Nick Warde wrote:
Why not just buy the D800 and auto-crop- works fine for me - world class sensor with very little noise.
Well for one big reason the D800 is over $1,000 more than what I would guess a D400 would be. That would not sit well with the wife as she is hoping that 2013 is the year of the new screened porch.. I also would be looking for a faster frame rate for shooting BIF.
I used the gap in time between my perceived need to replace/upgrade my D300 body and the end of May to convince myself to bite the bullet and buy a D800. I don't need the extra 3 fps. It has turned out wonderfully for me!
FX has a number of disadvantages, and I don't see myself going that route. A d400 would be the sweet spot of performance and value. I want the 1.5x reach, the greater DoF, and much faster FPS than the overpriced D600. Ultimately, I think the M4/3 system is where I'm headed as it is perfected. Small & light has HUGE advantages over cumbersome FX systems. As for Nikon not making a d400 equiv., I just don't see them surrendering that important price point to the highly successful Canon 7D. FX is not the future.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
I agree, Greg. I couldn't care less what the consumer cameras have for MPs and I don't think that they can move 24mp fast enough or give good high ISO with it. FX is the appropriate sensor to use if you need more resolution than 16mp. The d600 and d800 already have that covered nicely.
16mp is more than enough for what I would ever want to print, given the types of shooting that I do with the d300. Actually, the 12mp on my d3s is more than enough and I'd be very happy with a 12mp DX sensor that maxed out on high ISO and DR. That would be a perfect companion to my d3s.
After the bazillion threads on why FX isn't the perfect tool for every occasion, I am always impressed by the number of folks that apparently have no clue why anyone would use a high speed, high performance DX camera.
+1 on all counts. I hope the D400 comes in at 16MP but has spectactular high ISO performance and 8 FPS with top notch AF performance. Basically a natural upgrade to my D300 which I am quite happy with.
And I too agree about folks apparently lacking the imagination to understand the high-performance DX concept.
Happy New Year & Merry Christmass (Christmas ends January 6th)
Andre
If anything, here are my predictions for the D400. Better performer than the D7000+D300s put together. I wouldn't be surprised to see a much improved D5200 sensor in it. It's a D400, so I'm expecting it to perform near or better than the D600, especially the shutter speed, AF, metering, etc etc. It's not a full frame but I know people who use the DX sensors for that extra reach, which does come in handy. If the D400 has the 'bulkiness' of the D2/D3 line, that would be one beast and wouldn't be surprised to see it priced more than the D600. But seeing that the prices of the D800's are falling, I'm sure for the body it self would be around the 1800-2200 range, IF it's built like a tank.
2of9 wrote:
If the D400 has the 'bulkiness' of the D2/D3 line, that would be one beast and wouldn't be surprised to see it priced more than the D600.
I for one don't want any more bulk. I want it to be a solid build but not any larger than the D300. I would not think it would be as large as a D2/D3 model.
Two23 wrote:
As for Nikon not making a d400 equiv., I just don't see them surrendering that important price point to the highly successful Canon 7D. FX is not the future.
Kent in SD
Psst... it was surrendered even in the days of D300S. You mean wrestling back?
Anyhow with the highly successful D7000, I think Nikonians have forgotten how wonderful the d200 and d300 cameras on were. They have forgotten those glory days of a robust ergonomic speedy dx dslr feels like. It's too bad.
I too would look forward to a D400. But I think it should be around 18-20MP (shouldn't be a problem with modern Sony sensors) and has to be more than 8fps @14-bit (none of this silly 12-bit reduction stuff) as that was already achieved by the circa 2009 7D.
