BLevesque wrote:
I'd like a faster auto focus... The D7000 is actually better then the D700 in all of these areas.
This was not my experience shooting both, the D700, for how I shoot, has a much better AF system. The D7000 reminded me of shooting with a nice consumer/enthusiast system, great image quality but the other features were lacking IMO.
BLevesque wrote:
I would be happy if the D700 replacement had the same exact pixel count. I'd like a faster auto focus, more accurate white balance and a quieter shutter. The D7000 is actually better then the D700 in all of these areas.
The D800 includes improved AF and a seriously improved metering sensor which should markedly improve WB (especially given that Nikon has also improved their algorithms as you saw on the D7000), so it would appear that it does pretty much everything you want it to do. And it costs the same as the D700 did upon release... what is it that has "left you wanting"?
I'm also with Bill on the AF issue. The D7000 is not a credible competitor my the AF on my D300, D3s, or D3x bodies. It's a darn good system... but the CAM3500 system on those other bodies is better, faster, and more accurate.
I'm just not happy about the decrease in low light performance. I understand that you can reduce noise from the 36mp images by compressing them to a 12mp equivalent but I'd rather not do that to 800 photos for every wedding.
As far as the AF goes, it can't really be measured so I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.
BLevesque wrote:
I'm just not happy about the decrease in low light performance. I understand that you can reduce noise from the 36mp images by compressing them to a 12mp equivalent but I'd rather not do that to 800 photos for every wedding.
If you are always shooting at high ISO then skip the D800 - simple. Otherwise keep the D700 for low light stuff and use the D800 for the rest.
LMT1972 wrote:
If you are always shooting at high ISO then skip the D800 - simple. Otherwise keep the D700 for low light stuff and use the D800 for the rest.
Cheers
Leigh
All signs point to the D800 being at least as good as the D700 at higher ISO settings. So the D700 is not better in low light situations.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Typo on my part, which I would have thought blindingly obvious given your prior post I quoted. To wit:
What "decrease" in low-light performance would that be, and in comparison with what prior "better" example?
" You should expect it to perform close to the D700 and D3 with respect to ISO" - Cliff Mautner
He's promoting this camera for Nikon. If the iso performance was as good then he would have said so.
rkinz wrote:
The d7000 faster/better AF than a d700? Now I've heard everthing...
Why is it easy to believe that the metering/white balance has been improved and not the autofocus? Maybe there was something wrong with the D700 that I borrowed. I'll try to borrow another one to see if that was the case but it will be hard to judge unless I use it all day long under different lighting conditions and moving subjects. I'll have to wait till my next wedding.
BLevesque wrote:
" You should expect it to perform close to the D700 and D3 with respect to ISO" - Cliff Mautner
He's promoting this camera for Nikon. If the iso performance was as good then he would have said so.
Cliff's comment was about per-pixel noise performance. If we take that at face value, then the quality of a print at any size should be significantly better in terms of noise performance (probably about 1 stop's worth) than the D700.
It might end up being even better. It might end up being not-quite-as-good as expected. But I think we should wait until the actual camera arrives and we get to use it before being happy or unhappy with any of its theoretical image-quality traits.
BLevesque wrote:
Why is it easy to believe that the metering/white balance has been improved and not the autofocus?
The D7000's AF module is a huge, HUGE upgrade from all previous consumer or "prosumer" AF modules. It's not quite as good as the CAM3500 in the D300/D700/D3... but it's almost good enough to be called almost as good. I make that statement as a personal opinion, based on almost 200,000 shots with CAM3500 cameras and now nearly 30,000 shots on D7000 bodies. The autofocus is definitely not as good.
It's not better than the D700, because it was never meant to be better. It's a different AF module, with fewer focus points, fewer cross-type points (IIRC), and slower speed. It's very good, just not "better" than its bigger brother.
All they said there is that the D800 is more than a just a D700 successor......it's a whole new category.
The D700 will be made for a while longer...probably because they have lots of D700 parts on hand. They can't sell the D700 in the Japanese domestic market so the D800 is the replacement or there is another FX body coming out. That's not likely.
afm901 wrote:
All they said there is that the D800 is more than a just a D700 successor......it's a whole new category.
The D700 will be made for a while longer...probably because they have lots of D700 parts on hand. They can't sell the D700 in the Japanese domestic market so the D800 is the replacement or there is another FX body coming out. That's not likely.
Scott
With the 5D Mark III just announced at 22MP and supporting mRAW and sRAW I hope either Nikon does a firmware update to support m/sRAW options or is going to come out with a year or so with a D700/800 body and the D4 sensor, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. I am honestly quite surprised that Canon put the 1D X AF system in the 5D III, that really shows they have a lot of pressure from the D700.
My hope is that Nikon will in fact come out with a FX model below the D800 that is perhaps 16 MP (though 24MP would be fine) to help compete with the 5D MIII, though the MSRP of the 5D MIII seems to be a bit high . . . making the D800 look pretty good from a price perspective.
$3K I can't justify upgrading from my D700, but perhaps at $2.25K or so I could/would do it and I bet a lot of others could too that would not otherwise purchase a D800.
Even if Nikon does come out with a lower cost FX body, I suspect it will be a while 'til we see such a beast and in the mean time my D700 will still be cooking along . . .
afm901 wrote:
All they said there is that the D800 is more than a just a D700 successor......it's a whole new category.
The D700 will be made for a while longer...probably because they have lots of D700 parts on hand. They can't sell the D700 in the Japanese domestic market so the D800 is the replacement or there is another FX body coming out. That's not likely.
Scott
Hara: "....Some may think that the D800 is the successor to the D700, but we were looking to bring the world a whole new category of camera."
Key word: "but": means what it says ... negates the prevuios statememt. Translation: if you think it is, you're wrong.
Hara: "In terms of high-resolution cameras, Nikon's flagship is the D3X, a 24-megapixel model released in 2008 and since highly evaluated in the marketplace. That was our product to beat in developing the D800: our goal was image quality a step above ..."
The D800 is a replacement for the D3X ... 5D MkII proved to both Nikon and Canon that most of these shooters do not all that AF and build ... and cost ... of a D3X or 1Ds MkIII. Plus the lower cost opens this up to a lot of other buyers who need or just plain want the most MP's.
Not sure why some insist that the D800 has to be the D700 replacement ... or that a low resolution version of the D800 for those not needing such high resolution, is verboten ...
In Japan, the D800 is the D700 replacement since the D700 cannot be sold there any longer. The Japanese domestic market is an important market for Nikon, don't you think?
So far, there are no indications that another FX format camera is forthcoming from Nikon.
