Discussion in 'Nikon' started by chriscourt, Jun 30, 2008.
Thanks to Joe A's post, it looks like Nikon Europe has jumped the gun a little:
Their site is very slow right now; they are probably getting a lot of hits.
The SB-900 flash is official, too:
I know, big yawn.
The SB-900 has a flash recycle time of 2.2 seconds with 4 AA batteries; that is a big plus, especially for wedding photographers. Other features such as auto-DX crop have already been mentioned.
It is up on Nikon Japan's site also:
And as I mentioned, the two PC-E lenses, 45 and 85mm, are announced again for a second time:
To me, the two main surprises are the D700 model number. It makes you wonder what happens to 400, 500, and 600.
I also expected that Nikon would introduce a high-end, 20+MP FX-format DSLR first before a "prosumer" model.
So the so called "D3X" is still missing, perhaps not for long.
It's official on Nikon-USA's site:
The original D700 Presentation Video seems to have come from this page: http://www.focus-numerique.com/news_id-851.html It is much clearer here and you can actually see the D700 letters on the camera body.
It appears SB-900 has Guide Number 34, while SB-800 has 38, in meters at ISO 100, and perhaps at the same angle of coverage.
SD-9 External High Performance Battery Adapter is listed. Is this a new one? I hope it also works with SB-800.
Not impressed with the new flash, but is too early to tell.
Frank, here is Nikon USA's info on the SB-900:
It'll be available in August for $500. However, it takes a new optional SD-9 external battery pack that accepts 8 AA batteries. I wonder whether the old SD-8A is still good. The SD-9 is $230.
I have to admit the D700 still surprises me. Seems unusual that Nikon would release something that would so seemingly steal sales away from the D3 and D300 at the same time. I would have thought the D80 replacement would come along first. What does The Collective think?
Joe, Nikon has waited long enough so that those who are willing to pay $5000 for a D3 have already bought one. Now the price for the D3 has slipped to around $4500, it is time to release the D700.
That is precisely why I have been holding off on the D3. I'll wait a bit to evaluate the pros and cons between the two.
I already have the MB-D10 so that is not an issue for me, but the D700 on top of the MB-D10 looks huge. That really takes up a lot of room in the camera bag.
I have two D300s and have been super happy with them. I am invested in DX lenses for wide and ultra wide. But I am
wondering what would motivate me to trade up one of the D300's for the D700's? Since I cannot think of anything, I
probably don't need one. Having a 50mm be a 50mm is "nice", but is it really necessary? And being able to shoot very
clean at ISO 1600 and decent at 3200 (shooting in RAW and removing noise in post) is great on a D300. But I don't shoot
that high often. If I got a D700, I'd probably have to get a 14-24 and divest my 12-24 and maybe even purchase the 24-70.
Will my photography improve? I don't know...
Nikon did not have a choice considering that the Canon 5D is selling for about $1899 and a potential Canon 5D Mark II coming out soon with 16 MP, perhaps, for $3299. Stealing sales away from the D300 and D3 is better for Nikon than having Canon steal sales from the D300 and D3.
This is what I've been waiting for...like ever since I went into the local camera store and got my hands on the not-quite-ready-for-the-big-time D100 and wasn't impressed enough to give up film. I knew this day was coming!!!! Hurray! There will be much rejoicing throughout the land!
As a dedicated film user, and proud owner of an F6, I see the D700 has maybe the hammer that will start to drive the coffin
nails for 35mm film. I won't stop using my F6, but it looks like the D700 is about the same size of the F6, with similar
ergonomics and photo functionality. And if it can capture as much or more f-stops in scene brightness range as film can,
and if the price can come down to about 2K, then it will be a killer of a camera. If my F6 was ever stolen or destroyed, I
probably would replace it with a D700. Kudos to Nikon.
I think Nikon knows how to force us to buy their cameras every 6-12 months. I think on D200 users that upgrade to D300. Many D300 owners will buy a D700. D3 users now have a perfect backup if they don`t want to spend on another D3. If the D700 steal sales from the D3, I think it`s a minor evil. To steal D300 sales buying a D700 is good for Nikon (almost the same camera but 60% more $$ and the promise of potential new lens` buyers!).
I suppose the D700 will be available soon. They must have learned from the awkward D3-D300 waiting lists.
Surely there are two main advantages over D300:
1. High ISO performance.
2. Far more choices for wide angles lenses.
Like you if you don't need either of those I can't see much advantage. You actually lose about 1 stop's worth of DOF for any particular angle of view.
Jose... According to Nikon Japan it will be on sale here on July 25th but the stores don't have a price for it yet. Nikon says
it is marked with an OPEN PRICE. This will be a lot of pressure for Canon. I wonder what kind of surprise they are
I agree Richard. I am really looking forward to the high iso performance. Those of us who can't afford to shell out for an f2.8 400mm prime and shoot cheaper glass like the 80-400 can now get the similar shutter speeds enjoyed by the 'fast glass crowd' by just bumping up the iso without the noise penalty.
I hate being a wet blanket but am i the only one who is a little disappointed that nikon didn't announce some more glass today as well, or are we still expecting that later down the road? I sure would have loved to also see an announcement for a 80-400 VR AFS, a 300mm f/4 AFS VR and some of the fast primes offered with afs as well. That's one department with which nikon really does need to up their game as canon really does have them there.
Actually Clayton, when I said that you'd lose one stop of DOF with the D700 I should have mentioned that you can stop the lens down 1 stop and bump up the ISO. Results will then be about the same.
What's interesting to me, is that when Nikon officially introduced the D3, and D300, in the Month of August, the D300 was out the following late Novemeber, and the D3 was out in February.
Now, with the D700, it's announced on July 1, and Nikon expects it to hit the shelves by July 25? THis leads me to believe that this camera has been in production for sometime, and could explain the reason why that many of Nikon's other products have been in short supply. Unless of course, the July 25 Shelf date is very, very optimistic. Makes me wonder.
To me, the two main surprises are the D700 model number. It makes you wonder what happens to 400, 500, and 600. I also expected that Nikon would introduce a high-end, 20+MP FX-format DSLR first before a "prosumer" model. So the so called "D3X" is still missing, perhaps not for long.
Nikon doesn't just pull model numbers out of the air. A lot can be determined from just the models numbers. When the D70 came out people wondered why the number was below the D100 when it seemed like a better camera. Then we got the D50 and D40 below, the D80 above. D200 replacing D100, etc. I would say that Nikon already has plans for a D400/500/600 as DX models and D800/900 as FX models. Look at the MB-D10 vertical grip for the D300. A lot of people asked why it wasn't named MB-D300 since it only worked with the D300 and Nikon always named the grips to match their body. Some thought it was because the grip would work with a "D300FX (D700)" They were right.
the biggest problem to me is that (at least in nyc) the full frame lenses have been almost impossible to get your hands on...
As a canon shooter that has been considering the switch (the biggest thing holding me back is nikons lack of great fast primes - hopefully being fixed) this camera is perfect for what i want. Having shot a 1D2 for the last 4 years and a 1D before that with L glass all around I was underwhelmed by the 1D3 and that was before all the "issues" I waited and hoped for a camera similar to the old EOS 3 - either a 1D4 full frame at 12mp (basically a D3) or a 5D2 with a better body and faster autofocus...Seems Nikon has built that camera in this D700. But it bring me back to the fact that B/H has not had a 24-70 in stock in over a month or a 70-200 -
I hope with this announcement Nikon can up the production on the lenses that go with the FX cameras and barring Canon making a big shot across the bow with a new 5D/1D4 very soon...I think I'll be moving across the enemy line...
One way or another - congrats to all of you for having what looks to be an amazing camera in the near future
John... This camera has to be made in Thailand. I don't think Nikon in Japan could manage to get it on the shelves so soon
after the quake. I don't know if you guys really know or heard how big was the quake. It was a 7.2. In my home home 400 K
away it was around 4. According to their web page they are giving 50% discount to all the repairs that are being delay
because of the quake.
I too think that Nikon has been trying very hard the past two years to retake the lead from Canon, and by getting out in front of the Canon 5D replacement they have potentially pulled off a marketing coup! If they had not, there woud be a danger that more Nikon users would buy the 5D replacement, and lenses. This is why they put the "D90" on the backburner, I think. Dang, I'm still waiting!
Kent in SD
"As a dedicated film user, and proud owner of an F6, I see the D700 has maybe the hammer that will start to drive the coffin nails for 35mm film. I won't stop using my F6, but it looks like the D700 is about the same size of the F6, with similar ergonomics and photo functionality. And if it can capture as much or more f-stops in scene brightness range as film can, and if the price can come down to about 2K, then it will be a killer of a camera. If my F6 was ever stolen or destroyed, I probably would replace it with a D700. "
The hammer was driven into 35mm long before the D700 was even a concept. DX Nikons already outperform film. If the D700 means, however, that DX was just a stop gap until "full frame" was refined, and my D300 is the last of that format, then I've purchased my last Nikon camera.
Could I ask why?
Looking at this in terms of numbers (i.e., dollars): I have two D300s and would want to keep one for sports and tele work.
To upgrade, I would sell a D300, 17-55/2.8 and Tamron 12-24. I would probably get about $3000 for this. That sale would
buy me a D700, but then I'd have to get the Nikkor 24-70 at $1700 and Nikkor 14-24 at $1600. Total cost to upgrade is
$3300, which is roughly the cost of a D700. So, thinking of it this way, it doesn't seem so bad. What do you all think?
Sorry meant to say Tokina 12-24.
"It appears SB-900 has Guide Number 34, while SB-800 has 38"
The Nikon USA now lists Guide Number as 40 for the SB-900, ISO 100, meters, and has specified lens angle coverage of 35 mm on film format or FX.
DX Nikons already outperform film
That may be true, but special purpose optics & fast short FL lenses don't exist for DX, therefore only through the FX cameras, can digital truly replace film for someone who uses a comprehensive system of lenses.
I'm sure that alot of folks here are on Calumet's mailing list, but i'll throw myh 2 cents in.
Here is a link for the pre-order for the D700 if anyone is interested.
Also, adorama has a pre-order.
Won't be long now before they all have it up.
"The hammer was driven into 35mm long before the D700 was even a concept. DX Nikons already outperform film. If the D700 means, however, that DX was just a stop gap until "full frame" was refined, and my D300 is the last of that format, then I've purchased my last Nikon camera."
Not really, as Ilkka pointed out. Also, from the prints I saw of co-workers who had DX systems, I didn't see that DX outperformed film. But in the D700, we have a camera with a form factor similar to the F6, and yet with a full-frame sensor, and also at a price point that is starting to get interesting for non-professionals. A full-frame sensor will have higher SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) and higher dynamic range than a smaller-sized sensor.
One thing I wonder about is the longevity of a CMOS sensor. A film camera will last decades. In the past, no one cared if a digital SLR lasted decades because there were always such rapid improvements in technology that an upgrade was expected. But now we are getting to the point where digital SLR cameras are so good and easy to use, that one would expect, or at least hope, that they could use and enjoy their equipment for years to come.
KUDOS to Nikon. Even though I own a Canon 5D, the D700 seems great. All I ever wanted was a digital Canon 1v, and the D700 may be it. I will wait for Canon's response b/c of investment in lenses. However, with these being tools, a switch over to Nikon would be painless.
Great job Nikon!
This morning I visited one of the two really Pro Labs in Mexico city I noticed that they do not sell film anymore. Of course buying film is still possible but I was Impressed about the Lab's decision about focusing more on the digital market. So, the Nenny's phrase "the hammer that will start to drive the coffin nails for 35mm film" is not only getting more real just because of Nikon moves but also for the rest of the industry as well.
On the other hand, as Wayne has mentioned, if the models to come (D400 -- D600) would have a FX sensor, I would feel a little dissapointed about my recent purchase of a D300 (just 10 days ago) since I would have the last DX serious sensor in a Nikon body.
But that's technology, isn't it. Let's remember Moore's Law:
As soon as the D700 gets in my hands, off the D300 goes to be converted to Infrared by Life Pixel.
This is what to do with digital cameras made obsolete by the next one ... make them unique !!!!
Well, well, well. For once my timing is good. After starting DSLR mid-run with a D70s, and waiting a year after release for the D200 to prove out and drop a little in price, I just couldn't justify buying a D300...the minor improvements over the D200 just weren't worth the cost of a new body to me. I was going to wait until the D300's DX successor, but now with a more reasonably-priced full-frame sensor Nikon DSLR, I can justify a new body purchase. Sure, I'll have to spring for some new glass for maximum wide-angle effectiveness, but that's what I was waiting for. It was worth the wait.
It'll certainly be interesting to see what Canon will come back with, and what Nikon will do with the sensor technology they own but haven't yet put into production. As far as coffin nails go, IMO, 35mm has been dead for a couple of years already. There's no way any 35mm film can be enlarged to the degree that you can print D200 images and get the clarity and smoothness (lack of grain) of a digital image of 8mp and up. Noise (and some other less-noticeable sensor limitations) is being quickly conquered, and at most print sizes it's basically a non-issue. I remember not so long ago when ISO 1600 was basically a high contrast, very grainy special/artsy-effect film. Now, some folks complain about slight noise on an 11 x 17 print when viewed at 12 inches. When the puppy lives at your house, it gets harder to notice how much he's grown in a year.
For the average snapshot being printed in the 3 or 4 by 5 range, 35mm bit the dust with 4mp P&S cameras. For processing speed, long-haul economy, convenience, privacy, and capacity without having to stop and reload film, you can't beat digital. The only reason to shoot 35mm is if you need a disposable camera (I keep one in the glove box of my car, just in case).
I still have a few film cameras (35mm, 6x7 and 6x17 120, and 4x5), and will probably always shoot LF as long as I can get film, but when I take a dispassionate view on the film vs. digital issue, I believe we ARE living in the golden age of photography.
"But that's technology, isn't it. Let's remember Moore's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_Law"
Actually, this is not an example of Moore's law, at least not when it comes to the sensor. In this case, the sensor is bigger,
and the photo-sites are bigger. So it takes more real estate on a wafer chip. The only way I know that will reduce the cost of
real estate on a wafer chip is by going to larger wafers, which is what much of the industry has done. I do not know what
fab makes Nikon chips, or what size wafers they use. Hopefully, as demand descreases, the D700 will drop in price. But I
doubt that it will go below 2K when one considers that the F6 goes for 2K.
Regarding coffin nails....as mentioned before, I think there were several technical/price reasons for using 35mm film,
depending upon image requirements. But with the D700, some of those technical/price reasons are fading away. Oh well, at
least I can console myself that I didn't buy into the DX format. And I shouldn't have to worry too much about a knowledeable
thief stealing my F6. (Although a bozo might think it is digital and try to take it!)
Glad I resisted the temptation to sell my three premium AIS wide primes, plus Tokina 17mm. The step up to a D700
won't be quite so painful....given the relatively low trade-in value of my D200.
Separate names with a comma.