Discussion in 'Nikon' started by maximilian_gajek, Sep 19, 2011.
Hi. I just wonder if the D700 is still a good camera? Is it worse or better than the D7000?
D700 has no button "perfect picture". I think you should wait for replacement.
The replacment will be far too expensive for me. So that won't happen
It, like any camera, only as good as the photographer behind it.
i don't think you can take as good pictures with a mobile phone and 1 megapixel vs a D3S
But yes, I know what you mean
It was amongst "the best" three years ago; I don`t think photography has changed so much since then, at least mine... There are certainly newer and better lenses.
With the current more modern Nikons you`ll have slightly more resolution and video. In lower level cameras the AF module looks to be still behind. Definitely, nothing that calls my attention. Well, maybe the video ability, but not at the expense of other features, starting on the sensor size.
Personally, I`d not trade my D700 for a D7000, although I must say that I have never used the latter.
It is a good camera that a good photographer can take good pictures with. It is even up to snuff with other currently available full-frame 35mm DSLRs.
I wouldn't buy one new this late in its product cycle, though. Used at a good price, maybe.
It's probably better than the D7000 for some things (like wide angle) and worse for others (especially telephoto work). With the right lens, a good photographer can take a great photo with either and you wouldn't be able to look at it and say which it was.
...And I have recently discovered the ultra comfortable "one push" AE-locking feature. I feel like with a new toy...
The question isn't "is it still good" so much as "are there better options now". The D7000 is newer, smaller, cheaper
and adds a bunch of features. The D700 is FX, so it has some features inherent to the larger format, like the larger
finder and the field of view for your lenses being wider. It's also more "pro" grade, with a bit sturdier construction,
better AF system etc., and performs a bit better in low light. Which model you'd prefer is up to you.
As to whether the D700 is too old - it's exactly as good now as it was when new. But if Nikon does come out with a
new model soon (and I have no knowledge of whether or not they will) that would cause market prices on the D700 to
Is the picture quality of the D700 the same as the D7000?
They are different in many ways. You can probably google D700 vs. D7000 and find some good discussion out there, maybe comparison images, certainly some online reviews that will give you some good insight. Here's a couple great ones from Thom Hogan.
Which one is good for you depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is lens budget. It might be a LOT less expensive, for instance, to get a Ultra-wide/standard/tele zoom set that will really shine on the D7000 than get one for FX.
Is the picture quality of the D700 the same as the D7000?
How could it be the same? The sensor sizes and pixel counts are different. Obviously the picture quality differs between the two.
I found a new D700 on Amazon for 1500$, that's why i'm asking. And i mean. THAT camera for THAT price! The guys who sells it has 92% positive feedback. And i emailed him and he said it was listed as used - like new. Only because it had been taken out of the package, it had not been used though. And i really want a FX camera because i also want a 24-70mm zoom which is not that good on a DX.
What you`re looking on the 24-70 is the wide angle capability. On a DX camera this lens could perform perfectly good, but you loose the "wide side" of what use to be (currently) called "standard zoom".
Its good enough that someone already snatched it up before I was able to!
Do you have it? or do you want to buy it now?
I would have bought it. It doesn't show as available any longer.
DID SOMEONE BUY IT!!?!?
It was a scary ridiculous price, I don't care how good the feedback on the seller is...
Maximillian... please watch your language. It's a family place here.
Not any good, in my opinion. No video! No in-body stabilization! Too big! Lots of other things wrong with it.
The only decent feature at all I can think of is that it has incredibly good image quality, even in very low light. OK, maybe two more decent features: Excellent ergonomics, and very reliable.
And FX. As far as I can tell is the most affordable FX body from Nikon. But I could be wrong... ;P
$1500 and it's supposed to be open-box-new, when other used prices are over $2000? You've heard the saying, if it's too good to be true it's probably not? I would suspect something's wrong with the camera or the seller.
the answer to the question, i think, is that despite being outmoded, the d700 is still worth upwards of $2000 new. regardless of how good the d7000 is, or how good a potential replacement might be, it still holds its own. but $1500 is kind of a 'too good to be true' price, and in any event, i would only buy something that expensive from an authorized nikon dealer. eventually, when the replacement is announced, prices will drop. but i don't know if they will ever go that low, except maybe for high-actuation units. it does seem evident that a price point of $1500 for FX would be very attractive for many who have stayed away thusfar.
The D700 is a GREAT camera.
Yes. but if there's something wrong with the camera. I can return it and get my money back. And he's selling it so cheap because he has stock liquidation.
he's selling it so cheap because he has stock liquidation.There is a Turkish rug retailer around the corner from me who has been running a going-out-of-business "stock liquidation" sale, with prices at only 10% of the original prices ... for over six years now.
Why would someone liquidating stock bother to collect hundreds of dollars less for a camera that they could sell within minutes on eBay or elsewhere (even Amazon's market) for more? The prices smells like the intro to a bait-and-switch scam (you get to pay extra if you want the battery charger, battery, etc), or the camera is grey market and Nikon will never service it, etc. Not a realistic price, and thus not a realistic offer to consider.
Everything goes through amazon, and i have 14 days to return the camera if there's something wrong with it. And i get my money back then.
It does indeed sound fishy...
Any thing that isn't broken is as good as it was when it was first introduced.
So the question is not whether the D700 is "still good" but whether YOU will be satisfied with it.
Be sure anything bought through Amazon is actually paid for using Amazon's system. Otherwise, you are strictly on your own. If you sent a money order or some such, you're screwed if it doesn't work out. That's my one big complaint about Amazon is that they are not super good at policing the renegade sellers who send an official-looking email telling you not to pay through Amazon.....
The D700 is still a fantastic camera. It's Euro for Euro in my opinion the very best Nikon out there. The D700 has brought the fun back to digital photography for me. I also have the D7000 - got this one for shooting sports with a long lens.
- The files from the D700 up-rez much more beautiful compared to the files from the D7000 (or D200). They seem to have also more „depth”.
- The difference between the finders is dramatic. I use old MF-Nikkors a lot and focusing and composing is much easier with the D700.
- The D7000 AWB is a bit better and the D700 is louder.
I've shot close to 220.000 pictures with the D700 and about 35.000 with the D7000 and don't regret the investments.
I am happier today with my D700 than I was years ago when I purchased it. I feel no need to upgrade. The worse feature is the weight. Wonderful viewfinder, controls and delivers great quality. I don't believe it made me a better photographer though. I would probably not buy a new one right now because there is a chance prices would come down if a new model is released soon, but who knows?
I have a D700, and I would say that it's "good". Maybe "great". I however, am only an average amateur photographer, so my opinion is probably only "average". I know that I take the occasional "great" picture with my D700, and that it uses all my Nikkor lenses, which also fit my stable of Nikkor film cameras. I like it a lot and wouldn't change it for a D7000.
My son has the D7000, and I think he frequently takes better pictures than I do. The D7000 is a lot lighter than the D700, so if lighter weight makes a camera "better", the D7000 is better than the D700. He likes it a lot and is happy with his purchase. It is, of course, a DX "crop" sensor, which means that you are looking at a 35mm lens giving you similar coverage to what a 50mm lens would give on the D700. If you think you might ever want to move to a full-frame sensor like the D700, you should consider buying the more expensive FX lenses, which will work fine on your FX camera, unlike the DX lenses, which will not.
My suggestion? See if you can find someone who will let you try both cameras. Perhaps you could rent each one for a week. Try them out, see which one does better for you. I don't think you can go wrong with either camera, but you should think long and hard about what you want and/or need in a camera before plunking down your hard-earned cash.
You might also want to look at K__ Rockwell's and Thom Hogan's web sites for other opinions.
"Is the picture quality of the D700 the same as the D7000?"
It would depend on the lens. If you put a AF 28mm f2.8D Nikkor lens on a D700, you will have use of a 28mm lens for wide-angle use. Put the same AF 28mm f2.8D Nikkor lens on a D7000, and you will have a 42mm lens to handle your wide-angle shooting. The difference in DX and FX sensors make the comparison not so easy..... For shooting sports, the DX sensor is good. For shooting a group in a wedding, for example, the FX sensor is good.
I have nothing but praises for the D700, I can't vouche for the D7000 though. It's a great camera for natural light photography and fast action photography. I love the ability to set an aperture and shutter speed and let the camera work out the best iso within a set range, not that that is a unique feature to the D700 or anything.
I should warn you about buying one at a price that's too good to be true, my first attempt to buy one turned out to be a D200 in disguise.
I think Amazon seller account can be hijacked. I often found unbelievable prices like that. Look at their other items for sale not their rating. Hijacker would choose accounts with good rating. I almost always found that they were selling many very popular items at the same time (D700, 5D MK2, 7D, etc) all at ridiculous prices.
I looked at their other items, which I think is the actual owner's items, they are usually not photography related. I would stay away. Be careful. I don't know how Amazon would handle the situation if you claim for unshipped items.
BTW D700 is an outstanding camera. I prefer its image quality than that of the D7000.
"Hi. I just wonder if the D700 is still a good camera? Is it worse or better than the D7000?"
Simple answer: Nikon D700 is still as good as it gets.
Image quality depends a lot on the kind of lenses you use, stick a low quality (or bad sample) sigma or
tamron lens on it, and you will get low quality contrast, bokeh,etc. Get a nice zeiss, or a nikkor 50mm
f/1.2 and this camera will create top quality images.
Sometimes it is not wise to judge photo equipment by its age. I still keep and use a fuji S3 pro, it is a
seven year old design, and when I need wide dinamic range, I use it. No Leica M9 or nikon D3x can
match it on that important aspect of photography.
A year ago, a good friend ask me, what can nikon do to improve the d700 if it already has everything we
need? It was very hard to answer that, and still is. I told him, just two things, the flimsy CF door and a
more precise auto white balance. I would answer the same thing if you ask me today. These two things
are just very mild defects, too mild to devaluate an almost perfect piece of photographic equipment.
Still a good camera? If nikon has not released a new model in more than three years that competes on
the same range, it is probably because they are having a very hard time improving it
You probably think that I work for nikon now, but no, I just respect companies that can manufacture
tools with patience and lots of care. Same respect I have for Leica and Fuji, please keep surprising us
every once in a while
How do i see someones profile?
He sent me this picture
Can you tell if there's something not right with this picture?
Well, it is 90° wrong
All that comes on a new Nikon D700 package seems to be there. No idea of what the Mack bag is and you
are getting two CF cards. A good deal if the seller is for real.
You're kidding me right? The D700 is an amazing camera - I'd take that over the D7000 ANY day of the week and twice on the weekend! Having shot with the D7000, the experience, response, handling and image quality are nothing alike - true, the D7000 is not as far removed as, say, the D90 was, but it's still on a whole different level...;-)
I used my D700 with the grip (I have massive hands and big lenses) for almost two years before I moved on to a D3 (not because it was better - they're essentially the same camera - but because I found an amazing trade-in deal) and a D3s - if those deals had not come my way, I would still be shooting with the D700 and would have been amazingly happy...;-))))
There is a lot wrong with that picture: it's soft, seems slightly out of focus, not rotated....
It's simple: a number of people here with real experience in photography tell you the price is too low and it sounds fishy. You can continue to say it will all be OK and persist it's all reliable. People are warning you for a reason. Listen to them. Or not - if you want to get ripped off, by all means, go ahead.
If I'd had the money for a D700 (and that means €2000 at the moment if one buys new, 1750 for 2nd hand in the state you describe), I'd get it immediately. Yes, sure it's a good camera, it always was and will stay good even if a successor comes.
But I would never ever get it because I want a 24-70... That just makes no sense. The D700 has a number of strong advantages, and some disadvantages. You should get one if the advantages help your photography. And that's it. Not because it goes better with a lens you want because that lens looks nice.
The D7000 is a terrific camera too (and will remain that for a good time to come), and if you want a 24-70, then obviously you need the 17-55 f/2.8 for your D7000. As in your other threads, just calm down a little and focus on what you need, rather than wanting for wanting sake.
If you persist - check if the battery charger switches between 110V and 220V automatically; I can't check my charger now, probably it does - but better safe than sorry.
If you insist on buying this, at least establish whether or not the serial number is one that Nikon will actually service. If you're in the US, they will not service (warranty or not) cameras that weren't correctly imported. Doesn't mean you can't find someone else to work on it, but you won't have a warranty regardless, and you may not be able to get Nikon to work on it even if you're willing to pay for service on something that would normally be covered by a warranty. If it's a gray market body, you need to know that.
What's the difference of a gray market body and a normal body?
You ask if the picture quality is the same between D700 and D7000. Here's my own experience. I once took 10 photos with my D80, 10 with my D300, and 10 with a borrowed D700. Same subjects, very similar photos. I mixed the 30 shots randomly and showed them to a magazine editor who buys photos from me. He picked something like 5 shots made with D300, 3 from the D700, and 2 from the D80. He said he could tell NO difference as to what camera was used. Here's the bottom line for me. If the people buying photos from me can't tell a difference in the shots, why on earth would I spend the big money to switch to FX lenses? I honestly see no real difference between shots made from a D7000 (a newer camera with more resolution) than those made from a D700. Will you be making better shots with a D700 rather than a D7000? Almost certainly NOT. Especially if you have to buy old, cheap lenses for the D700 because you have no money left. That's the classic beginner mistake--putting a lot of money into a camera and then having to go cheap on the important things (lenses, tripod.)
At any point in time there is always a "hot" camera that people on the internet like to hype. At one time it was the N8008s. At one time it was the F100. At one time it was the D1. People spend big money on them in hopes that a camera will improve their photos. Very rarely does this happen. If your photos taken with a D7000 suck, they will suck just as bad if you use a D700. It will be money wasted that could have been better used. As for buying from a seller who has a very lowball price, that could be a quick way to get ripped off. I personally avoid those kinds of sellers.
Kent in SD
It is not difficult to see the difference between the D700 and D7000. I own both and I know exactly which one to use under what conditions. For low light, the D700 is still a little better and of course, the D3S is even better. I got to test a D3S early last year and was very impressed, but at least I don't feel that its advantage over the D700 is big enough for me to justify another camera. As good as the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module is, I still have reservation about it and I don't need the weight of the D3 family if I have a choice.
Moreover, for any wide angle shots, since FX wide angle lenses are superior, using the D700 is an easy choice. For any super tele usage, I take the D7000.
In any case, a $1500 D700 in good condition is clearly a "too good to be true" situation. Use your own judgement and don't let greed take over.
Look at the Exif data on the photo of the D700 kit. That photo has been processed by an Ebay server. I suspect that the "seller" doesn't have a D700 in his possession at all, but just went and got a photo from an eBay listing.
I didn't see any exif data. How do you know that the photo has been processed by an ebay server?
Hi. I just wonder if the D700 is still a good camera? Is it worse or better than the D7000?Hi Maximilian,
I can confirm to you that mine is still a good camera.
The second question is not so easy to answer, depending on what you consider "worse or better".
Do you prefer Fx to DX? Is the Megapixel count at top priority even if you need to sacrifice sensor size? Is 12 Mp on a FX sensor enough for you? Do you "need" video in a DSLR?
I could add some more questions, but I think these can show how tricky this comparison can be, and its up to you see where your needs fit.
Technically talking, a new camera should be better than the previous one, but I do believe any camera is "still good" in your hands, only if you know what to do behind it. For some people, they do think that if they get the newest camera, will make them a better photographer and the previous camera they had, is already obsolete and incapable of taking good pictures any more. The D700 is a very good camera and will continue taking good pictures only if the person behind it, is an artist. If that person moves to a better camera, his pictures will continue being the best. If on the contrary, you are not that good taking pictures, it does matter what camera you have in your hands cause your pictures will not improve, so my opinion is that, the D700 is still an excellent camera ... only if ...
Maximilian, I have a plugin for Firefox the displays exit data - it's the first thing I look at when trying to find out about
the provenance of an image. It has a line about being processed by eBay.
I thought you said the camera had already been sold (or rather, is no longer available)? What happened, did you send
him a message before it disappeared and he wrote back and said he's still got one and you can send him $1500 for it?
We're not trying to rain on your parade here, just trying to help you not get taken. Yes, amazon and eBay have some
buyer protection, but they're not totally reliable, there are conditions under which they don't have to pay you, and they
don't replace the buyer being sensible. There are too many things about this that are suspicious. Take a pass.
Btw, forgive me if I'm wrong but it doesn't sound like you're an experienced photographer, or at least not an
experienced DSLR user. If I may be so presumptuous, I'd interject and recommend that you look at the consumer line
of cameras. They're smaller and less expensive, but the photos they take are just as good or nearly just as good
(enough so that most people won't notice the difference) and usually easier for a novice to use, and being cheaper
they free up your budget to buy the items that people who buy a camera like a D700 usually have already - like lenses
and flashes and maybe a decent tripod depending on what you shoot. The D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000
but in a less ambition body at a less ambitious price, and if you don't already have Nikon lenses you won't mind the
main limitation which is that it won't autofocus with lenses that don't have built in motors. $1500 would get you a
D5100 with 18-55 VR lens, 55-200 VR lens, 35mm f/1.8 lens (all new) and refurb SB-600 flash, all from Adorama
which is an extremely reliable seller. You'd get a lot of mileage out of that.
