Will the Nikon D400 be the perfect underwater rig

[loftus 42]

Looks like Nikon are gearing up to release 2 or 3 more DSLR's this year. The first will be the imminent D3200 which will feature Sony's 24MP cropped sensor, which of course makes it quite likely I think that there will be a D400 based on a similar sensor. Rumor has it that the video buffs will enjoy full 60p recording with this sensor, and there may be an E version like the D800. Throw in high frame rate and a big buffer, and it's hard to find any limitations in a camera like that as an underwater rig. D3x resolution but better in every other respect.

As I play more with my D800, and I try to fathom how Nikon have managed to get such good high noise performance out of a 36MP camera, one can likely expect similar noise performance at least to the D7000, which is also excellent.

 

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/28/nikon-d3...spx/#more-36930

Edited March 29, 2012 by loftus

[MikeVeitch 0]

yes, I am actually looking forward to this, I may actually purchase my first camera in the 00 category if/when it comes out.

 

I have gone D70 to D90, now thinking of the jump.. (I have only had 2 DSLRs since 2004, seems crazy doesn't it )

 

Not that interested in the D7000

 

The more robust body is what I am thinking about as opposed to the workings etc

I hope they introduce it soon, my D90 is dying...

[hobodiver 0]

As I play more with my D800, and I try to fathom how Nikon have managed to get such good high noise performance out of a 36MP camera, one can likely expect similar noise performance at least to the D7000, which is also excellent.

 

How would you compare the noise performance on the D800 at high ISO vs. the D3/D700?

[Udo van Dongen 5]

How would you compare the noise performance on the D800 at high ISO vs. the D3/D700?

 

Check out these examples:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/05/another-...omparison.aspx/

 

or otherwise check out dpreview:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/9

 

I guess it's pretty convincing isn't it? let's see if Nikon will amaze us again with the D400 (or D3200 or whatever)

[johnspierce 25]

Much more so than a month ago, I am now thinking the D400 (or whatever it's called) will be a 24mp FX camera. It makes much more sense from a marketing point of view to start "stepping DX users" into FX at a lower price point than the D800 and the D7100 would be top dog DX when it comes out. A $1900-2100 FX at 24mp would be a perfect starter price point. The D7000 has been so successful, it's still difficult to find a year and a half after release.

 

The D700 could step into the slot as entry level FX, but it's pretty old technology as good as it is and Nikon usually doesn't reach back 3-4 years to anchor a pricepoint. When it sells out, it will be gone.

 

If Nikon Rumors is right, we should know what Nikon has on it's mind in the next month or so.

[Deep6 7]

Much more so than a month ago, I am now thinking the D400 (or whatever it's called) will be a 24mp FX camera. It makes much more sense from a marketing point of view to start "stepping DX users" into FX at a lower price point than the D800 and the D7100 would be top dog DX when it comes out. A $1900-2100 FX at 24mp would be a perfect starter price point. The D7000 has been so successful, it's still difficult to find a year and a half after release.

 

The D700 could step into the slot as entry level FX, but it's pretty old technology as good as it is and Nikon usually doesn't reach back 3-4 years to anchor a pricepoint. When it sells out, it will be gone.

 

If Nikon Rumors is right, we should know what Nikon has on it's mind in the next month or so.

I would bet a Fat Tire on Nikon replacing the D300(?) series with an DX. There is price point room between the D7000 and the FXs. D400 maybe the model.

Bob

[johnspierce 25]

I would bet a Fat Tire on Nikon replacing the D300(?) series with an DX. There is price point room between the D7000 and the FXs. D400 maybe the model.

Bob

 

That's my kind of bet Bob. We'll find a bar in between Broomfield and Denver!

 

I think there's a good chance it's a DX too, but I think Nikon would be better served going to FX in that price point to compete with Canon.

 

JP

[loftus 42]

but I think Nikon would be better served going to FX in that price point to compete with Canon.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. Forgetting about underwater, I think FX in general is aimed more towards the pro market, and DX more towards consumer and prosumer. Nikon has a pretty sweet balance with the D800 and D4 for a pro. A much better separation I think for specific uses than the Canon D1X and 5DMkIII. For a Nikon pro having a D4 and a D800 is a pretty good setup.

Nikon already competes great with Canon now with the D800 which is $500 cheaper than the 5D, and the D4 which is cheaper than the D1X. Nikon found that the D700 really cannibalized their D3 sales, I suspect Canon may see the same with the 5D and the D1X as they are pretty similar except for the frame rate.

Edited April 5, 2012 by loftus

[johnspierce 25]

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. Forgetting about underwater, I think FX in general is aimed more towards the pro market, and DX more towards consumer and prosumer. Nikon has a pretty sweet balance with the D800 and D4 for a pro. A much better separation I think for specific uses than the Canon D1X and 5DMkIII. For a Nikon pro having a D4 and a D800 is a pretty good setup.

Nikon already competes great with Canon now with the D800 which is $500 cheaper than the 5D, and the D4 which is cheaper than the D1X. Nikon found that the D700 really cannibalized their D3 sales, I suspect Canon may see the same with the 5D and the D1X as they are pretty similar except for the frame rate.

 

I guess the real question is whether Nikon's end game is to eliminate DX from their line entirely over the next few years or keep it around. I could see economic reasons for either strategy.

 

I've been having problems trying to figure out why Nikon came out with the D7000 a year and a half ago and totally trumped their top-of-the-line DX camera, the D300s. It still seems an unwise move to me. Of course, the new D800 is such a spectacular camera and actually has much more to it than anyone was guessing, I would be quite happy for Nikon to surprise me again.

