Thought you might be interested. Check this out on the home page news section

http://www.registeryourcamera.com

Jorge Torralba
http://www.cameraGAS.com

Interesting. Can't wait for a press release from Nikon, but I still won't give up my D700!

~Joe in Western NC

My Nikonians Gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Sure I will...but only after D700x/800 prices fall 20-25%, like my D700.

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
*D800E *D700 *SB800 *RRS 24L & BH-55
Nikkors: *14-24 *24-70 *70-200 VRII *T-20E III *50 f/1.8 *PC-E 85 *28-300 & Tamron 90mm Macro

Hi:

According to Ken Rockwell:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700x.htm

It makes sense since the D3x is not selling that well and Nikon has to recoup their R&D costs for the 24MP sensor. However if this is true, I’m done with new digital new bodies. My next camera is film. What? The lifespan of a digital body is six months? Nikon must be dreaming.

Best regards,

Ramesses

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

>The lifespan of a digital body is six months?

Whether a D700X or something similar appears sooner or later, no-one really sees it as a replacement for the D700. A higher-MP camera could sit alongside the D700 in the same way that the D3X does with the D3, the D2X did with the D2H, and the D1X did with the D1H.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Hi Brian:

It does not affect me, at all. I knew very well that after getting the D700 and keeping the D300, I was at the top of the food chain, in the Prosumer market, for about six months. Two years from now, I’ll be a bottom feeder for the rest of my life. However, I disagree with you. The D700x is a prosumer camera with 2X the MP’s of the D700. It took a whole of six months for the D700 to be superseded. This is crazy! Not even PC’s, in the PC’s revolution of the 80’s, was like that. What was the rule? 18 months!

I was not going to upgrade to 24 MP, anyway – I do not want to upgrade both the PC tower and laptop, also. For better or worse, this is it for me.

Best Regards,

Ramesses

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

the d700x at 4300 is not going to be flying off the shelves in todays market when the d3 and d700 have been bought and paid for

pricing is everything and I think sony has the right pricepoint along with canon....under 3k

Thanks for sharing,

Jeff

More MP's just mean larger file sizes. I print 20x30 just fine with my D700

>It does not affect me, at all.

I understand that. It doesn't affect me, either, since I remain very happy with my 12MP D300 and D700

I was just trying to calm your apparent fears by pointing out the flaw in your assumptions. I'll try again...

>However, I disagree with you. The D700x is a prosumer
>camera with 2X the MP’s of the D700. It took a whole of six
>months for the D700 to be superseded.

First: it is already 7 months since the D700 was announced (1st July 2008).
Second: this rumoured D700X is not announced yet and people don't seem to expect it for a while.
Third: if and when there is a D700X, it will almost certainly not replace/supersede the D700. There is room for both in the range, as with the D3 and D3X.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I sold my D200 a few months ago, and I am patiently waiting for the D700X.

I recognise the D700 is very competent, but the Canon 5d MkII & the Sony A900 21+ mp's leave Nikon no choice than to launch their own competitive offering i.e the D700X with the D3X sensor.

The D3X pricing is arrogant, and not just in this economic climate.

Brian, past performance is no guide for the future. Also do you really think they will have a D700, D700X, D3 and D3X all being offered at the same time?

Exactly! in order to compete with Canon 5-II the new Nikon D700 has to offer around 20 MP and video capability for no more than $2999!!! if not, the majority of the people interested in FX format (of course not Nikonians) will lean toward the Canon full frame.

Raffa
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51499263@N00/

>Also do you really think they will have a D700, D700X,
>D3 and D3X all being offered at the same time?

No-one can be sure, but why not? If the D3X / D3 price differential is anything to go by, the price of a potential 24MP D700X would be much too high to act as an entry-level FX body in competition with the Sony A900 and Canon 5D Mk II.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Brian, so how about this:

D700 carries on as the entry level FX camera, and the price will have softened to below £1500 in the UK (cheapest currently is £1629).

D700X with the 24mp being offered at £2500, ie a 25% premium to the Canon/Sony

The D3 could carry on, but at what price level?

The D3X will most likely soften to £4000.

The question really is - What will Pro's migrate to? And therein is your answer as to what will be dropped.

Speculating is always fun, but sometimes of doubtful value

All I was trying to do was point out that saying "the D700 has been superseded after 6 months" is not accurate.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>the price of a potential 24MP D700X would be much too high to act as >an entry-level FX body in competition with the Sony A900 and Canon 5D >Mk II.

Hi Brian.
Please, let me understand: why a photographer (not one of the passionate nikonians), who is just interested in taking stunning pictures, should prefer a D700x to other entry-level FX cameras (Canon 5D-II) if it's much more expensive? What's the market of the much more expensive D700x you are thinking of?

Raffa
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51499263@N00/

>Exactly! in order to compete with Canon 5-II the new Nikon
>D700 has to offer around 20 MP and video capability for no
>more than $2999!!! if not, the majority of the people
>interested in FX format (of course not Nikonians) will lean
>toward the Canon full frame.

