Buy a D800 now or wait on a D400 / D600

I'm looking for some opinions on my next camera purchase. My wife and I currently share a D200 we've been using for the last 6 years. Before that, I had an old 8008s. We've been waiting on a D400, but we finally got tired of waiting and placed an order for a D800. My problem is I'm still not sure I want the D800. I think I might be happier with a D400 / 600 if it ever comes out. By the time I buy the camera and the 28 – 300 mm lens, I will probably spend $2000 more than I would on the theoretical D400. Since I'd get the 800 sooner (hopefully), and get full frame, I think I'm OK with that. But, I want to make sure there's nothing I'm over looking. I'd hate to own a $3000 camera and wish I had bought something cheaper.



Here's some quick info about us and what we do. We want a general purpose SLR, we photograph our life so it's a little of everything. Since we hike a lot, we do a lot nature work. When our kids do sports, we photograph that too. We're both hobbyist, but my wife does occasional work for her company's marking material. We have a pair of preschoolers now that limits our time and options for shooting so big outings with the gear don't happen. The tripod, filters, flashes, etc... stays at home for the most part. We typically carry the body and 1, maybe 2 lenses (mostly the 18-200 and / or the 50 mm). We are generally opportunistic photographers. When we go out, we like to shoot, but we rarely go out specifically to get photos. Our lens collection is somewhat limited. We have a 18-200, 20 mm f2.8, 50 mm f1.8, and a lens baby. I would like an 105 micro and 70 – 200 f2.8 but I can't justify spending that much money on a lens that will only leave the house twice a year. I'll get those when my kids are older.


What we like about the D200 is the solid weather sealed body and easy of changing the settings. The big feature we want in a new camera is higher ISO and better color quality. I know a lot of people don't care about high ISO, but kids and flashes don't always go together.


My biggest concerns with the D800 is weight and the 36 MP. While the D800 doesn't wight much more than the D200, the 28-300 is a ½ lbs heavier than the 18-200. My wife already doesn't like to carry that lens because it's too big. As for the image size, since we rarely print beyond 8x10, 10 MP has been fine for us. We can live with 36 MP as long as it's doesn't hurt the images. My concern is that everyone is saying to put this camera on a tripod. For 99 shots out of 100, we hand hold our camera. I assume that the impact on the image is only evident when you blow it up, and if I print 8x10s, hand held is fine. But, I'd like someone to confirm that. Anything I'm missing or not thinking about? Has anyone heard of any feature in the D400 / D600 that the D800 will lack?


Sorry, this was a long post but I've tried to answer questions I know people will ask.

I'd keep using the D200 until the 600 and 400 come out. You need to be studying lenses, flashes, and tripods not bodies.

BTW what lenses do you have to use with your D200?

For lenses I have a Nikon 50 mm f1.8D, a Nikon 18-200 VR, a Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF-D, and a Lens Baby. I sold my mid range zooms when I sold my 8008s.
For flashes, I have an SB-600. I don't do studio work so I don't have any other lights.
For Tripods, I have a Bogen / Manfrotto 3021 with a 3047 head, a Promaster 6600, and a really light piece of junk that I have no idea who it's by.

On my to buy list for lenses are the Nikon 105 f2.8micro and Nikon 70 - 200 f2.8. However, as I said in my post, I won't by either of those lenses until my kids are older. It's not strictly about money, it's about return on investment. When I go hiking, I have 35lbs child on my back. I have no way to easily carry the gear I have right now, so it all stays home. I'm not going to buy a $2000 lens that I'd only end up shooting 300 shots a year with. Once my kids are in grade school and can hike 10 miles on their own, and I start carrying around gear again, I'll buy a few more lenses. Until then, it will pretty much be a body and single lens. The only other lenses I might buy in the next few years are 28mm f1.8 and a 85 mm f1.8. Since the primes are small, I might get them now since I can slide them into a pocket and get some use out of them, but the 50mm work 95% of the time for me so I haven't felt the need to spend the money.

I really wish Nikon would come out with a FX camera the same size as a F2 or even something along the lines of a Fuji X Pro 1 with a 1.5 crop sensor. Have you looked into the new 2012 Fuji lens offerings for their X cameras? They are releasing a boatload of them this year. I think they are the pathfinders...they are getting the focal lengths right...with primes...read smaller and lighter than zooms. Once they get the AF speed down it is going to be hard for the giants to catch up IMO. There is a quiet revolution in cameras going on right now as we speak...we're talking game changers here. IMHO the DSLR is being handed it @ss just as the SLR did to the rangefinder it is only a matter of a few years to go.

Canon is fixing to break out theirs soon and it is going to be damn interesting.

I've read about the Fuji's but have not seen one. I'd be interested in trying one out. From what I've seen, the Fuji is very interesting as are the other mirrorless cameras. The whole mirrorless revolution was bound to happen. There's really no need for a huge mirror in the camera. The only reason we keep it is because people have huge systems they have built around SLRs and they don't want to throw all that glass away. That said, I'm not sure the future will look like the Fuji either. The Fuji is still a ranger finder camera with the associated limitations. EVF will eventually be good enough for most pros. But, that may not be the biggest change. The age of interchangeable lens may only have a decade or two left. The D800 is at 36 MP on a full frame sensor. Today, we have the technology to make about 100 MP 36 mm sensor. If we can push that out to 200 MP, by pushing the pixel pitch just a little smaller, and the sensor a little bigger, digital zoom may eliminate optical zoom. At 200 MP, you can zoom in 4x and still get a 12.5 MP image. That's the equivalent zoom ration of an 18 - 300 mm lens. Put a 1x optical zoom lens on the camera and you have a 32x zoom ratio. I'm not sure where physics will stop us, but interchangeable lenses might one day only be in the hands of those people who play around with old technology.

Look at this line up...soccer moms get out of town the photographers are coming with their mirrorless APC-S 16 MP sensors and their tiny primes and zooms! It is a backpacker's dream I tell you!

I think for your purposes the D800 would be over kill. I'm in a similar situation wanting to upgrade and I am waiting to see what comes along with the rumors in regards to D400/600, should see something this fall. I could swing a D800 if I really wanted it, but it's just too much camera for my needs. I think either the D400/600 will produce excellent prints up to 16x24 which is all I would ever need. I would wait and have more $ for glass.

Yes, the D800 is over kill. That's what gives me pause about buying it. That said, I've been waiting on a D400 for a LONG time. First we expected a D400 in 2009 and got a D300s. Then in 2010, we expected a D400 but Nikon released the D7000. Last year the rumors were that a D400 would be out by Christmas, so when my camera had a near death experience in mid 2011, I waited. When the D800 was released right on the heals of the D4, I thought 400 would be right around the corner so I waited. Now, I'm at the back Queue for the 800 with still no guarantee of a 400 coming out. My 200 has take some damage over the years and it's getting up there in shutter actuation. I'm tired of waiting and I'm not sure the 200 will last another year as my primary body. I have no desire to go 4 months w/o a camera nor do I want to buy an outdated 7000 because that's all I can get off the shelf.

Besides being tired of waiting, I'm really beginning to wonder if there will be a D400. The rumors of a consumer grade full frame D600 have me wondering if Nikon hasn't given up on a semipro FX camera. I'm not sure it makes sense to have a camera with a higher # (D600) cost less and have less technology than one with a lower number (D400). Nikon might be gearing up to make the X00 series FX cameras while the X000 series is DX cameras. That would simplify marketing and confuse consumers less. It would also explain why Nikon hasn't bothered with a real update to the D300 in 5 years.

As long as the D800 is just overkill, and it won't be too much (i.e., as long as I'm not negatively impacted by it), I'm pretty sure I'm willing to pay the impatient tax. I have enough money that if I really wanted more glass, I could buy the glass AND the D800. I just don't need any more lenses that I have right now. Plus, me buying the D800 would be good for you. As soon my 800 ships, the 400 will be announced and you can buy yours.

I dunno, I'm thinking a D600 and/or a D400 will just get you Jones'in for a D800, so why not step on up now and save money by going to directly to the end point instead of taking the long route?

matt10nick said:

Yes, the D800 is over kill. That's what gives me pause about buying it. That said, I've been waiting on a D400 for a LONG time. First we expected a D400 in 2009 and got a D300s. Then in 2010, we expected a D400 but Nikon released the D7000. Last year the rumors were that a D400 would be out by Christmas, so when my camera had a near death experience in mid 2011, I waited. When the D800 was released right on the heals of the D4, I thought 400 would be right around the corner so I waited. Now, I'm at the back Queue for the 800 with still no guarantee of a 400 coming out. My 200 has take some damage over the years and it's getting up there in shutter actuation. I'm tired of waiting and I'm not sure the 200 will last another year as my primary body. I have no desire to go 4 months w/o a camera nor do I want to buy an outdated 7000 because that's all I can get off the shelf.

Besides being tired of waiting, I'm really beginning to wonder if there will be a D400. The rumors of a consumer grade full frame D600 have me wondering if Nikon hasn't given up on a semipro FX camera. I'm not sure it makes sense to have a camera with a higher # (D600) cost less and have less technology than one with a lower number (D400). Nikon might be gearing up to make the X00 series FX cameras while the X000 series is DX cameras. That would simplify marketing and confuse consumers less. It would also explain why Nikon hasn't bothered with a real update to the D300 in 5 years.

As long as the D800 is just overkill, and it won't be too much (i.e., as long as I'm not negatively impacted by it), I'm pretty sure I'm willing to pay the impatient tax. I have enough money that if I really wanted more glass, I could buy the glass AND the D800. I just don't need any more lenses that I have right now. Plus, me buying the D800 would be good for you. As soon my 800 ships, the 400 will be announced and you can buy yours.

Click to expand...

Good thinking, hurry up and buy that D800! I think something will come out this fall, I'll probably jump on anything above a D5200.

I'm going to upgrade from an APSC camera too and I'm somewhat in a similar situation. I shoot different things from you but I'm looking at more or less the same upgrade. I considered a D800, a D4, even a used D3S (since good high ISO is the most important for me) and I almost bought one of those, but in the end decided this is just more than I want to invest in a camera.

Have you considered a used D700? It is a great camera if you don't need video and more than 12MP. You can even buy a used D700 (actually I wouldn't buy a new one) and a cheaper model for video and still end up with much less than one of the above models costs. Since you haven't mentioned video, I assume you don't need it. If you buy used and a new model you prefer does come out, you will most likely lose a lot less if you decide to replace it after all (though I've seen the D800 sell "used" for almsot as much as it costs new so this might be an exception).

For what I need, if the D600 really exists with approx the same theoretical specs in the rumors and ISO is as good as the D700 then it would be just about perfect. I was in the same situation, tired of waiting and almost bought something. But I decided to wait a couple of more months.

What some of you may not be aware, the D800 has a DX mode also including a 1.2x crop feature and still gives you plenty of MP. However, this won't help if you require more than 5-6 fps.

IF you are done with the DX, you have an instant full frame camera for landscape or studio work where it shines.

seriously consider the D7000, I have both the D7000 and D800, for my hiking, and casual walk around, the D7000 is great, the weight difference, and smaller size is perfect. Best, it is weather sealed, and works with your DX lens, FX lens, and even meters old manual AI glass. You are already used to DX sensor of your D200, and at say 1100 dollars for the D7000 body, not a huge investment, but you will see the improvement over the D200.
Yes the D800 is great, and for certain shots, the D7000 cannot match, but for 95% of the rest, D7000 is a great solid camera that any D200 user would like.