pr4photos wrote:
I think Nikon have just gone after the wow factor with lots of MP, or are aiming square at the video market, with photographers who 'want' more MP saying yes please.
As most people don't print big, and a lot of images don't even go past being on a computer screen, ie web etc, the best thing Nikon could have done was to improve the quality of a lower MP sensor, and thats what the 'D700 replacement' should have been. The D4 looks great, and that kinda sensor in the 'D700 replacement' would have been much more useful.
Maybe that will come in a few months, but as it is the D800 does not look or perform like a D700 replacement. Its sitting in a different market place....Show more →
You really think that's the "best" thing NIkon could've done?
It may be true that "most people" don't print big, but "most people" also aren't buying a D700. What do people with $3000+ camera investments do with their images. I for one print big. And as good as the D700 is, its limits become evident as you print larger.
I know many Canon landscape shooters who would move to Nikon if a high MP, light-weight camera like the 5D II (minus the iffy AF and wimpy build) were available. With the D800 makes Nikon a landscape dream solution when combined with the 14-24 lens.
If Nikon "improved the quality of a lower MP sensor," I wouldn't have pre-ordered two of them. So I guess you can't make everyone happy. However, to say that improvement of a low-MP sensor is an objectively superior product development strategy to what Nikon has actually done is a little presumptuous, isn't it? It sounds more like you're grumpy that Nikon didn't give you the camera you wanted.
Not at all. People that print big are a very small minority of the people that have bought the D700. Nikon know this. You have to admit that the vast majority of people don't print at all, let alone big.
I have no complaints about the D800 as such, as for a purpose its a great camera, and will allow people like you to achieve great large prints.
My biggy is that if this really is the replacement for the D700, rather than an addition to the range then yes, I am a little dissapointed, as it has a lower frame rate (important factor to me), no ability to pixel bin other than in processing, and the possibility that there is no improvement in quality at high ISO (also an important factor).
As a studio and portrait camera I would certainly like this camera, and may well get one in the future for these purposes.
But the majority of my work is potential fast frame rate, low light, press and PR work. And for this type of work the D4 is looking like the better camera. Obviously that is a completely different price, so am hoping, along with many others, that Nikon bring out a 'lower' D4 for us, much like the D700 is to the D3.
The Original D700 only existed because Nikon was getting substantially higher yields out of the D3 chip than anticipated, and they needed something to put against the 5D2. It was always something of a rush-job, a FX sensor crammed into a D300 body.
From a business standpoint it makes sense to me after Canon eating Nikon's lunch because of the 5dII, that Nikon felt a business need to come out with something to combat the next version of the 5dII probably being the 5dIII and that in itself is why the D800 was born. I hear so much noise about 36MP being too much but I'll be willing to bet that over the next few years it will be the norm. I'll also say as my opinion that if Nikon didn't come out with the D800 with the high resolution and Canon announced a 5dIII which I'm sure will be higher res than the 5dII that there would be no more lunch at all for Nikon in this market segnment geared toward landscape togs!
Im more excited about the d800 then I have ever been about any camera. It should capture a LOT of detail when used properly, perform well with shooting people in low light, and have much better AF than the 5d that I used to shoot with. Surely you can just batch process the files to resize them. What is the deal with all of this hate over the higher megapixels.
Robb Mann wrote:
The Original D700 only existed because Nikon was getting substantially higher yields out of the D3 chip than anticipated, and they needed something to put against the 5D2. It was always something of a rush-job, a FX sensor crammed into a D300 body.
And where did you come by that information?
I was under the impression the D700 was a very deliberate product to continue FX sales after the initial rush of D3 buyers were satisfied. Adapting the body to and FX sensor, mirror box, and viewfinder isn't the sort of thing you can rush.
Robb Mann wrote:
The Original D700 only existed because Nikon was getting substantially higher yields out of the D3 chip than anticipated, and they needed something to put against the 5D2. It was always something of a rush-job, a FX sensor crammed into a D300 body.
D700 was announced July 2008 and 5D2 in Sept 2008! So Nikon knew exactly what the specs of the 5D2 were well before it was released and announced the D700 early to steal Canon's thunder? Obviously their sources weren't too reliable since the specs for the D700 are not even close to the 5D2
The "rush-job" would also explain why the D700 hasn't sold very well
Those of you who keep speaking of how well the D700 and/or D300s did or didn't sell, where are you getting sales figures? I'd really be interested in D3x sales, too...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ runamuck wrote:
All the kvetching about 36MP being way way too much. It's not necessary to shoot at 36, is it? Give most of the naysayers a month with the D800, and I wonder how many will be complaining then? I wonder how many will be praising the wonders of the 36 megapixels? It's my guess that 90%+ will be more than happy with 36.
If you shoot JPEG, you have some choices. You don't get that choice with RAW, right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those of you saying it is wrong to gripe about 36MP (or wring hands, whatever) are missing the point a bit. If you're a pro, upgrading your storage and PC is just like upgrading your camera - it is part of the business and and expected (and deductible) expense. Super-serious amateurs or semi-pros are sort of in that same category - they are willing to drop the dime on the camera equipment and any down-stream impact.
The enthusiasts, the guys like me with a wife and kids, other interests and hobbies (mine are basketball and BMW's) and who love photography and have a fairly sizable investment in the photography hardware are a bit different. I'm on a limited budget. Money I spend on photography stuff comes out of my disposable income - it competes with family trips, things for my wife and kids, all kinds of stuff. So the idea that I'd need a lot more storage (on the PC and my NAS backup storage device) and probably a new PC to handle the giant files the D800 creates just isn't going to wash. The ripples in the pond cost to much for me to consider. People griped when Microsoft jammed Vista down their throats, which required a higher-spec PC to run all the new things they packed into that OS. Why is this any different? I'd like a new camera that doesn't require the latest everything to surround it. The D800 definitely isn't that.
So for me, I'll guess I'll have to be happy with either a used D700 or more likely a D400 whenever that happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, if the D400 comes in at $1699-$1899 and the D800 is at $2999, doesn't it seem like there is an opportunity for an entry FX for the non-pro crowd?
I wrote an "Open Letter" to Nikon (on my blog) which detailed my requests for an entry FX camera. Without dropping the whole thing here, this is what I came up with:
Full frame sensor with 16MP-18MP - if I have to take 24MP, so be it, but I don't covet anything higher than 18MP D3s ISO performance - or close. Heck, even D700 would be OK, but the closer to D3s the better. Drop the HI and LO functions. Dual SD card slots D700-class autofocus 6-8 FPS D7K build - give it some out-and-about durability and weather-sealing without luring pros but so much... D800 viewfinder/metering/shutter/flash. Or D700 (good) U1/U2 buttons D300s video (again, pared back a little to separate from the D800/pros)
Price that at $2499 and watch the volume fly.
I also suggested Nikon do some market research in the form of a "build your perfect camera" configuration site that let you choose specs that traded off against price and other features, etc.
espressogeek wrote:
Im more excited about the d800 then I have ever been about any camera. It should capture a LOT of detail when used properly, perform well with shooting people in low light, and have much better AF than the 5d that I used to shoot with. Surely you can just batch process the files to resize them. What is the deal with all of this hate over the higher megapixels.
Tell me about it. You took the words out of my fingers.
innovis wrote:
Tell me about it. You took the words out of my fingers.
Agreed. And if you already post-process in a tool like LR it's not even a separate step to resize the photos since the resize option is part of the normal export/print workflow. Thankfully Sony and Nikon didn't listen to this nonsense when they decided to go with a 36MP sensor. They still should have designed in an sRaw option though.
M635_Guy wrote:
I wrote an "Open Letter" to Nikon (on my blog) which detailed my requests for an entry FX camera. Without dropping the whole thing here, this is what I came up with:
Full frame sensor with 16MP-18MP - if I have to take 24MP, so be it, but I don't covet anything higher than 18MP D3s ISO performance - or close. Heck, even D700 would be OK, but the closer to D3s the better. Drop the HI and LO functions. Dual SD card slots D700-class autofocus 6-8 FPS D7K build - give it some out-and-about durability and weather-sealing without luring pros but so much... D800 viewfinder/metering/shutter/flash. Or D700 (good) U1/U2 buttons D300s video (again, pared back a little to separate from the D800/pros)
Price that at $2499 and watch the volume fly. ...Show more →
That sounds terrific, but I selfishly hope it doesn't happen today or tomorrow, because I just got a low-count D700 on Fleabay for just a few hundred less than that!
BTW. I do hate how Nikon doesnt have option for sRAW or mRAW like Canon Does. Canon 5dII have mRAW for 9.9mb
When D700 was launched it killed D3 sale..So Nikon does not want to make same mistake of killing D4 sale with low pixel count. That is why Nikon very strategically introduced for 2 different bodies for 2 different target segments..Probably after 15-18 months once they achieve the target you may see D800 with D4 sensor with latest ( at that time ) ISO performance and FPS count and some more flexible/enhanced video options keeping same price point of $2999..This may make lots of DX user to jump to FX wagon and may be a nice compliment or Backup body for the D800 user
clickmepp wrote:
When D700 was launched it killed D3 sale..So Nikon does not want to make same mistake of killing D4 sale with low pixel count. That is why Nikon very strategically introduced for 2 different bodies for 2 different target segments..Probably after 15-18 months once they achieve the target you may see D800 with D4 sensor with latest ( at that time ) ISO performance and FPS count and some more flexible/enhanced video options keeping same price point of $2999..This may make lots of DX user to jump to FX wagon and may be a nice compliment or Backup body for the D800 user ...Show more →
clickmepp wrote:
When D700 was launched it killed D3 sale..So Nikon does not want to make same mistake of killing D4 sale with low pixel count.
I can't get behind that thought process.
The D700 did not 'kill' D3 sales, it opened up a lower price point for photographers to get into the Nikon system who otherwise may have not purchased a new body.
Again and again Nikon has proved they aren't afraid to put pro feature in lower priced bodies and they'd rather run the risk of taking higher model sales than having customers buy another brands cameras.
IF you're buying a camera, Would you rather buy the D700 or D800??
if your answer is D800, you're only in denial/lieing to yourself when said you would prefer D800 over D700 since you're owning it.
I wouldn't buy a D800. That is certain. The only barrier for me buying a new D700 would be the "old technology" thing to some extent, but more the prices of low-click used ones.
If someone offered me a choice of either for free (stipulating I couldn't sell it), I'd choose the D700 and not look back. I can't afford all the other upgrading as a hobby photographer. If you can write it off on your taxes as a pro/semi-pro, the story is a little different...
clickmepp wrote:
When D700 was launched it killed D3 sale..So Nikon does not want to make same mistake of killing D4 sale with low pixel count. That is why Nikon very strategically introduced for 2 different bodies for 2 different target segments..Probably after 15-18 months once they achieve the target you may see D800 with D4 sensor with latest ( at that time ) ISO performance and FPS count and some more flexible/enhanced video options keeping same price point of $2999..This may make lots of DX user to jump to FX wagon and may be a nice compliment or Backup body for the D800 user ...Show more →
I don't think you understand what it takes to introduce a technology product to the marketplace. It isn't just about assembling the pieces. You're alluding to a D800s or something like that, but...
Also, where are the D3/D700 sales figures? Seriously - that information would be fascinating.
I think some of us (me included) don't want a choice between a D700 and D800.
I'd rather have a choice between an upgraded D700 (call it a D700s with 16-18-24MP and the best high ISO available) at say $2500 instead of the D800 at $3000.
I'd choose the D700s for sure. D800 has too many pixels for my use and too expensive for my pocketbook. Therefor I choose to keep my D700 and not buy a new Nikon body anytime soon. I'll be waiting a few years to replace my D700 if nothing between the D700 and D800 emerges.
If Nikon has chosen the D700 to be the D700 direct replacement, they've obviously made a calculation as to what feature set and price point will make them the most profit. Their choice just may not coincide with my, and many other folks wishes.
We'll have to sit tight and see what happens over the next year. Nikon has surprised us before and perhaps they will again.
Jammy Straub wrote:
I can't get behind that thought process.
The D700 did not 'kill' D3 sales, it opened up a lower price point for photographers to get into the Nikon system who otherwise may have not purchased a new body.
Again and again Nikon has proved they aren't afraid to put pro feature in lower priced bodies and they'd rather run the risk of taking higher model sales than having customers buy another brands cameras.
I am sorry, have to disagree with you...
If Nikon is not afraid to put pro feature in lower bodies, why didn't they launch one more variant of D800 with same feature as D4 especially 16MP and higher FPS which will be exactly same scenario as D700 and D3. Nikon knows that it will definitely dent D4 sale. If you read many of D800 threads in different forums, many Wedding photographers and Sports shooters are not interested in D800 due to high 36 MP that will yield higher File size, low FPS. Also higher price point holds them back from D4. As Nikon created void in smaller body FX segment with all purpose MP ( 12-18 MP) count, higher FPS and higher ISO performance lots of photogs are closely watching for used D3s price...
So in my opinion Nikon did not introduce true D700 replacement . Instead it launched D800 for Landscape, Fine art and Studio segment. D800E clearly proves that. D4 is targeted Sports shooters as simple as that.
It would be interesting to see when D400 comes out. If it is going to be true D300s replacement ( I don't know spec ), then Nikon would disappoint current D700 owners who wants similar all purpose FX body with latest technology and features....
