Nikon D700

[Hmac]

Ostensibly from a guy who took some cellphone pictures in the printing plant that's doing the brochures etc for Nikon's upcoming small-body full-frame dSLR.

I don't know if it's true, but this rumor looks pretty believable to me.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/657828

 

[hank-b]

Interesting, and want one, but "700" is an odd number to use - did I miss out on the D400, D500 and D600? I know there's no rule that says they have to use the numbers in sequential order and of course they didn't with the D70, D80, D40, D50 and D60 - hmm, I appear to be disagreeing with myself now. I'll just shut up...

HB

 

[Hmac]

Interesting, and want one, but "700" is an odd number to use - did I miss out on the D400, D500 and D600? I know there's no rule that says they have to use the numbers in sequential order and of course they didn't with the D70, D80, D40, D50 and D60 - hmm, I appear to be disagreeing with myself now. I'll just shut up...

HB

I agree - the name is tough to figure. OTOH, I remember being confused at where the name for Canon's 5D fit into the scheme of things too.

 

[N10248]

Looks real to me, too many new styled parts like the sync covers, and it looks like it'll be the first non full sized body to have the round dk-17 eyepiece mount.

It has an AF assist lamp, but i can't see the join where the flash pops up, so it may not have a flash and instead have a proper glass prism, and have the assist lamp as a remote commander only.

Well made hoax if not though

 

[termina3]

Very good fakes if they are that. Of course, it's possible somebody printed the fakes then took "spy shots" of them to instill authenticity.

D700 makes sense…*they keep the D200, 300 line going up, and then they insert the new camera between the D300 and the D3 -> D700

It'll only be a few years though until Nikon has to completely rethink their numbering scheme… D60's follower will be what? the D70? The D80, D90, then the D100? Right now the D300 seems secure, at least.

I dunno, they could differentiate the number of 0's they put after the models to designate their "pro"-ness (e.g. D4000 or D4k, D800 or D8c, D30, D3)

 

[N10248]

could be a tribute to the D70...

D70 first non pro DX
D700 first non pro FX (well 50% pro I suppose)

although D300F or FX sounds better (cos in 3-4 years time: D40FX )

 

[atari1356]

I agree - the name is tough to figure. OTOH, I remember being confused at where the name for Canon's 5D fit into the scheme of things too.

I'm getting completely off topic here, but at least Canon and Nikon have numbering schemes, unlike Apple which is beyond confusing:

Person 1: I have a Mac

Person 2: which one?

Person 1: an iMac with a 24" screen

Person 2: oh, the newer aluminum one or one of the older white iMacs?

Person 1: it's the metal one

Person 2: oh, but which one? The newer aluminum one, or the original aluminum one?

Person 1: *gets frustrated with conversation and smacks Person 2*




Back on topic: I think a less expensive full frame Nikon would be great - would force Canon to be more competitive on price and features. Will be interesting to see what both Nikon and Canon do by years end.

 

[Westside guy]

I so want this to be true...

The numbering doesn't bother me. Well, any more than any product's numbering does - eventually they all have to break pattern, because otherwise they run out of numbers.

 

[Hmac]

I so want this to be true...

The numbering doesn't bother me. Well, any more than any product's numbering does - eventually they all have to break pattern, because otherwise they run out of numbers.

If they are indeed printing brochures, features and design must be locked in and they're likely already building the thing. Product release can't be that far away

 

[ChrisA]

Interesting, and want one, but "700" is an odd number to use - did I miss out on the D400, D500 and D600? I know there's no rule that says they have to use the numbers in sequential order and of course they didn't with the D70, D80, D40, D50 and D60 - hmm, I appear to be disagreeing with myself now. I'll just shut up...

HB

If this is a full frame camera, it will be expensive. Nikon is leaving so room for upgrades to the lower priced DX bodies. So there can be a D400 and D600 to follow the the current D300. So I'd guess there will be only two more generations of the DX format "hundreds" line

I've always thought that Nikon intended to go back to full frame but it looks like they will phase them in from the top down over the next 10 or 12 years and maybe even keep the DX format around forever as a low-end consumer camera. DX will always be cheaper and smaller.

