Decision to make - D700 + 24-70/2.8 or wait for new FX?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bmm, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. bmm

    bmm

    This falls in the category of 'have to make a decision in next 24hrs' as its a live discussion that I'm having.
    Essentially I'm being offered a very lightly used D700 and 24-70/2.8 (I've played around for a couple of hours with the kit as its someone I know, and its at what KEH would call 'LN' including box, accessories, and no wear) for the same kind of money I had banked away for the D700's replacement due - I presume - in the next 3-6 months.
    On the one hand I am happy to keep waiting as I am still using my D80 and my 6 primes, and the D700's replacement when it comes is likely to be quite the camera. Plus I bought my D80 quite late in its model life and I know what its like to make a purchase and then have your camera 'superceded' just a few of months later (though it hasn't stopped me having fun and learning on my D80).
    On the other, if I buy now, I know I get a huge step up in camera body and also a very respected zoom lens... plus as those who are regulars here will know, I'd finally be able to action my instinct to get rid of my 24/2.8D and - perhaps - my 35/2D.
    I'd be left with D700, 24-70/2.8, 35/2D (maybe), 50/1.4D, 85/1.4D, 135/2DC, 180/2.8D which would be a pretty good FX kit.
    So what are your thoughts? For the same money? An essentially new D700 + 24-70/2.8 but knowing the D700 will not be 'current' for much longer? Or sit on what I have and wait for the new model (and use it in the first instance with my current 24/2.8D and 35/2D for the wider stuff)?
     
  2. I don`t know about your current work and your needs... the only way I can respond is if I were you... I`d wait.
    Anyway, the D700 with 12Mp and its image quality doesn`t need to be replaced if the aim is to get "normal" family prints and much more; a replacement will be welcomed if it comes with added features like video, cards, improved performance, etc. but it doesn`t mean it will expire the usefulness of the D700.
    The 24-70 is a huge lens. I`d now prefer to have a 16-35/2.8, 35, 50 and 85/105VR (or even a 70-200!) setup. Again, it`s my current opinion (I may change tomorrow).
    If you think the replacement will arrive in the next year, wait. If you decide to buy a D700 now, maybe you`ll be tempted to post in a few months a topic like... "Should I trade my D700 for the new DXXX?... ". If you wait you`ll have then a camera from the first day of its cycle and you`ll not get tempted to change it for years. And if you think it comes too expensive, or if you don`t like the upgrade, there will be loads of D700 in the second hand market at a much lower price, I guess.
     
  3. The 24-70 is a great lens; I think your proposed setup sounds very fine. I have most of those lenses and I think you will be pleased with what the D700 can do with them. I would sell the 24 but keep the 35mm f/2D for now until Nikon comes up with new compact wide angle primes (hopefully after they finish the f/1.4 line). I find the 35/2D handy in situations where I need an autofocus wide angle and wish to avoid pointing a huge lens at people in close range.
    16-35/2.8
    Jose, which brand of lens are you talking about?
     
  4. The D700 is an excellent body and upgrade from the D80. The D700 may not have all the bells and whistles that its replacement will have, but it will always deliver excellent performance, IQ and value. If you look at the D7000, the replacement will likely have all of its features plus high ISO performance of the D3S. If these are not relevant to your shooting style, don't wait. Sounds like you are getting a good deal.

    " late in its model life" FWIW, I very recently purchased a D50 which is quite late in its model life. Like most other Nikon DSLR bodies, it works great.
     
  5. Why are people so anxious to write off the D700 so soon ? There's always something new over the horizon.. Get the D700 with the 24-70 now. Going from the D80 to the D700 its like going from a bicycle to a Rolls Royce. EVEN IF... there's a replacement, you probably won't need all the extra stuff above and beyond a 'normal' D700, and the 24-70 lens. Will you really need video ?... Will you need really 24MP, in which case don't expect it to be cheap. I'd recon on twice the price of the current D700. Do your self a favour and get the D700 + lens now, before you lose that also.
     
  6. Oooops, I wanted to mean that this was my ideal setup ("I`d now prefer to have a 16-35/2.8, 35, 50... ...") I have included a lens that doesn`t exist! (I should have said 17-35/2.8).
    BTW, I suspect that sooner or later the current 17-35/2.8 will be replaced with a "G" type version ("N" coatings, 16?-35, etc.).
     
