D700 Released in Europe, It Is Official

[trunfio]

Looking at this in terms of numbers (i.e., dollars): I have two D300s and would want to keep one for sports and tele work.

To upgrade, I would sell a D300, 17-55/2.8 and Tamron 12-24. I would probably get about $3000 for this. That sale would

buy me a D700, but then I'd have to get the Nikkor 24-70 at $1700 and Nikkor 14-24 at $1600. Total cost to upgrade is

$3300, which is roughly the cost of a D700. So, thinking of it this way, it doesn't seem so bad. What do you all think?

[trunfio]

Sorry meant to say Tokina 12-24.

[frank_skomial]

Correction to:

 

"It appears SB-900 has Guide Number 34, while SB-800 has 38"

 

The Nikon USA now lists Guide Number as 40 for the SB-900, ISO 100, meters, and has specified lens angle coverage of 35 mm on film format or FX.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i> DX Nikons already outperform film</i>

<p>

That may be true, but special purpose optics & fast short FL lenses don't exist for DX, therefore only through

the FX cameras, can digital truly replace film for someone who uses a comprehensive <i>system</i> of lenses.

[elmroc]

I'm sure that alot of folks here are on Calumet's mailing list, but i'll throw myh 2 cents in.

 

Here is a link for the pre-order for the D700 if anyone is interested.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/store/NewNikon/?t=CM01&a=CM01

 

CHeers

[trunfio]

Also, adorama has a pre-order.

[elmroc]

Won't be long now before they all have it up.

[benny_spinoza]

"The hammer was driven into 35mm long before the D700 was even a concept. DX Nikons already outperform film. If the D700 means, however, that DX was just a stop gap until "full frame" was refined, and my D300 is the last of that format, then I've purchased my last Nikon camera."

 

Not really, as Ilkka pointed out. Also, from the prints I saw of co-workers who had DX systems, I didn't see that DX outperformed film. But in the D700, we have a camera with a form factor similar to the F6, and yet with a full-frame sensor, and also at a price point that is starting to get interesting for non-professionals. A full-frame sensor will have higher SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) and higher dynamic range than a smaller-sized sensor.

 

One thing I wonder about is the longevity of a CMOS sensor. A film camera will last decades. In the past, no one cared if a digital SLR lasted decades because there were always such rapid improvements in technology that an upgrade was expected. But now we are getting to the point where digital SLR cameras are so good and easy to use, that one would expect, or at least hope, that they could use and enjoy their equipment for years to come.

[correct_exposure]

KUDOS to Nikon. Even though I own a Canon 5D, the D700 seems great. All I ever wanted was a digital Canon 1v, and the D700 may be it. I will wait for Canon's response b/c of investment in lenses. However, with these being tools, a switch over to Nikon would be painless.

 

Great job Nikon!

[georges_walker]

This morning I visited one of the two really Pro Labs in Mexico city I noticed that they do not sell film anymore. Of course buying film is still possible but I was Impressed about the Lab's decision about focusing more on the digital market. So, the Nenny's phrase "the hammer that will start to drive the coffin nails for 35mm film" is not only getting more real just because of Nikon moves but also for the rest of the industry as well.

 

On the other hand, as Wayne has mentioned, if the models to come (D400 -- D600) would have a FX sensor, I would feel a little dissapointed about my recent purchase of a D300 (just 10 days ago) since I would have the last DX serious sensor in a Nikon body.

 

But that's technology, isn't it. Let's remember Moore's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_Law

[fotografz]

As soon as the D700 gets in my hands, off the D300 goes to be converted to Infrared by Life Pixel.

 

www.lifepixel.com

 

This is what to do with digital cameras made obsolete by the next one ... make them unique !!!!

[dbcooper]

Well, well, well. For once my timing is good. After starting DSLR mid-run with a D70s, and waiting a year after release for the D200 to prove out and drop a little in price, I just couldn't justify buying a D300...the minor improvements over the D200 just weren't worth the cost of a new body to me. I was going to wait until the D300's DX successor, but now with a more reasonably-priced full-frame sensor Nikon DSLR, I can justify a new body purchase. Sure, I'll have to spring for some new glass for maximum wide-angle effectiveness, but that's what I was waiting for. It was worth the wait.

 

It'll certainly be interesting to see what Canon will come back with, and what Nikon will do with the sensor technology they own but haven't yet put into production. As far as coffin nails go, IMO, 35mm has been dead for a couple of years already. There's no way any 35mm film can be enlarged to the degree that you can print D200 images and get the clarity and smoothness (lack of grain) of a digital image of 8mp and up. Noise (and some other less-noticeable sensor limitations) is being quickly conquered, and at most print sizes it's basically a non-issue. I remember not so long ago when ISO 1600 was basically a high contrast, very grainy special/artsy-effect film. Now, some folks complain about slight noise on an 11 x 17 print when viewed at 12 inches. When the puppy lives at your house, it gets harder to notice how much he's grown in a year.

 

For the average snapshot being printed in the 3 or 4 by 5 range, 35mm bit the dust with 4mp P&S cameras. For processing speed, long-haul economy, convenience, privacy, and capacity without having to stop and reload film, you can't beat digital. The only reason to shoot 35mm is if you need a disposable camera (I keep one in the glove box of my car, just in case).

 

I still have a few film cameras (35mm, 6x7 and 6x17 120, and 4x5), and will probably always shoot LF as long as I can get film, but when I take a dispassionate view on the film vs. digital issue, I believe we ARE living in the golden age of photography.

[benny_spinoza]

"But that's technology, isn't it. Let's remember Moore's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_Law"

 

Actually, this is not an example of Moore's law, at least not when it comes to the sensor. In this case, the sensor is bigger,

and the photo-sites are bigger. So it takes more real estate on a wafer chip. The only way I know that will reduce the cost of

real estate on a wafer chip is by going to larger wafers, which is what much of the industry has done. I do not know what

fab makes Nikon chips, or what size wafers they use. Hopefully, as demand descreases, the D700 will drop in price. But I

doubt that it will go below 2K when one considers that the F6 goes for 2K.

 

Regarding coffin nails....as mentioned before, I think there were several technical/price reasons for using 35mm film,

depending upon image requirements. But with the D700, some of those technical/price reasons are fading away. Oh well, at

least I can console myself that I didn't buy into the DX format. And I shouldn't have to worry too much about a knowledeable

thief stealing my F6. (Although a bozo might think it is digital and try to take it!)

[rjm photo]

Glad I resisted the temptation to sell my three premium AIS wide primes, plus Tokina 17mm. The step up to a D700

won't be quite so painful....given the relatively low trade-in value of my D200.