Nikon D700

[Cheffy Dave]

This one's for the DIGITAL SKUNK

Ain't no fake- Off ENGADGET

Nikon D700 gets real: full-frame, 12.1 megapixels
by Ryan Block, posted Jul 1st 2008 at 12:15AM


Well, we can finally put the D700 rumors to bed. The beast that houses Nikon's newest monster (near) full-frame FX format 12.1 megapixel CMOS (not dissimilar from that found in the D3) is officially announced tonight, and it takes UDMA CompactFlash, and comes packing with a live view 3-inch display, 51 point autofocus (with 3D tracking), scene recognition, four-speed active dust reduction, ISO up to 6400, 5 or 8 fps full-res shooting, HDMI out, and a whole lot more. Expect it in July for $3,000 US (for the body).

Also being released are the SB-900 speedlight (August, $500), and the PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED and PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D lenses (August, $1,800 and $1,740, respectively).

http://www.engadget.com/photos/nikon-d700-gets-real-full-frame-12-1-megapixels/893535/

 

[yrsonicdeath]

D300 in the mail.

 

[Hmac]

D300 in the mail.

You can return it if you have the the extra $1350 to burn and the time to wait. AND, you may find some good deals on used D3's out there from people looking to move down to the smaller form-factor of the D700.

OTOH, the D300 is a great camera and may be more bang-for buck than the D700.

 

[Hmac]

Now the question is Nikon's next dSLR. D90, by all rumors, a downscaled version of the D300.

And then there's the oft-mentioned D3X. Seems like all they'd have to do is drop their 24 mp sensor in there and they'd be good to go. However there is a body of informed thought out there that is thinking that instead of it being a 24 MP version of the D3, it will be a 24 MP version of the D700.

Interesting concept...the D3 isn't that far off the 1Ds MkIII in picture quality, and that $8000 price point has to be a little thinly populated with buyers - so how much pressure is Nikon under to build that D3X camera? OTOH, Nikon will soon have the 5D MkII and the Sony A900 to contend with. Does the 24mp D900 make more sense, then?

 

[OreoCookie]

Now the question is Nikon's next dSLR. D90, by all rumors, a downscaled version of the D300.

That's what Nikon has done before with the D200/D80, so I agree.

And then there's the oft-mentioned D3X. Seems like all they'd have to do is drop their 24 mp sensor in there and they'd be good to go. However there is a body of informed thought out there that is thinking that instead of it being a 24 MP version of the D3, it will be a 24 MP version of the D700.

I don't think that'd make sense price-wise. The D900 (or whatever it will be called) will be significantly more expensive than the D700 and then it's not too far away from the price of a D3 -- if at all.

Interesting concept...the D3 isn't that far off the 1Ds MkIII in picture quality, and that $8000 price point has to be a little thinly populated with buyers - so how much pressure is Nikon under to build that D3X camera?

I think the D3 competes with the 1D MkIII, not the Ds, but in any case, the Ds is a niche camera. I think a D3X is inevitable

OTOH, Nikon will soon have the 5D MkII and the Sony A900 to contend with. Does the 24mp D900 make more sense, then?

From what I've heard, Canon wants to compete in the high-ISO, low-noise game. I don't expect that Canon significantly increases the resolution, because that would take away (part of the) the low noise characteristics and leave a gap in their line-up.

It would certainly make a very desirable studio camera, but then it would cannibalize sales of the 1 Ds and the price point would probably be higher than that of its immediate competitor.

 

[Abstract]

No. If they're going to make a D3x, they really need to do it in a D3's body, even if it's just to get 100% viewfinder coverage. I'd expect that from a studio camera where I have time to set up. I'd personally think that 100% coverage on a D3x is more important than it is on a D3, where you're more likely to be moving around and panning, which means you won't have time to get the perfect composition anyway. Same with the D700. I guess if they can put a D3's viewfinder into a slightly larger version of the D700, then OK, make a D3x out of it. However, I don't think people would mind a D3 sized body if it's going to sit on a massive tripod indoors.



Anyway, I'm more concerned about the D80s/D90 than anything else. Base it on the D300 design again (expect smaller), and you'll have the ultimate lineup.

 

[Hmac]

I don't think that'd make sense price-wise. The D900 (or whatever it will be called) will be significantly more expensive than the D700 and then it's not too far away from the price of a D3 -- if at all.

I agree, seems like that could make for an awkward pricing structure.

I think the D3 competes with the 1D MkIII, not the Ds, but in any case, the Ds is a niche camera. I think a D3X is inevitable

I think the D3 is somewhere in the middle between the 1D MkIII and the 1Ds MkIII, and to some extent, competes with both of them. I do think the D3 has hurt the 1D MkIII a lot more than it has hurt the 1Ds MkIII, mainly because (as you say) the 1Ds MkIII is indeed a niche camera. The D3 is in a pretty smart market position.

Yeah, you're probably right. Thom Hogan now seems to think that the D900 is the next-up body instead of D3X. But given the pricing structures and the fact that the D700 will likely be in the same general arena as the 5D MkII and A900, and given the clamor for the D3X on places like DPR, I suppose the D3X makes more sense than a D900.

From what I've heard, Canon wants to compete in the high-ISO, low-noise game. I don't expect that Canon significantly increases the resolution, because that would take away (part of the) the low noise characteristics and leave a gap in their line-up.

I agree. With the D3, D300, and now the D700, high-ISO has become a bigger part of the market than high resolution. We don't know what the noise is going to be like on the A900, but I wonder if Nikon and likely soon Canon didn't just out-jink Sony.

 

[OreoCookie]

I agree. With the D3, D300, and now the D700, high-ISO has become a bigger part of the market than high resolution. We don't know what the noise is going to be like on the A900, but I wonder if Nikon and likely soon Canon didn't just out-jink Sony.

Right. That's Canon's logic for the current 5D, too. Feature-wise, it is arguably less advanced than the 40D, the selling point is the full frame sensors (and its advantages).

I think ~12 MP is about the sweet spot, most people don't really need more, including some professionals.

 

[Hmac]

Right. That's Canon's logic for the current 5D, too. Feature-wise, it is arguably less advanced than the 40D, the selling point is the full frame sensors (and its advantages).

I think ~12 MP is about the sweet spot, most people don't really need more, including some professionals.

Now Canon has free reign to bump up the features of the 5D MkII, if they can sell it for ~$3000.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Very nice and thanks for the post. Now I believe it. I am very grateful that it has the D3 viewfinder, and 8fps shooting with the grip I assume.

Now the real next question is, will nikon discontinue the SB-800, and where the hell is my FX AF-S shorties (50mm, 35mm, 28mm, etc) and my FX 24-120 VR AF-S update?

 

[Abstract]

Now Canon has free reign to bump up the features of the 5D MkII, if they can sell it for ~$3000.

Exactly. They'll have to if they're going to compete with the Nikon D700. Bumping the 5D's resolution to the rumoured 16 MP and keeping similar features (3-4 fps, no weather sealing, etc), isn't going to cut it anymore. People are more concerned about the features rather than the MP right now.

Canon used to be able to sell the 5D at over $3000, and I'm sure they'd like to do it again. It's probably in their best interest to keep the MP down to a minimum (say 12 MP again), since it obviously isn't a huge selling point. If it was such a disadvantage, the Canon 40D wouldn't sell so well. It's a fantastic camera, and nobody says its inferior to the A700, D300, K20D because of the sensor. If people prefer another camera over the 40D, it's for other reasons.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

You can return it if you have the the extra $1350 to burn and the time to wait. AND, you may find some good deals on used D3's out there from people looking to move down to the smaller form-factor of the D700.

OTOH, the D300 is a great camera and may be more bang-for buck than the D700.

I all honesty I'm perfectly happy with my soon to arrive D300. I'm upgrading from a Rebel XT. I'm recently no longer a college student which means I have hundreds of times the income as I have had the past four years. I don't however really have the money to justify dropping an extra grand on the D700. I'm eagerly awaiting my D300 it a huge upgrade over my current set-up. When I'm ready to upgrade the D300, I'm sure most things out there that fit my needs with be FF.

 

[66217]

Now the question is Nikon's next dSLR. D90, by all rumors, a downscaled version of the D300.

This is exactly what I am waiting for. I really hope it is a nice update.

The D700 and the possible new D3x are good news, but nothing I'll ever buy, so it isn't really that exciting for me.

 

[Westside guy]

I agree with the consensus on the D3x - it'll have to be the D3 body. There's just not that big a market for the camera, and they can't cut any corners if they want to get part of it. So they need the big body for the biggeest possible buffer, highest possible frame rate, etc.

Now, to the people that just ordered the D300 - it's not like that camera's specs suddenly dropped when the D700 was announced. It's still a great camera. While the D700 has some advantages over the D300, the D300 arguably has advantages over the D700 as well - weight being a big one (especially once you start adding lenses). Plus those of us that are going to get a D700 right now are going to be fretting over lenses for a while - the D300 is currently better situated in that regard, unless you're exclusively using pro glass.

