Still no reliable info/rumors on a new Nikon DX flagship DSLR camera (D400/D500)

nikon-d400-maybereal-nikon-d400-nr1
Nikon-D400-DSLR-camera Nikon-D400-CAPA-magazine nikond400box nikond400body
This is again one of those cases where my inbox is filling up with questions and I have to make a public post about it - this time it's about new Nikon D400/D500 rumors coming from Canadian nature photographer Brad Hill:

Anyway...in the last 10 days I've received 3 separate and independent communications (via email) telling me that a semi-pro (or even higher) quality DX body from Nikon is going to be announced in January. Two of these three sources have been spot-on in the past.

The interesting thing is that I'm getting scant specs, but those I am getting are consistent from all 3 sources - DX format, 10 fps, a "very good" buffer and selling for around $2300 USD. This consistency could say something about rumour credibility (or it could mean all 3 of my sources got THEIR information from the same source). Note that at least one of the sources derives their income from Nikon.

I have not received any good intel on a potential D400/D500 in the past few weeks. There was some talk few months ago about a possible double launch (D5/D400 or D5/D500) just like the D3/D300, but I have not heard anything since.

This entry was posted in Nikon D400, Nikon D500. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

    Hope so and looks like some good base specs – maybe optimized D7200 24mp DX Sensor and problably only with 1080p Video recording ?.

    For the price I will wait a year to get my mitts on one if the specs are good and for price to come down a bit and for any issues to be found and ironed out.

    • David Peterson

      With the crazy price of US$2.3k, it had better not just have 1080p video, but 6K too!!

      • Eno

        I couldn’t say it better myself!

      • Rob

        I’m holding out for a video-less high end DX. Then again who am I kidding I can’t afford a D3300 at the moment. 🙂 Good to see Leica dropping the video on their latest 262 though and I think Nikon could do well with a pro DX SLR that just does photos. Would love to see them separate the two concepts and make a dedicated DX video camera (I’m sure the still images would be fine from a 4-8k video camera).

      • Rob

        Hoping they do a video free DX one day as well as a dedicated video camera. Too many compromises and they can build it cheaper if they make it dedicated.

        • Sawyerspadre

          Video free? It would seem that if all your electronics are geared up to do still and video, making a video-free model might actually increase cost to build. What do you save?

          • Rob

            No such thing as free lunch. Implementing video costs processing power, money and time for the manufacturer. Others here on this forum have explained the technical trade-offs that happen with including video/live-view in a camera. The Nikon Df left out video which lowered development costs and gave them a chance to lower the retail price. Leica just released the 262 without video and dropped the price also.

            • David Peterson

              Nope, video-less DX will never happen in 2016.

              It would mean an extremely niche camera, which means high R&D costs with only a very small volume to recoup them, which would lead to a far more expensive camera than one with video.

              The Nikon DF still has live view by the way, excluding video was just a straight out gimmick to appeal to nogalistic oldies (or hipsters 😛 ).

            • Rob

              Pity I like the idea as I never use video and don’t want to pay extra for it. Nikon managed to keep the price down by doing it as has Leica.

            • David Peterson

              It really is very very simple economics / business sense:

              No video = less buyers.
              Less buyers = higher costs.

              Higher costs = a more expensive camera for you.

              (with the one exception is the “gimmicky” DF which exploited the nogalistic/ hipster niche & thus found enough buyers for the DF, but that tiny niche isn’t big enough to be exploited again by a high end DX camera lacking video)

            • Rob

              Implementing video isn’t free, video is more than live view, your equations are incomplete. It worked for the Df and it will probably work for Leica 262. I think the D400 has become such an iconic/mythical beast that they could easily go left field and drop the video. Give people the choice, dedicated camera, retro and tough in a DX format, those that want the techno can have the D7xxx/D9xxx with video.

              Moot points, I doubt Nikon is listening to me.

            • David Peterson

              The marginal cost to implement video in a new DSLR is very low (pushing it forward to the next level quality however… that is a different equation!).

              The *only* point for not implementing video is as a marketing exercise so that it can appeal to the stubborn “I don’t want video crowd” (which is exactly what the DF did).

            • Implementing two different systems instead of one isn’t free. It’s like complaining that your SmartPhone has a camera when you don’t want one. Given the tiny market size, a smartphone without a camera would be more expensive to produce and even then most potential customers wouldn’t buy it for some other reason.

              Similarly, a pro DX body without video just gives a whole lot of potential customers another reason not to buy your product.

              If Nikon were sensible, it would _simplify_ its product range, and make each camera strictly better than the one to the left. Having an idiotic situation where D610 – D750 – Df – D810 – D4S involves going up and down in resolution, controls, flippy screen, body style, AF system, low light capability, video capability just causes people to stop, think, and realize they just don’t need it.

              Similarly, a D400 that wasn’t better in every way than a D7200 would be _moronic_.

            • Rob

              “pushing it forward to the next level quality however… that is a different equation!”

              Exactly David and that is the issue. For Nikon to include video they need to keep up or they will still get tarred so they can’t just chuck video in with the mix for free, it needs to be at least as good as their competitors, though most like yourself want more.

              Implementing two systems is an option if the market is diverse enough and Nikon never seem to have a problem wit providing several models with only minor differences. The D7xxx range already exists, building a D400 can be done for less if they leave out video.

              I’m pretty sure Df owners are happy to by a stripped down D4 for a good discount. I don’t think they should go retro with the design concept personally, just give us a leading edge camera.

            • David Peterson

              Nikon already has better quality video than any of Canon’s stock DSLRs (C line excluded).

              And as I explained before, the marginal cost is close to nil to add in standard video (like what has gone before) to a model when lots of pre-existing cameras already have it.

              Thus it only need a very small number of extra sales, and Nikon benefits from it.

            • Rob

              You didn’t explain it, you stated it. I very seriously doubt the cost is “marginal”, video needs extra processing power, battery life and audio access to camera that could be smaller, lighter, simpler and cheaper without it, hence the Df size and the 262 being cheap in comparison to its video able siblings. Nothing wrong with video in SLRs as such but it it comes at a cost which means other areas are probably relegated. Not sure where the Df hate comes from TBH, I would be proud own one it is a high quality functional camera and hipsters have nothing to do with it.

            • KnightPhoto

              Rob, your analysis of video is discounting that cameras exist in a market. Cameras that don’t have video such as some Leica’s and the Df are necessarily priced higher. Video-less cameras aren’t cheaper to buy (they might be cheaper to build but without necessarily sales that is not good enough). Actually it seems even Leica has got the video bug lately. Anyhow the reality is, we can continue to expect video in Nikon DSLRs. If I were Nikon I would even put it in the Df2. Notice how its price never dropped? Maybe if it had video it would have sold more units and Nikon could have afforded to drop the price over time as it did with D750 et al.

            • Rob

              The Leica 262 is available for around $5000 its video able predecessor the M9-P started at about $8000. The Df was about half the price of the D4.

            • Your analysis is flawed at least as it relates to the D4 vs. the Df. There is a lot more difference between these cameras than video. The overwhelming majority of the cost difference between the two result from the other differences.

              The other fallacy in your argument is that products are priced to what markets will pay not based on cost. Without careful planning this fact will sometimes force a company to sell a product below cost.

            • Rob

              Another “video is free” convert I see. Reality is that it isn’t, reducing battery size and performance helps those cameras reduce in size, complexity and price. Any figures backing up that the Df is a net loss for Nikon or that the 262 was merely a marketing ploy from Leica?

              I bought a D90 when it came out, from what I remember of it I don’t think Nikon made too much effort to include video, no auto focus and no manual controls for anything, these days people want minimum 4K, stereo audio inputs and the complete bag of goodies that are available in a good video camera. I think it is great that camera companies are pushing the technology to make these things work but it doesn’t come without effort and compromise to the devices. So I will continue to drool over offerings that are dedicated to what I like to see in camera tech, when these companies offer to remove a feature I don’t use and offer the product for much less for the another device with features I don’t use then I can only congratulate the manufacturer.

          • jaygreen55

            All they’d have to do is put a DX sensor into a DF body.

      • Doesn’t the crazy price make it seem more like a proper Nikon product?

        • David Peterson

          Let’s just double the price of EVERYTHING! Make it all seem like a “proper” product. Presto.

          • I mean the rumored price being implausibly high makes the rumor more plausible 😉 If it’s just a B.S. rumor then — well-played!

    • Rob

      They should do a video free version, Leica has done well in my mind with the 262.

  • Szilárd Mátrai

    Still no reliable info/rumors about a new Nikon F-Mount FX MILC in a D800-sized body fully packed with innovative Sony-A7-like features.

    • He he, spot on 🙂

    • akkual

      Which innovative feature are you talking about? You mean 400 shots worthy of battery? Non-existing weather sealing? Granted, the EVF+MF aid is nice, but that’s about it and it still drains the battery.

      • Szilárd Mátrai

        – well I don’t need weather sealing into the studio, nor outside
        – EVF, overexpose-underexpose warning
        – gyroscope, gps for landscaping outside
        – focus peaking with or without magnification
        – stabilized sensor for all kind of glasses
        – full coverage of AF points not only some unreliable shit in the middle with misaligned AF module (remember, D800 owners, the left AF issue?)
        – no mirror shake, full electronic 1st curtain available
        – face with near-eye detection, very useful to put a model to the 2/3 or right/left of the frame into focus without re-framing where top DSLR-s don’t even have a focus point … -> http://www.wallpapers76.com/photo/1768/Brooklyn-Decker-004.jpg – just an example how a conventional DSLR for thousands won’t cover the model’s face with a single AF point at least.. and a focus point coverage comparison with the “mighty” D4 .. http://i0.wp.com/thenewcamera.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AF-screen-img.jpg – it’s completely lol, Nikon sleepin’ wtf .. (same for Canon)..
        – exceptional optics from Zeiss, check this out (body jpeg) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/onskc5gku69y3cl/AABwP6w3HbHe9yPqn45Ybl91a?dl=0 (compared to this, my D800 and 50 1.8G then 50 1.4G was nothing, same goes for the famous Nikon 85 1.4G vs. the Zeiss Batis 85mm 1.8 (that Zeiss is a beast weide open already)
        – no focus shifting issues with premium optics like at CaNikon

        – for my indoor studio work the ultimate tool, for my outdoor work just as well

        – weather sealing alone brings not much, the big issue with MILC is that people think it’s small. MILC = small. That’s wrong. MILC is a technology: no mirror, hence mirrorless. It’s only the manufacturers who miniaturized MILC cameras to the maximum (minimum) 🙂 but for bigger sensor you need bigger optics anyway. Battery life ? Sure, low. From a small battery which fits into a small body what do you await ?
        – Imagine putting a Sony A7R II’s technology into a D800-like body. Big battery 1, big battery 2 in the grip, or 8 Eneloops in the grip while you have another 8-16 in your pocket just like with DSLR-s, or alkalines if you’re in India and get no electricity etc…
        – you could grab the camera in gloves, like on the arctics lots of nature photographers do with big DSLR-s
        ..

        Hmm did I forgot something ?

        There’s sooo much more possibilities in a milc than in a DSLR.. milc still has to develop a lot, sooner or later big milc bodies will come and the DSLR will die out finally like dinosaurs.

        It’s not the question of technology, it’s the question of when manufacturers begin with it. I think most of them are still forcing the mirrored (DSLR) technology as long as there’s money in that. Frankly speaking: as long as they can convince even professionals that ultra-fast but not very accurate phase-detection AF is sufficiently enough for 50 megapixels and I haven’t mentioned the 10+ year old L glass series, except some – but the majority is still not ready for this roadmap (what both Canon and Nikon are following).

        They’re crazy. Taste the MILC world and you won’t regret. It doesn’t come from devil 🙂

        Film was vinyl, DSLR is CD, MILC is wav/flac or USB stick. Think about what happened in the audio world and then find the correlations with the imaging world.

        DSLR is dead already – almost. Good for sports, action. That’s all. I would never f* ever use a D4, D5, or even any kind of DSLR in the studio. No f* way…

    • Wade Marks

      Mirrorless has a lot of flaws still. As others have pointed out, the EVF still has a nasty lag that cannot yet match an OVF, the battery life is really bad, AF tracking is lacking, etc.

      And if you want telephoto lenses, you’re really back to big lenses which negates any advantage of a smaller mirrorless body.

      • Singani Mamiya

        Battery life is approximately 10 times that of a roll of film (or even 40 times that of a roll of MF 120 film), and 100% to 30% compared to a DSLR, depending on how much live view you use.

        The AF system is on par with a DSLR. Some things work better (Eye AF tracking, overall focus precision), some a bit worse (sports tracking). See the A7R II review on dpreview.

        Your big super tele lenses won’t shrink much, but your everyday equipment will. My Sony combo fits into a much smaller bag, and that bag alone is 1 kg less then my old bag for the Nikon.

        I can’t understand the whining.

        • Why are you comparing battery life to _film_ when defending mirrorless? The thing I love about DSLRs is that chances are if you pick it up it’s good to go: Oops battery at one bar? Plenty. Left camera switched on in bag and bumping around for a few days? No big deal. With mirrorless you can easily find yourself with a brick. I speak as a casual enthusiast grabbing a camera going out the door.

          To put it another way, film SLRs with manual focus had a battery life 1000x film and it was one of their best features.

        • JTK3

          There’s a guy who shoots an A7 for surf photography locally – if he ever posts a sharply focused shot of a surfer in action it will be his first. Now this guy may be a tool when it comes to a camera, but considering the subject, the camera may be the tool. A bit worse? This guy shoots junk consistently.

          • Singani Mamiya

            But what is your point? The original A7 has not the best AF system of them all (A6000, A7 II and A7R II are better) nor would anyone suggest the A7 for serious sports photography. And if he is maybe just a bad photographer, it’s hardly Sony’s fault.

    • Komalkumar

      I like what Leica has done with SL which is almost like 800 size body… If Nikon can come up with pro MILC with a mount like that of sony which can adapt to almost all mounts of lenses…. thats what i have been waiting for…

  • Sawyerspadre

    I think the point of the post is that there are NO reliable rumors for a D400.

    • exactly, at least I do not have any

      • Thom Hogan

        Nor do I other than a statement from someone within Nikon Japan who should know that it’s back on the agenda.

        I can think of a couple of reasons why no credible rumors, but the one that worries me is this: this latest attempt is a rush effort or still far off (take your pick). In other words, prototypes haven’t yet appeared in the wild or made the rounds at Nikon subsidiaries.

        The design part other than the performance aspects (sensor, AF, video, etc.) is easy: take the D810 body and scale it to DX form, then put in the D7200/D750 menu changes. One would hope that the AF is derived from the new D5 system, that the video goes beyond 1080P/60 MPEG, and that the sensor manages 10 fps. Voila, credible D400.

        • Bob Newman

          “take the D810 body and scale it to DX form, then put in the D7200/D750 menu changes.”
          Not so simple, since it needs a new mirror box mechanism and a new shutter. Maybe the D7x00 shutter will do. Maybe the D7x00 mirror box mech will do. Then what you essentially have is a D7x00 – so that approach doesn’t seem to work. More likely, I would think, is rebuild the D7x00 platform using the D750 construction principle. Since the D5500 is already built that way, that seems to be way it’s going. Then speed up the mirror mech. Rely on E lenses for aperture control at high FPS (means not having to develop a high speed aperture actuator, which seems to be problematic).

          I think the more interesting question is whether this camera is the D7300, or whether Nikon get rid of the mode wheel and calls it the D9x00.

          • Thom Hogan

            That’s funny. The D750 is built off the D610, which was built off the D7000. Nikon has what I call “platforms.” They know how to scale those platforms to different models (DX, FX, lower end, higher end). They ping-pong between models as they iterate the basics (mirror, shutter, etc.). I’d take that for granted in what I wrote.

            • Bob Newman

              Certainly, the mirror and shutter mechanism of the D610 went into the D750, but the body construction is completely different. Nikon made a big thing of the ‘monocoque’ construction of the D750 and the adoption of the Sereebo composite. The construction principles are different, from one built round the mirror box to one built off the front plate. Below is the graphic that they used for the D5300, the first camera that they built that way. There it shows what you call the metal ‘frame’ in the D5200, with the mirror box nestling inside. That construction has never applied to the magnesium framed models, which use the (magnesium) mirror box as a structural ‘frame’. The idea that the D750 is a ‘D610 at heart is a complete non-starter, it is arranged completely differently. If you want to call a ‘platform’ the basic mechanical organisation, then it is completely different. I call a ‘platform’ the set of basic mechanisms, which can be arranged around a new ‘frame’ relatively easily with CAD. Sure, your ‘platform’ can be scaled – mine can’t, because a DX mirror mechanism is different from an FX, and so on. The problem with your ‘scale a D810’ is that Nikon haven’t got a fast DX mirror/shutter/aperture mech, unless they go back to the D2 which the D300 used. I don’t believe that is a runner for a whole number of reasons, not least the need to get a decent margin from a camera, especially if its being sold in quite low numbers.

            • Thom Hogan

              All you’re saying Bob is that Nikon is continuing to invest in changing the four basic camera platforms that they have for the future. That future requires manufacturing and cost simplifications, particularly towards alignment, which is why Nikon is doing what they’re doing now.

              Put a different way, you can expect a D7300 or D650 to incorporate the D750 changes.

              But a D300 followup? No. If it’s done as expected, it would be on a different platform, currently the D810 platform. That platform has a metal chassis extending throughout. Yes, the mirrorbox still mounts into that chassis, but the chassis isn’t just a simple metal back frame as it is in the high consumer platform.

              Nikon might surprise us, I don’t know. But my expectation at this point would be that a D400 would mimic the D810 changes, not the D750 changes.

            • Bob Newman

              “All you’re saying Bob is that Nikon is continuing to invest in changing the four basic camera platforms that they have for the future.”

              It becomes very hard indeed to understand what you mean by ‘platform’. The D5300 and D750 were ground-up redesigns of the basic structure, so by your definition of ‘platform’, new platforms. Not by mine, which defines ‘platform’ essentially by the mechanism, not the structure – which changes quite radically from generation to generation, so the D800 was very different from the D700 in detail structure, even though it used the same materials. The D810 is quite similar (though actually, once you look at the detail, a complete redesign) even though it uses different materials. Your idea that the structural arrangements can just be scaled doesn’t hold water, many of the key components, like the lens mount, shutter, electronics, aperture mech, don’t scale simply. So, though the D7100 and D610 might look similar, in fact they share very little, they are different platforms.

              “But a D300 followup? No. If it’s done as expected, it would be on a different platform, currently the D810 platform. That platform has a metal chassis extending throughout. Yes, the mirrorbox still mounts into that chassis, but the chassis isn’t just a simple metal back frame as it is in the high consumer platform.”

              Sorry, Thom. You are simply wrong on this, however much you assert otherwise. The basic magnesium ‘frame’, which is also the base of the mirror box, has been replaced by a plastic (probably Sereebo) one in the D810. I don’t know where you got your story about the casting of the frame and the thicker, simpler ones in the D810 from, but it’s nonsense. So, just to illustrate the point. The first photo is the back view of the D800 mirror box base, the two arms extended backwards mount the sensor frame, and are presumably what would fracture. The second photo is the same part from the D810. Note that it’s completely plastic. There is no other ‘magnesium frame’ than this part in the D800, and in the D810 it isn’t magnesium. So, the structural difference between a D9x00 built like a D810 and one built like a D750 is probably that the D750 one is stronger, because it will be designed around the material, rather than a fix for a body designed round a different material.

            • Thom Hogan

              You seem to think that platforms stay exactly the same over multiple generations. If a platform gets redesigned, you throw out the notion of platform. At any given time in Nikon’s long history, they’ve redeveloped key platforms for all future bodies that use it. Indeed, lately, they’ve been ping-ponging the high-consumer platform quite a bit trying to take cost out of it.

            • Bob Newman

              “You seem to think that platforms stay exactly the same over multiple generations. If a platform gets redesigned, you throw out the notion of platform.”

              No, not at all. I just say that every now and then a new ‘platform’ is developed. Times when there is more than an incremental change from one model to the next. So, the structure and design of the low end Nikons could be traced back to the D40, with incremental changes being made one model to a next. Come the D5300, it was built in a completely different way, so it becomes a new ‘platform’.
              Same, as it happens between the D610 and D750 (completely new construction due to availability of a new material).
              Same, strangely, between the D800 and D810, adoption of completely different materials (even though they look similar on the outside). Outside looks are not a good measure of ‘platform’. Dismantle a D300 and you find that practically every mechanical bit in it is interchangeable with a D2. Do the same with a D700 and you find that practically every mechanical bit in it is interchangeable with a D3.
              Dismantle a D90, you find that almost every mechanical part is common with a D70 and D80. Do the same with a D7000 and you find everything has changed. That’s a new platform. So, no, I don’t think that they stay exactly the same, I just think when everything changes at once, that makes a new platform, at least, if the term ‘platform’ has any meaning whatsoever. I’d be interested to know how you define ‘platform’, if you’re happy to say it’s the same ‘platform’ when everything changes.

            • Thom Hogan

              Having seen some of the internal charts, my definition of Nikon “platform” and yours are different. Yes, platforms undergo complete updates from time to time. No, Nikon doesn’t really think of them as “a different platform.” The platform occupies the same design space as before. In many ways, it’s modeled much like the automobile industry, though not marketed that way.

            • Bob Newman

              I know a lot about automobile industry platforms, having been involved in the development of the systems which support them. The automobile industry is where I got my definition from. In the automobile industry, a complete redesign would indeed count as a new platform. So, for instance, if you look at what you might call the VW Golf platform (nowadays supports 19 vehicles from 5 manufacturers) which is sometimes called the ‘A’ platform, that has been through 5 complete redesigns, each time becoming a new platform, The current is the A5. The platform consists of the common basic mechanisms (suspension, drivechain arrangements (to take a range of drivechains which conform to the same mechanical interface), brake arrangements, a standardised floorpan (now parameterised in CAD to allow different wheelbases from the same platform) and so on.
              That’s the way I refer to ‘platform’. So once again, the D7x00 and D6x0 would not be on the same platform, since the common basic mechanisms (mirror, shutter) are different.
              We can do a VW style genealogy on the Nikon platforms, and it doesn’t fit your definitions, which are just plain wrong. Here, vertical is major revisions, horizontal is derivation.

              So we go

              D1
              v
              D2>D200>D300
              v
              D3>D700
              v
              D4>D800
              v
              D5> ?

              D100
              v
              D70>D50>D80>D90
              v
              D7000>D7100>D7200

              D40>D40X->D60>D3000
              v
              D5000>D3100>D5100>D3200>D5200
              v
              D5300>D5500>?

              D600>D610>Df
              v
              D750>?

              D810 (now only has mirror and aperture mechanism commonality with the D4 platform)

              That’s based on commonality of components and basic structures, like an automotive platform. You ‘platforms’ put a number of models on the wrong platform (like, for instance the D700 and D800, which clearly share platforms with the D3 and D4 on the basis of common parts and structural arrangements, not the D300 as you would have). So, I don’t know which internal charts you saw, but they were clearly not about the engineering derivation – most likely they were roadmap charts showing the model sequence, but not the engineering base. They are often different. For instance, the current VW Passat is based on the same platform as the Golf, while previous Passats used a different platform from the contemporaneous Golf.

              The key point here is that there is not a platform for a ‘D400’ unless it uses the D7000 platform, since after the D3, Nikon’s top level platform, on which the D200 and D300 had been based, went FX and as I pointed out, that means fundamentally different structural arrangements and basic components (it isn’t simply a case of scaling, as you suppose).

            • Bob, This is a great analysis of Nikon’s camera platforms. In fact, it may explain why a D300 replacement was never brought to market since they no longer had a platform to base it on and perhaps developing a platform was considered too costly.

            • Bob Newman

              Thanks Mitchell. Nice to see that at least one person has understood my point. If you look at the mirror box/shutter/aperture mech of the D300 it is identical to the D2. If Nikon is to make an 8/10 FPS DX camera they need an 8/10 FPS mirror box/shutter/aperture mech. I suspect the problem is the aperture mech (Thom tells us that this is one of Nikon’s major repair issues) – in which case my speculation suggests that the E lenses might allow the D7x00 mech to speed up a bit.

        • Brian

          Thom I can’t think of a single other person out there that has stoked the D400 fire more then you, going back several years. Not sure why now is different then any of the previous years that you claimed it was coming. Maybe someday something will come out and you can say you knew it all along.

          • Thom Hogan

            Well, I don’t disagree. Yes, I’ve written about the the D300/D400 transition a lot. But think about it for a moment.

            My customer tends to be the high enthusiast. Based upon site surveys and lots of historic data (I now have been doing this for 16 years), I can see that the person coming to my dslrbodies.com site runs basically from D7200 to D4s. Even if they’re a Canon user, they tend to be in that same range in the Canon lineup.

            So what are MY customers telling me? They want a D400. Thus shouldn’t I try to cover what’s happening there?

            In other words, it’s not my PERSONAL desire to have a D400 in the lineup that drives my writing about it, it’s the demand of my customer base that does. Funny thing is, Nikon should be seeing that same demand. Indeed, I know that they do.

            • Bob Newman

              The real problem with the extended desire for a ‘D400’ is that no-one really knows what a ‘D400’ would really be, except that some people decided that the D200 was a ‘mini D2X’ (it wasn’t) and that the D300 was a ‘mini D3’ (it wasn’t, it was essentially a D2X without the built in battery grip and with the D3 AF). So, what the ‘D400’ crowd wanted was a ‘mini D4’. They didn’t get one, simply because Nikon didn’t have an up to date DX platform. Instead, they designed the D7000 platform to address what they saw as a larger market, somewhere between the D90 and D300 markets, effectively replacing both. They won’t get a ‘mini D5’, either, for the same reason that they didn’t get a ‘mini D4’. Now we’re possibly at the stage where the third evolution of that platform will give them most of what they want (though since it will likely use the D750 construction principle, it will by your definition be a new platform). Such a camera will be very, very close to the 7DII (which also has a plastic chassis) which is part of its competition. The problem is, that the next evolution of the D7x00 line simply doesn’t leave any room for a ‘D400’ (which of course it wouldn’t be called anyway under the new naming scheme). I have speculated that they might split the line, with a D7300 and a variant of the same camera with the press and turn UI rather than a mode dial, plus the extra back button. But really, is that enough of a difference to make two cameras? I wouldn’t think so. What they could do, if they are really smart, is re-run the D750 (which I’m pretty sure was originally developed as the next in the D6x0 line), so start it as a ‘new series’, the D9500 (9xxx because that is the next DX range up, and ‘5’ to echo the D5). I wonder if that would keep the ‘D400’ crowd happy.

            • Thom Hogan

              Huh? The D300 was feature for feature the D3 except in DX form. Nikon made huge emphasis of that when they introduced it with the D3 at the same event. It was not a D2x in any way. It had a different AF system, for example, the D3 one. It used all the D3 bits because it was designed in conjunction with the D3.

              You also keep talking about DX versus FX platforms, which I’ve told you before is incorrect. That’s NOT the way Nikon designs. They currently have four platforms: consumer low end (all DX), consumer high end (D7200, D610, D750 all were designed off of this), pro small body (D810 is the only body currently using it, but back in the day the D300/D700 were both designed off of it), and pro large body (currently only D4s). Those are the four platforms, and Nikon will make them in DX or FX form, and has proven that they will.

            • Bob Newman

              “Huh? The D300 was feature for feature the D3 except in DX form. Nikon made huge emphasis of that when they introduced it with the D3 at the same event. It was not a D2x in any way. It had a different AF system, for example, the D3 one. It used all the D3 bits because it was designed in conjunction with the D3.”

              Sorry Thom, you’re confusing Nikon’s marketing with the actuality. The D300 had almost nothing in common with the D3, except the AF unit, the electronics and the styling. The cameral mechanism for the D300 was the D2X. Same shutter, same mirror and aperture mechanism. The D3 had a different shutter, different mirror mechanism, different aperture mechanism. If your ‘platforms’ mean anything, the D300 was built on the D2 platform (which was why it could only do 8FPS against the D3’s 9FPS). Obviously, had it used the D3 mechanism, it would have been able to do 9 FPS. But it couldn’t.

              “You also keep talking about DX versus FX platforms, which I’ve told you before is incorrect. That’s NOT the way Nikon designs.”

              You might have told me its incorrect, but it isn’t. You’re wrong and I doubt Niko has shared with you the detail of how it designs cameras. Your definition of ‘platforms’ is way off. There is a very simple reason why DX and FX platforms are different. The frame size is different. That means that the shutter size is different. The mirror size is different. The structure that holds them together needs to be differently proportioned. So, if you define ‘platform’ as something that includes both the D300 and D700, then it means nothing at all. The D300 and D700 camera mechanisms have almost nothing in common. The D300 was based on the D2 ‘platform’, the D700 on the D3 ‘platform’ – almost everything about the D700 was the same as the D3, apart from the built-in battery grip and the VF. It looks like your ‘platforms’ are based on appearance rather than anything substantive about structure or mechanism.
              So, what presently are Nikon’s ‘platforms’. They are:
              D3x00 platform. Probably obsolescent, this was the common platform with the D5x00 until the D5300, which was a complete structural redesign.
              D5x00 platform. Will probably provide the D3500 as well, the first camera to use the Sereebo monocoque, same shutter, mirror and aperture mech as the D3x00 platform.
              You have to count these as different platforms because the cameras are structured completely differently. They use the same mechanics.
              D7x00 platform. Different shutter, mirror and aperture mechanism from the D5x00 (separate aperture motor from D7100). Will probably be superseded by a Sereebo monocoque.
              D6x0 platform. Probably obsolescent. I reckon there won’t be another D6x0 – that was the D750. Not the same as the ‘D7x00’ platform since it has a different shutter and mirror mech.
              D750 platform. Like the D5300, is a new platform because it’s constructed a completely different way (and other big changes, like turning the battery round).
              D810 platform. The D800 was built on the D4 platform, but the changes for the D810 have been substantial enough to merit it being a platform on its own (plastic chassis – see you’ve not taken that further, having been presented with the evidence, also different shutter).
              D4 platform, clearly about to be replaced by the D5. Interesting to see whether the D820 is built on the D5 or D810 or redesigned again to a D750 type structure, I’d say one of the two latter.
              Simply, your ‘platforms’ don’t work. You put cameras designed and constructed completely differently into the same ‘platform’. Like for instance the D300 and D810. They really have nothing in common. D300 mag chassis, D810 polymer. D300 D2 mirror mech, D810 D4 mirror mech, etc, etc.

            • Thom, What you are describing are marketing segment, not engineering platforms. Engineering platforms are more basic and may be productized into various products spanning market segments.

            • Thom Hogan

              Okay, now to the next point: that you believe a D7300 limits what they can do with a D400. Sure. Just like a D300 limited the D90. What were those differences again? Build quality, a few part choices.

              But a D7300 isn’t due until mid to late 2017. From a marketing point that makes perfect sense: D400 in early 2016 that establishes some new DX capabilities (perhaps 4K, higher frame rate, who knows what else they’ve apportioned for it?) Then the following year they come out with a reduced build quality body that catches up to the “pro” body, but at a lower price. Hmm. Just like they did with the D90. Heck, they even added a feature to the D90: video.

              Please stop trying to rewrite Nikon’s actual history and how they actually put together products.

            • Bob Newman

              “Okay, now to the next point: that you believe a D7300 limits what they can do with a D400. Sure. Just like a D300 limited the D90. What were those differences again? Build quality, a few part choices.”

              Well, apart from the fact that they were completely different cameras with completely different performance. D300 was essentially a compact D2x with D3 AF and electronics. D90 was developed D70, with slower frame rate, lesser AF. D7000 was not simply as developed D70, it was a structurally and mechanically a new platform. Now, with the D7200 it has 51 point AF and can do 7FPS (at least mechanically – needs crop mode to do it). So, next iteration, where’s it going?

              “But a D7300 isn’t due until mid to late 2017. From a marketing point that makes perfect sense: D400 in early 2016 that establishes some new DX capabilities (perhaps 4K, higher frame rate, who knows what else they’ve apportioned for it?)”

              Actually, early 2017 if it’s on a 2 year cycle. Still, as I said earlier, that doesn’t preclude Nikon doing a ‘DX D750’ as opposed to a ‘D400’. It depends what you think is a ‘D400’, if it’s anything more than a number (and it won’t be called ‘D400’, that’s an FX number). I really don’t know what you mean by ‘D400’, but Nikon won’t be using the D2 mech again, so about all there is, is a further development of the D7x00 mech, maybe upgraded (though really, what were the D750 upgrades, when it came to it) rebranded as D9x00, as I suggested. Call that a ‘D400’ if you like.

            • Interesting conversation — I think you are placing different emphases in defining platform, as exemplified by this line:

              “The D300 had almost nothing in common with the D3, except the AF unit, the electronics and the styling.”

              In other words, the D300 was the D3 _computer_ platform surrounded by the D2x _mechanical_ platform. Thom is first and foremost a software guy, and second a computer hardware guy. See where I’m going with this?

              Next: which parts of a Nikon camera are more expensive to develop and represent a greater competitive advantage? Right now the answer is sensors, autofocus, and software. Nikon lenses are a wash with Canon. Pentax produces bodies that are superior to either except for AF and JPEG processing. Sony can’t get as much out of its sensors as Nikon does. (And if Canon switched to Sony sensors … look out.) If producing good AF systems was easy and cheap then Nikon wouldn’t have stuck with basically one system for eight years and everyone else would have great AF.

              My guess is that most of the mechanical stuff in camera bodies is pretty ho-hum. (You don’t see videos showing Nikon’s boutique engineers hand-polishing shutter boxes. And plenty of otherwise irrelevant companies produce perfectly good shutters.) But a 10fps DX shutter box may be a significant investment for a small market; everything else is in their parts bin.

            • Thom Hogan

              “The D300 was essentially a compact D2x…”

              You have a different definition of “essentially” than I do. Let’s see, different sensor, different electronics including EXPEED and the new Picture Controls (and 14-bit), UDMA, different frame (yes frame), different battery and power system, different AF system, different LCD, different shutter (yes, it’s different, and it’s rated differently), different viewfinder specs (might be same prism), addition of a flash, etc. Yep, essentially a D2x ;~).

              “Won’t be called a D400.”

              Having talked extensively with the Tokyo marketing folk, they seem to go back and forth on numbering schemes. I’d say the current naming system is broken. They do have the D9000 name open if they want to make four digits DX forever. But forever is nearly over when they do that, with only 2xxx and 8xxx being left available, and all that those initial numbers imply. With FX, 500 and 900 are still available, with the same problems. I suppose that one might say they have just enough numbering left to end the DSLR era. Assuming that they’ve decided to end the DSLR era ;~).

            • Bob Newman

              You really need to think what you mean by ‘platform’. You include in the same platform the D200 and D800 which have ‘ different sensor, different electronics including EXPEED and the new Picture Controls (and 14-bit), UDMA, different frame (yes frame), different battery and power system, different AF system, different LCD, different shutter (yes, it’s different, and it’s rated differently), different viewfinder specs (might be same prism), addition of a flash, etc.’. You’d also be arguing that the D7000 and D7100 are different ‘platforms’ since they have different AF, and that every new Dn model is a new platform (which actually, it is, you’re wrong on that, too).

              So, trying to argue against my platform definitions, you jettison your own. Why do I say the D300 is based on the D2X rather than the D3? This is because the D300 has the same shutter, the same mirror mech, the same aperture mech, essentially the same ‘frame’ (given that the ‘frame’ for these Nikon monocoques is essentially the mirror box) which is also essentially the same as the D200 (see D200 and D300 compared below, under the skin, they are more or less identical). In each case the D3 has different. Yes, it’s been updated and revised between D2 and D3, but the structure is just the same.

              So, essentially, I’m saying that ‘platform’ is defined essentially by the mechanical/structural arrangements, and that the electronics and firmware change between models. You might have a different idea, but at this stage you really do need to sort out what is your idea, because in trying to muster arguments against me, you’re undercutting what you have said.

              But the core of the argument is that based on your (very fuzzy) definition of ‘platform’ you claim that it would be simple for Nikon to ‘scale’ the (plastic chassis) D810 to make a ‘D400’. That’s nonsense.

              ‘Having talked extensively with the Tokyo marketing folk, they seem to go back and forth on numbering schemes. I’d say the current naming system is broken.’

              It’s not very broken. The only cameras that have gone outside are the Df (which was very much a special) and the D750, which isn’t really very far outside. Nikon decided to market it as the start of a new series (they said as much) between the D6x0 and D8x0. D700 would be the natural series starter, but it was taken, so they went to D750. They did say all that when the camera was released. Somehow people seem to think it was a major revision of the D700, so now major revisions go ’50’. Nope, the successor to the D810 will be D820, and the successor to the D750 will be D760.
              Maybe there will be a D400, if Sony can be persuaded to slash the price of FX sensors (it’s possible, since they are running out of things to do with the old big geometry fab lines). It will be much like a D5500, only FX.

            • Brian

              I understand your website fans desire it but what’s the point of telling them it’s coming for years now when you have no solid proof it is. False hope seems to be a bit more harsh then the truth. Also, you of all people should realize Nikon doesn’t care about what anyone thinks. I own 50K worth of their gear and one of their top shills calls me a WEEKEND WARRIOR because I shoot wildlife.

            • Thom Hogan

              It seems that no matter how many times I repeat this story people still blame me for just reporting the news. The D400 was going to be introduced in 2011/2012 originally. The quake and flood changed Nikon’s plans. The quake and flood changed Nikon’s plans for the D4, D800, D400, and I think another camera IIRC.

              Then Nikon started another prototype of a different version. For reasons we’ve never been told, but I believe are due to sensor performance versus changes in the market at the time, that prototype never appeared.

              I could have simply never mentioned anything in the future, but curiously, one of the things that people keep telling me they want is more forward looking articles. Indeed, that’s why I resurrected the coming year predictions article this year (I hadn’t been doing it for the last couple of years).

              Stop blaming the messenger.

            • Brian

              You need to decipher rumor from news. Not only was this never a solid rumor it was the opposite, everything Nikon said and did contradicted the release of a D400. I have emails with you going back to 2011 -2012 with you telling you it wasn’t coming. I had real good information back then that I no longer have but I was told not happening then or anytime in the future…But, like I said, sooner or later they will make a DX people feel is worthy to call it the D400 even if it’s called the D8383838

            • Thom Hogan

              I do attempt to clearly state rumor versus news. Just in case you’re not paying attention to what I’m writing: I’ve been told by someone who should know within Nikon that the D400 is “back on.” That’s basically rumor, as I can’t currently get a collaborating source.

              Nikon’s a big and interesting organization. In the past I’ve encountered several examples where half the company thought one thing and the other something else, including which products would actually make it to market. The Nikon 1 and the Nikon Df were products that went back and forth in that, for instance.

            • Brian

              So to clarify is there any more information that would lead you to believe the D400 will be here anytime soon then there has been since 2010?

            • Thom Hogan

              I think I’ve been very consistent about the way I’ve written this: a source that should know in Tokyo says that the D300s replacement project is back “on”. No timeframe, no details, no nothing other than there’s a project at Nikon working on it. That’s why I haven’t really said much about when. I don’t know when. Technically, given that projects go through further evaluation downstream, I don’t know that a product will actually come out. However, Nikon is in cost cutting mode at the moment. They’re not likely to put in motion projects that they don’t think they’ll do and will bring them money.

            • Bob Newman

              I would expect Nikon to produce what would be called in the auto business ‘mules’, that is essentially, existing cameras with new components (such as sensors, etc) essentially to test out those components. So, one might imagine that when Nikon got their first run of the IMX071 that would eventually go into the D7000, they would have very likely put it into a D300 body (because they had it, while most of the D7000 was in development) to evaluate it. I would think it’s quite possible that people could confuse such mules with future products.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, they do that, but without revealing anything further, that’s not what I was referring to.

            • Bob Newman

              It seems very strange that they would put all the investment into the R&D for a ‘D400’ and then just can it. So far as I could see, the twin disasters brought forward new models, not cancelled them, as they equipped the refurbished lines for the new models, rather than the obsolescent ones they had been making. You’d have expected the ‘D400’ R&D to make it to the market in some form or other. Instead, no sign of it. Plus, of course, the D7000 spec was a decent indicator that there wasn’t a ‘D400’ planned, as was the D600. They both meant a significant range reconfiguration, that took sales that had previously gone to the D300.
              Possibly what was planned was before that range reconfiguration.

            • Thom Hogan

              I know of four cancelled Nikon DSLRs in 15 years, and one that waffled on the decision line for awhile (Df).

              It’s not at all strange that the twin disasters impacted Nikon. Nikon was seriously scrambling to restore volume. At least two DSLRs got delayed. Shutters were in short supply because their shutter supplier was impacted, and some new shutter designs also got delayed. Silly things like some plastic parts disappeared, because the supplier was wiped off the planet. In Japan, that was a real issue, because power was a problem for quite some time. Some small suppliers never rebuilt or recovered. The whole thing became a huge logistics nightmare.

              To Nikon’s credit, they managed the logistical challenges quite remarkably. But models got delayed, one seems to have gotten cancelled, and it appears that QC wasn’t where it needed to be, either.

              The D7000 spec wasn’t an indicator of anything other than the D70 line was still iterating as planned. Indeed, one thing Nikon made sure of is that this bread-and-butter line stayed on course. The D7100 and D7200 appeared on the schedule expected, with pretty much the changes as expected.

            • Bob Newman

              “I know of four cancelled Nikon DSLRs in 15 years, and one that waffled on the decision line for awhile (Df).”
              I wonder at what stage they got cancelled. After Nikon had paid for all the tooling for the mouldings/castings (that stuff’s not cheap, even with modern CAD/CIM techniques), when they’d developed all the circuit boards and the firmware, or when they were simply a placeholder on the road map. Plus, of course, what type of ‘DSLR’ they were. Maybe the D700s got cancelled (possibly due to lower than expected D700 sales) but if the D700s was to the D700 what the D300s was to the D300, then quite likely there wasn’t a lot of investment in it. In the case of the Df, I would expect that the decision to go was made before Nikon committed to volume tooling and the like, possibly on the basis of a proof of concept mule based on the D600 platform with low volume components (CNC and ALM).

              As for the twin disasters, yes, Nikon’s recovery was exemplary, but one thing was noticeable – like the dinosaur killer, few dinosaurs made it through the event, essentially, when production restarted, it restarted with new models.

            • Thom Hogan

              They got cancelled at different stages is my understanding. I also know of at least one case where the externals/structure stayed the same while they abandoned and then redid most of the electronics.

              And yes, restarting production pretty much had to start with new models due to supplier issues.

            • Thom, Perhaps your sample is biased and not representative of the total market and possible Nikon has other data that leads them to a different conclusion?

            • Thom Hogan

              I’m sure my sample IS biased. Biased towards all those that bought a D300, certainly. I do, after all, have a huge database of D300 owners that ordered my book on the camera.

              But let me just say this. Even though it took a convoluted route, my latest survey information eventually made its way to Tokyo to the right people. It did not get there because they did not want it. It got there because they wanted it, but have no simple way to ask me directly (;~).

              While Nikon does surveys of their own, as I’ve reported before those surveys tend to have a tremendous number of problems to them. Moreover, they aren’t done regularly in ways that can track shifts and help you predict where those shifts end up. I run two n sample surveys regularly backed with open surveys that use the same question base, which is one of the reasons why I can say with some confidence that the likelihood that your gear gets repaired correctly by Nikon on the first pass is slowly going down.

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      ‘True although Nikon could surprise us again (like the D3 / D300 dual launch)

      • El Aura

        Though that dual surprise was before Nikonrumors came into being. It might be more difficult to pull off now.

        • Correct, I started NR few months after the D3/D300 announcement.

          • El Aura

            The “Copyright © 2008-2015 NikonRumors.com” seemed to confirm my memory on this.

            • 🙂

            • Thom Hogan

              Admin: Copyright 2008-2015 Owner isn’t a valid Copyright mark. It should simply be Copyright 2015 Owner (soon to be 2016). Date ranges are not allowed in a Copyright registration. For compilations, you use the latest date and your re-register each year.

            • So I have to use comas for previous years if I want to include them?

              Insert a space after the “(c)” symbol and put in the current year in numerals, as in “2011.” If this is a new edition of a work you published in an earlier year, you should also insert the earlier year, followed by a comma and a space, and then put in the current year, as in “2000, 2011.”

              http://info.legalzoom.com/correctly-format-copyright-20057.html

            • Thom Hogan

              Maybe. Last time I looked carefully at the US Copyright Act (DCMA edition ;~) only one year can be specified with a registration. Personally, if you really feel that you need to assert Copyright for previous years, I’d use a form like this:

              Copyright 2016 Owner
              portions Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002 Owner

              I’ve had things kicked back to me by the Copyright Office simply because there were previously claimed items in the current claim. All they wanted was proper attribution for the previous claims.

            • El Aura

              Funny that most sites follow this pattern, eg:
              “All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 – 2015 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved”

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, and I can point out that I was an expert witness in a case where the judge ruled that “non-conforming.”

            • El Aura

              In regard to a website and its legal disclaimer? And I would be surprised if this disclaimer at the bottom of the page is the legal glue that holds everything together.

            • Thom Hogan

              The legal glue is registering your Copyright. When you do, you’ll get kicked if you have a non-compliant declaration (or at least you should).

              The Copyright DATERANGE Owner thing has persisted since the early days of software, for some reason. It’s one of those “hey if they did it that way I’ll do it that way things,” and it persists for those folks that don’t actually register. Indeed, it’s a pretty good indicator that Copyright claim hasn’t been officially registered.

            • El Aura

              Why not read it as a shorthand for ‘This product contains copyrighted material created and registered over many years, some of it going back to xxxx, for details please refer to the relevant legal filings’. My point being: This disclaimer doesn’t have any binding legal meaning. It is merely there to remind the public that they are dealing with copyrighted material.

              And as much as I know, you normally don’t have to register your copyright (to quote Wikipedia: ” but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration”). There are default rules for what is copyrighted and what is not. You have to register trademarks but that is something else. To further quote Wikipedia:

              “the use of a copyright notice […], ©, followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder – Several years may be noted if the work has gone through substantial revisions.”

              “the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic”

            • Thom Hogan

              It’s quite possible that the law changed over the past few years. However, the trial in which I was involved hinged partly around a year in the middle of the range that was asserted. The Copyright owner was challenged on this: did they actually file registration during that year? And what was the actual violation?

              Yes, the Berne Convention makes Copyright an automatically assumed right. However, and this is important: if you don’t assert it in a way that I recognize as valid (or don’t assert it at all), I can successfully argue in court that my infringement was thus accidental.

              As I noted above, I prefer the “some portions…” wording. This makes it clear that some parts of the work were protected under an earlier assertion, and that the current parts of the work are protected under a current assertion.

            • El Aura

              But you don’t file registration by posting ©2008 on your website. And how do you by posting ©2015 (as you do your website) assert your rights to stuff posted in earlier years but by posting ©2010-2015 you do not?

            • Thom Hogan

              A Web site falls under a compilation/publication category, which has a set of rules that are a bit different than photos or books.

            • Yes, I’ve seen the range on many websites. Dpreview is owned by Amazon, so it is not like they don’t have any lawyers on staff.

          • Hanudiyan

            This makes me think, what brought me to NR in the first place. Or what article I first read.

            • Hah, good point, I wonder about that myself now 🙂

            • I think my first leak was the Nikon D700 brochure.

      • outkasted

        Preach

  • I Am Eagerly Waiting

  • Spy Black

    Hope springs eternal for DXers. 🙂 If this is true it’s gonna need 12fps to be competitive with it’s Canon counterpart.

    • Deep_Lurker

      No, a mere 8 fps will be accepted as long as it’s up to snuff in all other aspects. In particular, it needs to avoid having any specs worst than either the D300s or D7200. What’s wanted is not a “wow!” camera that pushes some spec to an extreme (at the expense of something else), but a “zen” camera that gets everything right.

      • Spy Black

        No, it’s gonna have to compete with the Canon offering, or it will be ripped to shreds. I have no dog in this race, I’m just pointing out the obvious.

        • JJ168

          +1
          If the info Brad Hill received is correct, it has to have AF that put current AF technology from both canikon to shamed if the price is going to double that of 7d2.

          • FelipeGR

            $1400 is the promo price (I believe it went as low as $1100 this season), regular $1800.

            I’m guessing close to $2000 wouldn’t be unrealistic.

            • Thom Hogan

              Correct. We’re now in the auto industry of the 80’s and 90’s form of pricing: if you want a discount, we’ll price it higher. Yippee, bigger discount for those that aren’t so anxious that they order sight unseen at retail.

            • FelipeGR

              Well that’s a seasonal discount, might also have to do with JPY-USD exchange rates.

              I paid the full $1800-1900 when it came out, which was also B&H/Adorama price, so all I paid “Extra” was sales tax.

            • Rick Bauer

              Could be worse. They could price like Jos. A. Banks.

        • Gregory Roane

          If it would offer a frame rate of 15, 30, or 60fps (ala the 1Nikon), tweaked, it would be a start.

          A 10fps with the mirror and expanded to the 15+ on sensor (via a flip of a switch?) could be one answer to the 7DII frame rate.

          • As I understand it, Nikon still wins on AF and dynamic range (although sports photographers tend to shoot as ISOs where Nikon’s DR advantage disappears) so presumably just equally the framer ate and buffer would probably assuage most people.

            Some kind of hybrid mirrorless thing sounds awesome but it also sounds very not Nikon and expensive.

  • DrNo666

    I cant really get this enourmous fashination of the possible d400. It was a different ballgame in 2007 and it would had made sense years ago. But now when FX is for consumers as well… just buy a d750 or a d810. If its the cropfactor u are after just buy a 1.4 extender….

    • Plug

      For sports or birds in flight a sharply higher frame rate is an advantage over the FX bodies you mention. For BIF compare a D400 + 300 PF with an FX body + 500 f4, particularly if you are less than wealthy and if you are in a demanding wild environment, and weight and ruggedness are issues. Then your 1.4 converter gives you extra reach and pairing a DX body with an FX body, as many wildlife photographers do, gives even greater flexibility with an appropriate set of lenses. This has been explained many times in this forum. If you don’t want a D300s replacement then fine, but there are clear palpable reasons why it would benefit others of which there appear to be many.

      • akkual

        You do realize that the frame rate limit is not about physical dimensions aka. sensor size, it is about megapixel amount of the sensor? If Nikon brings a faster than D750, it will definitely be FX and most likely the same sensor that on Sony A7s -lineup. Yeah, you might get better AF coverage for bird catching in DX, but I doubt Nikon will be more happy to put money on developing a larger AF area to FX than try do too wide product portfolio for pros and prolikes (which Nikon already does with D7200, D610, D750 and D810). And whaddayaknow, there’s one coming in D5 apparently, and that will come the defacto AF on next round of D750/810 and maybe D7200 too.

        • Thom Hogan

          Nikon has already brought the fastest frame rate of anyone to date: 60 fps. It’s on a 1″ sensor. So your argument is already proven wrong.

    • Coastalconn

      Clearly you do no shoot fast moving BIF, it’s more than crop factor for some of us… Just because you do not need a fast camera doesn’t mean that there aren’t other people that do need speed, buffer and killer AF with many at points in the subject, not just the middle of the viewfinder..

      • DrNo666

        My D4 has the speed and AF i need…. and before that my D3 did the job. The only thing i hear is here is that “people want it all but are not willing to pay for it” so then the possible D400 has become some kind of holy graal.

        • Coastalconn

          I’m not one of those people. I wanted it all and got it by selling all my Nikon gear and getting a 7d M2, 1D4 and a 500 F4. Money that Nikon could have had but they didn’t produce a camera I wanted. When they released the D7100B as I call it, since they just added a buffer that should have been there in the first place, I gave up and decided there was no reason to spend my money on a Nikon 500 F4 only to pair it with a 5/6 FPS camera. It was very clear to me that Nikon had decided to abandon my category of wildlife shooters. Full frame was not the answer for me as I shot with a D800 for quite awhile. Personally I would rather shoot a crop camera with the 500 than a full frame with a teleconverter and the 500 F4. Of course we are all different…

          • Thom Hogan

            Which is why I’ve pointed out again and again that not having a D400 is a very big mistake by Nikon. There’s no doubt that they’ve lost customers and will continue to as long as they have a CUSTOMER PERCEIVED gap in their lineup.

            Such gaps can be filled by a product or by superb marketing. Nikon currently has neither.

            • Rob

              Perception of what is professional and what is not is important. I think some of the hype for a D400 would be mitigated by pro DX lenses, a lot of enthusiasts would be happy knowing they can get pro quality lenses for their D7xxx, D5xxx and D3xxx, which is why Nikon need a pro DX body (and lenses!), it is a confidence vote for the whole system, even if they didn’t sell a lot of D400’s it would help their entire DX range.

            • Rick Bauer

              However, I followed your advice and picked up the D810 for sports. It worked beyond expectations, and I still have a place in my collection for a pro DX. They may very well have sold me two bodies instead of one. Don’t know if they planned it that way. Unlikely, considering I put Nikon marketing somewhere between SNAFU and FUBAR.

            • Coastalconn

              I agree about the D400, and what I have been seeing is a snowball effect with people not wanting to wait anymore. I have a pretty big following on FB of almost 19K people and my flickr page gets 10K+ image views a day. I almost exclusively shoot birds and mostly Osprey(in season),hawks and owls. I field many questions about switching to Canon. I generally diffuse the question by telling people to stick with what they have unless they mostly shoot what I do. Nikon has really missed the boat on people like me, and there are a lot of people like me that shoot avian in action, as I call it. Even a few of the last remaining people in DPR that frequent the D300 forum are starting to waiver…

    • David Swager

      Clearly you don’t understand. When using an extender (which I do use on lenses with a D810. I also shoot it at 1.2x crop to add 1 fps to the speed), you are basically taking what the lens can resolve and then smearing it over a larger area. With cropping on a DX sensor you are not only not degrading the lens, but you are using the best portion of it (the center) to cover the entire frame. A 300mm f/4 becomes a 450 f/4 with much less edge to edge drop off in quality and essentially no vignetting! Since, nothing is free, what you give up is high ISO performance with the smaller pixel sites compared to an equivalent MP FX sensor.

      Considering The D300 was one of Nikon’s best selling and best loved DSLRs, it is unbelievable they never followed it up. I wonder if they are just reluctant to admit their FX for Pros/DX for consumers strategy decision was just flat out wrong! With the 7D, it is the one area they have completely ceded to Canon without any competition. BTW, I think the D7200 is a fabulous value, but not competitive with the 7DmkII.

      • DrNo666

        Back then nikon only had 5 cameras in the dslr line up: d3 d700 d300 d90 d60… now its d4s d810 d810A d750 d610 d7200 d5500 d3300 and df.

        Back then they had only pro lenses for Fx. Now they have 3 available fx zooms for each category and alot of primes too.

        • David Swager

          The fact remains that there is a glaring hole in Nikon’s DSLR line up where an 8-10fps (14bit NEF), large buffer, button interfaced, DX body belongs. While Nikon has always been concerned with out of camera quality, there are significant gains that can be made post processing from APS-C sensor output. Not even considering the weight and size savings of lenses.

          And I have never understood the plethora of DX lenses in the line up. Having owned 4 DX bodies starting with the D70 (D300, D7100, D7200), the 18-20mm VR II is the only DX lens I’ve ever owned. Mainly because it is one of the few that makes sense.

          Bottom line is that Nikon was wrong that pros would only want FX and consumers would choose DX because of price. It might have looked that way 10 years ago, but today, the technical barriers have come down and both sides have reasons to choose both.

        • Thom Hogan

          Funny thing is that back when I had my newsletter over a decade ago, I wrote about this very thing. I predicted that Nikon would get to a 6-8 camera line back when they really had only 4.

          But that’s not the point. The point is how well these products are distributed through customer demand and need. Nikon currently has a serious middle gap, even though there’s one product in there (D610). It really should have middle overlap, because that’s where you can more easily make an up sell.

    • JTK3

      The D810 does fairly well as a moving wildlife or sports shooter with the battery grip – in DX it goes 7 fps with a deep buffer. I’ve used it to shoot surfers but shoot a gripped D300S at 8 fps when I can. Best for me by a wide margin would be a D400 or whatever they want to call it with native 10 fps, D7200-ish ISO performance and a D810-ish deep buffer. The D7200 only goes 17 or so NEFs at high speed and I have shortboard riders that do multiple cutbacks or other maneuvers that tap the D300S (but not my D3S or D810). Put out that camera and I’ll buy two.

  • Bob Newman

    This ‘D400’ thing is very wearisome. A small number of people seem to want to assume that Nikon is going to make a camera exactly to their specifications. ‘a semi-pro (or even higher) quality DX body’ could mean anything, but most likely be the next iteration of the D7000 line, the D7300, which on its next increment will exceed the D300 in every way. Especially since Nikon now has the 7DII to aim at, maybe we’ll see a slightly bigger increment than last time round.

    • peevee

      D7000 line is 70D competitor, not quite 7D2 competitor.

      • Bob Newman

        The D7x00 line sits somewhere between the Canon xxD and 7D lines, so it has to aim at both.

        • peevee

          I don’t see how is it above 70D line.

          • EnPassant

            Dual vs. single SD card slot.

            100% vs. 98% viewfinder.

            1,229,000 vs. 1,040,000 dots LCD.

            51 vs. 19 AF points.

            AF at -3 EV and with f/8 lenses vs. -0.5 and f/5.6

            27 RAWs or 100 JPEGs vs. 16 RAWs or 65 JPEGs continuous shooting.

            WiFi and NFC vs. WiFi only.

            Flat picture control vs. not.

            Sensor:

            24MP vs. 20MP

            Clearly better dynamic range at base ISO and better performance at high ISO.

            While Canon have some plus points that list is much shorter.

            The difference in specs for D610 vs. 6D is similar with the D750 being a step-up from D610.

            • peevee

              You compare 2 years newer D7200. Compare with the contemporary D7100 instead.

              There are advantages to D7100, but there are disadvantages too – no articulated screen, no decent focusing in video or live view, no WiFi in D7100, no touchscreen, slower continuous shooting (7fps vs 6 fps). The latter defines class, it is obviously not in the pro sport shooter 10fps class of 7D2. Pricing, at $1200 MSRP for all, also reflects exactly the same class of D7x00 and 70D, as well as size (7D2, as well as D300s, are significantly bigger).

            • EnPassant

              Of course do I compare the current cameras. It’s not Nikon’s problem that Canon are late with their releases! As far as I know it is not clear when a Canon 80D will be released. After all the 1DXII, 5DIV and 6DII are all expected next year. And the D7300 could come in spring 2017, maybe just half a year after 80D.

              So in fact Nikon then would have released two cameras in almost the same time frame as Canon made one upgrade. The question is which Canon camera you think is contemporary with D7200 when an 80D is coming 1.5 years later and only half a year before a D7300?

              Besides the D7100 have almost the same specs.

              Differences are AF to -2 EV, still better than 70D.

              No WiFi or flat picture control and its greatest weakness, the weak buffer memory.

              Also image processing is not as good at high ISO, so maybe equal with 70D there, but still better at low ISO.

              And Canon only can reach 7fps because it only have 20 vs. 24MP. however D7100 just like D7200 can also do 7fps in the 1.3x, 15MP crop mode.

              So yes, 70D is equal and better on some points when compared to D7100. But only Nikon in this class offers pro features like dual card slots, 100% viewfinder and -2/-3 EV focusing.

              And that is the point. The cameras may be same size and price. But Nikon is aiming higher while Canon make sure it doesn’t compete with 7DII. Same thing can be seen on full frame with Canon 6D clearly being the budget model built not to compete with 5DIII.

            • peevee

              And yet releasing something newer in lower class does not push it suddenly into another class. Rebel T6s is still a Rebel and does not compete with D7x00 line.

            • EnPassant

              Canon and Nikon both have several series of cameras with different level of both build and price. Or different classes as you prefer to call them.

              But that doesen’t mean they are the same as they are positioned differently. D7000 in effect replaced both D90 and D300s and therefore got a pro feature like dual card slots.

              Which cameras compete in the real world depends on individual needs, and not which class a camera belongs to.

              For exemple the fully articulating touch screen found on D5500 will win the competition vs. any D7x00 camera so far, as it is missing on those models.

    • Sakaphoto Graphics

      The D300 has better body construction than the D7200.

      • Bob Newman

        I think you probably mean ‘it uses different materials’. I very much doubt that Nikon would build any DX (or even FX, apart from the D5) in that way any more. The 7DII is built much like the D7200, so from a competition point of view, there’s no point Nikon pricing themselves out of the market by building the camera any different.

        • Coastalconn

          The 7dm2 has a full metal jacket, the D7200 does not. I think this is fairly important when shooting with a 500 F4 if you are tough on your gear like I am.. Most people probably know by now I switched to Canon because of the lack of the D400, but I still really want Nikon to release one…..

          • Bob Newman

            The 7DII’s ‘full metal jacket’ makes no difference whatsoever to how firmly your 500/4 is attached. The lens mount screws into the plastic mirror box, just as it does on the D7200, D810 and 5DIII. The ‘metal jacket’ is a wafer thin shell with essentially no structural impact whatsoever. It isn’t ‘full’ the baseplate is plastic. The only difference is that the D7200 has a plastic front cover, but then so did the D300, D3, D4, and so will the D5. All Nikons have a plastic front cover, it’s the way Nikon builds a camera, and it’s probably stronger than the thin magnesium of the 7DII.

            • catinhat

              > The lens mount screws into the plastic mirror box, just as it does on the D7200, D810 and 5DIII.

              Yes, and we’ve seen this being a BIG problem with the D810 with several posters on dpreview displaying photos of their badly damaged D810 with screws ripped off the mirror box which was seriously damaged in the process. This is an unforgivable design flaw in a $3000 camera. Apparently even a small impact can do major damage. All things considered, this part should have been metal before the shell itself, but if I were to choose both the shell and the mirror box would have been metal in the upper end bodies meant to be used with large heavy lenses.

            • Bob Newman

              “Yes, and we’ve seen this being a BIG problem with the D810 with several posters on dpreview displaying photos of their badly damaged D810 with screws ripped off the mirror box which was seriously damaged in the process. ”

              With the magnesium mirror boxes the mirror box itself used to crack – a common fault found in D2s, D3s and probably D4s when they are disassembled, and the fault with the D800 which caused Nikon to change the construction. The question really is which is worse, a visible fault which you get repaired or an internal one which just misaligns your sensor. With respect to ‘ an unforgivable design flaw in a $3000 camera’, since the competition is exactly the same and costs more, its possibly a forgivable fault.

              Still, as I was saying, unforgivable or not, the likelihood of Nikon giving the top end of their DX range something not in the D810 is small to nonexistent.

            • catinhat

              I’ve heard quite a bit of the D800 rear casing damage, but I have never heard anything of this nature about D200, D2X, D300, D700, D3/S/X, or any other model. I’m inclined to think that this is another design issue specific to the D800 line of cameras. Whether the cure in the D810 is better than the disease in the D800 is not entirely obvious to me. Perhaps the mirror box should be made of steel not magnesium.

            • Bob Newman

              As I said, in the magnesium mirror box models, the damage is invisible. People who strip down them for spare parts often find cracked mirror boxes.
              If you want a steel mirror box, you are of course welcome to design and manufacture your own camera.

            • catinhat

              > If you want a steel mirror box, you are of course welcome to design and manufacture your own camera.

              This is exactly the kind of attitude Nikon has been demonstrating toward their loyal customers for quite a few years now. It is pretty said actually and nothing to be proud of.

            • Bob Newman

              That is the kind of attitude any company that wants to make a profit has to take, they need to design products that will sell to a broad market at the price that market will bear and manufacture them at a cost that gives some margin. I find it strange that some people seem to think that companies should be designing products to their personal specification.

            • catinhat

              The flip side of this of course is that as the issues become known they alter perceptions, especially if the company is dragging its feet instead of rushing to fix them. People who pay attention to this type of stuff are exactly the kind of customer Nikon needs in the upper segment of the market, so by making making shortsighted decisions in order to save a bit in the near term, they might be inviting more damage in the long term. I would call this being penny wise and pound foolish.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, the fault which changed the construction of the D800 to the D810 was a very poor frame design coupled with some very bad metal pouring practices. The D810 frame is actually fatter and simpler at the point where the D800 failed. Fatter to give it more structural integrity, and simpler to allow the continuous pour to actually not cool at the constriction point.

            • Bob Newman

              I’m not sure what you’re saying ‘no’ to Thom. The D810 definitely has got a plastic frame, and it’s a pretty good bet that they changed because of the D800 problem. It is the case that dismantled Dx mirror boxed offer suffer cracks (not surprising, mag alloy is brittle, which is why it’s rarely used for racing wheels any more). As to why the D800 had the problem, your explanation doesn’t exactly fit. The D800 mirror box was thixomoulded, which isn’t ‘poured’ but injected in a semi-solid state. For a second, the D810 frame is plastic, rather than metal, so again, there is no ‘continuous pour’ – also injection moulded (probably from the Sereebo material Nikon is keen on).

            • Thom Hogan

              The D800 and D810 have metal frames. It’s the metal frame problem at the back that is causing D800’s to be considered unrepairable by Nikon.

              You seem to be talking about the mirror box, which is not a frame, but something that mounts in the frame.

            • Bob Newman

              Sorry Thom, you’re wrong. The D810 has a plastic frame. See the picture below

              “You seem to be talking about the mirror box, which is not a frame, but something that mounts in the frame.”

              The mirror box is the ‘frame’. It doesn’t mount ‘in’ a frame, other parts are attached to it, and it holds it all together, as you can see from the construction below. Most importantly, it is the mirror box which controls the alignment between lens and sensor, so it is the critical structural component, and the one that gets damaged in the typical ‘drop the camera with a big lens attached’ type of accident.

            • Thom Hogan

              That’s not a frame, that’s a sub-assembly that mounts into a frame.

            • El Aura

              But is the mirrorbox mounted to the frame or is the frame mounted to the mirrorbox? (My point being that it might not matter what the frame is made of or robust it is as long as the mount-to-mirrorbox and sensor-to-mirrorbox connection is solid.)

            • Thom Hogan

              It matters that the frame is the construct to which everything is mounted. For example, in the D800, the AF focus module is a separate component requiring alignment. When the actual metal frame of the D800 busts at the bad join point, as it has on a number of samples, the AF system is no longer aligned correctly against the mirrorbox: it floats. That’s why Nikon declares such cameras unrepairable: they’d have to strip everything down to parts, get a new frame, and rebuild onto the new frame. It’s not financially feasible to do that outside the factory.

              Besides the mirror box mounted to the frame, there’s the prism and viewfinder. I’ve gotten new cameras from Nikon where the alignment there wasn’t correct, and thus the 100% view was offset to the sensor.

              The most critical alignment is of course the sensor/lens mount. Nikon is currently building to that alignment process with a single sub-assembly. But there are plenty of other things that then have to align to the mirror box correctly.

            • Thom Hogan

              This isn’t a problem, it’s a design. Which would you rather have: a totalled camera or a fixable one? The lens mount is designed to break under stress before killing the integrity of the underlying frame and alignments (of which there are many).

              AFAIC, Nikon does the right thing here.

            • catinhat

              The problem is some reported damage from a relatively very minor stress. Personally, I would rather see damage to the mount area on the lens side, not the camera. I did experience that myself, after a slight drop, and the lens repair cost me all of $200 and it came back better than new, while the camera (D300) escaped unscathed. Some lenses are also well into the 6-8 pound range, and there has to be some level of confidence that the mount isn’t going to cave the first time someone picked up a camera with such a lens attached by the body, imprudent as it might be. There was a report on a dpreview forum recently where someone claimed that the damage was induced by using 24-70 on a D810 in strong wind. I assume it wasn’t a tornado. Perhaps I just have low confidence in Nikon doing the really right thing here.

        • Sakaphoto Graphics

          The D7200 uses polycarbonate in several areas instead of metal. It may be nearly as tough but it probably isn’t.

          • Bob Newman

            You don’t know whether it’s as tough or not. The point is, however, that Nikon is unlikely to revert to magnesium just because you want them to. The competition doesn’t use magnesium and the magnesium chassis in the D800 (and other cameras) gave them problems. So, the chances of Nikon making a new DX camera with a magnesium mirror box are very small. So, don’t hang your hopes on that.

            • Sakaphoto Graphics

              I’m using one, and I’ve used several products with polycarbonate shells. They’re tough but they still dent too easily.

              I ended up buying a silicone cover just to provide against bumps.

              I don’t have any hopes. I keep waiting for something good to happen with dSLRs past the D300, but it seems advancements are becoming fewer.

            • Bob Newman

              “They’re tough but they still dent too easily.” Then you’re not one for magnesium, that dents way easier than polycarbonate.

              In any case, new Nikon’s are likely not to be made of ‘polycarbonate’ but the Sereebo composite used in the D5300, D5500 and D750, where Nikon has used this carbon composite material to make a structural front cover and built the camera on that. It seems to be very strong.

            • Michiel953

              Exactly. Composite/carbon fibre materials are the future. Think racing bicycles (I still prefer handmade steel 😉 ).

              In fact, I’d expect those materials to work their way into future pro fx bodies as well. There’s a distinct weight advantage and that stuff, if applied correctly, is extremely durable.

            • Thom Hogan

              Agreed. Nikon is more likely to use carbon fiber than to go back to big, heavy metal frames throughout. However, this turns out to be one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t things. A good, complete, and solid frame should simplify alignments in manufacturing (if you keep the tolerances tight). Nikon really needs to reduce the number of alignment steps in making a camera, as Sony has with the A7 series. But the minute we put in lots of interlocking parts, the alignment problems go up, not down.

            • Bob Newman

              I think they have to learn to use the new material to its best advantage. They possibly are, the D750 seems to be very strong, so far as the integrity of the basic mirror box goes (now the failure modes seem to be outside that), while I suspect the D810 is less so, because it has the Sereebo material adapted to a basic architecture not designed around it. The idea they used on the D5300 and D750 of building the camera upwards from the front panel, rather than outwards from the mirror box seems quite sound.

    • Patrick O’Connor

      If it bothers you, you could always ignore such rumors and discussion.

      • Bob Newman

        Sure, I could, but then again, why should I?

        • Patrick O’Connor

          You wrote that such rumors were wearisome. Ignoring them would relieve you of the burden and be much more efficient than attempting to convince people to stop talking about it.

          • Bob Newman

            Possibly, but then efficiency isn’t everything.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Good point. Cheesecake Factory banana cheesecake helps! 🙂

    • DrNo666

      Agree… and why would nikon want to compete with the exact same line up as Canon?

      • Thom Hogan

        Because that’s their main competitor and the competitor from which they could steal the most market share. Competing with, oh, say Pentax, doesn’t net them anything significant.

        • Then shouldn’t they compete with Apple and Samsung phones? (I know — you’ve been saying this for years…) The problem is that Nikon and Canon simply respond to each other rather than stepping back and designing the best camera they can. (Pentax actually *does* seem to make the best cameras they can — small, tough bodies with high fps, etc. — they’re just in a lousy position.)

    • David Swager

      Exactly, they had the 7D to aim at and never shot and have the 7DmkII now. I’ve owned both the D7100 and D7200 and both are great cameras that offered wonderful value. I stand next to a guy at venues shooting soccer with a 7DmkII. He can start a sequence before it happens and finish well after. I have to hit the shot on the 1st frame! EVERYTIME! He just has to get close and at 10fps he is going to get a good shot. There is a reason the D5 will shoot 15fps!

      • Yesterday I shot next to a guy shooting with a 7D Mark II who was able to just rip shots. I don’t need to buy a D5 just to break the 7fps barrier Nikon has placed as a glass ceiling between their bodies and the Pro Model of D4/D5

      • Bob Newman

        “they had the 7D to aim at and never shot and have the 7DmkII now.”

        The 7D was ‘aimed at’ the D300, but in reality, was always more like the D7000 than the D300 – just a bit faster. The small buffer size of the D7x00 range has always been its achilles heel. Maybe that will at least be rectified with the D7300, plus maybe a couple of FPS extra, if only with E lenses. (there is a reason for the 16-80/2.8-4E DX lens – for most of the reach applications for which fast DX is good, there are already E lenses, but a camera needs a standard zoom which goes at full speed).

        • JTK3

          I shot a 7D alongside my D300 for several weeks when the Canon first appeared and the cameras were comparable over most performance parameters, with the Nikon being a tiny bit quicker to AF. That was the main difference I noticed – my D300 held focus on fast movers a bit better. The 7D was clearly marketed to the D300 genre – it’s $1700 cost slotted it into the gap between the $1100 50D and $2700 5DII. It was introduced in October 2009 while the D7000 saw first light in November 2010 IIRC. There was no D7000 to be like, just the D90 and D300.

          • Bob Newman

            “There was no D7000 to be like, just the D90 and D300.”

            Yes, you’re right. The D7000 was ‘like’ the 7D. I don’t think that it was lost on Nikon that they were selling expensive to manufacture magnesium chassis cameras (D300 and D700 (only 1/2 magnesium) and D800) while Canon was selling plastic chassis cameras at the same price point, selling more than Nikon and making a much bigger profit, while their buyers still went on about their 7Ds and 5DIIIs being ‘built like tanks’. So, they’ve transitioned to plastic chassis/magnesium shell like Canon, first with the D7000, through the D6x0 and D750 and now with the D810.

    • John Picking

      It will still have a plastic mirror box.

      • Bob Newman

        Yup, as will every Nikon apart from (perhaps) the D5 – I wouldn’t be surprised if the D5 adopts the new Sereebo monocoque construction – and the Canon 7DII and Pentax K3. Like it or not, plastic mirror boxes are what you’re getting, whether you go Nikon, Canon, Pentax. So, if the metal mirror box is what differentiates a ‘pro DX’ camera, then there isn’t going to be another ‘pro DX’ camera. Simple as that.

        • John Picking

          I still shoot D3/D700. I doubt D5 will have a monocoque plastic mirror box.

          • Bob Newman

            I’m not sure what is the connection between the cameras that you use and the materials that Nikon chooses to use. Their engineers will use what they consider to be the best material, which might be the Sereebo composite.

            • John Picking

              I never really completed my thought. I like how the bodies I use are built and Nikon has built their flagship exactly that way because it works. D4s is built that way and I imagine D5 will be also. The lesser bodies have mirror boxes that are not as stiff so they move along with the lense mount and sensor. That makes it cheaper to build but not better or stiffer.

            • Bob Newman

              “D4s is built that way and I imagine D5 will be also.”

              The Sereebo composite material wasn’t available to Nikon when they designed the D5.

              “The lesser bodies”

              The designed for a different market bodies.

              “have mirror boxes that are not as stiff so they move along with the lense mount and sensor. That makes it cheaper to build but not better or stiffer.”

              There’s no real data to show that a polymer mirror box locates the lens and sensor less accurately than a metal one – and ‘stiffer’ is not necessarily better – resilience often gives better robustness. The Sereebo material was designed for making the structural parts of cars – so one would expect it to be structural enough for a camera.

              Still, the take away of this conversation is that Nikon is very unlikely ever to make another DX camera with a magnesium chassis, even if it does use magnesium for the D5.

            • John Picking

              I agree about no more full magnesium DX bodies.

    • Thom Hogan

      “Small number of people.” By my measurements, no, it isn’t small. It’s a significant-sized group. Indeed, you’re weary because that group is also vocal. Large and vocal is a bad thing to have working against your marketing.

      What I fail to understand is why so many people are just passive about this: hey, I’ll just buy whatever Nikon gives me. No. We want great tools that do what we need. I think it’s quite all right for a customer to demand that.

      • El Aura

        About as significantly-sized group as the Pentax FF fans? The numbers might be different but all almost all the same arguments used for one can be used for the other. Like the Pentax FF/D400 would be profitable, it would keep people from leaking. But both might also not move the needle much for either company.

        • Thom Hogan

          Nope. Though at US$2300 Nikon would have a hardish time converting the large group that’s been waiting. At US$1800 they probably wouldn’t. It’s trickier for them now that they’re discounting the D810 so much, which is one of the reasons why I say it was a mistake to wait so long to do a D400 update.

          As for Pentax, Nikon managed to convert at most 20% of their DX sales to FX. For Pentax to do better it’s going to have to be an incredible camera of the price is going to have to be compelling.

          • Pentax also has a lens problem does it not?

            • Thom Hogan

              Not that I know of.

            • I mean in terms of not having a good selection of modern full frame lenses.

      • The folks who buy most of these cameras are buying them because they have a warm fuzzy feeling about the brand and the price seems good.

        What Nikon’s poor decisions are doing is slowly alienating “mavens” (per “The Tipping Point”) which in turn erodes their warm fuzzy thing. The nephew who knows about cameras now recommends a Sony. The famous photographer they saw at the football match is shooting Canon.

        It’s quite common for a company to switch from delivering quality to coasting on the reputation they got from the days back when they delivered quality — usually when money gets tight, and Nikon seems to have made this transition. Apple did this in the mid-90s. It’s very hard to go back. But you can do it: Apple did it by simplifying their product lines, focusing on quality, and making it easy to pick a product by making them clearly better in every way as you go up in price. I’m not talking about the iPhone, I’m talking about how Apple went from the verge of bankruptcy to solid profitability in two years while simultaneously losing both market share and absolute sales.

        Four quadrants: big / small, consumer / pro. Good, better, best in each category, with the products in each category coming off the same assembly line.

  • peevee

    Pics look real, but $2300 price, in 2016, for an APS-C body? That sounds a whole $1000 too high even for the highest end possible. Even if it has 28mpix sensor from NX1 and 4k and hybrid VF.

    • Justtakethepicture

      Pics look real? Are we looking at the same pics?

      • Bob Newman

        It’s surprising how invisible to some people is all the industrial design Nikon pays for between generations, so when they see a D200 or D300 with D400 written on it, they say the pics look real. All Nikon DSLRs released after the D5 will borrow its styling cues.

        • Michiel953

          Probbly tells you Nikon should stop pouring money and effort into their designs; the punters just don’t notice. As long as the lens fits on the front, not on the back, it’s a camera.

          • Bob Newman

            Maybe true, Canon seems to get by with selling the same plastic potato generation after generation. Even then, though, they do make some changes.

            • Michiel953

              Design sells; you should know that. Retro design sells even better!

            • The SL-1 is a pretty damn nice potato 🙂

            • Bob Newman

              Good detailing on the potato, but still a potato.

    • Do you notice that D5 has new design for the stripe but the pictures above have very old design stripes (from D300/d700). Furthermore, the interfaces of the cameras look the same as D300 and D700.

  • ragamofyn

    that D400 box is so obviously a fake. both Microsoft and Apple have updated their logos for Windows and OS X (respectively), so this is just an old D300-ish box.

    • Orange Elephant

      Note that the “D400” product box shows the latest Windows spec as Windows Vista 32bit.

      • yes, this picture is few years old 🙂 just wanted to illustrate how long we have been waiting for a D400

    • Yes, all of those pictures are from old D400 posts (obviously all fake) – this is how long we have been waiting for a D400 camera.

      • br0xibear

        Here’s another “fake” one with design cues from the D5…

      • br0xibear

        Here’s another “fake” one with design cues from the D5, image wasn’t uploading…

        • br0xibear

          Let’s try and upload that picture again, didn’t work before ?

      • T.I.M

        can’t you call Nikon and ask them if they will release a D400 next year ?

        • Spy Black

          I thought that was your gig?…

          • T.I.M

            well they already tip me for the D810,000 square root, I can’t ask them to much !

            • What an amusing way of avoiding the actual mention of your D900.

            • AlphaTed

              I’ll be happy with just the D160,000 square root.

        • Thom Hogan

          “can’t you call Nikon…”

          It’s actually amusing to do that. No one says “no.” No one says “yes.” No one gives the same non-answer.

      • Carlos Eduardo

        You can read D7000 somewhere in the brochure… It’s totally fake.

  • Kasia

    D400/500 with 28MPx Samsung sensor?

    • Neopulse

      That’s what I think. Although it has to be tweaked that sensor to not be like the colors of Samsung’s output.

  • JXVo

    The pictures are inconsistent, showing at least three different control layouts so I suspect they are digitally “rebadged” pics of existing models. The D400 box shows a sticker promoting Capture NX which was superceded long ago by CNX2, itself no longer supported by Nikon.
    The evidence in the pics is evidence of deception……

    • nwcs

      I think they are simply a roundup of all the fake images created or submitted after the D300s came out.

  • T.I.M

    Just came back from the beach, seen plenty birds, people, boats, airplanes, but NO D400 !

  • sickheadache

    Poor Long Suffering DX Queens. The Long Suffering Continues.

  • Fly Moon

    TL;DR
    I thought A7’s don’t have builtin GPS!!

    • Neopulse

      If it did the battery would be ridiculously shorter.

  • Fly Moon

    I really don’t have a use for it, but I hope they announce one for the sake of the guys who want it!

    • Captain Megaton

      … Nikon goes and badges the next D3x00 body “D400” just for the LOLs.

  • Neopulse

    The Batis lens is ridiculous wide open I agree.

  • Spy Black

    While I agree with some of the things you’re pointing out here, I think it comes down to whatever you’re comfortable with. Shooting with OVF cameras for as long as I have, I have yet to find and EVF that I like. This is not to say that I won’t ever find one, but I haven’t yet. So for me OVF is important.

    My shooting style has evolved over a long time, and a lot of what you’re saying shooting-wise is moot. For instance, using existing AF points is second nature to me, I don’t think about it.You learn how to make it work. For you.

    AF systems don’t always make the best called either, regardless of how many AF points you may have. So regardless of what system you’re working with, you need to know how to make it work. For you.

    Eventually mirrorless will take over, but it still has teething pains that it needs to grow out of. As far as I’m concerned.

    • Fly Moon

      Well said, Spy.

  • Wade Marks

    You do realize that you can get Zeiss lenses for Nikon and Canon? Zeiss is not exclusive to Sony.

    • Spy Black

      Not autofocusing.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      and the “zeiss” lens are actualy Sony lenses approved by Zeiss… is what I read… but that doesn’t mean that they are not great lenses

  • Wade Marks

    The real question is how large of an addressable market is there for a D400 or pro DX? Let’s try to analyze:

    The only people who would really need or want such a beast would be those who want very high frame rate shooting for BIF, fast moving wildlife, fast sports. I think this is a pretty small percentage of the dslr market.

    Then out of this subset, you have the majority who use a beast of a machine like the D4s, many of whom will buy the D5, etc. So they are already taken care of. Keep in mind that to shoot BIF, etc, and really get it right, you need some pretty big super telephoto lenses in your arsenal, and these are expensive…so many of this crowd can afford a D# series camera.

    You also have a subset of this crowd who’ve managed to find a way to make cameras like the D7200, the D750, the D810, etc work for them and are also satisfied.

    You also have to keep in mind that, as others have pointed out, the next iteration of the D8xx series will most likely have more megapixels, and a more powerful processor, and so will be able to offer even more fps and megapixels in DX mode.

    Then you have the next iteration for the D7xxx series, which will likely be debuted in 2017…but it too will more closely approximate what others have been asking for in a D400.

    So you have a very narrow subset of a very small niche who would be the market for a D400…and Nikon also knows what they have planned, and that other future models will be able to more fully approach what a D400 would offer. So a D400 would be targeted at a very small market for a small period of time. May not make sense to spend resources to develop such a model and bring it to market.

    • Perhaps you may be right. However, I you were one of those shooters who are seeking a D400 you perspective may be different since you too may have shooting needs that may not be met by other bodies. Since I shoot and hang out with that crowd of D400 hopefuls, I know that we are actually is a sizable group. Yes, I’ve moved on and now shoot with a D800 and have a D300 as backup and own all FX glass. I actually will buy a D400 since my D800 fps is low for BIF and sports. Although I have a 500mm my 80-400 would be a better match when paired with a DX pro body. Unfortunately my D300 is outdated in the area of noise reduction, auto focus and fps. Photography gear forces us to make choices based on tradeoffs. I and my fellow D400 shooters will continue to shoot sports and wildlife with the tools we have but will gladly spend the money for a D400 if it becomes available or use a possible D850 with 25mp and 10fps in DX mode as a compromise.

    • Thom Hogan

      You might start your analysis in a different spot: how many people bought a D300 and why? How many are still using a D300? And why? You’ll come up with a different answer that way…

      • outkasted

        D300 Was a tank I burned it out!

    • El Aura

      I am not sure about this: “Then out of this subset, you have the majority who use a beast of a machine like the D4s”. Did D3 sales represent the majority of the combined D3+D300 sales?

      Sure, the difference is that the D7200 might be close enough to D400 in capabilities in a way the D90 wasn’t compared with the D300. But that would be saying that the D7200 is good enough for most long lens users not that the majority of long lens users uses a single digit body.

    • Deep_Lurker

      No, the D400 market is not limited to those who want a very high frame rate for BIF or similar. The D400 market is the DX shooter who wants an upgrade better than the D7200 without jumping to FX, along with the FX owner who wants a DX as a second camera with a D810-style body and control-set.

      People who want high FPS are a chunk of that “better than a D7200” market, but not the whole thing by any means – and even among those who do want high FPS, that FPS spec isn’t the only thing they want in a D400.

      As for the D8XX in DX mode: That’s an awkward, expensive kludge with lots of people preferring a real D400 instead – or in addition, as I mentioned above. And as for the D7200 successor, it will “approximate” a D400 about as much as the D750 “approximates” the D810 – not very much at all.

  • Espen4u

    The only true indication that Nikon will ever release a pro DX is that Canon just did it. But where is the glass for a d400/d500? At least three lenses (or more) are missing.

    • Spy Black

      You have plenty of DX glass available to you not only from the existing Nikkor DX base, but from third-party manufacturers, and pretty much all of it good, and some of it is better than the Nikon offerings. It’s just not that big a deal.

      • Wade Marks

        No doubt Nikon does want to move you into FX.

        That being said, a D3xxx shooter is not going to move into a pro DX model costing several times as much, unless they somehow have developed a burning interesting in BIF. And if they’e gotten enamored taking pics of their family and want to move up, they’ll just go to FF.

        A D5xxx shooter is also unlikely to move to pro DX…not only is that too large of a leap in cost, but many D5xxx shooters are using that camera for its small size, and video options. A big pro DX will have little appeal.

        So really only the D7xxx series shooters would be candidates to move into pro DX. But most of these people don’t need or want pro DX, don’t want the higher price or bigger size/weight, and if they do want to move up, will go to FF. Only a very narrow band of D7xxx shooters wants a D400. I know people who have a D7xxx camera and they don’t do BIF, fast moving cheetahs on safari, etc. They use it for a bit of everything in normal life.

        There is not this massive market for a D400; total myth. It’s a vocal market online, but not a big market. And let’s also clear something up…if Nikon were to release a D400 at let’s say $1800, do you know what most of these people clamoring for a D400 would say? They’d say no thanks, it’s overpriced. Most of the people who want a D400 really want a D5 for the price of a D7200.

        • Spy Black

          The only wrench in that train of thought is the 7D Mk II. Chances are pretty good Nikon will respond to that. Something that is equal to, or better than that.

          • Wade Marks

            Yes, but is Canon really selling so much of the 7d ii? Right now it’s discounted heavily, down to less than the D7200, for $1049 plus printer. Now I realize that there may be some other factors involved…but it still says something when that model is discounted that much.

            So if Nikon does release a D400, well expectations have been set by Canon for a price model very close to the D7200. And if Nikon prices the D400 much higher, they will be ripped to shreds by the same people begging for a D400.

            But it doesn’t make sense for Nikon to release a D400 at a price close to the D7200…for one thing they’d have to lower the price on the D7200 as well.

            • Spy Black

              I’m just “thinking Japanese” here. It’s a matter of pride. I think whatever is released will replace the D7200 and the D7200 will be discontinued so, yes, heavily discounted D7200s.

            • Wade Marks

              Yes, they could just release a D7300 with the specs that people want in a D400, but in the smaller D7xxx type body.

              I do think they will do this but not this year…but I do think the D7300 will have even higher fps, and an even better AF system, borrowing from the tech in the D5. I think the AF in the D5 will trickle down, but first to D8xx, then to D7xx, and finally to D7xxx. That’s one reason I don’t think Nikon will release a D400…they know what they have planned and that it will satisfy the need for even high fps and better AF.

              Really at that point the only thing lacking will be the bigger body, but most people don’t want bigger and heavier.

            • Thom Hogan

              The D7200 is the current version of a seminal camera for Nikon that started with the D70 (D70s, D80, D90, D7000, D7100, D7200). It’s the meat of Nikon’s “enthusiast market” success. So sure, there will be a D7300 in 2017. It will continue to iterate that line at that price point. Failure to do so would be a bigger failure on Nikon’s part than not making a D300s followup.

              But one product isn’t enough. Moreover, the jump from D7200 to FX is basically just to FX: you get the same camera and performance at a far higher price with the only real difference being FX (and today, a tilt LCD). That’s along gap to try to push people over for one stop and bigger lenses.

            • Sawyerspadre

              And the D7xxx series is a much easier sell, if a D400 is in the line. The hardcore Birders will buy a D400 for the pro build and controls, and the D7300 will be the “just right” middle camera that will sell in big numbers. Consumers like to buy the middle of the good, better, best. If you move the whole range up, and have two “middles” in the D5xxx and D7xxx series, you have slid the price scale up, especially since the top is almost $2k at that point.

            • donpnz

              I could’t wait any longer and went for the D750 several months back. No looking back. 6.5 fps is fine for me as I don’t REALLY need 10 fps (we all THINK er do, but how many of us REALLY do?) And same as D300 because, No I don’t want a battery grip as I’m into adventure sports. At 10mp DX crop its not too far below D300’s 12.3 (geesh, how big DO I want to print those posters?!) And they’re not clogging up my comp hard drive. DX lens work fine too. When I’m landscaping/portraiting I’ve got the full 24 mp glory to tap into.
              Shooting indoor night events WITHOUT the flash is something I never thought I’d ever do in my 40 years of photography enthusiasm.

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, yes, many of us are using D750’s and D810’s instead of a D400. But notice that Nikon never marketed the D750 the way you say you’re using it. You had to figure it out. That’s just one reason why there’s still demand for a D400 ;~).

            • Tony Beach

              Same argument could have been made about the D200. Why didn’t Nikon just skip it and go straight to the D80? By your logic the D300 would have also been a bust because those with money could get a D3 instead, or settle for a D80. Instead, both the D200 and D300 were enormously popular cameras, even if they were outsold by D80 and D90 cameras.

            • FelipeGR

              I suspect that one of the reasons is that a lot of us upgraded from the 7D to the 7D2 right as it came out. I went to Midwest Photo Exchange a week or 2 before the 7D2 rumored announcement date and they had quite a few used 7D bodies, far more than I had ever seen, and I joked with a friend that those guys were either smart, or were in for a big disappointment in 1-2 weeks. I bought mine the weekend after Adobe introduced RAW support in Lr and got 1 of 2 cameras left, from that week’s shipment.

              My best guess is that the initial sales spike was due to people wanting to upgrade from the 7D, and now that those upgrades happened, they’re not moving too many cameras at that price (I paid full introductory MSRP for that one, my invoice after tax was close to or over $2k)

            • Thom Hogan

              I’m sick and tired of this “so how many 7DII’s is Canon selling since they’re discounting it” post. Examine your logic: Canon is selling infinitely more 7DII’s than Nikon is selling D400’s. Simple as that. Nikon’s only real choice for such a shooter is to try to get them to buy a D7200. But you don’t get 10 fps and a printer for the same price ;~).

              People that think that Canon and Nikon are naive about the cross competition are wrong. Canon is pushing 7DII’s down for a reason at the moment: it serves multiple purposes for them, including making some doubt whether they should get a D7200 at a similar price. It’s a petal-to-the-metal tactic when the competitor doesn’t have a response. And it very well might move market share numbers, since the D7200 is one of the few bright spots in Nikon’s lineup.

            • Tony Beach

              I would be a lot more interested in a 7DII if I had a lens to put on it. As it is, I have Nikon lenses, and I would much prefer a camera that shares UI with my D800. There’s very little overlap in demand between a 7DII buyer and a potential D400 buyer, so Nikon has something of a captive market. On top of that, we presume a D400 would have a more capable sensor than the 7DII (at least at lower ISOs, for whatever that’s worth, but it’s going to be a marketing advantage), so if a D7200 sells for about the same or even less than a 7DII then it stands to reason that a D400 will sell for more than a D7200 based on its faster fps, a more pro-build body, and a better AF system — you can be dismissive of all of those advantages, but they add up.

              I would also point out that there are a lot of those “settling” right now with what Nikon has to offer that would happily buy a D400. If you think the market is tiny, and perhaps Nikon agrees with you (I don’t claim to know), then recall that Nikon completely missed the mark with the D800E, so much so that they simply took away the AA filter for the D810. All of that suggests to me that not only should there be a D400, but Nikon would very likely find it so successful that it would be followed in due course by an improved D500 (or D410 or whatever name Nikon gives these cameras).

              As for Nikon having to lower the price of the D7200, a D400 at $1800 actually bolsters the price of the D7200. Eventually both have to come down, but not because they are competing against each other, but because they are competing against cameras from other brands in a market that is getting smaller.

            • Sawyerspadre

              It should be around $2k MAP at launch. That allows Nikon to skim on the pent up pre-order demand, then it will be promoted soon after at $1695 ish and then settle in at $1395ish to keep it just above the launch price of a D7300, which should be about $1295.

