D600

[lfeagan]

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.  

While I don't know that I would use the word 'legitimate', as it tends to include baggage, Nikon did not produce a D700 successor that maintained the same level of performance in all areas at a similar price. For someone interested in high-speed action the closest current model to a D700 with a grip is the D4. The current lineup is more diverse. The old lineup, while nice, was a bit weak at meeting more diverse needs at a particular price. I feel the current D600 + D800 + D4 lineup aligns with market segments at lower prices and improved functionality over the previous D700 + D3X + D3S lineup. What Nikon gave up was a high-speed FX body at the semi-pro price level for a high-resolution FX body (D800).

I do not believe Nikon intended to create a successor to the D700. Nikon wants to expand their market base and appeal to more segments.

In terms of matching up with the low-end FX user segment, the D600 provides what most people are looking to get out of FX at a lower price than the D700 was at introduction ~ 4 years ago. While the D800 may have been the successor to the D700 from a model number perspective the D600 is from a target market perspective (low-end FX). Nikon has a less expensive body to sell to people that want to move into FX with the D600. I think this will work well for them financially. The D800 has proven itself to be very successful financially.

Nikon will be missing out on semi-pro sports shooters that were using the D700+grip to get 8 fps. If you have a large investment in long, fast Nikon glass and shoot high-speed, the only financially reasonable path with Nikon is the D4. I am actually in this boat. While the D4 is quite an investment, so is the glass.

[kramer11x]

No viewfinder shutter.  So still waiting for a higher resolution ( 18 -24 MP) D700 upgrade.

[Hulyss]

Hello lfeagan,

I understand what you say but there is something I can't understand in the situation.

There is no cheap FX way ... who dreamed that ? FX cost much more than DX to have the same range. It is why I don't understand the D600. People will buy it and why ? They will plug tamron lens on it ? C'mon.

I'm only 33 years old and I'm ones of the guy who think that photography is and need to be a serious activity. My grandma' always said : "If you do it, do it with style !".

Buying a D600 is somewhat a fault 

So they force PRO photojournalists to go to D4 ...

[kers]

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.

It is trivial to spend money on glass if you stay at 12MP; even my old nikkor 35mm d2 can fill the 36MP sensor i found out  ( d11 for the extreme corners)- it turns out to be a really good lens..
3000€ for the D800 is a bargain
the file sizes are handled with on my 2008 Mac pro with ease in 16 bit- but you can also shoot jpeg 10Mp if you like... a 2TB disk costs 100€ and can hold 40.000 images raw+ jpeg small
At this moment I am printing a 6400asa file shot with this 35mm nikkor- it looks gorgeous even 1 meter wide

[Chairman Bill]

I don't understand this at all. 

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

The D700 with the D600's sensor? The rest of the D600 leaves me rather underwhelmed. And with companies like Wex Photographic selling the D800 at £2279, and the D600 at £1995, I'd prefer to spend the extra £275 and get the better camera.

[kers]

the image mentioned

i never use noise reduction

[RFPhotography]

The D700 with the D600's sensor? The rest of the D600 leaves me rather underwhelmed. And with companies like Wex Photographic selling the D800 at £2279, and the D600 at £1995, I'd prefer to spend the extra £275 and get the better camera.

Interesting the pricing on the D800 in the UK.  Seems it's dropped a fair bit from when announced.  Here, still selling at the same $3000 so the price difference between the 800 and 600 is $900, or about double what it is there when converted to sterling.

[lfeagan]

I understand what you say but there is something I can't understand in the situation.

There is no cheap FX way ... who dreamed that ? FX cost much more than DX to have the same range. It is why I don't understand the D600. People will buy it and why ? They will plug tamron lens on it ? C'mon.

Actually, that is precisely what I expect will happen. I hope you didn't infer that I thought buyers were going to make good decisions.
The majority of folks that buy the D600 will use only the kit or a Tamron lens. Also, they will probably buy a grand total of 1 lens other than the kit lens for their interchangeable lens body (and it will be some ghastly thing like an 18-300 mm f/3.5-5.6). I know quite a few people who own a digital SLR that have nothing other than the kit lens. They would have been just as well served buying a fixed-lens camera in most cases for a lower price.

I'm only 33 years old and I'm ones of the guy who think that photography is and need to be a serious activity. My grandma' always said : "If you do it, do it with style !".

Hunter S Thompson - "Anything worth doing, is worth doing right."

BTW, I am 32.

So they force PRO photojournalists to go to D4 ...

I don't think 'forcing' PJs to buy a more expensive camera was an accident.

[lfeagan]

The D700 with the D600's sensor? The rest of the D600 leaves me rather underwhelmed. And with companies like Wex Photographic selling the D800 at £2279, and the D600 at £1995, I'd prefer to spend the extra £275 and get the better camera.

That pricing is unusual. In the US the D800 is around 30% more than the D600, which differentiates them clearly. Nikon may end up needing to adjust the UK prices on the D600.

[RFPhotography]

The elitist lens talk is interesting.  The apparent thought for some is that if one isn't using Nikon lenses then one couldn't possibly be a professional and is choosing to accept lower image quality.  Complete bollocks on both counts.  Equally as ridiculous as the thought that if you don't own a 'pro' body you can't be a professional photographer. 

I discovered earlier today that the D800 in FX mode with a grip can get to 6fps.  That's workable.  I've shot hockey and auto racing at that frame rate and it's fine.  Hell, I've shot auto racing in single shot mode too.  And 16MP is more than enough.  Perhaps the D800 isn't quite as bad as I initially thought. 

[lfeagan]

The elitist lens talk is interesting.  The apparent thought for some is that if one isn't using Nikon lenses then one couldn't possibly be a professional and is choosing to accept lower image quality.  Complete bollocks on both counts.  Equally as ridiculous as the thought that if you don't own a 'pro' body you can't be a professional photographer.  

If there is anything that is complete, it is your lack of understanding of what was being said. I can't see that anyone made those statements in this thread. Similar to the 35mm film days, the reason PJs buy professional bodies is largely durability. You can obviously be a professional photographer without a durable body. However, you may end up spending more fixing/replacing bodies than it would have cost to buy a more durable one in the first place. It should be viewed as simple economics. Secondly, the talk of "Tamron" lenses wasn't meant specifically to deride a particular brand as being incapable of creating acceptable lenses, rather it was meant to generally refer to the use of lenses which did not allow you to take full advantage of the capabilities an particular body provides. Once again, this is just about economics. If you do not intend to buy lenses capable of taking advantage of a particular body, then it would make sense to spend less money on the body. All too often I see people spend their entire wad on an expensive body and then attach a lens that cripples them in use. These days I rarely recommend buying a SLR to anyone unless they have specialized needs that it addresses well. Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are a much better route for most folks.

[RFPhotography]

There are more kinds of professional photographers than just photojournalists.  I'm more than well aware of why some professionals buy the gear that they do. Let me assure you that my understanding is quite complete.  That you've taken such an affront to my remarks and resorted to ad hominem retorts serves to to little but confirm my previous statement.

It must be nice to have the funds, or the credit line, to be able to afford all the gear in your sig line.  I never have really understood that particular bit of narcissism.  Not all of us are so fortunate; however so must be more careful in how resources are allocated.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

That's absolutely not what I meant, nor is it what I wrote.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

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.

Again, I never asserted that.

I am just looking at the D800 from a photographic performance standpoint (does it perform one generation better than the D700 along the relevant photographic metricss), you seem to be looking at it from a spec standpoint (does it use the same sensor as Nikon's sports camera or not).

The only thing I said is that, having used myself a D3, I can confidently write that the D800 performs one generation better than the D3/D700.

How you transform that into me commenting about you not knowing what you talk about is... puzzling.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dreed]

This D600 is for me a non event especially with this price. It is 50% plastic body
...

It isn't plastic, it is polycarbonate.

For more information about polycarbonate, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate

The obsession with magnesium-alloy is bizarre. I've yet to see anyone complain about a camera breaking because it wasn't a magnesium alloy. Does anyone know of any specific evidence (pics, viddeos) of a camera failing because it was polycarbonate and not magnesium alloy?

The *only* time there was any real concern was during the 1990s when the very cheap SLRs had plastic lens mount rings and similarly really cheap lenses had a plastic mount on the back of them too.

[rogan]

Actually if you downsample the d800 to 12 mp it is better and more accurate at focusing than the d700. 12 mp let's you get away with a lot

[craigwashburn]

Actually if you downsample the d800 to 12 mp it is better and more accurate at focusing than the d700. 12 mp let's you get away with a lot

The D800 is also wonderfully clean when downsampled.  Much cleaner than the D3 at high ISO with better color, detail etc.

I've never tried downsampling on camera by adjusting the resolution, but I don't think it would be any different than doing it in post.  Perhaps the "18-24MP successor to the D700" is simply the D800 with the resolution set to a lower number.

[lfeagan]

The obsession with magnesium-alloy is bizarre. I've yet to see anyone complain about a camera breaking because it wasn't a magnesium alloy. Does anyone know of any specific evidence (pics, viddeos) of a camera failing because it was polycarbonate and not magnesium alloy?

The *only* time there was any real concern was during the 1990s when the very cheap SLRs had plastic lens mount rings and similarly really cheap lenses had a plastic mount on the back of them too.

Good point! Polycarbonate is really strong and impact resistant. Many impact-resistant goods are made from it. One of the few disadvantages is exposure to ketones will degrade it. Also, UV can cause it to become brittle. And, not to ignore facts, but magnesium is very stiff stuff, like 20 times greater (Young's modulus), and really tough to deflect.

[RFPhotography]

Again, I never asserted that.

I am just looking at the D800 from a photographic performance standpoint (does it perform one generation better than the D700 along the relevant photographic metricss), you seem to be looking at it from a spec standpoint (does it use the same sensor as Nikon's sports camera or not).

The only thing I said is that, having used myself a D3, I can confidently write that the D800 performs one generation better than the D3/D700.

How you transform that into me commenting about you not knowing what you talk about is... puzzling.

Cheers,
Bernard

And I didn't suggest the D800 wasn't a good camera nor that it didn't perform better than its predecessors.  In point of fact I said exactly the opposite.  It is not; however, a D300/D300s type of advancement.  Nor is it a D90/D7000 type of advancement.  Nor a D3/D3s/D4 type of progression.  It's placed higher in the model line than the D700 and the D600 is placed lower.  It appears that the D700 has been orphaned.  Perhaps there'll be more announcements in the coming days.  But for now, that's what it appears. 

As I said previously, the D700 was and is a very fine camera that met the needs of a wide variety of photographers.  With these two new cameras, it seems as though Nikon may be moving away from offering such a wide ranging feature set in a single camera and being more, for lack of a better term, narrow in its approach.  And that may come at a significant cost. 

Nikon set a precedent with the D700.  In some ways a similar precedent as Canon set with the 5D.  Canon has, seemingly, been willing to continue on in that vein where Nikon perhaps has not.  At the rate that D800's appear to be flying off store shelves, maybe it was the right move.  For Nikon, not necessarily for the end user. 

[BernardLanguillier]

It's placed higher in the model line than the D700 and the D600 is placed lower.  It appears that the D700 has been orphaned.  Perhaps there'll be more announcements in the coming days.  But for now, that's what it appears.  

The D800 was released at the same absolute price point as the D700 when it was released, so I am not sure why you consider it placed higher besides for the number, but that only indicates a change of generation?

Considering the inflation that happened in 5 years in most countries, the D800 is de facto cheaper than the d700 was. There are of course some exchange rate issues making this a bit more complex since the US$ lost 60% of its value relative to the Yen in the meantime.

As I said previously, the D700 was and is a very fine camera that met the needs of a wide variety of photographers.  With these two new cameras, it seems as though Nikon may be moving away from offering such a wide ranging feature set in a single camera and being more, for lack of a better term, narrow in its approach.  And that may come at a significant cost.  

What exactly can the D700 do that the D800 cannot?

I have been using it for landscape, street shooting, action, architecture and some portrait recently and just cannot find anything it doesn't do much better than the D3/D3x and by extension the D700.

The only thing coming to mind is framerate, that's it.

Nikon set a precedent with the D700.  In some ways a similar precedent as Canon set with the 5D.  Canon has, seemingly, been willing to continue on in that vein where Nikon perhaps has not.  At the rate that D800's appear to be flying off store shelves, maybe it was the right move.  For Nikon, not necessarily for the end user.  

Again, what is the actual downside of the D800 compared to the D700 for the end users?

Cheers,
Bernard