 

[OreoCookie]

The D700 and the possible new D3x are good news, but nothing I'll ever buy, so it isn't really that exciting for me.

I'm only excited, because some of the technologies will eventually trickle down to cameras I can afford

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'm only excited, because some of the technologies will eventually trickle down to cameras I can afford

I am very excited for that, and because I always like to save money. This D700 is a looking to be that F100 digital that many have been waiting for.

 

[Hmac]

Here's a quote from Thom Hogan on DPR last night:

I'm going to go a different direction: no D3x. Yes, a 24mp FX body, but it'll be the D900. This allows them to use the Sony sensor and bring it downscale to compete with the A900/5DII.

I guess what makes more sense to me is (also from DPR):

$1599 -- D300 (12MP, DX)
$2999 -- D700 (12MP, FX)
$3599 -- D900 (24MP, DX, same body as D700)
$4799-- D3 (12 MP, FX)
$5999-- D3x (24 MP, FX, same body as D3)

Thom's a smart guy, and he tends to have inside information. I think betting against him is generally a losing proposition, but in this case....

 

[cube]

Here's a quote from Thom Hogan on DPR last night:

Completely wrong, because the Sony sensor is 12-bit, while those in the D300, D700, and D3 are 14-bit.

 

[ksz]

I am very grateful that it has the D3 viewfinder, and 8fps shooting with the grip I assume.

Just to be clear, the D700 with 95% frame coverage does not have the same viewfinder as the D3.
...

I was very tempted to buy the D300 when it came out, but my objective reasoning side simply could not justify it as an upgrade from my D200. So here comes the D700 and both my emotional and objective sides are in agreement. Waiting for July 25, but will most likely defer it by a few weeks until the rush subsides.

 

[Hmac]

Completely wrong, because the Sony sensor is 12-bit, while those in the D300, D700, and D3 are 14-bit.

So, Nikon is going to use a 12 bit sensor in their 24 mp full-frame camera, whatever it is?

Somebody should tell Thom that his speculation is impossible .

 

[Westside guy]

Thom's a smart guy, and he tends to have inside information. I think betting against him is generally a losing proposition, but in this case....

Well, for what little it's worth - in this case I think he's dead wrong. However, in any case I'm glad they came out with a 12MP camera like the D700. I have no need for more pixels than that (I can't imagine more than 5%-10% of us - at most - do), and the noise performance is a big selling point IMNSHO. I would have been disappointed if their only full-frame F6-size offering had 18 or 24 megapixels.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Just to be clear, the D700 with 95% frame coverage does not have the same viewfinder as the D3.
...

I was very tempted to buy the D300 when it came out, but my objective reasoning side simply could not justify it as an upgrade from my D200. So here comes the D700 and both my emotional and objective sides are in agreement. Waiting for July 25, but will most likely defer it by a few weeks until the rush subsides.

Thanks for that one. That is a good consideration since 95% is a lot to cut off IMHO. The D200's viewfinder is a bit annoying. I agree about your situation, I would have stayed with the D200 unless your shooting style couldn't accommodate lowering your ISO, (though from what I am seeing on most sights most just got it because it was new ). Either way, when it came time for me to choose my gear for my personal capital purchase, I opted out of the D3, Mac Pro, D300, etc, and bought a used D2xs, a bunch of glass, a bunch of strobes, a bunch of other gear, memory cards, and a new MBP.

Now, with a D700 I am going to be on the ropes again, gnawing my teeth over a D700, D3 or waiting for the next iteration of some other or completely new body.

As for the Sony sensor, I think it's a good chance that Nikon will use it and make adjustments to it to get those extra bits of info. Nikon gets their sensors from Sony, but not the entire mechanisms for image processing. And if they did use the 12 bit Sony at 24MP, it won't be a total lose unless you are shooting RAW and can actually notice that tiny bit of missing info.

 

[Whorehay]

It is a very exciting time for photography. It took a couple years, but Nikon has come roaring back

 

[Abstract]

I guess what makes more sense to me is (also from DPR):

A 24 MP DX sensor? Please don't, Nikon.

 

[Hmac]

Well, for what little it's worth - in this case I think he's dead wrong.

There are a lot of people over at DPR that agree with you. I don't know...Thom makes an interesting case for 24 mp FX D900 and no D3X.

Anyone interested - read this thread.