Stay with D700 or upgrade?

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Actually, I will clarify that a few things make moving from a D700 to a D800 quite annoying: the swapped "+" and "-" buttons, the change in how AF modes work, the 100% finder (I got so used to this "saving me" on a D700 that the 100% finder of the D800 tends to leave me cropped too tightly). Oh, and the meters don't behave the same. You could certainly argue that, if you were jumping between the two, it wouldn't be entirely seamless. This may bias you against it if you rent one (problems go away with familiarity), but I agree that this seems like a worthwhile thing to try.<br />

<br />

As for the per-pixel performance, the D700 has quite a strong antialiasing filter. My D800E has <i>no</i> antialiasing filter. At low ISO, the D800's images are scarily sharp in comparison, and need only the lightest tuning in post-processing. However, at the pixel level, it also shows the limitations of some lenses, and it shows the limits of your focus and camera shake - and if some portions of the image are hyper-sharp, it can make other bits looks worse. I understood the plain D800 also had a fairly weak AA sensor, so I'd expect it to be better than the D700 pixel-for-pixel, if the lens and technique keep up. It also has a lot more dynamic range.<br />

<br />

At higher ISOs, the D800 is clearly better than the D700 taken over the whole image: it's about a stop ahead, and approaching the D3s. On a per-pixel level, it's slightly less good, and you do need to downsample if you want the same noise level on a per-pixel basis.<br />

<br />

With my D700, I often wanted to lose the background, so I tended to be at or near wide open, a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake, and auto-ISO: my better lenses are pretty good at wide apertures and the D700's ISO can change a lot without much effect on dynamic range. With the D800, I try to stay at low ISO so that I have the most dynamic range to work with, I restrict my aperture to where the lens is good, and I know I need a higher shutter speed than the D700 or I'll see the shake. The D800 can take the same image as the D700 without these restrictions, but to get the best out of the camera, I'm thinking more about it. This may or may not bother you - if you will worry about getting the maximum performance the camera can give, the D700 is easier to use (because what it can give is less).<br />

<br />

I've said it before: if Nikon implemented a decent "small raw" format for the D800, they'd make a lot of D700 stalwarts happy. As it is, it's hard for me to criticise them for producing a camera capable of resolving too much detail.<br />

<br />

I suppose suggesting you save a lot of money and get a D300 as a backup would be out of the question?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>if the d700 does everything you need it to do, i'd get a second one, then. i dont know why folks keep trying to upsell the OP to a d600 when she says it feels like a "tinkertoy" to her. the real issue is that nikon discontinued the d700 but never issued a true update. the d600 is a FF d7000, not the d700s we were hoping for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, yes, if the D700 indeed does everything the OP needs, certainly by all means get a second one. However, I believe she, and many others, are completely overlooking the second memory card slot issue as well as other advancements in digital technology.</p>

<p>If you photograph for fun and in the rare occasions that you may lose one image or a bunch of images, it would only bother you instead of some paying customers, you don't have to have any backup. The minute you receive payment for your photography service, and today dual cards are available on consumer cameras such as the D7000 and now D7100, IMO a pro photographer is obligated to use dual cards in the backup mode.</p>

<p>And IMO the D7000, D7100, and D600 are solid DSLRs. The D7000 was my main DX body since November 2010 to just a couple of months ago, when I started using the D7100. My D7000 has been to South America twice and I used it under light rain and hot weather right on the equator. I also accidentally dropped the D7000 from my backpack at a parking lot (on my back with the zipper open). The D7000 fell about 4 feet and hit solid asphalt; the battery compartment pop open and the EN-EL15 battery fell out. It broke the latch that holds the battery in, which I don't even bother to repair. Otherwise, there is not even a scratch on the D7000 and it continues to work perfectly.</p>

<p>It is of course up to OP and everybody to make their own decisions, but IMO calling the D600, D7100, and D7000 some "tinker toy" is a very unfair descriptioin. I reviewed the D600 for photo.net but don't own one myself, but I would have no problem using any one of those three professionally. In these days, I use the D7100 almost dialy with top-of-the-line Nikon super tele lenses.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>"There is lots of talk about how the D800 has three times the resolution..."</blockquote>

<p>Only by people that don't know what they're talking about.<br>

36 megapixels is <strong>not </strong>3 times the resolution of 12 megapixels. It's 1.7 times at the very most - i.e. about 100 lppmm resolution for the D800, as opposed to "only" 60 lppmm for the D700.</p>

<p>The resolution gain is the square root of the pixel multiple, simply because you have to consider each pixel as an <em>area</em> rather than a linear single dimension.</p>

[pge]

<p>Sorry for my sloppy word use Joe. I'll be more careful next time.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree with Shun about the D7100 not being a "tinkertoy". It's very well sealed. I've used it in some very brutal winter weather here in the Dakotas and Minnnesota and it held up perfectly. I left it sitting out on a tripod in freezing rain, heavy snow, 50+ mph winds. I had to knock the ice off of it to use it! The camera feels as rugged as any Nikon I've ever used. The biggest surprise is it's AF system. It will focus faster than the D600/D7000, and in light that's a stop darker. As a night photographer, I've found this to be the easiest camera to focus with I've ever tried.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>It is of course up to OP and everybody to make their own decisions, but IMO calling the D600, D7100, and D7000 some "tinker toy" is a very unfair descriptioin</p>

