Is this why no D400?

Started Mar 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
G Davidson Regular Member • Posts: 166
Re: Is this why no D400?

azguy wrote:

I now believe that with the addition of features that the D300 does not have to the D7000 and then the D7100 (sensor, better video, smaller size, quieter, etc.), plus the lower price full frame bodies such as the D160 "coming down from the top", that the D300 series is being squeezed out and won't be replaced. Sorry, but I think it is true.

It may be true, but it's also wrong.  That is to say, there are many features the D7000/D7100 and D600/D610 don't have that the D300 has and a D400 would have, so what we in fact have is the lowest priced camera you can buy that has a (semi?) pro body is the D800 which costs about $3000.  The way I see it, that's not a D400 being squeezed out, but rather a huge hole in Nikon's line-up that should be filled.

Well to my mind, of course there will be a D400 (some day). Just look at the Pentax K3 for an indication of what it might perform like. There are simply no fast, pro-specced FX bodies other than the D4. Hence a D400 being an obvious option for sports/ wildlife.

It would need to be better than the D7100, probably having a better sensor, perhaps that is the hold-up.

 G Davidson's gear list:G Davidson's gear list
Nikon D610
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow