D-700 review

[sabbath999]

Have at me, ladies. Let's go.

I don't give a rat's hind end about top end resolution when I am out shooting sports at night on a badly light high school football or baseball field... I care about high ISO performance.

My pictures are going to be 3 columns wide in the local newspaper, not hang in a gallery somewhere.

CLEAN 6400 ISO and fast glass like my 70-200 f/2.8 means I get clear, sharp pictures with action stopping shutter speeds...

 

[Joves]

What is the ISO range of that Fuji? It is severely limited. Id rather see lower MP and more range in ISOs and, getting the metering right first. Then move the MP up and do the same at the next level. To have high MPs for the sake of having them is just as if not more stupid.

 

[Bifurcator]

I have to agree with Alpha. I know, I know... what's this world coming to? But all seriousness aside he's dead on IMO. $3k to $5k for a device that is FINALLY able to match the $300 and $500 cameras of yesteryear? Has our dollar devalued that much already? And even at that there are still some although usually just the luddites (Ned Ludd, what a hoser! ) who can't afford a new camera, who even challenge this level of image quality in comparison.

If we want to play in the current market there's not much we can do about it but I don't mind calling ridiculous things ridiculous - and 3~5 thousand for a camera just barely as good as a film camera at 3~5 hundred (when new) is ridiculous.

Well, it is...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Not to turn this into a brand war, but Nikon is behind the times.

The D3 is such a ****ing waste of money. $5K for 13MP? Even $3K for the D700.

Unless you have a supreme love for Nikon's other features, you're wasting your money on that sensor.

Why does Nikon have a $5k flagship camera with 13MP when Canon has a 13MP sensor in their $900 Rebel?

Why wouldn't I buy a 22MP digital back with $5k?

Fuji made a 41MP digital back in 2004. This is 2008. Can you really say with a straight face that 13MP is that great for a flagship camera? Bull.

Are there some super-secret, mission-critical features in these Nikon bodies that I'm missing? Do they really make up for taking a near 10MP hit over similarly priced systems from other producers? Because I'd say anyone who buys one of these cameras naively believing they're getting their money's worth is an absolute sucker. Yes, you.

Have at me, ladies. Let's go.

I'm not arguing with you, your argument makes sense, if anyone is looking for supreme resolution, digital still isn't the way to go.


However, if I had the choice of 22MP or a usable ISO 25600, i'd take the high ISO. I've printed 20x30 off my 6mp D70 and the prints look beautiful.

If I play my cards right, I'll own a D700 by the end of the month to replace my D70. I've been waiting for Nikon to release a FF body exactly like this, and I have an opportunity to get it for 2 grand instead of 3.

Incredible handling, 12mp that can do ISO 25600, one of the most incredible AF systems ever created, it's more then just resolution.

 

[skiboarder72]

I agree with sw1tchFX about the resolution issue. But, I'll stick with my D300, paying double the price for slightly better ISO performance and a little better view finder isn't worth it IMO.

I can shoot useable ISO 3200 pictures with my D300... would useable at 6400 be nice... yes, but not for double the price and a sensor that turns a 200mm f2.8 back to a true 200mm not 300mm f2.8 (which would cost a whole lot more as far as lens purchases) not to mention the need to use more expensive, heavy, and cumbersome full frame lenses, if the D3/D700 sensor was sharper than the D300 sensor at lower ISO's it might be worth it but thats just not the case (for now)

 

[Alpha]

I don't give a rat's hind end about top end resolution when I am out shooting sports at night on a badly light high school football or baseball field... I care about high ISO performance.

My pictures are going to be 3 columns wide in the local newspaper, not hang in a gallery somewhere.

CLEAN 6400 ISO and fast glass like my 70-200 f/2.8 means I get clear, sharp pictures with action stopping shutter speeds...

+1 to the sports shooters.

 

[Alpha]

it's more then just resolution.

Well I'd certainly hope so at those prices. If you have a truly compelling need for high ISO then I suppose this makes sense. Still a big quality hit to take, though.

 

[pm63]

Alpha: you don't buy a Nikon for the pixels, so you may as well stop ranting about it.

You buy it for the high-ISO performance and ultimate usability that no other manufacturer can match. These are sports and photojournalistic cameras by tradition, although it's not unheard of for them to be used in fashion (see Aneta Kowalczyk)

 

[Village Idiot]

Canon's 1DsMKIII is 22mp. It's only $7000. The only obvious down side compared to a digital MF camera of that resolution is that it's on a 35mm sensor. Other than that, I'm sure there's nothing out there that has the features.

 

[Antithesis]

People will undoubtedly build it up far higher than it actually is. The images coming off the D3 are definetely low noise, but not nearly as much as I expected after working with a lot of the images. Just like I thought the 5D was going to be otherworldly (from what I had gathered on the internet), it really wasn't. Usable ISO 1250 is not something to really call home about.

 

[Syndac]

Not to turn this into a brand war, but Nikon is behind the times.

The D3 is such a ****ing waste of money. $5K for 13MP? Even $3K for the D700.

Tell that to the thousands of people that buy them.

Unless you have a supreme love for Nikon's other features, you're wasting your money on that sensor.

Why does Nikon have a $5k flagship camera with 13MP when Canon has a 13MP sensor in their $900 Rebel?

Sorry, I didn't realize the digital rebel was in the same league as the D3. Perhaps people care more about other aspects of photography than just the image size?

 

[Alpha]

Tell that to the thousands of people that buy them.

Ok. Bring them here and I will tell them.

Sorry, I didn't realize the digital rebel was in the same league as the D3. Perhaps people care more about other aspects of photography than just the image size?

Sorry, I didn't realize that the other features were worth $4100

 

[Syndac]

Sorry, I didn't realize that the other features were worth $4100

The other features are what make up the camera. And I'm sorry but cramming 21MP into the same size sensor as Nikon's 12MP doesn't interest me. 8.5 micron pixels vs 6.4 = better image quality and higher usable ISO from the D3 sensor.

I've never had an interest to exceed 12MP, therefore the price tag on the D700 is well justified for myself and the many others that share my opinion.

 

[timbearden]

Not to turn this into a brand war, but Nikon is behind the times.

The D3 is such a ****ing waste of money. $5K for 13MP? Even $3K for the D700.

Unless you have a supreme love for Nikon's other features, you're wasting your money on that sensor.

Why does Nikon have a $5k flagship camera with 13MP when Canon has a 13MP sensor in their $900 Rebel?

Why wouldn't I buy a 22MP digital back with $5k?

Fuji made a 41MP digital back in 2004. This is 2008. Can you really say with a straight face that 13MP is that great for a flagship camera? Bull.

Are there some super-secret, mission-critical features in these Nikon bodies that I'm missing? Do they really make up for taking a near 10MP hit over similarly priced systems from other producers? Because I'd say anyone who buys one of these cameras naively believing they're getting their money's worth is an absolute sucker. Yes, you.

Have at me, ladies. Let's go.

I'm going to stay out of the argument, but I wanted to clarify one thing.....what 41 mp digital back are you talking about? I'd like to know out of curiosity.

Just for a fun thought, I heard the other day that Nikon is still interested in buying out Fujifilm.....might as well since the camera build is the pretty much the same except the sensor.

 

[Antithesis]

I don't agree with the "D3 not worth $5k" schpiel, because it is a pro body camera, built with professionals in mind. If you need a camera that can withstand 300k shutter actuations in a professional environment, then cool. Also, 12mp is plenty for any real use you'd need out of it. More megapixels just means more memory and slower rendering time from Lightroom or whatever else you use.

I'm just tired of reading crap on the internet saying that this or that camera has totally revolutionized how we take pictures. 2 stops is not going to make you Steve McCurry. Save your money.