Is the Nikon D700 still good?

<p>Hi. I just wonder if the D700 is still a good camera? Is it worse or better than the D7000?</p>

<p>D700 has no button "perfect picture". I think you should wait for replacement. </p>

<p>The replacment will be far too expensive for me. So that won't happen</p>

<p>It, like any camera, only as good as the photographer behind it.</p>

<p>i don't think you can take as good pictures with a mobile phone and 1 megapixel vs a D3S :P</p>

<p>But yes, I know what you mean</p>

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br />Personally, I`d not trade my D700 for a D7000, although I must say that I have never used the latter.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy one new this late in its product cycle, though. Used at a good price, maybe.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>...And I have recently discovered the ultra comfortable "one push" AE-locking feature. I feel like with a new toy... </p>

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

drop.

<p>Is the picture quality of the D700 the same as the D7000?</p>

<p>Maximilian,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm<br>

http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p><em>Is the picture quality of the D700 the same as the D7000?</em></p>

<p>How could it be the same? The sensor sizes and pixel counts are different. Obviously the picture quality differs between the two.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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".</p>

 

<p>Its good enough that someone already snatched it up before I was able to!</p>

<p>Eliot Bernstein: <br>

Do you have it? or do you want to buy it now? :P</p>

<p>I would have bought it. It doesn't show as available any longer.</p>

<p>DID SOMEONE BUY IT!!?!?</p>

<p>It was a scary ridiculous price, I don't care how good the feedback on the seller is...</p>

<!--

<p>FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.....-.-</p>

-->

<p>Maximillian... please watch your language. It's a family place here.</p>

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.

<p>And FX. As far as I can tell is the most affordable FX body from Nikon. But I could be wrong... ;P</p>

 

<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.</p>

<p>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.</p>