# D400.. keep dreaming.



## TheLost

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I see lots of people saying they are waiting for a D400...  I'm not sure why everybody thinks Nikon is going to release a D300 replacement.[/FONT]

Lets look at the timeline.... The D300 came out 5 years ago.
 Since then... Nikon has:

Upgraded the Entry Level dslr THREE times ( D3000 -> D3100 -> D3200).
Upgraded the Mid-Level THREE times ( D60 -> D5000 -> D5100).
Upgraded the Advanced (consumer) TWICE ( D90 -> D7000).
Upgraded the Mid-Pro Full Frame TWICE (D700 -> D800).
Upgraded the Pro Flagship FOUR times (D3 -> D3s -> D4.. added the D3x).
Added a Consumer Level Full Frame (D600).

What did Nikon do to the D300 in the past 5 years? They added the movie mode from the D90 in the middle of 2009.

Whats the only other camera Nikon has left un-touched that long? The outdated D3x. Why? because they don't need it any more (D600 has better spec's for 1/3 the price).

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Have you ever thought Nikon is phasing out the 'Pro' DX body?  Take a look at the D7000..
1) Dual card slots
2) Weather sealed (ish)
3) M[/FONT]agnesium alloy body

IMHO...  There won't be a D400...  There will be a D7100/D7200 with more 'pro' like features.  There is a VERY small market for the D400, it doesn't make sense for Nikon to waste production resources when they can fill the gap by merging the top DX consumer camera with the DX pro camera (More features then most amateurs need.. not everything a pro needs).


Fun Fact!! The D300 came out before the first iPhone was on the market.


----------



## tirediron

Okay.


----------



## KmH

The D7000 can only do 3 AEB, only has a magnesium top and back plate (not a magnesium body), lacks a 10-pin and flash PC cable port, and a lot of other features Nikon's prosumer cameras have.

The D700 was Nikon's first full frame prosumer camera, and not an upgrade.

The D3s is configured for pro sports, while the D3x was configured for pro studio shooters. The D4 is also configured as a pro sports shooters camera.

Sports/nature/wildlife shooters can still benefit from a DX prosumer camera that has a good burst rate mode, and because of the crop factor, which is why many expect the D300s will be replaced in Nikon's lineup.


----------



## pixmedic

its interesting that anyone would think that, at this point, that Nikon would completely remove any level of their DSLR's from the market. To do so would mean that any consumer that is looking to enter photography at that level, would be forced to go with another brand, Canon, Pentax, Sony(?)...
i really doubt that Nikon would relinquish whatever market share they hold on "pro-sumer" cameras. maybe they DO want to make more of a push to full frame...maybe they DO want to push the AF-S lenses. and MAYBE we will see less frequent updates to the mid range models. I think its more likely that Nikon is simply changing their camera "class" lineup. maybe something like:
Entry level DX
"pro-sumer" DX
entry level FX, 
pro level FX
instead of having several tiers of DX and several tiers of FX, just make two sets of each.
I find the notion some people have that you "have" to shoot FX to be a pro utterly ridiculous, and I think If Nikon feels the same way, they would not likely stop producing their upper end DX cameras. I could be wrong though, I am by NO means a Nikon expert. but I digress... I like Pie.


----------



## ZapoTeX

> There is a VERY small market for the D400


Canon is rumored to be working on the 7D Mark II... Not sure that market is so small.

Maybe the D5200 will get the second dial & the AF-motor (now that the D3200 has a great sensor and lots of features) and the D7200 (or maybe D8000) will get the CAM 3500 AF with 51 points and 10 fps...


----------



## Derrel

Thom Hogan just last week speculated that the D300s replacement model would be a February, 2013 announcement...and also, currently, there is a $1,100 price gap between the D7000 and the D600...so....uh, YES, there will be a "D400", ie, a higher-end DX body, soon. In the same article, he stated that the D7000 is the LAST MODEL that needs a refresh. Since he's a long-time Nikon watcher, has been invited to speak DIRECTLY to Nikon, Japan's senior executives in Japan,in PERSON, and has written like 21 "Complete Guide To The Nikon ________" guidebooks, I'll value his opinions and predictions about Nikon products and Nikon strategies over those of just about anybody...


----------



## fjrabon

Canon sure does sell a boatload if 7Ds for there to be 'not much of a market for a prosumer DX'


----------



## TheLost

I bring it up because i think its an amusing topic to debate...  I love the people who say "I need to upgrade my D90/D80 for better ISO (or feature x) but i'm waiting for the D400!"...  while in the 3 years they've been waiting they could have been using a D700 or D7000 (or now the D600).



Derrel said:


> Thom Hogan just last week speculated that the D300s replacement model would be a February, 2013 announcement... [...] I'll value his opinions and predictions about Nikon products and Nikon strategies over those of just about anybody...



I 100% agree how awesome T.Hogan is....  however, you need to look at exactly what he's saying:


> Come February I suspect we'll get the next notch (e.g. D400 and/*or* D7200).



He's saying Nikon will come out with a D400 and D7200... or just the D7200.  

D3200 = Entry Level DX
D5100 = Mid Range DX
D7200 = Pro/Advanced DX
D600 = Entry FX
D800 = Pro Mid Range FX
D4 = Pro Advanced FX


----------



## TheLost

fjrabon said:


> Canon sure does sell a boatload if 7Ds for there to be 'not much of a market for a prosumer DX'



And Nikon sells a boat load of D7000's to people who want a prosumer DX.  I know lots of pro's who keep a D7000 in their bag right next to the D4's.


----------



## ceejtank

I haven't heard anyone talking about a d400.


----------



## sovietdoc

What Canon and Nikon are doing now with all the camera segments is stupid.  There should only be like 5 cameras total.

1.  High end pro ff sports/photojournalism camera
2.  High end pro ff high mpix studio camera
3.  mid-level ff with midrangle mpix and fps
4.  higher-end crop
5.  base crop for noobs

That's it omg, yet they're making tons of redundant crap just so they can sell... /sigh


----------



## Derrel

Sony tried a strategy of placing a bunch of d-slr cameras into segments priced right around $200 apart...that didn't work too well...they gave that strategy about two years. Yeah...I dunno...this is the era of "the product matrix"...and "market segmentation", yadda yadda yadda...like for example, the low end is split into good/better/best...now the mid-to-upper end has two models...and the TOP end used to have two models (Nikon D3s, D3x), and Canon had the two top-level models the 1Ds and the 1D--which they NOW have JUST MELDED into the 1Dx. It remains to be seen if Nikon will follow suit and combine its *high-speed camera*, the D3s formerly and now the D4, with the "studio, high-rez" camera (formerly the D3x) and leave that *top-priced slot* at just ONE model, the way Canon is doing with the 1Dx.

The way the camera companies try and position so many offerings makes me think that a D400 is a necessity...the price gulf means a LOT of money lost when a D7000 goes out instead of a D400 priced $600 higher. Or even more. Now, I have not heard this before, so I am going to offer my OWN idea: Nikon, instead of going mid-segment with a D300s replacement, COULD ALSO TRY moving the price back to the higher end of the spectrum, and making a truly professional DX camera that is built more like a D2Xs successor instead of a D300s successor, with a $3299 price tag, not a $1699 price point. Offer a high-MP APS-C sensor,say 24MP,a killer finder, 51 pt AF, built-in wireless transfer, built-in flash commander AND pop-up flash, 12 FPS at APS-C size capture, and also 2.0x crop mode at 14 fps. With a 24MP 1.5x sensor, I think they could move the 2.0x High Speed Crop to a very high MP count....what? 16.5 MP maybe???


----------



## Vautrin

Derrel said:


> Sony tried a strategy of placing a bunch of d-slr cameras into segments priced right around $200 apart...that didn't work too well...they gave that strategy about two years. Yeah...I dunno...this is the era of "the product matrix"...and "market segmentation", yadda yadda yadda...like for example, the low end is split into good/better/best...now the mid-to-upper end has two models...and the TOP end used to have two models (Nikon D3s, D3x), and Canon had the two top-level models the 1Ds and the 1D--which they NOW have JUST MELDED into the 1Dx. It remains to be seen if Nikon will follow suit and combine its *high-speed camera*, the D3s formerly and now the D4, with the "studio, high-rez" camera (formerly the D3x) and leave that *top-priced slot* at just ONE model, the way Canon is doing with the 1Dx.
> 
> The way the camera companies try and position so many offerings makes me think that a D400 is a necessity...the price gulf means a LOT of money lost when a D7000 goes out instead of a D400 priced $600 higher. Or even more. Now, I have not heard this before, so I am going to offer my OWN idea: Nikon, instead of going mid-segment with a D300s replacement, COULD ALSO TRY moving the price back to the higher end of the spectrum, and making a truly professional DX camera that is built more like a D2Xs successor instead of a D300s successor, with a $3299 price tag, not a $1699 price point. Offer a high-MP APS-C sensor,say 24MP,a killer finder, 51 pt AF, built-in wireless transfer, built-in flash commander AND pop-up flash, 12 FPS at APS-C size capture, and also 2.0x crop mode at 14 fps. With a 24MP 1.5x sensor, I think they could move the 2.0x High Speed Crop to a very high MP count....what? 16.5 MP maybe???



Which would be brilliant for sports photogs who care more about zoom then being able to blow up anything larger than a magazine cover.

Brilliant.  We all should work for nikon.


----------



## Derrel

Yeah...that ultra high-speed camera would also satisfy the spray and prayers from ALL walks of life...the soccer moms...the car drifting people...the motorcycle racing enthusiasts....the velodrome nut-jobs...the skateboarding afficionados...the bird photographers who loves them their BIF shootin'...all they really say they care about is "reach"...they want to put AS MANY PIXELS as possible into the smallest sensor area with a telephoto lens...AND YES, honestly--ANYTHING printed in a magazine is degraded by the halftone screen...and the 90% of sports images that appear on-line, on the world wide web...resolution is the absolute LEAST worry now that we have 16 to 24 to 36 MP images from the better Nikon models...the web, or magazines, really do not benefit that much from "high-rez" cameras...16MP is PLENTY. Hell, 12 MP is plenty, for the web, or for magazines or newsprint. Again...the images are reduced to BIG DOTS...


----------



## fjrabon

TheLost said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon sure does sell a boatload if 7Ds for there to be 'not much of a market for a prosumer DX'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Nikon sells a boat load of D7000's to people who want a prosumer DX.  I know lots of pro's who keep a D7000 in their bag right next to the D4's.
Click to expand...


Then what exactly did you mean when you said "there's a very small market for the D400"?


----------



## TheLost

fjrabon said:


> Then what exactly did you mean when you said "there's a very small market for the D400"?



I've had many conversations with the local 'pro' camera shop (the largest in my area) about this.. The demand for a DX pro level body has dropped with the availability of lower priced FX bodies.  

For sports...

I would say the majority of D300 buyers in the beginning where people that fell under the NPS umbrella.  At the time you only had a few choices if you where a pro.. D3 for $5k or D300 for $1.8k (your other choices where a D40x or a D80). Over the years those people have moved onto the D700 or up to the D3s/D4.  The typical D300s buyer in my area for the past few years have been the 'Here is my credit card.... whats the best camera i can get' crowed (the same people who flocked to the D800..  just because.. well.. its the D800!!).  

I walk the sidelines of at least 3 sporting events each week..  Over the past two years i have not seen one paid 'professional' (news or private) with a DX body at a high school varsity game (football, basketball.. etc).  They all have D700's, D3s or D4's (most have a D700 w/70-200 around the neck and a D3s/D4 with larger zoom).  I talk gear with them all the time.... none of them would go back to DX. The people with DX bodies are guys/gals like me...  goofball amateurs who somehow scored a sideline pass (lots of them have kit-level zooms attached).

For Birders or Nature lovers..

I live 3 hours away from Arches, Zions, Bryce.. 15 minutes away from Deer Valley, Park City, Alta & Snowbird.  In my area Photography is one of those hobbies that LOTS of people get into... very few stick with.  D800 sales are NUTS at the local shops.  People with disposable income are flocking to it like hotcakes.  One of my wife's relatives makes his living as a nature photographer.. He sold his D300s years ago and (again) would never go back to DX.

The people who stick with DX now are people who cant afford good glass... I honestly believe that DX will be dead in about 10 years.  Smaller Mirrorless APS-C cameras will take over the lower/middle consumer market.  The DSLR will be the world of FX or larger.


----------



## KmH

What country are you in?


----------



## fjrabon

TheLost said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what exactly did you mean when you said "there's a very small market for the D400"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've had many conversations with the local 'pro' camera shop (the largest in my area) about this.. The demand for a DX pro level body has dropped with the availability of lower priced FX bodies.
> 
> For sports...
> 
> I would say the majority of D300 buyers in the beginning where people that fell under the NPS umbrella.  At the time you only had a few choices if you where a pro.. D3 for $5k or D300 for $1.8k (your other choices where a D40x or a D80). Over the years those people have moved onto the D700 or up to the D3s/D4.  The typical D300s buyer in my area for the past few years have been the 'Here is my credit card.... whats the best camera i can get' crowed (the same people who flocked to the D800..  just because.. well.. its the D800!!).
> 
> I walk the sidelines of at least 3 sporting events each week..  Over the past two years i have not seen one paid 'professional' (news or private) with a DX body at a high school varsity game (football, basketball.. etc).  They all have D700's, D3s or D4's (most have a D700 w/70-200 around the neck and a D3s/D4 with larger zoom).  I talk gear with them all the time.... none of them would go back to DX. The people with DX bodies are guys/gals like me...  goofball amateurs who somehow scored a sideline pass (lots of them have kit-level zooms attached).
> 
> For Birders or Nature lovers..
> 
> I live 3 hours away from Arches, Zions, Bryce.. 15 minutes away from Deer Valley, Park City, Alta & Snowbird.  In my area Photography is one of those hobbies that LOTS of people get into... very few stick with.  D800 sales are NUTS at the local shops.  People with disposable income are flocking to it like hotcakes.  One of my wife's relatives makes his living as a nature photographer.. He sold his D300s years ago and (again) would never go back to DX.
> 
> The people who stick with DX now are people who cant afford good glass... I honestly believe that DX will be dead in about 10 years.  Smaller Mirrorless APS-C cameras will take over the lower/middle consumer market.  The DSLR will be the world of FX or larger.
Click to expand...


I still see a decent amount of people shooting 7Ds on the sidelines professionally.  I'd absolutely shoot a 7D for sports over a D700.  Most all formats you'd have your photos published don't need the resolution.  A 7D means you don't need a 400 2.8, which on a full frame you pretty much have to have a 400mm.  Now if you can shoot a D4 and a 400mm 2.8 or a 1DX and the 300mm 2.8, then obviously you shoot FX.  But even a lot of paid pros aren't shooting a $12,000 setup.  A lot of times I'll shoot the first half with a 5D, then the second half with a 5DIII.


----------



## Vautrin

TheLost said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what exactly did you mean when you said "there's a very small market for the D400"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've had many conversations with the local 'pro' camera shop (the largest in my area) about this.. The demand for a DX pro level body has dropped with the availability of lower priced FX bodies.
> 
> For sports...
> 
> I would say the majority of D300 buyers in the beginning where people that fell under the NPS umbrella.  At the time you only had a few choices if you where a pro.. D3 for $5k or D300 for $1.8k (your other choices where a D40x or a D80). Over the years those people have moved onto the D700 or up to the D3s/D4.  The typical D300s buyer in my area for the past few years have been the 'Here is my credit card.... whats the best camera i can get' crowed (the same people who flocked to the D800..  just because.. well.. its the D800!!).
> 
> I walk the sidelines of at least 3 sporting events each week..  Over the past two years i have not seen one paid 'professional' (news or private) with a DX body at a high school varsity game (football, basketball.. etc).  They all have D700's, D3s or D4's (most have a D700 w/70-200 around the neck and a D3s/D4 with larger zoom).  I talk gear with them all the time.... none of them would go back to DX. The people with DX bodies are guys/gals like me...  goofball amateurs who somehow scored a sideline pass (lots of them have kit-level zooms attached).
> 
> For Birders or Nature lovers..
> 
> I live 3 hours away from Arches, Zions, Bryce.. 15 minutes away from Deer Valley, Park City, Alta & Snowbird.  In my area Photography is one of those hobbies that LOTS of people get into... very few stick with.  D800 sales are NUTS at the local shops.  People with disposable income are flocking to it like hotcakes.  One of my wife's relatives makes his living as a nature photographer.. He sold his D300s years ago and (again) would never go back to DX.
> 
> The people who stick with DX now are people who cant afford good glass... I honestly believe that DX will be dead in about 10 years.  Smaller Mirrorless APS-C cameras will take over the lower/middle consumer market.  The DSLR will be the world of FX or larger.
Click to expand...


The funny thing is you'd never know if somebody with a full frame camera is shooting full frame or a DX crop for those extra couple frames per second.

Oh, and lens distortion is lowest in the center of a lens so shooting DX with an FX lens has some advantages as well...

Just saying...


----------



## fjrabon

Just to bring home the point from earlier there are photographers here from the Atlanta Journal Constitution at the high school game I'm covering. What are they shooting?  7Ds


----------



## bhop

I'm waiting for an F7


----------



## Markw

TheLost said:


> I see lots of people saying they are waiting for a D400...  I'm not sure why everybody thinks Nikon is going to release a D300 replacement.
> 
> Lets look at the timeline.... The D300 came out 5 years ago.
> Since then... Nikon has:
> 
> Upgraded the Entry Level dslr THREE times ( D3000 -> D3100 -> D3200).
> Upgraded the Mid-Level THREE times ( D60 -> D5000 -> D5100).
> Upgraded the Advanced (consumer) TWICE ( D90 -> D7000).
> Upgraded the Mid-Pro Full Frame TWICE (D700 -> D800).
> Upgraded the Pro Flagship FOUR times (D3 -> D3s -> D4.. added the D3x).
> Added a Consumer Level Full Frame (D600).
> 
> What did Nikon do to the D300 in the past 5 years? They added the movie mode from the D90 in the middle of 2009.
> 
> Whats the only other camera Nikon has left un-touched that long? The outdated D3x. Why? because they don't need it any more (D600 has better spec's for 1/3 the price).
> 
> Have you ever thought Nikon is phasing out the 'Pro' DX body?  Take a look at the D7000..
> 1) Dual card slots
> 2) Weather sealed (ish)
> 3) Magnesium alloy body
> 
> IMHO...  There won't be a D400...  There will be a D7100/D7200 with more 'pro' like features.  There is a VERY small market for the D400, it doesn't make sense for Nikon to waste production resources when they can fill the gap by merging the top DX consumer camera with the DX pro camera (More features then most amateurs need.. not everything a pro needs).
> 
> 
> Fun Fact!! The D300 came out before the first iPhone was on the market.


(Just to preface, I didn't read everyone's posts.  Pressed for time, but I will be back later to do so)

Lol.  I bet you just bought a D600, or are using a D7k and can't afford a D600, but reallly want one.  Your superiority complex is shining nice and bright here, too.  I'd say there's about a 98% chance that you're dead wrong.

Mark


----------



## Vautrin

fjrabon said:


> Just to bring home the point from earlier there are photographers here from the Atlanta Journal Constitution at the high school game I'm covering. What are they shooting?  7Ds



A buddy of mine is a reporter of the writing sort.  He carries (and recommends carrying) a lumix which is (gasp) micro 4/3rds not fx

Reason is simply if he wants to capture pictures for a story he can capture in high enough quality, while at the same time doesnt stick out the way he would with a giant camera around his neck

street photogs like the lumix for this reason as well

so, yeah i think there is a market for a small sensor size

they key is there are a million types of photographers...

the only question is a particular slice of the market big enough to justify its own camera

i for one would love to see a 4x5" sensor...  even if i couldnt afford the price . there are others too but probably market is too small


----------



## TheLost

Markw said:


> (Just to preface, I didn't read everyone's posts.  Pressed for time, but I will be back later to do so)
> 
> Lol.  I bet you just bought a D600, or are using a D7k and can't afford a D600, but reallly want one.  Your superiority complex is shining nice and bright here, too.  I'd say there's about a 98% chance that you're dead wrong.
> 
> Mark



Wow.. ok

first: yes, i shoot with a D7000. I like the D600 but i'd rather have the extra reach of a DX body.
second:  I would be first in line for a D400.

All i'm trying to do is spark a fun debate about the future of one of Nikon's bodies...  I just posted my opinion and the reasoning behind it.  I'm sorry my opinion doesn't agree with you.  Next time i'll check with the 'thread police' before i start a topic that you may have an issue with.


PS.  The entire 'Cant afford a D600' comment kind of made you look like a jerk.  Saying somebody has a superiority complex because you don't agree with them kind of proves it.  If you think Nikon is going to bring out a D400 why don't you post why you think that... rather then your typical 'your stupid' type post.


----------



## TheLost

fjrabon said:


> I still see a decent amount of people shooting 7Ds on the sidelines professionally.  I'd absolutely shoot a 7D for sports over a D700.  Most all formats you'd have your photos published don't need the resolution.  A 7D means you don't need a 400 2.8, which on a full frame you pretty much have to have a 400mm.  Now if you can shoot a D4 and a 400mm 2.8 or a 1DX and the 300mm 2.8, then obviously you shoot FX.  But even a lot of paid pros aren't shooting a $12,000 setup.  A lot of times I'll shoot the first half with a 5D, then the second half with a 5DIII.



The rumors around the 7D mkII say Canon is going to move it MORE PRO (Dual Digic 5 CPU, 100% viewfinder, auto-focus system of the EOS 5D Mark III and even better build).  These rumors have been floating around for quite a few months.  It seems obvious Canon wants a pro level crop sensor body. (not to mention giving its users more options with lenses).

Nikon can't keep anything secret.... Don't you think we hear rumblings about a D400 if it was coming out in the spring?


----------



## Derrel

The Nikon D3 was almost a TOTAL, 100 percent "secret"...it shocked people with its "twelve megapixel" sensor...the D3 was almost entirely a total surprise. Same with the D800...the 36 MP thing and the price took people by utter surprise. The D600 was a deliberate pre-release leak, to try and blunt the full-frame offerings of both Canon and Sony, which Nikon realized would be hitting the market at roughly the same time frame as THEIR new, low-cost full frame. I think what sells d-slr cameras varies a bit, based on market segment. Canon's 7D is a HUGE example of a highly-successful seller AND a camera that MANY Canon shooters want. The idea that $2,000 to $3,500 full-frame cameras, and then $5500 and $7999 FX flagships like the D3s and D4 and D3x defines the entire enthusiast market is just...stupid. ANYBODY that has EVER worked in retail camera sales (which I have done!) can tell you--a price gulf of $999 for the D7000 body, and $2,099 for the D600...is STUPID.

As Thom Hogan is suggesting, the D400 will likely be here in February, 2013. MY OWN opinion? The D400 will be sotted in to that HUGE gulf between $999 and $2,099--not to merely "compete" with the Canon 7D....but to utterly CRUSH it, with a better-performing sensor, in a better-performing body than the 7D has. Nikon is no longer trying to "just compete" with Canon...this ain't 2003, or 2004, or 2006 even...Nikon is now in the lead in d-slr bodies, and is pressing its advantage. The 7D and Canon are both ripe for a huge loss of face, to use a Japanese expression.


----------



## Vautrin

Markw said:


> (Just to preface, I didn't read everyone's posts.  Pressed for time, but I will be back later to do so)



Most obnoxious way to start a post, ever.  "Dear sir I didn't do the courtesy to read what you've read, but I completely disagree with you, and believe you to be a whiny muppet with sensor envy


----------



## Tee

Vautrin said:


> Markw said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Just to preface, I didn't read everyone's posts.  Pressed for time, but I will be back later to do so)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most obnoxious way to start a post, ever.  "Dear sir I didn't do the courtesy to read what you've read, but I completely disagree with you, and believe you to be a whiny muppet with sensor envy
Click to expand...


Markw suffers from severe G.A.S.  He might of been having a case of the shakes from not buying or selling something.


----------



## coastalconn

I personally do not see why Nikon wouldn't release a d400.  To the OP, the d300 really hasn't been updated in 5 years because in my humble opinion it was ahead of itself.  It still has the best AF system in a crop body along with a very good buffer and a high frame rate. 

The D7000 has a better sensor for sure, any one would be foolish to argue with that point.  I think the d400 will be so advanced it will be the dx king for the next 3 years.  What does it need?  The d800 sensor cut in half, the d4 af system and a huge buffer and 8 fps.  Of course the newest expeed and ... 

At least my GAS was relieved 3 months ago when I grabbed a d300.  Just my humble opinion..


----------



## jake337

Vautrin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to bring home the point from earlier there are photographers here from the Atlanta Journal Constitution at the high school game I'm covering. What are they shooting?  7Ds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A buddy of mine is a reporter of the writing sort.  He carries (and recommends carrying) a lumix which is (gasp) micro 4/3rds not fx
> 
> Reason is simply if he wants to capture pictures for a story he can capture in high enough quality, while at the same time doesnt stick out the way he would with a giant camera around his neck
> 
> street photogs like the lumix for this reason as well
> 
> so, yeah i think there is a market for a small sensor size
> 
> they key is there are a million types of photographers...
> 
> the only question is a particular slice of the market big enough to justify its own camera
> 
> i for one would love to see a 4x5" sensor...  even if i couldnt afford the price . there are others too but probably market is too small
Click to expand...


Yes street shooters like those cameras for their size,  not the size of the sensor in it. If they could "straight trade" their lumix for a Leica M9, they wold do it in a hearbeat.


----------



## Derrel

Fuji's new "X" series is shaping up to be a street shooter's low-cost Leica alternative. Right?


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:
			
		

> Fuji's new "X" series is shaping up to be a street shooter's low-cost Leica alternative. Right?



Im thinking of getting an X1 pro to shoot with my M4


----------



## jake337

Derrel said:


> Fuji's new "X" series is shaping up to be a street shooter's low-cost Leica alternative. Right?




That would be sweet.  I wonder how long till Leica is pushed off their hill.  How many years till we see P&S with 35mm sensors as normal?  Or at least under a $1,000 bucks?  I think it is closer than we think, less than ten years??

In fact, I bet we'll see 35mm digital throw away cameras in our lifetime.....



Think about this:  If the evolution of the camera continues down it's path, how advanced will our light recording devices be in 20 years from 2012????

*The Cost of the First Digital Camera*

By 1991, Kodak had refined Sasson's idea into the first professional digital camera. The DCS-100 launched the SLR line at a $13,000 price point. In 1994 came the Apple QuickTake 100. It could take eight quick pictures on a card, cost $750 and only interfaced with Macs. It was guickly eclipsed by newer, cheaper models from Kodak, Casio and others. However, as this 1994 QuickTake review said, "If it catches on, it will be the forerunner of a line of products which could change the way families take, manage and print their social pictures."

and this in 2012, with 2013 around the corner....

Kodak Digital Camera 27 Exposures, 1 Single Use Camera - Kodak Everything Else Disposable Cameras Household from Stockn'Go



$7.99 for a throw away sensor that would blow away the first professional digital camera in almost every aspect.  Especially price, $7.99 is a lot cheaper than $13,000......


----------



## Markw

TheLost said:


> Wow.. ok
> 
> first: yes, i shoot with a D7000. I like the D600 but i'd rather have the extra reach of a DX body.
> second:  I would be first in line for a D400.
> 
> All i'm trying to do is spark a fun debate about the future of one of Nikon's bodies...  I just posted my opinion and the reasoning behind it.  I'm sorry my opinion doesn't agree with you.  Next time i'll check with the 'thread police' before i start a topic that you may have an issue with.
> 
> 
> PS.  The entire 'Cant afford a D600' comment kind of made you look like a jerk.  Saying somebody has a superiority complex because you don't agree with them kind of proves it.  If you think Nikon is going to bring out a D400 why don't you post why you think that... rather then your typical 'your stupid' type post.



I didn't say you were stupid.  I just think you're wrong.  

I can't afford a D600.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing to not be able to afford a $2000 camera.  Most can't.  It took me a LONG time to save up my money for a D3s, that went to my D800.  When anyone says "can't afford", there's a condescending tone to it.  But, that's not necessarily what I meant by it. 

There IS a bit of a tone of superiority in your post (there was a bit in mine too, sadly).  And, I'm not saying my opinion is any better than yours.  It's just apparent that the tone is there.  Personally, I'd love a D400 as well.  If you're interested, you can read my thoughts on the subject here.

Mark


----------



## bhop

Derrel said:


> Fuji's new "X" series is shaping up to be a street shooter's low-cost Leica alternative. Right?



In some ways.. I have a Leica M, and I also have an X100.  The problem with the X when compared to Leica is the focus.. but if you're ok with an autofocus only camera (manual is nearly useless) then it's pretty damned awesome and kinda feels like a rangefinder, even though it's not.  As far as digital goes, I rarely ever use my dslrs anymore since I got the X100.  The IQ is just amazing!


----------



## TheLost

Has anybody read Thom Hogans "Why Did APS (and DX) DSLRs Have to Die?" article this weekend? (bottom of this page.. Photokina 2012 Trends).

I hope we do wake up in 2013 and find a full line of DX lenses and bodies... But i think even he is having doubts.


----------



## JDFlood

Didn't read the tread, but I have believed the DX is on the way out for a couple years now. Economics of technology mandate it, only question of time. JD


----------



## PWPhotoSC

I'm new here, so  I dont know any of you or your backgrounds.  I have reaa good mnaynof the posts in this thread and I just say some of them made me laugh, some of them made a lot of sense and some of them were flat out ridiculous and stupid. Which ones fell ino each category I won't say. Seems like there are some very definite opinions about the D400 here. Imhave been a photogapher ofr almostn30 years and have had many brands of camera equipment;  Nikon, Canon,  Minolta, Pentax, Contax and Mamiya.Imactually got out of it for a few years and have gotten back into within the past couple of years. Imcurrently shoot with a Nikon D800 because the type of photography do, it is the best suited. I looked at and held side by side a Nikon D700, Canon 7D and Canon 5D Mark II. There were ings that I liked about each and things I didn't as well. I had seen the rumors about the D800 and held out because I liked themway themD700 felt in my hand better than the 5D. I liked the fps of the 7D, but since I dont do much sports or shooting where higher fps is required I opted to go with a full frame instead. I pre-ordered the D800 as soon as it was announced. I have not regretted my buying it not one time since I got it.

Now having said that, I need to reply to one of the comments I read here. The comment that once someone goes FX, they never go back to DX. You are wrong. They may never give up their FX body and go completely back to DX, BUT there are many advantages to having a DX body. I am currently looking for a second body to carry with me and I am looking for a DX body. I looked at the D600, but I dont want another FX body. I want a DX to,get the extra weight reduction and the ability of using my FX lenses on it to get the extra reach when I need it without having to change my settings on my D800 and take the chance of missing a shot. Nikon put the D600 out for a reason. Just like they have the D7000 and why they have NOT discontinued the D300s. If they had no plans to update or upgrade it, they would dicontinued it on their website by now. If you notice, shortly after the D4 released, the D3S was discontinued. At the same time, after the D800 released, the D3X was not. They have plans for that future model. Same goes for the D300s. There is a market for that line and Nikon knows it. Canon knows it to. Why do you think they are in the developement and production phases on the 7D Mark II right now? 

I think that when Nikon does release the D400, it will be a very good middle line blend between pro-sumer FX and high end DX lines. Right now there is to big of a gap in price and specs between the D600 and the D7000 for nothing to be released to,fill the void. An update of the D7000; in my opinion can't fil that gap. Only a solid replacement for the D300s could fill that hole and do it right.


----------



## slow231

^ that's what she said. hehe.


sorry i have nothing of value to add to this thread.


----------



## JDFlood

PWPhotoSC said:


> I think that when Nikon does release the D400, it will be a very good middle line blend between pro-sumer FX and high end DX lines. Right now there is to big of a gap in price and specs between the D600 and the D7000 for nothing to be released to,fill the void. An update of the D7000; in my opinion can't fil that gap. Only a solid replacement for the D300s could fill that hole and do it right.



You put forth a good sounding argument. So I guess the answer is with Nikon and their perception of this niche; is it large enough to justifiy cost of development and manufacturing of such a similar line of cameras or does it makes more sense to roll the resources into the FX group. My personal experience is that my DX purchases were a waste of money. I would never recommend anyone purchase one if they could afford an FX. You just don't want to commit to a line of lenses, and then find yourself wanting to advance, and be held back by your lenses. I seriously think Nikon would think that way as well. These companies have tried to preserve everyones investment. When you want to upgrade, this is a point where a person might jump to Canon if your previous investments will no longer be useful.  So, I would be shocked if this line survives much longer. I have a D200, D700, and a D800, with a Leica M Series on order. So, I made the jump... you want to buy some DX lenses? JD


----------



## TheLost

Thom Hogan has a great article on his website this week with his predictions...  He thinks Nikon will come out with a D400 and move the D3x00 and D5x00 lines to Mirrorless DX.

Also, it looks like the last camera we'll see from Nikon this year is the D5200 (in a week or two)..  If they do release the D400.... and if they hold to their current M.O.... they would release the D400 next spring then the D7100 in the fall.  I HIGHLY doubt Nikon would release the D7100 and the D400 at the same time.

IMHO.. I think we'll see the D7100 in the spring and the D400 wait will continue.


----------



## rexbobcat

jake337 said:
			
		

> That would be sweet.  I wonder how long till Leica is pushed off their hill.  How many years till we see P&S with 35mm sensors as normal?  Or at least under a $1,000 bucks?  I think it is closer than we think, less than ten years??
> 
> In fact, I bet we'll see 35mm digital throw away cameras in our lifetime.....
> 
> Think about this:  If the evolution of the camera continues down it's path, how advanced will our light recording devices be in 20 years from 2012????
> 
> The Cost of the First Digital Camera
> 
> By 1991, Kodak had refined Sasson's idea into the first professional digital camera. The DCS-100 launched the SLR line at a $13,000 price point. In 1994 came the Apple QuickTake 100. It could take eight quick pictures on a card, cost $750 and only interfaced with Macs. It was guickly eclipsed by newer, cheaper models from Kodak, Casio and others. However, as this 1994 QuickTake review said, "If it catches on, it will be the forerunner of a line of products which could change the way families take, manage and print their social pictures."
> 
> and this in 2012, with 2013 around the corner....
> 
> Kodak Digital Camera 27 Exposures, 1 Single Use Camera - Kodak Everything Else Disposable Cameras Household from Stockn'Go
> 
> $7.99 for a throw away sensor that would blow away the first professional digital camera in almost every aspect.  Especially price, $7.99 is a lot cheaper than $13,000......



I imagine that Leica will remain on their hill for quite a while simply because of their brand.

:\


----------



## JDFlood

[/QUOTE]

I imagine that Leica will remain on their hill for quite a while simply because of their brand.

:\[/QUOTE]

Leica will remain, their superior glass is going to become more important. I don't think technology is going to change the form / function niches. The "35mm" form will continue to evolve... so maybe you will be able to take a photo of a fly in nearly pictch black and freeze the wings, at 200mp. The P&S will get better to. The internal processing will give us twice the dynamic range. But the need for external manual controls and big glass will continue to lure the amature / pro. The people uninterested will have smaller form factor cameras. I see the continued evolution of each form/factor. Like computers, first there was the mainframe, then mine, then PC, then laptop, tablet, phone... none replaced what was there before, the new ones were just added. Also, glass is now starting to get more important... the D800 bests much of Nikon glass... so if we want to get the best out of sensors, we need Leica glass and Zeiss and Nikon and Canon are going to have to get better. So, I think all the cameras will continue to evolve. It's been amazing... but there is a long way to continue. This is great. JD


----------



## JDFlood

JDFlood said:
			
		

> You put forth a good sounding argument. So I guess the answer is with Nikon and their perception of this niche; is it large enough to justifiy cost of development and manufacturing of such a similar line of cameras or does it makes more sense to roll the resources into the FX group. My personal experience is that my DX purchases were a waste of money. I would never recommend anyone purchase one if they could afford an FX. You just don't want to commit to a line of lenses, and then find yourself wanting to advance, and be held back by your lenses. I seriously think Nikon would think that way as well. These companies have tried to preserve everyones investment. When you want to upgrade, this is a point where a person might jump to Canon if your previous investments will no longer be useful.  So, I would be shocked if this line survives much longer. I have a D200, D700, and a D800, with a Leica M Series on order. So, I made the jump... you want to buy some DX lenses? JD



Well I must confess that Thom Hogan puts a compelling argument for the D400 being sold. I have to bow to his greater understanding of the market. Also, too bad as it puts a lot of people in the position of expending a lot of money on glass, then being restrained by it. But as time goes by we are given greater and greater choices. I guess it makes sense in having a crown jewel for folks that have a big investment in intermediate glass. A 24mp D400 will look very similar to a D600 on the spec sheet, so that will make them happy. If you have the money and interest you can make the jump to FX. JD


----------



## shadowlands

I hope Tom is right. My next camera will be a D400, if they make one!!!


----------



## TheLost

My favorite part about Thom Hogans DX month is how he points out that Nikon constantly makes bad decisions about the direction of DX.... but then predicts they'll make the right decision by releasing the D400 

I'm not giving Nikon any credit... I will believe a pro DX body is on its way when i can pre-order it .. Until then its just a dream.


----------



## Roger3006

In my opinion, it would make since to drop the D90 and D300s and introduce something to replace the D300s.  I  have both a D90 and D300.  The D600 does not make me warm and fuzzy.  The D800 interest me; however, I do have reservations about the file size in RAW which is how I shoot everything.

I feel I can get good results with all the above mentioned bodies with good lenses.  The sixty four dollar question  is how much time and  effort will the D800 save me if any at all.  I do product photography for the web.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Vautrin

for me the d800 isnt interesting till i get a new computer

my old one is only 2 years old with 4gb ram and its not really possible to edit more than one photo in photoshop without it becoming grindingly slow....


seeinf as the d800 is 4x the file size of my d700, i wouldnt be able to do anything with my photos after taking them


----------



## StandingBear1983

Vautrin said:


> for me the d800 isnt interesting till i get a new computer
> 
> my old one is only 2 years old with 4gb ram and its not really possible to edit more than one photo in photoshop without it becoming grindingly slow....
> 
> seeinf as the d800 is 4x the file size of my d700, i wouldn't be able to do anything with my photos after taking them



Same here...that makes a 5000$ investment at least...and that's damn expensive...think long and hard if you actually need the upgrade...I came to the conclusion that i WANT the D800 more then i NEED it. i tend to push the D5100 that i have to the limit, but i don't really lack something to tell you the truth...of course that things will be more compfy if i had 2 wheel dials and a bigger body but i can manage fine.


----------



## TheLost

<subject change>

I've never understood the "D800 file size is too big" argument 

Editing large files:  Yes, you will need something better then a 6 year old laptop.  Welcome to the digital age!  Good news though... a cheap 3ghz Intel i3 or AMD x4 computer with 16gb will run you less then $500 (16gb of memory right now is ~$50 people!).  You don't need a $3k iMac to edit pictures.

Storing large files:  If you are worried about storing large files... maybe you should be worried about how you store your existing files.  Hard drives are cheap ($80 for 1tb currently).. Hard drives fail..  If you don't have a plan for expanding/saving/storing your digital media now, what are you going to do next year? two years from now?  maybe you should just shoot jpg-small.

In the old days (here comes the old man talk) you had to spend money on film, developing, paper.. etc.  There have always been costs associated with photography.  Its the same problem, different day.

</subject change>


----------



## gardy

TheLost said:


> <subject change>
> 
> I've never understood the "D800 file size is too big" argument
> 
> Editing large files:  Yes, you will need something better then a 6 year old laptop.  Welcome to the digital age!  Good news though... a cheap 3ghz Intel i3 or AMD x4 computer with 16gb will run you less then $500 (16gb of memory right now is ~$50 people!).  You don't need a $3k iMac to edit pictures.
> 
> Storing large files:  If you are worried about storing large files... maybe you should be worried about how you store your existing files.  Hard drives are cheap ($80 for 1tb currently).. Hard drives fail..  If you don't have a plan for expanding/saving/storing your digital media now, what are you going to do next year? two years from now?  maybe you should just shoot jpg-small.
> 
> In the old days (here comes the old man talk) you had to spend money on film, developing, paper.. etc.  There have always been costs associated with photography.  Its the same problem, different day.
> 
> </subject change>


for me it comes down to the fact that i just dont need a 36mp file, not that it might not me nice to have, im sure though that if i got a d800 i wouldnt be shooting at full resolution the entire time. it would be awesome for macro though


----------



## AlexanderB

My dream D400 is full frame with less megapixels than D600, like 12 MPx, and less weight.


----------



## coastalconn

Yikes!  That's not a dream that's a nightmare..  Why FX?  The reason why most people want DX is for the crop factor and cheaper lenses.  There already is a great 12mp fx camera called the D700


----------



## TheLost

gardy said:


> for me it comes down to the fact that i just dont need a 36mp file, not that it might not me nice to have, im sure though that if i got a d800 i wouldnt be shooting at full resolution the entire time. it would be awesome for macro though




That's just the plain awesomeness of the D800... It's high pixel density.  Lots of wildlife shooters are switching from DX to the D800 for that exact reason.  Why zoom when you can crop the crap out of your picture and still end up with a higher resolution/pixel density photo then a D7000!


----------



## gardy

True! Wouldn't be bad to have that capability, I just don't always need it, plus I hate cropping! It can get so annoying at times lol, we'll anyway good think I can't afford a D800 right now


----------



## Vautrin

so let me get this straight?  with the d800 i have to buy a new computer, new lenses (because even old "pro" lenses will not look sharpest) and probably new memory cards, etc

my computer is not 6 years old, 2-3 and it still struggles with photoshop...  and the low end mac mini in the mac store doesnt even have photoshop installed because its a memory hog

all the "upgrades" add up...  if i won the lotto i would indeed buy a d800...  until then, ill wait


----------



## TheLost

My D400 dream is...

Sensor:
*DX* 24-36mp
Faster expeed (4?) image processor
8+ fps

AutoFocus:
51 point AF System (from the D4!)
Large Buffer

Body:
Full weather sealing
Full magnesium frame
AF-ON button (please!!!!!)
Dual Card Slots

Nikon has all the parts... they just need to stick it together and ship it!!!!


----------



## jhodges10

TheLost said:
			
		

> My D400 dream is...
> 
> Sensor:
> DX 24-36mp
> Faster expeed (4?) image processor
> 8+ fps
> 
> AutoFocus:
> 51 point AF System (from the D4!)
> Large Buffer
> 
> Body:
> Full weather sealing
> Full magnesium frame
> AF-ON button (please!!!!!)
> Dual Card Slots
> 
> Nikon has all the parts... they just need to stick it together and ship it!!!!



That would be a pretty damned expensive camera. Hope your willing to drop D4 money on it.


----------



## TheLost

Vautrin said:


> so let me get this straight?  with the d800 i have to buy a new computer, new lenses (because even old "pro" lenses will not look sharpest) and probably new memory cards, etc
> 
> my computer is not 6 years old, 2-3 and it still struggles with photoshop...  and the low end mac mini in the mac store doesnt even have photoshop installed because its a memory hog
> 
> all the "upgrades" add up...  if i won the lotto i would indeed buy a d800...  until then, ill wait



First... I have a 'sandy bridge' Mac mini (2011) i use for development that i runs Photoshop just fine (and the 2011 mini can only handle 8gb ram)

Second... All im saying is: Don't *trash talk it* just because you cant afford it. I cant afford a D800 but i can appreciate it for what it is.

"That 2012 Porsche 911 GT3 is a piece of CRAP!!! Why did they stop making the 2006 VW Passat... now that was an awesome car!"


----------



## TheLost

jhodges10 said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My D400 dream is...
> 
> Sensor:
> DX 24-36mp
> Faster expeed (4?) image processor
> 8+ fps
> 
> AutoFocus:
> 51 point AF System (from the D4!)
> Large Buffer
> 
> Body:
> Full weather sealing
> Full magnesium frame
> AF-ON button (please!!!!!)
> Dual Card Slots
> 
> Nikon has all the parts... they just need to stick it together and ship it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a pretty damned expensive camera. Hope your willing to drop D4 money on it.
Click to expand...


The D300 has:

51 point AF
(at the time) a faster image processor then other DX bodies.
Larger Buffer
7 FPS frame rate
Full Pro-Body
Full weather sealing
AF-ON button (i want this!!!)

