Why I got a new D700 instead of waiting for a D800

[agw0]

Actually isn't D800 actually saving money on lenses with x1,2 and x1,5 modes ?

Yes. No. It depends:

• Yes, you can use your DX lenses on the D800, and still get slightly less than D7000 MPs (about 15 vs. 16). This, however, in a larger, heavier package, at about three times the price (but with some improved features), and with arguably decreased usability (DX mode in the FX viewfinder).
• No, if you want to pull the best performance out ouf the D800, you will need to use the full 36MP frame - that means FX lenses. And you will need to carefully select them - not every old one found in your cupboard will be up to this task.
• So, it depends - DX lenses on the D800 make sense as a migratory path, and where you want to keep using a seldomly used specialty lens (e.g. 10.5 fish eye) instead of "upgrading" that to FX (assuming that you have DX lenses in the fist place).

Fortunately, I have a stash of old Ai/AF FX lenses (most from the 70ies to 90ies, some still current models), that work perfectly well on the D700 (so far as I have already tested them in the last two days). So, keeping to use my three DX lenses is not a selling point to me.

 

[Ronald M]

Nikon put out a technical paper on the D800. They like it focused with a loupe,live view, on a tripod, only the latest and greatest lenses.. Not that it will not work without, but that is what it takes to get the best out of it.

I generally use low iso setting and print to 11x14. Any camera since 2006 (D200) will make very nice prints for that use. I have 1x14 from my D40 and they are fine.

Conclusion, for most uses, the latest and greatest is not required.

 

[commtrd]

I really am interested to start seeing the images from both the D4 and the D800 when they start appearing. I would imagine that with a 36 mP sensor technique would be critical as the slightest movement would be immediately seen, much more so than a lower resolution pixel density? To keep sharp focus a tripod most likely necessary?

The D700 may be one of those bodies that just does not lose its resale value. I know I will never sell my D700. Someday would like to get a D3s or a D4 though.

 

[prairie_pal]

I really am interested to start seeing the images from both the D4 and the D800 when they start appearing. I would imagine that with a 36 mP sensor technique would be critical as the slightest movement would be immediately seen, much more so than a lower resolution pixel density? To keep sharp focus a tripod most likely necessary?

The D700 may be one of those bodies that just does not lose its resale value. I know I will never sell my D700. Someday would like to get a D3s or a D4 though.

If I'm understanding this correctly then, it stands to reason that subject motion
at this pixel density could be as troublesome as camera shake and a much higher shutter speed will be needed to compensate unless one's panning skills are impecable. Also, for landscape shooters won't motion like trees and grass waving in the wind or moving water be an issue?
I'm starting to think that the D700 is the better FX choice for me, given my very shaky grip and even worse eyes. The only things that would keep me waiting longer for an FX body would be possible focus and metering upgrades.

 

[RoyC01]

Well the D700 will be around for a while longer. Nikon has confirmed that the body is still in production and will remain in production, so long as demand continues.

 

[StIves]

congrats on the purchase.

 

[uscmatt99]

I haven't been keeping up with the latest on the D800, but is sounds like people are only seeing one side of the argument regarding the increased pixel density. There are two ways to look at it.

1) With increased pixel density, images viewed at 100% will have more noise per pixel, and be more susceptible to motion blurring and any lens deficiencies previously covered up by the larger pixels of the D700 sensor. To maximize the abilities of this new sensor, we need excellent technique and lenses. This is all true.

2) What happens if we take any lens, take identically framed and exposed photos with a D700 and D800, and view the image either as an 8x10 print or filling an average 20-21 inch monitor, or even view a 20 x 30 print made from each? Well, most lenses have project a more detailed image than the D700 sensor can record, which is why it's so kind to older lenses and sloppy technique. It stands to reason that a higher resolution sensor, while showing off flaws at 100%, will also record more true information about the scene. Almost no matter what, the D800 image will look better, because it starts its life out with more information about the actual subject than the D700 file. You can down-res the D800 file and make gains in noise, DR, and true color information, or you can up-res the D700 file. This doesn't even take into account what is happening at the pixel level with several years of development. If you don't believe me, take a base ISO 200 image on a D40/D60/D3100 and compare it to a D7000 file.

There is no doubt that the D700 is more camera than I need, but since there is no way a D800 can decrease the quality of viewed output, I would have no qualms about trade-offs on an upgrade. It will allow me to see more of what the lens is transmitting, the good, the bad, and the ugly :biggrin:

 

[Joseph]

When I had a D40, I kept saying "this is nice, I love it, but it could be bigger". I wanted a bigger body.
When I had a D70s, I said "nice body, bigger, but ISO 800 sucks on this thing.". I wanted something with better high ISO.
When I had the D90, I said that it was a really nice body, great to hold, had ok high ISO, but felt like a toy. I wanted something more solid.
When I had the D300, I said that it's very fast, had ok high ISO, and felt solid, but I wasn't satisfied with the viewfinder and images above ISO 1600 were noisy. I said I wanted something better.

Now that I have the D700, I am perfectly satisfied. I looked at it thoroughly and said "It has no flaws." It offers everything that I want. I tried a D3s and wasn't impressed. In fact I hated its bulkiness. The D700 to me, is a PERFECT machine. I couldn't ask for more.

And THAT, is why I'm keeping my D700 until it falls apart. Maybe I'll add a D800 or a D7000 later, but the always-reliable, fun-to-use, joy-to-hold, ever performing D700 is here to stay. It will be a very sad day when Nikon discontinues this otherwise perfect body.

 

[Rich Gibson]

...
Now that I have the D700, I am perfectly satisfied....The D700 to me, is a PERFECT machine. I couldn't ask for more.

And THAT, is why I'm keeping my D700 until it falls apart.....

Amen!

Rich

 

[fao91]

Almost perfect: as it is.
Perfect: add dual card slot+ 100% viewfinder
Fantastic:all the above+ D3s sensor

 

[1itsme]

Mr 91, if my new 800 produces anything closes to what you are doing w/ your 700, i will be very happy indeed!

 

[StIves]

Congrats on the D700. That's the route I'd go too It's good that Nikon is leaving both the 700 and the 800 in the lineup, because the 800 is a very different camera.

huh? not sure what you get that idea. read thom's latest entry for a very informative discussion on what's really behind the D700 stock levels and how it is nothing to write home about.


http://bythom.com/
simply put, it is the realities of product lifecycle managment that it will be a gradual phaseout into history and not a next day shift. let's not simply availability when you can't even buy a D800 in a store for something that it is not.

 

[BillM]

huh? not sure what you get that idea. read thom's latest entry for a very informative discussion on what's really behind the D700 stock levels and how it is nothing to write home about.


http://bythom.com/
simply put, it is the realities of product lifecycle managment that it will be a gradual phaseout into history and not a next day shift. let's not simply availability when you can't even buy a D800 in a store for something that it is not.

Hmmm, I bet more than one person was hoping Best Buy would do an encore of their discounted D200's with the "overstocked" D700's.....

 

[StIves]

Hmmm, I bet more than one person was hoping Best Buy would do an encore of their discounted D200's with the "overstocked" D700's.....

wouldn't we all :smile: I hope mine doesn't plummet in value too fast once you can't buy them. If I like the D800, I may part ways with it. oh well.

 

[Steiner]

#1: You could add, that you can stop down much more without diffraction - I could miss that, even I have ordered the D800.

 

[StIves]

#1: You could add, that you can stop down much more without diffraction - I could miss that, even I have ordered the D800.

I don't see that being a problem that you can't compensate for. You can stop down all you want. Yes you'll capture less detail compared to the sweet spot, but you have the option to downsize to a resolution of your choosing to match the 700's output. I'd be interested to see a D800 shot at f/22 downsized to 12MP vs a shot at f/22 from a D700. With a good algorithms to downsample, I'd suspect neither image will not look all that different. I suspect you don't even have to downsample to 12MP to get a preferable image. So while I agree that you don't really gain much at extreme small apertures, it doesn't seem to me that you'll lose much either, if anything at all.

 

[Steiner]

Yes, you are right, you can do that, but you do not have to do that step with the D700.

 

[soxOZ]

Good on ya Arno, for what ever reason you decided to get the D700, I'm sure you're just gonna love it, it's a brilliant camera...
Have fun and post a lot of pics with your new toy...!!!

 

[Epic]

This thread is an excellent example in why it's good to have options and Nikon should leave the d700 in stock for as long as they can.

 

[MMPG1]

Congratulations Arno!

The D700 is such a fine camera! I have been using it since it came out, and I am still satisfied with it :smile:. Enjoy!

Best,