Well Nikonrumors.com has a Nikon announcement on Feb 7th and they think it will be the D800. They had the right info on the D4 so here's hoping they are correct on the D800. If so it's shaping up to be a nice year for Nikon shooters.
I don't think the price of a d700 will drop that much
If the d800 is 36 mp It is surely going to cost at least 3k
Of course, I have been known to be wrong before
I think it's highly likely to be the 7th of Feb. Depending on the spec sheet it will be a tough decision as to whether or not to leave the D4 order where it is.
allstarimaging wrote:
They had the right info on the D4 so here's hoping they are correct on the D800.
Yeah, they have a good sense of rumor ...
Now, why on earth would Nikon go to 36mp? They're obviously not competing with Canon because Canon's only goes to 21mp. Who's asking for 36mp, that's going to shoot with a D800. I really hope they're wrong about that and it's more like 18 or 21.
Nikon made a bit of a mistake with the D700 and D3 sensor being the same. D700 sales cut into D3 sales I would assume. Perhaps Nikon has a strategy in place to make cameras for specific markets:
1) D4- Sports, event, photojournalists and wedding shooters who need speed and excellent high ISO performance.
2) D800- Landscape, studio, and fine art photographers who need more resolution and can sacrifice the high ISO and speed. 36 MP's does seem like a lot but with a D3x at 24 and Canon likely to launch higher resolution products it will keep them ahead of the curve.
saaketham wrote:
Yeah, they have a good sense of rumor ...
Now, why on earth would Nikon go to 36mp? They're obviously not competing with Canon because Canon's only goes to 21mp. Who's asking for 36mp, that's going to shoot with a D800. I really hope they're wrong about that and it's more like 18 or 21.
agree. My hard drives can't handle 36mp. I'll leave that to the guys selling photos for billboards.
I've been waiting for the D800 to drop the price of the D700 a little more.
i dont get why some people think there is no market for 36 MP....
its like golf clubs, different tools for different needs. i can surely accept that there is a large segment that want 16MP and ISO 12 billion....why is it so hard to accept that there is a segment who would want 36MP?
Dear sweet Nikon Gods!!! please, please, please don't let this be a 36mp camera!!!!! if anything a D700s (100% VF, dual cards, D3s ISO performance) would be awesome!!!!! a D800 with D4 sensor/performance would be super awesome!!!!!
Sincerely, Nikon guy who doesn't want to buy a new computer to handle ridiculously large files!
lexdiamonnyc wrote:
if anything a D700s (100% VF, dual cards, D3s ISO performance) would be awesome!!!!!
Add D4 video capabilities to a 12MP D3s sensor in a D800 body and I'm all over it - I'll be first in line to pre-order. But really, I don't need 36MP either, and I don't want the noise for all those packed in pixels.
It's not just more hard drive space
1. Slower writes
2. Buffer gets filled faster
3. Slower transfer times from camera/card to PC/Mac
4. Slower to process RAW files .. even now, 16 MP RAWs take a lot of space
5. Will expose every single lens resolution weaknesses
6. The slightest shake, especially with long lenses, will cause softness
Why would Nikon release a camera that is 90% of a D3s or D4 for half the price? There are several options for those that want speed and/or iso performance.
You want speed? Buy a D3, D3s, or D4.
You want iso performance? Buy a D700, D3, D3s, or D4. Hell, even a D7000.
You want resolution.... Buy a D3x. One option. At an insane price. 24mp is not a lot anymore especially when you have DX cameras at 16mp+.
If you are wanting a 36mp camera you are not going to care about the buffer or write times. It takes me 10 minutes to set up my 8x10 camera. I think I can wait a micro-second for a 36mp camera to write/record. My 8x10 scans are 16000x20000. I make do with those on a 4+ year old system. I'll easily make do with a 36mp image. Speed of processing should not be a concern. Those wanting that much information are not going to be the type who are batch processing 1,000 photos a day.
There are plenty of options, old and new, for those wanting good iso performance. There is only one option currently for those wanting resolution. Seems like people want the fantastic performance of a D3s for half the price. Who wouldn't? But those wanting resolution have one insanely expensive option. A d3s is cheap by comparison.
I expect the "re-classification" by Nikon of the D700 to a super high-res "pro" camera is the source of some angst amongst D700 owners. At this point there doesn't seem to be an "heir-apparent" to the D700 but it is likely one will emerge... in time.
Zaitz wrote: Why would Nikon release a camera that is 90% of a D3s or D4 for half the price?
There are several options for those that want speed and/or iso performance.
There are plenty of options, old and new, for those wanting good iso performance. There is only one option currently for those wanting resolution. Seems like people want the fantastic performance of a D3s for half the price. Who wouldn't? But those wanting resolution have one insanely expensive option. A d3s is cheap by comparison.
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here, but...........
Nikon would come out with such camera because they've done just that before! Go back a few years to when the D700 was announce, it was the same BS..." why would Nikon offer a mini-D3?.......it's going to hurt D3 sales!.........what a stupid idea, why would they do that!!!"...........and how did that move turn out??
now, what didn't "they" do??............they never made a "mini-D3x", did they?? so why do you think they'd do it now??
"they" already have a proven formula...........a D4x "The Flahship" body, D4 the best Sports/Wildlife/PJ/Pro camera, D800 "90% D4" at a lower price for the prosumer/serious photo enthusiast....... why would they move away from a formula that worked so well in the past?
?
