D700

<p>Most DSLR's get trashed rather badly on this forum and others when the next "latest and greatest" comes out. The poor D200 took quite a bit of abuse when the D300 was released, and the D300 has now been relegated to "old technology" long ago. You can have one in excellent condition for $400 these days. Even almost new cameras take abuse. The D600 is considered by many to have devalued, and its replacement hasn't even hit the street. The D800 apparently has focus problems and you see frequent posts by people saying they won't buy it because of this.<br /><br />But one camera seems to retain a loyal following notwithstanding its "old technology" status. I am also a member of Model Mayhem and every time a forum post mentions this camera an outpouring of Love happens. Its the D700. Amazingly in this world of technological advance the D700 has held its value very well on the used market. Compare it to Canon's equivalent offering used. I am quite certain the D600 will not do the same.<br /><br />I invite people who have thoughts on the D700 to share them.</p>

<p>Hail to the D700. I believe that if Dirty Harry were a photographer, the D700 would be the camera of choice.</p>

<p>"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a D700, the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off, using my SB900, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk"<br /> <br /> I know, it's time to head off for the weekend.</p>

<p>Most powerful DSLR in the world? - Nah!<br>

Nicest DSLR in the world? - maybe.<br>

I think if we're honest with ourselves, then 12 megapixels is more than enough for most purposes. I've got excellent A3 prints hanging on my walls from those 12 megapixels to prove it - sharper than what I used to get from medium format film.<br>

Do I really notice that much improvement with my D800? - Nope! Not in dynamic range or high ISO noise at any rate. The extra resolution is welcome, but I could live without it. The D800 has ergonomic and menu improvements too, but no great deal makers or breakers.<br>

In short I'd rate the D700 as the digital equivalent of the F2; i.e. one of Nikon's better design decisions. It just quietly gets the job done with not too many frills or unnecessary whistles and bells. Bracketing? Mmnyer! That <em>could</em> have been better implemented.</p>

<p>With an MB-D10/EnEl4 combo, make that <strong>8</strong> shots..:-)</p>

<p>Love mine too. Without an affordable upgrade path, it's replacement could be another D700!</p>

 

<p>12MP is fine if you can use all 12M of them. The problem is that I typically print 8.5x11", not 3:2. And on top of that I tend to crop here and here for action photography, as I don't have time to carefully compose from a tripod. It doesn't take much cropping before you are suddenly down to 8MP, 6MP or even less.</p>

<p>On the D700, I miss the 100% viewfinder and dual memory cards, features that are available on the consumer-level D7000. There is also no video capture. Those are not exactly make or break features, but they are really nice to have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It just quietly gets the job done</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not THAT quietly, unfortunately. A trait it shares with the D300. As it does the poor implementation of the bracketing.</p>

<p>I purchased a slightly used D700 earlier this year to scratch my "FX itch" (mainly to be used with the 16-35/4 VR and the newly acquired Sigma 35/1.4). I was "trying to be honest with myself" - 12MP is enough for most (of my) purposes indeed. Certainly don't need 3x and the 2x option comes in a rather unconvincing package.</p>

<p>No video - no problem. Not having a 100% viewfinder - hasn't been a problem either. </p>

<p>Much like the D3, the D700 has mech integrity....and it's been excellent performer since I got it in my hands. Sure, we could have had quieter shutter or 100% finder, etc. but the smaller size (and Nikon knew it will be appreciated) + the flexibility of adding the battery unit & higher FPS....it made more sense (at least for me) than D3 or D3X. The 24MP + dynamic range would be nice, but not if the camera is compromised in some ways....so I'll continue to keep the D700 and make it work for me.</p>

<p>Small note, and you might appreciate this, I've ran into Swiss 'tog in AK, and his D4's (3) had to go to Nikon repair facility on rotating basis.....and he was rather surprised that I only had one camera with me.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most DSLR's get trashed rather badly on this forum and others when the next "latest and greatest" comes out</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a matter of interpretation, or selective reading. It is fair to point out that newer cameras do improve in areas, and can bring specific benefits. That's not badly trashing, that's just reality. Drawing from that a conclusion that the old generation has suddenly become useless is yet something else - frankly I do not see many people claiming that here. But really, technology marches on. There is no problem in admitting that.</p>

<p>That said, the D700 does everything I look for in a camera. The only thing that seduced me in a D800 was the 100% viewfinder, otherwise none of its advantages come into play for my photos. Plus coming from a D300, getting the D700 was like coming home (but all just that bit better). So, I saved myself a nice €1000 and got one of the very last produced D700's. Never regretted the decision so far.</p>

I have a D700. I shoot mostly still life, and available light. I have some great low-light images, including some very nice ones of the Milky Way. Paired with my manual focus 105 micro lens, it's a great camera for pictures of flowers. As others have said, the D700 just works. A 100% viewfinder would have been nice, though; and I'm scared to put a flash on the shoe because I have read about issues with mechanical weakness and resultant intermittent contacts.

<blockquote>

<p>Compare it to Canon's equivalent</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, there isn't one.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the D700 is essentially a down-sized D3, with mostly the same electronics from 2007, so it is actually a 6-year-old camera by now. Even before Nikon introduced the D4 and D800 in early 2012, I had listed a number of areas where the D700 was behind in times in the following 2011 thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a>, Jun 16, 2011; 05:55 p.m.<br>

What improvements are needed on the D700?<br>

Lots, e.g.:</p>

<ul>

<li>Better AF point coverage across the frame.</li>

<li>Dual memory cards</li>

<li>100% viewfinder</li>

<li>Better high-ISO results, e.g. similar to the D3S</li>

<li>HD video capture</li>

<li>Better live view AF, easier to engage live view</li>

<li>Quiet shutter mode</li>

<li>Faster frame rate without vertical grip</li>

<li>Move to EN-EL15 battery, longer life</li>

<li>More pixels??</li>

</ul>

<p>Keep in mind that most of those features are already available on the $1200 D7000. And Nikon should have other ideas beyond my imagination.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I still use my D700 sometimes. In particular, most of the images of camera gear I use in the reviews are captured with the D700, since I would rather not have those huge RAW files from the D800. I only need small JPEG to accompany review articles. Even the D700 is an overkill. And since I can always reshoot, I have no concerns about any memory card failures (since there is only one card slot on the D700).</p>

<p>I love my D700. I got one of the first ones available (knowing that it had the sensor from the D3 and body from the D300 meant I was pretty confident it would work), and it's done me sterling service. When I got a D800, I fully expected to continue using my D700 alongside. I even got a battery grip so that I could use it at 8fps when I wanted differentiation.<br />

<br />

Result? I've barely touched my D700 since my D800 became available. I absolutely use the resolution, though in part for cropping (I've even used DX mode when I wanted lots of raw files on a limited card count and more reach than I had available with the lenses to hand, which I never did on my D700). I absolutely use the dynamic range at low ISOs. I absolutely use the high ISO performance. Occasionally I use the video mode. I can get 5fps if I drop to 24MP crop. I can't get 8fps, but then I only recently got the grip so I could do that on the D700 anyway, and I've got a V1 if I want frame rate. Sure, there are handling issues on the D800, but there are handling issues on the D700 too.<br />

<br />

The king is dead. Long live the king.<br />

<br />

But my D800 is off for a sensor clean and a 14-24 field curvature analysis, so I'll be spending a couple of weeks reunited with the older relative to see how I get on. I don't expect the results to be too painful. I may like the improvements in the D800, but the D700 is still a heck of a camera. (I might wheel out my F5 as well and use some Velvia on the autumn colours.)<br />

<br />

As for the used market, Canon haven't made an equivalent - but nor have Nikon (unless you count the D3). The D700 has held its value because the D800 can't quite do everything the D700 can, and nor can the D600/D610 - though both are probably better in most ways. The problem for the 5D2 is that the 5D3 is better in <i>every</i> way, so no market for people who would buy one as the best option at any price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, I saved myself a nice €1000 and got one of the very last produced D700's. Never regretted the decision so far.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br>

