A semi-serious question

The D700 is here, and at last we have a true 'digital F100', a light professional camera with the same image quality as the flagship (at least until the 'D3x' arrives!), and no known major compromises in AF, framerate, build, or viewfinder. You'll probably still want to keep the D300 around to maximise the pixel count in those cropped telephoto shots, but otherwise this looks like a state of the art general purpose camera that reduces the size and weight of the D3 to more manageable proportions.

But...

The price! The $3000 USD I saw quoted initially sounded fairly reasonable, but here in the UK it's closer to $3400 + sales tax = $4000 USD. If the D300 is anything to go by, we can probably expect a significant reduction in the street price in the first 6-9 months, but it's still likely to be a pretty substantial investment. Is anyone else (especially fellow Europeans!) planning on holding out until this technology becomes truly 'affordable'? We can perhaps hope for some serious downward pressure on FX pricing if Canon introduces the rumoured pair of 5D successors (supposedly including an aggressively-priced base lower-end model), or if Sony decides to go after this market. I suspect my next camera will indeed be an FX Nikon, but maybe not the D700 (unless at an end of line price). Am I alone here?

Won't the D800 be the prosumer version of the D3X? And therefore even more expensive than the D700!

I believe you are awaiting the D99 Kind of kidding on numbering - never saw anyone predict the D700 naming strategy.

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

>Won't the D800 be the prosumer version of the D3X? And
>therefore even more expensive than the D700!

Could be! But still hoping for the technology to trickle down to a more affordable level sooner rather than later. After all, the D100 was in the current D700 price range at launch, and pretty soon we had the 'better' D70 for a third of the price...

Wouldn't the "D800" be pretty far off in the future? As is like two years or more? That's a long time to wait.....

Besides, Nikon has more pressing matters right now, like the successor to the D80.


~Chad

>Wouldn't the "D800" be pretty far off in the
>future? As is like two years or more? That's a long time to
>wait.....

That's OK, it'll take my bank account about that long to recover from buying the D300! Actually, it's maybe just as well that the the D700 is relatively expensive. If they'd launched it at 1500 GBP (VAT inclusive), then the NAS factor would have been dangerously high

If they'd
>launched it at 1500 GBP (VAT inclusive), then the NAS factor
>would have been dangerously high

The D700 is available for pre-order from RGB Tech at £1690.

I'll wait for the D300 to fall apart then get FX for $1,600.

Cheers ...

Despite its many great features, the D700 is still not the digital F100. If the D700 didn't have the little plastic pop up flash, then it would probably be the digital F100. I wish Nikon would have left out the pop up flash on the D700.

I can't understand why people are so hung up about the flash on the D700.

Sure, it's not much of a flash per se, but it's a commander flash that you can use to trigger your SB-600/800/900 off-camera. I think it is a good addition to the D700, and can't see why it would devalue the D700 (And it saves you the price of an SU-800).

I don't see it compromising the integrity of the body (In the brochure you can see the "white" shot of the body, and you would need to hit it on a sharp edge at a very stupid angle, to break the flash).

Anything else I haven't taken into account?

I agree; with CLS the pop up flash is not a rinky dink red-eye enabling consumer flash (although it can be used that way, of course). It makes CLS work without adding a bulky and expensive SU-800 or dedicating an SB-800/900, or wired cords.

Also, I thought I saw a passing reference that the pop-up flash is higher than normal (or higher than lesser models?) to allow greater clearance for the flash to shine over large pro-level lenses with associated big hoods.

I wasn't around SLRs in the days of the F100, so I can't see the benefit of NOT having the pop-up. I think it is a real plus and so is the sensor-shaker (the guys in the D3 forum do complain about dust).

One other mystery is some folks are awaiting reviews of the D700 as if this were a new sensor. If you like the D3 sensor...

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

>Anything else I haven't taken into account?

The only things I can think of are - it's one more place for water to get in if the weather turns bad, and perhaps it's harder to make a 100% finder (which of course the D700 lacks, though they seem to have managed this trick with the D300). But on balance, I'd say the flash is a plus.

I am holding out for the 24mp D3X. If it turns out to be for real, its all I'll ever need. It will more then likely shoot in cropped DX format at 10+mp. Bring it on,$7000 + or - and will be worth every penny.

Dan Berg
www.bergscanvasgallery.com

>>Anything else I haven't taken into account?
>
>The only things I can think of are - it's one more place for
>water to get in if the weather turns bad, and perhaps it's
>harder to make a 100% finder (which of course the D700 lacks,
>though they seem to have managed this trick with the D300).

But the D300 has a DX sensor.
DX + Pop up flash = 100% viewfinder possible
FX + Pop up flash = Think it'd be hard to squeeze all that in.

Welcome to Nikonians!

>But the D300 has a DX sensor.
>DX + Pop up flash = 100% viewfinder possible
>FX + Pop up flash = Think it'd be hard to squeeze all that in.

I can't remember where I read it, but Nikon has explained it's the sensor cleaning apparatus that's the problem, not the pop-up flash. Apparently it encroaches into the mirror box sufficiently to make a full-size FX format mirror impossible. The D300 is OK because it has a smaller DX format mirror.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I have rarely ever used my pop up flash on my D300. It casts a shadow when I have the lens hood on. I need the Sb800 to actually use a flash. With the 700 going higher then the D300

If water is an issue for the pop-up then, Trojan makes a good solution. But, the kids might ask questions.

I am liking the D700 the more a read about it.

That reaction has puzzled me a bit, too. Owning camera models that do and do not include a pop-up flash, I am a strong proponent of the little guys. I'll admit that a direct hit would not be good for it, but even so, you would be none the worse than starting out with no flash.

I hardly baby my gear, yet have never had any problem damaging this component. It is so much nicer having ready access to a short-range flash than having to extract and mount a terribly unbalanced and awkward external unit, particularly in inconvenient circumstances. If I plan to shoot a lot of flash exposures or if the camera-to-subject distance is fairly long, then I'll install the auxiliary flash. Otherwise, I'm very happy with the pop-up option. When I first got my camera with the integral flash, I did a number of tests with both the internal and external flashes on the same subject (portrait). Much to my surprise, the quality of light was noticeably better with the internal flash. Of course, this was several generations ago with a film camera, so I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate the results to the D700/SB-900. Still, I'm delighted this flash was included on the D700.

There are times when I carry a flash (sb600) and times when I don't. occasionally I have needed to use the built in flash on my D80 when I have not had any other option. to include this on the D700 makes it a more attractive purchase.

Stephen

D700 - D80
F4s for B&W film
Assorted lenses

> I wish
>Nikon would have left out the pop up flash on the D700.

You are not a very active flash user, are you?

That little flash on the D700 is worth several hundred dollars in savings just becuase it can serve as the commander for off camera flashes and to many, worth it's weight in gold. It replaces the need to fork out the cash for an SB-800 or the nicely overpriced SU-800 (IR commander, no flash) in manual or Nikon's CLS setups.

The D3 owners who use flash are forced to pay extra for this by purchaseing either the SB-800 (~ $350US) or the SU-800 (~ $300).

So you see, that little flash means a lot to the people who take advantage of them.

I own the D200, and **LOVE** using the built-in flash to control anything from 1 to 7 of my available light sources wirelessly and remotely (cominations of studio lighting, Metz strobes, SB-800 and SB-600's).

As for waiting or not... yeah, first impressions don't really sway me to want to rush out and get the D700 immediately. I'm in a wait mode right now, plus, my feelings change when it comes to the D3. I really like that camera more than the D700. Time will tell.

In 1-1.5 years the D4 may be out, and THAT I am thinking will curl my toes a lot more. (lol)


_________________________________________________________________
Just your average enthusiastic Nikonian from Montreal, Quebec, Canada!

I think the inference is that if the flash housing was knocked or came apart or had water egress for any reason, would the rest of the camera still work? Same for the cleaning sensor. I do know the F100 feels and handles differently to a D300, on that count it may be reasonable to say the D700 is no digital F100 but does that matter? I suppose it might if you mention the word 'pro'.

Mike

Good point about the commander flash function, Jerry.
I'm waiting before I rush up to Lozeau's to grab a
D700 when they come out, too. Let's see some results
with the first issue before deciding on it.

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

Hi all.

I am delighted that the D700 has a pop up flash to use as a commander, or for some quick flash. The only problem I have found is "WHO NEEDS FLASH" with the D700?

Seriously, I have been shooting all kinds of low light shots at high ISO and am very pleased so far with the results. A quantum leap in camera technology.

I have only had my D700 for a few days.

JIM

No D800 thanks.

I'll get the D3 or D700 whichever cheaper when its $1,000.

I've had my D70 for 4yrs now and its my only one. Actaully in a year or two, I'm a little confused if I should get a used D50 or a D2h classic. Just to limit lens swappings. The D50 would be great for travel yet the D2h would be a great camera home based.

In the more nearer term I want to get 3 studio lights so I can do some work in that area - family portraits. Plus, do a bit more travelling, can do and see way more than if I had a flash camera but stay home ;D

I'm waiting impatiently for the 24 meg flagship, whatever they decide to call it, but I ordered a D700 the morning of the 1st because I want a clean HI ISO camera with great IQ that I can walk around with all day and not draw an inordinate amount of attention - plus I can fit it into a small sized bag along with a few relatively small and light primes.

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

I think having the pop up flash is very appropriate for a downsized D3. It's great for when you need some fill flash but don't have the full kit with SB 800 along.


It's not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.

You can alway wait for the NEXT better camera, because in the long run there will alway be a better camera and it will alway be cheaper eventually. The problem is you may not get any good pictures with it because YOU WILL BE DEAD! You have to balance what you can afford now and what your need are NOW, with the lost opportunity of now getting the shots you want NOW.

In reality there is always a balance. If you can't afford the newest and best, you can still take great pictures with the older models But, you do lose the new possibilities that the new technology opens up. And it does open up many. The low light of the D3 has changed the type of pictures I take. I use my D3 almost exclusively with the 14-24. If I need something less wide, I use by 50mm F1.4 or my 85mm F1.4 slightly more than my 28-70 F2.8.

I use my D300 more with the 50mm or the 18-200DX VR for a small light package. I'd probably use my D300 more with the 200-400 if I was shooting photo safari for the reach. But, I'm not going to Africa this year.

I put money aside for a 24mp Nikon, but I've been rethinking that. The only place a 24 MP would make sense in on a heavy tripod and head for studio and landscape work and where you stop down. With a D3 your already at the limit of the best glass. You going to give up at least some of the high ISO performance. If I had a 24MP Nikon, I'd still be using my D3 or D700 much more. Your not going to be using a 24mp camera on 95% of photo safari work.

The D300/D700 are both great for a small lightweight kit. The built in flash for commander mode I think will eventually be on ALL PRO cameras. When you go light it's also an big advantage. The D700 is a LOT heavier than the D300, but you also save the weight of the flash and you usually go with a lighter lens. For me that means the 18-200DX VR on the D300. It will probably mean the 50mm F1.4 on the D700 or maybe my almost unused 24-85. But, while I liked the sharpness of my 18-200DX, I was never happy with the sharpness of the 24-85.

I love the 14-24. For my night time club and street photography it is perfect. I originally thought not being able to put filter on it would be a pain. But, at that wide a angle a polarizer filter is worthless because you're too wide for a polarizer to effect all parts of the sky equally. I do miss using my Singhray grads a little, but if you doing landscapes your on a tripod anyway and you can actually get better results just bracketing and using post processing to get the same effect with just a little work.

So I think the D700 makes sense. I find myself carrying my D3 now more when I really want when I'd like to go lighter but want the high ISO performance that is addictive. The D700 will offer good alternatives. I'll use the D300 for reach and the lightness of DX lenses for going extremely light with full performance. I use the D700 for medium light kit with high ISO performance. I use the D3 for full out performance. It nice to have alternatives.

The reality is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


D3, D300, D2X & D200
New 14-24 F2.8 too!
If your not shooting Nikon your doing
it WRONG!

My Nikonians Gallery

"D700 is a LOT heavier than the D300":

D300 825g, size: 147 x 114 x 74 mm

D700 995g, size: 147 x 123 x 77 mm

>The only place a 24 MP would make sense in on a heavy
>tripod and head for studio and landscape work and where you
>stop down...

Why we can use 12 MP DX (16*24mm) sensor for any situation - and cannot use a 27 MP FX (36*24mm) sensor in the same situation without a heavy tripod - if a pixel size is going to be THE SAME (12M/16*36=27M)?

Vladimir
Russian Nikonian in Switzerland

Don't edit that post (is that possible here?) because I don't think you could have said it better.

100% on point.

welcome to modern economy

The switch to FX is cost prohibitive for me at the moment so I'm sticking to my D300's and DX glass until the next generation of FX bodies. So yeah I'll be waiting for the D800.

Music & Fashion: www.philbourne.com
Wedding & Lifestyle: www.e-motionimages.co.uk

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Rumour has it that there will soon be a different D3 with a 24 MP sensor. Let's call it the D3-24. That camera with a DX lens will presumably give similar resolution and high ISO results to a D300.

So it is possible that Nikon could quite quickly produce a different D700 with the same sensor. Let's call it the D700-24. That camera would do everything that a D300 does, no better and no worse perhaps, plus provide superior FX as well. It would be poorer High ISO than the D700, but higher resolution.

I think that camera could be quite tempting to me. It would replace my D300 without any loss, allow me to continue to use my DX lenses if I want to, and allow use of PC lenses as well (which are too long on a DX body).

So I'll keep my D300, but I could possibly switch to the D700-24 if it ever exists.

As far as the pop-up flash is concerned, I can follow why some are not happy about this feature. I have used a F100 since it was released by Nikon, a N90s before that, preceded by a F3HP. Each of these is considered a pro-level or pro-sumer level unit and have always been designed without the built-in flash. I think that it is sort of a macho sort of thing where pop-up flashes remind people of cheap, plastic, vacation-grade cameras. I thought the same thing when I bought a D200 and then the D300. After using it in situations where having a quick, pop-up flash was convenient (and not having my SB800 handy), I was drawn to the other side in accepting the existence of the built-in flash.

JPHoush

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I preorder the D700 because if Nikon comes out with a 24mp camera, It'll be out of my price range for atleast 3 or 4 years.

I'd guess it'll cost over 6k and you would need larger capacity memory card. It'll also be the same size as the D3 now, maybe it'll come with have a cup holder.

Dave
My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'm holding out for FX at the D300 price range. I'd rather invest in good ED lens - especially fast and speciality lens. Of course, I'm talking full frame lens.
kmaine

To the people who are holding on the D700 for the 24MP sensor/D800, this is silly, you might as well go and buy 16mp point and shoot sensor for cheaper, to wait is wasting precious time dreaming about something better forever, you dont need fancy lenses to go FX, quite the opposite a 50mm will do most of the time, a slow 70-300 lens will work like magic because of the higher iso/shutter speed, if you want to go FX JUST DO IT NOW and stop fantasizing about the next coming camera, there will always be something better down the line, but the difference between dx and fx is huge and really worth it.

The D700's flash works very well for simply fill-flash outdoors.

I've read about some people engaging in all kinds of fancy "strobist" setups, but to produce results that are sometimes ho-hum and at other times fantastic!

Sometimes less is more!

The 70-300mm VR @ 300mm has a max aperture of f/5.6 which cancels the 1 or 2 stops advantage (depending on who's opinions) of FX compared to the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 on DX for an approximative equivalent zoom range & FOV but you loose DOF isolation & higher IQ of this better performing lens.

Granted the 70-300 will produce a better signal/noise on FX compared to using it on a DX but @ the cost of becoming a 200mm max DX equivalent.

Yes, you can always wait for the next model Nikon body, whatever it may feature. The reasons are supportable by logic whether it be price, features, or performance.

I've been waiting for a full frame Nikon DSLR since the D1. It didn't prevent me from buying Dx bodies and enjoying the experience, but full frame was always on top of my Nikon new product wish list. I couldn't quite justify the D3 but pre-ordered my D700 shortly after it was announced. That was the first time in my life that I pre-ordered anything.

Last weekend provided the perfect example of why I didn't want to wait for something newer/better.

I attended my sisters 25th anniversary party. It was outdoor at night on a beautiful summer evening. The setting was poolside with beautiful colored lights in the water and a band right on the edge of the pool, lit by a few stage lights. Patio lanterns and candles were the only other illumination. An enchanting setting but a nightmare for photography. Any flash pictures washed out the oh-so-important colored lights necessary to convey the emotion of the setting.

With my D700 I was able to get some usable shots at ISO 6400, f/2.8, and shutter speeds as low as 1/15 second.

The shots, even at these extreme settings were underexposed by up to 1 full stop. Adjusting the exposure and a little noise reduction in NX2 and PS CS2 produced pics usable for a photo album. Not perfect pictures but hey, I GOT THE SHOT!

That is my justification for buying the body now. Saving a few $ by buying later (or waiting for the new model) is just not a supportable argument when you consider the once in a lifetime event. Tomorrow I have a family reunion, which has never happened before. I'm sure the D700 will give me more versatility in my shots there as well.

Everyone must consider their own requirements but for me the D700 is absolutely incredible now, in use today instead of in the future.


--------------------

I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse. - Diane Arbus

That's shooting conditions where the D700 shines. Could you post an example?

As requested, a couple of ISO 6400 shots from my D700. All shots taken hand held with my 24-70.


The first one : ISO 6400, f/3.2, 1/8 second. Even at these settings the pic was quite underexposed. Used NX2 exposure slider and shadow protection slider to make it acceptable. No fancy noise reduction, just what is in PS CS2. Sharpened as much as was comfortable with in Photoshop.




The second : ISO 6400, f/2.8, 1/16 second. Basically the same post processing as #1.




The last one, just for comparison. This is a pic using one SB-800 on camera. The ambient lighting effect is gone. It was a party, no time for off camera flash with gels to try and recreate the colorful ambient.




I absolutely love my D700!!!

-----------------------

I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse. - Diane Arbus

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)

Thanks for posting these pictures, pretty impressive considering the ISO 6400.

If you use matrix metering & have some bright lights in the frame, it may explain the underexposure. You could use +1 or +2 compensation or spot metering on the most important element.

Did you try high contrast scenes with Active D-Lighting set to low which does not have adverse under exposure effect on the RAW file but then permits to play with it in Capture NX 2?

Maybe the camera LCD brightness @ default is set too high to correctly evaluate your images in the field like on my D300 for example.

I purposely underexposed the images. I couldn't get a properly exposed image without going over ISO 6400, even using an f/2.8 fast zoom. Next time, in this type of situation, I will pack my 85 1.4 and my 50 1.8. That will give me 1 1/2 to 2 stops extra to play with. I should have tried a few images over ISO 6400.

I was at my maximum aperture and felt that I didn't want to go higher than ISO 6400 or use too slow a shutter speed (I was already at 1/8 second). In aperture priority I was using down to -2 compensation, in manual mode I used the in camera meter to keep the exposure above -2 while getting as fast a shutter speed as I could.

I felt I could recover from the underexposure in post processing and I think it worked fairly well.

I agree about the matrix metering, I tend to use it 95% of the time. I need to become more comfortable with spot and center weighted. In this situation, however, I don't think it mattered as I was basically at the highest ISO I was comfortable with, wide open aperture, and adjusting shutter speed to get the best image I could without too much motion blur. It shouldn't have mattered what method the camera used to meter the scene since I was at the limits of my comfortable ISO, aperture, and shutter speed while only using the meter to try and stay above 2 stops underexposed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the Active D-Lighting, I am not comfortable with the camera doing processing that I can do in post. I realise that the D-Lighting settings are only attached to the RAW image and do not effect the actual pixels, but it just makes me uncomfortable. My research seems to suggest that the camera can also alter camera settings when Active D-Lighting is turned on. That is not what I want when I am at what I feel are the limits to capturing an image. Maybe I need to do some experimenting when it is not such a critical, once in a lifetime event.

You are right about my LCD brightness being set too high. In chimping my images at the time I did not realise they were quite as dark as they appeared when I started to post process. I will have to experiment and find a brightness level I am comfortable with.

Thanks for your comments, it really helps me clarify my own thought process.

Dave

-----------------------

I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse. - Diane Arbus

Sorry, I did not know that your underexposed on purpose.

"D-Lighting settings are only attached to the RAW image and do not effect the actual pixels" - true for D-Lighting in Picture Control but not for Active D-Lighting which affects the file & metering. I never use it except for some low light & harsh contrast conditions like yours where faces can be overexposed.

From the Nikon D3 press release: "Active D-Lighting produces broader tone reproduction in both shadows and highlights by controlling highlights and exposure compensation while applying localized tone control technology to achieve a more pleasing level of contrast across the entire image. And because the advantages of Active D-Lighting are applied as images are captured, image editing time can be shortened.".

You can see a graph with the effect of Active D-Lighting in various settings on D3 here.

Active D-Lighting underexposes if set on medium or high but not on low. It has adverse effects if raw is processed not using NX.

Thanks for the link to the graph.

Interesting stuff, it looks like Active D-Lighting, even at DL Low setting, improves the shadow range without under/overexposing. There is the cost of a flatter curve, however.

Most of the time I like a high contrast image but this could help when there is just too much, as you point out. I will have to do some experimenting and learn to judge when Active D-Lighting will be useful.

Thanks again for the tip. It is much appreciated as I learn and grow my photography with my new camera . I didn't have any of these fancy tricks with my D200.

Dave

-----------------------

I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse. - Diane Arbus

Don't wait. Buy today but shoot every day!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/new-camera-bugs.htm

I'm too busy shooting my D700 today to give much thought to bodies that Nikon may release tomorrow

Cheers,

Andreas

http://yank.to/Photos

I'm waiting for the D800...to push the D700 onto the used market! The mid-range FX market will be handled by the D3 and D700 cameras hitting eBay when the next models are released, though I don't expect 3/700 prices to drop as quickly as D2 prices have.