So the Nikon D700 is now five years old ... and still kicking ar$e!

[Keith]

Amazing to think that five years have passed since the release of this incredible DSLR. Mine has done nothing but impress me in the few years I've owned it and even after Nikon released the D800 I saw little reason to upgrade. The camera has been used for everything from gliding through gloomy galleries photographing the beautiful people, on a tripod in the pouring rain photographing a bilboard at night, and standing in the middle of a motocross track getting blasted with dust and dirt. If there is a more versatile tool please show it to me!

I don't love it but I seriously have to give it the mantle of the most competent photographic tool I own or have ever owned and I see no reason not to still be using it in two or three years from now. The performance at 6400 ISO is still up there with the best IMO which makes you realise that the 'old girl' was a little ahead of her time!

If there is such a thing as a digital classic (heresy I realise) ... this is it! 🙂

 

[lynnb]

I still have my original 5D which is also a classic capable of very good results, although the D700 has superior high ISO performance judging from samples I've seen - including yours, Keith.

This creates problems for the manufacturers. Why upgrade, indeed?

I can understand why it would be desirable for continuing sales and profitability for new, smaller mounts with whole new lines of smaller, quality lenses, as well as providing mount adapters to avoid disenfranchising users with existing lens investments.

I wonder what is the smallest size mount that gives FF coverage? Perhaps Sony's rumoured new FF NEX will tell?

 

[Pablito]

Of course the D700 is still a great camera, but I find the D800 to be a huge improvement for what I do. I print big and those 36 mp make a huge difference. The flexibility of the RAW files is amazing and the dynamic range blows my mind.

 

[fdarnell]

Having bought a new D600 and lens and shelling out $2500 only to have to return it in 250 shots for the now infamous dirt problem - mine was horrible even at f/11 - maybe 35 spots, I've kind of lost my faith with Nikon. The D800 goes a little to high to justify.

I should have gotten the d700 used body in a local shop for $1500 - but maybe that's too much. I tried the Canon, but just did not like the handling.

Back to film...🙂

 

[peterm1]

I am still impressed with mine. When I go back and use my old D200 which I genuinely loved before I have to say that the older D200 simply cannot compete in terms of image quality out of the camera - oh you can get it, but it takes a good deal more effort in post processing compared with the D700.

While I would love the pixel count of the D800 for large prints etc I would find it hard to give up the high ISO results of the D700 which is damn good.

Having said this I always shoot RAW in D700 so the images from this camera do need some work compared to some other digital cameras that have excellent jpg processing. Still thats wwhat one does with a pro camera.

 

[leica M2 fan]

I've had mine 2 years and 8 months and I'll keep on with it for a bit more before
I upgrade. For what I do the D700 is sufficient and it might be nice to have the 800e.
I'm plenty happy with the 700. It is pretty incredible.

 

[Tzelet]

Five years? I just bought mine yesterday! But after less than 24 hrs, I have to say this is the closest I have ever been to Nirvana with a camera. I didn't understand why I was able to get such high shutter speeds with my El Cheapo 50mm f/1.8 G. Then I realized I'd been shooting ISO3200 for the last hour...

But damn, the shutter is loud! 😀

 

[JSU]

I got my first D700 in January, 2009 and sold a D3 to get a second D700 a few months later.

The IQ of the D700, as best I could tell from my own images and online research, is identical to the D3.

I shot a Major League Baseball game tonight (Astros/Mariners, Houston lost 3-2) with my pair of D700's, my client remains pleased with the images I deliver.

I don't do video, I am content to shoot 8 fps (with booster battery) compared to the D3 (9 fps) and for non-sports I remove the booster battery pack and get by quite well at 5 fps.

I replaced the screen in one body with a modified "J" screen from a F6, the microprism center helps manually focussing wide lenses. For longer lenses I have gone back to the standard, supplied, "B" screen.

I understood in mid-2009 that with the D3 and D700 cameras had evolved to the point that IQ was beyond sufficient and either of these cameras would have a timeless appreciation, they simply will never be obsolete as perhaps was every previous Nikon DSLR when the D3/D700 hit the scene. I'm not saying one can't do fine work with a D200 or D2H (well, maybe not with the D2H, I had a trio of them and wish I could forget.) However, a threshold was surpassed with the D3/D700 for IQ where file size was adequate, high ISO potential was adequate, cycling rate and buffer were adequate (the D3 was upgradeable to a larger buffer if someone needed a burst of 50 RAW files @ 9 fps.) All in one package, no longer did one need a D2H for fast cycling rate and a D2X for large file size and higher IQ.

