The best DX camera in the world

Started Nov 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: The best DX camera in the world

jfriend00 wrote:

Richard Murdey wrote:

Nikon Convert wrote:

The D7100 is a great camera, but the extremely poor buffer is a real drawback and the smaller body size is a turn off for many.

I am absolutely certain that Nikon can no longer overlook the fact that the best DX DSLR in the world would be the most cost effective, most profit bearing and most eagerly anticipated product that they could possibly bring to the market.

Let us fantasy-design this hypothetical D400:

It looks like a D300. It has perhaps 18 or 24 megapixels, 6-7 fps, and, perhaps most importantly, a class-leading frame buffer. Dual SD slots. The usual video and liveview suspects. And while we are at it, built-in wifi and GPS.

By any credible analysis, the retail price of such a body would be $1999 US.

I'm sure some people would be interested. We can argue about whether those numbers would be bigger or smaller than the market for the Df, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would be small relative to the D600, 6D, a7. The value proposition is simply not there. I can imagine the reviews already...

It makes more sense for Nikon to come out with a D7300 with improved buffer and maybe GPS-wifi. Features which don't add much to the manufacturing costs, but would satisfy most of the remaining D400 holdouts.

Not sure how you get the value proposition being lower than the D600. Other than the high ISO performance or narrow DOF, it would have better specs than the D600 in almost every other way (build, controls, fps, buffer, etc...). In many ways, that's much better value than the D600. That's what DX is for - more bang for the buck for less money. Look at the D7100 vs. D610. You get basically the same body and features with better AF in the D7100 for $800 less. DX is where the value is. You pay more for less with FX except for the larger sensor.

So, if you've determined that you don't need an FX sensor, then the D400 would be a way better value than the D600 - offering you a bunch of capabilities the D600 doesn't have (better AF, faster fps, larger buffer, high pixel density, etc...).

I would agree with that. The three 'actual imaging effect' things the 'D400' would have over say the D610 are  -pixel density, fps, focusing speed and accuracy.

The non 'imaging' advantages but advantages nonetheless are : build quality and component quality (better shutter/ mirror mechanisms, better processors, weather sealing, reliability due to the better quality, possibly better viewfinder, certainly at the DX imaging.

The ONE advantage of the D610 would be high ISO shooting. Some may claim depth of field variability/ play, but how many really usually shoot paper thing DOF , possible anyway with the right lens even on DX.

Maybe some dynamic range gain yes, but the K3/ D7100 seem to have that covered i.e. latest sensor.

Thus, if the 'D400' can shoot at ISO 3200 comfortably, it will be a winner. The D7100 /K3 may not be able to compete with the D610 there, but they are pretty good, judging from the images I have seen on this site.

But yes, if one is solely after high ISO shooting, a FF still has the advantage, but that is the only advantage.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow