bobn2
Forum Pro
Not as exceptional, number 3 behind the D3s and D4, but still a photo finish.
--
Bob
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
what about a D700s?
- Thread starter john1962
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d3 nikon d4 nikon d700
--
Bob
I seriously doubt that a D700s is on the horizon for Nikon. The D3s sensor will be obsolete when the D4 is tested (higher res. and equal or better high ISO), so my take is that late this year, or early next year, we will see a D800s, which is a mini-D4 with a bit slower fps, but otherwise similar in most other respects. This could be about the same price, or maybe even a couple hundred dollars less than D800, and give a third choice in modern compact FF body. And it would start a second wave of cameras flying off the shelf for Nikon once the D800/D800E have peaked.
This is what I will be waiting for, as high ISO is #1 to me for what I shoot, and if D4 is a stop better than D800, that's what I want...with files that are not ridiculously huge. My D7000 files already take noticeably longer to process than my D700 ones. Storage space IS an issue, more than most realize. Start adding HD video to your backup hard drive, along with the gargantuan 36MP files, and watch the GB pile up.
Don't get me wrong, I love the D800, and think it is going to be awesome, but it is not the right fit for me.
Let's go, Nikon...bring on the D800s!!
--
K.B.
This is what I will be waiting for, as high ISO is #1 to me for what I shoot, and if D4 is a stop better than D800, that's what I want...with files that are not ridiculously huge. My D7000 files already take noticeably longer to process than my D700 ones. Storage space IS an issue, more than most realize. Start adding HD video to your backup hard drive, along with the gargantuan 36MP files, and watch the GB pile up.
Don't get me wrong, I love the D800, and think it is going to be awesome, but it is not the right fit for me.
Let's go, Nikon...bring on the D800s!!
--
K.B.
bobn2
Forum Pro
it's not. About 1/3 stop better.
Canon is releasing it at the end of the month. 22MP, the new 61 point Nikon clone AF, 6 or 7FPS. Looks like you have the choice I had - change systems to get the camera you want.
--
Bob
Bob, didn't you just almost describe the target market for your suggested D600 (replace 12 with 16 MP and 720 with 1080p)?
First off, from the reports out there, the D800 is looking like a bit better high ISO than D3/D700, but not equal to D3s. D4 is now being touted as close to a stop better than D3s...how is that a 1/3 stop improvement D800 to D4? The math suggests that it is at least a stop better, possibly a bit more. And the huge files from the D800 do not interest me in the least...I have shot 8000 images in 3 days, and an incredible 6500 in one day (dance competitions). Even a fraction of that many images to process at 36MP is a mind-numbing amount of data. And to shoot at smaller sizes is a waste of all that resolution. I might as well shoot the D700.
Secondly, I never did really care much for Canon DSLR's. My first ever DSLR was a Rebel XSi. I figured that since I loved my S3IS P&S so much, that it would be a great place to start. As it turns out, I did not like the control layout, small and uncomfortable hand grip, terrible auto white balance and mediocre overall image quality and performance. I picked up a D90 and took a few shots and was hooked. I have never looked back. The D90 felt right, worked right, images looked great and white balance was a lot closer to "on" than the Canon could ever do. The white balance issue is obviously much less of an issue, now that I am capable of adjusting it manually, but to a newbie, it was pretty disappointing to see orange pictures on the screen.
I used the D90 for 2 years and sold it for a D7000 about 8 months ago. I have also had a D700 for a year now. Lenses I have are 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VRI, 70-200 f2.8 VRII, Tamron 70-300 VC, 50 f1.8D and Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS. I also have SB-600 and SB-900 flashes. I am heavily invested in Nikon and have zero plans to switch (probably ever). So...I will continue to happily use what I have now. My current equipment is no less capable than it was before the new Nikon cameras were introduced (and no less capable than before Canon's next great thing comes out), and will serve me well for quite a while. Nikon will make what I want at some point, and when the time comes, I will see if it's right to make the change. If not, I will continue getting the great results I get now.
--.
K.B.
The people who did the math (in this forum) say otherwise. Next time please make sure your sources are actually doing math and not just flapping their maw.
Old Ed
Senior Member
Wouldn't this "entry level" FX be more of a 5D2 killer?
-> Sensor and electronics from D4;
-> New, LIGHTER, smaller, cheaper body like scaled up D7000;
....(I'd be willing to accept 85% or so finder coverage to get this); and
-> MSRP between 1999 and 2399 USD.
Is there anyone else out there who would be interested in one of these?
Happy shooting, Ed
-> Sensor and electronics from D4;
-> New, LIGHTER, smaller, cheaper body like scaled up D7000;
....(I'd be willing to accept 85% or so finder coverage to get this); and
-> MSRP between 1999 and 2399 USD.
Is there anyone else out there who would be interested in one of these?
Happy shooting, Ed
I, for one, will wait for this exact camera to come. If it doesn't, so be it. The two new cameras still leave a wide gap in FX, as far as I'm concerned. The D4 seems to be a replacement for the D3s, and the D800 is kind of off in it's own category...not really a D700 replacement, more of a 5dmkII killer, as you say. So, that hole in the lineup would be filled nicely with your proposed unit (presumably D800s) - and I'd be first in line to consider it, as a true D700 replacement.
--
K.B.
Neil Lupin in the article on the news page stated that it is rumored that the D4 ISO 6400 is equal to the D3 1600...if D3s is a stop better than D3, then D4 is a stop better than D3s. This latest info from someone who probably knows as much as anyone on this forum (not the gospel truth, but certainly information to base an estimate on) would suggest that D4 will be a stop or more better than D800.
And the flapping will continue until this is settled by a hard comparison...get used to it.
--
K.B.
This particular jack (D800) is shaping up to be the master of resolution, master of dynamic range, and pretty sweet in low light too..
I don't know what do you mean by "official", but in the meantime, some comparisons have already been done. Stany B. has posted pictures few days ago. It's looking good for the D4.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Not mine, actually - Thom Hogan's. The target price is the key thing - still Thom thought the D800 would cost more than it did.Bob, didn't you just almost describe the target market for your suggested D600 (replace 12 with 16 MP and 720 with 1080p)?
--
Bob
Are you seriously comparing this statement to actual measurements?:
"I'm very excited by the D4 for a few reasons - not least the bump in maximum ISO compared to the D3/D3S. ISO 6400 is useable on the D3 but requires careful exposure to avoid too much noise, but if it's true that ISO 6400 on the D4 will be as good as ISO 1600 was on the D3/D3S, then I'll be at the front of the queue when they start shipping."
My god.
The D700 - D800 upgrade really necessitates some pretty upgraded desktop hardware.
If they didn't want 36mp - and I imagine a lot of D700 users wont - what else could the D700 users aspire to? The D4 is a touch unaffordable. There's gotta be something else coming.
If they didn't want 36mp - and I imagine a lot of D700 users wont - what else could the D700 users aspire to? The D4 is a touch unaffordable. There's gotta be something else coming.
IMO Sendai & Thailandia disaster have impacted Nikon big time.
Now
There're:
D4 Top of the line at $6,000
D800 at $3,000-3,300
D7000 at $1,300 (but it'd be more like $1,000, there's too much gap with d5100)
D5100 at $650 the only at discount price
Something is broken but the time will fix it soon.
only 2 FF body in lineup make no sense, the D3x is dead, the FF is the cash cow, the top selling d3100/D5100 have thin margin if you throw the the kit lens included.
a light, low MP, mid-high fps, high ISO beast (like the D700 4 years ago) is a instant hit, so why throw it out of the window ?
The D800 isn't the answer, is a different option in a world that slowly is moving back to FF.
With the mirrorless having a great success, i can see the dead for the low priced DX DSLR like D3100/D5100 in few years, and the progressive expansion of the FF to lower prices, this one will be the only options for the big boys to continue to drive the sales up.
The people want lighter and small body before that cheaper, to offer only a D4 like body for low-light is a big mistakes and miss sales.
For the 2012 I don't see reasons for the Nikon to introduce another FF body, even more with the production capacity so restriced still.
In the spring 2013, a D700 like body with the sensor of D4 at $2,500-2,700 with fps set at 6, 8 with BP, makes perfect sense.
This one will help to driver the price lower for the sensor and to get higher margins on D4.
The Pros will buy the D4 regardless of cheaper price, for costruction, fps, connections, ecc
I don't see reason to produce a DX D400, at this time I see a D7100 with a bigger buffers, better AF and better built the top of line DX at $1,400 later this years, with improved D5200 at $900 early 2013 to fill the gap.
there's a reason that There's rumors that the 7dmII can't see the light at all, because a top DX body isn't that interesting with a FF body at $400-500 more, so something it's needed to fill the gap from D70000 and D800
At the end for me another FF body in early 2013 at $3000 or less and it'll be with a lower MP sensor that D800 ones, maybe the rumored 24MP FF Sony if Nikon want only introduce a cheaper FF.
Now
There're:
D4 Top of the line at $6,000
D800 at $3,000-3,300
D7000 at $1,300 (but it'd be more like $1,000, there's too much gap with d5100)
D5100 at $650 the only at discount price
Something is broken but the time will fix it soon.
only 2 FF body in lineup make no sense, the D3x is dead, the FF is the cash cow, the top selling d3100/D5100 have thin margin if you throw the the kit lens included.
a light, low MP, mid-high fps, high ISO beast (like the D700 4 years ago) is a instant hit, so why throw it out of the window ?
The D800 isn't the answer, is a different option in a world that slowly is moving back to FF.
With the mirrorless having a great success, i can see the dead for the low priced DX DSLR like D3100/D5100 in few years, and the progressive expansion of the FF to lower prices, this one will be the only options for the big boys to continue to drive the sales up.
The people want lighter and small body before that cheaper, to offer only a D4 like body for low-light is a big mistakes and miss sales.
For the 2012 I don't see reasons for the Nikon to introduce another FF body, even more with the production capacity so restriced still.
In the spring 2013, a D700 like body with the sensor of D4 at $2,500-2,700 with fps set at 6, 8 with BP, makes perfect sense.
This one will help to driver the price lower for the sensor and to get higher margins on D4.
The Pros will buy the D4 regardless of cheaper price, for costruction, fps, connections, ecc
I don't see reason to produce a DX D400, at this time I see a D7100 with a bigger buffers, better AF and better built the top of line DX at $1,400 later this years, with improved D5200 at $900 early 2013 to fill the gap.
there's a reason that There's rumors that the 7dmII can't see the light at all, because a top DX body isn't that interesting with a FF body at $400-500 more, so something it's needed to fill the gap from D70000 and D800
At the end for me another FF body in early 2013 at $3000 or less and it'll be with a lower MP sensor that D800 ones, maybe the rumored 24MP FF Sony if Nikon want only introduce a cheaper FF.
A 4 year newer D800 beating the D700 isn't really interesting. D700 shooters got them because they wanted a light and fast camera with great high ISO capabilities at a great price. They still prioritize those features and for a new body to be considered an upgrade it doesn't just have to match the D700 on those, it has to exceed them. For me, the D800 looks like a really nice camera, but the only improvement in it I would really find useful is better AF while at the same time it introduces drawbacks like slower FPS and larger files which makes it a no brainer not to upgrade.
Hocus Pocus
Senior Member
's' models tend to be mid-life product refreshes that updates a camera with some of the newer technologies in order to keep it selling until its successor eventually comes along.
So if the D700 product cycle (from introduction to discontinution of any D700 or derivative models) is 4 years, could expect a D700s about two years after D700 introduction.
The fact that it's been about 4 years with D700 superseded by the D800 suggests that any further updates will come in the D800 line and in a while from now.
Someone here suggested a D800H but I think Nikon may still be a little gun-shy after the whole D2h flap, so they're more likely to use 'x', 's', or some other letter instead of 'h'.
So if the D700 product cycle (from introduction to discontinution of any D700 or derivative models) is 4 years, could expect a D700s about two years after D700 introduction.
The fact that it's been about 4 years with D700 superseded by the D800 suggests that any further updates will come in the D800 line and in a while from now.
Someone here suggested a D800H but I think Nikon may still be a little gun-shy after the whole D2h flap, so they're more likely to use 'x', 's', or some other letter instead of 'h'.
I would tend to agree, with the exception of the timeline - Nikon has effectively created a huge gap in their FX lineup, with, what I figure is D4 replacing D3s and the D800 replacing nothing (I don't know how you can consider a 36MP camera with killer video specs to be a direct replacement for the D700 at 12MP, higher frame rate and no video, etc.) So, there is still a large market segment that will only be looking for an incremental upgrade for the thousands of D700 users who do not want/need the kind of camera a D800 offers, but something along the lines of a mini D4 (or D800s) with the 16MP chip, higher frame rate and lower spec'd video. I, for one, would be plenty happy with 1080/30 video without all the bells and whistles.
If they wait for 2 years to fill this gap, then there will be less of a need to do it, similar to what happened with the D700. Most were expecting the "D700s" to appear, and it never came. It gets to a point where return on investment is not there anymore as too many are now patient enough to wait for the next generation units, and will not be content with a refresh at that point. Nikon needs to do this within a year, less if possible, simply due to the size of the gap they have created. Let the big wave of converters get their D800 and D4, then hit the market with a true D700 successor before Christmas, and watch the buying binge start all over again with the D800s...and I will be right there in the middle of the frenzy
--
K.B.
According to Tom Hogan's survey of 20K, D700 upgraders, it was a 50-50 split on wanting the current D800 and D700S (mini-D4).
Nikon marketing is not that dumb (well I think they aren't) that they would let all the mini-D4 sales go away. The D4 sales should peak by the end of this year and start sliding downward, anyone with the cash is going to buy a D4 quaickly, than later. This is when the miniD4 will most likley be introduced.
Remember Nikon's goal is to make money!
Bob P.
Nikon marketing is not that dumb (well I think they aren't) that they would let all the mini-D4 sales go away. The D4 sales should peak by the end of this year and start sliding downward, anyone with the cash is going to buy a D4 quaickly, than later. This is when the miniD4 will most likley be introduced.
Remember Nikon's goal is to make money!
Bob P.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum