Nikon D400, D8000 and D4x Rumors for 2013

Nikon Rumors has a great roundup about their thoughts, tips and suspicions surrounding what new Nikon gear should realistically be appearing in 2013.

The biggest rumor for most shooters is the fusion of the D300s and D7000 lines. NR expects to see a Nikon D400 or D8000 that servers as a successor to both lines with the Nikon D3200 and D5200 rounding out the low-end consumer market. Personally, I think this makes a lot of sense now that there is a higher-end amateur camera with the Nikon D600 that’s just a little bit above the D300s price range (based on the launch retail price). Accordingly, a D400 or D8000 model could now slot easily between the D300s and D7000 to answer the prosumer sports and wildlife call with its APS-C sensor.

Additionally, NR expects a higher resolution full frame model (the D4x?) toward the end of 2013 that would likely be situated above the D4, and would use a 36MP or 52MP sensor. A show of hands for who needs 52MP please?


  1. Isoruku says

    I agree; it does make a great deal of sense. Now, if the D400/D8000 isn’t cursed with the green display tint of the current batch of high-end Nikons, I’m in.

  2. Peter says

    Not really.
    No more pixels needed for me considering what smaller pixels do to the diffraction limit I’d rather have as big a pixel as is possible for a resolution that will comfortably yield a 240 dpi A3+ print after about 20% cropping of the original image
    Give me another 3 stops of dymanic range and I’ll consider a new camera.

  3. Rob McKeag says

    I have thought for a long time now that the D400 will never materialize.
    It would make far more sense given that we now have two Dxxx full framers, to simply extend the Dxxxx line to include a D300/s replacement, or just produce a D8000.
    There might have been a market for a D400 18 months ago but things have moved on since then.

  4. says

    Yeah, I wonder about the need for a 52 megapixel DSLR. Granted, some pros do need it.
    BUT … the pixel size will be small if they try to cram that many onto a 24x36mm chip.

    The D800 crams 36 million pixels onto it, and yes – it provides amazing quality in spite of the smaller photosites. But would that still be possible with 52 million? Processing can only do so much.

  5. Marcel says

    As Peter says, i am also looking for bigger pixel cells due same reasons. I don’t need such huge pixel-count like D800 produces. I’ve tested D800 and D4, definitely D4 is a great camera , but too expensive just for hobby. D800 sucks and brings too much additional costs. That’s why i still keep D700 and D300.
    Dreaming for D400 with ISO similar to D3s, 12MPx and frame burst around 8-10 fps continuously up to 5 seconds would be absolute Nirvana for me. pricing up to 3000$
    From DSLRs produced within last 4 years – only D4 full fill my needs, why is there no similar model like D700 when D3 was introduced :-(

    • says

      Well, after testing the D800, I bought it and LOVE it. Amazingly, considering the small pixels, the image quality is impressive at ISO 1600 and surprisingly decent at ISO 3200, the highest I need to use 99.9% of the time. I might like a 6fps Continuous Drive mode. And autofocus is slow in Live View but I don’t often use Live View. Otherwise, this is the best camera I have ever tested. BUT …. it is ESSENTIAL to use high-grade lenses to get the optimal quality. (e.g. my AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II).

      Most reviews have raved about the D800; For example, DP Review said: Fortunately, the D800 also excels in areas that require no extra effort on your part; notably its impressive high ISO performance, fast and accurate AF system and the wide dynamic range of its image files. These are attributes that most of us are likely to call on far more often than the need to view 20×30 prints at a very close distance. The D800 is a camera that consistently delivers high quality results, under a wide range of shooting conditions with a minimum of fuss. There’s not much more you can ask for in a photographic tool than that. Our admittedly minor complaints of the camera and its relatively slow frame rate don’t detract from how impressive a performer it is for all but pro sports/action photography. As such we’ve awarded it our highest honor, the Gold Award.

      • Marcel says

        Peter, it depends what kind of pictures are you shooting. Yes for landscape photographers is D800 great camera. No doubt.
        I have all lenses in PRO level, so lenses is not my issue, but I hate the processing workflow of such large RAW files. Within one day I produced 10 GB of pictures :-(
        As a documentarist or sport photographer, time to time birds and occassionally landscape i am more looking for D4 capabilities. My priority is speed, ISO, burst rate.
        When I was shooting with D4 indoor sports i was impressed by AF accuracy and the speed. So i do not really understand some posts here complaining about AF from D4. It’s great and the best one I have ever shooting with ….

