Is Nikon Finally About to Replace D300s?

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/27/still-no-reliable-inforumors-on-a-new-nikon-dx-flagship-dslr-camera-d400d500.aspx/#more-100602" target="_blank">Nikon Rumors</a> via <a href="http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html" target="_blank">Brad Hill</a> has posted that there are whispers that Nikon is finally readying a flagship DX camera in the form of a D400 (or D500). Nikon Rumors had heard in the past that there could be a “double launch” alongside the Nikon D5, which has <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/more-nikon-d5-specifications/" target="_blank">recently leaked</a> and is expected to be announced in mid January.</p>
<p>From Brad Hill:</p>
<blockquote><p>Anyway…in the last 10 days I’ve received 3 separate and independent communications (via email) telling me that a semi-pro (or even higher) quality DX body from Nikon is going to be announced in January. Two of these three sources have been spot-on in the past.</p>
<p>The interesting thing is that I’m getting scant specs, but those I am getting are consistent from all 3 sources – DX format, 10 fps, a “very good” buffer and selling for around $2300 USD. This consistency could say something about rumour credibility (or it could mean all 3 of my sources got THEIR information from the same source). Note that at least one of the sources derives their income from Nikon.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nikon Rumors themselves have yet to receive anything reliable on the subject, but that could change shortly.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Sporgon]

I bet this is true, I don't see Nikon being able to ignore the 7DII as they did the 7D because now technology has made the crop sensor so good more and more people must be realising that FF isn't necessarily the definitive choice for all things.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Competition is always beneficial to keep behaved prices.

Come the D400!

 

[jebrady03]

$2300?! SH*T!!! You can buy two 7D Mark II for less than that!

 

[neuroanatomist]

$2300?! SH*T!!! You can buy two 7D Mark II for less than that!

True, but the 7DII + 100-400 II vs. new Nikon DX + 200-500 would be similar in price. Of course, the Canon combo will give you a much better lens, higher IQ, faster AF, etc.

OTOH, I'm sure the Nikon setup will have better low ISO DR, and we all know that's the absolutely most critical determinant of camera system performance... : : :

 

[jebrady03]

$2300?! SH*T!!! You can buy two 7D Mark II for less than that!

True, but the 7DII + 100-400 II vs. new Nikon DX + 200-500 would be similar in price. Of course, the Canon combo will give you a much better lens, higher IQ, faster AF, etc.

OTOH, I'm sure the Nikon setup will have better low ISO DR, and we all know that's the absolutely most critical determinant of camera system performance... : : :

So, so true! That's why Canon sucks and is DOOMED! ;D

 

[kaptainkatsu]

Sorry Nikon, I already own two 7D mark II's and too much L glass to switch

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon users would certainly like to see something that matched the 7D MK II. Nikon has not produced anything competitive since the D300 was thoroughly trounced by the original 7D.

The thing is, the 7D II can sometimes be found for close to $1,000 and a D400 will run $1700 or even more. Nikon will have a tough time competiting, but I hope they do.

 

[Tugela]

A D400 will probably come with a 2016 sensor/processor and feature advanced video, such as 4K and high frame rate HD. It will be significantly more sophisticated than the 7D2, which was essentially obsolete even when it was released (which is why the price is so low now).

Personally I think a 7D3 will come sooner rather than later, otherwise they won't be selling too many of the things outside the bargain basement counters before long. New cameras coming along are simply too advanced.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A D400 will probably come with a 2016 sensor/processor and feature advanced video, such as 4K and high frame rate HD. It will be significantly more sophisticated than the 7D2, which was essentially obsolete even when it was released (which is why the price is so low now).

Personally I think a 7D3 will come sooner rather than later, otherwise they won't be selling too many of the things outside the bargain basement counters before long. New cameras coming along are simply too advanced.

Lol.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon users would certainly like to see something that matched the 7D MK II. Nikon has not produced anything competitive since the D300 was thoroughly trounced by the original 7D.

The thing is, the 7D II can sometimes be found for close to $1,000 and a D400 will run $1700 or even more. Nikon will have a tough time competiting, but I hope they do.

I've heard some rumblings of jealousy from local Nikon crop users over the 7DII. There's definitely a feeling that Nikon has abandoned the high end crop market. If Nikon decided to try and compete in that space again, you're right that it will be tough given the excellent and now relatively inexpensive 7DII.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon users would certainly like to see something that matched the 7D MK II. Nikon has not produced anything competitive since the D300 was thoroughly trounced by the original 7D.

The thing is, the 7D II can sometimes be found for close to $1,000 and a D400 will run $1700 or even more. Nikon will have a tough time competiting, but I hope they do.

I've heard some rumblings of jealousy from local Nikon crop users over the 7DII. There's definitely a feeling that Nikon has abandoned the high end crop market. If Nikon decided to try and compete in that space again, you're right that it will be tough given the excellent and now relatively inexpensive 7DII.

Yes, having a little more DR is nice, but when it comes to shelling out a additional $1K, the majority of crop camera buyers will decide that its not really all that necessary. Of course, if you are heavily invested in Nikon Glass, ...

 

[ashmadux]

Nikon users would certainly like to see something that matched the 7D MK II. Nikon has not produced anything competitive since the D300 was thoroughly trounced by the original 7D.

The thing is, the 7D II can sometimes be found for close to $1,000 and a D400 will run $1700 or even more. Nikon will have a tough time competiting, but I hope they do.

I've heard some rumblings of jealousy from local Nikon crop users over the 7DII. There's definitely a feeling that Nikon has abandoned the high end crop market. If Nikon decided to try and compete in that space again, you're right that it will be tough given the excellent and now relatively inexpensive 7DII.

So the 7200 is now chopped liver? Seemed to be a nice upgrade and fixed a few issues from the over-exposing 7100.

I know we tend to enjoy the most tricked out gear, but maybe a bit of exaggeration is at play here.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon users would certainly like to see something that matched the 7D MK II. Nikon has not produced anything competitive since the D300 was thoroughly trounced by the original 7D.

The thing is, the 7D II can sometimes be found for close to $1,000 and a D400 will run $1700 or even more. Nikon will have a tough time competiting, but I hope they do.

I've heard some rumblings of jealousy from local Nikon crop users over the 7DII. There's definitely a feeling that Nikon has abandoned the high end crop market. If Nikon decided to try and compete in that space again, you're right that it will be tough given the excellent and now relatively inexpensive 7DII.

So the 7200 is now chopped liver? Seemed to be a nice upgrade and fixed a few issues from the over-exposing 7100.

I know we tend to enjoy the most tricked out gear, but maybe a bit of exaggeration is at play here.

The 7DII and D7200 aren't in the same league. 65 cross-type AF points spread across the frame vs. 51 points with just 15 cross-type clustered in the center. Double the frame rate – 10 fps vs. 5 fps (assuming you want to record RAW images at full bit depth). A new mid-level crop body that 'fixes a few issues' of its predecessor doesn't make it a high-end crop body. If Canon dropped the 1-series from the lineup, would you suggest the Canon 5-series is suddenly on-par with Nikon's D5?

Nikon's 'current' high-end crop body is the D300s. Not that a camera from 2009 should really be called 'current', there's your chopped liver.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon users would certainly like to see something that matched the 7D MK II. Nikon has not produced anything competitive since the D300 was thoroughly trounced by the original 7D.

The thing is, the 7D II can sometimes be found for close to $1,000 and a D400 will run $1700 or even more. Nikon will have a tough time competiting, but I hope they do.

I've heard some rumblings of jealousy from local Nikon crop users over the 7DII. There's definitely a feeling that Nikon has abandoned the high end crop market. If Nikon decided to try and compete in that space again, you're right that it will be tough given the excellent and now relatively inexpensive 7DII.

So the 7200 is now chopped liver? Seemed to be a nice upgrade and fixed a few issues from the over-exposing 7100.

I know we tend to enjoy the most tricked out gear, but maybe a bit of exaggeration is at play here.

The 7DII and D7200 aren't in the same league. 65 cross-type AF points spread across the frame vs. 51 points with just 15 cross-type clustered in the center. Double the frame rate – 10 fps vs. 5 fps (assuming you want to record RAW images at full bit depth). A new mid-level crop body that 'fixes a few issues' of its predecessor doesn't make it a high-end crop body. If Canon dropped the 1-series from the lineup, would you suggest the Canon 5-series is suddenly on-par with Nikon's D5?

Nikon's 'current' high-end crop body is the D300s. Not that a camera from 2009 should really be called 'current', there's your chopped liver.

I bought a D300S from a person who had a D7200 and decided to keep the newer body. I wanted it to use with a 200-400mm f/4 G that I bought for a bargain price. A few weeks later, he wanted to buy the D300S back, since the D7200 was so slow to AF with his new 80-400mm lens.

The D300s with its dual card slots, and excellent AF was a nice camera in its time. However, the 12MP sensor does not allow for much in the way of cropping wildlife. The 7d was missing some of the D300S features, but overall, it was a better camera.

Here is a closeup of a bird at my feeder taken with the combo. It never quite achieved the sharpness I expected, I think that the 200-400 was a bit soft at mfd. I later sold both camera and lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

It never quite achieved the sharpness I expected, I think that the 200-400 was a bit soft at mfd. I later sold both camera and lens.

I have heard of issues with the Nikon 200-400, some say focus close is bad, others say distant focus is bad.

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

I never heard anybody say either about the Canon 200-400..........

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It never quite achieved the sharpness I expected, I think that the 200-400 was a bit soft at mfd. I later sold both camera and lens.

I have heard of issues with the Nikon 200-400, some say focus close is bad, others say distant focus is bad.

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

I never heard anybody say either about the Canon 200-400..........

But, no one is able to buy a Canon 200-400 for $2500 in mint condition I bought it from a local Doctor who had bought it for his teenage son. It was seldom if ever used, and when his son entered college, he decided to sell it - cheap!

 

[privatebydesign]

It never quite achieved the sharpness I expected, I think that the 200-400 was a bit soft at mfd. I later sold both camera and lens.

I have heard of issues with the Nikon 200-400, some say focus close is bad, others say distant focus is bad.

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

I never heard anybody say either about the Canon 200-400..........

But, no one is able to buy a Canon 200-400 for $2500 in mint condition I bought it from a local Doctor who had bought it for his teenage son. It was seldom if ever used, and when his son entered college, he decided to sell it - cheap!

Of course you can, you just can't register it

The difference in new price between the Canon and Nikon is less than $2,000, but the Nikon has been for sale, in various Mk's, for a long time, hence the availability of more used Nikon's. The price difference in used lenses is an interesting pointer to the value and quality of the Canon lens and the comparative disdain for the Nikon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It never quite achieved the sharpness I expected, I think that the 200-400 was a bit soft at mfd. I later sold both camera and lens.

I have heard of issues with the Nikon 200-400, some say focus close is bad, others say distant focus is bad.

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

I never heard anybody say either about the Canon 200-400..........

But, no one is able to buy a Canon 200-400 for $2500 in mint condition I bought it from a local Doctor who had bought it for his teenage son. It was seldom if ever used, and when his son entered college, he decided to sell it - cheap!



Of course you can, you just can't register it

The difference in new price between the Canon and Nikon is less than $2,000, but the Nikon has been for sale, in various Mk's, for a long time, hence the availability of more used Nikon's. The price difference in used lenses is an interesting pointer to the value and quality of the Canon lens and the comparative disdain for the Nikon.

I sold it for $4,000 after playing with it. It was the original VR1 model, not the VR2 model, so that dropped the value. That was some time ago when values were higher than now. There is little doubt that the Nikon VR1 version is not in the same ballpark as the Canon. However, Nikon has some lenses now that are world class and better than their Canon counterparts. Unfortunately, only a few of them like their 800mm lens that cost as much as a new car.

 

[AvTvM]

It has gotten very late for Nikon to compete in the high-end APS-C market. However, if they repeat their original big time success D3 + D300 with yet another well matched, excellent FF/APS-C duo D5 + D400 (or D500), they could be back with a vengeance - as far as mirrorslpapers go. Also needed are a few key DX lenses - especially an optically upgraded 17-55/2.8 DX *with* VR.

Key to success is a "matched pair" of FF and APS-C camera:
* identical user interface
* identical batter (use of big D5 battery in vertical grip of APS-C D400)
* identical choice of memory card slots ... whatever they may use - just as long it's not XQD

Nikon could further boost things by adding some form of a "combo"-bonus ... e.g. "take both and get some big time credit towards purchase of lenses and speedlites".

Back when Nikon brought their D3 + D300 duo, I nearly switched. Canon's excellent EF-S 17-55/2.8 versus lack of an image stabilized constant f/2.8 Nikon DX standard zoom plus preferred Canon UI plus Canon getting their decent 7D out just in time ... made me stick with Canon (40D -> 7D).

Of course even a supreme D5 + D400 DSLR duo will still not help Nikon to compete in today's mirrorless world ... but it could make for a reasonable "last round" or "last stand" in the Nikon mirrorslapper world.