More D700 goodness with my Nikon 300mm F4 ED

<p>The more I use my D700 the more I like it. Here are some test shots using my Nikon 300mm f4. </p>

<p>@300mm f4<br>

<img src="http://gnet158.smugmug.com/Other/Nikon-D700-test-shots/i-3HJvGDN/0/L/01-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br>

<img src="http://gnet158.smugmug.com/Other/Nikon-D700-test-shots/i-hPCkPrH/0/L/04-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br>

<img src="http://gnet158.smugmug.com/Other/Nikon-D700-test-shots/i-jPthgHL/0/L/0013-L.jpg" alt="" width="399" height="600" /></p>

 

<p>Glad you like your D700. It's a good camera with a sturdy build. I still enjoy using mine.</p>

<p>It's still a great camera Manuel. In fact I've just discovered that its ISO rating is more accurate than my D800. Doing some flash exposures recently, I had to practically double the ISO setting on the D800 to equal the D700's exposures.</p>

<p>I have the old MF AI 300mm f/4.5. That's also a great lens to use on a D700. Closest focus is a bit long, but nothing a PK-11 can't fix. Have you got your hands on a Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 zoom yet? If not, seek one out!</p>

<p>The NIkon 400/4 is a very sharp lens, as your photo illustrates. I have the AF-S version, which has been under-utilized for lack of image stabilization. However it does a magnificent job on my Sony A7ii, even with manual focusing.</p>

<p>If you don't have a focus slider for your D700, you might consider one. It makes closeups with the 300/4 (or any lens) a lot easier.</p>

<p>I've got the same problem with my D700 - each time I use it, I seem to rediscover just how good a tool it is. Same for the 300 f/4 (I've got the AF-S version as well). I do not use that lens often, but it's both a joy to use and to see the results from.</p>

 

<p>I find so funny to read that the D700 is "still" a fine camera... it is merely seven years old! :)<br>

I bet those who shoot at "normal" ISO settings will not found huge diferences between e.g. a lastest Df, or a D800, and a D700 (just my guess, I have not used a Df).<br>

Maybe it`s me, that I still have film eyes... :D</p>

 

<p>See this thread from (almost) four years ago, where I highlighted what the D700 was falling behind back on June 16, 2011: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg</p>

<p>Today, from the D7000/D7100/D7200 and up, including the D600, D750, D800, and D810 all have a 100% viewfinder, dual memory cards, HD video .... The D810 has a very quiet shutter. While Nikon has improved the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module somewhat, it still only has 15 cross-type AF points.</p>

<p>Otherwise, 12MP is plenty for most situations, and the D700 is still a fine camera. What I miss on it are probably the 100% viewfinder and dual memory cards for auto backup.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I miss</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>is that it still takes a good eye to capture a great shot, no matter what camera one uses!</p>

<p>Thanks, yea I am impress with the images this 7 year old camera takes. My main camera is a D7100, and I also have a D200 that I too love the images that it turns out. Now I'm in a bit if a quandary. <br>

<br />When my D700 moves into my main camera position do I sell my D7100? I'm not getting rid of my D200 so I can't really see the D7100 just sitting in my bag? I could also sell my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 and with some extra $$$ thrown in could buy a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lens.<br>

<br />Or just sell my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 and buy a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC USD and keep all three bodies? </p>

<p>Not sure what direction I'll go. </p>

<p>How much do you use your 80-200? If you use it quite often, it may be interesting to upgrade to the 70-200VRII. If not, I don`t see the benefit of the spending such amount of money.</p>

<p>Three cameras are too much to use to my taste. As you already know, the D7100 have many features the D700 lack... check the list in Shun`s linked thread (Video, Live View direct button, higher resolution, better AF, SD cards... ). The IQ of the D200 is actually behind both cameras, so I`m afraid it will receive very little use. The D700 has the advantage of being full format, so it could be interesting to keep for standard and wide angle shots. The D7100 seem to me an interesting camera to be used with longer lenses (the 1.5X crop factor is a -real- advantage in certain circumstances). And, if I`m not wrong, it is a noticeable smaller body.</p>

<p>If you ask me, I`d get rid of the D200. But in the other hand, the current value of a D200 these is could be very low, if any... Just some thoughts.</p>

<p>With the notice of being just an amateur - the periods I've had two DSLRs, I found I was using only one (except for 3 weddings I did). When I got my D700, I still had my D300, and used it once afterwards for some birding photos. But next time I went for birds, brought the D700; yes the crop factor was missed a bit, but not half as much as I expected. I kind of adapted to idea that some photos couldn't be done (longer lenses than those I already have are way outside my budget). Keeping a body around as backup - since it's not about making money with these photos, I take the risk of owning one digital; if it breaks, I'll shoot film only for a bit - no big loss. I prefer putting the money into things I actually really use.<br>

So, three bodies doing effectively the same thing, for amateur use, all 3 digital? I sure wouldn't (with film cameras, I see a case). Probably you will find yourself grabbing the same camera each time. If your work doesn't require having a backup at hand all the time, I'd free up some money for lenses. And if you have lenses you don't use much or at all, free up the money for ... well, other lenses, or trips to places worth photographing, or things like that. But having lots of gear around that gets hardly used is a pity, and a waste of money.</p>

<p>I agree with Jose 100%. Among the three cameras: D200, D700, and D7100, the D7100 is actually the newest with fairly current technologies (although superseded by the D7200 now). The one I would sell is also the D200, but the problem is that you won't get much from selling it.</p>

<p>Perhaps it is a matter of time that the novelty of FX (or getting back to FX if you had used 35mm film before) will wear off. For example, the D7100 has improved AF compared to the D700, and it is much easier to engage live view and of course the D7100 has video should you need it, even only occasionally. (The D200 doesn't even have live view.)</p>

<p>It'll be a bit annoying to use the EN-EL3e for the D700 and EN-EL15 for the D7100, but the EN-EL15 is both the present and the future. Unless you stick with old technology forever, it is a matter of time that you will need to phase out the EN-EL3e or buy more EN-EL15. CF will also be phased out in the not-too-distant future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now I'm in a bit if a quandary. ... Not sure what direction I'll go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you need to decide right away? Why not wait a few months and see which camera(s) you are actually using? Jose, Wouter, and Shun bring up valid points - those may or may not be the important ones for you though. </p>

<p>Do you need the extra resolution provided by the D7100? Do you you need DX at all? What does the D200 offer that the D700 doesn't give you? And with regard to upgrading the 80-200/2.8 to the 70-200/2.8 VR II or the Tamron - what's your reasoning behind needing that upgrade?</p>

<p>convert the D200 to IR or use it in a dedicated studio or macro set up. the problem is it is thoroughly eclipsed by a d7100. you could always donate it to journalism/documentary projects in developing nations. there are several that give cameras to kids/beginning photographers. </p>

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions. I won't sell my d200 and I haven't had my 80-200mm long so don't use it much yet. So I'll hold off on that Nikon 70-200mm vr ii for now and I'll just work my d700 into the mix.