For those who have waited so long for the mystical and illusional D300/s replacement or what many called it the D400...hope might be in sight!

Read about it...http://nikond400.org/2012/09/will-nikon-release-nikon-d400-in-setember-2012/

No guarantee that it will actually be here, but at lease there might be hope!

Continue to nag...nag and nag and you might get one at $2799.99 body only

At those prices, may as well get a D800 and shoot in DX mode...

But there are some die hards who wants a 18-24 MP DX body for their DX lenses and doesn't want a 36 MP FX body, so why not take advantage of the situation by putting a 22 MP sensor in a D700 body and start making money.

That link gives really no info at all. It says there were to be 800 of them made for the Olympics...this was posted on Sept 6th, and says to expect the first shipments in August. Which Olympics are we talking about here....2014??

Did you read it before posting it here?

Ya! I read about it but still there might be hope if there are more nagging coming from people who wants one.
Not much tooling cost needed and production is almost the same as the D700 lines.

DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

hans98ko wrote:
Ya! I read about it but still there might be hope if there are more nagging coming from people who wants one.
Not much tooling cost needed and production is almost the same as the D700 lines.

Why bring the D700 into this? Surely the D300 would be the more logical comparison?

I still don't see how the article you linked to has any merit at all...

You can tell it to those people who wants one and they will tell you a very different story from what you're thinking. but I do agree with you because I shoot FX 80% of the time with the other 20% going to DX and M4/3.

What?

DTOB wrote:
Why bring the D700 into this? Surely the D300 would be the more logical comparison?


So that they can differentiate the D400 from the D300 I suppose?

hans98ko wrote:
You can tell it to those people who wants one and they will tell you a very different story from what you're thinking. but I do agree with you because I shoot FX 80% of the time with the other 20% going to DX and M4/3.

i am sure that all those reasons pulling people towards µ4/3 or crop sensors have nothing to do with the system being better. They hope for smaller prices and smaller cameras and lenses, maybe some inexpensive crops because they think they need 24Mpix for good wildlife photos. Well you can have all of that with full frame. Look at how old film cameras and rangefinders were small. Lenses as well. Look how small are lenses for big view cameras or holga. It is doable, just not as profitable like to bring every year new color editions of still same toys.

hans98ko wrote:
DTOB wrote:
Why bring the D700 into this? Surely the D300 would be the more logical comparison?


So that they can differentiate the D400 from the D300 I suppose?



You've lost me.

Kittyk wrote:
i am sure that all those reasons pulling people towards µ4/3 or crop sensors have nothing to do with the system being better. They hope for smaller prices and smaller cameras and lenses, maybe some inexpensive crops because they think they need 24Mpix for good wildlife photos. Well you can have all of that with full frame. Look at how old film cameras and rangefinders were small. Lenses as well. Look how small are lenses for big view cameras. It is doable, just not as profitable like to bring every year new color editions of still same toys.


I do agree with you Kittyk and that is why I was wishing for a smaller body than those bricks, but at lease now I got the D800 which is not really as bad as the D3/s/x or even the D4.

hans98ko wrote:
Kittyk wrote:
i am sure that all those reasons pulling people towards µ4/3 or crop sensors have nothing to do with the system being better. They hope for smaller prices and smaller cameras and lenses, maybe some inexpensive crops because they think they need 24Mpix for good wildlife photos. Well you can have all of that with full frame. Look at how old film cameras and rangefinders were small. Lenses as well. Look how small are lenses for big view cameras. It is doable, just not as profitable like to bring every year new color editions of still same toys.


I do agree with you Kittyk and that is why I was wishing for a smaller body than those bricks, but at lease now I got the D800 which is not really as bad as the D3/s/x or even the D4.

thats what i was always saying, once i need a bag (means bigger then S95 or a phone) i can take DSLR as well.

The image does not give any indication of whether Nikon is close to the release of a D400 or are even going to do it. The EXIF on the image has a date of 7/25/2008, over four years ago.

And if that isn't enough, the operating systems listed on the box are old. Windows 7 isn't listed, and the Mac OS only goes to 10.4 (OS X 10.5 was released in 2007). For reference, my four year old D700 box from late 2008 does not list Windows 2000, but does list OS X 10.5.

Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

What the hell does "temporally crotch" mean exactly? "DX was bad"? What in the world is bad about it? I've seen you make some foolish statements on this forum before but these top them all.

I just want one so I don't have to sell my 17-55 and shell out more money to get a 24-70.

DGC1 wrote:
Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

What the hell does "temporally crotch" mean exactly? "DX was bad"? What in the world is bad about it? I've seen you make some foolish statements on this forum before but these top them all.


same as APS film, it was done to save costs for manufacturers while keeping the prices same for consumers. It didn't catched up in film, because customers had already choice. With digital it was done to overcome bad yield in sensors so first pro digital cameras had smaller sensors and enjoyed higher price. Customers had no choice, didnt know better either, they had to buy it. In 2009 Sony released $2000 full frame digital camera, loled at everybody. Now many people started to scratching their heads and asking questions. Also even those hard core gadget buyers started to slowly "notbuying" new and "oh so way better toy" cameras, slowing down the market. Followed logically by cheaper and better fullframe Canikons, ending up in D600 and even full frame mirrorless and compacts, maybe more rangefinders soon.

crotch noun (change, departure, branching out, deviance), other meanings

DX is and was bad. There is nothing what smaller sensor gives you, other then lower image quality. It is very beneficial for companies thought. Want proof? Look at where their profits are.
If there would be f2 DX zooms, loads of small fast DX primes, and bigger price difference it might have been different, i would talk differently. Price difference is only inflated and only because companies get away with it.
And please,

1) don't tell me that 5 to 12Mpixels (difference in pixel density) makes any difference for your craft, i heard it at lot of workshops and always proved everybody wrong in the room (print good 3Mpix photo at 80x60cm canvas, you will understand).

2) don't tell me that you would rather buy DX rangefinder then FX one, price being the same

That was little history trip

While you are looking at prints, I'd be willing to wager that I could make 80x60cm prints from both DX and FX that nobody in your workshop could tell which prints came from which format.

Kerry

DGC1 wrote:
Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

What the hell does "temporally crotch" mean exactly? "DX was bad"? What in the world is bad about it? I've seen you make some foolish statements on this forum before but these top them all.

KittyK's grasp of English isn't perfect. "Temporally crotch" means "'temporary crutch". I learned broken english as a kid making home deliveries.