Kerry Pierce wrote:
The viewfinder is much better on the d300 than trying to use the DX thing on the d800, especially for precise placement of the AF point. IME, focus accuracy is better too.
I would also expect an improvement in high ISO performance and perhaps a touch more DR.
Kerry
In addition to what Kerry stated, there are three good reasons to want a D400 over a D800 in crop mode:
1) Cost ... a D400 is expected to come in at $1500 to $1900 vs. $3000 for a D800
2) Size ... the D400 will likely be the same size as the D300. The d300 is smaller.
3) Weight ... again, assuming a D300 like body, the D300 is lighter than a D800
I will also restate the FPS advantage. I do a lot of action photography. While timing is important, FPS is a valuable tool ... especially when seeking the right action shot with the right facial expression.
My guess is that a "pro" DX body like the D300 is a heck of a lot less likely than a "D8000" type body that will look like a D7000 but with more advanced feature set inside it like a modernized D300. I too hope Nikon keeps the MP count down and gives us 16-18mp with awesome high ISO instead of 24mp.
I'll pass on the 80-400 VR....realistic hope is an updated 300mm F4 AF-S VR; dream hope is a 400mm F5.6 AF-S VR...time will tell!
Different strokes for different folks....I want a D7000 body for it's light weight and small size; awesome for travel and proves to be no problem at all for shooting, just add battery grip if you really need more bulk!
Andre Labonte wrote:
In addition to what Kerry stated, there are three good reasons to want a D400 over a D800 in crop mode:
1) Cost ... a D400 is expected to come in at $1500 to $1900 vs. $3000 for a D800
2) Size ... the D400 will likely be the same size as the D300. The d300 is smaller.
3) Weight ... again, assuming a D300 like body, the D300 is lighter than a D800
Cost is not very relevant if one already owns the camera
Also, the D800 is only about 10% larger, but is actually lighter than the D300. I know it seems like it's not true, but it is. From DPReview (though their pound conversion is wrong - it's actually 2.02 pounds on the D300):
(D300) Weight (with batt) 918 g (2.2 lb)
(D800) Weight (inc. batteries) 900 g (1.98 lb / 31.75 oz)
I'm not arguing the position of the D400 in the market. There is definitely a price point for it. I was just wondering what a D800 owner might see in such a camera (assuming it's not 24mp or higher, which would provide a lot of additional pixel density). It sounds like Kerry's assumption is primarily one of a newer generation sensor, thus providing better noise performance and maybe a newer generation autofocus system to boot.
Jan 16, 2013 at 07:43 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
binary visions wrote:
Cost is not very relevant if one already owns the camera
Also, the D800 is only about 10% larger, but is actually lighter than the D300. I know it seems like it's not true, but it is. From DPReview (though their pound conversion is wrong - it's actually 2.02 pounds on the D300):
(D300) Weight (with batt) 918 g (2.2 lb)
(D800) Weight (inc. batteries) 900 g (1.98 lb / 31.75 oz)
I'm not arguing the position of the D400 in the market. There is definitely a price point for it. I was just wondering what a D800 owner might see in such a camera (assuming it's not 24mp or higher, which would provide a lot of additional pixel density). It sounds like Kerry's assumption is primarily one of a newer generation sensor, thus providing better noise performance and maybe a newer generation autofocus system to boot....Show more →
******************
If you check Nikon USA the D300s comes in at 840g ... could be a difference between the D300 and D300s I would expect the lighter trend to continue if so.
I agree, if you already own a D800, a D400 makes less sense, but handling and FPS could be an issue. If you don't and you are invested in DX glass, a D400 makes much more sense.
Part of why I was asking was because I am struggling with the idea of buying a D800 to cover all of my needs. I like DX for wildlife (more pixel density), but I really wouldn't mind being able to use my 50mm (which, IMO, is too narrow on DX), or be able to use my 200-400 as a real 200mm without sacrificing the pixel density at the long end as compared to my D300.
I have a bit of DX glass that I don't quite want to replace yet (especially my Sigma 10-20), so my DX usage wouldn't be insignificant. Maybe I'll post a new thread instead of cluttering up this one.
If it does come out, I wouldn't be surprised to see it cost the same price (or more) than the current D600. $2000-$2200 for the body, especially if this is a pro-sumer DX body. If it performs better than the D600, I would opt for the D400. The 5200's sensor is already quite amazing, imagine what the D400 sensor can bring to the field.
I hope Nikon comes out with a D400 or D7100 soon. In my opinion, my D7000 is better than my D300s any day. I had 4 D300's that we used for multi cam shooting and when the D7000 came out my initial reaction after using it was..... Lets drop all D300's for this.
It has served us well over the last 2.5 years. But we would like to upgrade them soon. We have a few D600's we are using, but at times it is nice to have the longer reach. I am in love with the DX format, but FX has its place too.
Jan 16, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
binary visions wrote:
Nikon's weight is without a battery.
Part of why I was asking was because I am struggling with the idea of buying a D800 to cover all of my needs. I like DX for wildlife (more pixel density), but I really wouldn't mind being able to use my 50mm (which, IMO, is too narrow on DX), or be able to use my 200-400 as a real 200mm without sacrificing the pixel density at the long end as compared to my D300.
I have a bit of DX glass that I don't quite want to replace yet (especially my Sigma 10-20), so my DX usage wouldn't be insignificant. Maybe I'll post a new thread instead of cluttering up this one....Show more →
Seems your idea is right in line with this thread. If you use the advantages of both DX and FX and you don't need the FPS and can deal with the D800 view finder in DX mode, then the D800 is the way to go.
For me, my lense line-up has been designed around DX, so a D400 is almost a must for me.
FYI - using Nikon USA
D300s is 840g
D800 is 900g
Not too much of a difference ... I'm guessing the D800 batteries are heavier too. The big size & weight differences are not so much in the camera bodies as it is in the glass, especially in the long tele glass to get matching FOV and lens speed. The UWA also goes to DX for size and weight but not as much ... mid range is kind of like the camera ... not too much difference.
If all I shot was mid range ... 24-200mm, I'd be all over FX ... but I shoot from FX equivalent 15nm to FX equivalent 700mm ... FX would be too costly, heavy and bulky for me.
I hope the D400 comes in like this:
16MP, 8+ FPS with pro-level AF (D800 or D4 performance) and usable ISO up to 6400 at least in the same body as the current D300s. That would be perfect.
They will release the D400 as soon as everybody has given up waiting for it.
Also, I bet they have a few surprises up their sleeve. They usually do, i.e. nobody expected 36MP in the D800 or a D600 at $2000. Perhaps the D400 will have a different crop factor like 1.3, or who knows what.
16MP, 8+ FPS with pro-level AF (D800 or D4 performance) and usable ISO up to 6400 at least in the same body as the current D300s. That would be perfect.
I think that this would be an ideal situation if it happens.
Thorsten wrote:
They will release the D400 as soon as everybody has given up waiting for it.
Also, I bet they have a few surprises up their sleeve. They usually do, i.e. nobody expected 36MP in the D800 or a D600 at $2000. Perhaps the D400 will have a different crop factor like 1.3, or who knows what.
Oh man don't let the guy from nikonrumors get started on his unlikely dream of a 1.2 crop factor! Please Nikon just keep our crop factor for wildlife shooting and give us an AF system that can focus at F8....that is my one really serious hope for this body is the F8 autofocusing!!
binary visions wrote:
Nikon's weight is without a battery.
Part of why I was asking was because I am struggling with the idea of buying a D800 to cover all of my needs. I like DX for wildlife (more pixel density), but I really wouldn't mind being able to use my 50mm (which, IMO, is too narrow on DX), or be able to use my 200-400 as a real 200mm without sacrificing the pixel density at the long end as compared to my D300.
I have a bit of DX glass that I don't quite want to replace yet (especially my Sigma 10-20), so my DX usage wouldn't be insignificant. Maybe I'll post a new thread instead of cluttering up this one....Show more →
If you lived near Detroit, I'd be happy to let you sling some of that glass on my d800. You might be happy with the DX mode. Some wildlife shooters are using d800's, others are hanging on to their d300's. I guess that it depends on what kind of wildlife shooting you do and probably some usability factors.
I like to shoot wildlife, field sports, indoor sports and just general long lens usage. I don't like the DX mode, on any of my FX cameras. DX mode on an FX camera has everything compressed into the center of the frame, small, sometimes hard to see. The image in a DX camera viewfinder is magnified, easy to see, easy to precisely place the AF points and easier to keep the AF point where I want it when tracking. Of course, the FPS thing is also very important to me.
I'm surprised that Steve Perry hasn't chimed in, except that I don't recall having seen his posts in a while. He was a d3x customer and also wanted a d400.
IMO, the point of using pixels for reach doesn't work well with the d800. It works in a pinch, but I'd rather have the entire frame in the viewfinder, not 40 or 50%. So far, I'm very happy with the d800, as an FX camera. It will most likely retire my d700 and be used alongside my d300, just as the d700 was for 4 years. I like having both formats available to me.
I would expect the lighter trend to continue if so.