        • Michiel953

          Wade, you’re forgetting that enormous market of people still holding on to their D300(s)’s, in the (vain?) hope of the coming of the D400…

          Those D300(s)’s are sure getting a good workout. Nikon will only lose that part of the market when those cameras fall apart.

          • Sawyerspadre

            It would be interesting to see the flood of good D300s and D lenses that would be available in the used market, if a new D400 and some good DX E Primes came out.

            This could create a new generation of people who had D3xxx and D5xxx buying the hand-me-down D300s cameras. They could all get a 24 2.8D, 50 1.4D and an 85 1.8D and round it out with a new 16mm f2.8E for DX.

        • FelipeGR

          When I outgrew my Digital Rebel XT (5.5 years after I bought it), I went straight for the 7D, and I know plenty of Canon shooters that have gone a similar way.

          Probably not the same amount of people that would go from a P&S to a D3something000, but definitely not a rarity.

        • Thom Hogan

          Okay, let’s use your first example: a D3xxx shooter is NEVER going to move to a D810 using your same logic. It’s just way too much money.

          Now they have an intermediary to move to right now, the D7200, and I find quite a few that have as they got more sophisticated.

          Thing is, a product line in which you want to get people to update and upgrade must be complete. It can’t have big gaps or it is inefficient. Right now Nikon has a huge gap.

        • Tony Beach

          “There is not this massive market for a D400; total myth. It’s a vocal market online, but not a big market.”

          How would you know? You are just spouting an opinion based on your own personal set of assumptions.

          • Playing devil’s advocate: consider opportunity cost.

            Do you think Nikon has ever released a really poorly positioned DSLR? E.g. I think the D7000 was a brilliantly positioned body when it came out. It seemed like Nikon had hit it out of the park, replacing the D90 with something just shy of what a next gen D300s would look like. Should they have released a D300s replacement _instead_?

            Similarly the D600/610. It blew the 6D out of the water. It’s still, I think, the best rated DSLR ever on dpreview.

            I think if you look at it that way, Nikon has done a great job of introducing new bodies. E.g. Canon’s 70D and 7D both seemed pretty anemic compared with the D7000 (sure the 7D could shoot faster, but it was behind in almost every other respect, bigger, heavier, and cost more).

            If you assume Nikon releases bodies as fast as they can then — ignoring low end models which have different economies of scale — I can’t think of a body that would have done Nikon more good than a D300s replacement.

            • Tony Beach

              Developing and marketing the D750, D7200, et al are not mutually exclusive with developing and marketing a D300/D300s replacement. Of course a D7000 series camera sells in greater volume than a D400 would, but I believe that was true about the D90 compared to the D300 too, and that doesn’t mean a D400 wouldn’t generate more profit for Nikon than any of their D7000 series cameras have produced.

              A lot of people complain that a D400 would be too heavy and cost too much, or that they prefer FX over speed; but they are speaking for themselves and ignoring or dismissing those that prefer the speed over FX and may actually prefer greater pixel density as well. If a D400 would be too big and heavy, then Nikon shouldn’t have made the D800/D810, and even now there are many who want a D750 in a D810 body — same applies to a D400. Also, getting access to higher fps and the best AF system at a lower price both in terms of the price of the body and the price of the lenses you would need to get enough reach makes a D400 an extremely appealing proposition to many; and no, packing more pixels into the next FX camera and putting it in a smaller body with less viewfinder magnification doesn’t accomplish that — it’s not even close.

              Finally, if the release of a D400 delays the release of a D7300, that’s a good thing for Nikon. Why forego forego the profits and market share a D400 would bring by bringing a lot of the good stuff from a D5 to budget constrained photographers by instead bringing it to them in a budget DX body like the D7300 first (it’s not going to happen), or bring it to them in a more expensive to make FX camera like a D750 replacement which will both have a lower margin and represent a real threat to D5 sales?

            • I think you’re kind of missing my point. Assuming that all Nikon would have to do to release a D400 is decide that the guys over there who’re playing poker should instead design, build, release, and support a D400, Nikon should have released a D400, then sure. Nikon should have released a D400 (when is another question).

              But the more realistic scenario is that the D700/D3 team were told to build next generation versions of those cameras, the D300s team was told to build the next generation version of that camera, and the D70 team was told to build the next generation version of that camera, and for whatever reason they ended up with the D7000 ready to release. Maybe the D400 was planned but considered too anemic to justify its price point. Maybe it had bugs that were harder to iron out, and to fix the bugs the D7000 would have to be held back. For whatever reason, suppose that Nikon had a D400 that was unreleasable when the D7000 shipped, and too expensive to make credible one the D7100 came out.

              Just speculating, of course.

            • Tony Beach

              Looks like a follow-up post to my last reply to you got lost. In that post I did try to respond more directly to your point about poorly positioned DSLRs.

              I think Nikon made a mistake releasing the D300s, so there might have been imprudent allocation of resources doing that, and for whatever reason Nikon got caught in a cycle of pumping out D7000 series cameras and repeatedly missing (for whatever reason) getting a true follow-up to the D300 to the market. I’m not at all convinced that Nikon agrees with those who don’t see a need or advantage to having a D300/D300s replacement.

              The D7000, D7100, and D7200 all coming out before a D400 is water under the bridge now. The point is that now is the time for Nikon to resurrect the D300. The D300 was a big success when it came out, and if Nikon did that again I’m convinced its successor would be a big success again today. Indeed, I think even a fair number of D400 naysayers would buy a D400 over a D7300, assuming Nikon did a D400 right and brought it out ahead of a D7300 rather than after a D7300.

            • Again, let’s suppose Nikon has the following serious bodies in development — D7200 successor, D750 successor, D810 successor, D5 successor (I’ll hazard a guess that the D750, D610, D5x00, and D7x00 are all from the same team, actually). Which one should they cancel in favor of a D400? Bear in mind that the company is under pressure to _shrink_.

              Back in the early aughts Nikon had three DSLR lines — DX (D70—), serious DX (D100—), pro DX (D2—). This was when their big money came from making equipment for the chip industry. They’re now keeping five or six lines going (D3x00, D5x00, D7x00, D750—, D810—, and D4—). All of these lines presumably make more money than a D400 would (or are strategically important, in the case of the top-end pro models).

            • Tony Beach

              If your guess is right, then Nikon can just use the D810 team to develop the D400, and prioritize the D400 as it’s more overdue. Nikon could also use some D5 team members since a D400 would presumably use a lot of the same technology (AF system in particular). On top of that, some D7300 people could also be used to get a D400 released ASAP, then after that everyone can get to the next generation of the other cameras, even the Df successor if Nikon wants that too.

              I’m sure this is not an issue for Nikon. If anything they are over-iterating the lower end models, so a delay in getting out D5000 and D7000 series cameras is not going to be financially hurtful (whereas excess inventory is arguably financially hurtful). Also, I’m certain that a D400 would be a bigger seller and fill a bigger hole in Nikon’s lineup than a Df successor.

            • > Nikon can just use the D810 team to develop the D400, and prioritize the D400 as it’s more overdue

              For all we know the D400 is delayed because someone thought it would be a good idea for the team working on it to “just” do something else real important.

            • Tony Beach

              “Real important” as in replacing the D5100 three times since 2012 and doubling their FX line from three to six cameras (if you count the D810A separately) in that same time period?

              Two lines need to go right now, specifically the D5000 and D600 series. The D7100, D750, and D810 replacements can all wait a few extra months, and it will be four years before Nikon should be bringing out a legitimate replacement for the upcoming D5. That means Nikon should be actively working on D3300 and D750 replacements right now, which leaves lots of resources to get a D400 out the door.

              If Nikon does come out with a D400 and gets rid of the lines I suggested, that would mean Nikon would have three well spaced DX camera lines and four slightly confusing (Df?) FX camera lines (if you count the D810 and D810A as one camera line). That’s a line-up that makes more sense to me than what Nikon is doing now. OTOH, what Nikon is now doing in FX doesn’t make much sense to me, and it won’t until they clean up the Df to make it fit better into the lineup, and there’s just no reason to have both a D610 and D750 (they are not well differentiated and the D610 undercuts both a D400 and the D750); and in DX they currently have unsold D7100, D5300, D5200, and D3200 cameras sitting on the shelves undercutting their most recently released cameras, so that’s hardly a winning strategy.

            • Sounds like you want Nikon to sell a D400 at the D7x00 price point. Otherwise the three DX lines will not be well-spaced at all. My guess is the D5000 and D3000 are the best selling lines by far, and revving them annually makes sense because it’s easy to do and they need to compete with Canon which does the same thing. The idea that by revving the D5000 they are somehow cheating us of a D400 is interesting, but it’s probably simply market reality (just like the endless variations of 18-55mm lenses they release aren’t robbing us of whatever lens is supposedly horribly overdue.

              Not defending Nikon, just assuming they aren’t stupid and trying to understand their thought process.

            • Tony Beach

              Given that I said Nikon should have a D3000 line, a D7000 line, and a D400 line, I don’t see how that adds up to a D400 selling for the same price as a D7300. As for the D5000 and D3000 lines being the best selling, I’m not at all sure that means they are the most profitable, and having them so close together in price and features suggests that it would be more efficient for Nikon to morph them into one line to make development, production, and marketing more simplified.

              Apparently Nikon is unable to match everything Canon does with APS-C/DX format, perhaps because they’re so busy trying to do more than Canon with FX (again, the Df, but I don’t think that’s preventing Nikon from coming out with a D400). That being the case, is it better for Nikon to counter two entry level camera lines with their own two camera lines and have no high end line; or to counter the high end line and counter the entry level lines with one that sits in-between? Offering in-between options to the competition is something Nikon and Canon have done many times in the past, and are still doing, so that’s a viable approach.

              This is all just a moot discussion. I believe Nikon is capable of having all these cameras. I also believe that many at Nikon want a D400 in their line up, but for various reasons haven’t been able to execute it. No one at Nikon has ever said there isn’t a market for such a D400 type camera, or that the D7000 line has replaced the D100-D300 line, which leads me to believe there are other reasons we don’t currently have a D400 from Nikon.

            • Tony Beach

              In my other reply to you I didn’t answer your question directly. I’m not arguing that the D7000 cameras are poorly positioned, I just believe that the D300s shouldn’t have been released when it was (or at all), and the D7000 should have come after a D400, and Nikon now has a chance to correct that misstep, or they can continue cutting the legs out from under a D300/D300s replacement and pay the price for that. That’s the answer to the question I posed at the end of my last post.

        • ralittle2

          Wade, I have to disagree and can point to myself as an example. Call me Soccer Dad or baseball, football, lacrosse dad. I have a D80 that I purchased new along with a cheap 70-300 lens and was happy for a couple of years. Skip ahead three or four years and the kids are getting bigger and better at what they were doing. A fellow parent and friend was also taking shots of the kids doing there thing, and his shots were better. I started to ask him about the how and why and he told me, in a very gentle way, that I needed to upgrade my equipment. He viewed a camera body much like a computer in that it needed to be upgraded every five years of so. My D80 was 7 years old and my glass was just poor. So I started reading and heard there was going to be a D400 released in about three months. Didn’t happen, but I did buy a D300s, and several very good lenses over the past few years. I’ve also been asked by many a parent, as they hold their Rebel or D3xxx camera why their camera won’t do what mine will. I think there are a fair number of folks who want to capture their kids in action be in on the carpet of the field of play. Those folks would be prime customers for a D400/500. I know I am.

      • Espen4u

        You’re right. From the consumers perspective the lack of glass is’nt going to cripple the sales of a pro DX. But Nikon has to factor in a lower estimation of lenses sold for such a camera. And I could be wrong here but, lenses is where the money is and new dslr’s is the way to sell them.

  • Neopulse

    At this point, I prefer Nikon making better DX glass for a possible mirrorless body or for existing bodies than a D400 :-S

  • D5 has new design for the red stripe but all of the D400 pictures above have old design stripes. The stripes on the first two pictures look similar to that on D300/D700. The two cameras in the fourth picture even have different stripes( where one stripe looks similar to D7200/D4s and the other looks similar to D300/D700). The final picture has the same stripe with the first two pictures.

    • Sawyerspadre

      None of the pics are real. The post is “no news”. The pics are from years earlier, and as fake now as then.

      • correct, the news is the rumors reported by the Canadian photographer

  • MonkeySpanner

    Sounds a little like b.s. $2300? Selling above d750? Wtf? Who would buy this outside of a few hundred bird photographers?

    • How many people bought the D810a?

      • Tyler Thomas

        Dang, you’re right…

      • MonkeySpanner

        Not sure, but I think that body has a little more broad appeal. After all it was a 36mp ff sensor with noise performance on par with the d750. Heck it might be a better choice even if you are not an astro. But a D400 that costs more than a D750, I see that as a pretty hard sell.

      • What’s the marginal development cost of the D810a? It sells for a $1000 premium over the D810. They could be making them by hand, bespoke, by dismantling D810s and still make $500 profit.

  • James Donahue

    Beating a dead horse. Give it up, Buy a Fuji.

    • Wade Marks

      I get that some people may prefer a Fuji. I don’t get how a Fuji can in any way be considered a replacement for a camera that would be designed for BIF, fast moving wildlife, fast sports, etc.

      Fuji is many things but it is not a camera for high speed action, and in no way can substitute for a mythical D400.

  • Patrick O’Connor

    Oh, I don’t know. dSLR’s are still good for people who don’t need such crutches. Somehow, great photography is happening and has since long before the first MILC.

    • ss

      Lol exactly.

  • Soooo is something coming or no? At this point I’m over it. I remember when I wanted so badly to replace my D300s. Then I got a full frame and realized how insane the low light and dynamic range is on FF and I no longer care. Sometimes it would be cool to have the reach from the crop factor but Nikon just keeps making idiotic updates that are barely upgrades to the half assed d7000 series. Sad.

    • Wade Marks

      Actually the D7200 is a fantastic camera, in many ways a culmination of what was started with the D7000. It’s easy to dismiss these incremental upgrades, but they do add up to something far greater. Same way that the D810 is a fantastic camera and such a worthy upgrade to the D800.

      Let’s also get real: it takes time for any product line to mature and develop. Same with cars, smartphones, desktop computers, etc. I am glad that Nikon has kept on developing the D7xxx line to the point of it being the D7200.

      • John Picking

        Plastic mirror box.

  • TerraPhoto

    It is obvious the camera box is a fake… it says “Capture NX” and shows the Nik Software logo. That is an old box.

  • Max

    You need over/under-expose warnings working in a studio environment (at all)?

    • Thom Hogan

      As usual, the fanboy approach to “my camera is better than yours” is to pick and choose a handful of things that they were impressed with in the marketing materials that don’t seem to be in the competitive product. Any resemblance to actual photographic practice and needs is left in the dust.

      I shot for two weeks recently with Nikon DSLR alongside Sony A7. Both have their pluses and minuses. One should simply choose the best tool for what they’re doing.

  • 24MPistooMuchOnDX

    My D400/D500 would just be a body with the ergonomics of the D810 and a modern 16MP DX sensor (I don’t do huge prints) to have better iso/noise performance.
    I have been very disapointed by the D7100 and sold it for a second hand D300s.

  • David Peterson

    Can’t see a DX camera selling for US$2.3k when a D750 sells for far far less!!

    • KnightPhoto

      Broken record here, why would we care what any FX camera costs – lower or higher? We’ve got some great FX cameras already, we’re looking for that high speed killer AF body.

      • David Peterson

        D750 has been selling for as low as US$1,295 recently.
        *MOST* people are not going to spend $1k more than an FX for a DX camera just to gain a few extra FPS and a bit better AF.

        Sure, *some* people (such as you) will happily spend that much more for those benefits in a DX body, but they’re in minority.

        Which leaves only a very small target market, and thus very few sales.