Mine was a mature production model, but nothing like the very last. I came to it from an F80, so it was less like coming home and more like moving in to a mansion!<br>

It's since been joined by a carry-round P7100 (bought insanely cheap) but, until my D700 finally fails, if you want it then you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.<br>

</p>

<p>I came across a couple of months ago a 2nd hand D700 with only about 10'000 shutter actuations, in very good shape and with a very decent price tag. I could not resist and was even able to trade in some DX-Nikkors and 3rd party lenses. In the end the deal was almost cost-neutral... One has to be lucky sometimes. When I finally went digital only 3 years ago (after around 25 years of analog photography, mostly color slides), my first camera was also a 2nd hand D300, which I never felt comfortable with. I cannot compare my D700 to another more recent model in Nikon's FX-DSLR-lineup, because I actually never used one. But what I can say is that for me the D700 was like coming back home to the holy grail of photography. And I rediscovered and use intensively again my rather huge collection (I do not count them anymore) of Ai and Ai-S Nikkors. To me, the D700 is a revelation and one heck of a camera that virtually gave me back my enthusiasm for photography (family, landscape, nature), and this even in 2013. Long live the D700. But then, there is the D800 with its 36MP sensor resolution. I might be tempted sooner or later, but never having been an early adopter, this can wait. For another two or three years, I guess.</p>

<p>I bought the D700 the day after Thanksgiving in 2008. I had been shooting in DX format until then, and suddenly the larger viewfinder combined with getting to use my manual focus Nikon lenses at their normal focal length was a revelation. At first I struggled with the images from the D700, because they were so clean. I mean, they had no noise at all at ISO 200. It looked "soft" to me compared to the older DX format cameras I had (D300, D80, D70). Shot with it until just recently when I had to send it away for a professional sensor cleaning (after shooting 15K photos with it), and while it was away, decided to go for the D800. Still getting used to the D800 being much more demanding on lenses and technique than the D700, but overall its extra resolution is amazing. I don't feel I "need" 36MP all the time, but I've found that changing the size to M (20MP) on the D800 still results in outstanding files.<br>

I love the way the D700 allowed me to shoot quickly and still produce an outstanding image. My lowly circa-year 2000 Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 IF Macro zoom lens was a perfect match for the D700, but sadly it is not up to snuff with the D800!! The D800 demands a good optic, and you must take care and pay attention before you release the shutter, all the rumors are true in this regard! Read the Nikon Technical Guide on the D800 before you buy one, it has very good advice! But the ability of the D800 to allow mirror-up photography (not possible with the D700) is brilliant too. </p>

<p>The D700 was, and is, so popular because it was the first dSLR that showed Nikon finally grokked the market. It's the dSLR equivalent to the F100.</p>

<p>The D700 was also, arguably, the camera that launched the "rumors" craze (actually, the two probably coincided and were a synergistic combination of consumer lust and a much demanded product). And I recall many questions from new photographers whose very first serious camera was the D700.</p>

<p>That's a pretty good indication of how popular the D700 was. And that Nikon can occasionally get it right on all the essential elements - product, timing and marketing.</p>

<p>For years I shot on medium format film and then dipped my toe in the water of DSLR with a D200. It was discontinued the following month or so!</p>

<p>Next DSLR was D700 which I still use and think is a fantastic camera. I have no desire to go down the route of a still camera which is also a cine camera, pause for howls here :)</p>

<p>Recently got back into medium format film but will stick with D700 until one, or both, of us shuffles off this mortal coil.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the D700, I miss the 100% viewfinder and dual memory cards, features that are available on the consumer-level D7000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thats like saying that a volkswagon has better air conditioning than a porche.</p>

<p>I'm so used to the much-less-than-100% viewfinder that I compose knowing precisely that I'll get more than I can see.</p>

<p>If I got a D3S or D4, I'd 'decapitate' a couple of riders before I learnt!</p>

<p>Phil, to me, the 100% viewfinder and dual memory cards are important features to have. And if you live in a really hot climate, A/C in a car could be a critical feature. If there is a person who needs a car only for going to work and grocery shopping, and that person happens to live in a hot climate, perhaps a VW with good A/C would be a "better" car to have than a Porsche with broken A/C.</p>

<p>I, for one, have zero need for a Porsche. I don't speed and also don't need a fancy sports car to impress women. I also would much rather not pay for Porsche-style insurance and maintenance cost.</p>

<p>Incidentally, back in 2011, I went on a two-week cruise to the Galapagos, mainly for wildlife photography. I brought three cameras with me: D700, D300, and D7000. During that trip, I used the D7000 by far more often than the D300 and D700. I posted my usage statistics on body and lenses to the following thread on the Travel Forum: http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00aGpD<br /> If I went again today, the D7100 would be my camera of choice.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm so used to the much-less-than-100% viewfinder that I compose knowing precisely that I'll get more than I can see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, you are reminding me my late grandfather. When I was a kid, I grew up with him. He used to set the clock ahead by 5 minutes. For example, if the current time is 4:45, his clock would show 4:50. Whenever we told him it was time to go, he would say no worry, there were actually still 5 more minutes. In reality, he was frequently late to appointments.</p>

<p>If the volkswagon is more your style Shun, by all means enjoy it. But I think you are sending a mixed message when you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't speed and also don't need a fancy sports car to impress women.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have certainly spoken frequently about the need for high frames per second and large buffer sizes.</p>

<p>You have mentioned dual memory cards on several threads. It is obviously a very important feature to you. I recall reading on one thread that you use dual memory cards as I do, overflow. Personally I don't see the great advantage. My overflow sd card has never had an image on it, it waits patiently until maybe one day my cf card overflows. I have had dslr's since 2006 and haven't run out of space on my main card yet, but who knows, tomorrow that second card might really save me. I wouldn't consider dual memory cards when deciding which camera to buy. I have held the D7000 and other cameras of that form factor and that volkswagon is not for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I recall reading on one thread that you use dual memory cards as I do, overflow. Personally I don't see the great advantage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, unfortunately, your memory is incorrect. I use dual memory cards only in the backup mode, never overflow.</p>

<p>A few days ago was the one-year anniversary of my mother's passing. In October last year, she suddenly had a stroke and passed away. Prior to that, there was no symptom at all, as I had visited my parents only a week before that and captured some images of them together, with the D800E. At the time I thought they were both quite healthy. Those turned out to be the very last images of my mom. And as it has happened to my D800E a few times, one of those images was corrupted on one card. Fortunately, I had the good one from the other card.</p>

<p>I have had the D800E for 16 months by now, and the corruption has happened maybe 4, 5 times, only on isolated image files. The memory cards involved seem fine otherwise. The following thread was the first time I ran into that problem: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00akyq<br>

That problem hasn't happened again in several months.</p>

<p>P.S. As a good practice, I now upload duplicated images from both memory cards onto hard drives. I delete the second copy and format the memory cards only after checking that each image I need to keep from a shoot is corruption free.</p>

<p>Wouter, ditto. Nikon missed what I wanted over the d700 in both d600 and 800: 24 mp, a stop or 2 more iso and more important, more dynamic range in a d700 build quality. Instead, I have bought glass that doesn't turn into a paper weight in 3 to 5 years, and lights/modifiers that really make a difference in my images. That plus constant improvement of my craft keeps elevating my work, not a state of the art light recorder that's has really sharp detail. For so many all that means is really sharp crap. IQ doesn't necessarily translate to better images, just images with better IQ. So for the original poster, I would not be all that concerned other than does the body fit what and how you shoot. It's not an investment, they both will depreciate to a fraction of their original cost in a few years. I have to look at the tool to determine if it does anything that will produce more earnings or please my clients more (and be comfortable for me to use). For these 2 newer bodies, the answer is definitely not. I'll skip this generation and hopefully, Nikon will give me something that warrants an upgrade in the next release. Since technology creeps on, it will eventually. Peter, I regularly use an on camera flash for bounce or a large trigger is often in the hot shoe without a single problem. </p>