Nikon D700x

I have received several tips from stores, Nikon reps, Nikon authorized service centers, etc about the Nikon D700x. Those tips are coming from different parts of the world and the interesting thing is that they all point to a Nikon D700x release in the Fall of 2009:

"I was at *** 2009 show earlier this year in ***, and was asking a staff member on the Nikon stand about the D700 replacement/upgrade. I was told whatever replaces it will be released in October/November 2009, but they would say no more than that."

"My D300 is in for service at Nikon (bad aperture control module) and I asked the tech when a new dslr was being released and which one. He responded with the D700x this fall. A 24mp replacement for the D700."

Nikon D700x NR probability rating: 40%

I believe there will be a D700 update this year, but I don't think it will be a D3x sensor in a D700 body (would you buy one of those for $6000)? I think we will see more of the D300s type of update for the D700.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • gcardinal

    Maybe not a 24mp, but something like 18mp with good ISO handling. X stands for Studio-version. And it will be odd to make studio version of a street camera. If anything it can only be D750 or D700s.

    • Ten2Twenty

      The big question is where is this sensor coming from?

  • MentalRaymond

    I think with the d3x being out now almost a year, they can afford to drop the price of the d3. So with those 2 cameras and the current d700 camera, i think that end of the market is surely covered? What they need is someing below 2000 pounds that can compete with the canon mkII camera. A d300s surely doesnt make sense, especialy still using the 2 year old 12MP sensor, whos it meant to compete with? I welcome propper d400 upgrade with a sony 16mp sensor and 1080i video.

    • WoutK89

      They are probably able to make minor tweaks to the sensor like they did in the D90-D5000, but just a bit more. Keeping the same sensor but improving the output signal, microlenses and such has a much bigger impact than just putting in a new sensor. If you really want more megapixels, there is a D3x 🙂 and otherwise wait for the D400 to come with a new sensor.

    • Anonymous

      Digital cameras are becoming like computer memory and hard disks – they don’t drop in price, they increase in capacity, features, etc. So, for the same money you buy more. Very likely D3 to be replaced with D3s,h with something more inside and price to be adjusted sadly up again to 4,999 we want it or not..

      • Anonymous

        I agree!

      • dr4gon

        uhhh….. you can’t tell me DRAM (DDR2 and DDR3) haven’t plummeted in price, same with hard drives. Price per gig has dropped significantly on both of these items.

        • Anonymous

          Exactly. The price per megabyte dropped, but the prices for the whole hard drives pretty much stays the same. for the money you buy today 1tb you will get 2tb within a year or two. So, the money that will buy you today a d3 will get get you a d3 replacement, a couple months after it hit the street.

    • rwpl

      Why cant you understand that you can’t put more and more MPx onto a DX sensor?! Trust me – they will give you d400 with 16Mpx that you wish for with noise levels higher the Pentax K20D or Canon 50D and you will say – Oh yeah well sory but I thought that more MPX will come with good iso performence. 12MPx is a max for DX IMHO like 24MPX is max for FF ( unless we will change the technology – But I dont think it will be any time soon)

      • Stephen

        Hasn’t the math already been done that shows we wouldn’t have to worry about noise with the current sensor until about 25 MPs. Also, a lot of noise reduction has nothing to do with the sensor and more to do with the processor.

        • rwpl

          no it didn’t. sorry

          • PHB

            Actually the physics says that you can get up to 160 MP on a DX size sensor. There are plenty of cameras out there with sensor resolutions much higher than the D3x.

            Finer resolution does not increase noise, all that finer resolution does is to reduce the averaging effect of larger sensor area. Big difference, the same effect can be duplicated in software.

            That higher ISO is not free, it comes at the cost of making your lenses wider which means that to get the same effect as a 400 mm f/2.8 you have to go to a 600mm lens which is only available as an f/4. So you are back where you started.

            Back in the day we used to think that 1600 ISO film was really fast. So you might think that a 24MP DX sensor camera which only manages to make 1600ISO not worth having, but plenty of other people don’t.

            If you do telephoto or macro shots, the DX format is superior to FX. That is a fact of physics.

      • Lefty K. Monahan

        I think the recent emergence of BSI sensors might help this problem, I would hope. 🙂 Though none I’ve read about yet are at the size or quality of what one would expect for dSLR.

  • Mmmm why not a small upgrade using the 14mpixel sony new sensor?

    • Alex

      The Sony 14.2 megapixel sensor is DX sized. Surely the D700 wouldn’t be replaced with a DX sensor. And, there really needs to be a 5DMkII competitor from Nikon. So more than 21mp would be nice, as well as 1080/24p video. So the 24.5mp FX sensor from D3X makes sense to me.

      • i’ve not readen the Sony A380 specs fully, i checked only the greater sensor on sony website .

        Surely full frame!!!

        The A900 24 ff frame sensor is huge…. hope it will be it!

        I hope in the july conference will be revealed this new body: i cross my finger!

        • WoutK89

          For all I know, the 24 MP sensor of sony is in the D3x, only a tweaked for Nikon version, so it performs better 🙂

      • Great point Alex but at what cost?
        The current D700 price is similar to the 5DMk2. I believe they would have to provide a little bit more, in order to justify the new pricing.

        • In fact the price is now the problem for the D700; how many,starting from the ground, without lenses of one or other brand, with both body in front of them, will choose the d700 instead of the canon 5D mark2, without caring about faster shoot speed and/or less rumor?

    • Udo

      The 14 MP Sony sensor is CCD and therefor probably not good enough.

      • Anonymous

        but the CCD should be better for video.

        • Stephen

          actually most video is switching to CMOS anyways. The advantages are just so much better.

  • I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree with any talk concerning a FF sensor in a Nikon other than the 12 or 24 happening in the next two years. R&D on sensors is probably the most expensive endeavor for manufacturers right now. You won’t see a new sensor in this economy. An application of existing tech makes WAY more sense. You might see a max frame rate of 6 fps, since Sony’s original design claimed readout speed that fast, and maybe fast for Nikon…but you aren’t going to see a totally new FF sensor.

    • Anonymous

      I agree. Plus the choice between 12 and 24 mpx is perfect, and there is no need for anything in between.

    • Stephen

      I totally agree. There is no reason to develop a sensor that is in between. Frankly, I would be willing to pay the 5-6000 for a FX 24MP camera in the D700 body. That’s why I bought a D700 in the first place. Full frame, but without the bulk. If I need the battery life I put on my grip.

  • It would be counter-intuitive for Nikon not to repeat the winning strategy of migrating the top-of-the-line sensor into more compact body. The D3 -> D700 transition added sensor cleaning at the low-end and cost the dual card slots and larger battery at the top end. A D700x (“X” is historically the sensor bump up designation of a current body design at Nikon) with upgraded processors can compete against the Canon 5D Mk II on all fronts. If they manage to retain the high-ISO performance of the current model then Nikon will have hit this one out of the ballpark.

    • rwpl

      I think its very likely that we see DXXX iwth D3X sesor at some point.

    • gcardinal

      X stands for “Studio version”, not for sensor bump.

      • Ken Elliott

        I’d suggest that “X” means “higher resolution, at the expense of speed and FPS”. I agree that X means “Studio” for some, but it means “Landscape” for others.

        I believe the characters relate to design intent (performance area vs. feature drop) rather than a specific application.

        To me, it makes great sense to position a D700x with a D3x sensor in between the D700 and D3. Although they might simply update the body platform used for the D300/D700 and give us a minor update for both. There are slight differences in controls, and the D700 is better. If nothing else, D700 controls and a locking CF card hatch would be a nice update to the body. Folding screen, like the D5000?

        • Anonymous

          agree, with kenn…… anonymous 1 get serious…

      • Anonymous

        D40x for studio ? 😉

      • Twoomy

        > X stands for “Studio version”, not for sensor bump.

        Maybe in YOUR universe! “X” doesn’t just mean that.

      • D1 -> D1x = Same body, same controls, upgraded (bumped) sensor
        D2 -> D2x = Same body, same controls, upgraded (bumped) sensor
        D3 -> D3x = Same body, same controls, upgraded (bumped) sensor

        Attaching an “X” to the end of the model does not make it a studio camera. I can use a D40 as a “studio camera”. The “X” designation historically (see above) means that Nikon has upgraded the sensor (and possibly the surrounding electronics). What you use it for is entirely up to you. The Nikon Thought Police will not arrest you in the middle of the night because you used an “X” camera at a football game…

        • Twoomy

          While I agree with the sentiment, do you realize that there was no “D2” and you’re just making stuff up?

    • F3Lives!

      Carlos, you are the one person on this blog who hit the point correctly – the D700’s advantage is that it has high ISO. If Nikon does increase the D700’s resolution without affecting its ISO and noise levels, they will have a brilliant camera. If they don’t add to the resolution but do other enhancements, it is still a great camera.


  • Matt

    When the D700 was released, I immediately thought one of Nikon’s models would have to disappear because that segment of the market was too crowded between the D300, D700, and D3. I vote for the D300 disappearing and dropping the price of the D700 a bit to fill the void left behind. I just don’t see the justification of having a high priced DX sensor camera when the D90 does everything for that market including video at an affordable price. DX format just doesn’t have the quality to command the top dollar. FX format does.

    I have a D70s and was never thrilled with it’s picture quality, especially at high ISO (or medium ISO for that matter). I do lots of action photography in dark indoor venues, mostly as a serious hobby, not for hire. After 50,000 photos on the D70s I’ve learned how to get the most out of it minimizing noise and other problems, but it takes a lot of effort in post and I’m just gawd darn tired of jumping through the many hoops just to get decent photos. I was anxiously anticipating the D300 and a potential improvement in low light handling, but it never came. In fact, the D300 was a big letdown because it’s low light handling amounted to smearing pixels in software and, in my opinion, is worse than the D200 in that regard. The D3 was what I needed, but too expensive. I was shocked when the D700 came out as I didn’t expect it, but it’s exactly what I want/need. Unfortunately, it’s currently priced just a bit out of my budget. A D700 retailing in the $2,000-$2,300 range is a sweetspot a lot of people would go to get a quality camera. If D700 stays at it’s current price point, then I need the 1080p video capability to justify the cost because I do have a need for video recording capabilities.

    So there Nikon, D700 at $2,100 USD w 14+ megapixels, same (or better) low light handling, FX format, 1080p video, and 5 fps minimum, and I’m sold. Otherwise I keep using the D70s because anything else from Nikon in my price range isn’t going to do that much better of a job in low light to justify the cost of a new purchase.

    • I’m still with the D50 waiting for something >14MPixels…zzzzz

      • rwpl

        What for I’m asking!? you know how demanding such a sensor would be for good quality optics?
        Example: Tamron 28-75 is great on 6MPX DX sensors and great on d700 12 MPX FF.
        Connect it to d300 – and you will need to stop down – 2.8 is unusable – you need to go to f4 just remove the fog.
        SO THINK!

        • Think to what?

          • rwpl

            Ok I’m asking for too much

          • Good lenses?


            I’m waiting a new ff body over 16mpixels with a not 5k bucks price, to buy a 14-24 2.8 Nikkor lens, a 24-70 2.8m and an 80-200 2.8, not a “crap” 28-75 lens which costs 300€. Those are good lenses!

            The price of those lenses should be go with a real good body to use at max quality.

            So, please, next time speak from your hill of knowledge when you have seen all the landscape and not only what you want to see, thanx in advance.

    • rwpl

      There is a big justification for DX format still being present in the DXXX line of Nikon’s dslrs – The crop. Its a free tele converter with no optical drawbacks.
      And I think you don’t have any expierience with D200 when you say that its high iso performence in some aspects is better then d300. Trust me when I say this iso 800 on d200 was max – while on d300 iso 3200 can be still usable.

    • >I just don’t see the justification of having a high priced DX sensor camera when the D90 does everything for that market including video at an affordable price.

      I’ve got a D300 as well as a D700. I disagree w/ cutting out the D300. It’s a different beast from the D90. Not even comparable, IMO. Perhaps the sensor’s been tweaked a bit, but how’s that any different than the D80 being tweaked a bit more than the D200 simply because it was newer? It’s the same thing. And the two aren’t comparable, IMO. The body and controls more than make it worthwhile. I used to love my D80, but now? I wouldn’t go back to a Dxx body if you PAID me. Personally, I don’t want anything to do w/ a D90. Is it great for beginners? Absolutely! Is it a great backup body? Absolutely! Are there others that feel that the semi-pro body is worth extra dollars? Judging that the D300 group on Flickr that I help moderate just went over 11,000 members, I’d say so. And we’re not the only D300 group, either.

      Personally think that any thoughts of a D90 replacing the D300 are well nigh ridiculous. Oh, it has video? Sorry, I forgot to care. I know there are people that do. And they’ll have to either jump ship or wait a little longer if they want their 1080. Just because the D90 has video doesn’t automatically make it a better camera.

      You can stick power windows in a 4-cylinder Mustang, but at the end of the day, it’s still a 4-cylinder Mustang.

      • Ken Elliott

        I Agree. The D90 pales when compaired to the D300. I had a D200 and we had a D80 at work. I hated the D80, because I always needed some feature that was missing. It was great for others (turn the knob to the “flower” for macro), but felt like a toy to me.

        I doubt I’ll ever buy below the Dx00 series, and love the fact that the D300/D700 combo handle nearly the same. Nikon’s move to a more modular design is wonderful – I can share the grip between bodies, etc.

      • Matt

        You weren’t paying attention to my post. My suggestion was to replace the D300 with the D700, not the D90.

        The main reason people go with the D300 over a D90/D80 is the body and advanced controls because its certainly not image quality alone. Well, the D700 has everything the D300 has, plus more including much higher image quality. A price reduction in the D700 to the lower 2K range would put it in the same slot as the D200/D300 of not too long ago. So putting them side by side, why bother with a D300? Let the amateurs use the D90. for those wanting that extra horsepower, body, and controls, use the D700. That is my point. Prior to the existence of the D700, the D300 had a place in Nikon’s lineup. But now anybody looking at a D300 would have to be a fool as you’re paying extra money for not much benefit in output image quality.

