Nikon D700 a good idea today?

rfaspen said:
OK, Thank you everyone for your responses.

So it sounds like its a plenty good idea to get this body. I did mistype the number of shutter clicks, it is not 10,000 but 80,000. However, I'm getting the feeling its still not that bad. I had to free up some $$ today with the sale of a lens to apply to this endeavor. Hopefully the camera will still be waiting for me.

I did hear somewhere that the 12 MP full frame sensor is pretty good with night photography because of the large size of the pixels. I hope that's true.
Click to expand...


I used mine for several years photographing gallery openings for an arts college. Always as dark as hell and never allowed to use flash in among all the art installations and video screens etc. I always shot at 3200 or 6400 by necessity and they (the college) were always blown away by the results I was able to get with that camera.
 
Still using mine. Its biggest advantage seems to be its excellent dynamic range (although there are no doubt cameras with as good DR and bigger pixel counts available these days) and its very solid build. They seem to have held their value much more than one would expect given their modest pixel count and age so I guess that testifies to their solidarity and good reputation. Occasionally I miss having a higher resolution such as when I am shooting landscapes and want a lot of detail in things like tree leaves but other than this it is a good camera.
 
I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus above. The D700 is quite simply a digital masterpiece, bearing in mind that it's getting on for ten years old. 12Mp is enough for most things but the really nice feature is the quality of the images, which to my eye have a look that's quite close to film. The only issue I've had is that sometimes reds can come out as a bit orange but this can be corrected in post. As mentioned above, the downside is that the camera is rather big but so are most Nikon lenses!
 
It's a great camera. Later models have newer sensors (more MP, better low light), but if this the limitations are OK, this will still produce great images.

My personal strategy has been to stay one step behind the bleeding edge. Instead of the latest, I buy the next to last model. My camera bills are lower, and I like the gear I'm shooting with.
 
i have found that my D700 is the only digital I really need. i find that with digital, there is more to the image than MP's. Even in RAW, I find the images come out of the D700 more to my liking than my friends D810. yeh he has more MP's but so what. its the same as some people prefer tri-x over tmax even though tmax has smaller grain. there is some way the 700 renders a file that I like. warmer, more natural? dont really know how to explain it but to my eyes its there.

I shoot film for high res prints. but for things like sports, where i need 8 frames a second, or simple snaps where i just hope to be there, it works great. I have some real nice 13x19 prints from that camera and they are very sharp and detailed. the results speak for themselves. I always love the saying its not the camera, its the photographer.

so yeh, the D700 is still relevant today, especially if you get to know what it does ad how to make the most of it. at that price its a bargain
 
I have a number of photographs (in low light and with flash) in my blog. Here's one with some night photographs from my stay in Toledo, Spain (where I seem to get more photographic action than at home! :) )
 
go for it. $500 is a fabulous deal for a 10K mileage D700. Yes, the D700 has the exact sensor of a D3. Even D3's selling for around $700 is a fabulous deal.
 
Old digital cameras still rock

Old digital cameras still rock

I don't have the Nikon D700 but I remember when I first started that it was considered the "shizzle" and cost a fortune. With the rampant changes in digital technology, it's a shame that these awesome cameras are, by comparison, relegated to "worthless digital camera" status. However, if they still work (And if they're built to their professional standard, most do) they are fantastic.

Case in point is a Canon 1D Mark IIN that I acquired recently. This thing is 10+ years old and "only" 8MP. Wow, it's so worthless!! (not).... I've taken this thing to weddings and concerts and other difficult assignments, made 16 x 20 prints without blinking and it still runs strong.

My point is that old professional digital cameras, when built to an toughness standard, can be a decent investment and can still make some amazing photos today. If you're never printing beyond 16x20, 12MP is more than enough.

On the other hand, my 5D Mark I Classic had the shutter button crap out :(
 
rfaspen said:
OK, Thank you everyone for your responses.

So it sounds like its a plenty good idea to get this body. I did mistype the number of shutter clicks, it is not 10,000 but 80,000. However, I'm getting the feeling its still not that bad. I had to free up some $$ today with the sale of a lens to apply to this endeavor. Hopefully the camera will still be waiting for me.

I did hear somewhere that the 12 MP full frame sensor is pretty good with night photography because of the large size of the pixels. I hope that's true.
Click to expand...

The 700 is an absolute beast at night, especially shot RAW. I bought mine off of a friend who sold it to finance a D800E. He still laments the 800E's poorer low-light performance to this day.
 
I would not buy that old dinosaur. I feel like most people have this nostalgia factor with that camera (for some weird reason). Its a good camera, but the sensor is ancient. If your going to spend the money add a little extra and get a used D610. Or better yet get a D600 that has had the shutter replaced. Those are real bargains now
 
Personally, I would forgo an old FF and get a refurb'd D5300 body from B&H, Ardorama, Amazon, or Nikon's site for $399 (price I paid).

1. Smaller
2. Better in low light.
3. Articulated screen
4. latest 24 MP sensor with no anti-alias filter
5. 1080 p video
6. Wifi and GPS
7. Manufacturer's warranty, can return to retailer for refund

The high MP count insures that your sensor doesn't "cheat" the lens in terms of resolution and you can make high DPI prints of any size. Digital, unlike film, follows Moore's law. I would only get an old FF if you have many old Nikon lenses that use the old "screw" autofocus lenses. The D5300 uses the newer lenses with the motors in the lens.

I would get a (virtually) NEW refurb'd D5300 and their 35 f 1.8 lens for a versatile -up to date- kit that's smaller, lighter, probably better low light performance, higher resolution that keeps up with lens MTF, argualbly the same/better IQ etc., etc., etc... for the same dosh.
 
I was wondering if I would see any posts giving me a dose of reality (yeah, I prepared for this). Its good to see them. I have not purchased the camera yet, and I'm still undecided. The full frame aspect is a big plus. I have wide Nikkors that I would like to use as wides. Also, I'm currently interested in night photography, and the big pixels that are a forced characteristic in a 12MP FF sensor are supposed to be an advantage.

But, its still $500 and the camera has (I mis-typed in the OP) 80,000 clicks on it. If I were a slightly wealthier man, I would have done the deal by now. But.....I also know how to be patient and accumulate funds for something I want. If the D700 didn't satisfy my needs, I would be right back in the game of finding something that does. Could we call that "false economy"?

But, the D700 does have the potential to provide me what I need....and right now.

Ahhrrggg. :bang:
 
I think if you went back and searched all the threads about the D700 the only complaint you'll read occasionally is the weight. The fact that it is only 12 megapixel means little and the other thing I really like about the files from it is they convert very well to black and white.

But I agree ... five hundred dollars is five hundred dollars and every gear purchase should be carefully considered.
 
stompyq said:
I would not buy that old dinosaur. I feel like most people have this nostalgia factor with that camera (for some weird reason). Its a good camera, but the sensor is ancient. If your going to spend the money add a little extra and get a used D610. Or better yet get a D600 that has had the shutter replaced. Those are real bargains now
Click to expand...

I respect this opinion. It really depends on how you're going to use the camera. From an IQ perspective, yeah the 600 series will outpace the 700. But if you want buttons for *everything* and a pro build quality without going to a single-digit-D, 700's still the camera to beat.

Simply put, how do you work? Is your camera out of the bag most of the day? Do you shoot in rain and snow? Do you shoot in fast moving situations, where a dedicated ISO button or a dedicated meter-pattern switch would help? If so, go for the 700.

If not, maybe consider the 600.

(and just to be clear, my love for the 700 doesn't come from nostalgia. I'd take a new camera in its design in a heartbeat. Give me a miniaturized D4 or D5 -- the way the 700 is a mini D3. Please. I want to throw my money at one.)
 
stompyq said:
I would not buy that old dinosaur. I feel like most people have this nostalgia factor with that camera (for some weird reason). Its a good camera, but the sensor is ancient. If your going to spend the money add a little extra and get a used D610. Or better yet get a D600 that has had the shutter replaced. Those are real bargains now
Click to expand...

I looked at the D600/610 option at the end of February, when I purchased my D700.

The D600 was a very attractive option - mainly because they sometimes sell for around $750.00 . My personal unscientific opinion is that a D600 with a shutter count of at least 20,000 shutter clicks - even if the shutter wasn't replaced -will most likely no longer have oil droplet problem- but why take a chance.

What pushed me towards the D700 is that I prefer the pro-build of the D700 versus a high spec consumer build. I've seen a few D700 bodies that have over 250,000 shutter actuations that are still truckin.

With regards to the 12 megapixel handicap, I usually don't make large prints. While dated, the large pixel pitch sensor delivers enough dynamic range to rival film.
 
I understand the D700 shutter mean-time-before-failure specification is 150,000 actuations.

Here's some empirical information about D700 shutter life.

So 80K is, on average, not an issue of ordinary usage.

At the price you mention 80K would not be an issue for me.
 
Buy it and enjoy it. You will be able to sell it if you aren't happy with it (and probably at a small loss) but I tell you it's worth it. Granted, recent bodies are better (they should!), but this one has a very intuitive feel... and, to me, it's very much like the digital version of the F100.

So, if you have Nikon glass (wides) that you'd like to use, and this camera is within your budget, spring for it.
 
Always wondered why yesteryear's Wonder of the Ages is todays Piece of Dreck.
From all I've heard it was terrific when released, so logic dictates it should be terrific today.
And only 12 megapixels? Really, how many do you need?
When all the pissing and moaning from the Gearzoids has subsided, and they've convinced their wives to let them buy the newest Flavour of the Month body I'm always hard-pressed to see the improvement in their work anyway.
That D700 will suit you just fine.
Robert
 
One thing to consider: it's a nice way to used Ai/ AiS lenses in a digital format. I'm a Canon man, but have dabbled with D700s twice. On both occasions, I found that manually focussing - even in low light - was ridiculously easy. Plus you get full (automatic) aperture control and matrix metering. What's not to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom