Sun 03-Aug-08 02:42 AM | edited Sun 03-Aug-08 02:46 AM by camerapapi
I have been looking at the different posts in this thread and seems to me as if not enough convincing reasons have been given to you as to make up your mind. I used a D700 yesterday and I will give you some of my personal observations hoping they will help you to make a decision. In the first place, do you need a full frame sensor? This is a valid question because if indeed you do not need the FX format you will be saving a lot of money. The D700 is a superb tool. If you hold one in your hands you will be immediately at home since the ergonomics are very similar to those of the D200 and D300. The prism is slightly bulkier than those of the previous two cameras. I have not used a D3 but I have heard rumors that the sensor is similar to the one in the D3. The AF was fast and I did not do any testing to compare it with other AF in the Nikon line. The shutter is made of Kevlar fibers and good for 300K actuations and in addition adjusts itself periodically to maintain accuracy. Live view is there if you need it and an adjustment like those in airplanes for leveling the horizon is also available. Several methods of doing repeated exposures are available if you need that. The rear LCD is the best I have seen so far of all the cameras I have used but be warned that even when the images are super sharp you should not expect to see similar results upon downloading the files. Those screens are not color corrected. There are more technological goodies but you will need to do your own search. Now the sensor. It is exactly the same sensor used by the D3. I used my 24-85 f3.5-4.5 AF-S with the camera and I could not believe the results when pictures were downloaded to the computer. The RAW files, the only ones I shot, were so full of details and colors that not even the use of sharpness was necessary. Indeed, the best performance I have seen from my lens of all the cameras I have used with it. Noise, like in the D3, is actually very well controlled. I could not believe the images shot at ISO 3200. In my opinion far better than images shot at ISO 400 with my D2H. I saw many samples of wedding photography with the D700 in low light and I could not believe my eyes. Enlargements were unbelievable also. I tell you I have not seen such a performance before. When combined with the 24-70 f2.8 lens the combo is a killer although heavy. You just have to see the pictures to believe it. I have never used a D300 so I cannot make any comments about it. I am not so concerned about DX and wide angle photography because the tools are there and similar to equivalent wide angles for the FX format but the DX will continue to have an advantage for the tele photographer, especially sports and wildlife photography. Yes, you can do that too with the FX format but you have to buy super expensive lenses to achieve similar results to those of the DX format. It is obvious that there is a place for each format but if I were in the market for a new camera, surely the D700 is a great choice for those like me into macro, portraits and landscape photography.