Wait for successor to D700?

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Shun, thanks, that's an interesting way of looking at the D700 as competing very well against the Canon and Sony as is, and it could be Nikon's thinking as well. I've never been all that concerned about pixels on DX sensors since they reached around 10MPs, but for some reason with a FF sensor I had the thought that some IQ was being left on the table with only 12MPs. I probably just need to adjust my thinking rather than wishing for more pixels. I have been blown-away by the imaging capability of the D700, but for some reason more pixels crept back into my thinking. Anyway, I'm looking forward to using my D700 when it arrives. Thanks again!</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>"...looking forward to using my D700 when it arrives."<br>

Congratulations, Jeffrey!</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Thanks Joe! It was a pleasure talking to you, plus I think you nailed this thread shut. Thanks!</p>

[roypanos]

<p>Jeffrey<br>

I'll add a quick comment. I just bought a D700 a few weeks ago. I've had a D200 (backup now and also as a 1.5 TC!) for a little over a year and all I can say is that the D700 is quite astonishing in comparison. I haven't used a D300 so I can't make a comparison there. It's also hard to make a direct comparison with my own DX body and lenses as I have also just invested in three 2.8 lenses covering 14-200mm. The combination of these lenses and the D700 body is a huge leap in IQ - apparent even shooting a few tests in very casual fashion. I doubt you'll be disappointed with the D700.<br>

Roy</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Roy, since I have a D200 as well, I really appreciate your comments. I'm not sure the exact lenses you used for comparison, but I assume the three FX pro zooms and I surmise excellent DX zooms? If that's the case, the huge difference you see is not illusory. Thanks for weighing-in!</p>

[j._williamson]

<p>This might be heresy on this thread, but did I notice that on the gallery photos, the majority of submitters are Canon users? If that is <em>not</em> a figment of my imagination, then why is that? </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Hey John, that could be a potentionally interesting topic for another thread. Is it because the powers that be here have a Canon bias? Are Canon shooters more extroverted about their work? Heck, I have no idea, but maybe someone else would have an opinion.</p>

[commtrd]

<p>I just got my D700 yesterday and all I can say is WOW! For shots where the D300 metered for iso 3200 the D700 was dialing in iso 850! Definitely everything I was hoping for. I found the adjustment to FF rather than crop 1.5X to be a non-issue. I think the combination of the D300 and D700 is going to be real synergistic for all the photography I intend to do.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Wow, awesome Keith, great to hear, and congrats!<br>

It sounds like there's no comparison between the D200s/ D300s; the D700 is a different animal altogether. It makes the original premise of my thread seem pretty silly, but then again, that's why I posted: to learn something. Thanks! Happy shooting!</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Nice shot, Steven, but it really needs a custom WB.</p><div></div>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Dear friends,</p>

<p>While I have no direct connections or privileged information from Nikon, but the "D700x" remains for the present times a totally speculative model.</p>

<p>Roughly considering the difference of retail price between a D3 and a D3x I just see the latter being more than two times more expensive than the D3.</p>

<p>Of course nobody knows exactly the part of actual increase in production cost of the sensor of the D3x versus the one of the D3 this huge retail price increase represents. But it is rather unlikely the retail price of an eventual D700x will be affected by a smaller factor.</p>

<p>May be I'm pessimistic, but IMHO even the D3x will have a very limited market as few professionals having the necessary income to afford it and tackling the kind of subjects it is obviously destined to will really consider buying such a camera. At around $ 8000, and as most of these professionals probably have already a bunch of medium format lenses and few if any Nikon lenses, I'm not sure, even on budget considerations, the total amount of the Nikon D3x system, including the relevant lenses is not equal or even superior to buying a new digital back offering even better I.Q. within the same range of useful ISO settings.</p>

<p>So, what is to be expected for a D700x at more than $4000 as a customer's panel ? Frankly I don't know !</p>

<p>It is all too probable within some years the engineers will find a way to allow a high pixel density sensor to be noise free at high ISO settings and the required threshold of image quality for all those who may want MF like quality will be met without sacrificing the high ISO performance. With such a camera, I'm convinced the investment will be worth even if it stays at a relatively high level as it can replace two systems by one. But for the present time, I think the "x" version of the D3 more as a "show the flag" marketing department gesture ostensibly facing the competition from Canon than any really useful tool...</p>

<p>My feeling (but anyone may disagree) is Nikon won't issue a D700x to complete the present generation of FX bodies.</p>

<p>As I see the things, the D 90 or its successor will, within a few years, be the top of the mark in DX format, with DX format cameras being clearly the unique appendage of the amateur range.</p>

<p>The semi-pro range will become strictly FX with the successor of the D700 (D800?) reaching around 16Mpx or more without losing anything in high ISO performance, while the D3 successor (D4?) will have the same 16Mpx or more definition with all the other advantages of the pro line and the eventual "D4x" (I'm not sure Nikon will persevere into this adventure before the contradiction between high ISO performance and definition won't be solved) probably a tad more performance at high ISO settings, while keeping the present definition of the D3x or with a small increase in definition.</p>

<p>I think the true "revolution" is ahead of us, when there will be no more need in the pro, semi-pro range for a "high definition model" and a "speed model" and when the DX format will be dropped even for amateur models. To know when this will happen is beyond any reasonable estimation.</p>

<p>So to say, there is IMHO no point to wait for the successor of the D700, there will ever be a "successor" to an existing DSLR body which will improve speed or I.Q. or both. At least as long as interchangeable modules won't be used on a body to upgrade it while keeping the camera in a way like we once replaced a film emulsion by a more performing one in the film era.</p>

<p>The point to take into consideration is the threshold both in speed and definition for a given price we consider sufficient to fulfill our needs for a sufficient time frame.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned the threshold met by the D700 - D3 is sufficiently high for the price to pay to be considered sufficient for at least the 5 years to come or so (a far cry from the not so long ago total obsolescence of DSLR's within two years of use). These models are equaling or beating any 35mm film camera at usual ISO setting in I.Q. and are already able to beat to death any film camera at high ISO settings. As they are both full frame, the lens investment will be protected for even much longer.</p>

<p>I see no use to wait longer... I have restrained myself to go digital as long as full frame was not currently available and the definition didn't equal what you can get from a film camera with a current film sensitivity (ISO 100 to 400), but now I can get both. With these bodies I can get an A4 print without secondary enlargement at 360dpi and easily produce an A3+ print which will equal or better any small format film enlargement of the same magnification (and at home !)... If I need an even larger print, I can still rely on my faithful Rolleiflex F from the 60's if I want to retain high I.Q. or borrow a 4x5" film camera. But these will be rare occurrences. With Nikon retro-compatibility I can re-constitute a large panel of excellent lenses bought second hand and wait to save for some up to date zooms or primes while enjoying my camera.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

[lou korell]

<p>In some ways it all depends on what you are shooting and why. If you shoot subjects not requiring higher ISO you may be fine with the D300. The files are beautiful and with the right "finishing" they are as good as it gets.<br>

But, if you shoot subjects in low light, you will see a very distinct difference in the noise levels at higher ISO.<br>

I have shot with the D300 at 1600 quite a bit with acceptable results. But I can match or exceed that quality at ISO 5000 with the D700. I shoot weddings and many times you cannot use flash and you are in a very poorly lighted area. The D300 will do fairly well but there is no question that the D700 will do much better.<br>

Of course ISO isn't the only feature of distinction for either camera. Both are great tools. I would try out both before deciding. Do your own comparison and see what feels right to you. For every person on this forum to whom you pose the question you will get the answer that works for them - - but not necessarily for you.<br>

Lou</p>

<p> </p>

[sintiow_lim]

<p>If you have a D700, you will know it reigns supreme when shooting with available light.<br>

My friend with the D200 looked on with enyy while i shoot merrily under the most trying light.<br>

Forget about waiting for the 700x...life is short.</p>