D600/D700 hybrid dream!

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Thinking about it, the 'obvious' build would be the Built-like-a-Tank fast and very reliable D700 shutter infront of the D600 sensor and takes the MB-D10 grip. Wouldn't be a threat to the D4 sales, 'cos it wouldn't go <em>quite as fast</em>....and have poorer AF.</p>

<p>The MB-D10 with an EnEl4 has no 'exposed' battery bits, so should be OK.</p>

<p>Simples!</p>

<p> </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Mike,</p>

<p>It seems that Nikon already has a clear vision regarding its DSLR lineup and despite the lamentation for no D300 / D700 real upgrades life goes on. Beside D3XXX, D5XXX and D7XXX for DX and beside D6XX, D8XX and D(X) in FX there is no space for intermediate models.</p>

<p>I really believe that in the meantime Nikon works hard for the next generation of DX/FX that need lot of innovation. These little facelift like D610 is are mostly marketing things.</p>

<p>I think that we are enslaving ourselves to the technical specs of our cameras. In fact the system is solid, is good and is very capable to produce great images in the right hands. Even with the entry-level D3200.</p>

<p>We all can have our dream camera only if one day Nikon will start producing a modular camera system... to let you pick this body, that sensor, that AF module and so on... but this is not so simple and maybe is not so profitable to implement.</p>

 

[jack flannery]

<p>That is what they should have done instead of the D600. Heck, use the D4 sensor.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Rather than try to get that custom camera from Nikon, it is much easier to adopt your shooting approach to the cameras that are available.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The D700 was a massive threat to the D3, which Nikon only really avoided with the D3s sensor improvement. Admittedly part of that was the performance with the accessory grip. 6fps may only make some of a dent in D4 sales; 8fps would probably be significant. Would you give up 2fps in order to halve the price of the camera? And that's with the D4 sensor in a D700 body; put a D600 sensor in there and I suspect a lot of people would think about dropping a couple of fps for an extra 50% in pixel count.<br />

<br />

The D700, I believe, was a response to the 5D2. Nikon only had one full frame sensor at the time, so it got the sensor from the D3. It wouldn't have competed with the 5D2 had it not been specified almost as well as the D3 in other areas, so it got an abnormally good autofocus mechanism for a consumer camera. Nikon have had more time to produce a consumer model, and they don't need to cannibalize the D4 this time.<br />

<br />

What I might expect at some point is a D600 sensor in a D4 body, with the electronics updated to keep 24MP at 12fps or above. When that camera arrives, I could see the business case for the "D5-lite" D600 sensor in a D700-class body and ~8fps with a grip, or a D300s successor with 8fps, a 24MP sensor and a big buffer. While the D4 is "only" 16MP, I can't see any camera being released by Nikon with similar performance but a higher pixel count unless they really don't want to sell many D4s.<br />

<br />

As for the D4 sensor in the D600, they could do this (without changing the D4 speed much). You'd get a D600 with a bigger buffer and less resolution, and it would cost about the same as the D600. Which was already trying to compete against the 6D. I'm not sure that dropping the pixel count helps. If the D600 only had a 16MP sensor (and I admit that I once expected the 5D2 to have a 16MP sensor), more people would choose a 6D, certainly there wouldn't be many 5D3 sales poached, and there would me almost no question about whether the D7100 was the better camera for most users. More megapixels don't always help, but if the camera keeps up, they don't hurt that much either.<br />

<br />

Now, putting a decent "small raw" mode on the camera is another matter...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>They wouldn't use the MB D10 again anyway, since they've moved on from that exposed-contact battery technology.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Ilkka, I use a D700 + 70-200mm VRII + MB-D10 at 8fps for work and sometimes have to crop more than I'd like. I cannot get any closer or rapidly change lens to a (even more expensive) AF-S 300mm 2.8. There's no ad<strong>a</strong>ption to make really. I'd like more pixels, but not sacrifice speed. </p>

<p>Currently, that's a D4 which is still ludicrously expensive....a used D3s is in the same ballpark.</p>

<p>There is no mid ground.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Peter, I'd <em>promise</em> to ONLY use an En-El4 in it. That's not an exposed-contact battery...:-)</p>

<p>But I fear you're right! </p>

<p>Maybe the new Pentax K-3 will gee them up a bit??</p>

<p> </p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>"<em>It seems that Nikon already has a clear vision regarding its DSLR lineup</em>"<br>

amazing idea</p>

[djolk]

<p>Oh gosh another one of THESE threads...<br /><br />I want a d7100 without a pop-up flash, and an AF-ON button.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I want a d7100 without a pop-up flash, and an AF-ON button.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That one is actually very easy. Just permanently glue to the top of the D7100's viewfinder shut so that the flash cannot pop up, and then you change the label on the AF-L/AE-L button to AF-On and only use it for AF-On. The hitch is that you lose the AF-L function.</p>

<p>I don't recall using the pop-up flash even once on the two D7100 I have used, but as they say, we all use perhaps 10% of the functions on each camera body; the problem is that everybody uses a different 10%. (Please don't take the 10% figure literally.)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I want a D7100 with the D600 memory bank. And an AF-ON button that is located properly. Keep the price and give me a $300 rebate on the 80-400; I promise to place an order for both immediately ;-)</p>

<p>Apparently, we need to wait for Canon to come out with something that Nikon considers threatening - then we will get something really good from Nikon again. Seems to me Nikon is at its best when they are forced to play catchup.</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>the 'obvious' build would be the Built-like-a-Tank fast and very reliable D700 shutter infront of the D600 sensor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kind of sounds like a D800 set to Medium size Jpegs.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Mike, the improvement in the ability retain high quality in cropping going from 12MP to 16MP is really quite small. If you want

to really take advantage of cropping, a D800 or D7100 would let you go much further (cost being in frame rate). However

what the D4 does offer is increased dynamic range across the ISO range and much better ISO 6400 capability than the

D700.

 

If frame rate is something you don't want to compromise on, then you have to choose whether you want to 1) be happy

now (pay one time for the D4) or 2) stick to your D700 until in 2016 there may be the next generation which probably offers more pixels in the high frame rate body. But it may be called D5 and is likely to be very expensive.

 

Personally I'd want to be happy now. But I can be happy without fast CH, or any kind of automated continuous shooting.

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Phil</p>

<p>A D800 is not really built like a tank. Handle a F5 or a D3 or D4. They are built like tanks. To me the D800 feels like my D100 did</p>

<p>I would like a D300 body with a 16 MP DX chip at 7FPS with a big enough buffer to hold 15 or 20 NEF files and dual CF card slots.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>A D800 is not really built like a tank. Handle a F5 or a D3 or D4. They are built like tanks. To me the D800 feels like my <strong>D100</strong> did</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope you mean F100 instead of D100. The D100 was an early digital conversion from the N80/F80 film SLR body; the N80 was an entry-level $300 film SLR a decade ago.</p>

<p>The F100, D300, D700, and D800 have roughly the same construction, one level below the top-of-the-line F5, D3, D4 during the different periods.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>1) be happy now (pay one time for the D4)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On one hand, life is short and photo opportunities can sometimes be once in a lifetime, so I would rather not wait. On the other hand, paying for a D4 is not exactly a one-time purchase. We might see some D4S before the 2014 Winter Olympics; if not that, I am quite sure that we'll see a D5 before the 2016 Rio de Janurio summer games. That is why I am far more willing to spend on lenses than bodies.</p>

<p>However, used D3 and D3S are fairly affordable in these days.</p>

[pge]

<p>Michael B, it was the OP that made that reference to the D700 being built like a tank, and as Shun says the D800 is the same. But I am not sure I would agree with you completely about the D3-4. Yes they are bigger cameras but does this make them more tank like? I have a D1, purchased long after its day, so I have some experience with these large cameras, but I wouldn't say it would necessarily take a fall better than the d200/300/700/800 family other than the pop up flash perhaps.</p>

<p>Personally I am not a fan of the larger cameras, just too much for me to carry around. I am also not a fan of the smaller cameras, they just don't work in my hands. I find the d200-800 family just right and I have owned all 4 of them.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I, the OP, used the phrase..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Built-like-a-Tank fast and very reliable D700 <em><strong>shutter </strong></em><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I should have emphasized SHUTTER, however, the camera it'self is pretty damn TOUGH!<br>

<br>

I have friends' D3s that are less 'rain-proof' than my D700!!</p>

[pge]

<p>Not to beat a dead horse but you also titled the post "D600/D700 hybrid", thats what gave me the impression that you were referring to the D700 as the tank.</p>

[jonb]

<p>I want a modern DX "pro" body -- like my D2X but with a modern sensor, a large, bright LCD, and a Multi-CAM 3500DX focusing system ala the D7100.</p>

<p>But since I can't have that, I guess I'll just take photos with the cameras I have. No doubt they'll suck because they aren't made with the ideal camera (well, <em>my</em> ideal camera), but what are you going to do?</p>

 

[djolk]

<blockquote>

<p>That one is actually very easy. Just permanently glue to the top of the D7100's viewfinder shut so that the flash cannot pop up, and then you change the label on the AF-L/AE-L button to AF-On and only use it for AF-On. The hitch is that you lose the AF-L function.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I was actually thinking I could saw the whole thing off? I don't actually own any PC lenses, but I imagine it probably gets in their way...<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't recall using the pop-up flash even once on the two D7100 I have used, but as they say, we all use perhaps 10% of the functions on each camera body; the problem is that everybody uses a different 10%. (Please don't take the 10% figure literally.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My post was mostly sarcastic - these are things that I would like to see in a camera, but I don't really expect Nikon to cater to my exact needs. Or for that matter, maintaining product niches through perpetuity..</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>We'll just need to see how many K-3s get bought when it comes out. I am keeping <em>everything</em> crossed it'll be up to snuff. I don't want to have to buy another body for a very long time after this year's purchase, whichever it may be. I decided a while ago I want a pro-built body and a sharp, fast 50mm equiv. prime; that's it, that's all I want. Doesn't sound hard does it? Some of you might remember I posted a thread re the D300s about 14 months ago? That's how long I've been wanting to upgrade, despite Nikon's recent 'advances'. </p>

[tholte]

<p>"Rather than try to get that custom camera from Nikon, it is much easier to adopt your shooting approach to the cameras that are available." No way, being rational is the antithesis of being a good photographer. It's fun to criticize manufacturers for not producing what you want. I want a D300 with 24MP. I don't want a D600 with 24MP or a D800 with 36MP. Nikon and Canon both make great cameras but they have too many engineers in positions of authority which makes it difficult to give their customers exactly what they want. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Tim</p>

<p>Hopefully, whilst Canon and Nikon have been sitting opposite each other at the Poker table waiting for the other to 'Blink', Pentax has come in with a Full-House to flush the game.</p>

<p>No-one can rely on this being a 2 horse race, Kodak thought it was a one horse race and we know what happened next!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It is not necessary to upgrate the camera every generation. Changes from one model to the next are typically small, (with the exception of D700->D800 but it was really more like D3X+D700->D800) especially if one considers half-generation changes (e.g. D3s->D4, D300->D300s). Many, many professionals are still using D3s cameras because the incremental difference to D4 is just too small. However a D3 user would probably find the upgrade to D4 more worthwhile and 4-5 years isn't so bad in terms of cost of upgrade.</p>

<p>It's actually rather sick, the idea that one should always have the latest body model. Do you always change your car to this year's model when they change some little bit in the model? That would be extremely costly and for very little benefit. Similarly in cameras. Sensor development has basically reached near saturation and I suspect one could easily use a current camera 5-10 years from now, from the image quality point of view, and not miss a beat. However, in 10 years it is easy to wear the moving components out in a camera especially if one photographs sports for a living. But then you just have it serviced and continue.</p>