D700 or D800

Badger8

Badger8

Suspended / Banned
Messages
355
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
I've finally made the decision to upgrade my camera. I took up photography a year ago and I bought a D3100 to see how I would get on, but, photography has now taken over my life, I love it!!
Now is finally the time to upgrade, but, I'm stuck between the D700 and D800. The only reason I say this is because I've used a friends D700 and got some really good results from it, however, everyone keeps talking about the D800. The price difference is big, so do you thinking that I should bite the bullet and get the D800, or slowly upgrade to the D700?

Also, I've heard that the D800 only shoots 6fps! Is that going to be enough for sports shots?


Thanks in advance

Tim
 
d700 for sports 8fps with a grip fitted hth mike.
 
Badger8 said:
Also, I've heard that the D800 only shoots 6fps! Is that going to be enough for sports shots?
Click to expand...

Only with the grip, otherwise it's 4fps - it's resolution is it's big selling point not it's speed.
What sports do you shoot and what speed do you expect to need?
 
Chris Wilson said:
Both brilliant - D800 more versatile (has greater reach) but D700 are staggering value at the mo - just picked up a minter for under a grand!
You pays yer money etc!
cheers, cw
Click to expand...
am i missing something both full frame, how so more reach?
 
gramps said:
Resolution = greater cropability.
Click to expand...
i would'nt pay all that money on a D800 just so i could crop the photos down i'd get the d700 and spend out on some better glass instead ;)
 
dinorock said:
i would'nt pay all that money on a D800 just so i could crop the photos down i'd get the d700 and spend out on some better glass instead ;)
Click to expand...

You would already have some decent glass if you were considering a D800 or it would be a waste of your money :)
 
gramps said:
You would already have some decent glass if you were considering a D800 or it would be a waste of your money :)
Click to expand...
the op only has an 18-55 kit lens so far so my option makes sense ;)
 
FPS is not always necessary but helps. When I started doing sport we only had 5fps at best and were working with film. If you learn the sports you are covering you know what is going to happen. I take bursts of 3-4 frames at a time and get the shot.

I would go for the d800 and grip for the better dynamic range.
 
The nikon D800 is currently £1999 from wex so a good quality d700 + 70-200vr1 could be had for the same money. the op states that he is new to photography so starting out in sport he may well need the faster fps until he gets better at his photography hth mike.
 
A D800 at Panamoz is £1404 and having owned both the D700 and D800 I'd choose the D800. You won't be disappointed.
 
sorry to throw a curve ball in there, but, I'm not just interested in sport, I'm actually more interested in landscape and portraits. I would just like the option maybe to do sport. sorry, i should have made that clear. sorry
 
D800 will be great for landscapes and portraits (and anything studio) but you will need good glass :)
 
Badger8 said:
I've finally made the decision to upgrade my camera. I took up photography a year ago and I bought a D3100 to see how I would get on, but, photography has now taken over my life, I love it!!
Now is finally the time to upgrade, but, I'm stuck between the D700 and D800. The only reason I say this is because I've used a friends D700 and got some really good results from it, however, everyone keeps talking about the D800. The price difference is big, so do you thinking that I should bite the bullet and get the D800, or slowly upgrade to the D700?

Also, I've heard that the D800 only shoots 6fps! Is that going to be enough for sports shots?


Thanks in advance

Tim
Click to expand...


6FPS? The D800 is only 4FPS. It's 6 in DX mode only.

Do you print big? By big, I mean larger than A3? If not... save cash, get the D700. Simple as that. D800 is nice, great camera, but you could save a fair bit of cash that could go towards lenses.

If you've got tons of cash, then get the D800.

That kind of sums it up
 
Last edited:
IMO it isn't just a case of printing big ... it maybe if you can get everything right in camera but if you are needing to crop of necessity the D800 will come into its own.
 
I use my D800 with a 600mm lens - the high res gives me the opportunity to crop in tight if required - but it still gives me the ability to use the full frame if things oblige and come closer.
That's my main reason for owning it.
The D700 simply won't do that - but if you are planning to do anything other than that then the D700 is a stunning camera and will make you very happy for much less dosh. In fact if you chose to ignore grey imports I still think the D700 is the way to go for you Tim.
Stick a 50mm 1.8 on it and you'll have 95% of a DF at a fraction of the cost - and it will amaze you!
As always just my 2c

cheers, cw
 
I found the D800 to be pretty decent for sports IMHO. I used it yesterday with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8VRII in 1.5x DX crop mode shooting 6fps. I shot the League 2 match Oxford United vs Burton Albion match with it and worked better than I was excepting. Don't normally use it for sports but I'am currently changing body's so the D800 is the only one I had for yesterday.

Due to League permissions etc. I can't post the images on here but I have put a link below to one of the images I took with the 70-200mm in 1.5x crop mode yesterday.

http://joeturnerphotography.co.uk/gallery_488250.html#photos_id=12591121
 
Badger8 said:
sorry to throw a curve ball in there, but, I'm not just interested in sport, I'm actually more interested in landscape and portraits. I would just like the option maybe to do sport. sorry, i should have made that clear. sorry
Click to expand...

The main advantage of the D800 will be in extreme resolution, so either printing large(A2 will start to show a clear detail difference I'd imagine) or extensive cropping. The viewfinder on the D800 is also 100% rather than 97% as on the D700 which can be helpful for landscape shooting.

The advantage of the D700 would be the faster FPS, with a battery grip(or potentially hacked without?) you can get 8 FPS where as the D800 only offers 6FPS in DX(ASPC crop) mode with the grip.

Oh and the D800 offers video which the D700 lacks.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I use my D800 with a 600mm lens - the high res gives me the opportunity to crop in tight if required - but it still gives me the ability to use the full frame if things oblige and come closer.
That's my main reason for owning it.
The D700 simply won't do that - but if you are planning to do anything other than that then the D700 is a stunning camera and will make you very happy for much less dosh. In fact if you chose to ignore grey imports I still think the D700 is the way to go for you Tim.
Stick a 50mm 1.8 on it and you'll have 95% of a DF at a fraction of the cost - and it will amaze you!
As always just my 2c

cheers, cw
Click to expand...

Thank you :)
 
Had both but no longer have the D800. I bought it mainly for the extra cropping I could do while retaining enough pixels to print to A3 but found the weight of the bag with 2 FF bodies and an assortment of lenses too much for my back so it (the bag) tended to get left at home. Now use a V1 with an FT1 adaptor and a 70-300 to get the long shots. IQ isn't quite as good as the D800 cropped but it's close! I still have the D700 and lenses to satisfy my need for UWAs as well when I don't want the length!

For fun, I stuck Chris's 600mm on a 1.4x telecom on the V1/FT1. 600x1.4x2.7...

Should say that I traded the D800 in against a Fuji X-Pro1 system for portability and I'm loving it! Not a replacement for the DSLR but another fun toy tool.
 
As a D700 and D800 owner I'd say go for a D700 and some good glass.

D800 is an excellent camera. Has amazing DR and the resolution (if you need it, many won't) is excellent. It's unforgiving of bad glass and bad technique though. Also, on reliability, mine has gone back to nikon twice in it's first year (It's currently in for repair). I don't shoot sports, but it would be the last of the current FF nikons that I'd choose for that purpose. If it had an sRAW option or was 22mp, I'd like it a helluva lot more.

The D700 is, pound for pound, the best digital camera I've ever owned. There are of course better Nikons, but the fact that you could pick up a great condition body for under a grand is hard to beat.

I have D4, D3s, and D800 bodies yet still have held onto two D700s.
 
It may be worth holding back until September when Nikon are due to launch the new D800s. This may suit your needs better or conversely push the price of the D800 / 800e down.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It may be worth holding back until September when Nikon are due to launch the new D800s.
Click to expand...

Got a source for this? I've heard nothing, and I have a few industry contacts who usually catch wind of such shenanigans.
 
Nikon RUMOURS... yeah. Don't put too much faith into that. After all they "rumoured" a full frame mirrorless hybrid the same size as a FM2, which turned out to be the Nikon Df. I'd certainly not be advising people to make their buying choices based on anything they write :)

I'm sure a new full frame camera will come along soon enough... but there always will be something new coming along.
 
Last edited:
is this the same Nikon Rumours who have been talking about a D400 for the last 3 years :rolleyes:
 
I was in this position this month, I ended up buying a low mileage D700 and grip from MPB then scoured eBay for the MH-21 charger, EL-EN4a battery and a new BL-3 from mifsuds. All that and the new sigma 24-105 OS (which does seem rather good) came in less than the D800 which I was thinking about.

As a wildlife photographer this is a better decision but if your interested in landscape (and can afford a good lens) then the D800 may be the way to go. Ultimately the D700 is a brilliant camera, I am smitten with mine in only a week and my D7000 suddenly seems a bit backwards (in some ways). Will I get a D800? Probably one day but not until I have more lenses that can back that up.
 
HoppyUK, you said something to the effect that Nikon didn't fully exploit the possibilities of the sensor. Would you mind explaining where they should have exploited the sensor better? Because as I understood it, that sensor at the time was pretty much the best someone could get out of a sensor considering the pixel size. And that sensor tech also being quite expensive (remember, it equals or betters the D600 in terms of DR for example despite the pixels being considerably smaller).

Badger 8, I don't know what would be the better camera for you, but I think the D800 is usually looked at under the wrong aspects.

The D800 is a camera which within a certain set of parameters can beat pretty much all other cameras in terms of potential IQ. Those parameters are apertures not above f8, ISO not above 400 or preferrably not even above 200, excellent glass and slightly faster shutter speeds, depending on how steady your hands are.

Outside these parameters, the D800 is still an excellent cameras on par with or better than most others in terms of IQ. With the limitation of the lower fps.

One common misconception seems to be that people buy the D800 for the resolution. For me, the DR and color depth, the excellent viewfinder, the very long battery life, the great user interface (software is very easy to use), and the fact that there is a beautifully positioned quick access button for everything I need, are much more important.

AAMOF I bought a D600 first, for similar reasons, and only moved to the D800 because the D600 had those sensor oil issues. But when I had the D800, I noticed that its AF is much better in low light, the flash sync speeds is higher, it supports USB3 (handy if you don't have card reader available) etc. It's a really good camera, and when you use it within its top specs bracket, it is a breathtakingly good camera.
 
One common misconception seems to be that people buy the D800 for the resolution. For me, the DR and color depth, the excellent viewfinder, the very long battery life, the great user interface (software is very easy to use), and the fact that there is a beautifully positioned quick access button for everything I need, are much more important.
Click to expand...

I've never thought that - I thought that most people bought it in spite of the resolution. The prevailing thought appears to be that the majority of photographers don't need the resolution and to many it's an awful hindrance. I know plenty of photographers who own one and hate the fact that it's 36mp (myself included).

In terms of DR and colour depth it is absolutely superb - in fact, it's the best camera I own in those respects. I don't find the battery to be an improvement on the D700 - if anything it's doesn't seem as good, but I'm sure there are figures that prove me wrong.

If there was a 16/20/22mp version it would be a no-brainer between it and the D700. A lower res D800 alongside a 36mp D800e would've been a killer product lineup. For me the D800 will always be a massively missed opportunity.

In terms of the mac rumours 'update.' I can see the next incarnation being a D810 with a few AF tweaks and a 9mp sRAW option similar to the D4s.
 
I have to say though that I also don't have a prob with the MP. Everything in PP is fast enough for me, but I'm not a Pro. And the cropping ability is nice. I use primes exclusively and the cropping makes up a bit for the lack of zooming ability.

But I've always wondered what type of DR, low-noise at high ISO etc. would have been possible had Nikon chose to apply the same hi-tech production technology to a sensor of the D600's resolution.
 
I'm a prime user but don't really crop much in PP beyond straightening the odd horizon.

The filesize isn't much slower in PP either as my comps are great. It's more to do with storage. I shoot anywhere between 2-4000 images at a wedding. It rifles through cards and takes a lot of space on HDs. That would be a fair compromise if I needed 36mp, but I don't. It's also less forgiving than lower mp cameras - especially in a wedding scenario when you're capturing fleeting moments and working at great speed.

If I was a landscape or a studio photographer I'd probably be perfectly happy with it - then again, if nikon had a 36mp D800e and a 20mp D800, everyone would be happy. Most landscapers/studio togs I know have d800e rather than d800.
 
One other point to consider is the difference in file size that the cameras produce, could be even costlier if you need to upgrade your computer
 
AchimT said:
The D800 is a camera which within a certain set of parameters can beat pretty much all other cameras in terms of potential IQ. Those parameters are apertures not above f8, ISO not above 400 or preferrably not even above 200, excellent glass and slightly faster shutter speeds, depending on how steady your hands are.

Outside these parameters, the D800 is still an excellent cameras on par with or better than most others in terms of IQ
Click to expand...

Got to disagree. Why only up to ISO400? It's probably amongst the best low light performers out there, and ISO400 is indistinguishable from ISO100 if files are handled correctly. So above ISO200 it's only on a par with other cameras? Really?

Test image:
kvy4a8m.jpg


100% crops...

ISO100
XyqbyUv.jpg


ISO200
5SArWyQ.jpg


ISO400
7kGNivV.jpg


That's straight off camera.. no sharpening and certainly no noise reduction. There's no bloody difference between 100, 200 and 400


Let's not stop there....

ISO800
xkO5ydk.jpg


ISO1600
8HOfXah.jpg


ISO3200
4tspN1I.jpg


ISO6400
POz7mYN.jpg


Up to ISO800 there's practically no difference between 100 and 800. 1600 is utterly superb, and 3200 and 6400 are class leading.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top