• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

D400 for 2014? (1 Viewer)

Hmmm.... the language on the last few Canon Rumors posts mentioning the 7DII seems rather certain. Maybe as others have said "hell will finally freeze over" and the pro DX body will live on for one more generation. Again, I'm not holding my breath. I'll believe it when I see it.
--Dave
 
@Flanken.

I think there is a misconception in your explanation there. As I'm certain you know already (but others may not) F-stops are not fixed in size per se but are always relative to the entrance pupil diameter, so if a lens has a focal length of say 200 mm and its entrance pupil diameter is 100 mm, the aperture is 2.0 (200/100), hence the physical size of fast lenses can vary enormously depending on the camera size / sensor they are being designed for. Naturally the focal length has a major impact the longer you go !

How this applies to smaller cameras (and sensor sizes) is easily understood when I give as an example the old Olympus 3040 I used to have which had a f1.8 zoom lens but a minuscule sensor (so you can see the f-stop is related to the size of the entrance pupil not the sensor size) therefore the entrance pupil can be made smaller and still achieve a fast lens.

I do not know why your Olympus DX 300/2.8 was so heavy but this must be related to the relative size of the entrance pupil they were able to achieve (possibly for a cost saving they did not re-engineer older 35mm designs) and that re-engineering for the relatively small difference in size not worth the expense.

There is a both a definite weight and size saving when working with APS-C cameras as can be seen when comparing lenses, and of course this follows with 4/3 and so on down in sensor size, otherwise they would not be able to manufacture fast lenses for these cameras.

Just look at some of the best lenses ever made (Pentax) where the simply wonderful 77/1.8, 31/1.9 and 43/1.8 are tiny/very small lenses (and of course Pentax were the first to make the slower but minuscule pancake lenses too) compared to their full frame (or even APS-C) counterparts in Canon/Nikon lands.

Most probably the cost of engineering and manufacturing a completely new line of APS-C lenses, which would be expensive and less attractive to people who have not spent as much on their cameras as those buying pro or enthusiast-level full frame cameras, is not financially viable so full frame designs are re-engineered to be made suitable for APS-C but with less weight and size saving than would otherwise be possible, the physical sizes between full frame and APS-C cameras not being so great therefore, the savings not worth the expense.

Just my musings ;)
 
Last edited:
.....because I think the sensors these days and the high ISO performance is so good we can often do very well with f/5.6 instead of f/4, or f/4 instead of f/2.8.

Although I agree with the quality of sensors and high ISO performance of cameras like the D4/D3s/D800 and the pro-level Canon equivilants (not 5D3) there is no substitute for a f2.8 (and sometimes even f4 will not do).

I do a lot of low light birding/photography and the sensor can not compensate for viewfinder darkness, the f2.8 makes a huge difference at all times of day in ensuring a nice bright VF but most especially at times of low light.

This is quite aside from the ability to add TCs (very important factor when buying expensive telephoto lenses). A f5.6 lens would allow you to add a x1.4 TC at best (and retain AF) but you could not use a x1.7 or x2.0 TC with it.
 
For big lenses, even a third of a stop can make a difference by shaving off some diameter and weight, such as comparing the Nikon 500mm f/4 AF-S (3880g, 391x139.5mm) with the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 (3150g, 350x123mm).

Note however that Canon's newest long teles are shaving huge amounts of weight off - without impacting the optical quality of those fantastic lenses at all - so it is the design, as well as the f-stop naturally, that is really affecting the weight. There is now more than 1.1kg difference between Canon's new 600/4 and Nikon's older (but still optically superb) 600mm at 5kgs.

BTW if you want a light 600mm (manual focus) then the old Nikon 600/5.6 is only 2.7 kgs ;)
 
The latest on Canon Rumours is that the 7D replacement could be announced next Feb. No guarantee of course, but if true then I'm 90% certain we will see a D400 by the Autumn.

Also if I want speed - high fps and a large buffer - then there's the D4 and soon to be announced D4s. Both will retail over £4000. The next fastest camera is infact the ancient D300s. After that your at 6fps with a large MP sensor and small buffer, so less than ideal. Even the old D2H was 8fps. So there's definitely a missing camera in Nikon's line up that the D400 could fill.

Don't forget the D3 and D3s (both substantially cheaper than the D4) ;)
 
Great conversation as always so here's another catalyst

I have googled Canon 7D Vs Nikon 7100 and theres a lot of stuff out there, now I only skimmed through but the gist of it seems to suggest that

The 7100 is a better body than the 7D Mk1 and the 7DMk2 may only bring the spec up to that of the 7100, with the price of the 7DMk2 being more than the current 7100 it would allow for a few improvements such as more focus points and higher frame rate.

Now if I conclude that the photography world accepts that the 7100 is a direct placement for the 7D, then when and if Canon announce the son of the 7D then if I were Nikon surely I would just tweak the 7100 and release a 7200.

Assuming that the test reports I skimmed are correct there is no gap currently and any development path I suspect would be based on the 7100, not taking a D610 body and fitting a DX sensor.
If it was my money signing the development cheques I know thats the way I'd go.

So blue touch paper lit, now sitting back and waiting……..
 
Last edited:
I see it like this: -

Nikon Canon
D4 1DX
D800 5DMkIII
D610 6D
D300s 7D
D7100 70D
D5300 700D

Generally Canon focuses more on fps, and Nikon with a larger MP sensor.

D7100 is a fine camera but for me the fly in the ointment is the buffer. I do like the D300 body and have a strong preference for CF cards.

Both companies now compete far more directly with each other than they did in 2007, so I think that if we do see a 7D mk II then we're very likely to see a D400.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info on the memory cards Steve. You have some awesome macro shots on your website. If I was more into macro photography it would definitely tip me towards the D800.
 
Thanks for the info on the memory cards Steve. You have some awesome macro shots on your website. If I was more into macro photography it would definitely tip me towards the D800.

Thanks I really enjoy macro I just wish (lol should be a new thread) that Nikon would update the 200/4 micro to inc vr. I will get the original this year. On that thread I found that after getting the super wireless flash kit that Nikon offer my images improved. Last year I spent a lot if time experimenting with flash.
 
Gentlemen this thread has been a pleasure. For months I thought that these forums have been very stale thank you!

Steve your road plan is too complexed for me, since when have Nikon followed a logical route?

What’s clear is we all want something different from Nikon and it’s good to get a viewpoint from all around the world.

Although my feet are firmly encased in a Nikon concrete block, Canon should get credit for producing the 30D, 40D, MK II and 7D all of which had general appeal, whether it was a marketing ploy to get people in the fold I’ll leave that for you to decide.

It will be interesting to see how much the 7D II comes in at and what gizmos it has.

The 2DH with a 12 Mb sensor was the camera we all wanted, lovely camera.
 
Last edited:
@Flanken.

I think there is a misconception in your explanation there. As I'm certain you know already (but others may not) F-stops are not fixed in size per se but are always relative to the entrance pupil diameter, so if a lens has a focal length of say 200 mm and its entrance pupil diameter is 100 mm, the aperture is 2.0 (200/100), hence the physical size of fast lenses can vary enormously depending on the camera size / sensor they are being designed for. Naturally the focal length has a major impact the longer you go !

How this applies to smaller cameras (and sensor sizes) is easily understood when I give as an example the old Olympus 3040 I used to have which had a f1.8 zoom lens but a minuscule sensor (so you can see the f-stop is related to the size of the entrance pupil not the sensor size) therefore the entrance pupil can be made smaller and still achieve a fast lens.

I do not know why your Olympus DX 300/2.8 was so heavy but this must be related to the relative size of the entrance pupil they were able to achieve (possibly for a cost saving they did not re-engineer older 35mm designs) and that re-engineering for the relatively small difference in size not worth the expense.

There is a both a definite weight and size saving when working with APS-C cameras as can be seen when comparing lenses, and of course this follows with 4/3 and so on down in sensor size, otherwise they would not be able to manufacture fast lenses for these cameras.

Just look at some of the best lenses ever made (Pentax) where the simply wonderful 77/1.8, 31/1.9 and 43/1.8 are tiny/very small lenses (and of course Pentax were the first to make the slower but minuscule pancake lenses too) compared to their full frame (or even APS-C) counterparts in Canon/Nikon lands.

Most probably the cost of engineering and manufacturing a completely new line of APS-C lenses, which would be expensive and less attractive to people who have not spent as much on their cameras as those buying pro or enthusiast-level full frame cameras, is not financially viable so full frame designs are re-engineered to be made suitable for APS-C but with less weight and size saving than would otherwise be possible, the physical sizes between full frame and APS-C cameras not being so great therefore, the savings not worth the expense.

Just my musings ;)

It seems to me that you are mixing absolute focal length with relative focal length in the above. Your tiny Olympus with the tiny sensor had an impressive relative focal length and a much shorter actual focal length

Niels

Niels
 
It seems to me that you are mixing absolute focal length with relative focal length in the above. Your tiny Olympus with the tiny sensor had an impressive relative focal length and a much shorter actual focal length

Niels

Niels

Ah maybe the Oly was an incorrect example to give, however the argument still holds otherwise Pentax would not have been able to achieve small, light, f1.8 lenses (and APS-C pancakes) without massive added weight due to the increased size of the front element.
 
Last edited:
On NR: 'The website mobile01 recently visited Nikon's headquarters in Tokyo, Japan and asked about a new flagship DX or a professional level DX model. Nikon's response was that they will release a competitor to the Canon 7D Mark II.'
 
I found this on dpreview.com this morning regarding announcement of a D7200 that 'may' be a replacement for the D300s.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/02/18/nikon-d7200-announcement-before-march-13.aspx/#more-88360
•New 24MP APS-C sensor
•Nikon D750 styled body with a tilting screen
•Expeed 4 processor
•MultiCAM 3500DX2 autofocus system
•51 AF points
•Built-in Wi-Fi
•6fps
•Buffer: 16 RAW+JPG
•Video: 1080p @60 and 720p @120 (not sure about 4k)
•Video aperture will be adjustable during live view

Comments are already flying!
 
Are we there yet??!

Where on earth is the D400?! that has been on it's way for half a dozen years or more!!! ..... surely Nikon has had enough time to eyeball the Canon 7DII by now, and solidify a spec that roundly kicks it's bot bot ??

While the D7200 is a useful step forward (although two years too late to save me from the frustrations of the D7100's hamstrung buffer!), the need for a pro level APS-C donk with the full bannana 10fps+ cannot be understated ..... time has now marched on so far that goodies like UHS II bus for SD cards, 4K video (@30fps at least please), and a greater number of focus points (the rumoured D5 is rumoured to have 173pts - allegedly!), and importantly a goodly portion (or all) of cross type sensors to imbiggen the 3D tracking performance are de riguer. It would also want to offer class leading screen quality (not just a measly 1M dots) and you would think full tilting would be a no brainer ...... but then again this is Nikon we are talking about! All sorts of other goodies have been rumoured over time such as WiFi, focus at f8 or even 10! etc. They must beat Canon's 150K RGB sensors, and if Nikon don't keep the highly useful 1.3x in camera crop then they want #@^!&$ r**^!#& !!! :eek!:

Nikon have at long last come to the lighter-weight lens party with the new 500 & 600mm f4's ..... when - O - when will they finally put the 300mm f2.8 on a magnesium /carbon fibre, and FL glass diet ??? ----- you muppets are killing me! :gn:

Well Mr Nikon-san my budget for the D400 and 600mm f4 is allocated ..... how about stumping up the camera before I'm as old and grey as time itself? :cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top