I've been waiting for the D700 replacement camera. I wasn't think about huge numbers of pixels. I've got a D7000 and 16 MP is plenty for me. It seems as if the specs. online for the "D700 replacement" are really for a D3X replacement. So where does that leave the D700? I would love to buy the D3S sensor in a D700-like configurations that offered updated and improved ancillary features and a relatively low price. I can't afford a D4.

To me it seems as if Canon is on an upgrade track that is better attuned to my needs at the moment than Nikon. I hope Nikon will introduce some kind of a lower priced-full frame sensor camera, but currently, I'm disappointed in the predicted options that seem to be on deck from Nikon.

I really hope Nikon surprises everyone, but it's looking less and less likely that this will happen.

dgs

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If you believe the rumors, the D800 will be the D3X replacement with the D4 being the D3S/D700 replacement.

This is not what I wanted to hear while looking to upgrade by D200 to the D700 sports replacement. But what are you going to do? Swapping lens systems is not an option at this point.

---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA

D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 D,
17-55mm f/2.8 DX, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX

Thanks Joseph, you do have some very nice glass in your kit. At least you have a D700. Perhaps I can find a minty used one from someone overcome by NAS.

dgs

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi David,

Until the D800 or what ever it will be called is introduced by Nikon it's specs are nothing more than speculation at best. The only thing we can do, is wait for the introduction to know the truth.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

I too find this an anxious moment and wonder what will be a next reasonable move for myself. Fortunately I do have a D700 and it is an extraordinary camera - I don't feel compelled to have something different at this point.

However, I do recall those "FX premium" calculations that appeared in the Thom Hogan upgrade path articles. It seems like Nikon is widening that gap. Perhaps some of the FX converts/adopters will rethink the DX path. However if you are on that (DX) track, you are now anxiously awaiting perhaps the D400 (or some form of "pro" DX). The D7000 is a gap filler, but will there be a fast/dense sensor split in that line?

For me it boils down to a camera path that maintains an "affordable" track while continuing to provide some improvements in ISO and dynamic-range performance without upping the pixel count to some astronomical value that I don't find useful. Perhaps that's what Nikon thinks they are doing with the D4, but they forgot to check with my bank first.

Best Regards,
Roger

Well said, Roger. I've mad some nice prints from my D200 at 18x24. I don't live in a mansion or a museum so I can't imagine needing 36 MP, although I suppose it gives one a great crop factor.

What got me thinking about all this was a comparison I saw online of some D700 low ISO images (100 or so) compared with low ISO D7000 images. It was illuminating.

So I've been waiting for the D700 replacement for over a year and got the D7000 as a "gap filler" for a trip to Europe in May. However now I have put a "notify me when in stock" request at B&H for the D700. If the rumors are correct and there are many people like me, the D700 may be the first (to my knowledge) digital camera that appreciates in value after it is discontinued. However, I'm not speculating on selling it for a profit. Hedging my bets on Nikon's assessment of customer needs and my inability to pay up for a D4, perhaps.

dgs

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Fortunately, I'm still learning how to take advantage of the capabilities of my D700, so I can be patient in waiting to see what upgrade paths may materialize (saving up some dough just in case). If it comes to pass that I do want to "upgrade", I will most likely have to sell my D700 to help me breach(?) the financial gap to enable the purchase. In any event, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Happy New Year

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

That would be "bridge" the gap.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>
>For me it boils down to a camera path that maintains an
>"affordable" track while continuing to provide some
>improvements in ISO and dynamic-range performance without
>upping the pixel count to some astronomical value that I don't
>find useful.

Hi Roger,

Assuming ISO range is equal on a D700/D800 then the extra pixels would be free and very useful to all of us whether we are going to print large or not. This is one of those "we've got to wait and see the test images" topics to be sure about this, but it is quite possible a D800 with the rumoured specs could provide an absolutely stellar IQ and DR at low ISO (like the D7000) and low-light taming ability like the D700. In which case the camera could be attractive "all a rounder" to a target market Nikon is aiming for here. Part of my point here is that more pixels on their own aren't a bad thing so we shouldn't evaluate with that assumption. Its whether the more pixels cause other compromises.

And the cost at beginning of life is rumoured to be exactly the same as the D700 - 300,000 Yen. All in all could be a very promising camera for most buyers aside from us D700 owners perhaps But even for us D700 owners a D700/D800 combo wouldn't exactly be a bad kit. Depending on the IQ though in a theoretical D700/D800 kit, the D800 would always win in the final image though.

For those D700 owners who were looking for more ISO (I am one of them), we can go D4. This may have been a strategic market decision by Nikon. I look at it this way - why did Nikon never produce a D700 with the D3S sensor in it? There must have been a reason yes?

Best regards, SteveK

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

>>
>>For me it boils down to a camera path that maintains an
>>"affordable" track while continuing to provide
>some
>>improvements in ISO and dynamic-range performance without
>>upping the pixel count to some astronomical value that I
>don't
>>find useful.
>
>Hi Roger,
>
>Assuming ISO range is equal on a D700/D800 then the extra
>pixels would be free and very useful to all of us whether we
>are going to print large or not. This is one of those
>"we've got to wait and see the test images" topics
>to be sure about this, but it is quite possible a D800 with
>the rumoured specs could provide an absolutely stellar IQ and
>DR at low ISO (like the D7000) and low-light taming ability
>like the D700. In which case the camera could be attractive
>"all a rounder" to a target market Nikon is aiming
>for here. Part of my point here is that more pixels on their
>own aren't a bad thing so we shouldn't evaluate with that
>assumption. Its whether the more pixels cause other
>compromises.
>
>And the cost at beginning of life is rumoured to be exactly
>the same as the D700 - 300,000 Yen. All in all could be a
>very promising camera for most buyers aside from us D700
>owners perhaps But even for us D700 owners a D700/D800
>combo wouldn't exactly be a bad kit. Depending on the IQ
>though in a theoretical D700/D800 kit, the D800 would always
>win in the final image though.
>
>For those D700 owners who were looking for more ISO (I am one
>of them), we can go D4. This may have been a strategic market
>decision by Nikon. I look at it this way - why did Nikon
>never produce a D700 with the D3S sensor in it? There must
>have been a reason yes?
>
>Best regards, SteveK
>
>'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see
>without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
>My
>Nikonians gallery>
>My Nikonians Blog

It really is wait and see for me. The D800 specs from Nikon Rumors doesn't really cover my concerns for a new camera. I want more high ISO performance, better dynamic range and equal or preferably faster frame rate - and I don't want the weight/bulk of a D4 and somewhere around $7000 to get it. Even your nearly $4000 (300,000 jpy) estimate is out of reasonable range. So maybe the D700 is the right camera for me.

From the broad generalizations we typically throw around here until proven wrong is that a sensor size of 36Mp over a sensor size of 16Mp would likely come at a cost of diminished dynamic range and highISO performance. Certainly 36Mp would tax current technology in offloading the sensor, thus adversely effecting the frame rate. So the three things that I'm most interested in are likely going in the wrong direction for me given popular assessment. The technology improvement will be signaled if these rules-of-thumb are reversed. Then I'll have to see how much I'm willing to pay for this improvement - there's still the penalty of the file size.

Best Regards,
Roger

All good points Roger (I feel generally the same way).

However, I waited two years for a D700S and it didn't happen. So I am not going to take the chance of waiting and hoping again. In my case I need the increased low-light ability and I earn a small amount of revenue from it. Actually if I was thinking sensibly about it, my local dealer has D3S in stock for $4750 brand-new, which isn't a bad price, but yes it does have the size and weight penalty which I don't relish.

Small point but a D800 with rumoured specs would have increased DR at base ISO not decreased DR. In this same way DxoMark rates D3X as having 13.7 stops vs. D3S 12 stops. I guess you mean though, DR at highest ISOs in which case the D3S low light sensor is probably superior and what you are referring to.

Likewise a D800 beginning of life price will decline so I don't expect it will stay at high 3's in price forever. I still think a D800 will be a great camera for anyone not already coming from a D700. And it certainly would make a great companion camera to a D4.

My own ideal cameras are a full pro (D3S size) DX camera with as good low light as a D700 and a D900 with a D4 sensor in it. I have no illusions of Nikon producing the former and some doubts about the latter. It would certainly be beneficial for Nikon to be clear (as they can be) when they make their upcoming D4/D800 announcements. To some extent Canon has been clear with their audience (they are collapsing 1DS and 1D into the 1DX model - but even they have not commented on what is coming in terms of a 5Diii). Had Nikon been clear about there being no D700S model coming, I would have found a way to get a D3S, so they lost a sale there by not being clear (or maybe they changed their minds, hard to say).

Anyhow I am looking forward to some clarity in the very near future, but yes I do shudder at the sheer cost of what's to come. I did a lens clean up this year to add to my savings but its still going to be painful!

Best regards, SteveK

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

Nikon's probably thinking how stupid they were to introduce a camera that cannibalised the sales of their top tier camera. And how they won't make that mistake twice.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ah, but Nikon probably sold a lot more D700's than they could have dreamed of with the top tier cameras. That means a lot more lens sales as well. The more expnesive systems were and remain out of my $$$ league, but the 700 has been mine for nearly 2 years. I love it and I would find it difficult to justify upgrading from this.If this was a mistake on Nikons part...then I'm glad I cashed in on it. A D800 will be welcome to see what advances are offered if and when it appears!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Ah, but Nikon probably sold a lot more D700's than they could
>have dreamed of with the top tier cameras.

Ah, but at what margins?? If you are making 1/4 the margin, then you have to sell 4 times as many just to break even. Its my guess that it doesn't cost $2500 to $3000 dollars more to produce a D3 as a D700. So most of that selling "difference" is pure bottom line profit.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The D700 may have been a volume play to get the price of the FX sensors down to a sensible level. The sensor is the single biggest cost in these cameras. I don't have Nikon's cost figures for the sensors, but I know from separate experience that buying 50,000 of them is a wholly different cost proposition than buying 300,000 (or actually 350,000). The equation is pretty complex, and I doubt that most of us outside have any idea of the number of factors that go into these decisions.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Consider that the camera body is like a printer. The manufacturer sells the printer at a reduced price to make their money on the ink and paper.

Just consider how many extra premium lenses that Nikon sold due to encouraging people to buy a D700. Once they buy those lenses, they are hooked into the Nikon family.

If the rumors are true, I am very disappointed that Nikon is not continuing the D700 path.

Personally I like the rumors. High speed, low resolution for the sport journalist in a full body camera. The high resolution and slower speed in the light travel camera.

You can reduce the resolution after capture. The processing requirements increase if you shoot raw/NEF so a new camera may require a new computer. Disk space is inexpensive; creating detail after capture is impossible. Nikon always has three setting for JPG files so it is possible to go for less resolution.

Daniel McGowan
Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> a new camera may require a new computer.

Maybe. I have been working with files that most Nikonians would consider enormous - over a hundred and twenty megapixels - and it's not all that problematic if you're not going overboard. (These are scans of very large format negatives - many 8x10" and most at least 4x5".) Many modern systems don't even blink at such files, and even my 4-year-old laptop can deal with many of them without undue strain. I don't think 36mp files will be too bad, actually. Clearly if one is editing on a 6-year-old 2GB system, an upgrade will be in the wings with a 36mp camera, but I think most folks would be surprised...

Of course, if you're going to do something like a spherical pano or something like that from 36mp images, it'll be easy to flatten a lot of computers, but that's not what most of us are doing.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Brian, you hit the nail on the head multiple times. My old computer had 3 gig of RAM and it was slow. I think adding RAM to the new machine was the best improvement possible but the old laptop was maxed. Your spherical pano comment made me laugh "oh, that too". I agree they kill a processor and RAM system.

In my case I wont require a new computer. I'm running 4 cores and 16gig of RAM. In use it has maxed out at 11gig for (get this) spherical panoramic photos. Most of the time it is around 2-4 gig. 3 gig is too small because it often leads to disk thrashing. Buying a better processor is always an option but only after there is enough RAM to keep processing in memory.

Daniel McGowan
Visit my Nikonians gallery.

While Canon and Nikon both lost production following the earthquake it is probable Nikon has suffered more than Canon from the Thailand floods.
Speculation on my part but Nikon might have been planning "D800" production in Thailand for higher volume at lower unit cost. Who knows?

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

>
>To me it seems as if Canon is on an upgrade track that is
>better attuned to my needs at the moment than Nikon.

Can you explain this part of your thinking? (I don't get it)

It seems to me Canon and Nikon are on exactly the same track this go round, in which case how is Canon better attuned to your needs?


Best regards, SteveK

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

Perhaps this was written in haste. However, at least Canon is going to hi ISO and not huge MP. That was my point. Perhaps they will release a 36 MP D5 MkK???, whatever their nomenclature is for this camera. At least they have a camera on the market that is about what I would hope a D800 or whatever, would be. I'd even like the D700S.

dgs

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yes Canon has finally decided (after getting thoroughly thrashed by Nikon the past 4.5 years in the pro camera market) to copy Nikon's strategy

Then suddenly Canon gets credit for adopting a shooter friendly configuration. It wasn't your comment specifically, it's just that I see this credit (cropping up elsewhere on the net) being given to Canon as if they invented the low-light camera strategy!

And so far Canon is only adopting this strategy in a $6,800 camera. I expect Nikon will have a very good competitor in the $6,800 market space too

I am really really torn about the D4, since it is not my ideal camera due to cost, size, and weight. However, my need is for the best low-light performance available on the market (this is a 14 on a scale of 10 factor for my shooting). If I knew for a fact Nikon was going to release a D4 sensor in a D900 body I'd be inclined to wait it out if the wait was a year. Most recently I am thinking D3S again (the price is probably going to be a about 2 grand cheaper here locally). Unless Nikon comes out and states what they are going to do (but it's hard to imagine they could do so, they may not have decided themselves). Am see-sawing a lot right now

Happy New Year!

Best regards, SteveK

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

I agree (1+) and exceedingly frustrated with the unhurried pace of Nikon. I can remember two years ago when the guru's (Thom Hogan) were telling us the D700 would have a replacement. So, I waited. And waited.

Ultimately, I wound up with the DX Nikon D7000 because I did not want to buy yesterday technology. Right now I am here with FX lenses on an DX camera. Although I am very satisfied with the D7000, I thought by this time there would be a replacement for the D700. Certainly, many will say the D700 is a great camera. And I am 100% certain that it is. But IMO, those same people will be trading the D700 in once the replacement hits the street at a reasonable (or not so reasonable price).

Truth be told, I am a Nikon guy and not switching to Canon.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You seem to forget that Nikon has had not one but two major disasters in the past year, with resultant delays.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

I'm sorry but I always get a chuckle out of threads like this one. If there would never be any new camera model again from any manufacturer, I'd be quite fine. The D700 provides all the resolution and high ISO capability I need. Yes I will buy the D800, whatever it may be, just to have a new toy to play with, for my enjoyment. But I don't get worked up over it's timing or specifications. There are way more important things in life (at least in mine).

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

I think the NAS with this type of thread is hilarious as the sweaty palms and thoughts of increased resolution and iso performance.

The 700 is a hell of a camera for the money, a technological leap with this generation, the truth of which is that going forward the increased specs on 800 etc will rarely make that much difference to the majority other and than to satisfy NAS.

How many prints have you got at A1?
Is iso eventually going to a night vision sensor?

A lot of people like the badge of what the have hanging off their neck.

I rarely am an early adopter and for a good while shot my 300 and 200 at weddings. A couple of times i had guests there with 700's and 3's. They always seek you out at some point and apart from 1 with a 700 the others really did not know what they were talking about. They ask you why not got the latest body i always answered it will not take any better pictures and did not need to have it.

For me i will always have the glass before the body.

I look forward to the final 800 spec release to see what improvements there are and won't really need and pick one up maybe.

Totally different if you are making the move from dx to fx for the first time. My advice pickup a low count second user 700 right now and not wait on the 800. The 700 will hold its price well as did the 300 so if/when you traded up to the 800 you are not going to lose much even if you went for a new 700.

Hi Tom:

I completely I agree with you. My D700, D7K, and Leica X1 are all the cameras I will ever need. Will I get the rumored D800? No, why? I’m just concentrating in glass and I have more than enough. As you said, it is nice to get a new toy. For example, the new 85 1.8G is very interesting. I’ll wait for the reviews. If not, I’m very happy with the 1.8D. One thing is for certain, I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Best regards,

Hektor

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

How many lenses do you need? - Just one more!

I have no idea what Nikon is thinking, but me and my D700...new in March, are sitting this round out.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Tom,

I love the irony of your comment.

Classic!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I am sure we'll see some new Nikon DSLRs this year - AFTER recovery ot the factory in Thailand. Only D4 and D3x are assembled in Japan.

Vladimir
Russian Nikonian in Switzerland