Who would buy a Real D700 Successor? (16-18 MP, 8-9 FPS w. BG, high ISO)

geogregeogre Posts: 22Member
edited March 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
first: all those who have already bought a D800 (or a D4 or a D600) because they need the MP and love this camera, please do not respond, i don't want to continue a discussion whether the D800 is or is not the D700 successor. as you see, for me it is NOT and i'm one of those who are still waiting and hoping and i wanted to know how many of us are out there...

i'm photographing professionally, but i'm making not too much money with it, just trying to make a living. the D4 would absolutely be my camera, but i just can't afford it and i would be happy with 8 or 9 FPS already.

i feel like nikon has invented 3 types of punishment for people like me asking for an affordable (~2800 to 3500 USD) very good alround DSLR that makes the best compromise of resolution (+filesize), speed, high-iso-capability, built-quality and features like the D700 did. the punishments are

a) pay twice the price (or only buy 1 camera instead of 2)
b) a plastic body, with dust and oil spotted sensor and an unprofessional and a tiny area covering AF (and already too many MP)
c) sacrifice the 'allround' character with way too high res. and filesize, and therefore too low speed and not as good ISO capab. as desired

i know that many have one of the 3 already and don't see it as a punishment, and as written above this thread was not meant for those so please don't respond. just all of you who are also waiting for a 'baby D4' (or even 2 of them)... anyone? as long as my D700 is still working as perfectly as it does (and i'm not making a LOT with photos and can afford a D4) i have no need to 'upgrade', but i would certainly need a 2nd body and would LOOOOVE this D701s to be it.

btw: i called it D701s just for fun, because i had a F801s about 20 years ago that i really loved.


who else has the $3000 ready to spend on the D700 successor baby D4 D710 D701 D700s D900 or whatever it could be called ????
Post edited by Msmoto on
«1

Comments

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,199Member
    A new 16-18mp sensor in a D800 body or putting the D3 sensor into a D800 body, is that essentially what you want for about $3,000? If so, Thom Hogan predicts it won't happen but I don't see why Nikon couldn't easily (and inexpensively) do it after the D4 has been out for 2 years and Nikon has introduced a D4x or D4s model.

    But let me ask these questions:

    1. If you are satisfied with the image quality and resolution of the D700 perhaps you should look for a used D700 body for less than $2,000 as a second body?

    2. Would you be willing to go DX if the D400 meets all your criteria?

    3. Would you be happy with a used D3s in good condition when the price fell into your range?



  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    The funny part here is your concern over ISO. Let me assure you that the D800 leaves the D700 in the dust. Yes, 4fps is slow, but thats the only issue to compare. In every other category it wins. Sorry if you don't like that or simply don't want to believe it, but its true.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited March 2013
    ........
    i'm photographing professionally, but i'm making not too much money with it, just trying to make a living. the D4 would absolutely be my camera, but i just can't afford it .........
    I can only suggest you have a long had look at you business model and how much you charge

    taking into account, all the other equipment a profession needs, the cost of a D4 is not horrendous

    I use a D800, yes a few more fps would be nice but if need them I use my old D700 and battery pack

    If I need 8+ fps more often, I would not hesitate in getting a D4







    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • geogregeogre Posts: 22Member
    thanks for your input and thoughts on this.

    as i said, nobody needs to defend the D800. it's surely a fine camera and i'm glad for everyone who is happy with it. i for myself just would not at all sacrifice speed, lowlight capabilities and a manageable filesize for MP (SquamishPhoto, i don't mean the D800 iso compared to the D700, i just want bigger and fewer pixels and therefore better ISO)

    @donaldejose: yes, not a D3 but a D4(-like) sensor in a D800-like body would be very fine for me. to answer your very good questions, yes i've thought of a used D700 and maybe i'll buy one one day if i find a good offer. i just must say that i got hooked lately by the possibility of filming.... no, i would not want to go to dx since i only have fx-lenses and need wide-angles a lot. a used D3s would also be perfect i think.

    @sevencrossing: you are right, but this world just isn't perfect and my business model may also not be perfect ;) i have invested quite a bit in my lenses in the last 2 years and just could not afford the D4 at this moment. i know it would be 100% my camera and i will not hesitate to buy it when the time comes. i also don't find the price horrendous, but at the moment i could only justify about $3000-$3500 as my income also is not horrendous ;) but there may be a nice job on the horizon that may change the situation a bit.

    in the meantime, i'll keep on dreaming of a D700 successor, a halfprize 8fps D4... i just thought there would be tenthousands of people waiting and having $3000 ready to spend on that kind of camera...

    anyway, thanks again for your thoughts!
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    Out of interest what camera do have at the moment and what do you do that requires ISO 12,800 and 9 fps
  • GarethGareth Posts: 159Member
    now the d800 and d4 have been around for a while i have expectations of something "more" than a d700 in my next camera. but tbh, i am happy waiting until the next set of cameras is released.

    now that I am truly a professional I find myself worrying almost nil about my cameras (which are adequate) and a whole lot about marketing.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    thanks for your input and thoughts on this.
    (SquamishPhoto, i don't mean the D800 iso compared to the D700, i just want bigger and fewer pixels and therefore better ISO)
    You still aren't understanding this. The D800 has better ISO performance than the D700. I owned a D700 for over 2 years before I bought my D800 last spring, so I can assure you that bigger pixels doesn't necessarily equate to better ISO performance. Its not 2008 anymore. :]
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I'm with Squamish on this as well, the D800 is better in low light. We are into the 4th + generation of FX sensors now - all of the "layman" beliefs that people latched onto for why the D3/D700 wanted it and how the larger diodes were the only reason for good Low iso performance, has gone by the wayside for anyone who does not want to spend $5,000 on a D4.

    Geogre I afraid that your hope of a 701 has been rehashed over the internet for over a year and for many, many, many reasons it's not going to happen. The largest problem Nikon had was that it ate into D3 sales - they won't make that mistake again - and haven't. There was a chance for the D600 to become that, and it went to 24mp. And it has even slightly better in high ISO than the D800. Nikon has spoken and they want to win the MP war this time around and they have. Canon choose to have stratospheric low noise ISO, and they have won on that front (for the lower bodies) this time around.

    That said, the best chance for something like that would be a mirrorless FX system, but I don't see that coming at all. I would like to see it though!

    At this point I'm afraid for your hopes, a D701 is just a philosophical debate on decisions that could have happen in the past, and will not have any usefulness in the future.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • GarethGareth Posts: 159Member
    I think the new thing for Nikon to target is low light focusing. The idea of being able to af precisely when I need shutter speeds of 1/50 at ISO 3200 for moving subjects would pull me to a new body far more quickly than anything else.
  • CorrelliCorrelli Posts: 135Member
    I think the idea of a D701s (or whatever) is tempting. If the ISO performance of the D600 is better than the D800 (I did not use either of these so I can only repeat what "people" say) and they are the same sensor generation, chances that sensor of that same generation with a lower resolution shows even better ISO performance is good. So if such a beast would be positioned between the D600 and D800 (price-wise) it would be tempting. I don't need the high resolution of the D800. But to be honest I also don't need a high frame rate. What is putting me off the D600 is the small AF array. Sometimes I would even like to get a wider distribution of AF points than the D700 has. And to be really honest: I am still absolutely happy with my D700.

    But I also don't think that a D701s is going to happen. To justify a D701s the camera would need to generate enough additional sales (without the sales from people who would now buy either a D4, D800 or D600) to justify the development cost. And I don't think this would work out...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    I do not think Nikon will come out with another full frame camera. They have it covered from $2,000-$6,000.

    As i have said before, we are going to see some big changes in the next year or so, and I am predicting, these will be in the non-mirror bodies, with more goodies than one can imagine at this time. Probably before the end of 2015.
    Msmoto, mod
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    I agree with @Msmoto. While I think Nikon has failed to make a true D700 replacement, the D600 and D800 provide decent options. In addition, as Thom Hogan noted in his post today, most of the people who want a true D700 replacement would be well served to just keep using the D700 indefinitely. If you need video, pickup a lower cost model for that purpose.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    That is such crap. The only thing that you gain with the D700 is speed. In every single other measurable quality the D700 fails to meet the standard set by the D800. Just because you think something to be true does not mean that reality is going to agree with you. :]
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    edited March 2013
    Perhaps better wording would have been, a replacement true to the spirit of the D700. IMO a replacement true to the spirit of the D700 would be a mini D4, whether you disagree with that or not is simply an opinion.

    Just because you think the D800 is a true replacement, does not mean everyone has to agree, sorry to burst your bubble. The D800 may have taken the D700's place in the lineup, but that does not make it a spiritual successor thereof. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, based on the post here and the hordes of emails Thom Hogan received from D700 users who feel abandon.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,199Member
    I guess we tend to think the future should redo the past. Nikon took the D3 sensor and put it into a pro body without the battery grip and created the D700. Hence, we feel the "true" successor to that D700 must also be the D4 sensor placed into the body used for the D800. Logical. But Nikon has not agreed, at lease so far. Producing a D800 body with a D4 sensor should be relatively easy. Perhaps Nikon doesn't want such a camera to steal D4 sales, perhaps Nikon will produce just such a body in two years. When the D4 sensor is "old news" and D4 sales have slowed down and Nikon has a D4s or D4x (or both) ready perhaps Nikon will extend the use of that D4 sensor by putting it into a D700 "spiritual successor" many people desire. At least we can say two things now: Nikon gave us two D700 replacements which both perform better than the D700 did but which do not have the same sensor as the D4. The D800 performs much better in all regards and if you want smaller file sizes you have many optional setting which will produce smaller file sizes from a D800. The D600 sensor also performs much better than the D700 sensor in a body with different controls, slightly less robust body and for $1.000 less. In either case you get much more than the D700 gave you.

    So if the future should redo the past, the D400 won't be very exciting. It will just be the top DX sensor in a D800 body. Ho hum. Personally, I hope the D400 is more than just the D7100 sensor in the D800 body with a larger buffer.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    Perhaps better wording would have been, a replacement true to the spirit of the D700. IMO a replacement true to the spirit of the D700 would be a mini D4, whether you disagree with that or not is simply an opinion.
    They changed the game and thus their line up looks a lot different now. Deal with it. And you think D700 owners feel burned? How about the D3x owners? Talk about massive price swing.
    Just because you think the D800 is a true replacement, does not mean everyone has to agree, sorry to burst your bubble. The D800 may have taken the D700's place in the lineup, but that does not make it a spiritual successor thereof. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, based on the post here and the hordes of emails Thom Hogan received from D700 users who feel abandon.
    This is getting stupid. I don't simply think this; I actually replaced my D700 with a D800. Gasp! And boy does it kick ass. If you had one for a week of shooting you'd change your tune. :]
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    In either case you get much more than the D700 gave you.
    +1

    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    edited March 2013

    This is getting stupid. I don't simply think this; I actually replaced my D700 with a D800. Gasp! And boy does it kick ass. If you had one for a week of shooting you'd change your tune. :]
    Yes, because anyone who thinks differently than you is stupid. :-@ I have no interest in the huge files of the D800, so it wouldn't matter how long I had one. Not to mention all the quality control issues with the D800 and D600. I wouldn't touch one of the current generation cameras with a 10 foot pole.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WesleyWesley Posts: 67Member
    How about...Would you buy a D800 if it had Basic, Normal, and Fine Raw option with improved FPS depending on the selected size?

    I would think it is better to have your own product "cannibalize" your other product than having someone buy a competitor's.
    There's probably more people with a D800 budget + pro lenses than D4 budget + no lenses. The lenses will do a good job of keeping the user in the Nikon ecosystem. So just release bodies that have the broadest appeal of your customers which seems to be the D700 successor.
    I wish Nikon released a D700S so I wouldn't see so many 5D Mark II users on Flickr.
    D700: 24-70 2.8, 85 1.8G
    D3100: 18-55
    A7II: 16-35 F4, 55 1.8, 70-200 F4
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    edited March 2013
    I would think it is better to have your own product "cannibalize" your other product than having someone buy a competitor's.
    Bingo. The only thing keeping me from switching to the 5D MKIII is the price of switching brands. That and the fact that I hope Nikon returns to sanity with the next generation of semi-pro bodies.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member

    This is getting stupid. I don't simply think this; I actually replaced my D700 with a D800. Gasp! And boy does it kick ass. If you had one for a week of shooting you'd change your tune. :]
    Yes, because anyone who thinks differently than you is stupid. :-@ I have no interest in the huge files of the D800, so it wouldn't matter how long I had one. Not to mention all the quality control issues with the D800 and D600. I wouldn't touch one of the current generation cameras with a 10 foot pole.
    lol I love it when people from 2008 like yourself complain about file size. Its so cute. Show of hands here. Who would trade undeniably better quality imaging of the D800 for the smaller file size of the D700?

    Not me. And for what its worth, almost all of the portraits you see posted in PAD from me and my D800 are shot in JPEG, so if you know what you're doing with light you can avoid the dreaded HUUUUGE FILES!!!!!



    AHHHHHH1!11!!11!1


    *facepalm*


    Enjoy your switch to Canon.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    FWIW, my D800 has no left AF issue, no green LCD, no oil on the sensor after almost 50,000 clicks, and my 10 pin socket doesn't budge an inch when used.

    But whats the point? You're siding with KR, so all is lost. ;]
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    edited March 2013
    I have no intentions of switching to Canon, that is unless Nikon continues to make cameras that do not fit my needs. Heaven forbid someone consider all their options. /:)

    I love how personally you are taking this, typical of someone trying to justify their choice. I haven't seen any noticeable improvement in image quality between your D800 images and the D700 images you have shared over the years. Your skills as a photographer far outweigh whatever camera you are using.

    As for file size, I have no need for larger files. It's not due to being lost in the past, or fear of bigger files. I don't want it, because I don't print larger than 8x10. Why would I buy a camera with file sizes that much larger when I have absolutely no need for it? So I can waste money on hard drives? Heck I already have 6 externals to manage the data I have now.

    Since you have nothing of value to add to this thread why don't you just ignore it. Go have a love fest with your D800 and leave us alone.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • geogregeogre Posts: 22Member
    wow, thanks again for all your answers...

    actually i don't like very much how personal this got... if you re-read my first sentence you will see that i did NOT want a discussion about the D800. obviously there are people like you, squamish, that are happy with it and love it and that is really good for you with no discussion. i have understood that the D800 is better than the D700 in every point but speed, thank you for that information.

    so could we all please stop the discussion about the D800 ? it's great if you need it, i understand that. and i envy any of you who is perfectly satisfied with a D800 or even a D600.

    however, i for myself do NOT want a D800 because i need more speed and smaller raw-files. i'm shooting sports (e.g. indoor climbing, bouldering) in sometimes poor light conditions, so the only camera at the moment would be a D700, a D3, D3s or (perfect) a D4. as i would like filming and a little bit more resolution, the D4 would be PERFECT for me, but as written above i can't afford it (at this moment). but i would certainly buy it if i could. so me buying a D4 can not be cannibalized at all because it does not happen. more likely i'll buy another D700 as second body and film with a camcorder (or, more likely, not at all) and envy the canon users for they got the much more alround-type camera with the 5dmarkIII (although, even that 22MP 6FPS would be a bit too slow and too big raw-files for me). as someone wrote above, if you could switch the D800 to produce halfsize (downscaled) rawfiles (with the downscale-improved ISO) with double speed... man, i already had one.

    for me the hypothetical baby-D4 feels just sooo perfect and i would buy it instantly. i know that this camera just doesn't exist and may never will. i know that, ok? i'm just UNHAPPY with that fact and wanted to know if i am the only one, and it's good to see that i'm not.

    so, if you, mr. nikon-boss, are just reading this... if you would sell a baby-D4 (D750, D701, D700s, D500, D900 or whatever)... i and maybe some other people would buy it :) !!! in the meantime, may my D700 live long and prosper...
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    George you you are not the only person who would like a half price D4
    but the nearest we are going to get is a S/H D3s



This discussion has been closed.