The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[stuartr]

The difference is that the D700 is a professional sensor in a professional body. The 5D is a professional sensor in a prosumer body. The D700 has the top of the line image processing pipeline, weather sealing, top of the line AF, metering and so on. The 5D's body, while very nice, has more in common with the 20/30D than with the 1D series bodies. The difference is that the D700 is pro-full frame (normal sized) and the D3 is pro-full frame (gargantuan).

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by stuartr

Well, the professional sector is clearly going back to full frame...it is what pros have wanted since the beginning -- to have their lenses act like they did in the film era (which was not that long ago for many of them). In general bigger sensors have better signal to noise ratios, more light gathering ability, and are more forgiving of lens performance. That said, I don't see DX going anywhere any time soon. Nikon and Canon have put lots of money into designing and building DX bodies and lenses, and it would not make sense to just dump them when they are clearly still being bought.

I must say I am very surprised by the D700 though. It does not seem to fit to me. Why make a camera that is so close to the D3 and D300 without replacing either? It really is the unholy spawn of the D3 and the D300...the D3 sensor in the D300 body. It would seem to severely undercut the sales of both the D3 and the D300...

Honestly, I think the D300 is in a safe market position; I agree, however, that the D3 is in jeopardy. Most pro's I talk to love the D3, for example, but would kill to package its features and performance into a D300 type body. In fact, apart from sports shooting, I see no reason at this point to choose the D3 over the D700 - its hard to justify an $1800 premium when all it nets you is an extra couple FPS.

On the other hand, the D700 is almost twice the price of the D300, and that, I think, will keep the two from competing in the market. After all, the D300 really is a pro-level camera in more ways that one, and I think even many advanced amateurs would purchase the D300 over the D700, knowing they'd have $1400 extra for lenses.

Still, it's certainly an interesting, if not risky move on Nikon's part; and it will be even more interesting to see Canon's response in the next 5D upgrade.

[meat01]

It's unfortunate they spent so much effort developing their DX lenses to ditch them after only 4-5 years, but in the end the only way for Nikon to stay competitive is to develop cameras that will take the best pictures within their market segment.

Who says anything about Nikon ditching their DX lenses? People still buy the D40 and D60 when the D80 and DX00's have been out. Not everyone will be willing to pay for a full sensor and I don't see a full sensor body for $300 any time soon. Nikon sells a DSLR without a lens motor. Do you really think they are going to go sell FX sensors on all of their DSLR bodies any time soon?

I still have my D70s, even though the D80, D200, D300 and D700 have come out. It still works great and I can't justify the cost of the newer bodies. Maybe when an FX body is $500 I will switch, but who knows it may not have a lens motor.

I have nothing against the D40. It is a capable camera and I like the form factor. It is a great way for people to get into DSLRS.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by meat01

Do you really think they are going to go sell FX sensors on all of their DSLR bodies any time soon?

Yes.
I expect it will be no more than 2 generations away. Excluding the D40 type of DSLR, which may be dropped in the future in favor of something more streamlined...
Of course, this is all fluff at this point, but it is what I expect from market trends and demands.

[stuartr]

I really don't think this will happen soon (i.e. not within 4-5 years). We have not seen a (new) full frame camera under 2500 dollars yet, and part of that is the sheer cost of the sensors...we are not going to see a D40 market level camera with a full frame chip for quite awhile. Part of this is a factor of silicon wafer manufacture -- the bigger the sensor, the higher the rejection rate and the fewer sensors can be made from a single wafer. This is why the tiny sensors in cell phones are practically given away as an afterthought, why point and shoots can be extremely cheap, why aps is cheaper than full frame, and why a 22mp medium format digital back costs 20,000 and while the 1Ds MkIII's 35mm sized 22mp sensor costs only 8000 (with a body) And frankly, there is no call for it. APS-C offers very good image quality, smaller cameras and lenses and cheaper overall costs. For the amateur and casual market, those are very important factors. Keep in mind that there are still a lot of people using disposable film cameras out there...DX is not going anywhere in the next few years.

[lan]

What? No chat about SB900? LOL.

The D700 if it has AF speed of D3 is perfect for me. I like uber speed AF and accuracy. The best thing about D300 is the full coverage of the AF points from left to right.

[Iron_Dreamer]

The only nits I can find to pick with the D700 are the lack of a release mechanism for the CF card door (the spring-loaded jobbie on the D200/D300 is very nice), and the 95% viewfinder coverage (though an understandable trade-off for the built-in flash).

The SB900 looks as though it will have much more convenient controls than the SB800 (which is a bit of a PITA in that way). If I had the cash to blow, I'd get it just for less menu hunting. I guess we will have to see if the added zoom range, and other technical improvements are that noticeable over the 800. It does sound nice to get quicker recycle time without the silly 5th battery add-on of the 800.

[milkpowder]

It's D3-level ISO performance would be a major attraction too. The thought of being able to shoot at 3200+ w/ minimal IQ deterioration is simply mind boggling. Alas, its $4k UK MSRP is just a tad expensive

What is the price difference between the 800 and 900? I might need a flash...

[Arainach]

You're better off with the 600 unless you're a full-time pro anyhow; more shots per charge (presuming you don't use the disposable battery packs).

[dj_mocok]

Honesltly, I'd rather have more pro grade / exotic glass than getting the D700. 3 grand I could use it to finally get my dream Kinoptik. I'll trade my soul for one of those beauty lenses.

It can produce these kind of pictures. and these.

I am very familiar with my 85mm 1.4 which is considered one of Nikon's best bokeh offerings, but there is no way in hell I could produce that swirly bokeh no matter which way I bend.