Nikon D400!! Myth? Whats your opinion?

[Mitch1640]

i think nikon is releasing something like the d3000 which is supposed to be like a upgraded d40 so i guess they are adding a number?

 

[TUX424]

Here what gizmodo.com thinks the specs will be
they look nice, now nikon needs to deliver
The sooner the better so the more the price will drop till i drop some money it to one

 

[AlexColeman]

Now I just have to decide between a 700/800 and the 400.

 

[anubis404]

when it comes to naming nikon will most likely name it the D400
But i wounder what the D90 replacement will be called, they have already used the D100 name?
Only time will tell

D95?

 

[itznfb]

Sorry to bring this topic back up... but is there any news on what's coming out? if anything this year i would think it would be around august.

what i'm confused about though is why was the D300 skipped for this generation?
aren't the D40, D90, D700 and D3x all from the same generation? so every class got an upgrade except the pro DX?

 

[Garbz]

Heard from various sources Nikon is getting ready to release the D400...however most of the information is miss-matched.

That's because no know knows anything. This is Nikon not Canon. Canon are the ones who suffer verbal diarrhoea and then have issues with hype. Nikon say nothing, people guess because they have nothing better to do than salivate over the possibility that the company is still using their R&D budget, then a camera pops up from no where and everyone has issues with hype.

what i'm confused about though is why was the D300 skipped for this generation?
aren't the D40, D90, D700 and D3x all from the same generation? so every class got an upgrade except the pro DX?

Err camera's don't work in generations, and one thing is certain upgrading pro series bodies as quickly as the consumer crap ones is just bad business. The D300 as far as I am concerned is NEW. D200s are still being sold. There is no generation skipping here. The D700 is a completely different camera, and the D3x isn't upgrading anything either. The D40 is ancient, and the only camera in the list that is actually an upgrade is the D90 for the VERY much older D80.

You may want to look at the timelimes again.

 

[itznfb]

That's because no know knows anything. This is Nikon not Canon. Canon are the ones who suffer verbal diarrhoea and then have issues with hype. Nikon say nothing, people guess because they have nothing better to do than salivate over the possibility that the company is still using their R&D budget, then a camera pops up from no where and everyone has issues with hype.



Err camera's don't work in generations, and one thing is certain upgrading pro series bodies as quickly as the consumer crap ones is just bad business. The D300 as far as I am concerned is NEW. D200s are still being sold. There is no generation skipping here. The D700 is a completely different camera, and the D3x isn't upgrading anything either. The D40 is ancient, and the only camera in the list that is actually an upgrade is the D90 for the VERY much older D80.

You may want to look at the timelimes again.

the D3x, an upgrade to the D3, D700 is a new class, D90 upgrade to the D80, and it was the D60 (not the d40, incorrect in my first post), that was an upgrade to the D40x. all but the D60 were released at the same mid '08, D60 was a little earlier. with the way cameras are being released now, i don't see why you wouldn't expect a yearly release at this point.

the pro DX was the only series that didn't receive a refresh in mid '08 and is about 2 years older than any other Nikon current product.

 

[tasman]

I don't much care if there is a D400 or not. With a D700 in my bag, it makes no difference to me.

I feel the same. But then again I need a good backup camera.

 

[AlexColeman]

I can't make up my mind between the two, however, I really want the D700 to be updated.

 

[Garbz]

with the way cameras are being released now, i don't see why you wouldn't expect a yearly release at this point.

Because you're still missing the point. The D3x is not an upgraded D3. It is not aimed at any former D3 customers, and it doesn't replace the D3 on the shelf. It is a new in class camera like the D700 targeted at high megapixel shooters instead of high ISO like the D3. The x or H moniker is not like the Canon's Mk moniker which actually is an upgrade. This is the same as the D2x and D2H, both which targeted different users for specific reasons but were not an upgrade of each other.

Take that into account and you'll realise that the Pro / Prosumer line does not receive a yearly upgrade. In fact expect to wait at least another 1 to 2 years before D4s start being talked about (errr. the D4.1 April fools joke going around not withstanding) Typical pros and many prosumers aren't upgrade junkies. It makes no business sense at all to release a professional body every year. It's like the banks where customer satisfaction is low, but retention rate is high. People aren't going to jump from one brand to the other just because the other released a camera a year earlier. Heck many people won't even upgrade to a D3 till their D2xs fail.

 

[smyth]

. The x or H moniker is not like the Canon's Mk moniker which actually is an upgrade.

the x or h moniker would be the equivalent to Canon's S moniker...

ex. there is the Canon 1d-MkIII and the 1-ds MKIII

The non s version being the high fps version, and the 1ds being the high mp version.

 

[JerryPH]

Sorry to bring this topic back up... but is there any news on what's coming out? if anything this year i would think it would be around august.

what i'm confused about though is why was the D300 skipped for this generation?
aren't the D40, D90, D700 and D3x all from the same generation? so every class got an upgrade except the pro DX?

A few thoughts:

1. Don't lump all cameras into 1 generation. A camera comes out when it comes out. Look at the one that meets your needs, skip the rest. They all come out when they come out.

2. If you play "the waiting game" you will never make a purchase. Manufacturers start the rumors of the next version usually within weeks (sometimes even days) of releasing a new model. This is a simple yet effective marketing ploy. Rather look at what is available now and if it is what you want, get that and use it to death. If you do not like that model, move to another one. Make the purchase. When that camera dies or you hit some serious walls and it hinders your growth as a photographer, go back to point #1.

When I bought my D200, it was within 15 days of the D300 being released. I did not upgrade, I used my D200 for all it was worth and completely skipped a generation fully intending to look at the D400 whenever it came out. When I was ready for an upgrade, the D700 had just come out. I did my research, liked it, bought it.

There are those that upgrade every time a manufacturer releases a new versions. The manufacturers LOVE those people and want all of us to be just like that. Truth is, 90% could easily live happily for years with what they have. That 10% would be professionals and businesses that may have a valid technical reason to upgrade (for example, the D700/D3's very low noise at high ISO).

 

[itznfb]

Because you're still missing the point. The D3x is not an upgraded D3. It is not aimed at any former D3 customers, and it doesn't replace the D3 on the shelf. It is a new in class camera like the D700 targeted at high megapixel shooters instead of high ISO like the D3. The x or H moniker is not like the Canon's Mk moniker which actually is an upgrade. This is the same as the D2x and D2H, both which targeted different users for specific reasons but were not an upgrade of each other.

Take that into account and you'll realise that the Pro / Prosumer line does not receive a yearly upgrade. In fact expect to wait at least another 1 to 2 years before D4s start being talked about (errr. the D4.1 April fools joke going around not withstanding) Typical pros and many prosumers aren't upgrade junkies. It makes no business sense at all to release a professional body every year. It's like the banks where customer satisfaction is low, but retention rate is high. People aren't going to jump from one brand to the other just because the other released a camera a year earlier. Heck many people won't even upgrade to a D3 till their D2xs fail.

i agree that the D3x isn't a direct shelf replacement. But i find it hard to believe there is still a market inbetween the D700 and D3x. which i guess my main point would be (in my opinion) it seems like nikon steps on their own toes by not upgrading certain models with other models. like the D300 and D3. the D3x/D700 must have signicificantly decreased the market for the D3, and the D90 must have done the same with the D300. granted different classes, but such similar performance at a fraction of the cost.

however, that could be their intent. the D3 has been out for a while so they don't need to maintain the market share with that camera and focus sales on the D3x/D700.

A few thoughts:

1. Don't lump all cameras into 1 generation. A camera comes out when it comes out. Look at the one that meets your needs, skip the rest. They all come out when they come out.

2. If you play "the waiting game" you will never make a purchase. Manufacturers start the rumors of the next version usually within weeks (sometimes even days) of releasing a new model. This is a simple yet effective marketing ploy. Rather look at what is available now and if it is what you want, get that and use it to death. If you do not like that model, move to another one. Make the purchase. When that camera dies or you hit some serious walls and it hinders your growth as a photographer, go back to point #1.

When I bought my D200, it was within 15 days of the D300 being released. I did not upgrade, I used my D200 for all it was worth and completely skipped a generation fully intending to look at the D400 whenever it came out. When I was ready for an upgrade, the D700 had just come out. I did my research, liked it, bought it.

There are those that upgrade every time a manufacturer releases a new versions. The manufacturers LOVE those people and want all of us to be just like that. Truth is, 90% could easily live happily for years with what they have. That 10% would be professionals and businesses that may have a valid technical reason to upgrade (for example, the D700/D3's very low noise at high ISO).

i'm not really trying to put them in generations like a car model year or something like that but the mid '08 release dates somewhat lent themselves to that. as it seemed nikon was trying to make a push towards the more commercial consumer and released the D60/90/700/3x all relatively the same time.

as for the waiting game, i currently have a D90 which currently far exceeds my capabilities as a photographer but i enjoy the technology as much as the actual picture taking. plus a pro DX would be much better suited for travel/camping/hiking. that being said, i wouldn't get rid of the D90 for a D300, that just doesn't make sense to me, but i would get rid of it for a D400

so basically my only reasoning for anything i've said in this thread is "i want my D400 now!" lol

 

[Garbz]

i agree that the D3x isn't a direct shelf replacement. But i find it hard to believe there is still a market inbetween the D700 and D3x.

As an amateur I would agree with you, but there are people out there who's livelyhoods depend on their equipment and the D700 is not pro enough for them. Just like the D200 only mildly eroded sales of the much older D2x. Just look at the feature list. The D3 has 2 type II CF slots for either backup or faster card transfers, the D700 doesn't even support typeII CF cards. The D3 has a clear viewfinder with 100% coverage the D700 is cluttered with AF points and only 95%. The D3 has 9-11fps max, the D700 has 8fps max (sport shooters take note). And finally the big kicker why the D700 will not cut into the D3 market for the pros, the shutter life is twice as long at 300k actuations. So if you consider a D700 + battery grip + D3 battery for optimal performance is more than 2/3rds the cost of the D3 but lasts only half as long, the D3 becomes a no-brainier for the pro who's life depends on photography, which lets face it is the target market for this camera.

I also still doubt any D3 sales are lost to the D3x. Some medium format sales may have been taken from other companies but high speed high sensitivity shooting at 12mpx is a very very different type of job than something requiring 25mpx. It would be nice to have both, but I am sure people will think very carefully about which to buy. If anything in my opinion the D3x would probably have less appeal than the D3 for much of what SLRs were previously used.

 

[itznfb]

good points. hopefuly one day i'll be able to look at those 3 types of cameras and really understand the real world functional difference. but you're right, i probably look at them in a completely different view than a pro