Is the Nikon D700 still good?

[bill_dewberry]

<p>The D700 is a GREAT camera.</p>

[maximilian_gajek]

<p>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. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p> he's selling it so cheap because he has stock liquidation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>10%</em> of the original prices ... for over six years now. <br /><br />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.</p>

[maximilian_gajek]

<p>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. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It does indeed sound fishy...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Any thing that isn't broken is as good as it was when it was first introduced.</p>

<p>So the question is not whether the D700 is "still good" but whether YOU will be satisfied with it.</p>

<p>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.....</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>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.<br>

Some observations:<br>

- 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”.<br>

- The difference between the finders is dramatic. I use old MF-Nikkors a lot and focusing and composing is much easier with the D700. <br>

- The D7000 AWB is a bit better and the D700 is louder.<br>

I've shot close to 220.000 pictures with the D700 and about 35.000 with the D7000 and don't regret the investments.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>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?</p>

[peter_simpson1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> You might also want to look at K__ Rockwell's and Thom Hogan's web sites for other opinions.</p>

[Jerry_]

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

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleseagan]

<p>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. <br />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.</p>

[ferdi_s]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

BTW D700 is an outstanding camera. I prefer its image quality than that of the D7000.</p>

[anuarpatjane]

"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

[maximilian_gajek]

<p>How do i see someones profile?</p>

[maximilian_gajek]

<p>He sent me this picture</p>

<p>Can you tell if there's something not right with this picture?</p><div></div>

[anuarpatjane]

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.

[mariosforsos]

<p>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...;-)</p>

<p>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...;-))))</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There is a lot wrong with that picture: it's soft, seems slightly out of focus, not rotated....</p>

<p>Oh wait....<br>

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.</p>

<p>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. <br />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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>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 <em>may</em> 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.</p>

[maximilian_gajek]

<p>What's the difference of a gray market body and a normal body?</p>

[Two23]

<p>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.)<br />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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Maximilian:</p>

<p>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.</p>

[maximilian_gajek]

<p>I didn't see any exif data. How do you know that the photo has been processed by an ebay server?</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Maximilian,<br>

I can confirm to you that mine is still a good camera. <br>

The second question is not so easy to answer, depending on what you consider "worse or better".<br>

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?<br>

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.</p>