Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Started Feb 4, 2014 | Discussions thread
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,220
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

Yes, he's been all over the place with this issue. This D800 confused a lot of people because it didn't fit into the established pattern.

There is no "established pattern." When something happens once, that's not a pattern.

It really is the closest thing to a D3x update,

I do think there's a pattern here, and it has to do with being competitive. The D700 came out to compete with the 5D/5DII because the D3 was too expensive for many who would then choose the Canon option. The same reasoning is behind the D800 which competes against the 5DIII and A99; there is no more need for a D700 successor in Nikon's lineup because it is bracketed by the D610 and D800.

not so much D700, but I'm okay with whoever may disagree on this issue. The reason I don't see D800 as the D700 update is that it encourages a different approach to photography to get the most out of it technically, plus a host of more practical file processing and management issues.

Here's the thing though, except for fps (again, when using the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries) you can get more out of the D800 than the D700 using the D800 in exactly the same way as the D700 (more DR, more resolution, better high ISO performance, more viewfinder coverage, dual memory card slots, etc.). As for the larger file sizes, well that's just a fact of life now, even the D600, D7000, and D7100 have larger file sizes than the D700 -- nobody is going back to 12 MP.

Well, you may also ask yourself why Nikon flagship is fine with 16MP. What 16MP looks like relative to 12MP I know very well (have a D7000 lying around), and as hard as I look I don't see much of a practical difference.

I have had this discussion many times, and just now again with John. It's horses for courses. If you're shooting handheld then 16 MP is often more than enough.

I know that a good sharp 12MP picture could be painlessly enlarged to a bigger print size than the vast majority ever cares to print.

My point still stands though, nobody is going back to 12 MP, so everyone is going to have to suck it up and deal with larger files.

My benchmark size is 12x18,

12x18 and 11x14 are my smallest prints.

I don't print larger except in very rare cases, so what use are those additional pixels?

I don't deny that I'm in a minority here, but I have several 20x30 inch prints so that's my benchmark.

If you say that gazillion MP is nice to have to crop or for that rare case when you do want to print wall size, I won't disagree with that.

Getting back to the reach factor (i.e., DX crops or even smaller area crops) there can be a noticeable difference between 10 MP and 16 MP, and that's the difference between a 5DIII and a D800

But nice to have comes at a price,

The D800 costs $600 less than the 5DIII.

longer upload times, longer store times, longer edit times, longer backup times, and more and more storage for all those backups.

$600 will buy you a lot of extra storage. As for the time, all the cameras are heading in this direction, we're debating ~24 MP files versus 36 MP files right now, in a few short years 36 MP will be at the lower end of FX/135 format DSLRs. This comes down to a question of when to upgrade your computer, even at 24 MP you should already have done that.

So, there is clearly a trade-off here between the nice to have pixels and all this overhead which (for me) is mostly pure aggravation. I might be the last holdout on this forum, but I generally don't suffer from "only" 12MP. In addition, for anything that doesn't fall into the domain of sports shooting in the dark, I'm mostly interested in how different cameras render colors and tones rather than pure resolution, and on this count I have seen no progress at all in years and years, and that being charitable.

I'll quote Thom here, it's been "...almost two years after the D800 announcement and there really isn't a camera that can outperform it. Some can equal it in some fashion, but none manage the full package as well as the D800 does. As I've written several times: the D800 is still the best all-around DSLR solution available." That's from the article linked to in the OP.

As for D700, when I don't feel the need for DX "reach", it gives me everything I need 99 times out of 100. It has an excellent AF, great acuity, plenty of DR at base ISO, and very good high ISO, and it renders beautifully.

I remember when the D3 came out and pixel peeping its files, they are awesome pixels. That said, I bought the D300 because it fit my budget.

For me, it is just about perfect ergonomically, and when I need the grip I use it, and when I don't -- I have a camera of reasonable size and weight.

Hey, that's what we want here, a D400 as it were.

Maybe D800 is just too much of a good thing for me, while D700 is just right.

It's an interesting way of putting it. For me there came a time when I had the money to buy a D700; but I was getting very good results with my D300 and wanted more resolution more than more lowlight so the D700 wasn't the camera I wanted, so I ended up with an A850. If I had the money I would have gotten the D3x instead, but now there's the D800 and it's the answer to what I've been wanting for years (unfortunately for me my finances changed with The Great Recession and I'm still waiting for them to improve before I run out and get a D800 -- so sad about that, but oh well).

Anyway, I know that I won't convince you and you won't convince me, so we may just agree to disagree.

The only thing I'm taking exception to is that the D800 is somehow woefully deficient. For those in this forum it's overpriced with too few fps, but a DX version of the D800 with more fps would be exactly the camera many here are clamoring for.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow