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?
A true D700 replacement?
(31 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
andy sharp said:
The D800 has over the top file sizes and much slower frames per second.
the files size issue can be easily sorted with a new or upgraded computer
as for fps, yes I expect the D900 will have this sorted
but you may have to wait a bit
you never know, we might even get a D400in the mean time there still some mint D700's at very sensible prices on e bay
or if fps is vital, look at a second hand D3sPosted 7 months ago # -
"true D700 replacement"
That just makes me laugh. No, Nikon is not going to make a D4 at the price of a D700. They made a $8,000 (D3x upgrade) at the D700 price and a 24mp FX at what the D700 has been marked down to after 3 years. Those are your D700 replacement choices.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I've been seeing several LN D3x's on ebay in the low 3K range. One had under 3000 shots on it. If I had not spent my next two years photo budget on lens recently I'd pickup that puppy. D3's are currently in the low 2K range.
framer
Posted 7 months ago # -
Yawn....
ZZZZZZ....Ok, I know I'm a jerk, but there is no reason to make a drop-in replacement for the D700, and if you think the d600 or D800 can't do your kind of photography, you should rent one or the other for a few days. You'll come around.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Wataru, people just like to have reason to complain :)
Posted 7 months ago # -
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 d3sThe 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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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 oncePosted 7 months ago # -
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. :]
Posted 7 months ago # -
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
Posted 7 months ago # -
Guys, could we please keep this a bit more professional. I just got the perfect d700 replacement: a used D3s with 12000Acts. Hoo ah
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Posted 7 months ago #
-
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?
Posted 7 months ago # -
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 ISOsbut the D800 has never been about high ISOs
If you want high ISOs get the D4the D800 is marked as a studio and landscape camera nether require high ISOs
Posted 7 months ago # -
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)
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
