Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Really Enjoying my new Nikon D400  (Read 14863 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5170


« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2014, 02:54:42 PM »
ReplyReply

… i know many talk of a future Nikon D400, but what exactly are they talking about?
Regardless of Nikon's model numbering conventions, the answer to this question is that:

"D400" has become a widely used internet forum nickname for a hoped-for successor of the Nikon D300S in the form of a top-of-the-line DX format model, not conceding any ground on features or build-quality to the D300S. The D7100 falls short of what these "D400 hopefuls" want, for defects like offering only 6fps vs the 7fps of the D300S.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835


« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2014, 04:06:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Regardless of Nikon's model numbering conventions, the answer to this question is that:

"D400" has become a widely used internet forum nickname for a hoped-for successor of the Nikon D300S in the form of a top-of-the-line DX format model, not conceding any ground on features or build-quality to the D300S. The D7100 falls short of what these "D400 hopefuls" want, for defects like offering only 6fps vs the 7fps of the D300S.
Meaning something like DX sensor in D800 body right? …at what cost? Say 75% of the price? …what Canon's 7d sells with respect to 6D?  Look at S/H prices… they show what is under demand and what is not… How about D300 S/H prices with respect to D7000 or D700? People have trouble selling their D300's at all… What about Canon not replacing D7? …It seems to me that there is little demand for a DX at a FF price… and it also seems that it's both Canon and Nikon marketing research getting the same info whenever they make their research for the price category, it simply seems that a (lesser build quality) FF would exceed an alternative expensive DX sales by far… and IMO they are right in their findings. Of course there is some market for such a camera, but it's not big enough for what large companies consider enough. IMO, D300 was only a camera to "connect" the past (dx - d2xs, d200), with the future (fx - d3) in the Nikon line, at that point it was a meaningful move, but ever since, things have changed a lot…
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1051


« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2014, 05:27:19 PM »
ReplyReply

What is a D400? It is the Nikon pro-grade DX offering for the sport/action/wildlife/bird photographer , the equivalent of the famed Canon 7D2.
 Grin
D400 and its cousin 7D2 have been the subject of electron-wasters on various gear forums since before Photokina 2012. On the Canon side, the rumor-mongers pop up every CES (January), CP+ (February), Photokina (September, alternate years) and any other major trade show week.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835


« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2014, 06:09:20 PM »
ReplyReply

What is a D400? It is the Nikon pro-grade DX offering for the sport/action/wildlife/bird photographer , the equivalent of the famed Canon 7D2.
 Grin
D400 and its cousin 7D2 have been the subject of electron-wasters on various gear forums since before Photokina 2012. On the Canon side, the rumor-mongers pop up every CES (January), CP+ (February), Photokina (September, alternate years) and any other major trade show week.
With Nikon it's worst…. there are a few multi name scams, that are talking with themselves to themselves in fake conversations every single day in two or three threads a day from 2010 onwards..., they've even managed to have a forum category in a major gear forum (it's supposed to be DX-pro dedicated) where the same people (about 40 "names" in total - which in reality are no more than 6-7 real beings) "discuss" the coming ( Tongue) "pro body DX camera" ( Huh) endlessly to the end of time!  Angry
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5170


« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2014, 11:03:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Meaning something like DX sensor in D800 body right? …at what cost? Say 75% of the price?
I was just answering your question about what people mean when they talk about the mythical "Nikon D400", and what they are hoping for; I am not one of those people, and am not interested in debating whether such a camera will ever exist. [But my guess is that it never will.]

One note: a "D800 body" would not meet their wishes, because the D800 only does 4fps, whereas one feature of the D300 and D300S that these people want preserved in a "D400" is a high frame rate (at least the 7fps of the D300S) without the far higher price of the D4, which is the only high frame rate model from Nikon in recent years.
Logged
Isoruku
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2014, 03:51:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm in agreement with Mr Rimmel, but am losing hope. I don't want the heft or cost of FX but do need the ruggedness of a pro body (more rugged than a D7100) with the features Mr Rimmel outlined. A robust buffer definitely. And I'd like to see Nikon solve the green tint issue as well.

But the D400 may be a mirage that is beginning to fade, and in 2014 I may jump to Canon or Pentax or Olympus. (Admittedly Canon has lagged in replacing the 7D.)


I'm glad your happy with the D7100.

I still can't bring myself to compromise by getting a D7100. I would miss the pro features of my D300 too much. A  strong lens mount, large buffer, higher fps, 10-pin, additional menu and button flexibility, etc.

Going full-frame isn't much of an option either since I would need two to three times the cash for lenses. (a used D700 or D3 would be tempting otherwise)

I hope they bring out a D400 first half of this year. But there appears to be no sign of it coming whatsoever.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835


« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2014, 03:01:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I was just answering your question about what people mean when they talk about the mythical "Nikon D400", and what they are hoping for; I am not one of those people, and am not interested in debating whether such a camera will ever exist. [But my guess is that it never will.]

One note: a "D800 body" would not meet their wishes, because the D800 only does 4fps, whereas one feature of the D300 and D300S that these people want preserved in a "D400" is a high frame rate (at least the 7fps of the D300S) without the far higher price of the D4, which is the only high frame rate model from Nikon in recent years.
I'm sorry if you thought that I was referring to you… it was never my intention. My comment was aimed to show that there is no considerable market for such a camera, only "some" that are trying to make it look that there is…. Obviously, if Nef files of the D800 are smaller, the camera would be considerably faster…  
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 04:06:30 AM by T.Dascalos » Logged
dudu307
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2014, 03:57:38 AM »
ReplyReply

One note: a "D800 body" would not meet their wishes, because the D800 only does 4fps, whereas one feature of the D300 and D300S that these people want preserved in a "D400" is a high frame rate (at least the 7fps of the D300S) without the far higher price of the D4, which is the only high frame rate model from Nikon in recent years.

As far as I know, a D800 with the grip it's a 6 fps 16 mpx D400 class body DX camera.

Great landscape camera in FX and not a bad wildlife camera in DX. If you need both worlds it's not a bad deal.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835


« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2014, 04:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

As far as I know, a D800 with the grip it's a 6 fps 16 mpx D400 class body DX camera.

Great landscape camera in FX and not a bad wildlife camera in DX. If you need both worlds it's not a bad deal.
That's not the case, the D800 is faster if one shoots in crop mode, but only in jpeg… If a crop mode is used with Nef (raw) files, only buffer capacity profits positively. Never the less, all wildlife serious shooters, either pros or artists that are publishing their images or exhibit them, are using FF cameras… (one can check that on web). Same happens with serious sports or reportage photographers. Obvioulsy, the high-iso advantage of FF that helps them freeze motion is more important to them than being able to "reach" at longer distances through a cropped sensor. Lets not forget that the combination of a VF with poorer visibility and extra distance, decreases capturing ability a lot and the extra bockeh of FF sensors, also helps for better images. Another thing to consider, is that smaller pixels also require better lenses, which of course rises cost… (some never mention this). In fact, the 300mm f4 which is quite popular among "long-reach" users, is better than the new 80-400 when used with a TC-14eii attached and is usable at full aperture (600mm f8) with even the TC-20Eiii attached on all FF cameras, but with a high pixel density DX, the use of TCs (especially of the TC-20Eiii) makes quality suffer…
Logged
Silver Halide UK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2014, 10:23:43 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a lot of comment here about the buffer and continius shooting rate of the D7100.

bearing in mind that the best quality jpegs from the D7100 will give you better image quality than Raws from the D300, at that setting the D7100 will machine gun 99 exposures at 6 frames per second.

Not up to D4 performance, but hey!
Logged
RobSaecker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2014, 12:05:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Never the less, all wildlife serious shooters, either pros or artists that are publishing their images or exhibit them, are using FF cameras… (one can check that on web).

Yeah, right, one can just go the LuLa Landscape and Nature forum and look at the exquisite bird photos by Glenn Bartley, which were taken with … a Canon 7D. And note that all of his 2014 workshops are full. But he can’t be “serious”, because he uses a 7D.

Quote
...and the extra bockeh of FF sensors, also helps for better images.

Sure thing. Nevermind that “bockeh" (sic) is lens quality, not a sensor quality, and that when using long telephotos, the difference in DoF between DX and FX is essentially nil.
Logged

Rob
photo blog - http://robsaecker.com
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835


« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2014, 12:28:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, right, one can just go the LuLa Landscape and Nature forum and look at the exquisite bird photos by Glenn Bartley, which were taken with … a Canon 7D. And note that all of his 2014 workshops are full. But he can’t be “serious”, because he uses a 7D.

Sure thing. Nevermind that “bockeh" (sic) is lens quality, not a sensor quality, and that when using long telephotos, the difference in DoF between DX and FX is essentially nil.
The difference in DOF is about 1+1/3 of a stop for Nikon and about 1.5 stops for Canon, no matter if the lens is telephoto or whatever. What Glenn uses, doesn't change the rule… look at 7d sales with respect to 6d which is the subject here… Look at D300 S/H demand… (which is reflected on its price). Clearly, there is no market (anymore) for expensive APS-c as FF is getting cheaper by the year. I don't deny that there is some market… but it's not no where near enough to support the production of such a product.
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651



« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2014, 01:17:38 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a lot of comment here about the buffer and continius shooting rate of the D7100.

bearing in mind that the best quality jpegs from the D7100 will give you better image quality than Raws from the D300, at that setting the D7100 will machine gun 99 exposures at 6 frames per second.

Not up to D4 performance, but hey!

Interesting.

As someone who has never shot jpeg and never used the CL or CH release modes on any of my Nikons, I would not have sussed that. I mainly shoot landscape and wildlife where, obviously, those factors are pretty irrelevant.

However, it is good to know that I could if I wanted to.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2014, 02:56:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.

As someone who has never shot jpeg and never used the CL or CH release modes on any of my Nikons, I would not have sussed that. I mainly shoot landscape and wildlife where, obviously, those factors are pretty irrelevant.

However, it is good to know that I could if I wanted to.


It's the Scottish air: I only once used the motor drive on my F2, and the financial implications of a couple of seconds of Kodachrome ecstacy made that a one-off, for all the good it was to me in my world! Made for a useful automatic film advance device, though.

Digital demands nothing faster of me, either.

;-(

Rob C
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651



« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2014, 04:40:59 AM »
ReplyReply


It's the Scottish air: I only once used the motor drive on my F2, and the financial implications of a couple of seconds of Kodachrome ecstacy made that a one-off, for all the good it was to me in my world! Made for a useful automatic film advance device, though.

Digital demands nothing faster of me, either.

;-(

Rob C

I guess it is all the practice with shotguns. If I can bring down a 70mph driven grouse with an ounce and an eighth of No.6 shot, capturing them on camera is no problem. It's all a question of forward allowance!! No need for "machine-gunning".

 Wink
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2014, 09:15:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess it is all the practice with shotguns. If I can bring down a 70mph driven grouse with an ounce and an eighth of No.6 shot, capturing them on camera is no problem. It's all a question of forward allowance!! No need for "machine-gunning".

 Wink



Not so fast! That's like shooting them with a wide-angle! Try with a .22 and see what you hit - apart from the steeple in the next village. I was having a brief Internet chat with a cousin who lived in Perthshire, and we were complaining about eyesight. He mentioned being able to bring down a hare with a shot to the throat at a hundred paces, but now he needs three different specs, one even so he can see to paint his pictures...

Rob C
Logged

tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2014, 10:36:27 AM »
ReplyReply

he he, when I saw the thread title, I thought you might announce that you have bought a Pentax K3.. Grin Grin

You're not alone:  Wink

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/meanwhile-meet-the-pentax.html
Logged
Ray Cox
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 29



« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2014, 09:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply


Careful there! We are trying to keep this thing a secret!  It sure is great to be able to use a camera that just creates images without all of the constant background noise.
Let "em duke it out while we enjoy the "quiet zone"
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621



« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2014, 10:34:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess it is all the practice with shotguns. If I can bring down a 70mph driven grouse with an ounce and an eighth of No.6 shot, capturing them on camera is no problem. It's all a question of forward allowance!! No need for "machine-gunning".

 Wink

2 1/2 inch chambered 100 year old side-by-side?  London or Birmingham?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2014, 02:36:10 AM »
ReplyReply

2 1/2 inch chambered 100 year old side-by-side?  London or Birmingham?

On the Queen's highway? You'll get locked up for sure - or shot.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad