Marihino
Member
Finally, I'm going digital. I've been using film exclusively (except for the phone, or ex-girlfriends digi compact) since there was no digital to speak of. My camera of choice was - and pretty much still is - an Olympus OM-1n and OM-2n, I've got one or two of each plus some glass. I even managed to shoot a few weddings with that setup, one of them as recently as last year; also some music gigs with amazing feedback from the bands.
Anyways, I decided to get a decent digital camera, and my first requirement - which is, that it's compatible with manual lenses of a film camera that I'd use alongside - narrowed it down to Nikons. I also want a rather tough body, a viewfinder good enough for all that manual focusing, good performance in high ISOs (I GASed for a D700 ever since it came out) and general good image quality. I'm not one falling for pixel count. Just few questions though: mostly, is D700's high ISO performance still better than D7100's? I certainly like a look of D700 images, there is a quality there that I really like, hard to put my finger on it, but it's there. I am aware though that few years later a DX camera might be as good when it comes to that. As I mostly use 50mm or short tele/portrait (85 or 135mm), the crop factor is actually tempting for those gigs, I could get results with small and cheap lenses that would only be obtainable on FX with heavy and expensive glass. Please give me your thoughts.
PS. I'm keeping the OMs no matter what.
Anyways, I decided to get a decent digital camera, and my first requirement - which is, that it's compatible with manual lenses of a film camera that I'd use alongside - narrowed it down to Nikons. I also want a rather tough body, a viewfinder good enough for all that manual focusing, good performance in high ISOs (I GASed for a D700 ever since it came out) and general good image quality. I'm not one falling for pixel count. Just few questions though: mostly, is D700's high ISO performance still better than D7100's? I certainly like a look of D700 images, there is a quality there that I really like, hard to put my finger on it, but it's there. I am aware though that few years later a DX camera might be as good when it comes to that. As I mostly use 50mm or short tele/portrait (85 or 135mm), the crop factor is actually tempting for those gigs, I could get results with small and cheap lenses that would only be obtainable on FX with heavy and expensive glass. Please give me your thoughts.
PS. I'm keeping the OMs no matter what.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Just based on build quality alone I'd choose the D700 ... and the image quality goes without saying. The crop cameras tend to have pretty pokey viewfinders for manual focusing in my experience.
Addy101
Well-known
Why Nikon? Why not a Sony A7 series (or an A6000, or a Fuji X-series)? You could easily use your OM lenses on those and a EVF is great for manual focussing. It isn't like you've got a boatload of Nikon lenses lying around.
If you prefer an OVF, why not the Canon 5D mark II? You can add your Olympus lenses with a simple adapter, it has replaceable focussing screens and unless you are a low-light photographer, the sensor is every bit as good as the Nikon D700 with more megapixels.
Just some food for thought.
If you're set on Nikon, Keith is right - APS-C cameras with OVF aren't as well for manual focussing and the full-frame view is what you're used to.
If you prefer an OVF, why not the Canon 5D mark II? You can add your Olympus lenses with a simple adapter, it has replaceable focussing screens and unless you are a low-light photographer, the sensor is every bit as good as the Nikon D700 with more megapixels.
Just some food for thought.
If you're set on Nikon, Keith is right - APS-C cameras with OVF aren't as well for manual focussing and the full-frame view is what you're used to.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
The D700 is indisputably a fantastic body, but it's also 8 years old. Personally I would be cautious buying anything digital that old, especially if you're after a workhorse.
Planned obsolescence is pretty standard practice in consumer goods and modern cameras aren't designed to last forever.
Planned obsolescence is pretty standard practice in consumer goods and modern cameras aren't designed to last forever.
Sid836
Well-known
Nikon's optical viewfinders make manual focusing a breeze even without aids like split prisms and/or the cameras rangefinder. Both of them have excellent big and bright viewfinders, but the D700 is the best (and more expensive) from these two.
Stay away from Canon and don't even think about Olympus. If I was to get something else than Nikon, that would be possibly one from the A7 series.
Stay away from Canon and don't even think about Olympus. If I was to get something else than Nikon, that would be possibly one from the A7 series.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The D700 shutter is rated at 150k from memory so I don't really see the age of the camera being a huge problem provided it's been looked after.
Mudman
Well-known
I still have a D1h that is working just fine, as well as a D2x that gets put to use regularly and a D300 and a D3. I don't think a good condition D700 is going to drop dead over night because of its age. I'd rather have the D700 over the D7100 if you're going to do wide angle work. If you're into telephoto work the D7100 has the nice perk of a greater pixel density.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
When it comes to other considerations, the D700 is technologically ancient. However, if the camera has been well taken care of, I'd take it any day over a DX body. Besides, an FX camera gives you access to older lenses... in their true focal length. You just have to be careful about the condition of the body you purchase. And, as Keith said, the shutters are planned to last quite a while, so even a body with 10K actuations has a long way ahead.
One thing: I am biased here because I have owned a Nikon D700 since November 2008, and the camera shows no signs of needing a retirement! I'm not a hard user... mostly vacations and events, now, but for about a year after purchase, it was on my dining room table all the time... to be fetched for any photo opportunity that arose, and at any time (meaning, I took walks with it in winter and under snow a few times). So, it's a tough body.
Have fun shopping!
One thing: I am biased here because I have owned a Nikon D700 since November 2008, and the camera shows no signs of needing a retirement! I'm not a hard user... mostly vacations and events, now, but for about a year after purchase, it was on my dining room table all the time... to be fetched for any photo opportunity that arose, and at any time (meaning, I took walks with it in winter and under snow a few times). So, it's a tough body.
Have fun shopping!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
In my experience, digital Nikon and Canon SLRs last very well - indeed, I haven't bought any for six years, as mine refuse to fail. Just don't pick up a abused one - but even there, a seemingly pedantic consumer's camera with 2000 exposures, 800 lens changes and 200 sensor cleanings to its belt will be in a worse shape than a camera that has seen 100k shutter actuations in a stationary studio setting, permanently on a tripod and with the same lens.
willie_901
Veteran
The D700 is a rugged camera. It is a bit bulky and heavy.
With practice one can use MF lenses. However Nikon it's crystal clear Nikon did not, and does not consider, MF lens use a priority feature. Some people install third-party finder screens designed for MF usage. This can be a fiddly business now that Catz-Eye stopped production last month. But I expect one can find other vendors, sets of finder shims and spend time optimizing third-party focusing screens.
Because you want to use lenses with focal lengths designed for 24 X 36 mm media, I wouldn't even consider the D7100. I used a D200 as my everyday carry during the period when I gave up on m 4/3 and started using the Fujifilm X100. While one can use AI/AIS lenses with focal lengths that provide a similar angle of view, the options are limited for some projects. I suggest you pick up an inexpensive AF-S 50/1.8 lens and, or a similar vintage 85/1.8 AF-S. These are inexpensive yet produce acceptable results.
The D700 sensor has about 3/4 less analog signal-to-noise and dynamic range than the D7100's. The dF has about 1 stop more than the D700. The D810 has about a two stop advantage over the D700. The data is here.
The sensor may be "ancient", but the price performance ratio is impressive. I had no qualms about using the D700 for commercial color work at ISO 800. However optimizing exposure is more important as there is no SNR to spare. B&W holds up at ISO 1600. For commercial work I recommend two D700 bodies. When people pay you I feel a back-up body is required.
With practice one can use MF lenses. However Nikon it's crystal clear Nikon did not, and does not consider, MF lens use a priority feature. Some people install third-party finder screens designed for MF usage. This can be a fiddly business now that Catz-Eye stopped production last month. But I expect one can find other vendors, sets of finder shims and spend time optimizing third-party focusing screens.
Because you want to use lenses with focal lengths designed for 24 X 36 mm media, I wouldn't even consider the D7100. I used a D200 as my everyday carry during the period when I gave up on m 4/3 and started using the Fujifilm X100. While one can use AI/AIS lenses with focal lengths that provide a similar angle of view, the options are limited for some projects. I suggest you pick up an inexpensive AF-S 50/1.8 lens and, or a similar vintage 85/1.8 AF-S. These are inexpensive yet produce acceptable results.
The D700 sensor has about 3/4 less analog signal-to-noise and dynamic range than the D7100's. The dF has about 1 stop more than the D700. The D810 has about a two stop advantage over the D700. The data is here.
The sensor may be "ancient", but the price performance ratio is impressive. I had no qualms about using the D700 for commercial color work at ISO 800. However optimizing exposure is more important as there is no SNR to spare. B&W holds up at ISO 1600. For commercial work I recommend two D700 bodies. When people pay you I feel a back-up body is required.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
When I decided to buy another DSLR, after several years not using one and using Leica M9, M-P, and Sony A7 as well as Olympus E-M1, I decided to go with a Nikon D750 rather than any APS-C format model, a D700 or D800/810 models.
- Ergonomics, size, weight similar to the F6, which I have been enjoying.
- While 12 Mpixel is fine for most things, 24Mpixel has more staying power and proves more flexible in use. And for me, 24Mpixel is enough.
- There's no point to fooling myself about "smaller, lighter, cheaper" lenses. A smaller format camera needs better lenses, and the difference between the good DX and FX lenses in the Nikon line isn't that great. I don't need that many lenses anyway.
- The D750 has a far better viewfinder than any of the APS-C cameras, and its Live View/LCD functionality is extremely useful as well.
Even though the price of the D750 is on the high side, the price of buying a D700 and trading up in another year or so, then trading up again in another year or so after that, is higher. I bought the D750 to last me at least five years use, if not double that, just like my Olympus E-1 (still in excellent condition, and still used occasionally) ... now 12 years old.
G
- Ergonomics, size, weight similar to the F6, which I have been enjoying.
- While 12 Mpixel is fine for most things, 24Mpixel has more staying power and proves more flexible in use. And for me, 24Mpixel is enough.
- There's no point to fooling myself about "smaller, lighter, cheaper" lenses. A smaller format camera needs better lenses, and the difference between the good DX and FX lenses in the Nikon line isn't that great. I don't need that many lenses anyway.
- The D750 has a far better viewfinder than any of the APS-C cameras, and its Live View/LCD functionality is extremely useful as well.
