Robb Mann wrote:
I think the Nikon D400 will be released this year, but it will be an entry-level, no frills full frame camera with an MSRP around $1500.

entry-level, no frills full frame camera pretty much describes the D600.

Mike Hemming wrote:
If there is no D400 then the D300 is my last camera unless the 2 I have are lost or destroyed.(I'm 69 years old)
Camera companies forced us to use DX cameras because full frame was to hard to make and too expensive. The D300  became a high quality fast shooting 1.5 x with full frame lenses that nature photographers loved for those attributes. Now the D300 for us is only superseded by the D4 which costs 3-4 times as much.
A price differential that will only get worse and worse.
If they end the high quality pro grade DX cameras is will take something needed away from a fair sized group of nature and other photgraphers.
I love digital but I hate this part of it

Maybe I'm just not awake yet and misread you, but most of the current Nikon bodies supersede the D300 in one way or another!

Kaouthia wrote:

entry-level, no frills full frame camera pretty much describes the D600.

+1

the IQ and ISO performance are nice enough -   but the focusing is not that great, and there is no provision to lock the shutter or aperture speed.....   and of course the body is not built to the standards of the D700/D800 semi-pro bodies let alone the D2 D3 D4 series.....

Robb Mann wrote:
I think the Nikon D400 will be released this year, but it will be an entry-level, no frills full frame camera with an MSRP around $1500.

Why? Because Nikon keeps on releasing strange FX lenses that are more geared towards casual shooters than serious hobbyists or working photographers.

The new 18-35 sealed it for me. The old one was a dog, yes, but any hobbyist would happily go for the 16-35 constant f4 over the variable aperture zoom. Also, the 28-300 -- a lens launched with, but not recommended for use on the D800. Even the newest 24-85 doesn't seem well suited to the D600, but rather a lower model.

So, reading the glass they seem to be prepping for a really affordable full frame body to sit atop the D7000 in the lineup. Nikon currently has a HUGE gap in the lineup between the $900 D7000 body and the $2000 D600. The D300s is a relic at $1700, which i can't imaging is still drawing many sales.

I still think there is room for a semi-pro D9000 at the $1700 mark, with a stripped, budget D400 FX camera at the $1500 mark.

But clearly Nikon needs at least two new cameras to fit between the D5200 and D600.

The D300s is 100 years old in dog (new camera release) years.  I'm convinced now that there will be NO replacement for it.

I don't agree with their strategy, but it appears that Nikon has relegated Pro/Semi-Pro level DX cameras (like the D200/D300) to the junk heap.  I believe they plan to go forward with the D600 at the bottom of their Pro/Semi-Pro line (all FX), and upgrade the D7000 for those people who in the past would have purchased something like the D300.

I think, in Nikon's mind, the D600 is a kind of replacement for the D300s...that they want to put DX behind them (except for consumer cameras) and go all FX for Pro/Semi-Pro.  I find it interesting that Nikon has not said ONE WORD about any D300 replacement (D400), despite all the speculation/controversy for a couple of years now.

I've always been a big Nikon fan, but I'm beginning to wonder about their top management...feeling like they have gotten out of touch with some of their target clients.  They appear to me to be just pushing THEIR agenda - with no regard to what the MARKET actually wants.  It obvious to me that there is still a large market out there for a high-end prosumer DX DSLR (like an upgraded D300s)...but obviously, Nikon is ignoring that.

Marty McBride wrote:
Maybe I'm just not awake yet and misread you, but most of the current Nikon bodies supersede the D300 in one way or another!

And the D300/D300s supercedes all of them in one way or another too.

Every body has compromises.

Marty McBride wrote:
Maybe I'm just not awake yet and misread you, but most of the current Nikon bodies supersede the D300 in one way or another!

Kaouthia wrote:
And the D300/D300s supercedes all of them in one way or another too.

Every body has compromises.

The D300s is a great body, but the one area in which everything else supercedes it is in the most important area for a body: the sensor.

A few years ago, it wouldn't be such a big deal...the age of the D300s...but the current explosion of the past two years or so in sensor development make the D300s sensor an absolute antique.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a pretty decent sensor (as is the sensor in my backup body - a D200)...but the sensors in everything beginning with the D7000 are simply WORLDS ahead of what was in the D300s!

...And people really need to stop talking about the D600 being a "toy".  I've seen a hell of a lot of reviews and comments from experts and users on the D600, and I'm not seeing ANY comments from actual users of the camera (or experts who have handled it) saying that it is anything like a toy.

Much of this misguided talk appears to me to have come mostly from the inaccurate pre-release talk of the camera being an FX version of the D7000...which it turned out to decidedly NOT be at all (it's virtually the same size as a D800 for starters).  No - it's not a full featured Pro level body...but it is far from a toy.  It seems to be MUCH closer to being an updated FX version of a D300s than it does to being an FX version of a D7000.

Robb Mann wrote:
I think the Nikon D400 will be released this year, but it will be an entry-level, no frills full frame camera with an MSRP around $1500 ... But clearly Nikon needs at least two new cameras to fit between the D5200 and D600.

I think the D600 WAS the no-frills full-frame camera. If they de-frilled that camera body any more, who would the target audience be? And what "existing sensor" could be used to hold R&D costs down? The original 12mp FF, any lack of frills and the camera would suffer by comparison to the D700. If they used the D3S 12mp FF or the D4 16mp sensor, the DPreview forums would implode (which  may not be a bad thing).

It's a no-brainer that Nikon will eventually come out with one of the two 24mp DX sensors it uses in a DX body that has an internal focusing motor (D7000 based or D300 based, who knows).

As to the new variable aperture zoom lens, it may be a preemptive strike for Nikon against third-party lens makers or a cooperative one (a la the original Nikon 55-200 DX which was basically offered in at least four versions Nikon 55-200 DX AFS; Nikon 55-200 Dx; Tamron 55-200 DX and Ritz/Quantaray 55-200 DX.

Garys Art wrote:

The D300s is 100 years old in dog (new camera release) years.  I'm convinced now that there will be NO replacement for it.

I don't agree with their strategy, but it appears that Nikon has relegated Pro/Semi-Pro level DX cameras (like the D200/D300) to the junk heap.  I believe they plan to go forward with the D600 at the bottom of their Pro/Semi-Pro line (all FX), and upgrade the D7000 for those people who in the past would have purchased something like the D300.

I think, in Nikon's mind, the D600 is a kind of replacement for the D300s...that they want to put DX behind them (except for consumer cameras) and go all FX for Pro/Semi-Pro.  I find it interesting that Nikon has not said ONE WORD about any D300 replacement (D400), despite all the speculation/controversy for a couple of years now.

I've always been a big Nikon fan, but I'm beginning to wonder about their top management...feeling like they have gotten out of touch with some of their target clients.  They appear to me to be just pushing THEIR agenda - with no regard to what the MARKET actually wants.  It obvious to me that there is still a large market out there for a high-end prosumer DX DSLR (like an upgraded D300s)...but obviously, Nikon is ignoring that.

I don't think that it is just Nikon.  Canon management seems to be thinking along the same lines...

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
I think everyone worries too much (not just in Nikon) about "what is the replacement for ____?".  It's very linear thinking. Unless you have a product that wears out fast and needs a direct replacement why care?  If your D****** worked for you, keep it!
The really cool shit is the new ones that are not replacements.    think about it.
you dont want a replacement for the D300s or Dwhatever. You want something really better to spend $$$ on.
The D800 and D600 were not replacements. they broke new ground.

I would normally agree with you, but I think the D300s/D400 issue is a unique situation.

By today's standards, the D300s is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY past due for an upgrade...especially since you really have to look at the date the D300 was released rather than when the D300s was released (because - as far as still photography goes - there is little difference between the 2 models).  The state of the art in sensors has come several light years since the D300 was released!

I personally think that so much time has gone by that Nikon simply isn't going to upgrade it - I think the D400 (as an upgrade of the D300s) is an urban myth by this time.

Gary Melton wrote:
as far as still photography goes - there is little difference between the 2 models

As far as video goes, the D300s isn't much better than the D300 either.

The only real reason to go for a D300s over the D300 is dual card slots (and an extra couple of FPS without the grip - if you don't shoot with a grip and it's important to you).

Marty McBride wrote:
Maybe I'm just not awake yet and misread you, but most of the current Nikon bodies supersede the D300 in one way or another!

Some of them do but NOT enough or in enough ways to make me want to come up with $3000 to replace 2 camera bodies at this stage..

Kaouthia wrote:
As far as video goes, the D300s isn't much better than the D300 either.

The only real reason to go for a D300s over the D300 is dual card slots (and an extra couple of FPS without the grip - if you don't shoot with a grip and it's important to you).

Ultimately, it would suck if the D300s is Nikon's last professional sized, professional grade DX body.

Nikon may have upgraded the DX sensors, but they have yet to put them in a professional size body with the specs many professionals need (FPS, Buffer, 10-pin, PC sync)

I have a D800 and a D700, but I STILL want a DX upgrade to the D300s, basically taking everything the D300s has, put a newer chip with upgraded IQ and every other specification being equal or better in the new body.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
I think everyone worries too much (not just in Nikon) about "what is the replacement for ____?".  It's very linear thinking. Unless you have a product that wears out fast and needs a direct replacement why care?  If your D****** worked for you, keep it!
The really cool shit is the new ones that are not replacements.    think about it.
you dont want a replacement for the D300s or Dwhatever. You want something really better to spend $$$ on.
The D800 and D600 were not replacements. they broke new ground.

I like your approach to camera. Mine works really well and I'm not looking to replace. It's price is falling so I might be another one for backup. I really prefer to spend on lenses.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
There have also been no new DX lenses this year.

True... but with DX lenses like the amazing 16-85 ED-VR and the long range 55-300 ED-VR... I don't see a need for new releases anytime soon.  Those two lenses cover a huge focal length spread and are great optics with very effective Vibration Reduction...

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
I think everyone worries too much (not just in Nikon) about "what is the replacement for ____?".  It's very linear thinking. Unless you have a product that wears out fast and needs a direct replacement why care?  If your D****** worked for you, keep it!
The really cool shit is the new ones that are not replacements.    think about it.
you dont want a replacement for the D300s or Dwhatever. You want something really better to spend $$$ on.
The D800 and D600 were not replacements. they broke new ground.

The D700 is due for a real replacement and the D800 & D600 were not it. I think Nikon shot themselves in the foot with the D700 because the basically gave it their flagships sensor with a smaller body (unless you add the grip lol) and just as good ISO performance. Compared to what the next D800 & D600 can do the D700 is behind the image quality 8 ball. Neither can do all that the D700 can do but they do other things much better and then there is video. Heck even the D800 is showing to have ISO capabilities better than the D700.

They need a true replacement for the D700, one that doesn't sacrifice fps, sync port, lighting sync speeds, high shutter speeds eat eat ... Till then I'll hang onto my D700 or save up for a D4.

Photosbycj wrote:

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
They need a true replacement for the D700, one that doesn't sacrifice fps, sync port, lighting sync speeds, high shutter speeds eat eat ... Till then I'll hang onto my D700 or save up for a D4.

agree
I got a brand new 2nd D700 @ $2199 before they vanished, instead of trying to track down a D800 via NORAD, when they first came out

glad I did

the D600 doesn't interest me at all
doesn't fit in my hands like the D300/700/800

its only 12 MP, yes
but they are big and beautiful pixels

-fpc- wrote:
...the D600 doesn't interest me at all
doesn't fit in my hands like the D300/700/800...

Weird...since the D600 is basically the same size as the D800 (only a tiny fraction smaller)...

Phase Shift Photography wrote:
There's no need for a D300 replacement. If I was gonna upgrade my D300 today, I'd get a D600.

In fact, a couple of years ago, I sold my D300 for a D7000 and considered it to be a substantial upgrade.

On balance, the D7000 IS a substantial upgrade from the D300.

Yes, the D300 is larger, has a better control layout and somewhat better AF...but the IQ/dynamic range of the D7000 is WAY ahead of the D300 - thanks to its FAR superior sensor!

...and the D600 interests me as well - reviews and feedback continue to be VERY positive for it!

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
I think it is possible to see a D400, if only to using up some of the stockpiles of its APS-C sensors. I am not sure you will see one anytime soon through. Nikon learned a rough lesson with D700. The D700 cannibalized the D3 market by using the same sensor and having to many functions like the D3 at a lower price.

So if the made a D400 it would possibly do the same effect on the on the D600. Also Nikon is making strong divisions in their camera markets.  The APS-C senors are being pushed downed to the amateur market. There have also been no new DX lenses this year.

Nikon I have a feeling is seeing more long term profit with FX than DX.

I think that this is the best assessment made so far. Nikon would be harming the D600 with any pro DX body, especially if it was in the 24MP range! Can you imagine what a camera with these specs would do to the D600 and possibly even D800 sales?

Ideal specs for D400,

24MP DX
1/8000th shutter tested to 200K
10FPS standard, 12with Battery Grip
ISO 50 - 204K
3.2" LCD
Tough weather sealing like D300s

And I suspect that those who are waiting for a D700 replacement will be waiting for ever, it ain't coming!

Phase Shift Photography wrote:
There's no need for a D300 replacement. If I was gonna upgrade my D300 today, I'd get a D600.

In fact, a couple of years ago, I sold my D300 for a D7000 and considered it to be a substantial upgrade.

Just curious...

you DO realize that there ARE people who are NOT you?

The D600 is a totally different camera than a D300 (or D300s), and even the D7000.

Yes, the change may have been what you consider to be an upgrade for your needs.

With much of what I shoot, changing from a D300s to a D600 would NOT be an upgrade, and I know many photographers for whom the D7000 was NOT an upgrade.  For our needs, the D7000 was not as good as the D300s, despite an improved sensor.

Too many people on this site forget that the world does not revolve around shooting models for this site, there are many other genres of photography, where what is best is NOT the same.

Gary Melton wrote:

Weird...since the D600 is basically the same size as the D800 (only a tiny fraction smaller)...

London Fog wrote:

I think that this is the best assessment made so far. Nikon would be harming the D600 with any pro DX body, especially if it was in the 24MP range! Can you imagine what a camera with these specs would do to the D600 and possibly even D800 sales?

Ideal specs for D400,

24MP DX
1/8000th shutter tested to 200K
10FPS standard, 12with Battery Grip
ISO 50 - 204K
3.2" LCD
Tough weather sealing like D300s

And I suspect that those who are waiting for a D700 replacement will be waiting for ever, it ain't coming!

Yes - I really wonder what the D600 is doing to D800 sales right now.

If you do a comparison between the D600 and D800 as far as specs and features - they are much closer than most people suspect...and with the D600's newer sensor (compared to the D800) - they are REALLY close!

London Fog wrote:
I think that this is the best assessment made so far. Nikon would be harming the D600 with any pro DX body, especially if it was in the 24MP range! Can you imagine what a camera with these specs would do to the D600 and possibly even D800 sales?

Ideal specs for D400,

24MP DX
1/8000th shutter tested to 200K
10FPS standard, 12with Battery Grip
ISO 50 - 204K
3.2" LCD
Tough weather sealing like D300s

Personally, I think the impact would be minimal.

Typically, a Porsche is not going to impact a Mazda minivan or a Kia.

The cameras are aimed at totally different market segments. 

Photographers who want/need 24mp DX @ 10fps are not going to be swayed by a D600 or D800, as they satisfy totally different needs.

Photographers who want FX will buy FX, people who want DX will buy DX.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Personally, I think the impact would be minimal.

Typically, a Porsche is not going to impact a Mazda minivan or a Kia.

The cameras are aimed at totally different market segments. 

Photographers who want/need 24mp DX @ 10fps are not going to be swayed by a D600 or D800, as they satisfy totally different needs.

Photographers who want FX will buy FX, people who want DX will buy DX.

My ideal working combo is a D800, D700 and D300s, which funnily enough is what I have! No complaints, except for some of the 'dire overrated lenses' which I won't go into!

Gary Melton wrote:
I really wonder what the D600 is doing to D800 sales right now.

I see two completely different kind of buyers for those cameras (D800 & D600).  The D800 buyer is an elitest who won't settle for less than what he (or she) considers as 'one of Nikons best'... and will rarely if ever use that camera to its fullest potential... while the D600 buyer wants to save close to $1000 dollars... wants the improved high ISO and dynamic range performance over the D800... and knows that 24 megapixels is more than enough for his (or her) kind of work...

-fpc- wrote:
doesn't have the heft or feel, IMO
more so against the D700
have only played with the 800 a short bit

i don't think anything will ever have the feel of the d700. that thing was flawless in that regard.

i can't stand the ergonomics of the d800, but rather like the d600 (still nowhere near the d300/700 generation). they don't feel all that different in weight/heft, imo...but i really dislike how the d800 feels squished horizontally.

D M E C K E R T wrote:
i don't think anything will ever have the feel of the d700. that thing was flawless in that regard.

i can't stand the ergonomics of the d800, but rather like the d600 (still nowhere near the d300/700 generation). they don't feel all that different in weight/heft, imo...but i really dislike how the d800 feels squished horizontally.

Gary Melton wrote:
Yes, the D300 is larger, has a better control layout and somewhat better AF...but the IQ/dynamic range of the D7000 is WAY ahead of the D300 - thanks to its FAR superior sensor!

When you put the D300 into 14Bit RAW mode, I haven't noticed that much difference myself.

London Fog wrote:
24MP DX
1/8000th shutter tested to 200K
10FPS standard, 12with Battery Grip
ISO 50 - 204K
3.2" LCD
Tough weather sealing like D300s

As well as 14Bit RAW native (not 12Bit RAW native, that slows down the FPS rate when you switch to 14Bit) and pro video capabilities (frame rate & size options of the D5200, but with clean HDMI output).

ISO range wouldn't bother me.  It'd be nice to be able to go down to 50 (doubtful, but maybe), but I don't need to go anywhere close to 200K.  In fact, anything over 3200 would really be a waste for me.

I'd be happy with 8fps though.  Anything over that would just be gravy.

-fpc- wrote:
Im still waiting on the D700 replacement

the D800 isn't it
the D600 isn't it

ME TOO.
A D700 with 16-18mpx and I don't need and want another camera for at least a decade to come.