D600

[BernardLanguillier]

24MP, 100% viewfinder, sealed body, 760 gr, 5.5 fps... at 2,100 US$ and available in... 5 days.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/13/Nikon-D600-24MP-Full-frame-DSLR-with-39-point-af-and-uncompressed-1080p-video

Cheers,
Bernard

[aaronchan]

24MP, 100% viewfinder, sealed body, 760 gr, 5.5 fps... at 2,100 US$ and available in... 5 days.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/13/Nikon-D600-24MP-Full-frame-DSLR-with-39-point-af-and-uncompressed-1080p-video

Cheers,
Bernard

But this is not as cheap as the rumor said, 1500.
I know the 5D2 is discontinued but for 2100, I think I would still go for the 5D2

aaron

[Tony Jay]

I know the 5D2 is discontinued ...

Feel free to correct me but my information is that the Canon 5D II has not been discontinued but will continue to be produced alongside the Canon 5D III.

Regards

Tony Jay

[mac_paolo]

But this is not as cheap as the rumor said, 1500.

Never thought for a second that would have been the price.
To me, taking what it offers, it's still quite cheap.

[Fips]

The best thing is that is has an AF-motor. I had guessed that they would leave it out to push the price down as much as possible.

[Wayne Fox]

Feel free to correct me but my information is that the Canon 5D II has not been discontinued but will continue to be produced alongside the Canon 5D III.

Regards

Tony Jay

The  5d2 is still on the price list.  The d700 has been discontinued (a few weeks ago).

[kers]

But this is not as cheap as the rumor said, 1500.
I know the 5D2 is discontinued but for 2100, I think I would still go for the 5D2
aaron

I would not be surprised if the sensor of the D600 would be a lot better, in line with the d800..
great high iso and dynamic range. Looking forward to see the DXOmarks.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would not be surprised if the sensor of the D600 would be a lot better, in line with the d800..
great high iso and dynamic range. Looking forward to see the DXOmarks.

Unless you are invested in Canon lenses, there is simply zero reason to pick the 5DII.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RFPhotography]

This is a more than mildly disappointing announcement.  There is, as of yet, still no legitimate successor to the D700.  Nikon seems to have taken a bracketed approach; coming out with a model higher and one lower in the lineup and left D700 owners twisting in the wind. 

[jeremypayne]

This is a more than mildly disappointing announcement.  There is, as of yet, still no legitimate successor to the D700.  Nikon seems to have taken a bracketed approach; coming out with a model higher and one lower in the lineup and left D700 owners twisting in the wind. 

I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?

[Ellis Vener]

Unless you are invested in Canon lenses, there is simply zero reason to pick the 5DII.

Cheers,
Bernard

I fully agree.

[sean mills]

I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?

What a lot of Nikon shooters feel that they are entitled to, a D4 in a D700/800 body for $2500-3000.
I highly doubt that that will happen again after the D3/D700 scenario.

[RFPhotography]

I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?

Depends on what anyone considers 'legitimate' I guess so somewhat open to interpretation.

The D700 is a damn fine camera that fills a lot of needs.  It's full frame, has very good image quality, very good noise performance (even by today's standards).  It doesn't have video but no camera at that time did.  It's got a good burst rate which you can make faster with the accessory grip and proper battery.  It's got terrific AEB functionality (which could be made better if Nikon expanded the spacing to beyond 1 stop with a minor firmware update - the D600 has Nikon's lower end, hobbled AEB functionality) and a built-in intervalometer (haven't seen any mention of that in D600 writeups).  Haven't seen any mention of multiple exposure functionality in the D600 either.  The D600 has a lower end AF system than the D700 and, I believe, a less sturdy, less well sealed body.

What I would consider to be a 'legitimate' upgrade to the D700 would be a retention of all of those features, addition of video with uncompressed HDMI out and a resolution of 18MP.  I would buy that camera.  I won't buy the D800.  I likely won't buy the D600.  

[BernardLanguillier]

I won't buy the D800.    

Why? The D800 has...
- better high ISO performance,
- better AF,
- better DR,
- more resolution,
- ...

than the D700.

I owned D3 and D3x, I know what I am talking about.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Morris Taub]

Why? The D800 has...
- better high ISO performance,
- better AF,
- better DR,
- more resolution,
- ...

than the D700.

I owned D3 and D3x, I know what I am talking about.

Cheers,
Bernard

I wouldn't buy the D800 either...not everyone needs 36mp files...18-24 would be plenty for me and my needs...I'd rather have better dr and iso noise control...I'd also like to see a d4 sensor (ok, it can be a new version in a year that's 24mp's) in a d800 body...man, that would be more than sufficient for all my photographic needs...hmmm, that and one of sony's rx1's under the christmas tree 

[RFPhotography]

Why? The D800 has...
- better high ISO performance,
- better AF,
- better DR,
- more resolution,
- ...

than the D700.

I owned D3 and D3x, I know what I am talking about.

Cheers,
Bernard

Thank you for suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about just because I don't happen to agree with you.  

Better high ISO performance is nice if you routinely use high ISO settings.  Useless otherwise.  Better noise performance is a more generally useful improvement but that's simply a matter of technology improving, it's not something that the D800 has and no other camera does.  The D4 has better noise performance than its predecessors and I expect the D600 will have better noise performance than the D700.

Better AF?  The AF on the D700 is pretty damned good.  And there have been focus alignment issues with some D800 bodies.  

More resolution?  Sure, OK.  But the camera I'm suggesting as would be a good upgrade to the D700 also has more resolution.  Not everyone needs 30+ million pixels of resolution.

Better dynamic range?  HDR or some other form of blended exposures.  It's not so significantly greater that it's going to make HDR or other blending techniques obsolete.  Given advancements in technology, I expect the D600 will have better drange than the D700 too.  I expect that the camera I'm suggesting as a successor to the D700 would have better drange too.

[sean mills]

You guys do know that no one is forcing you to take 36mp files with the D800 right? You know it has other shooting resolutions right besides the native yeah?

Like 6144 x 4912, 6144 x 4080, 5520 x 3680, 4800 x 3200, 4608 x 3680, 4608 x 3056, 3680 x 2456, 3600 x 2400, 3072 x 2456, 3072 x 2040, 2400 x 1600

Also, I've compared the high ISO of the D800 to the D700 and 5D3, better than either in all real world applications in my estimation. Notably so when we resample to comparable resolutions. It's really quite an advancement. I've used it extensively since its release, on everything from studio portraiture, to on location landscapes, casual street photography, making use of all ISOs in the default range (I never enter expansion on any camera, they're disabled for a reason).
Of course it isn't a D4, that's a $6,000 camera. It's unrealistic to expect that for 2-3 grand before a few years have passed. I think getting the D3 sensor in the D700 for as cheap as it was, was a one time deal by Nikon.

Bernard does know what he is talking about, however that doesn't mean that anyone else with a differing opinion doesn't.
This place doesn't have to descend into incivility like DPR.

To those who don't feel that there is a true D700 successor, look into the a99. It seems right up your alley. Sony has some excellent features and some excellent glass (some key players not withstanding), I used to own the a900, I know what I'm talking about.

[RFPhotography]

For the record, I wasn't suggesting Bernard doesn't know what he's talking about.  I was simply taking issue with his assertion that I don't because I disagree with his position.

WRT the other resolutions on the D800, why pay for something you aren't going to use?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Now, sure that could be said for many camera features that are included but never used, but when the sensor is such an important part of the camera and a big driver of the cost of the unit, it doesn't make a great deal of sense.

The new Sony?  So people have to sell of their Nikon gear and buy all new Sony gear?  You're on the wrong side of the bid/offer.  I did that when I switched from Canon to Nikon a couple years ago.  It does offer full HD at 60fps, so it does have something going for it. 

[Hulyss]

This D600 is for me a non event especially with this price. It is 50% plastic body, and sub pro level ala D7000 style. Saying this is the D700 successor is proving to the world you are high on LSD. No way... nor the D800.

So, to be clear, the D800 have too big files for a pro use like reportage; it is overkill. It need a huge logistic to stock the files and a lot of time to process the files. Many pros that I know who bought D800 and even sometime D4 made a step back. 200 or 300 D800's NEF out of a weeding can kill all motivation of every photographer. The D4 do not overkill at all the D3s. They made step back to D700 + D3s.

Even some mates from AFP (Agence France Presse) didn't liked the D4 and get back to the D3s.

Most important, the upper performances of the D800 over the D700 are totally overrated I extensively tested the D800 and ... was not that impressed. In a normal PRO use like weeding or reportage, to make money, to show to clients and agency, having a D800 is absolutely not mandatory. Even more, clients don't care at all.

D800 is fashion and architecture only, when we speak about reality of agency in 2012. D4 is for ppl who didn't had the chance to buy the D3s and want to go pro grade monopbloc body.

The D700 stay one if not the best reflex for pro today because he is well balanced at ALL levels (File size, ergonomic, ruggedness, autonomy, speed, AF).

Better way to spend money on glass, who are before all the most important.

Hooo I forgot to speak about the non event D600. Well, this is a body with a FX sensor, severely castrated at many level (1/4000...) unable to beat a simple DP2m at base ISO ...

The logic would have been to put the D4 16Mp FX sensor in a D800 body (thus more FPS for reportage, realist file size and better ISO).

Nikon did it bad and I think its time for PRO to realise it and start to say what need to be said, no ?


HOOO wait, we now have the D600, the D800, the D700 is discontinued ... Maybe there is something in the pipeline like the D700s I keep dreaming and hoping. 16 MP is the way. No more.

[sean mills]

Naw man, nobody has to do anything. Just an option, and looking over some of the desired specs out there...something between the D600 and D800, it's nearly ideal.
It fills the shoes of a D700 'successor' rather well actually.

To be honest I loved the Sony Zeiss glass, and the a900 was a wonderfully ergonomic body, and produced beautiful files, until I got into high ISO.... a99 seems to have caught it up in that department. But the AF spread EFV and a few other things make me happy to be currently invested with Nikon. I've used a lot of systems and a lot of cameras over the last 10 years, honestly Sony could be a solid 2nd to Nikon if they filled out their lens lineup with more pro lenses and stopped being so weird about certain things (proprietary formats, et al)

As far as not using all the res on the 800, well like you say, every camera has something, that you are paying for, that you will not use. Turning 36 down to 24 isn't nearly as much of a loss as say video for me. I never use it, I have no interest, but I have no choice but to pay for it. C'est la vive. And you have the added benefit of using all those 36 million pixels when and if you want.