Nikon's D700 a balanced camera for image quality, value, pro handling and MP.

Started 9 months ago | User reviews thread
T O Shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 2,482Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon's D700 a balanced camera for image quality, value, pro handling and MP.
In reply to Robin Casady, 9 months ago

Robin Casady wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Robin Casady wrote:

Adrian Van wrote:

Nikon D700 still is a great camera. Nikon should update this camera to a D750 with 24MP and professional pro body and top AF. A modest increase in resolution to 24MP for Raw, not 36MP.

LMAO. First the D700 fans just wanted an updated 12 MP camera. Then they slowly changed to 16 MP. Now most of them have advanced to 24 MP. When Nikon comes out with a 54 MP camera and your phones have 40 MP you guys will be wanting 36 MP.

Nikon cannot make a camera in each category to match everyone's desires. The D3 and D700 competed for the same type of photographer and left many out in the cold. The D4, D600, and D800 cover a wider demographic. Just because they didn't produce exactly what you want doesn't mean they made a stupid marketing mistake.

-- hide signature --

Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
—Mark Twain

Agree completely

the only benefit of the d700 over the d800 is frame rate so if people want an upgraded d700, get a used D3 or D4. Better IQ better build and significantly faster fps. I genuinely don't understand the issue

Do you ungenuinely understand the issue? First, D700 is an ungripped body. You can add a grip if you want or chose not to. D3/s and D4 have built in grips.

It would nice to be able to order a custom camera for mass-produced prices. In reality some compromises are inevitable. If you want a spray and pray camera with pro quality build, a grip is one of those compromises.

D3 would not be an upgrade People would be looking for 16 or 24 mp. By "upgrade" you can include upgraded sensor.

And yet when the D800 first came out these people were screaming that 12 MP was enough.

And a used D4 would be around $4500 so out of reach for a lot of buyers.

What is that, about $1,500 over the introduction price of a D800? For a working pro, is that such a burden?

Unfortunately it is for a lot of pros. Not every pro has the glamour jobs and paid big bucks.   I know it's hard for you to believe but not everyone is loaded with $$ like you and I.   I'm just a little more sensitive to those that don't.

Some people can't afford a D800. Does that mean Nikon should make a 36 MP camera for $1,200?

No, it means they can't afford a D800.

And if you're alluding to the D700s I spec'ed out then Nikon has already done that once, so the precident is there.  And while a lot on here figure the D700 cost Nikon D3 sales and cost them money, no one has any proof of that. They may have made a killing selling D700 bodies instead. And considering the money Nikon has lost through stupidity ( ie D600 oil. D800 AF ) building a D700II should be the least of their worries. You would think they would be smart enough to capitalize on the D700 following, same as Toyota does with names such as Camry, and Honda does with Civic and Accord.  Nikon is a company losing it's way.

-- hide signature --

Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
—Mark Twain

-- hide signature --

Photography - It's a passion No other reason required.

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Why?New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow