D700 cult status

[charleseagan]

<p>If there is such a cult, I would certainly like to send for their brochure!</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>I have trouble seeing how any of the digital cameras can become classics. Too much electronic guts to them. Likely in 15 years half or more of them will have failed. Most of the cameras that made classic or collectible status were mechanical models that lasted nearly forever. I still have my F1 from the early 60's and it still works fine. The mechanical cameras will still be working when we completely run out of film.</p>

[markci]

<p>The other "cult" cameras you mentioned have a following for legitimate reasons. The rationale you mentioned might some day make the D700 the answer to a trivia question, but that's about it.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I think of "cult cameras" as being out of the mainstream. Consequently neither Nikon nor Canon can easily produce one. Olympus was good at making them, with the OM-1 (some would say the whole OM series) and the original Pen. Obviously almost any Leica comes to have its cult. Often, cult status is reserved for crappy cameras (Holga) that some decide to play with.</p>

<p>Whether or not the D700 will develop a cult following is a wonderful question, though: it is impossible to answer for the moment, and the answer isn't at all important.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Cult status for D700? No.</p>

<p>I could see cult status for the D3, the camera that literally "changed everything" in the world of High ISO shooting.</p>

<p>The D700 is to the D3 as Prince Harry is to Prince William; it came along a little later and it's not quite as impressive. Sorry, D700, <em>no cult for you!</em></p>

<p>That said, the D700 is a MUCH better camera than the D200. Not that the D200 is bad (under ISO 640), just that the D700 really is a heck of a lot better.</p>

[rossb]

<p> A camera develops a cult status following many years of popularity. That occurs because of some quality that makes people wish to own it year after year after year. The D700 will not have that following because it's a computer, the electronics will just get old and outdated. </p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I do not see the D700 being a "cult" camera. Sorry.</p>

[rjm photo]

<p>The original "cult" Nikon was the Nikon F. When I bought my first one, new, in 1967 the camera was already a legend, having been in production for seven years. Most professional photographers used the Nikon F at that time as did many people who fancied themselves as serious photographers...even the Beatles. The camera, like no other of the time, created such an impact on the world of photojournalism with its versatility, the many unique features and accessories it offered the photographer as well as the large selection of very fine lenses. It truly took the world by storm and was highly deserving of the reputation it acquired in its own time. There were other SLRs available at the time but none came close to the Nikon F in durability, quality of materials and shear ease of use. It was the dominant camera of the decade and the huge sales numbers compared to other brands illustrate this.<br>

The D700 is as fine a camera as one could hope to own today. It is however only an improvement along a line that has been developing since the D-1. I think to be a "cult" camera, the camera has to be something extraordinary in the field. Unfortunately today there are many cameras which are state of the art in features for the photographer to take advantage of and make a digital exposure. In the digital world the D700 is only briefly at the front....technology is moving that fast. </p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>We need to look into the history of the medium to find out which cameras ever acquired a cult status. In other words, we need to look at the cameras in the hands of the great "amateur" photographers of the past for a verdict.<br>

Then, only three cameras will pass that test, namely, Leica M (film), Hasselblad 500 series and Nikon FM2.<br>

I am amazed at digital bodies claiming a cult status. How can a camera become "cult" when it is rendered obsolete in about 18 months time?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only digital cameras that are likely to retain a cult classic following (among users rather than collectors) are those that can be used with readily available batteries years from now. Anyone handy with electronics can cobbled together a power supply for almost any device, but unless a portable power supply is readily available commercially and affordably the camera probably won't have much of a following beyond a handful of propeller-heads.</p>

<p>That's one reason I'm hanging onto my older Olympus digicams that work with AA batteries. I'm not sure they qualify as cult classics, but the Oly Cxxxx series (C-2000 through C5xxx) seems to have retained some popularity, especially certain specific models for IR conversions.</p>

<p>And none of 'em will have a cult following unless they're affordable and functional. Years from now the only incentive to use an obsolete digital camera will be for the same reason some folks enjoy using toy cameras, Polaroids, Holgas and Lomos (tho' I'm inclined to disallow Holgas, Lomos and any cameras that are overvalued because of pop culture infatuation - especially the Harinezumi).</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i doubt that any digicams will reach that status, at least any that have been released thus far. Remeber that the F3 and F4 were purchased by pro's who used them for 10 or 15 years, nowadays we're lucky to get 15 months from a digicam. </p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Being the owner of D700 I can firmly state that it already is a cult camera. Man, crowds are following me, where ever I take the D700. And, it hasn't even walked on water.......yet</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>D1h thats a cult camera...</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>The original "cult" Nikon was the Nikon F.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe this is the best example. For me, a "cult camera" is one that has a fanatical following by a limited portion of the photographic community. But everyone recognizes the Nikon F's importance. It's not a cult, it's everyone. A cult following for a camera from a few years later would be made up of devotees of , say, the Topcon Unirex.</p>

[p_watson]

<p>Just the fact that this is debated on the Nikon forum of this site proves the fact that we are all very brand loyal individuals......Nikon are doing something right with their marketing and design etc......they are good at making us want their products. Most of us have new models. Why will this be any different in another 5 years. We are consumers and we will consume. With digital the ante has been upped. That said it is hard to criticize the D700 even compared to older film media, whereas the D200 really suffered from quite ugly digital noise....I think the images D700 have a more filmly quality (IMO) and in that sense I would be happy using it in 5 yrs from now. It is a more mature product. Image quality will improve but the differences will be smaller and we will be tempted by the new features.....what about in camera HDR, panoramic etc etc</p>

[alvinyap]

<p><strong>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?</strong></p>

<p>*cough*. I still shoot my d200 very regularly. A d200 is a tool, exactly like a paintbrush.<br>

And I also own a D300, and can easily afford a d700 if I so wished. But no, FX is pointless for amateurs like myself.<br>

And yes, I shoot my d200 at hi-1 boost levels. Noise? Don't pixel peep, *print* your stuff. And for web use, seriously, even a d200 is overkill at any iso so long as you nail the exposure.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

[pge]

<p>Firstly thanks for so many responses, many different opinions for sure, but overall I am surprised at just how little respect the d700 gets.</p>

<p>As in Matt's reference, I am one of those odd people who just does not want video on my still camera. Its been said before, but if I wanted to shoot video I would own a video camera. I own a d700 and honestly it is too good for my needs. I do not pine away for future improvements, and I shutter at the possiblility that I will have to own a camera that shoots video someday. So to me, the D700 will be the last of the pure cameras, and therefore deserves cult status some day.</p>

<p>Alvin, yes the d200 is a fine camera. I still use mine and honestly it is enough camera for me.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>In my book a camera has to still be available and working to get a cult status. My F3 does, so does the FM2n and my Bronicas and will do in 20 years time. Not sure if there will be film to put in it though!<br>

The D700 wasn't the first FX, the first with good ISO performance, the first with video or the first 'affordable' FX (Canon had that glory). In twenty years time when there isn't a working D700 in the world will we remember that it was worthy of 'cult status'? Or more likely get lost in the ongoing line of DSLR body development.<br>

Inevitably in three months time (or so) there will be a new kid on the block with better features and will outshine it's predecessors. The D700 might be remembered by many, including a large number who never owned it like myself, as the first NIKON affordable FX. Unless the D800 is even cheaper .. ha ha ha.<br>

But in ten years time no D700 will be working ;)</p>

<p>I use a D300 and feel that might get some recognition as a quantum leap forward in body development, but I would say that wouldn't I. :)</p>

[pge]

<p>Clive</p>

<p>My D1 works fine 11 years later. Not sure why it won`t work in 9 more years. I expect the same from my D700.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Phil: I am still perplexed. How will a feature that you can simply ignore cause you to such discomfort? There are probably metering modes and in-camera image processing features that you already ignore on your D700. Do you use your camera's ability to render a sepia JPG? No? So, you just ignore that feature, right? See, no big deal.<br /><br />And in exchange for your willingness to ignore a feature you don't think you need, like you're <em>already</em> doing, with the "pure" camera you already have, the manufacturer whose equipment we like is better able to take advantage of economies of scale, stay competitive, and continue to be a robust company that makes all of the gear we need. I want a healthy Nikon there making lenses, speedlights, and everything else. I'm willing to ignore a feature if it's actually <em>less</em> expensive for them to include it across the board than it is for them to make multiple nearly identical products, some of which have a feature crippled just so a small percentage of their customers can be spared from ignoring it.</p>

[pge]

<p>Matt</p>

<p>You are correct that I ignore features of my camera, although metering modes is a bad example, nevertheless your point is taken.</p>

<p>I see video in another category. What a camera captures is about as fundimental to a camera as you can get. Its not just another option, it is what the camera does. I don`t want to eat my steak with a swiss army knife, a simple steak knife is better for that task even though it maybe cheaper to use the economies of scale and just produce swiss army knives for all uses.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A year or two ago, I read here on photo.net that most photographers merely use 10% of the features on their SLRs, but everybody uses a different 10%. I think 10% is too low a number, but there is a lot of truth in that statement.</p>

<p>The camera manufacturers simply have to put enough features so that most customers are well covered, but there will be a lot of extra feature that most of us will never use. The shutter priority mode happens to be a good example for me. I have had that feature since the N8008 I bought in 1989, but I almost never use it.</p>

<p>Some of you might notice that 3D (three dimensional) television is already on the horizon. I would imagine that perhaps in another 5 to 10 years, the ability to capture 3D still images as well as 3D video will be common on high-end and perhaps even not-so-high-end cameras. By then, all of today's cameras that can only capture flat 2D images, be it your F3 or D700, will look ancient.</p>

<p>By then, I am sure that a lot of "purists" will complain again that photography should only be about 2D images, as they did about color in photography, auto focus, digital capture, and video capture, etc. But the world will continue to change regardless of those complaints.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>But, Phil: Just because the camera can lift the mirror and use the sensor to capture video (or not, if you'd like to ignore that feature) doesn't change how it goes about being a still camera. Do you really find that the D3S is less of a still camera than the D700, because it can <em>also</em> do that? When you use it as a still camera, it's going about it just like the D700. Your Swiss Army Knife analogy really doesn't hold up, because you've still got your steak knife, right there in front of you. Leveraging the camera's architecture to allow for a new feature (video) doesn't make the still camera somehow go away. You mention that what a camera captures is fundamental. Would you say that a D3X captures less of a still image, in somehow less of away, than does a D700? Is the D3's ability to shoot stills more limited, somehow, by the presence of the video feature? In what way is it limited?</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>D700 cult status in perspective...<br>

<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://s75125.gridserver.com/strip/184-sunday" target="_blank">http://s75125.gridserver.com/strip/184-sunday</a><br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://s75125.gridserver.com/strip/184-sunday" target="_blank"><br /></a></p>

[mike_c20]

<p>In the digital world, I think it is hard for any device beyond the first to achieve cult status. There will always be a newer, cheaper, better version a year or to away. I love my D700 and it is the best camera I have ever owned by far; having said that I'll be one of the first to buy its replacement when it comes out. That desire to switch has nothing to do with a "lack of respect" for the D700 but more with if you can get a camera which does more and you have the means, why wouldn't you? Maybe I'm just not into cults :)</p>