D700: summary and photos

by the way the clock on my computer showed 12:01:05 when I hit post.

here's that last photo again.

very cool

i can just hear it now: "sorry kids, daddy's got other plans for your college fund!"

Ok Ellis, you did not violate any emgargo time.

As I have said all along, any "prosumer" FX format DSLR is not going to be less than US$3000. Well, maybe 5 cents less than $3000. :-)

But the price will drop over time.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25444/D700.html

http://photo.net/photography-news-forum/00Q0rA

Seems any D300 owner will feel at home with this one.

If my husband gets more work, maybe I'll get one. If not I'll just stick to my DX sensors, but it would be nice to have one of each..... I guess...............

Lil :)

Oh I forgot - -

Congratulations Nikon

Lil :-)

hey ellis, what's up with the sb-500 flash? got the deets on that?

nope.

The D300 is clearly a hybrid between the D3 and D300. The viewfinder is from the D3 with a round eye piece, but the rest of the body, at least on the outside, is very D300 like. However, there is a new "info" button below the AF model selector. The pop-up flash, of course, is similar to the D300.

Thanks Ellis. Do I really need one? No. Would I really like one? Yes.

Any idea on the pricing for the SB-900?? Also, timeline for availability of both?

$500 for the SB-900. See this companion thread: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Q0uT

As a D300 owner, I would have been tempted to purchase the D700 so I could use my wide-angle lenses as I did with my film SLR's but I really don't know if I would be willing to shell out 3,000 dollars for a camera with only a 95% viewfinder.

One thing I love most about my D300 versus my D200 is its 100% viewfinder. It's something I've now become accustomed to and I won't want to downgrade to a 95% viewfinder just to get a more affordable FX body than a D3.

So I guess I'm going to pass on the D700 for now.

Ellis... Thanks!

Shun... have you finished your review on this camera? :)

Well, my wife will have to get a job ASAP! Rene'

I downloaded one of the photos from here

(link)

Just amazing!!!!!

Just amazing.

Lil :-)

Is the D700 just as good as the D3 in high ISO?

Just out of interest. I have DX lenses so don't really care. Its also a bit on the heavy side since I do 2 night per city trips and I move on .. etc......

Kudos to Nikon for using the same MB grip and batteries.

2 Questions...... Is it like D3 that automatically changes to DX when you use a DX lens?

I think this would be a very good second or first camera. Lets say keep the D700 with a 24-70 and a D300 with a telephoto or a 11-16 depending on what you are shooting? Uhmm!?

Oh! and what's with the PC lenses? All i want is an AF-S 50-150 f/2.8 G VR and I want it before the end of July!

I wish it was a thousand dollars less. :)

Rene�, I was wondering if there will be a new 70-200 release soon, now it is even more desired. The 50-150 looks to be definitely set aside...

... and about DX lenses on the D700, it seems to work in the same way as in the D3. The only difference looks to be that a "box" appears in the VF instead of the D3`s shadowed area (you can read Dpreview preview for more details).

Danm - I just picked up my D3 yesterday........... ;-)

"Is it like D3 that automatically changes to DX when you use a DX lens? "

Yes but like on the D3 you can turn that option off or over ride it.

Ellis, may I read your last post to mean that my DX lenses are not obsolete?

It is absolutely awesome to see another full frame camera in the market as it only helps to eventually get these cameras to the price where they should be (ie. $1200-$1500). Unfortunately if we assume the price is around $3000 then Nikon still has a way to go to compete with Canon. As I said though it will all pay off over the next 2-3 years.

OK. Why would Nikon work to bring the price of a ff camera down to the $1,500 range when that is exactly where the DX line is positioned. I makes absolutely no sense to do that.

If you want top autofocus & build in a Canon full-frame, you have to pay $7000, and even 1.3X is more expensive than the D700. I think the Nikon FX models are extremely competitive in this respect.

You can find some sample D700 images here: (link)

Somehow Nikon only has ISO 200 and 400 samples. There are not high-ISO ones at this point.

The market is self-leveling. Newest products have some kind of pricing freedom, at least up to the competitors response.

I think only a percentage of the FX R&D sensor on the D700 justify the price difference with a D3, thought (looks like the other part belong to the D3). The rest of the camera looks to be a D300.

"Active D-lighting with a new Automatic mode." I wondered when the Automatic mode would be coming - makes sense. And I wonder if the Automatic mode can/will be made available to the D3 through firmware upgrade?

(Sorry, I`ve had a typo). I think only a percentage of the FX R&D sensor on the D700 justify the price difference with a D300, thought (looks like the other part belong to the D3). The rest of the camera looks to be a D300.

It will be ISO 3200+ that will sell the camera. Now that most of us have decent DX lenses and cameras that shoot clean at ISO 1600, what would be the point in spending $3,000 for a camera that gives no reduced noise/high ISO capability? I'm not seeing any. I've been trying to buy a used 17-55mm f2.8 off eBay lately, but they are hitting $950. Perhaps I should hold off--might be a bunch of these DX lenses hitting eBay about the same time in the near future.

Kent in SD

There isn`t DX lenses like the FX ones. I`m going to buy a D700 for this reason.

How nice, another full format Nikon body to be used with the excellent Carl Zeiss ZF lenses!

Cheers

The 24mm PC-E is one really good reason to pay for FX. Fast wide angle primes (MF) like 35/1.4, 28/2 (Zeiss or Nikkor ai-s), the 14-24 are additional good reasons, I really like my 28/2 Ai-S. Being able to see a large & detailed image in the viewfinder - an excellent reason to go FX.

Bjorn reports that the D700 eyepoint is similar to D3's. So it's ok but I wouldn't mind a bit longer.

Now that 85mm micro would be really nice to have but my stomach can't deal with paying for two PC-E Nikkors ... and at macro distances the 8.5 degree tilt isn't all that much.

"Ellis, may I read your last post to mean that my DX lenses are not obsolete?"

Yes that is correct. The sky did not fall. The D700 fits in between the D300 and the D3 in terms of capabilities and features.

"Unfortunately if we assume the price is around $3000 then Nikon still has a way to go to compete with Canon."

But currently Canon doe snot have a camera to compete with the D700 (or the D3) especially in terms of high ISO images. I say that based on having printed ISO 1600 images from both a Canon 1D Mark 3 and a Nikon D3 at 16x24 and 20x30 inches. What will be interesting to se is what the still unannounced succesor to the 5D

"The rest of the camera looks to be a D300."

Do you always judge a book by its cover?

"All i want is an AF-S 50-150 f/2.8 G VR and I want it before the end of July!"

I want one too. But it isn't going to happen before the end of July.

"Is the D700 just as good as the D3 in high ISO? "

From what I can tell, yes. The big differences (beyond weight and physical size) between the D3 and the D700 are:

No dual card slots in the D700.

Possibly greater battery capacity with the D3.

Larger buffer in the D3.

Higher FPS rate with the D3.

Different shutter assemblies.

Different implementation of EXPEED.

Hell Yeah!

Hooooooraaay!

The 5D killer is actually real!

Sweeeet.

Now I really want one.

But why go from D300 to D700?

Aren't there a few hundreds inbetween?

=\?

My question is when will Nikon come out with more FF lenses with the new VR. I'd like to see an update of the 24-120 that is actually sharp, (24-135 would be ideal). Also a compact wide angle lens to replace my 12-24 DX.

I'm also a little surprised they didn't release the D90. I guess we'll have to wait a little longer on that one.

I'm sure that alot of folks here are on Calumet's mailing list, but i'll throw my 2 cents in.

Here is a link for the pre-order for the D700 if anyone is interested. http://www.calumetphoto.com/store/NewNikon/?t=CM01&a=CM01

Cheers

and here.....Adorama (link)

Ellis,

You left off two notable differences between the D3 and D700 on your list:

The D3's 100% Viewfinder Frame Coverage vs. the D700's 95% Viewfinder Frame Coverage, and the D700's self-cleaning sensor vs. no self-cleaning sensor for the D3.

Here's a 24 page PDF brochure on the D700: (link)

Greetings all!

It's been awhile since I posted here, but I just had to come back and say WOW.. Good stuff Nikon! The D700 seems to be the camera I've been wanting for the longest time... Too bad I still love my D200.

Thanks for all the post you guys!

I don't usually (never have so far) jumped out for the latest offering. However, in the case of this camera, I am going to get one ASAP.

Now I wish I hadn't sold my 24/2.8D-AF last year.

Might have to sell a couple of my DX lenses too.

All things on balance, this is an outstanding evolution of the Nikon DSLR product line.

Thanks Ellis :~)

Interesting post. Impressive specs. Thanks for the info.

I can't resist this opportunity to go on a bit of a rant about the designs produced by the company that has made my cameras for the last 35 years.

Whatever else it may be (and I'm sure that it is an excellent camera) the D700 is the ugliest camera Nikon has ever produced. The batmobile styling of the pentaprisms from the D2 on have made a mockery of professional pretension. And the plethora of knobs and bumps that encrust Nikon bodies have always seemed a parody of utilitarianism. On the D700 we get no relief from the cartoon cap, and those lumpy affectations have multiplied, the upper port side of the beast becoming positively cancerous.

As photographers we spend a fair amount of time laboring over aesthetic nuance in the work we do, yet when it comes to our technology we seem to disdain anyone who wants their tools to be beautiful as well as functional. The envy that I feel looking that the calm lines of the 5d has only intensified with Nikon's latest offering.

I'm curious about the camera having "mirror lock up". What does that mean these days? Is a true lock up (as was on the F) so I can use a non retrofocus ultrawide like the Voigtlander 15 or a pre-release to minimize mirror vibration? Does anyone know which Nikons other than the F & F2 (film or digital) have the former.

This is what I was waiting for. Sooner than I expected though!! Very happy that I invested in non-DX lenses after going through the dilemma of pretty poor wide angle quality available to DX sensors.

Now I just have to hope the wife see's the benfits of a D700!!

If I remember correctly, the F series up to the F5 uses a mechanical mirror lock up.

The current DSLRs use an electronic mirror lock up that has a timer. If you lock up the mirror and leave it alone, it'll rebound after a few minutes. If you happen to have an old super wide lens that sticks into the mirror box, the lens will be in the mirror's way when it rebounds, automatically.

Please help me with one question. I currently shoot with a 300 and solely with dx lenses. So, because the 700 automatically changes to dx settings with dx lenses, does this totally negate all advantages to buying the 700 unless you were to also buy a whole new set of fx lenses? What exactly (besides a narrower crop) do you lose when using dx lenses?

Since it's a hybrid between the D3 and D300, I don't see a huge reason from either the FX and DX camp to "upgrade", do you?

I would imagine most DX users by now have some lens(es) that handle the wide-angle that they initially missed when they first converted to digital from film. It makes sense to me that the lenses follow the camera, not the other way around.

Your thoughts?

Mary

Anyone saying that the DX format is obsolete need to go try and do some bird and wildlife photography or anything that requires long reach. The DX platform is still perfect for it: the D300, with its more accurate AF and more computationally superior eXpeed chip.

To Jeannie... Basically, that is right! If you have an FX camera with ONLY DX lenses every time you attach a DX lens to it, the camera will change to a DX mode. In the case of the D700 Ellis said that you can override this but then your DX lenses will vignette or you can not use the widest end of it. So basically, yeah, you need to buy FX lenses if you wanna buy an FX camera otherwise save your money and enjoy your D300. Rene'

Good to see some FF competitiom from Nikon. In UK (warehouse express) the Canon 5D body is at 1360 GBP with the Nikon D700 advance orders at 2000 GBP. As a Canon 5D user - defintely worth a look!

AS for me, I go with the sevens :-) I did not change since D70s because the improvement in quality of a D200/300 did not justify a change to me (I am not willing to pay for improved noise suppression algorithms). But then came D3 with the FX sensor, meaning large pixels, meaning good ISO performance. However, I not a pro nor a sport photographer, so the D3 seemed a overkill to me...and now the D700, *this is exactly what I was looking for*!!

"Ellis, may I read your last post to mean that my DX lenses are not obsolete?"

Bernhardt,

I am not Ellis, but you are right. Using DX lenses on a D3 or D300 mean using just a fraction of the large sensor. With a DX lens on one of these cameras you only get a 5 MP-sensor.

"Is the D700 just as good as the D3 in high ISO?"

Ray,

Because the D3 and the D700 share the same sensor and engine I am sure the results in high ISO are identical. Hope I can verify this assumption at the end of this week with my own test sample of the D700.

Same here. I am using a D70 with the 35mm f/2. That lens was never wide and fast enough. Solutions existed that would have provided a one or two stop advantage, but soon I can use 50mm 1.4 and gain five stops - or four stops plus a moderate wide angle. I also hope the D700 to reduce burnt out highlights outdoors... It's also small enough (could be even smaller, though). Just waiting for the price to drop by $500. Early spring, hopefully.

"What exactly (besides a narrower crop) do you lose when using dx lenses?"

Jennie.

You lose a lot of resolution by using a DX lens on a D700.

Do the D700 have the same NEF file as the D3. I have an order for a Multimedia Viewer (external HD) which can read D300/D3 NEF files.

Which Nikon Right Angle Viewer is to be used on the D700 - I have a DR-6 in order

I can't open D700's NEF files on NX2!

5D killer. Nuff said.

I'd say the ball is really in Canon's court now.

Erik:

Each and every D-SLR model has a slightly different "flavor" (i.e., coding) of the manufacturer's raw format. If, as seems to be the case the D700 is indeed using the D3 image pipeline than it may well be that the D700 will be the exception to the rule. But Rene's post seems to indicate that this is not the case. Of course it could be that what is going on is that a current version of NX2 sees D700 in the meta-data and simply stops the process right there. I'll ask my contacts at Nikon about this and either get back to this thread or start a new one.

I'm having enough problemsputting together money for a D80 kit.

Ellis.... Sorry! That was just checking if you guys were still paying attention here! Of curse I have NO access to a D700! By the way, I thought YOU DID!

Oh! And finally my NX2 got access and was upgraded after a week of trying. It just happened after the D700 was announced. I looked but I really have no idea how to find out, some how I have the feeling that the upgrade got to do with the new camera.

The D700 looks like an answer to some people's prayers. A very nice camera, although it obviously doesn't seem to suit the external aesthetic requirements for some. But I can't, for the life of me, see why you would trade into a D700 from a D300. Yes, the FX sensor is cool but does it really increase your capabilities that much? The introduction will certainly fill one bill for me...it will provide a whole bunch of D3's and D300's on the market for way less than retail, as did the introduction of the D300 greatly reduce the value of the D200, a very fine camera and not necessarily very old technology.

Decide what you want, wait six months to one year and buy it then. With the money you save you can buy some really great Nikon glass, which never loses its value if you buy intelligently.

If you're a pro and someone else is footing the bill, go for it.

"I would imagine most DX users by now have some lens(es) that handle the wide-angle that they initially missed when they first converted to digital from film. It makes sense to me that the lenses follow the camera, not the other way around.

Your thoughts?

Mary"

Mary, Even the best DX wide angle lens (prob Nikon's 12-24 even though my Tokina 12-24 did a great job) cannot compare to the 14-24mm on FX. Besides being wider than the 18mm perspective of 12mm on DX - and even wider than Sigma's 10-20mm with a 15mm view on DX, the image quality of the 14-24 at a true f/2.8 will far surpass the previous offerings on DX. Things like corner sharpness, light falloff, easily fixable distortions and color rendition have exceeded the experts' hopes of what the 14-24mm will deliver on FX as evidenced with the D3. I'm loving the 14-24mm on my D300 and can't wait to put it on the D700.

Since my living is mostly achieved with wide angle shots, this camera and lens will be huge for me. I'm not saying that everyone needs a D700 but i certainly do. Since i don't have the need for speed, I was able to wait out the D3 and I'm glad i did. Hope that info helps...

Rene,

I thought that perhaps Nikon had posted some D700 NEFS and you were trying them. Bjorn and I and most reviewers are in the same boat; waiting for Nikon to send us machines to review.

Since it's a hybrid between the D3 and D300, I don't see a huge reason from either the FX and DX camp to "upgrade", do you?

<<<<<I would imagine most DX users by now have some lens(es) that handle the wide-angle that they initially missed when they first converted to digital from film. It makes sense to me that the lenses follow the camera, not the other way around.

Your thoughts?

Mary<<<<<<

10mm is plenty wide in any format.

As a long time user of Nikon and previous owner of their top models, ie D1, D1x, D2, etc.. I decided not to upgrade to the D3. Instead, I selected the D300 and to upgrade my lenses to all the best quality 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 70-200/2.8 since these lenses tend to hold their value better than the latest and the greatest camera..

Instead of buying the top of the line prof camera which I dont usually use all the features, I will concentrate on their top amateur camera and wait for significant upgrades... While the FX upgrade in the D700 is important and made me consider it, I decided to wait till a 24 megpix and FX camera becomes available...The way this is going, it will be less than a year before this technology becomes available and the D300 is a superb camera..

Dr Dweller, I reviewed some of your images...try a 35mm and take the film for processing and scanning, or buy a nice scanner yourself. For the type of images you are producing, under the conditions you are producing them, I think you might be way happier. For less money than the D700 you can buy a nice F6, use all your lenses to their utmost, and get better results. You don't need the high ISO performance nor the speed, and the overall resolution will be better.

Here's the link to the early samples up to ISO25600:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/07/03/8782.html

Click on the images with rabbit plushie. It is all in Japanese, but you can read "ISOxxxx". :)

Don, Thank you for the well thought out suggestions. I have taken them into consideration but I will remain using digital for now. I have slowly upgraded my lenses with the final goal in mind to upgrade the body to a fx with better resolution. It will take some time but I will get there soon enough and I am pretty happy with the set up and results that I have now.

After using 35mm for years, and digital for the last several years.. I dont miss 35mm at all and each format has its own positives.. At least digital puts you in command of the process as opposed to the Walgreens clerk..

Looks like a winner... I got to shoot it today - just for a minute. Six quick shots that I shot in raw plus fine jpeg which turned out well since I can't open the raws in CS3... This was shot at 2.8 with 24-70 and d700

As a long time Canon user I finally decided this one will do it.

I just ordered the D700.

I started shooting with a measly D40. I have accumulated about two grand worth of lenses and accessories [holy jeebus]. I was waiting to upgrade, to see what features I need. It was hard enough trying to decide between three different cameras [D80, D200, D300], now they throw the D700 in the mix. *sigh*

A work colleague brought in a new D700 today and let me play briefly. I have been a Canon devotee for nigh on 40 years, and this is one Nikon I can see owning. I compared the specs and features with Canon 1D Mark III, and I am pretty much sold on this one. I am particularly interested in the high ISO performance and low noise, since during winter I do a lot of photography of aurora. For that, I use primarily film, because digital noise is more problematic than film grain. Aurora season will soon be upon us in Alaska, and the first results from my friend's new rig will determine whether or not I will order a D700 for myself. That's the only reason I hesitate now. If Canon brings out the 5D Mk II, as rumored, it will be an interesting comparison to make.

Dr D:

This is where Velvia 50 would excell.