  7. My D700 is almost 24 months old. It does every thing I need (12x18 prints are nice and sharp)except it is heavier than I would prefer so I am not inclined to carry it more than a few miles when I go into the woods. The size and weight of the 24-70mm keeps me away from it. I am a bit interested in how the new 24-120mm f4 preforms but once again it is large and heavy. I will look closely at the Fujifilm x100 when it is available for longer trips into the woods. New bodies will always be coming out. At some point the gain will not be worth much to me. If you don't require FX then the D7000 looks to be a great body at 22 ounces, less than 2 pounds with a small prime. It is important to me at times to have a camera and lense that I will carry around than FX + zoom. If the deal is good enough and you need the combination go for it.
     
  8. BTW, I suspect that sooner or later the current 17-35/2.8 will be replaced with a "G" type version ("N" coatings, 16?-35, etc.).
    I suspect this will not happen in many years as the current f/2.8 zoom lineup consists of 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. If there is to be a new 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, why not then a 35-105/2.8, 50-135/2.8, and 120-300/2.8 also? How many f/2.8 zooms are necessary? ;-) I read that almost 100000 14-24's have been sold; this seems like an overwhelming vote in favor of it over the 17-35 (which is no longer available new in many countries due to the 14-24's popularity). For me, the 16-35 or 17-35 would be a more useful range than the 14-24 but then 24-70 is still more useful and the overlap between 17-35 and 24-70 is considerable... by avoiding the overlap Nikon has been able to cover a larger zoom range while maintaining (or improving) on the image quality (no overlap => narrower zoom ranges on individual lenses => better image quality). I can see the motivation of the 16-35/2.8 personally but by comparing the image quality of the 16-35/4 and 14-24/2.8 there was only one conclusion that could be made in the choice between the currently available lenses.
     
  9. Life's too short to be waiting around for the next Great Camera to be released. If the price is right and it's what fits your needs right now then go for it. The D700 takes practically every lens ever made in Nikon F fitting, which its succesor might not. So lightweight and excellent quality MF lenses can be used and bought for a fraction of the cost of the latest bulky AF zooms, thus offsetting any "loss" you might feel you've taken when the D800 or whatever finally comes along.
    I can pocket 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm MF lenses in about the same space and weight as the AF Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 - AND get an extra stop of aperture from them all.
     
  10. I'd buy it unless you have a need for video in a DSLR or higher ISO than the D700. The D700 is the first DSLR I have owned that I have not wanted to trade up from. (Does that make sense?) The D700/24-70 combo is ideal, IMHO. With your lens line up, you'll be happy, I have no doubt.
     
  11. First of all, I do not need a current body; I need a body that will meet my photographic needs.
     
    I have a prime lens kit similar to yours. I also have a zoom lens kit that covers the same focal lengths as my prime lenses. In my case, the two kits complement each other. One kit does not replace the other. Therefore the 24-70mm lens would not affect my prime lenses; however, it would replace my 20-35mm f/2.8 and 35-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lenses.
     
    I know the D700 meets my needs.
     
    I know the 24-70mm lens meets my needs.
     
    I do not know if the replacement to the D700 will retain the features that I need.
     
    I do not know if the replacement to the D700 will have the added features that I need.
     
    I do not know if the replacement to the D700 will be reasonably priced.
     
    Therefore, if I were in your situation, it would primarily depend on the asking price for the D700 body and the Nikon 24-70mm lens. If the price for this cash transaction has been reduced to the point were I absolutely cannot refuse it, I would take it.
     
    If you pass on the deal, please send the seller to me. I have been waiting for the price of the FX bodies to drop to a reasonable price so I can get one.

    .
     
  12. It would depend. If camera was below $1,700 I'd probably do it. If over $1,900, no way I'd do it. Myself, I'm very happy with the lenses I currently have (modern Nikonf2.8 zooms) and am simply waiting for the replacement for D300s. It should match current D700 and I'll save several thousand dollars to be better used than on a camera body that quickly depreciates. One thing I've found over the past 25 years is that a change in camera bodies seems to have the LEAST effect on my photography. Just because the camera changes has rarely meant my photos got better.
    Kent in SD
     
  13. get it - you won't be disappointed. I'd keep the 24-70 and lose the 35/2 (get the new 35/1.4.....). The 24-70 stays on my d700 the vast majority of the time (only usually being changed to a 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 for portaits). If you decide to sell the 24-70, I would strongly recommend the MB-D10. The AF-ON function of the d700 will be worth a big chunk of the upgrade, as will the shooting banks. You might need to consider a bigger bag - something like a lowepro 300w!
    andyc
     
  14. Ilkka, I`m sure you know the usefulness of the 17-35 over the 14-24... I bet Nikon knows it, too.
    In the same way the 24-70 is the wedding lens, I`d say the 16/17-35 is the one for journalists. We can see them working on most press rooms, even on outdoor press conferences. If Nikon doesn`t work on it as a primary lens, I sincerely think it`s a mistake. Funny, I know nothing about Canon gear but I can recognize their 16-35/2.8 easily by its contour and typical hood. It is on almost all press events.
    I can think that they decided to update/upgrade the old 14AFD on the 14-24, catching at the same time that long awaiting desperate users decided to renew their whole lens line (that for could have prefered to buy something like a 16-35/2.8G first!).
    I also suspect this will not happen in a time, given that the current one is still in good fit and they still have other lenses to update.
    I can imagine that with their usual product-release policy, Nikon will drop every lens very extended on time. It seems to me that they like to arrive late to the lunch, "forcing" hungry users to eat their "starters"; after that, there will be a lapse that will assure to finish every breadcrumb over the table before the main course is served to the still voracious devotees.
    It is a personal interpretation, but my 14-24 don`t receive much more use that a 14AFD... usefulness-wise I consider it a delicate, exotic 14mm prime with "extended capabilities". In most ocassions this lens obliges the use of a 24-70, while the 17-35 don`t.
    That 24 to 35 overlap let the use of a two lens bag (17-35 + 70-200) vs the "prudish choice" with the full holy setup inside (No pun intended!). :)
    Don`t ask me why but I suspect you agree with me...
     
  15. BM,
    If I'd be in your shoes, I think I would... go for a new D700, without the lens. I hate the idea of a near 1 kilo "normal" lens and rather use primes. Admittedly, the 24mm is a bit an issue, since the 24 f/1.4 is a bit expensive..
    But, more on topic, the D700 would be totally OK for me, and it does not leave me with a lot to be desired (no great need for an extra stop sensitivity, not interested in video, and no need for much more megapixels). But, that's me.
    What would the new Nikon bring that you need? I mean, the typical improvements to be expected: higher resolution, better high ISO, maybe better AF, video, dual card slots, maybe higher framerate. If that list contains nothing you need, I'd rather enjoy as soon as I can.
     
  16. bmm

    bmm

    Kent/others - we're talking about US$2690 (converting from euros) for both camera and lens, both near-new. As I said, its very competitive with where the D700 by itself started, and where I imagine the price point for the next FX model will be.
    Andy - have done research quickly on these features. Am I right in thinking AF-ON is essentially a lock-recompose tool, to separate exposure and focus locking that usually happens with the shutter? And I imagine banks are essentially an ability to store settings for specific conditions? (which would be awesome!)
     
  17. Two thoughts: the 'new' D700 will almost certainly have a 24mp sensor; it will be the same size as the current one. Therefore the pixels will ahve to be much smaller. You should research exactly what this means in terms of IQ and low light etc.
    Second: it will likely be a rough match to the Canon 5d MkII so rent or borrow one of those for a week and go nuts and see what you think, versus the D700. Then you'll have some empirical basis to decide.
    For 90 percent of us an affordable (by whatever lights each of us has) D700 and 24-70/2.8 AF Nikkor is a dream set up worthy of any professional but the most brutally active. It won't cease being so for a loooong time. But it sounds like, for you, the process of reading about the delectable new item whenever it comes out is going to be actually painful if you haven't waited. So you have to decide how much that moment and its satisfaction mean to you versus a superb camera that does everything except fulfill that particular (and immeasurable) need......
     
  18. i'd get it now then sell it later on ebay if u wish to upgrade if a new FX is launched that is actually is compelling enough to upgrade for the price (which it might not be)
     
  19. bmm

    bmm

    Vince - you know me too well and you haven't met me yet :) My only counterpoint, and it's a strong one, is that I'm still shooting a D80 and have been sitting back for D90, D300, D300s, and D700 (so-far). And gathering lenses in the meantime - a few new and also waiting for the couple of 'right ones' to pop up second hand. So I've actually shown patience that is not normally a strong suit for me!
    And I guess this is one of the intangible parts of the dilemma. Having waited now a year or so, when I could have bought the D700 then, is it the right thing to do to get one now on the eve of its being replaced? On the other hand, people say that glass is the real long-term investment and this may be a great opportunity to get that pro zoom as well as the upgrade to FX body I've been aiming at.
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Bernard, not that you are required to do so, but you have not explained why you need a D700. If you have no particular need for FX, perhaps the D7000 (7K) would be a better camera for you. I bought the D700 for two main reasons: (1) high ISO capability and (2) wide angle usage, such as the 24mm PC-E has no DX equivalent.
    As I pointed out elsewhere, the D3's high ISO capability was amazing back in 2007, and the D700 was built on the same electronics in 2008. However, that has already been superseded by the D3S and today, perhaps a DX body can achieve that level of high ISO results at a much lower price.
    The thing is that US$2690 seems to be an incredible deal for a D700 + 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. The lens alone is $1700 new today. That package appears to be in the "too good to be true" category. I hope you know the seller and can verify that there is no catch for that deal.
     
  21. $2690 is a bargain for the zoom and d700...
     
  22. bmm

    bmm

    Shun - taking your post in reverse...
    Yes I know the seller. I've already played with the gear for ~90 mins and have been told its ok for me to take it for longer yet before committing to the deal. I also know the seller's motivation and circumstances.
    FX? A little harder if I am brutally honest with myself. And yes I did stop and think hard upon the D7000 announcement (eg whether to get D7000 and 16/17-35 for the wide end, and stick with my other primes).
    Primary reasons for going up from the D80 are ISO performance, better metering, more 'pro-like' controls and ergonomics (not insignificant, and I love just the way a D700 works in my hands and how much more accessible various things are). But those are features, as you point out, that I could also get from the best DX bodies.
    So in a sense you are right in questioning my rationality in being FX-focused. I've held off interim camera bodies and focused on building a set of good FX primes. But I probably don't need FX in the strictest sense of the word, despite it being a 'step' or a 'goal' that I've used to build towards gear-wise.
     
  23. Slowly the enthusiast market, as we who are not professionals are called, has come to accept the DX sensor as adequate and certainly, optically, sensor-wise, it is; but I believe anyone who is truly interested in 35mm photography from before 2003 will always have full frame as a point of reference and as a goal in terms of gear. When you say 24mm lens, to me, I have a distinct vision of what that means photographically; same with 35mm lens. The 24 "as" a 35 is neither. It's something else altogether and what that is, photographically speaking, will take a very long time to sink in to the older brain. (Same goes, by the way, when people say in film terms that a 35 is the same as a 50 if you just step 3 or 4 strides closer to the subject; yes, you should step up 3-4 strides if the picture demands it but it ain't the same. It's like wind-chill, everyone believes in it but it makes no sense: if 23 degrees F 'feels like" 12, what does 12 "feel like"? Invariably, for drama's sake, we love to say it feels like -3. But then, when it's -3, what does that feel like? Etc.)
    IN OTHER WORDS: FX or bust. I just used my savings which should have gone for other things to buy a used D300. Compared to my loyal and really quite admirable (though forever dirty-sensored) D40x, it is amazing; I've CPU-ified all my MF primes and they meteer! Imagine that. I'm happy as a pig in the loam. But it ain't full frame and it never will be and that's that.
     
  24. bms

    bms

    Did not read all the responses but:
    - when I went from D80 to D300, it was Ok, not spectacular
    - when I went from D300 to D700, and from 35-70 to 24-70, they pretty much blew me away.
    And you'll love you 85mm f1.4 even more :)
    While I like primes, I mostly shoot them on film, and the 24-70 is what I use most on the D700. You'll have the 24-70 for a long time and you can always sell the D700 for not much of a loss and upgrade later. I do not think you'll regret the decision if you go for it.
    My 2 cents...
     
  25. You know the seller and reason's. You know the camera condition. You need better ISO preformance. The price is very good. I would go for it. It will be a good body until it is worn out.
     
  26. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I hope people realize that DX is by far the more popular DSLR format. There is a Wikipedia page on FX DSLRs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
    Here are some of the facts:
    • Currently only Canon, Nikon, and Sony sell "full frame" DSLRs. Two early producers of such cameras: Contax and Kodak, are no longer in this business.
    • Canon only has two current models: 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II, both are over 2 years old.
    • In reality, Sony has introduced only 1 full frame DSLR in its history. The subsequent A850 is a very minor twick from the original A900, which is over 2 years old.
    • Since 2008, Nikon has introduced only 1 FX-format DSLR; the D3S is a modest upgrade from the original D3.
    In other words, most of the DSLR action is in DX. Now that Photokina is over; still nobody has introduced any new FX-format DSLR in 2010.
    There is also information from inside Sony that they may get out of the full-frame business altogether, but apparently the decision is not yet final.
     
  27. I would buy the D700 and 24-70 now. Here is why.
    First, The D3S is the only camera Nikon has released that is a step up from the D700/D3, and after what, about 9 months now, they are still hard to come by. Even if Nikon did announce a "D700S" within 6 months, I would bet that you would have a hard time getting your hands on one for a while. Figure at least several more months until release and then the time it takes to find one. The elapsed time between prognostication and having your hands on the camera may be a long one this time, especially with the market being how it is.
    Second, life is short. If you want an FX camera, for whatever your reasons are, and you have a passion for making photographs, why let a year or two of you photographing life elapse without the tool you want / need while you wait for the next "best thing" to come along?
    Finally, what do you hope to gain by waiting? I shoot a D700 at iso 2000 regularly and it is just about grain-free (not pixel-peeping grain free, but just fine). The next camera from Nikon might let you go up to iso 4000 with the same grain characteristic and might add HD video. If either of these is ABSOLUTELY crucial, maybe think about waiting. Otherwise, jump on it!
     
  28. Per another, "If I were you", I'd wait. Why? Because the D700 has been out forever and something's got to be coming. Even if it isn't much of an upgrade, you'll still be wondering from then on, "Should I have???"
    That's not to say what you're looking at isn't a great deal (or a bad one) and you shouldn't do it, but if you're like me, it'll eat at you and you'll always wonder if you made the right decision...
     
  29. I have to agree with your take on FX over DX. There's nothing wrong with DX - that's frankly all I have currently, but if your mind is set on an upgrade, to me FX seems the next step. Personally I'm going to try my best not to buy a DX camera again, unless I'm aiming for small size or something unique like the X100.
    That's not to diminish the great work coming out of DX cameras, just saying to me it seems a waste if you're looking for the next step to not be thinking FX.
     
  30. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    First, The D3S is the only camera Nikon has released that is a step up from the D700/D3, and after what, about 9 months now, they are still hard to come by. Even if Nikon did announce a "D700S" within 6 months, I would bet that you would have a hard time getting your hands on one for a while.​
    That is not the case. When the D3S first became available in late 2009/early 2010, it was widely available in the first few months of this year. It was only after April that it became hard to find for some unknown reason.
    As I mentioned in another thread, the D700 was announced on July 1, 2008. Discounts started appearing 2 month later in September that year and I bought mine with a small discount. The discount went deeper to about $400 to $500 by October/November that same year.
    Going back to the D3, Nikon started shipping it on November 30 in 2007. Only 2 days later B&H had it in stock for whomever having $5000 to buy it, as indicated by this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00NWQF
     
  31. Shun,
    Although it's a rangefinder and not a DSLR less informed readers deserve to know that there is one other full frame digital camera out there. The lovely M9 by that German company what's their name. Your argument -- implicitly, that FX is somehow marginal by virtue of how few are on the market -- is not as compelling as it at first sounds. FX is, largely, for professionals. So is digital medium format. The major companies never had more than one professional level camera out at a time and then often had a 'just-below' professional level camera for the (super) enthusiast market. It's at that 'just-below" level where an FX makes sense over the DX. (Yes, plenty of pros use D300's and Canon 7D's; a few even use D90s; but the D3 is, inarguably, Nikon's pro camera, just as the 1D is Canon's). The $2000-2500 cameras -- both of Sony's, the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700 -- are where the F100 was in the 90s (I don't know the Canon equivalent; I doubt the other makers had a significant part of that already small market). It's a small market and a high price point and there are never going to be many of them. 'Twas ever thus. But we want them. Because they're better.
     
  32. PS For a while Canon had two pro cameras, I now remember, one was a 1.3 crop I assume of their invention. Do they still have that?
     
  33. I believe anyone who is truly interested in 35mm photography from before 2003 will always have full frame as a point of reference and as a goal in terms of gear. When you say 24mm lens, to me, I have a distinct vision of what that means photographically; same with 35mm lens. The 24 "as" a 35 is neither. It's something else altogether and what that is, photographically speaking, will take a very long time to sink in to the older brain.
    It is my case and I think that`s absolutely true, but I also think that those who are not used to film (new generations or those who has been attracted to photography by the digital wonders) doesn`t care about it.
    As I mentioned in another thread, the D700 was announced on July 1, 2008. Discounts started appearing 2 month later in September that year and I bought mine with a small discount. The discount went deeper to about $400 to $500 by October/November that same year.
    That`s true. I received mine at the end of july, and I found it cheaper at the returning of the summer holydays (september).
    PS For a while Canon had two pro cameras, I now remember, one was a 1.3 crop I assume of their invention. Do they still have that?
    If I`m not wrong, the 1D series has a 1.3x crop factor. Only 1Ds and 5D series are FF. Don`t know in which version they currently are (well, the 5D in the MkII).
     
  34. I have the d700 as well as the D80 and im very happy with both!
    First off, you could throw the 50mm 1.4d on the D80 and never touch it, the IQ is quite impressive as far
    as im concerned.
    Then ask yourself, what would you like the newest generation body to do?
    Video? more resolution for larger prints? higher frame rate? etc,,, the D700 is stellar! IMHO, and im not
    sure they could add enough gadgetry to persuade me to buy a new one, atleast not in the next couple of
    years anyway.
     
  35. Ditto everything Jose just said above. FX for me is the only 'true' medium being as it replaced the 35mm film format. Dx would not exist if technologically and economically they could have produced the FX sensor in the first place. Shun, in the 'most is more popular' theorum, then P&S is even more popular than DX. Then again, why has this turned into a DX Vs FX discussion ?
     
  36. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Then again, why has this turned into a DX Vs FX discussion ?​
    Because the OP has not explained why he needs to buy an FX body, e.g. the D700 yet. It is precisely the sentiment such as
    FX for me is the only 'true' medium being as it replaced the 35mm film format​
    that I completely disagree with. If one has certain specific needs, e.g. high-quality wide-angle lenses, it makes a lot of sense to buy an FX camera; DX wide angles such as Nikon's 12-24mm/f4 DX and 10-24mm DX are quite poor on their wide end. Otherwise, it is unwise to buy FX just for the sake of having an FX camera, which is what a number of posts in this thread recommends. Shorly after I bought my D2X back in 2005, I stopped shooting 35mm film altogether. Today, a $1000 to $1500 DX body can easily trump the D2X.
     
  37. I would buy that camera & lens for the $2,600. My only worry would be that the police might start looking for me! For me though, I will simply wait to see what replaces the D300s. The D300 is actually doing about 99% of what I want a camera to do. I don't like to tie up a lot of $$ in camera bodies, and have put my money into lenses and a massive portable lighting system.
    Kent in SD
     
  38. Benjamin Schaefer [​IMG], Sep 28, 2010; 12:30 p.m.
    Did not read all the responses but:
    - when I went from D80 to D300, it was Ok, not spectacular
    - when I went from D300 to D700, and from 35-70 to 24-70, they pretty much blew me away.
    Going from a D80 to a D700 is like jumping the Grand Canyon in technology. With it, comes a marriage with those 2.8 zooms. You know what they say about equals.....start saving!
    I went from a D70 (18-70) to a D200(18-200, 70-300 VR) to a D700/ 24-70, 14-24, 105VR. I couldn't wait to use my f2.8 collection, (24-180 primes, and 2 midrange zooms), from my FE2 and F4 with it, when I need/want to carry lighter weight. You will never look back after your first few exposures. You can not imagine what the 24-70 sees and can reproduce when the D700 does the driving.
    As a side benefit, you can set any of 3 buttons on the body to toggle between FX and DX, (not so much to use it as intended, with your DX lens collection), but to give your FX teles the 1.5x reach of a DX, when you need this. And, it's especially useful with the 105, the 24-70 @ 70, now=105, and the 70-300, now= 450. The versatility:weight factor just improved with this little talked about feature. IQ is fine!, when shooting raw or jpg, so don't let the 5.3MP mathmaticians talk you out of this one. Try it! Besides, nothing can obsolete it at the price you're paying!
     
  39. I hope you took advantage of the deal. Even if Nikon comes out with a "gotta have it" D700 replacement next year, you can sell the D700 and still have the 24-70 lens to put on the new camera.
     
  40. A very short (and hopefully to the point) response: if You need video capabilities in your SLR then wait, if not then rush to the store and buy that great D700 fast because its cheap (and still one of the best SLR's around) now.
     
  41. bmm

    bmm

    First of all thankyou for all your thoughts. Not only have they made me pause and really think about this purchase, but they have also contributed to a couple of conversations and questions I have put to the seller.
    I am making my final decision on the weekend as the seller is in the Haut-Rhine (between France and Germany) and I am going up there to spend more time with the gear and really properly inspect it, as well as stuff like purchase receipts etc. Actually if there are any suggestions on the things I should specifically check and test in the few hours I'll have to do it, that would be much appreciated.
     
  42. That's a pretty good price. The 24-70 is a super lens reliable for superb results in a lot of situations.
     
  43. If you wait it is going to cost a heck of a lot more than the "deal" this person is going to give you..... Like someone noted, it all depends on what you need FX for and if your willing to spend the money now or later if something does happen to come out from Nikon.
     
  44. I haven't researched current prices on used D700s or the 24-70 f/2.8, but that does sound like a good deal...perhaps if it's a good enough deal you could sell the D700 later, if you decide you do want to upgrade, and get your money back.
     
  45. bmm

    bmm

    Just to 'close the loop', since this discussion I asked a few more specific questions of the seller as a few things were bugging me about this deal and I didn't want so travel far to come back empty handed.
    Quite quickly after my questioning I was told that the gear was no longer for sale and had been purchased. Don't know whether to be disappointed at the loss of a genuinely good deal, or whether I 'dodged a bullet' if something wasn't right.
    In any case the wait for the 'son of D700' now resumes, with d7000 + something wide as 'Plan B' if the new FX model is either ridiculously priced or doesn't excite.
     
  46. I just purchased the D700 and the 24-70mm (and the 70-200mm) and I couldn't be happier. I had previously shot with a D80. I love the difference. I enjoy learning a new camera. I think you would benefit from the D700, I know I did. Good luck with your decision, as the PN members in the Nikon Forum helped/guided me in making my decisions.
     
  47. I too am eagerly waiting for the son of D700 to be released. But only because it will cause the price of the D700 to drop into a price range I can afford.
    I cannot presently guess what changes/improvements will be included in the successor camera. Video interests me not at all. Highter pixel count, if it comes at a cost of diminished performance at high iso, is also not attractive to me. Same pixel count with improved iso performance is nice but not something I really need. Aside from those changes, what other whiz-bang features would induce those folks, who could afford to buy a D700 today, to sit tight and wait for this next model?
     
  48. I asked this same question back in March. I opted to buy the D700 with the 24-70mm 2.8 lens. This was an upgrade from an Olympus E-510. The only complaint (if you can call it that) i have about either of them is the weight! Now I am hiking with an additional 7 lbs on my back...but other than that - i highly recommend it! The images are razor-sharp and there are no noise, artifacts, or color gradiations. If you are waiting for more MPs, fear not as Genuine Fractals can help out in this space.
    Had i not bought the D700, i would still be waiting. Additionally Photokina 2010 just ended and Nikon did not even whisper a rumor of the D700 succesor. In my eyes the D700 is Nikon's flagship camera for the average pro-sumer. So you'd think that if it were going to be released in the next 6 months...we'd of heard something from this event.
    PS - love the virtual horizon level, easy bracketing (AEB) button, and focus-lock features.
     
  49. I would buy the D700. I bought one last month for $2100 brand new and have nothing but good words to say about it.
     

Share This Page