Do I really need or want a D700?? = Well I went & got one...

Trig's

Trig's

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,367
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
As you can see below - thats my camera gear... Ive owned the following D40, D60, D80, D90 & now the D300s...


Is it a want or a need for the D700 :shrug:

I'm happy with the D300s as dont really use it all that much apart from getting me out of the house (weekends) for some wildlife, the odd family wedding & for when we just go for a drive somewhere (landscapes I spose) but I dont do sports..

I'm mainly asking due to the lenses that I have and that these are on a cropped body instead of a FF one..

So in short - Am I being :cuckoo: and should just keep the D300s...


When I got the D300s I could've got the D700 instead but at the time I didn't have "pro" lenses...

Welcome your comments to see what you would do - but please bear in mind that I'm NOT a pro togger just your average run of the mill snapper ;)

I'm not going to suddenly rush out and get a D700 on peoples comments made here - its mainly to put my mind at ease and to confirm my thoughts... If you get my meaning...

Cheers
 
Last edited:
With the glass you have now, I think you'd be well suited to a D700.

I think the D700 is the nicest body Nikon made in a long time - and unusually for Nikon with their silly pricing lately.. they didn't gorge on the price tag.

You can bet a new version will come along shortly with a silly video mode and an extra button and the price will go up £750 on what it costs now.
 
I think you might want to hold off doing anything for a little while... I think a big pile of medium priced FX compatible glass hints heavily at a consumer FX body shortly...

Something like a D90 but FX.... might suit you more?
 
YES!! D700 is an amazing camera, make the move to full frame and you will never want to move back!!
 
I too have the 28-70 and 70-200 VR. But I've put them on D700's. A match made in Tog Heaven. If you have to ask...well...
 
Do you want one? Probably!

Do you NEED one? Probably not!

Will you get one? Maybe.
 
If you can afford it, get it!

I would love a D700, but having acquired a 70-200VR I now want a 24-70 so the D700 is on the wish list for now. It would be great with the glass you have.
 
I lusted after one for months, and finally got one this month. I only had the 50 1.4 and Tamron 28-75 to fit it, but boy was it worth the wait. Bought the 24-70 today and am now saving for the 70-200. It's an amazing camera, who cares if you need it, once you have it you'll never want to give up that full frame goodness!
 
:eek: Crikey.... A lot, well virtually everyone saying go for the D700... (wasn't at all surprised there if I was honest :lol:)

:thinking: I spose in a way all I'll need is the D700 body as I already have the grip, spose that it could be on the books to get one - I'll see if Nikon bring out this so called "D700 update/replacement" & if they do then I'll scour the "dealers" for any deals on the old version D700 (as so to speak) as would prefere to buy new as I keep missing the "used" ones in the classifieds...
 
The used priced here lately has been silly, really daft, Ebay they are doing £1450+ all day long, so if you want one.. I think your upgrade from a D300s to D700 could be about £300.
 
puddleduck said:
The used priced here lately has been silly, really daft, Ebay they are doing £1450+ all day long, so if you want one.. I think your upgrade from a D300s to D700 could be about £300.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed at the prices they're going for on here, complete madness in my opinion. When I get a second one I'll definitely be buying second hand from here.
 
puddleduck said:
The used priced here lately has been silly, really daft, Ebay they are doing £1450+ all day long, so if you want one.. I think your upgrade from a D300s to D700 could be about £300.
Click to expand...


:eek: Really.....I thought that it was going to be more if I was honest, but that certainly seems reasonable to me & totally affordable...

If it was going to be "used" then I would prefer to buy from here than the bay - not thru the cost but at least I'd be guaranteed a cracker (from a TP'r) than a cracked one (from ebay)..
 
:thinking: I will have to try & find someone local who can show me theirs (D700 that is) and see just what I'm missing out on.....:naughty:
 
Interesting........

I have debated this option but since I have produced some absolutely stunning A2 prints from my (6mp?) S5pro, and the high ISO performance of my D90 is more than good enough, I really cannot justify the D700 in any way.

A properly exposed and focussed D90 (or even D60) image will produce an incredibly sharp A4 (all I normally print at) or even bigger, and will be fine even if cropped. Where I have noticed a difference is with quality glass, the 70-300vr is VERY sharp, which is why I have now invested in a 16-85 to replace the kit lens.

For me quality glass gives me a better quality image, for my photography a D700 would add nothing.
 
Dave Pickett said:
I

For me quality glass gives me a better quality image, for my photography a D700 would add nothing.
Click to expand...

But looking at your sig vs. Trig's he DOES have the glass....

And his 35/2 will be far nicer on the D700 than a D300s. (mind you I love the 35/2 on the S5 Pro - huge fan of that body myself). Ditto the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S...

I was (and am) a massive S5 Pro fan but truth be told.. once I got my D700 two years back I barely used the S5. Even though the S5 Pro still murders the D700 for dynamic range...and OOC JPEGs.
 
But looking at your sig vs. Trig's he DOES have the glass....
Click to expand...

and therefore doesnt actually need a d700 in all probability, but no doubt that wont stop the OP from wanting one!!!

Just stating that for me, better glass actually made a difference, for the type of photography I do (equine mainly, and holiday stuff) the FF difference really wouldnt be noticible.
 
Disagree Dave, I have a D300 as well and I know that a D700 would give me fantastic ISO which would be a great help in many situations, as kids can be fast and its nice to be able to bump shutter speeds sometimes.

Also FF is supposed to be better for portraits too.
 
fantastic ISO which would be a great help in many situations,
Click to expand...

We are violently agreeing! I know the D700 will give better high ISO performance, but in my case I dont need anything better than what the D90 gives me so the 700 wouldnt help my photography.

The OPs situation may be different........oh and I have the s5pro for portraits, as Andy says still an amazing camera!
 
28-70mm really requires D700 or another FF. It is a bit of waste on cropper. The long one is probably fine depending on the subjects.
Unless you fancy Tokina 12-24mm as an alternative
 
Dave Pickett said:
The OPs situation may be different........oh and I have the s5pro for portraits, as Andy says still an amazing camera!
Click to expand...

For that, I'd take an S5 Pro over a D300 or D300s any day.

Actually now I'm back with a Nikon body (D700) I'm thinking about getting an S5 Pro again... but would I use it?

People and portraits are no interest to me whatsoever... but I do love the S5 Pro for landscape work just for the colours, tonality and DR. Can't believe it's nearly two years since I properly used one!
 
I am holding off until next spring when i think both Nikon and Canon will have a new FF camera in their line up
 
Boldonian said:
Will a 35 f2 really be "far nicer" on a D700 over a D300s ? When high ISO comes into it certainly but in decent light is there really that big a difference?
Click to expand...

Yes it will.

Because of the ridiculous crop factor on the cameras with midget sensors, to get equal framing on a D300s vs D700, you need to be a back about 1.5x the distance.

This effectively gives the D300 version DoF equal to f/2.8 vs f/2.0. This in turn influences bokeh, you can't "blur" away detail so much. The 35/2 focuses really close so you can do some lovely DoF effects on a D700 with the lens really close to the subject. You can't do that on a D300 because you need to be further back to get the same framing.. changing the DoF and bokeh rendering.

Folks often just talking about high ISO but there is more to it than that.

Thats my "long hand" version of "far nicer" :)
 
puddleduck said:
Yes it will.

Because of the ridiculous crop factor on the cameras with midget sensors, to get equal framing on a D300s vs D700, you need to be a back about 1.5x the distance.

This effectively gives the D300 version DoF equal to f/2.8 vs f/2.0. This in turn influences bokeh, you can't "blur" away detail so much. The 35/2 focuses really close so you can do some lovely DoF effects on a D700 with the lens really close to the subject. You can't do that on a D300 because you need to be further back to get the same framing.. changing the DoF and bokeh rendering.

Folks often just talking about high ISO but there is more to it than that.

Thats my "long hand" version of "far nicer" :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed explanation Andy. :thumbs:
 
Bendihossan said:
No, you don't want a D700. You want a 5D MkII. :boxer::exit:
Click to expand...


:thinking: Mmmmmm then that would mean I'd have to sell all of my gear... AGAIN :lol:

puddleduck said:
For that, I'd take an S5 Pro over a D300 or D300s any day.

Actually now I'm back with a Nikon body (D700) I'm thinking about getting an S5 Pro again... but would I use it?
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh yesssss (as churchie would say).... Then I can have 1st dibs at the D700 then ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top