Welcome to Nikonians! Anyone that knows will have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Nikon and can not say. We are all sure there is a replacement in the pipeline. When it will be introduced is speculation at best. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
I could care less about HD video! If that ever would become an important item to me, I would NEVER rely on a DSLR for HD video....I would buy a HD videocam!! As a pro, I would NEVER use HD video in a DSLR.
This has become an extremely hot topic in other forums. Since there are directors/producers using the 5d MkII to film tv shows and movies, the HD feature in cameras is a must have now. If Nikon does not offer an High Res (20+ MP) camera with 1080p 24/30 fps video option in their semi/pro cameras they will be raked over the coals. It appears there are people already extremely displeased that Nikon has not offered a camera to compete with the 5D MkII, and some don't believe they will be able to at this point. Apparently, you can only compete at the pro level these days if you have around 20+ MP.
Not trying to ster any trouble, just relaying some of the information that is out there now. I just bought my D700, and I love it for little amount of time I have had it. I too don't see a need for video in a still camera, as I don't use it even in my D300s. Although, I suppose other do want it and need it.
I have no use for video at all, it would mean a whole new bunch of learning curves and really a completely new hobby therefore a waste of time having it in a camera which wouldnt use it.
Now if you could buy a camera and custom specify what you would like that would be different.
I do think when Nikon brought out the D700 it should have been higher resolution if only to satisfy you wrealthy chaps over the water who start asking for an upgrade as soon as you have bought the latest model. Me I have to be happy for a while with the D700 (and D200 which I managed to hang onto depite my promise to sell it for the kitty)
I'm ready to buy a D800, or whatever number it will have, but I was disappointed by the lower ISO performance of the D7000 (according to Pop Photo tests). The D7000, as you all know, has a bigger sensor. Speculating, I think that maybe Nikon is having noise problems with higher megapixel sensors. I also don't need video.
>I'm ready to buy a D800, or whatever number it will have, but >I was disappointed by the lower ISO performance of the D7000 >(according to Pop Photo tests). The D7000, as you all know, >has a bigger sensor. Speculating, I think that maybe Nikon is >having noise problems with higher megapixel sensors. I also >don't need video. > >Juan
> The D7000, as you all know, >has a bigger sensor. Speculating, I think that maybe Nikon is >having noise problems with higher megapixel sensors. I also >don't need video.
I was under the impression that the D7000 is still an APS-C size sensor, just with more pixels crammed into the real estate. (Same as he D3X has 2X as many pixels on teh same size sensor as the D3s and D700, hence the poorer noise performance and ISO capabilities. That's the trade off until the noise reduction technology catches up. After all, a D1 and a D7000 have the same size sensor, but you'll get more pixels and a better images with a D7000.
I have no use for Video and I believe most D700 users would appreciate that at least one camera, in the Nikon line, remains dedicated to still photography. We also have no intention to produce TV Shows and Movies, we love making photos. The D700 should remain a still photo champion. For video lovers or all photographers that would like both, still and video, for sure Nikon will have one or more new Dxxxxx for that. THE MESSAGE IS: IMPROVE THE D700 IN LINE WITH STILL PHOTO. We do not want to pay for features we will not use.
This is an old and tired perspective. This is the exact same specious argument that was put forth when Nikon was not immediately responsive to Canon's release of 6+ megapixel DX cameras, then an FX format camera, and now a prosumer high pixel count FX camera to compete with the 5D MkII. Yet every time Nikon brought their "response" (and not really a response to Canon just their next step in the development chain) in their proper time it was a huge hit. Then all the Canon players wanted to switch. Seriously, we have more than enough megapixels in the D700 for just about any type of photography. Why oh why is pixel count always dubiously regarded as the benchmark for the cutting edge? Please enough already.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
And.....There is a well known Korean film producer as I write this producing a movie using only an I phone for production.....Fact! Nikon is behind the times....I think Nikon should integrate an I Phone in their cameras as well. .
>I could care less about HD video! If that ever would become >an important item to me, I would NEVER rely on a DSLR for HD >video....I would buy a HD videocam!! As a pro, I would NEVER >use HD video in a DSLR.
I wouldn't go to that extreme. DOF and rack shots on a DSLR intrigue me and are more useful than a videocam. The problem is the severely short recording times for wedding and event photographers.
Scott Chapin Powder Springs, GA, USA Nikonians Team Member
Nikon have full HD video (which I use ) at 16 MP in the D7000 - thanks in part to Expeed II. There is more to a good camera than MP count. Those of us who have used Nikon for several years know sometimes you have to wait longer for Nikon - but you get a class beating product after the wait.
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.
These threads crack me up. I am still using a D200 happily as I never upgraded to the newer cameras. Will I upgrade one day? Yes, but why do I need to do it now when my camera does everything I want???
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
I never pay much attention to this kind of speculation, other than to have an occasional chuckle. Like so many other D700 users who have checked in, I also have no interest in video capabilities or more megapixels. I have a D200, a D300, and a D700 and still love them all (yes, even my tired old D200). Unless there is a major breakthrough in capabilities, such as more megapixels AND no resulting loss in low-light performance, AND the ability to brew a great cup of coffee, I'm opting out of the next generation. For the forseeable future, I'm very confident that my NAS can be better satisfied by a lot of other cool goodies in the Nikon line.
Mon 31-Jan-11 03:52 AM | edited Mon 31-Jan-11 03:55 AM by James23p
Not a video guy so adding video will not entice me to upgrade. Neither will adding more megapixels since my D700 does everything I want it to do. If I was serious about upgrading I guess my next step would be a D3s, and thats a big maybe I still can not point to an occasion that the D700 has not outperformed for me. Plus more MP means bigger files which I do not need and if the high ISO performance drops even a little to add 24mp then it is definatly not an upgrade for me.
As far as keeping up with the D5mkII seems the D700 can still hold its own with the exception of video.
I've said this once or trwice the D700 is the best camera size, price and performance I have ever used!
And maybe that is why we have not seen a D800-perhaps there won't be one. FX is a small part of the market except for Pros who are using D3 versions and who would move to D4's. The D700 follow on is a much smaller market that tends to cannibalize the Pro market model at least when they are looking for smaller,lighter, cheaper. If you look at the threads over the the past few months here, most of us would not trade up for HDR Video, and in many cases not even more MP. So what would it take to make you upgrade to a D800? Is that market viable for Nikon to expend the effort on a replacement for the D700?
I agree with most of what is posted here on additional pixels, "Don't need anymore", and as for video, I don't like to mess up a great camera with features that cost more, that most of us won't use. I shoot a lot of AirShows, and I also do quite a bit of video. In my book, the two don't mix well within the same unit.
My photo camera line up are my D300 and D700 at AirShows and I carry a full set of both DX and FX lens when shooting.
When I shoot Video, I shoot a HD Pro-Video with a Cannon XH-A1. I know it's not a Nikon , but I started shooting Cannon video long ago and it stuck with me. As a side comment, they put a still camera in both of my video camera, and that is a total waste in my book.
I am both a D7000 and D700 user and I have never used the video facility on the D7000 as I didn't on my D90. Those that do, great, but why should we who are strictly still photographers be penalised by the extra cost of the video addition on any upgrade to the D700. This is of course only my personal opinion and I'm sure others have varying opinions. In a perfect world perhaps a D800v and a D800 could be produced to satisfy both parties and priced accordingly. I wish
I am left wondering what Nikon could offer me in addition to the current attributes of my D700. I bought the D7000 specifically for Wildlife for the extra pixels and hopefully they would be "good" pixels and a higher useable ISO to enable faster shutter speeds. In turn this would have a greater useable crop factor for wildlife and BIF. After an uncomfortable transition from my D90 I can say it is a very capable camera.
