Wait for successor to D700?

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>FPW, you make some good points! I'm not questioning the advantages of FF, just mulling over if I should wait for the higher resolution version of the D700 (D700x). I have good lenses for both formats: Nikon 12-24/4DX, 17-55/2.8DX, 80-200/2.8 AF-D (for both). I don't have the new expensive FX zooms but all the AF-D primes which I'm hoping will suffice.<br>

Anyway, thankyou for your response, very thoughtful! Happy shooting!</p>

[commtrd]

<p>Interesting thread...my thoughts are that a careful consideration of the type of photos I take mostly to let the work itself define what tools I need to use. So I looked back at every photo I have shot with the D300...all of them. The vast majority are either macro or close-up and increasingly wide-angle (especially since getting the 14-24). So right there my work is telling me that since the majority of what I am shooting lends itself to FF and also by a huge margin using natural lighting my mind is made up already. Now I have been fighting the noise on the D300 since day one and it has been a huge PITA to where I finally had to buy Topaz De-Noise to try to save a lot of these shots that were otherwise great photos. I can honestly say that a D300 should not be used at any ISO greater than 1600 and better not over 800 ISO. It is true that the camera can provide exemplary images under 800 ISO by using a flash and other extra lighting. But in venues where flash is not permitted or desired, the noise thing will present problems which may preclude shooting at all.</p>

<p>Now if a photographer is primarily engaged in shooting telephoto then that is where the D300 is going to excel. I plan on acquiring a 300 f2.8 some day for this kind of photography. But my most immediate need is for a camera that performs well at up to ISO 3200 AND has a larger brighter viewfinder. I DO NOT WANT a camera with higher megapixels whether in DX or FX because the image quality suffers at substantially lower ISO values. Personally I believe that 12 megapixels in a FF sensor is optimal. Certainly in a DX sensor 12 mP is the practical limit if the absolute best IQ is important at all.<br>

This leads to a discussion of lenses and the intended direction of DX or FX. I early on decided to go the way of pro-level FX-compatible lenses. So I saved and got the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105VR f2.8, 85 f1.4, 50 f1.8, and the sigma 150 macro. Now that I paid the price to get the good stuff first, it is relatively painless to go to FX because the important part is already in place. And since I already decided that for the work I am doing I need to go to FF, the lens selection was designed to fit into this sytem of gear per requirement. If all I did was birding at great distance in good light, then it is obvious that the gear requirements are going to reflect that style.</p>

<p>For macro, wide angle, low light, and portraiture I feel that it is quite obvious that FF must get the nod. Others may not feel that way. That is just fine; I don't have to buy their lenses or other stuff but I do have to purchase my gear. Another bonus is that the lenses I have now work great on my current DX body D300. Again there are those who will sniff and say that a 14-24 does not work well on a D300. All I can say is that is a load of crap. For me it works awesome and will only be better on a D700. I can carry the D700 with a 24-70 and the D300 with the 70-200 and walkabout witha very nice combined focal range covered with top glass...I can use the 85 1.4 on the D700 in lower than optimal light shooting candids and portraiture...I can shoot macro using primarily natural light and back-lighting and again the FF will come through for me with low to no-noise.<br>

So this is something I have to do. The cost has largely been borne upfront with the lens purchases to prepare. I am close to having the gear I will need for a lifetime of photography on the bleeding edge as I can get. <strong>I do not want sensor photosite density greater than 12 mP.</strong> I do want the greatest contrast, color rendering, dynamic range, and image quality I can possibly get and I don't want to be fighting massive noise in post for hours on end. This lengthy dissertation kind of lays out the thought process anyone can (should?) use to decide which direction to take with gear purchases... </p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'm new to the D700, and my other camera is a D200. Just doing a few tests this evening, and I noticed that the 16-86VR-DX lens makes way better pictures indoors with the D700 in crop mode and the ISO dial-up to 1600-3200 than shooting the D200. It never occurred to me that the D700 would be a much better available light DX body than the D200 (or D300). Higher ISO easily trumps higher pixel density.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why I should keep the D200 now.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Keith, have you actually shot with a D3x or any other high MP FF camera? Just wondering. In any event, reading the amount of thought you put into your equipment selection is amazing. Thankyou for putting it down in words!<br>

Dan, it's sort of disheartening to hear that your D700 has retired your D200. I'm hoping I can find a use for mine. I know with my D80, I find it perfect for photos I post on the web or emails, or if I'm trying to sell something on ebay, and it's way overkill for those usages. With the D200 it's nice to have the "extra reach" with long lenses. I don't know, we'll see what happens with mine. Thanks! </p>

[commtrd]

<p>I have never shot with a D3x nor do I intend to. That body is a specific tool made for those who need resolution like MF. I just don't need that as much as I need the better ability to handle challenging light conditions plus the price of the D3x is somewhat prohibitive (the body is intended for professional photographers catering to a very specific market).</p>

<p>The D200 could be changed to IR...that is something that would be neat to get into. I was dismayed when I found out what I could get for my D300 if I would try to sell it. Seems my D300 has lost half its value in 8 months. This is a great argument for waiting for a new body to come down in price before purchase because evidently these things are worse than automobiles as far as depreciation. My D300 has a little over 10k actuations on the shutter so has a lot of use left in it. I love the D300 and the original plan to use both simultaneously seems to be appropriate.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Thanks Keith, the reason I asked is because your noise argument about higher pixel count might not be as problematic as you perceive, and the extra resolution might be appreciated more than you imagine. There are other high resolution FF cameras on the market besides the D3x. The Canon 5Dmk2 and the Sony A900, at about the same cost of a D700. You could be right though afterall. I'm not as convinced as you is all. Thanks again!</p>

[iso200]

<p>Given what everyone's said, if you have a D200 and a pile of DX lenses, what's a better upgrade - getting the D300 [which doesn't seem to be a very compelling upgrade] or the D700 and just shooting in cropped mode? [i know the images from a D700 will be smaller but that's not a deal breaker...]<br>

Sounds to me that the D700 makes more sense, or am I off base?</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Dave, I don't think it makes sense to use DX lenses with a D700. If I only had DX lenses I'd just stay DX.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Keith, don't feel to bad about the value of a used D300, just think about what my $1800 (new) D200 is worth now. Maybe $600 is I am lucky in finding a buyer. And this goes on again and again in DSLR evolution. I am convinced that best approach is to watch the used-amateur market and buy there, maybe 6-12 months behind the official release dates.</p>

[commtrd]

<p>Dan my sentiments exactly. I have waited patiently for the D700 to come down in price and in the meantime I am learning much more about using flash and using the camera in full manual mode while using flash (not ambient) lighting which is a fascinating and worthwhile pursuit of its own. The D300 is an awesome camera when the ISO values are kept down under 800 and light is creatively used.<br>

It may be that the D700 has dropped in price as much as it is going to until the next product in line is released. I think a lot more emphasis is placed on megapixels and not enough on learning true skills in photography and lighting, composition, and technique. There can be found on flickr and probably other sites where shots from cell phones were taken that in many cases could rival or blow away inferior work with hi-dollar DSLR gear. It's pretty hard to argue that higher pixel density in excess of current FF sensors are going to yield appreciable differences (gains) in hi-ISO along with higher resolution. Or maybe that will become a reality in the future but so what? If a base platform is doing what the photographer needs it to do, then the realsitic gain is to be had by perfecting and improving the technique on the front end and then the post-processing on the back end. That is my approach to NAS and it is realistic I think.<br>

You know what they say about opinions; everyone's got one! ;-)</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p> <I think a lot more emphasis is placed on megapixels and not enough on learning true skills in photography and lighting, composition, and technique. There can be found on flickr and probably other sites where shots from cell phones were taken that in many cases could rival or blow away inferior work with hi-dollar DSLR gear.></p>

<p>Keith, that's rock-solid reasoning and no argument from me, but the point can be made why jump on a D700 when you can create compelling photography on a D300 and wait for the D700x (my reasoning anyway)? Since the higher resolution cameras are an imminent reality, why not wait for that, instead, all the while creating great photography with whatever you got? I believe that something like a D700x would set up any non pixel peeping, non gearhead Nikon photographer for many many years to come. It's silly to ignore that photography's technical component is important too, and I don't mean that you have, just saying. </p>

[commtrd]

<p>Jeff, I can readily see the argument that one should wait for a (supposed?) D700x or whatever but here is the deal: I am very specific about what I am looking for in my tools. It really is all about the capture of light. Let me explain. I am into art using the media of airbrush, watercolor, oil, pen and ink, pencil, charcoal etc. and photography was intended to be a way to gather source material for generating my paintings with extreme realism. My whole approach to the graphic arts was and always will be the interplay of light...contrast, lights vs. darks, and the effects on implied texture, color gradation, composition, opacity and transparency etc.<br>

So I get the D300 and find it is an awesome tool with one problem: in trying to shoot the way my mind sees light it pushes the ISO up to where the noise becomes unacceptable. If I can use flash this becomes a non-issue. If I cannot or don't want to use flash for some reason then it becomes necessary to do something about the resultant noise in the images. Due to my background in fine art, noise just really gets to me and I have to stop it!<br>

Now the full frame sensors become available in two flavors and I choose the D700 as being appropriate for my needs. For me it is absolutely mandatory to have photosites that are large enough to gather the light in the most efficient manner which kills noise. I believe that has been well-established. The resolution of the output is more than sufficient for me and what I am doing. Can resolution be increased by a factor of two or three even and get bit-depth to fantastic levels even surpassing fine films? Yes but at a cost. And that is getting right back to where we are with the D300...so this whole discussion really hinges upon just where a photographer wants (needs) to go with their imagery.<br>

I do not need 24 or 36 mP of resolution BECAUSE the trade-off (to me) is unacceptable noise. In totally controlled environment like studio portraiture or even architectural / landscape shot in perfect lighting where hi-ISO is not necessary then this becomes a tool which is indispensable. Pleasing a demanding editor and trying to get work published is what the D3x was made for. I am not that photographer. At least not yet... <br>

So the point of this whole long tirade is this: You have to know what you are trying to accomplish with your photography THEN you can tailor your equipment acquisitions to that end. If you DO NOT know what direction you want to go with your photography, then it is not wise to chase megapixels just because you can. If that is truly what you need then that is great. Nikon will be more than happy to supply you with a 24 mP camera and the lenses that can resolve (hopefully) as well as the sensor. In my case, I know EXACTLY what I am after and the full-frame sensor fits the bill perfectly no matter what comes later. When I want to branch out into telephoto long distance (surf photography and wildlife) then my crop-body will be there for that as well. And since it is all about the light and not about pixel density, my newly ordered D700 (today) and the current D300 will have to do for me for a long time. And they will...<br>

For everyone else, know what you are trying to accomplish and why, then design your DSLR system around those parameters. Above all else, have fun with it and devote a lot of time and thought into learning the fine points of photography and technique and everything will then be in proper perspective (pun intended).</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Keith, thankyou for clarifying your photo equipment requirements/ philosophy. Most of us, myself included, haven't really nailed down the whole issue as precisely as you have. It's great that you have found your ideal tools and who can argue with that, it's a very personal matter.<br>

I have a sense that you'll go far and fulfill your vision. It's encouraging to listen to someone who has such a great handle on their art/ photography. Keep up the GREAT work, and thanks again! Awesome!</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>Jeffrey,<br>

I have a D700 and appreciate its high ISO/available darkness capabilities. I also appreciate being able to routinely shoot in better light at ISO 400 rather than 100. Faster shutter speeds almost always lead to better IQ.<br>

I will probably get a D700x or something like it some day. But I'll keep the D700, considering a D700x a kind of medium format camera, but better, because it takes Nikon lenses which we already own!<br>

BTW, I nominate you as "The Most Reasonable Poster" on the Nikon forum.<br>

Excellent thread.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Hi Joe, thanks for the kind words! After all the great responses here, including yours of course, I think I'm going to just get a D700. I knew all along it was a terrific camera, and hearing from so many happy users did it for me. It seems if I can't create technically satisfying pictures with a D700, then a D700x isn't going to make any difference, and there is a lot to be said for the lower pixel count making the D700 probably a more versatile camera than the imaginary D700x. Also, I like your analogy of the D700x as a medium format camera. Thanks again! Happy shooting!</p>

[j._williamson]

<p>Just want to thank all of the great responses, you have just cost me at least another $3K ( I was going to be perfectly happy w/ a D300) ;-) Now I just have to find a D700 at a great price.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>You're welcome, Jeffrey. So often, too often, people ask for advice on P.net and then argue with those whose answers aren't what they wanted to hear.</p>

<p>I don't think you'll ever regret getting a D700.<br>

Now if I had bought a D200 and the D300 was announced a week later I would be most unhappy.<br>

But if a D700x came out tomorrow I'd not regret the D700.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Thanks again Joe. I agree, you have to keep an open mind, especially if you're asking a question. And your last sentence is such a strong endorsement. John Williamson and I are both going to be a little lighter in the wallet. :)</p>

<p>Me too John! Once the initial pain passes, you won't miss the money. At least that's what I'm telling myself. :)</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>I have no interest in a DX camera at all. If I buy a 17-35mm lens I want to use it as a 17-35mm lens. With mostly slow lenses, Nikon is barely keeping its toe in this fight.</p>

[john_davis24]

<p>It seems to me that the only reason you would want to wait for a D700x (are they even going to make one?) is if you make large prints- bigger than 8x10 or 11x14 prints. Otherwise, the larger pixel size would be more useful, IMO for lower noise, etc.</p>

<p>But waiting for a camera you don't even know will come out seems crazy to me- could be a year. I say just get the D700 and get something better when it comes out and you can afford it.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Agreed, John. Thanks!</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I would love to see the following test. The same image taken with the D200, D300, D700 and D3x and printed at 4x6 and 20x30. Both images would be viewed from an appropriate view distance. 10 different viewers without knowledge of camera source. And for the viewers to rate the picture in terms of IQ, sharpness, etc.<br>

I have printed 20x30 from my d200 and when properly exposed, I see no evidence of pixelation or signficant softness. My point is you are waiting for a D700x to print things larger than 11x14 but smaller than a bread basket, then I think you are waiting for the wrong thing. And the downside is a huge need for image storage.<br>

IMHO.<br>

Steven</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should point out that there is absolutely no guarantee that Nikon will introduce this hyperthetical "D700X" some day. Perhaps Nikon will indeed put the sensor from the D3X onto a D700-type body, but that is pure speculation. Moreover, we have no idea when that will happen and even so, what the price will be. Apparently the $8K initial price tag for the D3X surpised quite a few people.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Shun, it does seem logical though that Nikon would want to compete in the Canon 5DMk2 and Sony A900 arena. It's a market segment that has no Nikon presence, very unNikon-like. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>IMO, the D700 already competes very well against the Canon 5DII and Sony A900. Personally, regardless of price, I prefer the D700 over the 5DII and A900 anyway because of the D700 superior AF capability, frame rate and high ISO performance. The fact that the D700 is currently cheaper is just an extra bonus. However, there are plenty of people who evaluate cameras by counting pixels or at least prefer more pixels. You will lose something by squeezing more pixels into the same area. Which way is "better" is a tradeoff you need to decide for yourself.</p>