Nikon D700x Coming Soon?

I like the idea of a D700x but I get the feeling that based on the price of the D3x, and the price of the Sony Alpha 900's and 850's that we will see a D700s and not the 24mp D700x.:(

If after November there's no word on a 700x, I think I'll be getting a Alpha 900 or 950.
 
well, as a still camera, you really get top notch quality for the money.

Yeah but $8,000 for a D3x???
Sony uses the same sensor and can bring it in at $2,700.

I know they are two different cameras in different classes feature-wise but that's $5,300 in "features".
 
For me it comes down to knowing that Nikon's R&D dept. only concentrates on producing still cameras as opposed to Canon, which invests it's R&D into printers, photocopiers, scanners, fax machines, camcorders & calculators among other things - same goes for Sony & their noisy little DSLRs.
But then I buy DSLRs for their still functions, if video was my primary motive then I'd look at a DSLR company that has more experience producing video which is Canon & Panasonic.
 
For me it comes down to knowing that Nikon's R&D dept. only concentrates on producing still cameras as opposed to Canon, which invests it's R&D into printers, photocopiers, scanners, fax machines, camcorders & calculators among other things - same goes for Sony & their noisy little DSLRs.
But then I buy DSLRs for their still functions, if video was my primary motive then I'd look at a DSLR company that has more experience producing video which is Canon & Panasonic.

This isn't necessarily true.

Although Canon does have a wider range of products overall, Nikon still produces much more than just DSLRs and P+S cameras.
 
You can safely bet your house at the fact that Nikon is very soon going to deliver a killer VDSLR. There is no doubt about it. As for the price, if you don't make money from the stills or video business then price matters. But if you do and the piece of gear Nikon brings on delivers then you should be able to make back your investment with no problem. Both with stills and video.
 
As for the price, if you don't make money from the stills or video business then price matters. But if you do and the piece of gear Nikon brings on delivers then you should be able to make back your investment with no problem. Both with stills and video.


This is not a realistic business “plan”.
You still want your overhead to be low so making the money back while obvious does not mean over pay for your gear.
Most pro's rent or lease their gear once it reaches a certain price point anyway.
Why?
To save money on costly gear.


I think Nikon is overpriced in the case of the D3x.
 
I think Nikon is overpriced in the case of the D3x.

On what basis do you make this claim? In terms of image quality, the Nikon D3X is the finest digital slr camera ever made.

See for instance:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

Compare the prices of the D3X, the PhaseOne cameras, the Leaf Aptus, and the Hasselblads, because that's the league in which the D3X is competing. After that, come back and say the D3X is over-priced.

In terms of running an owner-operator business, buying camera equipment requires a much, much smaller outlay than a truck, a fishing boat, an auto shop tool set, and countless other enterprises.
 
Last edited:
On what basis do you make this claim? In terms of image quality, the Nikon D3X is the finest digital slr camera ever made.

See for instance:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

Compare the prices of the D3X, the PhaseOne cameras, the Leaf Aptus, and the Hasselblads, because that's the league in which the D3X is competing. After that, come back and say the D3X is over-priced.

In terms of running an owner-operator business, buying camera equipment requires a much, much smaller outlay than a truck, a fishing boat, an auto shop tool set, and countless other enterprises.

I know how much medium format digitals cost.
I also know for a fact that many studios and pro's lease and rent them.
Also many medium format cameras cost more than the things you listed.

Again I say the D3x is overpriced.
I never said the images were bad but how much better are they next to a Canon 1Ds III?
$2000 better?
Maybe but I doubt you'll see $2000 when looking at the images side by side.

If you are a medium format shooter then it's not bad but 24mp on a full frame 35 mm sensor is small when you look at what studios use for MF digital.
 
I know how much medium format digitals cost.
I also know for a fact that many studios and pro's lease and rent them.
Also many medium format cameras cost more than the things you listed.

Again I say the D3x is overpriced.
I never said the images were bad but how much better are they next to a Canon 1Ds III?
$2000 better?
Maybe but I doubt you'll see $2000 when looking at the images side by side.

If you are a medium format shooter then it's not bad but 24mp on a full frame 35 mm sensor is small when you look at what studios use for MF digital.

Many medium format cameras cost more: Do they? What are these cameras, and why does that independent site not see them as worthy of listing?

How much better are the D3X pictures than the Canon 1DS III? Well the site suggests significantly better, because the Nikon is battling at the top of the tree. $2000? Maybe. Maybe more. Doesn't it depend on what the photograph is for? You might doubt that there is a difference, but I don't trust your judgment - you are merely speculating. You wouldn't even know if there was a difference. You've never undertaken any kind of comparison. The site I pointed you to does know the difference.

The sensor is exactly one of the parameters the site is examining, so your comment "it's not bad" and, it "is small" is entirely superfluous.

For you to repeat that the D3X is "over priced" simply reconfirms that you don't know what you are talking about. This sounds harsh, but as a prodigious and informed poster here, mattsand, pointed out to me, the last thing this board needs is more disinformation. The D3X is an outstanding piece of hardware that deserves special consideration for those in the market.
 
Pretending for a moment that Nikon is definitely going to release a d700x/s/d800 in the next month, what has been their precedence for amount of time between announcement and release?

-DES
 
Many medium format cameras cost more: Do they? What are these cameras, and why does that independent site not see them as worthy of listing?

How much better are the D3X pictures than the Canon 1DS III? Well the site suggests significantly better, because the Nikon is battling at the top of the tree. $2000? Maybe. Maybe more. Doesn't it depend on what the photograph is for? You might doubt that there is a difference, but I don't trust your judgment - you are merely speculating. You wouldn't even know if there was a difference. You've never undertaken any kind of comparison. The site I pointed you to does know the difference.

The sensor is exactly one of the parameters the site is examining, so your comment "it's not bad" and, it "is small" is entirely superfluous.

For you to repeat that the D3X is "over priced" simply reconfirms that you don't know what you are talking about. This sounds harsh, but as a prodigious and informed poster here, mattsand, pointed out to me, the last thing this board needs is more disinformation. The D3X is an outstanding piece of hardware that deserves special consideration for those in the market.

Attack me if will but maybe you need to look into what MF cameras cost for yourself.
Also your sepeculations about what I know and don't know are off base.

For the record opinions and facts are different so think about that before you talk about "disinformation".
I gave my thoughts on the matter and I will do so again.
If you have an issue with that that's your problem not mine.

I want to keep it civil.
Leave the personal BS at home.
 
...
icon_cry.gif
wrong thread
 
Last edited:
Back
Top