d700

the D700 is a remarkable camera, a milestone for nikon and digital cameras, in my opinion.

combine it with the magnifying eye piece, a modified Canon Ec-S full precision matte and a Zeiss ZF 35/2 and you have an incredible setup for manual focus. In the last year with mine I had not a single AF lens anymore, because the good viewfinder with the matte worked so damn well.
 
There is a reason used ones are not that common. I think most owners just don't want to let them go, they just work and don't seem to have too many problems. That may change a little when the D800 comes out.

Bob
 
I just got a D700. I'm amazed. Files look fantastic. I can't believe I waited so long to step into digital. I'm keeping a Nikon film body but may now only use it for black and white. Seriously the D700 just blows me away. Handles similar to my F6 (though the D700 is noticeably heavier). I used to wet print my own color neg but I will probably now only shoot and wet print color film in large format. I have even sold my Mamiya 6 (which I long vowed never to do). I'm now waiting on my first prints from the D700.

Not having used digital in the past I'm just dazzled by the versatility. The D700's performance at high iso levels is incredible.
 
With regard to workflow. I always shooting NEF unless a client insists on jpegs on site or I am shooting family snaps where exposure isn't challenging.

I use Lightroom. Upon import the NEFs are convertd to DNG and a copy of the original NEFs are automatically made to an external drive.

I process in Lightroom and use Adobe's lens corrections.

When dynamic range is difficult I use the Recovery and Fill sliders carefully to enhance the image. Color balance can be used from the camera, from Lightrooms auto mode or by selecting a white or gray area of the photo. The D700 raw files are very flexible and you will be surprised how much information is actually there.
 
My previous digital which shall go unnamed (starts with L) produced very good files when conditions were ideal but if an image was a stop or two underexposed at any ISO over 320... forget it! Two stops or more underexposure with the D700 up to 1600 ISO and there is no real problem ... just crank it up in post and you'll still have a very usable end result. It's an incredibly forgiving camera ... though as said, it's a heavy lump!
 
Riverman said:
I just got a D700. I'm amazed. Files look fantastic. I can't believe I waited so long to step into digital. I'm keeping a Nikon film body but may now only use it for black and white. Seriously the D700 just blows me away. Handles similar to my F6 (though the D700 is noticeably heavier). I used to wet print my own color neg but I will probably now only shoot and wet print color film in large format. I have even sold my Mamiya 6 (which I long vowed never to do). I'm now waiting on my first prints from the D700.

Not having used digital in the past I'm just dazzled by the versatility. The D700's performance at high iso levels is incredible.
Click to expand...


Having both cameras myself I was curious about this so I weighed them ... about three grams difference or a couple of ounces if you think imperialy! That's bugger all in real terms but they do feel markedly different and I believe that's to do with the far superior ergonomics of the F6. It distributes the weight much better in your hands than the digicam because it has less depth and it's wider ... the bulk of the weight is very central in the D700 and you really feel it.
 
Traut said:
What are you preferred workflows? I've been only using fine jpg and want to start using the nef's.
Click to expand...

I bought Nikon Capture NX 2 to process Nefs. It took a bit to get used to it after using PSE but was worth the effort. Each succeeding update has gotten better and better. You can also do a great deal in Nikon ViewNX which comes with the camera, I believe, and again the latest update is very good too. The latest versions of these are also fast when making adjustments to the image. As always, a PC with lots of RAM seems to help too.

Bob
 
argh. i keep looking at the 5d2. it's like $800 less for the equivalent... do i spend the $800 and get nikon stuff, or keep that money (realistically, spend it on other things..)

too many choices in this world.
 
Best digital camera I've ever used, its my main press camera. Great low light performance literally sees in the dark. Works great with old Ai manual lenses too. Riot shots in my flickr link were taken at ISO 6400, some were quite underexposed as lighting was appalling and max aperture on my long zoom only f4, but it did the job. Images pretty much as came out of camera, minimal processing in PS. Judge for yourself. Yes they will bring out something better soon, but I won't be able to afford to upgrade, so will be using it for some time yet.
 
Last edited:
I love my D700. I have never regretted buying it and will probably buy someone else's when he unloads his dirt cheap for the D800 upgrade. I can't imagine needing anything else for just images. If there is a need for 1080p wait til the new camera comes out.
I love that the Low Light ISO ability is phenomenal, that Nikon offers amazing lenses for portraits( the 135mm DC, 85mm 1.4, and of course the 50mm 1.4 ), and that I have put mine through the ringer and it is supremely durable. I say go for it!!! You will surely love it.
 
thegf said:
argh. i keep looking at the 5d2. it's like $800 less for the equivalent... do i spend the $800 and get nikon stuff, or keep that money (realistically, spend it on other things..)

too many choices in this world.
Click to expand...

Look at total costs, perhaps. Canon L lenses are generally less expensive than Nikon equivalents (24L vs. 24G, Canon has a number of excellent L telephoto zooms that are fairly affordable, etc. if that's your thing).
Nikon's flash system seems to get more praise if you're into that.
Canon offers one relatively affordable tilt-shift lens (their 45mm).

For me, if I were to jump back into a DSLR, I'd probably want a 24 and a 50.
Canon - $2200 body, $1500 24mm, $350 50mm = $4050
Nikon - $2700 body, $2000 24mm (if you can find one), $450 50mm = $5150

$1100 is not an insubstantial amount of difference. I loved my D700, but if I were to want/need a SLR again and had to buy all new glass, I'd probably go Canon. The autofocus is good enough for my uses, the noise really does even out a bit when you output to equivalent sizes, and you do get a few more megapixels to play with.
 
Ah yes but if you buy used Nikon AI lenses the cost goes right down. Canon don't have that option because they stupidly changed their lens mount. :-(
 
red snapper said:
Ah yes but if you buy used Nikon AI lenses the cost goes right down. Canon don't have that option because they stupidly changed their lens mount. :-(
Click to expand...

That was 25 years ago - I find it matters less and less.
It's not like there's a shortage of used EF lenses.
 
celluloidprop: that is my point exactly. deep down i know that the Nikon is a better option (ergonomically, how the dials are set-up, etc.), but forking over that much cash is tough to do. i actually had a 5d for a few weeks over christmas (which i returned partly because i didn't like the 24-105), and shot some BMX action shots that seemed to turn out OK. hence, the AF wasn't that bad.

red snapper: if i got the 5d, i could still use old AI lenses with a $20 adapter...

i should just give my money to someone and have them make the decision for me. i won't dare make that offer here, because i could see a ton of people taking me up on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom