So if the D400 turns out to be the next affordable full-frame camera, what will the pricetag on a used D700 be around?
Still debating whether or not to go full frame or stay with with DX for a while. I don't have that much DX gear, and I'm waiting to invest in some gear that will last me a while.
That's what I think.
If the D400 comes out with the D4 sensor, it will be $3000.
And for all the complaining that will happen if this eventuates, there will still be a 3 month waiting list for it.
I've been championing this myself, but my latest thoughts are that they could stick the 24MP sensor in it. Really hoping for the 16MP FX sensor though.
nikt wrote:
That's what I think.
If the D400 comes out with the D4 sensor, it will be $3000.
And for all the complaining that will happen if this eventuates, there will still be a 3 month waiting list for it.
I've been championing this myself, but my latest thoughts are that they could stick the 24MP sensor in it. Really hoping for the 16MP FX sensor though.
Seriously, if the sensor was 16MP FX and the video was also on par with the D4 I'd buy three of them and dump all my canon gear. Nikon, are you listening? This would also sell you more glass too!
M Lucca wrote:
Nikon's gonna rebadge D700 as D400.
Naw - all the sports, BIF and other shooters (like me) who want the crop aren't going to be happy with a FF there.
It is pretty clear that Nikon kind of threw the old formula out the window with this current crop of stuff - the D800 is sort of a baby D3x and the D4 isn't exactly a replacement for the D3s or D3x - it is sort of a replacement out of whole cloth.
That leads me to think the D400 might be something really unconventional. If they could improve the resolution/function of the crop mode, maybe a FF would work (D800 is 15MP in crop if I understand it right). I'd also like to see another FX platform, since the enthusiast photographers/non-pros who shoot a D700 today didn't get a perfect replacement. Maybe a $2400 entry-FX that would live next to a $1999 pro-DX platform.
Crazy times...
BTW - if Thom Hogan is right, the D400 is baked and done, just not announced yet due to all the churn after the eartquake and Thailand floods...
I highly doubt a D400 would have a D4 sensor. Nikon needs a DX camera priced around $1,500 to compete with the successful Canon 7D. I personally think Nikon is still short two new camera bodies. The D300s is now Nikon's oldest and an obvious gap in their line up. They also don't have a mid priced high ISO FX camera to replace the D700. The D800 isn't looking like a high ISO sensor, but rather more like a D3x.
pr4photos wrote:
M635_Guy, there are rather a lot of pros out there using D700's not just because of price, but size without the grip
I completely agree - I'd think the D800 would work for a lot of them (wedding photographers, etc.). I'm really thinking about the enthusiast crowd (like me, if I could afford one at this level).
It would work for me for some things, but to really make me want to upgrade from the D700 I would want better high ISO performance, not the same or very similar as has been claimed.
High ISO performance is one of the reasons I went from the D300 to the D700, and I now want to stick with FF.
So, IF the D400 was to come out with a high ISO performing FF sensor I would be very very interested.
I can't see how they'd make an FX d400. Just doesn't make sense. FX sensors cost more. The d300 was successful because it was high performance for cheap. Big difference in price between the d300 and d700 and they served different markets. Today is no different. Nobody wants to pay $3k for a camera when less than $2k should be the price, using history as a guide. The d7k isn't the high performance body of the d300/d700 series, nor is it nearly as expensive as FX.
Nah, unless Nikon is abandoning that $1,800 DX market, a d400 has to be coming. I just can't see Nikon giving that market to Canon. I'll buy one, if it comes and is as good as it should be, it will likely be the last camera I buy.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
I can't see how they'd make an FX d400. Just doesn't make sense. FX sensors cost more. The d300 was successful because it was high performance for cheap. Big difference in price between the d300 and d700 and they served different markets. Today is no different. Nobody wants to pay $3k for a camera when less than $2k should be the price, using history as a guide. The d7k isn't the high performance body of the d300/d700 series, nor is it nearly as expensive as FX.
Nah, unless Nikon is abandoning that $1,800 DX market, a d400 has to be coming. I just can't see Nikon giving that market to Canon. I'll buy one, if it comes and is as good as it should be, it will likely be the last camera I buy.
I also will get a D400 if it's DX with great high ISO, for what I use color for DX is perfect. I was tempted to sell my 17-55/2.8 with the shortage but what's the point? It's a better lens than the primes so while I'm still very happy with my Fuji S5 it would be great to have another DX body that really complements it.
Tommy_D wrote:
I would like to see the D400 be the affordable full frame camera that everyone has been wanting. Yes, the D700 was affordable, and still is, but with the D800 coming in at $3K, a 16mp FF D400 could presumably come in at $1800-2000. It doesn't make much sense for Nikon to not only have such a pricing gap between the D7000 and D800, but to have such a performance gap between the D7000 and D800. Even from the D4, there is a huge performance gap between it and the D800. The D800 really is such a strange camera to introduce. Where is the upgrade path? You move from a D80/90/300/7000 to what? A D800? You are kidding, right? Sure, you can go to the D700, but how does that help sell new products? It doesn't. And that is a bad financial move for Nikon.
A D400, or some variant of that will come soon. It may be Q4 of this year, or even 2013, but having such a gap in their line up is not a wise idea for Nikon. ...Show more →
last I checked before the d800 announcement, the d700 was $2700 at BH. With improved AF, sensor, processor...a $300 increase is pretty reasonable to me.
In the past, the D100 series hit the sweet spot of performance/cost. I just don't see Nikon giving that to the Canon 7D unopposed. A D400 would most likely be that great value for the money. The price/performance gap between D7000 and D800 is huge. At least one camera should fit in that gap, and I'm thinking maybe two.
The issue here is that no-one has really said 'what' the d400, in dx form, will be.
Of course we don't know but if we look at what gap nikon will fill then that could lead to some potential configs.
First, they can't use the d7000 sensor because that's a year and a half old nearly. The 7d already has 18mp and that's the camera it has to go after.
If it is indeed a fast frame camera then it will have to be more than the d7000.
Price?
Sooooo.
If it's DX then
the once rumored 24 mp is likely.
8 fps.
95% viewfinder
1080 24p video
$2299
It also means no mini d4 or....
There's an opportunity for a new camera in the line up in 6-8 months.
A D750 . 16mp . 8 fps . 95% . $3000
Pick you poison .
Sooooo.
If it's DX then
the once rumored 24 mp is likely.
8 fps.
95% viewfinder
1080 24p video
$2299
I disagree about price. Nikon has been pretty consistent with that $1,500 region with the D100 series. I see Canon 7D for sale around $1,600, so that's exactly where I expect Nikon to be. I don't see Nikon getting carried away with prices at this time as most economies are still not so great.
??