 body like

  • Zeb

    Look. Silver shutter release button = amateur camera, black = Pro. Simple.

  • Dweeb

    Please tell me “burst rates” and the Olympics don’t guide camera design and production these days. Seriously, has anyone ever bought a pro camera because it was used at the Olympics?

  • Markus

    What is nowadays a ‘pro-sumer level’ monster burst rate when the Sony A77 can do it as well…

    • PewPew

      Don’t confuse burst rate with burst duration. A77 can’t burst long at all

  • comicalalien

    The D7000 replacement will probably be postponed until early 2013.
    Let us not forget that the D3100 is due for replacement as well in 2012!

    That makes 2012 = D4, D800, D400 & D3200 & maybe D7100!

    What a year awaits!

    • ProShopJap

      D4/D800 (Jan/March)

      D400 (Announced Photkina, available Oct 2012 – weather permitting)

      D3200 next year.

      D7100 not scheduled.

      • WoutK89

        Admin says different, D400 announced before/around Olympics and D7100 announced in august/september.

        • this was just a guess, I have no concrete info

          • WoutK89

            but it does make sense to see a D7100 at that given point in time.

  • Robert M

    A 24 1.8 would really fit the bill for me. I have been needing something that falls between my 35 1.8G and my Tokina 11-16 2.8. Add to that the rumored 85 1.8G, and I’ll be a happy boy.

    • How do you like the 11-16? I have it and at first I LOVED it, but now the distortion really bothers me. I can’t use it much for weddings or engagements because it contorts the subjects too much.

  • Back to top