Moose has always made it clear that he much prefers FX over DX. I have never known him to shoot DX since FX came available. If he is testing a D400 for Nikon, I would be very surprised or Nikon thinks the D400 may change his mind.
Who says the D400 is DX? No other pro body released in the last 4-5 years from Nikon is.
>Moose has always made it clear that he much prefers FX over >DX. I have never known him to shoot DX since FX came >available. If he is testing a D400 for Nikon, I would be very >surprised or Nikon thinks the D400 may change his mind.
I am at the point now that I really don't need a D400 anymore. A couple of years ago yes it would have been great. If you still shoot a lot of sports I am sure it will be the best yet in the $2000- $3000 dollar price range, assuming Nikon really brings it to market.
Should Nikon announce a D400 DX camera this year, I may think about selling the D7000 and D300. Really depends on what features Nikon chooses to include for the money. If they only give you 8 fps in super crop mode, or video with limitations like you aren't allowed to adjust the aperture in live view it won't be worth it for me.
Too much time has passed as far as I'm concerned. I'm no longer interested in a D300/s replacement. My next camera will either be FX, or save some money and get a D7100. Nikon really missed the boat in not updating the D300s sooner (if they have plans to do it at all).
Yes it is along wait but hopefully it will have a few less flaws than there current models.I would love to see a pro body in the DX line.We really need low noise in this arena.And I have no interest in D7100 and below.I would rather buy another D700 used they are currently a steal for what you get.However I really would like to replace my D300 this year.Nikon I hope you do not back down on a release and production of this model just because the market is caving in right now.Hurry up and Do It.
From what I see about Nikon's results in point and shoot space, they may be more aggressive in releasing products on higher end (missing zooms, D400, etc) rather than follow the conservative approach to managing the demand. The 300 f4 VR is supposedly imminent.
My advice to those who are "waiting" for a D400? There are lots of great Nikon dSLR's that are available now, including full frame, and DX formats. You can buy them now! Otherwise, you may be in for a long wait.
I am keeping my D300, as I have no desire to get stuck on the upgrade merry-go-round.
Arthur... I understand your point but for me....it takes me a while to save the money for a new camera so I don't want to get something now just to buy something. I did that with the d70s and didn't like the camera and then was really bummed when the d 200 came out 4 months later. When the d300 hit I was first in line and was very happy. I'm now waiting on eitherband700 pr d300 replacement. I won't buy unless its was I need and want. If Nikon doesn't want my money at some point I may jump ship and sell all my lenses (never though I would say that)
This rumor has been going on for a long time now. Nikon is really not making any friends out here. I have a D300 and a D90 back-up. I don't like the D600 and the D800 has to many pixels. I have looking at D700's, but that's not moving forward. I wish they would say they are making it or they are not and get it over so we can move on.
I OFTEN WONDER WHAT KIND OF A MARKETING TEAM NIKON HAS. Oh, the D7100 just doesn't cut it as a top of the line DX body. (low buffer)
>> “what is the significance of the "small" buffer on the D7100? Fewer images per burst of shooting?”
Yes, also if you do fill the buffer it may disable the shutter release for a moment before you can take the next shot.
This is most important to action shooters who are trying to capture a sequence of events that happens in a very short time frame. I like shooting fast for birds-in-flight to capture a variety of wing positions.
Personally I think the D400 rumors are to string along D300 users who don't want to switch to FX. I imagine we eventually will see something like what we are looking for but it will be FX. It is very curious that Nikon seems to be further dividing their established markets with things like the D90 and more recently the D600.
I surmise that the D7000 will be the last DX body that I will buy. I am also becoming convinced that my current lineup will be what I use until something breaking forces me to change equipment. As I have said elsewhere my low light action needs have evaporated making the equipment I have more than adequate.
I cannot be so sure about the sources thing. How then does the nikonrumors site "get it right" from time to time if they are not being fed insider information? The cost of admission to that info? Running a few stringer articles from time to time.
FX doesn't represent a big cost for me since I would only have to change one piece of DX glass from my primary lineup. Everything else is non-DX already. But, like you I am fond of the DX advantages.
I agree with Denzil. My interpretation of everything Nikon has done in the last three years suggests that Nikon is pushing D300 users (who HAVE to have the pro controls and AF-On, 51 pin, etc) to FX. I think they're done with "pro" form factor DX. Must not be enough market for it. Also, I don't think what we're asking for is possible. We're never going to see another Nikon DX sensor under 24MP, and it's pretty apparent that you can't get 8FPS at 24MP, with current technology.
The D7100 does everything well enough to qualify as a top-notch DX action camera. It shoots 6 FPS, which is enough for anyone not shooting for Sports Illustrated. It has nearly all the external buttons (other than AF-On) needed by anybody (they're just in a different locations). It has the cam3500 AF system. As for the buffer, if you have to fire 15 frame Raw bursts to shoot action, then yes, you need a D4.
I have a D7000, and I think I might have one more DX upgrade in me (then my sons will be done with High School sports, and I'll have no further need for DX reach). If Nikon releases the D400 that we all hope for, at something less than a king's ransom, I'll give it serious consideration. If this doesn't happen by next year, I'll get a D7100 for the improved AF, and my next camera after that will be the lowest level FX body available at that time. Other than youth sports, I have far more need for wide angle and high ISO performance than I do for telephoto reach.
I was one who really thought this would be the year, but I would say now the chance of a D400 are pretty much nill. I realize Nikon is in business to make money, not make everyone happy, but I hate how they've basically cut off D200 and D300/s users, forcing them to 1) keep shooting what they have indefinitely, 2) drop down in build and features and buy an enthusiast level camera, 3) go to an entirely different format for a camera that is twice the price. I'm still undecided what I want to do. I would really like a camera with more pixels for my landscapes, but I do worry about the cost of FX, yet I don't know if I would be happy with a D7100 after shooting with a D300s. In the meantime I'll keep shooting with my d300s.
Yep-It is about give up time. I guess Nikon has decided the semi-pro crop sensor business seeking a little better ISO performance and higher frame rates should head over to Canon. You can bet they will produce a 7D MKII.
Tue 17-Sep-13 01:11 AM | edited Tue 17-Sep-13 01:16 AM by westcoast
A lot of folks thought that Nikon would follow Canon's 7DM II in the same general release window with an equivalent DX body; I no longer think that is the case. I do believe Nikon is working on the next gen processor to handle 8 fps, but I think it will go into the D5 / D900 series FX bodies at 24 MP. Nikon's next high end pro mirror less body will be a crop sensor with fast frame rates, but not for a least a year or more. The FX equivalent will have multiple crop factors, and solve the view finder issues in crop mode with a pro build.
Nikon and Canon are losing major ground in overall camera sales overseas to very good mirrorless cameras from Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and especially Fuji. Here is North America, these systems have not really caught on (although if one has not shot the Fuji X-Trans yet, I highly recommend trying it). As they have not caught on here we can't understand why Nikon is not releasing our next much desired DSLR. However, the market in Japan tends to drive Nikon and Canon and what they are clamoring for there is not another DX DSLR, but a mirrorless system from Nikon and/or Canon that measures up to what the other guys are doing.
Nikon's current mirrorless system has outstanding autofocus and little else to offer. Canon's doesn't even have that.
Both companies are not going to just cede that market - Canon can afford to split their focus on numerous different projects as they are a much bigger company with a much bigger war chest (and diverse economic wells to draw from). Nikon would not seem to have that luxury. I suspect, like many, that Nikon COULD release a D400 (as in they have a prototype), but are they going to direct resources into mass production and marketing of one before they stem the mirrorless tide...I would say extremely unlikely.
I've moved to FX, which apparently is exactly what Nikon wanted me to do, so everybody is happy now
I'm not sure now, whether I would buy a "conventional" D400. I'd have to see the specs but I'm mostly happy with the D800E/D4 for wildlife/bird situations. And in some practical IQ considerations the D800 has as much reach with quality at high ISO as does the D7100 sensor. I.e. the 24mp DX sensor is more pixel dense but the 36mp FX sensor has better low light. As always a trade-off, and a close-enough one that I may just remain satisfied with my FX cameras in the wildlife/birding department.
To answer other posters above I expect a D400 would absolutely have the second motor to set the Aperture so there would not be an issue changing Aperture in LiveView. I guess the big question is, Nikon has not moved very fast with Nikkor electronic aperture setting other than on the 800mm and PC-E lenses. When will this tide change?
I'd pretty much snap up a mirrorless D400 though, because it would offer some things the FX mirrored cameras do not. Things like crazy fps, on-sensor PDAF, etc.
I still think the small buffered D7100 presages that a D400 of some ilk is coming. As others have stated here, WHEN could be the problem. But it sounds like Nikon has a 24mp 12fps capable EXPEED 4 chip now in the works. What I found with my D7000 is that I would miss shots due to the small buffer, and the missed shots would have been the better ones. I.e. In wildlife I had to commit my D7000 buffer too early thinking I had the peak action in the can, when something even more exciting happened I was forced to watch it through the viewfinder while my buffer emptied. I'm guessing a D400 would not have this problem.
Wed 18-Sep-13 12:36 AM | edited Wed 18-Sep-13 12:42 AM by Lunastar
At this point I would take either a FF semi-pro body with the D4's sensor or a D400. If we get a full frame D700 upgrade-fast fps and crazy ISO ability I would use that for big game/mammal photography and keep the D300's for BIF where light has to be good. I really don't wanna spend 6 grand for those features when just a few years back we had the D3/D700 choice. Perhaps a D3s as my main concern right now is low light, action animal photography. But, that's still 3500.00 for a good used one! And, you know the instant I do it Nikon will hit us with a D300 upgrade!
Interestingly, you really don't see much harping in the D700 forums about an upgrade. I probably should have scooped up one a few years ago as it seems to be a popular and near perfect body for low light, wildlife and sports.
So... just what body/bodies is Moose P testing? Maybe it's just the impending baby FX D610 model? I hope not!
>Interestingly, you really don't see much harping in the D700 >forums about an upgrade.
D700 users lost their minds for a while, but the D800(e) and D600 have proven to give back more for many than what they took away. I begrudgingly gave the D800e a chance and it has relegated the D700 to MIA status.
appears a pretty convincing argument as to why we are not likely to see a mini-D4 (starting at post #50).
I think instead of just producing standard iterations of camera models, Nikon has decided to try and get ahead of the curb a little. It was a home run in the D800e - I dare anyone to use that camera for 6 months and not fall in love with it - despite the fact that when announced the features and obscene amount of megapixels made no earthly sense at all. In some ways it has turned into a much more versatile camera than I think Nikon even intended.
What does this mean for a D400? Maybe that even if it appears it might not be what was called for or expected.
If you think about it long enough, you can understand Nikon's logic. We may not agree with it, and it may be depressing, but it makes some sense. Each of us may desire a very specific, custom tool for our specific needs, but Nikon makes product decisions based on real market data. And, they have probably concluded that there simply isn't enough of a market for a conventional D400DX camera to warrant the investment in R&D and production capacity. The "pro DX" camera was not created so amateurs could shoot sports and wildlife. It was created in a time of DX only, so that pros could shoot those, and other subjects, with a smaller, less expensive body.
Wildlife. Birds. Amateur Sports. That's it, that's the market. And, they are all conquerable (and even better) with FX, if you can afford big pro glass (like pros can). Everything else that a serious shooter can shoot, can be shot better with FX - especially since Nikon made a relatively small, and lightweight FX camera (D600). The DX sensor still has it's place in beginner and hobbiest bodies, because it's less expensive and the lenses are smaller, lighter, and less expensive, allowing Nikon to meet price points. But, the number of very serious amateur and professional shooters who are in the DX market is probably pretty small. Present company excluded, of course.
I don't see how R&D is an issue with a potential D400. I'm not saying there isn't any but the body that most of us (who are interested in posts like this one) desire is hardly a re-invention of the wheel. Most of the desired components have already been developed and are currently in use in other bodies.
You logic regarding the market might be correct. And if Canon arrives at the same conclusion then indeed it might be a wise course....from a financial standpoint. It will still not be a good decision from a brand loyalty standpoint. There seem to be a lot of disappointed and disillusioned D200/D300 owners out there. Nikon is counting on them to move to a Nikon FX body or settle for a D7100. For those of us, however few we might be, who don't want to move to FX and who have never had to "settle" for any Nikon product in the past, this will be a new and not so happy Nikon experience for us.
BUT, if Canon decides to tap this market then Nikon will lose that market share. And while it may be small, companies forced to make hard product line decisions usually can't afford to lose any.
In the end, for me at least, it really just comes down to what I mentioned above. In all my time as a Nikon user there has always been a body with just the right features for just the right price. I've _never_ felt like I had to buy more than I needed or settle lower.
But that has not been the case these last couple of years and posts like these are rife with advice to buy more than what I need or less than what I want. Kinda sad.
>There seem to >be a lot of disappointed and disillusioned D200/D300 owners >out there. Nikon is counting on them to move to a Nikon FX >body or settle for a D7100. For those of us, however few we >might be, who don't want to move to FX and who have never had >to "settle" for any Nikon product in the past, this >will be a new and not so happy Nikon experience for us. <snip> >In all my time as a Nikon user there has >always been a body with just the right features for just the >right price. I've _never_ felt like I had to buy more than I >needed or settle lower.
I'm with you. For me it's not just a question of what I want; I cannot afford any of the FX bodies. They are beyond my means and will always be. It would break my heart to switch to Canon--not because of loyalty (if Nikon kicks me to the curb, I won't have any qualms about kicking them to the curb) but because the money I've spent on the D200 and D300 and their lens henceforth will be wasted. But switch I will.
Georgette: I feel your pain - BMW did this to me a few years ago. They basically took their bread and butter car (the 3-Series), one that you could carefully option out to be the best driving car in the world for just the right price, and took it up-market, with all these packages you have to buy to get the few things you really need. Now, you can't option it the way I want it for what I can afford to pay - so I am effectively out of their market.
That said, if the lowest priced Nikon FX body is beyond your means, then any new D400 would surely also be beyond your means. I guarantee you that if the D400 we are waiting for ever comes, it will be priced higher than a D600. Probably a lot higher. Based on all of Nikon's recent pricing (except the D7100?) there could NEVER be another pro DX body for under $2,000.
Put a gold band on any lens these days and Nikon expects to get $2,000 for it. Put pro controls on a body these days, and I'd expect Nikon to try to initially get $3,000, even with a DX sensor.
As a longtime DX user: 2 D200's, a D90, a D300 and D300s as well as the new D7100. . . I'd like to see a D400 . . . however in no way have I ever felt I've " had to settle" for the D7100. I can honestly say I've taken the best photos of my life with the D7100 - and it had nothing to do with the size of the buffer - but everything to do with the quality of the image it produces.
>As a longtime DX user: 2 D200's, a D90, a D300 and D300s as >well as the new D7100. . . I'd like to see a D400 . . . >however in no way have I ever felt I've " had to >settle" for the D7100. >I can honestly say I've taken the best photos of my life with >the D7100 - and it had nothing to do with the size of the >buffer - but everything to do with the quality of the image it >produces. > > >Al
It is a matter of personal shooting style for sure (the whole buffer issue). People took stunning wildlife, bird and sports photos when today's buffers were but a figment of someone's imagination.
The trade-off of the D7100 is less buffer, but you do gain ISO performance, dynamic range, tone/color, metering, autofocus, etc, etc.