Even though the price of the D750 is on the high side, the price of buying a D700 and trading up in another year or so, then trading up again in another year or so after that, is higher. I bought the D750 to last me at least five years use, if not double that, just like my Olympus E-1 (still in excellent condition, and still used occasionally) ... now 12 years old.
G
jordan.dickinson
Jordan Dickinson
To the OP. If you're looking for a D700, I'm actually in the market to sell mine. It's got roughly 13,000 shutter actuations and in great shape. PM me if you'd like to discuss more. I also have an 85mm f1.4D, 50mm f1.4G, and 35mm f2D.
Thanks
Thanks
Addy101
Well-known
You've gotta love it when somebody has an opinion..... Want to elaborate? Current Canon sensors aren't up there with Sony, but back in the D700/5D2 days, they were comparable. I can't see any other reason to "stay away from Canon".
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
ain't nothing you can't do with a d700 except make movies ;-)
css9450
Veteran
There's fanboys on both sides of the fence. I started ignoring them years ago.
Marihino
Member
I have as much fondness to Nikon as I do to Olympus. Much more so than to Canon or Sony. I know 5D MK2 well (a couple of close friends have used them professionally for years) and just like the overall feel less than that of the D700. Subjective personal preference, nothing else. I have considered a X-T1 plus adapters though and it may happen, but would prefer a one, proper system, compatible between film and digital bodies.
I see them being sold with less than 50k shutter actuations all the time, quite often fewer than 15k (see offer below).
When it comes to other considerations, the D700 is technologically ancient. However, if the camera has been well taken care of, I'd take it any day over a DX body. Besides, an FX camera gives you access to older lenses... in their true focal length. You just have to be careful about the condition of the body you purchase. And, as Keith said, the shutters are planned to last quite a while, so even a body with 10K actuations has a long way ahead.
One thing: I am biased here because I have owned a Nikon D700 since November 2008, and the camera shows no signs of needing a retirement! I'm not a hard user... mostly vacations and events, now, but for about a year after purchase, it was on my dining room table all the time... to be fetched for any photo opportunity that arose, and at any time (meaning, I took walks with it in winter and under snow a few times). So, it's a tough body.
Have fun shopping!
Thank you for your thoughts, much appreciated and totally agree on all the points.
Thanks, good info.
when I mention smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses, I don't mean of lesser quality. Overall quality, and image quality in particular are priority. What I mean is, 85mm 1.8 is smaller, lighter, cheaper yet yields similar results (angle of view and dof-wise) on DX as a 135mm f2 on FX. That's what I consider a plus point of DX. Of course it has disadvantages too (loss of true angle of old lenses, going wide etc).
D750 is not going to happen, simply no budget for that. I have another expensive hobby and a mortgage
£1k including a couple of lenses is what I'm going for. Thanks, I might take you up on this if you still have it when I'm ready to buy (another month or so).
Ronald M
Veteran
DX bodies have small viewfinders. I guess they are .7 just like the FX, but the small sensor leaves toy with a small viewfinder image.
I use my 7000 for traveling light and cheap.
Older manual focus lenses work better on DX at 24mm and shorter.
DX are really consumer grade construction. D3. D700 are tanks by comparison.
I use my 7000 for traveling light and cheap.
Older manual focus lenses work better on DX at 24mm and shorter.
DX are really consumer grade construction. D3. D700 are tanks by comparison.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Eight years isn't old. Planned obsolescence has a time horizon of more than eight years. I shot a 1998 Nikon D1 in 2013 and it did fine.
The D700 might also get the OP 15 years of work horse endurance and if it fails in 2022, that'll be fine since it'll be almost double of the eight years you worry about.
Plus the D700 has a pretty spectacular sensor, image-rendering wise. The Canon sure has more megapixels but that just doesn't amount to much when one likes what the D700 sensor puts out.
Contarama
Well-known
I have read recently of some D7100s coming up with issues so you may want to research that.
DX is good if you are a birder or like long shots.
D700 is the one to get otherwise. My opinion.
If you can stretch to around 1800-2000 a second hand Df is now the way to go. Again my opinion.
If I can't get a Df soon then I will get a D700 instead.
DX is good if you are a birder or like long shots.
D700 is the one to get otherwise. My opinion.
If you can stretch to around 1800-2000 a second hand Df is now the way to go. Again my opinion.
If I can't get a Df soon then I will get a D700 instead.
Range-rover
Veteran
I been using a Canon for awhile now a EOS1DS and have to say it's great.
I've been though a few Nikon's and there's always been some kind of hot
pixel here and there which at time's annoyed me, but the Canon not a peep
of hot pixels. I'm not saying all Nikon's have them, I'm sure Canon will have
there share time to time. I think the D700 is a great choice and especially if
you just first getting into digital the prices are not to bad either.
I've been though a few Nikon's and there's always been some kind of hot
pixel here and there which at time's annoyed me, but the Canon not a peep
of hot pixels. I'm not saying all Nikon's have them, I'm sure Canon will have
there share time to time. I think the D700 is a great choice and especially if
you just first getting into digital the prices are not to bad either.