Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

Started Apr 8, 2013 | Discussions
Arree
Arree Senior Member • Posts: 1,535
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
6

thomas2279f wrote:

Interesting read - agree that Nikon should develop a pro Video line like Sony & Canon

Personally i never understand why to put video in a camera made for shooting pics.

If I ever wanted a video camera I should buy a sony, they have more experience with video, and I believe most of us see video on  a nikoncamera more as a catched to try out few times then as a well develloped part of a photocamera.

Ok some moms and dads might use it more often but then you have to ask again do they really need a D400 ?

I do not think so, I know it is just an opinion.

I use my Phone for calling, SMS, I never even tried to make a photo, why should I ?

I have a D300

why should I use internet on a mobilephone screen if a computer or laptop give me a much better view ?

Just give me a higher/lower ISO camera, some more MP`s 16-20would be fine for me, ofcourse some extra fps(though I do not really need it) and improved AF .

Call me oldfashioned if you want, but we all get older, need glasses, these days it looks like they only make electronics for youngsters while the population in this world becomes older.

 Arree's gear list:Arree's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
OP jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,567
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
1

Arree wrote:

thomas2279f wrote:

Interesting read - agree that Nikon should develop a pro Video line like Sony & Canon

Personally i never understand why to put video in a camera made for shooting pics.

If I ever wanted a video camera I should buy a sony, they have more experience with video, and I believe most of us see video on  a nikoncamera more as a catched to try out few times then as a well develloped part of a photocamera.

Once you've invested in some phenomenal large aperture lenses that you spent thousands on, you might think differently about wanting to use them for video in some circumstances.

Ok some moms and dads might use it more often but then you have to ask again do they really need a D400 ?

I do not think so, I know it is just an opinion.

I use my Phone for calling, SMS, I never even tried to make a photo, why should I ?

Well, see if you can convince hundreds of millions of people who take photos with their phone ever day.  Do you honestly have your D300 with you at all times.  I don't.  So, when I don't, I take photos with my phone.

why should I use internet on a mobilephone screen if a computer or laptop give me a much better view ?

Because you don't have a laptop or computer connected to the internet when you're out and about, but your phone is connected to the internet.  Again, look around, mobile internet access is the fastest growing method of internet access in the world.

Just give me a higher/lower ISO camera, some more MP`s 16-20would be fine for me, ofcourse some extra fps(though I do not really need it) and improved AF .

Call me oldfashioned if you want, but we all get older, need glasses, these days it looks like they only make electronics for youngsters while the population in this world becomes older.

"Youngsters" as a group buy more tech devices than those of us who are a bit older.  That doesn't mean that you and I don't, just that our age group as general doesn't buy as much of this stuff thus we aren't targeted as much.  If you're not accessing the internet on your phone, then I guess you're an example of one who isn't using the latest tech for getting on the internet when mobile.

-- hide signature --
Vince P
Vince P Senior Member • Posts: 1,852
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

ScottRH wrote:

>Think the XQD go like the Betamax and mini-disk format into oblivion...

Agree on that point.

I have no real use for it and I find it is a bit of a pain on the D4. I would rather have twin CF but failing that twin XQD I personally find CF and SD useful on the D300s for my personal use but I doubt that is very typical. XQD as a format or something like it is required. SD and CF etc. can't write raw video even at 1080p let alone the higher formats that are coming through so there is a requirement. There will be the same should they shouldn't they arguments re video on a DSLR of course all I will say is 8mp at 48FPS would have a lot of use for action togs.

 Vince P's gear list:Vince P's gear list
Sony RX100 V Nikon D5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic GH5 Nikon D850 +61 more
Arree
Arree Senior Member • Posts: 1,535
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

jfriend00 wrote:

Arree wrote:

thomas2279f wrote:

Interesting read - agree that Nikon should develop a pro Video line like Sony & Canon

Personally i never understand why to put video in a camera made for shooting pics.

