Low cost FX - my take

I have been extremely happy with my D3300 and its kit lense. It has few features missing, but none of them deal breaking. I have been thinking a lot on what a budget low cost FX from Nikon should be. Well here is what would suit me

As D6xx is below D8xx, so a D4xx will be below D6xx, so let it be D400

1. Body - same as the D3300 with the same button lay out, with the D610 sensor.
. Small and Light Polycarbonate body. The weight and size is a boon while roaming around for any appreciable length of time.
. 6 FPS
. 60 fps video
. 1 SD slot
. Compact AF module, as I primarily use the centre AF only

2. Features that are missing in the D3300, but I would like to have
. FX sensor (of course), with Expeed 4 processor.
. Motor in body - so that "D" lenses can be used.
. Metering with AI/AIS lenses - will open up avenue for using lots of MF lenses. This will need a facility to input the lense focal length and maximum aperture.
. Mirror Up option - no idea why it is missing in D3xxx series.
. Live View while tethered - missing in the D3xxx series. This is a useful feature as the camera can then be controlled remotely and a bigger screen used for focusing.

3. Lens
. Now that it is FX, the 18-55 will correspond to 27-82 if FOV is to remain same. I would say that 25-85/F3.5-F5.6 would be just right.
. It should be as light as the current 18-55, preferably with the retractable design.

The reason I think that a bare bones FX will take off is -
. All controls required for taking images are there in the D3300 series. You can change most of them without drilling deep into the menus - mostly one step. Less buttons means less real estate in the body which translates to a smaller lighter and a more compact body - which should be less expensive to produce.
. There are a lot of users who do not not fancy advanced features - more dedicated buttons, bracketing, dual card slots, metal body, more AF points, higher resolution/swivel screen, 100% VF. This can be seen from the volume of the D3xxx series compared to D5xxx or D7xxx sales.
. Lots of users are like me, they want an inexpensive bare bones camera, as they shoot for pleasure of it, and rarely change the settings between shots. In short they are not in a high pressure situation.
. Landscape photographers really need a good sensor, good high ISO performance and MUP, they rarely need to fiddle with settings constantly.
. A lighter lower cost D4xx FX will entice more P&S shooters (as does the D3xxx series) to switch to the world of DSLR. Most of them will rarely go beyond the kit lense, so a good performer is essential.

Let us see what the other Nikonites think of it.

I think that if there were enough demand and enough profit in it, it would be in the product line. Unless Nikon wants to keep a clear line between DX and FX, pricewise.

If Nikon can make a profit at $600 with D3300+kit lens Nikon D3300 HDSLR | DSLR from Nikon, then they could make profit with D400+kit lens at $800-$900.

What an low cost camera (FX or DX) does is to increase the volume, and there is always the chance of additional revenue through sale of lenses and other accessories.

I don't see any gains in the camera you describe. The quality photos by the D3300/5300 don't warrant another line before the D610. I seriously doubt most people can see a difference between a good photo from a. D3300 and a good photo from a D610.

A "D400" as you describe doesn't make any practical or economical sense.

I'm still waiting for someone to figure out how to put the D7100 sensor in the D300 body. :excitement:

Nikon already has a low cost FX in the D610. Anyone jumping into FX is going to expect a certain amount of enthusiast features & the D610 just about gets away with it. Chopping anything off to create a D400 is going to make it seem a downgrade against the D7100.

Blacktop said:

I'm still waiting for someone to figure out how to put the D7100 sensor in the D300 body. :excitement:

Click to expand...

I can do that no problem,it wont work afterwards but i can do it

TedG954 said:

I don't see any gains in the camera you describe. The quality photos by the D3300/5300 don't warrant another line before the D610. I seriously doubt most people can see a difference between a good photo from a. D3300 and a good photo from a D610.

A "D400" as you describe doesn't make any practical or economical sense.

Click to expand...

If D3300 makes sense, then the "D400" makes sense. What do you get
. Wider field of view, so wides take a wide image
. AI lense metering, woefully lacking in D3300
. MUP - desirable for landscape photographers
. Live View while tethered - a boon for product photographers
. Marginally better high ISO noise due to fatter sensels

If all the features which I have spelled out are available in a low cost package, there will be sales. It is not about the image IQ, it is about wide FOV, and a few features which are missing in the D3xxx series. The operative word is the cost. If Nikon can keep it within D5xxx region, then D400 will be picked up.

One model lacking in Nikon line up is an inexpensive "Landscape Photographers" model. They rarely want or use the frills of higher end models, so why not a no frill FX.

What you guys are missing is the idea of the cost of the FX sensor. The difference between a 24MP DX and a 24MP FX isn't just bigger pixel size. If it was easy to make a low cost, high IQ FX camera then someone would have put it out a while a go. You want a low cost landscaper's camera? Get the D7100. You're not going to get cheaper without an OLPF. Pixel size is too big on the 24MP FX's and dealing with moire at that pixel size is a nightmare, so you have to get up to the 36MP's of the D800 and there goes your low cost. Otherwise, get a used D600 and the 24-85mm (you did a lot of math there to replicate a low cost FX lens they already make), which you can probably find for less than the price of a D7100 if you look hard enough (I did).

