Take a look at Mansurov's latest post relating to a future (perhaps) D400. makes interesting reading if nothing else and like many here seems to indicate a Pro version of the D3200. It's only hypothesis, conjecture or call it what one likes, interesting though .
Looks like a nice camera appropriately targeted for sports and wildlife photographers. The frame rate looks great. And if the sensor is essentially the 24 MP sensor in the D3200, quality is a step up from all DX models currently available.
I'm sure the AF system will match the high end FX models and it will have appropriate build and weather seals.
I don't see anything really missing. Perhaps an August announcement for late November delivery will be delivered.
There's a long way between the dream and reality, but I now see the prospect of a camera for sport and wildlife aficionados as being possible and soon a reality hopefully. In a way it would give us a D800 moment in DX as the D800 did in FX. Good as it is, it was not what I wanted as I've got a D700 and that suits me fine.
It is a great camera, but not a replacement for the D300/s or even the D700 for that matter: nor, apparently, will the D600 be a replacement for the D700. If we get an affordable sports/action DX pro camera, more than a few diehard D700 fans will be even more disconsolate.
I just don't get the idea behind a D600. Why cut down what would be a D800 to make it a D600 (or D800 lite)? The D400 makes sense as the D300 is very long in the tooth. Nikon really needs to get that camera to market this year. I, for one, will buy one to compliment my D800. And I don't expect it to come in as low as the reported $1800. My guess would be around $2,000.
Fri 15-Jun-12 12:04 AM | edited Fri 15-Jun-12 12:07 AM by ZoneV
>I just don't get the idea behind a D600. Why cut down what >would be a D800 to make it a D600 (or D800 lite)? The D400 >makes sense as the D300 is very long in the tooth. Nikon >really needs to get that camera to market this year. I, for >one, will buy one to compliment my D800. And I don't expect >it to come in as low as the reported $1800. My guess would be >around $2,000.
Probably because Nikon:
A.) Wants to be the first company to offer an FX body for under $2000.
B.) Wants to amortize the R&D they put into the D3x sensor (this one is likely an improved version of that base design).
C.) Wants to leverage the R&D effort they put into the D7000-size body. The D600 body will be similar, apparently.
And maybe they know something we don't (i.e. what Canon plans to launch in the near future).
And yes, $2000 makes a lot of sense. D800 at $3000, D600 at $2000, and D7000 at $1000.
My advise? Enjoy what you have, and don't dwell on what does not exist. I must admit, we are long, long overdue for a truly affordable FX body. But until it happens, I am enjoying my investment in the D300 (as outdated as it is), and glass.