LarryBoy57 wrote:
Put the D600 sensor in a D700 body with ramped up processing power for faster fps and name it D700S. Price it at what the original D700 sold for and sell thousands of them...
....I bet.
I know I'd be in.
Larry
I sort of agree with you on that one, Larry. I think that both the d800 and d600 are nice cameras, but I don't think that either of them are a true d700 replacement. I'd like to have a high speed, high performance camera, with excellent high ISO noise performance, like the d700 was in its day. It has a Ch of 8fps, with the right batteries in the grip, and that's what I'd like to see in a replacement body, aside from the d3s.
The problem is that I'm not sufficiently clear on the high ISO performance of the d600. DXOmark seems to indicate that it's a little better than the d800 and better than the d700, but not anywhere near the d3s level of high ISO performance. I'm rather a DXOidiot and have a lot of trouble figuring out what they really mean with their figures.
Given that the d4 is restricted to 16mp, I rather doubt that they can have awesome high ISO and a very fast frame rate, with 24mp. I also doubt that they'd want to plop that d4 sensor into a d800 body, like they did with the d3, or they'd have done it already.
Nikon should put the D600 sensor in a FM3A-type body and pare down things by quite a bit to fit it in. Not everyone would agree on what features to leave out, but I bet Nikon could come up with a great compromise.
It would not steal from sales of the full featured DSLRs due to the lack of all the bells and whistles, but folks like me would buy one to go along side my D800 and kick the m43 stuff to the curb . . . . (I have a GH-2 and 12-35/2.8 and it's great, but it's just not FX).
I think a d700 with a 16-24 mpixels would be the ideal camera. I've tried the d600 trying very hard to sell it to myself and no can do. The controls suck. For me that is. The image quality seem superb. But the button lay out is not for me.
16 mp I would be fine w all day. The 24 would be nice too but 16 would be my first choice
James R wrote:
Nikon should...read this thread or all this is for not.
I agree. I'm in the market for a new body. Sold by D300 that I was using as backup to my D700 for weddings. Also shoot senior portraits. Almost pulled the trigger on the D600 deal recently but felt it would have been somewhat of a compromise for me. The D800 is too much camera for my needs in the pixel resolution and the D600 isn't as much camera as I'd like in the build robustness and auto-focus areas.
Nikon, build the D700s, D750, D700x or whatever you want to call it and they will sell!
LarryBoy57 wrote:
Put the D600 sensor in a D700 body with ramped up processing power for faster fps and name it D700S. Price it at what the original D700 sold for and sell thousands of them...
...and be sure to keep the AF-area switch of the D700 body
