24-70 3.5-4.5 does this mean fxd400?

[zamanakhan]

Just saw this on the Nikon rumors website, anybody else think there might be some weight to this? I also read on thom hogans site that this might also be true. Personally if Nikon released a fx d400 for approx 1500-2000, and 12-16 mp, I would be all over that. I understand this is describing the d700 but I am weary of purchasing something that has a design that is years old. But lets not get caught up in just buy the d700. What do u guys think of this?

 

[480sparky]

Never knew a lens to be a precursor to a body.

I just wait for actual lenses / bodies to hit the stores, read up on the reviews, talk to the folks down at the camera store........ and then I'll decide what my next purcahse, if any, will be.

 

[zamanakhan]

Never knew a lens to be a precursor to a body.

I just wait for actual lenses / bodies to hit the stores, read up on the reviews, talk to the folks down at the camera store........ and then I'll decide what my next purcahse, if any, will be.

it a patent in the works, i think most people including myself figure why buy a top of the line camera to put a slow zoom lens on it? Especially with a low zoom range like that? unless it was part of a kit right?

Well i am hoping there will be a fx d400. It will support my decision to either purchase a 24-70 or a 17-55 2.8. If there is no cheaper FX option i think i will stick with the d7000 and purchase a 17-55 if there happens to be an alternative to the d800 than it will be a 24-70 and by Christmas time i would have enough cashflow to get myself the newer fx body.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I liked the 24 70 on my d7000, and used the 70 end much more than the 24

 

[KmH]

By what rational do you think Nikon would produce an FX - D400, and forgo having any prosumer DX body in their line up?

I sure don't see them continuing to produce the D300s.

 

[Markw]

For the longest time, I completely pushed aside any kind of thought about an FX D400. It didn't really make too much sense to me why they would do that. But, it seems like it may actually be the case. And, here's why:

Nikon seems to really be beefing up their consumer DX line. If you've seen the rumored specs of the D3200, you'll see they look great for the entry DSLR. Once these improvements reach the D7100 level, they may forego making the D400 a DX model, and make it FX, just making the D7100 that much better to take the spot that the D400 would have filled. I think they may do this to sway folks from not only the mirrorless market, but also the P&S Market. So, now that all the DX are in line, that leaves the D400 to be able to be bumped to FX. The D7100 would now be the greatest DX in the line, and the D400 would be the newest, cheapest FX.

That being said, I don't think this because the lens was patented. I can completely see why the folks would want this lens to begin with, should there never be another FX made. The 24-70/2.8 is $1900. It's relatively big, relatively bulky, relatively heavy, and relatively expensive for someone who would like a zoom with good optics to shoot photos of their families at get-togethers, or casual photos of the cat, or anything else that would not necessarily call for the need to shoot in the dark, or have the shallowest DOF. Especially since the price of the D700 should only go down from here (in hopes that there will be another FX body, which we all know there will eventually be). People will be switching from all over the lineup to something like that, even if the D400 is FX.

Besides, I'd venture to bet TONS of DX users already have the 24-70/2.8. They clearly want something of the sort as well.

So, it doesn't necessarily foretell an entry-level FX. But, it doesn't negate the possibility. That's for sure.

Mark

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Besides, I'd venture to bet TONS of DX users already have the 24-70/2.8.

I had the 24-70 f/2.8 a year and a half before I bought my first FX body... So true!

 

[TheFantasticG]

I love FX glass on DX bodies... I'm placing bets on the D9000 being the top of the line DX camera and a D400 being the true D700 replacement a-la mini D4.

 

[Markw]

I highly doubt the D400, if it is FX, will NOT be the D700 replacement. If it's an FX, it will be entry. The replacement to the D700 will have a better sensor than the D3. So, it surely won't be their entry level FX.

But, to stay on topic, I wish I would have invested in the 14-24 + 24-70/2.8 when I was using DX. Now I have the D800, and DEFINITELY wishing I would have.

Mark

 

[zamanakhan]

I highly doubt the D400, if it is FX, will NOT be the D700 replacement. If it's an FX, it will be entry. The replacement to the D700 will have a better sensor than the D3. So, it surely won't be their entry level FX.

But, to stay on topic, I wish I would have invested in the 14-24 + 24-70/2.8 when I was using DX. Now I have the D800, and DEFINITELY wishing I would have.

Mark

i dont know i think they might drop the d700 line completely like they did with the d90. We all know the D7000 was "not supposed" to be the replacement for d90 (according to nikon) but it has more in comparison with the d90 than the d300. It would actually make perfect sense if the d7100 would be the top of the line DX with a d400 being an entry fx and d5200 and d3200 where they are supposed to be. You have 3 distinct Dx cameras and 3 distinct FX cameras, perhaps more FX with a D4x and a D4s eventually.

Like i said before, deep down inside i know that the d400 or d310 what ever may it be, will be a DX but if it is FX and offered at the same price than i will be dropping my d7000 like a hot potato and putting money down on a pre-order of a d400. If this is the case i'll most likely pick up a d40 till i receive my d400. In the mean time i think i may order a 24-70 2.8 soon if i can find a good price on it, although i think i would be better off with a 16-35, with a 50 1.8 first, then a 24-70.

 

[Markw]

i dont know i think they might drop the d700 line completely like they did with the d90.

If they did this, and the D400 is the D700 replacement, which it certainly won't be, there would be no entry FX. Like I said, the sensor would be better than the D3. The price would be higher than the D700. So, it's certainly not an entry level. If the D400 is FX in this manner, there is no entry level, and they've just done away with the D300 DX line, and bumped the D7000 line to replace both lines, as a DX camera.

Mark

 

[TheFantasticG]

If they used the D3s sensor that would qualify as a better sensor. The price could be $2699 (same price the D700 was at) and Nikon could label it as their entry level D400 fx camera. Nothing to stop them from doing that. Still, the price would have to be under $2000 to make me drop my fantastic D7000.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I liked the 24 70 on my d7000, and used the 70 end much more than the 24

Same with me

 

[Markw]

If they used the D3s sensor that would qualify as a better sensor. The price could be $2699 (same price the D700 was at) and Nikon could label it as their entry level D400 fx camera. Nothing to stop them from doing that. Still, the price would have to be under $2000 to make me drop my fantastic D7000.

My point exactly. It would run $2700+. Which would bring it to around the same price as the D800. The D700 came out at that price, and it wasn't considered an entry FX. So, the D700 replacement with those specs (which I personally think will DEFINITELY be the case) will certainly not be an entry FX unless it's built like a D3000 and priced at $1999, which it won't be.

Mark

 

[zamanakhan]

If they used the D3s sensor that would qualify as a better sensor. The price could be $2699 (same price the D700 was at) and Nikon could label it as their entry level D400 fx camera. Nothing to stop them from doing that. Still, the price would have to be under $2000 to make me drop my fantastic D7000.

My point exactly. It would run $2700+. Which would bring it to around the same price as the D800. The D700 came out at that price, and it wasn't considered an entry FX. So, the D700 replacement with those specs (which I personally think will DEFINITELY be the case) will certainly not be an entry FX unless it's built like a D3000 and priced at $1999, which it won't be.Mark

I am starting to see what u mean, I was at canon rumors and there is a lot of talk of a higher mp full frame to compete on a level field with the d800, if this is the case it would could mean Nikon releasing something to compete full on with a 5dm3. If this does happen to it will most likely be the me price as a d800, something that is out of my reach, I cannot justify spending 3k on a body, perhaps i can find a used d700 for 15-1700.