D700

[glenn_robelen]

<p>Hi - Starting with the D100 years ago, I purchased the D90 last Fall (and love it). I am considering expanding to the D700.<br>

I would like to hear about personal experiences with the D700 (good or bad), and any insight about what I would gain from the upgrade to the D700.<br>

Thanks...</p>

[photo5]

<p>Bought one. Loved it. Image quality is excellent. Big heavy camera built like a tank. Viewfinder is gorgeous. Rear LCD is gorgeous. But keep your D90, you may decide you want to carry a smaller lighter weight body around with you at times. I know for sure I was annoyed by the size and weight of the D700 at times. But overall it's a brilliant camera, able to capture superb details up to ISO 6400. I also had the D300, which is equally as brilliant of a camera, but not nearly as sexy as the D700.<br>

I'm not going to question your motives for upgrading to the D700. Only you can do that. Many on this forum will ask you why you think you need the D700. I don't really care why, that's your business. But you won't regret it. The D700 is in a class all to itself. The only think I didn't like about the D700 was the viewfinder is not centered, first of all. There is information in the image that is recorded that you do not get in the viewfinder, and there is more on the left than on the right. This is one thing the D300 has that I like better than the D700, the D300 viewfinder is nearly 100 percent, a very solid 99 percent. The D700 on the other hand is around 90 percent (Nikon quotes 95% but it actually calculates out to more like 90%, which is pretty poor for a camera in that price range). I predict the successor to the D700 will fix this issue, but that camera will most likely not show up for more than a year from now.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>I continue to be <em>blown away</em> by the high-ISO performance of the D700. (I came from a D200, and have had the D700 for a month.) In about 1500 shots so far, I have yet to see objectionable noise. When not working fully manual I configure mine for auto-ISO, setting the minimum shutter speed to 1/ƒ and allowing it to roam up to ISO 6400.</p>

<p>Here are two examples, the first at ISO 3600 and the second at ISO 6400 (click through to Flickr to see them bigger):<br>

<a href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3524349958_752d4a201a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> </a> <a href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3574971996_d9b1e7852d.jpg" alt="" /> </a><br>

Neither got any special treatment in post-processing. Shot raw and processed in Lightroom. Zero luminance NR, and 25 color NR. The second is also a slight crop, which should magnify any noise...</p>

<p>On the flip side, my only zoom was a DX lens, and I find I miss having a compact zoom. (I have eight primes.) I'm hunting for a replacement zoom.</p>

[tom_becker8]

<p>During 6 years of shooting digital crop, I had this mental block that I could not overcome. I seemed to be locked into the lens visualization that I had done with my Nikon film cameras. <br /> I only had my D300 for 3 months and the image quality blew me away. It's one great camera with a killer sensor. However, one day I found a great deal on a used D700 and took the plunge and returned to full frame. I have buyer's remorse for sure because I'm not making my living with shooting anymore (made the jump to high tech) but after a few days of shooting with the D700, I feel I have returned to more intuitive shooting. I agree completely that this has all been mental and that I should have overcome it but it's over and FX is for me.<br /> I will say that the D700 at ISO 3200 and even 6400 can bring a man to tears. It's just so excellent. The lack of noise is amazing.<br /> One issue I hate is the vignetting on the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. Sure, it's an instantly correctable issue with a Lightroom preset but come on Nikon!</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>You gain a big viewfinder like a film camera. Lenses work the way they are supposed to work when they were made, 20 mm is wide, not just slightly wide. 100 mm is a good portrait length. I don`t have to use some zoom at 70 mm to get a good portrait lens.</p>

<p>Then the image quality is outstanding on top of it all. Packing 12 MP on a smaller sensor is not the same thing. These are large sensitive noise free pixels instead of small less sensitive ones that require more amplification and therefore more noise by definition. </p>

<p>I know I paid too much buying it new last Oct when it was new, but it is like computers, you pay to get the latest and greatest and this is one of the few cases I feel it was worth the money. Normally I do not bite on this sort of thing.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you are not printing bigger than 8 x 10 or 11 x 14, in normal everyday photography, you are really gaining little to nothing with a D700 over a D90. Your photos will look the same, you'll just print fewer of them, because all your money for printing is all spent on new lenses and an expensive camera. ;-)</p>

<p>That said, my experience shooting full-frame years ago with the old Kodak SLRn was a blast, and I'd love to do it again...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi - Starting with the D100 years ago, I purchased the D90 last Fall (and love it). I am considering expanding to the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D700 was actually announced a couple of months before the D90. In other words, at the time you bought the D90, the D700 had already been available for a little while. I wonder why you didn't get the D700 then, and what is insufficient from the D90 that prompts you to consider the D700?</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Ditto everything that Mark and Tom said. The ability to hand-hold shots in dimly lit churches, museums, etc. is REVOLUTIONARY. I repeat: REVOLUTIONARY.</p>

<p>Last year I took some high-ISO, no flash shot's at a friend's wedding with my D200. The images were all but useless - grainy, noisy, soft. Recently, I shot in a similar situation with the D700 at ISO 3200 and 6400. The ISO 3200 images are stunning, and the 6400 shots are quite nice.</p>

<p>The other amazing surprise is how much detail the 12MP D700 provides. To tell you the truth, I don't know how they do it. It looks like it has more than double the resolution of the 10MP D200, but it's only 2PM larger. It must be something in the Expeed processing chip. I've made excellent, detailed 11x14 prints from relatively small crops of D700 files. The D3 and D700 have changed everything, IMHO.</p>

[glenn_robelen]

<p>Hi - thanks for the feedback!<br>

My goal of upgrading to the D700 is the image sensor, which (as with the D3) is dynamo in low light, producing low noise in high ISO settings. Although it is the same technology as the D90, it performs better with low light.<br>

ALSO - the full frame is a big selling point (which the D90 doesn't have.)<br>

So, I think I am convinced. I am going to keep the D90 alongside the D700 (taking note of Dave's comments). I still have the D100 which I will retire and hope to get scrap value.<br>

My next question is... Lenses...<br>

I have the 18-105 stabilizing lens that came with the D90. I also have the dx 10.5mm.<br>

I anticipate buying a basic 50mm with a 1.7 or lower. Any suggestions of brands and focal lengths?<br>

Also - where is the best place to buy?<br>

Thanks again! </p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Some months ago, I broke down and bought a D700, while keeping one of my D200s. I got the D700 for one reason- I wanted to be able to shoot my 28mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 AF-D Nikkors full-frame.</p>

<p>I would note that I had thought the D700 would give me markedly more resolution than my D200, as its sensor was 50% larger. This is not the case:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00R37T">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00R37T</a></p>

<p>The D700 does have amazing low light performance- significantly better than the D200. However, I would not expect dramatically better low light performance from the D700 v. the D90.</p>

<p>As such, if you don't need a D700 for using some existing lenses on a FF camera, I'm not sure what your rationalle would be for getting one when you already have a D90.</p><div></div>

[photo5]

<p>Well B&H has it new for $2399, which is a good price. I paid $2500 with free shipping and felt I got a good deal (sold it later for $2250 after I downgraded to a $599 D200 in order to pay off a credit card).<br>

I had the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 SP zoom lens on it, and it looked really good at all focal lengths. It is a small plastic zoom and lightweight on the D700, and I only paid $150 for it on ebay.<br>

I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D and it was great on the D700, but I liked the 55mm f2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor on it better. I also enjoyed shooting with my Nikon 35mm f2 AI manual focus lens as well as the 105mm f2.5. I did have the Nikon 16mm f2.8 fisheye for a short time before I sold the D700, but I enjoyed the 10.5mm DX fisheye on the D300 very much.<br>

The ultimate lens to have with the D700 is the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 zoom lens, in my opinion. I don't care for the huge size of the Nikon 24-70 at all, and wouldn't ever buy one.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Although it is the same technology as the D90, it performs better with low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D90 and D700 don't share any parts, so I don't know how one could consider their technology to be the same. Unless you mean digital camera technology in general.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>i got one because i had a d90 and a 50/1.8, but i didn't feel like getting the 35/1.8. so i got the d700 to make my 50 a standard angle. haha.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Dan, haha indeed. I bought the D700 because I thought it would be a great improvement over the D300 that I had at the time. In the end, it wasn't the great improvement I was hoping for, although at high ISOs it was very nice. But I already felt like the D300 was also very nice at high ISOs, so go figure. I actually like the angle of view when using my 50mm lens on a DX body. It's not a be-all do-all lens, but works in certain situations.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>With D700 we are returning to good old 24x36 format. Did anybody like Kodak's APS format (in 1996) and Nikon Pronea body and IX lenses? I didn't, because the film area was just too small. I don't like DX format for the same reason.</p>

[glenn_robelen]

<p>With the introduction of the D90 came the use of CMOS technology vs individual RGB sensors. This is the technology I refer to as being the same.<br>

Would anybody dispute that the D700 is better in lower light scenarios and higher ISOs than the D90?<br>

Would anybody disagree that it is significantly better?</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>The D700/D3 are not miracle cameras. There may be some 'fluff' in some of the comments listed. While high ISO results are excellent and among the best currently available, there are trade-offs in both dynamic range and color range to achieve these results, especially above ISO 1600 and most noticeably above ISO 3200. I rarely shoot above ISO 1600 if it can be helped and would frankly rather use a tripod and lower ISO than higher ISO and hand hold (where possible).</p>

<p>Glenn, adding to Eric's comments, unless you need the more advanced auto focus system of the D700 or often shoot at or above ISO 3200, and/or need/want a larger viewfinder, you may not really need the D700. The bottom line is (I guess) that if you can afford the D700, go for it - there will be no disappointment! Otherwise, buy yourself another lens and have fun!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The D700 is an amazing camera; it basically makes it possible to shoot hand held with good results in any available light, even in candle light. It totally changed my photography. Also, the possibility to use 35mm format lenses on digital using their original image size is great. After a few years with DX, being able to see your subject clearly with the large viewfinder was a big relief for me.</p>

<p>While it might sound people are overstating how good the camera is - it's not so. It's a milestone. Well, rather the D3 was; but the D700 offers essentially the same thing for half the price in a smaller package.</p>

[glenn_robelen]

<p>Thank you Eric, and all - I appreciate your honesty. You have all given me lots to think about. Honestly, I would like to say I can afford to buy additional cameras as needed - but at $2500, I can't.<br>

Please don't hesitate to provide more information.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Glenn, the 18-105mm is a nice all-around lens; but if you really want to improve image quality, you'd likely see more bang for your buck with a change of lenses- say a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX Nikkor.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The D700/D3 are not miracle cameras. There may be some 'fluff' in some of the comments listed. While high ISO results are excellent and among the best currently available, there are trade-offs in both dynamic range and color range to achieve these results, especially above ISO 1600 and most noticeably above ISO 3200. I rarely shoot above ISO 1600 if it can be helped and would frankly rather use a tripod and lower ISO than higher ISO and hand hold (where possible).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there wasn't any fluff in my comments. The D700 *IS* that good. You couldn't shoot at ISO 1600 on film unless you wanted an image textured with extremely course grain, and a DX camera like the D200 can't do much better. On the D700, ISO 1600-3200 looks like ISO 200-400 on most cameras.</p>

<p>That said, there are limitations. Images taken at ISO 200 on the D700 are sharper and have more detail than images taken at ISO 1600. Further, images captured at ISO 6400 on the D700 are somewhat soft and slightly grainy. I avoid 6400 when I can, but even so, what this camera (and the D3) can do at ISO 6400 is SO MUCH BETTER than any other camera, I can live with the less-than-perfect results. I'll accept a little softness at ISO 6400 in order to capture shots that were impossible before this technology emerged.</p>

<p>As for using a tripod at a lower ISO setting, that's a great strategy as long as your subject isn't moving. The D3 and D700 at high ISO allow you to freeze the motion of athletes, performers, dancers, kids, pets, brides, grooms, and misbehaving celebrities in low-light conditions without flash. No tripod on earth can achieve these results.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Yes, the D700 is indeed miles beyond the D90 in terms of high ISO performance in my experience. ISO 6400 on the D700 is about equal to ISO 800 on the D200.<br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/418360400_yEKqR-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /> <br /> D700 at ISO 25600, Active D-Lighting set to OFF. Click on this link for the rest of the test images I did:<br /> http://hull534.smugmug.com/gallery/6571308_o2MFQ/1/418360400_yEKqR</p>

[glenn_robelen]

<p>WOW - thanks Dave!!!! I can see some difference between 12500 and 25600 - but considering you lose this at the benefit of capturing the image at all is worth it!</p>

 

[josephbraun]

<p>personallly i like a little noise. upgrade if you want a full frame camera and feel like spending the money for full frame lenses. </p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Note the streaking in Dave Lee's shot around the blown highlights. This is the one thing about the D3/D700 that bothers me, and I see it a lot in performance shooting where there are obviously stage lights to deal with. Nevertheless, in the ISO 1600-3200 range, the results are staggeringly good, and I still love my D3.</p>