With nikon coming out with new bodies in the next year. What is the probability that they would release a FX body at DX level price (1400-1800) range. body only. I would love to get a FX backup in the coming years, The d700 would be awesome but a little to much i feel. If nikon were to make a affordable FX camera, what would the spects be?
Reasonable FX body
(23 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I could see the D700 coming down to $1800 in the next year if they release its replacement. I'd love for them to release a D90-esque FX body with a D700 sensor, but I honestly don't think it will happen. They could do it but they probably won't.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It would lower the sales of the D300 seres and just kill the DX sales. With me about to go to college, I plan on having my own business (wedding and portrait). I would want a fast AF and also iso capablity of the D3. hinting the d700. But also i believe i would want to upgrade to the D4 by the time me graduate so i would have a D4 and D3 combo with the lenses i have.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It is like wishing for Mercedes to make an affordable V8 car. I am sure they could do it but why? If you want affordable go for A class, it will bring you from point A to point B just as well as C class will.
Same is true for cameras, if you want affordable go for DX, it will give IQ almost as good as FX, cameras and lenses are much cheaper, and if you want the best pay more. It makes more sense to me then just going for a cheap FX body.Posted 3 years ago # -
MB, I agree with you. It would be wonderful for us all to be able to buy high MP, high ISO cameras with excellent glass at a price that most average people could afford. Just ain't gonna happen any time soon. But just wait, and you may be able to get it cheap.
Look at where digital was ten years ago, and what it cost back then. People would have died to have the equipment back then. Well, guess what, you can now buy for a few hundred bucks much better equipment than what they had then. BUT, everything has gotten better, and not many professionals or enthusiasts would be happy with 10 year old spec equipment now. Go figure.
Posted 3 years ago # -
i doubt the D700 will drop in price, they look like they are just shrinking production and tightening supply so that it'll enable a smoother transition into high demand for the D700s (like the did with the D3; could hardly find them before the D3s, and now it's not exactly easy to just pick up and order a D3s). . .smart marketing. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I would love to see a d700s - same price as d700 and same sensor as in d3s
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nikon has too many "S" models already. They need "new" models not just updated ones.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I disagree, Niko. True, there are a lot of "s" models already, but when you think of how awesome a D3S is and then imagine being able to buy one for under $3000 in the form of a D700s its hard not to like the option. They could make that exact camera and call it a d800 if they wanted and it would still rock. And if they do release this soon I will gladly sell anyone here my barely used D300s for $1500 CAN
Posted 3 years ago # -
Who cares it if is an "S" model, what difference does it make?
Posted 3 years ago # -
An "S" model signifies minor updates to an existing model. If Nikon were to put a new sensor into a D700 but keep everything else the same then that would actually be an "X" model as in D700X. A D700S would just have something like dual card slots and HD video like the D300S. Nothing too exciting. Yes the D3S has a "new" sensor but it's specs stayed the same 12mp. ISO performance was the "only" thing that was improved on.
I want an all new D800/900 which would mean that Nikon has built a completely new model with new features and specs. Like the difference between the D200 and D300. They might look the same but are two different models. The D300 was not just a D200S.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Which I guess means that I am actually hoping for is an "x" model or an entirely new camera. It would be nice if this future camera didn't have the same slow fps that the D700 and D3X have. A D700-esque camera with 14mp sensor and 7-8fps without the battery pack would be a dream. Make it best the D3S on ISO performance and keep it under $3000 and Im in hog heaven.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Then a D700s is exactly what I want. D700 body, D3S sensor, dual card slot, and video (1080p, 24,25,30 fps etc...)
Anyone want my crappy backup D300? Haha
Posted 3 years ago # -
Oh well, ive got 4 years to decide my set up :). I plan to invest in another sb-900. And some pocket wizards. i am going to try some off brand chinese ebay trans/reciev.
this is off subject, but has there been any problems with anyones sb-900 off on remote master switch sticking as if its stuck? I have to force it back everytime.
Posted 3 years ago # -
niko - and I want d700s, d3s sensor in d700 body:) and I want d900 - d3x sensor in d700 body :) - and I guess both of us will have to wait a little bit more
Posted 3 years ago # -
adam- and I want a real unicorn :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
smarterchild said:
It would lower the sales of the D300 seres and just kill the DX sales. With me about to go to college, I plan on having my own business (wedding and portrait). I would want a fast AF and also iso capablity of the D3. hinting the d700. But also i believe i would want to upgrade to the D4 by the time me graduate so i would have a D4 and D3 combo with the lenses i have.If you're going into weddings and portraits exclusively I'm pretty sure you're going to end up with a hasselblad or mamiya with a digital back. Most likely something in medium format digital. Or at least own a film hassy or mamiya, people who hire wedding photographers -love- that sort of thing, and it'll separate you from the other 8,000 guys with the exact same business model as you who also all use the D700 and D3 bodies. Remember, that industry is owned by mass produced photo studios, as far as portraits go, and weddings all seem to be generic these days too.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ChrisLange said:
If you're going into weddings and portraits exclusively I'm pretty sure you're going to end up with a hasselblad or mamiya with a digital back.I think if someone's running a business (with an intent for profit) they'll need some serious revenue to make that investment worth it. And with a saturated market that revenue doesn't come easy.
Going medium format with "film" really could be a good marketing tool but you'd have to be pretty good and enjoy dealing with film (whatever that entails).
Posted 3 years ago # -
It wouldn't be an immediate investment, as one can pay off the back costs over the course of 3 years or so, it's not like megapixel counts above 30 and sensor quality of the current mf backs is going to go obsolete any time soon.
as for dealing with film, if you were to get yourself a Mamiya 7, or one of the new voigtlander/fuji 6x6/6x7 rangefinders, you'd have top notch optics, in a very compact and flexible system, with the ability to enlarge far beyond a 24mp body. 6x7 will easily give you a 30x36 print that will hold up to close inspection. ship the film off to a good lab for processing, get the prints done via high end scanning/lambda print, or traditional RA-4 process, and you'll have an end product that clearly looks head and shoulders above any interpolated D3 image.
consider this
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/gsw690iii-res.html
then consider that the 100% crops represent what would be a 100x120" print or 8.75x10 feet, and that if a fine grain developer was used, along with a faster shutter speed, and a drum scan versus a nikon coolscan, there would be even greater detail.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Out of all the wedding photogs I know only one shoots with a Hassy. And he charges extra for it so he rarely gets to use it. A medium format camera is just too dang slow for capturing fast wedding moments. It's more for studio shots of the bride before the wedding or for very controlled group portraits. The hassy does give some awesome depth to his wedding pictures that's for sure
Posted 3 years ago # -
What fraction of the market is looking to enlarge beyond 20"x30", Chris? That's a small niche you'd be targeting, but you're right that it would set you apart. Like Niko, I can't imagine using medium format for a photojournalistic approach to weddings—mostly for weight considerations. For more traditional bridal shoots, which is where the bigger printing would be more useful IMO, it would be lovely to have MF.
Posted 3 years ago # -
chris- i totally agree with you about investing in a medium format camera. Ive witnessed the photog i work for. He was using a Contax 645 for "beauty"shots. and used it wide open at f2. Now he has a hassey H2. I have thought about going with the contax 645. its really nice, Its about 1k for the whole setup with a 80mm f2 lens. Its not that bad for the price. id rather have a H2 but thats 6k for the setup plus lens. At this point id rather build my normal camera equipment. Because i would be using that the most. I am even offering Using my f5 during portrait shoots. Itd charge extra. Im trying to find a reasonable dev. and scanner way for the shots. But My bag always consists of my D3, F5, and my d90 as backup.
There is also the new medium formant i just saw. It was panisonic or sigma i believe? i forget. but its about 6k for digitally. and that sounds pretty reasonable. Id rather have a hasselblad but there are limits for one whos just starting out. I wouldnt be thinking of investing in a 20k camera untill i make 100k+. the contax 645 is the one im looking at when i get into medium format
Th top of my list for weddings would includea spare sb900, eventually 4 pocket wizards, and a 85 1.4. Way down the line would be a spare Fx body instead of a dx.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
