Fri 04-May-12 09:59 AM | edited Fri 04-May-12 10:13 AM by nrothschild
Here's a thought....
If the D800 shot DX mode at 8fps we would probably be having a different conversation here.
But it doesn't. The question, then, is... why doesn't it?
I suspect Nikon "crippled" the D800 in that way, and that is the only way that I see any "crippling" that was not technically problematic or some other issue related to cost (relative to the D4, for example).
The main reason I can come up with, assuming it was a marketing decision, is that there truly is a "D400" in the future. However, a 12 mpx D400 with the ISO 1600 performance Jim wants would not excite the general market, which has come to expect quantum increases in pixels with each new body.
In other words, with the D3200 considered, a 16 mpx D400 would not be very exciting (for many). On the other hand, a 24 mpx 8fps DX camera may be a technical problem, given the fact that no Nikon cameras currently are able to pass 8*24 mpx per second to the buffer.
What I'm suggesting is that even if Nikon is fully committed to a D400 type DX camera it may take some time before all the "parties" will be fully satisfied with it.
I'm just speculating here, of course. But I think that the fact that D800 doesn't shoot 8 fps in DX mode was not a product differentiation issue with the D4. Someone that wants 10 fps in FX mode is a very different shooter. It's a clue to this puzzle