 

JP

[Deep6 7]

That's my kind of bet Bob. We'll find a bar in between Broomfield and Denver!

 

I think there's a good chance it's a DX too, but I think Nikon would be better served going to FX in that price point to compete with Canon.

 

JP

OK John, we're on. I never turn down an opt. for a Fat Tire. If the gnomes of Sendi amazed us with the D7000 & D800, what could be in store for a D400 (or model whatever)?

 

Bob

Edited April 6, 2012 by Deep6

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I am excited about the D400 (or D500 as I have been calling it) - and very much hope it is a DX camera. Otherwise I have been waiting for the wrong camera to replace the D7000!

 

Ideally I would like something 16-20MP with great frame rate 8 FPS with good buffer (rarely useful underwater, but the D7000's 6FPS+buffer is limiting on land), 100% viewfinder, 1/320th flash synch and ISO performance equal to D3 ISO.

 

I wonder how Nikon will price it? I can't help feeling that the D800 is underpriced - hence the waiting lists (ditto D4). Also it is the first time I can remember the Nikons being cheaper than the equivalent Canons.

 

Alex

[sharky1961 2]

Hi Alex,

 

why do you think that a D400 ( Dx) or successor of the D7000 wil be better suited for underwater than the D800??

Is it for the better macro possibilities??

 

 

Rob

[loftus 42]

Hi Alex,

 

why do you think that a D400 ( Dx) or successor of the D7000 wil be better suited for underwater than the D800??

Is it for the better macro possibilities??

 

 

Rob

DX is just easier underwater; with really no downside. Easier wide angle, easier macro. Except in my pool stuff, which is more like studio work, I can't think of a single advantage of FX over DX for diving photography. Really all the folks who claim some advantage of FX for diving photography, name one..

The only thing I can think of is the D800 as a macro machine.

Edited April 7, 2012 by loftus

[Aqua_soul 1]

This is not a statement, but a question as I haven't used FX uw yet.

Why is it felt that DX is even better than FX for wide angle uw. Is it not easier to get more of big subjects into the frame with FX?

 

Thanks

Geo

[sharky1961 2]

Loftus,

 

for FX: what about bigger viewfinder,

better ISO ( for shooting without strobe??),

better AF

 

for DX: Tokina 10-17mm FE

more DOF

 

Rob

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Pretty much what Jeff said. DX is easier for wide angle and macro - and it is hard to make the case for FX when all the camera's now have more than enough image quality for almost every occasion.

 

Don't get me wrong, FX works underwater. There is just less room for cutting corners and require considerable discipline from the photographer to realise their full potential. The main advantages of FX are high ISO performance and resolution. And you have to put gear lust to one side and ask how much do you really need those two in your photography (two such uses would be someone who does a lot of deep or dark water photography or someone who shoots in an underwater studio). Or if the camera is to only occasionally be used underwater - I prefer FX on land.

 

The Canon users have already been through this as they have had affordable FX cameras for longer. And during the last generation many of them swapped in their 5D2s or 1DS when the 7D came out for underwater use. Less Nikon users have been exposed to this, although two of the guys I know who shoot the D3X in Seacam housings (you will have seen their photos), use the Nikon 10.5mm for wide angle (shooting in 10MP DX mode) because they are unhappy with what they can get in FX mode. Always seemed an expensive way to shoot 10MP to me - but they are top shooters so I respect their decision.

 

To get back on topic, when the D7000 came out in 2010, I started using it and it made me realise what my macro had been missing. I had been getting good shots with the D700, so I hadn't realised what I was missing. High magnification shots were 1.5x easier and depth of field would always seem on my side, rather than against me for any fleeting opportunity. My macro took a big jump forward with that camera (despite the fact it had inferior AF to my D700).

Which is why I would like a D300 replacement, 16-18MP and ISO performance to match the D3, and AF from the D4 or D800 - for macro and mini-dome shots. High frame rate/buffer has limited use underwater, but is valuable on land and a high quality DX camera will be excellent for land wildlife.

 

In 2-3 months time I am sure that the forums will be full of people frustrated that they can't get what they want from the D800. People who come to the D800 from D700 and D3 will be used to many of these issues, but not all. But those coming from D200, D300 and D7000 will have to adapt. How much the changes will be I don't know.

 

I am fascinated to review the D800 (although Adam will do the main Wetpixel review) because there are several big unknowns about how it will perform underwater. The D800 is revolutionary compared to its predecessors, the other new cameras (D4 and 5D3) are upgrades, evolutionary, and I fully expect them to work like the cameras they replace, only better. It is also likely to be by far the most popular of the three for underwater use.

 

Alex

[loftus 42]

Loftus,

 

for FX: what about bigger viewfinder,

better ISO ( for shooting without strobe??),

better AF

Yes, bigger viewfinder is a plus, but I use a magnifying viewfinder for both DX and FX.

AF is not inherently better in FX; in fact AF points in Nikon DX cameras have until now covered more of the frame.

The D7000 high ISO performance comes pretty close to that of the D700. As Alex says, with both DX and FX, resolution and high ISO are no longer limiting factors, both provide excellent performance. Remember we are talking only about diving type photography here.

My sense is that the only potential advantage of a full frame camera like the D800 is the ability to provide eye popping detail for macro and very large prints. And this FX advantage is specific to the D800 at the moment because it has resolution in the same ballpark as medium format cameras. No other FX camera, Nikon or Canon, stands out to the same degree from DX in terms of resolution.

Edited April 7, 2012 by loftus