With the announcement today of the D3X, what is the view of the group of the likelihood of a D700X? For those of us who would prefer the body style of a D300 on steroids with the FX format and higher megapixel count, that would seem to be an ideal fit. Jim
Mon 01-Dec-08 06:13 PM | edited Mon 01-Dec-08 06:15 PM by Michael Green
I may be sticking my nose where it doesn't belong but I had heard the D3X was offering a dx mode with 10 Megs, up from the D3 and D700's 5. If a D700x had that I would really be interested as I have 4 good dx lenses.
Ok, that makes sense, keep the Fuji and just get the D700 for it's high iso quality. It remains to be seen if the cropped mode of the D3x is any less noisy than the D300. I suspect that it won't be but I could be pleasantly surprised in the end. I never had any DX lenses as I waited for a FF sensor so was never faces with this dilemma.
The megapixel issue is an interesting one. My history, as perhaps can be discerned from my moniker, is as a contact printer of 8x10 negatives on platinum-palladium coated paper. For color, I have historically either used a 4x5 field camera or a MF rangefinder. From each of these, I can get superb prints. Now that color printing is more easily and successfully done with inkjet printers than I could ever do with Cibachrome/Ilfochrome/etc., I am scanning either chromes or negs to make large prints. A 6x7 chrome scanned at 4000 dpi can withstand a lot of cropping and still end up with a file large enough to render a superb print.
If I am to move totally from film (not sure whether that will happen, but it may be forced on me), then I still want the ability to have a file that can take cropping and leave me with enough of a file that, at a minimum, I could do a 16" x 20" print at 360 dpi. The 12.1 mp on my D300 simply does not do that unless I upsample. That desire, coupled with the extreme heft of the medium format digital cameras I have tried, justify to me the need for more megapixels. Jim
The whole idea of the D700 is to have the high ISO in a smaller package than the D3. If they were to raise the pixel count ala D3X then the high ISO would be gone as is seen with the 3X 1600 ISO working number. We now have many options but I hope they don't come out with a 700X and drop the 700 if it means losing such low light capability that the 700 now has.
I think that there is a basic fact of digital photography that prevents us from having a single "best" camera for everyone. With film, an F3 or F4 or F5, in its prime, did nearly everything better than any other camera in the Nikon line. Unless small size was a critical factor, the top-of-the-line camera did sports and wildlife and landscape and photojournalism and everything else better. I think that it will be some time before that is true for digital. A 24MP version of the D700 would not be for the folks who value clean high ISO files above all else. It would be for people who want an affordable and lighter camera that captures the maximum amount of detail when used at the base ISO on a tripod. It would not replace the D700, since it would be less useful for low light photography when a tripod can't be used. The D3x will not replace the D3 for photojournalists or sports photographers, but it will be a better camera for landscape and studio work.
So, even though the whole idea of a D700 was to have an affordable and smaller camera with the high ISO and great image quality of the D3, that doesn't mean that there isn't a need for other folks for an affordable and smaller camera with the resolution of the D3x.
I have made 14x18 prints from my D200 and I am sure my D700 would make better and bigger prints. I would not value a hight MP count at the cost of lower ISO sensitivity. It is the ISO performance and the full frame that made me buy a D700 in the first place, and lowering the ISO performance is a non-starter for me. I am not making billboards, and I am sure a D700X would be about a $6000 camera or maybe even more.
I am planning an upgrade to the D700 from my D200 in December. High ISO performance is the reason--especially since I do gigs in all kinds of lighting with occasional flash restrictions.
Like others, any loss of this high ISO performance would be a deal-breaker for me. I've displayed nice 12x16 prints in galleries from my 6pm D100, and had images published, so it's my opinion that 12mps should still serve nicely in today's market--especially with skillful post-processing.
I understand that extra mps means more cropping ability for some, but I'm from the "fill the frame" school and don't often crop much, so that's a non-issue for me.
I upgraded from the D200 to the D700 for the same reasons as those mentioned above : outstanding performance in low light (high ISO) and full frame sensations. I don't regret this upgrade at all : the D700 is the best (D)SLR I've owned in 30 years and it's a real pleasure to use it. So, I don't see any good reason for me to upgrade in the coming years to a DnnnX with nnnMP.
I am agreeing along the line of thinking with TOMCURIOUS, I would like a future D800 to give the same ISO 3200 performance as the D700 with as many pixels as the technology at that point is capable of achieving. If at the time the D800 is ready it might be capable of doing so at 16mp or 18mp. That would boost the DX pixel count and also allow for more cropping flexibility. I would also like the 5:4 ratio crop for direct 8x10". If the camera comes with HD video then I would also want it to allow 1 ratio snapshots for slideshows on a 1080P tv.
What I don't want is degrading the cameras performance by just adding pixels to compete with Canon or Sony for Press Release pixel ratings.
Adding pixels will be better for landscapes, where you operate at the base ISO rating and the lens stopped down, but like most people I would not sacrifice High Iso for pixel count.
Each digital sensor generation so far has stretched the amount of pixels that can produce optimal high ISO results, we need to be patient for technology to call the shots on where that sweet spot is.
A 700x would be great since it would be half the price of the 3Dx which is priced off the roof. Most professional photograhpers are boycoting the 3Dx because of the price. Nikon is out of there mind with that price !!!!!!!!!! So a better camera with a better price point is a good thing . Remember a D700 is really a 3d JUST PACKAGED BETTER
>A 700x would be great since it would be half the price of the >3Dx which is priced off the roof. Most professional >photograhpers are boycoting the 3Dx because of the price. >Nikon is out of there mind with that price !!!!!!!!!!
A cheaper 24MP FX Nikon would certainly be popular, but Nikon is not completely out of line with pricing of its top-of-the-range model. In the UK, the D3X actually sells for less than Canon's 1Ds MkIII - around £5000 compared with around £5800.
If they encapsulated the D3's sensor in the D700 body, then technically putting the D3x's sensor in a D700x body shouldn't be a big problem. It's after all a D3 with a different sensor and image processing. However, if Nikon sticks with its current pricing on the D3x, and sales continue to be as slow as I have read them to be, I don't see them cannibalizing those slim sales with a cheaper D700x.
I am another of those D700 owners who would not upgrade to a D700x; like many others the D700 gives me the balance between versatility (high iso) and picture quality (printing to A3) I want in a well built quality camera. Again like many others, what I do want is some lenses to go with it. I have just bought a Sigma 120-400 zoom because I finally got fed up waiting for an upgraded Nikkor 80-400, which has been asked for by many posters on many forums over the past couple of years.
The main requirement is for f4 zooms to match the two Canon offerrings, the 24-105 (without the poor edge quality between 24-35) and 70-200 (without the shortened focal length of 75-190). I don't suppose that any Nikon employee ever reads these posts, but just in case one of them should, here is a suggestion for three lenses which I, and I think many others would buy even in these recession hit times if they were built to a good standard between the plastic consumer and pro metal lenses
For wide angle - the current 18-35 f3.5-4.5 zoom upgraded to af-s and constant f4 For wide to telephoto - a 35-105 f4 (with VR for use on DX which can be locked off for FX) For telephoto - a 80-200 f4 with VR and sharp across the frame, unlike the 70-200 f2.8
All with the same size filter thread and as far as possible the same ergonomics.
On the subject of the D3x, I didn't understand Nikon's pricing from day 1. It is clearly a D3 with a higher megapixel sensor and faster processor in the same body as a D3. If it had been priced at 50% above the D3, Nikon would have sold far more units gaining economies of scale in body production. However their marketing department obviously decided to price it at the same level at the Canon. The one thing they forgot was that they have the D3 as well as the D3x, if, taking current UK street price for the D3 being £3000, they had priced the D3x at £4500, and then offerred the two bodies as a package to professional, particularly wedding, photographers at £7000 they would have sold far more than they have done.