If I ever wanted a video camera I should buy a sony, they have more experience with video, and I believe most of us see video on  a nikoncamera more as a catched to try out few times then as a well develloped part of a photocamera.

Once you've invested in some phenomenal large aperture lenses that you spent thousands on, you might think differently about wanting to use them for video in some circumstances.

And only for that reason you need to have video in ALL nikon camera`s ?

I do not think so.

Ok some moms and dads might use it more often but then you have to ask again do they really need a D400 ?

I do not think so, I know it is just an opinion.

I use my Phone for calling, SMS, I never even tried to make a photo, why should I ?

Well, see if you can convince hundreds of millions of people who take photos with their phone ever day.  Do you honestly have your D300 with you at all times.  I don't.  So, when I don't, I take photos with my phone.

Ofcourse, marketing is very good these days but we forgotten the times we didn`t had mobiles, computers we just went home for using the internet.

When I look around me I see young people , only gazing at their small mobilescreens.

OK we have all the information we need at our fingertips but at what price ?

Lack of verbal communication, the youth want it all and now .

No patience, for what ?

why should I use internet on a mobilephone screen if a computer or laptop give me a much better view ?

Because you don't have a laptop or computer connected to the internet when you're out and about, but your phone is connected to the internet.  Again, look around, mobile internet access is the fastest growing method of internet access in the world.

I doubt it will make you smarter if you have unlimited acces to the information you need.

You really think few hours before you can use a computer will make a difference ??

I do not think so...

Just give me a higher/lower ISO camera, some more MP`s 16-20would be fine for me, ofcourse some extra fps(though I do not really need it) and improved AF .

Call me oldfashioned if you want, but we all get older, need glasses, these days it looks like they only make electronics for youngsters while the population in this world becomes older.

"Youngsters" as a group buy more tech devices than those of us who are a bit older.  That doesn't mean that you and I don't, just that our age group as general doesn't buy as much of this stuff thus we aren't targeted as much.  If you're not accessing the internet on your phone, then I guess you're an example of one who isn't using the latest tech for getting on the internet when mobile.

Yep, if the marketeers targed the older generation with some products, there might become a point in time where they sell more to us then to the younger generation.

These products obviously not the highest tech, but easier to use for us older people, I do not believe lower tech means low quality internetinfo, ofcourse I am not a programmer but these days everything needs to go faster, dataquality remains the same, is`nt it ?

-- hide signature --
 Arree's gear list:Arree's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
OP jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,567
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

Arree wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Arree wrote:

thomas2279f wrote:

Interesting read - agree that Nikon should develop a pro Video line like Sony & Canon

Personally i never understand why to put video in a camera made for shooting pics.

If I ever wanted a video camera I should buy a sony, they have more experience with video, and I believe most of us see video on  a nikoncamera more as a catched to try out few times then as a well develloped part of a photocamera.

Once you've invested in some phenomenal large aperture lenses that you spent thousands on, you might think differently about wanting to use them for video in some circumstances.

And only for that reason you need to have video in ALL nikon camera`s ?

I do not think so.

Once Nikon has developed the technology for one camera, it costs little more than a button to put it in all the cameras.  And, Nikon knows they will sell more cameras if they have video than if they don't.

Ok some moms and dads might use it more often but then you have to ask again do they really need a D400 ?

I do not think so, I know it is just an opinion.

I use my Phone for calling, SMS, I never even tried to make a photo, why should I ?

Well, see if you can convince hundreds of millions of people who take photos with their phone ever day.  Do you honestly have your D300 with you at all times.  I don't.  So, when I don't, I take photos with my phone.

Ofcourse, marketing is very good these days but we forgotten the times we didn`t had mobiles, computers we just went home for using the internet.

When I look around me I see young people , only gazing at their small mobilescreens.

OK we have all the information we need at our fingertips but at what price ?

Lack of verbal communication, the youth want it all and now .

No patience, for what ?

You are showing exactly why mobile products are not targeted at you.  You're not interested in them.  The youth (and many others) are interested in them.  One could reverse your question and say why wait until you get home to look something up on the internet if you can do it just fine where you are on your phone?

why should I use internet on a mobilephone screen if a computer or laptop give me a much better view ?

Because you don't have a laptop or computer connected to the internet when you're out and about, but your phone is connected to the internet.  Again, look around, mobile internet access is the fastest growing method of internet access in the world.

I doubt it will make you smarter if you have unlimited acces to the information you need.

You really think few hours before you can use a computer will make a difference ??

I do not think so...

It makes a difference for me all the time.  From my phone, I just used GPS, maps and restaurant and store lookups multiple times a day on a recent trip.

Just give me a higher/lower ISO camera, some more MP`s 16-20would be fine for me, ofcourse some extra fps(though I do not really need it) and improved AF .

Call me oldfashioned if you want, but we all get older, need glasses, these days it looks like they only make electronics for youngsters while the population in this world becomes older.

"Youngsters" as a group buy more tech devices than those of us who are a bit older.  That doesn't mean that you and I don't, just that our age group as general doesn't buy as much of this stuff thus we aren't targeted as much.  If you're not accessing the internet on your phone, then I guess you're an example of one who isn't using the latest tech for getting on the internet when mobile.

Yep, if the marketeers targed the older generation with some products, there might become a point in time where they sell more to us then to the younger generation.

These products obviously not the highest tech, but easier to use for us older people, I do not believe lower tech means low quality internetinfo, ofcourse I am not a programmer but these days everything needs to go faster, dataquality remains the same

How would a mobile product need to be different to work for you vs. for the youth?

-- hide signature --
Arree
Arree Senior Member • Posts: 1,535
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

jfriend00 wrote:

Arree wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Arree wrote:

thomas2279f wrote:

Interesting read - agree that Nikon should develop a pro Video line like Sony & Canon

Personally i never understand why to put video in a camera made for shooting pics.

If I ever wanted a video camera I should buy a sony, they have more experience with video, and I believe most of us see video on  a nikoncamera more as a catched to try out few times then as a well develloped part of a photocamera.

Once you've invested in some phenomenal large aperture lenses that you spent thousands on, you might think differently about wanting to use them for video in some circumstances.

And only for that reason you need to have video in ALL nikon camera`s ?

I do not think so.

Once Nikon has developed the technology for one camera, it costs little more than a button to put it in all the cameras.  And, Nikon knows they will sell more cameras if they have video than if they don't.

Ok some moms and dads might use it more often but then you have to ask again do they really need a D400 ?

I do not think so, I know it is just an opinion.

I use my Phone for calling, SMS, I never even tried to make a photo, why should I ?

Well, see if you can convince hundreds of millions of people who take photos with their phone ever day.  Do you honestly have your D300 with you at all times.  I don't.  So, when I don't, I take photos with my phone.

Ofcourse, marketing is very good these days but we forgotten the times we didn`t had mobiles, computers we just went home for using the internet.

When I look around me I see young people , only gazing at their small mobilescreens.

OK we have all the information we need at our fingertips but at what price ?

Lack of verbal communication, the youth want it all and now .

No patience, for what ?

You are showing exactly why mobile products are not targeted at you.  You're not interested in them.  The youth (and many others) are interested in them.  One could reverse your question and say why wait until you get home to look something up on the internet if you can do it just fine where you are on your phone?

why should I use internet on a mobilephone screen if a computer or laptop give me a much better view ?

Because you don't have a laptop or computer connected to the internet when you're out and about, but your phone is connected to the internet.  Again, look around, mobile internet access is the fastest growing method of internet access in the world.

I doubt it will make you smarter if you have unlimited acces to the information you need.

You really think few hours before you can use a computer will make a difference ??

I do not think so...

It makes a difference for me all the time.  From my phone, I just used GPS, maps and restaurant and store lookups multiple times a day on a recent trip.

