Comments on: Nikon D700x

By: Arto

Arto — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:30:23 +0000

WE WANT LENSES!!!
I cant belive im thinking about going back to canon, only because of lenses. I own D700 and feel really limited with the nikons lens selection. There is big and heavy FX zooms with exellent quality. But where are the primes and lighter zooms that match the FX sensors quality.
More new FX lenses, please! *pretty please

By: Simon

Simon — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:40:12 +0000

It taken Nikon 2 years to replace their D300. Crop cameras aside Canon has plenty of experience with FF dSLR and it still takes them 2 or 3 years to replace their FF cameras. Why would anyone believe a D700 replacement will be comming out this year when D700 was only released last summer?
Often its market that dictate production so no way will Nikon release another FF camera to replace an existing one that only came out 12 months ago. It simply make no marketing sense. Unless Nikon decide to add another model to their FF lineup which is unlikely because it simply eats into the sales of their other cameras. It seems the only likely thing that might happen is a minor revamp of their older D3 with a MP boost and this may not even happen this year.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:24:13 +0000

No more DX sensors… please!

By: Twoomy

Twoomy — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:34:24 +0000

While I agree with the sentiment, do you realize that there was no “D2″ and you’re just making stuff up?

By: Carlos Echenique

Carlos Echenique — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:31:24 +0000

D1 -> D1x = Same body, same controls, upgraded (bumped) sensor
D2 -> D2x = Same body, same controls, upgraded (bumped) sensor
D3 -> D3x = Same body, same controls, upgraded (bumped) sensor

Attaching an “X” to the end of the model does not make it a studio camera. I can use a D40 as a “studio camera”. The “X” designation historically (see above) means that Nikon has upgraded the sensor (and possibly the surrounding electronics). What you use it for is entirely up to you. The Nikon Thought Police will not arrest you in the middle of the night because you used an “X” camera at a football game…

By: Daf

Daf — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:25:03 +0000

HURRAGH!
Would love something the size + performance of the D700, but with more Mpx.
Would be my ultimate camera + uinlikely to need another ever again.

By: Theodore

Theodore — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:46:39 +0000

The comment doesn’t make sense – a D700x wouldn’t be a “replacement” for the D700 – just as the D3 and D3x co-exist as two very different cameras. That hurts the credibility of the story, but people say things in terribly inarticulate ways all of the time, so perhaps the person quoted didn’t really mean “replacement”.

By: F3Lives!

F3Lives! — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:51:42 +0000

Carlos, you are the one person on this blog who hit the point correctly – the D700’s advantage is that it has high ISO. If Nikon does increase the D700’s resolution without affecting its ISO and noise levels, they will have a brilliant camera. If they don’t add to the resolution but do other enhancements, it is still a great camera.

Mark

By: Nau

Nau — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:12:52 +0000

cant even imagine how would u carry this aroudn ?
there are 3rd party or even nikons extra gadgets that can do some of what u said
but have to agree with batteries …. would love to have something a bit mroe decent in flash

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:03:56 +0000

Thanks Admin, that is the right decision.

By: Eh??

Eh?? — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:49:30 +0000

tell you guys what, just dont sell your D700 or D3 now and wait got greatest, newest, and latest cameras based on rumors because you never know if they will actually show up. great photographers dont wait.

i find it funny when people sell all lenses and cameras then they got left behind with nothing when nikon dont announce the camera they wanted…

its a disease everyone have, i call it adultus screwupitis

By: zachmorin

zachmorin — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:27:10 +0000

Yea! I wish they did this. That means the original d700 will go down in price and then I’ll buy one. I don’t see anything wrong with that camera.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:05:07 +0000

The mere fact that you are using a D700 with a 24-85 and 70-300 only tells in bold letters how little you know about photography.

By: STJ

STJ — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:06:44 +0000

And as a full frame sensor cost is based on size and not MB numbers I really cannot get the calculation to fit… It will be a marketing decision whn it happends.

By: Tim Catchall

Tim Catchall — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:45:38 +0000

What they need to do, and quickly, is to buy or merge with JVC’s camcorder division. It is a perfect fit for Nikon – JVC don’t make still cameras, but are big in high-end video. JVC are trying to converge from the other direction – adding high-res still capture ability to their video cameras. It would be a quick way for them to get some real video know-how.

By: Twoomy

Twoomy — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:41:04 +0000

> X stands for “Studio version”, not for sensor bump.

Maybe in YOUR universe! “X” doesn’t just mean that.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:39:18 +0000

agree, with kenn…… anonymous 1 get serious…

By: Char

Char — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:28:20 +0000

As said, the D700 has some disadvantages compared to the D300. Besides, the image quality of the D300 is tremendously better than the one of the D90 under certain conditions – for example, if you can get perfectly sharp pictures with the D300 but only blurry ones with the D90 because the AF can just not keep up with the subject.

Besides, the market proves you wrong – the D300 gets sold much more than the D700.

By: Char

Char — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:24:45 +0000

Well, the point is, the D300 has something the D700 does not – the crop and thus the higher pixel density.

Now, I know there is good reasons for FX, but there are just like that good reasons for DX. Ask some bird shooters, and I guess most of them would always go for the D300 over the D700, even if they were the same price. Similar for other users that need long tele lenses for whatever reason and do not have the money for a 600/4 which might still be too short.

What, in your opinion, is the reason that there are quite some people out there which own both a D700 and a D300? Probably the D300 is not just a backup cam in that case…

By: Robin Edgar

Robin Edgar — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:25 +0000

Glad to see that Ken Elliott was not referring to my comments when he said -

“It was fine before you arrived. We were having fun.”