Nikon D700 - Still Cutting the Mustard?

[beancaker]

My trusty D300 is still going strong, but high ISO performance can be a limiting factor. It seems unlikely that a D400 will ever see the light of day, I do not like the ergonomics of the D7xxx, D750 etc, and the D810 is ott for my needs (and computer would definitely struggle with the raw files).
So, what's the general opinion on a D700? MBP have second hand examples with guarantee at around £600 - worth a punt?

As for what I photograph, see www.flickr.com/photos/beancaker for examples.

Thanks in advance for opinions.

[ian in lancs]

yes without question! I kept one of my D700's (and a D3 its based on). Perfectly OK for A3 prints and most of my (portrait/fashion/modelling/headshots) port was shot on one.

Budget for the glass a FF deserves....

Edited by ian in lancs on Friday 26th June 19:18

[beancaker]

Thanks Ian - given the savings gained by going for a s/h body, I would probably go for a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 for general use. They seem to hold their value so well it hardly seems worth getting the lens s/h.
The only FF lenses I have at present are a 50mm 1.8, 70-300 4.5 and a Sigma 105 2.8 macro.

[AndWhyNot]

You'll notice a worthwhile improvement from D300 - D700- that's a move I made previously. The D700 is very competent and produces decent files with good detail, especially when paired with good glass. It's not as lens-dependent as the latest mega-sensor camera's though, which is a good thing IMO.

By current standards its age is most visible in the most demanding environments- low light/ high ISO and long exposures. That's the main reason I recently sold my D700 to MPB (I think they've moved it on already as its description/ serial no aren't shown) and now run a pair of A7s's.

[Simpo Two]

I wanted to like the D700 but found that in combat it didn't focus as well as my D200 - and having all 51 AF points in the middle is just stupid (as I think all Nikon FF cameras have). That and the bigger heavier lenses and the odd colours from the CMOS chip sent me back to DX. There is more to photography than high ISO I found.

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 26th June 21:31

[ian in lancs]

beancaker said:

Thanks Ian - given the savings gained by going for a s/h body, I would probably go for a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 for general use. They seem to hold their value so well it hardly seems worth getting the lens s/h.
The only FF lenses I have at present are a 50mm 1.8, 70-300 4.5 and a Sigma 105 2.8 macro.

The D700 and 24-70 is a fine combination. Be wary buying new, a new version is due in 2015 by all accounts so you may loose out unless you buy from digital rev or similar. Last time I looked the 700/24-70 combo accounted for over 40k pictures in my Lightroom library so it's definitely a workhorse lens. It had been taken all over the world hot and cold and the zoom ring was dry. Nikon replaced the zoom mech, lubed and calibrated for IIRC £150 and it came back silky smooth and good as new. Can't complain at that!

The 70-300 is also a fine lens on the 700 and I know studio photographers that use on in preference to the 70-200 on weight and cost grounds.

In response to simpo's comment about focussing the D300 and D700 have the same focussing module and performance (never been an issue for me) and it's true that for the D700 the focus points fill less of the frame than a D300 (or fill more of the frame on a D300) it's something you get used to. For a while I ran D300 and D700 together with no issues. Well, until the D300 broke my fall on the ice! Bent chassis, written off kindly by Nikon and still used as a don't care if it's nicked holiday.camera.

The other advantage of 300/700 combo is the same batteries, Chargers, battery grips, menus and control layouts

[Simpo Two]

It's certainly very easy to move from D200/300 to 700, I'll give you that (but most of your lenses may need to be changed, either because they're DX or because the focal lengths are unsuitable on FF)

[beancaker]

Thanks for the useful feedback on the D700, and the heads up regarding the 24-70 update. Just read Ken Rockwell on the 24-70, he doesn't think much of it - so that's a good enough reason to go out and buy one!

[beancaker]

Widening the topic slightly, can anyone comment on how the latest generation of crop sensors (D7200 etc) compare with previous gen full frame such as D700 in low light / high iso?

[ExPat2B]

I spent a lot of time agonising over the 24-70, there are certain settings you can put it, like 2.8 at 24 mm to where it is theoretically lagging behind the latest kit in terms of CA, and it doesn't have VR.

I bought it, and have never looked back or felt it was holding me back in any way, it is sharp on the D3200 and D810 with a much higher pixel pitch than the D700, it is built in a very strong sensible way with the hood attaching to the body not the extending barrel so it is proof against most knocks. When you stop worrying about the technical nitty gritty, you will discover using it is a joy, as it churns out sharp in focus images all day long. 98% of the shots I take with lens are technically perfect, and I can focus on picking out the pics with a nice eye catchlight or expression.

I have the 105 2.8 macro ( you can buy one used for £350 ) as my portrait lens and that is similarly awesome.

I wouldn't knock the D750 ergonomics either, it is actually a very nice fit to the hand, and it has the deepest grip of any prosumer Nikon, and the "easy iso" feature with iso on the rear dial is super ergomonic, you can control the whole camera with the right hand and just use the left to balance.

[ian in lancs]

ExPat2B said:

I have the 105 2.8 macro ( you can buy one used for £350 ) as my portrait lens and that is similarly awesome

ditto

[budfox]

My D700 is earning me as much money now as when I bought it and nothing has tempted me to upgrade with the possible exception of the D750, and I shall consider one when they drop below £1k used.

[ian in lancs]

budfox said:

My D700 is earning me as much money now as when I bought it and nothing has tempted me to upgrade with the possible exception of the D750, and I shall consider one when they drop below £1k used.

they are... £500-650 on ebay

[beancaker]

Thanks for all the advice and opinions. Had a play with a D7200, D750 & D810 in local shop today which confirmed my preconceptions:

D7200 - too small - my index finger just does not fall naturally on the shutter release.
D750 - better grip, but no AF On button and I just could not live with that plastic mode dial.
D810 - perfect ergonomics, but just too many pixels!

So, s/h D700 it is.

[ian in lancs]

Yep, they should've put a 24 sensor in 700 successor body. The 800/810 is draining on IT and for most purposes over the top. I have two 800s offloaded by mates that got fed up with them! Sharp and detailed but I often end up editing it out. The perfect sensor for what I do is in the 3x. Shame the body is built like a tank. The other thing about the D800 is AF settings are buried which is a pain. The 300/700/3/3x controls are on the outside.

You mention the scene/mode dial. If you line up all the Nikon bodies and look at the top plate that's what marks out the lower end models....

[ExPat2B]

You know you can shoot the d810 in 12 bit raw mode for smaller files ?

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

And the af functions afs /c and single /3d etc are controlled by a dedicated button and front and rear dials. And you can set 4 custom autofocus functions accessible from a front button.

[ian in lancs]

ExPat2B said:

You know you can shoot the d810 in 12 bit raw mode for smaller files ?

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

And the af functions afs /c and single /3d etc are controlled by a dedicated button and front and rear dials. And you can set 4 custom autofocus functions accessible from a front button.

14 vs 12 yep, of course! Its not the file size it's the detail resolution. In the studio i use either my 3x or 800 depending on the task in hand. the 'problem' with the 800 is that it ruthlessly picks up every skin imperfection and therefore demands extra editing to remove it. Thus i tend to use the 3x more for headshots / beauty and the 800 where the detail is an advantage, say, fashion. I think the 800 is more suited to landscape where I think detail is more relevant. I have also used the D800 on holiday as a walkabout camera and the sensor dynamic range, high ISO etc quality shines through but there's always the debate whether to shoot JPEG to save memory or RAW for editing potential and yes I do shoot walkabout in JPEG with the function button to add a RAW as and when. My 700 and the 3x I shoot everything in RAW. Overall, I think the D800, as nice as it is, has too many pixels! I'd prefer a 24 with higher qualities. When and if they bring out a D4x to replace the D3x and it has 24 I'll be buying a couple!

As for the afs buttons yes the D800 has a button on the LHS of the lens and dials; to change settings demands looking at the top display and fiddling. The D300/700/D3/D3x have two switches - one on the LHS that chooses CSM and one on the back that chooses single or all sensors. Both can be operated either by touch or whilst moving the camera up to shoot. Tactile and quicker. The D800 is a backward step in this regard; more options but as a consequence buried in menus.

The second hand prices of the D800 and the quantity for sale say it all really! The D800 should have been 24


ETA and don't get me started on the D800's unforgiving demands on focussing accuracy......

Edited by ian in lancs on Tuesday 30th June 07:39

[budfox]

ian in lancs said:

they are... £500-650 on ebay

Link please.

[ian in lancs]

budfox said:

Link please.

I just searched the completed listings and that was the price range and I sold one of mine with a recent Nikon service for 550

[budfox]

ian in lancs said:

I just searched the completed listings and that was the price range and I sold one of mine with a recent Nikon service for 550

I did that and I cannot find a single D750 that sold for anything like as little as £600. The lowest I can find is £710 but that's from Japan. There's only one other at less than £1k and that went for £878.00

In truth, I wasn't ever considering eBay, it's when they come from places like MBP at that money I'll consider the 'upgrade'.