How long will it last?

How long will a D700 be considered a useful, usable camera?

  • Two years

    Votes: 21 25.9%
  • Three years

    Votes: 19 23.5%
  • Five years

    Votes: 22 27.2%
  • Seven years

    Votes: 19 23.5%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
May 5, 2008
Sydney, Australia
[Sorry if I mess this up, but this is my first attempt to start a poll on this site...]

I am wondering what people here think. How long do you think a D700 would be considered worth using, given the current rate of technological advancement?

(This is a serious question - I need to consider this seriously before I can buy one.)
Mar 23, 2007
Collecchio, northern Italy
Hi there
my bet is two years. Unless you didn't get a D3, everything which is under is going to be replaced in two-three years and this causes a physiological change in people mindset
This doesn't mean that the D700 WON'T be effectively usable or valid, just that your mind could naturally start thinking of something else.
Last edited by a moderator:
May 11, 2006
Real Name
it will last as long as you want it to
the big knockoffs are over for Nikon
the d3 & d700 are superb cameras with no major weaknesses

so go buy one and have fun
Apr 26, 2008
That's going to depend on the definition of "considered worth using". For many it could be considered the primary body for probably 2-3 years at least and for many it could be considered at least the #2 body for several years. Even if someone upgrades to the D770 in 3-4 years for their primary wedding body the D700 will go along as backup. If you mean how long can it hold the primary body spot that's a different definition. I look at the question of how long until upgrades push it completely out of the picture so that's a lot of years.
Apr 2, 2008
It's full frame, the megapixels are just right, the ISO abilities have never been this good in the history of photography...All in all, I'd say you could takes this and use the crap out of it till the shutter gives out. I would, if I had the money to buy one.
Then again, if your hobby/passion is buying cameras, by all means, buy cameras :tongue:
Nov 15, 2006
Upstate SC
I can't really tick any of the choices above. How long was the F3 useful? It STILL is. How about the F5? Still a good one.

How long it'll be useful/useable depends on how long Nikon engineered it to last. This latest set of releases (3/300/700) appear to have the fortitude to hang in there a while.

Now, if you're a VERY competitive, often internationally published pro, then you may be forced to make incremental updates in gear because you absolutely need that very last nth from all your gear. Even regular pros don't need that sort of edge. Then again, maybe Canon will introduce something next year that totally changes the game? Maybe Nikon will? Maybe we've plateau'd for a while? Who knows...
Jul 3, 2008
I voted 5.

I got 5 years out of my D100.

It really depends on what you want out of a camera.

I nearly bought a D300. But after my D100 lasting 5 years and I paid $AU 3300 for it I wanted to ensure that if I paid similar money (D300 started out at ~$AU 2700 when released) again for a camera I wanted it to last a good few years too. Early this year when I was looking to purchase a D300 I felt we were just too close to getting a full frame camera at a price that I could justify to myself to pay.

After having had the D100 for 4.5 years at the time (now 5) I had a look at what I felt my current camera lacked and what I wanted out of a new camera and I came down to the following.

1) 33 seconds between photos is way too slow (I prefer to shoot in RAW and the D100 has only a 4 frame buffer. It fills quick)
2) Full Frame so that my prime lens' will work the way I was used to them on film cameras. 105 F2 DC specifically.

Those were the only two things I really wanted out of an upgraded camera and the D300 only fulfilled one of them.

6MP for me is fine. I am happy with the size of blow ups that 6MP allows for so 12MP from both D300 and D700 is a bonus.

So when the D300 really only fixed one of my two issues with the D100 and seeing the D3 out I decided to wait a while till I had a real dire need for the speed. Well the D700 has come first so now I can have both my issues "fixed".

For me I expect the D700 to last me 5 years or more being it meets all my current needs and then some.


I have a D100 which is perfectly usable and I use it as a backup camera. My main camera is a D80, which is ergonomically better. I would imagine that depending on your use, the D700 should last until something breaks. I agree, from the specs, there are no major flaws. If I had the money I would buy two of them and use them exclusively. That way I only have to learn one camera body system which would allow me to concentrate more on the real art of photography.
Dec 29, 2005
Bournemouth, UK
it depends on what you want to do and how you want to use the output,,. if you consider that in 3 years the high iso / dynamic range etc (+ other 'stuff') will have improved then you might consider upgrading.,.

the 5d is ~3 years old tech and the start of this year it became our main body for our wedding work,. the image quality is more than enough for most things we do,. we might change bodies in another 2-3 years - hard to know what will come along w/o a crystal ball :smile:
Oct 29, 2007
Middletown, Maryland
Check out Rockwell and see what the "Old" stuff sold for new (he did Good in that category). And check the price reductions from Nikon. This isn't a new thing. One example is the D2X: Note the prices. I am not surprised by this, it is to be expected. I would be let down if it didn't happen. I am happy with the 70 and 200. I look forward to the future.
Dec 12, 2007
Los Angeles, California
I voted for seven years. Assuming your shutter lasts that long ;)

As great as the results from the D3 sensor have proven, I don't see any reason why it could be considered truly obsolete. I mean, great results at ISO6400? That is just mind boggling. What more could you ask for?
Jun 15, 2008
"How long will a D700 be considered a useful, usable camera?"

I've voted for 7 years. I don't think you can compare it to the early digital cameras, because while cameras improve, our needs don't greatly increase. I would already like a better camera than the D700 - I'd like its dx crop mode to have 12mp (like the D300). I'd like another couple of stops high ISO performance. But I wouldn't need those things as much as I need them for my D70.

The more these bodies improve, the less we need each improvement. 2 extra stops high ISO would be of more benefit to my D70 than they would to a D700. A little extra resolution would also be of more benfit to my D70 than it would to a D700. When the D70 came out, we knew it wasn't going to be 'all the camera we'd ever need'. I don't think the D700 is either, but it is closer, and should last longer.
May 1, 2005
Marlton, NJ
Ah, what a difference the medium makes. In the past you could buy a camera, say an FM or F3HP and you only had to upgrade the film you used as Kodak and Fuji kept raising the bar. Now you have to upgrade the whole camera! I have a 1950 Rollei TLR that is still capable of taking great high quality pictures.

That said, I am very happy with my D300.
Sep 25, 2005
St. Louis, MO USA
I see a difference between "worth using" and "want to use".
Given my experience with the D3 this camera should be worth using for a very very long time.

From my POV they are running out of things to improve significantly. We've got more FPS than most people will ever need,
ISO performance that is insane and a general feature set that is getting so long you need to carry a crib sheet with you.

Other than MP increases my crystal ball sees more gingerbread type features added to future cameras
and fewer truly innovative and useful ones.

So, I'm voting 5 years but betting that Nikon comes out with something in two that I'm going to want. :biggrin:

Jun 5, 2008
If you look at the bottom of the Camera you will see a bunch of symboll's. On the bottom right there is one that has a 10 with two arrows going in opposite direction making a circle. So from that fact alone, I would say even nikon expects the modern camer's to be recycled in ten years.
May 10, 2005
Huntington Beach, CA
Although I voted for 5 years, I think that would be the "minimum" life. For me, given where we are with technology--ie great sensors,mpixels,etc..., the new bodies will last me longer than 5 years. But if you need to be on the front of the technology adopter curve...your mileage will vary accordingly.


Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji:
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY:
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom