Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
Ruyooka

Newmarket, CA
317 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Ruyooka Gold Member Nikonian since 28th Nov 2006
Tue 01-Jul-08 05:57 AM

How does Nikon decide on the series #s? Why is it a D700 and not a D400 or other number? Just curious.

Muniini

A Nikonian in Toronto

TEITZY

WUNGHNU, AU
2529 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 0

TEITZY Awarded for the continuous and generous sharing of his high level expertise and his always encouraging comments, most notably in the macro and sports forums. Registered since 14th Mar 2007
Tue 01-Jul-08 04:50 AM

Beats me, but being a full frame prosumer camera it is really in a class of its own and the D700 name helps to differentiate it from Nikons other offerings. It may also reveal something about the future of the DX format (D400 > D500 > D600 > ?) but I'm merely speculating here.

Cheers
Leigh

My Nikonians Gallery

WillyPete

London, UK
605 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 0

WillyPete Registered since 09th Feb 2006
Tue 01-Jul-08 07:26 AM

>How does Nikon decide on the series #s? Why is it a D700 and
>not a D400 or other number? Just curious.
>
>Muniini
>
>A Nikonian in Toronto

Just a guess, but the D70 was the small sized natural heir to the D1, just as the D700 is the smaller heir to the D3 throne.

I also get the idea that the "100's" are the pro-sumer line and with the "10s" as the consumer.
I'd also agree that this leaves room to grow for the remainder of the pro-sumer DX line before the FX technology becomes the default standard due to the cost of the technology falling: D400/500/600

RDW


726 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 0

RDW Registered since 20th Sep 2002
Tue 01-Jul-08 07:30 AM

I'd guess they want to leave room for a DX-format 'D400' etc. The D700 UK list price is about double what the D300 is selling for, so there's plenty of room in the range for cameras at both levels at the moment.

Valentino

US
11613 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 0

Valentino Awarded for high level skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 04th Dec 2004
Tue 01-Jul-08 11:13 AM | edited Tue 01-Jul-08 11:13 AM by Valentino

The model number sequence seems down right foolish. I have had these nits for about 25 years since my first job as a Applications Scientist with equipment. Product managers often get tied up in the present with little perspective for past and future and this always makes things confusing.

Why not D300F since it has the same technology of the "3" series. If we put a APS sensor in a larger pro body, that should be a D3x. And a densely packed FX sensor into a Pro body it should be a D3s (S for supersized). Or better, rename the D3 to D3f and a future 20+ mp FX sensor to D3fs.

If someone new to digital goes to a camera store and asks about the various options then things will quickly get confusing thinking a D700 is much better than a D300 just as it is natural to think a D300 is better than a D200. Common sense and consistency has just gone out the window. Abbott and Costello could make a great routine out of Nikon's model numbers including the double digit models like the D70 to D50. And why is the double digital models at the low end, the single digit (D1x. D2x..) at the high end and the sub-pro line like a D300 have three digits? So who's on first? Naturally

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Moderator Emeritus

Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

jbloom

Wethersfield, US
7735 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 4

jbloom Gold Member Awarded for the continuous and generous sharing of his high level expertise and his always encouraging comments in several forums. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 15th Jul 2004
Tue 01-Jul-08 11:22 AM

Well, I don't know. (Third base!)

Just treat the model designations as names and don't try to make anything of the numbers therein. I guess Nikon could use animal names ("announcing the new Nikon 'Antelope' digital SLR"), but then someone would probably complain that they weren't following Linnaean taxonomy.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Martin Turner

Bidford on Avon, UK
4860 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 2

Martin Turner Moderator Expert professional PJ & PR photographer Nikonian since 19th Jun 2006
Tue 01-Jul-08 11:33 AM

Well, not really. The D100 was marketed by Nikon as having the heritage of the D1. The D70 wasn't badged as being linked to the D1 at all.

1s = Pro with vertical grip
100s = Pro without vertical grip, but with option
10s = enthusiast or pro-sumer

The Coolpix cameras were targeted at the consumer.

Nikon defines its pro range as the 1s and 100s for the purposes of NPS membership.

M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk

Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera

My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, https://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/

RoFus

Luxembourg, LU
119 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 4

RoFus Silver Member Nikonian since 14th Nov 2004
Tue 01-Jul-08 11:41 AM

>If someone new to digital goes to a camera store and asks
>about the various options then things will quickly get
>confusing thinking a D700 is much better than a D300 just as
>it is natural to think a D300 is better than a D200.

well, I fear the confusion in the shop stops latest when having a look at the price tags. and for those who then are still confused, nobody needs to bother, because they are in another customer league.

Martin Turner

Bidford on Avon, UK
4860 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 4

Martin Turner Moderator Expert professional PJ & PR photographer Nikonian since 19th Jun 2006
Tue 01-Jul-08 11:44 AM

It all comes down to Nikon's heritage. With nearly 50 years since the F-mount came out, a lot of rationalisation has already gone on. The F1, F2, F3 were big bodied manual focus cameras. The F4, F5 and F6 were pro auto-focus cameras. The FM series were small bodied manual focus cameras. Nikon went through a wild series of different monikers for its consumer film cameras, but, as digital was kicking off, they had the F80 which was really a consumer camera, and the F100 which was adopted by many pros. Initially there were no consumer dSLRs, as the price was too high, so they stuck with the x00 moniker for F100 style cameras (although, in fact, the body of the D100 was more like the body of the F80), and x for large body pro cameras. As they already had a history of x0 consumer cameras, they stuck with that when they introduced the D70, as it chimed nicely with the F80.

Nikon could have gone with letter number combinations, like the FM2, FM3a, etc, but chose to stick with D for the digital series. This, at least, is a rationalisation of earlier systems. They could have called the D700 the D3000, but that would have probably looked very old fashioned (remember in the '90s when loads of things were called the '2000', and then followed by '3000', '4000', etc?). If they'd called it the D400, then that would have created an instant market expectation of the imminent release of the D4, and would also have told everyone that the D300 is obsolete, which it isn't.

Faced with so many intractables, D700 doesn't sound like a bad choice.

M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk

Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera

My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, https://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/

Joe Mondello

US
168 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 0

Joe Mondello Registered since 11th Apr 2007
Tue 01-Jul-08 12:05 PM

>How does Nikon decide on the series #s? Why is it a D700 and
>not a D400 or other number? Just curious.
>
>Muniini
>
>A Nikonian in Toronto


hahaha! I asked the same question on DPR!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=28456973

Joe Mondello wrote:
> Seems that choosing to name this camera D700 is an odd choice to me.
>
> Why do you think Nikon decided to go with "700" ???
>
> I haven't a clue!
> --
> Cheers,
> Joe


Valentino

US
11613 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: Why D700?" | In response to Reply # 0

Valentino Awarded for high level skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 04th Dec 2004
Tue 01-Jul-08 12:51 PM

The first half of this new Thom Hogan article gets into this confusion
http://www.bythom.com/d700announce.htm

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Moderator Emeritus

Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

G