Holding back on D7100

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?


Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

codeNsnap said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

So lets say the D400 comes out priced about $1700+. Now you are about $3-400 away from a FX D600. Why not wait for a D600S which cures the oil problems. Seems there is always a reason for waiting for the next upgrade. As for myslef, will wait for June/July than decide.

codeNsnap said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

I agree the D400 is very likely. I dont think it will have the same sensor though, I would think an 20mp sensor with higher native ISO range, similar build to D300 (D800) or D2X, improved AF and video , much bigger buffer to support 8fps and cost about 1,700.


Some may think that is just short of the D600 money, but the additional dollars also buys better build quality in components. That is important vs such as D7100 & D600.

But I'm buying a D7100 too - and keeping my D300. If the D7100 is good enough for birds in flight in 1.3x crop mode with my 300 f2.8 VR I'll sell my lightly used D300s now. Otherwise I'll wait until I have a D400.

pixd90 said:

pixd90 wrote:

pixd90 said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

So lets say the D400 comes out priced about $1700+. Now you are about $3-400 away from a FX D600. Why not wait for a D600S which cures the oil problems. Seems there is always a reason for waiting for the next upgrade. As for myslef, will wait for June/July than decide.

Click to expand...

D600 has been positioned more like a portrait/landscape camera with the 39 PT AF module. So yes if the D600S comes out with 51 AF module and 1/8000 shutter max, then a D400 will become unlikely.

Another reason of for the D400 is that with other mirror-less APS-C vendors like Fujifilm X Series and NEX catching up Nikon DX in terms of quality one way that Nikon can keep their DX format relevant is by having a badass top of the line model that can be used for sports/wildlife/landscape/everything else much like the D4 of FF world. Then the smaller form factor mirror-less cameras will have a harder time catching up such a camera.

Member said:

Bajerunner wrote:

Member said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

I agree the D400 is very likely. I dont think it will have the same sensor though, I would think an 20mp sensor with higher native ISO range, similar build to D300 (D800) or D2X, improved AF and video , much bigger buffer to support 8fps and cost about 1,700.

Some may think that is just short of the D600 money, but the additional dollars also buys better build quality in components. That is important vs such as D7100 & D600.

Click to expand...

True, but the D400 will be a pro-camera. To me this means that your skills are at a level that you are ready to take the plunge into FX. The two major considerations would be the cost of glass and the weight factor. If the D600 did not have the reported problems I would have purchased one by now. I am not the type to flip a coin hoping to get a good copy or asking for problems. Also being over 65 I do not think I will be doing many more upgrades.

One of the things that comes with advanced skills is the ability to assess our own needs.

pixd90 said:

pixd90 wrote:

pixd90 said:

Bajerunner wrote:

pixd90 said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

I agree the D400 is very likely. I dont think it will have the same sensor though, I would think an 20mp sensor with higher native ISO range, similar build to D300 (D800) or D2X, improved AF and video , much bigger buffer to support 8fps and cost about 1,700.

Some may think that is just short of the D600 money, but the additional dollars also buys better build quality in components. That is important vs such as D7100 & D600.

Click to expand...

True, but the D400 will be a pro-camera. To me this means that your skills are at a level that you are ready to take the plunge into FX. The two major considerations would be the cost of glass and the weight factor. If the D600 did not have the reported problems I would have purchased one by now. I am not the type to flip a coin hoping to get a good copy or asking for problems. Also being over 65 I do not think I will be doing many more upgrades.

Click to expand...

And even FX shooters may prefer to keep such a DX for its crop factor and weight.

If you have a D7000 I can't imagine needing to upgrade now, but I guess everybody has different needs.


Check it out, when the D400 comes out all of those impatient semi-pros who bought D7100's will sell them to us for really cheap. That might be worth waiting for.

think i'll wait for the D7900 :-D

there will always be something better on the way, you can end up waiting n waiting

pixd90 said:

pixd90 said:

Bajerunner wrote:

pixd90 said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

I agree the D400 is very likely. I dont think it will have the same sensor though, I would think an 20mp sensor with higher native ISO range, similar build to D300 (D800) or D2X, improved AF and video , much bigger buffer to support 8fps and cost about 1,700.

Some may think that is just short of the D600 money, but the additional dollars also buys better build quality in components. That is important vs such as D7100 & D600.

Click to expand...

True, but the D400 will be a pro-camera. To me this means that your skills are at a level that you are ready to take the plunge into FX. The two major considerations would be the cost of glass and the weight factor. If the D600 did not have the reported problems I would have purchased one by now. I am not the type to flip a coin hoping to get a good copy or asking for problems. Also being over 65 I do not think I will be doing many more upgrades.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat. I am not a pro but have a 300 because I wanted a camera with controls like that etc. that said, I would love to go full frame...but the cost especially considering glass is prohibitive. I I ever do it, I will have to buy used (as I did with d300) ... Very used. However I can see that if you are willing to drop the full Msrp on a new d400 then maybe ff is not too far out of reach and in that case maybe I would be tempted to buy.

pixd90 said:

pixd90 wrote:

pixd90 said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

So lets say the D400 comes out priced about $1700+. Now you are about $3-400 away from a FX D600. Why not wait for a D600S which cures the oil problems. Seems there is always a reason for waiting for the next upgrade. As for myslef, will wait for June/July than decide.

Click to expand...

You can already buy a refurbished d600 for around $1600. You can find some used d700's with high shutter count/use for around $1200. That has nothing to do with whether or not one should buy FX or the d7100 or the hypothetical d400. FX isn't magic nor does it require one to be a pro to use an FX camera. The sensor size is just one of many features on any given camera that makes up its price and suitability to task. For example, the d7100 has the pixel density of a 54mp FX camera, which is a big deal to those using long telephotos.

You need to look at the complete feature set of each camera and how that feature set works for your needs. Right now, the DX d7100 has higher pixel density, much better AF and newer technology on the sensor, than the d600. IIRC, it also has a slightly higher frame rate than the d600. This makes the camera very good for long telephoto work which is important for sports and wildlife shooters.


OTOH, the d600 has better high ISO performance, but less capable AF, which means that it is good for general purpose, normal to short telephoto work. The d700 has slightly less high ISO, but much better AF, buffer, FPS, body and other features. Personally, I'd buy a used d700 before I'd buy a d600. But, that's because it has the features and performance that I want.


The price has nothing to do with whether or not a given camera is well suited to a person's needs. There will be many people buying the d7100 and the d400 if one is made, who already own a d800 or d600.

If you just want FX because you want FX, that's fine, but you shouldn't be surprised when other folks find that a DX camera is better suited to their needs, even when it costs more than FX.

The bottom line is that a camera is much, much more than just DX vs FX and price.

Kerry

pixd90 said:

pixd90 wrote:

pixd90 said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

So lets say the D400 comes out priced about $1700+. Now you are about $3-400 away from a FX D600. Why not wait for a D600S which cures the oil problems. Seems there is always a reason for waiting for the next upgrade. As for myslef, will wait for June/July than decide.

Click to expand...

Just because a camera is FF does NOT mean it's an "upgrade".

pixd90 said:

pixd90 wrote:

pixd90 said:

Bajerunner wrote:

pixd90 said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

I agree the D400 is very likely. I dont think it will have the same sensor though, I would think an 20mp sensor with higher native ISO range, similar build to D300 (D800) or D2X, improved AF and video , much bigger buffer to support 8fps and cost about 1,700.

Some may think that is just short of the D600 money, but the additional dollars also buys better build quality in components. That is important vs such as D7100 & D600.

Click to expand...

True, but the D400 will be a pro-camera. To me this means that your skills are at a level...What ??? you must be kidding...

Click to expand...

pixd90 said:

that you are ready to take the plunge into FX. The two major considerations would be the cost of glass and the weight factor. If the D600 did not have the reported problems I would have purchased one by now. I am not the type to flip a coin hoping to get a good copy or asking for problems. Also being over 65 I do not think I will be doing many more upgrades.

Click to expand...

Advance ?? into something that you don't want ? When are the FF/35mm ppl gonna find out that it is not an advance for many ppl, but a regression ? really ...think about it. If we wanted FF, we'd go there.

nfpotter said:

Just because a camera is FF does NOT mean it's an "upgrade".

Click to expand...

I agree 100% here. The D7100 seems to be capable of taking pictures which for many will be more than adequate. The D600 takes better pictures than the D7100 as it is FF, but the D7100 has some key areas that are superior to the D600, such as AF and some less-vital-but-useful features such as bracketing, frame rate, LCD, OLED VF display. Cameras are more than just a sensor in a box, one can argue that the better AF of the D7100 would be more useful to many than FF and better DR and ISO on the D600.

codeNsnap said:

codeNsnap wrote:

I was going to upgrade to the D7100 from my D7000, but now feel that the fact that Nikon has given this 24 MP camera with 6FPS an average buffer size makes me think that there is a room for D400 or D310. It could turn out to be a useless wait but my gut tells me there will be a more advanced/more expensive/more pro Nikon DX DSLR this year. Nikon will probably sell less numbers of those DSLRs but since most of the bits like the sensor will carry over from the D7100 it may be within the margin for them. Another reason is that that email from Nikon that floated around where the Nikon rep said that the D7100 was not a replacement for D300S.

Anyone else who thinks the same ?

Besides I'm just an enthusiast shooting family/birds/mammals and my D7000 has me covered 90% of the time.

Nice too the positive reviews about the D7100.

Click to expand...

i am also holding back on the d7100. i cannot justify the "upgrade" over the d7000 regarding image quality.

also, the minor issues of fine grain being more apparent, small buffer size and banding when pushing the shadows are also putting me off. diffraction at small apertures is a worry too as i shoot a lot of macro in often shady , breezy conditions.

then again, it seems to be great for birding with its fast focus and fine detail.