NR - D4 and D400 to be announced in August

[snappysi]

Tell you in a month Kym !!!!

[kiwi]

Anyone have any ideas as to the possible price of either ????

i'll guess, rrp d400 $3200, d4 $6500

[kiwi]

What's a D400 going to have that a D7000 has not?

thats a fair question, id expect it to go to d3s territory re iso and focus speed, but yeah, who knows

[Kym]

thats a fair question, id expect it to go to d3s territory re iso and focus speed, but yeah, who knows

It's sort of like Canon and the 600D and the 60D squeezed below the 7D. The D7000 be a very fine piece of gear, the D400 will need to have something special and a bit.

I.e. D7000

• 16.2MP CMOS sensor (More MP? What about the limit of diffraction?)
• 1080p HD video recording with mic jack for external microphone
• ISO 100-6400 (plus H1 and H2 equivalent to ISO 12,800/25,600)
• 39-point AF system with 3D tracking (Faster?)
• New 2016 pixel metering sensor
• Scene Recognition System (see 2016 pixel sensor, above) aids WB/metering + focus accuracy
• Twin SD card slots
• 3.0 inch 921k dot LCD screen
• New Live View/movie shooting switch
• Full-time AF in Live View/movie modes
• Up to 6fps continuous shooting (maybe 8+ on the D400)
• Lockable drive mode dial
• Built-in intervalometer
• Electronic virtual horizon
• Shutter tested to 150K actuations

[I @ M]

The D400 is the overdue one in this announcement. We need a tough bullet-proof pro DX sized camera with usable 1600ISO and A3 at 300dpi with sports capability. In other words, fast at 17 megapixels. Second, we need a compact and affordable 24mp full framer to hang over the shoulder. It's shameful that Nikon hasn't had a D800 Canon 5D2 equivalent for at least a year already. Camera models come and go but the Nikon corporate character remains the same: use what we tell you to use, not what you want, you bastards.

I find a few things in your post a little strange so as to better understand it,

By whose time line is the D300s replacement overdue?
What area of the D300s needs more 'bullet proofing"?
What do you need faster than 7 fps for?
Why do you need 17 mega pickels to print a 16x24 inch image?
Why do you need a compact 24 mega pickle FX camera?

The way I see things is that Nikon are a business pretty much like many others. They need to record a profit or at the very least break even at the end of each year in order to supply you with a camera body. I am fairly sure that both their financial & marketing depts assess the wants of the majority of the consumers against the financial needs of the company when they embark on designing/producing a new/upgraded camera body which is built for one purpose and one purpose only.
The purpose of that camera is to relieve you of your hard earned and to contribute to the retirement fund of the staff at Nikon.
Simple really.
I would like a washing machine that loaded itself, had a built in bulk detergent dispenser so that I don't have to bend down to the cupboard and feed the greedy beast one scoop at a time and then automatically decided whether it had a load of work clothes or "delicates" and set an appropriate wash cycle so that I didn't have to push buttons and turn dials.
Somehow I think that there may be a few other people out there that want a similar machine but obviously we are not in the majority as the machine manufacturers haven't made such a beast ( at the price I want to pay ) yet.
Funnily enough I don't call them bastards because they only deliver what the need to ensure their company returns a profit but neglects to build that which I would consider to be an essential bit of gear in the laundry.
I want my 3.0 L 2wd diesel ute to accelerate from 0-100 in under 6 seconds while leaving blackies up the side of Ayers Rock but we all know that it aint gunna happen unless I buy a V10 Volkswagen.

[Tommo1965]

im not hanging out for a new camera body..im still battling with getting a decent Nikon kit together with out going broke ...next on the horizon are two SB700 flashes .

a new body will be at least 1-2 years away for me ...so for me at least...the wait for the next new thing from Nikon is irrelevant...

but if it was a FX body at 24 Mpixels with low D3S noise at 6400ISO and great DR { like a Pentax K5/ D7000 or better } ...and priced at $3000 au.....I would save for such a beast ....

[Photophil2010]

I find a few things in your post a little strange so as to better understand it,

By whose time line is the D300s replacement overdue?
What area of the D300s needs more 'bullet proofing"?
What do you need faster than 7 fps for?
Why do you need 17 mega pickels to print a 16x24 inch image?
Why do you need a compact 24 mega pickle FX camera?

The way I see things is that Nikon are a business pretty much like many others. They need to record a profit or at the very least break even at the end of each year in order to supply you with a camera body. I am fairly sure that both their financial & marketing depts assess the wants of the majority of the consumers against the financial needs of the company when they embark on designing/producing a new/upgraded camera body which is built for one purpose and one purpose only.
The purpose of that camera is to relieve you of your hard earned and to contribute to the retirement fund of the staff at Nikon.
Simple really.
I would like a washing machine that loaded itself, had a built in bulk detergent dispenser so that I don't have to bend down to the cupboard and feed the greedy beast one scoop at a time and then automatically decided whether it had a load of work clothes or "delicates" and set an appropriate wash cycle so that I didn't have to push buttons and turn dials.
Somehow I think that there may be a few other people out there that want a similar machine but obviously we are not in the majority as the machine manufacturers haven't made such a beast ( at the price I want to pay ) yet.
Funnily enough I don't call them bastards because they only deliver what the need to ensure their company returns a profit but neglects to build that which I would consider to be an essential bit of gear in the laundry.
I want my 3.0 L 2wd diesel ute to accelerate from 0-100 in under 6 seconds while leaving blackies up the side of Ayers Rock but we all know that it aint gunna happen unless I buy a V10 Volkswagen.

No need for disparaging remarks about the people of Ularu.

[swifty]

24mp DX with noise levels like the D3s would be awesome but I think it won't happen. I think that's a performance leap way ahead of the curve.
Even 24mp FX at D3s noise levels would be quite a feat.
Not saying it won't ever happen but I just think not yet.

But does anyone else feel the high ISO performances are good enough already, especially with the likes of D3s.
Maybe the sports and wildlife shooters will disagree.
But of course any improvements will still be welcomed.
Personally I've never shot above ISO 3200. Maybe I have but i don't remember doing it.

Rumour has it that there's something about a new AF system that's not like anything we've seen before. I have no idea what that could be though.

[kiwi]

Of course in sport I'd be very happy to have useable iso at 25000, I need to shoot up their quite a bit, but, the real benefit of improvements in very high ISo is that improves noise at 400, 800, etc

For example d3 at iso1600 is much the same as iso400 on the d300

[snappysi]

With an announcement expected in August, and with the current situation the way it is in Nikonland, any takers as to the actual "in the shops" date ? I think just short of christmas would probably be fair.....

Simon.

[Wayne]

I have recently moved my D3 on in anticipation of a release later this year. I kept the D700 as it almost as much camera as the D3, more compact without the grip and will still get excellent re-sale value once superseded. I thought used D700 sales will cannibalise the D3 sales once the D700 replacement arrives, and right now you can sell a used D700 for almost the price of a new grey import in the USA.

Big question for me is will the replacement D3/s/x series in the supposed D4 be a quantum leap forward enough to justify what will surely be the hefty introductory price, Vs the declining cost of what is a proven performer in almost every way in the D3s.....
My Amex is shaking with anticipation.

[swifty]

Big question for me is will the replacement D3/s/x series in the supposed D4 be a quantum leap forward enough to justify what will surely be the hefty introductory price, Vs the declining cost of what is a proven performer in almost every way in the D3s.....
My Amex is shaking with anticipation.

+1
I guess this is one of the reasons the pro gear only gets a complete ground-up update every four years.
We're more likely to see significant break-throughs and introduction of new technology in the August announcements.
But the D3 introduction was so significant at the time of launch that it'll be hard to live up to those sorts of expectations. I hope the technology march still produces a surprise or three but I'm realistic about it. Just hope that the problems with the natural disaster don't affect production too significantly. Otherwise it'd be an agonising wait to try out the new gear as most ppl have predicted.

[kiwi]

some additional speculation about the D4 is that it will be 17mb at 11fps, 51 pt edge to edge AF points, built in IR trigger, tilting LCD screen

[Wayne]

If ^^^^ comes true and if with ISO performance of the D3s, my Amex is 1/2 way out of my wallet now.

[richardb]

...also the D800 rumors for many years now...? http://nikonrumors.com/
I can't stop laughing now.

[I @ M]

I can't stop laughing now.

Why?

[jim]

To be fair, this was worth a laugh:

You can now attach Nikon lenses to an iPhone 4

[ecopix]

Andrew, you asked specific questions:
By whose time line is the D300s replacement overdue?
In a word, Canon's!

What area of the D300s needs more 'bullet proofing"?

The D300 is bullet proof. I was differentiating it from the D7000, which, as noted, has similar specs to a putative D400, but in a lighter construction. I find in my work that the extra toughness of the D300 line is essential - far fewer trips to the doctor for my D300 bodies than my one lighter (Canon 5D2) body.

What do you need faster than 7 fps for?
7's okay, 5 is too slow to risk missing the decisive moment.

Why do you need 17 mega pickels (sic - I like it!) to print a 16x24 inch image?
You don't. You need it to sell to stock agencies. Corbis' standard is a minimum of over 5,000 pixels on the longest dimension. Many stock libraries are adopting this standard. If you shoot smaller you have to interpolate the file for submission, and the pixel peepers at the agency see a file that doesn't look so good at 100% view. I agree it's silly - 12mp is plenty - but it's a competitive world and you have to shoot to the standard wanted.

Why do you need a compact 24 mega pickle FX camera?
17 would be fine. An FX camera over the shoulder is nice to have on a shoot, as you have to have a second body anyway, and it gives you different angles of view with the lenses you're carrying. And maybe a speed advantage when the light fades.

Regarding whether we need higher speeds, yes we do. Orders of magnitude higher. Anyone who doesn't want a million ISO is locked into tunnel-visioned photography. There are so many subjects awaiting capture that are currently impossible to photograph without the dreaded flash gun.

I love the D300, and admit that I'm yet to use mine to their full potential, but as Nikon's DX flagship, it's looking a bit small these days for stock work, and doesn't give the freedom to crop for tele work.

Best wishes,
Wayne

[swifty]

Anyone who doesn't want a million ISO is locked into tunnel-visioned photography. There are so many subjects awaiting capture that are currently impossible to photograph without the dreaded flash gun.

I won't comment too much about why you need or don't need a million ISO. Perhaps I am tunnel visioned... I dunno.
But there are some real physical problems with shooting at light level which require a million ISO, assuming its because of low light that you're using those ISO speeds. Will your eyes be able to see what you're photographing? Will the AF work, even if your eyes can't see. What would be the DR limitations at those speeds. You loose a stop of DR each stop ISO you increase don't you?
Of course there will be circumstances where the high ISO will be needed, to increase shutter speeds for example, and not because its pitch black.
Perhaps astrophotography might be an area of benefit, I'm not sure. Also most definitely in sports and wildlife.. as I've noted in one of the posts above.
Flash guns ain't all bad though. Its just often used in poor ways and therefore has a bad rap.

[I @ M]

Wayne,

Timeline, Nikon is basically on schedule with their seemingly established replacement cycle, if you think that Canon have a better option, buy a Canon.

Bullet proof, ok, the D300s is up to the task so I see no reason that the Dxxx will be any less well built. The D7000 never entered into my thoughts in this thread as it simply isn't a replecement or substitute for any of the Dxxx series bodies.

If 7fps is ok and what you need then I would have assumed that you would already own a battery grip to give you that speed.

The mega pixels!!!! I see now, if stock photography is your bread and butter then I guess you have to give them what they want. I assume that you are going to be the first in line to buy the new higher mega pixel count body when it comes out seeing as the sale of your stock images should pay for it within a year?

The compact full frame wish, ok, you have reduced the mega pixel count that you need from 24 (post #19) to 17 (post #38) but i still don't know why you consider the Canon %D to be superior, if it is then just use it. After all, if it delivers the good s for stock photography then it will pay for itself quickly.

You say that the D300s doesn't give you the freedom to crop for tele work so I guess that you just need to get your 600mm lens a bit closer to the prey to enable a satisfactory crop. You are using a professional grade 600mm lens to take your professional level stock photography aren't you?