The Nikon D700 has been officially announced today. Like was rumored, it's pretty much a D3, but in a smaller and less expensive package. Which doesn't mean "small" and "cheap" though, the body alone is a kilogram and three kilo dollaros. Still, it's a professional camera, and this should take over a lot of the D3 sales for all those who want the pro features and low-light capabilities, but don't need their camera to be able to stop any charging rhinos.
Article - article - press release -
Update: reading closer, this camera is actually bigger and heavier than the D300, sitting between that one and the D3 in all kinds of ways. Which means it's not exactly something which would have been the first choice of Henri Cartier-Bresson, sadly. (He was famous for using the compact early Leica cameras because they were fast and discreet in the street landscape.)
Update: Thom writes that some people worry that Nikon is going to abandon the reduced-frame (Dx) format. Why would anybody imagine that? That format is way cheaper (and more compact) to produce both in lenses and bodies, and as such, it's a cash cow. Not to mention that there's virtually no difference in image quality currently, only in sensitivity. (This could change with better lenses, but that would make the price difference bigger.)
The Thom article also talks about, in detail, the aspect which (apart from size/weight) keeps me from being all that interested in the D700: The Nikon lens line. They are missing a lot of professional lenses, like sharp wide primes and a good "normal" zoom with VR (like Canon's excellent 24-105mm). They just don't yet have the lenses to really take advantage of the full frame format. A few years ago I bought friggin' three Nikkor 24mm lenses on eBay because I couldn't believe that I hadn't gotten a bum sample, it is so lousy.
Update: some interesting info/speculation from Mike Reichman.
I wanted one, but now you have me worried about charging rhinos.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll wait for the D800.
Just buy a used Pentax 67, it's even bigger than the D3.
ReplyDeletehttp://snipurl.com/pentax67 [www_luminous-landscape_com]
Hi Eolake,
ReplyDeleteNice camera, though what are you talking about re Nikon not "yet" having full-frame lenses? They still have them! Remember film, anyone? That used to be full frame and Nikon did build and still is building heaps of lenses for it...
Looky here Nikon Wide Angle. No idea about your lemons from eBay, but are bad second-hand buys reasons to slam Nikon? Most of their lenses actually have quite a good reputation, though some people say that there's not really a need anymore for primes because Nikon's 17-35 (full frame, of course) is better than most primes in the market. More expensive too, though.
Nikon Standard Zooms - yes, there's a 24-120 VR, and everything that's not labelled "DX" is full frame.
I don't know how all those lenses compare (because I still shoot film using MF), but I find it hard to imagine that they are all bad and saying they don't exist is a bit off the mark.
Cheers,
Ronald
P.S.: Funny too, to see people worry that Nikon could abandon D-APS - two years ago everyone I know was willing to bet that Nikon would never build a full frame DSLR.
Ah, and of course the larger sensors give you better image quality. It's not just about how many megapixels you have, but also about the size of the individual pixel. Higher sensitivity is one aspect, and the sensitivity you get from that Nikon sensor seems to be phenomenal, but for the same reason you get less noise at all settings. Also better colour differentiation and more dynamic range.
ReplyDeleteRonald, I agree with your PS.
ReplyDeleteBasically, lenses designed before the millennium are not optimized for digital cameras, and it shows up more on full frame and 10MP+ sensors.
You're right, the 17-35mm is an excellent lens. I just sold mine recently though, because it's big and doesn't have VR. And it's no good for people who want a compact and reasonably priced prime for street photography.
I know it sounds bitchy, but I'm am far from the only person who complains about the quality of wide angle lenses both from Canon and Nikon. The Zeiss lenses are very good, but they are manual focus.