I think it has to do with NAS. I'm holding up since I don't need the newer 800. This I know for sure, but do I ever want it? YEAH, I do.
So maybe it's only a question of time before I give up to my obsession. But I'm putting in a good fight. The 700 does all I need and has never let me down so far.
But all this talk and commotion about the resolution, sharpness (or lack of it…) is like free advertising for Nikon. I've been told the D800 is so much better, but will I take better shots with it? Not so sure since I'll have to work even more to get some free shooting time with it.
So, all in all, I don't need to upgrade. Let's hope I don't change my mind before the store closes this afternoon.
I dont really see any reason soon to change cameras. I'm still learning this one and I believe my photos will only improve as I practice more.
That said if I hit the lottery I think I'd prowel around and look for a D3x. I dont know why this camera fascinates me so but it seems like a nice compliment for the D700. Maybe its just that no one ever seems to talk about it much.
We have some killer old barns and homesteads down here on their way to ruin and Id love to catch some of them before they fall down.
The camera is up to it, I just have only had it a few weeks and still learning it. The D3x is just one of those pipe dream things like if I ever had time to do the precise stuff and the money to even afford it. Im actually very pleased with my 700.
The barns fences old roads and stuff are all over Texas. Youre welcome any time. Ive been waiting for a little more interesting weather so maybe I could get some of those big puffy clouds. We havent had anything but hot and dry since I picked up the 700. Flat light and flat sky.
I think you need to put it in context. The D700 was released in July 2008 so the technology is 4 years old. But it's a very good camera - trumped only by a few newer or much more expensive models. The D700 is probably capable of doing 95% or more of what you can do with a D800 or D4.
But to me, the question is what's next? Do you intend to keep using the D700 until the successor to the D800 is released around 2015? Are you looking for a D400 to compliment a D700? Are you looking to add mirrorless capability?
A DSLR is a computer with a lens attached. 4 year old technology works pretty well, but will it still be okay when it is 6 years old? If not, you might want to bite the bullet sooner rather than upgrade late in the cycle.
I would not upgrade unless there is something to be gained now or in the near future. If you make large prints it's easy. If you do a lot of high detail photography I would probably upgrade. If you need improved color and dynamic range you might upgrade. I would not upgrade for low light performance although the D800 is a little better. And you might want a frame rate and crop factor of a D400 to compliment your D700. But I would think about your preferred kit longer term and decide where you want to be.
Good, thoughtful analyses on everyone's part. And the variety of answers is like the varieties of ways we all approach and use our cameras -- and it is done very civily, I might add!
When I got my first D700, the transition from the D200 to the D700 was what I termed "revolutionary" vice "evolutionary." The sudden shift from a DX sensor to a next generation FX sensor was shocking -- in a very good way. I still acquire pictures every week that take my breath away. Not that they are that terribly spectacular, but that the D700 is allowing me to do things I simply could not do before. I believe that the D700 was a breaking point in digital photography that took that art, or science, beyond what film could offer, both in terms of sharpness and low light capability. Where as I felt a lot of lenses were capable on the D200, I gradually was dragged acquire the Nikon 14-24mm, 24-70mm f2.8s and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II. The D700 simply demanded the best in lenses to best enable it to reach its capabilities -- and of course, the best skills.
I suspect the D800 is another giant leap, albeit not the same magnitude as the D200 to D700 (or D3) was. Do I have to have one? No. Am I plannnig to replace my D700s with D800s? No. Would I like to have one? Yup. Will I? At some point, Yup. If I win the Power Ball or mega Millions will I get a whole bunch more Nikon gear? Yup.
But right now, in the real world of small newspaper photography and my other commercial work, the D700 continues to amaze and wow me. Until people stop telling me "You must have a really good lens..." I am pretty darned satisfied.
Taking the computer with a lens analogy a step further, personal computers have become so powerful that most people do not need the top of the line computer anymore as for what they are using their computers for. A new computer would be overkill. I think we can say the same thing about DSLR's these days. Yes it is always nice to have the latest and greatest if you have a need for the power or new features, but better glass is always a better investment than a new body. When I bought my D700 almost 4 years ago they were on sale for about $2400. I wanted a full frame camera and I especially wanted low light performance as my D200 was just not meeting my shooting requirements in that area. I ,like many D700 users, find the D700 does all I need. If that changes in the future, I will consider upgrading it, but until that happens or it breaks beyond practical repair, I am happy with all it does.
The quality of the results I am getting with the D700 and top level lenses is only limited by my modest capabilities as a photographer. Unless I suddenly decide to use my pictures to wallpaper the living room, I probably will pass on the D800.
>The quality of the results I am getting with the D700 and top >level lenses is only limited by my modest capabilities as a >photographer. Unless I suddenly decide to use my pictures to >wallpaper the living room, I probably will pass on the D800.
I agree wholeheartedly. Besides, if I wallpaper the living room with photos (no matter how good they may be) my wife will kill me. So that doesn't seem too smart on my end. I will pass on the D800.
For me getting a D800 or a D4 would actually be a step backwards. I use my D700 often with the MB-D10 grip and D3 EN-EL4 battery with the BL-3 battery holder.So the two cameras D700 and D3 are kind of interlinked and getting rid of one or the other would mean that that integration with one another would be broken plus you cant get to 8fps with the D800 and grip as you can with the D700 and grip. I intend to stick with what I have for a considerable time and pass on these latest models although I might upgrade the D3 to a D3s if the price is tempting enough.
Hi, I caused a bit of a stir in the forums when the D800 launch was due; mainly because I stated that I was happy with my D700 and in fact purchased a second in preference to waiting for the D800.
Why did I do that, mainly because I love what the D700 does for me, especially it's proven low light track record. My belief is that less pixels on a sensor means bigger pixels! Bigger pixels = better low light sensitivity.
But at the end of the day, it's a personal choice and that depends on what you photograph and how you photograph.
#15. "RE: upgrade" In response to Reply # 0 Sat 18-Aug-12 06:01 AM by hujiie
I think the decision depends on your own finances and justifications. I agree that the camera is a computer by following computer industry in general. Every 3-5 years, new technology today gets to be an old technology. Take a look at Apple computer today, the latest Retina display (2880 x 1800 res) has 2 times as much screen resolutions as a regular version. The normal acceptable size of print-out today might be too small in a near future. This has been attested in the history of imaging industry.
Personally as an imaging professional (I do surface imaging design. Photography is one of my image making methods, though I do some commercial photography), I do not believe the concept of owing devices including the cameras and computer systems, but loaning them. When the time comes and if I can, I sell old technologies and replace the newer ones to keep up to be current.
As both a D7000 and D700 owner, the decision is slightly blurred by the need for a new semi pro APS-C sensor D400 style camera. If I could be convinced totally that the D800 could deliver my wildlife needs in DX mode to a better IQ in terms of ISO noise than my D7000, then I am interested. There again I am also keen on landscape and I'm afraid to say that to see the best results of what a D800 can do is not always going to be available by viewing the images here. Many images I see from the D800 could in my view have been achieved by a D700, even many of the "wow" factor results.
The D800 is an expensive upgrade if it will do little more than my D7000 and D700. However, I do take Eric's point when he says - "But to me, the question is what's next? Do you intend to keep using the D700 until the successor to the D800 is released around 2015? Are you looking for a D400 to compliment a D700? Are you looking to add mirrorless capability?"
In financial terms, I suppose my 3.5 year old D700 or near 2 year old D7000 could catastrophically fail rendering the camera useless and valueless too. To buy a D800 for that reason alone is expensive as I would probably be purchasing just the satisfaction of a warranty!
It's a difficult call and one I am constantly fighting with, not helped with the AF issues which I am sure are now resolved on all new builds. My final decision will be made no later than 23rd September this year when Photokina will either announce a new semi pro APS-C sensor dSLR or not.
Personally, all I know is that from a landscape perspective if a D800 had never been launched I would not be wishing a replacement for a D700, so for landscape photography I feel I have answered my own question
I always upgrade for a specific need. Digitally, it was the D100, to the D200 for improved buffer, to my current D700 for its much improved high-ISO performance. So far, the D700 is still providing all the functionality and performance I need. I do see a constant need to upgrade the knowledge and skill of its user though.
I have THE reason for still photographers to upgrade from a D700 to a D800. Here it is ... wait for it ... here we go ... the reason is ... oh, wait ... there isn't one. When the D800 came out, I bought another D700 from a D800 upgrader Just seems like people fall for that "latest & greatest" factor all too easily. Reminds me of the poor elitist saps camped out overnight waiting for the newest iPhone (really!?!). I'm a pro shooter out of Fort Worth and shoot everything from enviro portraiture to action sports and have yet to find a limitation or flaw with the D700. If you think back to all the AMAZING & INSPIRING photographers of yesteryear, do we really ever think, "Gosh, how could they have created such brilliant images without a high end Nikon DSLR? I think not. It's up to the shooter - not the camera. If you have a D700, think about keeping it and investing that D800 upgrade cash into lighting or glass. Just sayin'.
I'm also one of those users who has a constant need to upgade my knowledge and skill, but I have my own reasons for buying the D800.
Don't get me wrong. I'm keeping my D700, but I've regretted selling my D90 and not being able to shoot in DX format. Similarly, I shoot landscapes, and was curious about using a medium format camera which would be way out of my league financially, and certainly my skill level could never justify my taking that plunge. Then along comes the D800 which addresses both of those formats, as well as FX. It struck me as being a bargain.
Actually, I think that qualifies as a "good" reason.
I suppose if I were to sell my D700, I could also argue that for less money than it would take to buy a D7000 I'd get 3 cameras in one. However, I'd lose the frame rate for shooting action which I get with the D700 when paired with the external grip.
<<I suppose if I were to sell my D700, I could also argue that for less money than it would take to buy a D7000>>
That certainly doesn't apply in the UK. Here, a new D7000 can be bought for £700 (approx $1050), which I think must be a record devaluation of a Nikon camera from new, about 37%! However, Nikon D700's are still being sold in high numbers on e-bay and they are averaging about £1000 (approx. $1500) which shows how highly thought of the camera is.
I am interested however, apart from the slower fps issue, why you don't seem to see the DX mode on the D800 as your DX camera. I ask this as I am looking to be convinced that the D800 in DX mode will, apart from the faster fps issue, do the job of an APS-C camera.
I would be interested in your experiences of the D800 in DX please?
First of all, I'd like to withdraw my remark about qualifying as a "good" reason. In the context of Brian's first response to the initial question, I'm afraid my comment might be interpreted as being sarcastic, and that was not my intent at all. It was a gratuitous statement at best, and I apologize.
About the DX mode, my technical expertise is not broad, to say the least. So perhaps you could elaborate on the reasons for your scepticism about the D800 not performing adequately as an APS-C camera? (If its an appropriate thread for this D700 forum, of course.)
As for my experiences using it in DX mode, I haven't done much shooting in it yet. Neither do I now have a dedicated DX camera to compare it with. However, I'll try to compare some identical photos taken with it in both DX and FX modes, as well as with the D700.
#23. "RE: upgrade" In response to Reply # 22 Wed 22-Aug-12 07:43 PM by richardd300
<<So perhaps you could elaborate on the reasons for your scepticism about the D800 not performing adequately as an APS-C camera>>
I have both a D7000 and D700 and it may be that a D800 will combine the best of both worlds. I enjoy 2 genres, landscape (D700) and wildlife especially birds in flight etc (D7000). I really have not been persuaded yet that there is anything that a D800 will do for me that a D700 doesn't at present. As I don't print larger than 16ins x 12 ins very often the D700 suits me fine, so a D800 is not going to fix something that isn't broken! The D700 is a fine camera that even offers DX crop mode, however the resultant file sizes are only about 5Mp, far to small for enlargements. This is where DX mode on the D800 interests me. The DX mode will supply adequate file sizes for my printing needs.
For numerous reasons I won't elaborate on here, I find the D7000 doesn't suit me and am eagerly awaiting a D300s replacement. Whether or not this becomes a reality will possibly become apparent next month at the "Photokina" event where undoubtedly new Nikon products will be announced. If no D300s replacement is announced I shall see it as a clear signal that Nikon are probably not going to produce a new semi pro body in the future. If the replacement doesn't materialise the D800 becomes more attractive as I could sell my D700 and keep my D7000 as a spare body.
Finally, from a financial point of view a I hope any new DX semi pro will be better priced than the D800. I really wish that Nikon had not launched the D800, even more so because they haven't launched a new DX semi pro! If the D800 is my only option, I will be disappointed and feel let down by Nikon, for not launching a dedicated semi pro wildlife and sports camera to accommodate the need for a small sensor camera with increased frames per second. I know many others will be disappointed too.
Originally I bought my D800E with the idea that my light kit could be the Nikon 16-85 and 70-300. That would use the D800E in DX mode with the 16-85 - and either FX or DX mode using the 70-300.
The reality is I have never used my D800 in DX mode other than testing. I have looked at crops that are DX size or smaller. The D800E outperforms the D7000 and D300 in terms of image quality even if the D800 is cropped. My preference is to crop after post processing rather than in the camera. The other advantage to this approach is you can shoot a little looser and still have a good tight crop - two images in one if you will.
The only real disadvantage of using DX mode with FX lenses is that you see the entire viewfinder with a dark line creating the border of the DX image. That means the image is a little small compared to the full frame. That can be a plus since you can see the edges more easily. But generally a small distant subject remains hard to see.
When they announced the D800 I immediately started saving. As the wait became more lengthy, I was able to buy the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII. And the wait resumed, and I waited and then bought the Nikkor 16-35. No telling what I might have purchased had the camera been delived earlier.
#27. "RE: upgrade" In response to Reply # 26 Wed 22-Aug-12 08:38 PM by richardd300
Another option is that I may end up, if a upgraded D300s does not appear, buying some new glass. I already have the 70-200 VRI and 16-35mm + a 300mm f4 amongst many others. Unfortunately, that will leave me with two ever aging cameras.
To add an insult to Nikon I will be so disappointed not to see a D400 etc and if Canon replaced the 7D, I will be tempted to keep Nikon as my landscape and portrait gear and switch to Canon for my wildlife. That is something I really do not want to do, but if needs must then I may well seriously consider that option
It will in fact be interesting to see if Canon release a new APS-C semi pro body. Personally I feel that if Nikon don't, Canon won't as the dSLR market is now moving in other directions.
#29. "RE: Ignore - duplicate post" In response to Reply # 28
LA (Lower Arkansas), US
I started shooting digital with a D70...then upgraded to the D200 for the increased color saturation. Then I upgraded to the D300 for the improved higher ISO performance. All along I griped about the lack of a full frame option. Then the D700 appeared. Of course I upgraded again. So far, it's all I need. I rarely print larger than 16x20 and that's an easy task for the D700. The high ISO performance is good enough for shooting football games under the lights, and basketball games indoors. The color saturation and dynamic range are not lacking in any of my shots. That's about all the performance I need.
But the most important reason I don't plan to update is because I know how to use the camera. Every button and dial on the camera seems intuitive to me. When making in-camera adjustments, my fingers just seem to automagically move to all the right places. I can't really explain it any better. The D300 was similar, but I wasn't quite as comfortable with it. The D700 feels like it was made for me, personally.
Now that it's been discontinued, I have a choice to make: stick with my current lightweight kit (D5100/Sigma 10-20/Tamron 17-50/Sigma 50-150/Sigma 30 1.4), or sell the kit and pick up a second D700 body to use with my manual glass in a lightweight kit. I can probably wait a couple more months for the D600 to hit the market before I have to make a final choice. By then used prices will have fallen even more - which will make it an even more attractive option.
>For me getting a D800 or a D4 would actually be a step >backwards. >I use my D700 often with the MB-D10 grip and D3 EN-EL4 battery >with the BL-3 battery holder.So the two cameras D700 and D3 >are kind of interlinked and getting rid of one or the other >would mean that that integration with one another would be >broken plus you cant get to 8fps with the D800 and grip as you >can with the D700 and grip. >I intend to stick with what I have for a considerable time and >pass on these latest models although I might upgrade the D3 to >a D3s if the price is tempting enough. > >Steve. > NAS got the better of me, purchased the E version and now having tasted the wine and seen the results I will sell my D700 & D3.
I shot at a friends party this past weekend, and brought both my D700 and D800e. I had my 28-300 lens on the 700 along with the external grip and battery pack. I used my 70-200 f2.8 on the 800. I was hand holding both cameras. My shots of the attendees with the 800 were great if they were relatively still, and I we were outside. I could reach out accross the pool and not have to shoot with the camera in their faces, and with the pixel density of the 800 crop way in to "recompose" the final print.
However, I had to switch to the D700 when people became more animated, as the shots with the 800 were blurring. I wound up shooting only about 200 frames with the 800, and 600 with the D700.
My point being, I'm keeping the D700 while I continue to refine my shooting technique with the D800. They each have their nieche.
>> We have some killer old barns and homesteads down here >on their way to ruin and Id love to catch some of them before >they fall down. < > > >Off-topic: Photograph these great old buildings while you >can, while they're still there. > >Mp
Dont I know it. Thats what Im trying to do. I spent the first twenty years I lived in Reno photographing old barns and now they are all gone.
Thinking...hoping that anything that isnt great can be fixed later in pp. I think my composition is okay, although it could be tighter however its lighting, color, stuff like that Im having trouble with.
Still as you say the next big storm could take them down.