Time for the Nikon D700s

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by sebastian_ochoa|2, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. Although great cameras, I do no see much need to change my Nikon D700 for either the D800 or the the D600. These clearly have two advantages over de D700: resolution and dynamic range at low ISO. Given that low ISO's are very frequently used (by myself, but not only) and that high dynamic capture capability is very desirable, both cameras do ofer an advantage over the D700. The resolution advantages are there too, but it is not everyone's need.
    Now both new models have in turn disadvantages over the D700: briefly, construction and AF on the D600, and SPEED (and file size) on the D800.
    There is no camera yet that replaces the last generation's D700. Prosumer body or 4 FPS or huge $6k camera? Perhaps I am very different form everybody else, but I personally do not like the compromises (if if I had to, maybe I would settle with the D800 and sometimes hate the speed and the filesize).
    In my very personal opinion I would only be tempted to freely change my magnificient D700 for s a "d700s" (or whatever Nikons brilliant naming gurus come up with) that had >5-6 FPS, D-7/800 level body construction, 100% VF, HQ video, wide AF zone (or a little wider, please), AF speed and accuracy from D700 or better, meter from the D700 or better, around 24 MP super high dynamic range sensor, all for $2799-2899. A quieter shutter would be appreciated too and an extra programmable button.
    I find the D7000, "D400" (DX or how about a large 1.3x DX?), "D700s", D800, D4 route much preferable as the actual D7000, D600, D800, D4 lineup, but that's just me. The D800 should have been the "D700x"...
    S.
     
  2. ..and a 1.2/1.3x crop D400 would devastate the 7D or its succesor (if it remains FX) and would promote sales of Nikon DX and FX lenses.
     
  3. I guess a format between DX and FX would be EX?........ However, it's just not going to happen. Another range of lenses? DX one's would vignette badly. FX one's would be OK.
    Equally, there is, as you say, still no successor to the good AF, high fps, big buffer 'Action' cameras, the 'gripped' FX D700 and the DX D300s. The only way up is either the D3, D3s or the D4.
    The old 'difference' between the D700 and D3 is not there. The D4 still rules the top game, but nothing comes close beneath it, ie no D900. Most people think this is not going to materialize any time soon, if at-all. Nikon seem happy to leave 'Sports/Action' cameras to the Pros who can afford/really need the £4000+ D4 (or the still very expensive D3S, 2nd hands are still going for £2500 or $4000)
     
  4. I just wish Nikon to continue their march on the direction that they seem heading.
    ... Addition of the "S" over a DSLR cameras Nikon models were good (e.g. D300/D300S), but perhaps additions of an "X" over a DSLR (e.g. D3/D3X, D40/D40X etc.) were even more successful.
    I vote for a D700X, or a fast 36MP camera with D700 qualities.
    I did not vote for a 24MP, since there are already cameras shooting 24 MP at 10 frames per second, e.g. NEX7.
     
  5. Sebastian, perhaps you should try the D800 before passing judgement on it. With improved IQ in every regard at all ISOs (noticeably improved) and incredibly fast and accurate AF, you truly cannot go wrong with this body regardless of what you shoot.
     
  6. Elliot, I guess if that were true, Nikon isn't going to sell anymore D4s.
    The D800 is indeed excellent, but it's no Action camera...... 4fps?.....I'll pass on that.
     
  7. I just want my 4+ year old D700 to last forever......... :)
    Sentimental attachments aside, unless my current photographic interests and output drastically change, I feel the D700 is/was the sweet spot in the Nikon line up for me.
    However, I believe the D700 is now history with it very unlikely Nikon will revive the D700 moniker with newer versions with either marginal or significant upgrades when the brilliant D800 is already alive and kicking and priced very attractively for my liking.
    The D700 is dead, long live the King........
     
  8. I just don't see much of a market for a camera like that. There's the stripped down D600 at $2,000, $3000 D800 in the middle, and a $6,000 D4s. There really isn't much "room" between a $2,000 D600 and a $3,000 D800. More importantly just how many multi-thousand dollar cameras is Nikon going to sell? My guess is not all that many. I take photos virtually every day at all times of the day and night, and even the $1,000 D7000 will do about 95% of what I want a camera to do. And now, those even smaller cameras are catching up fast. They're the ones with the momentum.
    Kent in SD
     
  9. "Elliot, I guess if that were true, Nikon isn't going to sell anymore D4s."

    There is a market for the D4, the D4S and any other camera Nikon chooses to manufacture and sell.

    But for anyone that really knows how to shoot action/sports photography and enjoys shooting sports photography, the frame rate is irrelevant. Because as most sports photographers know, even 9fps or 11fps is not fast enough for most fact action sports. Photographers have been shooting sports long before AF or 9fps or 11fps cameras became available. And getting great shots!
    Because of the D800's superior AF system which is IDENTICAL to that of the D4, anyone with good hand/eye coordination can get great action shots without the need to "spray and pray". And get it for far less than the D4. I have been relying on the D3's high frame rate for the last 4 years. I am enjoying shooting sports more now than with the D3 specifically because of the slower frame rate and much improved IQ. Now if I were working for a newspaper or magazine, it might be a different story.
     
  10. As some one like Mike H who makes there living shooting sports the frame rate is very relevant. Sure I got along with my F3 and motor drive. 5 or 6 FPS worked ok but more would have been much better. Yes I have shot sports with a D100 and a Kodak Pro 14NX but again faster would have been better.

    There are times when I am shooting single frames continually every time a horse takes a step as it comes across the diagonal in an extended trot. I used to fill the buffer on my D300 doing that.

    And sure real men shot sports with a 4X5 and got usable shots. Look at the quality of the image that is captured on a much more consistent basis now with the higher frame rates available. Very few of us spray and pray but we all like being able to shoot for long periods of time with out worrying about buffers.
    One last point is that the file size of a D800 would be very hard on me in post. When 2k shots a day is an average per shooter at a Dressage show the D800 would eat up large amounts of drive space.
     
  11. "But for anyone that really knows how to shoot action/sports photography and enjoys shooting sports photography, the frame rate is irrelevant"...."anyone with good hand/eye coordination can get great action shots without the need to "spray and pray"...

    Followed by....
    I have been relying on the D3's high frame rate for the last 4 years.

    That is some-what contradictory. What exactly do you mean? You've been 'suffering' with your D3's 11 fps and now are much happier shooting action sports @ 4 fps and better IQ? Are you saying you no longer need the high frame rate because of your 4 years of 'learning' better photographic timing?
     
  12. Can one up the FPS by choosing a less resolution (or say, using dx mode) on the d800?
     
  13. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Can one up the FPS by choosing a less resolution (or say, using dx mode) on the d800?​
    Yes you can. If you use the DX crop mode (and some other crop modes), the D800 can go up to 5 fps from 4. If you also attach the MB-D12 vertical grip and use batteries other than the EN-EL15, it can go further up to 6 fps. So essentially you pay a lot of money that way to match the $1000 D7000.
    However, if you want the full FX frame, the D800 stays at 4 fps regardless of battey type. As I have said many times, the D800 is not my choice for sports or wildlife action photography, although I have used it that way and got good results.
     
  14. For several years I have been shooting high school football using my D3s and 70-200mm VRII lens. Recently I switched to the 300mm f/2.8 lens to get closer shots on the field, but this didn't allow for my normal sideline shots. For that I am using the D800E and 24-70mm lens and have been very happy with the low light results. I have to shoot both cameras at ISO 6400 due to the poor lighting at most high school stadiums. I have been very surprised at the good results from the D800E at ISO 6400. It is almost identical to the D3s as far as low light performance. About 95% of my prints to the parents are 4x6 and require little if any noise reduction in PP with the D800E. Of course sideline shots do not require burst shots. I have thought about putting the 300mm on the D800E for a few onfield shots because as Elliot points out, high frame rate isn't always necessary to get good sports shots. It just requires more patience and better anticipation.
     
  15. "That is some-what contradictory. What exactly do you mean?"
    I missed many great shots (and of course also took a lot of great shots) by relying on the camera to do something it is not capable of doing well at this time. I have pretty good timing and am consistently getting better shots the old fashion way and having much more fun doing it than relying on the camera to do my work for me.
    "You've been 'suffering' with your D3's 11 fps" I said "relying" not suffering. Frankly, holding the shutter down takes the fun away from photography (for me). There is a time and a place for shooting this way.
     
  16. I don't think Mike H or I mentioned holding the shutter down. In my experience that just gets you a bunch of wasted pixels and the lowest number of saleable images possible
     
  17. Elliot, I think you're right. Good timing AND, from my point of view, high fps, gives the best chance.
    Equally, as Michael B says, holding the shutter down would, you'd think, get the pic, but even at 8fps, it amazing how far a horse gets and you miss the shot.
    The action shooter needs BOTH! Neither, on their own, works for me. Good AF + high FPS Please....:)
    A D600(Sport) would be better. Better image (MB) size for the 1000's a day to go through.
    Maybe, I've just gotta buy a D4!
     
  18. Michael, how else do you shoot at 9fps without holding the shutter down?
     
  19. Eliot
    I almost never shoot at 9fps. The rare odd occasions are when there is a crash at a fence and then it is full rock and roll. other then that at the most I shoot a burst of three of the horse going over the fence. And many times that burst of three is shot as single frames not continuously
    Mike
    Get the D4 I did and could not be any more pleased with the image quality from the camera. I gave up on waiting on a D400,
    .
     
  20. Have you never tried firing a single round on a fully automatic weapon?...:)
    Anything other than using it on S, ie CL or CH is, technically, holding the shutter down.
    FPS is a rate rather than a number of pictures. I often take 3 or 4 round bursts @ the D700+MB-D10 max of around 8fps, with maybe 1/2 a second between. The timing is important as that 1/2 second gap may or may not be in sync with "Spray & Pray" keeping your finger down @ 8fps Continuous High.
     
  21. Actually Mike I have....Fairly easy with an M-14.. The M16 not so much
     
  22. In many Western states, such as South Dakota, select fire rifles are legal with a $500 permit. So are suppressors (silencers.) While they are fun, for precision work I prefer a bolt action rifle with a first class Nikon scope on it for precision work such as shooting antelope at 400+ yards. Now for a flash back. The "hot" camera to have at the 1936 Olympics was a Contax II with a 180mm f2.8 Sonnar lens. You cranked off shots one at a time, winding for each frame. It was more compact & fast to use than the standard 4x5 or 9x12 press camera of the time. Once again, the smaller format won out over the larger camera with better image quality.
    Kent in SD
     
  23. I'm going back to a comment that was made early on - implying that the D40x was better than the D40.... Maybe in pixel count, but if I remember correctly, the D40 outlasted both the D40x and D50. Nikon was only able to retire the D40 when they released the D3000 and D5000.
    Dave
     
  24. ..and a 1.2/1.3x crop D400 would devastate the 7D or its successor (if it remains FX)​
    Oh yeah, 'cos vapourware cameras that only exist in fanboys' heads are always much better than anything the "opposition" can produce - and are even better than the opposition's vapourware too...
     
  25. Fact is, Nikon still makes and sells tons more DX bodies than FX cameras. If there's to be D7000 replacement/upgrade, it's likely to include a bigger APS-C sensor, different processor, bigger buffer, higher frame rate video, and possibly a built-in grip--all of which might put the D700(no extra "0" missing) in the shade.
     
  26. Overall, this case for a D700s is the same case that has been made often enough through the years for various Nikon products. I say to just let it go, because time marches on, and the market drives the product cycles. People were clamoring the same way for a proper D2 successor, and they've also been wanting a proper D300s successor (which is another can of worms, and it may yet come to compete with the Sony a77, but I bet if the D7000 had a better buffer and didn't have the AF issues upon release, there would be 80% fewer threads about it). This seems to me more likely what you wanted the D800 to Plus, a wider AF coverage? Doesn't even the D4 "only" have the AF coverage of the D3s? So you're asking for a D700s that has a supra-D4 AF system, but for less than half the price? Good luck with that.
    David, the D40 outlasted the D40X because of Ken Rockwell's pull with the newbies, classifying it as the best Nikon camera ever. Even if you look up until recently, it has affected used prices. The D40 was my first DX DSLR, and it was nice enough, but the increase from the 6MP D70's sensor performance to the D200's 10MP sensor performance (which I got when Circuit City accidentally sold the D80 on sale for $350 instead of the D60) was a welcome jump, but I do agree that there wasn't anything truly compelling in a D40 successor, to drive an upgrade for example, until the D3100 which was a noticeable upgrade in many different areas (sensor, AF system, live view, etc). It was the first camera since the D40 that was really a revolution like the D40 was for entry-level capabilites. The D40X, D60, and D3000, while incrementally better, didn't make anyone do a double take. The D3200, on the other hand . . . oh, that sensor!
     
  27. My 2 cents. I own a D700, 7000, 800. Fine cameras all. Isn't it time that controls are placed the same in cameras. The 700 & 7000 in particular have controls, dials, buttons in different places for different functions. I vote for standardization among brands.
     
  28. As some people said in this thread, you are not going to get everything the D4 has on the D700x, if Nikon ever goes for it.
    I do understand your point Sebastian, because I do have the D300 and so far, there are not any camera out there to overpower all the functions of my camera. The D7000 has much better ISO behavior and IQ but its buffer while shooting in RAW and high fps is terrible. The D600 is a different system ( FX ) but still is lacking the 51 AF points, buffer and fps found in my camera. So as every single D300 user in the world, I am still waiting for the D400, expecting that this camera keeps whatever I do have in my D300 and improved ISO. Regarding pixels, I know that if Nikon ever come out with it, will have between 12 and 24 million pixels and the price will be around 2k.
    If Nikon never create a D700 and / or D300 replacements, our only option is to go for the D3 or D4 if we want to keep all the functions that we already have plus more. Unfortunately that is the way it is so far. The problem is that those camera are 5k plus and is a wallet breaker deal for the majority. Between 2 and 4k, we don't have anything in the Nikon world so far and I don't think that Nikon will give us a camera with all the D4 functions and capabilities for less than 5k. So we either wait or pull 5k from our wallet to go for its majesties : either the D3 series or the D4.
     
  29. I am new among you Nikon users, coming from Pentax DSLRs, originating a long time ago with film SLRs, so long ago that there still were SLRs called Nikkormat (and I also used a Canon Pellix, designed just as Sony SLR series, that is, with a fixed mirror).
    Things have changed fast around cameras - the Nikon D1X had 3.5MP sensor, and a modern Hasselblad has 200MP, if not more!
    No camera is perfect, not even my beloved D600, or the well used V1, nor the D3200. In some ways the K-5 I had was far better than my current D600, some far worse, for instance the K-5's autofocus had big problems with birds in flight - the D600 has far less - still not perfect! Weight-wise they were/are about equal, but the K-5 is in design more like the D800, as it is mainly made out of a magnesium alloy.
    The current K-5 IIs is said to be better, resolution-wise, than any Canon DSLR, no matter what model - that's impressive, but I'm not going back. I've changed horses, and so be it ;-)!
    I came into Nikon via my binoculars, and then a V1 (my gift to my dear wife, who instead opted for the Olympus OM-D, as complement to her K-5), a FT1 adapter, and a few F Mount lenses, new and old, zooms, and primes.
    For those who want an upgrade to their D300 there still is the D300S ....
     

Share This Page