D700 cult status

<p>@ Phil<br />My D70 went perfectly for 4 years and I expected it to carry on for another ten .... right up to the moment it died --- BGLOD<br />:)</p>

<p>Certainly the body is better made and the AF is a dream but I bet there isn't one iota difference in the solder or ribbon connectors inside the D700.<br />Fact of life - electronic goods are as good as the day they were born until the day they go Phut! Sad but true. These fora are littered with stories of cameras that just simply give up.</p>

<p>See ... <a href="../search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=my+camera+died&filter=0#1730">http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=my+camera+died&filter=0#1730</a></p>

<p>Some say that a camera is just a tool for a professional photographer. To some extent this is true. Having said that, I really like my D2H and D2Xs. Though I have a D700 (among others) I reach for these cameras whenever they are good enough which is 95% of the time. I like their feel. I can poke the buttons without thinking. For newpaper work the D2H has no rival to this day with regard to the balance of speed, convenience, durability and ease of workflow. Some say IT is a cult camera. The D2X is its big brother and still takes marvelous photos. Perhaps if Nikon were to put a voice memo on the D300 or D700 I might come to a different conclusion but I doubt it.</p>

<p>If you already own a d300 or D2X the D700 is a camera that will reward you with photos you would otherwise struggle to make about .5% of the time. When the D800 and a half comes out it will still be a camera that some people use to take marvelous photos.....just like the D100, D40, D50, D70, D80, D90...........</p>

<p>I think we have all been greatly affected by this past 10 years where electronics in general improve every few minutes. This is not how life was before, and after this period of growth it is likely not how the future will look. Ok so starting with the d1 there was lots of room for improvement. The d700, less. Why will you ever want a camera better than a d700 when just a few years ago you couldn`t imagine a camera that good. The high iso performance is already better than my eyes, why do I want to take photos of things I can not see?</p>

<p>I am getting off topic, but there seems to be a general agreement here that a camera can not gain cult status if there is an obviously better camera on the drawing board. Since when does cult mean best? And I am clearly the only one here who prizes their d700 because it is the last of the cameras, bring Matt a swiss army knife.</p>

<p>Matt, all I can say is that I think of my d700 as the modern version of my fe. Once I am paying for it to become a video camera which I am not interested in at all, it looses some magic for me. I could better explain this over a few beers. I honestly thought I would not be alone in my opinion, well the people have spoken.</p>

<p>My final comment would be that all the digital cameras have done a great service to photography. For the most part the ordinary Joe shot his roll of film and was off down to the drug store with $10 in sweaty hand to get prints by the end of the week. I think photography was on the wain well before any CMOS or CCD came along. Not for the pros but for the amatuer.<br />I know there are enthusiasts that love that stuff but for certain the ability to see straight away the results ... and learn from them whilst you could still remember the settings and conditions has brought millions of people back into photography/imaging/whathaveyou. Countless people now understand the theory of exposure, DOF and taking a chance with a zero cost shot. We are or should be mighty thankful for Canikolympus for developing these wonderfully capable and accessible bodies.<br />Long live the memory of D70 (or Rebel) for introducing gazillions of people to photography. THAT is my 'cult status' vote.</p>

<p>Well, Phil, as long as it's only about the money, you should be fine. In the long term, that video feature will keep the camera you want <em>less</em> expensive than it would otherwise be. So, you win too, just like everyone else.</p>

<p>As a heavy D700 user, shooting in fairly wide variety of situations in an average week I think it does reach a certain pinnacle in the ever quickening digital revolution. You can make good photographs at ISO 1600 and usable photographs at ISO 2500 and that is with f2.8 zooms, more is easily possible with faster primes. Combine that with a nicely sized chassis with a not extraordinary price and you do have something just a little bit special. <br>

Perhaps not 'cult' but certainly a great piece of combined mechanical and electronic engineering.</p>

<p>I don't know about cult status, all I know is about my experience.</p>

<p>When I replaced my P&S with a D70, the only complaint I had about it was that the viewfinder was not super, and it was a bit too big. When I felt like I had a good shot, the camera delivered</p>

<p>When I got the D200, my complaints were that it was too big, the battery life was no good, and sometimes even when everything was set right, the pictures just lacked a bit of sharpness in the edges.</p>

<p>When I got the D700, I was back to only complaining that the camera is too big. In every other way it does everything I would want, and exactly what I tell it to.</p>

<p>It's super. Probably more camera than I need. But whatever.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Or a DX sensor competitor to the Micro 4/3 compact cameras."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The future is now. Samsung NX5 or NX10, Sony Alpha NEX-3 or NEX-5.</p>

<p>I agree with a lot of other posters here...odds are against digital cameras becoming real cult classics for a number of reasons. One is that you can take pictures with a Pentax K1000 nearly indistinguishable from what you might get from a Nikon F6 or Leica M7. Given the same film/processing and a reasonably decent lens and the difference in the image will likely be little more than <em>subtle</em>. But compare a D700 to what will likely be available, say, 5 years from now, and there will likely be a visible difference...and not in a charming, retro, 'look at those 1970's-like colors!' kind of way.</p>

<p>The camera will remain fondly remembered and respected, but I think it's the electronics that will do these cameras in--they will be too to repair as they eventually wear. Many of us can justify spending $100-150 to CLA or fix a favorite film body (though in many cases another body can be purchased for less) but components & labor for fixing complicated digital autofocus bodies will likely render these much less attractive much sooner. </p>

<p>The other thing that these film cult classics have going for them is simplicity and tradition--and this is because the same basic control layout was shared with only relatively subtle differences for over 40 years--from cameras like the Pentax and Nikon F to one of the ultimate of its breed, the Nikon FM3A. This simplicity and tradition gradually vanished as electronics improvements dominated camera changes through the 80's and 90's...freed from mechanical constraints (you can put an electronic pushbutton or knob just about anywhere on the camera you want) designers sacrificed tradition and simplicity in the interest of finding the ideal ergonomics to control the increasingly bloated feature set that goes far beyond the truly necessary features necessary for most photography. Digital for the most part has continued the trend for more and more on-camera controls & configuration.</p>

<p>I know the car analogies get beat to death on p-net but: VW Beetle, BMW 2002 could fit the mold of cult classics. It's pretty hard to look at the cars of today and imagine that enthusiastic cults will grow around any of them in decades to come. If you stretch a bit you might say that today's Mitsubishi Evo or Subaru WRX might still have an enthusiastic following twenty years from now, but that doesn't make them necessarily good investments today. </p>

 

<p>Maybe my definition of "cult status" differers from yours. But to me, my definition refers to something that is revered out of the mainstream.</p>

<p>In that sense, the D700 currently offers something that can't be had in other Nikon FX offerings: a compact chassis - with an optional grip. Until Nikon releases something similar, I think the D700 already has achieved cult status. Of course it will soon be dated, but that doesn't dimish its image-making capabilities.</p>

<p>Think about it in these terms: What's the smallest (and lightest) Nikon DSLR that will still autofocus screw-driven lenses? The D50. It achieved cult status for this reason, and slightly better high-ISO performance - at a lower price. Until the D90 appeared, it was the smallest camera in its class to do this. Now the D90 carries the mantle...and has/will achieve cult status. I personally don't think the D200 has ever achieved this status due to the banding issues (remember those problems?) and it's poor high-ISO performance. It was just a camera with a nice LCD, saturated colors, and well-placed controls.</p>

<p>But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Cult and not cult is in the eye of the beholder, and in many respects who cares when we are talking about a passtime to do with one individual artist at a time - so where the notion of group consensus is not so relevant.</p>

<p>But I do think D700 will have a place in the records. It is/was the first Nikon to bring FX into a consumer-sized body. So its likely to be remembered as a reference point, at least in Nikon terms, and referred to as the first of a line of models with that basic configuration.</p>

<p>Phil – the D700 answered the consumer/prosumer call for an FX camera. But in terms of historical significance the D3 will hold the crown for being the first FX DSLR to offer a quantum leap forward in low light capability. Like Matt, I don’t think the inclusion/exclusion of feature-based things like video or dust removal is a determining factor. Also, as you get better as a photographer I think it’s harder to find a camera that suits “your style” because these cameras are capable of doing more than most of us care to use – and sometimes “less” in areas where we would wish they could “do more”. In other words, the sequential upgrades are often "incremental" rather than "substantial" - making it progressively harder for any future camera to achieve "cult status" without there being a dramatic change in technology.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Cult and not cult is in the eye of the beholder</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. In fact, I have no idea exactly what is a "cult" camera. This thread is merely about a topic that is unclear and certainly not well defined.</p>

<p>If anything, the original D1 was a landmark camera. I still recall that in the summer of 1999, my wife and I walked into B&H's digital department, which was very small at the time. The sales person suggested a Kodak DSLR modified from a Nikon film body; the price tag was some US$15000. I don't recall the model number but remember the fifteen-thousand-dollar price very well. Those prices were common for DSLRs in those days. In those days I also saw a pro using a DSLR that required a large external hard drive storage.</p>

<p>At a relatively modest $5500 original price tag and the size of a regular pro film SLR, the D1 was a major break through 11 years ago. Not many people owned one back then due to the price and the fact that it was 2.7MP, but it got the ball rolling and now a decade later, we have very fine DSLRs at below $1000 or even below $500.</p>

<p>Cult Status is just a term that cannot be identified precisely. However my take on it is that a Cult Camera is a camera that was very popular when it was new and over the years and decades remained highly desirable and sought out for collections or to use. Camera's of that type would be the F2, M3 and others. For the D700 we just have to wait and see how popular it will be in the decades to come. Will Nikon or somebody support the camera with electronics, batteries and parts or will the camera find itself lying in a e-waste bin.</p>

<p>On another note I noticed the video thing came back. My take on it is that a camera is a material item. If a camera lacks features or contains features that you do not like then do not buy it. We all do that over and over when we shop. It makes perfect sense to me to not purchase a camera if it has function or lacks a function that bothers you. So, I say if you do not want video in your camera then do not buy it. If somebody tells you that you must want that feature because all the other Ants want it. Then just step out of the line and tell them to fill in the gap because you are headed somewhere else. For the record I do not care if a camera has video or not. My next camera will be a camera that is small enough, light enough and durable enough to travel on an extended bicycle trip..I do not know what camera that would be.</p>

<p>I also think that as technology progresses, every digital device will be eclipsed by that next big thing. There certainly are "cult" like followers of certain brands. Apple, Nikon, Canon, Ford, Chevy.....</p>

<p>The concept of a cult classic, at least in the internet era, probably derived from the Robert Monaghan site from ye olden dayes of Web 1.0. Alas, most of the content of that site is no more, tho' it may have survived on the Internet Archives via the Wayback Machine.</p>

<p>That site cataloged mostly lenses that were considered cult classics, tho' it also featured some popular medium format and 35mm cameras. It emphasized good values in usable cameras and lenses, not collectible or elitist stuff: Bronicas; Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron lenses; that sorta thing.</p>

<p>By the standards of the original Monaghan site and its participants, some digital cameras may now qualify. Any used digital camera that provides exceptional value as a user camera fits the spirit of the cult classic, given that context. But it's a loosely defined context that's heavily dependent on zeitgeist and other intangibles.</p>

<p>The real question here is whether Nikon with the D700 has achieved a level of performance, durability, and enjoyment in its use that will make its owners pause before investing in a successor model.</p>

<p>If, for example, the only differences between the D700 and its successor is the addition of video capability and perhaps one more stop of light sensitivity, I would be very hard pressed to justify moving on from a body with many years of usable life in it.</p>

<p>The D700 is a classic camera form me. I have not yet begun to realize the full potential of my D700. Barring a really significant step forward, I plan to put my extra money in lenses for some years to come.</p>

<p>Nikon is funny Phil. I think it will obsolete itself within a couple generations. For example, when I purchased my first D70, the D100 was still on Nikon's website. I thought that was so funny! People were still buying and preferring the D100 on the verge of being obsolete. I think the D2x is still a contender, if you can buy one in acceptable condition at a great price. Oddly, people are still selling the D1 series for more than they are worth. </p>

<p>I think it's safe to say, that unless technology changes dramatically, that the D700's rolling off the shelf today will still be in the hands of budget minded professionals for the next ten years.</p>

<p><strong>Marketing</strong> has a funny way of tricking us into believing that the image ability/quality of any given digital camera will degrade as new technology is created.</p>

<p>Here in Hong Kong, which is now a part of China, "cult" has a negative connotation - think Falun Gong!</p>

<p>I was a Nikon film and digital photographer for thirty years. My digital cameras were D1, D1h and D1X, lastly the D2Xs. I really missed shooting full-frame , and was all set to buy a D700 until I bought a wooden tripod from a photographer, two months ago, who was shooting with a Canon 5D Mk11. Then I bought one for myself too. Love the quietness of the Canon shutter, and that it can also meter with all my old Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>Sorry Nikon, there is a new love in my life, but thanks for the memories. LOL</p>

<p>I would just like to add my name to the (apparently sparsely-populated) column of those who actively do not want video in their DSLR. I consider feature creep, and the menus of my current, non-video DSLRs are bad enough as is.</p>

<p>I don't know if I'd say the D700 is a cult camera of the same caliber as, say, the F2, the M3, etc. I do dearly love mine because I view it as the true digital equivalent of the F100. The D100 simply wasn't mature enough, and even though the D200 improved quite a bit, I still disliked that DX screwed with my lens arsenal. The D700 remedied that.</p>

<p>Seeing as the D700's successor will most certainly have video, the D700 will likely be the only sans-grip FX Nikon without video--all things I explicitly want--ever. Thus, I expect to keep it for a very long time. When the day comes that I have to upgrade to something new (at which point, presumably, it will be impossible to buy a DSLR without video), I will do so--but begrudgingly.</p>