Adore my D700 but am wondering about an upgrade

[cindygillespie]

<p>I totally adore my D700 .... I would use this forever. Problem is that they are sparse. I use a D7000 as a back up right now (my D7000 was my primary for a bit). But... I really like the results from my D700 the iso the noise, clarity etc...<br>

My question is......... What exactly would be the upgrade or new equality of the D700?<br>

I am not convinced that the D600 is an upgrade nor am I totally convinced that the D800 is what I am looking for.<br>

I primarily shoot portraits, children, newborn, families etc... my other passions are nature, flowers, macro, nature. My portraits don't have a problem printing at 16x20 or even larger. My nature is about the same...<br>

What would be the better choice? Or should I wait it out for whatever Nikon would have in the near future? I am not looking to make the leap quickly. Probably well after the first of the year. But, this is the only place I go to for honesty and feed back as it's always been top notch and helpful.</p>

<p>Thank you all once again,</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>Why would you want to upgrade from a D700 it will be fine for what you do. you want to upgrade go to D600 or D800 but i keep the d700 and buy a good lens for it </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Well, there certainly isn't anything wrong with a D700. If you are looking for a 2nd body, the D600 is quite nice. About the only disadvantage to the D800 is the frames per second and the overpriced (comparatively) battery grip. Other than that, that is the "upgrade". For me, I went from a D300s to a D600. There is no doubt that at the start of the next wedding season I will get a D800. Two reasons: 1) I simply like the body ergonomics better on the D300/700/800 bodies. I also use a D7000 so the D600 is still a nice step, especially the locking PSAM dial, but I still prefer the other bodies. 2) and it pains me to say this, I really like 24MP. I don't need 24MP. 24MP means I am spending more on storage (memory cards and hard drives) and since I don't need 24MP, I didn't want to <em>like</em> 24MP. But I do. To me anyway, everything seems sharper or maybe just a bit more clarity. In any event, I figured if I like 24MP (when I didn't want to), I will love 36MP in the body I prefer.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Dave..<br>

My concern is that if there were something to happen to it I would need to replace it. I am thinking about replacing the D7000 anyway with a Full frame. <br>

I have my lenses covered with:<br>

Nikkor 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, Macro 105 f2.8, 85 1.4,70-300 f4.5-5.6, 24-70 f2.8 and lusting after the 70-200 maybe yet this year.<br>

I like to have a back up camera all the time due to the schedules I keep. I couldn't be without. I do like the option of the dual card slots of the D800 as the D7000 has also.</p>

 

[cindygillespie]

<p>John...<br>

Thank you ! You seemed to have answered one question that was in the back of my mind. Similarity of bodies. I do not want to acclimate myself with each camera as I am hearing of the D600. Whereas the D800 and D700 are the same. I also use battery grips on all my cameras... I feel it better balances for me personally.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>I guess it's not really an upgrade as much as it is a replacement of my second body. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As some of us have pointed out a few times, there is no true upgrade for the D700, which is essentially a "D3 junior." There is no D3S junior or D4 junior (so far).</p>

<p>If you want a second body to go along with the D700, another D700 is a possibility. Otherwise, a D4 is as close to a D700 upgrade as you can get, but it is $6000 and a lot bigger and heavier. The D800 will give you even better AF but a slower frame rate and 36MP that you may or may not need; most likely you don't need 36MP.</p>

<p>The D600 is cheaper, with more consumer-grade controls (e.g. no 10-pin connector, USB 2.0 instead of 3.0, no AF-ON button, etc.), weaker AF but still good AF, and the D600 comes with 24MP which is probably more appropriate.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'm not convinced the D600 is an upgrade. I think I'd rather have a second D700, or just go to the D800. But, for $3000, I just can't justify it. For that much $$$, I'd rather get the 70-200/2.8 VR.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I agree with a second D700. I always use two of the exact same bodies, F2 for 30 years, then went digital with two D70s bodies, last year traded them in for two D300s bodies.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Wait for a camera with double the resolution, and that would be a 48 MPixels. Perhaps it will take some 2 or 3 years for Nikon to develop, and for the overall computer technology that will be readily available to support such large files, at reasonable cost.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>I really like the results from my D700 the iso the noise, clarity etc..."</em> Then you will absolutely positively love the results from the D800 which is noticeably improved over the D3/D700. Afer post processing, ISO 6400 (and even higher) shots look like ISO 200/400 from my D3.<br /> <br /> <em>"</em><em>nor am I totally convinced that the D800 is what I am looking for."</em> Once you use the D800, I am pretty certain you will probably be convinced. You will enjoy improved 'everything' when it comes to IQ, improved and more advanced controls and features, improved AF, better, larger monitor. There are two minor inconveniences. 1st, the AF selector is a step backwards but easy to get used to and the improved AF makes up for this 'deficiency'. Secondly, slower frame rate, but the improved IQ is worth dealing with this. Only you know whether these are deal breakers. To me, top IQ is most important. My D3 is now a paperweight.</p>

<p>"...don't have a problem printing at 16x20 or even larger" Prints look better from the D800 at just about any size, even at 8 x 10, at especially at the larger sizes. And especially at higher ISOs.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>I'm not convinced the D600 is an upgrade"</em> You are partially correct. IQ is improved but ergonomics are a not (IMO).</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I think getting another D700, while making an identical pair, is not the way to go. A good used one is still not cheap enough. Keep your D700 as a back up to a genuine upgrade.</p>

<p>Keeping with the D700 style takes you to the D800 and as Elliot said, once you've used one, you'll be convinced.</p>

<p>The price difference in the UK between a D600 & D800 has settled at ~£400 difference after being almost identical for a few months after D600 launch. £1600 v £2000. (Amazon US has it as roughly $2000 v $3000) Over here, good used D700s are still £1000 ($1600)</p>

<p>I guess if there are any refurb D800s around yet, with a warranty, get one! You won't look back. I used one a while back, just after they came out, and now NEED my own...:-)<br>

______</p>

<p>Elliot. If your D3 'paperweight' is looking for a new home??.... they are still about £1300 2nd hand here!</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Do you need to upgrade?</p>

<p>I`m lucky, even though I use my D700 for work, it`s mostly for product and manufacturing issues, so I don`t really need a backup (if there is an emergency case I can use either from a good compact digital one to a 8x10" sheet film). From time to time, it happens that someone ask me to shoot their wedding and/or other events. Here my backup use to be their own cameras, or my sister`s D90, etc. Sometimes I take a medium format film one to do the work.</p>

<p>So, if anytime I were in the need of an upgrading, I have it plenty clear; I just need ten minutes to take my wallet and to cross the street to buy a D800 (maybe a D800e for fun).</p>

<p>My D700 works like the first day (well, the sensor is quite dirty and several buttons have erased letters on it) but the image quality is still raising my own standards, so I don`t really have the need of an upgrade. If I buy another camera right now, one of them will undoubtly get unused. In the drawer I have at right, I can see more than a dozen film and digital cameras; I cannot use more than one at a time (and there are more in the closet... !)</p>

<p>Also, there are many other systems being developed in the latest times. A full format rangefinder with all the electronics included (Leica M type), could be even a better upgrading for certain users. There could be also another Nikon release, who knows.</p>

<p>So I`m not in a hurry for an upgrade. Just in case, mine is waiting for me at the shop...</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Thanks so much for everyones thougthts.... it is appreciated. I will be considering the upgrade of my backup (D7000) to the D800. </p>

<p>Thank you all again !</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It is 6am for me right now. Later on today, I am capturing an event for the 4th-grade class of a friend's daughter (children around 9 to 10 years old). I am taking the D600 (test sample from Nikon; I have enough cameras so that I have no plan to buy one although I like the D600) and my D700. The D800E will stay home.</p>

<p>The reason is very simple. As I have said over and over, 36MP is an overkill in 90%+ of the situations. Even the D600 is an overkill for this kind of event, and the D700 will do just fine. With children, I am going to capture a lot of images and then select maybe 10% to 20% of good ones for her class. I by far prefer the smaller RAW files from the D700 and D600 for that purpose. I copy all of my images files onto 4, 5 different hard drives. The spaces add up quickly.</p>

<p>In many ways, the D600 is an "upgrade" from the D700, in terms of pixel count, a more up-to-date sensor, dual memory cards, a 100% viewfinder, and HD video capability. However, in terms of controls, AF speed and converage ..., going from a D700 to D600 is a small downgrade. But as long as you don't need video, even the D700 is still a highly capable camera. My D700 is certainly not a paperweight today.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>If the second camera will get use (perhaps with a different lens), rather than be a just-in-case backup, then I think the right answer is a D700. For my brain, it's very helpful if both cameras have exactly the same controls.</p>

<p>If you shoot with one camera at a time, then you want something different. You choose, shoot-by-shoot, to go for one or the other depending on their strengths and weaknesses, so you want one that's different enough to matter.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>I was pretty much in the same situation.....I went for the D800 and have not looked back, the only thing that that I would say is the frame rate, but to be honest I still shoot my sports with it with no problems, I am not really a burst shooter anyways. AF is awesome, the detail is amazing and dynamic range blows you away. You can crop if you need to without a worry and to be honest if you have a half reasonable computer 36mp is not really a problem, my 5 year old PC could handle the files and my new MacBook Pro kills the files. Forget this 36mp being overkill, in the years to come all cameras will be high mp anyways</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>If 600 and 800 are not upgrades, then my 2 cents is that you have to wait for Nikon to roll out next model that is in the same class of 700. I do not have 700. But if it fits you well, why not get second one. My interpretation from you question is that you are looking for a FX back up rather than upgrade.</p>

