D700 vs. New Competition = $ Drop

With recent announcements from Sony (A900) and Canon (5D MKII), it seems that we can expect the price of the

D700 to drop quickly. Both the new Sony and Canon are 20+ megapixel models at roughly the same price points as

the D700:

 

Sony A900 body (24.6 MP) @ $US2999.95,

Canon 5D MKII body (21.1 MP) @ $US2699.99,

Nikon D700 body (12.1 MP) @ $US2999.95

 

Nikon will have to move on price to counter "the Jones" - after all the more megapixels, the merrier we are!

after all the more megapixels, the merrier we are- I'm not, but all HDD suppliers are and computer suppliers too....

The D700 can be expected to have superior high ISO performance, and the AF system is superb. Pixels ain't everything. In fact, for me, I'll take high ISO performance any day unless I'm choosing a studio camera.

Of course that means that if you want that Sony or that Canon then you'll also need Sony and Canon lenses too don't forget.

Not all of us evaluate DSLRs solely based on counting the number of pixels they have.

 

For example, the 5D Mark II once again has Canon's 2nd-tier AF system similar to that in the 40D and 50D; it can also only reach 3.9 frames/sec., while the D700 has Nikon's best AF system and can shoot 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 grip. Just like the D3, the D700 is a true sports DSLR that can meet a lot of demanding shooting conditions that should be compared to the 1D Mark III, which still costs $4000 at 10MP.

 

We have reached the point that it is unclear having more pixels will do more harm than good. Low-light performance is one issue and you need really good lenses and technique to fully use 20+MP on 24x36mm.

 

But generally speaking, there will continue to be downward pressure on prices as competition heats up.

My idea is Nikon has been too conservative with the resolution in D700.. Still 12mp since the D2 !! Canon delivered 16mp and 21mp choices years ago. If Nikon could have made the D700 at least 16mp then still it would compete against the Canon in terms of value.

 

Sure the price will drop for D700 ( probably around 2500 ). I also expect to see huge price drops for 1DSMIII.

 

For landscape, wedding and studio/fashion shooters, 5DMII seems to be the best option in terms of specifications at the moment.

 

High mp, good noise performance and compact body. I bet it will be even better option than the 1DsMIII as its going to have better high ISO performance with same resolution and much much more affordable.. If I hadn't invested in Nikon system, I would have been considering the 5DMII.. It seems it is a camera that can be hold on to for many years.

Do you and Shun have some inside info in the 5D Mk II?

"I also expect to see huge price drops for 1DSMIII. "

 

I doubt it. Horses for courses.

me ?

Elliot, Canon officially announced the 5D Mark II overnight. It is all public information now:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/5D-mkII/preview/

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII

Don't forget about the lens resolving power. There aren't a whole lot of lenses that can out-resolve the sensor on a D300 or D3. So,

adding more pixels doesn't actually lead to more useable image detail. If they (Nikon) want to move into medium format turf, then a

camera with D3 pixel density and more sensor area would do much better. Of course, that would require lenses that could cover the

sensor.

"My idea is Nikon has been too conservative with the resolution in D700.. Still 12mp since the D2 !! Canon delivered 16mp and 21mp choices years ago. If Nikon could have made the D700 at least 16mp then still it would compete against the Canon in terms of value. "

<p>

Not in my view. The 5D2 and the D700 do not compete for the same kind of user, I would say. If one does not know if he need 8fps, clean 6400 iso, pro af and excellent weather sealing or better 21 mp and video... he should really think to what he shoots at. On the Canon camp, people is complaining that Canon has been too conservative in not upgrading the af, the build, the sealing, the fps, the slow shutter... it is a 2500$ camera, you cannot have everything, you should choose a compromise, and both makers did.<p> As a result the 5D2 is unmatched in the Nikon camp as much as the D700 is unmatched in the Canon catalog. And I would bet they will stay like this. Since long time, either brand avoids to build the camera the other one does: this increases sales for both. <p> Of course, if you want 20 MP and you have Nikon, you are not going to be happy for now.<p> L.

I'll only add one thing: wait and see how the new Canon performs in high ISOs. At the moment, we all know perfectly well by now

just how amazing the D3/D700 performance is (personally, I own a D700, so I know first-hand) at 6400 with practically no noise - the

Canon is still an unknown quantity. If indeed it can compete, then we'll see. Of course, the far superior AF system of the Nikons and

the amazing body design/sealing, the fps and all the other smaller - but equally important - differences still make it a winner in my

humble opinion. And seriously...HDD video???? I mean...why???? ;-)

'And seriously...HDD video???? I mean...why???? ;-)"

 

Because many people want it and it makes sense. I can definitely use it for some of my clients.

The ergonomics, viewfinder, speed, autofocus, and high ISO image quality of the D700 are amazing. The 5D Mk II

ups on the pixel count and adds video, which are useful for many users but what was done to reliability,

ergonomics, autofocus, and operational speed of the camera? Are these less important than the number of pixels?

 

I prefer Nikon's priorities. I can crop my people shots from the D700 and still get amazing print quality, as the

lenses cleanly render the relatively large pixels of the camera. The ergonomics of the camera are truly first class.

 

What concerns me is how many people will choose the 5D Mk II based on pixel count only, and not buy high end

lenses for it, effectively obtaining large files with not that much good info. I suspect there will be many.

 

For a landscape photographer the 5D Mk II seems like a fantastic camera. For my people photography the FX Nikons

are wonderful, and most architectural, macro, and landscape work 12 MP is adequate and practical. I love the

liberty in ISO choice, the clean and saturated files, the great autofocus system, the fact that it never makes me

wait. I will eventually get a high res FX camera, but am in no rush, since I know the returns will be mostly

limited to the center of the frame, the data processing burden will increase, and in 2-3 years computers will be

much better equipped to handle the larger files. As it is now, my postprocessing burden is huge.

 

I tend to use very large apertures a lot of the time and in these situations the lens is the more limiting factor

in image quality even with the best lenses. The 12 MP sensors are just perfect for this kind of work IMO. As one

stops down to f/5.6 or f/8, uses a tripod, and prints at 13x19 or so, significant returns would be obtained by

using a higher resolution camera, but really I enjoy the current equipment so much that I am just amused about

the fuss that the Canon and Sony 20+MP models are creating. Like this was really important. For me, the jump from

DX to FX is a great advantage and increasing the pixel count from 12 MP to 20MP without increasing sensor size is

just minor tweaking. (Having tested the DX crop against DX cameras, I know what is to be gained in the center of

the frame.) I know that the cropping potential will improve but again, I already have what I need 99% of the time.

 

I have reviewed the new image samples from the Canon and Sony high res cameras and the studio pics show

impressive fine detail. I am not prejudiced against this kind of approach (I wouldn't be collecting the glass I

have if I weren't ultimately taking future sensors into account) - I just don't care. It will take me years to

actually take advantage of the huge potential of the current 12 MP models and get used to their quality.

"The ergonomics, viewfinder, speed, autofocus, and high ISO image quality of the D700 are amazing. The 5D Mk II

ups on the pixel count and adds video, which are useful for many users but what was done to reliability,

ergonomics, autofocus, and operational speed of the camera? Are these less important than the number of pixels? "

 

Ergonomics of Nikon could be better for you but not for the other. That is totally subjective. I dont see much

advantage regarding the viewfinder as well. In fact MKII covers more area than D700 ( %98 vs 95 ),

autofocus&speed will be more than enough for what this camera is targeted for ( its not aimed for high speed

sports shooter ), and if they did extend the ISO range to 25600, then I would guess that they achieved the

similar high iso performance of D700/D3.

 

Talking about weather seals and reliability?? MKII's weather seals is no less than D700.. look at other sites for

the spec's. I have D300 and my top LCD is already filled up with dust just from casual usage ( no dusty

environment ) and I know many people having excess dust building up under the LCD's of D300.. and I have seen

5D's used in very harsh environments without problems. MKII is even better build. I don't see any advantage one

to other here.

 

and yes, I would also like to have the HDD video. Cause thats where the trend is going for presentation of

stories specially for the news and documentary sites. Sound + video + pictures. Multimedia is becoming the new

way of story telling. Nikon will add this feature to its pro models as well.

 

For me, the only advantage D700 has is the better AF, higher shooting rate and to be able to control speedlights

out of the box. ohh, and most important ( for me ) the feel of the Nikon design in hand which is why I choose

Nikon over Canon.

You should definitely buy a 5D II, Gokce. It goes to '11', just like in Spinal Tap.

having been a canon shooter that bought a d700 to play with while i waited to see what a mark IV 1D looks like or this new 5D I would like just one person to show me one of the supposed "clean 6400 iso" shots i keep hearing about...cause I don't see it.

Even at 1600 there is plenty of noise in the blacks.

shooting with 24-70 2.8 for those that want to know...

Robert, my native language is not EN so sorry but I did not get "It goes to '11', just like in Spinal Tap."

 

But no, I wont be buying the 5DMII :) .. I had all Canon's when used film but always wanted a Nikon. And I am happy with what I have now.

 

Joseph, you should definitely service your D700 ;)

Just because the nominal maximum ISO is the same on the 5D Mk II doesn't guarantee that the quality is the same.

 

I have not been able to get anything under the skin of my Nikons, not dust or water. I hear stories of the mirror

coming off in original 5D's in normal use, which is why I am concerned about its build quality. Have we any

confirmation that the mirror assembly has been made more rugged in the 5D Mk II?

 

Even if the camera is not targeted for sports, there will be people buying it and using it for that application,

since the 5D Mk II is smaller and more affordable than a 1 series body.

 

I will be excited to use DSLRs for video as well. However it is possible I may skip the first generation and wait

for fully manual exposure control. The lack of it in both Nikon and Canon models suggests that they added the

video to their cameras as an afterthought. It seems likely that the live view function is hard coded into their

image processing chips and that's why the exposure control is limited for the time being (live view is auto

exposure). Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

Joseph, even ISO 1000 images have visible noise in the shadows (in 100% view on the screen) on the FX Nikons. But

if you expose correctly in camera, the results can look gorgeous up to ISO 3200. The camera is less tolerant at

ISO 6400, it's sort of the edge of what is acceptable, again it's mandatory to nail the exposure and not to

expect miracles. I don't shoot color at ISO 6400, but have obtained extremely good results at ISO 3200, when

printed. I don't pixel peep my high ISO shots, I make prints. ;-)

"Even if the camera is not targeted for sports, there will be people buying it and using it for that application, since the

5D Mk II is smaller and more affordable than a 1 series body."

 

Even at 3.9fps? I thought the sports photographers wanted speed. Also there is still the shutter lag thing.

Supposedly it is not fixed on the new 5D. It is by far one of the most annoying features of my 5D.

When I shoot with my D300, I get both speed and zero shutter lag.

<i>My idea is Nikon has been too conservative with the resolution in D700.. Still 12mp since the D2 !! Canon

delivered 16mp and 21mp choices years ago. If Nikon could have made the D700 at least 16mp then still it would

compete against the Canon in terms of value</i><br><br>

 

I agree wholeheartedly! Nikon is trying to slow down the speeding train but they will actually lose market share.

I have used nikon cameras for 35mm work exclusively for years, but the new Canon 5D mk II might make me switch. I

am one of those guys that does need higher and higher megapixels at a cheaper price. I am anxiously awaiting the

day when I can actually start using a digital 35mm camera for fine art work as well as for client shoots. There

are rumors floating around that Nikon might introduce a 24.4 MP body soon...I have a feeling it won't be anywhere

near the same price point of Canon's 21 MP body though.

The "goes to 11 just like Spinal Tap" is a reference to a "Mockumentary" - Fake Documentary - That Rob Reiner directed in the 1980's about a fictious band named "Spinal Tap".

 

Spinal Tap had all of their amplifiers and guitars rewired so that instead of the volume going from the typical 1-10, they would go from 1 - 11, since "11" obviously is louder and better than 10!.

 

Spinal Tap aside, Nikon will need to assess the impact to sales of the D700 from the 5DMII and make a decision based on that as to whether or a price drop makes sense. My guess is that Canon shooters for the most part will still be Canon shooters and Nikon shooters will still be Nikon shooters at the end of the day.

 

Dave

Andrew, which lenses are you going to use on 24 MP? You might find that getting glass that can match a 24 MP 24x36

camera could turn out to be far more expensive than the camera itself, and that money might better results if invested

elsewhere. Of course, there is the odd 50/1.8 to prove the exception. Still, I don't understand why "fine art" work

specifically would require high MP in a small sensor, unless you're talking about landscapes which isn't a small format activity to begin

with.

 

People make the assumption that higher MP <=> better. I have a hypothesis: the likelihood of a such a person having

actually used an FX Nikon is infinitesimal. :-)

 

Nikon isn't trying to slow down a speeding train. They're being practical and produce equipment that produces high image

quality without bloated files. In point and shoot cameras, dynamic range and file cleanness are atrociously poor because

the manufacturers cram too many pixels in a tiny sensor. I for one don't want to see the image quality of DSLRs ruined

in a similar pursuit.