The D700 is dead,long live the D700

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yv said:
Just for info in ref to what Cagey said about moire - the files I have DO show significant moire, though bear in mind it is on mens suits, a highly likely area for such problems on any camera. Having said that, the moire brush in LR4 cleaned them up a treat and that on its own would not stop me buying a D800e if it was the camera for me. ;)
Click to expand...

Suits are one of the worst for it, as I said, I used to get it bad at times on the D90. Not gotten it yet on the 800, and I've shot a black tie event with all sorts of satins and criss-cross fabrics going on.

Scott, you can keep posting that 'till Christmas, it proves nothing. Also, 12mp isn't measley. It just means the overall image is smaller.
 
Last edited:
As I said earlier, the D800 does nothing extra on the D700 that I need, ergo, I will stick with the D700's for now [and yes, if they could do an 's' version, perhaps 12-16mps and a dual card slot, I would be much more interested] It really is that simple, not some undying love for the D700's - however, if a D800 was the right camera for someone else, I see absolutely no reason not to buy it/upgrade to it. It is about having the best tool for the job at a cost the job can justify.

If you are a 'hobbiest' - then it is totally personal choice, its your pocket money :thumbs:
 
boyfalldown said:
mmmmm.........so different crops (1 may be 100% but both aren't),reduced to web resolution, processed differently photos for both cameras isn't really a great way of seeing anything.
Click to expand...
the d700 has be upscaled to match the d800, and thats all i have done, but even if the d800 was better it has not got 3x the detail has it.
 
Cagey75 said:
Suits are one of the worst for it, as I said, I used to get it bad at times on the D90. Not gotten it yet on the 800, and I've shot a black tie event with all sorts of satins and criss-cross fabrics going on.

Scott, you can keep posting that 'till Christmas, it proves nothing. Also, 12mp isn't measley. It just means the overall image is smaller.
Click to expand...

maybe so, but what size prints do you do in the real world that needs 35mps.
 
scottthehat said:
the d700 has be upscaled to match the d800, and thats all i have done, but even if the d800 was better it has not got 3x the detail has it.
Click to expand...

its a 1024 pxl wide web quality image. `how can you tell anything?
 
The d700 is a great camera and I don't think anyone doubts this.But having replaced mine with a d800, I wouldn't go back.

There seems to be a lot of hate for the d800 and I will admit I wasn't keen on it when it was announced. I had the opportunity to upgrade so took it and I'm glad I did.
The issue are few and far between, but as normal the internet blows everything out of control. A lot of the hate also seems to come from people who have never used one or couldn't afford to get one even if they wanted to.
Ive had no focus issues as far as I can tell, I've had no lock ups and no green tint.

The only down side's I can see are FPS, file size,( to be honest if you can afford a d800 you should be able to afford a good computer and memory cards) and maybe work flow speed due to the file size.

In every other aspect the camera tops the d700.I know d700 users want to defend the d700's iso but from my finding the d800 tops it,maybe not by much but it does. Focus works better in low light and it holds more detail, especially after PP. General focus seems better,files are better to work on and have more detail.
The only person I've seen say they regret the move is Deci and I've searched about the camera a lot over the past 3 months.

People do seem to be dropping the price of there d700's and even more people seem to expect to pay even less on here.I placed mine for sale with extras and a lens and was getting offers around £1000,but sold it of forum at my asking of £1200,even then the guy thought it was a good deal.
The problem started with one or two people trying to sell in a rush,then everyone seemed to compare prices to theres not the ones before.
 
Last edited:
pmac said:
The d700 is a great camera and I don't think anyone doubts this.But having replaced mine with a d800, I wouldn't go back.

There seems to be a lot of hate for the d800 and I will admit I wasn't keen on it when it was announced. I had the opportunity to upgrade so took it and I'm glad I did.
The issue are few and far between, but as normal the internet blows everything out of control. A lot of the hate also seems to come from people who have never used one or couldn't afford to get one even if they wanted to.
Ive had no focus issues as far as I can tell, I've had no lock ups and no green tint.

The only down side's I can see are FPS, file size,( to be honest if you can afford a d800 you should be able to afford a good computer and memory cards) and maybe work flow speed due to the file size.

In every other aspect the camera tops the d700.I know d700 users want to defend the d700's iso but from my finding the d800 tops it,maybe not by much but it does. Focus works better in low light and it holds more detail, especially after PP. General focus seems better,files are better to
Click to expand...


I've never owned the D700, but I agree with this.

I'm beginning to think it's either envy, people reading too much into online reviews - specifically focusing on niggles and issues with the first batches - an over defensiveness of their beloved favourite camera [It's a piece of gear FFS! don't fall in love with it!] or just nay saying for the sake of it. You don't see D800 owners mouthing about the D4, which it is superior to in many ways.

I was almost turned off buying the 800 because I too read all the fluff out there. Issues with this and that. But I kept reading, and started to ignore the BS pessimism's, and found some solid reviews, watched many youtube clips, more and more were happy with it than against. I took the plunge, a lot of money sure, but I'm a gambler by nature.

The only problem I had with it since I got it has been the slow up/freezing when reviewing images on the LCD. It was annoying, I go to review an image, and it would just stall. Someone on here suggested it might be the card I was using. I ordered a Sandisk Ultra 32GB card with 95mb/sec write speed and all is well. If you're buying a top camera, buy the top cards too. Lesson learned. Not one issue with mine now. It's a glorious machine.

And straycat, I shot a gig using it last week. I posted up on here a shot taken at 10,000 ISO. It was not only sharp and completely usable, but during that whole gig the camera didn't fail to focus one time. And I shot from a balcony away from the stage. I would be excited about using it for another gig. When I used the old D90 I almost dreaded it, wondering how good the lighting would be. Not any more ... worth the price alone for that comfort.
 
Last edited:
straycat said:
Focus works better in low light

not according to concert photographers

https://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=p...gc.r_pw.&fp=2cbe067b1ecd9017&biw=1024&bih=626


once more its not envey and a d800 is not a upgrade its a different tool.
Click to expand...

yes there were/are issues with some d800's if you have this send it to nikon or return it to your seller.
But as I said I think that you will find the % of users that have these problems is very small compared to the amount of units sold,from everything I've read this has been the best selling pro/semi pro dslr ever. These issues are just getting hyped up main by people who do not own the camera.

I also don't see anything to do with concert photographers there just things to do with the left AF problem.

Just because one person has told you they have problems doesn't mean they all do, some thing very similar was posted on the D4 thread,regarding how they all have issues because the poster had heard of 1 or 2 models with problems and I'm sure there have been 1dx and 5dmk3 with af issues and other issues does that mean there all crap as well.

How ever much people want to deny it the D800 is the upgrade to the D700,hence the name. It may not be in the same style as the D700 but by the looks of it anyone expecting a D700s/750 will be waiting a long time if not for ever.Nikon just chose a different path with the d800, the d700 was a rushed camera to compeat with the 5dmk3, the just shoved a d3 in a smaller body, this time they have made two different cameras.
 
Last edited:
i cheated and used a candle
this is a poor quality scan of a print

bw02521_zpse259121e.jpg
 
Last edited:
lowlights what i do,this ones from today for Supergrass.
everyone else was using flash,the only real light was on gaz.

JM7_5380_zps44733882.jpg



if i thought i could do it better with a D800 dont you think i would buy one.
this is was with a D3s i can get the same with a D700 i dont go above 3200 iso jpeg.

as i will be drinking on saturday,i will be in this venue with just a D700 and a 50mm
and shooting JPEG monochrome,shoot me :lol:

i have also invited a lot of other photographers to the gig.
it dont worry me in the least what they do.
 
Good thread to read as I've been debating this week whether to purchase a D800, I've had a D700 for a few years and it's been a terrific camera but the extra resolution of the D800 does appeal to me particularly when looking at the amount of detail the much smaller RX100 sensor produces. I don't tend to machine gun the D700 very often and have a powerful PC so I don't think the slower framerate and large filesize should be too much of an issue and further flexibility in the raw files would also be very much appreciated.

John
 
straycat said:
lowlights what i do,this ones from today for Supergrass.
everyone else was using flash,the only real light was on gaz.

JM7_5380_zps44733882.jpg



if i thought i could do it better with a D800 dont you think i would buy one.
this is was with a D3s i can get the same with a D700 i dont go above 3200 iso jpeg.

as i will be drinking on saturday,i will be in this venue with just a D700 and a 50mm
and shooting JPEG monochrome,shoot me :lol:

i have also invited a lot of other photographers to the gig.
it dont worry me in the least what they do.
Click to expand...


I'm lost as to what this is supposed to prove? You shot Supergrass ... wow ... :lol:

My shots were at 10K ISO, not 3200. I am aware the D700 can do a good job at 6400 ... I've seen many, many examples. So what? With a D800 you get much more than good ISO performance.

Staff edit: Removed!

Anyone would think you were the only ones who ever shot in low light, ever! I used a bridge camera for years. I shot many a gig using it. I'm not going to bang a drum about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my point was...

ah dont bother i dont like arguing with someone who just wants to argue.

i went to have a look at your photo and was kind enough not to comment on it.

:)
 
For me Nikon are making a real mess of things. Back a few years it was perfect, some good consumer cameras like the D40 and D90, then a pro body DX D300, a great FX D700 and then you had the super D3 with the x for studio and s for low light. What they should have done is worked with that and progress them. They have done this with the D4, kept the best bits of the D3 and improved on it. They should have bought out a pro DX model by now with a street price of £1000-1200, and a pro FX with a street price of around £1700/1800 which is say 20 odd MP and has similar FPS to the 700. They then bring out an 'X' model of maybe both the replacement for the D300 and 700 with say 36mp and a few tweaks for those that want resolution.

IMO the D600 is alienating a lot of people as its not a pro body (I mean in construction, buttons and size) although it is a decent camera and there is probably a market there for it. The 800 seems to be far too big MP wise for many people so I dont think that hits the right spot.
 
I think its more that the markets changed and the fact that the d700 was made only to combat the 5dmk2. Had nikon had the time i expect the d700 would not have been what it is.

I do agree that more people would have been happy had the d600 been in a d7/800 body but then it wouldnt have been so cheap.

At the end off the day they cant make everyone happy. when thr d3x was released everyone was upset at the price,but when they release yhe d800 everyone complains that the MP is to high.

I expect they will release a d300 replacement some point soon. not to do that would be a big mistake, but you can bet that people will still cry that its not what they want. we may even be lucky and see them release a d4s and then a camera with the d4 features in a smaller body, but i wouldnt hold my breath on that. still people would complain about how its not as cheap as the d700 on release.
For pricing peolpe forget that due to inflation. higher taxes and costs of raw matetials that everything is going to cost more than it did 5 years ago.

People are never happy now aday and always want more,these same complaints are also going on in the canon camp not just the nikon one.
 
there is also the 'cyclical' thing too - during the time Nikon were revelling in the D3s/D700 hero worship, Canon were getting a slating for their offerings and a of people were jumping ship - but as with all things, its swings and roundabouts, the Canon camp seems generally happier atm [note, its a relative thing] and its the nikon crowd that are bickering at each other - lets face it, none of the manufacturers will ever make all their customers happy all of the time.

Anyway, despite all the arguments, one of my favourite photographers still uses a D70s and has a couple of good lenses and thats it - we can argue black is blue about the little black box of tricks, but ultimately you will only be 'judged' on what you do with it ;)
 
Yv said:
there is also the 'cyclical' thing too - during the time Nikon were revelling in the D3s/D700 hero worship, Canon were getting a slating for their offerings and a of people were jumping ship - but as with all things, its swings and roundabouts, the Canon camp seems generally happier atm [note, its a relative thing] and its the nikon crowd that are bickering at each other - lets face it, none of the manufacturers will ever make all their customers happy all of the time.

Anyway, despite all the arguments, one of my favourite photographers still uses a D70s and has a couple of good lenses and thats it - we can argue black is blue about the little black box of tricks, but ultimately you will only be 'judged' on what you do with it ;)
Click to expand...

far to sensible a reply :)



i have kept my D70 for infrared :thinking:
 
Gary Coyle said:
Yv, will you marry me!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

:lol: can we do coffee first? :p

straycat said:
far to sensible a reply :)



i have kept my D70 for infrared :thinking:
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I also still have my D70s, daughter is using it for her A level photography, it might not have the pixel count or noise handling of more modern bodies, but it it is a fantastic learning tool.
 
decigallen said:
In short, too many mp. But other issues too. No low light improvement to speak of. Green colour cast on images.

Its a capable camera, just not for me. A 16mp version of that body, even at the same price, and i'd have bought two!
Click to expand...


ausemmao said:
you have to be blind to say the D700 has the same IQ as the D800, especially in low light or high DR scenes. It's almost the same gap as between the D700 and D3s in low light.
Click to expand...

Lol, i never, i was just looking at the thread above, where the op said "no low light improvement to speak of" and who owned both the D700 & D800, and went back to the D700, i have no idea how the D800 performs, as i haven't tried one out, i just know i have always been very happy with my D700 :)
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
one of my favourite photographers still uses a D70s and has a couple of good lenses and thats it - we can argue black is blue about the little black box of tricks, but ultimately you will only be 'judged' on what you do with it ;)
Click to expand...

Very well summed up :)
 
The 'jealousy' argument is beyond absurd. I went back to the d700 because it is a better tool for the job I want to do. I didn't find any low light improvement - even though I respect that the high mp and low light ability is impressive. When I use the D3s and D4 I can see a massive gap open up between the d700. They're a different class and priced accordingly.

To me, all Nikon did wrong with the d800 was to not have a 16-24mp version. Ideally it would've been:

d800 - 20mp - £2200
d800e - 36mp - £2600
 
decigallen said:
To me, all Nikon did wrong with the d800 was to not have a 16-24mp version. Ideally it would've been:

d800 - 20mp - £2200
d800e - 36mp - £2600
Click to expand...

Currently youve got

D800 36MP - £1999
D800E 36MP - £2600

So where did Nikon go wrong, i seriously dont understand folk moaning that 36MP is too much, i mean it's not as if the camera can't be set to use a lesser resolution file now is it

Going by your pricing above then Nikon gave you more than you wanted at a lesser price or am i being stupid.
 
People moan because they think their old laptops will struggle with the huge files. It'll cause slow down for sure. I have tried a bunch of 30mb odd RAW files on my old i3 which has 6GB RAM, and it did struggle. It works, but you need patience.

You really want to be running a very nice spec i5 or an i7. If you can afford to buy a camera like this, you should have funds for a decent lappy/pc I feel.

Then, 36mp FX is fantastic.
 
Gary Coyle said:
So where did Nikon go wrong, i seriously dont understand folk moaning that 36MP is too much, i mean it's not as if the camera can't be set to use a lesser resolution file now is it

Going by your pricing above then Nikon gave you more than you wanted at a lesser price or am i being stupid.
Click to expand...

My pricing was based on the initial launch RRP that nikon had. I got my D800 for £2399. But to answer your question, yes I would pay more for a 16mp d800 than I would for a 36mp one because it better suits my needs. I could of course shoot in DX mode but that would negate the whole point of buying an FX camera.

I'm running a top spec iMac 27 (1 year old) with 16gb RAM and 2TB harddrive, I also have a high spec MB pro. I just hate that I have to use 3 times the amount of cards and HD space with the d800 for resolution that I don't need - otherwise the camera spec is perfect. The D4 produces as much resolution as I need without crippling file size.

I currently can't think of any situation where I might need 36mp.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
People moan because they think their old laptops will struggle with the huge files. It'll cause slow down for sure. I have tried a bunch of 30mb odd RAW files on my old i3 which has 6GB RAM, and it did struggle. It works, but you need patience.

You really want to be running a very nice spec i5 or an i7. If you can afford to buy a camera like this, you should have funds for a decent lappy/pc I feel.

Then, 36mp FX is fantastic.
Click to expand...

This is the exact dillema I'm facing at the moment, I'm upgrading from a D300 and would be willing to stretch the budget to it's absolute limit to buy the D800 for it's larger body -I have large hands and the D7000 felt like a toy - and larger spread of AF points. BUT I know that the file sizes will probably cripple my i3 processor and 4GB RAM (the RAM issue can be overcome quite cheaply, under £30 for 8GB).

Seeing as I'd be stretching my budget to the max to buy the D800, would I be better off with a D600 and put up with the ergonomics, or just go with a D700 and live with the smaller file sizes?
 
I would go for a D700 over the D600 if you like a better built, heavier, tougher body. Unless you really want HD video. I've used the video mode twice since buying the D800, and that was just the kids messing about, could have done that on my phone. Though it was much better quality and more fun to shoot. I doubt I'll make much more use of it.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I would go for a D700 over the D600 if you like a better built, heavier, tougher body. Unless you really want HD video. I've used the video mode twice since buying the D800, and that was just the kids messing about, could have done that on my phone. Though it was much better quality and more fun to shoot. I doubt I'll make much more use of it.
Click to expand...

I don't have either, however...

If I were buying solely for images: D700. BUT. I need the video facility.

I just don't see the D800 as a massive step up from the 700, which is credit to the former.
 
Of course. I only opted for the 800 because I had the money to. I would have been perfectly fine with a 700.
 
Phil Young said:
I don't have either, however...

If I were buying solely for images: D700. BUT. I need the video facility.

I just don't see the D800 as a massive step up from the 700, which is credit to the former.
Click to expand...

It is a big step up in almost every area, it's a benchmark DSLR.
 
Some people just dont grasp the notion that the D800 isnt only a 36mp FX camera, its also a 20mp FX camera and a 9mp FX camera, neither do you have to use the DX crop modes to reduce the resulution

Currently the camera can be set to the following resulutions in full FX mode, 5520 x 3680 pixels on the "M" resolution setting and 3680 x 2456 pixels on the "S" resolution setting

So theres absolutly no need to not consider buying the camera based on the view that "36mp is too much for me"

If it has what you need be that ergonomics, video, larger form than the D600, better AF than the D600/700 but you were being put off my the file size then buy the bleeding thing, just because a Ferrari can do 180mph doesnt mean you will ever take it over 100mph, its how it gets to 100mph that matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top