I rarely post but read alot. I'll set the stage, I currently have the following: Nikon D90, DX Glass: 10-24, 16-85, 35mm, FX Glass: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR1, 2x III Teleconverter, all Nikkor, Plus all the other accruements that go with photography.My current photographic interests are landscapes, wildlife and shooting Marching Band contests. (Same lighting conditions as football)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
As the subject line states, I'm entertaining upgrading from the D90 to either a D600 or the unannounced D400, if/when it's released.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I currently use the 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 VR1 with the 2x teleconverter for marching band contests. And the 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter for wildlife. Not perfect but it fits into my budget. The other lens primarily for landscapes.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
If I upgrade to the D600 I would set it to DX crop for both the bands and wildlife. For landscapes I’d leave the D600 in FX mode. To go really wide I’d need to purchase a FX wide angle. But I see that the D600 in crop mode is 10 MP. In crop mode I’d be going backwards in mega pixels from a D90, but would I be ahead in other areas? What have I missed?<o:p></o:p>

Originally Posted by Nyfty <o:p></o:p> If I upgrade to the D600 I would set it to DX crop for both the bands and wildlife. For landscapes I’d leave the D600 in FX mode. To go really wide I’d need to purchase a FX wide angle. But I see that the D600 in crop mode is 10 MP. In crop mode I’d be going backwards in mega pixels from a D90, but would I be ahead in other areas? What have I missed?<o:p></o:p>

What you've missed is the experience of shooting with FX.

When I had both the D300 and the D700 I shot them against each other using the same lens. What I found was even though the D700 did not have the reach of the D300, when the D700 image was cropped down to give the same FOV, it was a superior image. Meaning, you will probably find the same on the New D600. Using the 70-200 for instance you may find that it is overall better to shoot FX with it and then crop in post versus the 10MP route. I did test the D600's DX crop mode, but didn't actually take time to assess it's ability in this regard, a mistake but one easily overlooked.

I would also suggest the the D600 10MP crop mode outshines the D90.

Originally Posted by angevin1 I would also suggest the the D600 10MP crop mode outshines the D90.

True. The practical difference in 10 & 12 MP is indiscernable.
On the other hand, I think the D400 (if and when) is going to be an astounding camera, and you'll probably be very comfortable with how your lenses work with it, since you're used to the 1.5 crop.

So, would a D800 in DX be far better than the D7000?

Originally Posted by Nyfty [COLOR=white]......My current photographic interests are landscapes, wildlife and shooting Marching Band contests. (Same lighting conditions as football......

Sounds like your ultimate setup would be BOTH a D800 / D600, AND a D400.

Or, I suppose if you wanted to get by with just one camera, I would put the D800 in last place due to it having the most cumbersome file size and the slowest frame rate. Then it would be a decision between the D600 and the D400, and quite honestly then all it comes down to is, how close could a D400 come to the D600 in high ISO performance? (Since it would most likely beat the D600 in frame rate and autofocus power, if it (the D400) is an upgrade to the D300 instead of the D7000.)

Personally, as an all-around camera I would pick a D400 if it came true in the form we are hoping it does. But that's just me; I value versatility and overall functionality a little more than image quality. I still value image quality, mind you; but I'm just betting that the D400 will be nothing to sneeze at in that category either. The D7000 sensor is already way up there on the DXO charts, as is the D3200 which is probably the same sensor as the one we'd see in a D400.

The problem is, ...will a D400 even happen? I dunno, with the ground Nikon is covering with the D7000 and D600, they might (wrongfully) assume that there isn't enough market for a D400.

I hope they assume the opposite, of course!

=Matt=

I'm willing to bet there will be a D400. In fact, I am willing to bet $2500 on it. :)

24MP, 8fps, same body as D800.

And I'm going to bet we'll see it announced before Christmas.

Thanks to everyone who responded. I'm looking forward to some I depth reviews of the D600, and might hold on to see if a D400 is on Nikon's front burner.

Based on my shooting a D600 this weekend, I would just get the D600 in your scenario.

There are two possibilities as I see it.

1. The D400 will use a DX sensor like the 24MP one in the D3200. This means low light performance will suffer, though the camera will be fast and feel good.

2. The D400 will go FX (I am betting this is going to happen) and will use the sensor from the D600. Given that what you say you use your camera for doesn't need the added things the D400 is likely going to bring to the table, I see no need to wait.


I have to say, the Nikon D3s impressed the HECK out of me with it's sheer speed and power. The D800 impressed me with it's image quality. The D600 can do something neither of the other two can. And that is give me clean low light images at ISO 3200. And when I say clean, I mean clean in a way that I don't have to process it in LR to feel comfortable publishing them for viewing. The fact that I was shooting my D600 and the D3s back to back this weekend, and the D600 images were consistently better... it was shocking and humbling.

D600. If the price of full frame cameras keep coming down will there be a future for prosumer DX cameras? I wonder ...

So many people seem to think that DX is dying as a pro / prosumer option, but I just don't see it ever happening. DX crop will always provide a few inherent advantages that FX may never be able to compete with, not without some serious quantum leaps in multiple aspects of camera design and imaging technology.

Until then, DX offers the advantage of focus point spread, extra "reach", and affordability.

Could you get focus point spread and extra reach by shooting a D800 in DX crop mode at 16 megapixels? Yeah, but compare that to a theoretical D400 and the D400 still comes out ahead in shooting speed, reach, and value.

The bottom line for many is that crop sensors have achieved a standard of quality that is acceptable to most casual and serious / professional shooters. You can get a clean ISO 3200 image out of a crop sensor if you expose it well. It may be a stop or so behind a full-frame counterpart, but that doesn't make it any less printable.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing a DX D400 from Nikon. It makes a lot of sense and fills a huge gap where the D300s (and even the D700) left off. I hope that a cutting edge DX D400 can do roughly as good ISO as an "aging" D700, because if that is the case then I would happily get one, instead of a second D700 or a D600 / D800.

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville So many people seem to think that DX is dying as a pro / prosumer option, but I just don't see it ever happening. DX crop will always provide a few inherent advantages that FX may never be able to compete with, not without some serious quantum leaps in multiple aspects of camera design and imaging technology.

Until I shot the D600, I would have agreed with this assessment. I no longer do.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Until then, DX offers the advantage of focus point spread, extra "reach", and affordability.

Focus spread, to be honest, I never notice. And I shoot sports that typically require the points to be at the very upper or lower part of my frame. Like volleyball. The problem is, that even though the focus spread is greater in DX, the low lighting conditions negate the advantage, and ISO performance becomes a bigger factor. I can still get my shots even with the tight clustering of focus points. But I can't submit the fuzzy shots that poor ISO performance leads to.

Extra reach becomes a non-factor as megapixels and croppability rise. This is what drove me to the D800. The ability to crop back as though I was on a 40mm lens instead of a 300mm, and keep my F2.8 lenses at F2.8.

Affordability is totally up to the manufacturers. Nikon could well produce an FX camera next year in the $1200 price range. Will they? I don't know, and I doubt it. But that is under their control. The same with lenses. They could produce a set of variable aperture FX glass at prices similar to their current DX offerings.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Could you get focus point spread and extra reach by shooting a D800 in DX crop mode at 16 megapixels? Yeah, but compare that to a theoretical D400 and the D400 still comes out ahead in shooting speed, reach, and value.

Agreed if we only consider those examples. Personally, I think the focus spread is overblown. And I see no reason the focus spread couldn't be increased. That is a manufacturing choice. Canon is using the same sized sensor, and it's far more spread out. If Nikon makes a different choice, this becomes a non-factor.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville The bottom line for many is that crop sensors have achieved a standard of quality that is acceptable to most casual and serious / professional shooters. You can get a clean ISO 3200 image out of a crop sensor if you expose it well. It may be a stop or so behind a full-frame counterpart, but that doesn't make it any less printable.

This is true. But I don't know of any pro shooters who don't prefer better ISO performance given the chance and all else being equal. Anyone who shoots indoor sports or night sports is in a constant chase for more ISO performance. We ALL want ISO 6400 of today to look like ISO 800 of 3 years ago. And 3 years from now, we'll want that kind of leap again. DX is not going to get you there. It will always lose this race to a FX sensor. The question is, if price becomes a non-factor, and we are shooting 36, 48, or more megapixels with the ability to crop, will DX even matter? Will the 1.5 crop factor even matter?