 

[Westside guy]

If they are indeed printing brochures, features and design must be locked in and they're likely already building the thing. Product release can't be that far away

Availability may be further away though. I always wonder how some folks manage to get their ordered so quickly (non-pros; I could understand if pro photogs had special channels).

But this is the camera I've been waiting for, and the reason I haven't bought a D300...

 

[Hmac]

I think it's always been clear that cropped sensors were a compromise driven by the then-MUCH higher cost of the larger sensors, and that full-frame was the ultimate endpoint of digital photography. I think what we're seeing here is a continuation of that progression started by the 5D/1DsMkII, as full frame starts working its way down the model lineups of these two companies. Clearly, cropped sensors will ultimately become the province of the entry-level dSLRs.

I'm sure Nikon wants to leave room for a D400 D500 D600, but I'd be surprised of there ever is a D400. Or if there is, my guess is that it will be a DX-sensor replacement for the consumer-level D90. I think the follow-on to the D300 will be the D800.

 

[hank-b]

Availability may be further away though. I always wonder how some folks manage to get their ordered so quickly (non-pros; I could understand if pro photogs had special channels).

But this is the camera I've been waiting for, and the reason I haven't bought a D300...

Also, this isn't final artwork - if you follow the link in the original post, there's more publicity text, including one bit which contains a glaring typo (an apostrophe-s combination gets knocked off a word and onto the next line).

HB

I'm getting completely off topic here, but at least Canon and Nikon have numbering schemes, unlike Apple which is beyond confusing

Agreed, it's a real pain, particularly if you're trying to buy a second-hand Mac ("So, you say it's a 2.4GHz iMac - which one?")

HB

 

[Padaung]

The D700 name sounds very suspicious to me. To me there is no reason for it to be used (yet).

This rumour has a lot more credibility to me...
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/07/nikon-d10/

Life would be so boring without a little speculation, eh!!!


The Canon 5D name follows on from the old EOS 5 film camera, which at the time was placed in a similar position in their film camera lineup.

 

[N10248]

more pictures...

http://www.nikonrumors.com/

the 4th pic down shows a outline picture of it - note the diopter adjustment dial, matches up with the picture of the front posted earlier, too much detail to be fake (i think)

 

[Westside guy]

I'll be curious to discover the feature set of whatever full-frame camera ends up being released in this Nikon product slot.

DX crop - the D3 has this, but it seems like something that might be dropped in a lower-end camera. That'd be too bad, since it'd be nice to have the option to use existing DX lenses (okay I realize there's nothing really stopping you anyway, but getting proper exposure, framing, etc. might get a bit more involved). So I'm really hoping this makes it to the "D700".

Overall FPS - for pro photogs this can be important; and the companies all seem to use it as a big marketing point. Personally, I don't care all that much if it's 2.5fps or 8.

Pop-up flash - I've heard arguments that a full-frame camera won't have room for this because of the larger pentaprism required. The Canon 5D doesn't have one, and Nikon's film SLRs that share this body type don't have one either. I've got an SB-600, so it doesn't matter that much; but sometimes it's handy if you're going light (say if you're just taking photos at a family birthday party).

 

[epicwelshman]

I wants it.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Hmmm....anyone want to buy a 3 month old D300?

 

[epicwelshman]

Hmmm....anyone want to buy a 3 month old D300?

The price this D700 will be, whatever you get for the D300 won't even scratch the surface.

That being said, you may as well just donate it to me.

 

[Digital Skunk]

It's garbage, the viewfinder is the larger D3 type in one photo then the smaller shorter D300 one in another.

Besides, the rumor mill says that the FX short body Nikon is going to be deemed the D10, given the name of the D300 battery grip.

 

[Abstract]

D700 makes sense…*they keep the D200, 300 line going up, and then they insert the new camera between the D300 and the D3 -> D700

That has "bad idea" written all over it.

could be a tribute to the D70...

D70 first non pro DX
D700 first non pro FX (well 50% pro I suppose)

although D300F or FX sounds better (cos in 3-4 years time: D40FX )

Exactly. D300FX makes sense. This doesn't.



I guess this isn't worse than the naming schemes used by Nokia. Their "system" (i.e.: a four-digit, seemingly random number) is the worst.

