Hard to say much of anything about a camera that has yet to be produced for or tested by consumers, except that it was expected. Side by side comparison of photos from each camera will be interesting. One thing that's certain, is Nikon and Canon gear will continue to get better due to this competition. We're all winners here.
If any info in that linked web page is accurate, it looks like the AF system is about the same, which is a feature that Canon must be saving for their next 1D upgrade. What I want to know is why are DSLR cameras suddenly being produced with video capability? If I wanted to record a video I'd use my video camera. Point and shoot cameras have had this feature for a long time now, but I can't see wanting this feature on an expensive DSLR. I'd rather they offer more features relevant to still photography.
Fri 19-Sep-08 12:07 AM | edited Fri 19-Sep-08 12:15 AM by dgh3
I don't wonder about the video. Some pro sports shooters already are migrating to hi def video as they can produce perfectly acceptable magazine covers with frames from it, with TV potential, or course. And, Nikon has such a premium collection of lenses, already some of them are very popular in the movie industry, that it makes sense to tap both markets if one does not detract from the other, or cost too much more to produce. Personally, if I've got the memory, I'd like to be able to gert some super good videos - but I'd like to also get auto focus to operate while video taping (not available on the Nikon D90).
But, back to the original question... There is some doubt about how big the Canon 5D MKII's impact on the D700's price. Certainly, it will lower the resale, and, probably, the new price as well. But, the size of the hit is going to depend a lot on noise-free hi ISO. That's the issue for me when I think about a D3x. If hi ISO is great, then this will be a killer camera.
I hope that it's got Nikon thinking about the pricing on the D3x. After all, Sony's coming in at 3000 and this Canon is at 2700. This could put a crimp in Nikon's pricing dreams - I hope, as I'd like to get this camera for a bit less than a D3. The rumor has been 7000. Personally, I'm not going to jump ship to Canon no matter what.
On the other hand, I used have a Yashica FR I with a Zeiss Contax 50mm 1.4 (I think, maybe it was 1.5). It took magical pictures. Hmmmmm ... Zeiss, Nikon, Zeiss, Nikon??? But... Sony??? Uhhhh.
Dave Harris Life is short, death is long, there is no perfection in life, only in death; perfect stillness. Enjoy life!
Fri 19-Sep-08 05:51 AM | edited Fri 19-Sep-08 05:53 AM by sorin
>I hope that it's got Nikon thinking about the pricing on the >D3x. After all, Sony's coming in at 3000 and this Canon is at >2700. This could put a crimp in Nikon's pricing dreams - I >hope, as I'd like to get this camera for a bit less than a D3. > The rumor has been 7000. Personally, I'm not going to jump >ship to Canon no matter what.
so you are ready to pay $2700 for a 21mp sensor in a nikon d50 body? basically that's 5dmk2. i can't say d70 because d70 had CLS
you are willing to drop any feature present from d70 till today so you can shoot 21mp landscapes and portraits in full sun?
I think the price for D700 will drop when 5D Mark II arrives (by Xmas time?). I think the 5D Mark II's image quality will be every bit as good as 1Ds Mark III since they are using virtually the same sensor (5D Mark II has a slightly improved sensor). But it loses out on auto focus and frame rate compare to D700. People who want to shoot sports may be happier with D700.
My guess is that prices will remain pretty stable as the differences between the 2 bodies probably means they won't really be competing with each other on several levels. What will dropping the price on the D700 achieve for Nikon? If someone wants 21MP it doesn't matter how cheap the D700 is they are going to buy the 5D2. Brand loyalty means that most Canon users who were holding out for the 5D replacement will buy it even if they think the D700 has a better feature set or suits their needs better (ie. pro AF, high fps). In fact I think if you were Canon user who shoots predominantly sports but can't afford 1D series pro body, the D700 is a very enticing option.
I don't think the D700 is overpriced when you look at its target market (in fact it's great value really) so I'd be pretty surprised if Canon's new offering sparked any significant price drop.
in the UK, the price of the D700 has come down quite a bit since the launch. It is now about £1685 for UK stock, just over £300 down since the launch. Over the last couple of days, more retailers have dropped (typically by about £60) to this price. When it gets to about £1500, I'll be tempted to take the plunge.
In the USA, it seems that prices have not fallen, but they were lower in the first place (as usual)
I'm not so sure it will have any effect on the price. I don't think Nikon is very concerned about D700 users switching to the 5D markII , and first time dslr buyers probably won't buy either one of them models. Now Nikon could very well reduce the price in order to perk up sales , but I don't think it will be because of Canon . I've not read much on the Nikon forums about people wanting to switch to the 5d MarkII , but on the Canon forums is another story. There is a bunch of unhappy folks on the Canon dpr forums , but of course on dpreview they cry about everything (mine is bigger than your mentality )
I doubt there are that many D700 users switch to 5D MkII as it is very expensive to do so for people who have a large collection of FX glasses. But for people who do not have a large collection of Nikon mount lenses, for people who are moving from DX to FX, and for people who shoot landscapes and/or studio work, it may make sense to see what's out there and decide for themselves.
Other than the sensor, Canon seems to have been overly conservative with this camera upgrade (I'm basing that on feedback I've heard from Canon shooters). I can't see this having a significant impact on the D700, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Thing is, if 12MP versus 21MP all by itself was as big a deal as some (non-pro) people seem to think it is, we wouldn't have seen so many D3s at the Olympics. Pros certainly don't care about $5000 versus $8000. But instead, for the first time in a long time, we saw a LOT of Nikons being used in the photographers pit.
Another thing to remember is that, prior to the D700 launch, there were lots of rumors going around that it was going to have a higher pixel count than the D3. A lot of us (not all) were not happy to hear that - high ISO noise performance is really what matters to many folks, plus as pixel counts get higher we're reaching the point of diminishing returns for many/most types of photography.
Personally, 12MP on a full frame sensor is the sweet spot for me (FWIW I'm decidedly an amateur). I don't see an advantage to going higher. I am hoping all these companies will stop focusing on pointless and often counter-productive increases in pixel density, and instead devote more resources toward what really counts - increased dynamic range being #1, in my mind.
I think the 5D-2 and D700 compete with other cameras in their brand's line, not each other. I'd bet over 90% of sales of each will be to customers who already own a Canon or Nikon. I can't see many people changing brands just because of a new model. Brand preference is based on a number of considerations, generally not just a specific camera model. I never liked the DX format, for example, but I never considered switching to Canon since I liked many other aspects of Nikon.