Nikon D400 rumors are back


Obviously a "fake" Nikon D400

Nasim Mansurov posted a new article on his blog regarding the mythical Nikon D400 camera. According to his source, who initially predicted the D400 announcement last year, the camera is supposed to be out around September this year:

"Apparently, the Nikon D400 has been pushed back at least twice now for several reasons. First, Nikon had some serious trouble with the supply chain when the floods devastated its Thailand plants. Most of the DX equipment was manufactured there (and many parts for the DX cameras and lenses were supplied by smaller companies in Thailand, which were severely impacted as well), so Nikon had to quickly move high-demand items off to other plants.

Nikon was on schedule for an early D400 announcement in 2012/2013 time frame, but it pulled the plug and decided to focus on the D7100 instead (and the current focus is to push as many D7100 sales as possible). It turns out that the camera went through several iterations and the earlier features did not fly with the upper management of the company."

As of today, I have not received a single reliable piece of information indicating that the D400 even exists. In my 2013 predictions, I mentioned that the 7000 and D300 product lines could merge. After the D7100 announcement we have been getting conflicting reports from Nikon in terms of the future of the high-end DX camera line.

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

    I believe a wonderful 16mpix sensor with up to ISO 50,000 and 10fps.

    is everything a wedding photographer, journalism and sport needs.

  • TwoMetreBill

    From my selfish viewpoint, I expect the D400 to be a game changer, otherwise I’ll replace my D300S with a nice used D3S.

    E.G. lose the mirror box (4K EVF, 120 fps), 30 FPS at full resolution (RAW), 2 CF card slots, D4 battery, 240 shot RAW + Fine JPEG buffer, built-in GPS and WiFi, 1/16,000 shutter, D3S high ISO noise performance, etc.

    OK by me to deliver this in a D4 body for $3000.

    The world is not wanting for another minor iteration on an existing body.

    • KnightPhoto

      I’m with you on mirrorless D400, but I think we are one-generation away from it. Would be great though!

      • MyrddinWilt

        I very much doubt we will see mirrorless DX. If Nikon had seen value there they would have gone that way for the CX mount.

        There is an argument to be made for an FX mirrorless for landscape work. Basically there is a point at which it is cheaper to change the body format so that the wide angle lens design can be changed to short focus rather than retro-focus. But that is probably a while off.

        DSLR is always going to be better for DX and FX at 50mm above.

        • BroncoBro

          You already have mirrorless DX…it’s called CoolPix A. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  • nc_mike

    What will really mess things up is if Nikon drops the price of the D800 to expected D400 price levels (then you’ve got your D400 effectively – DX + FX) and Nikon then comes out with a mirrorless D900 with D4 or better noise levels and higher FPS.

    • Plug

      This myth about the D800: where is the 8-10 frames per sec desired by us wildlife people? And some other features that need upgrading. I have both a D300s and a D800. The former can do some things that the latter cannot.

  • cgw

    Mansurov must be desperate to resort to a rumor chum slick(the main
    source is one of his own posts from 2012) to attract hits to his ho-hum
    site. His “report,” like most breathless “insider/trusted sources”
    malarkey, is pretty much fact-free.

  • Jocke Jockjock

    There’s no need for a separate D400. Buy a D800 and set it on DX-crop and you have a 16Mpix DX shooter. Ok, you might argue that a DX-only body should be 450 credit units or so cheaper due to the smaller sensor.

    I ask you: Except for price possibly, what’s the sense in a big clumsy (well handling?) camera with a DX-sensor? Better high ISO? Faster? Ok – smaller lenses. A point is, I believe, that there is no lens on the market than can out-resolve the 7100’s M-pixels, much less a DX-lens. We are past the limit of current optics (and only bigger sensors can take us further).
    So D400 wanna-haves: Is price you only argument? Not a bad one of course. If DX would be my 1st choice I would then prefer a compact body
    and matching set of lenses. I do have a DX and an FX body, the latter is my favourite though.

    Conclusion? Why don’t we ask Nikon to produce a D4 for the price of a
    D3000? And they’ll answer: We will ! Just give us some years of time.
    Would you reply:? No, give us a D300s named D400 right away.

    • Plug

      Frames per second? I have D300s and D800, and the former is more useful in many wildlife scenarios.

  • zeum

    I’d be surprised if it was called the D 400. Nikon’s new naming nomenclature dictates pro=D# enthusiast FX=D## , DX=D###. hence the d7000 from the 90

    My guess d9000!!

    • this doesn’t make any sense.

      • BroncoBro

        Please, don’t feed the troll.

  • Martijn

    i still can’t figure out why the Nikon 1 can shoot 60 pictures in half a sec, and the D7000 gets stuck after 2 seconds of shooting at 6 fps. I think i read the nikon 1 uses RAM memory to temporarily save the images. Why not use it in DSLR’s. Theres enough room for it.

