Thu 14-May-09 11:33 AM | edited Fri 15-May-09 12:36 PM by RRRoger
I expect the announcement this September and availability in December. I just don't know what extra features to expect. My Guess is: D700 body Tilt 3" LCD monitor 24mp D3X sensor Higher ISO range than D3X Upgraded firmware with a lot more features. FullFrame video Price $4,000+
I imagine that FullFrame video will be at HD definition. That is considerably less than 24mp but there will be lots of other advantages of video on a FullFrame camera. Hopefully AutoFocus will be one of them.
>I expect the announcement this September and availability in >December. >I just don't know what extra features to expect. >My Guess is: >D700 body >Tilt 3" LCD monitor >24mp D3X sensor >Higher ISO range than D3X >Upgraded firmware with a lot more features. >FullFrame video >Price $4,000+
Higher NOISE-FREE ISO range than the D3X with 24 megpix? I doubt it.
Did you mean the D3x? The D700 and D3 are almost identical in results, other than AF speed.
If you mean the D3x, be aware that it will put the utmost demands on your lenses and technique. Without top-shelf glass and pristine technique, D3x images might well come out less usable than something shot at only 12mp. Some folks have taken to using PC-E lenses to get DOF, rather than attempting to stop down - that's how extreme this gets.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I mean the next, cheaper, smaller bodied camera with the 24mp sensor.
Yes of course, the higher resolution will show more detail. Thus all user errors or lense defects will be more noticeable. I remember this being the most noticeable problem of upgrading from a D2H to a D2X. It also forced me to become a better photographer so I welcome that challenge.
I just cannot justify $8,000 for a D3X. So, I am hoping for a cheaper made version with more features (tilt screen viewer, FullFrame video, etc.) to come out for half the price.
>I think Brian was querying where you originally said that: > >Because the D3 is so much better, I will not even be >interested in buying a D700... > >I found that confusing too. In terms of sensor performance >and most aspects of image quality, the D3 and D700 are pretty >much identical.
I took an engine out of a wrecked Corvette and put it in a Falcon. Do you think that made the Ford Falcon car equal to the Chevy Corvette?
Differences: D3 cost twice as much Heavier with twice the build Dual Processors Dual Card slots Double the battery power Double the image production. Double the shutter life Double the shooting speed
The D700 starts catching up on some of these with the En-El-4 battery pack, but now you have a bigger heavier camera that does not handle as well as the D3. The self cleaning sensor may be useful if video is added to the D700X but my D3 sensor did not need cleaning after shooting 16 months of dusty MotoCross. It was automatically cleaned by Nikon when I sent it in for the buffer upgrade and afterward I could see a tiny speck in the corner than went away after a few hundred shots.
If I were going to use the Camera for commercial work, I would get the D3X now instead of waiting for the D700X. However, FullFrame Video may have some profitable applications for me. That possibility plus the probability of light use, makes the wait for a cheaper camera prudent.
So, when will I be able to purchase an affordable 24mp Nikon with Video?
Response to #13 I have had 4 dedicated video cameras. I do not want to carry both. Video is only secondary in importance to high quality stills for me. Plus, I like the D90 videos better than what I got with tape, DVD or memory card camcorders. I hope an affordable FullFrame Nikon with video will be available soon.
Response to #14 I cannot afford a D3X. If a D3X with video came out for $4000, I would try to be first on the waiting list. Or if my business use could justify the expense, I would have no problem paying much more.
RRR, you own one or two D3, I think? The D3 and the D700 are great travel, walk-around, available-light cameras. Almost noiseless high-ISO images can be had at 800 to 1600 with both. This is not at all the case with the D3x; you must keep the ISO low to control noise because of all those extra pixels. I would have zero interest in a D700x with 24 MP.
>RRR, you own one or two D3, I think? The D3 and the D700 are >great travel, walk-around, available-light cameras. Almost >noiseless high-ISO images can be had at 800 to 1600 with both. > This is not at all the case with the D3x; you must keep the >ISO low to control noise because of all those extra pixels. I >would have zero interest in a D700x with 24 MP.
I now have two D3 bodies and a D90
Unless the D700X was a remarkable upgrade at a comparably low price it could not replace the D3 for my Event Photography.
I want it to replace the D90 24 mp for Travel Landscape & Architectural pictures. FullFrame Video for those short burst I sometimes take when there is a spontaneous Photo Opportunity. clean ISO 1600 would probably be enough, but 3200 would not surprise me.
Perhaps, Nikon will come out with two new cameras. A D700X with 24mp sensor and a D700V with 12mp sensor and FullFrame Video?
Back in the day, I used to travel with a heavy tripod and a large duffel bag filled with ASA (ISO) 25 Kodachrome. In many ways, those were simpler times (except for my lower back pains). Now, since 9/11, using a tripod in a lot of public areas is very iffy. I routinely do a lot more handholding. I also shoot color where I used to shoot Tri-X B&W.
So I've been waiting for a DSLR that's capable of producing noiseless images at high ISOs. The D3, D700 and D90 can do that.
On the other hand, if D700x or D800...900...name it as you wish, has 24mp and will cost 4000$ then how will it "hit" canon eos-5d mkII, which stands now without any competitor from Nikon...I think -hope- that Nikon's 24mp response shall come soon , that's what i am waiting for and i am not buying d700...let's see...
You misunderstood. I meant the new 300S. My fault. I was hoping that Nikon would take the 300 back to Sendai. The D700 is already built at that location. as is the D3. The D300 was built in Thailand and for that reason, was of no interest to me.
>You misunderstood. I meant the new 300S. My fault. I was >hoping that Nikon would take the 300 back to Sendai. The D700 >is already built at that location. as is the D3. The D300 was >built in Thailand and for that reason, was of no interest to >me.
Many in this forum will dispute this, but I think their quality control is really lacking in Thailand. They will, no doubt, quote that the specs are the same. Their priorities outside Japan seem to be profit and price. If you are not lucky, you may not get a good copy. Both, my D300 and Nikkor 70-300 VR were not good.
>You will and I are on the same page. You will hear from a couple of very vociferous defenders of this outsourcing. I had concluded that I would possibly consider the body if it was returned to Sendai. I have problems with the entire concept of outsourcing. To make it worse, it appears that Nikon is also trying to turn this model into a video camera. I suppose that a deal with Wal-Mart is on the horizon. (Suppressed snicker.) >Many in this forum will dispute this, but I think their >quality control is really lacking in Thailand. >They will, no doubt, quote that the specs are the same. >Their priorities outside Japan seem to be profit and price. >If you are not lucky, you may not get a good copy. >Both, my D300 and Nikkor 70-300 VR were not good. >
I have trouble telling whether these messages are tongue in cheek or serious. I think some are responding seriously to what is a joke.
Let us hope that Nikon does NOT come out with any professional DSLR with video. It is fundamentally a dumb idea. For the low end consumer market who think more of anything is better, fine. Why not a cell phone with HD video?
I suggest that anyone who wants to shoot video go to Best Buy and look at the HD Sony and Canon camcorders for around $500. A much better choice for video.
I hope the next version of the D700, which I love, has a new sensor with 15-20 mgpixels, AND maintain the same great low light performance. If it loses the low light/hi ISO performance, as on the D3x, it is a DOWNGRADE, not an upgrade.
>If the D70 ?) rolls in at $4,000.00 less than the D3x but uses the same sensor, I would still consider that an upgrade. After all, we have our D3's and D700's for high ISO. >I hope the next version of the D700, which I love, has a new >sensor with 15-20 mgpixels, AND maintain the same great low >light performance. If it loses the low light/hi ISO >performance, as on the D3x, it is a DOWNGRADE, not an upgrade. >
I'm hoping it will not have video either, greater resolution is much more important than a dinky video mode. I think marketing wise they would sell far more D700x bodies with the D3X sensor then a D700s which just offered minor tweaks and video mode.
It has been nearly one year since I started this thread. Still no D700x in sight? We have seen a doubling of High ISO and Video come to the D3s but no more 24mp camera bodies except the still cheaper Alpha 850.
Because of the relative low cost, I have explored the many shortcomings of moving to the Alpha 900 or 5D Mark II. The thought of the move still makes my stomach churn so much that I continue to wait.
1. IS Nikon's cost of the Sony Sensor too high? 2. Is there a limited supply? 3. Technical difficulties putting it in the D700 body 4. Still afraid of cannibalizing D3X sales? 5. Is Nikon developing a non-Sony 18-24mp High ISO FullFrame Sensor to put in a D800-900 instead?
>Or maybe... > >6. Nikon have realised that 12MP is sufficient to meet the >vast majority of most photographers' needs
That would be an erroneous assumption. The market is too fluid to concede opportunity. Nikon tried that in the past and for a brief period, Canon ate their lunch. The perfect example would be the inclusion of video. That mode is unnecessary to "the vast majority of most photographers' needs" but it was a market necessity. You have got to either race or watch.