Nikon D700 for $3000 is abnormal!?

[d2creative]

I pre-ordered my D700 from Amazon yesterday.
Anyone else?

This is exactly what I've been looking for as an upgrade from my D200. The full frame and low noise should help me out with my architectural shoots and commercial studio shoots. And I don't have to fork out an extra $2k for the D3.

[james23p]

I have to say the D700 is a very interesting camera! But I think I will keep saving for a D300 as a compliment to my D80. But I will hold off just a bit to see how good the D700 really is if it is a smaller twin of the D3 I might just bite and get one.

Jim

[Jeff Perry]

d2creative,

I noticed both the Nikon 17-55 and the Sigma 10-20 lenses in your stable. I know the 17-55 is a DX format lens and I believe the 10-20 is as well, is it not? I suspect you may be a bit disappointed (as I was) to fit those lenses on the FX sensor-based body. I have since retired my 17-55 (going to sell it) and purchased the 17-35 to give me a true 17mm angle of view on the D3. I suspect the forthcoming D700 will use the same DX-crop technique for DX lenses. Not sure how it will react to the Sigma lens. Keep your fingers crossed.

Jeff

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by james23p

I have to say the D700 is a very interesting camera! But I think I will keep saving for a D300 as a compliment to my D80. But I will hold off just a bit to see how good the D700 really is if it is a smaller twin of the D3 I might just bite and get one.

Jim

I think it was a waste of time to release a D700, I have a D300 and love it, mind you I upgrade from a 3 year old D50 with the 18-55kit lens. To me the D700 is the same as D300 with only a larger sensor period. If I want High ISO and low noise I can still use my D50 which is 3+ years old and I some times still wonder why some of my D300 pics don't look as good. OK maybe the reason is that at 12mb it is easier to see the grain/noise. Or that fact that most times I am using the ADR which adds noise even at ISO 200. On my D50 at 200 I have never seen noise/grain.

Why can't Nikon give us real ISO 50 or 100 instead of the pull down to Low 1 that the D300 has.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by Jeff Perry

d2creative,

I noticed both the Nikon 17-55 and the Sigma 10-20 lenses in your stable. I know the 17-55 is a DX format lens and I believe the 10-20 is as well, is it not? I suspect you may be a bit disappointed (as I was) to fit those lenses on the FX sensor-based body. I have since retired my 17-55 (going to sell it) and purchased the 17-35 to give me a true 17mm angle of view on the D3. I suspect the forthcoming D700 will use the same DX-crop technique for DX lenses. Not sure how it will react to the Sigma lens. Keep your fingers crossed.

Jeff

Yes, I realize that. I will be trading the 17-55 for the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 10-20 for the 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. I'll also be looking at one of their PC-E lenses.

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Actually, we'll never get it at that line. Nikon only gives 100% viewfinders to the top of the line models.

I just checked on dpreview site on the specs. looks like the D300 cheapest of the 3 listed has 100% coverage as does the D3 but the D700 is lacking?


D300
Optical (Pentaprism, 100% coverage, 0.94x magnification)

D3
Optical (Pentaprism, 100% coverage, 0.7x magnification)

D700
Optical (Pentaprism, 95% coverage, 0.72x magnification)

[Jeff Perry]

d2Creative, good choices. I opted for the the 28-70 f/2.8 along with the 14-24. Both very nice lenses.

Jeff

[dbphotos]

I have the 24-70 and the 14-24 on the D3 and I have to say that I'm surprised at how much I use the 14-24 instead of the 24-70. I still have the 17-55 for my D300 b/u and love that lens too. Bottom line is you can't go wrong with any of the new stable of cameras from Nikon, they are all such an improvement to th older versions, it's a win-win.

[Jeff Perry]

David, I too have the 17-55 DX, but ever since buying it I have been mildly annoyed with the placement of the narrow zoom ring so close to the lens mount, hence the body. Very difficult/awkward for me.

I have become the proud owner of a new 17-35 f/2.8 which is NOT a DX lens and therefore gives me the full frame angle of view of a true 17mm at the widest end, and even when mounted on one of my "DX" bodies gives me the same AOV as the 17-55 gave me. The loss of the extra length was not an issue given the other zooms I have in that range.

Best of all the wider zoom ring is set farther away from the body, in part do to an aperture ring (which is lacking on the 17-55), and the quality of the lens is to me up to par with the 17-55. Very pleased with it.

Jeff

[dbphotos]

Jeff, I haven't had the experience and no annoyance with that lens at all. It could be hand size or design difference or simply the difference in the way we shoot.

[Jeff Perry]

David, I'm sure it was just my familiarity (touch and feel) with other lenses. When I finally acquired the 17-55, it really felt awkward. One problem may be the vertical grips I installed on all of my bodies. That has a tendency to alter the amount of area to reach for the zoom ring, especially when it is mounted so close to the body. Anyway, just a personal shooting preference I guess. The real benefit was getting my wide angle view back from a real 17mm on the D3.

I'm really struggling with the notion that I paid a substantial sum of money to have a full frame body and so many of my DX-sized lenses "cramp my investment".

As long as I keep the DX-sized bodies, the DX lenses will always be invaluable and have a place in my bag, but I suspect there will be a lot more FX-sized lenses on my Christmas list this year (and for years to come).

Jeff

[Bonner]

Canon and Nikon have a dilemma on their hands, in my opinion. When they design a new lens, it's almost like having two different lens mounts. Will future lens designs come in two versions, DX and FX? Interesting, I think.

[michaelhcothran]

Of course, as on many similar sites, most chatter seems to be around Nikon & Canon, and what's happening in their respective camps. And for the vast majority of shooters, especially those who would classify themselves as avid amateurs and part time pros, it's hard to beat the high technology of the DSLR's. However, being in the very small minority, my choice of camera has always been medium format, and Hasselblad in particular since 1972. As you may or may not know, Hasselblad has offered high end digital backs from 16 Mpix up to 39 Mpix for quite a while now in sensor sizes up to 36mm x 48mm (twice that of a full frame DSLR sensor). Hasselblad's digital backs begin @ $10,000 for the 16 Mpix (for which I am a proud but broke owner!), and about $32,000 for their 39 Mpix back.

FYI - Just a couple of days ago, Hasselblad announced a new digital back with a new sensor that will be available in a couple of months - 50 Mpix in a 36x48mm sensor! More than twice the size of the top of the line Canon, and the soon-to-be Sony 25 Mpix sensor. My guess on price will be somewhere near $40,000.
While these cameras & digital backs are certainly outside the financial reach of most of us, it's interesting to see the great strides that are quietly being made by Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei, Leaf, and Phase One.

[Jeff Perry]

Bonner, Nikon's already starting to do it. The "old" 24-120 VR (non DX) has been reborn in the 16-85 DX VR. Do the math...

Nikon will find they have to keep pace with what photographers need in both formats, as long as they continue to produce both DX and FX senors. The "Real Question" is...in 2-3 years from now (maybe less), will we see the last DX-format body unveiled? Will it be the D90 this year (or perhaps next year)? Or have we already seen the last of the DX bodies. With the price of sensors coming into line, is there an economic (market price-point) reason to produce DX-format bodies?

Only time will tell.

Jeff

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by lopezzito

That's $3500 with the 24-120vr lens kit. Boddy alone is $2999.

Considering the entry price for the Canon 5D when introduced was $3,300. USD it looks like the D700 is somewhat cheaper considering the dollar valuation 3 years ago? IMO not overpriced at $3,000. body only.

All of the Pro level Canon's are way overpriced by comparison, simply because they COULD do it when they were the only game in town.

[riha]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Actually, we'll never get it at that line. Nikon only gives 100% viewfinders to the top of the line models.

Yeah that is why my D300 has 100% framecoverage in viewfinder, it is top of the line

[riha]

Originally Posted by Bonner

Canon and Nikon have a dilemma on their hands, in my opinion. When they design a new lens, it's almost like having two different lens mounts. Will future lens designs come in two versions, DX and FX? Interesting, I think.

Still only one mount, but two sensor sizes.

Why not only release for the FF, they works as good/well on the DX also. Only reason for releasing DX lenses is that they can make the glass elements smaller = cheaper and less weight.

I will never buy an DX lens for my D300 as I know that at some time i will go up to FF, so for me it is useless with DX lenses now.

The only DX lens i have is the 18-70 that came with my previous D70, it is an good lens.

[Steve82]

Originally Posted by Jeff Perry

Nikon will find they have to keep pace with what photographers need in both formats, as long as they continue to produce both DX and FX senors. The "Real Question" is...in 2-3 years from now (maybe less), will we see the last DX-format body unveiled? Will it be the D90 this year (or perhaps next year)? Or have we already seen the last of the DX bodies. With the price of sensors coming into line, is there an economic (market price-point) reason to produce DX-format bodies?
Jeff

You are correct that only time will tell...but it can be fun to speculate as well.

Nikon may have produced all of the high-end DX lenses that it intends to bring to market. With the 12-24mm and the 17-55mm, they filled in the hole at the one place where DX needs its own support system....ie the wide end.

DX sensors will always (and I mean always) survive at the low-end of the DSLR line. Just look at the popularity of the D40 with its lowly 6 mp...even in the days of 12 mp P&S options. The lighter, cheaper DX lenses will always be appealing. Many lenses that have corner issues on FX...have none with a DX camera. The real question is where and how will Nikon draw the line between FX and DX cameras?

There was a rather long thread at DPR about the D300....would this be the last semi-pro DX camera from Nikon? Obviously no consensus was reached on an internet message board, but the popularity of Canon's 20D-40D make it likely that Nikon will want to remain competitive in this area. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the D400 will be DX as well.