D400 - does anyone know when it will see the daylight??

[CastIron]

Question:

What will be different in the D400 v/ D7000 camera class?

A little bit of logic and a lot of finger-crossing: I imagine the D400 (if DX) would basically be a D7000 in a D300(S) shell; sensor and processing from the D7000, metal shell with more buttons from the D300(S), better AF and fps than both.

This would fall in line with previous generations in substance, though not in chronology due to the D700.

D80200:90300(S):7000400.

 

[Retief]

A little bit of logic and a lot of finger-crossing: I imagine the D400 (if DX) would basically be a D7000 in a D300(S) shell; sensor and processing from the D7000, metal shell with more buttons from the D300(S), better AF and fps than both.

This would fall in line with previous generations in substance, though not in chronology due to the D700.

D80200:90300(S):7000400.

Why do you think they would use the same sensor as the D7000? Sensor technology has advanced. The processing as well, just look at things like buffer differences between the D7000 and the D300, one of the areas where the D7000 lacks vs. the D300.

I would be more inclined to think it might be a Nikon tweaked sensor based on the one used in the Sony Alpha SLT-A77, just to keep up with the MP race. In either case, the sensor would need to have better SNR to support higher ISO's than either of them has now. Logic would say that it would then be better to stick with the 16mp vs 24mp, but the D800 has shown that very high MP can still have very good High ISO performance.

 

[Wileec]

Question:

What will be different in the D400 v/ D7000 camera class?

D7000 is a consumer camera. Compared to D300/D300s (I owned both before getting a D7000), the AF is weaker, much smaller buffer, and the body has far fewer buttons to the variables one likes to change quickly. The mode dial on the D7000 is lame, compared to the D300/D300s; it is very easily changed. I can't tell you how many shots I've had to pitch due to the mode getting changed and I didn't pick up on it until I reviewed some shots. Never had that issue with the D300/D300s.

In essence the D300/D300s are pro-grade cameras. The D7000 improved in two key areas - better ISO performance and 25% more pixels. I've put up with the hassles to benefit from those two key elements. Getting the D800 has reminded me how much I like the D300/D300s. So . . .

. . . I'm hoping that Nikon realizes we need a pro-grade DX for the bird and wildlife shooters. And, for the cheaper DX owners to upgrade to, since most will have DX lenses and the move to FX lenses won't happen for most of that group.

As soon as a DX replacement for the D300/D300s is announced, I'm ordering it. As for capability, I'd gladly let it be 16mp with WAY better ISO performance compared to a 24MP model with the same performance. In truth, if they don't really improve the DX, I'll just shoot with the D800 - crop mode yields a 16mp file - so I already have the D7000 replaced - and with a way better AF system, far larger buffer, and all those extra buttons the D300/D300s got me used to having. I don't mind the lower burst rate - I'm not much of a burst shooter - and besides, when it's delivered, my D4 will cover those times when I need that capability.

So - my dream list - 24mp DX with at least one stop better ISO than D7000, with the AF and buffer from the D4/D800 and all those buttons. Time will tell.

 

[CastIron]

Why do you think they would use the same sensor as the D7000? Sensor technology has advanced. The processing as well, just look at things like buffer differences between the D7000 and the D300, one of the areas where the D7000 lacks vs. the D300.

I would be more inclined to think it might be a Nikon tweaked sensor based on the one used in the Sony Alpha SLT-A77, just to keep up with the MP race. In either case, the sensor would need to have better SNR to support higher ISO's than either of them has now. Logic would say that it would then be better to stick with the 16mp vs 24mp, but the D800 has shown that very high MP can still have very good High ISO performance.

The basis of the assumption was that 1, the D7000 sensor is showing up in more and more cameras and 2, a "pro-sumer" camera is the only one left not to get it.

I'll quickly concede here though; anyone who's acutely aware of the specific model numbers of various sensors is more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. It would be a shame, though, if the D7000 sensor never shows up in a D300-style body, primarily because that's exactly what I want :smile:

 

[West]

It would be a shame, though, if the D7000 sensor never shows up in a D300-style body

It did, but in a K5.
It will probably be a 24mp or maybe even a "new" 18mp. I check NR every day for any news.

 

[CastIron]

It did, but in a K5.
It will probably be a 24mp or maybe even a "new" 18mp. I check NR every day for any news.

Based on size and weight and, from the looks of things, on dedicated buttons as well, the K-5 body is more similar to the D7000 than to the D300.

 

[Fallys]

You could easily sell me on the following: high ISO capabilities at or slightly above the D700, 7 or 8 fps ungripped (to help analyze my golf swing - selfish I know), and 18-ish mp.

I'm not a body jumper, so this "dream" body will probably/hopefully last me a long time. I really don't care if it's FX or DX, I just want high fps and high iso.

 

[ArtScar2]

I was so happy with my d7000 until I started reading how it is crummy it is.

 

[Mr Baz]

I think most D300 users want the 16mp CMOS sensor. I suspect we'll get the 24mp one though. Which is a shame in reality the D400 should have been out last year. Nikon need to fill this gap urgently as they have nothing up to date to offer pro level APS-C users. It must be hurting their market share quite a lot

 

[Wileec]

I think most D300 users want the 16mp CMOS sensor. I suspect we'll get the 24mp one though. Which is a shame in reality the D400 should have been out last year. Nikon need to fill this gap urgently as they have nothing up to date to offer pro level APS-C users. It must be hurting their market share quite a lot

It's not - as I understand it, they have been gaining. That said, I totally agree on the DX front. I think most pros though, had already moved to FX bodies, so that the use and need for the D300 upgrade is far less than it was for the D200 upgrade. I think that's why we've seen the D800 come out so much sooner relative to where the D700 was released compared to the D300. Also, I think few of us have a fraction of an idea of the practical severity of the devastation that last year's natural disasters had on this part of their business, never mind the families involved. Again - just an opinion - not trying to let Nikon off the hook. I, too, feel a pro-level DX body is key to my shooting, but will be using the D800 as a stand-in for that missing tool.

 

[mako2011]

As I understand it, when shooting the D800 in DX mode you have exactly the equivalent of the D7000 sensor in a pro level body. Do you not find that to be the case? I ask as I'm exploring upgrade options. Thank you.

 

[Wileec]

As I understand it, when shooting the D800 in DX mode you have exactly the equivalent of the D7000 sensor in a pro level body. Do you not find that to be the case? I ask as I'm exploring upgrade options. Thank you.

This is absolutely true. I have both cameras and wanted to verify this for myself. I set up a big prime, focused on the same thing and took the shot with each body, then cropped the shot that the D7000 took from the shot the D800 took and it was a 16mp file.

So, bottom line, you get superior AF and exposure systems and the ability to capture with piles more pixels. It's really no big downside, other than not getting the benefit from FLM. At this point, I'll be shooting with the D800 until a D400 is released - and, only if it improves ISO or pixel count for that cropped area of capture. If Nikon doesn't improve one or both, I may well become a mostly FX shooter - especially once the D4 arrives. Though CX will still be a part of equation for me, too.

 

[Chris_B]

Wileec - what is your sense of the difference between shooting the 800 in FX and cropping compared to shooting in DX mode? I know that there is a modest increase in FPS with DX but is there a big IQ difference that you can see?

Thanks,

Chris

 

[bpdougd]

This is absolutely true. I have both cameras and wanted to verify this for myself. I set up a big prime, focused on the same thing and took the shot with each body, then cropped the shot that the D7000 took from the shot the D800 took and it was a 16mp file.

So, bottom line, you get superior AF and exposure systems and the ability to capture with piles more pixels. It's really no big downside, other than not getting the benefit from FLM. At this point, I'll be shooting with the D800 until a D400 is released - and, only if it improves ISO or pixel count for that cropped area of capture. If Nikon doesn't improve one or both, I may well become a mostly FX shooter - especially once the D4 arrives. Though CX will still be a part of equation for me, too.

Given your use of the D800, you are a perfect person to ask this question. How does the "framing" of shots in DX mode work for you? My only DSLR at the moment is a D700. On a recent trip to the Monte Vista NWR to photograph the cranes, I used the D700 and my longest lens combo, the 70-200 VR II and a 1.4 TC. As you undoubtedly guessed, I had to do some serious cropping in post. The percentage of keepers was affected by this and the missed focus that accompanies not knowing exactly what part of the viewfinder has the interesting stuff.

My concern with the D800 is precisely the issue of being able to effectively "see the shot" in the viewfinder. It is tempting to think that one could have the best of both worlds: a high pixel density FX and a good DX in a single camera body but a little voice in my head is warning me that it is too good to be true.

 

[Retief]

Doug and WileeC:

I have a D800 on order from Borrowlenses for use on my trip to the Tetons/YNP in a few weeks. I will be shooting the D800 alongside my D300's, both with and without the grip. Plan is to test 4/5/6 fps, vs 8fps, and AF vs AF.

Doug, you hit the nail on the head re: the DX vs FX framing and usability difference. My suspicion is that this will be highly dependent upon how you frame your shots. When I am shooting "moving objects", I am less concerned about composition than I am when shooting a static subject, so as long as I am keeping my sujbect relatively centered I don't think it will make a whit of difference if I am in FX or DX mode, other than 1fps without the grip and smaller "native" files. When it comes to static subjects, and composition, then I think it will be a matter of what I "see". If I don't see the masking effect of the DX crop, I can easily see my having a composition that is off, I might compose something I like that just doesn't fit the DX format if that makes sense.

If nothing else, it is going to be a fun 10 days of testing, without a doubt. Let me know if there is anything specific you want me to look at, other than video as I don't think I will have time to play with that very much. I am guessing that anything you might be interested in, is something that would be of interest to me anyway.

 

[Wileec]

Gentlemen,

I have not shot the D800 in DX mode and have little interest nor reason to do so. My own question was simply to determine how many pixels was I going to get in the portion of the frame that would be captured by a DX body. There won't be a quality difference capturing DX or FX mode - it's the same sensor, same dynamic range, etc.

I'm not a burst shooter for much, so gaining a frame or two per second while loosing all those pixels makes no sense for my shooting. I'd settle for fewer pixels if it gave me better ISO performance, but that won't be the case.

I aim to compose with camera as much as possible and I always shoot for the maximum number of pixels I can capture - especially with BIF.

My main lens, with TCs, for the DX shooting I've done up to this point, was the 400mm VR, but just getting it paid off, it was time to invest in my next long lens. I had planned on getting the 200mm f/2, but with expanding to FX, I invested in the 600mm, so I can still compose with my camera, not my computer. The D800 is a game changer on a couple of key elements, and I'm really looking forward to using it in Yellowstone, where I'm headed in a day or two (fourth trip there, this year). I have a D4 on order that will cover the need for better ISO performance and those rare times when I do want good burst capability.

Bottom line, Nikon really needs to get the D300 replacement announced and shipped. This is a key camera for many bird and wildlife shooters. The D4 and D800 have really raised the bar, and the D400 needs to do the same, especially in relation to the D7000 - which i think will be easy to accomplish.

 

[Retief]

Gentlemen,

Bottom line, Nikon really needs to get the D300 replacement announced and shipped. This is a key camera for many bird and wildlife shooters. The D4 and D800 have really raised the bar, and the D400 needs to do the same, especially in relation to the D7000 - which i think will be easy to accomplish.

Thanks, that is the nicest thing I have been called in a while :biggrin::biggrin:

I agree 1,000% with your last statement. In my case, I don't see a 600mm in my near future, or the Sigma 800mm either, so for the forseeable future the 400mm + TC's will be my "go to" combo, DX of one sort or another will be useful to me.

One thing I am very interested in with the D800 is if, perhaps, I have been relying far too much on the added fps, it may very well be that the more accurate AF on the D800 will result in far less "big burst" sequences, which also has the added advantage of not having so darned many images to go through. A case, if you will, of my fixing a bit of "not optimal" technique that I have been using.

Thanks for noting the "burst" thing again, this is one more personal test I need to be sure I accomplish.

 

[Wileec]

My sense is the base AF system is the same for D800 and D4 and if that is the case, then the keeper rate, especially at the lower rate of the D800, should be excellent - barring user. The reports from the demanding shooters I've read, regarding the performance of the D4 is that it is even better than the D3s was and the keeper rate (in focus shots, where focus is where intended) is measurably improved. So, I expect the D800 to do well. I don't shoot as many BIFs, so it's not a skill/capability that I have developed to the same degree I have worked on other areas of my shooting.

 

[TimK]

Another benefit for a DX body is that the 51 focus points will cover a larger area of the sensor so it is easier to track BIF. I just got my D4 for a few weeks but I still prefer my D300s for birds, not only for the 1.5x crop but also the larger effective focusing area. (And I prefer the switch for changing focus mode on the D300s too!)

I really hope that the D400 would be a DX. I just feel better with a DX body for wildlife.

 

[Pete]

Now that we have heard about the D3200 with 24mpx, I wonder if a 24 mpx D400 might be right around the corner. If Nikon announces the D400 before I get the D800, I would probably go for that instead as I use mostly long lenses.
Pete