The other question is how big does the average user want to print an image with acceptable resolution? I regularly print to 16x12 ins and A3+ and the results are seriously good. I have also done a test whereby I have printed images from both cameras at 16 x 12 and A3+ of the same studio subject with satisfactory results both times.
So really I cannot see what a replacement will bring me on the basis that as the D700 is my landscape, portrait and architectural camera. Others may disagree with my take on video, but I agree with an earlier poster who said that he hoped Nikon would stick to one dedicated non video dSLR. So in my case I'm not yearning for the D700 replacement.
I too have a camera (D3s) that takes video, but have never used that feature.
My impression is that people using a DSLR to shoot video are doing it because they don't want a separate video cam, or are trying to prove that it can be done, be trendy doing it, and will then go back to something easier to use that gives better resultes. Once the novelty of "first episode of a cop show featuring a former nurse who is now a lawyer shot with a video capabale DSLR" wears off, life will return to normal.
As for me, there are some feature I can see upgrading on the D700's next iteration:
I agree with you guys. I DO NOT WANT VIDEO on the D700 replacement. While I have never upgraded my D200, because it serves my purpose, I do plan to upgrade to FX, because that is the one thing my D200 cannot do that is important to me. I will wait to see what a D800 offers and then at that point order a D700 or D800 depending on which one I like better.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
>My impression is that people using a DSLR to shoot video are >doing it because they don't want a separate video cam, or are >trying to prove that it can be done, be trendy doing it,
No, not true. The allure is being able to get beautiful DOF rack shots with creamy bokeh without busting the bank. Last I checked, adapters to fit 35mm lenses on small chip camcorders cost more than $6,000!
If DSLRs could achieve camcorder record times, I would have to have video. Not until then though. Wedding and event photographers have to have long record times. Those photographers would be Nikon's bread and butter at the DSLR price point, or a fair bit higher.
Scott Chapin Powder Springs, GA, USA Nikonians Team Member
You will be so pleased with the D700 should you get it, and have so much fun using it's marvellous array of features, that you will not have time or the inclination to worry about upgrades. It will keep you going for many years, dont let the fear of upgrades stop you getting one. I glad I got mine!!!
I've just posted a response on an earlier thread <"Expert predictions on the future of D700 pricing"> I so agree with everyone who has praised the D700 and you will be like a cat with two tales when you get it. I have never felt so good about owning a camera as I did when I received and got used to mine.
The D700 is a fantastic camera. I haven't used my D300 or my D200 since I got mine. However, I do not consider the D700 to be an end unto itself. I mostly shoot landscapes, and I would appreciate more megapixels in the new camera so long as the low noise capability of the D700 was preserved. I am thinking that new breakthroughs in sensor technology are possible, and that higher resolution would be desirable in my landscape shots. As a landscape photographer, I am always concerned about producing an image that conveys the way I felt when I captured the image, the reason why I bothered to photogragh the scene at all. I have considered carrying a small video camera, like the flip, with me on my travels to help me to remember the sights and sounds of the scene in order to help me to convey the feeling of it all in the final print. I have yet to do this because I either forget to bring the flip along, or my wife is using it, etc. If I had video capability on my D700, I could make a short video clip of each scene to jog my memory. It is often a long time between capturing the varying images and printing them. For me, video would actually be quite useful, so I hope that the next camera has it.
>If I had video capability on my D700, I could make a short >video clip of each scene to jog my memory. It is often a long >time between capturing the varying images and printing them. >For me, video would actually be quite useful, so I hope that >the next camera has it.
Mostly all new generation DSLR willl have video - so you will have plenty of choices on the next model to select one with the video capability. Hopefully the next d700 will be fully dedicated to stil photography so that we will not have to pay for something we will not use. The $$$ should be spent on features oriented towards better bracketing function 2 stops and quick key or 2 cards slots for exemple.
I often think some folks spend more time chasing technology than using it. This thread is much like one that might appear in an artist's forum dedicated to painting on canvas. It would start off with something like this......
"When will (favorite paint brand name goes here) come out with paint with smaller pigment partical sizes that reflect more light? I've used the best they've got for my paintings but feel they could make a better product. Oh, yes, and add an underlying substrate for the pigment to stick to that never drys hard and would wiggle a little bit from vibrations of people walking nearby. That would give some movement to tree leaves in my landscapes so they would appear to be realistic."
Then an equal number of pro and con responses would follow.
I'll close by mentioning the byline from another camera forum's most respected contributor:
"The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU."
DSLR's: D40, D700 FSLR's: FG, N80, F100 DX Lenses: Nikkor 18-55 VR, 18-70, 55-200 VR FX Lenses: Nikkor 18-35, 24-85, 28-80, 28-200, two 50's, 70-300 VR, Nikon Series E 28, 100 & 135. Speedlights: SB-15, SB-600
Graflex Super Speed Graphic 4x5 w/135mm Rodenstock f/4.5
Bart I beleive that most major camera firm, like Nikon-Canon-Leica-Sony-Panasonic etc..., do rely on user s comments to improve the next génération products. We are the users and we should know best what will improve the product. So where do we send our comments - Nikonians forum is a good place as it is mostlikely read by the Camera industry marketing people.
I willl close with the following comment:
" The best camera ever made is the one that you would enjoy using and that will produce the image quality that is presently not possible to take and would like to take"
This is called progress. Exemple: the capacity of the d700 to shoot at hight iSO noise free. This function was once on a wish list of many Nikon users.
One of the points I was trying to make in my post was that SOME PHOTOGRAPHERS WOULD USE VIDEO CAPABILITY. I offered a possible way to use it. Certainly others, more creative than I, will think of many other ways to use it.
I certainly wouldn't want Nikon to think that nobody would ever use this largely unexplored video capability of the next generation camera to follow the D700.
Ken - I understand your position and I do not wish to critize it. This is why i mentioned that you will mostlikely have plenty of choices for DSLR with video in the future. For those of us that will not or have no intention of using video - we are telling Nikon to have at least one model, i.e. the d700, that is dedicated only to stil photography. In doing so Nikon will either lower the price of the d700x or add a extra feature that will enhanced the system like improved range of EV capture for example or bracketing at 2EV option.
Thanks for your post. The D700 has no video capability. If it did, that capability would be useful to me. I am wondering if you know, or if some of our members know if a firmware update for the D700 could provide us all with 2EV bracketing capability and improved EV range? Perhaps Nikonians could make a formal request to Nikon for this?
>Jacques G, > >Thanks for your post. The D700 has no video capability. If >it did, that capability would be useful to me. >I am wondering if you know, or if some of our members know if >a firmware update for the D700 could provide us all with 2EV >bracketing capability and improved EV range? Perhaps >Nikonians could make a formal request to Nikon for this? > >Ken Olson
They PROBABLY won't do that. Why? To be blunt you got what you paid for and adding something like this would cost money and take away a selling point of another camera
All of you folks hoping for "more megapixels"...why not go to the best camera store you can find and buy a medium/large format film camera for pennies on the dollar and take beautiful photos equivalent to 35-50 megapixels. Then buy a real nice video camera and have the best of both worlds. I have never heard anyone gripe about something they couldn't do with the D700.
Your solution to the "more megapixels" problem has been suggested before. Trouble is, large format film cameras don't have the convenience or the versatility of today's DSLR, and who wants to lug both them AND a video camera around? Today's DSLR with video capability is a more versatile, compact, lightweight option that, in the case of Nikon users, uses arguably the best optics on the planet.
>Today's DSLR with video capability is a more versatile, >compact, lightweight option that, in the case of Nikon users, >uses arguably the best optics on the planet. > >Ken Olson
Nikon's best camera optics are no better than what was available in the '40's through the '60's, at least as far as resolution is concerned. And the other technical aspects of a lot of 35mm, medium and large format rangefinder cameras are often better than what goes on the SLR's of today. I'm not aware of any Nikkor SLR lens (micros excepted) made today that gets 70 or more line-pairs/millimeter. Let me know if there is one. Meanwhile, check out:
I guess what I should have said was "arguably SOME of the best optics on the planet". The optics folks have known how to produce very high resolution optics for a very long time. Improvements in contrast, aberrations, flair, etc. have been inproving more recently.
Today's resolution problems have more to do with sensor issues like crosstalk between pixels than with optics. All I was trying to say is that it is really nice to be able to use superb Nikon optics not only for still pictures, but also for videos. Just think of it....being able to use a wide angle lens that was designed to be a wide angle lens, and then switching to a telephoto lens that was designed to be a telephoto lens instead of some compromized wide angle/normal/telephoto lens found on most video cameras. Oh, and don't forget to go ahead and use the same lenses and camera to shoot some still photos.
Mon 07-Feb-11 01:56 AM | edited Mon 07-Feb-11 01:57 AM by Bart B
>I guess what I should have said was "arguably SOME of >the best optics on the planet". The optics folks have >known how to produce very high resolution optics for a very >long time. Improvements in contrast, aberrations, flair, etc. >have been inproving more recently. >Ken Olson
Roger that; I couldn't agree more.
Betcha many of Leica's lenses would out perform the Nikkors, but a fair comparison could only be made using the same sensor. Too bad Nikon has to put their glass so darned far forward so the flapping mirror will clear the mount that holds them. This is where the Leica lenses shine on their digital marvels without mirror boxes. But alas, the Nikon's have much better usability things and are so darned easy to take great pictures with. And Nikon's price-performance ratio dwarfs whatever Leica's have.
NAS example: I started with the D100 and when the D200 came out, what a big difference in performance. So after I bought my second D200, lo and behold, the D300 came out. And after buying the D300 the quantum leap produced by the D700 (High ISO performance) made me buy it. Witness the D7000, which to me although the camera is in keeping with Nikon's wooing us, it is not quite a D300 in feel. That is why I'm waiting for the D800 instead of buying a second D700. This upgrade of the D700 is going to be awesome.
I think the coming update will have HD video. That much will be a given now that competing cameras have video. And it will likely have more megapixels too, also driven by competitors. But Nikon Rumors is now advising the wait will be all the way to summertime!
My one wish is D3S high ISO capability. I am a high ISO shooter and if Nikon can pull that off I would upgrade my D700! If not the D3S has dropped in price to $4500 and is in stock. That price is a ridiculously good value in my estimation. I am disappointed about the summertime rumor, I was hoping to make a decision in March. Here's the link to Canada's highly reputable dealer (just leave me one): http://www.thecamerastore.com/products/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d3s-body
I think the latest rumor for a D700 upgrade is now looking at towards the end of year, but will probably be announced in the summer. I'm ready to upgrade from my D200, so I'm going to get the D700 now and when my D700 is no longer useful to me I'll see what's out there.
Like everyone else, I could really care less about video. If I am going to offer video as part of my professional services then I will invest in a quality HD camcorder that has mic outputs, etc.
Do you really think the D700 will become "useless" to you? I love my D700 and definitely WILL NOT "upgrade" when one becomes available. After two years with my D700 I can't imagine anything I can't do with it. Frankly, I probably am only using 25% of it's capabilities.
I am experiencing GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) atm and really want a D700. The price has dropped but it still, with the 24-70mm lens, a little pricey for me. Hopefully, when the new models are released it becomes even more affordable.
> I am disappointed about the summertime rumor, I > was hoping to make a decision in March.
OK, maybe not summertime after all. Thom Hogan is expecting two BIG announcements from Nikon in March (or early April). Thom says the following on his home page: "Nikon's next big announcements (I believe there will be two, plus lenses) won't be until late March or more likely early April. "
- assuming one is Nikon's new mirrorless camera, the other big announcement could be the; - D800 with all the fixens - I also see he mentions lenses plural. Please let it be for the long suffering 80-400 and 300mm f4 folks
Thom has been pretty good with his predictions in the past (except when it came to the D700S/D700X unfortunately).