D700 cult status

[pge]

<p>Do you think that time will treat the D700 well and that it will have a cult following because of its status as the last of the "true" cameras - no video? Just for reference I would say that the Nikon F3, the Hasselblad 500 c/m and the Pentax k1000 have cult status.</p>

<p>Or do you think it will go the way of the D200, as a previous post suggests without "respect"? After all it is a 5 year old camera, how could anyone possibly still shoot with it?</p>

[howard_m]

<p>my hunch is that the D300 is more likely than the 700</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've often been wrong about these things, but I can't see that the <em>absence</em> of video makes it any sort of "classic" on that account. The first <em>with</em> video, sure.</p>

<p>There's no news story for the <em>last</em> kid born on New Year's Day.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I think that the "without video" status is no more meaningful than "without screw-drive AF" or "without Auto ISO." The oddly puritanical rash that some people develop over a feature <em>they don't have to use</em> is just ... well, odd. <br /><br />As for getting in the way-back machine, just today I had call to make a large print from an image shot straight to JPG during my first week with the ol' D200. You know what? It's a nice looking print.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Perhaps a D1 or a D3. D100 or D70.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Aw, Matt, it's not the lack of RAW and the jpeg, it's just that <em>most</em> of your pictures make "nice looking prints".</p>

<p>Although I have to admit that you do shoot a dog or two at times. ;)</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have no doubt that in another year or two, the D700 will be treated the same way as the D200. And for the record, video is a "must have" feature for my next DSLR. I have tested 3 Nikon DSLRs with the video feature: D5000, D300S and D3S, but I haven't owned one yet.</p>

[pge]

<p>I am a bit surprised that nobody has trashed my cult list so far.</p>

<p>JDM, I accept your last born example, yet I still think there is something to the last in an era.</p>

<p>As for video being a "must have" feature, I know that is true for Nikon and future dslr's, its certainly not true for me, and I am sure I am not the only one.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The examples you sited as cult cameras achieved that status due, not only a finely built product, but by achieving and maintaining a high level of performance, with a fairly stable media (film), over a very long time. No digital camera made so far will achieve that status. Sure the "firsts" will alway be of interest to collectors but as digital technology advances the "older" cameras simply will not be able to perform at the same level as the newer cameras thus no cult status. It may happen some day but not yet. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I don't think there's much of a cult around the Atari ST or the original Mac Plus or the IBM XT or the Osborne...</p>

<p>So... No.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>Shun: I truly don't think you understand why the D700 is so popular and why it will remain as such for years to come. It is a well built <em>full frame</em> camera. That FX bit is what will keep it popular for a long time. High ISO ability will continue to improve, but FX is FX. There is no improving that, except by changing formats. It's well built, has great autofocus ability, is solid and is pretty easy to use. That is why it will be considered a classic someday. <br>

All the talk about how the D700 will be left behind or looked at the same way the D200 is today misses the stark reality that FX as a format is unchanging. You can go to a different format, sure, but if you want your 85mm lens to be an 85mm lens, it will be so on the D700 five years from now as much as it is today. </p>

[photo5]

<p>Nope. As soon as the successor to the D700 is released, the D700 will go the way of the D100. The first of many FX format cameras designed for the enthusiast and non-Professional. I enjoyed the D700, but much prefer the D300.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>The D100? The D100 was a converted N80, poorly built, no weather sealing and mediocre autofocus. The D700 is far superior in just about every category except weight, and that weight helps make it what it is. </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I think the D700 in 2015 will be a boat anchor. Not even sure if I wanna anymore, lol. Save my money and travel the world. Love to see the look of my D70 then thou. <br>

Anyone still using a D1 as their main camera?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun: I truly don't think you understand why the D700 is so popular and why it will remain as such for years to come.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh, you are entitled to your opinions, but I think I know the D700 very well, as I bought one about 2 months after it first became available 2 years ago.</p>

<p>5 years ago, I too thought my then brand new, almost $5000 D2X excellent too; that was the DSLR that made me stopped shooing film after 30+ years. It took merely 2 years before the D2X got surpassed by a mile. I have absolutely no doubt that the D700 will be surpassed by a long long way in the next year or two. Afterall, the D700 is now over 2 years old and the D3 technology it is based on came from another year earlier. Just like anything high-tech, no DSLR will remain at the top of the hill for more than 3, 4 years.</p>

<p>Likewise, the Canon 5D was their first "affordable" FX-format DSLR and was popular for about 3 years. Once the 5D Mark II came on the scene, the original 5D is now down to about $1000 used.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>But with all that, you did not say a word about my point with regard to FX staying FX. Full frame cameras are and will no doubt continue to be prized, and the D700 will be as much of that five years from now as today. Further, it is well built and the autofocus is strong. <br /> This thread will no doubt be here in five years, and I will be pleased to post down the going rate for D700s when that day arrives, and I suspect it will still command far more than many people think. I don't see it going for less than a thousand in new condition for a long time.</p>

<p>The D700 can only be improved on so much? FX is FX, which is unchanging. ISO ability will be improved, but only by so much. Autofocus can be improved, but again, only by so much. Construction is unlikely to improve much. Ease of use probably won't improve much. It produces terrific images now, and while better ones will no doubt be possible in three and then five years, we're talking incremental improvements. I'd say the lack of video will be the one thing that causes future photographers to downgrade it a bit. Otherwise, it will be as worthy in 2013-5 as it is now.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I bought a $300US D2h, I seldom use it, the D70 is more suitable for me. Maybe the same will happen with the D700. My 2c.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Full frame cameras are and will no doubt continue to be prized..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only by miniature format enthusiasts who haven't used anything else and believe the 24x36 paradigm is the be-all, end-all of photography. I'll be more excited to see a 6x6cm digital Rollei TLR. Or a DX sensor competitor to the Micro 4/3 compact cameras.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the D700 will be just another camera. In five years, when I can finally afford one, I'll be boring everyone by yakking about how it's good enough for me, just like I bore everyone now about my D2H. Meanwhile, stock agencies will have moved on and won't accept images from any camera with less than 30 megapickles and high ISO noise performance equal to today's ISO 200, and I still won't be able to sell my photos.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Lex you can bore people how much you got it for ;-) and I will try to bore you how much I got my used D2h for ;-)</p>

<p>But I notice that a lot of members here have very new cameras bought new. </p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Full frame cameras are and will no doubt continue to be prized, and the D700 will be as much of that five years from now as today."</p>

<p>There's nothing magical about FX. It's just another format that has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I bought my D700 almost 2 years ago primarily because of its high ISO capabilities. If not for that one feature, a D300 would have suited my needs.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Josh, to be fair to you, I added this section to my earlier post, and since you replied so quickly, you missed it:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Likewise, the Canon 5D was their first "affordable" FX-format DSLR and was popular for about 3 years. Once the 5D Mark II came on the scene, the original 5D is now down to about $1000 used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my case, I first tested the D3 about 2.5 years ago and I have owned the D700 for almost 2 years. Its high ISO capability is no longer new to me; instead, it is merely expected now. I have also used the D3S with another stop of high ISO results. I would imagine that by 2011, we'll have high-ISO results 2 stops superior to the D700. By then the D700 will look poor.</p>

<p>What I miss from the D700 are dual memory cards and video capture. Moreover, while the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module is great for shooting sports, for indoor party, wedding stuffs, its 15 cross-type AF points are way too concentrated in the center of the frame. All of those are poential improvements in the D3-family's successor.</p>

<p>I have said this before and I'll say it again. The so called "full frame" was nothing more than a random format that was selected about a century ago to reuse movie film for still photography. There is nothing special or magic about 24x36mm. I am sure a lot of you have seen the discussion that Sony may be considering stopping production of FX-format sensors since they are not making (enough) money from that.</p>

[ifti]

<p>Digital stuff gets outdated, outmoded and and looses its charm along with software support. It is difficult to achieve a 'cult' status when it depends on so many external players.<br>

I sill have original Kodak Digital Science DC50 and latter a DC60 camera with a 4 megabyte card. Now there is no software support and even the computers will not load there pictures that I have on CD. I have kept both of these as they were the first cameras that gave some decent small picture. They just remind me as to how far we have come. Regards, ifti.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Nikon seems to have settled in on a line of second tier cameras, solidly built and relatively full featured. This began with the F100 and surprisingly late in the digital game with the D200, D300 and D700. There's every reason to believe that this will continue. Without video? What a laugh. You won't be able to sell a first or second tier camera without video from this time hence, and probably not anything else down to the beginner level either. Skills will grow too. We will see professional photographers get really good at incorporating both stills and videos into their product, and not just journalists.</p>

[iwong]

<p>I think cult status is obtained when years from now, people still have fond memories of them, despite these items being so obsolete in terms of performance and technology. No doubt in several years, the D700 will be surpassed by its successor. Just like in automobiles, exotic cars in the yesteryears have horsepower and performance well beaten by today's family sedans, but these exotic cars will have a cult following because they have some special attributes that won people's hearts over, or were a breakthrough in terms of design and/or technology.</p>

<p>Just like the D70 (D100?) will be best remembered for bringing and popularizing affordable digital to the SLR world, and likewise the D700 for full-frame.</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>I think Isaac is mostly right. The F6, for example, will never have cult status because not enough people bought it.</p>

<p>But as others have pointed out, it's too soon to say whether the D700 will have a cult status. If I had to make a prediction, it would be that it will not. There are several reasons, but basically there are too many things that can go wrong. Software support could die off (the raw file format the camera produces is, after all, undocumented). The hardware itself could prove to have a limited life. The D90 could be replaced with a camera with impressive low-light capability, becoming an affectionately-remembered camera in the hearts of many because of the freedom that shooting at ISO 3200 brings.</p>

<p>Anybody claiming that a camera will become a classic because "X will continue to ...." is fooling themselves. They can't predict the future, but the confirmation bias agent in their brain is telling them that they can. You can identify classic cameras only in the rear-view mirror.</p>

<p>I haven't owned enough cameras to really form a selection for myself. I owned a Pentax P30T, a Nikon F80, a D70s and a D700. I wouldn't name any of them a classic, though I remember each fondly.</p>