D700 Pre-Order

[Danielle L]

I just pre-ordered the D700 at Berger Bros for $3199! It's going to be shipped out as soon as they get them in stock!! So excited!! Woohoo!

[deckcadet]

Congratulations! I know a lot of people who got their D3s, D300s and other new Nikon stuff from Brad and the gang there.

[mtbbrian]

What's the FX image sensor format size mean?
Is it 35mm or what?
Brian

[deckcadet]

Yes, it's a 36mm by 23.9mm full frame sensor

[Danielle L]

Congratulations! I know a lot of people who got their D3s, D300s and other new Nikon stuff from Brad and the gang there.

Thanks!! They also were offering pre-order on the new SB-900... but I decided to pass on that. I'm going to have to scrape up enough of my pennies for the D700!
Thought I would let you guys know though...

[Axle]

Okay Canadian's (Specifically those in Ontario) Henry's is taking pre-orders for the D700 now, cost 3299.99. Which isn't too shabby.

Give me a year and a half, I should be ready to buy one.

[AgingEyes]

Okay Canadian's (Specifically those in Ontario) Henry's is taking pre-orders for the D700 now, cost 3299.99. Which isn't too shabby.

Give me a year and a half, I should be ready to buy one.

Here it says the official release date is July 25:

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?ma...oducts_id=1774

And here:

http://www.vistek.ca/store/DigitalSL...d700-body.aspx

Here it says limited quantities available starting early August:

http://www.lensandshutter.com/produc...y=item&id=1481

[photophorous]

What's the FX image sensor format size mean?
Is it 35mm or what?
Brian

What's this? Do I sense a little bit of interest from the Red Holga Man?

I've been saying since the D3 came out, when they put this sensor in a D40-sized body for less than $1k, that will be my signal to try digital again.

Paul

[Kajuah]

I'll skip the d700, I was keen at first on the idea of a full frame till I realized how jacked up the prices for future FX lenses are going to be to go with the upcoming d3x and the now-here d700. It's not worth it imo and not at all a big difference from the d300 aside from its sensor and its ISO; which we've yet to see if it matches the performance or not of the d3. It actually has fewer focal points than the d300 and its battery doesn't last as long. If it were 2500$ - sure, it'd be worth it.. but 3000-3500?...this cam is nikon's extremely late answer to the 5D. Not on my wishlist but an interesting novelty for now .. a prosumer full frame for under 4 000. Not too shabby

[deckcadet]

I'll skip the d700, I was keen at first on the idea of a full frame till I realized how jacked up the prices for future FX lenses are going to be to go with the upcoming d3x and the now-here d700. It's not worth it imo and not at all a big difference from the d300 aside from its sensor and its ISO; which we've yet to see if it matches the performance or not of the d3. It actually has fewer focal points than the d300 and its battery doesn't last as long. If it were 2500$ - sure, it'd be worth it.. but 3000-3500?...this cam is nikon's extremely late answer to the 5D. Not on my wishlist but an interesting novelty for now .. a prosumer full frame for under 4 000. Not too shabby

Frankly, I'm not seeing what you're seeing here. Future FX lenses are nice, but you can still use the current and previous generation without a problem, often at a significantly lower cost. Currency and economic fluctuations, more so than anything else, are determining the higher prices in the most recent lens releases.

The D700 sensor is the same as the one in the D3. Period. All that remains to be seen is the in camera processing, which using the same Expeed image processing system is bound to be exceedingly similar. Whatever differences we see will likely be minor tweaks between Expeed, the advances in processing since last December, and the possibly different anti-aliasing filter.

Your claim about fewer focusing points than the D300 is unfounded. If you haven't already, I suggest you read my D700 Preview I wrote on the announcement day, detailing exactly what has and has not changed. The layout of the array is the same as the D3, but the number of points is the same. And for what it's worth, I tend to find my D3 more accurate than my D300, 8 months down the road.

Battery life isn't a significant concern if you ask me. Bjørn Rørslett, the acclaimed camera and lens reviewer (and a friend of mine) has been posting some of his preliminary test results , including his battery testing with the new D700. Despite using the smaller EN-EL3E, it provided impressive results coming close to those of the D3. If you want the bigger battery, it is still an option on the D700.

And based on your summing up, I think you kind of missed the biggest point of the D700, which I feel the entire camera was designed around. The D700 is not a 5D competitor except that they are both 12mp Full frame bodies. The D700 is a professional camera to the core. The 5D is, frankly, not. It's used by pros, to be sure, and provides professional quality image quality. But it is not a professional body. It's 90% of the D3 for 60% of the cost. Just like the D300 is 90% of the D700 at 60% of the cost. Those that need the additional features brought by each camera will buy them. Those that do not should stay at the level meeting their needs. If they want the bigger battery and 100% viewfinder and extra bit of speed, they get the D3. If they don't need full frame, they get the D300. If they want full frame but don't need the extras of the D3, they get the D700.

[mtbbrian]

What's this? Do I sense a little bit of interest from the Red Holga Man?

I've been saying since the D3 came out, when they put this sensor in a D40-sized body for less than $1k, that will be my signal to try digital again.

Paul

A little, yes, but not enough to go out and buy one!
As I have stated countless times over, my biggest frustration/concern with digital is how quickly digital cameras become outdated.
I am guessing that Nikon probably has made more digital models than the film models, a number that I can only see growing.
I do like the fact that this camera has the "35mm", because that whole thing with using regular 35mm lenes on a digital camera with a sensor that is smaller confuses the hell out of me!
Brian

[Photo-John]

What's the FX image sensor format size mean?
Is it 35mm or what?

You must be confused or something. Was this an accidental post? No one said anything here about film or cameras with plastic lenses

[mtbbrian]

You must be confused or something. Was this an accidental post? No one said anything here about film or cameras with plastic lenses

You're a funny man PJ...

Brian

[Kajuah]

Frankly, I'm not seeing what you're seeing here. Future FX lenses are nice, but you can still use the current and previous generation without a problem, often at a significantly lower cost. Currency and economic fluctuations, more so than anything else, are determining the higher prices in the most recent lens releases.

The D700 sensor is the same as the one in the D3. Period. All that remains to be seen is the in camera processing, which using the same Expeed image processing system is bound to be exceedingly similar. Whatever differences we see will likely be minor tweaks between Expeed, the advances in processing since last December, and the possibly different anti-aliasing filter.

Your claim about fewer focusing points than the D300 is unfounded. If you haven't already, I suggest you read my D700 Preview I wrote on the announcement day, detailing exactly what has and has not changed. The layout of the array is the same as the D3, but the number of points is the same. And for what it's worth, I tend to find my D3 more accurate than my D300, 8 months down the road.

Battery life isn't a significant concern if you ask me. Bjørn Rørslett, the acclaimed camera and lens reviewer (and a friend of mine) has been posting some of his preliminary test results , including his battery testing with the new D700. Despite using the smaller EN-EL3E, it provided impressive results coming close to those of the D3. If you want the bigger battery, it is still an option on the D700.

And based on your summing up, I think you kind of missed the biggest point of the D700, which I feel the entire camera was designed around. The D700 is not a 5D competitor except that they are both 12mp Full frame bodies. The D700 is a professional camera to the core. The 5D is, frankly, not. It's used by pros, to be sure, and provides professional quality image quality. But it is not a professional body. It's 90% of the D3 for 60% of the cost. Just like the D300 is 90% of the D700 at 60% of the cost. Those that need the additional features brought by each camera will buy them. Those that do not should stay at the level meeting their needs. If they want the bigger battery and 100% viewfinder and extra bit of speed, they get the D3. If they don't need full frame, they get the D300. If they want full frame but don't need the extras of the D3, they get the D700.

May I quote in your article that you directed me to you compared the d700 directly to the Canon 5D in the same way i did?

Located here:
http://reviews.photographyreview.com...eview-baby-d3/

The biggest news here is the D700. Answering the wishes of photographers who liked the idea of Canon’s EOS 5D, a less expensive full frame camera, and those who could not afford the $5,000 Nikon D3, the D700 is in the purest sense of the term a “Baby D3.”

No where did I indicate that MP value was a concern with the 5D competing the d700! I compared the fact that nikon's strategy with introducing a full frame mid-price range, semi-pro camera is directly a copy technique of what canon did 3 years ago with the 5D. I am not comparing the 5D to the d700, that would be ridiculous.

The 5D is outdated tremendously compared to the brand new d700 which, like you said, is essentially the d3 - but is not, I may remind you. The d700 is nikon's canon 5D, if that makes things clearer but the cameras themselves are no league at all for each other; they appeal to completely different types of photographers.

Like you said there are subtle differences like the smaller FPS of the d700 in compairson to the d3 and the viewfinder, the battery life and the weight. The d700 is the superior camera in that regard. Essentially, though, it is better than the d3 if you're not into bean counting.

I recall in another post your argument for excluding the d300 vs the d80 was because with the d80 you could choose to buy more lenses for the price difference of the d300. Based on that, shouldn't you be comparing the d300 to the d700 to the same degree? 1200-1600 $ difference is a lot of lenses that we know would make up the difference in processing power of the d300 compared to the 24-120mm the d700 is coming packaged with.

Just to make things clear:
My argument is that the d300 would be a better option with 1600 $ worth of lenses than the d700 - as it stands now with its kit lens and its price. It's true you can use D lenses on an F camera but to what point? It will still be the same as shooting with them on a D camera. In that regard it would be a waste unless you get F lenses for your F camera - which, at the moment, are few and very expensive (in comparison to the yield available with D lenses).

I am not saying the d700 is inferior to the d300. Nor is the 5D a competitor to the d700 (or d80/d300 for that matter)