>However, I disagree with the idea that somehow there will be a
>narrowing of the 'feature gap' between the D400 and the D7000
>as compared to their previous counterparts. It might happen
>but I don't think Nikon has given us any reason to suspect it
>will. It would be a surprise and a disappointment.

Quite the opposite, Nikon has given us numerous reasons to believe that the feature gap will narrow as compared to the D90/D300s:

1. The meter - When Nikon released the D90 they re-hashed the old 420 pixel RGB meter despite having the 1005 RGB pixel meter available (in the D300 at the time). When the 300s was released a year later they put the 1005 pixel meter in it. With the D7000 Nikon has placed a brand new meter in it with 2x more pixels than any meter they currently produce. The likelihood of redesigning a brand new meter in the next year or two is nil. This will be the D400 meter, and the gap narrows.

2. AF - When Nikon released the D90 they put the old CAM1000 in it despite the fact that the CAM3500 was available (in the D300 at the time). When the 300s was released a year later they put the CAM3500 in it. With the D7000 Nikon has placed a brand new AF unit in it, the CAM4800. It may be that Nikon tweaks this unit for a D400 but they are not likely to completely redesign a brand new AF unit, it will fundamentally involve added crosshair sensors and more AF points. Let's say the new D400 has at least 51 points, perhaps more. Comparing the same AF unit with 39 points vs 51 or even 60-70 points is going to yield much closer results than comparing an older AF unit (the CAM1000) with only 1 crosshair sensor with the newer one, CAM3500 with 15 crosshair sensors. Again the gap narrows.

3. Legacy lens support: D90 didn't have it, D300/300s did. D7000 has it. The gap narrows.

4. Weather sealing/Build. The D90 had practically no weather sealing and no magnesium alloy. The D300/300s had both. The D7000 has both (although the magnesium alloy is only on the top/bottom plates). I suppose a D400 could have better weather sealing, but 'has it' vs. 'has it and it's better' makes the cameras closer than 'doesn't have it' vs. 'has it'.

5. Built in virtual horizon and intervalometer. The D90 had neither. The D300 had the VH. The D300s had both. The D7000 has both as will the D400.

6. Dual card slots. The D90 had one SD. The older D300 had one (and it was CF) but the D300s had two (one SD/one CF). The D7000 has two (both SD). Maybe the D400 has 3 (2 SD and one CF)? Nikon only continues to use CF card slots on 'pro' cameras because long time users still have tons of them. SD is better. The point of having two slots IMO is to have a back-up stored in case one of them fails. 2 vs any number is closer than 1 (no back-up possible) vs 2.

7. 100% viewfinder. D90 didn't have it. D300/300s did. The D7000 has it. Unless the D400 is going to have more than 100% in the viewfinder the gap will narrow.

I could go on. The point is this, Nikon's strategy with the D7000 is clearly different than when they put out the D90. They have stacked the D7000 with many of the best features in high end Nikon models and added new, never used before technology that is unlikely to change in the next few years.

I am also not sure why the narrowing gap is a 'disappointment'. Smaller, lighter and cheaper DX bodies are just what some pros want imo. The narrowing gap give us choice, choice is always good.



Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.