I'm buying a D800E and keeping my D3s, so i have the best of both worlds. However, never regret a purchase. I've been shooting the D3s for almost 5 years and still love it--I'll keep shooting it for many more years. The D700 should serve you well for the next 5 years. "Feature envy" can drive you nuts when making buying decision.
afm901 wrote:
The Nikon D3s was announced on October 14th, 2009. That was 2 years and 4 months ago. It wasn't released until a month or so later, right?
Scott
Excuse me, I bought my first D3 in Nov of "07. The D3s is only a little over a year old. I erred in adding the "s." My profile show both cameras. i will sell the D3 once the D800 arrives.
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.
So those of us who want the D800 are just in denial or lying to ourselves?
Back to the real world, I'm happy about 36MP. I can also understand the desire for 24MP; I don't understand all the wants for 16-18MP; that's not enough change over the 12MP of the D700 to make any real difference at all so what's the point?
rmc1 wrote:
I can also understand the desire for 24MP; I don't understand all the wants for 16-18MP; that's not enough change over the 12MP of the D700 to make any real difference at all so what's the point?
I tend to agree. 12MP to 16MP is only a 15.5% increase in resolution. 12MP to 18MP is 22.5%. To really see a significant difference, the jump from 12MP to 24MP is needed. That is a 41.4% increase in resolution.
I'd like to see a 24MP D700 replacement with a stop better high ISO performance.
If the D400 is 16-18 MP as some request, it'll be a no-brainer for me to choose the D800. The D400 would be the right choice for those who can't/won't spend $3,000 on a camera, but functionally the D800 would be superior in every way.
Where the D400 might tempt me would be if it offered 24MP and very good noise performance (equal to or close to the D700, but certainly better than the D7000). At that point, it would offer the reach-challenged shooter (wildlife, BIF, etc.) something more at DX ranges than the 15MP of the D800.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
If the D400 is 16-18 MP as some request, it'll be a no-brainer for me to choose the D800. The D400 would be the right choice for those who can't/won't spend $3,000 on a camera, but functionally the D800 would be superior in every way.
Where the D400 might tempt me would be if it offered 24MP and very good noise performance (equal to or close to the D700, but certainly better than the D7000). At that point, it would offer the reach-challenged shooter (wildlife, BIF, etc.) something more at DX ranges than the 15MP of the D800.
I doubt you'll see a 24mp DX sensor that somehow matches the 12mp FX D700 for noise any time soon. The 16mp D7000 certainly doesn't, nor does the 24mp Sony APS sensor that is the most likely source of any Nikon 24mp DX. I own the NEX-7, and it's wonderful -- but a high ISO competitor to the D700 it's not.
From accounting and production point of view, it does not make any sense to keep producing D700 and share the badly needed capacity to meet demands for other products. Look how many nikon products are not available. They're loosing sales and they hate that. So, using the capacity for d700 is not likely.
Also D700's new price is $2600. D800 new price is $3000. The difference is too small for nikon to have another camera in between. To see the D700 replacement to be under $2600 is almost impossible. So, we have to accept it that the D800, formally or not, in the short term is the d700 replacement. Don't know what they will introduce in 3 years.
Why wanting to purchase a d800 a denial? If I were to upgrade, I will definitely buy a d800 for ONLY $300 extra and get all the improvements and new technologies. If I already have a D700, and have to sell it for $1700, I may keep my d700 because the upgrade will cost me $1300.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I doubt you'll see a 24mp DX sensor that somehow matches the 12mp FX D700 for noise any time soon. The 16mp D7000 certainly doesn't, nor does the 24mp Sony APS sensor that is the most likely source of any Nikon 24mp DX. I own the NEX-7, and it's wonderful -- but a high ISO competitor to the D700 it's not.
I hope you are wrong! The sensor in the D700 is 5 year old technology. The D7000 sensor is almost 2 years old. Seeing the initial high ISO images out of the D800 gives me hope for a 24MP D400 with high ISO performance close to the D700 is possible.
It might happen eventually, but not in the next generation of bodies. The NEX-7 has the 24mp DX/APS sensor already, and at 100%, it's not as good as the 16mp NEX-5n/D7000 sensor. When downsampled to similar output resolutions, it's about the same, which is in itself pretty remarkable.
I'm not much one for doing extensive scientific testing, but it's pretty clear to me that in the kind of shooting I do in difficult light, the 24mp NEX-7 is still a stop or so behind the D700 in higher ISO shooting ability. It may be even farther than that in terms of how malleable the files are in terms of handling exposure errors. The 24mp DX sensor, as exceptional as it is, is no match for the D700/D3 at high ISO.
In order for Nikon to offer a 24mp DX D400 with high ISO characteristics that match or exceed the D700, they would have to leapfrog past both the D7000 and the current state of the art 24mp DX sensor -- a sensor that is the most likely source for the D400 itself. I don't see that happening in the next camera. Perhaps the next generation after that....
Your analysis is reasonable and may end up being accurate. But you're ignoring one thing: the image is not affected only by the sensor, but also by the the electronics around the sensor and the processing done to the data captured by the sensor. Nikon's D3x beat the pants of Sony's 24MP FX offering at the time those products were released, and I'd certainly expect and hope that Nikon's 2012 offering of a 24MP DX sensor will provide better noise performance than Sony's current competition.
The D7000 is about a stop behind the D700, maybe a little more. It is possible that the last two years' worth of R&D (after the release of the D7000) may create enough improvement for a 24MP DX camera to be within a half-stop or so of the D700. Maybe, maybe not... but I think it's certainly possible.
I'm in alignment with some of the things that Smiert has to say. It's not just the noise, but how malleable the files are. I shoot at ISO 3200 and then have to adjust levels, raise shadows, color balance, etc. and it's all about what the pixels look like after manipulation that matter to me.
We'll just have to wait and see how malleable the D800 pixels are. Now if you can downsample to 12MP and get the same, if not better malleability as the D700 that would be great, and if it was as good as the D3s that would be fantastic.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Your analysis is reasonable and may end up being accurate. But you're ignoring one thing: the image is not affected only by the sensor, but also by the the electronics around the sensor and the processing done to the data captured by the sensor. Nikon's D3x beat the pants of Sony's 24MP FX offering at the time those products were released, and I'd certainly expect and hope that Nikon's 2012 offering of a 24MP DX sensor will provide better noise performance than Sony's current competition.
The D7000 is about a stop behind the D700, maybe a little more. It is possible that the last two years' worth of R&D (after the release of the D7000) may create enough improvement for a 24MP DX camera to be within a half-stop or so of the D700. Maybe, maybe not... but I think it's certainly possible....Show more →
That is of course possible, but not likely. A more recent point of comparison is between the d7000/d5100 and the Sony NEX-5n. Those sensors are more alike than different, and if anything, the Sony iteration might be a little better.
There's only so much blood you can wring from a 24mp turnip.
afm901 wrote:
I hope you are wrong! The sensor in the D700 is 5 year old technology. The D7000 sensor is almost 2 years old. Seeing the initial high ISO images out of the D800 gives me hope for a 24MP D400 with high ISO performance close to the D700 is possible.
The point is not always about how many pixels you have, and the D4 is a perfect example of that. The D4 figures we've seen show better dynamic and colour range.
The little bit of extra res comes in handy when I'm taking something off the edge of the photo. The ability to go down to ISO 100 is also welcome while maintaining the same high ISO performance.
So if they've managed to improve on the image quality of the D3s whilst increasing the MP by another 4, that sounds like a winner to me.
Really, all this need to justfiy one's choices is getting really weird.
In both the sensor and lens examples, each one has distinct advantages and disadvantages. For wildlife, aviation, macro, and when size/weight/cost matters, DX is unquestionably better than FX. For portraits, shallow DOF, and Ultra-High ISO, the nod goes to FX.
Different tools for different purposes and different reasons.
In the latest nikonrumors they have a discussion with someone from Nikon and the question is asked if the D800 is the replacement to the D700 and the Nikon rep says no it would not be considered a replacement. Be still my heart, could this mean a D700s or something else in the lower MP range may be coming?
Feb 26, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
And a 14-24 is not a 600. So what's your point?
In both the sensor and lens examples, each one has distinct advantages and disadvantages. For wildlife, aviation, macro, and when size/weight/cost matters, DX is unquestionably better than FX. For portraits, shallow DOF, and Ultra-High ISO, the nod goes to FX.
Different tools for different purposes and different reasons.
+1000 ... why this is so hard for people to understand is beyound me. Our society has become obsessed with superlatives ... the "Best" possible system for "All" possible situations...
You and I take a more pragmatic approach: The right tool for the job.
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 performance of a camera is more then just pixels and stuff that shows up on a spec sheet. I understand Nikons reasoning for going to 36mp. It was designed for amateurs, landscape and fashion photographers who only shoot a small amount of photos. These people are willing to put up with the huge file size in order to get the maximum resolution. They can also spend the time to zoom in on these massive files to tweak the photo to the best possible image. Nikon also knows that professionals with a need for speed are willing to pay top dollar for the greatest low light camera ever produced. Of course this leaves most of us "wanting" a cheaper alternative.
