To D700 or not to D700?

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
I've been weighing up the costs associated with an upgrade of my current kit for some time now. I know I'd like better low light/higher ISO performance.

I currently have a 1DsII and a 5D with a range of lenses (4 zooms and 4 primes) So I have got myself a little spreadsheet and I've been costing upgrade paths.

Now the cheapest and easiest is to sell the 5D and get a 5DII. Simples :D

But the real spanner in the works has come from the D700. At the same time as costing a Canon route, it would be folly not to consider all options. So I've costed a route to change to 2x D700 bodies with three zooms and 2 primes.

The one zoom I'd lose is the 24-105 f4 but the focal lengths are all covered from 14mm to 200mm. The two primes would be 35mm f2 and the 100mm macro which I can live without. (Though they are nice :)

So I have the worst case scenario plotted with high Nikon prices from a certain dealer and average Canon prices for my kit on ebay. The difference including changing flashguns comes to £2.5K

I'm all ready to go and talk to various outlets on the Nikon prices, on the basis that if I can get it in the same ballpark as a 5DII would cost new then I'd have all new kit and I don't mind paying for that. Then I decide to do a little homework on the D700 only to find that some dealers in the US have started to discontinue it on the grounds that there is a D700x due out shortly.

But it will be more expensive, like D3 to D3x expensive.

b****r!!!:bang:
 
D700x or whatever they call it won't change what the D700 can do. How many more improvements do we need? If you can do it now - just go for it.
 
Hmm i followed the D700 path from Canon selling all my Canon gear.
Did not like the D700 metering system and hated having to use compansation every time the sun came out, so i brought a D300 which i love.
However wanting full frame i am selling up next week to buy the Canon 5D mkII.
So please dont end up like me
 
I bought a D700 just over a week ago - have also heard rumours that there is a new one out imminently but judging by the recent price hikes on new bodies I wanted the current one.

I am consistently amazed at the results, it is just absolutely fantastic and I am very very glad I got it. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is also unbelievably good.

If you do switch and buy new kit, Jessops are doing 12 months interest free credit and you also get 4% cashback (on the pre-vat price) if you buy it through quidco and you can still do pickup in store and get the interest free credit - would work out a substantial amount on that kind of gear.
 
BouncyMelons said:
Then I decide to do a little homework on the D700 only to find that some dealers in the US have started to discontinue it on the grounds that there is a D700x due out shortly.

But it will be more expensive, like D3 to D3x expensive.
Click to expand...

Well, if there is a D700x (or whatever they call their non-pro bodied FX high mega pixel camera) it won't replace the D700 - in the same way the D3x didn't replace the D3.

What you might be looking at realistically is a D700s - given that the D300 and D3 have had "s" refreshes and that the D700 came out a few months after those two did two years ago...

Look at what the D3 got from its "s" upgrade... thats what the D700 will get too when its time comes, although I don't think it will be as much because the D700 already had things the D3 didn't (sensor cleaning being the main one!), so it will be more like the D300s uplift - movie mode and an extra notch on the ISO.... for about another 400-500 quid for the first 3 months of its life.
 
BouncyMelons said:
The one zoom I'd lose is the 24-105 f4 but the focal lengths are all covered from 14mm to 200mm. The two primes would be 35mm f2 and the 100mm macro which I can live without. (Though they are nice :)
Click to expand...

Ali,

On the live without front - I'd look again at if the 14-24 is a better choice to leave out for weddings. I sold mine as it didn't come out of the bag last season, its stunning - you can't argue that, but I don't think its a wedding shooters lens

Hugh
 
Have you used Nikon gear? If you're used to shooting Canon you may as well stick with it. The 5DMKii is near enough identical to the D700 on noise, my brother has 5dmkii and i've done enough tests to convince myself there's nothing in it. The only real difference for me is better AF on the d700, but would be familiar grounds as you already have the mk1.
 
If the D700x or whatever is much higher resolution, you will lose most of the gain you get from the large pixels on the D700 and you may as well go the Canon route.

Also, don't expect witchcraft. The D700 is probably less than a stop better than a 5DII for the same quality of output image - I know a stop is a lot but is it enough to warrant the change?

I really think you have to find someone to rent/lend you a D700 and then try it in anger in the sort of conditions you are used to working in. Then, and only then, can you really decide.
 
Hmmmm. I can see the point AWP makes very clearly, "if it does what you want buy it" yep got that one.

I suppose it's the age old conundrum that you get with cars too, do I really want to be paying full market price for an outgoing model? Yes it will do the job. Do I take the risk that the incoming model won't be a significant price hike? Because if I do it will remove the option all together.

Do I wait till the new model comes out and then buy two low click D700's second hand when others upgrade?

Then I think back to AWP's point. If I was unaware that there were changes afoot what would my decision be then?

I'm usually quite decisive about such things and this is actually very unusual for me to think like this, hence my trepidation. :gag:

Ahhhh the choices :bonk:
 
It'll be an expensive experiment, but if you've got an itch, scratch it - at least then you'll be able to satisfy yourself which system you like best. I've done it several times, and to be honest, above a certain point, you can't go wrong with either.

5D2 would be the most sensible option, but life's too short for that isn't it!?
 
I did the exact thing you are considering in late November 2008. I got rid of a 5D, 1D mkIII flashes, lenses, everything. Best thing I ever did.

The D700 has the image quality of the 5D but with unparalled noise control. For what we do it really changes some of the rules, providing new shooting opportunities, resulting in better/different pictures, happier clients, more business etc etc.

It's not cheap to change over - although I think i really timed my switch well with the subsequent price hikes this time last year. But I really don't think you'll regret it - especially if you go for the Nikon 24-70 2.8 which is streets ahead of the Canon 24-105 and is also a better lens than the Canon 24-70.

The new D700 will most probably be either an "s" (video) or an x (higher resolution, worse noise). So I'm sure the D700 will ideal for you needs today and 12 months from now.

I could add loads more (and will be happy to do so) but for now I hope this helps.

All the best

Ryan
 
just to play devils advocate a bit - in the past you've said you don't like the ergonomics or menu layout of Nikon bodies, has that changed now?
 
As you have said, rumours are that Nikon will release a new full-frame model next month, building on the D700 but with a bigger sensor (allegedly, unbranded bodies have been sent out for testing recently).

But will they go for a D3 - D3x size £ increase? If so, wouldn't it be competing with the D3 rather than the D700 on price terms? (D3 is under £3k now at Jessops with 8% cashback). I'm hoping they will pitch it at a price which will force the D700 prices down a bit...
 
I am fairly certain that if we see a D700x it will be using the parts from the D3X.

Nikon are unlikely to make anything completely new or halfway house...
 
desantnik said:
I am fairly certain that if we see a D700x it will be using the parts from the D3X.

Nikon are unlikely to make anything completely new or halfway house...
Click to expand...

A D700 with a larger sensor and video, I'd have thought. Can't imagine they will build on the other strengths of the D3/D3X or else they'd be competing with them rather than filling the gap between D700 and D3...
 
Thanks guys, this is actually helping!

Hugh, I also shoot some architecture so I definately need the wide angle, I could not live without my 17-40mm so it's actually a definate on the list. The ergonomics are not as good for me because of the grip being so square, I still prefer the Canon grip. The D3 is basically unusable for me because of it but I did try the D700 one handed and I could cope OK just not quite so easy as on the Canon. The menus are still a pigging nightmare to me but give me the manual and a few days to get them set up right and with the way they work I'm figuring I would not actually have to use the menus too much! ;) I'd just have to learn. A bit like driving on the opposite side of the road!

James, yes I have shot a little on Nikon, I've had the pleasure of a fiddle with a D2H, a D3 and a D700 as part of having a proper evaluation this time round.

Paul makes an excellent point too. I couldn't really use a wedding as a test bed for a camera, (I'd get shot!) but spending some time with it would be ideal. There are several little things that are adding up with me that is making me consider spending more to change over than it would to just get the 5DII.

Thanks for your experience Ryan, good to read :)

Yes, the 5DII sensor IS stunning and if that's where I end up I'm sure I'll be a happy Melons :)

The auto ISO, Canon use a system where the new autoISO on the 5D matches the reciprocal of your focal length. Now if I'm at 200mm in a church I don't actually want the camera making that choice, I want 1/60 or 1/100 thank you. Nikon allows me to do that. Canon have tried to make it smart and instead made it dumb!

The buttons for shutter and aperture are falling right on my fingers on the D700. I do struggle with the D3 with the extra size and weight and would not want to shoot with that one handed, I can cope with the D700 fine.

I did try out a D700 following the advice I always give to check out the ergonomics and make sure it fits and within 5 shots of playing about with it on manual I was getting perfect exposures out of it. That blew my socks off. I can normally judge lighting conditions and come up with something within a stop or two and I had it pinned down in no time on the D700.

I then tried hand holding it down to some slow shutter speeds. Had it bob on at 1/20 sec with just the kit lens (which was truly awful btw, I'm used to f2.8 at worst and 3.5 and 5.6 was yukky to use!) it felt like a lump of granite sitting in my hand.

That's sometimes the problem too. You can look at specs till you are blue in the face but it's how it feels and how it works for you that matters.

Thanks for the valuable input guys, this is helping loads just talking it over. ;)
 
PhotoTalk said:
A D700 with a larger sensor and video, I'd have thought. Can't imagine they will build on the other strengths of the D3/D3X or else they'd be competing with them rather than filling the gap between D700 and D3...
Click to expand...

No you don't get it do you... they will release the D700s which will be video and one more ISO notch like the D3s, they *might* release the D700x which will be a small bodied D3X. Both will exist, not one or the other.

The D300/D700/D3's main advantage is actually the *lack* of pixels, but for the pixel queens who want to shoot in a well lit studio, the D3X is the puppy just like the MkIIIS - focus speed, high ISO, FPS etc none of these things are important there.

Nikon haven't been into the same stratification thing that have held Canon back. They make things people want and its working. The D700 hasn't stopped people buying D3's, despite being as much if not more than the old D3 in many respects! Canon would have viewed that as bad for business but its clearly worked as there are a lot of D3 owners.... an awful lot now... just look on here!
 
desantnik, you're right. I probably don't get it, but thanks for the explanation. It's good to know someone like you is so on the ball ;)

Alison, apols if this 'what's the next Nikon' stuff is distracting from the main question. I enjoyed your last post; gave me some insights into D700 advantages that I'm keen to know more about in advance of making my upgrade choice. Thanks.
 
Ahh yes, I knew there was something else.

Autofocus!

No point in having good ISO on a blindingly good sensor if the darned thing won't focus!

This is an area I do have some experience of. My 1Ds has a similar 51 point 3d tracking system to the D700 and I love it. I would not want to lose it. The 5D and 5DII have the same autofocus and I have to say.........it's not the best. Adequate is about all I can say for it but with anything moving at any kind of speed, forget it and it's not the quickest in dull conditions either. I noticed a HUGE difference with the 1Ds and I'd rather not lose that. One reason if I stay with Canon to keep the 1Ds and upgrade the 5D.
 
BouncyMelons said:
Ahh yes, I knew there was something else.

Autofocus!

No point in having good ISO on a blindingly good sensor if the darned thing won't focus!

This is an area I do have some experience of. My 1Ds has a similar 51 point 3d tracking system to the D700 and I love it. I would not want to lose it. The 5D and 5DII have the same autofocus and I have to say.........it's not the best. Adequate is about all I can say for it but with anything moving at any kind of speed, forget it and it's not the quickest in dull conditions either. I noticed a HUGE difference with the 1Ds and I'd rather not lose that. One reason if I stay with Canon to keep the 1Ds and upgrade the 5D.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest thing for me when I was playing with both back to back, in bad light the 5DMK2 was just hunting all the time, the D700 was nailing the focus even with the AF light off.
 
You know what I did Ali, wouldn't change back now :)
 
BouncyMelons said:
Ahh yes, I knew there was something else.

Autofocus!

No point in having good ISO on a blindingly good sensor if the darned thing won't focus!

This is an area I do have some experience of. My 1Ds has a similar 51 point 3d tracking system to the D700 and I love it. I would not want to lose it. The 5D and 5DII have the same autofocus and I have to say.........it's not the best. Adequate is about all I can say for it but with anything moving at any kind of speed, forget it and it's not the quickest in dull conditions either. I noticed a HUGE difference with the 1Ds and I'd rather not lose that. One reason if I stay with Canon to keep the 1Ds and upgrade the 5D.
Click to expand...

That's the compelling one and the point that highlights the biggest gap in Canon's line up. Back to my point of trying it out to see how it works in the type of work required.

I wish Canon did "pro" AF in a smaller body...
 
You'll probably be able to find an awesome deal on a used D700 very soon. I personally switched from a 1Ds to a D3 last year including selling all my old canon gear. Can't say I've missed the canon or regretted the choice in the slightest.

Alex
 
Hi Ali, what's the cost to swap from 5D to 5DII?
The thing that would worry me is the fact that my next £2.5k of profit would be swallowed up, won't the 5dII give you the low light capability you need at a much lower cost? If you bought new you are probably going to lose 50% on every lens you sell.
I know where you are coming from regarding low light swapping, for me swapping from Nikon Dx to Fx was a quantum leap in terms of quality, whatever you opt for the ability to shoot at silly ISO's like 4000 without worrying about noise is sooo nice!

Gary
 
BouncyMelons said:
The 5D and 5DII have the same autofocus and I have to say.........it's not the best. Adequate is about all I can say for it but with anything moving at any kind of speed, forget it and it's not the quickest in dull conditions either.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to focus on which is so difficult?
My 5D2 can track my dogs (both black and very fast) without problem. I don't find it a problem in low light either but haven't tested it with both low light and fast moving dogs ;)

The high ISO performance is fantastic, and the 21MP is great for landscapes and tight crops.
 
Crucial question:

What is that that is lacking in your current set-up?

And then:

What does the 5D II lack?

(The answers for me are clear, but you're not me :D )
 
User Name said:
What are you trying to focus on which is so difficult?
My 5D2 can track my dogs (both black and very fast) without problem. I don't find it a problem in low light either but haven't tested it with both low light and fast moving dogs ;)

The high ISO performance is fantastic, and the 21MP is great for landscapes and tight crops.
Click to expand...

It's true that the AF is a bit better on the D700, but I'd agree with what you're saying - if the 5D2 cannot handle whatever it is you're trying to focus on, then you're probably looking at the wrong body anyway, and should be thinking more along the lines of the (newer) 1D series. As was mentioned, 'pro' AF in 'prosumer' sized bodies is something that Canon simply do not do, but that Nikon do.
 
grumpybadger said:
Also, don't expect witchcraft. The D700 is probably less than a stop better than a 5DII for the same quality of output image - I know a stop is a lot but is it enough to warrant the change?
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, if you take a look at the ISO 1600 and 3200 still life images on

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

you'll see that the 5D2 out performs in this area, compare the colour cards.


desantnik said:
The D300/D700/D3's main advantage is actually the *lack* of pixels, but for the pixel queens who want to shoot in a well lit studio, the D3X is the puppy just like the MkIIIS - focus speed, high ISO, FPS etc none of these things are important there.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but for bouncymelon's benefit, I'll point to the extra resolution of the 5D2 as being an advantage, again compare sample images using the above link and see how high you get on the "proportional scale" in the still life images before the lines merge.
In cases where you don't want or need large files you can use sRAW1 or sRAW2.
 
21mp is nice for crops, but it's going to impact your processing workflow and storage quite a bit as well. Pixel peeing there may well be some difference in iso between the two but when viewed as you want the images to be viewed there's nothing in it
 
User Name said:
I beg to differ, if you take a look at the ISO 1600 and 3200 still life images on

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

you'll see that the 5D2 out performs in this area, compare the colour cards.
Click to expand...

OK. Fine. I was going on what was reported on here and experiences from a friend. Interestingly, I don't think either the 5D classic (which I have owned) and the 1DsII (which I do own) are actually too shabby either. My point is that people have got very hung up on ISO performance when the differences are still relatively small - less than a stop either way.
 
Ok, a few questions there..

What is lacking in my lineup? Simple, Higher ISO performance. Two or three times this year I've found myself shooting at ISO 1600 at f2 just to get anywhere near 1/100 sec. I don't think that's getting hung up on ISO performance (of which I agree btw Paul). It's more like dining in the last chance saloon. I realistically can't bump the ISO, I have nothing really left in the lens and I'm already just a 1/40 sec away from crashing and burning. I'd like to be able to shoot with some quality up to ISO 6400. I think that should be realistic without having to run everything through copious amounts of noise reduction.

What does the 5DII NOT do? Focus very well in exactly those conditions!!

When you are having to shoot such narrow depth of field because the wedding is like a crypt the last thing I need is a camera that is hunting for focus. I know my 5D does not like those conditions I've been shooting with it for three years now and I know it inside out. The 1Ds IS much better but if I upgrade the 5D to 5DII I still have autofocus that's a bit pants! So I have one feature on one camera and the other feature on the other camera.

The other advantage that I'm seeing in doing the swap is having two identical cameras. At the moment (and if I upgrade to a MkII) I have two completely different cameras which operate completely differently. Yes I've managed just fine with that up till now but two the same would be nice.

Yes I have considered the resolution (or lack thereof) of the D700. It matches my current 5D which I've not had a problem with and The Gadget Show recently blew a D700 image up on a banner the size of a building and it looked OK to me :)
 
BouncyMelons said:
What is lacking in my lineup? Simple, Higher ISO performance. Two or three times this year I've found myself shooting at ISO 1600 at f2 just to get anywhere near 1/100 sec. I don't think that's getting hung up on ISO performance (of which I agree btw Paul). It's more like dining in the last chance saloon. I realistically can't bump the ISO, I have nothing really left in the lens and I'm already just a 1/40 sec away from crashing and burning. I'd like to be able to shoot with some quality up to ISO 6400. I think that should be realistic without having to run everything through copious amounts of noise reduction.
Click to expand...

The thing that worries me (and I wasn't saying you were getting hung up but a lot of people do!) is that you are effectively looking at 2 stops of gain there from 1600-6400. I don't believe that is feasible without some worsening of image quality - only you can judge if that is too much or not.

Hence my thought of renting/borrowing one and wandering around a few churches for a day to see how it works in the "real world"
 
Cracks me up that people say 12mp is "lacking in resolution". :lol: They'll be saying the same thing about 21/24mp in two years!

Mark - this is not about Canon v Nikon at all. It's about picking the right tool for the job. No need for defending one system over another - it's all about helping Ali pick the right tool for the job she does.
 
ryanyboy said:
Cracks me up that people say 12mp is "lacking in resolution". :lol: They'll be saying the same thing about 21/24mp in two years!

Mark - this is not about Canon v Nikon at all. It's about picking the right tool for the job. No need for defending one system over another - it's all about helping Ali pick the right tool for the job she does.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this point. I am aware there are some stock photo sites that demand over 20mpx images. Apart from these, in the real world, looking at photographs, and by that I mean images printed on proper paper from a viewing distance that lets you appreciate them, then 12MP is by FAR enough. D700 was on the gadget show with the image blown up on the side of a building and was marginally better than film! I don't know about most poeple here but I aint gonna do prints for the side of my house.

I had some Canon pro lenses, 580 EX II and 40D. Wanted full frame. Went into the shop as if I had no equipment and played with both cameras in question and came out with the D700.
 
ryanyboy said:
Cracks me up that people say 12mp is "lacking in resolution". :lol: They'll be saying the same thing about 21/24mp in two years!
Click to expand...

got to say it does make me giggle too. ;)


Ali, I think the best advice has been said already, beg/borrow/steal/rent one with some half nice glass for a day or two and give it a thorough test drive. I am a nikon user now lusting a D700 quite significantly, BUT I am pretty certain of its feel/performance against my 300 and fuly aware of the plus and minus points against the same. However, ask me to move to Canon and no amount of reading specs and reviews would really help, the ONLY way I could truly decide now if it was what I wanted would be to go an dplay with one, properly - bloody expensive mistake if its not. ;)

whichever way yo decide to go, good luck, when its a tool fo your chosen trade, you cannot aford to get wrong....or not too wrong anyway ;)
 
ryanyboy said:
Cracks me up that people say 12mp is "lacking in resolution". :lol: They'll be saying the same thing about 21/24mp in two years!

Mark - this is not about Canon v Nikon at all. It's about picking the right tool for the job. No need for defending one system over another - it's all about helping Ali pick the right tool for the job she does.
Click to expand...

1D mk 4 then, simple :D ;)

My post were mainly because I get slightly annoyed at the same regurgitated statements about Nikon's vs Canon in high ISO situations. That might apply in some cases, but in other cases the reverse is true.

Can someone tell me though, as I haven't had much exeperience of film, what did wedding photographers do 10 or 20 years ago? Was ISO6400 film available, was it usable? Surely the grain would have been much worse than anything from a digital today?
Was flash used more often? Have weddings become darker? I blame low energy lighting :nuts:
 
User Name said:
1D mk 4 then, simple :D ;)
Click to expand...

I thought about suggesting that earlier but it's an even more expensive option than replacing her existing kit.

That's actually one of the reasons why I made the change she's considering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top