Wait or not to wait ....for Nikon 700x?

[krzysztof_hanusiak]

<p>Just my 2 cents: I had the same dilemma, over a month of shopping, researching and headache. I ended up buying Canon's 5D Mark II and a new lens to start with. I did not have much money invested in Nikon lenses and two new DX lenses that I returned within the return period.<br>

I just loved the specs of 5DM2.<br>

But if I were to stick with Nikon, I would not wait, especially that I planned a few big trips to Europe this year and wanted the new equipment.<br>

It seems the D700 upgrade may come as early as end of 2010 and as late as 2011. There are some speculations and none were very impressive, especially no improvement over the MP and video. - but those are just speculation.</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>There will be a successor to the D700 (there always is). It's guaranteed a new "improved" model will be more money than the current D700. Speculating on what a successor might offer, do you need:<br>

1) More than 12 MB? (11x14 at 300 dpi)<br>

2) A duel cf card slot?<br>

3) video?<br>

And would you be willing to pay $1,000+ for all/some of these features? If you don't need these features, than a D700 today for $2,400 is a wonderful deal that will last you many years.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>"Because it is not wasted money"<br />It is because what it is worth will fall through the floor overnight when it's successor is released. I've had my D700 for 2 years and so have had 2 years of use for the cost of the depreciation, the OP could end up having a couple of week use and losing hundreds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This conclusion is based upon the idea that a D700 becomes useless as soon as the next generation is available. I would argue that the D700 will be useful for years to come regardless of what comes next. Here are my reasons.</p>

<p>(1) Whatever comes next will not arrive in "a couple of weeks." Let's say that the product is announced in August. It won't ship until November, and very few people will even see one before the end of the year. So there goes your useless after a couple of weeks argument.</p>

<p>(2) If the new camera is a high-ISO/video version based on the D3S, great. It will give you video and an extra 1.5 stops of ISO for an extra thousand bucks. Even though people are lusting after the such a camera today, what you'll hear when it's announced will be "I'm going to wait until the price comes down a bit."</p>

<p>(3) If the new camera has higher resolution, equally great. Just don't expect to buy one for today's D700 price. And take a number, because that waiting list is going to be LONG!!</p>

<p>(4) The camera might not even show up this year. The next FX upgrade could be something like a D4 or a D3Xs (adding video, sensor cleaning, and the improved live-view options of the D3S). Why would Nikon put these features into a less expensive body and leave their flagship hanging out to dry? The D700 upgrade might not come until 2011.</p>

<p>(5) A new DX camera could show up before a D700, too. DX has a larger market share. Plus a new Dx camera wouldn't canibalize sales of the D3S and D3X.</p>

<p>(6) If the D700 is officially "junk" the day that the next model is released, then all of those folks with D300 and D300s cameras willl have to throw their cameras away, too. After all, they're not any better than the D700 at this point.</p>

[701]

<p>I have the same question three weeks ago. I had a D300 and want to go to FX, should I wait or should I buy?</p>

<p>I decide to buy the D700 after a week of thinking back and forth. It cost $2400 right now so if Nikon announce an upgrade, it will be around $3000 and the camera wont be available until another two months after the announcement. If you are willing to bite couple hundred dollars for "renting" the camera (I figure the price probably wont drop too far under $2000 for a lightly used D700). You can always sell your D700 and upgrade later on.</p>

<p>After two events and a photo walk, I am totally happy I made the decision. The wide angle, the shallow depth of field, the ability to shoot at iso 1600 and up without worry made a big different.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>There is a big difference between 12 MP and 24 MP. Since Nikon charges a premium for its pro 24 MP body, they may charge a lot for pro/am 24 MP. I've considered the Sony 24 MP body and with the money I save over the Nikon, I could buy several lenses for the Sony. Pentax has made a available in Japan a 40 MP body for less than $9,000. This may be a game changer. If they can offer a wide angle zoom equivalent to a 24-70, I may have trouble resisting and forget the Nikon.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>You can play the waiting game from now to eternity. You will get it, and in a year it will be superceded. The digital camera race is as ludicrous as the computer race. If the D700 fits your needs, then go ahead and get it.</p>

<p>I have a D700 and it fills my needs perfectly. 16 x 20 no sweat, sharp as a tack. 24 x 30 are good as well with my older AIS Nikkors.</p>

[igor_smirnoff]

<p>D700x is already obsolete since it's a year past its due date.<br>

Wait! And then again.</p>

[tangibleimages]

If you need the camera now, get it. If you don't, wait. I wouldn't be too worried about "losing" money by buying a camera as I don't see buying bodies as any sort of investment. It's like not buying a car because you are worried about it being worth less once you have it. Of course it will be, but you purchased it to use not to resell. Just as there are people happily driving their 2008 model cars, there are many many professional photographers happily shooting D3 and D2xs bodies who aren't lining up to buy the D3s.

 

Furthermore, the new "D4/D800" series cameras aren't due (based on Nikon release cycles) for another year or two. Currently the probable replacement for the D700 is an S model with video and the D3S sensor, or an X model with twice the pixels. If it is the S (more likely in my mind), it's really only about a 1 stop improvement over the D3/D700 from what I've seen (in practice, not number crunching). The ISO 6400 on the D3 (D700) has been just fine for me these past 2 years, so I haven't been able to justify an upgrade. One of the myths that camera companies would like you to believe is that the newer models mean you should trash your old camera. My D3 bodies will continue to work just fine until there is a compelling reason to upgrade; since I'm self employed 1 stop is not nearly enough.

 

Therein lies the crux. If you absolutely need the video and a dedicated video cam won't do, wait and hope you get the D700s. If, however, you are worried about being able to shoot at ISO 12,800...consider if a flash or faster glass on a D700 can fill that void. I have yet to want anything higher than 6400 myself.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Jake

[vineet.rajasekhar]

<p>A lot of people talk about how DSLRs depreciate, and how any DSLR purchase is ultimately a waste of money. I moved up straight from a digital compact to a D700 after months of soul searching and saving money. Its a brilliant camera! I take photos that I love, and its always there, doing just what I want, never in my way. </p>

<p>So here's my question. How does anything that comes after, take that away from me? How does the next new camera make my camera worth less to me? I'm going to shoot with my D700 until it stops. And given how rugged and solid it is, I'm thinking that'll be many many years. </p>

<p>All the best. </p>

<p>V</p>

[tony_cooper5]

<p>Grab the D700 now, the price is just right and there will be a massive demand when the replacement finally surfaces so prices will either be as they are now or at a premium. If you buy now you can set yourself up as I am for upgrading mid-cycle, that is I will be a D700 in a few days then if the user experiences for the next 1-2 years are that encouraging I will upgrade sometime in between. Im spending my money on lenses and upgrading my lens kit, money spent on bodies is lost and limits my spending power on good glass. In a short time Ive gone from a D90 with some really crap lenses (yes Im talking about the 18-200vr) to all zeiss and am now focusing on the 1.4s</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>Matt asked you what you were using now and you did not answer. I looked at your portfolio and web site and see you are doing nice work. You are doing weddings and portraits as you say in your bio. In a November thread you said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>At the moment I got a D300 as a main camera and a fisheye, 17-55mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. <br />I think I will go for the D700 and make my D300 as a backup (or secondary camera as I always shoot with two camears) as I am not too satisfied with the noise level at high ISO's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assume nothing has changed. You were asking about an 85 f1.4 but your acquiring that would change very little. So let me ask you: Are you still dissatisfied with the D300 noise level? Is this showing in your pictures? Do you feel that you would be a more effective wedding photographer (for portraits the ISO is a non-issue) with the D700? </p>

<p>Any way you cut it you need a wide lens for the D700 to take advantage of all of its advantages. You don't have that now. In the previous thread you said you would use the 17-55 on the D300 but that is hardly a good solution. You would have the 50 f1.8 as the widest lens available for the D700. It is a great lens but certainly not very wide. </p>

<p>So the real question is whether or not you should buy a D700 AND a wide lens to go on it. If money is no object then why not? But I assume that for you, as it is for most of us, the money IS an issue. So OK. Here is my answer. If you are not going to buy a wide lens to go on the D700at the same time don't buy it OR the new thingazoid until you can. You would find it too limiting. You could choke down the D700 but what is the good in that? 5MP could be enough but it is a poor solution. </p>

<p>So are you prepared, or have you already purchased, an FX wide lens to use on the D700? </p>

[photo5]

<p>If the successor to the D700 would have as good a viewfinder as the D300 (in other words, 99.9% coverage instead of the current D700 measly 90%) I'll buy two of them.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>Unless you are planning to print OFTEN at sizes significantly larger than 16x20, or really NEED video, or super low light capabilities, it is unlikely than the successor to the D700 will be that useful to you. I have a D700, have no use for video, do not photograph black cats in coal bins, and print up to 16x20 but have not gone larger (who has the printer, the ink, AND the wall space anyway?), and am rather happy with it. Actually I am extremely happy with it. I think it is a milestone camera at its price point.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Eric</p>

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>I would say go for it -<br>

First point is that if for some reason you are attracted to it and feel like having it, once you have it, not only you won't have any excuse for not taking pictures but you will be forced to explore and utilize its utility, you will be able to work on things you are not able to without having it. <br>

Second point is I am really not sure when Nikon is going to introduce another one and don't know what category it will be - it it is something like D9000 or D8000, you will feel you waited for no reason. One more thing I have noticed is on B&H website - the price of D300s were reduced and now again it is going up - should we take this as an indication that its utility is increased ? No, I guess reason of reducing price was expecting something new coming out so the stock to be sold, however, nothing new coming again, hence prices going up again ... just my thoughts ..</p>

[jack_lord1]

<p>Do you earn money thru your photo work? If it's so then go buying it withoiut regret, otherwise think about some other factors: Do you feel the next Dx00 with a video mode could be a huge plus?</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>The D700 is overpriced in the marketplace for what it does. Wait for a another full frame camera. I understand that Nikon places an emphasis on high ISO performance but 12 MP does not cut it.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The D700 is overpriced in the marketplace for what it does. Wait for a another full frame camera. I understand that Nikon places an emphasis on high ISO performance but 12 MP does not cut it.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>I just got a great deal on a used Nikon D700, the 12 MP is fine for me, I don't need 21 MP since I have another camera for that resolution. I needed the low light performance which this camera has.</p>

[jnsengupta]

<p>To wait for Nikon D700X, you may need to ask first what extra you will get in the newer version and how significantly it will improve your photography.<br>

Do you expect to get a 30 megapixel sensor? few fraction inches increase in viewing screen? a built-in GPS and vibration reduction? or even a built-in PDA to hold your personal information, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses?<br>

Often case it is just a tweak of older model and heavy advertising gimmick. That is the way the digital market runs to entice the consumer.<br>

Most of us in this digital era buy more camera bodies than that we used to do in good old days of film camera. I often laugh when so-called digital gurus tell that digital photography is cheaper than film photography as it eliminates the cost of film processing. But in reality we spend more on digital gadgets than we ever spent for film photography.<br>

The bottom line is what you expect to get from Nikon D700X as far as your skill in creative photography is concerned. </p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=620661">John Crowe</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 10, 2010; 12:22 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is overpriced in the marketplace for what it does. Wait for a another full frame camera. I understand that Nikon places an emphasis on high ISO performance but 12 MP does not cut it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em>That is pure nonsense</em>. I use a D-700 with my manual AIS lenses exclusively and print 16 x 20 all the time. I have gone to 24 x 30 with it and am still impressed with the quality. I have a very discriminating eye, as do a lot of clients and for both of us the quality is there. People have gotten so absolutely wrapped around the axle with this megapixel nonsense it is almost becoming comical. What a lot of people fail to realize is the camera is only a <strong><em>TOOL</em></strong>. It is the person behind it that <em><strong>makes the photograph</strong></em>. People get so fixated on the technical aspect of photograhy, and then wonder why the images they took with their super-duper 21 megapixel Canon 5D II <em><strong>still suck</strong></em>.</p>

<p>If I need super high resolution, I shoot with my Hasselblad 500CM and scan it with a Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED. That produces a<em><strong> 65+/- MP image </strong></em>which blows every DX or FX DSLR's doors <strong><em>clean off the hinges.</em></strong> The only exception would be the $30,000+ MF digitals, which really cannot do much better than the Blad with fine grain negative or tranparency film.</p>

 

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>do you want to buy it to make it useful to you or to have something that will not lose value?<br /> once you buy a digital camera, in the next few month its value drops already. the more important thing is how long will it be of value to you in answering all your needs in the hobby.</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is overpriced in the marketplace for what it does. Wait for a another full frame camera. I understand that Nikon places an emphasis on high ISO performance but 12 MP does not cut it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really don't understand this comment either. For 99.9% of the people 12 MP I would argue is more than most need (and remember you have to quadruple the MP for twice the quality so a 24MP digital camera should show a slight improvement on prints bigger than 16x20 and slight improvement to cropping). This is like recommending a Diesel 5th wheel to tow a home trailer, to almost everyone a normal truck would be more than enough for their needs and be more useful most of the time as well. A 24MP you'll need a nice computer, a lot of memory, bandwidth, and will be sitting around waiting to download and do stuff with the bigger files when 12MP would be plenty. There are some out there that need it certainly, no one I know with a 12MP ever wished all the time they had more. </p>

<p>To answer the question, following financial advice and rules is... do NOT buy the same thing twice. Meaning, if you really wanted a camera with a certain set of options (like you really want a DSLR with video), and you buy a similar priced camera for the meantime to hold you off, that's a no no. It's not what you wanted, you will buy the one you wanted anyway later so you technically just bought the same thing twice. So, if you believe the D700 today isn't really what you wanted and if you bought it, and a newer one comes out you'll be buying it again you should wait. Otherwise, buy.</p>

[timo_jarvinen]

<p>buy it if you need a real camera right now and start shooting instead of reading these answers! just like so many others have mentioned, it definitely won't go obsolete after new one gets released. d3/700 are already old cameras if you think about digital cameras and their progression, but still today canon hasn't been able to top those bodies if you only shoot photos. and for gods sake, don't listen to morons who tell you that 12mp won't cut it.. i shoot for living, i own 2x d3 and d300, and to be honest i haven't never ever faced a situation where i might lose a gig because my cameras are 10mp short, or even heard about one. that's just bs which sounds like coming from a person who's too happy to fill his drives with tiffs from 5d2. i got my 2nd d3 from ebay, it had 23000 clicks in it with upgraded sensor and it was fresh from service; it cost me 2200 usd and it's been busy at work, everyday. get your 700 now, start shooting with it and save the rest of your budget to get some crisp glass, there are some nice but addictive new optics out there which will let you take full advantage of the full frame. and once you go for full frame, then cropped cameras won't feel that great anymore. my trusty d300 gets called from bench pretty much only when situation calls for longer glass.</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>It is because what it is worth will fall through the floor overnight when it's successor is released.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You buy cameras as an investment? I buy cameras to take photos. I came to the conclusion that when people think about a new camera (or lens) there are two possible questions they will ask themselves:<br>

1) will it do what I want?<br>

or<br>

2) will it be the newest & greatest?</p>

<p>Needless to say, one is an intelligent question, the other is not. If the D700 does what the OP wants, then every hour he spends waiting is an hour he does not spend shooting. If it does not, there is no reason to want to buy it. It is really as simple as that. For sure, the release date of the D700, and the release date of its successor have absolutely nothing to do with the D700 specifications and performance, which are well known and for sure will not change when the D700x will appear. So either they work for you, or not.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>I am a few months shy of age 74 years, and my perspective may differ. Looking back, I think it was quite nice that the great Nikon F series, which started with the Nikon F in 1959, generally had a span of 10 years between upgrades. The Nikon F6, likely the last of the great film SLRs, is still being made, 51 years after the the Nikon F. Six versions covering 51 years and counting.<br>

I have a D90 and D300, wonderful cameras, and I have to think that we are reaching a point of sharply diminishing returns. My D90 has a movie mode that I will never use, and both the D90 and D300 have Live View, that I view with suspicion. It may be great for macro, but there is the heating problem, and looking through the view finder ain't all that bad. From the reviews I have read, the D700 is wonderful, but most of what it do for me woild be at the wide end. I still may buy one, but only a used one with low mileage.<br>

Can anyone tell me what great advance they really need? Higher ISO? I have that with my D300, and when using film, I never went above ISO 400.</p>