    • BroncoBro

      It’s all about the amount of data that is being moved and cached. Most cameras have a “buffer” to store images while they are being processed. The Nikon 1 has a small sensor and I’m sure there are limits on what kind of image quality can be used when acquiring images at the rate of 60 per half second or whatever the rate is (jpeg standard is likely, RAW is out of the question). So it can buffer a lot of images. It’s tougher to capture DX or FX files that are probably 14-bit to boot. Short answer is, it takes a lot of processing power and memory and that takes physical space and eats batteries.

  • BroncoBro

    If it wasn’t for the Nikon 1 a lot of this would make more sense. But, when a company like Nikon devotes a lot of resources to someting like the Nikon 1 and gives it a bunch of cool lenses (it got a 32mm (85mm equiv) f/1.2 lens) and then doesn’t do the same for DX, one has to wonder where this is going. I can’t figure out who in the world is buying this Nikon 1, and I can’t figure out why a totally viable option like DX is given short shrift.

    • KnightPhoto

      The answer I think is that Nikon will invest in a line of mirrorless DX lenses instead.

  • loggainmedswedroidkontot

    I think that the D400 is way to old now, maybe if it was released 3 years ago it would have been a good camera. But now, no, too outdated.

  • JSanchez

    This is great news. The new DSLRs just don’t seem to cut it as the D200-300s have and has. Still shooting a D200. Holding out for this 400.

  • Smudger

    Great that Nikon are diversifying the web sites that they use for early product announcements!

    oops, sorry Admin.

  • Rich

    I can afford a high end model, however, there is always a need for a back up second body. I want a D400 body for $1000, considering NIkon D600 is $1600 now. If the name is D500, I will pay $1200.

    No one really want D400 for that poor same anyway.

  • Darren Mcneill

    They need to up the ante also on the cameras capabilities not just add extra pixals and more speed etc.
    I now shoot sports for schools and I would like to be able to add high speed footage.
    I want HD video with 1200 fps capabilities, I really think this would be a game changer. Every other feature is basically a tweek.

    Apple suffer this with the iPhone….I’ll stick with my D300s’s for the moment and wait to see what happens.
    I’m actually, for the first time, considering selling all my Nikon equipment and switching to Canon after Christmas if nothing improves.

    • KnightPhoto

      The problem with 1200fps is the extreme amount of light one needs to support what is in effect a 1/1200 shutter speed. The other issue is how much of the sensor can be scanned at that speed – usually it is not a lot, nowhere near the entire sensor. On the V1 the 400fps option is a better compromise than the 1200 fps. It is a lot of fun, I agree we need it on our DSLRs.

      On your other point, there is zero reason to switch to Canon 😉

  • Steve Schlesinger

    You have to admit that having the D300s still hanging around in the current product line offering is a bit strange. It seems Nikon is keeping that place warm for the D400. This article makes sense.

    • KnightPhoto

      I wonder what Thom was talking about the other day, saying the D400 had to offer some extra stuff over and above just offering a D300 body and D7100 sensor?

      I’d like any high tech video features. And sure would want on-sensor PDAF for use in mirror up modes (e.g. live view high fps mode, video, etc.).

      • Steve Schlesinger

        I’d be happy to see a sturdier build of the D7100 with a better menu system. Many of these DSLR bodies are build with multi core processors (Canon uses ARM processors). It would be nice if the D400 had one of the multi cores dedicated to focus like the Canon 5D Mark III has.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    D800 @ DX mode is already a hypothetical D400, except for

    * price tag

    * reduced viewfinder area

    * less fps

  • Jacobus DeWet

    I Have just bought another D300 with very low actuation to replace my old one with 194 000 shots on the clock. I still sell a great deal of wildlife images taken with the D300 but now needs an upgrade. there is no logical replacement, Tried the D800 but due to focus and slow shutter dumped it. D7000 or D7100 does not have the buffer and the body. cannot invest in the D4 due to price. my next move, at a great loss would be Canon but at least they are looking after their DX clients with new 7D upgrade coming soon.

  • Jacobus DeWet

    I also think that Nikon needs a D700 replacement. The D800 with 36 mp is a specialist camera and for my. and a lot of old D700 users, need a D700 body with 24 mp sensor. Or even a D4 sensor with big low light and fast ss capacity

  • chris zeller

    Oh sure….

  • Eric Schurr

    is there any fresh content on the existence of the mythical D400? I have a six year old D300 and I’m dying for a camera with better low light performance. the D800 is great, but it’s fps is not very high and i’ll have to buy new lenses. the D7100 feels like an advanced consumer camera rather than a low-end pro camera (like the D300). What is Nikon doing? It seems there is no decent upgrade path for D300 users!

  • Back to top