          • says

            I too struggled with the decision on whether or not to get the D800. I’m a wildlife photographer and had shot for years with both a D700 and D300 (for all my long range stuff) and waited forever for the D400 before finally giving up, and a bit reluctantly, getting the D800. It just wasn’t what I was looking for as a wildlife guy. But just got back from a trip to Ecuador, however, and absolutely loved the camera. (You can check out samples at my website in the “photo of the day” section.) Not sure what all the fuss is about with shooting technique, needing the best glass, etc. I use my same technique and lenses as always (mostly handheld unless landscape shots at longer exposures) and the only difference in my files is that they are much bigger and more detailed, but just as sharp at 100% pixel level. And the high ISO seems on par with the D700. Really happy with the D800 but still want the D400 as a companion camera for a faster burst rate and crop factor on my long lens.

    • says

      Making judgement from Test don’t justify with any product. I own D800e and I love it. Its fabulous camera. I don’t know about people like you but it does fit to all my needs. You have remind me one of those who bash Apple because they can’t afford Mac. So they decide to settle with PC. Live in reality kiddo.

  6. Tony Kanobie says

    I was just in the bank to morage the house for a D4 and as usual , just when I upgrade my Nikon and newer version comes out…This wouldn’t be that bad except I wanted to retire with the LAST Nikon I ever wanted…..

  7. Joel Weiss says

    For me, after using my D4 for 8 months, a D4 upgrade (to D5 vs. D4x) should include the following:

    1) The back LCD should be like an iPhone – minimize all those buttons and have a streamlined Menu)! Large & bright with Gorilla glass)
    2) Lighter – perhaps carbon fiber body!
    3) Improved dynamic range and focussing speed & accuracy (for every new Nikon).
    4) Improved autofocusing capability for video!
    5) Face Priority (and the green squres showing it’s working) for viewfinder view.
    6) ‘Auto’ Fine Focus adjustment for each lens (camera supplied with a pattern / ruler?).

    In addition, I’d like to see Nikon produce a flash bracket (to increase the Speedlight’s distance from the lens in portrait or landscape mode) with an integrated sensor to eliminate wires going to the flash shoe. Also with an optional RF trigger.

    And, Santa, please supply the new Nikon with a hand strap for ease in holding this wonderful Christmas 2013 present!!

    Thank you!

  8. Leon says

    Please Nikon, no more than 16MP’s this should be a Pro aimed camera. I’m not expecting M-format detail out of DX. But I’ll go for 16MP’s max, – fast, enough detail for large prints and truly noise-free for those who use high ISO.

  9. Ricardo says

    The D4X will maybe have a 36MP sensor with 16Bit workflow and like the D800E no low bypass filter. And for movie 4K resolution, 2K and 1080p.

  10. richard says


  11. says

    I would like the meaningless extra pixel count after 16 or 18 for the DX format to stop. It’s a marketing gimmick only. I just took a comparison with a new SONY 24 meg along side my D300s with a 16-85 and the 12 meg D300s was sharper and had much better contrast picking up a lot more detail. I wish I had a exact comparison using the same lens with a D3200. I know the Sony kit lens is not as good as the 16-85, but what a waist file space. The black and white edges vertical & horizontal, graduated out almost 6 pixels from white light grey on up to black. So what’s the point?

    I have a 48′ printer and made prints up to 8 x 16ft for billboards and do not see a huge need past 12 meg unless you need to crop. Also larger prints are generally viewed from a farther distance.

    What we need is less noise, and more dynamic range in the DX line up and I would pay 20% more for better quality control. I went through 1 D70s , 3 D90’s and on my 2nd D300s all having software problems.

    Another interesting note is all the hype about the D800 and with so many pixels and the need of very good at technique, bla bla bla. The D7000 demands the same or even a touch more technique to max out the use of the pixels it has. So why no concern for this in the DX line up with it’s fine grid of pixels? It’s odd to me. Still 36 meg seems right for FX. Why not optimize on the lens to sensor match up? With the computers getting faster and larger, large files today will be average tomorrow. I hope to have a D800E someday.

  12. says

    Based on what Nikon is doing, the D4x would be a 50+MP camera with 6-8 FPS burst, 2k video, 16 bit raw is possible for photos, the low light will be on par or better than the D600-D800, the real benefit is the higher bitrate for photos, more resolution than the D4, and almost as fast burst rate if not it may be the same.

    It cannon be 24mp because the D3x was 24mp, it will not be the same as the D800 as it must be better. I believe it will be a 2k or 4k sensor and be on par with the Canon 1DC. We are talking $9000.00+ price range also.

    Those are just my thoughts.

  13. Larry L says

    We must take a critical look at the relationship between the best lens and the pixel density to see just where the focus to pixel density match up is. My guess is 50 meg for for FX is beyond what the sharpness of a lens can provide. A medium format camera when going beyond 36 meg FX will always be better since it’s lens has a much larger sensor to focus on.

    I wish the D800 had a better burst rate at lower pixel counts like 18meg. It seems like a no brainier. That would have made that camera a real game changer and true replacement for the D700 also.

    • says

      Larry, I wanted the same thing from the D700 replacement (if we’re to believe that that’s what the D800 is) and was quite disappointed when it came out. That being said, I’ve been shooting with it now for a couple of months and love it. I shoot wildlife and love having the extra room to crop when I can’t get as close as I’d like to. The frame rate is slow but I don’t really notice it compared to the D700 — and I shoot a lot of birds in flight. You need the fastest memory cards, however, or else the buffer will fill up fast and you’ll miss shots. I use the Lexar udma 7 1000x cards and they work great. The other day I put a slower card in by mistake and missed a snowy owl that flew right at me and over my head because the camera stopped shooting after the initial burst of frames. That aside, the files look great at pixel level and the detail is incredible. I still carry the D700 as a backup but never want to use it because of the files I get with the D800.

      • says

        Sean, my hats off to you, your gallery is amazing on all counts. I wish I had the time and money to travel and experience what you have. A1+ Nailing the clarity and detail in your well composed action shots is not easy when things happen fast. The D800 extra pixels must also help in your crops. From being in mechanical design/engineer for many years in my past, I am accustomed to think how things need to be optimized for the best performance. The way I see it, the mechanics of the lens is the weakest link with the digital side of the camera not having a ceiling in site. So they push the 24meg in DX to showboat quality with the so so kit lens following far behind and limiting the whole thing. I was shooting a MMA event this weekend another photographer with 2 D700’s. He like so many, like/ need a high frame rate and told me he did not want a D800. Well for that kinda shooting, I can understand. I just wander why Nikon did not design in a faster frame rate at a lower pixel setting. Perhaps the bean counters, as always, had the final say?

  14. says

    I have owned the D800 since the first one reached Canada and still love it. Yes, I wish the drive speed were faster but I also own a D7000 and use that when I need a bit faster frame per second rate. A fater drive speed at 16 megapixels? Yeah … that would make sense. Not sure anyone at Nikon though of that AND perhaps they were afraid it would be criticized.

    I can imagine a Review saying: The D800 provides xx frame per second drive speed but only at 16 MP and not at 36 MP… what’s the point of buying a 36 MP camera if it cannot provide the full drive speed ………….. or something critical like that.

    • says

      Having a 16 MP or 18 at xx drive speed + the option for 36MP, medium format territory camera, would perhaps be too challenging for the D4 to hold it’s own.

      Nikon must be putting in the check and balances to get the best out of their total sales. It’s clearly not about making one super camera the way I see it.

      My needs are all over the map so I would love sports camera that could also do fabulous landscapes. A review would not have anything to compare to that is better at this stage in the game. It would be a very great camera since in often in fast action sports you are compromising with ultimate dynamic range and super fine grain using higher ISO settings and large apertures are also not as crisp along with all the movement so at 16 meg just may be as sharp as what the rest can do, unless your Sean, he has some unbelievable shots.

  15. says

    Just a thought, it’s too bad they could not make a pro body like the D300 with a modular software chip & sensor, upgrade option only. I hate to keep spending thousands for a whole new camera body.
    I can’t wait to see if a D400 emerges. If you look at the great ISO the D800 has, why could they not just cut the same sensor down to a 15 meg, DX size? It would have a better high ISO imaging than the D700 thus a strong reason to stay with DX. 15 meg is about the optimum pixel density anyhow since few lens in DX can get sharp enough to focus much more than that. The talk of using the 24meg sensor the D3200 has, would not be a great improvement.

  16. says

    I use both D4 and D800E (an also Fujifilm XPro-1 and Leica M9). I never see green screen in my cameras, so I guess those of you who experience that need to send the camera for repair. For me, D4 is good for serious photo hunting (landscape and travel photos), D800E for landscape in nearby area and people photos. For everyday use Fuji XPro-1 is the way to go. The Leica can be used as a paper weight. It is useless. The upgrade of D4 should have higher resolution. 16MP is good, but 24MP will be much better. Bigger than that we will have problems. Our computer system these days cannot compete with high resolution cameras. A faster and bigger memory (and bigger hard disk) computer should emerge in one or two years. By that time, bigger resolution of cameras may be justified.