MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D700x  (Read 9134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« on: January 09, 2009, 23:33 »
0
Talks are starting to heat up on some other forums speculating a D700x 24MP full frame will be out in late 2009. A bit late to the party but that's fine.

Some people are guessing it'll be around $3,000 US but some other stats are saying around $4,500.

I like my D300 but I don't like what I'm seeing with where Nikon is going. I highly doubt Nikon would release a D700x at $3,000 unless it replaces the D700. And would a D3X really be worth $5,000 more? And if it is $4,500 why would anybody spend the extra $2,000 over a $2,600 5D MarkII?

I hate to say it but unless Nikon does some crazy stuff with pricing and caniblaizes half of its DSLRs it looks like the best upgrade path from a D300 is a 5D MarkII.

Anybody else thinking this?


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2009, 01:23 »
0
Anybody else thinking this?

No, apart from the pixel count, the D700 is a much better camera than the 5DII, and with a lot of Nikon lenses, there's no way I would take the cost of changing to Canon. So far nobody knows what a D700X would cost anyway, so it's really not a very useful discussion.

If I should consider changing system, it would be to a Sony A900, to get access to the very nice Zeiss lenses and in-body IS.

« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2009, 02:41 »
0
Talks are starting to heat up on some other forums speculating a D700x 24MP full frame will be out in late 2009.


That was Vonkara here, and on the DT forum. He got if from nikonrumors.com. The D3X is really a mishap since it has no sensor cleaning and IS on the sensor, for that price, and compared to the Sony A900. Rumors were that Nikon was going to upgrade the D700 with the 24MP sensor of the D3X, sensor cleaning and IS included, somewhere this summer.

I have a D200 now, and it works fine. I can't afford from my stock income to upgrade to a 24MP cam, considering that that size bears hidden costs as to PC and disk capacity. For News and Commissioned, customers don't ask for 24MP. As to Sony, I have bad experiences with Minolta and Sony (DSC-R1), since the both broke down for environmental issues (I work a lot outdoors in the tropics: moist, corrosion, overheating).

I follow your track. Upgrade in 1-2 years or so for a full frame 24MP Nikon, with IS on chip and sensor cleaning, - and after the price came down after the early adopters were satisfied and the infancy hickups got straightened out. I also count a bit on bargains when the economic collapse will hit the hardst, this fall. I have more patience than Nikon ;-)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 02:58 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2009, 10:52 »
0
Anybody else thinking this?

No, apart from the pixel count, the D700 is a much better camera than the 5DII, and with a lot of Nikon lenses, there's no way I would take the cost of changing to Canon. So far nobody knows what a D700X would cost anyway, so it's really not a very useful discussion.

If I should consider changing system, it would be to a Sony A900, to get access to the very nice Zeiss lenses and in-body IS.

Don't start with the ooh the D700 is better than the 5D2.  We all know at that price range its not the camera, its the dude behind the camera, and if he's/she's useless, then the camera is useless. 

And Nikon doesn't have a good lineup of primes (neither does canon below 50mm) but the bottom line is you pick what you like and you go with it.  If you wait long enough, both major companies will come out with equivalent cameras.

Just for a note, the A900 is ugly.  And in-camera IS isn't as good as on-lens.  Its a start, but its not as effective.  Jury is still out on sensor cleaning.

vonkara

« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2009, 13:33 »
0
For those who would like a D3x... Hmm The sensor is great at 50-100-200 iso but over this it's risky in stock. This D3x sensor is the A900 sensor with the Nikon technology. It give sometimes weak results

5D MarkII 800iso                                                                                                    D3X 800iso
 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I know people are not shooting often at 800 iso for stock, but it would be great to be able to do it though
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 13:36 by Vonkara »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2009, 21:28 »
0
Well, maybe I'll be hanging in there for the D700x after all.

The more I read about the D3x the more it's beginning to sound like it's not overpriced at $8,000.

The biggest problem I've had is post processing shadow detail and noise issues. My D300 is better than my D80 which was better than my D50. But, the D300 still needs shadow work with high contrast situations.

I found some D3x files and was amazed to see there was no shadow noise. None. Blacks are solid black. If this ends up in a D700x it would save me a ton of time and be worth the extra money.

I thought this was an interesting read. http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingTheBlacks/index.html

« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2009, 00:37 »
0
Just for a note, the A900 is ugly.  And in-camera IS isn't as good as on-lens.  Its a start, but its not as effective.  Jury is still out on sensor cleaning.

The in-camera IS on the A900 is a zillion times better than the non-existing IS on any Canon or Nikon prime below 105mm. Ugliness? Some think the Canons and/or the Nikons are ugly. I find the A900 kind utilitarian charming  :)

As for sensor cleaning, having used Olympus with and Nikon and Fuji without for a few years, my jury has made its decision: On the Olympus, it works wonders. I've never ever had to clean the sensor. With my other cameras, it happens all the time. Why do you think Canikon tries to copy Olympus on this one?

« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2009, 14:58 »
0
Use a tripod.  If you need to have image stabilization below 100mm, then you dont' have a steady enough hand or anywhere near enough light.  Tripods are cool.  And they don't cost nearly as much as a camera

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2009, 15:24 »
0
Oh yes, is the camera pretty or ugly. That's first on my priority list.

And dust removal. That's another one I just can't live without out.

 ::)

« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2009, 15:42 »
0
And dust removal. That's another one I just can't live without out.

Don't change lenses too often in the Gobi desert  ::)

« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2009, 20:26 »
0
Use a tripod.  If you need to have image stabilization below 100mm, then you dont' have a steady enough hand or anywhere near enough light.  Tripods are cool.  And they don't cost nearly as much as a camera

If in-camera IS would make it possible for me to take photos without a tripod, why would I want to carry the extra weight of one (I own several)? Many places, a tripod isn't even allowed. And what is not enough light? If I want to do street shots at night, or indoors photos at churches, museums etc., there certainly won't be enough light always, unless I have IS and a fast lens. If technology can help me get those shots, all the better  :)

Having more opportunities is a good thing. Not having to carry extra weight also. I fail to see the negative aspects with in-body IS.

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2009, 02:00 »
0
Anybody else thinking this?

No, apart from the pixel count, the D700 is a much better camera than the 5DII, and with a lot of Nikon lenses, there's no way I would take the cost of changing to Canon. So far nobody knows what a D700X would cost anyway, so it's really not a very useful discussion.

If I should consider changing system, it would be to a Sony A900, to get access to the very nice Zeiss lenses and in-body IS.

How does a camera that doesn't exist and is speculated to be, fill in the blank, end up "much better than the 5DII". No bias entering in here is there?  ;D

« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2009, 08:45 »
0
In camera IS is only 2 stops, the new lens IS from Canon and Nikon are up to 5.  So if you want to be constrained to two stops, fine. 

And yes, the camera is ugly.  which makes you less likely to have it stolen.  and also less likely to resell it because imagine after usage how ugly it could get :)

Anyways, I'll stick with the in-lens, makes more sense and a lot of new lenses will get it in the shorter focal ranges


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results