</blockquote>

<p>those were the OP's words, not mine, and given that she already has a d7000 but doesnt use it, it seems obvious that she enjoys the big body feel of the d700, which a d7100 and d600 wont give her. iMO, it makes sense to add a second body which is the same model as the first, since settings, batteries and chargers will all be the same. if there's no pressing need for more resolution, i dont see a big problem with getting another d700. A second memory card slot is nice to have, but i'm not sure i would prioritize that above all else.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>To all that have contributed to this thought process of mine... I apologize for the "tinker toy" comment. It was not meant to offend anyone in any which way. As Eric had stated.... I just prefer a bit different feel. Again, I am sorry. There was not to be a debate over my comment... my fault for using the wrong choice of words.<br>

I do believe I will be considering the move to another D700 as so many have stated or move up to the D3 or D4 (just have to save a bit more for those). <br>

And I wrote this thought yes a year ago after the D800 was released. I am not one to jump on the new technology... therefore I wanted those who did make that change to speak of their experiences, troubles or concerns which was and has been done here in the past 2 days. Thank you !!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I hope people realize that while the D600's control layout is similar to those on the D7000 and D7100, since the D600 is FX, it is bigger than the D7000 and D7100; the latter two are almost identical in size (but still slightly different, thus the three use three different vertical grips). In fact, the D600 is only slightly smaller than the D700 and D800.</p>

<CENTER>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16473705-md.jpg">

</P>

</CENTER>

<p>Today, the remaining strength for the D700 is its AF system and it is capabile of 8 fps with the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries. The OP is into baby and children photography plus macros; none of those requires the best AF or really fast frame rate. Therefore, getting another D700 or another 12MP DSLRs with good AF such as the D3 (electronically, essentially the same camera as the D700) or D3S is not a good way to upgrade, although the D3 family has the advantage of dual memory cards and a 100% viewfinder.</p>

<p>If the D600 is not the camera for you, that is perfectly fine, but reject it for the right reasons. If its size is the concern, at least hold one in your hands first and then decide.</p>

[pge]

<p>I have held a D600 and I find it much smaller than the D700/D800. Just my perception.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Cynthia... forget the second card slot if you upgrade to D800... it makes the camera much, much slower and (most important) it blocks the buffer! The D800 is still an one card camera for pro use.... The one advantage it will give you with respect to D700 is IQ improvement... that said, I don't consider resolution to the IQ improvement, it will offer you about 2/3rds of a stop better high iso noise, about a stop improvement in DR and better AF performance... in return, it will slow you down, it will require more effort and may force you to change some of your glass with more expensive one....<br>

The only other sensor that would offer you all the above advantages that D800 will offer you while none of the disadvantages is the D4 sensor... which, if Nikon was wise enough to put in D800 body, would provide a <em>real D700 replacement...</em> as things stand at the moment, (with the 16mp D800 being only a rumor) you either have to get an (obviously overkill for your needs) D4, or get the D800/E and try to work around the problems it will induce in your work if upgrading D700 is what you will decide... My opinion is before you decide to try (borrow - rent) a D4 anyway, even if you'll never consider the camera... it will give you an idea of how good (perfect) a 16mp D800 would be (the IQ is better than both the D600 & D800 plain) and perhaps it will direct your thoughts into consider saving for the D4... If you count the superb IQ, (which you may never consider upgrading again - even if it will improve further in the future) the long term survival and reliability and the productivity it will bring into your work, you may consider it worths the ..."pain"!<br>

What did I do? I bought two D800s (one E & one "plain") and kept the D700 too... (my glass was already good enough for the D800), but still, if Nikon will ever introduce the (highly demanded) 16mp D800, I'll only keep the "E" and replace both the D800 and the D700 with two of these... Regards, Theodoros.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Cynthia... forget the second card slot if you upgrade to D800... it makes the camera much, much slower and (most important) it blocks the buffer! The D800 is still an one card camera for pro use....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you have such a problem, it sounds like one of the cards you are using is very slow, most likely the SD.</p>

<p>When I started using the D800 in March/April in 2012, I initially had that problem and promptly upgraded my SD card to a faster one (45MB/sec Sandisk Extreme). That problem immediately went away. Now a year later, I am using even faster 95MB/sec Extreme Pro cards, mainly for the D7100.</p>

<p>On any Nikon DSLR with two card slots, if you use the backup mode to write onto both cards, the slower card will dominate the write speed.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Nope Shun... there is no problem with any of my SD cards and they are very fast too. It's (like you correctly mention) that the slower card dominates the write speed... Now there is no SD card that is as fast as a CF card, ...is there? At least not as far as "write" speed is concerned (but you'll notice that even same "read" speed on paper, the SD card is more likely to be slower too)... OTOH, if you test on your D800 <em>your SD card alone... you'll find that the camera is faster and has more buffer space (although slower than the CF card alone) than having both cards in place! ...</em>and again, speed/buffer for pros has a different meaning than an enthusiast, especially if feeling the buffer can cause missing an (irreplaceable) shot in an event... Regards, Theodoros.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Theodoros, that has not been my experience.</p>

<p>In any case, the D800 is not designed to be a sports camera, and the OP's main subjects are children, babies, macro, etc. Therefore, frame rate, buffer size, etc. are moot points anyway. I find it strange that she is even considering the D3, D3S, and D4.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, your comment that "The D800 is still an one card camera for pro use...." also makes absolutely no sense. I occasionally use the D800E to capture wildlife and I always use two cards in the backup mode. What bothers me is that the D800's frame rate is slow, but my D800/D800E's buffer has never been full since I got faster SD cards a year ago.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just by chance, we went hiking with some friends who use a D7000, but they only capture JPEG without the backup mode. Unfortunately, a lot of their JPEGs on an SD card are corrupted. Apparently it is a card issue as subsequent images on another card are perfectly fine.</p>

<p>Needless to say, this is a very frustrating situation. Still trying to see whether there is a fix ....</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the D700 and it does everything I need it to... my money maker right now is the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no direct upgrade path, so whatever you choose will be different. The D800 and E are outstanding cameras as long as you don't need a high frame rate per second and that you don't mind dealing with very large raw files, including buying large CF cards and plenty to TB of backup hard drive space to keep multiple copies of your projects safely archived.</p>

<p>The D600 seems like a good compromise if the smaller body will work for you. I don't know how well weather sealed the D600 is, but the resolution and noise performance should be excellent. My D700 files look soft compared to the output of some other cameras that I have used - perhaps it's the AA filter. I think you'll be very impressed by the D600's output.</p>

<p>You could consider a used D3s with low shutter actuations if you can find one. There's no jump in resolution, but it has dual card slots.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, I'll second the contention that - while the physical difference is not that great - the D600 feels appreciably smaller than the D700 and D800 (though my D800 is currently padded by having an L plate on it, so my sense of its size may be off-kilter). A 5D3 still felt like a big camera when I last tried one, though, so I think I'm standing by my impression. The D7000 felt "aw, bless" tiny in comparison, and the last time I held a D40 I kind of wanted to hold it in my fingertips.<br />

<br />

The D700 does have a very strong AA filter; the newer cameras are appreciably weaker in this.<br />

<br />

Nikon were too busy competing with the 5D2 to make a D700s - on paper they had a massive resolution disadvantage, and that's what they fixed. Without the battery grip on the D700, the D800 is only 1fps slower, and that difference can be eliminated by dropping to a 5x4 24MP crop. It's better in low light than the D700 (after downsampling), has slightly better autofocus, and is generally speaking an upgrade in most areas. That it's <i>too much of</i> an upgrade seems a harsh thing to criticise Nikon on, especially since the D600 "two steps forward, one step back" solution is available.<r />

<br />

Canon had a massive autofocus and (somewhat) speed disadvantage in the 5D2 compared with the D700, and that's what they've fixed. The 5D3 is the things the D700 is good at, done slightly better; the D800 is the things the 5D2 was good at, done appreciably better.<br />

<br />

If you want the camera that's the minimal upgrade to the D700 - same autofocus, same resolution, similar frame rate if you have a grip - then I suspect you're either looking at a D3 (questionable upgrade) or a D3s (more of an upgrade). The D700 was a D3 converted into an emergency response to the 5D2 - which was a better camera compared with the 1Ds3 than many expected. The D3s was a response to the D700 being a pretty good substitute for a D3. Now Nikon has a competitive consumer FX line, I can't see a D700 successor that's any "truer" than the D600/D800 pairing turning up any time soon - though I could be wrong.<br />

<br />

People may like the idea of a D4 sensor in a D800 body (what for the sake of this argument I'll call a "D700s"), but a remarkable number of people wanting this seem to expect it to hit more than the 5fps that the D700/D600 mirror arrangement seems to be capable of without additional battery power in a grip, or expect it to be cheaper than the consumer-grade D600. I suspect such an item would, at best, cost the same as the D800, and at worst - if it could hit 8fps with a grip - it might dent D4 sales, prompting Nikon to boost the price further. Nikon can't "do a D4s" to get out of trouble this time. A "D4x" (D4 with a D800 sensor) is somewhat more likely, though whether enough would be sold to make it worth Nikon's while is another matter, and the ongoing cries for a "D400" (whether it's a D7100 with a bigger buffer, a D300 with a D7000 sensor, or one of these sensors in a D2x body on steroids) suggest that Nikon might be better spending their time there than satisfying D700 purists.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Andrew... what makes the "surprising number of people that demand D4 sensor in a D800 body" is the quality of the sensor.... Try it (don't just be based on web reviews to form an opinion) and you will find the reason behind it! Also..., D3S is worst IQ (not by much but it is there) than D700 up to 1600 ISO... Besides, the D700 AA filter is anything but "strong"... it is the more prone to moire FF camera (equal to all other 12mp Nikons) than all the rest after all... Theodoros.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>It's better in low light than the D700 (after downsampling), has slightly better autofocus, and is generally speaking an upgrade in most areas. That it's <em>too much of</em> an upgrade seems a harsh thing to criticise Nikon on, especially since the D600 "two steps forward, one step back" solution is available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>okay, then so let's criticize nikon on completely whiffing the d700 and d300 successors, essentially skipping a generation, and creating confusion and uncertainty among many of their consumers. no one asked for a d800, except for a few landscape shooters who print huge, and while on paper and in the lab, its a winner, in real-world usage, it has too many megapixels--which result in a lot of unintended compromises. meanwhile the d600 seems primarily designed not to undermine the d800 (not saying i would never get one, but it would be under protest -- the fact that the d7100 gets the better AF module would be laughable if it werent so tragic), rather than a completely thought-out camera which takes no steps backward from the previous generation (which is what the d300/700 did).</p>

<p>however, the fact that nikon hasnt provided a true update to the d700--24mp FX with 6fps, 2 card slots, and 1080p video would have been sufficient, 18mp/8fps even better--suggests we shouldnt be so hasty to throw the d700 into the dustbin of history. same thing with the d300s, which is also a pretty capable camera (still). i was reminded of this yesterday when shooting a food festival, when a dance performance broke out and i went into "event shooting mode." the d300s was right there with me and didnt get in the way when my shooting pattern changed from casual and measured, to fast-action-captures. that's the sort of thing specs, reviews and lab tests almost never tell you, but make a discernible difference in real-world conditions.</p>

[keith_burdett]

<p>The D700 is still a very useful camera in the Nikon lineup IMO. For general purpose walkaround work 12mp is plenty for most purposes and the camera produces beautiful images. I find the exposure results with matrix much easier to predict than with the D800 which helps make it a better quick response tool. The D800 is a different animal - with regard to the OP, do you want a 2nd body that mirrors your first or do you want the high res, high DR results of the D800. If you get a D800 you WILL love the results! But it is a different tool which requires a slightly different (more thoughtful?) way of working. Both can complement each other in a system but they are not the same....<br>

In some ways I find the D700 more intuitive (AF mode selection, exposure results) while in other ways the D800 has the edge (exposure compensation wheel direction, auto iso on/off with front dial, auto iso linked to focal length). <br>

For me, where the D800 excels is for tripod work using (the improved) live view at low iso. It is, of course excellent for many other purposes too!</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>Oh! ...how much do I miss people neglecting the pixel count when mentioning a sensor's quality? ...It's totally irrelevant, so why do they do it? ...D700 is only inferior to D600/D800/D4 sensor <em>...because the maker improved the sensor performance, </em>NOT BECAUSE MP count is less... It's still better than much of the (modern) competition, ....no? Theodoros,</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is still a very useful camera in the Nikon lineup IMO. For general purpose walkaround work 12mp is plenty for most purposes and the camera produces beautiful images. I find the exposure results with matrix much easier to predict than with the D800 which helps make it a better quick response tool. The D800 is a different animal - with regard to the OP, do you want a 2nd body that mirrors your first or do you want the high res, high DR results of the D800. If you get a D800 you WILL love the results! But it is a different tool which requires a slightly different (more thoughtful?) way of working. Both can complement each other in a system but they are not the same....<br /> In some ways I find the D700 more intuitive (AF mode selection, exposure results) while in other ways the D800 has the edge (exposure compensation wheel direction, auto iso on/off with front dial, auto iso linked to focal length). <br /> For me, where the D800 excels is for tripod work using (the improved) live view at low iso. It is, of course excellent for many other purposes too!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Apologies for the delayed rant...</p>

 

<blockquote>Andrew... what makes the "surprising number of people that demand D4 sensor in a D800 body" is the quality of the sensor.... Try it (don't just be based on web reviews to form an opinion) and you will find the reason behind it!</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, if you give me a D4... :-) I admit that I've not had the honour of playing with one, or a good excuse to hire one, but I'm not going to say anything bad about its sensor.<br />

<br />

However, I would say that I feel that the sensor's strong points (low light performance - though only slightly better than a downsampled D800, fast read-out, video) are best suited to a photojournalist camera. I think the D700 was an anomaly in putting a D3 sensor in a compact body - and Nikon had no obvious alternative sensor at the time. The D700 was released to get the market of people looking at the 5D and waiting for a 5D2; it worked, I was one of them. The 5D2 had a repurposed 1Ds3 sensor; to me, that's a far more suitable sensor to put into a prosumer FX body - for landscapes and portraits you don't need fast autofocus or a high frame rate. This doesn't mean I'm unhappy with my D700, and I'm very glad that it's got a pro-spec autofocus system, just that the 5D2 is a more obvious alternative to a 1Ds3 than the D700 is a substitute for the D3. (On the other hand, it did mean that Nikon could justify selling the D3 and D700 in parallel.)<br />

<br />

Let me put it another way: I think a D800/D4 pairing is a more useful combination than a D700/D3x pairing. With (I appreciate) exceptions, I see the D800 as killing the D3x, as the 5D2 significantly reduced the appeal of the 1Ds3. A D3 still had its uses compared with a D700 (much more so a D3s); a D4 sensor in a D800 would be both - I feel - less popular than a D800, but also not much of a competitor to the D4, especially if it could only hit 6fps with a grip (like the D800 in DX mode). The 5D2 was never a competitor to the 1D series, and there's probably enough gap that the 5D3 isn't poaching too many 1Dx sales.<br />

<br />

Re. the AA filter, I find I've had to do quite a bit of sharpening on the D700 to get pixel-level sharpness, even at the focal point of good glass. The D800E, obviously, doesn't need this (much). My belief is that the 5D2 and D3x had lighter AA filters, but I've not owned either of these. I guess it depends what we're comparing with. Oh, and thank for the tip about the low ISO performance of the D3s - if I feel rich while snooping the used market in the future, that may inform a decision!</p>

 

<blockquote>okay, then so let's criticize nikon on completely whiffing the d700 and d300 successors, essentially skipping a generation, and creating confusion and uncertainty among many of their consumers.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, I'm sympathetic to the "no D300(s) successor", though Canon haven't rushed to a 7D2 either. The D7100 is a pretty good approximation, or would be if Nikon made a version with a bigger buffer. Cue after-market modifications... I'm not sure that Nikon ever committed to producing a successor to any of their cameras. There's been no "true" successor to the D2xs, for example. New market segments get created, others close. I assume Nikon made a decision based on what they thought would sell. For what it's worth, the F5 didn't support AI-s properly, the F6 doesn't support full-time mirror lock-up for intrusive fish-eyes, the D4 can't trap focus - new generations lose some features. It happens, even if we're not happy about it.</p>

 

<blockquote>no one asked for a d800, except for a few landscape shooters who print huge, and while on paper and in the lab, its a winner, in real-world usage, it has too many megapixels--which result in a lot of unintended compromises.</blockquote>

 

<p>Really? Because there are all the reviews complaining that 12MP isn't enough compared with the competition, and a lot of people buying the 5D2 because - justified or not - it had more pixels. Similarly, the D800's sensor got an awful lot of press, and a lot of - perhaps ill-advised - interest from people who wanted "the best". The per-pixel performance of the D800 is actually pretty good (at least D7000-class). The difficulties in getting the best out of it are incremental over a 24MP sensor - I doubt those coming to a D800 from a D3x or a 5D2 are having quite as much trouble adjusting as those coming from a D700. Honestly, I may not have been tempted by a 24MP sensor; 36 really was enough of a step to make it worthwhile. And I always had my D700 to fall back on. It's genuinely useful - I have a shot from only a couple of days ago where I was limited to being farther from the subject (a damselfly on a bluebell) than I'd like, and the pixel density saved me. I'd have had mush with a D700. (Yes, a D7100 would have been better for this shot, but I was also taking wide-angles.) Downsample the D800 results and it's pretty competitive with any obvious D700 successor in everything but speed - and it does write data faster than the D700.</p>

 

<blockquote>meanwhile the d600 seems primarily designed not to undermine the d800 (not saying i would never get one, but it would be under protest -- the fact that the d7100 gets the better AF module would be laughable if it werent so tragic), rather than

a completely thought-out camera which takes no steps backward from the previous generation (which is what the d300/700 did).</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, the D600 is <i>differentiated</i> from the D800. Nikon could have stuck a D600 sensor in a D800 body. Then Nikon would sell fewer D800s, and we'd be complaining about the excessive price of the D600 - and Nikon would be losing more sales to the 6D. The D700 <i>had</i> no previous generation; the D300 was a step up from the D200, but lost some D2x handling. I'm less hurt than I was with my Eos 300D, which was actively crippled relative to the 10D (by functionality, not just handling). No, the D600 isn't quite a universal improvement over the D700 - hence the name - but for the price it's hard to argue. A nearly-D800-price D800 body with a D600 sensor is a pretty small market segment.</p>

 

<blockquote>however, the fact that nikon hasnt provided a true update to the d700--24mp FX with 6fps, 2 card slots, and 1080p video would have been sufficient, 18mp/8fps even better--suggests we shouldnt be so hasty to throw the d700 into the dustbin of history</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, the D600 is 24MP FX with 5.5fps, 2 card slots and 1080p video. The D800 can do 24MP in a 5x4 crop at 5fps, or 16MP in a DX crop at 6fps, again with two card slots and video. The 5D3 can do 6fps if the extra half frame beyond the core D700 matters to you, though it can't do the D700's 8fps with a grip - or if you want to add the AF module to the list of things that could have a minor upgrade from the D700. Sure, the D600 is made more affordable (I remember the D700 costing £3000) and loses a bit of handling in the process, and I won't deny the AF module is a deliberate differentiator, but complaining about the D600's autofocus given what's in the 5D2 and 6D is pretty harsh, and the other complaints are pretty picky to me. The D600 and D800 both cover the vast majority of what a D700 (gripless) can do, and they do a lot more besides. If they didn't, I'd use my D700 far more than I have over the last year.<br />

<br />

Keith: The D800 is clearly best where the D700 is weakest (as the 5D3 most improves on the 5D2's weaknesses rather than its strengths). I can't blame Nikon for picking their weak points to improve. For all my arguments about whether the D600 and D800 are an "upgrade", I will agree that if the D700's weaknesses don't bother you, you'll get the least out of one of the newer cameras. The handling differences do matter. Whether the D700 itself is actively better than the D600/D800 in isolation is another matter.</p>

 

<blockquote>Oh! ...how much do I miss people neglecting the pixel count when mentioning a sensor's quality? ...It's totally irrelevant, so why do they do it? ...D700 is only inferior to D600/D800/D4 sensor ...because the maker improved the sensor performance, NOT BECAUSE MP count is less... It's still better than much of the (modern) competition, ....no? Theodoros,</blockquote>

 

<p>Theodoros - I'm happy that for your style of shooting you don't need more resolution. I have actively run out of pixels on my D700, so I was interested in a D800 the moment I heard of its resolution increase (hence using a film camera for resolution before, and I'd still like to try out large format); I also actively use the AF module, so a 5D2 wouldn't have done me much better. To me, pixel count is not irrelevant, but I was interested even when I thought I'd need my D700 for low light performance. I was a lot more interested when I heard about the dynamic range advantage, and that the D800 is better in low light (which I should have expected) sealed the update, but resolution does matter. True, the step from 24-36MP (which is only a 50% improvement) is not so great, but 12MP to 24MP or 36MP is quite a jump, especially if you ever have to crop.<br />

<br />

On that note, the DX mode of the D700 is low-enough resolution that I've never used it. I got my D800 just before the London Olympics, and the DX mode saved me when I couldn't take a big lens. Maybe the OP's style of shooting never needs more than 12MP, but to many people it's not "irrelevant".<br />

<br />

I've said before that the 5D3 seems like the best generalist to me: it has "enough" resolution, the AF is slightly better than the D800 and appreciably better than the D600, it's appreciably faster than the D800 and a bit faster than the D600. If that's what you want, Canon currently make it. Otherwise, while some of the improvements over a D700 are slight and there are some disadvantages, I'm not going to call either the D600 or D800 - on balance - inferior to the D700; they have too many advantages of their own. I've no intention of selling my D700, but I'm not going to claim it's the pinnacle of engineering either.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, the D600 is 24MP FX with 5.5fps, 2 card slots and 1080p video. The D800 can do 24MP in a 5x4 crop at 5fps, or 16MP in a DX crop at 6fps, again with two card slots and video. The 5D3 can do 6fps if the extra half frame beyond the core D700 matters to you, though it can't do the D700's 8fps with a grip - or if you want to add the AF module to the list of things that could have a minor upgrade from the D700. Sure, the D600 is made more affordable (I remember the D700 costing £3000) and loses a bit of handling in the process, and I won't deny the AF module is a deliberate differentiator, but complaining about the D600's autofocus given what's in the 5D2 and 6D is pretty harsh, and the other complaints are pretty picky to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>andrew, at this point i think you're arguing just to argue. my point was that the d700 and d300 were/are really good cameras. the few things that needed tweaking weren't addressed by nikon, and now us consumers have to live with a lineup which is all askew and off-kilter.</p>

<p>AF is a pretty big deal to photojournalists and event shooters, and just in case i wasnt clear before, it makes no sense to put the top of the line AF module in a $1200 camera and leave it off a $2000 one. the fact that d700 prices are holding steady while the d600's price has already fallen quite a bit should tell you something.</p>

<p>the d600 body is essentially an FX sensor grafted onto a d7000 body, which isnt the same as the d300/d700 bodies. comparing canon cameras kind of misses the point, as most of us who have invested in nikon lenses aren't going to switch back and forth every time a new model comes out. also, there's just no getting around the fact that 36mp is overkill in many cases -- particularly for PJs and event shooters who shoot far too many frames to want to have to deal with those file sizes (and puny buffer). put another way, i have a D3s, and while a little bit of added cropping room would have been nice, what i would have liked to see was the D3s sensor in a d700 body. it doesnt make any sense for me to buy a d800 and shoot it at 16mp just to get 6fps when i have 9fps now. it doesnt make any sense for me to get a d4 since it's not all that much better than the d3s. and it doesnt make a whole lot of sense for me to get a d600 with its substandard AF and plastic body (at least not until the price drops to $1500). in fact, it makes more sense to me to get the d7100 for its superior AF than a d600. so, yeah, um, way to go, nikon -- i'm looking at mirrorless compacts now as possibly my next camera purchase..</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>the d600 body is essentially an FX sensor grafted onto a d7000 body, which isnt the same as the d300/d700 bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, the D7000, as well as D600 and D7100, are fairly high-quality bodies with weather sealing and a partial metal frame. While I agree that the D300 and D700 have slightly better construction, the difference is not all that huge. Try to generate the impression that the D300 and D700 are really good while the D600 and D7000 are bad is simply silly. It is like this other comment: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bXCE</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That being said I took it to Italy last spring for a 2 week commercial shoot and on the second day it received a bump that my D3X would consider a love tap and the D800E was out of commission for the rest of the trip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Trying to suggest the D800E is very fragile so that one must have a D3/D4 type camera is equally silly.</p>

<p>I reviewed the D600 for photo.net so that I am quite familiar with it. The only reason I don't own one is that I already had a D800E when the D600 was introduced. I would happy prefer a D600 over a D700 any day, unless I have to shoot sports with 8 fps. That is something the D800 and D600 can't do.</p>

<p>I rarely use my D300 any more since I got the D7000 in late 2010. Today, I rarely use the D7000 since I got the D7100 a couple of months ago. For my photography, I can easily exploit the latest technology from the newest bodies to get better results. I still own my D300 and D700, but they no longer see any action.</p>

<p>Incidentally, Nikon manages to improve the Multi-CAM 3500 so that models introduced from 2012 and on, including the D800 and D7100, have better AF than any D3, D700, and D300. I have never used the D4, but I would imagine it also has an improved Multi-CAM 3500 too. If you want Nikon's best AF in 2013, the D300 and D700, plus any D3, should not be your choices.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>andrew, at this point i think you're arguing just to argue. my point was that the d700 and d300 were/are really good cameras. the few things that needed tweaking weren't addressed by nikon, and now us consumers have to live with a lineup which is all askew and off-kilter.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm sorry if it sounds like that; I'm trying to explain what seems like reasonable marketing decisions to me (along with wanting to understand everyone's gripes, for my education). I'm just suggesting that I think Nikon <i>did</i> address what some of us thought needed tweaking. I appreciate that what Nikon did is "take a D700 and fix the things it was weakest at"; what many people who chose a D700 (over a 5D2, say) might have preferred is "take a D700 and make it better at the things it's already good at". They didn't do this, I admit - I suspect Nikon wanted the people who were buying Canon, rather than prioritising Nikon upgraders. As you say, the D700 and D300 are perfectly capable, especially within their limits - even a D4 sensor would only make a "somewhat better D700" that may or may not be worth the upgrade to a lot of people. I really think they picked the low-hanging fruit with the D800, and hit it out of the park (splat). Canon did the same with the 5D3 - fix your weaknesses and you get the people on the limit between systems.</p>

 

<blockquote>AF is a pretty big deal to photojournalists and event shooters, and just in case i wasnt clear before, it makes no sense to put the top of the line AF module in a $1200 camera and leave it off a $2000 one. the fact that d700 prices are holding steady while the d600's price has already fallen quite a bit should tell you something.</blockquote>

 

<p>Sure - the D600 AF module is deliberately downgraded compared with the D800 to differentiate it; it's probably slightly cheaper. It's still a heck of a lot better than the AF in the 5D2 or 6D. The D600 is a consumer camera, good for landscapes and portraits, as is the D800. Both are only "okay" as photojournalist cameras. I suspect Nikon are still expecting photojournalists to buy a D4, or a used D3s. As the professional journalist departments collapse, Nikon may be obliged to make a cheaper PJ camera - maybe Canon are right with the 5D3, or maybe Nikon will actually go after this market with a D400 (or expect the D7100 to suffice).<br />

<br />

Does it make sense for the D600 to have worse AF than the D7100? Well, a lot of people have asked for a really cut down FX body that was as affordable as possible. I said it wasn't going to happen, because people paying for an expensive sensor will pay a small premium for other features, like good AF. Nikon proved me wrong (it happens occasionally) and only put "okay" autofocus in their cost-reduced FX body... and people complain about it. Is it unprecedented for a crop sensor model to have better autofocus? No: compare the 5D2 with the 7D. Nikon's problem was that it made the D5200 pretty competitive with the D7000, so the Multi-CAM 3500 is a differentiator between the D5200 and D7100. I suspect more people would waver between those cameras than between a D7100 and a D600. It makes no less sense than "why does my D3200 have more pixels than your D700-class D4?"<br />

<br />

And the D600 prices <i>have</i> dropped. Nikon made a camera they could build cheaply, and they are in a price war with Canon between the D600 and the 6D. I'm prepared to believe a lot of people are holding on to their D700s - certainly when we consider a D600 "upgrade" - so the market isn't full of them. I won't argue that a D600 is necessarily a worthwhile upgrade from a D700 (or even, for the OP, as a complement to one) - as far as I know, Nikon are after new customers, or upgraders from DX. I know at least one person who's done this, so I assume it worked.</p>

 

<blockquote>the d600 body is essentially an FX sensor grafted onto a d7000 body, which isnt the same as the d300/d700 bodies. comparing canon cameras kind of misses the point, as most of us who have invested in nikon lenses aren't going to switch back and forth every time a new model comes out.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm wearing a pretend marketing hat (it doesn't fit, I'm a software engineer). I actually <i>did</i> switch to Nikon with the D700, but I appreciate that most people won't. In fact, most people after a high-end camera will be stuck in their current system, and if they're going to buy anything, buy whatever the appropriate manufacturer makes. (The only upgrade would be with a big improvement: I still claim that the D800 <i>is</i> a big improvement - if you need it - in resolution over the D700, whereas a D4 sensor would be a smaller improvement. How many upgraded from a D3 to a D4 with their own money? Some, but surely not many; fewer to or from the D3s.)<br />

<br />

People new to full frame and buying new lenses are another matter. They might jump to Canon if the 5D3 looks like a good upgrade to the D7000, or if the D700+ doesn't have "enough pixels" (especially if they had a 24MP DX camera); they might jump <i>from</i> Canon if the D700 successors do what they need but better. People coming from another system, or film (now FX is more affordable) might compare each system on merits. Nikon <i>have</i> to make their decisions based on competition with Canon, even if Sony are in the corner saying "we can do 24MP at 12fps" and Pentax are standing in the shower. And once they've made that decision, they're locked in. Unless they're a famous wildlife photographer, at least.</p>

 

<blockquote>also, there's just no getting around the fact that 36mp is overkill in many cases -- particularly for PJs and event shooters who shoot far too many frames to want to have to deal with those file sizes (and puny buffer).</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes. But the D800 isn't a photojournalist's camera. Even the D700 isn't, except by being a cut-down D3 (and Canon had to leave the AF system, because on sensor alone the D700 wouldn't have competed very well with the 5d2 - I'm assuming, especially given the D600/6D announcements, that Nikon have a pretty good idea of what Canon are launching). It's a medium format camera in a small case. It's for landscapes and portraits, not fast frame rates and lots of frames. (Sure, it <i>can</i> do this, but not like a D4.) If you want this, Nikon would like you to buy a D4, thank you.</p>

 

<blockquote>put another way, i have a D3s, and while a little bit of added cropping room would have been nice, what i would have liked to see was the D3s sensor in a d700 body. it doesnt make any sense for me to buy a d800 and shoot it at 16mp just to get 6fps when i have 9fps now. it doesnt make any sense for me to get a d4 since it's not all that much better than the d3s. and it doesnt make a whole lot of sense for me to get a d600 with its substandard AF and plastic body (at least not until the price drops to $1500). in fact, it makes more sense to me to get the d7100 for its superior AF than a d600. so, yeah, um, way to go, nikon</blockquote>

 

<p>So Nikon have already successfully sold you a high-end body? The used market for a D3s, when I last looked, is still more than a new D800. Are you thinking of replacing the D3s, or complementing it? If your plan is to "upgrade", it feels like Nikon would lose money on the deal - if you wanted to have spent less on your camera, I'm sympathetic to you, but it's the job of Nikon's sales team to get you to pay for the most expensive camera you can (welcome to capitalism). If you're after a back-up and are living without, sure, maybe Nikon are missing out. We could certainly agree that the D4 is stratospherically priced (as is the 1Dx, as was the D3x) - I assume they're selling even so. Replacing a D3s with a "D700s"? Putting a D3s on the used market might cost Nikon a high-end sale... or it might drag someone into the Nikon system who otherwise couldn't afford it. That trade-off is beyond my pay grade. If a new purchaser chose a "D700s" over a D4, though, Nikon really lose money. I guess they figure they get more money from people willing to pay for a D4 than they lose from people unsatisfied by the available options. I'm not saying that the latter category consists only of people in this thread, just that Nikon probably did that calculation.<br />

<br />

The D700 really had the chance to hurt D3 sales - I'm sure Nikon wouldn't have released it if the 5D2 hadn't been looming. The D3s differentiated the PJ camera (adding video as well as the low light performance), so lost D3 sales didn't last long. Are there a few specification gaps between the D4 and the 1Dx? Well, yes, but I still say that if Nikon were to launch a D700 with a D4 sensor, they better have a "D4s" (or D5) in the wings to differentiate it - at least if it can do 8fps with a grip. I'm sure Nikon would like to get the "photojournalists who can't afford the best photojournalist camera Nikon makes" category, however large it may or may not be, but "best photojournalists-without-a-D4 camera" may not be the same thing as "camera that sells best in the D800 market segment" - and Nikon can't please everyone.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I'm assuming that because you're dismissive of the D800's 6fps, you're thinking of the D700 + grip combination, rather than the 5fps of a plain D700 - and therefore this is about money rather than a smaller form factor for portability. Is that fair?</p>

 

<blockquote> -- i'm looking at mirrorless compacts now as possibly my next camera purchase..</blockquote>

 

<p>But you think discussing the 5D3 is inappropriate? :-)<br />

<br />

I'm sure I sound really unsympathetic. I'm not - you're making quite reasonable requests from what you'd like of a camera, and, money permitting, I'd like to complement my D800 with the camera you describe. I just think Nikon made some sensible - or at least justifiable - decisions in specifying the D800 (and D600), that what's available is a lot closer to what you need (though not a perfect fit) than to what some people would have wanted from a camera if Nikon had made a "D4-lite", and that this is a rare case of a big corporation acting in an understandable way, even if it doesn't satisfy everyone. Given the money that I (or my credit card company) had, the D800 got me to upgrade from my D700; I can't say for sure that a D4-lite would have done, so I have to back Nikon's choice, rationally.<br />

<br />

Besides, the D700 is already a pretty good photojournalist camera. Nikon didn't make a "D700x" (D3x in a smaller body) until the D800 - hence all the landscape shots made on 5D2s (though not so many on A900s). Filling the hole in a line-up has more urgency to me than updating a line - tell it to Canon the next time they release a 70-300 (they're probably due another one by now).<br />

<br />

Now they've done that, I'd absolutely love to see the "consumer photojournalist camera" updated. I'm just not holding my breath until the D4 is updated to make room, the D300/D2x gets a photojournalist DX successor, or until the remains of the paid photojournalist market dries up and Nikon becomes convinced they won't sell another D4. If I suddenly become rich - but not rich enough to own an actual D4 - I'll be right there in the queue to get one when it happens.<br />

<br />

For now, I can only be sympathetic to you, grudgingly understanding of Nikon (unlike the trap focus thing), and hope that an attempt to explain why Nikon seem - to me - to have acted rationally might help to reduce the sense of betrayal that you feel.</p>