So do you think we will get a D700x any time soon?

[Stuart Richardson]

I am curious what the rumors/opinions are on the possibility of a smaller, cheaper version of the D3x. I have been using the D3 for a while, and I love it, but I am curious if there will be a more affordably priced high MP body, to compete with the 5dII and the A900. I know most people have been expecting it for awhile, but is it likely to actually happen? What do you think the price point would be?
The d700 was released about ten months after the D3...the D3x was released on the 1st of December 08, does that mean we could expect a d700x in the fall? Or do you think they will leave this high megapixel stuff to the pro-sized bodies?

 

[TRSmith]

I would like to see it. This is from Thom Hogan's predictions for 2009 made back before the D3x came out. The last bit seems likely and a natural follow on based on previous Nikon intros.

"Something not called a D3x: probably announced in late 2008, but certainly announced in early 2009 and shipped by the March timeframe.
D3-type body, new Nikon FX high resolution sensor
At least 24mp
5fps
If this is indeed in the D3 body as I expect, then I will also predict a D700-type body version of it about a year afterwards; Nikon likes using sensors in more than one body."

 

[Terry]

More recently on Thom's site he seems to be calling for the D700x in the near future.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks guys. I have been looking at high meg alternatives now that the S2 price is out (and a wee bit more than I had hoped) and my Sinar system does not appear to have any future. I am kind of cherishing the thought of getting a high resolution option for a system I already own, which does not require a doctorate in color science and computer engineering to get pleasant colors. I have had a love/hate relationship with medium format digital (in contrast to my 100% love experience with medium format film), and I am wondering if my time and money would be better spent just shooting film in MF and getting a reasonably priced (sub 4000) high meg SLR.

 

[GrahamWelland]

You might prefer the D3x which you can actually buy today.

The ergonomics are better and the viewfinder is a full 100% which helps both in framing & brightness. I use a combination of D3x & D700 and I've teetered on the point of getting another D3 to replace the D700 (I sold my previous D3 to fund the D3x), although the smaller form of the D700 has it's advantages at times.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

That's true. I love the ergonomics of the D3 and do prefer them to the D700, but I think in this case, I would rather have the smaller body be the higher megapixel one. I use the D3 most often when I am doing event photography or night photography (like aurora photography and so on). In those situations I want its speed, ease of operating in the dark with gloves on, 2 CF cards and big bright VF. I would probably use a D700x in more favorable conditions, so I wouldn't necessarily need that last bit of speed and ergonomics, but I would like a camera that was smaller than the D3 most of the time. And frankly, 7500 retail is still a lot more than I would spend. I am looking more for something in the range of the 5DII and A900. I am willing to give up a bit in the VF, battery life and card slots (though I would love not to have to!).

 

[ecsh]

I took the easy route. I use my D700 for all low light shots, especially indoor functions, and use the A900 for all outside daylight shots.<G>

 

[ddk]

I am curious what the rumors/opinions are on the possibility of a smaller, cheaper version of the D3x. I have been using the D3 for a while, and I love it, but I am curious if there will be a more affordably priced high MP body, to compete with the 5dII and the A900. I know most people have been expecting it for awhile, but is it likely to actually happen? What do you think the price point would be?
The d700 was released about ten months after the D3...the D3x was released on the 1st of December 08, does that mean we could expect a d700x in the fall? Or do you think they will leave this high megapixel stuff to the pro-sized bodies?

I doubt that they're going to release the d700x anytime soon, apparently the D3 sales took a giant hit after d700's release.

Thanks guys. I have been looking at high meg alternatives now that the S2 price is out (and a wee bit more than I had hoped) and my Sinar system does not appear to have any future. I am kind of cherishing the thought of getting a high resolution option for a system I already own, which does not require a doctorate in color science and computer engineering to get pleasant colors. I have had a love/hate relationship with medium format digital (in contrast to my 100% love experience with medium format film), and I am wondering if my time and money would be better spent just shooting film in MF and getting a reasonably priced (sub 4000) high meg SLR.

I can sympathize with your MF experience, I have a love/hate relationship with mine too, not so much for color but for other reasons. I've been eyeing the S2 as well but don't see why the experience would be any different here than what we already own, specially considering that it doesn't even have a dedicated software. I assume trying film with your current system would be a simple task, you can give it a go.

As far as high mp 35mm is concerned, the main issue for me are the lenses, MF glass is really what sets the format apart from 35mm, it just doesn't compare. Don't know about Canon but imo outside a couple of lenses Nikon doesn't really have anything good enough for the D3x. Zeiss ZF lenses are better but no AF and still not in the league of MF glass.

 

[GrahamWelland]

As far as high mp 35mm is concerned, the main issue for me are the lenses, MF glass is really what sets the format apart from 35mm, it just doesn't compare. Don't know about Canon but imo outside a couple of lenses Nikon doesn't really have anything good enough for the D3x. Zeiss ZF lenses are better but no AF and still not in the league of MF glass.

I think that as far as primes are concerned I'd agree that the D3x really does push the capabilities of the Nikon glass. My preference is for the Zeiss ZF's although it would be better if there was at least the option of AF. (These invoke lens envy when I see the ZA AF's)

I wouldn't necessarily agree though when it comes to the zooms, at least as far as the 14-24 & 24-70 are concerned. Hopefully the new VR II 70-200 will join the ranks of the previous two zooms.

Don't overlook the abilities of the 24 & 45 PC-E lenses which I've also found are very sharp with the D3x. I don't have the latest 85 PC-E but this is also reportedly able to resolve well with the 24MP sensor.

 

[jblask]

Whenever they do release the 700x or whatever it will be called, I doubt they're going to make it be so much cheaper that it merits waiting. That was my take on it when I took the plunge on my D3x but maybe that's just wishful thinking...

 

[Terry]

Whenever they do release the 700x or whatever it will be called, I doubt they're going to make it be so much cheaper that it merits waiting. That was my take on it when I took the plunge on my D3x but maybe that's just wishful thinking...

I think they need a product competitive with the 5DIi and A900

 

[GrahamWelland]

That's true. I love the ergonomics of the D3 and do prefer them to the D700, but I think in this case, I would rather have the smaller body be the higher megapixel one. I use the D3 most often when I am doing event photography or night photography (like aurora photography and so on). In those situations I want its speed, ease of operating in the dark with gloves on, 2 CF cards and big bright VF. I would probably use a D700x in more favorable conditions, so I wouldn't necessarily need that last bit of speed and ergonomics, but I would like a camera that was smaller than the D3 most of the time. And frankly, 7500 retail is still a lot more than I would spend. I am looking more for something in the range of the 5DII and A900. I am willing to give up a bit in the VF, battery life and card slots (though I would love not to have to!).

I totally understand that sentiment. I use the D3x for all of my landscape shooting but I do prefer the D700's capabilities in low light and smaller form factor for travel. My ideal camera would have the same control layout as the D3/D3x but in the smaller form factor of the D700 - I don't need parity of controls with the D300/D200 etc. The minor difference in control layout is really the only irritation I find between the cameras vs the slightly different viewfinder view.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I think they need a product competitive with the 5DIi and A900

I think you are right, although the interesting thing is what price point would they chose? I don't think that price parity is necessarily going to work without eroding other system sales. Somewhere between the D700 & D3 would seem appropriate so long as it is marketed properly as a high MP tool vs. shoot fast in absolutely any light tool.

Whatever they do they'll no doubt upset some Nikon folks ...

 

[wayne_s]

I think they need a product competitive with the 5DIi and A900

Yes, they do but I think they haven't so far due to the agreement with Sony concerning sharing the sensors. Does anyone know what the agreement entailed. IMHO, that Nikon desperate for Sony's sensor technology to compete with Canon gave the 5d2/A900 market to Sony so that they could have the sensor technology. I think Sony was smart in getting extra volume out of Nikon for its new sensors to help it have enough volume to help keep the prices low on their sensors. Nikon is losing some of its customers to Sony A900 who don't want to pay for the D3x and want more MP/$ than D700.

What I worry about is how this Nikon-Sony partnership will play out in the future since at anytime Sony could decide not let Nikon use its sensors.
Meanwhile Sony needs to compete better in the low end DSLR segment to survive and succeed and will probably have to engage in a pricing war to grab market share from Nikon and Canon who have a large percentage of this high volume/revenue market which is needed to cover R&D for the future.
Once Nikon comes out with a D700X (with a reasonable price) it will hurt the A900 sales for Sony and their own D3x sales. Price model of high-end DSLR is changing fast thanks to price/performance of 5d2/A900 cameras.
Just my $.02. I just don't see how the Sony-Nikon sensor sharing agreement can last. Nobody talks much about this agreement.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Nikon is losing some of its customers to Sony A900 who don't want to pay for the D3x and want more MP/$ than D700.

<snip>

Once Nikon comes out with a D700X (with a reasonable price) it will hurt the A900 sales for Sony and their own D3x sales. Price model of high-end DSLR is changing fast thanks to price/performance of 5d2/A900 cameras.

I'm not so sure that Nikon are losing customers in any significant quantity to be honest. Changing systems is a big deal if you've got any quantity of glass and I suspect that the experiences of a few people on these forums are quite atypical of the industry at large.

Ditto for the D700X hurting D3X sales - I suspect that those who decide to buy the D700X weren't going to buy the D3X in the first place so I'd hardly consider that a lost sale. Depending upon pricing it may have more of an impact of D700 or D3 sales I think.

 

[wayne_s]

I'm not so sure that Nikon are losing customers in any significant quantity to be honest. Changing systems is a big deal if you've got any quantity of glass and I suspect that the experiences of a few people on these forums are quite atypical of the industry at large.

Ditto for the D700X hurting D3X sales - I suspect that those who decide to buy the D700X weren't going to buy the D3X in the first place so I'd hardly consider that a lost sale. Depending upon pricing it may have more of an impact of D700 or D3 sales I think.

Ok, Nikon is probably not losing any customers at the low end DSLR where the volume is anyway but they maybe losing some in the FF entry and high end because of the high price of the D3x and the unavailability of the D700x.
Also, do people want to buy the D700 right now when you might think that the D700x with twice the MP is coming soon for a similar price.
Also, some people with the money to buy one D3x will think about buying two D700x's instead if they need a backup and believe that camera body life cycles have become a lot shorter and not worth sinking the big money in one if the IQ difference is not great enough.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

.. Sony needs to compete better in the low end DSLR segment to survive and succeed and will probably have to engage in a pricing war to grab market share from Nikon and Canon who have a large percentage of this high volume/revenue market which is needed to cover R&D for the future.
Once Nikon comes out with a D700X (with a reasonable price) it will hurt the A900 sales for Sony and their own D3x sales. Price model of high-end DSLR is changing fast thanks to price/performance of 5d2/A900 cameras.
.

The Sony A850 is a badly kept secret. Essentially its an A900 with the same body and a few minor features removed and a significantly lower price point. It is likely to undercut a D700x while offering similar performance. Its Sony's pre-emptive strike.

 

[ddk]

The Sony A850 is a badly kept secret. Essentially its an A900 with the same body and a few minor features removed and a significantly lower price point. It is likely to undercut a D700x while offering similar performance. Its Sony's pre-emptive strike.

I think the A900 already did that!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Nikon will take the time needed. The D700 is a unique camera, the D700X (or whatever) can only become unique if it offers something that Sony doesn't offer. My guess is that what we're waiting for is the implementation of video, probably the best quality available in any DSLR. Although many people don't care about that, young people do, and they are the future market.

 

[Terry]

Here is an excerpt from Thom Hogan's analysis of Nikon's earnings - released yesterday...

http://www.bythom.com/

The bad news first: Precision is contracting fast. Nikon's current fiscal year estimate is that the Imaging division (cameras and lenses) will be 72% (!) of the overall corporate sales this year, and the only profitable (barely) unit. Also, Nikon is predicting first half Imaging sales well below that of last year (down 26%). Unit volumes of all items (DSLRs, lenses, Coolpix) is also expected to be lower for the first half of the year, but recover during the second half of their fiscal year (Ocober 2009 through March 2010). Ditto for sales and profits in the Imaging division.

The question, of course, is why the increase in the second half? Especially to the profitability. It doesn't seem to be "the economy will recover"--Nikon still remains pretty bearish regarding the overall economic situation, including the yen/dollar situation (yen starting to appreciate slightly again, which would reduce profits). I'd have to guess that it's high-end products. A D700x, D3s, strong D300s sales, plus three or four pro lenses would probably account for such an optimistic second half forecast.