Nikon D700, Oh what a mess it is!

The D700 is pretty close to having a cult status. The 300's 700's were made a lot more robust than what later came, (prosumer) bodies.

 

(I'll share a secret trick.....that everyone probably already knows;)

 

In the custom settings menu, put ISO auto, (on/off) on top of your ranking list. Then set the FN button (The one below DOF Preview) to pull up the top item from your custom settings list.

 

You can then tap the button, ISO auto pops up. You can then ether tap the control pad button up or down & tap the center to confirm.

 

Basically, you can change Auto ISO settings without your eye leaving the viewfinder.

 

On my D800 I use the red video button to change ISO or turn AUTO ISO on or off via the two control wheels.

I concur about the auto-ISO on/off on the D8x0 series. I've never really been 100% convinced by the custom menu, but it's a thought. On the D8x0, I've been tempted to put the auto ISO settings there as well, but the annoying thing is that you can't put the thing I'd really want there (directly): the "program shift" to the mapping between minimum shutter speed and focal length. This is essentially why I don't shoot in aperture priority much: I'd rather use aperture priority with this shift easily available, but instead I usually shoot manual mode (with auto ISO) and do a little manual compensation for focal length when zooming.

On the D700 the only way to toggle auto ISO on or off is through the settings on the rear display. What I tried to explain is the easiest way for me to change auto ISO "On the fly," while shooting. Pressing the ISO button and using the camera's control wheels does not work on the D700, as it does on the D8xx.

 

Everyone has their own personal quirks regarding which camera & how one uses it as a tool. I still find a lot of joy using older MF, non-cpu lenses. (The older Ai-s 300/4.5, 400/5.6 and 500/4/Ai-s/p are all excellent telephoto primes.) With modern camera ISO noise reduction, the two shorter FL lenses can often times be hand held.

 

I can be lazy, use aperture priority and focus (manually) while working on composition & sharpness.

 

Add a decent tripod, and the above only get better.

Edited October 25, 2018 by steven_p

Thanks guy's good info, I don't understand this. I was on youtube the other day and a few tuber's were saying that

the colors from a Canon 5D were better than the D700. Checking my results I don't know about this they look really

good to me.

I was on youtube the other day and a few tuber's were saying that

the colors from a Canon 5D were better than the D700. Checking my results I don't know about this they look really

good to me.

 

- I had a 5D before Nikon decided to (finally) release a full-frame body in the shape of the D700. The 5D had better metering, better Auto White Balance and arguably better AF. Its default settings also gave a more vibrant JPEG straight OOC. However, those plusses were severely offset by its much worse dynamic range, its awful menu interface, and Canon's apparent lack of QC over its L series lenses.

 

Once you switch both cameras to RAW shooting, and learn not to trust the D700's matrix metering, the Nikon is capable of far better colour quality and a far wider dynamic range than the Canon. But of course there's an inverse relationship between representing a wide tonal range, and colour saturation. So if in-your-face saturated colour is your idea of 'better' colour, then that honour goes to the 5D, but if you want subtle or realistic colour, then look to the D700.

Edited November 2, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

Rodeo Joe, up until a few months ago I had the original 12mp 5D. I only bought it to check out Canon gear and compare it to my D700. IMO, the D700 simply blew the 5D away. The Nikon's metering was also better and for me the biggest thing was the clean iso's I got with the Nikon. They both looked go up to iso 800 then it was no contest from iso 800 - 6400. While we're speaking of Canon I 'd love to add a 5Diii or 5Div but my 6D and 70D.

I'm surprised to hear Joe's review as well. I've only used a 5D briefly (although on several occasions - I have friends with them), but I've played with quite a lot of 5D images, and had a D700 for several years (until I got a D810).

 

On metering, the D700 has basically a revamped version of the F5 sensor (1005 samples split between R, G, B). I struggle with the metering on my D8x0 bodies (notably because highlight metering doesn't actually preserve highlights... seriously, Nikon, how hard can it be?) but I think I actually did better with the D700 left in matrix mode. My understanding is that the 5D's metering is relatively primitive - 35 zone, and a 3.5% "spot" meter. Obviously it's not all about the number of samples, and this is still quite advanced metering compared with a lot of cameras. Even my 300D had a 35-zone meter. Obviously it usually worked, but I think the D700 seemed a little more prescient about what the scene contained.

 

Likewise on autofocus I did somewhat better with the D700 than with my D8x0 series bodies. I suspect this is because 12MP with a strong AA filter is relatively forgiving compared with a filter-less 36+MP target, and possibly my lenses were some combination of slower and worse. The Multi-CAM 3500 is essentially the same as that in the D3, survived the D4 and D810 generation with minor upgrades, and is still - in some form - in the D7500. The D5/D500/D850's AF system is a step forward (now I've learned to stop using dynamic AF sometimes because the "helper" points seem to lock on the wrong subject). Even on the D700 the colour values from the meter help the tracking, and it's pretty solid - although actual group AF is pushing your luck a bit. The 5D (and 5DII)... have a 9-point AF system. 9. Well, okay, 15 if you include some invisible ones (like the "153" Nikon have on the latest AF). At 3fps for the 5D, and 3.9 for the 5DII, vs 5 or 8 on the D700 depending on whether you like stuffing AA batteries in a grip. For a static subject, or something you can track accurately with a single AF point, all good; for erratic bird movements, awful, however good the tracking may be on the points it has got. It's marginally better than the 7-point system on my old 300D, but not much - and doesn't reach far to the "rule of thirds" corners.

 

I tend to forget that the D700 is better than anything in dynamic range - it predated the D7000 generation of "ISO-less" sensors, and has a good couple of stops less shadow recovery than the D8x0 bodies. The 5DII basically keeps it fairly honest in most measurements (not colour sensitivity), but the 5D shows its age. I've certainly seen pretty noisy ISO1600 images from a 5D, though it wouldn't stop me using them, but didn't tend to be too scared at the same ISO on my D700. Indeed, since there wasn't much dynamic range gain, I got into my "manual + auto ISO" habit on that camera, and floating between 200 and 1600 didn't do much harm - certainly compared with a D810, which really gains shadow recovery ability as ISO drops. In contrast ISO 6400 doesn't seem unusable to me on the D850. To be fair, I've seen ISO1600 colour film, and even the 5D shows it a clean pair of heels.

 

The 5DIII and (especially at low ISO) IV are substantial camera improvements, way more competitive with the D800 and D810 (though I'd say the 5DIV still lags the D850 a bit; in contrast, the 6DII is pretty competitive with the D750). With any of them, your liking for handling choices (index finger permanents on shutter or sometimes on front dial, thumb by the grip or on a 360-degree dial, etc.) are likely to be the most significant decider.

 

I'm fond of the 5D, and have considered one for two of my remaining three Canon lenses (the other is EF-S) for novelty if I find a cheap enough one. But three years is a while in technology, and the D700 has the advantage over the 5D, even if I suspect (thinking of it as 90% a hybrid between the D3 and D300, and a way to use up the D3 sensor supplies while the D3s was launched) it was a bit of a rushed response to the 5DII. On the other hand, 10 years really is a long time in technology, and I'd absolutely be shooting raw and using modern noise reduction and sharpening software rather than relying on the camera's JPEG engine at this point.

The Canon 5D vs. the Nikon D700 is not at all a fair comparison. Canon introduced the 5D in 2005 as the first "affordable" full-35mm-frame DSLR. I still recall that I had a long layover at the Paris Charles de Gaulle airport in September 2005, and I was reading a French photo magazine about the then new Canon 5D. (I don't actually read French; therefore I was mainly looking at the images inside.)

 

Nikon introduced the D700 in mid 2008, mostly based on the 2007 D3. In other words, the electronics inside the D700 are essentially two years (2007 vs. 2005) after those in the 5D, maybe three years. That was in the fairly early years of digital photography. Even one year of advances would be major.

Finally found a good deal and a replacement card door and side panel for the D700, should get it by next week.

I think the only thing we're at odds about is the D700's metering, and I have to assume that my D700 is, and was (a) working properly, and (b) typical.

 

I got consistently overexposed images from the D700, and it went back to Nikon UK for two unreasonably lengthy periods of examination. Nikon UK declared it 'within specification' after doing apparently nothing to it for the best part of two months - so minus one star for 'service' to Nikon UK.

 

In the end I had to apply - 0.7 stops exposure fine-tuning to avoid blown highlights. Something that almost never happened with the 5D.

 

There was another issue I noticed with the D700's metering, and that was a memory effect. If the camera was quickly panned from exposing a bright subject to a dark one, or vice-versa, then there would be over or under-exposure until a second or so had passed. Good job I didn't make a living from photographing fast-moving sports!

 

It's for the above reasons that I'll take a good deal of convincing that the D700's metering is in any way better than, or even equal to, that of the 5D.

 

Metering aside, the D700 can still stand up as a useful camera today, while the 5D struggles to be more than a relic from a bygone age.

I have mine set at -0.3 and I'm pretty happy with the results, you should of told Nikon UK to adjust the meter to your liking

and leave it at that.

Finally found a good deal and a replacement card door and side panel for the D700, should get it by next week.

 

It's Finally on it's way, it got held up in the Post Office for some reason.

I started my digital Nikon life with a D70, then a D300 and then bought a D700 with only 2500 clicks on the meter... Had a little fling with a D300s together with the D700, but eventually sold both to get me a nicely used D4. Although I don't regret selling them, the D4 is very nice, reading this makes me miss my D700.. It was a beauty... Hold on to them, guys!!

I am expecting soon a D700 in the mail. I am new to DSLR cameras. I own old Nikkor lenses for the F system, but I do not own any AF lenses for modern Nikon cameras. Is there a specific lens that I "must" get for the D700, or am I Ok with my basic set of Nikon lenses: 55/3.5 micro; 50/1.8; 50/1.4; 80-200/4.5; 105/2.5; 24/2.8.

I found this thread on the D700, to learn more about buying a used D700. Mine has 17k actuations.

I started my digital Nikon life with a D70, then a D300 and then bought a D700 with only 2500 clicks on the meter... Had a little fling with a D300s together with the D700, but eventually sold both to get me a nicely used D4. Although I don't regret selling them, the D4 is very nice, reading this makes me miss my D700.. It was a beauty... Hold on to them, guys!!

 

I started my Nikon life with an FM, but my digital Nikon life with a D70s. Then a used D200, and not long after, a used D700,

I think about 15,000 actuations. I am sure that I don't use many of the features of the D700, but it does pretty well.

(I wouldn't mind a Df, but they cost somewhat more.)

I am expecting soon a D700 in the mail. I am new to DSLR cameras. I own old Nikkor lenses for the F system, but I do not own any AF lenses for modern Nikon cameras. Is there a specific lens that I "must" get for the D700, or am I Ok with my basic set of Nikon lenses: 55/3.5 micro; 50/1.8; 50/1.4; 80-200/4.5; 105/2.5; 24/2.8.

I found this thread on the D700, to learn more about buying a used D700. Mine has 17k actuations.

 

If those are AI lenses, then you should be fine using them. The D700 doesn't have the fold-up

AI follower that early AI cameras have.

 

Used AI lenses are reasonably priced, and even earlier AF lenses.

 

My D700 now has the AF 24-120, the older one, not the newer VR version.

I got mine for much less than the $100 that a popular web site suggests.

 

Yes, AI lenses should work fine, about as well as they did 30 or 40 years ago,

and one reason I wanted the D700 was to use it with AI lenses.

 

But you probably want at least one AF lens, even if it is just to

play with AF, if you haven't tried it before.

 

I think buying equivalent AI lenses will be cheaper than getting older

lenses AI converted, if you find the person who knows how to do that.

 

I have an AI 80-200/4.5 that I got for $11. That might be a little less than usual,

but not a lot less.

Is there a specific lens that I "must" get for the D700, or am I Ok with my basic set of Nikon lenses: 55/3.5 micro; 50/1.8; 50/1.4; 80-200/4.5; 105/2.5; 24/2.8.

 

- The 80-200 f/4.5 zoom is going to show its age, even with the modest demands of a D700. A silver-grip Series E 75-150 f/3.5 will easily better it IME, that's if you want to stick with MF lenses.

 

The Ai-S 24mm f/2.8 is a less than stellar performer, but adequate.

 

All the other lenses will serve you well on a D700.

 

A cheap AF 'toe-dipper' would be a 35-70 f/3.3~4.5 Nikon zoom. This lens performs really well, and can be picked up dirt cheap.

 

My own 'standard' lens on my D700 for many years was a Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 zoom. Unfortunately it seems to suffer quite a lot from sample variation, but if you get a good copy it's an excellent lens. Buying from a reputable dealer helps - then if you get a dud you can have it replaced.

The AI 35-70 f/3.3-4.5 was my favorite lens for many years on the FM.

 

I do have the AF version, bought used for a low price, but haven't used it much.

 

There are a lot of good AI and AF lenses for very reasonable prices.

(And, I suppose, a lot of not so good ones.)

- The 80-200 f/4.5 zoom is going to show its age, even with the modest demands of a D700.

 

True, but there were two versions: the later revision with fewer elements is better (tho not dramatically so) on D700/D3. The more common early version has the typical exposed round rear element, the improved later version is easily identified by its black rectangular baffle that "crops" the rear element. As you said, the 70-150 Series E trounces either of them, but if one already owns an old 80-200 it can still be useful (as long as it isn't clotted with fungus, which tends to plague this design).