[dan_south]

<< I do not want to acclimate myself with each camera as I am hearing of the D600. Whereas the D800 and D700 are the same. >>

 

That's not completely accurate. Some of the controls have been relocated and or modified. I didn't find it to be a big difference, but I've

read serious rants about how much people hate the new layout, the color of the LCD, and changes in the way that the AF works. Try

before you buy.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If 600 and 800 are not upgrades, then my 2 cents is that you have to wait for Nikon to roll out next model that is in the same class of 700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that is a good idea. I could be wrong, but after the D800 and D600, I don't think there will ever be a true upgrade to the D700. Nikon's FX line up is already very full with the D4, D800 plus its variation the D800E and the D600. IMO there is no room for yet another camera that will take sales away from the D4. In other words, it is not a good idea to wait for something that will probably never happen.</p>

<p>My expection is that Nikon will have no more new FX DSLRs until 2014. I am looking forward to a few new DX bodies and Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras in the next 15 months, and of course new lenses.</p>

<p>For the OP, most likely the D4's price would rule it out. Whether she is better off with another D700, a D800 or D600 highly depends on the subjects she wants to shoot. I have all three of those cameras right next to me and I would say I know them all very well, but the decision has to be related to Cynthia's preferences.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I primarily shoot portraits, children, newborn, families etc... my other passions are nature, flowers, macro, nature. My portraits don't have a problem printing at 16x20 or even larger. My nature is about the same...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds like Cynchia does not need the D800's AF. 36MP may help with those 16x20 prints, but if even the 12MP D700 more or less meets her needs, I suspect the D600 is more than good enough. But only you can decide whether you like the D600's controls; they are very similar to those on the D7000.</p>

<p>One thing to keep in mind is that the D600 and D800 use the EN-EL15 battery, different from the D700's. The D600 only uses SD memory cards just like the D7000. The D800 can use both CF and SD and therefore can share cards with the D700. However, the D800 files are huge so that in reality, most likely you need newer high-capacity cards anyway.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree. I don`t think there will be a replacement in the same way it was for the D3>D700.</p>

<p>And if so, imagine a "downsized" D4; which differences could have with the D800? Maybe a bit higher frame rate, on a 16Mp sensor? It will be just a cheaper D4... so they can leave this space to the way more affordable D600. How big is the resolution difference from a 16Mp to a 24Mp sensor? Not huge, I`d say.</p>

<p>Maybe things run to another scenario; a faster "D600" (easier than a faster D800), a more expensive D800s (could be faster), or a D4X. And, maybe things go to another route... I think sooner or later, mirrorless cameras with big sensors will eat a huge segment of DSLR users. I wonder if Nikon is planning to take this area more seriously.</p>

<p>Of course I may be wrong, but anyway, I don`t think it will happen too soon, after an almost "just released" set of FX models.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Since you already have great camera gear why not consider something different. Maybe a Nex6 or a Leica M-E. Different kind of camera might be fun. </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I just got back from using my D 600 for the first time with my 500mm f 4.0 lens on a gimbal mount and tripod. With a replacement foot on the 500mm and the lens shifted back as far as possible, the D 600 body is not heavy enough to balance the camera and lens on a Wimberly I mount. And the max frames per second of 5.5 seems so slow compared to 8 fps for my D 700 with a battery pack. Now I need to look at my RAW images and see what they look like. Thank goodness I had class 10 cards with a fast write speed of 95.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I adore my D700's and still do. But I am a fickle lover as my D800's are now my steady partner. It is hard to describe the feeling you get when you look at a 100% image from a D800. Puppy love or the tremors that go through your body with well executed video sequence.... just don't know... <br>

But I still adore my D700's Work horses. Elegant. Clean. Reliable. But my mistress is the D800</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>+1 for Steven.<br /> Looking at 100% seems to allow to see much more details and it becomes more worth looking at it or, that was something perhaps not that obvious with a 12 MP camera, also seen at 100%.</p>

<p>Also seeing distant objects at 100% seems to be much magnified by the greater pixel count and density. The objects appear much closer as if a longer lens was used. Not sure if this magnification would be close to 36/12 ratio, or 3 times better distant object rendering.</p>

<p>More pixels is definitely better, if you look at the 100 % on the screen.</p>

<p>Not sure about the video, since it is limitted to the HDMI quality. More pixels for video may not be needed, without definite advantage.</p>