new d700

Qarik

So I sold off my D90 and I have set myself a deadline. If Nikon doesn't announce a new "d700" by new years time then I will buy the d700. I really really hope it isn't the d700x. I hope it is a d700s or d800...just not 24M pixels puhleease. 2 more step of clean usuable iso is so much more attractive to me then 2X megapixels.

borrowlenses.com

It might be a D700s, we'll see. FWIW here is an article regarding the D700x and why it won't come to fruition (according to the author).

http://blog.deanallman.com/2009/10/why-there-is-no-nikon-d700x.html

Pindy

DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT

Qarik

borrowlenses.com wrote:

It might be a D700s, we'll see. FWIW here is an article regarding the D700x and why it won't come to fruition (according to the author).

http://blog.deanallman.com/2009/10/why-there-is-no-nikon-d700x.html

sincerely hope so

Ekaj

Why wait?

The d700 is a perfect camera.

Qarik

Ekaj wrote:

Why wait?

The d700 is a perfect camera.

ahhhh..the d700 can as far as I can tell, has super clean ISO to 3200. Very usable at 6400. The d700s for example would assumably be similar to the D3s which from what I saw has super clean iso to 6400 and maybe 12800..and very usable even further down. That 1.5 to 2 extra stops is phenomonal!

In the mean I don't have a shoot coming up till mid january...my d200 can tide me over till then.

cab.in.boston

Qarik wrote:

..my d200 can tide me over till then.

Congrats on your future purchase. (Can one preemptively congratulate?) A friend of mine just got a D700 and loves it!

I have a question for you. A different friend shoots with a D200 and a D3, and his dad has a D90. I mentioned to him that I had seen some decent prices on used D200's and had considered picking one up as a second body to go along with my D90 (wife and I both want our own cameras). He said that since I was used to a D90, I probably wouldn't like a D200. That's obviously just his opinion, and I know the D200 is more of a pro body, probably (not sure about this) is weather sealed, etc, but since you had (and obviously extensively used) both, what made you choose to keep the D200 over the D90? He talked about the difference b/t the sensors and that in his opinion, the D90 produced better images. I really don't know much about the D200 specs, and I've never used one, so I don't know how it handles in comparison to the D90, so is it different/better focusing, or frame rate, or ... ? Maybe you prefer to have two similar-sized bodies that handle similarly? Is the D200 output a ton better than D90? Just curious. Thanks!

Qarik

cab.in.boston wrote:

Congrats on your future purchase. (Can one preemptively congratulate?) A friend of mine just got a D700 and loves it!

I have a question for you. A different friend shoots with a D200 and a D3, and his dad has a D90. I mentioned to him that I had seen some decent prices on used D200's and had considered picking one up as a second body to go along with my D90 (wife and I both want our own cameras). He said that since I was used to a D90, I probably wouldn't like a D200. That's obviously just his opinion, and I know the D200 is more of a pro body, probably (not sure about this) is weather sealed, etc, but since you had (and obviously extensively used) both, what made you choose to keep the D200 over the D90? He talked about the difference b/t the sensors and that in his opinion, the D90 produced better images. I really don't know much about the D200 specs, and I've never used one, so I don't know how it handles in comparison to the D90, so is it different/better focusing, or frame rate, or ... ? Maybe you prefer to have two similar-sized bodies that handle similarly? Is the D200 output a ton better than D90? Just curious. Thanks!

The D90 has about 1 stop more of clean usable ISO then the D200 and a few more megapixels. It also has a much much better LCD then the D200.
The D200 has a button that moves focal point on the rear of the body that the D90 has to access through several menus. Also the D200 has slightly more robust autofocus and faster FPS. Oddly enough the thing that tipped it for me was dials. The D90 has a unprotected mode dial. Several times while on shoots the dial would get bumped from manual to a some scene mode and it screwed up then next set of shots until I figured out what was going on. I can't afford for the kinds of things to happen at some critical moment. The d200 mode dial is lock protected.

Let me put it this way...if I was not shooting pro then I would go with the D90 for the ISO and pixels. They are pretty close though.

cab.in.boston

Qarik wrote:

The D200 has a button that moves focal point on the rear of the body that the D90 has to access through several menus.

Am I missing something? I can adjust focal point on my D90 with my thumb using the directional pad on the rear of the body.

Also the D200 has slightly more robust autofocus and faster FPS. Oddly enough the thing that tipped it for me was dials. The D90 has a unprotected mode dial. Several times while on shoots the dial would get bumped from manual to a some scene mode and it screwed up then next set of shots until I figured out what was going on. I can't afford for the kinds of things to happen at some critical moment. The d200 mode dial is lock protected.

Definitely understandable! I've lost some shots here and there when I bumped something unwittingly. The most recent was somehow switching my lens from AF to MF on Halloween night. Got some nice out of focus shots of my daughter and her friend. Oops.

Let me put it this way...if I was not shooting pro then I would go with the D90 for the ISO and pixels. They are pretty close though.

Cool. Thanks for the rationale. Always neat to hear things like this that I can stash away as data points for my future purchases.

Ekaj

Qarik wrote:

ahhhh..the d700 can as far as I can tell, has super clean ISO to 3200. Very usable at 6400. The d700s for example would assumably be similar to the D3s which from what I saw has super clean iso to 6400 and maybe 12800..and very usable even further down. That 1.5 to 2 extra stops is phenomonal!

In the mean I don't have a shoot coming up till mid january...my d200 can tide me over till then.

You're assuming Nikon wants to cannibalize their D3s sales. I believe Nikon will not offer an updated D700. After all, the D700 itself is really just a mini D3.

ziggy53

Ekaj wrote:

You're assuming Nikon wants to cannibalize their D3s sales. I believe Nikon will not offer an updated D700. After all, the D700 itself is really just a mini D3.

I think that the D700 itself was a surprise to many, and it did leverage technology of the D3 and probably did affect some of the potential D3 sales, but if the D700S (or whatever) just added video capabilities to the D700 I doubt that it would have any additional impact to the D3S sales.

ziggy53

Qarik wrote:

So I sold off my D90 and I have set myself a deadline. If Nikon doesn't announce a new "d700" by new years time then I will buy the d700. I really really hope it isn't the d700x. I hope it is a d700s or d800...just not 24M pixels puhleease. 2 more step of clean usuable iso is so much more attractive to me then 2X megapixels.

The Nikon D700 was announced around 11 months after the D3 announcement. Since the D3S was announced mid-Oct '09, and still is not shipping, if the D700S is coming it could be Sep '10 before it's announced and then some time after before it ships.

For a January 2010 shoot, it wouldn't hurt to purchase a D700 sooner and learn it's perks and quirks beforehand.

Qarik

ziggy53 wrote:

The Nikon D700 was announced around 11 months after the D3 announcement. Since the D3S was announced mid-Oct '09, and still is not shipping, if the D700S is coming it could be Sep '10 before it's announced and then some time after before it ships.

For a January 2010 shoot, it wouldn't hurt to purchase a D700 sooner and learn it's perks and quirks beforehand.

*sigh* alas you may be right..it does tkae time from announcemnt to launch

Joves

ziggy53 wrote:

The Nikon D700 was announced around 11 months after the D3 announcement. Since the D3S was announced mid-Oct '09, and still is not shipping, if the D700S is coming it could be Sep '10 before it's announced and then some time after before it ships.

For a January 2010 shoot, it wouldn't hurt to purchase a D700 sooner and learn it's perks and quirks beforehand.

I pretty much agree with that. Or even later and, this is because of the way the D700 cannibalized the D3 market share when it was released. Which the articel stated quite correctly in reguards to the D700X version. Even if they did come out with a D700X I think it would be in the $6K area. That alone would make it a non-seller in the targeted market for the D700. I think Nikon will think about making its money back first then offering the D3Ses new sensor after.