Jump to content

Thom's review of the D700


mjt

Recommended Posts

I think this time Thom wrote a very good review. After all, this is Nikon's 3rd installment of very similar cameras: the D3 and D300 being the other two. In comparison, I don't think Thom did a thorough job with his SB-900 review, as he apparently left out a lot of potential topics.

 

A few weeks ago I too was deciding between the D3 and D700. I was at a seminar where a Nikon rep had both on hand. I played around with them for a while and decided on the lighter D700. I am also a bit concerned that the D3 will be superseded in the next 6 months and would rather not commit too much money on another DSLR at this time.

 

Earlier this month I help reviewed Thom Hogan's D700 eBook draft (again, strictly as a volunteer, there is no money involved). That eBook is mostly based on the D3 version with some changes such as the extra pop-up flash, sensor cleaning feature but no dual CF cards, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the feeling that the D700 will be for many a long time camera; that`s my thought after two months using it, this is the first time I feel I`m not wanting an upgrade. Even I have been anxious waiting to see what the new 5D offer too, and found that is not for me. I`m relaxed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don`t agree with Tom in one of his recommendations: he points that "... If you're a F3, F4, F5, or F6 user, the

D3 is probably the more logical choice, especially with the recent drops in prices... " Except for F5 users , used to

the built-in battery compartment, I think the D700 fits them much better (the F5 was a failure (IMHO) in the perfect F

pro line design, althought useful for pros, anyway); the only issue could be the 95% viewfinder, but for all the rest

they will enjoy a much more powerful camera, with the usual size, weight and boom proof construction&quality.

Just a

thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that for a pro the D3 is the more logical choice. Aside from the numerous 'pro' enhancements that the D3 has over the D700, the expected shutter life of 300k over the D700's 150k and the dual card slots on the D3 makes the decision a no-brainer for many - the rest is gravy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's kind of a shame what marketing has done to us: when a product comes on the scene, it seems like the first thing we're thinking about is how quickly it'll become obsolete -- which has come to mean "superseded by a newer model".

 

i haven't read thom's review yet -- but i'm looking forward to it. there's always more to learn about these darn things, even if you use 'em every day. i do have to say, i agree with jose: whatever enhancements are in the pipeline -- and i'm sure there are many -- the D700 will keep me busy for a long, long time to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought my D300, the D700 had just hit the shops. I had a play with both but for me DX is better for what I shoot. I like wide, but at twice the cost it didn't take long to make my decision. A £1000 goes along way towards a 70-200f2.8 and a nice 10-20 or 12-24.. I will not be reading Thom article. I have his book on the D300 and am very happy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, it has nothing to do with marketing. Rather, it is how fast technology in electronics changes. We have been

having this same situation with computers for years. Back in 1980, my university professor told me a story from

perhaps the late 1960's when people were bothered by the rapid feature improvements and rapid price drops in

computers. People were questioning why not waiting a few more months for something better and cheaper, and that was some 40 years. So it is nothing new to electronics; it is just fairly new to cameras since they became mostly digital a

few years ago. Just watch how cheap F5 and F100 are in the used market. Anything out of favor will go down in

price rapidly.

 

Back in 2005 I paid $4700 for my D2X and it was my first really good DSLR. It is quite annoying to watch its value

drop to the low $1000+ range and is clearly inferior to the D300, which is $1550 new and coming down. I sure don't

want to experience that again and again.

 

I am afraid the Elliot's opinion is too influenced by one memory card failure. I just had my very first memory card

failure this past weekend in 6+ years. At least in this case it gave me plenty of warnings. It started causing CHA

errors on different cameras for two weeks. After a couple of times, I decided not to trust that card again so that I

didn't have any important images on it.

 

Back in February when I tested the D3 for photo.net, I shot a wedding with it and somehow developed some right

shoulder pain for like a week or two after the wedding. I have had F4, F5 and D2X's so that I am used to heavy

cameras. But given all the airline carry-on weight restrictions, hiking weight issues, etc., I am now favoring lighter

cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shun, while my personal motivation to invest in the D3 was directly related to a memory card failure, I gave several good other reasons why for a pro (and only a pro) would likely select the D3 over the D700.

 

Thom's review was well written and quite detailed. And while when it comes to IQ the cameras appear to be pretty much identical, there are other subtle but important differences that distinguish the two cameras from each other. These differences make the choice of which camera to invest in simpler whether it be the D700 or D3. Either way, you end up with a great camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Thom's review, and was quite impressed with everything he had to say about it, but he was unequivocal in pointing

out that the D700 is a better fit than the D3 for his style and subject matter.

 

This is a very important consideration if you're entertaining one over the other. Because some of what I currently shoot is

weddings and other social events, for this purpose the 2nd card slot in the D3 is worth more than the weight difference I'd

get by using a D700. Additionally for sports, I use the D3 and a D300 as a second body. If I were significantly unhappy

with the low-light performance of the D300 (which I am not), then I'd opt for the D700. --Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you happen to shoot for a paying job, one memory card loss could cost you a month's worth of income if not

more when you lose the client or they ask for compensation for damages. And, that can result in repeat business

and possibly other clients hesitating as for all the advertising we do, most of our business comes by word of

mouth. Or, if not, it still stings.

 

That being said, all three cams are well made and have their place for each photographer's choice. No need to

assume why someone buys a certain camera.

 

Another thought for those who shoot for da' money. Thank God for an assistant on the job. Mine has saved me

from two memory card failures over the past 7 years and one camera failure all three for very well paying and

high profile jobs. By my choice, better than a second memory card, if you can afford it. Well worth it for me

on the higher paying gigs. But, I shoot the lowly D300 by choice per my style and clientele.

 

BTW, Thom rocks. If nothing else, I like his name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since the D700 was announced on July 1, I was evaluating whether I should get a D3 or D700.

At the time I was wondering whether Nikon would introduce a 20+MP DSLR by Photokina.

Towards the end I was leaning towards the D3, which I had reviewed a few months earlier.

However, after handling both side by side, the weight and size issue was the deciding factor for me.

 

The other issues I considered include the 100% viewfinder on the D3 and potentially faster AF on the D3, which a

Nikon rep repeated to me recently. I personally do not at all care about the sensor cleaning feature on the D700. I

still have never used that once on either my D300 or D700; I always switch that off. The D700's pop-up flash is

handy. I have already forgotten to bring my SU-800 once and the pop-up flash served as my CLS master controller.

 

This past weekend I tested both the D3 and D700 (with the MB-D10) for some surfing shots. I wish I had more time

to evaluate the AF capabilities, but as far as I can tell, the D3, D700, and D300 are all very close in terms of their AF

capabilities. Hogan has mentioned the differences a few times, in his review and other places, but even my D300

gives me such great AF accuracy for sports and wildlife (including birds in flight) that I wouldn't worry about it.

 

If I were a full-time wedding photographer, I probably would have gotten a D3 for the dual memory card feature, and I

would prefer to shoot with a partner. But for what I shoot, card failures are rare enough that I wouldn't worry about it.

Just make sure that you get high-quality memory cards. In a sense people worry about this because they can. In

the "old days," labs mess up film development from time to time, but since there wasn't a whole lot you could do

about it, people didn't worry much. Four years ago I attended a one-day seminar by the late wedding photographer

Monte Zucker. Zucker mentioned an incident from the 1990's when his entire studio burned down due to some

electrical equipment malfunction/fire. He lost all negatives from some 21 weedings in one incident before any print

was made, and he survived (professionally).

 

I am in the middle of writing the D700 review for photo.net, based on the body I bought locally. photo.net does have

another D3 on loan from Nikon so that I get to compare the two for a little while. Next week I should be able to shoot

some landscape. You can take a look at my D700 portfolio so far. It is handy to use the 14-24mm/f2.8 on FX for

those interior shots:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=865853

 

Both the D3 and D700 are fine DSLRs. The actual differences are very small. Since prices for the D700 are also

dropping now, the price gap has once again widen to something like $1700 (roughly $4500 vs. $2800). If you need

the grip, do factor in about $240 for the MB-D10, which I already have from the D300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shun, I don't disagree with your reasoning at all, but I feel compelled to point out that backup is not the only use of the dual card slots. Using them in overflow mode, where files are written to slot 2 after the card in slot 1 is full, makes it far less likely that I'll miss that catch-of-the-game because the card is full. Sure, you can finesse that problem by using larger cards and changing them well before they are full, but for people like me with poor short-term memory, the dual slots really help.

 

Not saying I'd pay the price difference just for that, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, if I were in your situation, I would buy large-capacity memory cards such as at least 8G or even 16G,

which are fairly inexpensive in these days. Keep in mind that nobody requires you to fill those cards up. Just make

sure that you have the discipline to change both your memory and battery periodically when there is a pause in the

action. You might have only 4G of images on a 16G card; change it anyway.

 

When I shoot weddings, I always switch to an empty memory card and put in a fresh battery before the main

ceremony, even though there is plenty of capacity left on them. That is how you avoid running out of something at the

critical moment.

 

By no means I am suggesting that people should simply forget about the D3 in favor of the D700 from now on; it

highly depends on your particular situation. But at least I have spent too much money on DSLR bodies and watched

them lose value quickly. If possible, I would rather spend money on lenses and other stuffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought from one who also lost all photography in an electrical fire and had to start completely over,

once you experience loss such as that and something less catastrophic, it does make you think.

 

Such as. . .using large cards does have an Achilles heel and I think I remember a post a bit ago by Shun agreeing

to this, if a card does go down and it's half or mostly full and say 16gb, well, you lose a lot of info if it

can't be recovered. Our choice, and it's not right or wrong, is to use UDMA or DMA cards of the highest quality

purchased from reputable dealers. Most of our cards, whether CF or SD are 4 gig and we change often. It doesn't

take that long to turn off the the cam, pull out the card, put in the new one, format the card, turn the cam

back on and start

shooting. Less time that it took me to type that phrase (62 wpm).

 

Just another alternative. But, then we shoot in "scenes" for event photography. Easy to catalog and process.

 

However, Shun is right. Card failure is very unlikely. However, if you shoot a lot for years, probably at least

once, you will experience it--and hard drive failure (another backup issue).

 

Maybe we should ask KR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspect Thom may have been in a rush to complete his

review of the full-frame D700.

 

Find his style of writing to be very exacting and as such

was surprised with his comments and comparisons.

 

My own selfish wish would be for a D40 style

camera body with a full frame sensor.

Maybe next year or the year after?

 

And a full capability for all those lenses

which are in the back cupboard and not suitable

for the D40/D40X/D60 series of bodies.

 

The light weight of my D40 is a very big positive

for me. I call it my point n shoot

with interchangeable lenses.

 

Perhaps a variant on the FX sensor down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My own selfish wish would be for a D40 style camera body with a full frame sensor. Maybe next year or the year after? "

 

An FX sensor is way too expensive for a D40 class camera. At least for the next 3 - 5 years.

 

I'd rather see a cropped 5 MP version of the D3/D700 sensor in the D40. Great low light capabilities and enough resolution to print 8x10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, was very excited about the D700--though WHY Nikon waited so long to introduce this camera has been a long-

standing question.

 

I spent some quality time with one recently, and was impressed overall. However, I'm not buying one. Why?

 

First, I'm a long time Fuji shooter and, frankly, do not feel Nikon has made enough strides in the d-range area (not

that Canon is far ahead). I had a D200 briefly and was horrified by the narrow d-range and noise above ISO 800 (I

don't understand why people regarded this camera so highly). The D300 - based on the images I've seen - is an

improvement but not a huge one, and the D3 and D700 are not very different from it, with the exception of high ISO

capability (which is stunning). Overall, the latest Nikons strike me as fantastically engineered and improved in almost

all areas over their earlier cameras (NOT including the D2 and D200 series, which really are 8/10ths of the latest

models) but apart from noise not so greatly improved in the areas that matter most to me - color rendition and

dynamic range.

 

Equally important is size and weight, and while the FX cameras justify their heft more than the DX bodies (which are

rediculously large and heavy for the sensor real estate they offer) they are a step backward from the ideal prosumer /

enthusiast SLR of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (cameras like the Nikon FE, Contax Aria, Olympus OM series, or even the

compact AF cameras such as the N80). The pro camera justifies its size and weight on the basis of build quality,

durability, and weather sealing, but a true enthusiast camera, like the D700, has no business being as heavy as (and

larger than!) the pro camera when a vertical grip is added. The new Sony A900 is lighter than the D700 and has twice

the pixel count (50% better resolution), and it is too heavy as well! These are SUV cameras!

 

I'm waiting for a D600 (or whatever model it will be) possibly based on the D90 body (though with ability to mount,

meter, and AF manual lenses). I do hope Nikon does more than add features (video--gimme a break!) and rather

takes a good hard look at design, form factor, weight, and some of the excellent SLRs that have preceded the

latest / greatest DSLRs. The perfect Nikon DSLR? A D40 body with D700 features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size is an important part of ergonomics. Surely most cameras can be downsized, like those that are

designed to be used with small slow consumer lenses, but think on hours holding a f2.8 pro zoom on a tiny body.

Even a D700 gets small when using a 70-200VR. I love the plain D700 with a 50/1.8, but I prefer the extra grip of the

MB-D10 or a D3 when big lenses are attached. Then the D700 turns bigger than the D3, but OTOH you cannot

remove the battery compartment of a D3 if you want it smaller. The D3 is a pro dedicated design, the D700 is an all-

round, the D40 is for those who wants more than a P&S. Horses for courses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Jose - its all in what your personal preferrences are - ergonomics drive the hardware you'll use. For weddings and sports, we use large lenses - 28-70 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, etc. - balance with these is critical if you'll be using it all day, and I won't hang a D40 or an Olympus OM1 sized body on the back end of one of those, its tiring. --Rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...