Nikon D700x makes its debut on TV with a price tag of $4,300

Credit: CNBC (click on image for larger view)

This one is weird.

On "The Suze Orman Show" (CNBC) from Jan. 23, 2010, a lady called in during the "Can I Afford It" segment. She wanted to purchase a Nikon D700x camera for $4300 (the show is based on callers who want to purchase expensive items and Suze Orman is giving them financial advice).

How did this make it to TV? Where is the price coming from? How about the picture? A prank from a NR reader?

You can watch the video on iTunes (the Nikon D700x segment starts about 29 minutes into the podcast).

This entry was posted in Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Who is Ken Rockwell?

    • Just kidding, folks.

      • Weston

        heh, nice 🙂

  • Anonymous


  • nokin

    I a agree that if nikon cannot deliver a top quality camera at reasonable price (canon 5dm2) then there is no reason for me to stick with nikon. Why spend more for less?

  • Anonymous

    I kill for a D3X !!!! LOL

  • Anonymous

    At 4300$ (god forbid they make a $=€ thing like apple) im going for the D3s any day.

    • Louis

      yeah totally, and since 90% of logical thinkers agree, the theoretical market value is considerably less…. in the three-thousands – my guess around 3500.-

  • tim

    At 4300$ (god forbid they make a $=€ thing like apple) im going for the D3s any day.

  • Anonymous

    $7300/month income is not enough to buy $4k camera?

  • gribben


  • Tom P

    What surprises me is that nobody commented on what a screaming dingbat Orman was. If my wife acted like that every time I wanted new gear, I’d have to find a spot for her in the garden or the cornfield.

  • I really do hope that is a spoof. At that price nobody will buy it — Canon would be laughing all the way to the bank!

  • Gustaf


  • Gustaf

    I can buy a ducati or a small car with 4300!
    then i can take my d700 for a road trip and shoot wicked High-quality photos!

  • It was denied because the D700x isn’t real!

  • Jason

    As a slightly credible explanation, this is a genuine caller who doesn’t know the first thing about cameras but has heard a few model names and a few prices.
    The caller submits their spouse’s financials and then gets a friend to phone up on their behalf.
    They then sit back and watch TV with their spouse, and then say, “See? She says they can’t afford it – YOU can’t either!!!!”

    • WoutK89

      lol 😛

  • Richard

    Take a look at this review/article on the 5D MKII in use as a wildlife/landscape tool and you will see its Achilles Heel…higher ISO noise. This is where Nikon could make a real impact on the market by introducing a camera that had similar resolution (I would say anything in the 18-21 MP range) that has the superb high ISO performance of the current D3 sensor…and priced around $3,000. That would give Canon users something to think about and go a very long way towards keeping the current Nikon user base happy.

  • Ren Kockwell

    FWIW, I’m a big boy and can censor myself or skip over trolls. And I think fake KR is hilarious and the posters who can’t spot him are equally hilarious. But it’s your site admin, and you’re doing a great job, so go nuts! I’m quite addicted.

    As someone who got onto Springer and a lesser known TV show with fake names and fake stories on a dare, I can tell you their background checks are NOT terribly thorough. They do some advance screening, but very little if any fact checking. Interns and recent college grads do most of this front-end work. Why the hell would this show care about the make of camera? In their minds it’s “insert expensive camera name here.” They can’t get sued for it so it’s a low priority. At the end of the day, if your story is interesting or in their market sweet spot, they don’t care an inch about accuracy. They care about the story-telling. Springer for example encouraged embellishment.

    Someone is simply having fun with this dopey show, which is virtually unwatchable, by the way. I’d rather watch Kristen Wiig do her SO impression on SNL.

    • Richard


      Programing. Isn’t that the stuff that separates the commercials on TV?

  • Barbie Popwell

    I am a good photographer who doesn’t need a fancy website to feed my own family.
    And I can tell you that I don’t believe all this D700x/D900 rumors. But nevertheless I hope that there will be soon a full frame successor with some nice and decent Video functions.

  • ozawa

    that’s too expensive. But that’s also exactly what I guessed from the price of D3X. D700x is going to be a serious competitor of 5DMarkii only after its price goes down below $3000. But that’s not gonna happen any time soon. So 5DMkii continues to dominate the full frame DSLR industry,

  • Anonymous

    Oh Suze Orman, so much wisdom. I think I’ll call her next week and ask if I can afford a new unicorn that’s rumored to be available soon.

  • Dr SCSI

    About 2 years ago, after working litterally 100’s of hours of overtime, I discovered I had enough money to finally step up to a DSLR camera. After having spent the previous 10 years lusting after the gorgeous Nikons, but only able to afford the Fuji Fine Pixs of the world, I was always disapointed in my night photos. In true ignorance, I purchased the top of the line prosumer Nikon D300 with the 18-200 kit lens to make better night photos, I thought. Now I had a real camera, but I didn’t have a clue how to use it, so I bought numerous books and magazines to learn how to capture light. Slowly I realized, I needed FAST glass for low light, as the f/3.5-5.6 kit lens just didn’t do the trick. So I bought a 50mm f/1.4, and a 14-24 f/2.8 in rapid succession, I was hooked. Now I knew about the crop factor and many would say the D300 and the 14-24 lens was a waste, but I knew I would have the new D3 camera soon and the FX glass was a good investment for a future camera body. Fast forward to 2009, I now have the D3 (bought refurbished for $3500), the 70-200 f2.8, the 200 f/4 macro, the TCII, the 135DC f/2. I love the high ISO of the D3; in my opinion, it has a 2.5 stop quality advantage over the D300. But due to its light weight, and the awesome 18-200 kit lens, the D300 is my work horse for daytime vacation shooting, where as my D3 is used primarily for low light, or for its lower DOF. I lust after the successor to the D3S with its one stop gain putting the max “USEABLE” ISO to 6400. I rarely shoot my D3 above 3200 ISO, as it is too grainy for my taste. I think Nikon has the correct formula on their cameras, quality vs quantity. Instead of a D700X, I would rather see a D700S with better ISO. I still wouldn’t buy it, as a one stop gain just doesn’t make financial sense. But if Nikon were to make a follow-on model (say D900S) with a two stop ISO gain, placing the “USABLE” ISO up to 12800, in a small form factor, I would sell my D3 and D300 to buy two of the D900S’s. 🙂 In the long run, as camera manufacturers make ever higher ISO settings a reality, I fear the speed of lenses will decrease. We can observe this trend today in the DX lenses, and even the FX glass. I have seen in the forum, many people screaming for faster Nikon glass, but I don’t see Nikon pushing too many lenses below f/2.8. I hope that Nikon’s February announcement is for FASTER FX lenses, and not a D700X! I want to see a new 24 or 28 f/1.4, a new 85 f/1.4, and some affordable super zoom telephotos like the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6!!!! Come’on Nikon, give us the goods!!

  • Chaz

    With the D700 going out of circulation I am hoping that there is going to be a replacement in the same price range i.e. approx $2400. My pockets don’t go as deep as $4300 at least not in these times……

  • Back to top