I very much doubt that. Canon's prosumer DSLRs clearly lag Nikon in technology, features and and user friendliness.

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
*D800E *D700 *SB800 *RRS 24L & BH-55
Nikkors: *14-24 *24-70 *70-200 VRII *T-20E III *50 f/1.8 *PC-E 85 *28-300 & Tamron 90mm Macro

I hope no-one is taking my postings in this thread as fact

I'm merely responding to reports of a rumoured new camera with some guesses, and at the same time trying to reassure anyone who is concerned about their D700 being "superseded" after only 6 months.

So on that basis... I can't see how Nikon could launch a 24MP "D700X" in the near future at anywhere close to the current price of the D700. If such a camera is launched, there is bound to be a differential, if only for reasons of component cost and market positioning.

Perhaps the type of photographer you mention would be satisfied with a DX-format camera - there are plenty of good ones out there that can produce stunning pictures, like the D300, 50D, A700... Or perhaps there is room for a "D90X" with something like a 16MP FX sensor for those who must have the larger format.

It's always been a fruitless exercise to attempt to predict Nikon's product strategy, and with the current mix of DX and FX formats it is even more tricky!

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Of course we are all playing with this rumors.

I don't think the D700 is surpassed, but we all know that the price point of this camera (and some others Nikons like D3x) is surpassed, and in fact the real price of the D700 was $2250-2350 and not $2999 already 3 months ago. A 25% drop in price in 4 months is just not serious enough by Nikon.

Raffa
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51499263@N00/

Doesn't phase me in the least, I can't keep up with technology but I'll tell you this, as of today I own the best DSLR Prosumer camera available, D700, and I'm very happy.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Maybe we are all having a language problem...!

To "surpass" means to "go beyond in excellence or achievement".
To "supersede" means to "replace in effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing"

Clearly, the potential "D700X" that is being discussed here will have a higher pixel count than the D700; the D700 will be surpassed. I'm arguing that a "D700X" will not replace the D700, or at least not immediately; the D700 will not be superseded.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I got it, my bad about surpassed/superseded. sorry!

Then, I guess, we can say the D700 price has been superseded. - just kidding.

Raffa
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51499263@N00/

Hi All,


One of my most important intentions for the new year concerning photography is waste no time on what is coming enjoy what you got.
It works i am more happy with what i got.

Dutch Nikonian
Shoot everything without bullets.

Music was my first love,photography my last.

www.arthurbender.nl

I think people need to wake up to the reality that more megapixels does not equal better photographs,and therefore a D700X will not necessarily give you better pictures, and may give you considerably worse pictures, than the D700.

If you are a wedding photographer, for example, and you must shoot in low light/no flash churches, you will be considerably WORSE off with a D3x or a D700x than the current D700.

The "progress" is becoming less and less linear. When it was simply a matter of more megapixels gives you a better picture it was easy. But once you have reached 12mgpx and 6400 ISO, going to 24mpgx and 1600 ISO is non-linear progress at best.

The reason that the D3X isn't selling well is for the simple reason that it will NOT give you better photographs unless you are shooting HUGE landscapes in good light and blowing them up to five foot across. So, what exactly are you getting that is "better" in any real world useful way?

Note that the sale of PCs has slowed very considerably and not just because of a bad economy, but because for what most folks do with a PC, the next improvement in Intel chips simply doesn't matter. I remember buying a new computer every time Intel announced its latest greatest chip. Now, I couldn't care less. That is where we are approaching.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

Thank you, Larry!

One of the most discussed aspects of the D700 is the low light performance! If I needed the pixel dencity today I think I would buy a D300. I shot a D70 and then D40 (I have made 20x30's no problem!) because I liked the large photosites on the sensor. More megapixels do not nessarily make a better camera! I will be happy with my D700 for a long time. I don't feel compelled to upgrade camera bodies every few months.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Omigosh, you guys! I just got my D700 and am astonished at what it can do. Now you're talking about the Next one?? Let's put the brakes on for a little bit and relish this nice camera. No, I won't get my film cameras off mothballs yet

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Agree with Okilayko and Dr Miller... The D700 is superb. When I bought it 2 months back, I also considered the Canon MkII. I don't need the video and I don't need the extra megapixels. To each, his own. The D700 meets my needs - a great tool to take great photos.

The problem with digital cameras is they are computers with an optical input. I had my F3HP for over 25 years and in the space of 4 years I have had 4 digital cameras. Some people will just cahse the latest and the greatest, yet the D700 is plenty of camera for me. It solved all my issues I had shooting my D200 in places where the conditions were just too bad for it to perform properly. My D700 gives me all I had with my F3HP and motor drive, except of interchagable screens and viewfinders, and is solid. I doubt I will be buying another body for many years. I bought the D700 for FX and high ISO.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Hi Larry:

I agree and disagree with you. You cannot say, categorically and in a blanket statement, that more pixels does not equal better photos. Quite the opposite, more pixels = better quality photos. The question should be, how much better? There are many factors involved. A good rule of thumb is that to see a big difference, the amount of pixels should double. However, we are talking a surface area. Therefore, it should quadruple.