        I expect a D400/D9000/whatever would need to be priced below US$2k (and likely need to be *significantly* priced below that point!). Certainly not US$2.3K

    • Brian

      and the canon much cheaper

  • Robert vdK

    Why pay $2’300 for a DX and not go straight for a D600? If you are happy with the DX format, invest in a 7000 series? Nikon has to focus and few, but unique development projects. Diluting their efforts over incremental differentiated cameras could bring Nikon in difficulties.

    • David Swager

      Because the D600/D610 doesn’t give you what an upgraded D300 would. The D300 was a 12MP, 6.5fps, weather sealed camera in a button interfaced body. What people are looking for is a camera comparable to the 7DmkII which would be DX sensor, 18-24MP, 8-10fps, weather sealed in a button interface body.
      The goal is to get more pixels on target. At 1.5x crop, even my 36MP D810 is only about 9.8MP. And it is only 5fps. You will know when Nikon hits the mark cause they will fly off the shelves!

      • Almost correct, but not quite – 36MP / (1.5×1.5) is ~16MP, not 9.8. 16MP is not *that bad*.

        To be more precise, in DX mode the D810 images are 4800 x 3200 pixels, i.e. 15.36 megapixels. So better than the D300, but not by much.

        • David Swager

          My Bad, I shoot at 1.2x on D810 which give an approximate 24.6MP image and hits the max 6fps speed it will do.
          Problem with the crop modes is the viewfinder image gets pretty small at 1.5x.

          • El Aura

            And unless the majority of D300 buyers also bought the external handgrip, the majority of D300 was also fine with 6 fps.

            • TonyDee

              So you are shooting 12 bits per pixel, not 14 bits per pixel? 14 bit reduces the speed to 2.5 fps

            • David Swager

              And if you upgraded from a Nikon D1 to a D2 you would be expecting a 2.7MP, 4.5fps camera? That is just lack of any logic. People have been discussing an upgrade from the D300s since it’s release. They would expect more MP, more fps, more buffer and better AF.

              If you do not require a high speed DX camera, there are plenty of choices in the Nikon line-up. If you require a high speed DX camera, this isn’t one in the Nikon line-up. The money is in the mechanical components (shutter box) as the D7200 can process the data fast enough to support 10fps. So it will cost more than a D7200.

            • El Aura

              And before the 7D II was launched, 8 fps was fine for a D400 but now it needs to be 10 fps. My point is that a lot of these things are about ‘want’ not ‘need’.

            • David Swager

              I did not say it had to be 10fps, just that the processor would handle it. But it has to be a significant step over the 5fps of the D7200 (14bit NEF) or there is no point. I don’t need video function at all but it will be in there.

              Does anyone need 15fps of the D5? We used to advance frames with our thumb. But it makes it a lot more likely you will get a great frame when shooting sports and wildlife!

  • PhilK

    Yes, there should be a D400/D500. No, it shouldn’t just be a Johnny-come-lately copycat of a 7D-II. And no, it shouldn’t just be a slightly heavier/faster D7200.

    I think the D400/D500 should be the model where they debut a new hybrid AF/EVF, and one-up the 7D-II. Maybe even mirrorless or pellicle-mirror DX. If it takes off, put some of that in the D6. 😉

    Then you will address two longstanding gripes: no “deluxe” DX since the D300s, and no serious mirrorless competitor. (The Nikon 1 seems to be positioned as more of an upgraded point-and-shoot, to me. I personally cannot do serious photography with a camera that I have to hold in front of me and try to hold steady and make out subject details on a rear LCD in the sunlight.)

    And do something else interesting with it. How about a dedicated underwater housing accessory? Touchscreen? An app store where you can purchase additional image filters, autofocus enhancements, on-camera tutorials? Built in networking.

    Yeah I know. Nikon’s too conservative for all of that. Sigh.

    • I’m not so sold on the app idea. I had the opportunity to play with an RX100M3, and the apps you can download only bring the camera to what Nikon already has built-in. Plus, starting and using the apps is much slower; second delays in some operations, without UI feedback. Maybe it’s implementation, maybe it’s the platform.

      I think, unless we accept the battery life of Android, we’re stuck with slower processors and thus I believe apps won’t take off on cameras, compared to monolithic firmware.

  • Nikita

    enough with this mythical camera already, stop torturing us…
    Nikon = cruel and unusual punishment

  • whisky

    this Apéritif was whipped so hard there’s little left of it but froth. =:-/

  • TonyDee

    We all want something more from our DX cameras. I need the pixel density not otherwise available from Nikon. I’m not willing to take a D750 or D810 and add a 1.4x converter capturing about the same image on the image sensor as a DX camera but providing less light to the focus sensor. If Nikon was to use the Sony 42Mpix sensor on an FX body, that’s close enough for me, I’d take it. I’m also not willing to go to a D610 and go backwards to the 39 pt multi-cam 4800 autofocus. As for calling out a need for a D400, I don’t get what’s so great about the D300 shooting speed of 2.5 frames per second in 14 bit RAW. Also, the D300 manual calls out a larger number of shots for those bigger files. Anybody here think it’s a larger buffer. I think that the camera has time to write some of the pictures off to the card while shooting at that slowed rate. If you want an upgrade to the D300 let go and rent a D7200 or a D750 and you can use almost 4X the ISO you shoot with now or get better dynamic range the same ISO, all good no bad. As for the full metal jacket, if you attach a seven pound lens, then you of course support the lens, the lens mount will have no problem supporting the camera. Tell me what I’m missing.

    By the way, too bad the box pictured in this rumor gives us assurance that this camera’s software will work with Vista and XP home, not Windows 7, 8 and 10.

    • El Aura

      A TC is not reducing the amount of light reaching the AF sensor (unless the base lens is a f/5.6 lens) and ignoring the small losses imposed by the additional air-glass interfaces. The AF sensors in Nikon DSLRs have their own internal ‘apertures’ or baffles that roughly only look at the light coming from the f/5.6 ring (the f/5.6 ring is the extra light you get when you open the aperture from f/8 to f/5.6, the aperture gets larger and you get an extra ring through which the light can pass).

      • TonyDee

        How could you say that a teleconverter, which spreads out the light, is not reducing the light actually reaching the autofocus sensor? I use both a 400mm zoom at 5. 6 and a 300mm zoom at 2.8. In either case I would expect focus to be slower with a teleconverter. Effectively about the equivalent of an f8 and f4 lens respectively. For wildlife, it should not make a difference on summer days, but it would not so good at dawn dusk or on overcast winter days.

        • El Aura

          It’s a bit tricky to explain but I’ll try. A TC does spread the light but it also changes the (maximum) incidence angle of light reaching the sensor due to the resulting ‘lens’ (original lens + TC) having a smaller f-stop. If you take any lens and stop it down, you are narrowing the (maximum) angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor (just imagine yourself sitting on the sensor and seeing the window, aka the aperture, through which the light is passing closing).

          If you take as a little thought experiment a white, evenly-lit wall and take a photo of it with a 100 mm f/2.8 lens wide open (ie, at f/2.8), you get a corresponding light intensity at the sensor. If you stop down the lens to f/4, that light intensity is halved by the blocking of the light rays that pass through the outer perimeter of lens, ie, the light hitting the sensor at a steeper angle (steeper as in deviating more from perfectly perpendicular) is blocked out.

          Now, if you instead add a 1.4x TC to that 100 mm f/2.8 lens, you get a 140 mm f/4 lens. And since f/4 is f/4, you get the same light intensity at the sensor as if you were stopping down the 100 mm lens to f/4. Now, the part where you have to take a leap of faith is trust me that the (maximum) angle of incidence of light reaching the sensor from a 100 mm lens (stopped down to) f/4 is essentially the same as a 100 mm f2.8 lens with a 1.4x TC added, ie, that f/4 is f/4 in that respect as well.

          Why all this matters in respect to the phase-detect AF in (D)SLRs, is that phase-detect AF relies on looking at only part of the exit pupil (the cone of light exiting the lens). Essentially it is only looking at the ring of light between very roughly f/5 and f/6.3 (the ring of light that is added as you open the aperture from f/6.3 to f/5 which I will call the the f/5.6 ring from hereon). It is thus only looking at light reaching the sensor from a certain angle (or range of angles). This is why until fairly recently, AF stopped working when the (maximum) lens f-stop went below f/5.6. The actual PD action is splitting the light coming from the right and the left side (or top and bottom) of that ring of light onto different ‘imaging’ sensors (or different parts of the AF ‘imaging’ sensor) and then looks for patterns. Once it has identified the same pattern on both sensors (ie, the one reading the light coming from the left and the one reading the light coming from the right), it can then determine from the distance between a particular element in that pattern on the right and the left sensor whether the subject is in focus, or if it is not in focus, by how much it is out of focus (which allows PD AF to predict how much a lens has change focus to get the subject into focus and doesn’t have to rely on the trial and error message of contrast detect AF).

          This looking at only the f/5.6 ring is achieved by extra apertures in the actual AF module. The result of which is that when you switch from a f/2.8 to a f/4 lens (by using a different lens or by adding a 1.4x TC to a f/2.8 lens), the light subtracted is light reaching the sensor at angle that the PD AF sensor module has already been blocking anyway.

          A very comprehensive explanation of how PD AF works can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54211961

          • TonyDee

            I stand corrected … and could use to take some time to review the link you provided, thank you.

    • neversink

      Go D810 FX and crop. Use the tools that are available…..

      • TonyDee

        Besides a D7100, I have a D7000 that although doesn’t have the focusing system of an D810, has the same, lower, pixel density. The D7100 takes photos that are clearly higher resolution. Since all of my long lenses are FX thee’s no issue there, I considered a D810 and picked up the D7100.

  • Michiel953

    I’m really anxious for Nikon to bring out a new camera named D400, any camera, or rename an existing one, doesn’t matter which, to D400, just to shut up the “Where’s my D400?” gruppetto. That’ll leave just the D500 stragglers, but they’re limping so far behind us normal, happy, contented folks they don’t matter.

    • catinhat

      Sorry to ask, but why exactly did you come to visit this discussion thread?

  • French Sam

    OS minimum specs on the box can tell us it’s an old box !!!

  • Christopher Warzenski

    5 years later and people still think this unicorn is going to come true. This is folly. There isn’t going to be a “replacement” for the D300s that they don’t already make (D7200) and if there was it wouldn’t cost twice what the D7200 costs.

    • AlphaTed

      It takes a while to catch a leprechaun.

      Patience is a virtue.

    • jstevez

      Ops!

  • IndyReader

    What I fail to understand is how anyone would consider any new Nikon camera now given the abysmal state of Nikon’s software offerings.

    They have a ways to go before I’ll be interested. There’s more involved to this than a mythical camera body update.

  • pwmorg

    I’ve been waiting years for this but now I just want a full frame too late now!

  • neversink

    Perhaps this post by Admin will stop all the irrelevant “Where’s my D400” whining on future Nikonrumors threads. It should stop them in their tracks, but given their obsession, I doubt it will.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Where’s my D500?

      • silmasan

        Ahaha you asked the right question! xD

    • I will

      • neversink

        Thank You!!!!!!!!

  • Purdyd

    It is absolutely criminal that Nikon did not properly follow up the d300. I still see a lot D300 cameras used for instance on a recent cruise all the ship photographers had one.

    It seems to me those “industrial” users are still around. And Nikon should pay more attention to that core professional I’ll call industrial user. People who use a camera in their work but are not photographers.

    There is also a solid reason that the price should be below $3k

    With f2 wide angle zooms and a pixel density reach advantage dx format has in my mind made a mini revival

    • PeterO

      They’re still using the D300 at my Costco for passport photos.

    • Joseph

      Yes I agree. The photo journalists in the Army still use D300s’.

  • John

    I think there is a market for the D400 and I hope it will be announced with the D5. It only makes sense when the D400 superseeds the D7200 in speed and imagequality.
    If you look at the history, you will see that a ‘secondary’ dslr model is announced every time Nikon improves the autofocus.
    D1 / D100 with 5 Focus points
    D2X /D200 with the 11 points and
    D3 / D300 with 51 focuspoints
    I think Nikon was developing a faster AF system, better than Canon, but suffered delay as result of the several nature disasters.
    All camera models that followed still have the 51 point AF with some improvements.
    I hope Nikon will introduce in 2016 the D5 with far more focuspoints(some say 105 others 153) and better image quality especially in low light conditions.
    In that respect it will make sense for Nikon and it’s users that a ‘secondary’ model will be introduced that inherits the features of its bigger brother.

    • outkasted

      This has been the best comment in recent weeks. Your explanation sounds reasonable and is backed by factual history regarding auto-focus upgrades. It all sounds credible. Done well sir.

      • outkasted

        We were right!

        • PhilK

          Yep. I don’t think a lot of people realize how hard the 2011 earthquake hit Nikon, whose main Japan factory is right in the middle of the worst-hit area in Sendai. Canon’s production on the other hand was spread out in various sites to the west, none of them in the hard-hit areas of Japan.

          Then Nikon was hit 3 years later with the disaster in Thailand, a tsunami resulting from what turned out to be the 3rd largest earthquake ever measured, with the longest duration of any earthquake ever measured. :-0 Which of course completely flooded the first floor of their main factory in Thailand, which was a cornerstone of their mass-market production.

          To be honest I’m surprised Nikon survived both of those events without drastic long-term damage to the company. I have a feeling that a number of products already in the pipeline ended up being delayed or cancelled as a result of those things.

        • John

          Yes we were!

    • Joseph

      Great observation! You get my vote.

  • dbltax

    Those still hoping for a “D400” note that that D4 was annouced just shy of 4 years ago, while the D3 and D300 were announced at the same time. Seriously, get over it.

    • AlphaTed

      Thus from here on out, it will be called D500 (as stated in the Title).

  • David Swager

    The D400 is the most talked about Nikon DSLR since about 2008! It’s legend is almost mythical in proportion. And the camera doesn’t even exist! That should give Nikon and any naysayers some pause.

    • Brian

      And, you have to ask yourself why they would put it out now? After many have defected to other brands and FF. Not to mention Nikon calling the 7200 their flagship DX.

      • AlphaTed

        Because IT IS the flagship DX in the absence of anything above it.
        If the rumor is true and if Nikon builds it, they will come … back.

        • Mike

          True. The Canon 10D-70D line was their flagship APS-C the 7D came out.

  • ss

    Your A7II Battery ran out halfway through this novel

  • grm070

    The unparalleled (albeit FX size) D750 is $1900. Buy a D750, set it on DX image area, and there you have it – a top of the line DX camera! I contend that this is Nikon’s answer to the lack of a D400.

    Weren’t the top-of-the line DX models always a compromise, to bring high quality at a more affordable price, so with a smaller sensor? The D750 solved that issue – affordable price, great quality, AND now an FX sensor to boot. No need for the top DX models anymore!

    (Yes, please tell me about DX vs FX pixel size and blah blah blah, and blah blah blah…)

  • petervandever

    D7300….. the D750 in DX… what should have been the D7200!

    • TonyDee

      I agree, although the 7200 came pretty close. The D750 has a couple of “non photograph” related features, WiFi and articulating screen, and I can’d begin to compare the flash systems, however, if everything was kept the same except the actual sensor, shutter box and pentaprism (to give us a DX view), Nikon could have saved big on hardware and software development. The DX sensor costs Nikon less and so should the camera. Keep the cost a slight bit lower with WiFi as an internal option then come back 12 months later with D7300W.

      • petervandever

        Everyone wanted that articulating screen in the D7200. I have NO idea why it was not included. Makes no sense not to do it. It was the only reason I flirted with Sony to be honest.

  • capitanharlock

    Coming from a D200 and after many years of a D400 waiting… I recently bought a D7200, at around 1000 US $ (In Italy).
    I lost my hopes.

  • Marco –

    Samsung nx1 is even better than these rumored specs and has been around for 1 year already. And it can now be found for 1000 us$.

  • Back to top