Yes, from that thread you linked to Eric, I did say we get bragging rights if we got it right.
But the one who was right on the ball was our friend Mr Eaglewolf. This is what David had to say...
"If I had been in charge of the product development at Nikon, I probably would have tried to release an updated version of the D200 called the D200X - that simply would have been the D300, possibly minus a couple of features - and then released a D300 and D3 both with the FX sensor.
I would have priced the D200X around $1500-$1700, the D300 around $3000, and the D3 right where it is at $5000. The D300 would be pretty much what we got with the FX sensor."
PierreB wrote:
Can that really be the end of the rumour? I was just getting into it.
I wish Canon rumours came and went this quick, or that Canon did actually launch an affordable pro level camera, to compete with the 2 Nikon have launched in the last year!!
Must say the dark side is getting pretty tempting!!!
Now all that matters is the price point. If it is sub $2000 my prayers will be answered. My wide angle Nikkors will start behaving like wides again. Never did believe all that tosh about crop being as good as full frame. Thats a laugh
Fantastic! Hopefullly that will depress D300 prices, which will depress D200 used prices which will depress D2Xs and D2H prices to peanuts so I can get a couple of D2 bodies just for fun. You keep your new stuff, I'll spend my money on old D2 bodies and plane tickets.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I wish Canon rumours came and went this quick, or that Canon did actually launch an affordable pro level camera, to compete with the 2 Nikon have launched in the last year!!
Must say the dark side is getting pretty tempting!!!
Chris
Have faith Chris. The 5DII, 3D, 7D & 1DMkIV are all coming (probably). They better be or next year's TIPA awards will be a Nikon whitewash again.
Even when the rumors about the D700 have been going on during the whole month of June it was obvious that eventually Nikon would be competing in the 5D arena. It only made sense to me that a D700 will hit the market before the D3X.
I know of the capabilities of the D300 and right now, it is the flagship DX from Nikon. The D3 is a great professional camera and for those pro who own both cameras I honestly do not believe there is any reasons to change or "update."
I know the majority of you will not agree with me but my full frame camera is the F-100. By the way, the cheapest full frame you can buy right now. I love the "magic" of using professional film with my F-100 so I am not in the market for the D700.
I will not be in line for a used D300 either. I like my D2H and will remain using it although it gets me tired at times due to its weight.
All this technology is excellent and we consumers get the benefits, with the new cameras or the excellent used ones.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Now don't you wish you had chosen another screen name?
I guess he will be re-registering as: formerly known as D300
My D300 is just a month old. I got it at a price I thought was fair and now matter how low the prices drop on d300's mine will be worth no less to me than the day I bought it. It will actually be worth more as I figure out its capabilities and my vision matures with it. I hung up my D70 as my needs began to out pace what it could provide me, but it still is as fantastic of a camera as the day it was released.
I still cannot grasp the concept of partly with a camera just because a new one is released. Do people actually need what the newest model offers to be at the top of their game or is it just that they want the latest and greatest? My uncle has been a professional photographer since 1960. At 76 he is still at the top of his game in portraiture and landscapes still winning national competitions. In all of this time he only replaces a camera when it fails, such as tipping over into a pile of rocks on the riverbank or getting it stole. even in the digital realm he is reserved in his upgrading. Maybe its just the frugal German in us that feels the person behind the lens is more important than the tool.
Alan Klages wrote:
Do people actually need what the newest model offers to be at the top of their game or is it just that they want the latest and greatest?
You need the best because "you never know" when you'll need ISO 100,000 and you do need to have 10-600mm covered with VR in a one lens so that you won't miss that "once in a lifetime shot". I still haven't seen what that shot is though!
louis fusco wrote:
does anyone expect it to have the full d3 viewfinder? i don't have a good feeling about this.
Who knows? It may. I do like that the D300 has 100% VF coverage. That's a hallmark of a true pro camera. No reason to think the D700 would miss the mark there.
In any regard, the D300 is still a damn fine photographic tool. I was using it a few weeks back and the thought entered my mind that the combo of ergonomic, auto-ISO, build quality, and image quality made it the finest DSLR I've ever owned. ...and I've owned virtually all of them.
Now don't you wish you had chosen another screen name?
I guess he will be re-registering as: formerly known as D300
My D300 is just a month old. I got it at a price I thought was fair and now matter how low the prices drop on d300's mine will be worth no less to me than the day I bought it. It will actually be worth more as I figure out its capabilities and my vision matures with it. I hung up my D70 as my needs began to out pace what it could provide me, but it still is as fantastic of a camera as the day it was released.
I still cannot grasp the concept of partly with a camera just because a new one is released. Do people actually need what the newest model offers to be at the top of their game or is it just that they want the latest and greatest? My uncle has been a professional photographer since 1960. At 76 he is still at the top of his game in portraiture and landscapes still winning national competitions. In all of this time he only replaces a camera when it fails, such as tipping over into a pile of rocks on the riverbank or getting it stole. even in the digital realm he is reserved in his upgrading. Maybe its just the frugal German in us that feels the person behind the lens is more important than the tool....Show more →
That was true for film where the same lens, same film, used on almost any body (within reason) produced the same image. Believing that upgrading is no longer necessary in the digital age means you're locked into a quality level that can easily be, and often is, surpassed in the next model.
For many of us, it "sometimes" becomes a what-is-the-competition-doing situation. If the quality is better (better DR, color, larger size where needed, etc.) and will make a difference then it's a question of asking yourself if you want to remain competitive, or fall behind.. Good for the camera mfgs, bad for the consumers....
nikt wrote:
Yes, from that thread you linked to Eric, I did say we get bragging rights if we got it right.
But the one who was right on the ball was our friend Mr Eaglewolf. This is what David had to say...
I might have guessed pretty close, but I think we all saw that coming. It was only a matter of time before a camera like the rumored D700 was going to be released. After all, how are they going to get us to spend more money on all those new FX lenses? (I realize it is the sensor that is FX, but you get my meaning.)
Now for that D3X...
David Baldwin wrote:
Looks like the D700 rumour might be true.
Hallelujah!
Now all that matters is the price point. If it is sub $2000 my prayers will be answered.
Maybe, but I think $3000 is what we are going to see. Too much higher and it will be too close to the D3 in cost, any lower and it will be hard to make money on it. Well, maybe that's not entirely accurate, but I'm sure that FX sensor is rather expensive and has to cost more than the current D300. And Nikon is out to make a profit along the way so they can keep making cameras and lenses and get more of my hard earned cash!
As for Jim's comment regarding upgrading, I think he is correct. You can't swap sensors out in digital like you could with film, with film being the sensor there. Getting a few extra features may be nice - OK, so the D300's AF is incredible - but basically the processing and sensor is what makes the image excel. Well, that and the guy behind the camera, but for most of us that is a constant, or slowly improves over time. We all want to use the best tool for the job.
With my wife, she just buys better film and gets awesome results from an N50. Me, I have to buy a new camera to get better "film." She thinks she's the winner. On the other hand, I have the D100, D200, D300, and maybe someday a D700 or D3 or D3X. I've got some great "film" there too, I think.
David
Edited by eaglewolf on Jun 27, 2008 at 07:44 AM GMT
panos.v wrote:
Fantastic! Hopefullly that will depress D300 prices, which will depress D200 used prices which will depress D2Xs and D2H prices to peanuts so I can get a couple of D2 bodies just for fun. You keep your new stuff, I'll spend my money on old D2 bodies and plane tickets.
Amen. I can see it now... DJ the haggler... "Yeah, but I mean come on... that D2Xs is ancient news now. Heck for $500 I may as well put that towards a D700. I'll give you $450 and you throw in a case..."