        As for the comment about D300 blowing away D200 in high ISO under low light – I disagree. I borrowed a friend’s D300 when it came out and took it on a test shoot and compared it against the D200 which I had also tested at prior time. I conducted the test at a dance venue in very low light where I normally shoot for a controlled environment. The D300 did a better job of preserving color with a more appealing dynamic range, but at the cost of introducing more blur into the image losing the finer details. Basically it employs a cheap blur filter to cover up the sensor’s weakness with noise. I need those finer details. I can replace the color in post if needed, but I cannot replace the details. That’s why I decided not to go with the D300. When a D700 or D700x drops into my price range, I’ll grab it. I’m not touching another DX format camera at a price higher than a D90 and advise my friends the same.

        • Char

          Well, the point is, the D300 has something the D700 does not – the crop and thus the higher pixel density.

          Now, I know there is good reasons for FX, but there are just like that good reasons for DX. Ask some bird shooters, and I guess most of them would always go for the D300 over the D700, even if they were the same price. Similar for other users that need long tele lenses for whatever reason and do not have the money for a 600/4 which might still be too short.

          What, in your opinion, is the reason that there are quite some people out there which own both a D700 and a D300? Probably the D300 is not just a backup cam in that case…

    • Derek

      While going FX is all nice and good, and I strongly lean towards buying only FX-capable lenses today, DX still has some advantages even for serious pro and semi-pro types. Those advantages are in telephoto shooting, of course. When you’re hauling out the biggest glass you can afford, and its still not enough, that little extra boost is really nice to have. Sure you can always crop, but you still come out ahead with that 12mp DX sensor.

      Probably the biggest reason I haven’t upgraded from my D300 to a D700 yet has to be that I do a lot of long-lens shooting. And if I ever do upgrade, I’ll still probably keep both cameras.

      • ivan


      • Anonymous

        I also like the coverage of the AF-points on the D300 compared to the D700. I think FX is overrated. And Nikon made a bold statement with introducing the 35mm DX, that this sensor size will stick around for quite some more time.

    • Anonymous

      “just don’t see the justification of having a high priced DX sensor camera when the D90 does everything for that market including video at an affordable price.”

      Wrong. The D90 does NOT do everything as well as the D300. The only way it matches the D300 is in high ISO, and some say it beats it there. The autofocus abilities of the cameras are worlds apart as are the build and many other features. The idea that you think they’re comparable shows you little you know about those two cameras.

      • Matt

        Image quality is all that matters in the end. If you’re going to pay extra for the controls and body, might as well go with a D700 because you’re just wasting it with a D300. Just my opinion.

        • Char

          As said, the D700 has some disadvantages compared to the D300. Besides, the image quality of the D300 is tremendously better than the one of the D90 under certain conditions – for example, if you can get perfectly sharp pictures with the D300 but only blurry ones with the D90 because the AF can just not keep up with the subject.

          Besides, the market proves you wrong – the D300 gets sold much more than the D700.

    • PHB

      I think full frame vastly over-rated on this forum. The D300 has a vastly superior focus mechanism to the D90 and D5000. Its only downside is that it is now the oldest body in the stable that has not had a refresh. It makes good sense for Nikon to add the incremental features that have appeared on later bodies, the improved noise handling, SDXC support and so on.

      Adding video is simply so that people don’t have to choose the D90 over the D300s because they can’t decide whether they need that feature or not. Think of it as an ‘experimental track’ on CD album, it may not be worth much, but it may lead somewhere interesting.

      I don’t think Nikon are going to kill off a camera just to please the egos of people who think bigger physical size is better.

      Now what you might see is that the 12MP body is discontinued when the die shrink to DX format comes on the 24MP sensor. But if there is going to be any culling of models going on I would expect it at the high end, not the lower. So the D3 would disappear from the lineup but the D700s would get an upgraded processor so it can offer the same speed. Equally, if the D300s is eliminated to make way for a D300x at 24MP, then the D90s would get the upgraded autofocus sensor (hopefully).

      Outside the online forums there are many more D300 bodies than all FX bodies put together. In 2008 the D3 was 1.5% of Nikon sales, the D300 5%. The D300 outsells the D700, which is not too surprising as it is almost half the price and you can’t get an 18-200mm zoom on a FX body.

      It makes no sense to kill off a highly profitable camera unless there is a logical replacement. The launch of the 10-24mm zoom shows that Nikon is committed to building pro-quality DX bodies for the foreseeable future.

      Its also pretty certain that we will see a 24MP DX body before we see a cheap 24MP FX body. The D700 is more or less the D300 electronics with the D3 sensor. While they almost certainly could plonk the D3x sensor in the D700 body today, the result would be really slow. All those pixels need electronics to process them.

      My guess is that in fall 2010, Nikon will complete their rollout of AFS versions of all the non-PC lenses that they are going to continue to support and announce the D4 and D400 models at the same time. Both will be 24MP with essentially identical ergonomics. The D4 will replace the D3x but offer ISO3200 or better and hit the D3 price point. The D400 will replace the D300s (there will be no interim D300x) and be identical to the D4 except in DX format and a slimmer body with slightly less processing power. The D800 will follow 8 months later.

      I think that by the time the D4 series comes round, that video will no longer be experimental, I think you will have the full MPEG2/4 support and be able to shoot for as long as you need. Only downside will be jelly shutter.

  • mfotom

    blah blah blah…
    just release the damn thing already. Im waiting!!!

  • getanalogue

    nikon urgently needs to take on canon 5d mk2. they are actually loosing crowds of people as customers. just go to your favorite camera store and ask the sales staff what’s going on. if nikon is not going to launch a D700x or D800 with D3x chip, they are lost and people would buy either canon or leica s2 depending on their amateur/pro status. good luck nikon! still love my bentley F4 and velvia 50 (and my nikon 9000 scanner) as well as my d90 plus 10-24, 16-85, 70-300, which is totally sufficient for my digital photography.

  • STJ

    As several posters have commented: “Nikon needs to address the Canon 5MkII” but how?
    Would it be enough to have 24MP sensor from the D3X? And what would the frame rate then be – if better than the D3x it would be odd (but nice).
    Would it take video and that at full Hi-Def? (oddly enough video suddenly seems unavoydable)
    Would it take over the place of the D3 or even the D300?
    Cameras are like PC’s today – buy if you need, tomorrow it’s worth half. Not so for lenses though… Good thing is – everything will come to those who wait, except any pictures 🙂

    • Desinderlase

      well said

  • Zorro

    Nikon makes these high-end models for pros who can justify/amortize the cost and for non-pros who have more money than sense. The high-end models are very profitable and keep Nikon in business and help to keep entry-level prices affordable.
    So I hope Nikon soon releases new models that satisfy those groups. I’ll stay with my D90 which is fantastic for the countless mere mortals like me (it would be even better with a 6MP sensor).

    • getanalogue

      zorro, you’re completly right. only problem for me is, that i have big hands and d90 is tiny piece of plastic. i’d like to have the d300 successor with 14mp sony sensor and low noise at high iso’s. nikon cannot launch this product as long as d700 has 12mp’s at a higher price. i don’t want a d700 because i don’t want to carry the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. i can see my friends always thinking which ultra-heavy glass they should carry, i just take them all with me and enjoy to take pictures – that’s why dx is making lot of sense.

    • I’m no expert, but I disagree. I don’t think the high-end models make that much profit for Nikon. I think their bread & butter is in the lower end cams (D40-D60-D90-D5000). It’s thanks to DX that Nikon’s got enough room to play w/ FX for those of us w/ more money than sense 😛

      • STJ

        I agree with Fried Toast on that one – but Nikon will probably make money on the FX cams as well. Also the Pro models akt as adverticement even though most people buy the cheaper models. I have a D700 and I can only say that it would be soo hard to go back to a smaller sensor camera – I just got that confirmed last week when I used a D300 for an hours time…

      • PHB

        Nikon may not make much money on the high end bodies, but they surely must do on the lenses. Thats the real reason for FX frame, to get the benefit of the full frame sensor you need to buy lenses costing $1800 each.

        I just got a great 18×12″ print off my D300 with 10-24mm zoom. Plenty of resolution there to allow post processing in Lightroom, PTLens and Photoshop. Sure more pixels are better, but I am not going to get excited about a 15% improvement. Going from the 6MP D50 to the D300 was a big improvement, I don’t plan to upgrade again until I can get 24MP and that is probably when I will switch to FX as a 24MP FX camera is also a 12MP DX camera which is enough for many uses.

  • Martin

    >I believe there will be a D700 update this year, but I don’t think it will be a D3x >sensor in a D700 body (would you buy one of those for $6000)? I think we will see >more of the D300s type of update for the D700.

    Why would you believe that? the Canon 5dmkII has the same sensor than the 1dsmkIII and is priced around €/$2000. It would be a huge disadvantage for Nikon not to bring one of those. My best guess is that the d700x will be in the $/€3000 price range. Hopefully less, to compete the 5dmkII 😉

    • getanalogue

      martin, youre perfectly right, nikon has to take on 5dmk2, no choice. a higher price would be ok if product is as superior as d3x.

    • my calculation was: the difference between the D700 and the D3 is around $2k. The D3x was $8k when released, so I figure a D700x (with a D3x sensor) would be around $6k.

      • Ken Elliott

        I was hoping to see the price lineup in this order:

        So I’m hoping for a sub US$4000 D700x. I suspect there is a lot more money that goes into the huge body than the sensor. The D700 was (in essence) a D300 body with a D3 sensor added for US$1000. If we assume Nikon did a small run of sensors for the D3x, then the US$3000 adder over the D3 makes sense. But for the D700x, I assume Nikon would have enhanced the sensor for performance and better production yields, thus greatly lowering the cost. This generation 2 FX24 sensor should result in a D700x at about US$3500-4000. Could we have a updated D3x at $6000?

        As I see it, Nikon will use the single digit D-series to prove out new technologies. Depending on how well it goes, that technology should drift down into the triple-digit D-series. I’m guessing the D3 sensor went very well, thus allowing Nikon to ship the D700 six months later. I’d guess the D3x sensor had a few things that needed refinement, so a D700x one year later is reasonable.

        The above is speculation on my part – just what you’d expect on a rumor site.

      • PHB

        Nah, does not give the necessary volume. The problem with the D3x is limited production of the sensors. They had to come out with 24MP to compete with Canon, they have not got the sensor to the same level of fine tune as the D3/D300 sensor. They should be getting ISO 3200, they are missing it.

        I don’t think you will see a D700x until they can be made for $3500. The cost of making the D3 over the D700 is not the reason one costs twice as much as the other.

      • Quash

        NRAdmin, this would make sense if the 5D MkII cost 6k. It doesn’t. If they’re going to go head to head with the MkII in sensor and video, then they have to also match on price point. I don’t see the rationale for an alternative strategy.

      • STJ

        And as a full frame sensor cost is based on size and not MB numbers I really cannot get the calculation to fit… It will be a marketing decision whn it happends.

  • Nau

    what I really wanna see is new flash ! and maybe 1-2 lenses

    • D40-Owner

      Hi Nau, you made me curious. What do you need that is lacking in the current flash lineup?

      • STJ

        Maybe a really small cheep flash?
        Or a flash that is made for off-camera use specifically?
        Or a radio-triggered flash?

        • radio powered TTL. yummy.

        • D40-Owner

          > Maybe a really small cheep flash?
          It is called SB-400
          >Or a flash that is made for off-camera use specifically?
          SB-600 and SB-900 do it wonderfully
          >Or a radio-triggered flash?
          Now that would be cool. An integrated radio master/slave in cameras and flashes.

          • STJ

            When I wrote “off camera” flash I ment something in between a dedicated studio strobe and a SB900 (which I have and like) and still with seamless TTL to work with the on-board control. I strongly believe that there is a market for that.

      • Nau

        I actualy like my SB600 BUT control on that is a pain, hold this and this to get this …who came up with that ?
        + as said before build in wire less would be nice

        SB900 is great BUT its so freaking huge having not a small camera with occasional battery grip to it and SB900…. well if I do that I will save on my gym membership for sure

      • PHB

        All DSLR flashes are bogus.

        None takes the same battery as the camera. Which is stoopid. Lithium ion can deliver the energy required and give me lots of flashes. So why make me carry two types of battery?

        Second, the distance from the lens is not enough without a stoopid handle attachment – and they have their own issues.

        Why can’t I have a flash gun that is in two parts, a base module that contains the battery and capacitors and plugs into the hotshoe and the flash itself extending from the base unit on a stalk. The stalk would also also allow me to clip on a little umbrella diffuser.

        A flash built like that would not cost any more to make but would be a lot more useful than clunky grips.

        • Nau

          cant even imagine how would u carry this aroudn ?
          there are 3rd party or even nikons extra gadgets that can do some of what u said
          but have to agree with batteries …. would love to have something a bit mroe decent in flash

  • mirceaar

    I really hope and believe that D700x won’t be a >replacement<, but it will be complementary, just as there’s 2 D3’s – low and high count megapixels.

  • Nikkorian

    The D5000 has a newer but slightly crippled D90 sensor. It will be the same with the D700x. Quality should be comparable to 5DII, but lower than D3X of course.

    • STJ

      I don’t hope it will be comparable with the d5II but rather the D700…

  • Oh noes! I *just* bought a D700!

    • STJ

      Congratulations! Isn’t it really a lovely camera?

      • Yes! It is. I’ve had it two days and I’m really loving it.

        • photogirl

          I love my D700 as well – I’ve had it since last September – shot a few weddings with it.. and WOW – what a camera! You’ll love it more every day!
          I hope this “updated” D700 will either be cheaper or make the current D700 cheaper. I’d love to have another one for my husband who shoots with me…. and maybe a third as a back up…. ha! 😉

          • Good idea! I hope for that too and will look forward to this update!

  • funny

    nice. makes sense. it should easily shut down the 5DII.


    OK Nikon, if you read this posting, here a few suggestions to make sure that the update to the D700 wins as many people as possible.
    —HD video at 720p at two frame rates (24 fps and 30 fps) AND 1080p at at least two frame rates (24 fps and 30 fps; if possible, even at 60 fps).
    ALL NEW CAMERAS (P&S, DSLR CAMERAS) ARE PLANNED WITH HD VIDEO. The D700 is part of the pro cameras so 1080p is needed but also 720p for those who do not need 1080p.
    —100% full coverage viewfinder.
    —The same auto-focus system than the one on the D3, D700 and D3X.
    —The MP count, you decide! After 12 MP, there is really not much more needs!! If you put the 24 MP sensor, make sure it is possible to take pictures at several MP counts (12 MP, 18 MP, 24 MP for instance).
    —Maybe an articulated LCD monitor but at 920,000 pixel TFT (RGB x 3 colors).
    —fully sealed for dust and moisture.
    —a good magnification for the viewfinder. The D700 is at 0.72x magnification so do better than that.
    —built-in flash. Keep it, yes.
    —At least 5 fps for the still photos.
    —Make sure the low light capability is equivalent to the D700 despite the increased MP count. By the way, the D3X has excellent low light capability despite its 24 MP.
    —Well, not important, but if you could put two slots for the cards that would be great. Put a new better format than the CF format, one of the two new ones.
    —Keep your focus on image quality.

