It sounds like you already drank the $8,000 Nikon Kool-Aid and resent anyone who questions such a purchase. Spending that kind of money on a camera just to “hope the work pays for the investment” sounds like business plan that could put you OUT of business.

Actually they may have come close to maxxing out the FX size chip at around 24 mp. Maybe I should start to look at a modular medium format digital system and leave the FX format to location work. Then when my business goes bust, from the camera loan paymnents, I could then sell the MF camera to pay for the divorce that would result from that purchase.

Better yet, maybe I’ll buy another used Hassy (one that can accept a digital back down the road) and a few Zeiss lens (at fire sale prices), return to shooting film and scan them like I used to. Resolution to put a D3x to shame for a third of the price.

Or I’ll just wait for the D700x…

I do not need all of the bells and whistles that many posters drool over like multi point focus, live view and video. In the studio I shoot the D700 from a camera stand, in manual exposure mode, at 200 ISO, custom white balance, single center auto focus (sometimes in manual focus), shooting NEF files and teathered to a computer using Capture Control NX 2.

The average upgrade for my digital camera bodies is approx every two years. I have found that based on the past rate new digital cameras were introduced that a 2 year rotation yields the best resale price vs original purchase price. I usually sell the oldest body on eBay, the remaining camera becomes my backup, and the new camera becomes my primary. A D700x would break this cycle and instead I would have two cameras designed for different purposes (one studio and one location) as in my medium format days. Each camera could still backup the other if needed. My Nikon lenses are another matter and are only replaced as needed.

Yes, a D3x would still work in 2 years, but resale value would drop after that time based on new camera releases, and there would be competitive pressure to replace the D3x with the newest latest hi res camera. The days of buying a camera (like a Hassy), using for 20 years and then selling it for more than you paid, thanks to inflation, are over. I have to look at the increase in image quality, price and resale value of any equipment I purchase. I am in business to make money and the camera is just an expensive tool used toward that end. I will NOT pay Nikon $8,000 for a D3x period. The new D3s has nothing for me. Your mileage may very…

BTW- I do NOT use the D200 anymore. It just rides around in my camera bag in the event the D700 were to go down during a job (anything in a crisis is better than nothing). I recently sold the D300 is WAS using as a backup camera hoping Nikon would release a D700x. I am now looking at a Sony A850 as a possible studio camera until a D700x is introduced.

I was in a meeting where several Nikon reps pretty much stated, because of their excellent High Iso processing, you can raise the iso of any f/2.8 lens and get enough light. In other words, get rid of your D300 and buy a D3s. Well that all nice but besides video (which is really nice i guess), do I want to pay 2x for the same camera as a D700 + plus my battery grip that I really have?

At this time a 24 mp Nikon FX body would be ideal, but with average commercial day rates and portrait sittings fees in our area, the price of a D3x is out of the question. A 24mp FX D700x, at half the price point of a D3x, is what I need right now.

About 15 years ago I was in a pro camera store in Cleveland (Dodd Camera) buying accesorries for a Toyo 4×5 view camera. A rep from SINAR was there and asked me why I didn’t shoot with SINAR. I told him that photographers in the major cities, commanding much higher day rates, may be able to afford the steep cost of their cameras, but those of us in “fly over country” needed something a little less expensive. To my surprise a few months later SINAR introduced the A1 system at about half the price of their F1. I bought a SINAR A1 shortly after it’s introduction and was into the SINAR system.

To NIKON I say the same thing… throw a bone to the pros working in the small towns and give us a 24 mp camera we can afford. Based on the ROI for a small studio (in a down economy) $8,000 for camera that will be obsolete in 2 years is just not a sound business move. I may have to look into a Sony A900 and a zoom lens for my studio work but I really don’t want to go back to the days of having 2 or 3 camera systems and lenses and would rather just stay with Nikon.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm

To continue, since i shoot low light, I have all my gear at f2.8 (14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 105mm, 60mm), and I also have the Tamron f1.4 (I liked it better than my nikon F1.8 <— anyone want to buy it? used only 1x).

So more f/1.4 lenses (FX) would have been sweet and actually gotten me excited to part with more $ that I shouldn't. NOTHING. I was a meeting where Nikon representatives claimed, there is very little need for f/1.4 because in today's digital and great high ISO photography, you can shoot at f2.8 and just let our great cameras get you more light. Bummer.