And it sold for $1800...  The D400 must have better features and be the same price or people won't buy it.


----------



## fjrabon

TheLost said:


> jhodges10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My D400 dream is...
> 
> Sensor:
> DX 24-36mp
> Faster expeed (4?) image processor
> 8+ fps
> 
> AutoFocus:
> 51 point AF System (from the D4!)
> Large Buffer
> 
> Body:
> Full weather sealing
> Full magnesium frame
> AF-ON button (please!!!!!)
> Dual Card Slots
> 
> Nikon has all the parts... they just need to stick it together and ship it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a pretty damned expensive camera. Hope your willing to drop D4 money on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The D300 has:
> 
> 51 point AF
> (at the time) a faster image processor then other DX bodies.
> Larger Buffer
> 7 FPS frame rate
> Full Pro-Body
> Full weather sealing
> AF-ON button (i want this!!!)
> 
> And it sold for $1800...  The D400 must have better features and be the same price or people won't buy it.
Click to expand...


yeah, I'd be perfectly happy with a D300S with an updated processor and the same sensor they're sticking in the D3200/D5200.


----------



## Vautrin

im not trash talking the d800...  id love to own one, but for me its not an option right now

all im saying is you need so much more than just a d800 body....  you need lots of accessories which is why imho the d800 is 5k-10k


----------



## AlexanderB

coastalconn said:


> Yikes!  That's not a dream that's a nightmare..  Why FX?  The reason why most people want DX is for the crop factor and cheaper lenses.  There already is a great 12mp fx camera called the D700


My main camera now is D700 and what I want is not pixel count increase (like D800 and D600), but an improved low light performance and dynamic range. With current technology and LOWER/the same pixel count it is possible to achieve the better dynamic range, like 2-3 stops more than D700. It was done before (like fuji sensor in modified Nikon body that in its time had 13 stops of dynamic range while the rest of the cameras were like 10-11 stops). So that is my dream camera. Anyway I use medium size files most of the time even on D700. If I'd need to produce super large print I'd used D800 or some medium format camera.


----------



## TheLost

AlexanderB said:


> My main camera now is D700 and what I want is not pixel count increase (like D800 and D600), but an improved low light performance and dynamic range. With current technology and LOWER/the same pixel count it is possible to achieve the better dynamic range, like 2-3 stops more than D700. It was done before (like fuji sensor in modified Nikon body that in its time had 13 stops of dynamic range while the rest of the cameras were like 10-11 stops). So that is my dream camera. Anyway I use medium size files most of the time even on D700. If I'd need to produce super large print I'd used D800 or some medium format camera.



Nikon has that... its called D4


----------



## AlexanderB

TheLost said:


> Nikon has that... its called D4


No way D4 has dynamic range possible with current tech like in D800/600. Its even less than 2004 fuji S3 Pro. And no way it's as compact as D600.​


----------



## bhop

AlexanderB said:


> No way D4 has dynamic range possible with current tech like in D800/600. Its even less than 2004 fuji S3 Pro.



Are you kidding?


----------



## gardy

fjrabon said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jhodges10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a pretty damned expensive camera. Hope your willing to drop D4 money on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The D300 has:
> 
> 51 point AF
> (at the time) a faster image processor then other DX bodies.
> Larger Buffer
> 7 FPS frame rate
> Full Pro-Body
> Full weather sealing
> AF-ON button (i want this!!!)
> 
> And it sold for $1800...  The D400 must have better features and be the same price or people won't buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, I'd be perfectly happy with a D300S with an updated processor and the same sensor they're sticking in the D3200/D5200.
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## coastalconn

gardy said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> The D300 has:
> 
> 51 point AF
> (at the time) a faster image processor then other DX bodies.
> Larger Buffer
> 7 FPS frame rate
> Full Pro-Body
> Full weather sealing
> AF-ON button (i want this!!!)
> 
> And it sold for $1800...  The D400 must have better features and be the same price or people won't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I'd be perfectly happy with a D300S with an updated processor and the same sensor they're sticking in the D3200/D5200.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> +1
Click to expand...

+1 or better yet the cropped version of the D800 sensor, 15-16mp, DXO mark of 95+, huge dynamic range and high iso performance...  If the D400 does come out I think Nikon would head more in this direction with the sensor.. just mho


----------



## AlexanderB

bhop said:


> AlexanderB said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way D4 has dynamic range possible with current tech like in D800/600. Its even less than 2004 fuji S3 Pro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
Click to expand...


No I'm not kidding. If you do not believe me see these raw numbers: DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings Fuji S3 - 13.5 Evs,  Nikon D4 - 13.1 Evs, D600 - 14.2 Evs. D600 is more than a stop ahead of D4. I'm not saying that D4 is worse than D600, its just its sensor is of previous generation. As for fuji they designed their sensor specially for dynamic range (two types of pixels etc.).


----------



## gardy

coastalconn said:


> gardy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I'd be perfectly happy with a D300S with an updated processor and the same sensor they're sticking in the D3200/D5200.
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> +1 or better yet the cropped version of the D800 sensor, 15-16mp, DXO mark of 95+, huge dynamic range and high iso performance...  If the D400 does come out I think Nikon would head more in this direction with the sensor.. just mho
Click to expand...

 ya know if they did i may end up buying one over a d600 or d800, really considering the 600 though


----------



## Vautrin

what difference does 1 stop really make?  i find those numbers a little suspect too, supposedly the d800 is lightyears ahead of the d800 but there is only a 2 stop difference?!?!


----------



## AlexanderB

Vautrin said:


> what difference does 1 stop really make?  i find those numbers a little suspect too, supposedly the d800 is lightyears ahead of the d800 but there is only a 2 stop difference?!?!


Well it depends on the type of photography you do. More stops of dynamic range give you more "highlight shoulder". For example an evening scene with traffic lights in it. Even with D700 (the best digital I tried) with other things normally exposed the traffic lights get easily overexposed and unrealistic light (red becomes yellow, green becomes white, etc.). If everything is underexposed 2 stops traffic lights start looking natural. Thats the difference of 2 stops. Digital is now approaching the territory of film in terms of dynamic range (with typical negative film is 15-16 stops of dynamic range). In terms of sensitivity digital is already, as you say, light years ahead, one big problem it gets overexposed too fast. Why fuji were so good even in 2004? They sacrificed some megapixels to get better dynamic range (effectively some pixels were darkened and not overexpose so fast as the rest). Surely they had terrible high ISO performance in today's standards and so on, but they had rather good dynamic range. For landscape type of photography it is a big deal, when light is controlled (portraits, studio) it is not that critical.


----------



## TheLost

I'm not tooting my own horn here.. but... *TOOT*.. i called it 3 months before Nikon rumors came out with their prediction....

Let's talk about 2013 | Nikon Rumors



> *Nikon D300s/D7000 fusion
> *One of the possible scenarios is that in 2013 Nikon will merge the D7000 and D300s product lines. There is a good chance that only one high end DX DSLR camera will be announced (D400 or D8000?) that will replace both D7000 and D300s models. The camera will have a "pro" body similar to the D300s and most likely come with a 24MP sensor and 8fps. The D3200 and D5200 should be sufficient to cover the entry level needs. The new DX camera will be the "transition model" to the full frame category (D600).
> 
> Expected announcement: January/February 2013.


----------



## Mach0

D4X!!!??? Geeeeeeze possible 52 mp? Lol


----------



## PhotoL12

I dont understand why anybody would want high MP count on upper level DX DSLR? Look how many advantages photographer can get: Frames per second, true low noise files especially by High ISO. I know few Pros who still shooting with 10MP XTis and Pro glass for portrait and full body shots. Low MP count leads to quality more than High, and I would say 16MP is good enough for Top model Prosumer DX DSLR. If youre really looking for High quality photo-files at High resolution you may get D800 or D880E. For art applications theres affordable D3200 and D5200 with currently developed DX sensors.


----------



## Solarflare

A 15 Megapixel DX Sensor has the same pixel density as the 36 Megapixel D800(E).

And with the D800(E), theres a lot of calculation going on what exactly allows to get anything near the real resolution of that camera, for example: Recommended lenses for the Nikon D800E


----------



## TheLost

PhotoL12 said:


> I dont understand why anybody would want high MP count on upper level DX DSLR? Look how many advantages photographer can get: Frames per second, true low noise files especially by High ISO.



Frames per second: Nikon's 'Expeed' processor and the camera's data bus will only get faster.  A 10fps camera with a 36mp sensor can defiantly be done. The only thing that is stopping any camera from having a faster FPS is cost... and over time costs go down.

Pixel Density / High ISO:  As Solarflare said.. a D800 has the same pixel density in DX mode as a Nikon D7000.  I've also seen plenty of comparisons between the D800 and D700 in low light... If cost wasn't a facter the D800 would be my choice.

High Megapixel cameras are here to stay.  If you don't like it maybe you should try to get a job with Nikon/Canon and try to change their minds


----------



## TheLost

PhotoL12 said:


> I dont understand why anybody would want high MP count on upper level DX DSLR? Look how many advantages photographer can get: Frames per second, true low noise files especially by High ISO.



Frames per second: Nikon's 'Expeed' processor and the camera's data bus will only get faster.  A 10fps camera with a 36mp sensor can defiantly be done. The only thing that is stopping any camera from having a faster FPS is cost... and over time costs go down.

Pixel Density / High ISO:  As Solarflare said.. a D800 has the same pixel density in DX mode as a Nikon D7000.  I've also seen plenty of comparisons between the D800 and D700 in low light... If cost wasn't a facter the D800 would be my choice.

High Megapixel cameras are here to stay.  If you don't like it maybe you should try to get a job with Nikon/Canon and try to change their minds


----------



## PhotoL12

TheLost said:


> PhotoL12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont understand why anybody would want high MP count on upper level DX DSLR? Look how many advantages photographer can get: Frames per second, true low noise files especially by High ISO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frames per second: Nikon's 'Expeed' processor and the camera's data bus will only get faster.  A 10fps camera with a 36mp sensor can defiantly be done. The only thing that is stopping any camera from having a faster FPS is cost... and over time costs go down.
> 
> Pixel Density / High ISO:  As Solarflare said.. a D800 has the same pixel density in DX mode as a Nikon D7000.  I've also seen plenty of comparisons between the D800 and D700 in low light... If cost wasn't a facter the D800 would be my choice.
> 
> High Megapixel cameras are here to stay.  If you don't like it maybe you should try to get a job with Nikon/Canon and try to change their minds
Click to expand...


I have no doubts in future progress, but lets conclude from the facts...
Thats correct - 2012 model D800 at $3000 can do much more and it's bigger and havier. We not talking about FX $3000 camera here. And if we still compare photo-files of 2008 model D700 and 2012 -D800, than current DX snensor at 16mp will provide much cleaner file (and not only), will be faster and will not cost $3000.


----------



## TheLost

More leaked spec's from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II... 



> *Specifications*
> 
> *24.1mp APS-C Sensor*
> *Dual DIGIC V*
> *10fps*
> *Dual Memory Card Slots (Unknown configuration)*
> *61 AF Points (I wonder if well get red focus points in AIS?)*
> *3.2&#8243; LCD*
> *Build quality like 5D3*
> *GPS & Wifi*
> *$2199 ($500 more than the 7D at launch, Id like to see such a camera come in under $2000)*
> *ISO Performance to get close to the 5D3*
> *Lots of video features*







> As weve been told before, this camera will basically be a mini EOS-1D X




http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/


This hits EVERYTHING on my wish list... and rumored to be available end of summer.  Where are you Nikon?

No leaked specs of a new DX 'pro' camera... No leaked images... They either have tightened up the security, or they actually just don't have anything to leak.

If the Canon gets released around August.. The exact time High School football starts.. I think Nikon might loose me as a long (long) time customer.


----------



## slow231

TheLost said:


> More leaked spec's from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Specifications*
> 
> *24.1mp APS-C Sensor*
> *Dual DIGIC V*
> *10fps*
> *Dual Memory Card Slots (Unknown configuration)*
> *61 AF Points (I wonder if we&#8217;ll get red focus points in AIS?)*
> *3.2&#8243; LCD*
> *Build quality like 5D3*
> *GPS & Wifi*
> *$2199 ($500 more than the 7D at launch, I&#8217;d like to see such a camera come in under $2000)*
> *ISO Performance to get close to the 5D3*
> *&#8220;Lots of video features&#8221;*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we&#8217;ve been told before, this camera will basically be a mini EOS-1D X
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/
> 
> 
> This hits EVERYTHING on my wish list... and rumored to be available end of summer.  Where are you Nikon?
> 
> No leaked specs of a new DX 'pro' camera... No leaked images... They either have tightened up the security, or they actually just don't have anything to leak.
> 
> If the Canon gets released around August.. The exact time High School football starts.. I think Nikon might loose me as a long (long) time customer.
Click to expand...

dang, those are nice specs.  i thought the 5diii and 6d fell pretty short of the d800/d600, but it looks like canon might still have something w/ the 7d. the dynamic range on the latest nikon sensors (d7000 and onward) have been pretty tough to rival though.


----------



## poker_jake

slow231 said:


> dang, those are nice specs.  i thought the 5diii and 6d fell pretty short of the d800/d600, but it looks like canon might still have something w/ the 7d. the dynamic range on the latest nikon sensors (d7000 and onward) have been pretty tough to rival though.



+1, also $2,000+ for a crop sensor camera is crazy, that's full frame territory, under no circumstances would I take a crop sensor over full frame for same price


----------



## TheLost

poker_jake said:


> slow231 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dang, those are nice specs.  i thought the 5diii and 6d fell pretty short of the d800/d600, but it looks like canon might still have something w/ the 7d. the dynamic range on the latest nikon sensors (d7000 and onward) have been pretty tough to rival though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1, also $2,000+ for a crop sensor camera is crazy, that's full frame territory, under no circumstances would I take a crop sensor over full frame for same price
Click to expand...


You are getting all the features of a pro camera (fast fps, large buffer, faster autofocus, better build quality) for less then 1/2 the price.  

A Nikon D4 is $4800..
A Canon 1D X is $5600..

Not everybody shoots the same.. To me, it makes no sense to get a D600 entry-level (lower featured) FX body for $2k.

Nikon D4 + 300mm f/2.8 = $10k
Canon 1D X + 300mm f2.8 = $12k
$2k DX body + 70-200 f/2.8 = $4k  

All 3 setups give you the same focal length...  $2k for a pro body with all the features of the EOS 1D X is a WIN-WIN for me!


----------



## coastalconn

I agree with TheLost.  I shoot wildlife and that is one circumstance that I would take a pro crop sensor over a entry level full frame any day...


----------



## sashbar

Nikon can capitalise on popularity and reputation of D7000 by upgrading it to D7100 and raising the price to shorten the gap with D600 considerably.


----------



## Vautrin

Can i just ask a silly question here?

If APS-C is so convenient for birders because of the crop factor, why arent y'all shooting olympus and micro 4/3rds?


----------



## TheLost

While not a M4/3 camera.. here is a V1 with a TC2.0 and 400mm f/2.8 attached... 








Some Nikon V1 + FT-1 + TC 2.0x + 400mm f/2.8 fun = 2160mm | Nikon Rumors

I would assume the lack of decent long glass is why more people don't use m4/3 cameras for wildlife.  I'd also think the EFV's on most of those cameras would make it hard to hit your target.  

I'm 100% sure that someday we'll see the switch to smaller bodies.


----------



## JDFlood

Vautrin said:


> Can i just ask a silly question here?
> 
> If APS-C is so convenient for birders because of the crop factor, why arent y'all shooting olympus and micro 4/3rds?



Good one, or 1/2.5? Put a 500mm on that and you could shoot the eyeballs. JD


----------



## coastalconn

I still think we will get a D400.  I'm not jumping on the D7100.  The buffer is half the size of my 5 year old D300, and it is slower.  The features and the price of the D7100 do look very good though.  In a few months for $500 more I will choose the D400.


----------



## Vautrin

a d400 now would mark a large expansion of the nikon line...

i would fine such an introduction worrying as the more prodcts they have the harder to do good quality assurance


----------



## TheLost

I've said this before... but we're multi pages into this thread..

The D300 came out the same time Nikon introduced its first full frame camera (the D3)..  up until that point *all of nikon's pro cameras where DX*.   

At the time (and even now) there are two body styles... the big full size pro body and the small pro body.  In 2007 Nikon had the D3 (FX big pro body)  and the D300 (DX small pro body) while canon had the 1Dmk2/3 (Full Frame big body) and the 5D (Full Frame small body).

Nikon's response to the 5D was the D700 in 2008... ~3 years after the 5D was released and 1 year after the D300.  

Once Nikon had a small body pro FX camera it never looked back.

The D300 is a fossil from the age before FX sensors. 

Saying all that, i do think Nikon will come out with a 'more beefy' DX body but only in response to a Canon 'small body pro DX camera' (The rumored 7dmk2?).  But even Canon has not given the 7D any love and with the rumored enhancements to the 70D (more semi-professional body aka.. D7100) who knows what/if/when the 7Dmk2 will have).


----------



## Patriot

Take it with a grain of salt or a whole bottle, but the last DX camera may still be coming(oneday). 

Nikon Europe: "the D7100 is not positioned to replace the D300s" | Nikon Rumors

According to the RUMOR the Nikon USA Rep. jumped the gun by calling the D7100 the "_new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup_" Maybe they just got too excited. 


-Hunt


----------



## Spesh

Patriot said:


> Take it with a grain of salt or a whole bottle, but the last DX camera may still be coming(oneday).
> 
> Nikon Europe: "the D7100 is not positioned to replace the D300s" | Nikon Rumors
> 
> According to the RUMOR the Nikon USA Rep. jumped the gun by calling the D7100 the "_new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup_" Maybe they just got too excited.
> 
> -Hunt




Yes, it looks like there is still hope for the D400 yet according to this....

7100 taking d300s flagship status, NO say Nikon Europe.: Nikon Pro DX SLR (D300, D200, D100) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## greybeard

In my opinion, the new D7100 is far as Nikon is going to go with DX for now.  I don't think that Nikon thinks the working pro is all that interested in DX these days.


----------



## Spesh

greybeard said:


> In my opinion, the new D7100 is far as Nikon is going to go with DX for now.  I don't think that Nikon thinks the working pro is all that interested in DX these days.



Maybe not the working pro, but there are plenty of D300/s shooters that are gasping for a new DX model to meet their needs, whether they be wildlife or sports enthusiasts. The more I read following the D7100 announcement, the more likely it actually looks to me that there will be a D400 later in the year. In the link that I posted, the Nikon rep clearly states that the D7100 is not going to be positioned as the flagship DX body going forward.

However I do still believe there is also a market amongst pros for a pro DX body anyway.


----------



## Vautrin

what do you define as "pro" level?  i could just as well say i dont think any pros out there will settle for less than hasselblad quality

plenty of shooters still want dx -- even if because it costs too much to upgrade their glass


----------



## brian_f2.8

I assume Nikon is going to separate the pros from weekend warriors. If you want pro qualityn features you are going to pay for it. No more D5100 owners n 55-200 kits lens shooting sports, enough is enough.


----------



## greybeard

brian_f2.8 said:


> No more D5100 owners n 55-200 kits lens shooting sports, enough is enough.


Is there some unwritten law I should know about.  Was I breaking some rule when I shot sports with my D7000 and 55-200 kit lens?


----------



## brian_f2.8

greybeard said:


> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more D5100 owners n 55-200 kits lens shooting sports, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there some unwritten law I should know about.  Was I breaking some rule when I shot sports with my D7000 and 55-200 kit lens?
Click to expand...


Depending on what level of sports yes. At a NASCAR race last year someone had  d5100 and an 18-55/55-200 shot on auto mode and got credentials by shooting for free. It's ****ers like that, who ruin the industry. I'm not saying gear makes the photographer but if you want to be a pro shooter make the investment n respect the industry. Don't scrutinize the industry by going to Costco, n saying your a pro because you have a dslr. I know plenty of pros who use a d7000/7d because it's their choice. On the other side they have 3 bodies attached to a 24-70/70-200/500. They don't shoot on auto. I have used all kinds of cameras. Gear doesn't make you anything more or less.

I think it's cheaper eventually for Nikon to eliminate all dx bodies n lens. I read online a while back dx is dying out. Also the requirements to join nps are for real working pros. It was a mistake of Nikon to sell a d300 which is very close to the d3. Why give those features at a fraction of the price. 

I could be wrong.


----------



## jamesbjenkins

I sincerely hope that Nikon wakes up and smells the death and decay of the professional photographer. Thanks to all the other advances in miniaturization and imaging tech in the last 3-4 years, there's very very little visible difference upon casual inspection from a complete tard who accidentally captured an amazing picture, and the seasoned pro who delivers the same results consistently.

I'm certainly not naive enough to think that the gear makes the photographer, but when you're delivering 90% of the image capabilities in the entry-level DX model as the flagship D4 (under generally favorable conditions), it makes things tremendously difficult for anyone to justify hiring a pro when the perception in the general public is that Cousin Sally can do the same thing with her D3200, so why hire a pro?

If they do release the D400, it had better have something revolutionary. It had better be expensive, and it had better have a crap ton of buttons on it so the rif-raf will be intimidated and stick to their D3XXX and D5XXX.

Otherwise, in another couple of years of advancements there won't be enough people even interested in hiring a photographer. Everyone who has any appreciation for it will think they can do it themselves, or have their friend shoot it for $5.

And yes, I am a wee bit disillusioned. Thanks for asking.


----------



## Patriot

You need to calm down and take a walk outside. Do you own the photography industry? No, I don't think you do. Getting mad over the gear someone else uses is stupid. Simple as that. They might not have the same mind set you have and only want pictures for the memories so high end gear isn't needed. 

*"It had better be expensive, and it had better have a crap ton of buttons on it so the rif-raf will be intimidated and stick to their D3XXX and D5XXX." *How about no. Why would Nikon make the "d400" expensive? If it's higher than the lowest FX camera then everyone will get the FX camera granted they have the right lens.


----------



## Tarazed

This is some crazy talk. Would you agree most people know how to paint?  Yet people still get hired to paint houses?  Or maybe even more fitting artists still paint?  I'm an amateur, but I would think most of this "damage" has been done already to the industry. Yes some folks will get the lucky shot, some even with cell phones. But that still leaves many niches for pro to earn a living. IMHO.


----------



## slow231

jamesbjenkins said:


> I sincerely hope that Nikon wakes up and smells the death and decay of the professional photographer. Thanks to all the other advances in miniaturization and imaging tech in the last 3-4 years, there's very very little visible difference upon casual inspection from a complete tard who accidentally captured an amazing picture, and the seasoned pro who delivers the same results consistently.
> 
> I'm certainly not naive enough to think that the gear makes the photographer, but when you're delivering 90% of the image capabilities in the entry-level DX model as the flagship D4 (under generally favorable conditions), it makes things tremendously difficult for anyone to justify hiring a pro when the perception in the general public is that Cousin Sally can do the same thing with her D3200, so why hire a pro?
> 
> If they do release the D400, it had better have something revolutionary. It had better be expensive, and it had better have a crap ton of buttons on it so the rif-raf will be intimidated and stick to their D3XXX and D5XXX.
> 
> Otherwise, in another couple of years of advancements there won't be enough people even interested in hiring a photographer. Everyone who has any appreciation for it will think they can do it themselves, or have their friend shoot it for $5.
> 
> And yes, I am a wee bit disillusioned. Thanks for asking.



:lmao:.  this is either the funniest sarcastic post, or ... 

either way i got a laugh out of it.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Gear does not make anyone better, it gives a pro more options. For instance look at the 70-200 f2.8 vs f4. A pro would want a 2.8 at 200mm where others would say f4 is good enough at 200mm. They dont understand the difference. Its good enough.

You work defines if you are pro or not, not your gear.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Im not really going to discuss this anymore, either you understand or you dont.


----------



## runnah

I guess the "Budget-minded" pro is a niche that isn't filled anymore.


----------



## TheLost

Who thinks the D600 is a pro camera?  anybody?  anybody?


(*hint*) Nikon does! Thats who!  The D600 is on the NPS qualifying equipment list.  It's basically a D7000 with an FX sensor.  It doesn't have any 'pro' features.  

IMHO, its the picture that makes the 'pro' not the gear.  I've seen AMAZING wedding photo's taken with D3000's and I've seen BAD ones taken with 'pro' gear. Money doesn't buy talent.

PS.  Nikon thinks PRO = FX. (and that's why the D600 is on the NPS list).


----------



## coastalconn

Sorry to bring back the old thread, but looks like the dreaming might not such a dream anymore?  
Nikon D400 rumors are back | Nikon Rumors


----------



## runnah

coastalconn said:


> Sorry to bring back the old thread, but looks like the dreaming might not such a dream anymore?
> Nikon D400 rumors are back | Nikon Rumors



Well that's a fine how do you do!

Looks like I found my next camera!


----------



## cgw

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


----------



## molested_cow

Still hoping to see a true D700 replacement ( actually 5D MIII does the job ) but even so I am not looking to get one any time soon.


----------



## KmH

The true replacement of the D700 is the D800.

It now looks that the replacement for the D300s is the D7100, because the D7100 has the updated version of the Multi-CAM 3500DX AF module Nikon's prosumer and pro cameras have.


----------



## gardy

At thos rate, with the 7100 out (my current body) I can't see anything that the d400 would offer that wouldn't be provided by the 7100. Except a d800 like body construction


----------



## molested_cow

KmH said:


> The true replacement of the D700 is the D800.
> 
> It now looks that the replacement for the D300s is the D7100, because the D7100 has the updated version of the Multi-CAM 3500DX AF module Nikon's prosumer and pro cameras have.



As a D700 user I don't find the D800 a replacement. In fact, it's rather the opposite. D700 is a low resolution camera with very capable AF and burst rate for what it is. It's not a D3, but more of an all-rounded camera. The D800 has a very specific purpose, which is for studio or landscape shots, anything that doesn't have much movement and require every little detail to be captured.
The D600 lacks the control of a D700 although performance wise it's definitely much better.


----------



## coastalconn

gardy said:


> At thos rate, with the 7100 out (my current body) I can't see anything that the d400 would offer that wouldn't be provided by the 7100. Except a d800 like body construction


Many things, like improved low light performance, much better buffer, more DR, updated AF system with F8 capability at 9 or more points.  Full metal body including lens mount for big lenses and of course a dedicated AF-ON button along with dedicated buttons for metering and AF mode...  There are other things that are important to others like built in wifi and gps and 10 pin terminal etc...


----------



## sleist

Well, there's only one thing I know for certain.  Nikon is in the business of selling cameras.  At some point, some camera body will be considered a suitable replacement to the D300 by the DX masses.
It may not be called a D400, but it will exist.  The only other option is for Nikon to stop selling cameras. 
The D7100 is pretty impressive though - so long as you don't need a deep buffer.
The D700 and D7100 make a perfect pair as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## zcar21

TheLost said:


> Who thinks the D600 is a pro camera?  anybody?  anybody?
> 
> 
> (*hint*) Nikon does! Thats who!  The D600 is on the NPS qualifying equipment list.  It's basically a D7000 with an FX sensor.  It doesn't have any 'pro' features.
> 
> IMHO, its the picture that makes the 'pro' not the gear.  I've seen AMAZING wedding photo's taken with D3000's and I've seen BAD ones taken with 'pro' gear. Money doesn't buy talent.
> 
> PS.  Nikon thinks PRO = FX. (and that's why the D600 is on the NPS list).



I've seen one really good picture taken with a d3000, most are really crap. Never really seen crap pictures taken with pro cameras, I'l like to see them. Can you show some links?


----------



## molested_cow

zcar21 said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who thinks the D600 is a pro camera?  anybody?  anybody?
> 
> 
> (*hint*) Nikon does! Thats who!  The D600 is on the NPS qualifying equipment list.  It's basically a D7000 with an FX sensor.  It doesn't have any 'pro' features.
> 
> IMHO, its the picture that makes the 'pro' not the gear.  I've seen AMAZING wedding photo's taken with D3000's and I've seen BAD ones taken with 'pro' gear. Money doesn't buy talent.
> 
> PS.  Nikon thinks PRO = FX. (and that's why the D600 is on the NPS list).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen one really good picture taken with a d3000, most are really crap. Never really seen crap pictures taken with pro cameras, I'l like to see them. Can you show some links?
Click to expand...


Hmmm.... You can only say this if you have tried taking the same photo with both an entry-level and a pro camera, using the same lens. 
Plus, it's probably just that pro-camera owners know better not to show badly taken photos. Trust me, they exist.


----------



## sleist

zcar21 said:


> I've seen one really good picture taken with a d3000, most are really crap. Never really seen crap pictures taken with pro cameras, I'l like to see them. Can you show some links?



Crappy photographers take crappy pictures with all kinds of gear all the time.  I've seen amazing shots with lesser cameras than the D3000.
Cameras are tools.  They are not some magic box filled with good or bad photos.

If there are a lot of bad photos taken with an entry level camera, it's because a lot of entry level photographers buy them.


----------



## greybeard

zcar21 said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who thinks the D600 is a pro camera?  anybody?  anybody?
> 
> 
> (*hint*) Nikon does! Thats who!  The D600 is on the NPS qualifying equipment list.  It's basically a D7000 with an FX sensor.  It doesn't have any 'pro' features.
> 
> IMHO, its the picture that makes the 'pro' not the gear.  I've seen AMAZING wedding photo's taken with D3000's and I've seen BAD ones taken with 'pro' gear. Money doesn't buy talent.
> 
> PS.  Nikon thinks PRO = FX. (and that's why the D600 is on the NPS list).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen one really good picture taken with a d3000, most are really crap. Never really seen crap pictures taken with pro cameras, I'l like to see them. Can you show some links?
Click to expand...


Give me a D4 for a week and I'll show you some...........lol


----------



## Dominantly

The D800 is most certainly not the replacement to the D700. That falls directly on the D600.
The D800 carved out it own giant file producing niche.


----------



## TheLost

So were do we stand with the D400? lets see...

Canon still hasn't announced its 'mythical' 7Dmk2 and doesn't look like it will be any time this year.
No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2] « Canon Rumors

Canon still hasn't announced the higher end version of its 70D body (D7100 competitor?) but we may see it in July.
Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2] « Canon Rumors

We have a little murmer of the D400 on Nikonrumors... but the most telling part of that article is at the end..


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


I don't see anything in the "Nikon D400 rumors are back" article that is new... people are still wishing/dreaming/demanding... but Nikon is still silent.

We also have a newspaper that fired all their photographers and replaced them with iPhones.
This Might Not Work: Chicago Sun Times Fires All Its Photographers To Replace Them With iPhones - Forbes
If you don't think this will have an affect on Nikon i suggest you read Thom Hogens comments about the situation.

We have more articles saying the days of DX for Sports and Wildlife is over.
DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography

We have the price of a refurbished D800 hit $2.1k!  The D600 refurb has been down to $1.3k..  You might say that refurb prices don't matter, but they take sales away from other body's.  Anytime a body gets discounted people start expecting that price to stay..  With Nikons rebate/discount history over the past year its obvious FX prices are falling.


For me... as the target audience of the D400..  i don't want it any more.   I now want a new D800 with a faster frame rate and a newer AF system in the $2.5k price range.. i'm calling it the D900!!   IMHO i think we'll see a D900 soon 

Long live the D900!!!


----------



## JDFlood

TheLost said:


> So were do we stand with the D400? lets see...
> 
> 
> Long live the D900!!!



Back near the beginning of this thread I was convinced that there would not be a D400. To me, it makes sense, we are headed for a more FX dominated world. There will be uses for DX, but as much lower cost, beginner arena. Hogan's article was called to my attention... he makes a good case. Now that another nine months has gone by, I'm going to go back to my original conclusion... there will not be a DX D400. As sensor costs go down, more and more people will be shooting FX, and the lower levels will be relegated to DX. I'm go back to that belief. I can't wait for the D900... I want even better low light performance... I personally don't care about frame rate. Maybe 4K video... although I still haven't remembered to try video on my D800, even though I have had it for a year. JD


----------



## KmH

Dominantly said:


> The D800 is most certainly not the replacement to the D700. That falls directly on the D600.
> The D800 carved out it own giant file producing niche.


The D700 and D800 are prosumer grade.
The D600 is entry-level grade. Actually the D600 is just a D7000 with a full frame image sensor.

If you compare features it becomes more obvious.


----------



## Mike_E

I have no facts to back this up but I doubt that the production facilities are back to the point where Nikon is willing to jump into a new camera body even if they wanted to.  They had a LOT of equipment to replace and that kind of investment will mess with a companies bottom line ie stock prices, not what any company want's to have happen.


----------



## Tailgunner

Mike_E said:


> I have no facts to back this up but I doubt that the production facilities are back to the point where Nikon is willing to jump into a new camera body even if they wanted to.  They had a LOT of equipment to replace and that kind of investment will mess with a companies bottom line ie stock prices, not what any company want's to have happen.



Isn't Nikon already working on a new plant in Laos for building Entery to Mid level cameras? I also heard the loss wasn't as bad as originally thought in Japan for the high end pro models, they just been having power and supply issues. I don't see a new body anytime soon but I don't think it's impossible. I think for me, I wold opt for a refurbished D700 instead of D400.


----------



## Dominantly

Oh I've compared them.
You get a weather sealed body, more points, and 1/8000 of a second on the D700.
On the D600 you get everything else, including a better sensor and IQ.

I was on the fence about the idea until I read a post by Scott Kelby that shed a little light on what role Nikon intended the D800 to fill. Of course it's just his opinion, but it's a solid one. 

"However in my opinion I don&#8217;t think the D800 is a replacement for the D700 at all&#8212;it is completely different camera with a completely different customer in mind"

"The D800 is for you if you would be a medium format customer, but don&#8217;t want to pay $25,000 (or more) to enter that rarified air (in other words you need a very, very high resolution image file and that&#8217;s the most important thing but you&#8217;re not a full-time commercial photographer or a rich surgeon)."


"D600- I do see this camera as the upgraded replacement for the D700 (even though the model number is lower). Its file size is still pretty high (24 megapixels) but lower than the D800s 36-megapixels; it&#8217;s easier to work with its smaller files, it&#8217;s faster all around, and it&#8217;s got great video features.  That&#8217;s really how I see the D600 &#8212; a better D700. Take that great D700, then add great video features, and a few extra tweaks and updates and you&#8217;ve got the D600."

[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://scottkelby.com/2012/the-nikon-d800-vs-the-d600-which-one-is-the-right-one-for-you/
[/FONT]


----------



## Mike_E

Dominantly said:


> Oh I've compared them.
> You get a weather sealed body, more points, and 1/8000 of a second on the D700.
> On the D600 you get everything else, including a better sensor and IQ.
> 
> I was on the fence about the idea until I read a post by Scott Kelby that shed a little light on what role Nikon intended the D800 to fill. Of course it's just his opinion, but it's a solid one.
> 
> "However in my opinion I don&#8217;t think the D800 is a replacement for the D700 at all&#8212;it is completely different camera with a completely different customer in mind"
> 
> _*"The D800 is for you if you would be a medium format customer, but don&#8217;t want to pay $25,000 (or more) to enter that rarified air (in other words you need a very, very high resolution image file and that&#8217;s the most important thing but you&#8217;re not a full-time commercial photographer or a rich surgeon)."*_
> 
> 
> "D600- I do see this camera as the upgraded replacement for the D700 (even though the model number is lower). Its file size is still pretty high (24 megapixels) but lower than the D800s 36-megapixels; it&#8217;s easier to work with its smaller files, it&#8217;s faster all around, and it&#8217;s got great video features.  That&#8217;s really how I see the D600 &#8212; a better D700. Take that great D700, then add great video features, and a few extra tweaks and updates and you&#8217;ve got the D600."
> 
> [FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://scottkelby.com/2012/the-nikon-d800-vs-the-d600-which-one-is-the-right-one-for-you/
> [/FONT]



That would be me.


----------



## TheLost

Bringing this thread up to date...

More recent rumors about the rumored July 2nd announcement of the rumored Canon EOS 70D


> *Canon EOS 70D Specifications*
> 
> 20.2mp CMOS Sensor
> DIGIC 5+
> 19pt AF System (All Cross Type)
> 7fps
> Built-in WiFi
> 3&#8243; Vari-Angle Touch Screen LCD
> ISO 12,800 Maximum
> Dual Pixel CMOS Autofocus
> Full HD Video
> HDR
> Multiexposure Mode
> LP-E6 Battery
> Announcement on July 2, 2013


Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3] « Canon Rumors

The 70D will also have some new type of autofocus technology (Dual Pixel CMOS AutoFocus).  The real question will be on buffer... can it hold that 7fps longer then Nikons D7100 6fps?  Toss in some dust & weather sealing and you have yourself an updated 7D.

On the Nikon side of the fence you still have the Hopefull speculation from Thom Hogan...


> _Thus, this is as good as time as any for me to repeat my speculation about what else might be announced this year. I expect to see no more than two DSLRs launched in the remainder of 2013: the D400 and the D4x. The D4x seems to be almost a lock, with really only the timing and the sensor choice being unknown at this point. Rumors have it that there's a new version of a high pixel count sensor floating around in test, so we will probably get something slightly better than "the D800 sensor in a D4 body."_
> _The D400, having been postponed once, seems less certain but clearly inevitable. The longer Nikon delays a D400 the more they risk losing customers to others as well as decrease in the potential market size for the product in the first place as some consumers decide to go elsewhere in Nikon's lineup. Once again, though, the primary question is what's happening at the sensor. All the other aspects of a D400 seem pretty easily guessed at, but since the D400 would have a longer life cycle than all the other DX cameras, I think just stuffing one of the existing 24mp sensors inside would be a slight disappointment. It's clear that the D400 got delayed once. Had it made that original announce date, it would have been one of the first 24mp DX cameras, if not the first. But it seems it slipped out of cycle and now the sensor question is the big factor in when it will appear: the top end of the DX line really needs to have a top-end sensor that can last through a couple of consumer DX sensor updates and not look out-of-date (the current D300s problem in a nut shell)._


Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site (June 12,2013 commentary)

but then Nikon Rumors puts everything into perspective...


> Nikon RumorsAdmin
> You have to understand that I have not received a single tip on the D400. As far as I am concerned, it does not exists. If the announcement is in August, we should have some serious leaks by now and we don't. Of course this could change any time.


 
So..  We'll have to see what happens in the next week..  will Canon answer Nikons mostly 'D300' (D7100) with a mostly '7D' (70D)?  Will Nikon have something to announce in August?  


... tune in next time for... as the cmos turns....


----------



## TheLost

Hmmmm....
New wave of Nikon announcements coming in August/September, D400 a possibility | Nikon Rumors

When i started this thread i REALLY wanted a D400.  But as time goes on i have decided my next camera will be a D800 or its replacement.  If Nikon does come out with a D300s replacement will anybody still be waiting for it?

In truth... the idea of a refreshed 300 f/4 is more exciting to me


----------



## runnah

TheLost said:


> Hmmmm....
> New wave of Nikon announcements coming in August/September, D400 a possibility | Nikon Rumors
> 
> When i started this thread i REALLY wanted a D400.  But as time goes on i have decided my next camera will be a D800 or its replacement.  If Nikon does come out with a D300s replacement will anybody still be waiting for it?
> 
> In truth... the idea of a refreshed 300 f/4 is more exciting to me



Well it all depends. If its the same build and size as the 300 with new guts I will be beyond stoked. If its some small bodied plastic job I will be very bummed.


----------



## shadowlands

If it's built like the D300/D300s, I'm in!!!


----------



## coastalconn

I bet there will be lines around the block for the D400..besides the natural disasters, in my humble opinion the delay has been developing a 24MP sensor with high Iso performance of a full frame, (the D800 has the pixel density of a 16mp sensor) and figuring out how to move data fast enough for a large buffer and a fast FPS.  I'm also guessing a new AF system that will be the best ever seen in a DX class camera... well since this thread was titled keep dreaming.... I have been


----------



## crimbfighter

TheLost said:


> When i started this thread i REALLY wanted a D400.  But as time goes on i have decided my next camera will be a D800 or its replacement.  If Nikon does come out with a D300s replacement will anybody still be waiting for it?
> 
> In truth... the idea of a refreshed 300 f/4 is more exciting to me




I'm sort of in the same boat... I gave up on it, and came to accept the D800 was probably going to be my next camera. I think their delay of the D300s replacement has caused me to move on and set my sights on FF to get the features I wanted. Who knows, though, if they do release one, and it has all the features I want in the D800 with superb IQ and a price that's between the D600 and D800, I might change my mind again.. I'm so fickle..


----------



## TheLost

I strongly believe the only thing DX has going for it now is price... I also don't think i'd pay more then $2k for a DX body.


----------



## coastalconn

TheLost said:


> I strongly believe the only thing DX has going for it now is price... I also don't think i'd pay more then $2k for a DX body.


Price is one thing for sure.  I know I'm not the only wildlife shooter out there.  The "crop factor" is still a huge draw for us people along with speed.  The D600 doesn't do anything for me.  The D800 I'm sure is an amazing camera, but It doesn't have the speed.  The D4 is awesome, but it is 6 grand...  You've seen what I shoot, The D300 is still the fastest crop camera in Nikon's lineup after 6 years.  The D7100 was crippled in the speed and buffer department.  I bet the D400, if it does comes out will have some pretty big surprises in it...


----------



## molested_cow

11fps for the D400.... that will be a nice surprise. In fact, that will make it a very good complimentary product to the D800. One great for still, one great for moving. It's going to hurt the D4 though.


----------



## coastalconn

It won't hurt the D4 much because the D4x is next   I still think Nikon could have easily taken the D800 sensor and chopped it into a 16MP sensor (Crop mode pixel density) and threw it into a D300/s body last year and had FF low ISO performance, but they didn't.  With that being said I think the D400 if it does exist will be a new breed of camera.  I can't image they would just throw one of  the existing 24 MP sensors into it. I'm expecting some big surprises in the next 2 months..  If not I'm quite happy firing away with my D300


----------



## TheLost

coastalconn said:


> Price is one thing for sure.  I know I'm not the only wildlife shooter out there.  The "crop factor" is still a huge draw for us people along with speed.



I've changed my opinion on the DX 'crop factor'... I don't think it is better for sports and wildlife anymore.  The high pixel count of the new FF bodies and the larger sensor size give just as good images cropped to DX size as the current DX bodies.  In the 'old days' the D300 had an ever-so-slight advantage over the D700 in picture quality when the D700 images where cropped.  However, lots of people liked the better ISO handling of the D700 and opted for FF....  Now you get to have your cake and eat it too!

As for speed...  
D300s = 7fps @ 12bit lossless NEF (18 shots in buffer before it slows down)
D800 = 5fps @ 12bit lossless NEF DX Mode (38 shots in buffer before its full)

The D800 is only 2 ftps slower... but it has over twice the buffer size.   I know lots of people will scream that FPS is everything.. but IMHO, i could get used to a slightly slower FPS if i can shoot longer without things slowing down.


----------



## Tailgunner

coastalconn said:


> It won't hurt the D4 much because the D4x is next   I still think Nikon could have easily taken the D800 sensor and chopped it into a 16MP sensor (Crop mode pixel density) and threw it into a D300/s body last year and had FF low ISO performance, but they didn't.  With that being said I think the D400 if it does exist will be a new breed of camera.  I can't image they would just throw one of  the existing 24 MP sensors into it. I'm expecting some big surprises in the next 2 months..  If not I'm quite happy firing away with my D300



I don't think a D400 will bother the D4 directly but it could have an effect on the lower FF models like the D600, D700, & D800. This over time could have a slight effect on the cost of the D3 & D4. 




TheLost said:


> The D800 is only 2 ftps slower... but it has over twice the buffer size. I know lots of people will scream that FPS is everything.. but IMHO, i could get used to a slightly slower FPS if i can shoot longer without things slowing down.




Agreed, the larger Buffer could help offset the lower ftps.


----------



## coastalconn

TheLost said:


> As for speed...
> D300s = 7fps @ 12bit lossless NEF (18 shots in buffer before it slows down)
> D800 = 5fps @ 12bit lossless NEF DX Mode (38 shots in buffer before its full)
> 
> The D800 is only 2 ftps slower... but it has over twice the buffer size.   I know lots of people will scream that FPS is everything.. but IMHO, i could get used to a slightly slower FPS if i can shoot longer without things slowing down.



The D300 with grip is actually 8 FPS.  For me 8 FPS is a necessity when I'm shooting Osprey dive sequences.  If this D400 does actually get announced I'm sure the buffer will be deeper than the D300 buffer.  It's not that I'm screaming FPS is everything, but for what I shoot there are times that 1 shot every .20 seconds wouldn't cut it...  Of course I'm probably the exception to the rule...


----------



## TheLost

Here we are... another year.. no D400 rumors yet..  However, some promising stuff on the canon side!

Canon is supposed to have a few 'unannounced' test bodies at the winter games (Feb 7-23). They are also supposed to make a 'big splash' at the World Cup (June 12th).  A pro level APS-C DSLR is said to be among those cameras.
Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2] « Canon Rumors
A New Rebel for CP+? [CR1] « Canon Rumors

The 7D replacement is also supposed to have some new features that will set it apart from all the other Pro APS-C DSLRs.
Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1] « Canon Rumors

I think we are going to see the 7D mk2 (or whatever its called) by June!

I know a few people going to the Sochi games, I'm going to make sure they take plenty of pictures of the press cameras  .


----------



## Derrel

Ohhhhhhhhhh! A new Canon Rebel is imminent! And maybe an update to their $15,000+ cinema d-slr!!!!!! Excitement!


----------



## TheLost

Derrel said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhh! A new Canon Rebel is imminent! And maybe an update to their $15,000+ cinema d-slr!!!!!! Excitement!


You've got to read between the lines  .  Canonrumors has quite a few 'CR2' stories saying Canon is getting ready to release a new Pro APS-C DSLR into the world (CR2 = rumor received from a reliable source).

I don't think Nikon will produce a 'Pro' DX until Canon forces them to.


----------



## Tailgunner

TheLost said:


> I don't think Nikon will produce a 'Pro' DX until Canon forces them to.



Agreed. 

I think Nikon is content with selling slightly upgraded consumer DX bodies. Anyhow, I folded and ordered a D800 instead since I really don't need the speed or crop factor. Now I may hang on to my D300 just in case but not sure ATM.


----------



## runnah

Tailgunner said:


> Agreed.  I think Nikon is content with selling slightly upgraded consumer DX bodies. Anyhow, I folded and ordered a D800 instead since I really don't need the speed or crop factor. Now I may hang on to my D300 just in case but not sure ATM.



I still have mine. It's still an amazingly capable camera! I use it as my "tough conditions" camera.


----------



## Derrel

I read between the lines; the Canon Rumors has VERY weak predictions, and two cams that were mentioned were a new Rebel and a revamp to the high-end 1Dx cinema camera... a new Rebel seems more likely to me than a 7D Mark II.

ANyway...some new predictions from Thom Hogan recently: that Pentax, Fuji, and Olympus will ALL introduce full-frame cameras this year.

Also, he mentioned that the Sony/Nikon exclusive use agreement for the 36-MP sensor runs out in late 2014. More talk about the new "54-MP" sensor.

I cannot figure out why both Canon and Nikon have allowed their highest-spec'd APS-C bodies to age for soooooooooooo danged long! The D300s and the 7D are way overdue for replacement. But neither company seems in any hurry whatsoever to issue a refresh in this segment. I mean, at what point in time do these two companies decide to get this show on the road? Or....will they? I've heard that Canon is working on a 72-MP FF camera with a sort of Foveon-like sensor...I wonder if Canon is waiting for a MAJOR tectonic shift, before embarking on the 7D update. And I wonder the same thing about Nikon.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> I read between the lines; the Canon Rumors has VERY weak predictions, and two cams that were mentioned were a new Rebel and a revamp to the high-end 1Dx cinema camera... a new Rebel seems more likely to me than a 7D Mark II.  ANyway...some new predictions from Thom Hogan recently: that Pentax, Fuji, and Olympus will ALL introduce full-frame cameras this year.  Also, he mentioned that the Sony/Nikon exclusive use agreement for the 36-MP sensor runs out in late 2014. More talk about the new "54-MP" sensor.  I cannot figure out why both Canon and Nikon have allowed their highest-spec'd APS-C bodies to age for soooooooooooo danged long! The D300s and the 7D are way overdue for replacement. But neither company seems in any hurry whatsoever to issue a refresh in this segment. I mean, at what point in time do these two companies decide to get this show on the road? Or....will they? I've heard that Canon is working on a 72-MP FF camera with a sort of Foveon-like sensor...I wonder if Canon is waiting for a MAJOR tectonic shift, before embarking on the 7D update. And I wonder the same thing about Nikon.



It begs the question if both companies have decided to abandon that particular niche in favor of entry level FF cameras. Price of the 610 is similar to the 300s at launch.

And a 72mp sensor? Yikes my PC processor trembles at the thought of editing a 100mb raw file.


----------



## MGRPhoto

At the time the D7000 came out I picked one up to replace my D300s. It didn't even come close to be able to replace my D300s. I haven't really kept up to speed on the D7100 as I have just become content with my D300s as it does do everything I want it to and does it well. What are the differences between the D7100 and D300s that make the D7100 still not a replacement? The two glaring things I see are FSP and still no 10-pin... 

My shutter started making some weird noises and it seems to be a bit sluggish so I wanted to send it in for repair but I don't currently have a backup. I though about picking up a D7100 but just wondering if there is something major I'm missing. If there is I'd be happy to just find a refurb D300s to pick up instead. I do agree that we are unlikely to see a direct D300s replacement.


----------



## Tailgunner

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read between the lines; the Canon Rumors has VERY weak predictions, and two cams that were mentioned were a new Rebel and a revamp to the high-end 1Dx cinema camera... a new Rebel seems more likely to me than a 7D Mark II.  ANyway...some new predictions from Thom Hogan recently: that Pentax, Fuji, and Olympus will ALL introduce full-frame cameras this year.  Also, he mentioned that the Sony/Nikon exclusive use agreement for the 36-MP sensor runs out in late 2014. More talk about the new "54-MP" sensor.  I cannot figure out why both Canon and Nikon have allowed their highest-spec'd APS-C bodies to age for soooooooooooo danged long! The D300s and the 7D are way overdue for replacement. But neither company seems in any hurry whatsoever to issue a refresh in this segment. I mean, at what point in time do these two companies decide to get this show on the road? Or....will they? I've heard that Canon is working on a 72-MP FF camera with a sort of Foveon-like sensor...I wonder if Canon is waiting for a MAJOR tectonic shift, before embarking on the 7D update. And I wonder the same thing about Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question if both companies have decided to abandon that particular niche in favor of entry level FF cameras. Price of the 610 is similar to the 300s at launch.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering the something.


----------



## JacaRanda

I keep reading (rightfully so and comparitively speaking) how crappy the 7D iso performance is.  Then, I go out shooting amongst what I call the serious birding and wildlife photographers and the overwhelming majority of them are using 7D's.  I only call them serious because of all the 300, 400, 500, and 600 mm primes I see many lugging around.

Then I check out Flickr and see the results.  How much better can things get really?  That being said, I myself and waiting/hoping for a 7D mkII.  Why? Because I am a nutbar first of all.  Secondly, I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII.  My dream team.


----------



## MGRPhoto

JacaRanda said:


> I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII.  My dream team.



What specs are missing from the D300s that cause it not to satisfy you for the next 10 years? When I asked myself a similar question I stopped caring when it's replacement was coming.


----------



## bribrius

few more years they may not be a market for any dslr. Once the computer chip went in a camera that was all she wrote. From that point on, sizes shrink, image clarity gets better without needing a large body. The chip takes over. Before long, you wont need lots of lenses either. Cameras are pretty much half computers at this point anyway. This laptop has a camera, the phones have cameras, we have tablets with cameras. The camera, at least to the extent of a large body dslr. is going extinct.
The manufacturers would be better off putting the research and development money in the future than the past. Which I believe dslrs are the past. Mirrors, past. Ten years cellphones might be putting out as good pics as top level dslrs do now.  The younger kids, more tech savvy, the tech generation. Arent out dreaming after dslrs I don't think. They probably consider them archaic. Whiich in actuality, old technology, they are archaic. 
Early in this thread someone gave a example, first digital camera was like 13000 dollars now you can buy a disposable one for 9 dollars.
something to think about too.


----------



## xj0hnx

bribrius said:


> few more years they may not be a market for any dslr. Once the computer chip went in a camera that was all she wrote. From that point on, sizes shrink, image clarity gets better without needing a large body. The chip takes over. Before long, you wont need lots of lenses either. Cameras are pretty much half computers at this point anyway. This laptop has a camera, the phones have cameras, we have tablets with cameras. The camera, at least to the extent of a large body dslr. is going extinct.
> The manufacturers would be better off putting the research and development money in the future than the past. Which I believe dslrs are the past. Mirrors, past. Ten years cellphones might be putting out as good pics as top level dslrs do now.  The younger kids, more tech savvy, the tech generation. Arent out dreaming after dslrs I don't think. They probably consider them archaic. Whiich in actuality, old technology, they are archaic.
> Early in this thread someone gave a example, first digital camera was like 13000 dollars now you can buy a disposable one for 9 dollars.
> something to think about too.



I seriously doubt DSLRs are going anywhere, and they will NEVER be replaced by phone cameras unless they start making phones with the level of controls that cameras have now, or mini 200-600mm zooms. There are just too many things you can do with cameras from different lenses to controls that there's just no way a phone will ever replace them, and who the heck wants to lug around a computer, or tablet to take pictures with? No one I know. All adding computer chips is doing is making cameras better every year, not making them obsolete.


----------



## coastalconn

MGRPhoto said:


> At the time the D7000 came out I picked one up to replace my D300s. It didn't even come close to be able to replace my D300s. I haven't really kept up to speed on the D7100 as I have just become content with my D300s as it does do everything I want it to and does it well. What are the differences between the D7100 and D300s that make the D7100 still not a replacement? The two glaring things I see are FSP and still no 10-pin...
> 
> My shutter started making some weird noises and it seems to be a bit sluggish so I wanted to send it in for repair but I don't currently have a backup. I though about picking up a D7100 but just wondering if there is something major I'm missing. If there is I'd be happy to just find a refurb D300s to pick up instead. I do agree that we are unlikely to see a direct D300s replacement.


If you look back through this thread you will see I was holding out for the D400.  I caved 2 months ago and got a D7100.  The sensor is really quite a bit better, especially when cropping for birds.  I'm shooting at ISO 1600 and go to ISO 3200 if needed.  With the D300 I shoot at ISO 400 and really hated going above that if I knew I would be cropping at all..  After that the D300/s smokes the D7100 in every aspect.  I know the D7100 is supposed to have an upgraded AF system but in real life shooting I don't feel it.  The speed and buffer is so much better on the D300.  I actually have only shot with the D7100 since I got it and I am getting by for now with shorter bursts and the camera still chugs away at 3 FPS when the dinky buffer is full..  The D300 is always ready to go if needed.  Once the Ospreys return and I start shooting dive sequences I will be torn as to which camera to shoot.  



JacaRanda said:


> I keep reading (rightfully so and comparitively speaking) how crappy the 7D iso performance is.  Then, I go out shooting amongst what I call the serious birding and wildlife photographers and the overwhelming majority of them are using 7D's.  I only call them serious because of all the 300, 400, 500, and 600 mm primes I see many lugging around.
> 
> Then I check out Flickr and see the results.  How much better can things get really?  That being said, I myself and waiting/hoping for a 7D mkII.  Why? Because I am a nutbar first of all.  Secondly, I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII.  My dream team.



The 7D is still the best crop camera in Canon's lineup, imho.  I played with a 7d and a 70d on the same day and besides the cool touch screen and the cool video AF system, If I shot Canon I would be shooting the 7D myself.  

It is a shame that Canonikon has seemingly abandoned us wildlife shooters.  It seems to me one of the biggest markets in the future for DSLRs.  No tablet or phone will be able to slap a 600mm lens on it and fire away like our cameras can.  At least not in my lifetime...


----------



## MGRPhoto

coastalconn said:


> MGRPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time the D7000 came out I picked one up to replace my D300s. It didn't even come close to be able to replace my D300s. I haven't really kept up to speed on the D7100 as I have just become content with my D300s as it does do everything I want it to and does it well. What are the differences between the D7100 and D300s that make the D7100 still not a replacement? The two glaring things I see are FSP and still no 10-pin...
> 
> My shutter started making some weird noises and it seems to be a bit sluggish so I wanted to send it in for repair but I don't currently have a backup. I though about picking up a D7100 but just wondering if there is something major I'm missing. If there is I'd be happy to just find a refurb D300s to pick up instead. I do agree that we are unlikely to see a direct D300s replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look back through this thread you will see I was holding out for the D400.  I caved 2 months ago and got a D7100.  The sensor is really quite a bit better, especially when cropping for birds.  I'm shooting at ISO 1600 and go to ISO 3200 if needed.  With the D300 I shoot at ISO 400 and really hated going above that if I knew I would be cropping at all..  After that the D300/s smokes the D7100 in every aspect.  I know the D7100 is supposed to have an upgraded AF system but in real life shooting I don't feel it.  The speed and buffer is so much better on the D300.  I actually have only shot with the D7100 since I got it and I am getting by for now with shorter bursts and the camera still chugs away at 3 FPS when the dinky buffer is full..  The D300 is always ready to go if needed.  Once the Ospreys return and I start shooting dive sequences I will be torn as to which camera to shoot.
Click to expand...


That's pretty much what I expected to hear. Have you considered selling the D7100 and picking up a D300s or is it not that bad?


----------



## Derrel

JacaRanda said:


> I keep reading (rightfully so and comparitively speaking) how crappy the 7D iso performance is.  Then, I go out shooting amongst what I call the serious birding and wildlife photographers and the overwhelming majority of them are using 7D's.  I only call them serious because of all the 300, 400, 500, and 600 mm primes I see many lugging around.
> 
> Then I check out Flickr and see the results.  *How much better can things get really?*  That being said, I myself and waiting/hoping for a 7D mkII.  Why? Because I am a nutbar first of all.  Secondly, I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII.  My dream team.



Significantly better. For less money. The 7D is five years old,and based on even-older sensor and signal processing technology. Compared to better sensors, the 7D noises up FAST; by ISO 800, its color to me, looks grainy, and weak.Nikon D7100 versus Canon EOS 7D - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Basically, two full stops more dynamic range, and two to three steps richer color from the D7100, which is a cheaper, $1,200 body than the 7D. Canon has let the lower and mid-range camera sensors stagnate since 2009, having released five new models around the same, tired, old sensor. SINCE the introduction of the 7D is September ofd 2009, Sony and Toshiba have re-invested and moved their sensor manufacturing technology to NEW levels of quality. Canon has refused to make that investment, and the Sony sensor fabrication success story has released things like the D800 and D800 e, and all the 24-megapixel consumer cameras. Canon is still in the Pentium 4 mind-set. "It's good enough for our customers".

I juuuuuuuust can NOT figure out why both Canon and Nikon have not stepped up here and made new models to replace the 7D and D300s. It boggles the mind.


----------



## jaomul

I think an upgrade to both the d300/d300s and 7d would likely sell well for both companies. The internet chatter about these upgrades is significant. Bird/wildlife and sports shooters would be the likely big market but lots of shooters who just want the most current best dslr available in their chosen format size would likely buy also. I know a few 7d and Nikon d300 users who don't need 8fps or the very best af. That didn't stop them buying them.


----------



## Gavjenks

Screw 8 FPS, I want like 20 FPS. I will not be satisfied until I can open up my memory card on my computer, hold down the right arrow key, and see a fluid realtime movie as it previews the still images I took.

That would definitely make me a better photographer.


----------



## coastalconn

MGRPhoto said:


> That's pretty much what I expected to hear. Have you considered selling the D7100 and picking up a D300s or is it not that bad?



I still have my D300, which is pretty much the same as the the D300s.  I just choose to shoot with the D7100 because even with the limitations of the body, the final image is that much better.  So far there has only been a few times I have missed the speed.  I would have loved to have a few more frames to choose from when this snowy owl got released.  Like wings up on the fingertips of the rehabber.  But I just keep making do for now...  The light wasn't very good this particular day and I think at ISO 1000 the D300 would not have had nearly the same results...  




Amazing release of a Snowy Owl! by krisinct, on Flickr


----------



## coastalconn

Gavjenks said:


> Screw 8 FPS, I want like 20 FPS. I will not be satisfied until I can open up my memory card on my computer, hold down the right arrow key, and see a fluid realtime movie as it previews the still images I took.
> 
> That would definitely make me a better photographer.


I hope some day they make a camera like that for you, if that's what it takes to make you a better photographer!


----------



## MGRPhoto

coastalconn said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screw 8 FPS, I want like 20 FPS. I will not be satisfied until I can open up my memory card on my computer, hold down the right arrow key, and see a fluid realtime movie as it previews the still images I took.
> 
> That would definitely make me a better photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope some day they make a camera like that for you, if that's what it takes to make you a better photographer!
Click to expand...


They do! It's called the Nikon 1


----------



## Tailgunner

coastalconn said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screw 8 FPS, I want like 20 FPS. I will not be satisfied until I can open up my memory card on my computer, hold down the right arrow key, and see a fluid realtime movie as it previews the still images I took.
> 
> That would definitely make me a better photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope some day they make a camera like that for you, if that's what it takes to make you a better photographer!
Click to expand...


Thanks, I was drinking some tea when I read this, now I have to clear my screen lol


----------



## JacaRanda

MGRPhoto said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII. My dream team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specs are missing from the D300s that cause it not to satisfy you for the next 10 years? When I asked myself a similar question I stopped caring when it's replacement was coming.
Click to expand...




Derrel said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading (rightfully so and comparitively speaking) how crappy the 7D iso performance is. Then, I go out shooting amongst what I call the serious birding and wildlife photographers and the overwhelming majority of them are using 7D's. I only call them serious because of all the 300, 400, 500, and 600 mm primes I see many lugging around.
> 
> Then I check out Flickr and see the results. *How much better can things get really?* That being said, I myself and waiting/hoping for a 7D mkII. Why? Because I am a nutbar first of all. Secondly, I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII. My dream team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Significantly better. For less money. The 7D is five years old,and based on even-older sensor and signal processing technology. Compared to better sensors, the 7D noises up FAST; by ISO 800, its color to me, looks grainy, and weak.Nikon D7100 versus Canon EOS 7D - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
> 
> Basically, two full stops more dynamic range, and two to three steps richer color from the D7100, which is a cheaper, $1,200 body than the 7D. Canon has let the lower and mid-range camera sensors stagnate since 2009, having released five new models around the same, tired, old sensor. SINCE the introduction of the 7D is September ofd 2009, Sony and Toshiba have re-invested and moved their sensor manufacturing technology to NEW levels of quality. Canon has refused to make that investment, and the Sony sensor fabrication success story has released things like the D800 and D800 e, and all the 24-megapixel consumer cameras. Canon is still in the Pentium 4 mind-set. "It's good enough for our customers".
> 
> I juuuuuuuust can NOT figure out why both Canon and Nikon have not stepped up here and made new models to replace the 7D and D300s. It boggles the mind.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, definitely yes. You are correct Mr. D. I was thinking in terms of the gorgeous shots I see. However, I ignored the crappy ISO performance (my bad). In fact, my 60D is crappy in that respect and may still be slightly better than the 7D.

Dang!  I say crappy and feel a little weird about it.  These are all amazing little gadgets.  But heck, if we are going to be spending $K's for this HOBBY...........

Otherwise back to golf.


----------



## JacaRanda

MGRPhoto said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII. My dream team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specs are missing from the D300s that cause it not to satisfy you for the next 10 years? When I asked myself a similar question I stopped caring when it's replacement was coming.
Click to expand...


I actually shoot with a Canon 60D and have become addicted to wildlife/birding.  It certainly has been sufficient, but now I see it's limitations for what I enjoy shooting most.

My choice of Canon was somewhat random, so I could easily be in the Nikon boat with the same concerns with D7100's vs D300 etc.


----------



## Braineack

coastalconn said:


> I hope some day they make a camera like that for you, if that's what it takes to make you a better photographer!



8fps makes or breaks your offsprey shots, but 20fps is overboard?  why not 20fps?


----------



## JacaRanda

coastalconn said:


> MGRPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time the D7000 came out I picked one up to replace my D300s. It didn't even come close to be able to replace my D300s. I haven't really kept up to speed on the D7100 as I have just become content with my D300s as it does do everything I want it to and does it well. What are the differences between the D7100 and D300s that make the D7100 still not a replacement? The two glaring things I see are FSP and still no 10-pin...
> 
> My shutter started making some weird noises and it seems to be a bit sluggish so I wanted to send it in for repair but I don't currently have a backup. I though about picking up a D7100 but just wondering if there is something major I'm missing. If there is I'd be happy to just find a refurb D300s to pick up instead. I do agree that we are unlikely to see a direct D300s replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look back through this thread you will see I was holding out for the D400. I caved 2 months ago and got a D7100. The sensor is really quite a bit better, especially when cropping for birds. I'm shooting at ISO 1600 and go to ISO 3200 if needed. With the D300 I shoot at ISO 400 and really hated going above that if I knew I would be cropping at all.. After that the D300/s smokes the D7100 in every aspect. I know the D7100 is supposed to have an upgraded AF system but in real life shooting I don't feel it. The speed and buffer is so much better on the D300. I actually have only shot with the D7100 since I got it and I am getting by for now with shorter bursts and the camera still chugs away at 3 FPS when the dinky buffer is full.. The D300 is always ready to go if needed. Once the Ospreys return and I start shooting dive sequences I will be torn as to which camera to shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading (rightfully so and comparitively speaking) how crappy the 7D iso performance is. Then, I go out shooting amongst what I call the serious birding and wildlife photographers and the overwhelming majority of them are using 7D's. I only call them serious because of all the 300, 400, 500, and 600 mm primes I see many lugging around.
> 
> Then I check out Flickr and see the results. How much better can things get really? That being said, I myself and waiting/hoping for a 7D mkII. Why? Because I am a nutbar first of all. Secondly, I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII. My dream team.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7D is still the best crop camera in Canon's lineup, imho. I played with a 7d and a 70d on the same day and besides the cool touch screen and the cool video AF system, If I shot Canon I would be shooting the 7D myself.
> 
> It is a shame that Canonikon has seemingly abandoned us wildlife shooters. It seems to me one of the biggest markets in the future for DSLRs. No tablet or phone will be able to slap a 600mm lens on it and fire away like our cameras can. At least not in my lifetime...
Click to expand...


Just curious.  Do you use 95mb/s cards?  I see videos showing how the buffer chugs along (and as you state), but I also see threads where the faster cards make a pretty significant difference.  

I just ordered one yesterday so I will be able to compare the 95mb/s to 30mb/s and 45mb/s.


----------



## Tailgunner

JacaRanda said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MGRPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time the D7000 came out I picked one up to replace my D300s. It didn't even come close to be able to replace my D300s. I haven't really kept up to speed on the D7100 as I have just become content with my D300s as it does do everything I want it to and does it well. What are the differences between the D7100 and D300s that make the D7100 still not a replacement? The two glaring things I see are FSP and still no 10-pin...
> 
> My shutter started making some weird noises and it seems to be a bit sluggish so I wanted to send it in for repair but I don't currently have a backup. I though about picking up a D7100 but just wondering if there is something major I'm missing. If there is I'd be happy to just find a refurb D300s to pick up instead. I do agree that we are unlikely to see a direct D300s replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look back through this thread you will see I was holding out for the D400. I caved 2 months ago and got a D7100. The sensor is really quite a bit better, especially when cropping for birds. I'm shooting at ISO 1600 and go to ISO 3200 if needed. With the D300 I shoot at ISO 400 and really hated going above that if I knew I would be cropping at all.. After that the D300/s smokes the D7100 in every aspect. I know the D7100 is supposed to have an upgraded AF system but in real life shooting I don't feel it. The speed and buffer is so much better on the D300. I actually have only shot with the D7100 since I got it and I am getting by for now with shorter bursts and the camera still chugs away at 3 FPS when the dinky buffer is full.. The D300 is always ready to go if needed. Once the Ospreys return and I start shooting dive sequences I will be torn as to which camera to shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading (rightfully so and comparitively speaking) how crappy the 7D iso performance is. Then, I go out shooting amongst what I call the serious birding and wildlife photographers and the overwhelming majority of them are using 7D's. I only call them serious because of all the 300, 400, 500, and 600 mm primes I see many lugging around.
> 
> Then I check out Flickr and see the results. How much better can things get really? That being said, I myself and waiting/hoping for a 7D mkII. Why? Because I am a nutbar first of all. Secondly, I hope it has enough specs that satisfy me for the next 10 years - that along with the 300mm 2.8 mkII. My dream team.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7D is still the best crop camera in Canon's lineup, imho. I played with a 7d and a 70d on the same day and besides the cool touch screen and the cool video AF system, If I shot Canon I would be shooting the 7D myself.
> 
> It is a shame that Canonikon has seemingly abandoned us wildlife shooters. It seems to me one of the biggest markets in the future for DSLRs. No tablet or phone will be able to slap a 600mm lens on it and fire away like our cameras can. At least not in my lifetime...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious.  Do you use 95mb/s cards?  I see videos showing how the buffer chugs along (and as you state), but I also see threads where the faster cards make a pretty significant difference.
> 
> I just ordered one yesterday so I will be able to compare the 95mb/s to 30mb/s and 45mb/s.
Click to expand...


I run a pair of 95MB cards in my D7100 and they help a lot vs my ld 45MB cards.


----------



## coastalconn

Yup I have 95 mb/s cards and they clear the buffer way faster.. I already have 24,30 and 60 FPS on my camera


----------



## TheLost

Braineack said:


> 8fps makes or breaks your offsprey shots, but 20fps is overboard?  why not 20fps?



I've said before (and probably in this thread.. just too lazy to find it and quote it) that IMHO...  In 5-7 years the wild life photographer will just be shooting video and pulling out the stills they want.

8k Video (UHD) = 33.2 megapixels 

When your DSLR can shoot 8K video @ 24/30/60/120 FPS with a high quality 600mm lens why shoot stills?  The hard part will be sorting through the millions of frames to find the best 'image'.


----------



## Tailgunner

TheLost said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8fps makes or breaks your offsprey shots, but 20fps is overboard?  why not 20fps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said before (and probably in this thread.. just too lazy to find it and quote it) that IMHO...  In 5-7 years the wild life photographer will just be shooting video and pulling out the stills they want.
> 
> 8k Video (UHD) = 33.2 megapixels
> 
> When your DSLR can shoot 8K video @ 24/30/60/120 FPS with a high quality 600mm lens why shoot stills?  The hard part will be sorting through the millions of frames to find the best 'image'.
Click to expand...


This is a slippery slope. 

News papers are canning photographers in favor of cell phone photos. Then some time back, Reuters canned all their Sport's photographers in favor of live feed images from US Today. Their just going to pull stills from video. Now you're suggesting people pull their stills from video. If this keeps up, photographers will disappear faster than the Dinosaurs.


----------



## Braineack

Doubtful.


----------



## sashbar

The new Fuji camera that is expected by the end of January is rumored to have a support for the new UHS II SD card with "super fast writing speed"


----------



## TheLost

Braineack said:


> Doubtful.



Its going to happen... Its just a matter of time.  Companies like RED and Canon are getting ready for it.
Shooting Video For Stills
Pulling Still Photos From DSLR Video, the New Canon 1D-C ? PictureCorrect

Ever go to an NBA game and sit behind the basket?  lots of fixed-mounted DSLR's and one or two 'moving' video cameras.   How long before one of those video cameras is setup to shoot video 'stills' (high shutter speed).  They already have somebody moving the video camera around to follow the action.  If you can pull stills from that 'feed' your bound to get better shots then from the 'fixed' DSLR's.  (who.. by the way.. somebody still had to setup a ladder and pull the memory cards from during half time at the game i was at this week).


----------



## runnah

TheLost said:


> 8k Video (UHD) = 33.2 megapixels
> 
> When your DSLR can shoot 8K video @ 24/30/60/120 FPS with a high quality 600mm lens why shoot stills?  The hard part will be sorting through the millions of frames to find the best 'image'.



Bingo. 4k will start this trend and 8k will solidify it.

I'd say we are no more than a couple years out from seeing the first 4k video DSLR. I am actually surprised that the new D4s doesn't have it. I want to say the limiting factor is the removable storage media and the buffer. Putting in SSD on board storage would solve that issue. Right now the average SSD write speed is around 500mb, pair that with 1TB capacity and you have quite the nice storage space for 4k video. Size of the drive is the only issue, maybe as a battery grip add on.


----------



## runnah

This is the look of the  "camera" of the future. Video and photo in one.

Blackmagic Design Blackmagic Production Camera 4K


----------



## Tailgunner

TheLost said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its going to happen... Its just a matter of time.  Companies like RED and Canon are getting ready for it.
> Shooting Video For Stills
> Pulling Still Photos From DSLR Video, the New Canon 1D-C ? PictureCorrect
> 
> Ever go to an NBA game and sit behind the basket?  lots of fixed-mounted DSLR's and one or two 'moving' video cameras.   How long before one of those video cameras is setup to shoot video 'stills' (high shutter speed).  They already have somebody moving the video camera around to follow the action.  If you can pull stills from that 'feed' your bound to get better shots then from the 'fixed' DSLR's.  (who.. by the way.. somebody still had to setup a ladder and pull the memory cards from during half time at the game i was at this week).
Click to expand...


Yup, I can see Professional sports switching to video they them selves control and selling access to news and sporting good business directly. We're already seeing some news media dumping Sports photographers in favor of it. So it's just a matter of time.


----------

