D700 – $3000
- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Jul 12, 2008 at 10:57 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Here’s my comment on Photography Bay:
Unfortunately, the camera that this really most resembles is the 5D, which is about 2/3rds as expensive.
I think Nikon dropped the ball here.
I am not sure I understand your position. From what I have read, the D700 is a substantial upgrade from the 5D. Yes it is 1/3 more cost, but I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples. From what I understand, the D700 is a SLIGHTLY defeatured D3. In order to compare to the Canon, it would seem to me that you would have to take the 1DS Mk III or the 1D Mk II, and remove some features, both which are considerably more than either the D3 or the D700. I doubt that Canon could/would defeature them and offer it at $3K. I do agree that $3K is a lot for the average freelancer, but is that the intended user.
As to the issue with the lenses, I shoot a Canon 40D. I have one L lens and the rest are 3rd party, either Sigma or Tokina. If I were to make the jump up to either of the 1D series cameras, it would be with the understanding that I would want to upgrade my lenses too. Otherwise, I would be shooting a pro camera with consumer lenses.
Rather than this indicating that Nikon is behind Canon on the design curve, I see it as the exact opposite. In my mind, Canon has nowhere
Hate to say it.. but Nikon is on crack here… wayyyy to much for that body/feature set.. I think they might be getting a little caught up in marketing and releasing “competing” bodies… and forgetting about the nature of the beast…
Nikon it seems to me has done a better job at placing bodies at different points along the price line. Give or take a little variance as I’m not completely up to speed.
prices are Canadian for Body only
Their entry bodies like Canons chime in around $900.00Nikon
D300: Prosumer for $1,700.00
D700: Full Frame Prosumer: $3,000.00 usd probably 3,500 cad
D3: Pro body $5,400.00As you can see, theres virtually something for everyone, and nicely spaced out.
Canon
40D: Prosumer $1,200
5D: Full Frame Prosumer $2,500
Pro Body: 1DMKIII $4,500The 5D will likely be replaced soon, so I don’t know how suitable it is for comparison. Yes Nikons D700 offers a couple features the 5D doesn’t but the 5D is 3 yrs old which for a DSLR in todays world is very long in the tooth. It’s like comparing a 40D to Nikons D40
Id wouldnt be at all surprised when Canon releases the 5D successor to see it priced somewhere just north of $3,000.00 as well. As for the feature set only time will tell but I would suspect its alot more than the current 5D given advancements over the last 3 years.
What Canon is missing is a “cop sensor prosumer” thats current and priced around 2,000.00, making it a real “pro-sumer” vs a scaled back 40D.
******Is 3G “too” much for full frame “prosumer” grade Bodies? You can’t compare to Pro Bodies which offer alot of features you simply wont find in pro-sumer bodies. Which start at enhanced and better AF systems and extends to little things like ISO options, metering modes, better batteries,
The problem is in the feature set you get when you compare the D300 and the D700.
Obviously the biggest difference is the Full Frame sensor.
By the way, just to toss this out there, but I think terms like “prosumer” are misleading when applied to the D200-300-700 lineup.
I’m not as up on the D300 as I ought to be, I’d have to (and likely will read the specs for each) but imo it currently represents what I think might be the best “Pro-sumer” or “Mid grade” bodyon the market. T the Canon 40D might represent best value for the buck at $1,200. Less money, but less camera.
On noise.
To me, that is one of the top 3 considerations when I think about buying a new body. Granted I do a ton of low light shooting and worse, compound that by typically looking to capture movement which requires higher SSs so obviously I’m predisposed to a fair amount of biasm.While I’ve heard a fair number of Nikon shooters “gripe” that the D300s noise control is virtually the same as the D200s, the same can not be said of the D3.
It is to die for.
Test that ive seen at ISO 1600/3200 put it and the 1DMKIII neck and neck. Where its absolutely remarkable is at ISO 6400 with the ability to go to 25000…thats just insane.
According to the release the D700 will have the same technology.
One facet where I can really see that paying dividends, even if your not a low light or action shooter is with Macro Photography.I typically shoot Mayflies at ISO 400, f25, 1/200th and let the flash compensate.
this was iso 400 at F32
Probably the main reason I’m saving money right now is to buy the new 5DmkII or a used 5D once the new comes out. One so I can have a second body which allows for two different lens/body combos ready to go but more so to have a Full Frame for macro photography.
Your right about weight issues Zach.
Much as I love my ID it’s a beast to lug around. Add a few lenses and accessories and in no time my pack surpasses 20pds, often I’m pushing 40 to 50pds.I’ll have a closer read on the specs but Im pretty sure there will be some other features that warrant the extra cost.
Does the D300 have the 14bit AD conversion?
See, weight is one of those real-world issues that I don’t think a lot of people either here on the board or out there in the business really consider.
I have typically encountered photographers while on assignment who keep all their gear in big Pelican cases.
If history is anything to go by, the new 5D will push even the DsIII’s for image quality.
I remember being upset when the 5D came out because it’s unprocessed image was very very good and I felt that it made the DsII’s that I’d just bought a pair of seem over priced.
(in reality, the D’s have better AF and are much tougher and more suited to pro work – but photography is a very emotional jobwww.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.