It was released with the SB-900, 45mm and 85mm PC-E lenses.
When people compared the D200 as 70% of the D2X, I'd say the D700 is more like 95% of the D3... if you add the battery grip, you get 8 fps. I can't see anything else that is missing? Identical sensor and AF as the D3, two "live view" modes, electronic virtual horizon, active D-lighting, DX mode, HD LCD, it all seems to be there. The viewfinder coverage seems hindered by the built in flash. As for the pro-build, the Nikon site states: "Rugged magnesium-alloy construction: Along with extensive dust and moisture protection and a durable shutter mechanism tested to 150,000 cycles, the D700 merges pro D-SLR performance with expanded agility." I believe it will be priced at $3,000 USD. I'm guessing the D3 will drop to $4k -- that is only a guess and I have nothing to base that on.
>> shutter mechanism tested to 150,000 cycles > >That would be a big change from the D3's 300k.
I agree, but I've never heard of major shutter issues with any of the Nikon DSLR's. The viewfinder is different, Bracketing has to be mapped to the FUNC button, but its hard to accept an $1820 difference between the D3. I'm curiuos how well the self-cleaning sensor will work, and if a newer D3s will have it .
I am not really that surprised; I was expecting a “prosumer” FX Camera. What caught me by surprise was the timing and the number. I thought that Nikon was going to announce the D3X – 24 MP in July. However, they seem to have postponed it. Maybe they are having trouble with the sensor. In addition, I expected the D300 FX and not the D700.
Three months ago, I got the Tokina 12-24 DX f/4 lens. Later, I purchased the Tokina 11-16 DX f/2.8. After much deliberation, research, and soul searching, I changed directions and got the Nikon 14-24, sold the 18-70 DX, the Tokina 12-24 DX, and returned the 11-16 DX. I believe that I lost ~ $300. The main reason was that I did not want to get stuck with DX lenses. I now have the 14-24, 35mm f/2, the 50 mm f/1.4, the 70-300 VR and the Tamron 90mm Macro f/2.8, all FX lenses. My next lens would be the 70-200 VR, but keep postponing its purchase because I’m buying other things for the photo system like the 14-24, a 24” Widescreen for the PC, and just upgraded my PC.
I purchased the 2-year extended warranty with my D300, which will run out ~ November 2010 or just about the time for the D800 which might be FX and ~ 24 MP. By then, I should have the 70-200 VR and my new PC will handle a 24 MP FX camera files.
Trying to figure out what Nikon might do next is like trying to read tea leaves, on a Wiji board, inside a pyramid. Until now, Nikon was mysterious until they made the announcement and then all made sense, until now… that is. The D700 has me utterly confused. How are they going to compete with Canon when they are charging $1,000 more for a similar camera? Why D700? What happened to the D3X just before the Olympics?
If I had to purchase a camera today, I would go for the D700. However, I’m not that concerned about it. The D300, to my surprise, was a bit noise, inside, and above ISO 800. I will migrate to an FX format with the D800 and the main reason I converted to all FX lenses. Regardless, Nikon surprised me for many reasons.
One of the biggest advantages of Nikon over Canon is the seriousness of the company and its backwards compatibility philosophy. They were predictable until today. The D400 would follow the D300, the D3x the D3, and the D4 would come after the D3x, for example – not anymore. If I’m not upset about the D700 – I expected the D300 FX – I would be furious if I were a D3 owner. The D700 is the D3 for $2,000 less. If that was not enough, the D300 was better than the D2x for $3,000 less. Why would anyone buy a single digit "D" series camera when you can get it 6 – 12 months later at a much lower price? I expect the D800 to be an FX camera with ~ 24 MP or just like the rumored D3x.
For situations where 100% viewfinder coverage is critical you can use LiveView. If you are framing that closely, slowing down with LiveView is probably not a problem
Note that 95% coverage really means about 2.53% missing in each direction. It's hard for me to imagine situations where 1.27% extra border around a image is that important. If it is, it can easily be cropped in post processing with a 5% loss in pixels
Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera. D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome) YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5 My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery