>Or maybe not. There is no solid evidence that Nikon can move >24*8 mpx per second to the buffer. That's 192 mpx per second. > Even the 2x+ more expensive D4 flagship sports camera only >moves 160 mpx. That would put a D400, at the same bandwidth, >at 6fps max.
And that was 3+ years ago. As the design spec of the D4 was likely running concurrently with the shipping of the D3s.
>I'm suggesting that endlessly increasing resolution is >directly in conflict with high frame rates, yet >"D400" customers (and FX too) are demanding both, at >least as a group. Some (most???) want it all, without >thinking through the bandwidth issue.
I don't disagree that we cannot keep increasing resolution in large jumps, but I think it will continue, and I don't think it's a matter of "not thinking it through".
>My point is that it is not necessarily just a matter of >sticking a 24 mpx sensor in the D300 case.
I believe it could be nearly that simple. Though it is more likely it would be in a D800 body.. similar to the D700/D300 bodies.
>I'm a D300 shooter too, but I'm not sure how I feel about >stuffing 1GB of images every 5 seconds of burst shooting into >the card.
Why is that?
>I think the resolution is getting ahead of our >ability to cope with the output, at least for those of us that >do shoot 8fps.
I have not seen any kind of evidence that points to this. There is already a 12fps/24mp camera in the market. And it was developed over 2 years ago. And it was developed and shipped by Nikon's sensor partner. I have no doubt in my mind that Nikon can emulate that, and tune it DOWN to 8fps and give us a reasonable D400 product.