nikbonbonbonbon said:
I get called a "bad word" then banned. What a wonderful forum you have here msmoto. This place is like an old boys network where guys like the wizard of Omaha can laugh in peoples faces and act arrogant at will. Awesome!

Congrats! I've been on here for years and you are the first non-spammer to be banned as I recall.

Of course that couldn't be your fault, could it?

Bring some civility and you may do better - there are no heroes like keyboard heroes after all.....

I too am struck by how similar DxOmark rated the high ISO performance of the D4(2965), D800(2853), and D600(2980). Basically, images from all should look the same at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400. Yes, fps is significantly different. But if very high fps isn't necessary for your style of shooting, the D4 is not needed for "sports" shooters who can work with 6400 ISO and 5 fps. Will a D400 be able to provide higher fps and cleaner higher ISO? We will see soon. That is a lot to expect from a DX size sensor, after all if it has 16 mp like the D4 it necessarily would have to have much smaller pixels. If it has the same pixel pitch as the D4 it necessarily would have to be much smaller in mp size. Would a 7 or 8 mp D400 sell well if it had 10 fps and clean 12,800 ISO? Probably not, just because 7 or 8 would seem so "inferior" to buyers. Let us just say you could cut a DX size section off the D4 sensor and build the D400 around it. You could get even higher fps than the D4 because you are processing less data. But would it sell well, especially when the D3200, D3200 and D7200 are all likely to offer 24mp? I think Nikon has a bit of a dilemma. Nikon could produce a very good D400 using a DX sized D4 sensor but the total mp size would not seem to say "premium camera" to many buyers. At this point in the development process Nikon must already have made all the decisions as to what the D400 will be and must be either producing the parts or working with parts suppliers to get the parts made. Software is probably still being tweaked to produce the best IQ, but I bet the sensor has been decided upon and is being manufactured right now.

TaoTeJared said:
If the D400 isn't a 16-18mp High ISO super beast - I want your D4 as a back up MSmoto! ;)

OK, but only after I win the Powerball Jackpot...LOL

msmoto said:
Wait a minute...I do not have a D800 as back up... and I am waiting for a D400...

If the D400 isn't a 16-18mp High ISO super beast - I want your D4 as a back up MSmoto! ;)

PB PM said:
This argument is still flawed. Why? Because even with the D4 and D800 this still happens today. By your logic, Nikon is still shooting itself in the foot, simply by having more than one FX body.

With all due respect, I did not say Nikon lost sales because of a "FX body." Cameras are more than just a sensor. Nikon lost D3 sales because for all the major features, it was the same camera in a D300 body and $2,000 less. FX is only one very small part and no one just looks at the sensor. It is the all around performance that was basically the same that pushed people away from the D3 to a D700. That is a very different argument.

Besides, you can't lose something twice without gaining it back. D3 sales were lost. Some were regained by the D3s, and even more by the D4 as the D800 does not do that segment (sports/press/extreme low light) well and people bit the bullet and moved up. The niche that Nikon created have now been occupied by studio/landscape/low action shooting and has pulled some customers from Canon and probably a small few from medium format land.

D3 -> D700 = Apples to apples (with a small bite out of it.)
D4 -> D800 = Apples to grapefruit.

Unlike the D700, the D800 is a very, very different camera than the D4. Most shooters who need a D4 can not replace one with a D800. If you need a back-up D4, the D800 will not get you there. D3 could get 9 FPS, D700 with grip 8 FPS. The D800 can not do that. If you look up historical sales from amazon you can see the D3 sales plummet when the D700 hit the market, and they never recovered. Many pros kept it even when the D3s came out as the improvement was not that much, and the gains were not worth the cost.

Now what many D4 owners love is that those who bounce from sport to studio work and who wanted a High resolution camera for a second system, only had the choice of the $8,000 D3x. That did not sell well at all. The D800, and even the D600 to a large degree, have ate that camera's market up for $5-6k less. But again that is a entirely different use than what the D4 is intended for. At the D800 launch Nikon addressed this over and over again how unlike the D3/D700 where they were essentially the same camera, The D4/D800 are two entirely different systems. Basically they have taken Canon's model that they use for their 1Ds/5D line - one for press and sport, and one focused on studio and landscape.

The high iso performance I mentioned above. I don't think the D4 gets enough credit. There is more to measure than just "off color specs" for high iso comparison - The D4's Color depth (i.e. not washed out) is unbelievable. It is much better than my D800 at stratospheric Isos for sure.

If you can recall back to 2008, Nikon was quickly trying to make an answer to the outdated Canon 5D and needed something to combat the release of the 5D MkII. They obviously had nothing in the works, so they did in essence what donaldejose said above - they just dumped a D3 sensor into a D300 body and changed the viewfinder. Their frankenstadion camera turned into one of the most sought after cameras.

Wait a minute...I do not have a D800 as back up... and I am waiting for a D400...

OK, if the D400 does not arrive soon, the D800 will be the second body, but with a grip. Shooting in portrait position is so much easier when the controls are in the same position I want to have the convenience.

I think the idea of a "true replacement" is almost an oxymoron as any improvement would have major changes. And, while we on NRF have our opinions, we unfortunately have no more ability to predict the future than all the others out there who are attempting to figure out what Nikon is planning, but alas we are still only guessing.

A few on this forum have studied extensively the history and development of the Nikon product line, and the opinions are based upon this. My experience goes back to about the time dirt was invented, so I am influenced and hoping Nikon's abilities to lead the market are the same as fifty years ago. But, I am not in the heads of the young folks who at Nikon are in charge of development so while I would like a nice D4 at D800 price....which IMO would be a "D700 replacement" I think we will see other cameras coming along and never see exactly the replacement we may want.

I wouldn't disagree that the D800 replaces the D700. In form and function it does so rather clearly. People can argue all they want, but it is. Is D800 a replacement that is true the the spirit of the D700? No. Is that a bad thing? Not really. For some people it might seem that way, but if I had to replace my D700 today, it would be with a D800. Would I rather have a D800 body with the D600 sensor for fast shooting? Sure, but that isn't an option.

TaoTeJared said:
I think this is something we can easily agree on: Those who needed a D3, bought a D3. Those who could not afford a D3 but could swing the $3,000 for a FX camera, bought a D700.

That was going to be the case no matter what the D700 had. If It had a 10mp sensor, I believe the sales of people "Upgrading" still would have been the same. The additional sales gained and the "need to have D3" are excluded for the main reason they would have added these either way.

What the camera did, was allow those didn't need the additional robustness or few features of the D3 for their main &/or back-up camera to buy basically the same camera for $2,000 less. If the D700 was something less of a D3, those people who bought D2xs in the past or wanted the same IQ of a D3 for a back-up, more than likely would have purchased the D3. This is the segment of D3 sales Nikon loss.

This argument is still flawed. Why? Because even with the D4 and D800 this still happens today. By your logic, Nikon is still shooting itself in the foot, simply by having more than one FX body. Almost every D4 user I've talked to has D800 or D800E as their backup camera, rather than a second D4. Regardless of the different sensor, many pros seem want a smaller body for a backup. The performance of the two cameras in low light is so close it is almost meaningless.

Not a chance of a cheap 16mp FX D4. Now what if the D400 has a 16-18 High ISO DX sensor that equals the D800 or better in low light? Under certain constraints, FX sensors do perform better, but DX will surpass the D700 quickly.

BTW DXOmark did put the "sports" high iso at the same mark as the D4.

That is what they scored but from what I have seen of tests, and MSMoto's shots at really high isos, it doesn't quite get past the sniff test for me.

I have never been a fan of DXO's lens tests but always thought their sensor tests were quite valid. They seemed spot on for the sensors in the past but with these new generation of sensors, I'm wondering if they need to evaluate their tests and tweek them.

Either way the D700 has been replaced with better systems.

I don't have the knowledge or the experience of some here, but my opinion is that the D800 is the D700 upgrade, the only area where some are disappointed is the fps, but then the D700 was not sold as a sport camera, it just did better fps than because of the lower mp sensor.

Sport = D4, studio/landscape/etc. = D800 and consumer priced compromise = D600. Seemples.

It should be very easy for Nikon to produce a "true D700" replacement: just put the D4 sensor into a D800 body. I wish they would. Nikon now has three different FX bodies and three different FX sensors. Just put one of each sensor into each of the three camera bodies (how hard can that be?) and you have a total of 9 Nikon FX cameras from which to choose your personal "perfect and true D700 replacement." I sure wish they would do this. But will they? Probably not.

Seems to me it sure would give Canon the fits though trying to play catch up.

I think this is something we can easily agree on: Those who needed a D3, bought a D3. Those who could not afford a D3 but could swing the $3,000 for a FX camera, bought a D700.

That was going to be the case no matter what the D700 had. If It had a 10mp sensor, I believe the sales of people "Upgrading" still would have been the same. The additional sales gained and the "need to have D3" are excluded for the main reason they would have added these either way.

What the camera did, was allow those didn't need the additional robustness or few features of the D3 for their main &/or back-up camera to buy basically the same camera for $2,000 less. If the D700 was something less of a D3, those people who bought D2xs in the past or wanted the same IQ of a D3 for a back-up, more than likely would have purchased the D3. This is the segment of D3 sales Nikon loss.

TaoTeJared said:
Nikon shot itself in the foot when they made the D700 that equaled in IQ as the D3. The D3 sales suffered. That was good for users, but a business misstep for Nikon. They will not make that mistake again. Instead they have offered a huge upgrade at the same price point and a new system at one cheaper than the D700 ever was. There is not going to be a D4-lite. Get over it, buy a D4 or keep what you got. And for crying out loud, stop trying to manifest your pocketbook as Nikon's problem.

This is a somewhat flawed augment, and I've seen it used many times. How did Nikon shoot itself in the foot? If Nikon sold 20 D700's and 5 MB-D10's for every D3 they made, they brought in more cash than if they had sold 10 D3's. I bet the sale ratio of D700's to D3/D3s/D3x was rather high, likely 50-1. Nikon shareholders don't care what level of body Nikon sells, as long as they sell. Throw in the fact that R&D for the sensor, focusing system etc was already done, and Nikon saved a bag of cash using the same sensor in two cameras.

In addition, many users who would have stuck with the D300 and never considered the D3 (price reasons) bought a D700. Then throw in that those users also bought more FX glass, and Nikon was raking money in compared to if they had never made a D700.

Just my tuppence worth.
I have a D40 at the moment. A friend of mine let me use his D700 for a day, I was so impressed that I was going to buy one. Then came the rumour of the D800, so not being in a hurry I waited, and waited. Now the D4, D800 and D600 have been let loose on the market I have 3 choices. I have held both the D600 and D800 (the D4 is way out of my price range), the D600 feels small and uncomfortable in my hands, the D800 just seems to fit perfectly. My favourite photography is Motorsport and Wildlife, so I have asked some very well respected members of this forum for their valued advice ( MSMoto and Taotejared). Both have given me some very good advice which I have listened to and taken on board. When I am ready to buy my next camera, be it a D800 or the long awaited D400. I will change my computer, hard drives and everything needed to suit the camera I choose.
There is no way I can influence Nikon in their decision on what cameras they decide to manufacture. If I wait for them to do this, I will always be waiting for the next rumoured camera.
I guess what I am trying to point out is that the OP has asked for some advice regarding a direct D700 replacement. They have had some very good (some tongue in cheek) replies from well respected forum members. Now another member with 7 posts is calling them names and being disrespectful to them. Well I know who I would listen to.

nikbonbonbon - (i cant even hook my intervalometer to.) Is this not built into the D800 and D600 not sure what else. I have a D80 and a D800 and love them both and the rest of my Nikon stuff. I think it's the best. Does that make me a fanboy. Maybe, I guess I am brand loyal. (had to look up fanboy also)

(There is a lot of fanboyism going on here for a really honest question. Quite sad.) Well it's a Nikon site and we are not sad. I'm very happy because I'm retired and now I have plenty of time to read and learn instead of working night and day like I have for the last 30 years.

(I shoot astro time-lapse and that's a really good way to fill a 1TB hard drive with images that are freakin huge.) If you cant deal with the file size that's fine I can. 1TB hard drives are cheap. I got a 1TB Toshiba a while back for $65 now i have 5 or 6 drives. You can find them on sale all the time.

(I understand that you guys need all that resolution for photos of your cats and whatnot and that's cool.) Have you looked at PHOTO-A-DAY there are cats,dogs and whatnot there and I might add they are great pictures. Tell me there not.

(There are a lot of people including myself who think the D800 is a disaster.) Most of them probably shoot canon. Understandable.

Why does the D700 have to have a replacement. It's a great camera and will always be. Is a new model a replacement for some other model or is it just a new model with the latest tech.

Please look at PHOTO-A-DAY and you will see these really great pictures that have been done with all kinds of Nikon cameras and some others. Pick one and be happy.

I'm tired. I'm going to lay under my Cummins and change the oil and filter. ( msmoto I know you enjoy yours)

nikon bonbon said:
. Give me a D700 just like the one we already have with a tad better high ISO and I would be happy.

I have a D700 and D800 and would say the D800 does exactly that
a tad better a higher ISOs

but the D800 has never been about high ISOs
If you want high ISOs get the D4

the D800 is marked as a studio and landscape camera nether require high ISOs

nikbonbonbon said:
I have a D3s and I have have no plans to upgrade at this time... but every single time someone comes into this forum and offers even a little criticism of the D800 - Guys like the oracle of Omaha above, go into full on fanboy 6th grader/bully mode. Its over the top with some of you people and its not right. The OP has a valid concern!

Ok, so what do you want in a D700 replacement?

Edit: (Troll is gone)
--------------

The D800 disappointment and the "real D700 replacement" are closely tied together around one central theme - Money.
-Many keep thinking the D700 only cost $2,000-$2,500.
-D800, many will have to upgrade their computer system.
-D4 costs too much for many.
-With a 16mp sensor people would not have to upgrade their systems.

The D700 was $2,999 when it was released in 2008. It seems many forget this. It then settled around $2,700. 4 years later you could get a new one for around $2,200 when everyone was trying to clear them out of inventory.

Nikon shot itself in the foot when they made the D700 that equaled in IQ as the D3. The D3 sales suffered. That was good for users, but a business misstep for Nikon. They will not make that mistake again. Instead they have offered a huge upgrade at the same price point and a new system at one cheaper than the D700 ever was. There is not going to be a D4-lite. Get over it, buy a D4 or keep what you got. And for crying out loud, stop trying to manifest your pocketbook as Nikon's problem.

Guys, could we please keep this a bit more professional. I just got the perfect d700 replacement: a used D3s with 12000Acts. Hoo ah

nikon bonbon said:
At least I could do it without calling people names.

with the greatest possible respect ,I think, this just might possibly be, the pot calling kettle black

( had to look up what a fanboy was)

Am i a fanboy? No

The D800, is without doubt the best camera, over the past 50 years I have ever worked with

but it won't do everything

even the nikon F would not do everything

I bet you felt pretty awesome after you penned that zinger, Nikdongbonbon. My favorite part is when you said "Quite sad".

Oh, and the part where you sound like a total douche bag. That part was pretty sweet also. :]

For thoes of you who hate the D800 and the D600. What exactly is wrong with the D700
and what do you want in a replacement ?

with a bit of searching the D700 is still available at some very sensible prices
if you live in the UK i could persuaded to part with mine
since i bought a D800 i have only used it once

"True replacement?" Now just what does that mean? Was the D3200 a "true replacement for the D3100 since it had about two times more megapixels? Will a 24mp D400 be a "true replacement" for a 12 mp D300s at twice the megapixels? One needs to define what "true replacement" means before the question can be answered.

For the sake of argument let's say a "true replacement" camera for a D3100 is one that uses the essentially same body as the D3100 does even if it has more megapixels. If so, the D800 qualifies as a "true replacement" for the D700. Does anyone doubt the 24mp D3200 is the true replacement for the D3100? No, so why doubt the D800 is the replacement for the D700 just because it has more megapixels? Let's say the entry level FX qualifies as the "true replacement" for the D700. If so, the D600 qualifies even though it is using a different body style. Let's say use of D4 sensor in a D700/D800 style body is "true replacement" for the D700. Then Nikon has not produced such a camera. We don't know if they will but they could quite easily do so by simply putting the D4 sensor and associated electronics into a D800 body. FPS and buffer would both improve from the D800 because much less data is being processed. What would it be called? D720? Put the 36mp D800 sensor into the D4 body and call it the D4x? Put the D600 sensor into the D800 body and call it the D730? Nikon has the top three FX sensors now and three different types of FX bodies. Start mixing them up. Nikon could be the Porsche of DSLR companies buy producing as many iterations of its FX camera as Porsche produdes iterations of the 911. I wouldn't expect any new FX models in 2013; it will be the year for DX upgrades. But in mid-cycle (2014) Nikon could unleash many new FX cameras by simply swapping bodies and sensors around. It should be easy to produce what would look like new lines of cameras and the "old" accessories, such as grips, would still fit.

andy sharp said:
Can we expect an actual replacement for the D700? The D800 has over the top file sizes and much slower frames per second. The D600 seems to be a consumer camera, much like an FX version of the D7000. Is there any chance Nikon will step up and give us something new here? If I had the money, I'd buy a D4, but that's not in the budget. Nikon Rumors gurus, what's the answer?

I'm not sure what type of photographer you are and the kind of equipment you have, but, if the file size of a photo is what is holding you back, then you have far more pressing issue to address within your computer world that your photography world. When you get a bigger hard drive, be it internal or external, then come back and we will give you a better path to take.

Why don't people just find a NEW D700 and hold onto that beloved camera for the rest of their lives? If I was in that big of a fuss, I'd either:
a) buy the d4
OR
b) buy a nice, used d3s

The great thing about technology is that you'll be able to pick up the d4 for $3,000 in a few years. That's your d700 replacement, since the much higher MP (and beautifully designed) d600/d800 can't do it for 'ya.