It has NOTHING to do with the D700 as a camera. I really do what one. Instant NAS for someone who's pretty NAS resistant. But,
really bad timing on the release: The ecomony is clamping down on me and my friends pretty hard, and we fall right into the demographics of the people who whould have jumped to get one just a year ago.

It also doesn't help that the zoom lenses that will bring out the most in this camera cost as much as a D300. (Please let's not start a zoom vs prime debate.)

My Nikonian Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

"It also doesn't help that the zoom lenses that will bring out the most in this camera cost as much as a D300. (Please let's not start a zoom vs prime debate.)"

This is true, but that's pretty much always been the case. Good glass has always been expensive, and seen as an investment because it will always outlive your camera body (with digital bodies, anyway). The 24-70 you buy for your D700 will still be there when you eventually upgrade to the D3, D4, D800, or whatever.

Edited to add: I hope that you're right about the discounting. I'm going to try to wait to see if that happens.

--
Adam
A Nikonian in Texas
www.whatsyourimage.com

D3, D300, 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 105mm f/2.8 VR macro, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4

True, Top quality glass costs. What hurts is the lack to a good intermediate lens, like a FF 24-70 F/3.5-5.6 ED AFS kit lens.

My Nikonian Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>True, Top quality glass costs. What hurts is the lack to a
>good intermediate lens, like a FF 24-70 F/3.5-5.6 ED AFS kit
>lens.

Hmmm. I guess you're right. All the good "prosumer" lenses that are out there are DX. Well, if there is money to be made, I'm sure Nikon will come through for us

--
Adam
A Nikonian in Texas
www.whatsyourimage.com

D3, D300, 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 105mm f/2.8 VR macro, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4

>Hmmm. I guess you're right. All the good "prosumer"
>lenses that are out there are DX. Well, if there is money to
>be made, I'm sure Nikon will come through for us

You are kidding, right? Since most of my lenses predate the existence of digital, I'm thinking there are plenty of good Nikon lenses out there in the moderate price range. And all primes are full frame.

>
>>Hmmm. I guess you're right. All the good
>"prosumer"
>>lenses that are out there are DX. Well, if there is money
>to
>>be made, I'm sure Nikon will come through for us
>
>You are kidding, right? Since most of my lenses predate the
>existence of digital, I'm thinking there are plenty of good
>Nikon lenses out there in the moderate price range. And all
>primes are full frame.

Point taken. But I think some of us are used to the bells and whistles of the newer, digital-era lenses (AF-S, VR, etc.). Especially in my industry (weddings).

--
Adam
A Nikonian in Texas
www.whatsyourimage.com

D3, D300, 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 105mm f/2.8 VR macro, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4

If you fell there are no great newer digital-era “prosumer” FX lenses to be had pick up the AF-S 70-300 4.5-5.6 G ED VR. That should change your mind

<That should change your mind>>

No way! I love the DX crop factor on longer lenses. 300mm on a DX format is still not long enough for surfers and little birdies.

On the short end 70mm is ok for portraits, but this is where the F4.5 kills us. I would want the creamy Bokeh of a fast wide open lens.

Edit: LOL! It turns out that Nikon makes an too cheap 24-85mm prosumer lens for $300 that will "work" if you don't mind vignetting.
How about better glass, 77mm filters, and raise the price to get them?

My Nikonian Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>True, Top quality glass costs. What hurts is the lack to a
>good intermediate lens, like a FF 24-70 F/3.5-5.6 ED AFS kit
>lens.

I don't see why Nikon stopped production of the AFS 24-85 3.5-4.5. It was only out for a short run, but I was able to get one. Great lens for carrying around. I do not own any digital (yet) and find the zoom range and size perfect for my F75.

AH! That explains why I never heard of it.

Now, back to why I'm not buying in right away. Nikon sells all the $5000 FX's to those that need them. At $5000 you either need it or your rich.

Then they come out with a $3000 FX to get those buyers. When that market is filled it's either come out with another camera or do like Canon and lower the price.

I'm betting on them lowering the price. With a weak global economy that may be sooner rather then later. It's Canon counterpoint has dropped to $1900.

My Nikonian Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The D700 design has probably been in the pipeline for some time, and likely well before the US sub-prime debacle and other economic woes, both domestic and international, were really known. And even with an economic downturn, with an FX body priced $2000 less than the D3, it's likely to appeal to a much broader constituency. In fact, the timing for a much more economical version of the D3 may be just right to keep Nikon DSLR sales on track!

OldPhotos
"If everyone possesses some measure of this intangible quality called creativity, photography is unprecedented as an outlet for its expression." - Ansel Adams