I own a D7K and a less than one year old D700 that I love....
I posted my reasons for not going D600 or D800...I don't think I'll take better pics for the $$ with a D800...too many pixels...my MAC will go into heart failure...I'm managing 3 different backup drives now...
Is anyone crazy like me, thinking in the next year or so to buy a D700 and just hoard it for the next 5-7 years? Or is this nuts...
I'm pretty confident Nikon will support it for at least another 10 years? So, would it make sense to find a Cherry and grab it used...or just buy a new one and keep in the event the D700 goes completely off line in the retail environment ????
While the D700 is a great camera, technology marches on. To be shooting with the same camera five years from now would be sad. Not necessarily bad, but sad. But then I shot my D200 for six years from 2007 to 2011 and I still have it....
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Joseph K Seattle, WA, USA
Newer is better in terms of the technology and performance. So if you need better high ISO performance or more pixels than your D700 then move to the D600 or D800. But if your D700 allows you to take the images you want, then there is little reason to upgrade. My experience (since starting back in the olden days with the D1) is that generally the new bodies expand the envelop of performance over the previous bodies. But where that performance overlaps with the previous model there is little to no noticeable improvement.
Quick example - I have a small basement studio and my D2x, D3, and now D4 have been used there. When using my monolights and at base ISOs there is absolutely no advantage in using the newer bodies. So if your D700 does everything you need, why change it out?
Of course if you do upgrade you may find that the performance improvements in the newer body leads you to new areas of interest. When I had my D2hs and D2x there were venues I did not shoot in as the camera's usuable high ISO performance (1600 max) did not permit it. I unconsciously tailored my shooting to match the capabilities of my equipment. I now find that I can't live without my D4's ISO 12800 performance (which is better than 6400 on my D700).
So I guess my answer to your question "Am I crazy?" is the one my lawyer often gives me "It depends"
Hard to predict what the future holds, but if you already have a d700 I would just lovingly use that. Hey, if cared for you could simply replace the shutter down the road and shoot that things for many, many years to come, and is much cheaper than holding onto a depreciating body waiting for your current d700 to die.
If you didn't have a d7k I would even consider it as a backup body, but my view is your set for now and that money is better invested elsewhere.
There is another member on here who did this with some older Nikon digital bodies in the past. He is semi-pro, and has a second set of bodies bought literally as backup, but never used. The point is, the originals are still going strong, even with all the use, and he has not needed to use the second set. Unless you are a collector, it makes little sense. Camera bodies can generally be repaired if needed.
Fri 01-Feb-13 02:09 AM | edited Fri 01-Feb-13 02:10 AM by gheck58
It really depends on if you are making your living as a photographer. If you are then it's going to pretty hard to stay up with your competition with a 7 to 10 year old technology camera. If not then I believe the D700 will still take great images 5 to 10 years from now. However I doubt Nikon will have many replacement parts.
Unless you plan on shooting with both bodies simultaniously it doesn't make much sense. As stated above, every new genreation of bodies has significantly outperformend the previous genration. In 5-7 years the D700 will be at least two and likely three or more genreations old. In addition, the price of camera bodies seems to drop every time a new generation of bodies is introduced. It would be more cost effective to have the shutter on your current D700 replaced if and when it fails. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
I came from a D90 with some DX lenses and wanted to upgrade to FX. So, after the D800 and, later, the D600 anouncements, i decided to go for an light used D700. The reasons were: D800 - too many pixels, too huge files, slow FPS and quite expensive (though i was able to get it); D600 - not so good built, quite small for my big hands, 39 AF points, button layout and the high ISO capability (good but not enought). My current setup is a D700 and a D90 when i want to go light. Started investing in FX lenses only and kept the excelent 16-85 DX and the 35 1.8 DX, for my Dx setup. I'm one of those that are planning to shoot with these setup for the next 5-10 years. The number of pixels is more than enough for me, and the results i get are quite sactisfying as well. Thinking like that, i have ZERO interest in the new D800/D600.
Nikonians!!! My best investment made after my camera!!!
Well if you are crazy then I am also as I did give this some fleeting consideration after recently acquiring a low shutter count D700 and seeing the improvement over my D200. I considered replacing the D200 with another D700 thus having a backup with the advantage of the same layout and controls and, as you say, getting a hold of another one of these gems for a good price while some pristine ones are still available.
But after not too much thought, I figured having the D700 and D200 combination is more useful to me for now. And they have similar layouts, share the same battery and CF cards.
I did more than consider buying a backup D700 - I bought one. My first one has about 12K on the shutter, so I really didn't need a backup. However, I occasionally shoot weddings, portraits, sports, etc., so when I found a mint, used D700 with 4500 clicks, I jumped on it. For me, it was simple: there's nothing that I need a camera to do that it can't do.
I don't want video. I don't want the extra megapixels. I want 8 FPS (with a grip) for shooting sports. I want to keep using my CF cards. I want the AF-On button.
Now I don't have to learn a new set of controls or get used to the feel of a new body. I suspect I've got the camera setup that I'll be using for years.
I have quit subscribing to and reading all the photography magazines. To me all they are is bully pulpits for the camera and equipment manufacturers touting the next new and wonderful this or that. In 4 years I went from the d80 to the d200 to the d300 and now the D700. I shoot weddings so the d700 is my go to camera; the d300 is my backup and the d200 I have converted to IR.. I sold the D80. I do not need or want video. I get all the resolution and iso performance in the d700. It definitely is a way better camera for weddings than the d200 or 300 for iso performance and cropping. I had a Pentax SP500 film camera for 20 years before I went digital. So as long as the d700 works i will keep it and also replace the shutter whem the time comes.
I just bought a gently used D700, and I really like it. But I wouldn't buy another. These are fairly well put together cameras. But as someone else pointed out, in ten years, you'll probably want whatever really slick new model is on offer at the time. A D900 or something. Or a gently used D800.
Wed 20-Feb-13 09:02 AM | edited Wed 20-Feb-13 09:10 AM by DinoCardelli
THANKS FOR ALL THE COMMENTS....
Had my sensors cleaned while here in Atlanta on business at Camera Services in North Atlanta, GA....His company is a NIKON authorized repair center...for any of you who are in the area...or even want to send in work......Mr. Park is a 30 year veteran of fixing Nikons....great guy...loves to talk and teach.
I asked him what the "average" shutter life of a D700 he's seen...and 100K + was the well within range before a replacement to be considered...
I then asked him his opinion of the camera from a reliability and service....
His words (spoken in heavy Korean accent) - Very Strong - you will keep, long, long time !!!
He said, just bring in every few months for sensor cleaning, don't drop, and when the time comes, replacement of shutter...very easy....no problem...just put in another.
BTW, I am pretty rough on the equipment as it goes with me for fishing, beach shoots, etc...
My sensors were really dirty....this is my second cleaning since last year and I did not have any oil or issues....you need to take the time to be sure all your camera's sensors (I did my D7k and D700 for $80)...
Now, just another issue...as I mentioned to Mr. Park I live in FLL.....and asked about self cleaning using kits for sensors....his comment was.....don't do it !!! Not worth the problems if you damage the sensor....I know there are alot of people that do it...and maybe i'm a bit simplistic in my thinking...but, I tend to agree with Mr Park...he mentioned, "My tech's do this all day long with the right equipment. If there is a problem, the sensor can be potentially damaged"....for me, I'll probably stick with leaving it to an authorized service center.....
Looks like me and my D700 will be around for a while
Yes, the D3s seems to be holding it's value pretty well, dang it... lol I want one! It's tough now with the products out there. With the D800 at $2.5K refurbished, the price is still probably high on the D3s and certainly on the D3. I've seen beater D700s in the 1200 range and nice ones for 1500...
Firstly, may I ask why you bought the D700 in the first place?
As an owner of a D700 myself, I bought it ahead of Nikon introducing its next full frame models (the D4 and D800/E) because I didn't want video to be added to my camera.
Newer models may have advances in technologies but not all may be needed. 12MP of the D700 is more than enough in my opinion. My hard drive is already feeling the strain.
The D700 is a very capable camera & the last without video tacked onto it. This may be a reason to buy another. Also depends on how often and in what conditions the camera is used in (presumably you're buying another in case your existing breaks down).
>Firstly, may I ask why you bought the D700 in the first >place? > >As an owner of a D700 myself, I bought it ahead of Nikon >introducing its next full frame models (the D4 and D800/E) >because I didn't want video to be added to my camera. > >Newer models may have advances in technologies but not all may >be needed. 12MP of the D700 is more than enough in my opinion. >My hard drive is already feeling the strain. > >The D700 is a very capable camera & the last without video >tacked onto it. This may be a reason to buy another. Also >depends on how often and in what conditions the camera is used >in (presumably you're buying another in case your existing >breaks down).
I like the "PRO" controls and the feel....and the price point, at the time was great...
I've found my photography technique and photos are siginficantly better....or, so say, my friends and mentors...
As a fellow D700 shooter, I do not feel buying a spare D700 is the best investment. If you the NAS syndrome, you might want to consider spending the funds on better glass. Your profile doesn't show what you have.
DSLR technology keeps advancing.. less noise at higher ISO's, better focusing, better low light sensitivity, faster internal buss speed, etc. Unless you abuse the D700 or take 10 thousand pictures a year or more, you should have many, many years of use with the D700. If repairs are needed you have the D7K so you won't be without a camera. If the file size of the newer bodies is an issue, you can always shoot in crop (DX) mode. I understand that the D800 is a better 12mp DSLR than the D700.
I want a D800 as well, just getting my act together. Then a few days ago, up pops a listing on Craigs for a D700 for $1199 and a D300 for $450! It was really hard not to pull the trigger on one of them. shutter count wasn't too bad either... I bet that guy REALLY wants to upgrade.
Sat 24-Aug-13 04:19 PM | edited Sat 24-Aug-13 04:27 PM by tma
Sorry golfercat, I just had to laugh. Last time I checked the shutter count I'd put just shy of 80,000 clicks on the newest body (I have a backup, and a backup to the backup) - four months shy of two years old.
No. You are not crazy. The arrival of the D800 did not disable or diminish the capability of a single D700 in the world. If you are satisfied with the capabilities of the D700, by all means, stay with it and maybe even add another to your kit. Very nice used ones are running 40% of the new price 18-24 months ago. I am shifting to D800s because they do a better job of what I do mostly -- photojournalism and aerial work. But I am keeping a D700 and battery pack, mostly for basketball and its 8 fps capability. Also, 8 fps on the D800 is half a gigabyte a second!
When I saw my first D700 images I said WOW! a few seconds after I started breathing again. It was and is a great camera.
If I came across a great deal on a mint/unused body, I'd be tempted to get it. I think these cameras are the "hot rods" that folks will appreciate for a long time. My problem is mine don't stay mint very long. I use them!
I love my D700 and would gladly put another US body into the lineup. It "gets 'er done".
Although if the right D3 came along, I'd have to consider it.
Nikon I believe officially supports with parts production for 7 years after a model is discontinued. That doesn't mean parts won't still be available after that time, but you'll start seeing a reduction in availability.
Im in the market for a D700 as well, wanted to upgrade to FX from a D7k. Neither D800 nor D600 is a good fit for me at the moment. D700 seems just right for my need at the moment. Just waiting for the right deal to come by.
I am also a D700 user. Love the camera. I feel that you would be better served by investing in lenses than buying another D 700. As camera body improvements are made in the next few years you will be better served with good lenses that you can continue to use as camera improvements are made