Niche for the D700

I am a retired Boeing engineer. When planning a new passenger jet, Boeing would try fill unoccupied niches based

on such factors as range, speed, carrying capacity, and airport compatibility, etc. Of course, in some cases, a

new plane would replace an earlier model with improvements in fuel efficiency, ease of manufacture and other factors.

 

I am curious as to what niche of photography that the D700 is designed for as it falls between the D3 and the

D300. I think it great that one can use older lenses without encountering the "crop factor", but I don't think

this is a prime Nikon marketing factor.

"I don't think this is a prime Nikon marketing factor."

 

Yo uare wrong.

 

But what are the niche for the D700?

 

D3 using pros who want a very similar performing and compatible back up body for their D3.

 

The same niche Canon exploited wit hthe 5D : established and new pros, and well heeled amateurs who don't want to pay more than $3000 for a camera body.

 

People who want full frame capablilities but don't want a camera the size of the D3

 

People who do nature photography but don't want a large heavy body.

 

People who can't afford or justify the cost of a D3.

 

people who, seeing the quality of D3 results were tired of waiting for this size and quality of camera to either come from Canon and have gotten impatient and may switch from Canon.

 

People who had years of experience with Nikon and switched to Cano nfor a 24x36mm format camera and who will now think of switching back.

 

Those are pretty big niches.

It's the same niche the EOS 5D fills since about three years: A compact and (comparable) lightweight DSLR for people who prefer taking high quality photos with ISO 800 and above. Shooting landscape with a D700 / EOS 5D is a second strenght of the FX format. When I compared my D300 pics with D3 pics there was little differnce in resolution at ISO 100-800 but a strong advantage for the D3 as soon as the ISO went to ISO 1600 and 3200 (or 6400). And I guess lots of pros will buy this baby-D3 as a second body.

Price is one factor. The Nikon FX format is going to be financially within the reach of greater number of people. Also wide

angle lenses are very important to many.

Is D3 and D700 using the same sensor? 12.1MP ?

I know I'll buy a D700 someday. Maybe in 5 years. I want to shoot with my 28mm f2.8 AIS and get 28mm coverage. Right now it's only 42mm, but the lens is still excellent. I can't afford a $3000 camera body. I could barely afford an $1800 one! But this is the Canon 5D killer. Nikon did good with this one.

Ellis, by older lenses, I was referring to AI lenses, not AF lenses. The D700 is very appealing, as is the D300. I echo that thought that if I had just bought a D300, I would be feeling some anguish. I am an amateur and can't write off my photo gear. Oh, for the days of the F2, when one could count on having a top camera for a decade.

"Oh, for the days of the F2, when one could count on having a top camera for a decade."

 

Kerry,

 

I've been thinking of getting out one of my F2 bodies and shooting a few rolls. Costco will process and copy the film to a

CD pretty cheaply. I'm really curious to see how this process works out.

I think a lot shooters like myself will get the D700. I was about to get the 5D before 30/6 (cut off limit in Europe) because of the rebate, but I'm now glad I didn't.

 

The three major things I wanted was FF, great IQ at ALL ISOs and a fair price for the common folks.

 

OK, well, I wish the D700 was 2000 Euros, but two out of three ain't bad.

 

Oh yes, that virtual horizon leveler is worth more than a few hundred dollars to me in not having to mess around with a bubble level.

Yes.

"Is D3 and D700 using the same sensor? 12.1MP ?"

 

Not just the sensor but pretty much the same imaging pipeline in the D700 as in the D3. No doubt it is not exactly the same.

From "dpreview": <i>"The imaging side of the D700 is pretty much the same as the D3; it shares the acclaimed 12.1MP full frame ('FX') sensor and has the same processing engine, so we would presume output to be almost identical... </i>

I don't see the D700 filling a 'niche' as the market for it, by definition, is neither small nor specialized.

 

I strongly concur w/ E Vener's list, esp on the matters of size/weight and, additionally, utilizing the full image circle of a stack of FX-type lenses (both MF and AF), esp at the ultra, super and wide range. I was on the verge of acquiring a D3 until I draped it around my neck. I'll let others and Nikon work-out the seemingly inevitable bugs associated with a new release before pulling the trigger but do see a 700 in the foreseeable future.

there was a pretty big gap in price between the D300 and D3, $1800 - $5000.

the D700 fits right in with price and build.

"I've been thinking of getting out one of my F2 bodies and shooting a few rolls. Costco will process and copy the film to a CD pretty cheaply. I'm really curious to see how this process works out."

 

I use Costco for nearly all my film development and have them put it in on a CD.

 

Works great.

 

Plus their cost for making enlarged prints is very reasonable.

 

I live in the region where Costco began and I am a Costco believer.

If you hold a new plane and a new camera in both hands you will soon find out that these are very different

products :-) Also I do not think that technical advances in passenger jets are as fast as digital sensor and

camera development. Therefore we have to abandon old pathways of thought. Any new "next generation" camera is not

to fill a "niche" it is out to kill anything we hold in our hands from last generation.

 

At the time the D9 will be announced and Nikon (or Canon for their product) starts to advertise the "great new

colors" (of the camera body not of the images) and the sexy perfume smell we will know that the new camera will

have to fill a niche. Until then we will see a lot more to come.

The concept of making and marketing a camera (or any other product for that matter) for a specific market is nothing new. It is how business is done and how they remain competitive. The key for success is merely timing of release of the product .. there have been numerous threads about technology being dumbed down .. and a release of the D300 and D700 within such a compressed time line is indicative of having technology that is priced to specific markets .. it has a whole lot less to do with image quality than milking the market for those in the specific categories of peole who will only pay x dollars for y product at this point in time.

 

It remains to be seen how the market will react to the D700 .. no doubt, there are many who bought the D300 but would have really spent their money on a D700 if it had been available ... most people can be convinced to spend 1.5-2 times their original spending limit giving the right reasons to do so .. and the people in marketing know this well.

 

I believe from the D300 upwards .. they are harvesting those in professional markets, the emerging professional photographer, and established professionals who can take a hit every two years on an upgrade. For those who can live without full frame and high ISO ... those just as content to shoot ISO 100 - 400 .. not much has changed and spending more for low light sensitivity and full frame just ain't that important .. the later group will wait until the Canon 5D is almost worthless or Nikon refreshes it's less costly cameras with new processors.

 

I would disagree to the extent that the D700 is not a marketing factor .. everything Nikon does is a marketing factor and timing of the release a heavily calculated risk. I'll bet that they've got something on the drawing board that will blow away the D3, D700, D300 and other less capable cameras; the only thing holding them back is timing of release.

After playing the game (bought a D2Xs last June, and the D3 comes out in December and picked up a D300 last February) I'm going to sit this one out and wait for the D3X. Hopefully it will have very little noise up to ISO 3200 and come in at around 24MP's.

 

The line up will probably be the D3X for studio/landscape and the D3 for event/sport photography, if the D2X/D2h was any indication of Nikon's strategy.

" I echo that thought that if I had just bought a D300, I would be feeling some anguish."

 

don't think so. maybe if you had just plunked down $5k on a d3 and now you can get practically the same thing for $2k less.

 

the d300 and d700 occupy different niches, but essentially complement each other: the d700's FX works better for wide angle, while D300's DX gives extra telephoto reach. the D700 doesnt obsolete the D300 at all, and will steal more sales from the D3 and 5d than from the D300.

 

i'll tell you who's feeling anguish: D3, D2x, and D200 owners, not to mention marketing reps at canon, pentax, olympus, and sony.

yea, if I were a D3 owner and D700 using the same sensor as D3 at a lower cost, I would be feeling anguish. It's only a few months after D3 is on sale.

<I>i'll tell you who's feeling anguish: D3, D2x, and D200 owners, not to mention marketing reps at canon, pentax, olympus, and sony.</I>

<P>

Eric, you left out some Canon owners, especially the one who posted between you and me.

<P>

If you are a D3 owner because you really want a D3, the D700 should not bother you for a second.

The D700 does not have the supreme build quality such as a shutter that is rated at 300K actuations and dual CF card, etc. etc., essentially the luxury features for the most demanding.

<P>

It'll bother those who jumped onto the D3 solely for the sake of an FX sensor, especially those who actually prefer a smaller body. The D3 is not really right for them and now the face the decision to either stick with the D3 or sell it with a substential loss for the camera they really want: the D700.

<P>

The D2X owners were already annoyed by the D300, a camera at a fraction of the original cost of their D2X but yet far superior.

<P>

As we freuqently say, digital cameras are not investments. Technology will improve rapidly and so will quality.

Only buy what you really need and never buy too much for the future. In a few months to another year or two, the D3, D700, D300 ... will all be superseded.

<P>

And believe me, Canon is not going to sit still. They will update their line up also, soon.

How come they named it after a Sony camera. Doesn't seem very original. What would it be like if you had to tell your friends that your Mustang is a Chevy....hmmm, just kidding I think..

I think this camera is targetted for the same group of people that would buy a D3 - a photographer that needs a durable

camera with great high ISO performance and relatively fast FPS rate. Journalist, wedding photographers, "event"

photographers. The D3 should last longer than the D700 with it's better speced shutter.

 

Is this camera for landscape photography? Perhaps, but I would wait for a higher MP full-frame version for that application.

Provided you have the proper lens equivalents and you shoot at low ISO, the D300 would yield as good a landscape quality

as the D700. Don't believe me? Read page 28 of the D3 review on the dpreview site, comparing the image quality of the D3

vs D300. IQ is practically identical.

 

How about wildlife photography? Nope, I think the higher pixel density of the D300 would be of benefit here.

For me, this camera fits right in a niche I am in. I want full frame so I can use lenses without the crop factor, especially wide angle and for the lower noise. I like the 12 MP because I often times shoot street scenes or in places where I don't have time to zoom and compose or do don't want to attract the attention and I like hving more room to crop. I LOVE the ISO performance as I shoot a lot in places where flash is prohibited or would kill the atmosphere and because I work in the day when I am travelling and, hence, shoot a lot at night. However, since it is mostly hobby for me, I can't justify the 5K + that a full frame has always costed before (the 5D was aimed at sports - it seems to me - and didn't really suit my needs). I have been thinking about the 300 for weeks (and almost bought it a couple days ago - glad I didn't) and, as someone noted above, we can be induced to pay 1.5 times more. 3 K is my upper limit. If this was 3500, I would probably go with the 300d, but for the announced price, I think I will get this one.

Many years ago, I debated for a few months between the Nikon F5 and the Nikon F100. (They are 35mm SLRs which shoot film, for

those of you who don't remember the dark ages.) The two had the same image quality capture device--35mm film. The F5 had a few

extra features--better battery life, more frames per second, a 100% view finder, etc. The F100 cost less, had a 96% view finder, but it

was lighter and smaller. I played with both and kept changing my mind. I finally bought the F100. I have never regretted my decision.

The extra features were not missed and I used (and still occasionally use) the F100 more than I would have the F5 because it travels

better because of its smaller size.

 

Do the issues between the cameras sound familiar? Another way to put it is as follows:

 

F5 = D3

F100 = D700

 

Nikon sold a bunch of F100s. For those who want full frame, I think the niche for the camera exists.