Back in September of 2007, I wrote about the exciting new Nikon D3. After all, it had been a long while since Nikon had introduced a new camera AND it was their first full frame camera; this, after letting Canon have control of the full-frame (FX) market for about 3 years. Well, the boys and girls at Nikon have stepped up and announced another full-frame camera. The Nikon D700!
The D700 looks like a direct competitor to Canon’s 5D. A digital camera with a full sized 35mm sensor at a price of about $2,999, somewhere between the D300 ($1799) and the D3 ($4999). Not bad at all! It, again, kind of raises my geek alarm. 
I hate when that thing goes off because it keeps ringing, and ringing, and ringing!
But, again, for those of us already invested in number of DX lenses, the transition would be a bit costly, assuming that we wanted to take advantage of the FX sensor. The D700 provides 12 MP, full frame, or 5 MP (DX). Kind of seems like a waste to shoot with DX lenses on this baby.
The main reason for having an FX sized sensor is to shoot ultra-wide angle lenses such as the 16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, or the 12-24mm f/2.8, each bringing their share of pain to the wallet! Another advantage of the larger sensor is lower noise at high ISO; however, I wouldn’t think that this would be a primary reason to spend an additional $1,200 over the price of a D300.
Certainly, I would consider purchasing this camera if I had all non-DX lenses, but the opposite is true; merely forking over to Nikon another $2999 of hard-earned cash is not the only issue. Another issue is the support crew that I would need to buy with it … my same reasons for not getting a D3. Sigh… Perhaps when all prosumer cameras are full frame and the cost of those lenses go down, maybe, just maybe.
I’m interested to see what this new introduction will do to the price of existing Nikon lenses that are used with 35mm film cameras. They will work on both the D3 and the D700. By the introduction of this camera, I would suspect that suddenly these lenses would become more valuable, even though they are not auto focus.
Depreciation costs
Lastly, after the introduction of the D300, I watched in horror as the value of my D2x plummeted like a lead balloon. Down! Down! Down, it went. Down to where a D2x in excellent+ shape with low mileage (shutter actuations), say < 20,000, might fetch, if you’re lucky, slightly over $1,200. A well used one, still in excellent shape, with shutter actuations of 40,000+ may get you $1,000, if you are lucky! Mind you, Nikon’s shutters are rated at 150,000 actuations MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures), meaning that about on average, shutters fail at 150,000.
Probably most of the people who are looking at these numbers will not even come close to exercising the camera to failure. My camera has 40,000 actuations in 24 months, which is about 1,665 pictures/month or about 55/day. Even at that rate, it would take about 5.5 years to bring the shutter to failure by using the ‘remaining’ 110,000 shots, assuming that it would break at that time.
I wonder what the introduction of the D700 will do to D3 sales. Hmmm. I don’t think that they’ll affect D300 sales much. That’s a different group.
Oh well. Something to think about. I think that the folks at Nikon are doing the right thing in taking back the market. Maybe I’ll jump on the bandwagon when this current crop of cameras start depreciating … and they will!
Related Posts :
I got a call from Adorama and the deal is done. They made me an offer that I could have refused, ...
© Digital Camera Review: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com I'm writing this from the poin ...
It's usually about this time of year when I have a look in my bag and see if there is anything t ...
Yeah, I wonder, I wonder. Last time I said I wouldn’t buy the D300 without careful consideration. I would read all reviews online, I would take my time to think this through.
It was officially launched on November 23, and my first images with it are from November 24. Plenty of consideration
I guess the D700 would only be a second camera. In fact this is much cheaper than buying new short and long (especially long!) glass.
What really p*sses me off is the vewfinder. I feel like “No way that I go back from 100% to 95%”. Maybe that’s not important for other people, but my style frequently requires lines running into corners. That’s all OK for lines coming in at 45 degrees, but it gets really nasty with flat angles. I can remember fiddling around with the D200, making five shots until I had the one that I wanted. Now, with the D300, it’s no guessing any more. Well, I suspect it’s still probably only 99.5%, but that’s tolerable
On the other hand, I do much work with the 70/2.8 (would be like what the 50 is now), the 50/1.8 (would be what the 30/1.4 is now) and the 20/1.8 (would be real wide). I could even buy the relatively cheap Sigma 12-24. David Ziser uses it on a Canon 5D with great success. Sure, it would vignette, but otoh I add vignettes in Photoshop all the time. Why should I care? 12mm on FX? Wild!!
And there is of course the sensor. Much of my work is done under less than ideal conditions. Being able to go to ISO 6400 and not even think about noise, that would certainly be fine.
Can you imagine how I feel about that matter? And really, apart from shooting at higher ISOs, what would it give me? Anything? I have all ranges of focal lengths covered, apart from really long, i.e. > 200mm (equivalent to 300mm). On FX my longest lens would be a true 150/2.8!!
Well, I guess I’ll wait and see if I can resist when I see it in all the shops
Paul, we must have the same geek alarm.
The full-frame (FX) sensor is a big temptation but I’m also vested in DX lenses.
It would be nice to grab those ultra-wide shots but I can’t imagine this alone as a reason to purchase the D700. Currently my Sigma 10-20mm (15-30mm) lens gets me about as wide as I need to go.
So I really don’t know what the “can’t live without” factor would be for the D700. The big pull with the D300 was the higher ISO lower noise ratio.
I think I’ll be able to override that geek alarm on this one.
Dust cleaning sensor, MUCH higher ISO performance (over a D2x), and other neat features like the virtual horizon are what have me tempted. I already own a 12-24 DX lens, so I can shoot plenty wide with the DX format. I also have a lonely 17-35 f2.8 lens that really deserves to be loved a bit more, which it will get plenty of use on a FX format camera.
I haven’t tried to enlarge any sample D3 files yet. I should probably spend some time doing that and comparing against what I know I can get from a D2x to make the final call. Probably keeping a D2x for the mag factor with wildlife, and a D700 for everything else. Who knows… A D3x is likely right around the corner, but I doubt it will have the high ISO performance.
I guess, the D700 will not really compete with the Canon 5D – but with its sucessor, which is due sometime this fall. That’s certainly going to be a highly interesting competition…!
For me, it’s more or less the same as with you guy: many (too many) of my lenses are designed for Canons with a Crop. For my absolute favorite lens, the 17-55 f2,8 IS there is even no full-frame alternative. That certainly keeps me temptation at bay. Pweh…
I was saving to buy a D3, but when I got wind of the D700 I got very psyched and now I am planning on getting the D700 instead, hopefully in the near future.
The high ISO is definitely worth it for me since I do so much low light photography in situations where flash is not possible or appropriate. I shoot regularly at ISO 1600. I also only have one DX lens which I rarely even use, It’s not an expensive one either.
Of course the Full Frame is a plus that I could not ignore.
I am just glad I hadn’t already purchased the D3 since it was a lot more $$ and the D700 seems much better suited for my shooting style.
I didn’t go with the D300 because there wasn’t enough difference in my opinion for me to justify making that move from the D200. I was hoping they would come out with something in between the D300 and the D3 and they did not let me down. I am so glad I exercised restraint!
@Laurie: The only thing that I saw about the D700 that I didn’t like, at least, would find slightly annoying, was the 95% coverage of the viewfinder. The D300 covers 100%, but then again, the D700′s viewfinder will probably be larger to accommodate the larger sensor size. The D3′s viewfinder is quite large, indeed, but then so is the camera!
Paul, I desperately need to learn how to take photos like you. I dont try to pose off people, but with you i make the exception.
Please write about this if you can in your coming blogs. kind of a like a tutorial on how not to suck…i’d be very grateful.
thanks