At DPReview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/

At the Nikon USA site:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25444/D700.html

'Wish I could get one but I'm saving up for a 200-400

Simon

A Richmond, B.C. Nikonian
- FM2n, F100, D300, D800

I think the DSLR market is evolving fast, and Nikon and Canon are just trying to keep up with each other. In the end consumers with get a better product for less. Although the down side is our current cameras loose their value faster.

The D700 really isn't a factor for me, because I shoot youth sports, and football season will end before the camera will be available to the public. It has the same CAM3500 AF, so no change there, and it will cost almost twice as much as the D300.

Granted it will probably do better in low light, but how much better than a D300 remains to be seen. Even if it has the same sensor as the D3, that doesn't mean that it will perform the same. Nikon may tweak it just so it's a tad better than the Canon equivalent, but not at the same performance level as the D3.

The DX format is a big factor with me, it puts my 120-300 Sigma is the perfect focal length for youth sports. The FX would require longer lenses, and that’s not a possibility on my budget. So there are always trade offs that each photographer will need to review based on their needs and budget.

Are you not able to switch between DX and FX like in the D3? Seems like it from the specs. Although I felt a little down seeing this announcement as I recently invested in the D300, I also realise that I am far from utilizing and mastering this wonderful camera fully.

Am I the only one who is wondering what all the fuss is about concerning the D700? Unless someone is into very wide angle photography, below 20 mm focal length, or mainly shoots under very low light conditions, what is the advantage over a D300?

As I see it, here in the UK I can pay £980 for a D300 with a 12 Mp DX sensor and a 100% screen, which will give me results equal to the new D700 at any print size to at least 18'' x 12'' and probably beyond, or I can pay double that for the D700 with effectively the same body quality, a cropped viewfinder and a 12 Mp FX sensor.

Perhaps there is some major advantage in a 12 Mp FX sensor over a 12 Mp DX one for general photography which I have not picked up on or missed, if so I would like to know.

At the moment neither camera is of interest as I am waiting and hoping for a new Fuji SLR based on the D300 body with the rumoured 'next generation' Fuji sensor to go with my S5. However if this does not appear, or Fuji pulls out of the SLR market as has also been rumoured, then it will have to be either a D300 or a D700, hence my question as to what I gain by spending an extra £1,000

Chris P

sweet! looks like it would make a nice pair with the d300. in fact, it is the d300 with a FX sensor, basically. should push the d300 holdouts/d3 fence-sitters into putting up or shutting up... best part is d200/300 prices will drop again, well that's not really good news if you were planning to sell yours for a d700. i predict used 17-55s will become plentiful as well as folks dump dx lenses.

Here are some nasty comments from PC World, calling the D300 garbage!
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007193.html

Personally I prefer DX over FX.

FX has two specific benefits - if you must have these, go for it...
1. Better high ISO performance
2. Better ultra wide angle.

DX has different benefits, more important to me:
1. Lighter, smaller lenses
2. Lighter, smaller bodies
3. Crop factor helps greatly with telephoto shots
4. Cheaper body and cheaper lenses

You could easily argue it would be worth paying MORE for a D300 than a D700.

>FX has two specific benefits - if you must have these, go for
>it...
>1. Better high ISO performance
>2. Better ultra wide angle.

3. Larger, probably brighter, viewfinder
4. Shallower DoF (crop-for-crop)
5. Lenses get their "classic" field of view back (useful for 85/105/135 portrait lenses).

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Interesting observations, Brian.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "classic"
field of view, please?


Neill
Proud to be a Montreal Nikonian
http://picasaweb.google.com/NeillDGraham

>Could you elaborate on what you mean by "classic"
>field of view, please?

Just that, for those of us who have owned 35mm film Nikons and used (say) a 105mm f/2 lens for head-and-shoulders portraits, it will be nice to be able to use that lens again for its original purpose. On a DX format camera, we maybe didn't have the space to move back, and if we had, the perspective would be different.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

True, I missed those off my list. I used to have a 105 f/2.5 with my trusty F2 long ago, so I know exactly what you mean about DOF.

Since I've come to the conclusion I'm a DX person, and therefore in the bottom 95% of users, I'm far more interested in the next step forward for DX.

I predict that the D400 will cause quite an upset among the D700 buyers. With its superior dynamic range it will be able to take photos that are only possible today with a tripod and post processing on a PC. And high ISO handling on a par with the D700.

The D700 users will be saying - do I buy a D400 now or do I wait for the D800 with the equivalent capability? Or should I have both? More importantly they will ask: Should I have really gone to FX when the DX sensors are now shown to give such brilliant results. Why am I lugging around all this expensive and heavy kit anyway?

I am done upgrading and spending money on cameras and lenses. Nikon can keep the D700 as as far as I am concerned. The $3000 price tag is too much for me anyway. All you cameraphiles can spend you money on the newest, latest gadgets. Me, no way. thats my four cents (inflation you know)

Feeling a bit like a character out of Star Wars, the force is certainly strong (to pull me over to the dark side of NAS). But truth be told, the D300 is a fantastic camera. While I find the D700 specs to be intriguing (I like the built in Live View level and the fact that you don't loose frame rate speed when shooting in 14 bit), the specs are hardly groundbreaking IMHO (not like they were when comparing the D80/D200 against the new D3/D300).

For those of us who aspire to produce tack sharp images yielding the highest possible resolution, the D300 delivers admirably. And let's face it, any large sensor gains can easily be negated with bad technique and technical ineptitude. I am actually surprised at how little this announcement is actually fazing me. When the D300 came out--I just had to have it. Who could resist the seductive pull of a new 51-point focus system, an improved CMOS sensor, better color accuracy, 14-bit raw capability, Live View and so much more.

And now that Nikon has introduced firmware to address the dead battery issue, detractors should be few and far between (especially given the low price point). That's not to say that there won't be droves of people flocking to purchase the D700. And the D700 will produce breathtaking images--in much the same way that the D300 and D3 (and even the D80 and D200) are capable of doing now. It's all about incremental technical improvement--which may be mutually exclusive to the actual talent of the photographer and their ability to take advantage of any model to model innovation. And like I have pointed out in other posts, I viewed the D300/D3 line as a revolution, whereas the D700 is more of an evolution.

I have no doubt that I'll be migrating to an FX camera sometime in the next two years. Maybe when Nikon introduces an updated version of the 70-200? My guess, is that it'll be the D800 or D900 (whatever is the next version after the D700). For now, I will humbly and loyally stick with my tried and true D300. When the day comes where the new specs wow me (like they did with the D300), I'll be first in line--rest assured. Anything else is just the NAS force trying to pull me over to the dark side.

-Dan


www.danielstainer.com

Price point is too high. $2500 would've made more sense. Until now Nikon was introducing it's top model at $5K and would follow with it's baby pro model at $1800. Now it's compressing those figures. The D700 at $3K, if you add the power grip it goes up to about $3300. And unlike the D3 I gather it doesn't come with Capture NX, so if you want that the price gap diminishes further. And D3 prices are falling. Seems to me the prices are so close that there's little merit in getting this new "Poor Man's D3." Don't get me wrong, it looks like a great camera, but I really don't think this price will last long, especially in light of the competition.

Doctor Advertising

>Price point is too high.

Currencies have changed a lot lately even since the D3,,,D300 release,,,,its likely Nikon gear may rise in US dollars as new products are launched,,.

I agree it will come down thou,,,espeacilly when the new 5D hits the market,,.

Lyle,,,,,,,,.

The PROOF is in the PUDDING,.
http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=71206

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If very high ISO is not that important for what you shoot, personally 99.9% of what I shoot is at ISO 800 or less so I am very happy with my D300, then consider this:

D300 + 17-55 = D700 + 24-70 - $2,000

Okay, not really true, you get a little more FOV range with the D300/17-55 combo.

It is that longer end focal lenghts that bigger, heavier, much more expensive glass is needed for FX. Those 600mm lenses are not airline friendly. I love the DX reach/advantage so I plan on being a DX only user for a long time

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

But then again you should also remember that the prices of DX bodies and lenses will plummet with everyone moving to FX.

For example a D300 will sell for less than a thousand in second hand market and D200 would be selling for $500 or D2X for less than a thousand as well. The same applies for lenses.

Imo, it would be a mistake not to sell DX stuff as soon as possible before the FX market settles down and D700s are commonly available.

.
.
.
Wali in Toronto

>But then again you should also remember that the prices of DX
>bodies and lenses will plummet with everyone moving to FX.

Given that Albert has just made an excellent case for continuing to use DX for quite some time, I can't understand why you think that everyone will be moving to FX format. Even in the Canon range, where there has been a (relatively) cheap full-frame model for some time, the cropped format is still by far the main seller.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

the prices of DX bodies and lenses will plummet with everyone moving to FX.

I totally disagree. Canon has had Full frame since before there was a D70. What percent of their DSLR sales are full frame?

Should a wildlife shooter replace his D300 and 200-400 f/4 with a D700 and 600mm? Size, weight and cost are huge factors with wildlife.

For my landscape work, do I sell my D300 and 12-24 and 17-55, and keep my 70-200, to do the same thing by picking up a D700, 17-35, 24-70 and a 300mm f/2.8 or f/4. This load is expensive and too heavy to carry around on my back when hiking. Also, my working distance for macro becomes a problem.

My point is simply this. DX is not going anywhere and should continue to dominate the DSLR market. Canon shooters already know this

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

I completely agree with you.

I keep reading about FX replacing DX, the need to sell DX lenses etc. All this is madness. DX is going to be the vast proportion of sales, not just now but for ever. DX isn't dying out - it is growing!

It is FX that is in danger of becoming obsolete and dying out, and the investments into FX equipment are all at risk. All it takes is further DX sensor improvements so that FX offers even less than it does now, and eventually even the FX fans will realise that they have recklessly bought into an obsolete system. A system that has a premium price, is heavier and bigger, and in quite a few ways already inferior to DX.

Of course there are some serious photographers who have a real need for FX. But they are a tiny proportion.

To all those thinking of buying a D700, please think more about it first! How will you feel when you realise that your old D300 was BETTER in many ways? How much money are you going to regret spending?

I agree, for people with a D300, stick to it and enjoy the great gear you have. But for people like me wanting to upgrade from a D80 the D700 seems a more logical choice. There are two possibilities: 1) DX wins, 2) FX wins. If DX wins I will happily switch back to DX and my glass will only get better, although with a a 1.5 crop factor. If FX wins (which I think is with the odds) and I would buy a D300 now, my glass would not only be very different when switching to FX but also the DX glass would by much less usefull on an FX camera. Besides that, I love to go wide and FX provides just that.

>There are two possibilities: 1) DX wins, 2) FX wins.

It's not a battle Rather than either of those outcomes, it's far more likely that both formats will co-exist for some years yet. DX will suit some, FX will suit others. And some will use both.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>And some will use both.

Count me in the "some." I like my D3, but my D2X still works a treat. When it's a little older, I'll replace it with whatever the top-of-the-line DX model is then.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

I'm sorry guys but I just don't get it: Why release a camera with the same Mpix as the D300 when Canon is doing things higher up in the range? Nikon would have done much better releasing a camera with a bit more MPix than the top of the Canon range, and discounting the D3's price down to D700 range. Seems to me that somehow the D700 secret slipped and now Nikon can't do anything than make the best of the disclosure by actually releasing the camera.

I also have no doubt that in a few years DX will go out the window and we will be back to FX (read "classic 35mm") size lenses. Nikon should have never gone to DX, but instead kept the FX size all along no matter what the market pressure.

Oh well... I still love my Nikons. -Migs

Why do people keep going on and on and on about FX vs DX. I know as many people who bemoan the lack of wide angle FOV with their full-frame lenses (me included with my effective 25.5-52.5mm 2.8 lens) as those who love the extra reach they get with the 1.5 crop.

Further, as far as I understand, the larger sensor will have a better signal/noise ratio, thus improving high ISO performance. But there are plenty of people who do not use ISOs above 800 or so, and therefore don't need that performance.

I have a D200 which is great, but will look at either the D700 or D3 sometime in the future over the D300 due to the FX format, because it suits me for what I shoot. I personally haven't shot longer than 85mm for a long time, and often consider an effective focal length of 127.5mm too long.

Horses for courses, and to paint out those who you deem to be "recklessly" buying obsolescence is disingenuous.

Some of these debates are very tiresome and reek of defensiveness.

Well said Albert. There is a compelling argument to sticking with DX.

I rarely if ever shoot above ISO 400. And the thought of selling my prized DX gear just to migrate to an FX environment is not warranted at this juncture--especially given the cost versus benefit argument.

Even our "love to hate" blog buddy Ken Rockwell was mostly luke warm about the D700.

As for the DX gear loosing value, that's not a big issue for me. I'm not into photography as a speculator, but as an artist. When the time comes, it will sell for what somebody's willing to pay.

For some, the D700 will be an epiphany--as it definitely fills a specific niche. But for many, the D700 is just another evolutionary notch on Nikon's never ending technological belt.

Now the 24MP D3X, well that's something to consider should I ever take the FX leap. But at this point, I'd rather spend the money on good glass and photo travel expenses.

-Dan

My next move wont be until nikon upgrades the megapixel count. Akin to the Canon with 22mp. If I had the extra money I would pay for that. Fx format really doesnt faze me. Why didnt nikon increase both the megapixel and ISo in the D3?

Re all the above: We do like a good argument don't we??

Personally coming from a D100, it's all good. And I've no worries about it being superceded by a D400/800 etc. because my D100 was almost immediately replaced by the D70 and I've kept on using it for the last five years without any noticeable decrease in the size of my manhood, or reduction in street credibility, or indeed any other terminal malaise.

Lots of very fragile egos round here...

Andy

Sorry Andy, I fail to see your point.

I don't think anyone is arguing, and most or all of the posts don't come from fragile egos.

I think we all like a good debate, I'll give you that. And I see nothing wrong with stating your opinion--whether for or against FX.

This is a big announcement. And with big announcements come polarized views. Frankly, I see the merits of owning both FX and DX--although I have personally decided to stick with DX for the time being. As Brian points out, it's for some and not for others.

But don't deny us pleasure of expressing our opinion. We're not robots after all. And chances are, you're probably not a Psychologist either

Respectfully,
Dan