buy a discounted d700 or wait for its replacement?

<p>I'm looking to upgrade my SLR and had my eyes on the D700- and I know if I bought one I'd be happy with the results a camera of this caliber gives but... and here's the reason for posting... I can't help but think I'm buying yesterday's technology and should hold out for its replacement.<br>

I'm not questing the ability of the D700- its just that I'm not likely to replace it for another 4 years and so I'm concerned that its going to be really, really old technology in 2015! I know I might be coming over as a camera snob but thats not the case- I'm not swimming in cash at the moment so when I buy a new bit of kit its a big deal for me...I 'd rather but the RIGHT bit of kit thats got a bit of longevity.<br>

Any advice you might have to help me in the decision making would help me greatly>>><br>

Thanks! </p>

<p>My response is always the same.<br>

The D700 is as good today as it was a year ago, and will be just as good a year from now.</p>

<p>When the eventual replacement for the D700 comes, you can bet it won't be cheap. Remembering that the D700 was a $3k camera, its replacement will undoubtedly cost even more. Since lenses are the larger cost anyway, and can be moved to another camera body eventually, it makes sense to me to get a D700 and any put budget savings toward good glass.</p>

<p>What will you shoot in the next four years that can't be shot with a D700? If the D700's replacement comes out mid-2011, and if you're ready for your next camera body in four years, the replacement's replacement should be coming out. That's when I'll replace my D700. As for the strategy of skipping a generation, my DX camera is a D200. I never felt the D300 or D200s was enough of a leap aead to justify getting one. When the D300s' replacement comes out, I'll be ready.</p>

<p>The replacement D700 will be old technology in 2015. I have gone through a D70, D200 and have had my D700 for 2 years. My intention is to wear it out. It is good enough for my and the long term. On the other hand if you have NAS there will be no hope as you will be getting the newest body when it comes out regardless. Only you know yourself and your needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is as good today as it was a year ago, and will be just as good a year from now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is that the environment around it is different. The bar is constantly raised and therefore the expectation gets higher and higher.</p>

<p>When I bought my D2X back in 2005, I thought it was wonderful and was the best Nikon SLR I had ever used up to that point. Two years later, the D300 came out and I quickly stopped using the D2X completely.</p>

<p>I have little doubt that something similar will happen to the D700 and the D3's, as well as to the successors to those cameras and the successors to the successors ....</p>

<p>And to add to that, I think at some point, cameras can't get much better. Above about 40mb images, I probably wouldn't make use of the images. If you look at the Nikon film cameras, sure there were features added every so often, but it never made me get rid of an old FM or FE to buy an F4 really. I could still use the great optics I had, and I had motor drives that were quite sufficient. So what I'm saying is: when cameras get to 40mb images with high ISOs and clean/noiseless shots, then what?</p>

<p>My current strategy is to stay with the less expensive D200/300/400 body and put money into first class lenses and an extensive lighting system. I've been very happy with my results. As a bonus, quality lights, lenses and tripods hold their value very well. And, their usefulness. I hate putting money into camera bodies because I get so little return from them in terms of image improvement.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Graham, you're succumbing to marketing FUD. Forget about technology, which changes every month, and focus on the features you need in a camera for your own photography. To date I've owned a D50, a D1X, a D700 and a D3000 and all of them are capable of taking compelling photos. When I look through my albums the shots I like best are based on composition and subject, not the camera used. <br>

That being said, and to reference Shun's comments, I bought a D700 because I wanted better high ISO performance and a full-frame camera. And that's were I got off the NAS merry-go-round. I don't care about the higher pixel count, video or insanely high ISO of the D700's replacement; the D700 has everything I need for the things I shoot.<br>

You might consider picking up a used D700 (around $1,800 on eBay now) and use it until the replacement is introduced. Then if you like the successor model better you can sell the D700 without losing much money.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Get 'discounted' D700 now and then get its discounted replacement later.</p>

<p>What if you bought it now and a week or two later the D800 was announced that was dramatically better? Had video, dual card slots, 100 percent viewfinder, better battery life, more pixels, etc, for a couple hundred more than you paid? That's why you should wait. Rent one now if you really need it. Otherwise waiting will pay off.</p>

<p>I had a D700 and sold it. I much prefer the D300.</p>

<p>The speed that DSLRs get replaced is a problem that didn't happen with film SLRs. If the price were much less than good film bodies, then the worry of something new coming out and getting burned wouldn't be so bad. I could get a used car fore the price of a D700 and it would hold it's value better, I think. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that the environment around it is different. The bar is constantly raised and therefore the expectation gets higher and higher.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but the quality of the images produced by the D700 will remain unchanged. There is a difference between need and want, and a newer body will likely fulfill many photographers' needs, but will certainly ignite many more photographers' wants.</p>

<p>Shun, you're only sort of correct. I still often use a D70 for portraiture. It's great at low ISOs (I'm using lights), and very few of my assignments require prints larger than 8x10. Thus, the D70 might be 'extremely low quality', but there's no need to replace it.</p>

<p>Until it craps out a few months from now. I can feel it coming.</p>

<p>Dave, Slightly but not entirely off topic (I know, OT) but why do you so distinctly prefer the D300 over the D700? I'm a relatively recent D300 owner (used) and I'm very impressed with it after having a D40x, obviously, but I would love to have full frame and even better performance at high ISOs. Was it the size that put you off or something else about the performance?</p>

<p>Meanwhile, general questions: 1. how much might the D3s come down in the next 18-24 months? I'm beginning to think THAT is the camera for me. Just hanging out shooting at ISO 25,600..... (eek). 2. What's NAS? 3. What's FUD?</p>

<p>"What's NAS?, What's FUD?" - two types of sicknesses.<br>

NAS - a syndrom to keep purchasing more new Nikon gear, even if not needed or never used.<br>

FUD - is a way how vendors feed the information and form general opinions, sometimes at the expense of the truth, twisting it, misrepresenting capabilities, overblowing promisses, or ommiting details, to make some selling points. Works mostly for unsuspected or uninformed customers. Here is the PHOTO.NET to the rescue to ask and clarify or rectify what FUD possibly messed up.</p>

<p>If yesterday's technology will enable you to do what you want to do...What's wrong with that?You are saving money over the newest technology(once it comes out because if you expect the D700 replacement to be close in price to the D700, you are dreaming).Now if you want full frame and HD video and better ISO(I can't imagine what people aren't able to shoot with the available ISO of the D700), then wait it out and save some more...I figure it will be around 3500€.<br>

Personally, I am waiting for the D700's price to drop a bit more once the replacement comes out so that I can get one <strong>because I just want one</strong> besides my D300 and I could care less about video on a DSLR.</p>

<p>If you want to use a full frame camera that can meter with manual focus lenses and give clean images up to ISO 4000, usable up to ISO 6400, and have used nothing similar then get the D700. It's a great camera and it would take a lot to improve on it. The only full frame I think would succeed it is a D3S sensor in a smaller and cheaper body. For me that would be it, getting better high ISO performance, most everything else won't matter.<br>

I went through a similar experience recently deciding to get a backup body and went with a discounted D300s. The D7000 sounded great on paper but the D300s let me use my existing batteries, compact flash cards, and battery grip, and I haven't regretted getting it.</p>

<p>Better cameras are coming!</p>

<p>But nobody knows (or will tell us) just when they will arrive. In the meantime, I will repeat my standard answer to this question. If you need it now, get it now. If you just WANT it now, then whether you wait or not depends on the intensity of your desire. Only you can answer that question.</p>

<p>Of course you would like more information, particularly as to the timing. So would we all. IMHO, the best predictions will come from Thom Hogan. Most people's guesses are just rumors, but his guesses are based on more information than others'. http://bythom.com/2011predictions.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO, the best predictions will come from Thom Hogan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thom Hogan's web site is full of wrong predictions. As much as I respect his knowledge about Nikon cameras, his predictions are no better than anybody with some knowledge about Nikon cameras in this forum.</p>

<p>For example:</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon D1: 1999</li>

<li>Nikon D2H: 2003</li>

<li>Nikon D3: 2007</li>

</ol>

<p>It does not take a genius to figure out that the D1, D2, D3 series is following a 4-year production cycle. Therefore, some D4 will likely appear 4 years after the D3, namely 2011.</p>

<p>And after the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, there will likely be a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan is going to get those trivial predictions right, so can just about anyone reading this thread. Otherwise, Hogan has predicted all sorts of ridiculous products such as some hybrid film/digital SLR, some digital version of the FM3a ... that never materialize.</p>

<p>Everybody should know that the production cycle for the D3 series is about to end and the D700 should have already been updated. Nikon has left the 20MP, sub-$3000 FX market sector to Canon, unchallenged, for 2+ years. I can't imagine Nikon will not fix that in the near future.</p>

<p>Vince--<br>

I too own a D300 and tried a D700 in the field twice. I stayed with the D700. There just wasn't that much differnce between them for the money. I was getting about a stop to a stop & half more ISO from the D700 was all. In return I was losing about a third of the reach of my 400mm lens! The clincher for me was that to have the equivalent quality of lenses on a D700 as I now have on the D300, the switch out would cost me a net of $2,500 plus switch out cost of the cameras. Just wasn't a big enough difference for me to justify. Keep in mind I am a night photographer, especially in winter. As it's looking, Nikon will most likely put the new D7000 sensor into a D300 type body, and that will pretty much equal a D700 at significantly less money. I can keep my current great lenses and spend more money on other things that are more important than a camera.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I think,<br>

If you buy a D700 now at a discount or not it will be a very long time before you start wondering if you need to get more mega pickles... just saying</p>

<p>I am not sure the replacement for the D700 will cost more but there will be a newer better camera when it comes to digital for the next 10-20 years. I had a D300 and it worked great and I planned on waiting till the D700 replacement comes out and buy the D700 cheaper, plans changed.<br>

The D700 for me is worth the money and I know the next better camera will be nice. But for me the D700 does everything I need and more. As mentioned the D70 is still a good camera in good light. My feeling is you will always be looking at the next best camera. One thing that seems to hold more value are high quality lens.<br>

The question is DX or FX and as of right now I am using and buying lens for both type cameras. New lens for ones stolen for the D700 rather than replace the good DX lens. But I have still a D200 and D70 and a half dozen quality lens for them. I doubt I will buy a new camera body for some years to come. But I will be investing in high quality glass.</p>

<p>Well Kent the D700 sensor is in a D300 type body now. That is except that the D300 has 100% viewfinder coverage and shoots a a frame or so per second faster;) </p>

<p>For Graham. Just for fun let me ask a silly question. You say you have the money now but might not in the future? Do you mean you can't put the money you have in savings and wait? </p>

<p>If you were a professional you would buy a new piece of equipment because something has worn out, to allow you to do something you can't do now or to do something you need to do better so that you could make more money. Unless you are a professional photographer your choice of kit is based on wanting to have more fun with your hobby. So I would concentrate on the fun if I were you. If you didn't want the D700 you would not have posted the question. As to whether it will be obsolete in 2015? Who cares? It will be in absolute terms but it might still be just the ticket for what you want to do. </p>

<p>I have a D2x, D2H, D300 and D3x. I was preparing to shoot a rodeo. Which two bodies would you have taken? How about the D2H and D2X? They are both silly fast. The workflow with the D2H is a photojournalists dream. The assignment was in the daytime. And frankly who wants their D3X, slowpoke that it is anyway, out in the mud of a rodeo arena? So much for obsolete technology. None of the people who say the pictures in print ever knew that they were taken by a Nikon not to mention that they were taken with 7 year old technology. Neither of the newer cameras would have offered anything over the older ones for this assignment. </p>

<p>The other day I was photographing a regional track meet. (Daylight.) There was another photographer there who was using a pair of D90's. I let him use my D2H for an hour and he was hot to own one. The 4 MP was just fine for the work he was doing, the weight of the body balanced his 70-200 f2.8 beautifully and the 8 FPS knocked his socks off. So, for him, the 7 year old D2H could be an "upgrade" over his two year old technology. (And they can be had used for FAR less than the D300 with a grip for example.)</p>

<p>So take your pick. Decide like a pro or decide like a hobbiest. I suspect you will come up with the same decision either way but I would decide like a hobbiest. Buy your D700 and start enjoying it. You can afford it now. It is a great camera and will let you start enjoying full frame shooting. If its replacement comes out in a year you will have had a year of enjoying your new camera. In the final analysis we will all be damnably moldy in a few decades anyway. </p>

<p>As is usual in many of these posts, we have no ideal what the OP shoots. Birds? Babes? Buildings? He is switching from Canon to Nikon--why? What will his 40D not do? Would a new lens/tripod/flash serve him better than a new body and system. What is 'yesterday's technology' supposed to mean? You can make beautiful 20x30 prints from a D700. Will these prints have no value in 'tomorrow's world'?</p>

<p>Thanks for all your responses- some good points raised throughout. I mainly shoot portraiture... with my young family being my reluctant victims! I also mix in as much landscape photography as time allows. When I say 'yesterdays technology' I'm referring to how quickly the models get updated- I totally see the point that most people are making which is basically; the ability and results of the camera will be the same in 2015 as they are now and seeing the results are very good now then there will be little to worry about in 4 years time.<br>

I like the idea of buying a used D700 and when the update comes out, I can make the decision on whether to buy it based on what (if any) added benefits it will give me... in all likelihood its going to be about £2300 (so about £1000 more than the price of a used D700). So I suppose the real decision to be made is; is the replacement going to be SO good that I want to spend an extra £1000 to get it? Having just typed that sentence, I think I have made up my mind- its almost definitely not going to be worth the extra £1000. <br>

Why am I moving over to Nikon? Thats probably a topic for a whole new thread but in summary... I borrowed my friends D90 for a couple of weeks and was impressed with the feel of the camera and I think its auto focus was more accurate and reliable. I've not yet invested in any quality glass and so the swap to Nikon is not a major jump for me.</p>