D700 95% (or is it 90%) viewfinder

Osmo

Osmo

Messages
550
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everybody,

After aquiring a few FX lenses, almost accidently in some cases, I have now decided to take the plunge into full frame loveliness!

I am starting to take more and more shots in low light due to the winter we are having.

After extensive review of the FX offerings from Nikon I have arrived at an impass!

The majority of my photography, strictly on an amateur, non-talented basis, is indoors or macro, I also like to take pictures of my local rugby club, but as I hinted to, the professionals amongst us need not worry :) - I am fully aware of my talents (or lack of them)!

My photography is just for me.

After extensive review of the FX offerings from Nikon, I've got a bit stuck to be honest. I already own a D300 which in reality is more than enough for me but due to the limited iso ability (when compared to FX) of this body I'm looking for something more.

What I have come down to is either a new D700 (or 2nd hand) or a 2nd hand D3 or even a new D3s (I really don't need video though). A new D3s would be in budget as well however I would certainly need to show some creative accounting with the misses! :D or at least she would need to 'inherit' the D300! :D

Enough wittering, my question - my preference would be the D700 (due to cost, size, weight, FPS, etc) however the biggest issue for me with this camera would be the 95% (or is it 90% in reality) viewfinder - when I love macro this IS an issue for me, knowing that with every shot, I possibly would need to crop! Nikon have shot themselves in the foot with this! If this camera offered 100%, a D700 would already be in my mits! :) Is the extra £££ worth it for the 100% viewfinder with the D3/D3s?.......got there eventually!! :)

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Cheers
Os :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
For me, the D700 is pound for pound the best camera on the market. However, if I had the money to throw on a D3s, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
 
I'll start by saying I'm not a macro photographer, I do own both the d3s and the d700 though. To my mind the 95% viewfinder on the d700 isn't an issue. I never noticed it using the d700. The only time I noticed was while I get used to the d3s I still compose as a 95% viewfinder.
 
Wow if I had the budget for a D3s I'd get it as this is about as good as it currently gets! I must admit I like the idea of the built in vertical grip and the extra rear info LCD.

Tell the missus you will be saving as it will be a lot lot longer before you will need to ever upgrade again.

I admit it seems a bit penny pinching to not have 100% viewfinder on a D700 even though it's still an amazingly good viewfinder.
 
Dman - Thanks! :) even though video capability is not a feature I look for?!, is this me being tight, not wanting to pay for something I wont use? You say you would go for a D3s - what is it you like? I could but as I'm not a pro or even pretending to be with my limited talents would I reap the benefits?

BFD Thanks :) - thats very interesting that you never noticed the 95% viewfinder! noted that you do not consider yourself a macro photographer - I'm a biologist and can't help myself taking pictures of the most 'insignificant' bug! I often compose my shot exactly as if it would go from camera to hard copy....maybe I could adjust my technique!
 
Osmo, I'd get it purely for the ISO capabilities and AF.

However, if you're saying this would just be used for your own personal pleasure, I can't see how you'd justify the extra outlay, the D700 would do you absolutely fine. I love mine and will be getting another in a couple of months.
 
Boliston - I could (risking the mentalness that would occur at home!) but not sure I should, a definte distinction!! :D As I said, I am totally aware of my limited talent - and I don't want to turn into one of those, 'all the gear no idea' chaps! My shots are just for me - although with my favourites they do get printed and framed. Taunton - not far from my home town! :)
 
Last edited:
STH - I could but probably shouldn't. Please see previous post! ;)

Dman - The D700? You don't think the 95% viewfinder would be a problem with my macro interest?
 
Osmo said:
STH - I could but probably shouldn't. Please see previous post! ;)

Dman - The D700? You don't think the 95% viewfinder would be a problem with my macro interest?
Click to expand...

You can always use live view, that would give you 100% coverage on the back screen
 
I think you should worry more about the lens and lighting than a 95% viewfinder. Very few cameras have 100% anyway, it's a pretty minor feature TBH. So you can't see the last fraction of a mm - what's the problem with that?
 
You could get 2 D700's for the price of a D3s. The real bonus of owning the D3s is low light performance that's even better than D700. If that's what's important then it's decision made. BUT the D700 can shoot a black cat in a coal cellar !!
 
When I brought my D700 I intended to sell the D300 but I have found the flexibility of having a cropped body and and a full frame body really useful. The ability to take the 24-70 of the D700 and put it on the D300 and it effectively become 36-105 is really good.

If I was in your position now I would buy D700 and a D7000 rather than a D3s.
 
ah5168 said:
When I brought my D700 I intended to sell the D300 but I have found the flexibility of having a cropped body and and a full frame body really useful. The ability to take the 24-70 of the D700 and put it on the D300 and it effectively become 36-105 is really good.

If I was in your position now I would buy D700 and a D7000 rather than a D3s.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that if you were to want to shoot with DX & FX bodies at the same time the D300s would be better than the D7000 as it has the pro type control layout vs the consumer type control layout on the D7000
 
boliston said:
I would have thought that if you were to want to shoot with DX & FX bodies at the same time the D300s would be better than the D7000 as it has the pro type control layout vs the consumer type control layout on the D7000
Click to expand...

I am only really interested in image quality, I'm not that bothered about the number of buttons. I use a 5x4 film camera quite a bit and using that I am lucky to get of 1 shot in 20 mins.

I guess if I shot sports, or things that moved around I would give the number of buttons more priority.
 
Last edited:
Osmo said:
Thanks Martyn - see, they never tell you that on the reviews!!
Click to expand...

Some reviews get written with the reviewer never having seen (let alone held and used) the equipment in person.

IMO, the 95% viewfinder isn't a problem, even with Macro. As said above, use live view. TBH, I still tend toi use my old D70 for Macro stuff - smaller sensor area to fill.

If you have a good and obliging retailer, have a feel of both the D700 and the D3(s) to see how you find the handling. Check on all the specs and see if there are any features on the D3(s) that you'd miss if you "settled" for the D700. Enjoy your purchase!
 
boliston said:
I admit it seems a bit penny pinching to not have 100% viewfinder on a D700 even though it's still an amazingly good viewfinder.
Click to expand...

There is actually a technical reason for that. From Thom Hogan's excellent ByThom.com website (the best Nikon related site I've found on the net with proper comment, not sales and marketing blurb or made up crap):

The D700 has the same characteristics as the D3 viewfinder except for one thing: percent view. Instead of 100%, you get 90% (95% view on both the X and Y axis adds up to 90% overall area). Nikon says this is because of another internal difference: fitting the sensor cleaning mechanism onto the FX sensor pushed brackets forward of the shutter, which produced slightly less mirror clearance. Net result: 95% viewfinder. Yet somehow the height of the prism area on the D700 has been reduced enough to fit in a pop-up flash. Nikon obviously did some clever engineering to fit everything into the reduced space it had with the D700 body design (if you've ever disassembled a D3 you'll know it was tightly crammed with components). And the only real giveaway was 10% of the viewing area.
Click to expand...

So there you go, thats what had to happen to make a D700 from a D3 and thats the tradeoff on both.
 
Hmm.... takes me back to taking slides with Nikon F, F2, F3.......

You get 100% viewfinder but Kodak in it's infinite wisdom (and a lot of projector manufacturers) decided I would be better off with a cropped final output. I don't remember ever being able to buy slide mounts with a 24 x 36mm cut out!

The argument then was - Safety margins for Amateurs. How times have changed? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top