D3300 is nearly 1/3 the D7100 cost, so I assume that D400 could be 1/3 the D610 cost. Add a few features which really do not cost much and you can have the D400 bundle in the $800 region.

The reason no one has made a low cost FX is that they were concentrating on DX line for low cost. Now that sensor costs have reportedly come down, it is feasible. As such there is nothing preventing a low cost FX except that manufacturers, till now were slotting FX as a higher cost option for the user. If their marketing department identifies a demand for low cost FX, then we will get it.

aroy said:

D3300 is nearly 1/3 the D7100 cost, so I assume that D400 could be 1/3 the D610 cost. Add a few features which really do not cost much and you can have the D400 bundle in the $800 region.

Click to expand...

That's crazy logic!! First, you're comparing the bottom of the line DX to the top of the line DX cost-wise, within the current range of sensors. And you're talking about technology that has been around for well over a decade and been refined over 5-7 generations. To do a similar comparison you'd have to start with the D810 at least, which boosts you $1000 on your starting price, and really you should be talking D4 just to get up 2 levels from bottom, which is what the D610 is!!!! Then consider that you're talking maybe 3rd generation technology in the FX sensor, and really only 1 generation when it comes to consumer grade stuff. Your logic only makes sense if you want to build in the wait time it took Nikon to turn the D40 into the D7100.

Plainly put, you're out of your mind if you think that they only thing preventing Nikon from releasing an $800 FX bundle is the will to do it. Bat-sh*t crazy, as my grandfather would say.

As Jake mentioned, you are not comparing like with like.

We take the D7100 which is at the top of it's game in the DX range against the D3300 which is as good as Nikon can make while hitting a price point. (I doubt Nikon make very much money at all on the D3300.) You compare that by taking the cheapest model in the FX range & expecting to discount that by 2/3. I'm not sure how you came to that, but sit & think about it for a few minutes.

The biggest cost in a DSLR is the sensor, so any camera with an FX camera will be more expensive than a DX camera. From a marketing perspective, if you are charging over £1000 for a camera body, then you may as well pop on some extra features & take advantage of the larger sensor. I also feel that there should be an obvious upgrade progression. So D3300 to D7100 to D610 to D810 perhaps. In that example, the D610 must appear to be a better featured camera than the D7100, otherwise the owner may not be tempted to make the very expensive switch at that price point.

Nikon DX vs FX

The d400 is not gonna happen guy's... The new d750 is gonna fill in the gap... It will be a camera that I'm sure I will get one day to replace the D610 that I love so much...my goal is to have 2 great fx cameras for events.

ShootRaw said:

The d400 is not gonna happen guy's... The new d750 is gonna fill in the gap... It will be a camera that I'm sure I will get one day to replace the D610 that I love so much...my goal is to have 2 great fx cameras for events.

Click to expand...

I'm interested as I will shortly by buying either a D610 or D750.

What would the D750 have to do to make you (as a D610 owner), see it as a worthwhile upgrade? For instance, would a flappy screen & 51 focus points be enough?

Mainly the better af system it will have.. 51 points and more then likely the area group focus points that the d810 and d4s have..the more points will be better for portraits as well for focusing on the eye while shooting at a wide open aperture ..

LOL @aroy

If you want low-cost FX you get used bodies, D-series or AI-S glass, and work your way up if you feel the need to. You're saying, lets put a Porsche engine in a Civic for those who don't want the appropriate suspension and aerodynamics that make a Porsche a Porsche instead of a Civic.

Let me ask you this - what do you feel you'll get out of a full frame sensor that your crops can't deliver you just yet? And no, 3x00-5x00 do NOT have enough controls to really shoot. And no, you don't NEED metering with older glass if you know what you're doing.

Drive a Civic like a Civic until you save up for a proper Porsche, because it's a Civic and you got it for what it is.

I have to agree with Hippie and Gorf on this...

Your logic simply isn't sound, your comparisons are nowhere close to equal and the conclusions you are coming to are just not rational.

....

Nikon and Canon have set a base price for entry-level FX bodies and would, IMO, be very reluctant to reduce that minimum price with any newer models. If anything, entry-level FX bodies will increase in price as the DX phase-out gathers momentum.

ShootRaw said:

Mainly the better af system it will have.. 51 points and more then likely the area group focus points that the d810 and d4s have..the more points will be better for portraits as well for focusing on the eye while shooting at a wide open aperture ..

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply.

I also would be interested in those two features, it sounds especially useful for perched birds.

I'm wondering how much money over the D610 we would be prepared to pay for those features. My thoughts are that I'd pay half way towards the D810 price - otherwise why not just buy the D810. What do you think?

Info about Group Area AF: Nikon Group-Area AF Mode