[blwnhr]

I don't think the D700 will cut sales from the D3 in the same way as I don't think the 5D cuts sales from the 1D. For the prosumer that want the advantages of FF I think they will buy the D700 over the D3, it is a lot to pay for the advantages.

12MP might be yesterday, but Live View and ISO is the new MP, haha. Sales/marketing departments are concentrating on these, which the Nikon have. The high ISO NR on the D300 is not as good as the 5D, there is a lot of softening happening, however that isn't comparing apples with apples. I have not looked into it, but I would be interested in seeing a comparison between D3 and 5D @ ISO 1600 to compare NR results.

Not that it matters a crap anyhow, I had an ISO 1600 shot published from my K10D, shot JPEG and pushed in Photoshop to correct under exposure, yes there is grain, but not as bad as I expected in high resolution print.

It will be interesting to see how the 24MP D3X, due soon, will compare to the 1Ds Mkiii for overall IQ.

[*isteve]

AFAIK DA40 and DA70 are fine.

On a film body perhaps, but that doesnt mean a whole lot I'm afraid.

[Anastigmat]

To be honest, Nikon has no sensors, but need to fight with Canon, that's why Nikon launch in a rush second FF camera with little difference to D3 to compete with new Canon 5D MkII. But, 12 MP and high speed fps are good for sport, serious amateurs and photo journalists, but not for serious work, Canon had 11.1 Mp camera 5 years ago.

Yes, but the original 1DS was not as low noise as the current 5D.

New 1 Ds Mark 3 has 21 Mp and can even compete with MF, it's hard to say it about D3 and D700.

Medium format is much higher in resolution, 21mp is only entry level for medium format.

The D700 will sell for US $2,000 less than the D3, a considerable sum. But the difference is not enough for $2000.

Will the D700 cut D3 sales?

Definitely. The difference between these two cameras is not $2,000.

How will the D700 compare with Canon's soon-to-be-announced 5D successor?

I think that Canon 5D MkII will have 16 MP+ and the same or lower price.

12 MP is the yesterday of digital era.

One of the top selling DSLR cameras on the market is the 6mp Nikon D40. More pixels do not necessarily a better camera make. The Canon 5D has 12 megapixels, but many pros pick it over the Canon 1DS MKII and MkIII because those 12 megapixels are of higher quality than the 1DS' larger number of pixels.

Keeping the number of pixels small helps lower costs (image processing speed is not as high so fewer and/or less expensive processors are needed).

Because of technical advances made in the last 3 years, the 5DMKII, even though it has more pixels, should be similar to the current 5D in noise level. I think Nikon saw the 5D MKII coming, well it should because Canon pretty much announced it at PMA 08, when one of its execs. said in an interview that the new camera will have more pixels and have a better body. The 5DMKII would make the D3 look grossly overpriced. So, if Nikon does not release the D700, it would have lost sales to the 5D MKII.

[MikePerham]

Fortunately for you, it seems that the Samsung/Pentax approach to FF is driven by technology. Ie., the fab cuts the wafers into larger chunks and Samsung wants to sell those at a premium.

Their current process (14.6 MP @ 23,4mm x 15,6mm) translates to 34.5 MP in true FF. Should become your favorite toy, Ben

My big concern about the recent flurry of FF camera news ...and speculation that Pentax/Samsung will follow suite, is that Pentax doesn't have the lens line up for FF any longer and I don't think you can expect a FF camera to fly with a few limiteds and old FF lenses. And lets face it ...no one is going to buy FF and expect to use consumer grade lenses ...you need good glass.

From what I understand Pentax does not have the production capacity to meet both FF and APS format camera lenses. They could resurrect they A* series optimized for digital ...but again do they have the production capacity? I think they had best provide some indication of the direction they are going ...I am holding up on buying any more glass, or other gear, till I can better see the future.

Mike.

[Pål Jensen]

My big concern about the recent flurry of FF camera news ...and speculation that Pentax/Samsung will follow suite, is that Pentax doesn't have the lens line up for FF any longer and I don't think you can expect a FF camera to fly with a few limiteds and old FF lenses. And lets face it ...no one is going to buy FF and expect to use consumer grade lenses ...you need good glass.

Mike.

Firstly, there are 24 000 000 FF Pentax lenses out there.Secondly, for all we know several FF lenses, in adition to those already in the line-up, may be in the pipeline. As the DA* 200 and 300 are already FF and maintain the DA* naming, nothing prevent (in theory) both the coming 60-250 and 55/1.4 and DA* 30mm to be FF. After all, the 60-250 was initially labeled D FA on the roadmap. The DA* 30 could easily be a DA* version of the 31 Limited. And is there any point or savings in making an 55mm non FF? Time will tell....
An dof course, Pentax doesn't have to put all their comin lenses on the roadmap anyway....

[jeffkrol]

STILL glad Pentax meters conservatively...


http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2008/07/02/d7002_01l.jpg

�yŽÀŽÊ‘¬•ñ�zƒjƒRƒ“�uD700�v

For a taste of the "real world" reactions to trolls..
Some of the first sample images of the (£2000) D700 plus (£1069) lens: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[k100d]

Firstly, there are 24 000 000 FF Pentax lenses out there.Secondly, for all we know several FF lenses, in adition to those already in the line-up, may be in the pipeline. As the DA* 200 and 300 are already FF and maintain the DA* naming, nothing prevent (in theory) both the coming 60-250 and 55/1.4 and DA* 30mm to be FF. After all, the 60-250 was initially labeled D FA on the roadmap. The DA* 30 could easily be a DA* version of the 31 Limited. And is there any point or savings in making an 55mm non FF? Time will tell....
An dof course, Pentax doesn't have to put all their comin lenses on the roadmap anyway....

if pentax is going FF, they should revive the old FA* 28-80 and the 80-200, key focal ranges for most photographers.

[Confused]

Hi Mike (Perham)

I think you "hit the nail squarely on the head", when you said.....

My big concern......is that Pentax doesn't have the lens line up for FF any longer and I don't think you can expect a FF camera to fly with a few limiteds and old FF lenses. And lets face it ...no one is going to buy FF and expect to use consumer grade lenses ...you need good glass.

I've repeatedly read about many individuals who have bought full-frame DSLR bodies, without taking on-board the full ramifications of their purchase. It's at this point that they then begin bitching about the fact that their existing glass is revealed for what it actually is: Average ! I've said it many times before, but buying a full-frame DSLR body is only the beginning of an expensive process. The REAL cost starts to mount up when you have to begin acquiring top-quality lenses that match the merciless resolution of today's FF sensors, for which you need very deep pockets indeed !

Best regards
Richard

Hi Mike (Perham)

I think you "hit the nail squarely on the head", when you said.....



I've repeatedly read about many individuals who have bought full-frame DSLR bodies, without taking on-board the full ramifications of their purchase. It's at this point that they then begin bitching about the fact that their existing glass is revealed for what it actually is: Average ! I've said it many times before, but buying a full-frame DSLR body is only the beginning of an expensive process. The REAL cost starts to mount up when you have to begin acquiring top-quality lenses that match the merciless resolution of today's FF sensors, for which you need very deep pockets indeed !

Best regards
Richard

Richard,

This is the fairest of warnings especially for wannabies that may consider parting with a spare organ (kidney, eye, unused brain hemisphere? ) in order to fund their beloved FF.

Radu

[Pål Jensen]

Hi Mike (Perham)

I think you "hit the nail squarely on the head", when you said.....



I've repeatedly read about many individuals who have bought full-frame DSLR bodies, without taking on-board the full ramifications of their purchase. It's at this point that they then begin bitching about the fact that their existing glass is revealed for what it actually is: Average ! I've said it many times before, but buying a full-frame DSLR body is only the beginning of an expensive process. The REAL cost starts to mount up when you have to begin acquiring top-quality lenses that match the merciless resolution of today's FF sensors, for which you need very deep pockets indeed !

Best regards
Richard

Even a average lens will give fantastic results on a 28mp FF sensor. Its true that many old lenses will show weakness on a high resolution camera, it is mostly in the corners at wider apertures. Many of these lenses will be excellent stopped down.

Even a average lens will give fantastic results on a 28mp FF sensor. Its true that many old lenses will show weakness on a high resolution camera, it is mostly in the corners at wider apertures. Many of these lenses will be excellent stopped down.

Pål,

I am sorry to tell but your own argument stands against your statement. Older lenses will need to be stopped down a lot PRECISELY because of their imperfections. And with those imperfections one will not "never - ever" obtain "fantastic results". Look at the behaviour on APS-C (where it's used only a small portion of the diameter) and the low center and even lower border resolution on almost all "older" lens (at least pre 2000). More so look at the very heavy CA most of those lenses exhibit. And on the FF it's more than likely that vignetting will be another factor that will degrade performances even further. And even though center resolution will rise on a very powerfull sensor the borders will be badly hit.
So I will finally ask you to agree to disagree with me in this matter.

Radu

[Anastigmat]

Ah! But the FFer's will buy one to have ISO 25,600 and use old s/h 50mm f1.4 lenses they pick up at flea markets for $25 each, to take pictures of their black cat's in coal cellars.

ISO 25,600 is pretty darn awful. It is noisy. ISO 6400 is about as high as anyone wants to go to avoid excessive noise.

[MikePerham]

Firstly, there are 24 000 000 FF Pentax lenses out there.Secondly, for all we know several FF lenses, in adition to those already in the line-up, may be in the pipeline. As the DA* 200 and 300 are already FF and maintain the DA* naming, nothing prevent (in theory) both the coming 60-250 and 55/1.4 and DA* 30mm to be FF. After all, the 60-250 was initially labeled D FA on the roadmap. The DA* 30 could easily be a DA* version of the 31 Limited. And is there any point or savings in making an 55mm non FF? Time will tell....
An dof course, Pentax doesn't have to put all their comin lenses on the roadmap anyway....

I don't believe that a new FF camera will fly with old FF lenses. Many of those 24 million lenses you mention are manual focus and not fully capable on todays cameras. Yes people use them ...but it's not mainstream and you will need a full line of compatible lenses, built on todays technology, if you want to sell FF bodies.

Pentax hasn't yet filled out their line of DA* lenses, we are missing the ultra wide and longer lenses yet. And only one (35mm) macro ...30mm and 55mm primes on the road map but not yet available. Pentax has a way to go yet to fill out the APS lens line-up ...let alone try and produce both APS and FF lens lines.

No, afraid that FF could be a problem for Pentax if it becomes mainstream and forces Pentax to compete in that market.

I don't believe that a new FF camera will fly with old FF lenses. Many of those 24 million lenses you mention are manual focus and not fully capable on todays cameras. Yes people use them ...but it's not mainstream and you will need a full line of compatible lenses, built on todays technology, if you want to sell FF bodies.

Pentax hasn't yet filled out their line of DA* lenses, we are missing the ultra wide and longer lenses yet. And only one (35mm) macro ...30mm and 55mm primes on the road map but not yet available. Pentax has a way to go yet to fill out the APS lens line-up ...let alone try and produce both APS and FF lens lines.

No, afraid that FF could be a problem for Pentax if it becomes mainstream and forces Pentax to compete in that market.

Mike,

I honnestly believe that FF will NEVER become mainstream for some simple facts some of them being:

- if the technologies evolve the same FF will always be larger and heavier than everything except MF and above;
- FF favors wide angle ok but it's defavorable to tele so each to it's own;
- FF doesn't exist 'as such' now and in the future I see it still parted in some different classes: - low pixel count with highest ISO and DR possible, high pixel count with maximum resolution and one in between (usually from previous hires models gone one down on the range). This means that even in the future FF sensors will be inherently more expensive than the APS-C made in millions let alone due to their size and waffer distribution;
- Good lenses in FF will ALWAYS be heavier and more expensive than good lenses in APS-C. Best lenses in FF will be even more so. In the end a system with a good APS-C sensor and some 2-3 good lenses will cost maybe less than the FF body alone and many jobs could be done the same;
- many FF will have more Mp than most PCs can deal with in photo adjustment and archiving with a fast enough response. I think a multi k collection of 20Mp pics is not so snappy in Lightroom;
- one more important argument could be that similar to the CPU market the "big guys" will finaly realise that Mps are not everithing as the MHzs were not everything. Some better designs will apear at all levels and this will result in many "ordinary users" being satisfied with their inferior class cameras (p&s) and leave them uninterested in investing money, time to learn or energy to carry bigger cameras;
- in conclusion I see FF for many years being a niche market with < 10% of the numers sold in APC-C world but I also see prices comming down a lot in both classes which will put FF in the striking distance of enthusiasts. And if we look at this as a hobby's thing and not as a professional usage then one will probably could use a FF with whatever lens choses and from time to time obtain nice results.

What I want from the above to be transfered in the APS-C world would be market segmentation. I really want a 10-11 Mp sensor build with the latest technology that can deliver 1-2 stops less noise and 1,5-2,5 stops of more DR. Combined with some nice and not very expensive Pentax limiteds I can see a potent and very usefull system for professional usage and not too heavy nor too expensive.

Radu

[thePiRaTE!!]

Some misinformation here.

...
- FF favors wide angle ok but it's defavorable to tele so each to it's own;...

FF doesn't defavor anything. Its just capturing more image than a small sensor. There is no trade-off. APS-C is called a crop format because your image is cropped, there is no advantage to it at wide or tele.

- FF doesn't exist 'as such' now and in the future I see it still parted in some different classes: - low pixel count with highest ISO and DR possible, high pixel count with maximum resolution and one in between (usually from previous hires models gone one down on the range). This means that even in the future FF sensors will be inherently more expensive than the APS-C made in millions let alone due to their size and waffer distribution;

Why isn't 4/3 much cheaper than APS-C? It makes sense the larger sensor will cost more, but as more companies begin mass production, the disparity in costs will decline. You're probably right it will take some years yet, but thats lots of time to brush up the lens fleet.

My feeling is that as people slowly get used to having more image to work with and costs plane out, FF will superceed APS-C entirely in the DSLR market. Unless there is a smaller lens mount designed to hold smaller lenses and smaller sensor for a 'pocket' class DSLR (or rangefinder) then there is no point to not fully using the housing designed to hold a sensor that size. It doesn't mean you need to have a bigger camera, thats just the market right now.

- Good lenses in FF will ALWAYS be heavier and more expensive than good lenses in APS-C. Best lenses in FF will be even more so. In the end a system with a good APS-C sensor and some 2-3 good lenses will cost maybe less than the FF body alone and many jobs could be done the same;

Many of the lenses for the current APS-C Pentax line-up are being proven to work ok at FF, they are not larger or heavier. Enlarger lenses produce an image thats 6x7 and are tiny. As I've understood it, the DA*200 and 300 couldn't be any smaller at that aperture whether they were made for APS-C or not. The size argument just isn't true.

- many FF will have more Mp than most PCs can deal with in photo adjustment and archiving with a fast enough response. I think a multi k collection of 20Mp pics is not so snappy in Lightroom;

I for one would gladly install some more ram to work with the larger images

- one more important argument could be that similar to the CPU market the "big guys" will finaly realise that Mps are not everithing as the MHzs were not everything. Some better designs will apear at all levels and this will result in many "ordinary users" being satisfied with their inferior class cameras (p&s) and leave them uninterested in investing money, time to learn or energy to carry bigger cameras;
- in conclusion I see FF for many years being a niche market with < 10% of the numers sold in APC-C world but I also see prices comming down a lot in both classes which will put FF in the striking distance of enthusiasts. And if we look at this as a hobby's thing and not as a professional usage then one will probably could use a FF with whatever lens choses and from time to time obtain nice results.

What I want from the above to be transfered in the APS-C world would be market segmentation. I really want a 10-11 Mp sensor build with the latest technology that can deliver 1-2 stops less noise and 1,5-2,5 stops of more DR. Combined with some nice and not very expensive Pentax limiteds I can see a potent and very usefull system for professional usage and not too heavy nor too expensive.

Radu

I'm always pro more body choices - hope we can all get what we want!

K.