So I got a "new" Nikon D700

Wouter, mine just keeps on tickin. Picked up a d500 w battery pack, thanks shun for the sale notice, and haven't tested by running the clipping range test on my sekonic meter, but it sure seems to have more dynamic range because shots I expect to have to trade off clipping at one end after years with the d700 falls within the histogram on the d500. So, yes, I will say it, when the darn replacement for the d700 comes out, I will upgrade for more mp and more latitude . Also, the improved high iso response blows me away. There have been improvements in 6 or 7 years. Do I need more mp especially in the 40 range, probably not. But if it shoots crop at 20 mp and gets say 8 frames per second, I'll sell the d500 which has been nice for the crop and burst for sports and wild life. As for a portrait lens, rick the 135 dc 2.0 will have to be pried from my cold dead fingers. Had to upgrade photoshop and get light room because my old ps 5 isn't supported for the new raw, so will be curious how well LR handles the ca. But, since I usually shoot it at 3.2 to 4 ca is minimal or non existent.

> As for a portrait lens, rick the 135 dc 2.0 will have to be pried from my cold dead fingers. Had to upgrade photoshop and get light room because my old ps 5 isn't supported for the new raw, so will be curious how well LR handles the ca.

 

Wide open, the amount of LoCA I saw on the D700 was often outside the maximum amount that either Photoshop (well, ACR) or DxO would handle in their dialogue. My best workaround was to convert the image to Lab and selectively blur the chroma channels - which still gives a soft result, but at least it's less obtrusive. It's also tedious, hence selling the lens.

 

> But, since I usually shoot it at 3.2 to 4 ca is minimal or non existent.

 

That will help - and it will help with the focus missing issues. My problem was with paying for a relatively big lump of glass only to use it down two stops. A 135mm f/2.8 AI is also pretty good (especially on a D700) at f/4, and has perfectly reasonable LoCA. If the DC lenses are mostly usable stopped down that much, I'd rather have a good apodization solution. (As I've suggested, for a telephoto lens, a front filter would be just fine - I can fix moderate vignetting in post.)

 

Don't get me wrong, it does a lovely job even wide open if your image is small enough, but in modern days of pixel peeping it doesn't hold up much at the kind of apertures you'd want for a "bokeh" lensn. When I moved from Canon to Nikon with the D700, the two lenses that most encouraged the switch were the 135 DC and the 14-24. The 14-24 is okay, but the field curvature drives me nuts (it's a f/2.8 lens that I spend most of my time shooting at f/7-ish to control DoF) at least for landscapes, though DxO does wonders with it. The 135 got very few uses before I gave up on getting critical images out of it, and I got rid of it around the time I got my D800e (on which the LoCA is worse). I heard wonderful reviews about the 150-500mm Sigma, which was a perfectly reasonably 2.5kg 150mm f/5 lens and an awful 500mm f/6.3 one. My most-used lens was the 28-200, until I switched to the D800, and at least I knew that wasn't going to be perfect before I started. Add the 80-200 AF-D f/2.8 experience and I've generally concluded that spending either very little money or buying the best available is the only way. My 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 doesn't disappoint me (much), and nor does my 200 f/2. As with tripods, the way to avoid save £500 on lenses is to buy a £1000 lens and have done with it. I'm going to end up doing the same with the 85mm f/1.4 at some point.

 

> I can't understand these old threads rising to the surface like a bloated corpse.

 

I'm also confused. But always happy to resurrect the old wounds of the 135 DC in case anyone else believes it's more magic than it actually is.

I didn't notice the date. I guess someone does a search and finds a post they can relate to and adds their two cents. I got pulled in as well. Thanks for they eye opener.

One year isn't so long ago, and used D700 are still a good deal. I also bought one last year, I believe shutter count about 13,000.

 

Upgrade from a D200 that I also bought used with a fairly low count.

 

This is for personal use, vacation trips and such.

 

Both the D200 and D700 know what to do with AI lenses, and also AF lenses without motors.

Last year I upgraded my D700 to a D750 and the difference was like night and day, much more than I expected. Now my primes look better than my zooms, unfortunately some of my wide primes show their flaws. I chose the 750 because of it's size, the D810 is definitely better but heavier than my D700. When I place my D750 or D700 next to my old Nikon FA I miss the old days when cameras didn't have to be big and a medium size camera case could hold the camera and five lenses. Shooting with these DSLR's and modern AFS lenses is like carrying my medium format equipment.

Wouter, mine just keeps on tickin

 

As does mine; I realise completely that the newer cameras do deliver some real tangeible better results, so I am in by no means saying that the D700 is still the best choice around. It's just that the areas where newer cameras are much better (resolution, dynamic range, autofocus and high-ISO performance) do not impact my work much; the D700 hardly ever holds me back in any of those areas. But that's just my uses, and definitely not universal.

Plus, I'm more frequently using film cameras. The FM2n is also still going great, so the D700 is modern enough.... ;) Seriously though, next generation will probably give a big enough leap forward to make me pull out the wallet.

I got rid of my D700 when I realised I was never using it as a backup alongside my D800e, and I wanted to upgrade to a D810. I'm a little sentimental about it (I have photos of my wedding shot on it), but on occasion I actually make sensible financial decisions. :-) I did dig out a possibly unused D700 battery recently, though, if anyone (preferably in the UK) wants one.

 

> the D810 is definitely better but heavier than my D700

 

Actually it's about 100g lighter. I did just about feel the difference comparing my D800e and D700, when I had both. But I usually have an L-plate on the body (just in case) which more than makes up for the difference, so I'm not the best person to ask. No doubt the D750 is lighter, though.

Sold mine. Frankly I wish I would have sold the D800. It is a lot more practical for just taking photos. Very forgiving.

Something unexpected....

I did a comparison of the cameras I own using old fashion NBS test targets. Using the same lens and setup in every case my D700 resolved about 56 l/mm and my D750 about 80 l/mm (both below theoretical) but was unexpected was that my wife's D3400 (with 24mp sensor) resolved better than my D750 (also 24mp). I guess it's because of smaller pixels. The D750 is definitely the lowest noise body I've used, better than the D810. I've read the same facts on the web and the Df is considered to be the best as far as low noise. I think Nikon's decision to keep the D5's sensor 20mp was based on noise and frame speed. Through the years I've been very pleased with all of my Bikon DSLR's, I just wish Nikon would offer a loyalty discount when upgrading to a new model. .I had to buy a new computer and upgrade Photoshop to handle my larger files and newer version RAW files. These things are getting expensive to keep up with.