I'll be curious to discover the feature set of whatever full-frame camera ends up being released in this Nikon product slot.

DX crop - the D3 has this, but it seems like something that might be dropped in a lower-end camera. That'd be too bad, since it'd be nice to have the option to use existing DX lenses (okay I realize there's nothing really stopping you anyway, but getting proper exposure, framing, etc. might get a bit more involved). So I'm really hoping this makes it to the "D700".

Overall FPS - for pro photogs this can be important; and the companies all seem to use it as a big marketing point. Personally, I don't care all that much if it's 2.5fps or 8.

Pop-up flash - I've heard arguments that a full-frame camera won't have room for this because of the larger pentaprism required. The Canon 5D doesn't have one, and Nikon's film SLRs that share this body type don't have one either. I've got an SB-600, so it doesn't matter that much; but sometimes it's handy if you're going light (say if you're just taking photos at a family birthday party).

I don't think a D300 sized FX camera would have any of these things. If the D3 stays at the same price it's at now, the mini-D3 can't have these specs unless its price is the same (or greater).

 

[Hmac]

I think the D700 (D300FX, D10...whatever) will likely have DX cropping. Nikon ultimately will abandon the Dx format (at least in upper level cameras) but not yet. This camera will be a kind of watershed camera for Nikon, signals a new direction, and not giving a nod to the many people who bought into DX within the last couple of years when Nikon introduced and pushed the concept, would be giving away too much too soon IMHO. Plus, they would likely want to provide the option to bump the frame rate, as they've done in the past.

 

[Hmac]

The price this D700 will be, whatever you get for the D300 won't even scratch the surface.

I dunno. Pricing would be a problem. Everybody is going to want to compare the D700 to the 5D. But the 5D (currently) is only a couple of hundred $$ more than the D300. Nikon wouldn't want to sabotage the D300 by pricing the D700 too close, but they also wouldn't want to give people too much of a price reason to consider Canon the 5D (or 5D Mk II) as an alternative. OTOH, they also aren't going to want to undercut sales of the D3 by pricing too far below that. Nikon has a large price gap as it is...there's no $3000 camera in their lineup - the spot that used to be filled by the D2Hs. Is this going to be the camera? Is it so much more than the 5D that they can justify it being $1000 more? What's the resolution of the 5D Mk II going to be? What happens if Nikon brings out a 12.7 mp D300FX and Canon's 5D Mk II turns out to be 17 mp? Heh heh...it's the D2H all over again.

 

[Westside guy]

I dunno. Pricing would be a problem. Everybody is going to want to compare the D700 to the 5D. But the 5D (currently) is only a couple of hundred $$ more than the D300. Nikon wouldn't want to sabotage the D300 by pricing the D700 too close, but they also wouldn't want to give people too much of a price reason to consider Canon the 5D (or 5D Mk II) as an alternative

It seems to me that Nikon, Canon, or both have been rather good at slotting their cameras in between their competitor's cameras, so direct comparison doesn't work (well, except for those rabid fanboys of either persuasion). Also, it seems Canon is generally more careful than Nikon about not putting "too much" into their lower end cameras such that they might risk cannibalizing sales of the next camera up in their line-up. So I'd be very surprised if the 5DmkII completely compares, feature to feature, with whatever Nikon eventually comes out with.

On a side note - in a camera like this, I'd actually prefer a full-frame 12MP sensor to a 17MP sensor. But then people keep bragging about their brand-spankin'-new compact camera with a 29MP sensor cuz "you can just print so much bigger with higher resolution", so what do I know.

 

[cube]

Exactly. D300FX makes sense. This doesn't.

It DOES make sense. They can launch D400, D500 and D600 in DX, while using D700, D800, and D900 for FX.

D400 clashes with the still available 400D. D1000 clashes with 1000D.

Like that, they can keep their legacy numbering scheme for a little longer without introducing anything radically new (like D1000).

Their numbering scheme at the low end was already messed up by D40x and D60. Don't expect much logic.

Besides, that, I hope there would be a 6MP D90 variant, the D75. Would be more interesting than a D55 (modern version of the D50, still 6MP).