Is the Nikon D700 Too much of a Camera?

[EhJsNe]

I would classify myself as a biginner-intermediate photographer, I know basic things plus some other things. I know a good deal about non-basic things, and I was wondering if the Nikon D700 is too much of a camera for me.

Im well aware its more then Ill need, but I dont want to spend 400 dolalrs on a camera, that completely sucks or 5000+ for the absolute best camera ever. I want a full fram digital SLR for sure, and the d700 seems to me as the best Nikon Camera. (and the cheapest nikon full frame (I want NIkon because I already have nikon lenses))

Is the D700 a complex camera, or am am I just thinking its more complex then it really is because its expensive?

Oh, and money isnt a problem,(but saving and waiting may be.) I already have a job....well sorta...Ill be hired once I get my work permit, which I plan on getting as close to my 14th b-day as possible (april 3rd)

[mosu84]

yes, unless you can be much more specific on what "some other things" means. I would just go with the D300 if you really have the money to burn.

[Kegger]

The D700 is very similar to say the D300. Similar control layout. But I believe some of the in camera options are a bit more in depth. But don't hold me to that.

You're also going to have to make sure you're using FF lenses or else you'll be shooting like a 6 megapixel crop. or you'll suffer from horrible vignetting.

[kundalini]

What do you have now and why is it insufficient?

Do you have a decent lens collection that will compliment the D700?

Are you in a position to purchase those lenses that will benefit the D700?

On a scale of 1 to 10, where does your grey matter reside?

How long have you been shooting? What type of photography are you passionate about? What will FF give you that DX doesn't? Are you making money from your present photography? Will you be making money from your photography by going FF?

There are a thousand questions to internalize before you can answer those questions.

Sure, anyone can learn a more complicated camera body. There's enough info out there to get to the nuts and bolts.

[sultan]

Given that you seem to be just 13 and that you don't seem to be *that* experienced, I think a D90 will better suit you for now. It does most of the important stuff that the D700 will do for you at 1/3 the cost. The D700 is a semi-professional body that is designed for professional photographers who need the most out of their equipment. I won't consider myself worthy of a D700 yet :p

After a couple more years, you may decide to move on to the D700's successor.
If you just want to blow lots of money, do ahead and get a D700, its an awesome camera, but I don't think you'll be able to use it to its full potential yet.

P.S. The D700 isn't really a more "complex" camera, it's just a faster, better built, fancier camera with more bells and whistles (incl. FF, that is pretty major). Most cameras are very simple to operate though; spin the dials to set any special settings that you want and then press the shutter and you've got a picture.

[ANDS!]

The only thing "pro" about the D700 is full frame and the price. Of course that's not at all true, but on a basic level it is. The D700 has better iso performance of the D300 (and arguably the D3) as well as extra bells and whistles that make it much more of a joy to use - but its cost versus benefit for a hobbyist non-photo-working shooter (meaning someone who does not make a DIME off their photography) is suspect. Especially considering the nature of technology. At the moment refurbed D300's can be had for around 1000 or so bucks give or take a hundred or so. The cost difference between that and a new D700 is substantial and nearly the cost of several high class pieces of glass.

DSLR bodies in this day and age are damn near meaningless when we are getting past the D40/XTI's and into the intermediate bodies.

[Sw1tchFX]

Quote: Originally Posted by EhJsNe

I would classify myself as a biginner-intermediate photographer, I know basic things plus some other things. I know a good deal about non-basic things, and I was wondering if the Nikon D700 is too much of a camera for me.

Im well aware its more then Ill need, but I dont want to spend 400 dolalrs on a camera, that completely sucks or 5000+ for the absolute best camera ever. I want a full fram digital SLR for sure, and the d700 seems to me as the best Nikon Camera. (and the cheapest nikon full frame (I want NIkon because I already have nikon lenses))

Is the D700 a complex camera, or am am I just thinking its more complex then it really is because its expensive?

Oh, and money isnt a problem,(but saving and waiting may be.) I already have a job....well sorta...Ill be hired once I get my work permit, which I plan on getting as close to my 14th b-day as possible (april 3rd)

You're 13, in the 6th, 7th, or if you were held back, 8th grade. You're not that "experienced" no matter how much you try and defend yourself. A D90 would be a cooler camera anyway because it shoots video. I think you might not like how heavy and physically dense the D700 is. You're still a pretty small kiddo.

[manaheim]

He said he wanted full frame and Nikon. That leaves D700, D3 and D3X.

I personally think this is kind overkill for someone more new, but if it's gotta be full frame, then it's gotta be one of those.

Otherwise, if you have the money and don't mind the partial frame, D300 is great. D200 is also a great option. If you want to go a bit more budget and don't mind partial frame, D90/D80 is great. Anything less is ill advised.

[Flash Harry]

Well if money is no option I'd say get the all singing/dancing d700-d3/d3x, whichever you can afford, we're not talking about a kid on a 1200cc kwacker here its a camera so if the best is within his price range then why not. H

[bwlergh]

Unless you plan to shoot in absolute darkness or with minimal lighting that cannot be controlled, I would recommend you opt for a D90 or D200.

What exactly are you planning to photograph with a D700? Do you even NEED it?

[prodigy2k7]

If you are a beginner, millionaire, and like photography... I suggest you get the Nikon D3x

What is appropriate to get depends on how far into photography you want to go, how much you want to spend, etc...

[AUZambo]

Quote: Originally Posted by manaheim

He said he wanted full frame and Nikon. That leaves D700, D3 and D3X.

I personally think this is kind overkill for someone more new, but if it's gotta be full frame, then it's gotta be one of those.

Yep...i was thinking the same thing...unless he wants to go with another brand. I know the Sony A900 is full frame for about $3000...not sure about the Canon, Olympus, Pentax, etc.)

I too think it's more than you need, but if money really isn't an issue then more power to you. I think a $75,000 car is more than anyone needs, but people still get them all the time and as long as they aren't putting themselves in an uncontrollable debt I don't see anything wrong with it.

I look at you buying the D700 in the same light. A d90, d200, or d300 should be plenty of camera for you, but if you really don't care about spending the extra money then you may as well go all out.

Also, considering you don't have any of the money yet you'll have plenty of time to mull over the decision before making the purchase.

[SrBiscuit]

does it have to be full frame NOW?

cant you deal with a crop for a bit, and gain all the experience you can, soak it up, and then opt for the full frame when the time is right?

i guess if you have money to burn go for it.

i'd kill for a D90 now though...look into it...people seem to love it.

let us know what you wind up with

[ANDS!]

You people assume WAY too much.

[Early]

If you already have the lenses, and as I understand it, the D700 is backward compatible while most of the cheaper ones aren't, get it and don't look back.