Well the topic heading might be a little misleading, I was just curious if anyone knows if the D700 is being discontinued, or will Nikon keep it running for a while alongside the D800.

Or maybe we'll see a new D700s launched?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I would love a D700s, with the same qualities as the D3s, and would choose this over a D800. Perhaps a D700s with the D4 sensor would be good, if the tones are as nice as the D3s can produce.

Like some others, I have no interest in video or (for 99% of my photography) 36MP.

I am not sure what will become of the D700; I have seen conflicting information, even from Nikon. Some say it will sit alongside the D800, some say it will be discontinued. But a D700s? Yes please!

I am sure the D800 will be a fantastic camera for those who will use it fully. For me it is a little excessive. Something between the 700 and 800 would suit me better.



Regards,

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

hi, thanks for that. I agree with you. Interestingly the D3S and D700 share the same sensor I think?

I started another post about why I chose NOT to upgrade to a D800, but I'm getting a bit of flack for sticking my neck out lol

Come over there and give me some moral support?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Nikon can't continue to sell D700 in Japan due to new Li-ion battery regulations. It looks like the next-gen cameras were slated to replace all cameras using the old battery, so Nikon probably intended the D700 to phase out. But, Nikon hit a snag in making the D800 so revolutionary, they took it completely out of the same user bracket as D700, which got some D700 users up in arms.

Anyway, now it looks like at a stopgap for this issue, Nikon will continue to produce the D700 for sale outside Japan. I can't imagine however that this is considered a good long-term solution for Nikon, as they should eventually want to get all the new cameras onto the same battery platform, and the stopgap does nothing for customers in the mother country.

Nikon's strategy long-term must either be to hope people stop wanting a D700-style camera, or to introduce a new FX camera tier somewhere around the $2000 price point, which puts it very close to D300s (D400) territory. With the D7000 moving up-market from D90 by adding a magnesium shell, weatherproofing, and additional external controls, this raises a question of where the D400 fits between D7000 & D700 replacement, which squeeze this segment from both ends. The D400 could be D7000 sensor in a new semi-pro body, it could be a higher-density (24MP) DX sensor, or it could be a D4 (FX) sensor with less speed, which would make D400 logically replace the D700. Given the D7K has been out for 18 months, I think if the D400 simply adopted this sensor, we'd have D400 already. Of the latter 2 options, I'm thinking more and more a 16MP FX D400 might make the most sense, although this eliminates the high-speed DX camera which would be a loss I'd personally mourn.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Larry, Hi.... thanks for that. Guess we will have to wait and see. I find it interesting how some people get blown away by the pixel count hype surrounding the D800.

If pixel count was the 'holy grail' then how come the D4 comes in at 16.2 Mp?

I've got some stick for saying I'm happy with my D700 12 Mp camera and don't plan on upgrading to the D800 anytime soon.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

There was a last shipment of parts needed to assemble the last of the D700's that was delayed due to the tsunami. Nikon decided to use them rather than scrap the inventory when they finally arrived during the pre-release shift of production tooling and assembly line to built D800's. Nikon announced that the D700 was staying in the line for the time being to prevent freezing the market for them. The choice scrap the parts and use the assembly line for D800's which was of unknown demand at the time, or use a valuable asset, one assembly line, to build a all but discontinued camera. Now that the D800 has been announced and is getting superstar status before it even gets into the hands of many photographers there are some in upper management who are probably sweating their decision. Being able to double production of the D800 now, when orders are in hand, to build cameras that will have to be steeply discounted and not sell very fast. Here, even in mall camera shops, dozens of them, D700's sit in display cases unsold. The only camera impossible to find here is the D7000 and the new models, D800/(e) and D4.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Being able to double
>production of the D800 now, when orders are in hand, to build
>cameras that will have to be steeply discounted and not sell
>very fast. Here, even in mall camera shops, dozens of them,
>D700's sit in display cases unsold. The only camera impossible
>to find here is the D7000 and the new models, D800/(e) and D4.

I agree with this. It makes no sense at all for Nikon to devote production capacity to a discounted camera that's been on the market for years, when pre-orders for the D800/e are by all accounts unprecedented.

Paul, regarding the flack you're catching for choosing D700 over D800, I generally agree with you that a 36MP camera is a specialized device for which most people won't have any need whatsoever. There has probably been more nonsense posted on this camera introduction than any other in history. That said, there are people who can and will make good use of 36MP, and this level of pixel density is not at all revolutionary.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Larry Hi........... thanks for your comments. I totally understand and accept your points; I only stuck my neck out becuase there's sooooo much hype about this camera, I was prepared to put forward a contrary point of view.

I'm not bothered about people having a go at me, in fact... I enjoy a good discussion Cheers, Paul

P.S. Think I'll dig out a photo to show exactly what I'm talking about (one I show case to clients)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Stan, hi again. Good points you make and the hype surrounding the D800 has been huge, this aided by the delayed launch.

No sign of D700's being heavily discounted here in the UK (yet?).

All I'm saying is that the D700 does everything I ask of it and performs superbly.... so I'm not for upgrading right now. I'm not trying to halt progress nor will I change the evolutionary nature of camera technology.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ok, let me try and demonstrate my point.... I'll attach a photo I happen to like, a rather enigmatic shot of the father of the bride taking a quiet moment to reflect.

I shot this from a good 50 yds away, hand held, using a Nikon 70 - 200 f2.8 VR II zoom.

At normal viewing size, his trousers look kind of grey; but zoom in to 200% magnification and you can see the detailed pin striping on the trousers, almost picking out the weave!

I mean come on guys, how much resolution do you actually need?

I show this photo to clients on the lap top, then I zoom in to show them what a good pro spec camera is capable of.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change your points of view, but you have to also understand why I'm saying this.

(The inset kind of spoils the photo, but never mind!)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

You asked, "I mean come on guys, how much resolution do you actually need?"

I think that's a good question, and for me the answer is sometimes I could use a lot more resolution than the D700 has.

Don't get me wrong, I think the D700 is a terrific camera. I agonized over the choice between a D4 and a D800 to replace my aging D700 which now has a bit more than 200K actuations. In the end I chose the D4, but would have preferred a D700s or whatever you'd want to call it, due to "price." I chose the D4 because it fits my needs as a travel photographer who does a lot of wildlife photography too, better than the D800, and it will work well for my other work.

On the other hand the D800 and its resolution beckons. It calls out because it means I could really crop into photos of Kinglets and Yellow Warblers, and still have a large print. It calls out for large prints of landscapes. I'm hoping a trip comes through for me for Antarctica later this year, and for those wonderful "icescapes" the D800 would be absolutely ideal.

There's plenty I could do with all those megapixels. I hope to justify the purchase later this year, but my workhorse will be the D4 with the D700 as primary backup, or second camera.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

Ned, Hi............ RESPECT..... I totally understand your requirements and am envious, I'd love a D4, but for now it's off limits LOL

Your planned usage is certainly not typical though, all I was kind of suggesting is that people stop and ask themselves why they are making the change. I've decided not to.... for the time being and am comfortable with that.

I'm enjoying the debate, I'm certainly not here to antagonise

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I go to many wildlife refuges across the Northeast US all the time. You can't imagine the number of people out there with pro cameras (D3 series' and D700's) who are enthusiasts taking incredible photos. The talk there is "I've got to get one of those D800's for the small bird shots and the landscapes."

I think there are more photographers out there who know why they need and are purchasing the D800's resolution, than not. Sure there are people who are just purchasing the latest and greatest, but I think there are more photographers than you think, who have asked themselves why they are buying the camera before placing the order.

As a pro I can justify purchases because they bring in income. That being said, if my one D700 didn't have so many actuations, I'd have a D700 for my primary and backup, and would have ordered the D800 for the photos of which I spoke.

Just so you know, I don't think anyone here thinks you started the thread to antagonize. If they do, then that's their problem.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

Thanks for that......... those are good points you make and I am listening. I'm not even saying I'll never upgrade.... I'll be watching the feedback from those photographers you talk about with interest, that's why I joined up

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Don't get me wrong, I think the D700 is a terrific camera. I
>agonized over the choice between a D4 and a D800 to replace my
>aging D700 which now has a bit more than 200K actuations. In

I heard, D700 has max cap of 150K actuations. Is it realistic that it can go over 200K?

I'm just curious.

I think that's a great question.

Oleg Kikin has put up an actuation database on the web at:
http://olegkikin.com/shutterlife/sitemap.php

When you look at the stats of the D700 (287 cameras in the D700 database) he's showing the average number of actuations after which the D700 died at 149,666, yet it's also showing about 17% go on well past that number.

There is no doubt my older D700, now my backup is on borrowed time. I certainly could invest in a new shutter for it, but I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense at this point.

I really can't afford to travel without a reliable backup, so the new camera is an important purchase.

For those who think a backup camera isn't important if you're shooting something or someone for which another opportunity might never occur, or you're being paid to get the shot, let me pass two stories along.

I was in a workshop with Joe McNally about studio lighting. I was there to get ideas, and learn more about portable studio lighting from a practical standpoint. (The workshop was great, by the way.) Joe was using his D3s for the workshop and before the morning was over, it died. Halfway through the afternoon another D3s died. Fortunately, he actually had 3 (possibly 4, I don't remember) D3s cameras, so the workshop continued.

Later this year I'll be shooting in Antarctica. There are no repair shops or stores there to get my equipment fixed or purchase anew. I'll probably never get back there. It's worth it to have a reliable backup, even if you've got to rent.

I know a birder who's at a local wildlife refuge about as much as I am. We were talking a couple of months ago about the Galapagos. He wanted to know what equipment I've used there. During the conversation I suggested he should have a backup camera as he'll likely never get back there. He had his regular Canon DSLR (No boos, please - he's otherwise a good guy - LOL.) but not even an old camera he didn't use any more. He took my advice for this trip and got a rental. When he got back he told me he wants to take me out to dinner. His camera broke 4 days into the trip, but the rental worked perfectly.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

Paul, that photo with inset is an EXCELLENT sales technique. Great idea!

For the record, I think MAYBE the D700S will be made, but I am not sure at all of IF or WHEN. I ordered a D4 as I was tired of waiting for a D700S and don't want to chance waiting again.

Continuing to manufacture the D700 can only be a stop-gap and certainly right now they seem pretty scarce on the ground.

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

SteveK, Hi.... good to hear from you. Glad you liked the idea, seems to work well for me. I don't ever get too technical with clients, but think they deserve to know what you're packing in the bag when they are choosing a Pro Wedding Photographer? Have a nice day

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Paul,

You've posted a great example of why 12MP is plenty for the kind of shooting you do.

For me, I shoot mostly landscapes and some wildlife. I print on a 44" printer which means it's not unusual for me to print 40"x60" or bigger in the case of panoramas. For this, I'm often stitching images to simulate higher resolution from my 16MP D7000 & 12MP D300s, and yes simulating 60MP by stitching does show a dramatic increase in detail in a huge print, compared to 12MP. There have been a number of times over the years that I priced a medium format system and decided I just couldn't justify the cost. Given that my D7000 already has similar pixel density to the D800, I see the move as an increase in size, not resolution, or a pre-stitched sensor if you will. It's a system competitive with medium format for under $5000 which is a remarkable thing for someone like me.

Let me say I'm not a "fanboy" and I've always preached (1) photography is about pictures, not equipment (I'll expand on that to say it's all about prints), and (2) if you can't clearly articulate what problem a new piece of equipment is going to solve, then it's a waste of money. So, I'm not so much arguing with you as presenting a counterpoint.

There will be some fanboys purchasing this who need the latest thing and couldn't take a decent picture unless they found someone's tripod holes. There will be some people who buy it just because they have the disposable income. But, like Ned says, this doesn't mean the camera exceeds everybody's purposes. There are definitely people who have been waiting for this camera because it solves some specific problems, and for us the D800 is a revolution.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Hi Larry,

> I print on a 44".....

What's a print? . After years of a wet darkroom and slews of boxes of 8x10 B&Ws + every color chemistry I could get my hands on, I haven't made more than 20 prints in 15 years. Everything has shifted for me. My photography needs will likely shift again as family requirements and travel needs change, but your comments on printing demands have reminded me that my camera needs are likely just not typical.

That said the D4 does look attractive for what I do, but when I get back to my "normal" life I'm going to spend a dedicated month with my D2Hs (which isn't available right now) and test my desire for that size camera and really test my megapixel needs.

I'd love to see your print output sometime.

I enjoy your contributions here.

Best Regards,
Roger

PS in Edit: I came so close to buying a D3s last week. I can't believe I almost did that. I really need to see how the X-Pro1 shakes out before I buy anything else.

>Hi Larry,
>
>> I print on a 44".....
>
>What's a print? .



I'll tell you Roger, I get such a thrill out of seeing the final print (no viewing on any screen compares) to me the print is what it's all about!

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Larry,

Hi.......... thanks for that contribution, I think you've summed up the situation very nicely. As I've already said elsewhere, I'll be watching with interest as photographers post up show case sample images of what it can do? Maybe someone will start up a thread: D800 ~ Show us what it can do! (Maybe I'll go check & create one?)

Best wishes, Paul

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> couldn't take a decent picture unless they found someone's tripod holes.

Makes me laugh, great line.

tim

Here is the original photo without an insert....

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I too belong to the group of D700 owners not planning to upgrade. With my printing habits 36MP will be overkill as the majority of my prints do not exceed 8x10 and then seldom over 11x14, and i tend to print to the conventional not wider print sizes.
Assuming a standard of 300 pixels cropping to say a standard 8x10 only results in a resolution of 2400 x 3000 pixel print anyway so why throw all those extra pixels away?
Add to that i don't want or need video and for me the perfect D700 successor would include a 5/4 crop mode allowing me to utilize most if not all of the origional image size.

____________________________________________________________________
When no one is looking, Pigs can walk on they're hind legs

>for me the perfect
>D700 successor would include a 5/4 crop mode allowing me to
>utilize most if not all of the origional image size.

Hate to tell you this but... D800 has a 5:4 as well as any number of other crop modes! Is that worth $3000? Of course not!

Seriously though you could add a KatzEye focusing screen with 8x10 crop lines.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

I'm not at all trying to change your mind, but there are many more reasons the D800 is worthy of consideration by photographers than just being able to make large prints.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

>I'm not at all trying to change your mind, but there are many
>more reasons the D800 is worthy of consideration by
>photographers than just being able to make large prints.
>
>Ned
>A Nikonians Team
>Member
>
>-----------------------------
>Visit my
>Travel Photography Blog and
>my Galleries.

I agree with this. Someone pointed out in another forum, that one reason to get a D800 is that it's a D700+/5DmkII combo bolted to a D7000 in one package.

1) in FX, Downsampled to 12 MP ( to match the D700 ) it bests the D700 in noise performance at any given ISO.

2) in DX, or cropped FX, you get D7000 performance and "reach".

3) at low ISOs you get an even better camera for landscapes than the 5D Mk II

It's one heck of a package IMO. About the only negative is the "slow" 4 fps continuous shooting and the file sizes. However, storage is always getting cheaper so that rarely factors in long term.

--
RL

Visit my Nikonians gallery and my Flickr page.

I must admit that's a very persuasive argument you put forward. File size isn't a big deal, although maybe work flow on my laptop may be a bit slower when working through 500+ wedding photographs with 36MP image files?

I have to say noise hasn't been a problem for me.... you would have to 'pixel peep' to see it and with the launch of Lightroom 3, the noise correction algorithm was much better than previous releases. It does a great job of taking it away (if it becomes an issue), although I do accept it's better if it's not there in the first place!

Battery life will be another small issue, but again not a major obstacle. I'll certainly watch developments with interest as the D800 rolls out

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ryan, there are some other downsides other than the slow continuous shooting speeds, which I'm not so sure that some may understand.

Based on the D3X I would expect that the D800 will make high demands of lenses. For those D700 users, jumping up to the a D800 with "pro" glass, they'll be alright, but for those D700 users with considerable "consumer" glass, I don't think they will find those lenses work so well on the D800.

Moreover, based on the past experience of others who moved to DSLRs with major jumps in MPs/sensor, I suspect that there will be many unhappy D800 users at first, users who don't use solid hand-holding techniques. The D800 will require that sloppy technique be replaced by high quality technique. This will be true of tripod use too, with long lenses on this camera.

Neither of these downsides are knocks against the D800 itself. I think the D800 will prove itself to be a marvelous camera, based on the specs. I think D800 users will learn better technique, and will replace their glass, but at first we may be hearing similar complaints of unrealistic expectations.

We saw this happen when Nikon moved from the D70/D70s to the D200, and I suspect, we'll see it again. Then, after a while, the complaints and problems will be replaced with high praise, just like in the past.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

With all due respect please explain the pro glass and consumer glass
meanings. Thank you in advance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Paul.

Whether a lens should be considered a pro or consumer lens has to do with lens quality and features. While Nikon doesn't come right out and say this is a professional lens, and this is a consumer lens, it's generally not hard to tell which is which, although there are some consumer lenses today which bridge the gap, and are of higher quality than the typical consumer lens. I think the easiest way to explain is to take a couple of examples.

Here is my example of a consumer zoom FX glass set:

• AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR (This is an upper end consumer lens, by the way, in my opinion.) - $1,300
  
• AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED - $590
  
• AF VR Zoom-NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED - $1850
  

• AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED - $1,890
  
• AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - $2,400
  
• AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II - $7,000
  

Ned,

The 24-120mm f/4 is on the list of recommended lenses from Nikon for the D800 and is considered a "pro lens". Maybe you were thinking of the 24-85mm or the 24-300 f/3.5?

Personally I think most of this is a bunch of hooey. The D7000 already resolves more lp/mm than the D800 and it uses "cheap" DX lenses.

--
RL

Visit my Nikonians gallery and my Flickr page.

I didn't know they consider it a pro lens. I don't. The image borders and corners show less resolution wide open than should be from a lens in this price range, and the same is true with sharpness in general past 90mm. Its distortion is rather pronounced except at mid range focal lengths and vignetting is on the high side. Optically, the lens just isn't good enough for me to consider it pro, but that's me.

I've seen ugly photos due to lessor quality lenses on the D3X. I didn't say, by the way, that you can't use consumer lenses on the D800, only that in my opinion, they won't work so well. That being said, I don't think you necessarily need pro lenses, as an awful lot of the "pro" definition is the speed of the lens, which has nothing to do with optical quality. It's the optical quality which is important with the D800, and there are some consumer lenses which have solid optical quality.

Here's the thing, a lot of this is nitpicking, and a lot of this is what output is used for displaying the photo.

For example, the AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is a pro lens which many absolutely love. I don't like it for a variety of reasons. I can't put a polarizing filter on it, and I don't like its distortion at its low end, and especially the flaring when you use the lens. After carefully reviewing and testing that lens, and the "less capable" AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR, which is a pro lens, I opted for the 16-35mm. I found it was more suited to my work. It turns out the distortion differences are there, but actually trivial, in my opinion. The lens flaring though is different, and I find the VR more useful than the f/stop I'm giving away. Regardless, the differences here are generally nitpicking (not the flaring).

In addition, I've seen photos displayed on computer screens which were taken with the D7000 and "cheap" DX lenses, look great, but print them out on A3 paper (13"x19"), which is my primary print size for showing off my photos to clients for travel brochures, for example, and they look lousy. Part of the problem with the "cheap" DX lenses is often they are less sharp outside the center of the photo, especially at the edges. Much of that goes away with "cheap" FX lenses on DX cameras, as their soft edges aren't captured by the sensor. Soft edges can kill a great shot.

That being said, I don't think anyone can argue that the quality of a lens optics makes a difference in the quality of the image, and in my opinion, the more MPs you have in your sensor, the more the quality of the lens will count in having a great shot, or one that's just okay.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

If Nikon is to release an actual D700 upgrade I am sure it wont be for another year at least. I cant see Nikon pissing off a lot of their customers by releasing a D800 which they know most of the people buying the D800 would have preferred to buy a 18 - 24mp rather.
I cant see Nikon all of a sudden announcing a D700s (or whatever it will be called) with all the specs we really wanted in a camera, after they have sold hundreds of thousands of D800 which most believe is pretty much the next step after the D700.

If a bridge camera between the D700 and D800 and D4 will be released I cant see it happening before end of 2013 because by then lots of people that bought the D800 wont mind buying another $3000 camera.

Rumours of a D400/500 are beginning to appear.

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/nikon-d400-d500-rumours-what-you-need-to-know-1035719

newton,
i don't see the d800 as an upgrade of the d700 as you say; its a very different tool for diferent purposes.

i currently use a d700 togehter with a d300.

i will be getting for sure a d800 or d800E , but my main camera will be the d700 as i don't all my images beeing so huge .
my d800 will probably work as my dx camera instead of the d300 and for those very special shots where i foresee the possibility of printing real big i will use the d800 fx mode.
in this way i will have 3 main tools when using my d700 along with the d800.

i also think a d700s with 16MB and 100% viewfinder would be nice.

nice thread.


andre
nikonian from Sao Paulo, Brazil
my gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Those of us who have decided to stick with the D700 might like to consider buying some spare batteries if indeed these are being discontinued.

Happy Easter,

Dave