Just give me a higher/lower ISO camera, some more MP`s 16-20would be fine for me, ofcourse some extra fps(though I do not really need it) and improved AF .

Call me oldfashioned if you want, but we all get older, need glasses, these days it looks like they only make electronics for youngsters while the population in this world becomes older.

"Youngsters" as a group buy more tech devices than those of us who are a bit older.  That doesn't mean that you and I don't, just that our age group as general doesn't buy as much of this stuff thus we aren't targeted as much.  If you're not accessing the internet on your phone, then I guess you're an example of one who isn't using the latest tech for getting on the internet when mobile.

Yep, if the marketeers targed the older generation with some products, there might become a point in time where they sell more to us then to the younger generation.

These products obviously not the highest tech, but easier to use for us older people, I do not believe lower tech means low quality internetinfo, ofcourse I am not a programmer but these days everything needs to go faster, dataquality remains the same

How would a mobile product need to be different to work for you vs. for the youth?

Not for me, for our generation, and it will take much more brainpower then i have to figure that out.

If I need to go on a  trip I make sure I am prepared, if I have no Tom-tom i make a print-out google/google maps is perfect, ofcourse america is bigger and not all parts are populated, in Europe and here in Asia everything is easy to find, there is always an internetcafe, or I just ask.

I understand your points, i not entirely agree, but you give me some things to think about.

Take care,

Arree

 Arree's gear list:Arree's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Sammy Yousef
Sammy Yousef Veteran Member • Posts: 4,642
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
6

Arree wrote:

I use my Phone for calling, SMS, I never even tried to make a photo, why should I ?

I have a D300

Must be murder carrying the D300 in your shirt pocket

why should I use internet on a mobilephone screen if a computer or laptop give me a much better view ?

Because it's always with you and sometimes a mobile view is more than enough. Anything more serious I agree - I wait till I get home.

Call me oldfashioned if you want, but we all get older, need glasses, these days it looks like they only make electronics for youngsters while the population in this world becomes older.

Stop trying to fit a pro DSLR in your shirt pocket, old man

^^^^ Meant in jest.

I'll be grumpy and set in my ways myself before too much longer. They're talking about the death of the PC. That would make me grumpy. If others want dinky toy tablets and do nothing other than view media, email and play touch screen games, that's fine, but I want to do much more with a computer than that.

-- hide signature --

Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.

DaveR43 Senior Member • Posts: 1,218
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400 - Electronic shutter and wildlife photos

Further thought on the electronic shutter option that Thom Hogan suggested - it would be ideal for wildlife photography - once the mirror is up there would be no further noise from the camera as you take photos with the 1.3 crop to double the effective focal length...

-- hide signature --

DaveR

 DaveR43's gear list:DaveR43's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Nikon D300S Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +13 more
dw1 Regular Member • Posts: 210
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

yray wrote:

Keith Aitken wrote:

I do wonder whether a D400 will be as revolutionary as the D300 in its day, or whether it will launch along the more evolutionary D3 to D4 transition. I mean, how much better can things get ?

I think we already know what kind of IQ we can expect from the D400, just look at the D7100. I think it is pretty good, I don't think it is revolutionary.

With everything else you'll be splitting hairs comparing it to the D300, unless video and various bells and whistles matter to you a lot. In fact, most people looking forward to D400 probably don't want anything else changed from D300, lest Nikon ruin it with improvements.

I doubt this will be a game changer, I just don't see how can it be. Even if Nikon figured out how to make it shoot 30 frames a second -- do you really need it?

I actually do think this is going to be a game changer much like the D300.  It's just taken too long to replace. I don't think incremental improvements are on the way.  Wow type stuff is coming...

Game changer I say!

 dw1's gear list:dw1's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II
krikman Regular Member • Posts: 418
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

I doubt this will be a game changer, I just don't see how can it be. Even if Nikon figured out how to make it shoot 30 frames a second -- do you really need it?

I actually do think this is going to be a game changer much like the D300.  It's just taken too long to replace. I don't think incremental improvements are on the way.  Wow type stuff is coming...

Game changer I say!

Yes. Because d7100 already better body than d300s was. It's better in all and every aspect (except obsolete flash sync and 10-pin). It have more direct controls than D300s and perfect for all-round and travel. I've lust for d400 until d7100 arrival and can say it isn't downgrade in any aspect. So D400 won't be just 24MP DX in D800 body (Already D800 is 15 MP D400).

But what't interesting is HOW d400 can change game?

Today engineering can make just anything, but imagination still stays behind.

dw1 Regular Member • Posts: 210
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

krikman wrote:

I doubt this will be a game changer, I just don't see how can it be. Even if Nikon figured out how to make it shoot 30 frames a second -- do you really need it?

I actually do think this is going to be a game changer much like the D300.  It's just taken too long to replace. I don't think incremental improvements are on the way.  Wow type stuff is coming...

Game changer I say!

Yes. Because d7100 already better body than d300s was. It's better in all and every aspect (except obsolete flash sync and 10-pin). It have more direct controls than D300s and perfect for all-round and travel. I've lust for d400 until d7100 arrival and can say it isn't downgrade in any aspect. So D400 won't be just 24MP DX in D800 body (Already D800 is 15 MP D400).

But what't interesting is HOW d400 can change game?

Today engineering can make just anything, but imagination still stays behind.

I used to do quite a bit of sports... so maybe even though now I don't need what I think a D400 will have and just settle for a D7100... I think if I buy a D7100 I'm going to end up kicking myself... and that hurts!

 dw1's gear list:dw1's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II
n057 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,484
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

krikman wrote:

It have more direct controls than D300s

Are you saying that the D7100 has more direct controls than the D300s?

Can you elaborate?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +7 more
ragspix Senior Member • Posts: 1,030
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

dw1 wrote:

yray wrote:

Keith Aitken wrote:

I do wonder whether a D400 will be as revolutionary as the D300 in its day, or whether it will launch along the more evolutionary D3 to D4 transition. I mean, how much better can things get ?

I think we already know what kind of IQ we can expect from the D400, just look at the D7100. I think it is pretty good, I don't think it is revolutionary.

With everything else you'll be splitting hairs comparing it to the D300, unless video and various bells and whistles matter to you a lot. In fact, most people looking forward to D400 probably don't want anything else changed from D300, lest Nikon ruin it with improvements.

I doubt this will be a game changer, I just don't see how can it be. Even if Nikon figured out how to make it shoot 30 frames a second -- do you really need it?

I actually do think this is going to be a game changer much like the D300.  It's just taken too long to replace. I don't think incremental improvements are on the way.  Wow type stuff is coming...

Game changer I say!

I say that too...

If they can get the EVF worked out with high fps and with the AF speed of the Nikon 1 series, it will be revolutionary

Rags

Dean Lapinel Regular Member • Posts: 477
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

Exactly JC-

You do have to really understand the art of photography as opposed to picture taking to need direct controls though. I love my wife's 5100 image capture ability (especially at high ISO) but the menu thing to use the camera drives me nuts.

redhed17
redhed17 Senior Member • Posts: 1,775
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

krikman wrote:

I doubt this will be a game changer, I just don't see how can it be. Even if Nikon figured out how to make it shoot 30 frames a second -- do you really need it?

I actually do think this is going to be a game changer much like the D300.  It's just taken too long to replace. I don't think incremental improvements are on the way.  Wow type stuff is coming...

Game changer I say!

Yes. Because d7100 already better body than d300s was. It's better in all and every aspect (except obsolete flash sync and 10-pin). It have more direct controls than D300s and perfect for all-round and travel. I've lust for d400 until d7100 arrival and can say it isn't downgrade in any aspect. So D400 won't be just 24MP DX in D800 body (Already D800 is 15 MP D400).

But what't interesting is HOW d400 can change game?

Today engineering can make just anything, but imagination still stays behind.

Whether it is a better body is debatable. The D7000's body wasn't better than the D300S for me, but haven't had a chance to play with the D7100. I can't see it being that much of an improvement from the previews I've seen so far.

It is not just the body where it is lacking, but mainly in the performance. I don't want to take a step down in frames per second and buffer size. Any thing that comes to replace something, if indeed that is what the D7100 is supposed to do, replace the D7000 and D300S, then in shouldn't be any worse than what it replaces imho. Here's the new Porsche 911, it doesn't go as fast as the old version, and the 0-60 time is a bit slower, but it's got the same gear box and suspension. (and a whole new body ;)) Er, I don't think so.

I've gone from thinking there will be a D400 to not so many times, that I'm getting fed up withh Nikon for doing nothing. Just say yay or nay.

I hope Tom is right and there will be something announced in the Summer, but I can't help thinking there is less and less for them to do to it to make it stand out at the top of the DX tree. The D300 (and D3 and D700 from about the same time) was such a revolutionary camera that Nikon would find it hard to make the same impact. They now seem to to be on the Canon slow evolutionary jumps, rather than leaps, but seem to have got on the pixel war bandwagon. Maybe there isn't the option to make a leap. :-/

Glad I still love my D300S.

I would like something to upgrade from the D300S in the long term though, if not a D400, or a D7200 if they make that attractive enough in the future, then a Canon 7DII may be my upgrade route. If that even exists and appears. And assuming Canon don't mess that up too. lol

 redhed17's gear list:redhed17's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E
olliess Senior Member • Posts: 1,349
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
2

redhed17 wrote:

I hope Tom is right and there will be something announced in the Summer, but I can't help thinking there is less and less for them to do to it to make it stand out at the top of the DX tree. The D300 (and D3 and D700 from about the same time) was such a revolutionary camera that Nikon would find it hard to make the same impact.

Thom Hogan seems to hope for a return of the D3/D300 glory days, when you could get much of the functionality and image quality of the D3, but with the DX sensor and body for a little more than 1/3 the price. Clearly for many advanced amateurs and pros, DX was the smart choice.

I think the DX argument lost a lot of weight a long time ago with the release of the D700, where you basically got last year's FX sensor in the (then-)current "pro DX" body style for $3000 vs. $1800. That isn't so expensive when you consider the wide-angle and low-light advantages of the full frame sensor (virtual upgrade of your pro f/4 mid zoom to a f/2.8 wide zoom!). Other examples abound (imagine buying everyone's current favorite 35 mm/1.4 lens and putting it on a DX body to get the equivalent of... a 50/2.0).

As sensors continue to develop each year, the gap only gets smaller. I'd suggest that the D600 is priced at $800 above the D7100 due to marketing, not because the parts cost is anywhere near that. I was one of the people waiting for many years for the D300/300s replacement, but I'm thinking that perhaps that ship has already sailed. And the longer we go without a D400, the sense it seems to make. When the FX sensor is a small enough fraction of the total cost, then why skimp when you're paying for the other pro parts (construction, shutter mechanism, pentaprism, buffer, etc.) anyway?

What might make more sense, as others have already suggested, would be to introduce a new camera above the D600, maybe a "D800h" using "last year's" 24 MP sensor. A bold combination might be to release such a camera while moving the D600 or its successor downmarket, into the heart of the prosumer DX price bracket.

krikman Regular Member • Posts: 418
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
Whether it is a better body is debatable. The D7000's body wasn't better than the D300S for me, but haven't had a chance to play with the D7100. I can't see it being that much of an improvement from the previews I've seen so far.

I bought D7100 while lookin' for d300s replacement. Better and only suitable replacement was D4, I fell in love with it after just 10 minutes with and few shots in difficult lighting. Sadly it is out of my budget.

Then I tried D800 which is a direct replacement (It is true D400). Nice body and feel after d300,  but copy I tried wasn't right with AF and very poor color performance at hi-iso, after d4!

My handheld D600 was superfast and precisious with centerpoint AF, had slightly better hi-iso. But place I live is well out of certified Nikon centers and I can't agree to send body for cleaning 1000 miles away just after purchase. Also bad tracking abilities after D300.

The most wanted feature of these bodies was new lens-specific auto-iso, because I do reportages with zooms and badly suffer from smashing photos in bad lighting, while change from 12-24 to 70-300. One time I ever think about d5200 ;(

Then comes D7100. It is too early to make conclusions, but the only thing I lose is PC-Sync. But D300s still here for studio flash control. Yet I found no AF Release+Focus priority mode but wait how it will prove in reality.

From speedpoint D7100 definitely need a fastet and biggest available card like Sandisk Pro 95 64GB. (One day I've made 4000 shots with d300s). Anyway most shots with d300s was 14-bit 2fps.

D7000 never focused my attenton so I can't talk about it.

I would like something to upgrade from the D300S in the long term though, if not a D400, or a D7200 if they make that attractive enough in the future, then a Canon 7DII may be my upgrade route. If that even exists and appears. And assuming Canon don't mess that up too. lol

Just think about D7100 as a true mini-D4, as I do. Responsible, precise, fast, accurate. Far better than D600.

n057 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,484
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

krikman wrote:

Just think about D7100 as a true mini-D4, as I do. Responsible, precise, fast, accurate. Far better than D600.

You still have not explained why you think the D7100 has more direct control than a D300 ...

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +7 more
redhed17
redhed17 Senior Member • Posts: 1,775
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
2

olliess wrote:

A bold combination might be to release such a camera while moving the D600 or its successor downmarket, into the heart of the prosumer DX price bracket.

People seem to think everyone wants full frame! I don't, and the number of people seemingly wanting a D400 points them wanting a high spec 'DX' camera.

Yes, I know DX was a compromise because of the cost of producing full frame sensors at the time, but for someone like me who does a bit of everything, from Landscape to Sports, and other bits and pieces, DX is perfect. I did consider at one point getting a D700, but that was in addition to the D300S, for low light ability and extra wide angles, but a burglary, and having to replace all my gear put paid to that. But to get the same view as my 70-300mm lens on a FX sensor would be quite expensive, it's a lot cheaper to buy an extra wide angle lens.

Nikon may believe that the World wants FX sensors, but not everyone does, or needs, a sensor that size. No doubt FX will be popular as prices come down, because what was out of reach, is now within reach for many. But if they don't produce a quality DX line, then hopefully other manufacturers will exploit the gap they leave.

And for all the hype about FX, it's still the DX cameras they are selling the most of by a long way, and that goes for all the other manufacturers too.

 redhed17's gear list:redhed17's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E
krikman Regular Member • Posts: 418
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

n057 wrote:

krikman wrote:

Just think about D7100 as a true mini-D4, as I do. Responsible, precise, fast, accurate. Far better than D600.

You still have not explained why you think the D7100 has more direct control than a D300 ...

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Before purchasing I carefully transfer my common scenario from D300s control to D7100.

1. My D300s banks were  as shooting:

1. 12-bit autoISO 1600 - for sports and fast.

2. 14-bit autoISO 800 - for quality

3. 14-bit No autoISO - for landscape

4. 14-bit autoISO 3200 - for lowlight

Custom settings were about focus

1. birding - 21 point R+F priority etc

2. portrait - 9 point release

3. Landscape - singlepoint

4 tripod - singlepoint + mirror pre-up

Now with intelligent AutoISO i can use U1 for handywork and U2 for tripod.

Also D7100 have dedicated bracketing button, so F-button reconfigured for Bracket burst and crop size. AEL button configure as AF-ON, half-pressing shutter button=AE-lock. Center joystick button=zoom to focuspoint.

What else I forgot from D300s? Total D300s have 2 less useful direct controls vs D7100.

Unused 10pin=much better IR remote.

PC-sync is only control that really bothers me but I somehow avoid it.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads