Soooo... How about that D700? Apparently Nikon has stuck to their July 25th ship date, and reports are coming in that it is "hitting shelves" today... Wow! I wonder if the SB900 is shipping on time today, too.

Not that I'll be able to afford either any time soon, but progress is good for us all.

I STILL consider the D2Hs to be a very powerful "alternative"... Yep you heard me, I'm NOT selling my D200 to fund a D700. I'm selling it to fund a D2Hs. Why? Well I've been over this before, so you probably already know...

I know the D700 has amazing high ISO performance with a virtually clean ISO 6400. But what it does NOT do is solve the TWO BIGGEST issues I have with FX and current DSLR's in general...

1.) There is NO way to shoot lower res RAW images. For MUCH of my photojournalism work and for ALL my children's theater work, 12 megapixels is just total overkill. But RAW itself is still desirable, because of the super-tricky white balance issues. I was hoping the D700 would have a ~4-6 megapixel RAW capture mode, but it does not. Strike one.

2.) AF point coverage: Not just for autofocusing, but also for spot metering, I find the D300's AF coverage to be invaluable. It extends to the far reaches of the frame, with zero loss of effectiveness, especially at telephoto focal lengths when the light is coming in at such straight angles. Strike two. And the fact that neither did they change up the AF system to have more cross-type AF points to the left and right of the frame, that is strike three.

Maybe the NEXT generation of FX DSLR's will improve the focus point coverage... (And please, spread out the cross-type AF points more!!!)

Likewise, maybe the next generation of DSLR's in general will have a "small RAW" capture format. In fact they BETTER if Nikon tries to go higher than 12 megapixels. I'm simply going to stop buying "new" DSLR's if they don't reslove these issues. Sure, I'd welcome a 24 megapixel D700X or D800 if I were nothing but a high-fashion portrait photographer, or a landscape / adventure photographer. And hey, maybe I can just change careers to suit which cameras are manufactured? I dunno, I just LOVE shooting weddings and children's theater!

The bottom line is that the high ISO performance of DX, especially in the D2Hs and the D300, is more than good enough for the work I do. And trust me, I shoot in PITCH BLACK sometimes... No, it's not SO good that I couldn't put a D700 to good use, but still, the D300 has already made me thousands of dollars in print sales from images shot at ISO 1600 and 3200. End of discussion.

With the D2Hs' used price falling to $1300, (in excellent condition) this camera makes FAR more sense to me than a D700. A D2Hs + D300 setup is perfect- I have high-res when I want it, and I have low-res when I want it, and BOTH cameras have high-speed shooting, high ISO prowess, and great AF point spread with spot metering associated w/ each focus point...

I'm not trying to disqualify any camera or photographer, I'm just trying to make a point about how different equipment "GETS THE JOB DONE"...

With the D700 arriving and the 5D mk2 up Canon's sleeve, at the very least I want people to think long and hard about how many megapixels they REALLY need to get their work done, or how many they really need to shoot their friend & family events, etc. And how much high ISO performance do you really need, too?

Chances are, you could get away with a camera that is WAY cheaper than the one you're considering.

So, I'm considering selling my D200 in favor of a D2Hs. Anybody want a lightly used D200 for about $750 OBO? I paid $1100 for it almost a year ago, and I haven't even "rolled it" yet! (That means the image numbering hasn't rolled over 10K images) How about if I throw in a D300 strap, to confuse other photographers?

Oh and, anybody interested in a used SB800? $250?

Take care,
=Matt=