I told the guy who sold the camera that I didn't want to buy it. And he was like: ''I will report you for fooling me'' and he also said. ''I have your IP adress, the police will come'' And his English was HORRIBLE. He couldn't even speak real English. And he said he was German, but that he had lived in America for a year. So I asked him something in German, and he didn't reply. So he lied about that too. What should I do?
He just said that he has contacted the police and Amazon about me fooling him and making fun of him. The only thing I did was to ask him about the camera, then I said that I didn't want to buy it, and I appoligized. Why does he make such a big deal out of it?
At the expense of seeming to bash the original poster - It's not about the camera.
No, an Iphone can't duplicate the resolution of a high dollar camera, but the emotion and beauty of the photo is seen by the photographer, the camera just records it.
As far as the MP count is concerned, this is a 1.48MP crop from a couple of years ago:
I've printed it as an 8x10 and it looks just fine.
Discontinue all communication with him, and notify Amazon of the behavior if you can. Send them the text of the messages you have received. He is a crook, at best.
Peter, that last message is a dead giveaway. I am 100% certain that the guy is a scammer. Report him to Amazon and don't worry about the police (if making fun of people on the net were a crime, most of us would be in very serious trouble).
as previously stated, the amazon marketplace vendors can be sketchy at best in many cases. there's little protection that amazon can offer in this case above/beyond what your credit card company will offer. buying actually /from/ amazon can be awesome as they have a great return policy. buying from any of their trusted (new stock) sellers like adorama or 17th street is less ideal. buying from the "used" section is definitely at-your-own-risk.
do the math: deal too good to be true (+) belligerent seller (=) bad news ... as peter stated, cut communication and send a note to amazon (no need to tell /him/ what you're doing, but unfortunately, it's unlikely that amazon will actually do anything... they get their cut.).
Ask not that the D700 is good enough for you, but that you are good enough for the camera.
So, is he saying the internet police will come and knock down your firewall?
You asked for buying a non existent camera from some foreign hustler, you will be prosecuted.
Haha, I know.
Does this mean that my Nikon F3HP isn't any good any more?
I found that camera picture listing on eBay. It is item #140608653209. offered out of Texas and has 5 days left.
I found that camera picture listing on eBay. It is item #140608653209. offered out of Texas and has 5 days left.Behold the power of the internet!
(Nice work, Craig!)
Burn this into your forehead:
If it's too good to be true, it's not likely to be true.
Turn him in - he's the one who is acting unethically. Of course, no one will ever find him again, but you should give his telephone number to Amazon along with the rest of the information about your uncompleted *thank goodness* transaction.
When I was first contemplating going digital, I tried to buy a 'bargain' like this, and then got a bogus, but official looking, email from "Amazon" telling me how to send a money order to (I kid you not) Transylvania! Needless to say, I did not.
After reading your last post, I think you came very close to being ripped off by a scam. There is an old saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably isn't (true.) I'm automatically suspicious of anyone selling anything that more than 10% under the going price of something. I totally agree with Hunter and others above. Consider being more careful about where you buy from.
Kent in SD
Haha. I found the most obvious cheat deal ever on ebay:
Almost unused D700
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8
Nikon 50mm 1.4
and much more
And it all costed 1500$ ^^ Now. THAT'S too good to be true!
Nah, the D700 is so old and now replaced with the V1
All right seriously. D700 is the best camera there is right now, in my opinion.
Comparing DX and FX is like comparing apples and oranges. With D700 you get shallower DOF which is good for portraits and candid shot, D7000 will give you more DOF good for landscape etc. I think it really depends on what you're shooting and also your personal preference. DX body will give you further reach on your tele lens but with FX you can work with DOF more creatively. Personally I would buy D700 if I had the money. I have Nikon DX body and Film body an I like film much more. It renders pictures with more 3D feel because of it's shallower DOF,and if you really need more things in focus you can always stop down or use a wider lens. And FX bodies have much bigger viewfinders and I think that fact is very important because your photograph is only reflection of what you see in there. So from my experience it's much easier to compose with bigger one.
Maximilian: Is that a buy-it-now price or the current bid on an auction. If it's the current bid on an auction, it doesn't cost $1500 - it will go up.
I have had the Nikon d700 for about 3 months now it is simply a superb camera,I still have my D300s and before that a D200. The D700 is a completely different beast,the clarity and total lack of noise is wonderful. The D300s is an excellent camera but their is a quite distinct step up in image quality with the full frame sensor. Perfect 20x30 inch prints what more could you want.
Separate names with a comma.