Another factor is the pixel size. Bigger pixels render better quality. For example the D40 VS the D40x (two identical cameras,) is a good example. There was little difference in quality between the cameras. The D40’s bigger sized pixels almost negated the advantage of more crammed pixels in the same censor area. However, that was a CCD censor. In CMOS, there is an optimum pixel size (I do not recall the actual size.) Beyond that, the quality starts degrading. The D700 seems to have that optimum size or close to it.

Every report I read so far, seems to indicate that the D3x is the best camera so far. This includes Ken Rockwell who is “boycotting” the D3x, because of the price, and has turned to Leica. The problem with the D3x, as I understand it, is the noise factor – it is not as clean as the D3 or D700. However, this is another issue.

Now, let’s ask the question, how much better is the D3x over the D3? It is better, but not that much better, imho. Does it justify the headache of handling bigger files? Since I only publish on the Web: “Hell, NO!” In addition, the D3x (and I assume the D700x) is much noisier. Keep in mind the following: “Nikon is very much aware of the noise problem.”

Nikon came out with the D300, a fabulous camera in my book. Six months later, they trotted out the D700. Now, after six or seven months, they might announce the D700x just before the PMA, in March. Since they know about the noise with the D3x, when are they going to reveal the D4/D800 with at least 24 MP, but a much better cleaner camera/cameras?

Even, if I wanted the D700x, I would not get it due to Nikon’s recent history of a new prosumer or pro camera every six months. I would certainly wait for the D800 or D900. Paraphrasing Mark Twain: “If you are not happy with Nikon’s new cameras, wait five minutes.” I do not even know if the CMOS censor technology has reached its limit and they are working on another type of censor that is not CCD or Foveon.

I will not upgrade the D300 and D700, maybe forever (forever to me means until I migrate to the blue yonder.) I’m very happy with them and with my PC and new Laptop – they are very fast even with Capture NX. I will not handle bigger size files. I know what I went through when I upgraded from the D40 to D300, and for what? As I said, I only publish on the Web. Furthermore, I consider my site as my photographic diary – I’m the only one visiting it.

Best regards,

Ramesses

PS: This is my first post with the laptop. The PC is backing up the D drive. Wow, there is no downtime, now. One more thing. The laptop (13.3" widescreen) is "parked" in front of the 24" widescreen of the PC. It looks like VW side-by-side a Greyhound bus

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

At the pace that digital technology is "improving" Nikon should come up with a "buy back" program for their cameras. If you buy a new, upgraded body within so many years (within 5 year warranty) they will give a trade in credit. They then could sell these "buy backs" on Ebay similar to what many of the appliance industry does. This would give us with NAS, the ability to get our "fix" with a little less pain and would give people the ability to buy a "Nikon certified" used camera.

Don't hold your breath on that!
I believe the term is "Planned obsolescence"!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If Nikon is going the PC way I think they are aiming for trouble. PC can do it for a period of times in the '90 was because of Software upgrading and required a powerful machine to run it. It has to keep up to the new softwares. By now the PC is more or less stablised and any normal PC today is over powerful for normal clarical work, good enough for photograph/graphic/video work, just OK for games/HDvideo. Unless there is further requirement of new usage and new software a new set of PC will sell. As for camera, why it will not go the PC way. It is the end result, just a static picture. There are no different between all 12Mp using the same size sensors camera. The only difference are the features of the camera and how often do we use them or all of them.

I got my first cheap SLR, D70. Then, the D_X pro camera are way beyond my reach. When D200 emerged, a major improvement from D70, lots of people went in and it was a major success. From D200 to D300, there are new improvement but not as significant as from D70 to D200. Then within a short period D700 came along with about the same Mb as D300 except that it is FX. If Nikon keep coming out new one within a year, it will not go well with those who already own one. Nobody will change the digital camera that fast like PC because it doesn't required any latest software to run it. The old model and the new one have the same end result, it capture an image. A simple process. Unlike PC, where interactivity play a major change in the way people use it.

If I do not need most of the new features, I am still good with my D200 to take a picture. In PC you can't because the old chip will not run on new softwares whether you like it or not. I am still happy with my D200. I didn't WOW when D300 came out and D700 is not very far off from D300 except it is FX. However it is good news to me if they launched D700X, I can now consider D300 or D700 because of the price drop. Taking picture still depend alot on us individual, though the extra features do help in certain way.

I find that its way too many models in the market now and with the financial crisis, it may brings down one or two major brand. I stick with Nikon because of Nikkor....my 2 cents worth of thought. Many Thanks.

Jiang

Not sure I should waste my first post on the forums by getting involved in one of these debates but I do have a question:

All other factors being equal, at what size of a print would you notice the "quality" difference between a 12 MP and a 24 MP sensor?

>Don't hold your breath on that!
>I believe the term is "Planned obsolescence"!
>
Hi,

That's a good one i like that statement.

Dutch Nikonian
Shoot everything without bullets.

Music was my first love,photography my last.

www.arthurbender.nl

Is this question for me? If so, I really don't care about resolution, I use a film SLR and I'm happy with it.
My point is that Nikon should be more careful with pricing. Even if the D700 has not been replaced, not surpassed, neither superseded, the price drop of 25% in 4 months is just ridiculous. From this point of view Canon is more serious.

Raffa
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51499263@N00/

My question was a technical one and open to anyone.

As to price drops... they can result from many factors such as currency flucuations, faltering economy and yes reduced product cycles. As I just purchased my D700 I quite welcomed the drop regardless of its reason. I certainly had no plans or desire to wait 4 months for the next best thing then pay the "early adopter" price or suffer through supply and price increases as with the 5D Mark II.

Bodies only have a 1 year warranty

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>Bodies only have a 1 year warranty

I always use my American Express card. AmEx doubles the manufacturers original warranty up to one added year. My Olympus E-1 focusing failed in the 24th month. AmEx told me to send it to Olympus which repaired it for $1200. Amex sent me a check for $1200.

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
*D800E *D700 *SB800 *RRS 24L & BH-55
Nikkors: *14-24 *24-70 *70-200 VRII *T-20E III *50 f/1.8 *PC-E 85 *28-300 & Tamron 90mm Macro

I agree with Bob. I had Canon F-1 (no insult to Nikonian guys) for over thirty years and I never had any issue regarding the upgrades or newer version of the camera. Now, I have a D700 and a D300 (as a back up), that gives me plenty of camera to work with. It is sad to see all these newer version of digital cameras are growing like mushrooms just to show how important few little options can do. Higher MPs are also a question of needs. Do I need more MPs than what I have now? Not really. At least not for the next few years.

Regards-
Kamal,

www.kamalsaffarinia.com

- the competition is difficult to pin down with Ist Feb price increases still to feed through but the 5D II might level out at £2,300 (including 15% VAT) and the 1Ds III at £6,000.
When back orders for the D3x are fulfilled it may level off at £5,000 - though pro dealers suggest that is months away now it is widely accepted the D3x is the best "studio" 35mm DSLR in production - backed up with a complement of specialised T&S lenses.
A D700 is likely to have better AF than the 5D II and as yet Canon does not have an equal to Nikon's 14-24 and 25-70 or 4 stop VR and nano coating in 400, 500 and 600 primes.
Broadly the more you pay for a body the more important lens range and availability of high end lenses becomes.
***
What the specification of a D700x might be is speculation - but if the II price levels out at £2,300 then £2,500 of a D700x could be competitive.
***
Digressing using 2 weeks free trial at www.bjp-online.com you can read an interesting comparison of the D3x and 5D II.
You can also see the difference in corner vignetting between a 20 year old Minolta 50mm f1.4 and the new "monster with 77mm front filter" Sigma 50mm f1.4.
Digressing again this months Royal Photographic Journal concludes for a "typical" UK type landscape shot there is little difference between 200 ISO and 3200 ISO on a D3.
***
Using equipment well is often more important than owning something capable of being "better". With this in mind getting the best out of 20 MP+ and viewing at 100% often needs 4 shutter speeds faster than 1x focal length (or a good tripod) to see the full difference - which somewhat limits when the MP gain might be a useful advantage.
***
One sobering thought - excellent though many of the images are in the Nikonians Galleries the maximum file size used is well below 1 MP

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>Bodies only have a 1 year warranty

That is one reason, if possible, I buy all my "big" photographic purchases through the PX/BX. For between $20 - $65 you can get an extended warranty of 1-3 years that goes into effect after the factory warranty expires. I know most extended warranties are pretty much an overpriced scam but with the PX I know I'm getting a great policy. Just one benefit of putting up with the military way of life for 20 years.

My daughter is taking a photography class as part of her Fine Arts teaching degree this semester. When I bought my D70 I gave her my old Coolpix 990 with the accessory lenses (for it's time, pre-Prosumer/consumer DSLR's) it was top of the line for digital cameras. It's been two weeks since she started so I asked her how her camera looks against the others, thinking that there would be DSLR's aplenty. She said "everyone thinks my camera is cool and great. She said noone, not even the professor has a DSLR. At first I was a little stunned then had to realize that for most, the technology of the point and shoot, 3MP Digital Camera will more than adequately provide all of their photographic needs. I read the specs of Nikon's new P90 Coolpix. For $400 you get 12.1 MP, 24x zoom with VR stabilization, 3 inch LCD screen. How much would we have to spend to get equal or better specs including zoom range, in a DSLR. Now, don't misunderstand me, I love my photo equipment and will be upgrading just like the rest of you, but how much of this "chasing technology" is really NAS versus needing the technology to truly improve our photography or make the work easier. Just something to think about
Steve Martz

Yeah, Steve hits at the core of my original question. The kind of camera you need is really dependent on the output you will be creating. Of all the serious amateur photographers I know none routinely print to poster size. So when they are deciding on their next camera what would ever possess them to go for a D700x when the D700 would far exceed their needs and likely be considerably less expensive? The only reason would be if the 24MP of the D700x provided higher quality images. Yet from a technical perspective I don't see how it is possible for a 24MP camera to beat a 12MP camera for pics at normal print sizes.

When I was making my latest acquisition decision it all came down to two contenders... the D700 and the Canon 5D Mark II. I was not tied to either camp because I had been using a Konica Minolta 7D and a Dynax 9. Nothing I read said the 5D2 would produce better output at anything but the largest print formats and even then the data was sketchy. Since I don't normally print at anything larger than Super B the decision became much easier. 12MP was more than enough to meet my quality requirements, was less expensive and the smaller file size actually became a plus. I am not trying to add to the nauseating Canon/Nikon debate but addessing the issue with people concerned about Nikon releasing a D700x so soon. I am saying I couldn't care less that Nikon is about to release a larger MP version of the D700, as the rationale I used in making my decision now would still apply even if I were comparing a D700 and D700x.

For me the MP wars are over. Need to start focusing (no pun) on something else to differentiate between cameras and to dream about. Til then I have a 100,000 or so actuations to consider.

I am in the same boat as Saffron_Blaze. I was a KM 7D --> Sony A700 ---> Nikon D700. When it was time to go FF, Nikon won hands down to me, it came down to...

1. High ISO performance
2. Lens selection
3. $2,300 vs $2,999 (A900 and 5D Mark II)
4. Could care less about video
5. Could care less about 24 mp
6. File size
7. Nikon ergonomics, although I like Sony a lot too.
8. 8 FPS
9. Sealed body and lenses, Sony and CZ lenses not sealed.

www.AlanSlabaugh.com

>I very much doubt that. Canon's prosumer DSLRs clearly lag
>Nikon in technology, features and and user friendliness.
>

Yes and No.

Nikon does not have a prosumer camera with HD Video, so Nikon is lagging there (a lot of people don't care about Video).

Nikon does not have a prosumer camera with high resolution (D300/D700 are 12 Mp, Sony and Canon are both 20 mp +), so Nikon lags Canon there too.

Nikon wins in other areas, like high ISO, AF etc.

Two years ago before the D3/D300 came out, Nikon were slammed for not being as good at High ISO as Canon. The D3/D300 changed that. Now people are complaining that Nikon lag in resolution (unless you have $8k for a D3x).

Once they release high resolution prosumer bodies, people will find something else to complain about (probably wherever Canon gets the next advantage).

Steve Denton

Website: http://www.dentonimages.com
Rate Photo Stuff | DSLR Database | Travel Blog

>Yeah, Steve hits at the core of my original question. The
>kind of camera you need is really dependent on the output you
>will be creating. Of all the serious amateur photographers I
>know none routinely print to poster size. So when they are
>deciding on their next camera what would ever possess them to
>go for a D700x when the D700 would far exceed their needs and
>likely be considerably less expensive? The only reason would
>be if the 24MP of the D700x provided higher quality images.
>Yet from a technical perspective I don't see how it is
>possible for a 24MP camera to beat a 12MP camera for pics at
>normal print sizes.
>
>

>
>For me the MP wars are over. Need to start focusing (no pun)
>on something else to differentiate between cameras and to
>dream about. Til then I have a 100,000 or so actuations to
>consider.

Most D700 users here seem so content and clearly they are right to be, at present. However, Nikon Chiefs would be having sleepless nights if all their devotees were so content that they would not be upgrading in a year or 2 or 3.

Nikon has to keep offering you new models (or you will be enticed by their competitors offerings).

It is not a question if a D700x with 24mp will make it's appearance, it's a question of when. And I suspect many D700 devotees will be upgrading sooner than they think. For in the main it will not be the guys who have D40/d70/D90 etc who will be making the jump to the D700X

To use the Porsche analogy (people with D700's, D3's probably appreciate Porsche cars too), there was 996, then a 996GT3, then a 996GT3 MkII, then a 996 GT3 RS, then a 997, 997 GT3, 997 G3RS, now there is the new 997 GT3 Mk11 and soon a 997 GT3 Mk11 RS - a new & better model nearly every year at the TOP of the Porsche model range - and they are not in the electronics business!!

Would anyone here rule out a 30MP camera by the end of 2010?

>To use the Porsche analogy (people with D700's, D3's probably
>appreciate Porsche cars too), there was 996, then a 996GT3,
>then a 996GT3 MkII, then a 996 GT3 RS, then a 997, 997 GT3,
>997 G3RS, now there is the new 997 GT3 Mk11 and soon a 997 GT3
>Mk11 RS - a new & better model nearly every year at the
>TOP of the Porsche model range - and they are not in the
>electronics business!!
>
Which goes back to my premise of Nikon taking your D700/D3 as a trade-in for the new upgraded model much like automobile manufacturers do. How many Porsche owners buy the newest model while keeping the one they currently own. By having this type of "trade up/trade in" program Nikon would have a "win/win" proposition. They have the hard core Nikon addicts upgrading more often and they also have much of the point and shoot crowd moving into DSLR's since the cost of the used DSLR's would be in line with the top of the line point and shoot cameras. Once they have their first DSLR, they will need lenses and be more apt to upgrade to a newer DSLR in the future.

Steve martz

>>To use the Porsche analogy (people with D700's, D3's
>probably
>>appreciate Porsche cars too), there was 996, then a
>996GT3,
>>then a 996GT3 MkII, then a 996 GT3 RS, then a 997, 997
>GT3,
>>997 G3RS, now there is the new 997 GT3 Mk11 and soon a 997
>GT3
>>Mk11 RS - a new & better model nearly every year at
>the
>>TOP of the Porsche model range - and they are not in the
>>electronics business!!
>>
>Which goes back to my premise of Nikon taking your D700/D3 as
>a trade-in for the new upgraded model much like automobile
>manufacturers do. How many Porsche owners buy the newest model
>while keeping the one they currently own.
>Steve martz

Agree with that. For instance Lexicon, manufacturer of high end AV Processors, had/had exactly the upgrade business model you suggest.

Ramses, I do not think you are disagreeing with what I said. I said that the D700x would not necessarily give you better pictures than the D700 and may give you worse. To go from a D3 to D3x or D700 to a D700x you are basically trading pixels for low light performance. For the way most of us view and print photographs, that is a poor trade in my opinion.

In the "old days" we could assume more pixels equaled better photographs. Not so now. It might equal a better photograph, but not if you are shooting a wedding in a no flash church. When you say that the D3x is the "best camera so far" I think you have to clarify what that means. It does not mean better low light/high iso performance.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

When the D700 came out, it was pretty clear that someday soon Nikon would release an FX design with decent pixel count in the DX mode. So, I decided that I would simply wait so that I can have a camera that offers solid DX and FX functionality.

When the D3x was released I figured I was getting close, but the price was prohibitive. I really don't want that large a camera anyway. From that point, it all seemed pretty obvious that a lower priced D700x was right around the corner and I still remain hopeful.

And, as Brian and others point out, I certainly think the D3/D3x and D700/D700x family concept is valid (certanly, precident has been set). There is a place for all four cameras. It's all about features and benefits and Nikon will price their products accordingly.

Anyway, I think it is wonderful that Nikon and other are moving the technology forward. No one has to buy into it. Upgrading is not mandatory and I don't understand why some people get so uptight when Nikon releases a new camera.

New car models come out once a year...why can't cameras?

Mike

My Pbase Favorites

My Nikonians Gallery

<New car models come out once a year...why can't cameras?

Mike

I think when this happens people who get uptight about it feel that their newly acquired camera is now obsolete!!!!

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

And what is happening in that industry and GM?

George
My Nikonian Galleries

I was cured of the "technology chase" in the area of computers. I used to feel that I "needed" to keep up and have the latest and greatest. Then I realized that I wasn't gaining great improvements and now I upgrade when I feel that the computer is a hindrance to me. I brought this into the digital photography realm. Upgraded from the D70 to the D700 and will likely not upgrade from the D700 until we get to something that makes the D700 a hindrance by inability to utilize latest technologies.

The D700, price, low light ability, low cost, (at he time of purchase), backwards compatibility, free NX2 and features got me over the line,

It was a DSLR that I have been waiting for a long time, FX arrived!

It is enough camera for me and future purchases would be lenses and accessories,

Regards,
Gary

> Upgraded from the D70 to
>the D700 and will likely not upgrade from the D700 until we
>get to something that makes the D700 a hindrance by inability
>to utilize latest technologies.
>

The good news is that this is not going to happen for quite a while!

I find the D700 to be a fabulous camera that I can use in pretty much any situation. Unless you're printing large & detailed images or cropping tightly, 12MP basically gets the job done. For most prints I'm hard pressed to see the benefit of my D3x over the D700 - unless it's something like a forest shot or something that cries out for fine detail. The ability to crop more without losing pixels is nice though.

------
Graham

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Quote "It is enough camera for me and future purchases would be lenses and accessories"

I have been following this thread with interest because I own a D700 and my sentiments are exactly those of Gary.

It appears to me that the camera makers themselves have become locked into this "Its over 1 year old so we'll produce a new model and everybody will trade up" mindset, while neglecting the thing that would really make them money, particularly in the current economic climate, producing new/replacement lenses that 'serious' amateurs and professionals will buy.

Nikon has a range that fall into four groups at the moment.

1 - Plastic zooms of varying quality + two "in between" lenses, the near 10 year old design 80-400 zoom and the excellent 17-55 DX.

2 - High priced zooms, one of which, the 70-200 is known to be of less than optimal quality on FX, and fixed focal length lenses for the professional market which appear from various posts on this and other forums to be in permanent short supply.

3 - A range of fixed focal length lenses, most of which are of at least a 10 year old design, driven by the in camera motor, of partially plastic construction.

4 - A range of specialist lenses which are all recent introductions, Micro and PC-E types.

The following is a personal view and I would like to know what others think.

If Nikon were to produce any one of the following I would buy it, and all four over a period of time, as they would perfectly match my D700.

Updated 18-35 f3.5-4.5 zoom with a fixed f4 aperture
28-80 or 35-105 f4 zoom
80-200 f4 zoom
Updated 80-400 zoom with variable aperture as now to keep the size and weight down.

In order to keep the prices competive all these should be built to a standard similar to the existing 80-400, below that of the professional lenses but way above most of the current plastic offerings.

Because I can manage without autofocus for most of my photography I have bought three lenses since I got my D700, all of which really show what the sensor in it can do, 85 f2, 105 f2.5 & 180 f2.8, all Ais and all of which netted Nikon precisely £0.

Least it be thought that I am 'knocking' Nikon, Canon are in exactly the same position.

For example
100-400, a 10 year old design & still push/pull.
24-104 f4, edges so soft between 24-35 on FX that you have to stop down to f11 to get a sharp picture.
Most of the fixed focal length 'middle range' lenses introduced at least 10 years ago.

I think it was Bill Clinton who said "Its the economy stupid". I think we sould all try to get acroos to the major camera makers that "Its the lenses stupid"

Chris P

Interesting post Chris,

Thom Hogan has promised for some while now to write up his thoughts on what exactly the constraints are at Nikon on the number of yearly new lens designs and why. I don't have any information on that, but yes there are a LOT of designs they could do that would have huge swaths of serious amateurs and pros jumping onto waiting lists more or less immediately. I will be interested to see Thom's thoughts on this topic when he gets around to it. I will say that the six or so new lens designs per year that they do churn out are generally excellent, so no complaints there!

Thom does expect two more lens announcements and called them surprises, so not sure what to expect from that. I haven't seen any credible rumors of late. I appreciate your insights into the Canon 24-105, since a Nikon version of that is very high on my wish list, but not with that kind of performance. Perhaps my hope for a 24-135mm is dashed if even the Canon 24-105mm had serious compromises! I am getting to the point now where my remaining lens purchases are for high utility, but also high quality, otherwise I will go with other shorter zoom-range but better quality options. I recently did a head to head test of the Tamron 28-75mm against the Nikon 24-70mm and am evaluating results, but unsure which way I will proceed. I may just sit on the sidelines with my current 28-105mm Nikon and see what develops in terms of a mid-range f4 zoom, preferably with VR.

Best regards, SteveK
My Nikonians gallery
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange

I don't know, the last few lenses released by Nikon have been pretty much boring.

the 2 TS lenses, for whom?
the 35mm F1.8 DX, well, is it that much better than the 35mm F2?
more consumer zoom lenses than you can shake a stick at.

how about a 120-300 F2.8VR? I'll buy that one at list price.
a 10-20mm F2.8VR DX with a D400X would get me to stay with DX for good.

Like I said, it's been pretty boring with lenses in the last year.

I think 'boring' depends heavily on your perspective.

For some of us the 24/45/85 PC-E lenses are far from boring! Ditto the new 50 1.4/G.
I would kill for the 70-200VR update or competitive pro 24-120VR though. Ditto for a more modern 80-400VR too.

As regards the rest, yup, pretty boring for FX shooters.

My totally biased hope is that Nikon put their $$ into new updated lens designs as opposed to speeding up camera releases. However, I'm pretty sure that the boring consumer zooms account for a huge amount more volume & profit than $800-$2000 high end glass.

------
Graham

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for your thoughts Steve.

The Canon 24-105 has a problem because, as I understand it, a ratio of 3:1 is about the limit of the zoom range when trying to maintain good image quality throughout the zoom range, hence 24-70, 70-200 etc.This changes at both the wide and telephoto ends to 2:1, hence 14-24, 200-400 etc.

I used to have a Canon system and when they introduced the 24-105 I bought one, so my observations are based on personal experience. What I never understood was why they used that zoom range. They already had the 17-40, so a really good quality 35-105 would have perfectly complimented it and they would have sold two lenses to cover 17-105 instead of buyers opting for one or the other to avoid the massive overlap.

Replying to your post and reading the others has made me think about my original suggestion, another, and possibility better, alternative would be:-

Updated 18-35 as before
35-105 f4, with VR, as it would make a very useful 52-157 on DX
100-300 f4 VR, this would give, together with the 35-105, a real alternative to those who wanted a longer reach at the long end than that given by the 24-70 & 70-200 combination. If a precisely matched 1.4x converter was introduced with it then there would be no need to update the 80-400 as the converter would produce a 140-420 f5.6.
All three lenses to have a common 77mm filter size.

If Nikon did this they would have three really good quality lenses, all with a constant aperture, covering the range from 18-300mm and up to 420mm with the converter. This would give the present D700 owners, and D3/D3x owners as well, a set of lenses that would match the build and optical quality of the cameras.

I also think that such a range of lenses if priced at about 2/3rds of the cost of the f2.8 lenses would sell even in these depression hit times; as a lot of the buyers would be tempted by a real alternative to their 'prosumer' zooms when they are not willng to spend over £1.500 on the f2.8 zooms.

Chris P

Chris P

I beg to differ

You will be in the middle of the food chain

As will I

>Hi Brian:
>
>It does not affect me, at all. I knew very well that after
>getting the D700 and keeping the D300, I was at the top of the
>food chain, in the Prosumer market, for about six months. Two
>years from now, I’ll be a bottom feeder for the rest of my
>life. However, I disagree with you. The D700x is a prosumer
>camera with 2X the MP’s of the D700. It took a whole of six
>months for the D700 to be superseded. This is crazy! Not
>even PC’s, in the PC’s revolution of the 80’s, was like that.
>What was the rule? 18 months!
>
>I was not going to upgrade to 24 MP, anyway – I do not want to
>upgrade both the PC tower and laptop, also. For better or
>worse, this is it for me.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Ramesses
>

New Jersey Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I can't find the link....help!!!!

>Brian, so how about this:
>
>D700 carries on as the entry level FX camera, and the price
>will have softened to below £1500 in the UK (cheapest
>currently is £1629).
>
>D700X with the 24mp being offered at £2500, ie a 25% premium
>to the Canon/Sony
>
>The D3 could carry on, but at what price level?
>
>The D3X will most likely soften to £4000.
>
>The question really is - What will Pro's migrate to? And
>therein is your answer as to what will be dropped.

Pros don't dictate the market... wealthy amateurs do.
>
>

Don

I have been saving up for a new camera, thinking of the D700. But while I am doing that, I am interested in a possible D700x.

24 mp is overkill for me, I would prefer something in the 18-mp range.
The reason being is I sell on Alamy, and the images have to be upsized to a minimum of 48mb 8 bit Tiff, then converted to jpeg.

That extra step in Genuine Fractals is time consuming when you are doing a folder of images. I haven't done the math to see just exactly what resolution I would need, (18mp? 20mp? you techies figure it out and tell me) but would prefer it if it produced a 50mb file. There would be times I crop and would still need to upsize, but still would be able to save some time, plus it would be nice to have more mp to crop and still have a decent file.

Yet if getting the pixels I need downgrades the quality and low light capabilities of what the D700 produces, that would make me stop and think. Also I would seriously be stopped if the price was what Rockwell projects. I agree somewhere in the region of $3000 or so would be great.

I may just be dreaming.

~Betty~
Now, where the heck did I put that filter??
http://www.Betty\'s Gallery

"I am still happy with my D200. I didn't WOW when D300 came out and D700 is not very far off from D300 except it is FX."
Jiang -- the D700's high ISO performance (same as D3 for much less $) is what sets it apart from other cameras. The D700 was the first "affordable" FX camera to set the 6400 ISO benchmark, meaning that the camera is able to produce clean, low-noise images at 6400 ISO, which is truly groundbreaking, trail-blazing technology. Might not be important for your particular style of photography, but it's very important to a great many photographers. I can now get crisp, virtually noiseless pix shooting in low-light settings that I could never get with either a D200 or a D300. Attached theatrical pic was shot available light with a D700, shooting at 6400 ISO with a 3.5 f-stop, and a shutter speed of 125. The actress is lighted by one lone spotlight. It would be technically impossible for either a D200 or D300 to capture such an image. The D300 ISO threshold is about 3200. To get such an image at 3200 ISO (even with a tripod) would require a shutter speed of about 30 (or less), in which case the shot would be blurred because of subject movement.

RNV

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Eventhough I bought my camera from the BX, I used my AMEX card like Gator Bob; automatic one yeart extension of the warranty at no cost.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Where's the D700x rumor info, I couldn't find it at the link?
Mark Stephan
USN, retired

The one huge advantage of the BX/PX extended warranty is their "lemon clause". If there are more than 3 repairs on the warranted item during the warranty period "now four years for my D700" they will replace with a new camera (D700) or comparable replacement if the D700 is no longer manufactured. Not a bad deal for $69.
Steve

>Where's the D700x rumor info, I couldn't find it at the
>link?
>Mark Stephan
>USN, retired

Why do you need a link to incorrect information? You can just make up some rumor by yourself

But here it is:
http://nikonrumors.com/category/nikon-d800

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

Thank you, Tom. The OP was not clear on where to find the article - and, of course, many of us were curious. Thanks again.

>Thought you might be interested. Check this out on the home
>page news section
>
>http://www.registeryourcamera.com


Thanks I am here looking at the D700 as a possible replacement for my D300 that was just stolen. I will register the serial number of the D 300 at the site. I doubt I will get lucky but anything to make it more difficult for them to sell my gear is good!

Jake

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

One point tha seems to have been missed is that a large pixel FF camera will enable you to use cheaper DX lens at same pixel output of the current DX cameras!

This could bee seen as a benefit to some.


Personally the better ISO of the D700 has more appeal.

---------------------------
If only i knew what that button did!
-------------------------

My Flickr Gallery

My Nikonians Gallery

Just want to chime in a second on the 120-300 2.8vr. that would be amazing and perfect for my needs.

KEEGAN

Nikonian & Bostonian who has recently switched coasts | My Nikonians Gallery
You can also visit me @ my photo site & my Pbase gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.