Is that worth adjusting your shooting style if you are used to a large buffer - people will differ on that.
I had to adjust my shooting style when I moved from DX to FX and again when I moved from the D700 to D800 (although that one was more minor). I think it has made me better as a photographer, but at the time of the changes I was vexed.
I agree there's an adjustment in shooting style - I had to adjust to the D7100: controls in different places with different functions etc.
I just find the comments made in this thread about "having to settle" a bit strange as no camera is perfect, and in fact we all "have to settle" on what ever camera we choose to use.
If the new D400 is ever introduced and is built with the same physical properties and chassis as the D200/D300?D700 some could say a person would "have to settle" for an over-weight and bulky camera regardless of the advancements that it brings. . .Or they will find some other reason not to prefer it as the "ideal" camera. . .
The D7100 is a great body and if I were entering the DSLR wildlife arena right now I'd get one as my DX camera. All I'm (and many others) asking for is a bit more resolution and higher ISO performance in a solid body with control layout I'm used to. A dedicated Af-on button is a must for me. The D800 is close but 36 MPX is overkill for photojournalism and the frame rate is just too slow for many sports and fast moving, unpredictable wildlife. I'm not a shutter burner by any means but I do appreciate the quick 8 FPS bursts I get from my D300's.
I handled a D7100 and it just didn't feel right for me. Nikon started the ball rolling with the D200, 300, 300s semi-pro bodies and a lot of folks naturally want the next gen of that.
Until then, I'll keep shooting D300's as they are still very capable bodies.
>You're right Mark I still shoot my 300s also. It is very >capable. I too wanted the D400 to happen . . . but the D7100 >offers more now than something that may be coming. > >Al > Hi there, Seeing as you own both the D300s and the D7100 and have good experience using both of them could I ask you which one would you choose for all round photography if you were only allowed to have one. My reason for asking you this is that I have an opportunity to get a good D300s with very low shutter count for the equivalent of $250 less than a D7100 and am dithering as to which one to choose seeing the D300s is still costlier to purchase new than the 7100 new. I`m currently shooting with a D200. Thanks, Ian
Thu 10-Oct-13 06:22 AM | edited Fri 11-Oct-13 04:32 AM by Philsheldon
I just can't see the D400 happening now, which is such a shame. As great as the D7100 may be, it doesn't have the pro body and controls of the Dxxx line or ground breaking fps. I suspect the thinking at Nikon is that anyone who wants a pro DX ought to be looking at an FX body, and for those looking for the extra reach DX offers, they have included the crop mode on FX. We just seem to be too far down the road now for D400. I think they will keep DX for beginner-enthusiast and FX for enthusiast - pro. I hope I am wrong, but thats my take on things!
I just wish Nikon would say what they are going to do with the D300S - replace it with a D400 or just stop manufacturing it at some point.
>I just can't see the D400 happening now, which is such a >shame. As great as the D7100 may be, it doesn't have the pro >body and controls of the Dxxx line or ground breaking fps. I >suspect the thinking at Nikon is that anyone who wants a pro >DX ought to be looking at an FX body, and for those looking >for the extra reach DX offers, they have included the crop >mode on FX. We just seem to be too far down the road now for >D400. I think they will keep DX for beginner-enthusiast and DX >for enthusiast - pro. >I hope I am wrong, but thats my take on things!
Maybe they are not sure and because Nikon's stock is publicly traded they need to be very careful to what they say, when they say it, and where they say it because of stock trading regulations around the world.
I was with a company that got bought by a larger company and the employees knew the owners were trying to retire and provide a continuation for the employees, but my younger brother knew about the sale or merger before I did because he was a customer of the larger company.
This is just one more issue caused by glottalization in the business world.
>>You're right Mark I still shoot my 300s also. It is very >>capable. I too wanted the D400 to happen . . . but the >D7100 >>offers more now than something that may be coming. >> >>Al >> >Hi there, >Seeing as you own both the D300s and the D7100 and have good >experience using both of them could I ask you which one would >you choose for all round photography if you were only allowed >to have one. My reason for asking you this is that I have an >opportunity to get a good D300s with very low shutter count >for the equivalent of $250 less than a D7100 and am dithering >as to which one to choose seeing the D300s is still costlier >to purchase new than the 7100 new. I`m currently shooting >with a D200. >Thanks, >Ian
Ask yourself this: Do I NEED:
1) 7 fps ( 8 with a battery grip ) vs. 6 fps for the D7100 2) more than 8-9 frames in a continuous burst. 3) exposure compensation: +-5 EV in increments of 1/3,1/2,1 vs. 1/3,1/2 for the D7100 4) Exposure Bracketing: 2-9 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,2/3,1 EV vs. 2-5 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,2/3,1,2, or 3 EV for the D7100 5) flash bracketing: 2-9 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,1 EV vs. 2-3 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,1, or 2 EV for the D7100 6) WB bracketing: 2-9 frames vs. 3 frames for D7100
If you need any of the above D300s features, and you feel these features are more important than better image quality and low light performance, then get the D300s. Otherwise, get the D7100. Most of the features I listed above are usually not necessary for good all around photography. The difference in fps and frame buffer size usually become important for things like sports photography where things happen quickly and you find yourself shooting long bursts of frames to catch the action. However, I can say that in my own case, when photographing my school sports, I've never shot more that 4-5 frames in a given burst.
The differences in exposure bracketing may be important when producing HDR photographs. However, in most cases, being able to shoot 5 bracketing frames should be more than enough.
Again, my advice would be to only get the D300s if one of the above differences is absolutely critical to you. Otherwise, you'll probably be much happier with the D7100
>>>You're right Mark I still shoot my 300s also. It is >very >>>capable. I too wanted the D400 to happen . . . but >the >>D7100 >>>offers more now than something that may be coming. >>> >>>Al >>> >>Hi there, >>Seeing as you own both the D300s and the D7100 and have >good >>experience using both of them could I ask you which one >would >>you choose for all round photography if you were only >allowed >>to have one. My reason for asking you this is that I have >an >>opportunity to get a good D300s with very low shutter >count >>for the equivalent of $250 less than a D7100 and am >dithering >>as to which one to choose seeing the D300s is still >costlier >>to purchase new than the 7100 new. I`m currently >shooting >>with a D200. >>Thanks, >>Ian > >Ask yourself this: > Do I NEED: > >1) 7 fps ( 8 with a battery grip ) vs. 6 fps for the D7100 >2) more than 8-9 frames in a continuous burst. >3) exposure compensation: +-5 EV in increments of 1/3,1/2,1 >vs. 1/3,1/2 for the D7100 >4) Exposure Bracketing: 2-9 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,2/3,1 >EV vs. 2-5 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,2/3,1,2, or 3 EV for the >D7100 >5) flash bracketing: 2-9 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,1 EV vs. >2-3 frames in steps of 1/3,1/2,1, or 2 EV for the D7100 >6) WB bracketing: 2-9 frames vs. 3 frames for D7100 > > >If you need any of the above D300s features, and you feel >these features are more important than better image quality >and low light performance, then get the D300s. Otherwise, get >the D7100. > Most of the features I listed above are usually not >necessary for good all around photography. The difference in >fps and frame buffer size usually become important for things >like sports photography where things happen quickly and you >find yourself shooting long bursts of frames to catch the >action. However, I can say that in my own case, when >photographing my school sports, I've never shot more that 4-5 >frames in a given burst. > > The differences in exposure bracketing may be important when >producing HDR photographs. However, in most cases, being able >to shoot 5 bracketing frames should be more than enough. > > Again, my advice would be to only get the D300s if one of >the above differences is absolutely critical to you. >Otherwise, you'll probably be much happier with the D7100
Hi there, Thanks for that summation. I feel it has highlighted the way I should be analysing my real needs from a camera upgrade and as such this has helped me a lot in getting to that decision. Thanks, Ian
That is a good summation of the advantages the D300s has over the D7100 - almost none of which are critical for all but a few specialized types of photography. BTW, if you're firing off longer than 4-6 frame bursts of sports shots, then you aren't shooting, you're just hoping. I think long bursts may be more appropriate for aviation, and perhaps wildlife, but I don't shoot either, so I can't comment on that.
That said, I can think of one other critical question to ask, when comparing the two cameras: Do you have another pro-form-factor body that you regularly switch between? If you use a D3/D4/D700/D800 body, and switch between that and your DX body, I can see where having the same control layout is a real advantage. If you aren't switching, then you can adapt your technique to the D7100 control layout, which is very good (yes, including finding a work-around for the lack of an AF-On button). But, if you are using two bodies with different controls, then that can be a major PITA.
That is why I like the control layout of the D600. A lot of D600 users will be upgrading from/switching between the D7000/D7100 and the D600/D610. The transition is seamless. But, the transition from a D4/D800 to a D7100 can be far less so.
I would miss using my 10 pin connection, my external grip and my full alloy body. Plus the layout is similar to my D70s. It's ok but I much prefer my D300 layout. I would also have to buy new cards and batteries...minor inconvience but still a pain. I will keep my money until Nikon makes a camera that I really want to own. It's not like I make my living shooting photos. It's my beloved hobby.
>Their predictions are just logical conclusions based on the >same rumours that you and I hear. Anyone with the necessary >degree of intelligence and experience would get it correct >some of the time. >
A friend of mine told me year after year that I would be married by the end of the year. He was never correct. The first year he didn't tell me that, I got married. As a result, if you keep making the same prediction over and over, you will get one correct. Predicting Nikon's next move is no different. Keep saying an 80-400 AFS VR is coming every year and it did. The 300/4 AFS VR will be a reality too, but people will predict it every year.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
But you can use the D800 in Dx mode to get the reach or crop in post. I had a D300 and a D300s, loved them both, had a case of NAS and went ot and bought a D800, probably the best camera qualty wise Nikon have ever made. If the upgrad the D700 or bring our a D400 or even both the portfolio of cameras available would be just too much. Need to draw a line in the sand, do pros want a Dx camera when they can have a FX in D700 or D800???
All I want is a D300 which takes clean, sharp pictures up to ISO 1600.
I'm never going to get that. If the D400 ever materialises it will probably be a D800 body with the sensor from a D7100 which may or may not be fast enough.
At no time have I thought 12MP is not enough. In fact when I look back at images from my D100 they're pretty good.
Pricewise I suspect the D400 would be not be much cheaper than the D800.
Living in the north of England where we can go weeks without seeing the sun it is imperative to get better low light performance.
I'm going to rent a D800 to see if I can live with the viewfinder in DX mode and the drop in speed. 15MP is plenty for me with the added bonus of a massive FX image if I fancy taking up landscape photography.
>You'll like the D800-it's very good at higher ISO. I just >posted a few samples over in "wildlife" all captured >at ISO 200 with no noise redux other than the D800 auto NR >that kicks in over ISO 1600.
From the context, I guess you meant that you shot at ISO 2000, not 200?
Several people have mentioned the D 610 as a potential successor to the D300s I migrated to a D600 from a D 300s and have no problems with the ergonomics of the camera picture quality , frame speed, and price, however I did have a problem with the shutter which has been replaced ( I believe with a D610 ) the camera now behaves impeccably so those of you contemplating the D800 should take a long look at this camera.
For those that have moved to the 610 or 600... I am currious. Do you miss not having the ability to use your cable release? I use mine quite a bit. What else do you like/dislike about the difference in body style?
Back late-I did mean ISO 2000 not 200. I also posted this ISO 3200 D800 pre-sunrise shot with no noise redux. This was captured in 1.2 crop mode then cropped a bit more for comp, saturated a little and boosted a tad in contrast then sized to 950 on the long end.