D700 vs. New Competition = $ Drop

[david_tolcher]

Prices will drop, period - I paid ukp 1950 and it can now be bougth nearly 20% cheaper. But... did you look at the images on the Canon web-site. The CA is terrible - if that is what doubling the resolution gives on an FX sensor then I can pass please. I get no CA fro the D700 and it is a joy.

 

http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg

[joe_a2]

Robert Budding and David Haas.... Perhaps it's not the Canon 5D Mk II, but the Canon 5D Mk Eleven!

[Peter_in_PA]

Wow. For the kind of photography I shoot, if I had the money, I'd be snapping up a 5D-II no question.

 

if I shot more sports and action and was more concerned about high ISO performance, I'm sure the D700 would be better.

 

But, as much as I like Nikon, I suspect Canon has hit a home run with this camera. Nikon will want to develop a D900 to

compete, and Canon will probably be developing something like a D700, too.

 

Competition. Everybody wins!

[oskar_ojala]

The manufacturers have been clever enough to make their sub-$3000 full-frame models slightly different, making a direct comparison difficult. Add on top of that the differences in lenses and the flash system and it's not so obvious which one to pick.

 

I've never owned an EOS 5D and wouldn't, since the viewfinder just wasn't up to my standards. The new version will surely fix the processing power issues with the old one, but fixing the viewfinder is another matter. Just played with a D700 in a store with Zeiss lenses: in a word "smooth". Haven't had that focusing feeling in a long time on a 35 mm system. Nikon must be doing something right.

 

As for resolution, I'm holding out for future 24 mpix FX cameras but I know that there will be plenty of times when such resolution is not needed. Honestly I'd much rather take a 20+ megapixel medium format back. The lenses and technique will be an issue; my current D300 is brutal in showing weaknesses in some lenses and 24 mpix FX is not going to make the situation better.

[photo5]

Megapixels Shmegapixels! I'd take a D700 for $2999 over a 5D MkII any day of the week! I predict the D3x will be introduced soon anyway with 24mp for all those pixel peepers out there. My D300 is humming right along for me, and will for the next 5 years or more.

[mjt]

Nikon doesn't need to worry about Canon.<br /><br />

 

Nikon, and Canon, and Sony, and etal, should worry about RED and their DSLR, er, DSMC<br />

http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=47<br /><br />

 

The fanfare started here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

[malcolm_farrow]

You only have to look at the bottom right hand corner of the image David Tolcher provided a link to, to see the weakness in the "more mega pixels is better" argument. I can't see many critical landscapers being satisfied with that: I certainly wouldn't. While the new Canon may be an excellent camera, the lens is frequently likely to be the weak link in the chain. In all likelihood, only the best lenses may be up to the job, with obvious cost implications. My personal view, have used DX and now FX Nikons extensively, is that Nikon's current FX camera bodies will work well with a considerable part of the company's lens legacy and that the 12MP sensor is a well judged choice for a wide range of applications. It certainly has a nice synergy with the lenses I use and I value critical sharpness right across the image. There's also the file storage issue to consider, as others have already mentioned.

 

While I wouldn't use my D700 for critical landscape work when my 5x4 is a convenient choice, I wouldn't hesitate to use it when its greater portability is advantageous. It's the first digital camera I've used that produces a tonality that really rings true for me and I absolutely love it - it will take a really exceptional camera to tempt me to upgrade for some time to come.

[george_paulides]

In my case, and for most others I suspect, it depends which system you have invested in - I see no reason to move

away from Nikon. I am happy with my kit.

 

For manufacturers it is all about how a new model and its feature set will be perceived relative to the competition

based on a price point. Certain features have appeal more so than others to individuals. Unfortunately when it comes

to cameras the first point of comparison is "megapixels" count. As for computers, it is "processor clock speed".

However we would not be all so swallow, would we?

[Two23]

I think the high ISO performance of the new Canon will tell the tale. Obviously Canon has a built in pool of buyers that have been hanging on for an upgraded 5D, but Canon needs more than that to regain their momentum, I think.

 

Interesting thought about lenses now becomming the weak link as resolution goes up. That may be the real limiting factor on sales since the impact on affordability would be huge! I now mostly have $1,000 lenses. Would I have to start buying $1,600 lenses to keep up? Maybe.

 

 

Kent in SD

[bgelfand]

Back to the original post - yes, I think we will see a drop in the prices of both the D700 and D300, and possible the D3 due to the releases of the A900, the Canon 5DII and the Canon 50D. I do not expect to see the prices drop until all these competitors are readily available in the stores - which should be for the Holiday Season.

 

With due respect (and I do mean with due respect; I have great admiration for the work I have seen on photo.net) to all you Pros, Sports Photographers, and Critical Landscape photographers, sales to you is not what will determine the price point; there simply are not enough of you. The vast majority of sales of D700 and D300 will to to the amateurs - not necessarily entry level amateurs but D60, D70, D80 users (and their Canon and Sony equivalents) looking to "move up". Then there will be people like me who have been shooting good film cameras (I use a F100) looking to move into digital.

 

Do mega-pixels count? Yes, to an extent. So does price; probably to a greater extent. Nikon will have a difficult time maintaining the D300 price of $1600 when the new Canon 50D, with 15 mega-pixels, is priced at $1400. Nikon will have a difficult time maintaining the price of the D700 at its current level with the A900 at the same price level and the 5DII a few hundred dollars less. Unless, of course, the picture quality of both the Sony and Canons are atrocious.

 

As for weather sealing, I, and most people I know, do not take cameras out in horrid weather. Heck, I do not take myself out in horrid weather; my Mom taught me to come in out of the rain. <BIG GRIN> If I do get caught in the rain, I have "all hazards" insurance on my photographic equipment. As for the number of autofocus points, my F100 has only 5 but works quite well - for me. My point is not that some of you do not need weather sealing or many focus point; it is that the majority of D700 and D300 users do not. It is this majority of potential users that will determine the price point.

 

What I do not understand is why people are so upset and adamant. The more competition the better - for the buyers (now if you own Nikon, or Canon, or Sony stock, I can understand your concern). I would love to buy a D300 at about $1300(US) or a D700 for about $2100. If the price drops to those points, I might even do it. <grin>

[albertdarmali]

I suppose people who will be buying the 5DMkII are those who already own 5D or other Canon DSLRs and the same

goes with D700.

I don't think many first-time buyers (who are not brand orientated yet) will choose either 5DMkII or D700, so I

think the real battle is still around the D300 or D90 range of cameras, which I personally think Nikon is still

winning as of this moment.

 

But nonetheless I love it that we have 2 camera giants battling each other, products are getting cheaper and

better at faster rate. Do you think I can expect D700 to drop to $2,000 by Christmas 2009? :)

[bgelfand]

Hi Albert,

 

By Christmas 2009, I expect a D700 replacement. The only question is will Sony sell Nikon the sensors. Sensor availability is a Canon advantage - Canon designs and manufacturers their own sensors. Nikon must rely on third parties for their sensors. If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble.

 

However, with price drops and/or rebates, I do expect a significant drop in the prices of both the D300 and D700 by Christmas 2008, if Sony and Canon can deliver a significant number of their new products by that time. It all comes down to market share.

 

You are probably correct; the majority of D700, 50DII, and A900 purchasers will already own a DSLR, but it will be a DX sensor size DSLR. Many will own DX only lenses. For these buyers, moving into the FX market is starting over (I realize that the D700 can use DX lenses, but how many users will want to pay almost $3000 for a 5 mega-pixel camera, which is what the D700 degrades to with a DX lens).

 

It is three camera giants - Nikon, Canon, and Sony - battling for the FX sensor space and two for the high end DX space. The two are related; price drops in the D700 effect the price of the D300.

[john_duggan1]

The D700 price at B&H "in cart" has dropped by $100.

[albertdarmali]

Brooks, if they have replacement for D700, that's even better, then I can be certain that I can get a bargain price for D700, haha.. But I am not really sure how Sony will fare against Nikon and Canon though.

[bahrammonshat]

"If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. "

That's what makes me think about Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Dpreview lists the pixel density for cameras as a way to compare the size of pixels jammed into the camera.

 

The Nikon D300 has a density 3.3mp per cm/2

Canon 5DII is 2.4mp per cm/2

Nikon D700 is 1.4mp per cm/2

 

All things being equal the 5DII should perform at least a good as the D300 in high iso noise but more noisy than the d700. Considering the D300 is very good Canon may be good enough for many users in available light.

 

And for me the extra resolution at low iso will be good for landscapes and nature details.

[bgelfand]

Hi Albert,

 

"But I am not really sure how Sony will fare against Nikon and Canon though."

 

Let us see. Sony has deep pockets - they are involved in everything from electronics - TV sets, Walkman, PlayStation, auto electronics - to the entertainment industry - movies, TV shows, and music - to cameras - they bought Minolta, have a relationship with Zeiss, and make the sensors that they and Nikon use, including the ones in the D300, D3, and D700. They have a long history of making camcorders. Some suggest the future lies in integrating the HD camcorder with the DSLR. The have an extensive R&D and manufacturing capability. Worry more about how Nikon and even Canon will do against Sony.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Dpreview lists the pixel density for cameras as a way to compare the size of pixels jammed into the camera.

 

The Nikon D300 has a density 3.3mp per cm/2 Canon 5DII is 2.4mp per cm/2 Nikon D700 is 1.4mp per cm/2

 

So noise at high iso should at least be equal to the D300 which is very good.

 

Canon lenses seem cheaper than Nikon lenses and most have AFS, the Camera and lenses being cheaper will make buying a complete kit quite a bit cheaper, maybe even about the same as getting a D300.

[josephwalsh]

I've been wondering about that for a year or so, Brooks.

Nikon is small compared with Canon which in turn is small compared with Sony.

 

If Sony gets serious.....

[hashim a]

my guess is that there won't be a price drop, but probably a rebate in the spring on D700s...

 

was quite surprised at two things with the new 5D -

 

* the price

* the video thing

 

megapixels just don't register with me anymore.

[lennert]

To David, no! Spinal Tap is real!!!

 

<br><br>

I believe a lower pixel count "full frame"(That's an other discussion) sensor can deliver better quality. as they start

jamming more and more pixels on the same area. you loose the reason people choose a large sensor camera: big

pixels, better colors,...

<br>

at first people wanted as much as possible pixels, right after, the awareness of pixel size grew, but now many are

looking again for as much pixels as possible...<br>...so the Nikon might be worth his price...

[jbm]

The most intelligent post in this thread is the post regarding the potential Red "dSLR Killer." This company, more than anything, has the ability to fundamentally change the paradigm of taking and producing still images. Digital capture as it is used in dSLR's changed several paradigms: the capture device and storage device were different, the ability to instantly see the results of pictures and act on that information, or to erase images. But the idea of capturing a "moment" is going to change when a company like Red allows you to pull high quality images off of a full frame sensor that takes away completely the distinction between video and still camera.

 

I have a D300 right now which is fine. Full frame dSLR's are totally great...but I am not worrying about upgrading to a full frame machine until I know what the future of still photography is going to be, where the new direction really lies.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jay, isn't the RED sensor <i>movie</i> full frame 35? That's more or less DX in nikonspeak.

<p>

If you shoot at 24 or 30 fps, producing i.e. 8 MP single frames, how will you handle the terabytes of data that you get? I

don't think this is a smart idea at all, unless you have a post-production budget similar to Hollywood movie studios.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>"If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. " That's what makes me think about

Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.</i>

<p>

This is amusing. First of all, Sony probably makes more money selling chips to Nikon DSLRs than they do from their

own small DSLR business. Second, it's possible that Sony uses Nikon equipment to manufacture those sensors. Third,

Nikon can design their chips and have any of a number of chip manufacturers make them. The Sony A900 image quality,

from samples given so far, is nothing to brag about.

[erik_christensen3]

""If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. " That's what makes me think about Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.""

If Sony drops Nikon as a customer, they do not have a sustainable chip production anymore and would be forced to close this business, and then they would have to go to 3rd parties to source chips for their own cameras imho.

I doubt very much that this will ever be a scenario.