Stay with D700 or upgrade?

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>I guess, it all comes down to consumers perception of "good camera"... IMO, there are three types of consumers, ...actually there much more than that which fill the gap from one category to another... but, let's talk about MO on where boundaries should be...<br>

1. The one that chooses a camera from reviews/web info...and tries to combine/translate all this info to his priorities (which often may change through experience)...<br>

2. The one that tries/tests himself the stuff he is after but he (mainly) is after image quality, thus he is putting the rest of body qualities, or specification (AF, frame rate, cards etc...) in second review...<br>

3. The one that wants to "communicate" with his hands more, feels the camera as extension of his hands and thus puts the body (and its specs) as first priority and then IQ is of second thought...<br>

I can only speak of my self as a pro and as a creative photographer... Out of the recent Nikon FF sensors, I prefer the D800E one for special occasions, where it can replace an MFDB, i.e. at low ISOs with superb glass on it and when having the time (or payed for) to use C1P1 as processing tool as well as in tethered capturing... For usual DSLR work (events, LL, street, etc...), I prefer the D4 sensor, then the D600 sensor, then the D800 ("plain") sensor... as for bodies, I first have to disagree with Shaun that the D600 and D800 bodies are similarly build (the D800 is much better), but I will agree that the D600 is adequately build and that <em>all MODERN Nikon bodies are crearly ahead of direct (in price) competition... the same would apply for the sensors too!! </em>My choice of body, would go for the D800 if price/size comes into the equation and with D4 in absolute terms (for what I do, clearly D4 is an overkill)... I do use both D800s ("plain" & "E") professionally, but I would prefer the D600 sensor in the "plain" than the one it has, ....or much, ....much better, I would go anyday for the D4 sensor in the "plain" and <em>would replace the D700 with another such camera... </em><br>

The D700 body, I find equal to the D800 and much better than D600... I keep it, because it is a back up camera now... if the D800s didn't exist and the choice had to be D700 or D600... <em>well, I really don't know... D600 has </em><em>considerably better IQ, while D700 (IMO) has considerably better body... </em>I guess the balance would (just) benefit the IQ... <em>but nothing to do with the MP count whatsoever! ...with "IQ" I mainly mean DR and less so color and LL performance!</em></p>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>Andrew,<br>

How does your mixing of Canon and Nikon benefit the OP's answer? She has all pro Nikon glass.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>How does your mixing of Canon and Nikon benefit the OP's answer? She has all pro Nikon glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder whether the OP is still interested in the thread.</p>

<p>Sorry, I think we, including me, could be more helpful.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Kevin: I was only trying to discuss Nikon's apparent motivations (as I perceive them) in their failure to produce a direct D700 successor, since the conversation had veered in that direction. Maybe the OP is so keen to have something that's a direct improvement on the D700 that she <i>would</i> consider a 5D3 if that was seen as the best option. But I concede that this may be unlikely.<br />

<br />

I actually thought Cynthia had already said that our discussions had helped her to settle on another D700, or possibly save up for a D3 or D4 (for what it's worth, whatever I may argue about the merits of particular cameras, I think that's a perfectly reasonable strategy in her case), so I'd felt that we'd done due diligence and it was safe to go off-topic. Cynthia, if I've contributed to distracting us from giving you more information that you wanted, or for those searching this thread for more on-topic information, I apologise. (But my thanks to those who've shared what they'd like from Nikon - it makes me a better photographer to know how others work.)</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>I have personally found it very informative and interesting..... Thank you !!<br>

And yes... I have been following this all. <br>

I appreciate all the knowledge, opinions and information regarding this.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thank you, Cynthia - in that case I can (please, soon, it's 3am) leave work and go to bed with a clear conscience! Thank you for instigating the discussion.</p>

[demetrius_latchis]

<p>I just upgraded my D700 to a Refurbished by Nikon-D600.<br />I live in Vermont and do street and landscape photos. I will never sell my D700, as it does bracketing better than the D600, and it set the standard for high ISO work. I like the high resolution the D600 offers, but you need good glass to get the benefits. The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AFS works amazingly well with it. I just tried my old Nikkor ED 80-200D f2.8 with the D600 and it is also a good match. That lens is so heavy it does not need VR.<br>

I keep the Nikkor 24-120 VR ED on the D600 most of the time, although it requires using raw files, 16 bit color, and a little post processing to get it up to par.<br>

You won't go wrong with the D600, but you do have to get to know this complicated camera. DXO rates it only slightly below the D800 in quality. <br /><br /></p><div></div>

[dan_south]

>>>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). <<<

 

That is a valid point. The D800 was not designed to be a 'do everything' body. It has a specific purpose - high resolution and high

dynamic range - and it fulfills that purpose brilliantly.

 

>>>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<<<

 

The D3s sounds like the perfect camera for you given that ruggedness and high fps are your key criteria.

 

>>>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. <<<

 

Agreed, again, since high fps is important to you.

 

>>>it doesnt make any sense for me to get a d4 since it's not all that much better than the d3s. <<<

 

That's fair. But to reiterate, the D3s sounds like the perfect camera for you. Why change?

 

>>>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). <<<

 

I would take the D600 any day over the D700 for sharpness alone. You could carry two of them for less than the price of one D3s.

 

>>>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<<<

 

The D7100/D3s sounds like a good tandem for you and for and shooter who desires high fps.

 

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

 

Some of them are quite impressive, but don't expect better AF than what the D600 offers, and you've already deemed that to be

unacceptable.

[sunray1]

<p>I shoot events and reportage with a D700, most of the time with the grip attached.<br />I am more than satisfied with the IQ and really like the 'look' of this sensor.<br>

Still, last week I switched over to a D3. For what I do the 100% viewfinder, dual cards (either in overflow or in backup mode), in-camera 5:4 crop and better handling (integrated grip) won me over. Besides, I prefer the 'feel' of the shutter, which reminds me of the snappy feel of a D2H.<br>

If I had the money I had kept the D700 as the second body, to be used with a smaller lens and without the grip. </p>

[sunray1]

<p>I guess what I'm saying is for the price of the used D3 I could almost have bought a D600 but still chose the D3 because the D700 was still more than enough and I liked the look of the files, but the D3 gave me a small but usefull ugrade in handling and some feautures...</p>

[jacob_white]

<p>IMHO the real D700 upgrade is the 5d Mark 3. Unfortunately that isn't practical. Being in exactly the same situation and realising the d800 and d600 isn't it (AF points all crammed in the middle, what the heck Nikon!), I would almost consider the D4. Yep, I'd throw money at the problem. But, sorry I can't lump around that huge battery grip with me all the time! If there was a D4 without an integrated battery grip - I'd go for it. But no Nikon just gives you two niche cameras but don't really cover your needs, and one that is perfect, but which is huge. <br>

Thank you Nikon.<br>

I know that people will argue how the d800 isn't niche, and a much better camera than the D700. It is, because it's 2013 and technology evolved. But to me the d700 was the all-rounder. If Nikon had focused on creating a workhorse like Canon did and instead created a D710, it would be a much better camera than the D700 not because of MP but because sensor technology evolved (i.e. performance). Yes I agree 12 MP is low , but 18 or 24 MP would've been a sufficient increase. The D800 with its 36 MP is the niche product, aimed at landscape photog who can't or don't want to afford an upgrade to a medium format (even if a Mamiya isn't actually that expensive if you think about it, especially because MF will improve your work considerably for that type of photography, but that's a different conversation).<br>

The D8000 thus only (barely) gets away with being a replacement because of evolved technology allowing for better sensor performance. But again Canon's 5DMk3 proves that there could be a much better all-rounder from Nikon. Having been a marketer in my past life I know exactly what Nikon is doing from a product marketing standpoint - and it is really sad to see that the needs of photographers aren't the main consideration. They indeed created this "perfect" balance of no choice is perfect unless you go to the top and throw $'s at it. Basically they are getting away with murder. <br>

Ironically they build the D600 in a way that it could be the all-rounder but again artificially reducing ts capability (AF and others), which makes it, again, a niche product. <br>

Again thanks a lot Nikon. <br>

Switch to Canon? No I'm way to invested. I'll probably wait and buy the d800e when its cheaper (keeping my D700), and a Fujifilm xe-1 for en route/vacation (i.e. giving a different format a try) - hoping that the next generation Nikon will offer me some sort of D700 replacement in the future. However if by 2015 there is none - I might bite the bullet for a Canon transition.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Just wanted to finish this off with letting you all know how very appreciative I am that you have taken such time to respond and with the wealth of knowledge that I needed.<br>

I have just now purchased a Nikon D3 (used with a warranty) with 50,000 actuations (well 50,564) it was at a price that I could not refuse.... 2200.00. I believe at this time and what I do that this is a great compliment and back up to my D700 or the D700 as the back up either which way... and yes Shaun, dual memory cards makes me feel a bit more secure. <br>

Thank you all so very much once again,</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Well... that (the D3) didn't do so well.... major issues as previously discussed on here. Oil and much dust on the sensor. I will hold out to see what August may have in terms of new releases or go with the D800. Thank goodness it was a reputable company and will accept the return.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Too bad about the used D3. I kind of doubt that Nikon would update the D800 (announced in February, 2012) in merely a year and half. Typically FX has longer product cycles. However, I do wish they would update the D600 and put the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module inside.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Thanks Shun.... I will either save a bit more and do the D3X or the D800. Suppose it just wasn't meant to be right now. :-) Leaning more to the D800 now. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Cynthia, I am going to make some comments that will offend some people:</p>

<ul>

<li>The D800 completely kills the D3X: the D800 has better AF, better high-ISO results, better dynamic range and if you need it, more pixels. I also don't need to deal with the weight from the D3 series as well as its expensive battery. (I would accept the weight and the batteries for the D3S and D4 because I can use their speed, as there are no alternatives. You need that kind of construction and battery to support such speed. The D3X has no speed. The advantages it had back in 2008 are now totally eclipsed by newer cameras.)</li>

<li>In fact, IMO even the $2000 D600 is a better camera now. Therefore, I wouldn't use a D3X if you give me one for free.</li>

</ul>