Nikon D700 rumours

[Giles 1]

 

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/25/nikon-d...info-piling-up/

[davephdv 0]

Been reading a lot of rumors.

[eskasi 1]

Exact same size as the D300? I suppose my housing would still work! However, it seems like a lot to pay for just a full frame sensor. Plus I would need new lenses.......

[eskasi 1]

http://gizmodo.com/5019969/nikon-d700-anno...for-next-monday

 

If its exactly the same size/specs as the D300 with the exception of a FX sensor crammed inside, I wonder if I could use the same D300 housing??? The cost including buying new lenses to replace my DX only lenses is a little too much for me though at this point...

Edited June 26, 2008 by eskasi

[james 0]

Well - the 5D was tremendously popular when it came out - with a 12.8 megapixel FF sensor in a "prosumer" body, with a $3,200 pricetag. But that was almost 3 years ago. It's time for a 5DII now...at a lower pricepoint.

 

Nikon may have finally built the digital F100 that we've been dreaming about though - that's what I see the D700 as...and it looks like it's got a pop-up flash.

 

Cheers

James

[scorpio_fish 5]

I'm pretty sure the D700 is real, but this looks like a hacked up photoshopped image.

[Walt Stearns 53]

I have been shooting with Canon 5D since it first came and like if for what it is, in relation to full frame. And recently I have be working with Nikon's new D300 (having moved up from the D200) and like it especially well - crop sensor for wides, auto focus, noise, etc., etc. for underwater.

 

Yes the new, supposedly D700 looks really appealing if it is in fact a D300 with a full frame sensor. Would make a nice complement for my topside work. Of course I would also like to see what Canon will actually do in regards to a 5D upgrade/replacement. I am in a position to go either way.

[ATJ 1]

I don't get all the hype about full frame over DX. Yes, you will get better image quality and less noise due to the larger photosites, but I'm not finding any IQ or noise problems with my D300. The only other benefit would be the capability of going wider, assuming you already had the right lenses.

 

I do see a number of drawbacks with FX, at least with my photography. For starters, macro photography. My 60mm lens goes to 1:1 at its closest focusing distance. With the D300, I can take a photograph of a 20mm long nudibranch and it will almost fill the frame. With the D3 (or D700), it would take up a little more than half the frame, and there's no way I could get closer. A 35mm nudibranch would just about fill the frame on the D3/D700 at closest focusing distance, but I'd just have to move back a tad to get the whole thing in with the D300 - and lighting would be easier.

 

Top side, with longer lenses, I get more reach with the D300 than I could with the D3/D700 because of the crop factor, so again, I'd be losing.

 

What am I missing?

[MatthewAddison 0]

I suppose they are prototyping the shoulder strap too.

[james 0]

Andrew, it sounds like the DX sensor cameras are right for you. For some people DX will be better and for some FX will be better. It sure is nice to have a choice though, isn't it?

 

Canon shooters get to choose between the 40D and 5D. The 40D gives you the crop for reach, etc. The 5D gives you full frame for portrait shooting, etc.

 

Cheers

James

[Rob Kille 0]

I don't get all the hype about full frame over DX.

I think there are definite advantages to FF, though for underwater work I do not think they are determinate.

 

Because the noise issue is just so much more pronounced topside where ISO options can have such a bigger impact, I think for most topside work FF has it all over any cropped sensor. But underwater, where I shoot base almost always and would regardless of sensor size, I prefer the DX. Some FF shooters (those with big MP) do have the advantage of missing composition, yet perhaps being able to crop back to good composition because of the massive amount of data the MkII/MkIII shooters are working with. Those of us with DX sensors need to be pretty much close to spot on because we do not have the same amount of pixels to cut from an image and maintain a viable amount of info. D3 shooters are in the same boat. Massive resolution on FF certainly isn't a burden But with so many people these days trying get their images in camera, I don't know that this particular advantage is of the *satisfying* variety.

 

I read with interest James' comment about working underwater, where he described moving back, shooting and then cropping with his FF rig (in order to render greater DOF but with a closer than shot perspective). But my first thought was this adds water between the subject, sensor and strobe(s). I kind of dislike saying this, but in my experience it will only result in softer less saturated images than being physically closer to the subject will. This is an advantage topside for the big MP FF sensors, but underwater I believe it is rife with compromise. At least if we expect our images to stand up to critical review by ourselves or others. In this case I think James is guilty of Mega Pixel Abuse.

 

I look forward with interest to the D3x (or whatever) because I do want to shoot FF topside and would prefer more resolution than the D3 offers, but I don't know that I will house that camera in place of my D2x/Seacam rig. And that will save me from buying the extra D3x for redundancy as well as the new Seacam housing. Conservatively that's around a 10-12 grand savings, or a couple extra Indo trips.

 

So for the near future I am very likely to stick with my D2x/D2xs/Seacam combo, and simply buy whatever Nikon FF camera ultimately catches my eye and satisfies my topside needs.

 

James hit it right on the head......it is very nice to be at this point in time where aficionados of each brand to have the option, or combination, of both crop and FF sensors

[Craig Ruaux 0]

Nikon may have finally built the digital F100 that we've been dreaming about though - that's what I see the D700 as...and it looks like it's got a pop-up flash.

<my emphasis added>

 

If it has a pop-up flash, then IMHO it is not quite the "digital F100". One of the things I really miss about the F100 is the large pentaprism that came with not having a pop-up flash. All indications appear to be that the legendary D700 has a pop-up and thus a smaller pentaprism, but this will not stop me from buying one

 

 

What am I missing?

 

 

Bokeh, big viewfinders and subject isolation with shallow depth of field. Perhaps...

[james 0]

Just to be clear, I NEVER advocated backing up and cropping. However, this is the ONLY option to get more DOF without switching lenses - which you can't exactly do underwater.

 

Cheers

James

[DesertEagle 2]

I'm pretty sure the D700 is real, but this looks like a hacked up photoshopped image.

 

The original image is a D300 on Flickr. Too bad this is a sham.

 

I would love to see the D80 with the expeed processing, live view and 1/500 flash synch. With a Tahiti trip coming up in October and money burning a hole in my pocket, it's a dangerous combination.

 

James, with a bigger sensor, can't you jack up the ISO for better DOF?

Edited June 27, 2008 by DesertEagle

[james 0]

You can't bump the f-stop over about F13 on a FF camera or you start getting diffraction blurring of the whole image. Herb can tell you the exact F-stop :-)

 

Cheers

James

[herbko 0]

Actually it only goes to 11

 

I think James is mixing a couple of things we talked about at the Philippines.

 

This Dpreview page

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_...m_c16/page5.asp

 

gives a good illustration of diffraction limiting image resolution. Slide the aperture bar from 11 to 16 to 22 and watch what happens to the lens resolution. At F/11 the measured MTF-50 is greater than 1500 line-pairs, better than the 5D sensor, it degrades continuously to 1100 at F/22. I typically try to stick to a minimum "real" aperture of F/22.

 

The 11 and 13 came from a different different discussion. Canon lenses do not adjust aperture values for focus distance as Nikon lenses do. If you dial in F/11 on a Canon lens and focus down to 1:1, the effective aperture is F/22. I think they call it the effective aperture in the instruction that came with the lens, but that is really the real aperture. I think I mentioned that I usually have the lens dialed to F/11 and may go as high as 13 if I'm not focusing down near 1:1.

 

As far as moving back to get better DOF, you're sacrificing slightly more resolution that way than using a smaller aperture. It's not a big difference and cropping is easier for a moving fish.

[james 0]

Thanks Herb.

[Rob Kille 0]

Just to be clear, I NEVER advocated backing up and cropping.

 

My apologies, I thought it was you who made that post along with the cited image. I guess my memory diminishes as my age increases