    Let us wait and see what Nikon will do. If they put these features, it would be another slam dunk I could say.
    One thing is sure, they have to give something exceptional and above what the Canon 5D Mark II offers because the economic situation being what it is, only a compelling update to the D700 will entice new buyers.

    They update to the D300 is likely to come soon and later on the update to the D700.

    Keep the great Nikon cameras coming, Nikon.

    • Tim Catchall

      What they need to do, and quickly, is to buy or merge with JVC’s camcorder division. It is a perfect fit for Nikon – JVC don’t make still cameras, but are big in high-end video. JVC are trying to converge from the other direction – adding high-res still capture ability to their video cameras. It would be a quick way for them to get some real video know-how.

  • Mike

    what a rumor, get on with it. some pictures please. you have bad sources. Gosh. What a spy. This was written already 3 months ago, and official Nikon Dealer said more than that.

    • Anonymous

      totally agree…..

      you post “rumors” for every camera and every categorie…. so yes finally some day a ne w model will come and you are going to prove right….

      • Anon – I suggest you find another site to get your Nikon rumors since this one is not working well for you.

  • Anonymous

    If this camera does have video, I sure hope it’s better than the d90’s.

    Highly compressed 720p with crippling rolling shutter issues shouldn’t be found in a product costing thousands of dollars…


    Hinge = No Weather Seals = Weak Point in Semi-Pro body

  • Chris

    If they can trump the 5dII’s movie mode (HD fps, specifically) and use the D3x’s 24mp sensor, it’ll be a winner.

    Would be slightly surprised if it was as soon as Autumn, but I guess it got out of line with the D3/D300 and D3x.

    And If it brings the price of the D700 down… woohoo!

  • Ferrit

    Remember just before the D3 was released there were rumours about a FF 18.5 MP camera. That camera was trialed at the same time as what became the D3. It was not released because of sensor fabrication errors. The fabrication problems have now been resolved and the 18.5 MP sensor was recently tried out in a smaller body that the D3, ie the D800. By using that sensor in the existing D700 body there is no need for a seperate production program. Presto D700x

  • Jimmy

    From Pictureline:
    Nikon D300 Digital SLR Body
    SKU# P-5244
    Availability: Special Order
    ( backorder – product is not in stock )

    All gone…..

  • low

    it is time…

  • Zoetmb

    If Nikon is releasing any new bodies in the next few months, believe me, they’ve already been completely designed, are being manufactured and you have absolutely no say in the matter (aside from voting with your wallets). Posters on these forums act like Nikon (or any camera company) whips these things up in a week or two.

    If you want to suggest what Nikon should be doing in two years, that would make more sense. (And the lens development cycle is even longer — it’s generally about three years.)

  • Chris P

    Yet again everybody is getting all excited about a possible 24Mp sensor in a D700 body. My D700 does all I want it to do in terms of picture quality, but where are the following lenses for it and the D3/D3x?

    35-105 f2.8 zoom for portraits
    70-200 f2.8 that isn’t soft in the corners on full frame
    80-400 f4.5-5.6 AFS VRII zoom

    There are others that would be nice, but these three are ones the FX cameras are crying out for.

    When there are firm rumours, or better still, announcements of these lenses I will start to get excited. Until then my only question for Nikon is where are the lenses that I really need to make my D700 worth the investment? In the meantime I will go on using my 24-85 & 70-300 AFS lenses that aren’t really up to the mark on the D700’s sensor, let alone a 24 Mp one.

    • Anonymous

      The mere fact that you are using a D700 with a 24-85 and 70-300 only tells in bold letters how little you know about photography.

  • Michael

    I don’t see them using a different sensor. They have already developed the sensor (yes, I know it is manufactured by Sony but designed by Nikon) and they have sold a lot (not as many as they would wish) and that has helped with paying for the R&D on it. Why would they design a newer one?

    They did the same thing with the D3 and D700. I think if they put the same sensor in the D700x this will help them not only pay for what cost they have in the development but also help them to profit from it greatly.

    This would need to sell at a price to compete with the 5D Mark II and Sony A900. It only makes business sense to do this as opposed to developing a new sensor. Yes, they can purchase the “same” sensor that Sony is putting in their A900 but why?

    In any business it is about Return On Investment (ROI). If they spent all the money they did on the sensor for the D3x and maybe they didn’t / don’t sell as many as they anticipated then that is a lower ROI. If they use the same sensor and sell tons of them, that is a better ROI. It just makes good business sense.

    I could be wrong.

  • “but I don’t think it will be a D3x sensor in a D700 body (would you buy one of those for $6000)?”

    No but if Nikon wants to compete head on with the Canon EOS 5 Mark II they pretty much have to put a D3x sensor in a D700 body and add some impressive HD video capability. Am I wrong?

    While they are at it they might want to consider adding a D5000 style swivel viewing screen or keep the fixed screen but provide an add on accessory external swivel screen that plugs into an outlet from the body.

  • Oops! Forgot to mention the most important point.

    The price has to be closer to $3000 than $6000. . .

  • Zorro said,

    “I’ll stay with my D90 which is fantastic for the countless mere mortals like me (it would be even better with a 6MP sensor).”

    Ken is that you?

    And do you really consider yourself to be a mere mortal? 😉 🙂

  • Chris P if you can live with an extra 10mm at the short end of the zoom and no VR capability you can by a used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 that is not soft in the corners for about $500 or so. You might want to buy an original 70-210mm f/4 AF Nikkor if you can find one. . . It is considerably cheaper than the f/2.8 Nikkor zooms and focuses quite a bit quicker AFAIAC. I love mine but, so far, have no FX Nikon body to use it on being very happy with my Nikon D300 and D90 combo.

  • And, as far as the requested 35-105 f/2.8 lens for portraits goes, can you say Tamron Chris P?

  • Ken Elliott

    It was fine before you arrived. We were having fun.

    • Ken Elliott

      Hey, the message I was replying to disappeared! Like magic. Now my reply looks stupid because nobody sees what I was responding to. Doh!

      • I am just deleting all the BS comments – sorry, some moderation is needed. This is just a waist of bandwidth, not worth discussing further. I will not allow 2-3 people to ruin this site.

        • Michael

          Thanks Admin, that is the right decision.

  • Nas Victim

    cool , just sold my d300 and my dx glass , got back to my trust worthy Fe2 .. well be using untill the d700 replacement come , i’ll buy d700 ..

  • Wouldn’t be surprised if the D700x would be a 5 FPS, 24 Mp cam. Nikon did release the 6.0 Mp D70 with the 5.3 Mp D1x still in production.

  • Bob Howland

    Consider the possibility that the D3x price of $8000 includes a $2000 ripoff of early adapters and that the “natural” price of the D3x (i.e., the price that reflects the cost to produce a camera, after R&D has been fully paid for) is about $500-$1000 more than the D3 price. That would put the D700x price at $3500-$4000, which seems about right. Actually, given the street price of the D700, $3000 seems even more correct.

    • Bob Howland

      Concerning the $8000 price of the D3X, this will explain it better than I ever could. Look under “Creaming or Skimming”.

      Sorry but I keep getting “adapters” and “adopters” confused.

  • litebyte

    There will be no D700x

  • Glad to see that Ken Elliott was not referring to my comments when he said –

    “It was fine before you arrived. We were having fun.”

  • zachmorin

    Yea! I wish they did this. That means the original d700 will go down in price and then I’ll buy one. I don’t see anything wrong with that camera. 😀

  • Eh??

    tell you guys what, just dont sell your D700 or D3 now and wait got greatest, newest, and latest cameras based on rumors because you never know if they will actually show up. great photographers dont wait.

    i find it funny when people sell all lenses and cameras then they got left behind with nothing when nikon dont announce the camera they wanted…

    its a disease everyone have, i call it adultus screwupitis

  • Theodore

    The comment doesn’t make sense – a D700x wouldn’t be a “replacement” for the D700 – just as the D3 and D3x co-exist as two very different cameras. That hurts the credibility of the story, but people say things in terribly inarticulate ways all of the time, so perhaps the person quoted didn’t really mean “replacement”.

  • Daf

    Would love something the size + performance of the D700, but with more Mpx.
    Would be my ultimate camera + uinlikely to need another ever again.

  • Anonymous

    No more DX sensors… please!

  • Simon

    It taken Nikon 2 years to replace their D300. Crop cameras aside Canon has plenty of experience with FF dSLR and it still takes them 2 or 3 years to replace their FF cameras. Why would anyone believe a D700 replacement will be comming out this year when D700 was only released last summer?
    Often its market that dictate production so no way will Nikon release another FF camera to replace an existing one that only came out 12 months ago. It simply make no marketing sense. Unless Nikon decide to add another model to their FF lineup which is unlikely because it simply eats into the sales of their other cameras. It seems the only likely thing that might happen is a minor revamp of their older D3 with a MP boost and this may not even happen this year.

  • Arto

    I cant belive im thinking about going back to canon, only because of lenses. I own D700 and feel really limited with the nikons lens selection. There is big and heavy FX zooms with exellent quality. But where are the primes and lighter zooms that match the FX sensors quality.
    More new FX lenses, please! *pretty please

  • Back to top