Nikon D400 predictions in the Japanese CAPA magazine

I already posted this on PhotoRumors, but since I am still getting emails about it, I have to mention it again.

The Japanese magazine CAPA published their annual "predictions" on upcoming cameras from Pentax, Sony, Canon and Nikon. On a full page they describe the D400 as being a 24MP APS-C camera with 9fps and 51 AF points. Again, this is not a leak or any type of reliable source, just the opinion of the editors. You can check their track record from their previous articles on the Nikon D4 and D900, a 24MP D700x camera and this Nikon D95 (their Sony and Pentax predictions were also not very accurate).

As far as I am concerned, Nikon may completely eliminate the high end DX line (D300s) and replace it with a lower end FX camera (D600). They may also further upgrade the D7000 replacement to become the top of the line DX camera. Just like CAPA magazine, this is not a reliable information, just my opinion. The D5100, D7000 and D300s are all due for replacement this year and I cannot see Nikon releasing three new DX models after the D4 and D800/D800E (and the rumored D600). Something has to go and I think it will be the D300s line.

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

    Well be it D600 or D400, as long as it fits within my budget, I’m up for it 🙂

    • Boing Wronkwell

      + $1

      HAHAHAHA …

      Actually, I agree. In these harsh economic times, money has much more of an influence that most often want to acknowledge 🙁

    • iNSIX

      I kind of agree that the line will end with the D300s. If the D600 is true it makes more sense that Nikon will go with a split DX line-up, topping out with the D7xxx and the FX line-up of D600, D800/E, D4. I can’t see where a D400 would fit into things at the proposed D600’s price est.

      • iamlucky13

        It wouldn’t fit in at the D600’s proposed price.

        It would be a higher price. Don’t assume that the sensor size is the only determinant of value. I guarantee you there’s pro shooters out there willing to trade sensor size for higher pixel density while still shooting faster than the D800.

        A DX camera with a full-metal body and able to AF in light a stop dimmer than anything below it while shooting 9+ FPS has some advantages over an FX camera with a D7000-like body using a version of the D7000’s AF system and shooting 5-6 FPS.

        I don’t know what Nikon will actually do, but I still contend that if they do produce a D400, they can make it reasonably successful.

        As far as the CAPA rumor – it doesn’t seem like a rumor so much as “we think these would be appropriate specs.”

        • Petia

          Well I’m afraid serious DX shooters need lenses rather than new bodies. Where’s the 50-150 f/2.8 DX VR? Where are the 16 f/2.8 DX? Why isn’t there a single DX prime tele lens, that should benefit from a smaller size and weight? Isn’t the DX concept also aimed at serious photographers that emphasize/prefer/need mobility (and thus would like to avoid lugging around tons of glass)?
          I’m afraid Nikon tends to view DX as the consumer-level camera, that only need consumer-grade lenses. This is a serious mistake. First, consumer-grade equipment is sold to people that dream that one day they’ll upgrade their gear (and if the product is good, will eventually do so!) and who need to see fast, high-quality lenses on the horizon (which also give them the impression of using professional-grade equipment, or close).
          Second, DX is not devoid of interest for professionals; a larger sensor is not everything: most of them shot 35mm film when they could have preferred medium format! Some pro photographers appreciate the lighter and less bulky DX equipment (especially when they have to run for their life, or shoot at the top of a mountain). Yes, FX will always be less noisy than DX, but is it really an issue now? Does everybody really need 25600 ISO?
          If Nikon does not change its policy, DX will die, squeezed between FX and mirrorless. Light, small (and comparatively cheap) cameras with a real viewfinder will be a thing from the past.

          • c.d.embrey

            The new 28mm f/1.8 G and the 85mm f.1.8 G are all the lenses I’d need for a Pro D400 kit. Some of use wouldn’t take a 24-70 f/2.8 as a gift! YMMV

            • Global

              Yes.. because… the 24-70/2.8 is just.. terrible. @_@

            • @Global – more like because it is simply too big. I used to own it. Sold it for a 180 2,8 AiS, a 105 2,5 AiS, and a 28 2,8 AiS. Any of those lenses is smaller and as good in its focal length.

              I mainly shoot product photography and need only the 28 2,8 for most of what I do, though a 2x teleconverter has aided some compression ‘macro’ shots well.

              If you don’t want the weight and don’t need autofocus, then the 24-70 is simply too beastly to hold on to.

          • 1. Nikon does view the DX line as consumer level, that’s why we have only seen one true professional DX lens, the 17-55. (which was huge)

            2 Saying you need a professional DX body in order to be able to climb mountains doesn’t make any sense, since bodies like the d300 weigh almost the same and are as bulky as a d800. So there is no weight advantage.

            3. Professional dx lenses would sell in low volume, you would have to pay as much as for FX equivalent lenses. Just compare the prices of the 17-55 2.8 and 24-120 f4, 35 1.8 to the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 (on dx) to the 85 1.8 in FX. There goes your price advantage.

            4. With FX cameras gaining more and more MP with barely no drawbacks, the crop/high pixel density argument is getting invalid (d800 with ~16mp in 1,5crop)

            4. Medium Format is slow. That’s the main reason why it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. There are compact Medium Format systems like the Mamiya 7.

            5. A 35mm camera doesn’t have to be large. All film cameras were 35mm and they were really compact.

            So the bottom line is: if you really need a complete, kind of professional and lightweight APC system, buy into Pentax. They have a 50-150 2.8, a compsct 16-50 2.8, some nice primes like the 55 f1.4, 14 f2.8 and 200 2.8. All of these lenses are weather sealed. Unfortunately than, Nikon isn’t the right company for you.

            • Michael

              1. Nikon is not the only lens manufacturer on the market. The Tokina 11-16 is a professional grade crop sensor lens and probably one of the best selling lenses on the market.

              2. DX lenses are about half the size of FX lenses. Carrying a bag of DX zooms vs. FX can be a huge difference.

              3. That is a terrible comparison. That 17-55 is one of Nikons sharpest lenses, and that 24-120 is probably Nikons softest. How about comparing Tokinas 50-135 f/2.8 against Nikons non-existent 70-200 f/4? And that Tokina is sharper than Nikons flagship 70-200 f/2.8 and half the size.

              Price & size advantage? A D3x00 with a 35mm prime is 10 times cheaper than the cheapest FX equivalent, a fraction of the weight/size, and gets you 99% of the IQ!

              5. Wake me up when Nikon comes up with a compact 35mm-style FX camera with compact lenses to go with it. The bulk of all current FX cameras is ridiculous.

              Those f/2.8 Pentax zooms you mention are all made by Tokina and available in Nikon mount. That 16-50 is 1 cm smaller than the Nikon 17-55 and 100 grams lighter, and should really be called an f/4 because it’s impossibly soft at f/2.8.

            • catinhat


              +100 for Tokina 50-135. I concur that it is noticeably sharper wide open than either 70-200 or 80-200 Nikkor. It has a fully professional build too. The Tokina 50-135 has two drawbacks: the AF is slow even on a high-powered body like D300, so it is a poor choice for any kind of action shooting, and there is no VR. The bokeh is excellent though, and the colors are vibrant, but slightly different from Nikkor colors. The bottom line, it is a superb lens for the right kind of shooting, and a steal too. Too bad Tokina discontinued it and it is not easy to find used, — most people keep them I guess, –I for one don’t see myself parting with mine any time soon, I think it is one of the truly great optical designs.

            • @Michael

              1. Well all the other manufacturer leses are not weather sealed, even the 11-16. Except for Pentax’s lenses.

              2. The 17-55 is huge. Or why don’t you look at the new sigma 50-150 whis now has VR and a built in motor? It is huge too. On the other hand the 50 1.8 is not much bigger than the 35 1.8. And btw saying DX lenses were have the size of their FX equivalents is anyway totally wrong.

              3. Saying the 17-55 is one of Nikons sharpest lenses is as terrible as a statement as saying the 24-120 f4 is soft.

              Price & size advantage? I was not comparing the d3100 with a 35mm to the d700, I was comparing the d300 with a 17-55 to the d700. Than you suddenly have nearly no size or weight advantage.

              5. Hmm maybe the coming d600? With some nice primes like 28 50 and 85?

              The Pentax zooms aren’t done by Tokina. They were just designed in cooperation with Tokina, so they share the basic lens design. The Pentax versions have much better build quality with weather sealing. Please get your facts together before making any statements.

              I think what I said is still valid: If you want a complete semi pro APSC system, with compact size, good image quality and weather sealing there is no other option than Pentax.

      • Jan

        Makes no sense. The D7000 body is totally unusable for more than about 2hrs. Unless Nikon wants to lose all its sports/birding shooters it will continue the D300s body.

        • enesunkie

          Two hours?

          • El_Pickerel

            Not sure wot that’s all about, it’s comfortable to have in hand all day for me, with or without the battery grip.

            • Global

              If there is a grip, it had better NOT be a ridiculous $600 dollars (shame on Nikon for the D800’s grip price!!). And that grip will definitely be important for comfort (at least for large hands). Women may be the chief benefactors of a D7000 sized FX — the D4 and D800 can be considered a bit large for smaller folks.

        • What oh what would a shooter like you do back before the F5? All 35mm professional cameras were much smaller than today’s FX cameras. The D800 dwarfs an F2 or an F3.

          Professional SLR’s didn’t used to be gargantuan, they simply used to be well made and perfect out of the box for macro, etc. The idea that suddenly people who grow up in the 2000’s can’t palm a ‘smaller’ camera like the D7000 for long baffles me.

          Are our parents dwarfs? Is it the radiation today that makes us so damn big? It’s just internet haughtiness and possibly inexperience that accounts for it. Back in the day, people had the same size hands and had to manually cock the shutter forward and rewind with the same body. How, oh how, did they ever do that? Must have cramped up and lost all sorts of great shots because they’d have to be out there doing it all day.

          • Rob Ueberfeldt

            Bring on the full frame D40

    • ralph

      Might be a bunch of people with DX lens investments that object. Fortunately I’m not one of them.

      • zoetmb

        There are other reasons. I have only one DX lens (12-24DX) – I was smart enough to primarily invest in FX lenses (28-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 105 macro). But I mainly shoot performances and I need the reach. I realize that bodies like the D800 give me the same resolution in crop mode as my current DX, so that’s fine, but the D800 is a bit more than I want to spend, since I’m no longer making my primary living from photography.

        The D600 might indeed be the answer, but only if it has at least the same build quality and functionality as the D200/D300. If they remove physical controls and bury things in the menus and/or if the body construction is closer to the D7000, then I would prefer a D400 over the D600.

        However, seeing as the D7000 is $1200 list and the D600 is expected to be $1500 list, I think the naysayers are correct: I don’t think there will be a D400, although I suppose it could have the D800 body but with a DX sensor at a much lower price.

        However, with a D600 at $1500 and the D800 at $3000, it looks like there’s room for something at around $2200. But what would they call it? It would have to be a D750. Seems like Nikon screwed themselves with their inane numbering scheme again.

  • EAJ

    I wonder if there will be a D400e.

  • nuno santacana

    I think most of us value more your opinion that those CAPA’s. We still value more rumors!

  • Jóhan

    Yes! The goat of happiness be smile on your front! I am not meaning the penis.

    D400 go out the port and see the wind blow on the wife of president of Nikon.

    Many time truth see on this one web log.

    Sorry for my bad English.

    • Boing Wronkwell

      + 100000000000 🙂

    • FX DX

      This is awesome.

    • PeterO

      Johan is on to something here (or on something). Anyway, we need Jabs to wade back in and have a word with this fellow 🙂 However, the fake bad english is starting to crumble and the joke is wearing thin. On the other hand, humour is much needed in this day and age, so “Having it much goat face for to you too”.

  • Joe

    I think admin is right on the money.

  • bdeckert

    Since FX cameras have DX modes on them I could see why they would not see the need to create a super high end DX camera – especially if there is a lower cost FX option. But I don’t see why there isn’t “room” for it. And the 7D is still a very popular item… This would be the future Nikon lineup I could envision:

    D4 – $6k
    D900 – $3500 (24mp 5DIII direct rival for wedding types)
    D800 – $3k (36mp studio/landscape)
    D600 – $1500-$1900 (24 mp semi-pro FX)
    D400 – $1700 (16-24mp pro DX with D4 shutter speed)
    D7200 – $1200 prosumer DX
    D5200 – who cares…
    D3200 – who cares…

    • coloretric

      That’s an awful lot of a line up of cameras. You can’t disregard the lower end models, as this is what drives people into the SLR segment in the first place.

    • D800 front

      D800 is NOT just for landscape and studio!!’

      • shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

        we dont want everybody know!

        • Bret M

          hahaha for real though.

          D800 is pretty much the ultimate portrait camera plus with ISO noise like it has, just as good as any D700 or D3 for weddings (though those 36mp files will slow down your workflow quite a bit)

          But yeah uh, D800 is only for landscapes, big ones. Only big wide landscapes where according to Rock Kenwell, we should only be using 4×5 view cameras instead anyway. So everyone who isn’t an intensely professional landscape shooter should just go ahead and cancel their D800 orders now.

          • JLK

            I’ve seen some brides that could be considered a “big landscape.” =8^.

            • PeterO


            • Bret M

              Hahahaha that made my day. Good thing sigma makes that rect 12-24mm so we can fit them in the frame 😉

      • Yes, I use mine for wildlife as well

      • Dammer

        Right, it’s great for anything you’d regularly shoot with it glued to a tripod.

        • Maji

          That is not correct. I have shot macros with the D800 handheld and have got great results. However, the Min. Shutter Speeds need to be 1/2FL for non VR and 2/FL for VR glass.

        • Why’ is using a D800 on a tripod a problem? I shot the Blue Angles with a D800 with a 500mm sitting on a Wimberley attached to a Gitzo with great results. See:

          Except for weddings or at a pro sporting event, a tripod is fine

          • Dammer

            Not a problem at all. D800 is the best DSLR for any tripod shooting, in or out of a studio.

            Nice snaps of the BA’s! What head we’re you using?

            • Philip J Fry

              No sure if trolling or just stupid…

          • Randy

            WTF is a Blue Angle?

            • BartyL

              It’s like any common-or-garden variety angle (90°, 45° etc), only it’s a blue colour.

          • dusty sensor

            Didn’t take long for your D800 to acquire some dust on the sensor. Makes it easy to see how much cropping you’ve done to get those tight shots.

            Great work though. Sharp!

        • D800 can be handheld

          Obviously you don’t own one or you’d know that’s utter BS.

          Or your technique sucks. Which one is it?

      • I just shot few weddings with D800 and it is the ultimate wedding camera … I also tried it for sports photography and it is surely not meant for it.

    • Delayedflight

      “D5200 – who cares…
      D3200 – who cares…”

      The majority of people want a compact camera or opt for a low-mid range DSLR and lower end consumer zooms. That’s where the money is, ignoring that sector is ignorant and poor business sense. Unless that is you’re Leica who market exclusively to the luxury market.
      Personally I’ve found my D800 perfectly adequate for photographing live music.

    • Maji

      Here is my take:

      D4 – $6k
      D800 – $3k (36mp studio/landscape/wildlife/serious wedding pros)
      D600 – $1500 (24 mp semi-pro FX/spray & pray wedding shooters)
      D7200 – $1200 semi-pro DX (24MP with almost D4 fps, maybe a couple less, but with grip only)
      D5200 – $999 (24MP DX, specs similar to current D7000)
      D3200 – $700 (24MP entry level DX)

      • Maji

        Actually, there is a void between the $1500 D600 and $3000 D800 that can be filled by a D700S for $2200. It maybe a D4 lite. However, this is just wishful thinking.

      • Bret M

        No way that the D600 is really going to be $1500, it’s not going to be only $300 to jump from DX to FX unless the D600 is a superbly crappy and outdated build, plus Nikon does its research. They know that most people looking at FX cameras (a tiny part of the DSLR market) would be way more willing to pay more for more features, as long as it comes in under the D800.

        I’d guess more like $1999 or maybe slightly higher, right in the middle of the gap between the “D7100” and the D800… if this camera even comes out at all.. I find it hard to believe they’d drop the D200-D300-D300s line and pretty much drop out of the “budget” sports/wildlife/telephoto shooter market entirely.

        • coloretric

          welll to add weight to this, when the D7000 came out (I was one of the first in Australia to get one) – it was $2k…yeah

        • Maji

          Of course, D600 is rumor ware right now and so is its price. However, if Nikon can pull it off, it will be 95% or more of what the Canon 5D3 is at less than half its price. Maybe for shit and giggles, Nikon should price the D600 $1749, still less than half the price of the 5D3. Anyway, it will just create a stampede for the product and perhaps make Nikon the No. 1 in the dSLR market.

          • PeterO

            And then the wait times for the D800 will look positively tiny.

        • PSSST: It’s better to complain about 1500$ with pro build being too expensive than to say that we’d happily pay 1999$ for the same camera. Get Nikon thinking that 1500$ is already the limit and that it needs to be perfect. Don’t let them think we want to pay 2000$. I don’t. Do you?

    • Manuel

      Why should someone buy a D800 and use it in FX mode regularly? It’s “only” 15,4MP. The D7000 has 16MP, is faster, also quite nicely built, and costs only 1/3.

      A (FX) D600 with, maybe, 24MP would give you only 10MP in DX mode, and probably it will also be rather slow. If you want DX, you won’t want that.

      In my opinion, a DX model with about 24MP would absolutely make sense.

      Btw: DX Mode on FX cameras is no more than automatic cropping for lazy guys. It’s always possible to crop a “FX” image to “DX” dimensions manually with exactly the same result.

      • Manuel

        Sorry, of course I meant: Why should someone use the D800 in DX mode regularly…

      • Hom Thogan

        For the same reason they downsample photos to compare them with the 5D MKIII: because they are idiots.

        • Newsed1

          Because it’s the only way to get to 600mm effective without a mega-expensive lens.

          I don’t tell me to crop at home. It’s easier to see if the shot is sharp at the time.

          • Smudger


            That’s why Nikon ai’nt gonna let us have any more hi-spec DX bodies. Too many folk buying, say, a 70-200/2.8 for DX when from Nikon’s perspective they should be spending more $$$$ on a 300/2.8 & FX body.

    • Jose

      Right, Nikon can’t abandon the market they have in High Level dx camera, Canon, Sony and other will get these market.

  • coloretric

    After a few years of listening you get pretty good at guessing what’s next.

    I agree with admin, my guess is that the “D600” will overtake the D300s segment and bring FX as a standard. Top line DX will be brought up in the new D7000 model.

    • rogger


  • Z L

    Budget FX camera, a dream come true, Nikon is going to have lots of fans if this is true.

  • GeoffK

    A D400 at ~20MP with 8 or 9 fps would be sweet for what I shoot. I am actually happy the D800 is difficult to acquire as the delay may save me a little money and get me more what I am looking for.

    As long as I have an upgraded camera (use D90 now) by the start of HS football I will be happy.

    • Zograf

      Nikon’s next Nikon 1 camera will have 20MP — look at just announced Sony Cyber-shot

  • Edubya

    And admin’s suggested lineup makes sense in terms of Nikon’s current naming strategy.

    Dx: Large body FX

    Dxxx: Smaller body FX

    Dxxxx: DX

    Sensor resolutions are now getting high enough that using the DX mode on an FX camera is a reasonable option.

  • Rahul

    >> [Admin]: Something has to go and I think it will be the D300s line.

    In my opinion, if something has to go then it shouldn’t be the top end DX first. I believe that the D3x00 and D5x00 lines can be merged in a single line.
    If Nikon wants to eliminate the D300s line then I think it will need to put its best autofocus system in D7100.

    • coloretric

      There are price points to consider. The D5100 is almost 30% more than the D3100. In mass, this is significant, especially for those looking to get their ‘first SLR’. Cost is a large factor when starting out.

      Agreed tho that the D7000 AF system is not very good.

    • That is a possibility, the D3100 and D5100 were very close in terms of specs.

  • Timo

    Well, the D300 /D300s is due for replacement since a very long time. I actually don’t care about the names, but I consider neither the D7000 nor the D600 as a D300 series replacement! Actually I don’t consider the D600 at all. (the D800 will be fine when I finally get it)
    The D7000 has got a lot of good features. But comparing it with a D300s it still can’t keep up in several points decisive for me: attach a longer lens on the D7000 (like the 70-200) and you’ll know the D300s is the better choice. Compare the AF and you’ll know the D300s is the better choice…
    As already the “lowest” DX, namely the D3200, comes with the 24 MP sensor and the D5200 certainly got to offer more than the D3200, the question is, what really remains for the D7100 to really stand above the D5200. If the D7100 comes in a D300 size body with the latest 51 point AF, I’ll go for it. And by the way, D300s prices have gone considerably up meanwhile – maybe some make sure to get one copy being afraid, that again technology just has give room for the mass-market…

    In their “upgrade to FX fever” some want to declare the high end DX line as backwards. However the high end DX line has it users and thus is in demand, especially as the crop factor makes long focal lengths with large aperture possible at lower weight and lower costs with a pro IQ. And last not least the Canon league believe in a 7D mkII.

    • coloretric

      I can possibly see the D7000 taking form in the D300 body size. It could work nicely for Nikon. As the users of the D7000 are mostly advanced amateurs, who either couldn’t justify the cost of a D300s or saw better (sensor) performance from the D7000.

  • Dammer

    Question: Does DX mode on an FX sensor provide DoF characteristics similar to a straight up APS-C sensor?

    • coloretric

      No. DOF is still FX orientated.

      • coloretric

        See it this way: Imagine if you take your 50mm lens on a FX body, take the shot, then crop it at the center, the fact that you crop your image won’t change its DOF.

        • ShaoLynx

          That depends.
          IF you crop and then enlarge the resulting image to the same physical size (beit on paper or on screen) – your tolerance for sharpness will change.
          Meaning: you will tolerate a smaller CoC.
          So the perceived DOF would decrease.
          Of(f) course: if you stay with the smaller cut-out of the image, nothing changes (and the crop-factor-extra-reach argument is voided). You’re just stuck with a physically smaller image (less ink on less paper).
          Our physical perception of sharpness is directly related to the angle-of-view. If you reason in terms of the angle-of-view, tings are easier to explain.

          • coloretric

            I am 100% sure that angle of view has nothing to do with human perception of sharpness.

    • Matt


    • Rob

      Yes. Printing/viewing an image from an FX camera in DX-crop-mode will be exactly the same as printing/viewing an image from a DX camera (assuming the same lens, aperture, etc.). Printing both images to the same size will yield the exact same DOF.

      The full-frame FX shot (NOT DX mode) with the same settings will have a larger DOF, but it will also have a larger field of view.

  • I uploaded a better scan of the D400 page.

  • TnT

    There IS always room for a D400 or D300s replacement!!! The market is there, i.e. wildlife/nature photography!!! The D800 is a great camera. There is no question. I have gotten many great shots from it. But an extra 3 fps would be a BIG welcome.

    • coloretric

      drumroll…….and here comes your D600…

      • what?

        Seriously dude! Pay attention…the D600 is not going to be a speed camera.

        • coloretric

          I am paying attention – D700 never was a speed camera…oh but wait it’s supplemented for so many D3’s (note not D3S), as a backup body.

          5fps yes ok understood. But the potential for faster framerates with a battery pack….think MB-D10 on either D700 or D300(s)-is not something out of the ordinary.

  • Bob the tog

    There’s still a place for the pro DX body and that’s why Nikon probably aren’t releasing it. It’s probably a ploy to get the D300 users up to an FX body meaning that they will invest in new lenses and drive revenue.

    The d7000 is an awesome little camera sensor-wise but if it’s to be considered as a pro camera then it needs to be more robust, faster autofocus and a bigger buffer. There are the usual people who will believe that it also has to have CF slots rather than SD.

    • coloretric


  • JEB

    I for one would be greatly disappointed if the D400 would not come to pass. I have a D800 but it is not the best tool to replace my D300 for the jobs that I use it for. As for the D600, I would have zero use for it. The D7000 also does not cut it.

    • coloretric


    • CE


  • If I had my choice for a D400 to compliment the D00 or a 100-300 F4 (recent Nikon patent) I’d gladly spend the money on the glass and keep my D300S as backup.

    Great glass is still the name of the game. At least it is after you already own a D800 🙂

  • Doug B

    I know a LOT of people who are waiting for the D400, a true professional DX replacement for the D300s.

    The d7000 does not even close to filling the need for that product, and a D7000 speed FX body will not fill that need either.

    Basically, either Nikon will release a D400 or I know a lot of photographers who will be changing to Canon some time later this year.

    Many of them have already changed, because they are tired of waiting on Nikon.

  • JEB

    For me -D300s = wildlive with the 200-400mm, underwater wide angle with a 10-17mm. the D7000 has to many drawbacks.

    • coloretric

      Let’s put it this way the D7000 is not the ‘go-to’ action camera.

  • CE

    D800+D400 perfect combo for me…….. hope it turns out true….

    • Rob

      I second this. I think I’m keeping my D800 for most of my shooting, but I’ll still be using my D300s for sports. I could really use a stop or more better high ISO from a D400 so I can shoot evening/night games (and maybe even indoor). A few more megapixels wouldn’t hurt either.

  • Michael

    Wow, this is the first time I saw rumors outside of NR before seeing it here.

    • This is because I don’t consider those to be “reliable” rumors, like I already mentioned in the post.

  • Paulo G

    Last week I dropped my D200 equipped with the 105 Af-s on the rocks. It continued to work perfectly! Neither D600 or D7000 are so robust. The D800 is too expensive. That’s why a D400 is so essential! Not so heavy, not so expensive and faster than D800. Perfect for wildlife.

    • Tonisec

      “The D800 is too expensive. That’s why a D400 is so essential!”

      Thats why they come with D600?

      Because here we should not make the mistake of comparing a DX vs FX and vice versa. And almost all people make this mistake.

      Oranges with Oranges. Not Oranges with Banana. 🙂

      • Paulo G

        I rather prefer a good APS-C sensor in a professional camera than a top FX sensor in a middle range body

  • Remco

    There will be a D300s (Pro DX) replacement, simply because of the rumors about a possible Canon 7D Mark II. I would never believe that Nikon would simply concede the Pro DX markt to Canon that easily.

    In my opinion the D7000 replacement will simple be the D7000 with a 24 MP sensor. But it will not be faster or have a bigger buffer than the D7000.

    In my opinion a D400 would be a D4 with a DX sensor. And it would probaly cost more than the D600, maybe even the D800. It will have a 16 MP sensor, 8-10 fps, a big buffer, AF and metering from the D4. I also expect it to have XQD slots (probaly two). I do expect it to be announced Q4 2012 or Q1 2013.

    I believe that many people will jump to Canon if they make a 7D Mark II and Nikon does not answer with a Pro DX camera.

    Many D7000 users that want more do not buy the D300s because it is ‘old’ technology. D300s users have currently no option at all.

    For those users, a D600 or even a D800 will simply not cut it. Only the D800 in crop mode can match the pixel density of the D7000. But both can/will not match the D300s in speed and buffer size. De D600 will probaly not match the AF of the D300s or its build. Ergo, D7000/D300s users that want to upgrade do not see these camera’s as a possible upgrade. And probaly non has the money to buy the D4.

    But again, that is just my opinion (and hope B-)

    • Sports

      Exactly how I feel.
      Who cares if the D600 will be at the same price point? It’s a useless replacement for my D300. I can’t afford the D4, and no other Nikon does the same job. Obviously, I can accept a lower IQ than the D4, but my motifs and scenes don’t just slow down to let me shoot them with a slow camera.
      (Just put a 2012 sensor in the D300 and I’ll be happy. How expensive can this be for Nikon to do?)

      • gorgonzola

        I am stuck with the same problem it looks like I will be keeping my D300 forever it seem 🙁 to jump shit makes my insides churn…all that glass to replace….

        I am seriously worried.

    • Add me to the group. If a higher end DX with a decent body and higher pixel count than the 7000 is not forth coming, then as a macro shooter I will have no choice but to decamp to Canon if they bring out a 7d2.

    • D400


      • +3
        I agree completely. I’ve found that the D300 is almost perfect except for the need for slightly better (less grainy) high ISO performance. Also, a true ISO 50 would be nice to have. My D300 has developed an AF problem (only getting 3 or 4 of every 10 shots in focus) so I am in a world of hurt while waiting for a suitable D400 replacement to be announced. Until a D400 or D600 is announced, D300S and D700 prices will remain high enough to discourage me from buying one. A weather and dust-sealed DX body, with high FPS and a decent buffer which is durably-constructed is my primary workhorse for automotive photography. A D7000 isn’t going to cut it. I need a ‘big boy’ AF system. A cheapskate D600 with a plastic body and no sealing won’t work either, no matter how low the price and ESPECIALLY if it doesn’t include an in-body AF motor to drive my sharp 50mm f1.8D lens.

        I need a D400, and I need it SOON!

    • rogger


      • gorgonzola


  • Trent

    You wrote:

    “The D5100, D7000 and D300s are all due for replacement this year…”

    I think, that’s not right. The D5100 is not due for a replacement. The D5000 came in spring 2009, the D5100 came in spring 2011, so I think, the D5200 will come in about ten months.

    But I think you are right with the prediction, that there will not come three other cameras this year (D7100, D400 and D600), because some months ago, you wrote that there will be five DSLRs this year. We already have seen three of them (D4, D800, D3200), so there are two more to come.

    • Sports

      Agree. The D5100 replacement will be 2013.

    • If I am correct the D5100 and D3100 were announced only few months apart. The D3200 is already out, the D5200 should not be that far out.

      • the history buff

        Actually, it was the D3100 and the D7000 that were introduce in close
        succession (Aug. 2010 and Sept. 2010 respectively). The D5100 was
        introduced in April of 2011.

      • Trent

        Well, if eight months are just a few for you, that’s correct. However, please remember, that the productlines of D3100 and D5100 were not related to each other in the past. The product cycle of the D3100 (and its predecessors) is much shorter than the product cycle of the D5100. The D3100 came in August 2010, the D3000 came in July 2009, the D60 came in spring 2008 and the D40x came in spring 2007. As opposed to this, the D5000 and the D5100 came a half year after the D90 or the D7000, so I think, it will be the same this time.

        The great gap between the D3100 and the D3200 is in my oppinion related to the disasters in Fukushima and Thailand in 2011.

  • Foolishcfo

    This is much more exciting news than a stripped-down FX camera. Can I pre-order before everyone else pre-orders?

    • Maji

      What is so much stripped down about the D600?

  • coloretric

    D300s – no option….Nikon D600 = D700 replacement in A LOT of ways sans predicted AF performance – will see a fair few of fed up D300 users jumping to FX bodies main drawback is the ‘FL issue’ (from DX->FX). Other than that I could see the D600 with the ‘new’ battery pack – EN-EL18 (D4) holder – work for higher fps than the 5fps currently rumoured. However this is just speculation, from the past (D700 & MB-D10 & D3s batteries).

    I suspect the ‘top level DX (D400/D7xxx) will come out later in the year towards Christmas.

  • clintphoto

    nikon have been naming new DX cameras only up to the 3rd series i.e


    maybe they will just keep 3 of each dx/fx d3000,5000,7000 and d600?,800,4

    • PAG

      That could work if the D7000 replacement is actually the D300s replacement in build and features. Of course the D3000, D5000, D90, and D300s were all selling quite well at the same time so I don’t know why the dynamics would suddenly change.

      A D400 at $1,800+ would fill out the line nicely and be a hit with the wildlife and sports people. If Canon can sell multiple low-end DX cameras plus the new 60Da (D7000 competitor at $1,500) plus the 7D, why couldn’t Nikon?

  • Phil

    I have to agree with Bob the Tog as well as Remco. Now as far as the naming format for the D300s replacement goes Nikon could use D400, or, for all we know with as long as they have taken to this point, they very well could go to the Dxxxx format leaving the 7100, 7200, etc. for the prosumer DX camera while 8000 8100 and so on could take over the full pro bodied DX. Just another penny for your thought, but again, my opinion, I feel it would be a bad, no horrible move, on Nikon’s part not to continue the pro body DX line.

  • Phil

    Whether they (Canon) make a 7D2 or not, and in fact if canon decides not for some reason to release a 7D2 then there lies a possibility of Nikon converting canon users with a D400 or D8000 as mentioned in my previous post.

  • Phil

    All the more reason to make a D300s replacement.

  • Hom Thogan

    “I already posted this on PhotoRumors, but since I am still getting emails about it, I have to mention it again.”

    Well it isn’t our fault that we expect to see Nikon related rumors in hmmm Nikonrumors dot com… after all you were the one who created the website Pete…

    Don’t be so passive agressive with us geez… I didn’t knew about Photorumors until now…

  • There’s no way either the D600 or D7000 can replace the D300s.

    The top model within Nikon’s DX range MUST have the Multi-cam 3500 DX (not the 4800, like the D600 and D7000 have) and a burst rate that kicks Canon 7D’s ass.

    Whether they call it D7100, D7200 or D400 I couldn’t care less.

    However, maybe Nikon is completely giving up on cheap action photographers who can’t (or don’t want to) spend 3,000 USD on a camera. Which might be the case, given that Nikon’s range of affordable F/4 and F/5.6 telephoto lenses is old and outdated, while Canon’s is larger and newer.

  • DeepC

    I think d300s line will convert into d7100 with 39 focus points and bigger body. That way it will be within $1500 territory and follow dxxx for Dx models. D600 fx can easily sell for $1500 without much pro features.

  • JAKE


    D4 – $6k
    D800 – $3k (36mp studio/landscape)
    D600 – $2100 (24 mp semi-pro FX)
    D400 – $1700 (16-24mp pro DX with D4 shutter speed)
    D7200 – $1200 prosumer DX
    D5200 – who cares… The ones who don’t care(non-pros) will use these
    D3200 – who cares… The ones who don’t care(non-pros) will use these

    Seems reasonable enough…

    • Jim

      I like the “who cares…”
      just add that to the D600 (for the D7000 body and AF) too

  • n0mad

    I don’t know if the rumor is true or not, but for me it’s much more probable that an hypothetical cheap FX.

    D700’s price will drop in the coming months, so there’s no need for a D600 actually.

    A new pro DX body is much more interesting, and much more expected!

  • Deep Lurker

    My own guess:

    D4 – $6k
    D800/800E – $3k
    D400 – $1800-2000 (24MP DX with a “pro-grade” (D300s- like) body & features)
    D600 – $1500-1700 (24MP FX with a D7000-grade body & features)
    D7100 – $1200 (24MP DX straight successor to the D7000, released early 2013)
    D5200 – entry level plus – released early to mid 2013
    D3200 – entry level

    However, if the D600 can come in at $1500, then the D7100 may not happen, with the D600 being the “official” successor to the D7000. (Which would make more sense than trying to pitch the D600 as the successor to the D300s.)

    In that case, the D5200 might get a feature upgrade to become something resembling a D90, or a cross between the D5100 and D7000. (Along with a price upgrade to $1000-1200 from the current D5100 price of $850.)

    So two new DSLRs in the second half of 2012 (D400 and D600), and one or two more in the first half of 2013 (D5200 and maybe D7100)

  • MegaMo

    D400 or D7100 there’s got to be something in August.
    Seriously I’ll take anything.
    (also D600 if it will be in the same price range with higher IQ)

  • Vin

    Everyone tries to find logic in Nikon’s evolution of naming. There might be some magic 3 generation thing going on. Here is some other ones. I did leave out a few film cameras. Nikon throws in an X, or S. Or 5. Or half upgrade evolution. There is definitely some gray area with there naming or numbering. . They sometimes keep the order,, sometimes abandon it. I guess that’s the fun of guessing.







  • Rob

    9FPS @ 24MP may be unrealistic. That would require more processing power than the D4, and quite a bit more than the D800. Unless the Expeed III processors are pretty cheap (did they really put 2 in the Nikon 1?) AND they purposely crippled the D800’s FPS, I don’t see them putting an extra processor in the D400. If you assume the D4 maxes out the Expeed III, that would put a 24MP camera at about 7FPS.

    • D400

      Sony can do 24mp @ 12fps
      Expeed 3 has 300mp/sec of power

      • coloretric

        Expeed III is 600mp/sec


  • Blacklighting

    My take:

    I see FX and DX as two different systems

    D4 – $6k (Pro)
    D800 – $3k (36mp Semi-Pro) you guys are going to hate me.
    D700 – $2k (12mp Semi-Pro) I know it’s 5 years old and discontinued
    D600 – $1500 (24 mp entry-level FX) yes I said it “entry-level” just like the first rumour post

    Now the different system

    D400 – $1700 PRO
    D7200 – $1200 ADVANCED CONSUMER
    D5200 – MID CONSUMER
    D3200 – ENTRY LEVEL

    • Sappho

      D800 is pro camera not semi-pro as there is no better alternative for it. I have both D4 and D800 and both are great for different things I would definitely not use D4 for landscape or portraits when I have D800 same as I would never use D800 to shoot sports.

      • Global

        Many pros “used” a D40 — that didn’t make the D40 a pro camera, even though there was no better camera at the time for taking a photograph faster than 1/250 with flash (D40 had an electronic shutter, which no advanced Nikon model has had since, giving the D40 a distinct advantage on this one point).

        Anyway, D800 is definitely top of the line, even though Nikon has crippled many of the features of the D4 (such as specific data banks etc etc).

        • Abraham Collins

          D70 had an electronic shutter…

          • coloretric

            I was about to say this! 🙂

    • Scott M

      I think definition of Nikon “pro” camera is what NPS allows. Do they allow D800?

      • Blacklighting

        @ Scott M

        I’m just trying to categorize the camera the way Nikon sees it. Look at the D3/D700. Nikon saw the D3 as Pro and the D700 as a step/class down. If a D4x was around Nikon would class it as a “Pro” camera with the D800 a step behind. I’m not trying to take anything any from the D800/D700 I just think they were not built to be the best of the best.

        Yes, the D800 is the best “in its class” but Nikon did leave room to improve. Nikon could today built a D4x around the D800 and charge $6000+ like the D3x. I think Nikon is going to pull out a 50+ MP D4x in a couple years.

        The point I was trying to make, is that I think Nikon is thinking of DX and FX as two different systems right now.

      • Sappho

        NPS considers D800 as a pro camera, but they consider even D300s as a pro, which is fine with me D300 is amazing camera. 😉

        • Agreed! The d300s is a solid magnesium camera, the 7000 is a miniature plastic thing… Not in the same class (but better spec’d). The D600 is the same way, plastic.

  • Vin

    I think they will still use D400 D500. Might be for DX? Could you imagine a DX 24mp D400E, ?
    Or a DX 36mp D500? How good would the glass have to be for them?

  • I am not the only one who skipped the D800 in favor of a better DX option over the D300s in the near future. If Nikon abandons the pro DX camera line and fails to compete with the new Cannon 7D I bet there going to be a few less Nikon customers.

  • Steve

    The problem with an entry-level FX camera is that the lenses for FX are too pricey. I have a 16-85 and 35 f/1.8 on my D5000, and I won’t get half a 70-200 if I sell all of that. We need serious f/4 zooms (the 24-120 isn’t up to the task, not even the new one).

  • If you’re a sports photographer, you’ve been dreaming of a D300s successor with a higher pixel count AND low light sensitivity approaching the D3s. Shooting daylight sports, my 300 2.8 is a 450 2.8 with great quality. I’d love that capability at night!

  • DX is DEAD

    Read the runes.

    No more “high end” DX bodies.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    I have a feeling that there will be a new camera soon because (1) they wouldn’t just stick 24 mp on the cheap camera and not then go and make the better one even spiffier and (2) there is a kind of shooter that cares about reach and doesn’t care anything about shallow depth of field. An APS camera at the end of a long telephoto or zoom is every photographer’s answer to having a longer, heavier, more expensive lens, and especially when already maxed out on a converter. At some point there just won’t be as many models. Maybe one fairly high end one and a couple low end ones with a low end full frame between them and a few high end ones above it. And if for no other reason, because an APS only camera has a viewfinder dedicated to showing what the sensor will catch.

  • DJL

    All of this DX versus FX bodies is kind of silly… what did all the photographers on here do when 35mm film was the only ‘sensor’ size available in a camera and you could only load a single ISO per roll. I have owned and used the Olympus E-10, Fuji S2, Nikon D200, Nikon D300s, and now the D800 – after getting reacquainted with the the full frame viewfinder, I think I would find it difficult to go back to the reduced framing of the DX format. DX had it’s day and still serves it’s purpose but the in the economies of scale, the transition to FX with a low cost FX body makes sense. Ultimately though, it boils down to the Indian NOT the Arrow that makes the shot.

  • Vinz

    A D4S @36MP is what sports photographers are waiting for.
    Why buying a pro DX body when you can have both FX and DX in one?

    But is Expeed3 able to deal with 9FPS @36MP? It would require quite a big buffer, and maybe a SSD drive as storage card ^^

    • Mike

      Because you sell more cameras and hence more lenses with a price point and feature list that equates to a prosumer body. Also DX will be alive and well as long as a 300mm f4 lens becomes and 450mm f4 on a DX body with a 7-9 fps frame rate. That is the sweet spot for
      Shooting sports/motorsports.
      Look what you have if you dropped the DX line. A D4 + 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 = $14k set up.
      D400 is likely $1900 price point + 300mm f4 = $3300 set up. Not even the same ball park.
      It’s the equivalent of trying to quit selling the BMW 3 series and just
      Sell the 5 and 7 series. The company would be out of business by the end of the year.

  • getoutandshoot

    As a wild bird photographer still using the original D300, and heavily invested my long lens, I sure HOPE Nikon does not completely eliminate the high end DX line! I’m waiting/hoping for a D300s upgrade.

  • Back to top