I think for me, the D600 sensor is the tipping point. It's clean enough for the DX crop factor to no longer matter to me for my sports shooting needs. If I've got more light, I can shoot the D800.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing a DX D400 from Nikon. It makes a lot of sense and fills a huge gap where the D300s (and even the D700) left off. I hope that a cutting edge DX D400 can do roughly as good ISO as an "aging" D700, because if that is the case then I would happily get one, instead of a second D700 or a D600 / D800. =Matt=

I am looking forward to the D400 more for the comfort now than the sensor. And that is a COMPLETE reversal for me from just a week ago. I am VERY curious to see where Nikon chooses to go.

I meant to respond to this awhile back, but got busy. I just purchased the D600, and I own the D7000 and D90.

As far as ISO performance, my experience
D90-1600ISO = D7000-3200ISO = D600-6400ISO

But I wanted to say that a FF camera shooting in DX mode <> the same as a DX camera.
You will have a shallower depth of field with the FX. I have missed a few shots shooting baseball at night wide open with my D600, that I would have gotten with the D7000.
I also find no value in shooting in DX mode except that the files are smaller, and I have to potentially crop more often. You still have the full-frame coverage in the viewfinder with a distracting box displaying the DX crop.

I am also interested in the D300 replacement, but I will have to weigh the ISO performance, the potentially higher resolution for the DX sized file, and the DOF considerations.

So far I have to say, I really like the silky smoothness of the D600 images.

I started to respond to this thread the other day about the D400...and got sidetracked. I don't think there's going to be a D400...not in a pro-body design like the D300, unless it has an FX sensor. And, having said that...it looks to me as if the D7000 is Nikon's new DX line...and new DX releases at that quality point will all be follow-ons to that line. I don't think there's that much interest in another D300 upgrade with a DX sensor. At least, not enough to warrant R and D, tooling, production, and distribution.

Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by Ed911 I started to respond to this thread the other day about the D400...and got sidetracked. I don't think there's going to be a D400...not in a pro-body design like the D300, unless it has an FX sensor. And, having said that...it looks to me as if the D7000 is Nikon's new DX line...and new DX releases at that quality point will all be follow-ons to that line. I don't think there's that much interest in another D300 upgrade with a DX sensor. At least, not enough to warrant R and D, tooling, production, and distribution. Just my two cents.

With the price point that a D400 would have to hit the market at (somewhere between the D300s, and the D600) there may not be enough room between the two to warrant the introduction of a new DX body? It'll have to be priced close enough to the D600 to make the jump to an FX camera make sense.

Originally Posted by Ed911 I started to respond to this thread the other day about the D400...and got sidetracked. I don't think there's going to be a D400...not in a pro-body design like the D300, unless it has an FX sensor. And, having said that...it looks to me as if the D7000 is Nikon's new DX line...and new DX releases at that quality point will all be follow-ons to that line. I don't think there's that much interest in another D300 upgrade with a DX sensor. At least, not enough to warrant R and D, tooling, production, and distribution. Just my two cents.

There's plenty to offer in a D400 that neither the D600 nor the D7000 have. Recall how the D700 and D300s both have 8 FPS capability, (with a V-grip, although they could do it without in a D400) ...plus a few other things such as flagship AF and a PC sync port.

How else can you get flagship AF affordably? The $3,000 D800 is your only (new) option now that the D700 is discontinued.

Trust me, there's a market for a D400. If it's got a similar 24 megapixel sensor to the D5200 / 3200, and can deliver roughly the same ISO 1600 / 3200 that the D700 delivers at 12 megapixels, then I'd absolutely buy one.

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Trust me, there's a market for a D400. If it's got a similar 24 megapixel sensor to the D5200 / 3200, and can deliver roughly the same ISO 1600 / 3200 that the D700 delivers at 12 megapixels, then I'd absolutely buy one. =Matt=

Agreed. That sync terminal is important to me since I use these as remotes as well.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville I'd absolutely buy one. =Matt=

Me too. Are you listening, Nikon??