Replacement for D700?

<p>Does anyone know of or heard of Nikon intending to replace the D700? My reasoning is quit simple. Cannot afford D700 now but might be able to once a replacement is released and dealers have stock to get rid of which I hope would lower the price to affordable levels.</p>

<p>Why wait until the D700 is replaced by what will probably be a better, even more tempting model? If you can't afford the D700, buy a D7000. It's better than the D700 in most areas, much smaller, lighter and cheaper. It's not full frame, but what are the consequences? A slightly smaller viewfinder and slightly "worse" performance in low light. Some even claim that the D7000 can compete with the D700 at high ISO.</p>

<p>As for me; I would buy the D7000 even if I could afford the D700.</p>

<p>If you can't afford the camera, can you afford the more important thing--the lenses?<br>

Kent in sD</p>

<p>You can buy clean D700s on ebay now for around $1700. Whatever D700s stores have left after the D800 is released won't sell anywhere near that low. </p>

<p>Nobody knows when the D700 will be replaced by a newer model. Nikon keeps it pretty quiet about new releases most of the time. .</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The D200 sure dumped in price for a few months when they discontinued that model."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that particular case, I think Nikon did a very poor job of managing inventory and production prior to the release of the D300. The was <strong>a lot</strong> of new D200 stock in the retail pipeline (in the USA at least) when the D300 hit store shelves, and Nikon USA needed to drop the price significantly to enable their dealers to clear the stock (we did not get the same price break in Canada).</p>

<p>They seem to have done a much better job with recent new releases. I think the D200 price freefall was a bit of an aberration (along with IIRC perhaps the D2H?), and I would not count on the same happening with the D700 when a successor is released. Sure the price will probably drop a bit, but there is also a chance that supply will be very low and many dealers may already be sold out / backordered when the D800 (or whatever the successor is called) is released.</p>

<p>The D700 <strong>will</strong> be replaced. As to when, anyone here that knows can't say (NDA). Anyone that claims to know is simply guessing (or in breech of a NDA).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know of or heard of Nikon intending to replace the D700?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, someone does know! But those people have signed legally binding non-disclosure agreements, so they won't be sharing that information with any of us.</p>

<p>Sorry, but this is a necessity in the competitive business world. Nikon can't afford to let its competitors know what features its new models will have before those models are even released.</p>

<p>Like every model, the D700 will be superceeded by another model sooner or later.</p>

<p>Considering the D700 has enjoyed a very long production run, chances are it's due to be replaced sooner - perhaps in the first half of 2011 but let's <em>not</em> speculate here .......</p>

<p>When the replacement model hits the shelves the D700 is likely to become very affordable compared to the AU $4k that I paid for mine in July 2008 when it was released.</p>

<p>If you can't afford the lenses to go on a D700, you shouldn't be in the market for one anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>heard of Nikon intending to replace the D700?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sure. Everything is eventually replaced.<br>

When? No one can give you a precise date other than Nikon but you can guess based on Nikon release cycles.</p>

<p>I doubt the D-700 will drop significantly anyway unless the next FX is revolutionary; something I highly doubt; unless you think movie mode is revolutionary.</p>

<p>I agree with another poster, buy great lenses since they hold value far longer than a body.</p>

<p>This plethora of cameras littering the market is comedic to me. Why get caught up in (their) game?</p>

<p>I still heavily use my D-300 and D3; I see no DSLR produced today that visibly records a better image.<br>

Although not used nearly as much, I still have my F3HP...used it for years w/o any need to replace it.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies, very interesting.<br>

I already have a D200 which I bought a couple of years ago new so it was a good price. I still use my Mamiya 7 kit and my F5.<br>

As far as lenses are concerned I already have mainly primes, 20mm Sigma, 24mm PC Nikon, 85 mm PC Nikon, 180mm Nikon, 35 & 50mm Nikons. The lens is not the issue the price of the body is the issue here in the UK and no doubt in other parts of the world.<br>

Next month in the UK there is a price rise on most goods, including photo kit, of 2.5%. The manufacturers and dealers will suffer as people will simply not buy. I will not be shedding any tears for them. </p>

 

<p><em>"It's better than the D700 in most areas" </em> Yes, but not in the <strong>most important</strong> areas.</p>

<p>While it would be expected that the price of the D700 will drop a bit when the D800 (or whatever comes out), it may not be a huge drop. The D700 is a great camera and an exceptional value now at $1700 (IMO). But ultimately the best camera is the one you can afford and have in your hands. My suggestion is to keep what you have until you can afford what you want.</p>

<p>In my opinion the D700's successor will have better sensor than D3S (better resolution and better ISO). Nikon wants to sell so many D3S as possible first. That's the reason why we have to wait so long for the new model. But the new model will cost much more then D700. So I doubt that the stores will reduce the price of D700 at that time.</p>

<p>Looks like you're more likely to get free copies of loads of wiki-leaked State Secrets, than <strong>any</strong> pre-release Nikon info.....!<br>

Funny old World!</p>

Regarding the advice to invest in lenses: Good advice, but first one has to decide on full vs APS-C for the long term.

So, for example, the D7000 and D700 are not equivalent in this sense.

 

--Marc

<p>Frank, the D200 has very clean output at ISO 100. I had one for a couple months and got some good images from it at that setting. However at ISO 800 and above it was terrible, so I went back to the D300. (My path was D300 -> D700 -> D200 ($599 new) -> D300). I'm satisfied with the D300 and am going to stick with it until it fails. The D700 replacement will probably retail for $2799 when new, and a flood of used D700s will hit the market at $1500-1700 or so. Wait until then and score a cheap one. I may do the same.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good advice, but first one has to decide on full vs APS-C for the long term.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, FX (FF) lenses work on DX cameras. The only practical difference (besides cost) is UWA angle of view with DX, and maybe fisheyes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is a great camera and an exceptional value now at $1700 (IMO)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Where can I get a D700 for $1700... because I want one!</p>

<p>John, at $1700 I think everyone would buy one. Right now they retail for $2250 or so. Used usually around $1950.</p>

<p><strong>Per Jon Porter,</strong> "You can buy clean D700s on ebay now for around $1700".</p><div></div>

<p>I bought a 2nd new D700 a three weeks ago.</p>

<p>I've really wanted the Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 & when purchased together I saved $300 at point of sale.</p>

<p>With instant money off I guess I paid $2,049 for my D700 since I planned to buy the 24-70mm 2.8 anyways.</p>

<p>Twenty three months ago now, my first brand new D700 cost me $2,319.</p>

<p>Launch price was $2,999.99 on these D700, ya'know ?</p>

<p>I suspect D800 will start out up there at $3,000 again, so instead I bought a 2nd D700, 3 more Nikon made batteries & 2 Nikon made MC-36 remotes.</p>

<p>D700 is really great as are their Crystal Nano Coat lenses ! I now own two Nano Coats, both are stellar ! </p>

<p>;^)</p>

<p>Nikon Instant rebate season is happening now in USA.<br />Something to consider, after the Holidays, the deals vanish till next winter.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>John, at $1700 I think everyone would buy one. Right now they retail for $2250 or so. Used usually around $1950.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's a good camera but I would not buy one for $1700.00. To much money for a family guy to be spending on a camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>". . .buy a D7000. It's better than the D700 in most areas. . . '</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? How so?</p>

 

<p>Ross, ssshh! Don't say it out loud! You're supposed to say you bought some tools or made a down payment on a piece of land or something!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's better than the D700 in most areas......."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Care to elaborate? That is a mighty broad statement with no supporting information.</p>