Frankly, nothing Nikon has released since the D700 has impressed me as much as the D700. The D800 has a huge file but only cycles @ 4 fps, the D600 has a sensor with twice the pixels of the D700, but still only does 5 fps. With the battery booster (actually a MB-D10 and EN-EL4A battery from the D3) the D700 churns out 8 fps for 12 bit files. I love what I see from the D800(E) and D600 but the slower cycling rates preclude considering them for serious sports work. The D3S and D4 are the high ISO IQ benchmarks, but with the given they are locked-in to the large form factor body. With my D700, unless I need 8 fps for sports, they are stripped-down, basic body and only 5 fps.

The D700 rocks! 😎

If I could mount my Oly OM primes on a D700 as easily as I do on a 5D2, I wouldn't need the 5D2. I like my Nikkors, both AF & especially MF, but I especially like my Zuikos, which prolly should be said only in the Zuikoholic thread. 😱

All @ ISO 3200 & 4000:

 

[willie_901]

I own two D700s and I use them professionally. I see no reason to upgrade because my business does not depend on large prints. I only use the D700 for interior and product photography because I no longer shoot sports or other subjects where the X100 or X-Pro 1 are at a disadvantage to the D700.

Like Keith, I am surprised at how well the D700 has held up electronically and mechanically and with regard to IQ. It's a real work horse. Of course many brands of newer DSLRs out perform the D700. But the D700 seems to be in a sweet spot of cost, reliability, practical file size and IQ.

A good friend has bought every new Nikon D-hundred series body since the D100. I was surprised that he stopped at the D700. He told me he thought about the D800/600 but just didn't see need.

 

[jsrockit]

While I would love the pixel count of the D800 for large prints etc I would find it hard to give up the high ISO results of the D700 which is damn good.

The D800 has worse ISO results than the D700?

 

[v_roma]

The D800 does have better ISO performance than the D700 but I don't think it is as different as one would expect considering the age difference between these two cameras. Of course, the D800 has three times the resolution of the D700...

The D800 has worse ISO results than the D700?

 

[jsrockit]

v roma, I was confused because he said he'd miss the high ISO on the D700 if he went D800.

 

[Boris Stupak]

I feel the D700 was the world's first fully mature DSLR. It still has astonishing low-light capability. I got mine about 4 1/2 years ago as a refurb.

I just bought a refurb D600 a month ago, but I'm keeping the D700 for now. The D700 still has some advantages.

The D600 doesn't have the same satisfying "clunk/click" as the D700, and for some reason I prefer the low light files of the D700.

But both are superb, highly refined cameras, even though the D600 reflects 5 years of technological improvements. (the smaller files of the D700 don't bother me, quality is fine for almost anything. hell, I still shoot with a Kodak SLR/n)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I still have my original 5D which is also a classic capable of very good results, although the D700 has superior high ISO performance judging from samples I've seen - including yours, Keith.

Happy user of 5Dc here as well. Not surprised about some differences with Nikon.
5Dc is eight years old now, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[awbphotog]

Happy user of 5Dc here as well. Not surprised about some differences with Nikon.
5Dc is eight years old now, if I'm not mistaken.

Eek sorry to post so much about the 5Dc, but I've had mine for a little over a year now and I absolutely love the files that come from it! That being said, I've shot D700's lots and am always envious after use. The files from Nikon bodies seem more attractive somehow.

Andy

 

[lawrence]

I waited many years to buy a DSLR because I wanted something of reasonable size, full frame format and on which I could use the numerous AIS Nikkors that I've collected over the years. The D700 fitted the bill perfectly five years ago and it still does. I've always been particularly impressed with the colour rendition, which seems very natural. As has been said, it's a classic.

 

[Dante_Stella]

The D800 does have better ISO performance than the D700 but I don't think it is as different as one would expect considering the age difference between these two cameras. Of course, the D800 has three times the resolution of the D700...

I think the reason the D700 has managed to stick around so long and remain so popular is that 12.2 MP does not made modern Nikkors (and indeed, many old ones) look bad. It's also arguably the useful effective resolution of 100-speed 35mm color film, so it doesn't undershoot expectations.

I've had mine since late 2009, and I still love it. It's a camera that just works, with no excuses or hiccups (except human errors like forgetting to put a CF card in it... :bang: ). It would be nice to have it do basic video or support local wifi to an iPhone, but those things are not deal breakers.

If I kept only two pieces of DSLR equipment, it would be this and the 50/1.4D (Japan).

Dante

 

[Contarama]

It is the best digital version of the F series...the D700 comes right after the F6... 🙂

 

[dogberryjr]

I've had mine since the summer of 2008, and because I don't shoot video, I can't imagine how it could be improved. I was tempted by the specs on the D800, but it turned out to be infatuation.

I've been waiting for KatzEye to offer their Optibrite screen for the D700, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

 

[archeophoto]

Well, all the Nikon full frame DSLRs are exellent. I sold my D700 for a Fuji X-Pro1. Biggest mistake I ever made! Back to a D600 and I'm happy again...