Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PhotoEcosse on January 14, 2014, 06:17:04 am
-
...so to speak.
Having decided, almost a year ago, that I wanted a Nikon DX body to augment my D800 and D800E and give me, as it were, the full kit (as far as bodies are concerned) I put off purchasing until the much-predicted D400 arrived.
Eventually, I gave up waiting and opted for a D7100 instead.
Having used it a for a bit, I have to say that I suspect we will never see a D400. There really would be no point. OK, the D7100 has lots of features that I will probably never use but then, with my FX cameras there are also features - such as movie mode and live view - that I don't use. That's not a problem. What is important is that, in terms of features that do matter to me - such as image quality, AF performance, etc - it is so far ahead of my previous DX model (a D300).
Other bonuses are the fact that it has a magnesium alloy body (rather than polycarbonate) and that it has the same dust- and water- proofing as the D800.
I have to add the caveat that I have used it, so far, almost exclusively with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII lens but, within that limitation, I can't see that it was worth waiting any longer for a D400. I am surprised, but pleased.
-
The only reason why a D400 might show up is the frame rate/buffer size I guess.
I have worked with a D7100 and the image quality is indeed remarkable, especially in terms of DR, file processability,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only reason why a D400 might show up is the frame rate/buffer size I guess.
I have worked with a D7100 and the image quality is indeed remarkable, especially in terms of DR, file processability,...
Cheers,
Bernard
interesting observation. How does the DR compare with that of your D800? Any significant real life difference?
-
I'm glad your happy with the D7100.
I still can't bring myself to compromise by getting a D7100. I would miss the pro features of my D300 too much. A strong lens mount, large buffer, higher fps, 10-pin, additional menu and button flexibility, etc.
Going full-frame isn't much of an option either since I would need two to three times the cash for lenses. (a used D700 or D3 would be tempting otherwise)
I hope they bring out a D400 first half of this year. But there appears to be no sign of it coming whatsoever.
-
I
I still can't bring myself to compromise by getting a D7100.
That's why I delayed, Jonathan. But what I am delighted about is that it has turned out not to be a compromise at all - but rather a very significant improvement. I must confess that I laboured under the misapprehension that the D7100 would be less "professional". For example, I thought it would have a polycarbonate body and less weatherproofing than the pro models. But, in fact, it is the same type of construction and proofing as my D800 and D800E. Compared to the D300, it is not so much that it is more "professional" in any sense - merely that it is so much more up-to-date in terms of the technology it employs.
I was prepared to be disappointed but delighted to discover that it is the opposite.
-
I don't know what type of shooting you do most, so I will ask the following: do you miss the larger buffer? do you miss the 10-pin (I use this for wireless remote)? What about putting big heavy lenses on the D7100? The front doesn't have magnesium alloy.
-
....by the way, in case you are wondering why a have three dSLR bodies, it is simply that I enjoy the luxury of having three lenses mounted and ready for immediate use.
My three most-used lenses are the Nikkor f/2.8 "Holy Trinity". I normally had the 14-24mm on the D800E and the 24-70mm on the D800. Now I also have the 70-200mm on the D7100 which seems to work really well.
Incidentally, I "wasted" £300 when I bought the D800E. In my photography styles/genres and at my standard output (usually not larger than A3+ prints), I genuinely cannot visually discern any difference in IQ between the D800 and the D800E.
The reason for the three bodies being purchased over a 2-year (almost) period is that, for the past 50 years I have had a rule that my hobbies have to pay for themselves, so I only buy photographic equipment after saving up royalties from my previous output.
-
I don't know what type of shooting you do most, so I will ask the following: do you miss the larger buffer? do you miss the 10-pin (I use this for wireless remote)? What about putting big heavy lenses on the D7100? The front doesn't have magnesium alloy.
Mainly landscapes, wildlife, street, still life and suchlike. The size of the buffer and the frame rate are not issues for me as I don't shoot sport or motorsport very much. Heavy lenses are not an issue as, when using big lenses (even the 70-200mm f/2.8 ) I always carry the assembly by the lens and have the tripod mount on the lens - so it is the weight of the camera body that is more significant than the weight of the lens. Haven't missed the 10-pin yet. (On my D800 and D800E I have 10-pin splitters so that I can use two accessories simulaneously but haven't needed that yet on the D7100). The "normal" accessory socket on the D7100 takes things like wireless remote, GPS, etc., perfectly satisfactorily. It also has the advantage of front and back IR sensors for an IR remote - don't know why Nikon left that out with the D800/E (and my D3s before them).
-
What is a D400….?
-
The "normal" accessory socket on the D7100 takes things like wireless remote, GPS, etc., perfectly satisfactorily. It also has the advantage of front and back IR sensors for an IR remote - don't know why Nikon left that out with the D800/E (and my D3s before them).
Well then the D7100 may at least be satisfactory for studio and landscape work. Then I would still have my D300 for daytime action & wildlife. But no low-light action cam...
-
What is a D400….?
Sarcastic or Serious?
-
Sarcastic or Serious?
Serious… I mean, i know many talk of a future Nikon D400, but what exactly are they talking about? D400 (if it will ever exist) will be an FX camera being labeled with 3-digits and starting with even number, as opposed to DX which are 4-digit and start with odd number, ….just a basic FX model lower than the D6xx line.
-
he he, when I saw the thread title, I thought you might announce that you have bought a Pentax K3.. ;D ;D
-
FWIW I also bought a D7100 and have been very impressed with the results.
In the studio I use a Sinar 54H. Location stuff goes to my Canon 5D MkII. I got tired of lugging the Canon around for personal work so I took a long shot and bought a D7100. Couldn't be happier. Great image quality, light weight, all the bells and whistles I need.
My buddy has a D3 and I couldn't imagine lugging that thing thru the city or the woods. I'd need a back brace in no time!!!!!
-
Serious… I mean, i know many talk of a future Nikon D400, but what exactly are they talking about? D400 (if it will ever exist) will be an FX camera being labeled with 3-digits and starting with even number, as opposed to DX which are 4-digit and start with odd number, ….just a basic FX model lower than the D6xx line.
You have your analysis of Nikon model numbers a bit mixed up.
Many of us thought that a D400 would be the natural successor to the D300s (which was the successor to the D300, which was the successor to the D200, .....)
D300 and D200 were DX
D700 was FX
But my point was that, having become impatient at waiting for the D400 DX Nikon, I finally caved-in and got a D7100 - and am very pleased to have done so.
-
You have your analysis of Nikon model numbers a bit mixed up.
Many of us thought that a D400 would be the natural successor to the D300s (which was the successor to the D300, which was the successor to the D200, .....)
D300 and D200 were DX
D700 was FX
But my point was that, having become impatient at waiting for the D400 DX Nikon, I finally caved-in and got a D7100 - and am very pleased to have done so.
All D300 , D200 & D700 where before D3000 all D3xxx, D5xxx, D7xxx, D6xx, D8xx are after D3000...
-
Yep, the D3000 was the milestone of the decline of the Empire.
-
A quick google couldn’t find anyone talking about a D400 as anything other than a D300 replacement, i.e. a pro-level DX camera. Nikon’s naming conventions are, of course, subject to change. But claims that a D400 will be FX are speculative, at best.
-
Calling D300's replacement (which in my opinion will never happen) a D400, is even more speculative, since all Nikon replacements in 5 years are are a second digit change… (i.e. d7000 - d7100, d600-d610)… Mind you that all cameras (but the "different" Df) of Nikon after D3000, follow the odd starting number - four digits =DX, even starting number - three digits = FX rule, all 14 of them with no exemption what so ever… At least one could refer to (possible) D300 replacement as a D9000… (that would make some sense). But certainly to expect Nikon as to change their policy is much less reasonable…. Nikon now has the most successful naming policy out of all makers - before D3000 it was a disaster..., they now can:
1. Make clear what is DX and what is FX to a new comer.
2. Attract more people to upgrade.
3. Avoid people confusing a DX user with an FX user.
4. Make generation (tech) advancement more obvious.
5. Create more "prestige" jealousy. (another reason to upgrade)
6. inform more people (people that are not into camera market) of their line.
….and many-many more, surely you don't expect them to through all this away, only by introducing a …D400 now, do you?
-
3. Avoid people confusing a DX user with an FX user.
Errmmmm.
I "upgraded" from a D80 to a D300. Then I "upgraded" from a D300 to a D3s. Then I "downgraded" from a D3s to a D800. Then I added a D800E. Then I added a D7100.
So, what would you confuse me with? And why should either I or Nikon care?
???
-
… i know many talk of a future Nikon D400, but what exactly are they talking about?
Regardless of Nikon's model numbering conventions, the answer to this question is that:
"D400" has become a widely used internet forum nickname for a hoped-for successor of the Nikon D300S in the form of a top-of-the-line DX format model, not conceding any ground on features or build-quality to the D300S. The D7100 falls short of what these "D400 hopefuls" want, for defects like offering only 6fps vs the 7fps of the D300S.
-
Regardless of Nikon's model numbering conventions, the answer to this question is that:
"D400" has become a widely used internet forum nickname for a hoped-for successor of the Nikon D300S in the form of a top-of-the-line DX format model, not conceding any ground on features or build-quality to the D300S. The D7100 falls short of what these "D400 hopefuls" want, for defects like offering only 6fps vs the 7fps of the D300S.
Meaning something like DX sensor in D800 body right? …at what cost? Say 75% of the price? …what Canon's 7d sells with respect to 6D? Look at S/H prices… they show what is under demand and what is not… How about D300 S/H prices with respect to D7000 or D700? People have trouble selling their D300's at all… What about Canon not replacing D7? …It seems to me that there is little demand for a DX at a FF price… and it also seems that it's both Canon and Nikon marketing research getting the same info whenever they make their research for the price category, it simply seems that a (lesser build quality) FF would exceed an alternative expensive DX sales by far… and IMO they are right in their findings. Of course there is some market for such a camera, but it's not big enough for what large companies consider enough. IMO, D300 was only a camera to "connect" the past (dx - d2xs, d200), with the future (fx - d3) in the Nikon line, at that point it was a meaningful move, but ever since, things have changed a lot…
-
What is a D400? It is the Nikon pro-grade DX offering for the sport/action/wildlife/bird photographer , the equivalent of the famed Canon 7D2.
;D
D400 and its cousin 7D2 have been the subject of electron-wasters on various gear forums since before Photokina 2012. On the Canon side, the rumor-mongers pop up every CES (January), CP+ (February), Photokina (September, alternate years) and any other major trade show week.
-
What is a D400? It is the Nikon pro-grade DX offering for the sport/action/wildlife/bird photographer , the equivalent of the famed Canon 7D2.
;D
D400 and its cousin 7D2 have been the subject of electron-wasters on various gear forums since before Photokina 2012. On the Canon side, the rumor-mongers pop up every CES (January), CP+ (February), Photokina (September, alternate years) and any other major trade show week.
With Nikon it's worst…. there are a few multi name scams, that are talking with themselves to themselves in fake conversations every single day in two or three threads a day from 2010 onwards..., they've even managed to have a forum category in a major gear forum (it's supposed to be DX-pro dedicated) where the same people (about 40 "names" in total - which in reality are no more than 6-7 real beings) "discuss" the coming ( :P) "pro body DX camera" ( ???) endlessly to the end of time! >:(
-
Meaning something like DX sensor in D800 body right? …at what cost? Say 75% of the price?
I was just answering your question about what people mean when they talk about the mythical "Nikon D400", and what they are hoping for; I am not one of those people, and am not interested in debating whether such a camera will ever exist. [But my guess is that it never will.]
One note: a "D800 body" would not meet their wishes, because the D800 only does 4fps, whereas one feature of the D300 and D300S that these people want preserved in a "D400" is a high frame rate (at least the 7fps of the D300S) without the far higher price of the D4, which is the only high frame rate model from Nikon in recent years.
-
I'm in agreement with Mr Rimmel, but am losing hope. I don't want the heft or cost of FX but do need the ruggedness of a pro body (more rugged than a D7100) with the features Mr Rimmel outlined. A robust buffer definitely. And I'd like to see Nikon solve the green tint issue as well.
But the D400 may be a mirage that is beginning to fade, and in 2014 I may jump to Canon or Pentax or Olympus. (Admittedly Canon has lagged in replacing the 7D.)
I'm glad your happy with the D7100.
I still can't bring myself to compromise by getting a D7100. I would miss the pro features of my D300 too much. A strong lens mount, large buffer, higher fps, 10-pin, additional menu and button flexibility, etc.
Going full-frame isn't much of an option either since I would need two to three times the cash for lenses. (a used D700 or D3 would be tempting otherwise)
I hope they bring out a D400 first half of this year. But there appears to be no sign of it coming whatsoever.
-
I was just answering your question about what people mean when they talk about the mythical "Nikon D400", and what they are hoping for; I am not one of those people, and am not interested in debating whether such a camera will ever exist. [But my guess is that it never will.]
One note: a "D800 body" would not meet their wishes, because the D800 only does 4fps, whereas one feature of the D300 and D300S that these people want preserved in a "D400" is a high frame rate (at least the 7fps of the D300S) without the far higher price of the D4, which is the only high frame rate model from Nikon in recent years.
I'm sorry if you thought that I was referring to you… it was never my intention. My comment was aimed to show that there is no considerable market for such a camera, only "some" that are trying to make it look that there is…. Obviously, if Nef files of the D800 are smaller, the camera would be considerably faster…
-
One note: a "D800 body" would not meet their wishes, because the D800 only does 4fps, whereas one feature of the D300 and D300S that these people want preserved in a "D400" is a high frame rate (at least the 7fps of the D300S) without the far higher price of the D4, which is the only high frame rate model from Nikon in recent years.
As far as I know, a D800 with the grip it's a 6 fps 16 mpx D400 class body DX camera.
Great landscape camera in FX and not a bad wildlife camera in DX. If you need both worlds it's not a bad deal.
-
As far as I know, a D800 with the grip it's a 6 fps 16 mpx D400 class body DX camera.
Great landscape camera in FX and not a bad wildlife camera in DX. If you need both worlds it's not a bad deal.
That's not the case, the D800 is faster if one shoots in crop mode, but only in jpeg… If a crop mode is used with Nef (raw) files, only buffer capacity profits positively. Never the less, all wildlife serious shooters, either pros or artists that are publishing their images or exhibit them, are using FF cameras… (one can check that on web). Same happens with serious sports or reportage photographers. Obvioulsy, the high-iso advantage of FF that helps them freeze motion is more important to them than being able to "reach" at longer distances through a cropped sensor. Lets not forget that the combination of a VF with poorer visibility and extra distance, decreases capturing ability a lot and the extra bockeh of FF sensors, also helps for better images. Another thing to consider, is that smaller pixels also require better lenses, which of course rises cost… (some never mention this). In fact, the 300mm f4 which is quite popular among "long-reach" users, is better than the new 80-400 when used with a TC-14eii attached and is usable at full aperture (600mm f8) with even the TC-20Eiii attached on all FF cameras, but with a high pixel density DX, the use of TCs (especially of the TC-20Eiii) makes quality suffer…
-
There is a lot of comment here about the buffer and continius shooting rate of the D7100.
bearing in mind that the best quality jpegs from the D7100 will give you better image quality than Raws from the D300, at that setting the D7100 will machine gun 99 exposures at 6 frames per second.
Not up to D4 performance, but hey!
-
Never the less, all wildlife serious shooters, either pros or artists that are publishing their images or exhibit them, are using FF cameras… (one can check that on web).
Yeah, right, one can just go the LuLa Landscape and Nature forum and look at the exquisite bird photos by Glenn Bartley, which were taken with … a Canon 7D. And note that all of his 2014 workshops are full. But he can’t be “serious”, because he uses a 7D.
...and the extra bockeh of FF sensors, also helps for better images.
Sure thing. Nevermind that “bockeh" (sic) is lens quality, not a sensor quality, and that when using long telephotos, the difference in DoF between DX and FX is essentially nil.
-
Yeah, right, one can just go the LuLa Landscape and Nature forum and look at the exquisite bird photos by Glenn Bartley, which were taken with … a Canon 7D. And note that all of his 2014 workshops are full. But he can’t be “serious”, because he uses a 7D.
Sure thing. Nevermind that “bockeh" (sic) is lens quality, not a sensor quality, and that when using long telephotos, the difference in DoF between DX and FX is essentially nil.
The difference in DOF is about 1+1/3 of a stop for Nikon and about 1.5 stops for Canon, no matter if the lens is telephoto or whatever. What Glenn uses, doesn't change the rule… look at 7d sales with respect to 6d which is the subject here… Look at D300 S/H demand… (which is reflected on its price). Clearly, there is no market (anymore) for expensive APS-c as FF is getting cheaper by the year. I don't deny that there is some market… but it's not no where near enough to support the production of such a product.
-
There is a lot of comment here about the buffer and continius shooting rate of the D7100.
bearing in mind that the best quality jpegs from the D7100 will give you better image quality than Raws from the D300, at that setting the D7100 will machine gun 99 exposures at 6 frames per second.
Not up to D4 performance, but hey!
Interesting.
As someone who has never shot jpeg and never used the CL or CH release modes on any of my Nikons, I would not have sussed that. I mainly shoot landscape and wildlife where, obviously, those factors are pretty irrelevant.
However, it is good to know that I could if I wanted to.
-
Interesting.
As someone who has never shot jpeg and never used the CL or CH release modes on any of my Nikons, I would not have sussed that. I mainly shoot landscape and wildlife where, obviously, those factors are pretty irrelevant.
However, it is good to know that I could if I wanted to.
It's the Scottish air: I only once used the motor drive on my F2, and the financial implications of a couple of seconds of Kodachrome ecstacy made that a one-off, for all the good it was to me in my world! Made for a useful automatic film advance device, though.
Digital demands nothing faster of me, either.
;-(
Rob C
-
It's the Scottish air: I only once used the motor drive on my F2, and the financial implications of a couple of seconds of Kodachrome ecstacy made that a one-off, for all the good it was to me in my world! Made for a useful automatic film advance device, though.
Digital demands nothing faster of me, either.
;-(
Rob C
I guess it is all the practice with shotguns. If I can bring down a 70mph driven grouse with an ounce and an eighth of No.6 shot, capturing them on camera is no problem. It's all a question of forward allowance!! No need for "machine-gunning".
;)
-
I guess it is all the practice with shotguns. If I can bring down a 70mph driven grouse with an ounce and an eighth of No.6 shot, capturing them on camera is no problem. It's all a question of forward allowance!! No need for "machine-gunning".
;)
Not so fast! That's like shooting them with a wide-angle! Try with a .22 and see what you hit - apart from the steeple in the next village. I was having a brief Internet chat with a cousin who lived in Perthshire, and we were complaining about eyesight. He mentioned being able to bring down a hare with a shot to the throat at a hundred paces, but now he needs three different specs, one even so he can see to paint his pictures...
Rob C
-
he he, when I saw the thread title, I thought you might announce that you have bought a Pentax K3.. ;D ;D
You're not alone: ;)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/meanwhile-meet-the-pentax.html
-
You're not alone: ;)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/meanwhile-meet-the-pentax.html
Careful there! We are trying to keep this thing a secret! It sure is great to be able to use a camera that just creates images without all of the constant background noise.
Let "em duke it out while we enjoy the "quiet zone"
-
I guess it is all the practice with shotguns. If I can bring down a 70mph driven grouse with an ounce and an eighth of No.6 shot, capturing them on camera is no problem. It's all a question of forward allowance!! No need for "machine-gunning".
;)
2 1/2 inch chambered 100 year old side-by-side? London or Birmingham?
-
2 1/2 inch chambered 100 year old side-by-side? London or Birmingham?
On the Queen's highway? You'll get locked up for sure - or shot.
Rob C
-
Not so fast! That's like shooting them with a wide-angle! Try with a .22 and see what you hit - apart from the steeple in the next village. I was having a brief Internet chat with a cousin who lived in Perthshire, and we were complaining about eyesight. He mentioned being able to bring down a hare with a shot to the throat at a hundred paces, but now he needs three different specs, one even so he can see to paint his pictures...
Rob C
Rob,
I have just done the maths.
Shooting a typical shotgun cartridge from a half-choke barrel gives a pellet spread roughly equivalent to the angle of view from a 2500mm lens on an FX camera! Not exactly wide angle.
However, No.6 shot does take longer to reach the target than photons do - so less forward allowance required with a camera!
:)
2 1/2 inch chambered 100 year old side-by-side? London or Birmingham?
David,
Edinburgh. Dickson Round Action.
.
-
Very nice. Dickson is the equal of almost any London gun.
-
All the potential 7D customers with the wherewithal to buy a new body are holding out for the mythical 7D2. Most of the bargain hunting potential 7D customers have found their camera used, refurbished, whatever, for a thousand bucks or less. Some bargain hunters are waiting for the 7D2 announcement to snatch up a new 7D for peanuts.
-
All the potential 7D customers with the wherewithal to buy a new body are holding out for the mythical 7D2. Most of the bargain hunting potential 7D customers have found their camera used, refurbished, whatever, for a thousand bucks or less. Some bargain hunters are waiting for the 7D2 announcement to snatch up a new 7D for peanuts.
That's the way of the world, Nancy.
You pays your money and you takes your chance.
I would expect that if a D400 ever does appear, it will be £1400+, so to get a D7100 for half of that keeps me satisfied meantime.
-
I am feeling cheerful for the time being (and for the last 4 years) with my 60D, which has an OK frame rate of 5.3 fps and decent but not stellar buffer of 15 to 16 RAWs, which is fine because most of the time I shoot a shortish burst, pause a few seconds or more, shoot another burst. Like all other wildlife photographers, I watch the subject's body language to anticipate the subject's next interesting movement, and then fire a short burst. Really, aren't the modern cameras great? I need better fieldcraft more than anything else (well, a long lens faster than f/5.6 might be nice...)
-
So, is it game over? I was waiting with baited breath for Jan 17th Dubai, and to see if it was going to be a D400, or the D4X. Well, no D400. I am so sad. I have a D300 camera still (my main camera). I've been waiting for a camera with better low ISO (6400?), improved sensor, etc, and hey I do like the idea of being able to shoot video with my camera at 1080P.
So sad... I thought this was the closest to that pipe dream becoming a reality. I really don't want to go the 7100 route.
:(
-
Hi Silver Halide. Are you saying that your D7100 will shoot all 99 exposures without overwhelming the buffer? If so, that is rather impressive. My old D90's buffer filled up pretty quickly.
There is a lot of comment here about the buffer and continius shooting rate of the D7100.
bearing in mind that the best quality jpegs from the D7100 will give you better image quality than Raws from the D300, at that setting the D7100 will machine gun 99 exposures at 6 frames per second.
Not up to D4 performance, but hey!
-
Hi Silver Halide. Are you saying that your D7100 will shoot all 99 exposures without overwhelming the buffer? If so, that is rather impressive. My old D90's buffer filled up pretty quickly.
I, too, was somewhat surprised by that claim. So I tried it out.
Switched my D7100 to large fine Jpeg (somewhere it had never been before!!), put the release mode on fast continous (somewhere it had never been before either), formatted the SanDisc ExtremePro card and then held down the shutter button. Can't think why I would ever want to do it in real life, but the buffer did seem to cope.
-
So, is it game over? I was waiting with baited breath for Jan 17th Dubai, and to see if it was going to be a D400, or the D4X. Well, no D400. I am so sad. I have a D300 camera still (my main camera). I've been waiting for a camera with better low ISO (6400?), improved sensor, etc, and hey I do like the idea of being able to shoot video with my camera at 1080P.
So sad... I thought this was the closest to that pipe dream becoming a reality. I really don't want to go the 7100 route.
:(
I feel your pain. I really do. NOTHING suits my needs right now as well as my D300. But the low light capability is not good enough for much of my work. Really only a "D400" would suffice. The D7100 gives, what, 1 stop of improvement? I don't think that is worth what I would lose.
But since Nikon as of late seems to be ignoring it's customers, (except the D4 and <D5300 crowd) I will have no choice but to compromise. That new Fuji sure looks tempting. But I am a photographer that shoots a wide variety of things. So I don't think I can stick with one manufacturer. It seems if Nikon doesn't bring the D400, I may need two or three camera systems to do the job of one...
-
I agree on Nikon getting away from the D400 line. Why would they at this point? Aren't there PLENTY of DX cameras available as is? I don't have sales figures...but much has changed in technology and trends since 2007/2008. More FFs have been introduced, more FX glass has been invented (I'm fairly certain), and mirrorless -- unfortunately --is making some noise.
I think Nikon has too many DSLRs in the pipeline as is. As a side note, Canon dropped the 1.3X format a few years back, correct? I don't see them bringing that back, and Canon continues to put their efforts in other sensor/body design technology. Never say never, but the dream D400 (along with a "true blue" predecessor to the much fabled D700) will, frankly, probably NEVER HAPPEN.
At least the noise levels, DR, and video has improved since the D300s -- at TWICE the resolution. Coupled with a lower price (by several hundred) and an excellent AF system, what is left to implement? A "pro body" build in a DX format? 12FPS? ISO capabilities to 512K? Enjoy your very-capable D7100.
-
Not that I want to get flamed, but I'm about to jump from Nikon (D90 plus lenses, SB600, not to mention two film bodies...) to Pentax. Can't wait any longer for the D400, alas. Need a solid, tough DX body and don't want to put up with limited buffer and green tint on the D7100. It's a great camera otherwise, but I think a K-3 or even a K-5 II fit my needs better than DX Nikon.
-
The K3 is the closest thing to a D400 now. Though there is this ember of hope, the rumored D9300.