NikoDoby said:
The original D700 had the same sensor as the D3 and that didn't mess up their marketing strategy one bit.

mtiktinsky the 5Dmk2 is actually "just" 21mp :^)

Yes it had the same, but people are asking for the D700 replacement to have more MP than one of the pro models, and that is what I don't see happening, unless the D4 is closer to release than anticipated.

mtiktinsky - yeah, would love to see it, and price tag around $3500

The original D700 had the same sensor as the D3 and that didn't mess up their marketing strategy one bit.

mtiktinsky the 5Dmk2 is actually "just" 21mp :^)

PB PM said:
I cannot see Nikon putting a higher end or resolution sensor in the D700 than the D3s. That would mess up their marketing strategy for the pro market, and cause them to lose sales in the higher end cameras. I'm guessing D700s, still.

I am really hoping for the D700x with the 24 mpxl. They do have to compete with the Canon 5D Mark II which is 22 mpxl.

I think June-July is the expected time frame for a new camera to be released - 6 weeks from now sounds right. Then I think we will have another round of announcement before Photokina (September).

Considering that you only have one FX lens, upgrading to a full frame camera now might not be the best choice. A D300s and some F2.8 glass would be a better use of money.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about your computer, Delie. ;-)

I still think a D90 for now is a good way to go, while waiting for a D700 replacement. It shouldn't be long, and if you sold your D300 to someone who doesn't care about video you'd make money on the transaction.

Ok I am no videographer.. But I am interested and will give it a good go when I get a camera that has video capability. However, if I were to be interested to have a go at Video NOW. I would get any of the Nikon DX cameras that have it depending on my budget. 720p would not stop me one bit. especially after seeing those Pro Cinematographers Drooling over the 720p from the D3S.

So what if its got some slight disadvantages over 1080p (some of the canon only can do 1080p at 20FPS only anyway), look everything is a compromise. I bet there is a ton of other issues that I will need to get to grips with with video that has nothing to do with 720vs1080.... off the top of my head.... software, disk space, syncing sound, recording external sound, techniques with holding the camera as a video. sourcing background music / sound effects, actors/ scripts, special effects.. post processing, editing ..... gee wizz sure seems to me that 1080vs720p would be a real minor consideration! In fact its probably a positive that 720p has less resource requirements.

Adamz, I have worked on few short films and several tv commercials with REDONE which even the red one compresses the file which uses 12mpx chip.

Of course if that file was uncompressed video there will be no computer power to play that so that's why we have this different compressors to compress the files to a manageable sizes without loss of quality

What I wanted to elaborate with 2mpx was that even though we have 12, 18, 21mpx on our DSLR camera only uses 2mpx for video which comes from 1920 x 1080p = 2 073 600.

SO in terms of video that's how many pixels are used to create a 1080p on top of that those pixels are compressed to other motion jpeg Avi ore Quicktime movie, which at the end both are mpeg 4 compression.

I agree with you Adamz when you say that there isn't that much difference between 720 and 1080p but for some people that extra pixels are important because they can crop and pan around the picture depending what they are doing.

You can play 720p on full HD monitors without any problems because most of monitors can upscale the video to 1080p but when you have the video which originates as 1080p it will look much sharper and cleaner.

Have you ever wander why today's palmcorders are shooting full hd videos and not some of top of the range ENG cameras which cost 10x more? IT is because of the 1080i/p monitors that we have on our homes.

I thing Delie made it clear as to what he wants in terms of equipment and why because I was in the same situation last year when I bought mu D300s, I wanted to have 2 things in one something similar to what Canon is offering at the moment.

I hate to say this but at the moment Nikon is way behind in that department but still doesn't stop me from not using one.

So Delie I would suggest you to wait for few more months because we are expecting an upgrade from Nikon very soon and if nothing comes up then you have an idea what to do next.

SO what ever you want to buy it want be a problem with lenses because you can get a Nikon to Canon adapter and use Nikon glass on Canon body, I am doing that at the moment until NIkon brings out a new camera that shoots video as it should.

valonqe said:
At the end of the day camera only uses 2mpx for the full HD and on top of that it compresses the file so I won't worry about computer power or space to handle the HD video.

I'm with Adamz and I also have no idea what you mean by that valonqe? If you plan to compress your video so much then why do you want 1080?

Delie I still think you'd be better served with a D300S or the D90 replacement and better lenses if you "just" want to "play" around with shooting online videos. Also don't forget you'll need to replace the 18-200 if you do go with a full frame Nikon. But it's your money so if you can't wait for the "D800" then just get the 5Dmk2 and be happy already.

Hey again guys :)

NikoDoby said:
Delie I still don't think you have given a "good enough" reason to spend $3000 on a new camera body. Not to mention even more on new lenses and perhaps a new computer and hard drive space to handle 16-18mp worth of HD video. Yes you listed all of the benefits of full frame but how does that apply to YOU?

Are you planning to start a business? Sounds like you really just WANT and don't necessarily NEED a "D800". You don't need full frame necessarily to get good video quality. Just look at the differences between the D3S, 1Dmk4, the GH1, and some other point&shoot cameras in this video that was posted a while back by HotDuckZ

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

Yes it's your money but upgrading lenses versus bodies is a better choice. How many D3S have you seen with the 18-55mm attached to it?

Once again, thanks for the feedback :)

To give you some more info on my situation, because I'm new here: I run my own business. I am self-employed. However, I am not a professional photographer/videographer, I am a web site programmer and designer. I specialise in .NET/HTML/CSS/JavaScript/SQL/misc MS software/Photoshop and I build media-rich websites. I have on several occasions in the past taken photos for clients to use on their websites. I also have a desire to offer video as another option to clients. I do have a very capable Intel i7 PC, with SSD/SATA hard drives, 6gb of ram, and over 2TB over hard drive space, so video filesize/processing is not an issue for me. I also use Adobe Premiere for video editing and have made a number of video projects, simply for fun. It's a hobby at the moment. I have the time, patience and a willingness to learn to work with DSLR video. I would seriously consider buying a 2nd hand Glidecam to aid stabilization. I have a desire to improve my video editing skills and very much enjoy the indie video scene (on websites like Vimeo, for instance).

I've watched those Zacuto webisodes previously (still waiting for 3/3), and they're fantastic, and highly recommended! It was through these forums that I was made aware of that website initially too - so thanks for that :)

I would agree that I don't necessarily need full frame to get good video quality, absolutely.

Regarding buying a new lens rather than upgrading - I agree there are many benefits to be had from purchasing a new lens, but I feel that this does not address the key issue I have. The issue is: I would like a DSLR that also captures video (not necessarily 1080, although it would be a bonus). Certainly I would want more than 5 minutes worth of continuous shooting, and this is a limitation on some models. In addition, to be fair it's not your fault, but you don't actually know what lenses I have already because I haven't mentioned it and I haven't made any of my pics publicly available on the web for quite a long time. I have a 10-20mm Sigma, 50mm 1.4g prime Nikkor, and an 18-200 VR Nikkor. YES, there is *absolutely* room for improvement, but again -this is not the key issue for me right now, DSLR+Video is. I can 100% understand a lot of people are not in the slightest bit interested in having a DSLR capable of capturing video, this is perfectly fine with me. However, if the option is there I'd like to take it. It suits me personally very well indeed.

More of my current situation: currently I'm in the market for a high quality camcorder/video capture device. I have a camcorder, but it's 10 years old. And, coincidently I've also been considering upgrading to full frame for a long time too. It is actually *cheaper* (this is key) for me to part exchange my Nikon gear and purchase a Canon 5D mk2 with a 50mm 1.4 prime to get me started, than it is is for me to purchase a separate camcorder in the UK and have 2 devices (dslr+camcorder). For the price of the upgrade, I get a better stills camera, and MUCH better video-recording than I could ever hope to achieve with a stand-alone camcorder device for the money anyway. So you see, it's a case of 2 very good upgrades for the price 1. How could that NOT be tempting? :)

valonqe said:
[...]
At the end of the day camera only uses 2mpx for the full HD and on top of that it compresses the file so I won't worry about computer power or space to handle the HD video.
[...]

sorry to say that, but have You ever edited video on Your computer? from words You wrote it looks obviously to me that You haven't.
1080p x 24fps (uncompressed) will give You app 9GB/min - it's a lot of data to store (even when You compress them) and if You want to play with it, You need a lot of processor power (especially in real time processing)

for me there is another question: how many of You will see a difference between 720p and 1080p - I would say, unless You have a really big screen You ain't gonna notice the difference. most HD TV channel distribute their signal in 720p quality. so, unless You make Your living out of it, there's no reasons to desire 1080p output. I'll repeat what I wrote before, instead of spending Your money on another body spend it on Your education, get d90 as niko suggested and at the end You will benefit more than from buying 1080p enabled camera right now.

Like Delie, I became impatient for more megapixels and better video.
I bought the 5D2 and now wish I had gotten a D3s instead.
Are the higher images better? Sometimes as my keeper rate has gone way down.
Does 21MP give you more to work with? Surprisingly very little.
Is the HD Video that much better than a D90. Yes, but the file size is very hard to deal with.
I think the 5D2 is the best camera Canon makes.
It is the closest to Nikon in ergonomics.
The High ISO is not near as good as a D3s or even as good as a D700.
The AF is not near as good or fast as a D3s.
Is the 5D2 priced right? Yes, but by the time I bought a complete outfit, I spent more than I would on a D3s and one new lens.

Now that I spent more money than I had, the D700s is sure to come out with the D3s sensor and HD Video.
Maybe by this time next year I can get one.

There are some good reasons to switching to FX, but just getting less noise at high ISO noise isn't the best one. Unless you make a profit from your photos that is. I want to switch to FX as I start to sell photos, meaning that my sale of photos will pay for the switch.

I think Delies reasons are exceptional to me and I totally share his thoughts. On the other hand I do agree with you Niko as well when you say a lot of times that the lens is more important then the body and that the camera should be used for the specific jobs.

You know me back a while ago I bought the 7D purely because of the video and still have the D300s which at the beginning I bought for shooting video as well as taking pictures.

I also am waiting for Nikon to see what is bringing out next few months for my next upgrade. IF it is a D700s or even better D800 that shoots 1080p with different completion like it has on Nikon P100 that I am going to sell both my D300s and 7D to finance the new camera. Not that I need to but because I have a set of prime-manual Nikon lenses from my F4s I want to have FF body to be able to use them without crop factor.

At the end of the day camera only uses 2mpx for the full HD and on top of that it compresses the file so I won't worry about computer power or space to handle the HD video.

We have to understand one think guys, DSLRS aren't meant to be treated like camcorder or professional ENG camera because of the size and the way camera behaves. First of all you are limited on time per each take then you have to worry about sensor overheating, and buttons are laid out with a photographer in mind.

These cameras shine when you use them in tripods or dolly tracks where the movement is slow and controlled.

Delie I still don't think you have given a "good enough" reason to spend $3000 on a new camera body. Not to mention even more on new lenses and perhaps a new computer and hard drive space to handle 16-18mp worth of HD video. Yes you listed all of the benefits of full frame but how does that apply to YOU?

Are you planning to start a business? Sounds like you really just WANT and don't necessarily NEED a "D800". You don't need full frame necessarily to get good video quality. Just look at the differences between the D3S, 1Dmk4, the GH1, and some other point&shoot cameras in this video that was posted a while back by HotDuckZ

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

The samples start at about 3:50. I doubt that if those samples weren't labeled you wouldn't be able to tell which was from the point&shoot and which from the 5Dmk2. Keep in mind that these "test" were done in pretty extreme low light.

Yes it's your money but upgrading lenses versus bodies is a better choice. How many D3S have you seen with the 18-55mm attached to it?

Firstly, thanks for the replies guys!

Just so you know, when I refer to the 'torture' of waiting for newly updated models, I am of course just making fun of myself. There's no real torture here, it's just that my brain likes to punish me for being so impatient! :)

@Adamz - thank you for the welcome. I've been reading these forums for over a year, but for some reason not posted with a registered account until now! I've read your comments on many topics so I do appreciate your opinion. I do love the capabilities of my current D300, but I've been considering a switch to full frame for a long time, mostly because of the benefits of improved low-light performance. I'm also extremely interested in video-capture, so it would seem a perfect opportunity to improve the equipment I use for both of these areas (stills+video) at the same time.

The fact that I haven't rushed in to a purchase up until this point doesn't negate my desire to upgrade, it hopefully shows that I've been reasonably patient and have spent a long time deliberating, because I want to make an informed decision. This is why I believe that the fact I haven't upgraded until now, is not a good indicator of whether I need to or not. Technically, I don't *need* to upgrade. Technically though, nobody *needs* to upgrade if they have a perfectly functioning camera already. That's not to say, however, that there's no benefit to be gained from upgrading. When you ask whether it will benefit me to switch to Canon - well unfortunately there are both pros and cons. Evaluating it is not a case of yes or no, it's yes...but [this], or no...but [that].

So what would I say are the pros? full frame, better iso performance, hd video - and not just video for the sake of it, the quality of the video is fantastic. This is a huge plus for me. It's like getting a top of the range DSLR combined with top of the range video. If you were to buy a camcorder/film camera to try to match it you'd literally be spending literally thousands, or at least a lot more than I'd be willing to spend anyway. If you're not into video you can discount this, at which point making a decision would become an awful lot easier.

The cons? It's not a Nikon, I'm familiar with Nikon, and I like Nikon. It's AF system is not as good as the D700, it's low-light ISO performance is arguably not quite as good as the D700, it's arguably not as well built as the D700 and I prefer the ergonomics & O.S. of the D700 too. I like the Nikon D700 a lot.

So, there's a lot to consider :)

@JonnyApple - all good points. I've tried a 5D MK2 in a store, and was pleasantly surprised. I think this is because I'd read so much about how it wasn't as good as a D700 that I actually prepared myself for it to be much worse than it was! I do reckon though, that I would need much more time to form a proper opinion so would need to go back for a second test.

RE: Cubase LE - I use Cubase 5 & Ableton Live (for different tasks - Cubase for audio track mixing, and Live for jamming). Cubase LE is good for getting started, definitely, it's very competent. If you're just starting out with DAWs you might like to try out Reaper by Cockos, simply because it's good and comparatively very cheap. It does depend on what you're doing of course. Having said that, Steinberg/Ableton/Cockos all offer trial versions of their software so you could do a free comparison :)

@PB PM - not expecting anything in the next few days, but if I went back in time a few months I would have hoped there might have been something by now - wishful thinking though :)

@Niko - you're right, not only is a D700S/D800 expected soon-ish, so is the 5D MK3. So yes, I would have to concede that it might be a better decision to hold off for at least half a year longer - although it pains me to say it :)

The New D700 couldn't come at a better time for me. I've been saving and my D300 is getting old. I still love it, but I really am looking forward to full-frame and better ISO. I've been tempted to just get a 700, but since the rumors are we're getting close, I'm gonna wait. This is exciting!

Delie even the canon 5Dmk2 will be replaced by the end of the year/early next year by the 5Dmk3. There is always going to be something new coming. I'd do as Adamz said and just enjoy the D300 you have now until the next new Nikon. It's a fine camera and it's not going to stop working when the new D700 is announced.

NikoDoby said:
Dude you've been "switching" for over a year now. Just do it already.

Haha yeah but I have no reason to switch now... I'm perfectly fine with my D300... I'm just saving and waiting for the true upgrade.. Going canon now won't do much.. I'd buy a 5dmk2 and what kind of wide lens? the 16-35? I'd rather save my money and shoot my D300 some more until I upgrade.. Don't worry there's gonna be a post once I make my move over to Canon or once I get a full frame body with Nikon.

BTW, Delie, I see you like audio editing. I've got a copy of Cubase LE that came with a field recorder I bought, but I haven't gotten around to installing it and have been using Vegas as a DAW for little projects (even though it's a video editor it's got its roots in sonic foundry's sound forge). My question is have you heard of/tried Cubase LE and is it any good?

Mods: I'd write this to Delie directly, but my PM is still broken.

Sounds like you answered your own question, Delie. There's no way to know, and really when it comes down to it it's your decision. One suggestion is to make sure you get to actually try out the canon 5DII before you buy it. I just can't stand canon's interface after using Nikons for a while. I have to admit I've not used the 5DII, but I assume the 5D is similar and I didn't like the button layout/menu interface. Canon users probably say the same thing about Nikon.

Have you considered a D90 for the vacation? That's the camera that came to mind when you were talking about what you're looking for, and I love mine (also used a D300 for two years) and I love the video. The D90 might tide you over until the D700s is released, at which point you could sell it and probably lose less than you would trading in your Nikon gear. Just my 2 cents...

If you are expecting anything in the next few days you'll be disappointed. I think the earliest we might see a D700 replacement would be July. If you are after 1080p video, it is unlikely that the D700 replacement will have that, so if you need/want that go for the 5D MK2.

DELIE - first of all welcome, second of all.. if You wait for so many months than in my opinion You don't need a new camera, get a lens instead and You will benefit more. If You want to switch to canon, go ahead - the question is: will You benefit from this change? IMHO no. Especially if You want to change the system only because Nikon doesn't offer full hd capabilities.
summing up, start shooting and enjoying Your camera and stop collecting them.

I've got the money waiting to buy a d700s/d800, and have been waiting for what must be a year now. It's not Nikon's fault of course, Nikon can release whatever products they like, but the point is - i'll spend the money ASAP if they give me something to spend it on.

I'm extremely tempted to grab the 5d MK2, because i'm bored of waiting, but i do love my D300 and would very much prefer to stick with Nikon. On the other hand - it seems crazy for me not to spend that money right now when there's a product out there that does pretty much what i want already. I'm not interested in MP, i'm interested in a high quality stills camera with decent low-light ISO performance, that offers HD video to boot. I understand video is of little interest to some people, but for me it's exactly what I'm after. I find it absoultely fantastic that I can get the best of both worlds in a DSLR camera without spending a fortune on two separate devices. If Nikon can provide me with a solution, I'd be more than happy to purchase, simply because of the excellent experience I've had with the D300.

However, I go on holiday in 4 days time and would dearly love to take a new full frame with me, it'd be a perfect time to get to grips with it in an interesting environment. Question is - do I wait for a few months and find out Nikon are only offering a peacemeal upgrade with a new D700S, or do I just bag a 5D MK2 now and stop this agonising wait for an upgrade which may or may not turn up in the next half a year anyway? I've got a quote from the local camera shop who are willing to part-exchange my Nikon gear for the canon + a new prime. But what do I do.... who knows?! I'm not really expecting an answer by the way, I realised long ago that guessing the market is a futile exercise :)

I shouldn't read websites like this though, much as I enjoy reading NR - it's bad for my health! And that's because it causes months of torture, waiting for a new product that some people are convinced is only just around the corner. Trouble is - you get to the corner, and there's another corner, more months, and then....another corner! You get the picture! It's not easy being the most impatient man in the world, i tell you :)