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

Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?

NikonMark37814

Morristown, US
1125 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
NikonMark37814 Registered since 20th May 2010
Sun 16-Sep-12 02:41 AM

Looking at my camera it seems like there's room for a SD slot and video? It seemed like an easy implementation on the 300s. I'd love to shoot FX video, it and a second card slot is all my 700 lacks. Can't afford a new camera so I'll live with the video from my P7000.

mVs
D2x, D300s, D700 & D800

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

ajdooley

Waterloo, US
3384 posts

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

#1. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" | In response to Reply # 0

ajdooley Gold Member Nikonian since 25th May 2006
Sun 16-Sep-12 03:35 PM

Maybe they did -- the D600. As I recollect, the D300 and 300s came pretty closely together. The D700 has been around for a good while and maybe they simply decided the next itteration was the D800 and then the D600 -- on the surface, the D600 appears to be an evolutionary step from the D700, while the D800 may be a horse of a different nature. As unimportant as video is to me, I am staynig with the D700 for now, especially while the gremlins seem to have roles in the initial issues.

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

output555

US
339 posts

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

#2. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" | In response to Reply # 1

output555 Silver Member Nikonian since 29th Aug 2008
Sun 16-Sep-12 10:50 PM

The D600 does seem like a hybrid camera, combining elements of the D700, D800 and D7000. Not sure it's positioned as the replacement for the D700 (which I wish Nikon would finally focus their attention on) so much as a step up from the D7000.

nathantw

US
184 posts

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

#3. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" | In response to Reply # 2

nathantw Registered since 16th Jan 2008
Mon 17-Sep-12 11:47 AM

Unfortunately the D600 isn't a replacement to the D700. It lacks the 10-pin accessory plug and doesn't give up to 8 fps with an accessory battery pack. The D700s would probably have those features.

However, the D600 offers a 100% viewfinder which I wish the D700 had from day one.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


Also http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/

avm247

Rancho Cordova, US
18758 posts

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

#4. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" | In response to Reply # 3

avm247 Moderator Awarded for high skills in documentary architecture and aviation photography Donor Ribbon. Awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Charter Member
Mon 17-Sep-12 02:56 PM

I agree that the D700 does not have a replacement in the D600 due to the reduced feature. Nikon markets the D600 as an entry level FX camera, vs the D800 advance amateur/semi-pro/pro and D4 (pro cameras).

I don't think that the D700 (and D300/300s) will have traditional replacements as Nikon have several lines now in production:
D3--- series (entry DX), D--- (amateur DX), D---(advanced amateur DX), D6-- (FX entry), D8-- (advanced amateur, semi-pro/pro FX), D- (pro FX).

The D3/D700/D300 bodies seems to represent the older technology and older naming convention.

I think Nikon with have DX-only bodies as D---and amateur FX as D--- and pro as D-. Given that FX bodies can be shot in DX mode albeit, lower MP but with cleaner high ISO performance, I wonder if Nikon needs a D300/300s replacement.


Anthony

The Moderator Page and My Gallery
The important things in life are simple; the simple things are hard.

G