As if the 5D wasn't enough competition! Rumors are a-fly that BestBuy has pulled the D700 from there shelves and system, which happened to the 300 about three months before the 300s. Maybe a 700s is coming before an x, who knows?
The A850 appears to be nothing more than an A900 with features removed to sell at a lower price point. The A900 is selling at $2699.00 with 24.6 MP. The A900 introduction price was $2999.00 and did not nudge Nikon to to price the D3X competitively with the A900. I don't see Nikon too worried about the A850 either. The 5DmkII is the closest thing to a direct competitor to a D700X. Time will tell, as the D700 and the 5DmkII are priced very close to each other now. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
>1 do. Especially for folks shooting DX wanting to move to FX and have to buy lenses anyway. Nikonians have twice polled around 60% intend to stay DX only, about 30% intend to mix formats, and 10% intend to become FX only. If these percentages remain current and half who want to be FX only have already switched then only about 5% of Nikonians DX shooters have yet to switch exclusively to FX. I shoot both formats - and would not sell my 18-200 for when I want to travel light or my 17-55 when I want to cover an event by adding just the 70-200 to the D300 body. Moving on as Sony make the D3x chip if there is to be a D700x (probably with a video facility) it is likely to ship about 1 month after a new Sony. Digressing and looking to the future the due soon Leica medium format using a Kodak sensor claims improved resolution by dispensing with a low pass filter and using software to detect and remove moire. Not quite 10 years ago saw the start of the "affordable" digital revolution with the launch of the D1 at a similar price to the D3x with (by modern standards) primitive 2.7 MP, limited AF, strong magenta cast, almost unusable 400 ISO etc. Maybe in as little as 2 years cameras will have moved on a lot further than you are considering.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
I am in that miniscule group looking to get into FX, but for whom the D700 eludes us based on price.
My 2 cents...
As FX/FF goes mainstream, and it will, you will see that 60% shift significantly as the cameras become affordable and hopefully, as Nikon produces the type of prosumer lenses they built for DX, (hopefully a lot quicker than they did for DX!).
I also shoot both formats as well as medium format on occasion and don't plan on changing to FX exclusively. I also don't quite understand the perception of "Moving up to FX". Some seem to think it is like it is moving from a VW Beatle to an S Class Mercedes Benz. It is a false perception. Moving over to FX is a more appropriate description. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. There are also similar differences between a 12MP camera and a 24.5MP camera. How many would choose a D3X for shooting sports? Not too many! As processing speeds increase this will change but we are not there yet. Of course by the time a 25 or 30MP camera (D7 for sake of argument) can fire at 11 FPS for 150 images, the 100MP D7X will be there for Studio and landscape shooters that would like the extra resolution but don't need the high frame rate. If you think the IQ is great on a Sony A900, A850, Nikon D3X or Canon EOS 1DsmkIII or 5DmkII you haven't seen the images captured with a Hasselblad H3DII-39 or H3DII-50. Yes Nikon will loose some sales to the Sony as will Canon. Most to people that think having the most MP means they have the best camera. The same can be said if the have a "Full Frame" camera. More so FX with the most MP. They will buy the cheap lens thinking they are smart shoppers not undestanding the difference, then use the camera like a P&S. Many of those same people capture an image. Print it. Then delete the image file when their hard drive gets full. I am shocked by the number of people that I know who are doing this. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the price of the D3X at $3K as well. I just don't think it will happen. What happened to a new Top of the line body every 8 to 10 years at $2000.00-$2500.00 each. I miss film! Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
>I also don't quite understand the perception of "Moving up to FX".
I said, moving TO FX, not moving Up to FX.
I crave only two things out of cameras today. The D700's sensor provides that in spades compare to anything but a D3. Call it big pixel envy if you will.
The craving: 1.Dynamic range 2.Uber clean shadows, especially under the inevitable underexposed images that come along from time to time.
No, dont ask, a D300 nor a D90 will ever make me happy.
If they built a D90 with the D700 sensor and the rest of the D90 feature set, I'd be satisfied for years.
I really don't care about metal bodies, (I rarely drop stuff), weather sealing, (I don't like getting wet, but I would stick myself and the camera in a rain suit), 10 frames per second, (not doing sports), or over-the-top megapixels, (don't print bigger than 13x19 most the time, rarely 16x24), that make my poor computer stagger under the processing load.
In fact, I am one of these people that is disappointed that Nikon went to 12 Mpixels. I would much rather of had a 8 mpixel CMOS-like sensor in DX and maximized it for DR and shadows as Nikon did with the D700.
So, FX - not moving up so much as allowing me to shoot the way I want to shoot.
I wasn't quoting you! Just addressing the general misconception that I commonly hear and read about. I agree with you that extending Dynamic Range is more important than adding more MP. I am sure eventually we will get what we crave now, and over time out expectations will increase keeping the ideal just out of our reach. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
While I am satisfied with my D700, if a D700X with 24 mp came along at a reasonable price (not likely), it would kill the argument for DX (except cost) as the whole issue of pixels on image (so called reach) would be over as I doubt your going to see a 300X at 24mp DX for a very long time.
Bob's correct. If Nikon prices a 24-megapixel D700 right, I'll keep my D700 for low light shooting, then set my sights on a D700(x) for precisely Bob’s reason. I was thinking of getting a top of the line Nikon DX, then retiring my D80. With a "cheap" D700(x) I would skip the DX.
The next blizzard of NAS gripes (mine also) will occur as Nikon makes more top tier glass optimized for their new processors. New processors - better glass - new processors . . . I fear Nikon's marketing strategy is working.
Oh well, my Subaru will last another 100k. Can I milk 500k out of it? I'll need to if Nikon keeps amending their gear. Beware Nikon. Fuji Heavy Industries might get upset. You're messing with my twenty-year replacement cycle.
Why can’t Nikon make a modular camera? Then we could avoid chucking a good body each time a new processor comes to market. Nikon makes bodies compatible with legacy lenses. Why not make a body that will accept a new brain? Brand loyalty, modular cameras . . . hmm.
Nikon is going to be pressured from all sides it seems, with Sony A850 applying pressure to Nikon's D700/D700X and now a rumored Canon 7D twisting the tourniquet on our D300S!
If a D800X (e.g. second generation high megapixel beast) were to have extremely powerful processing power, high frame-rate like D300S or better, very extensive buffer, 2nd generation video, I would be a buyer. Since I believe that combination of features is still a ways into the future, I expect to continue with a DX Nikon D400 to complement my D700.
Best regards, SteveK My Nikonians gallery 'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange