How will Nikon improve (obsolete) the D700?

<p>We know Nikon will come up with a replacement for the venerable D700 to make customers begin to like their D700s a little less, but I'm hard-pressed to come-up with what they might change to get photographers clamoring for the new camera? Increasing resolution comes with the penalty of poorer high ISO performance, so it seems that a D700 with a D3x sensor won't do it, a D700x: the D700 will still be relevant for low light photography.</p>

<p>The only upgrade that seems significant enough to make D700 owners cast the camera aside seems to be the creation of a high-resolution sensor with the high ISO performance of the current D700, but such a sensor has never been created. Presently, it seems that the D700 might be a relevant camera for many years to come, but I know Nikon must be working-on preventing that from happening. So what do you guys think that Nikon has to accomplish in a new camera to obsolete the D700? Thanks.</p>

<p>I'd expect that Nikon will focus on bringing D700-like performance to lower price points. There are a lot of Nikon photographers who aren't shooting D700's.</p>

<p>Imaging a D40 with a 5 MP crop version of the D700 sensor. Lots of parents could then produce excellent candle-lit shots of kids birthday parties and such. And they'd have enough resolution to produce nice 8x10 prints.</p>

<p>Robert, so you seem to think that the D700 will be around for a long time, and that just the cameras below it will be improved. So instead of obsoleting the D700, the D700 will remain basically as is and it's sensor technology will trickle-down. Interesting.</p>

<p>The implication here is that the D700 might represent that digital has finally matured to a certain degree, yet the geniuses in Nikon's R&D would probably snicker at such a thought, but the question remains. Thanks.</p>

<p>Funny, I remember the same discussion after the D200 was released as in, <em>'wow this is as good as it gets</em>......</p>

<p>The greatest limitation is when we apply today's known technology to tomorrow's gear. One thing is a certainty: Nikon will come out with a newer FX body and it will have bells and whistles beyond what exists today. </p>

<p>Oh, and a few more things are certain. After it comes out, some will say it is the greatest body ever, others will complain that Nikon overpriced it, and there will be a few who complain that Nikon is forcing customers to upgrade again. Yes, history does repeat itself......</p>

 

<p>But can this go on forever Bruce? Look how many years the FM2 remained unchanged. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Look how many years the FM2 remained unchanged.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film <i>was </i>the sensor, so upgrades came in the form of new film stocks. Nowadays, to upgrade the sensor, you must upgrade the camera. Digital imaging makes camera bodies just like computers in more ways than one - obsolescence is now built in. Removable backs are not the answer, because the bulk of cost in a medium or large format system is the sensor back.</p>

<p>For starters they can improve the high ISO noise. Just because it is awesome, doesn't mean it can't be improved. Think of shooting a wedding at 6400 with virtually no noise? Or even higher! That kind of improvement commands serious money, so serious money is being spent to create it. Nikon is the current king of high ISO, and they won't want to give that up without a fight. Mark II quality video will be added of course. Improvements in AF processor speed and image detection. Improvements in live view. Interface improvements (touch screen LCD anyone?). Improved wireless capabilities. Built in GPS. Improved jpeg processing.</p>

<p>I'm just thinking off the top of my head, but I think Nikon will certainly come out with the D800 with modest improvements, and then another leapfrog blow-you-away type body after that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...a replacement for the venerable D700...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D700 has been out less than a year.<br>

There isn't a facepalm adequate for this.</p>

<p>No doubt it will be replaced with something new, but the sweet thing about the D700 is that the present technology will be passed on to future cameras like the D95 DX (had to come up with some recognizable name for it).</p>

<p>Lex, I was already wondering when Nikon was finally going to replace the aging D800. It is already negative 1-1/2 years old! Does their lack of product replacement mean the end of Nikon or just the of their FX support? I mean with the new Mamiya medium format 33MP SLR, how can Nikon compete...</p>

<p>When I think of obsolete, I think of something that is no longer useful..I do not see the D700 as being no longer useful myself..I figure it a good camera and will be very nice to use for many years ....If you are talking about the D700 being a discontinued model I would say yes it will be discontinued at some point and replaced by a different model. Then that leaves a person to wonder what will be next...Probably higher ISO as that seems to be what people want..Nobody is complaining about the loss of ISO 100 or wishing for ISO 50 or ISO 25..so I doubt that is part of the future..Probably a camcorder on the next model is a good possibility. Also the shutter itself is probably being considered for the chopping block..I think the biggest issue is the economy..We live in a world of a lower standard of living now that most of the worlds wealth has transferred to a small group of individuals..Now who is going to purchase stuff in enough quantity..That remains to be answered and will drive the future market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 has been out less than a year.<br />There isn't a facepalm adequate for this.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"Venerable" as in digital time lol.</p>

<p>James, better high ISO, there you go, but do we need even better high ISO performance? I don't really.</p>

<p>Good point Kuryan! A silly omission on my part.</p>

<p>ross, maybe "obsolete" is a relevant term if you can no longer compete with your professional peers even though a camera might still take great photos. I don't know.</p>

<p>More than new body Nikon should seriously think about upgrading its lens lineup, to increase its customer base. How about some f/4 lenses like Canon has?<br>

A lot of people I know are sitting on the fence because of this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Speculating about the replacement of a camera body that's been out less than a year seems pointless to me. I will point out that with the D3x we seem to be seeing that customers prefer high ISO performance over megapixels. That is also the case for me. No doubt Nikon has also noticed. The D3x seems to almost be a relative flop.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> "but I'm hard-pressed to come-up with what they might change to get photographers clamoring for the new camera?" Like other posters have noted, this has been said about just about every new high end digital SLR camera ever made. I am at least one step behind the latest and greatest gear because it takes me twice as long as most people to figure out how to use the stuff I have. </p>

<p>I am hoping for an improved D80/90 level camera that will use 700's sensor for high ISO performance but at a DX cropped size.</p>

<p>On that note, 5 years into the future when ISO 6400 would produce fairly noise-free pictures, does anyone think that flash sales will go down?</p>

<p>absolutely not. flash is completely different from just providing available light. read strobist.com for a quick introduction</p>

<p>A couple situations will come into play. With the economy tight, there won't be as many people buying new upgrades all the time. They will make do with what they have, for much longer. That will affect R&D and likely slow it down. Instead of a major announcement every 12-18 months, it may be more like the old days where SLRs were upgraded every 2-4 years.</p>

<p>Not that things can't get better but really we've hit a level of excellence that doesn't need to be improved on in any big hurry. I imagine an even better AF system could be designed and they'll always be more megapixels to be squeezed in but damn could you imagine a camera like this for that kind of money 5 years ago?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will point out that with the D3x we seem to be seeing that customers prefer high ISO performance over megapixels. That is also the case for me. No doubt Nikon has also noticed. The D3x seems to almost be a relative flop.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, that's my point exactly with the D700, and why it's reasonable to wonder about a D700 replacement instead of say wondering about a D100 replacement. We knew, even though we bought them, that the D100 was no way near good enough, and it was easy to see what needed to be improved. It seems that we've reached a milestone of sorts with the D3/ D700.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't actually think that the D700 is as good as it gets. I just think that now Nikon can direct its attention to improving the performance of the less expensive bodies. It's just a matter of priorities.</p>

<p>Would not a better and more accurate title for this thread be "How will Nikon <em>update </em> the D700?"</p>

<p>Ellis, I avoided the term "update" because it implies to me that although a camera may have been improved, it does not make the previous model undesirable.</p>