D700 - Last of the best ?

X

Xjacktar

Messages
198
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Any other D700 owners thinking that this was one of the last no-problem products to come out of Nikon ?

With all the complaints of the D800 and D600, and the stories of poor service from Nikon USA; makes you wonder what's happening to the company. Or have I been reading too much Thom Hogan etc. I know you can always find any point of view you like on the internet.

One thing's for sure, I never bothered to discover the AF micro-adjust on the D700 until the purchase of a D7000 forced me to learn about that (though I have to admit the D7k has been good apart from the back-focusing).

Or am I just comforting myself until I've saved enough for a D800 ?
 
Aren't they in the process of moving product from Thailand to China? Maybe this is the problem, things will sort out soon no doubt.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, I wonder about all those D800 issues too, as I've never experienced any of them. To me, this is a great camera, and I'm sure they will have more over the next few years. It's had teething problems, but that all seems to be sorted now and from here on it should be seen as the full on D700 replacement.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
but that all seems to be sorted now and from here on it should be seen as the full on D700 replacement.
Click to expand...

I do not think that it is, the D4 in a smaller body would be the D700 replacement, as the D700 was to the D3, however I do not think that Nikon will do that again.

The D800 stands alone, and if anything replaced the D3X.
 
I would say its was the replacement to but with nikon who knows.
 
See, I don't agree with the whole D3x replacement side of it. The D800 is pretty much the same size as the 700, it's just as good if not better at handling ISO noise, and from what I see, a lot of old D700 users are upgrading to it.
 
Xjacktar said:
Any other D700 owners thinking that this was one of the last no-problem products to come out of Nikon ?

With all the complaints of the D800 and D600, and the stories of poor service from Nikon USA; makes you wonder what's happening to the company. Or have I been reading too much Thom Hogan etc. I know you can always find any point of view you like on the internet.

One thing's for sure, I never bothered to discover the AF micro-adjust on the D700 until the purchase of a D7000 forced me to learn about that (though I have to admit the D7k has been good apart from the back-focusing).

Or am I just comforting myself until I've saved enough for a D800 ?
Click to expand...

To be fair due to the increase in internet traffic I would have thought that there were probably similiar issues with the D700, D3 etc. on launch just you didn't hear about it as much.
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
To be fair due to the increase in internet traffic I would have thought that there were probably similiar issues with the D700, D3 etc. on launch just you didn't hear about it as much.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that; I think you could be right.
 
Never had an oil problem with my D700 but mt D200 did get a few drops on the sensor. A wet clean didn't shift them and left smears (TBH, I thought I had scratched and screwed it!) but a LensPen SensorKlear sorted the problem.
 
Martyn... said:
I do not think that it is, the D4 in a smaller body would be the D700 replacement, as the D700 was to the D3, however I do not think that Nikon will do that again.

The D800 stands alone, and if anything replaced the D3X.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Nikon shot themselves in the foot by putting the D3 sensor in a smaller body, as it directly ate into D3 sales.

I also think the D800 is more of a D3x replacement. I cannot see any reason to buy the D3x anymore.

I think there is a long list of people who would love to see the D600 sensor in a D800 (pro type build and control) body.

I love my D700, and I don't want to go to a "Prosumer" D600, but don't need the 36m sensor of the D800, but that's what I am getting because there is no option at the moment.
(I know I could get a D3s, but I want new.)

That IMHO is why so many are upgrading from the 700 to the 800, not because it is the logical upgrade choice, but they feel as I do, that it's the only choice unless you can afford/justify the D4.
(Which sadly I can't)
 
I'm not sure why people are put of with 36mp if it was to the detriment of noise etc.. then i can understand but the extra pixels from what i've seen, seems to match or beat the d700's noise levels. Hardrive space costs peanuts nowadays.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
I'm not sure why people are put of with 36mp if it was to the detriment of noise etc.. then i can understand but the extra pixels from what i've seen, seems to match or beat the d700's noise levels. Hardrive space costs peanuts nowadays.
Click to expand...

It's not just storage, it's processing too.
TBH, I really don't need 36mp. But I'll take them, as that is what is on offer.
Because that's the camera I am getting next. And I have no choice.;)
 
rjbell said:
I'm not sure why people are put of with 36mp if it was to the detriment of noise etc.. then i can understand but the extra pixels from what i've seen, seems to match or beat the d700's noise levels. Hardrive space costs peanuts nowadays.
Click to expand...

It's probably less about hard drive space and more about file handling.

The D700 is a multi use camera.. It does everything well, not not quite as well as the D3.

Now it seems that Nikon have decided to go with a studio biased camera in the D800 and a sports biased camera with the D4.

For some that may be good news, but for me personally it's bad news as I cover a lot of both.
 
The fact the D700 has been such a well respected camera and been around for a while is one of the main reasons I opted to buy a D700 rather than wait a little and go for the D600. Glad I did now there are all these reports of the oil/dust problem.

As an IT techie I've learned years ago that it is rarely wise to be on the bleeding edge. For the same reason I am still using Windows 7 and won't be in a rush to upgrade to Windows 8.

I do like the specs of the D600 and personally I don't have a problem with the size/construction of the body. But I'll wait a while longer and see if Nikon can sort this problem out.
 
I'm really not concerned about the oil/dust problem.
I am more concerned about the size of the body, and the layout etc.
I have handled both the 600, and 800, and decided on the 800, as it feels better !
TBH, the D600 feels like a crippled toy in comparison. Bit harsh maybe, but that's how I feel.
Just shows how people vary.
No-one is right or wrong, as long as the camera works for you, then that's the main thing.
 
Last edited:
Well.. I've had precisely no problems with my D800. Zip.. nadda... nowt!

I just think it's scaremongering and the fact that people only post about negative things, and not positive. Plus.. the D800 had so much pre launch hype it was a nice easy target if someone found an issue. Yes, there was the left focus issue, but Nikon will recalibrate that for free, and I'm fairly certain new ones now will not be exhibiting that fault. I know mine doesn't.

The D700 was a phenomenal camera on release, and the fact that it's still a great camera now, 6 years later is testament to just how great it was at the time. It was the right camera at just the right time. The D800 is not really meant to be that. I see it as a bit of a niche product really. It's clearly built for those who work methodically, and care about quality above all else. The D700 was all things to all men (and women). The D800 is clearly not.


I'm just baffled by the antagonism to the file sizes though. 45MB RAW files if you lose lossless compression. That's nothing. Sure, the 16bit TIFFs after processing are 200MB, but even so.. hard drives are cheap, and they're also massive these days. My machine doesn't take any longer to process D800 files than it does my old D3 files, or my D7000 files.. admittedly it's a i7-3960X, but my wife's ageing i7-920 copes perfectly and that's nearly 5 years old now.




gadgeteer said:
Glad I did now there are all these reports of the oil/dust problem......
I do like the specs of the D600 and personally I don't have a problem with the size/construction of the body. But I'll wait a while longer and see if Nikon can sort this problem out.
Click to expand...

This isn't a problem. I can't believe you're holding off on buying the camera you want because you may have to clean the sensor :)
 
Come on now, who uses the biggest lossless file size option? Hardly anyone, and certainly not for a bunch of images. Maybe for a specific landscape? Mostly your files will be 30-45mb each. And let's be honest, if you are buying such a camera you can afford €500 for a reasonable spec i5/i7 1TB HDD machine.
 
Gary Coyle said:
200mb indeed, hard drives arent cheap enough or big enough to cope with those sorts of sizes if you shoot 600 images a day :D
Click to expand...

200MB are the 16bit TIFFs if you export 16bit from LR. You wouldn't be processing all 600 images I'm assuming... and only an idiot will shoot TIFF. The RAWs are 45mb, which is manageable these days. At 600 images per day, even the 20MB RAW/90MB TIFF from a D7000 will cause you as many headaches.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm just baffled by the antagonism to the file sizes though. 45MB RAW files if you lose lossless compression. That's nothing. Sure, the 16bit TIFFs after processing are 200MB, but even so.. hard drives are cheap, and they're also massive these days. My machine doesn't take any longer to process D800 files than it does my old D3 files, or my D7000 files.. admittedly it's a i7-3960X, but my wife's ageing i7-920 copes perfectly and that's nearly 5 years old now.
Click to expand...

But that IS the point, at least for me, and I suspect many others.
Not every-one has an i7 machine, or even an i5.
To say 45MB files are nothing is a bit of a dismissive statement. They are 3 times the size of what a lot a people are used to.
As stated in a previous post, it's not the storage, it's the processing.
I am looking forward to my D800 for exactly the reasons you state, as I want the best quality, but as part of the cost involved, I have to factor in a new PC.
Ok, I know that I can get a good machine for processing my images for around the £5-600 mark, but it is an extra cost to factor in.
 
Must admit ive never shot anything other than large/fine Jpegs but the stuff i shoot isnt going to ruin someones wedding day if i screw up the WB a tad, however im going to be shooting the brother in laws wedding in a month or so so will shoot RAW, im not the official tog (thank god) but will be looking for something different and would like to give him the best possible stuff so RAW it will be.

Ive got about 150,000 images backed up across various medium and about 20,000 online.
 
GHP said:
But that IS the point, at least for me, and I suspect many others.
Not every-one has an i7 machine, or even an i5.
To say 45MB files are nothing is a bit of a dismissive statement. They are 3 times the size of what a lot a people are used to.
As stated in a previous post, it's not the storage, it's the processing.
I am looking forward to my D800 for exactly the reasons you state, as I want the best quality, but as part of the cost involved, I have to factor in a new PC.
Ok, I know that I can get a good machine for processing my images for around the £5-600 mark, but it is an extra cost to factor in.
Click to expand...

I think you may be over-reacting. What spec is your machine? Even a D7000 produces over 20MB RAW files, and 90MB TIFFs. Have you actually tried processing a D800 RAW file?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think you may be over-reacting. What spec is your machine? Even a D7000 produces over 20MB RAW files, and 90MB TIFFs. Have you actually tried processing a D800 RAW file?
Click to expand...

Sadly, I don't think I am !:lol:
I know full well that I need a new machine, and I am quite happy to get one for my new camera.
I have a particularly old machine (around 4 years) which I know is way past due for an upgrade.

No, I haven't actually tried loading and processing a D800 raw file yet.
 
I think you my be surprised. Seriously what spec is your machine? It can't be THAT bad if it's 4 years old, unless it was a budget lap top, in which case it may have it's work cut out.

Want a D800 RAW to play with?
 
My 2yr old i3 machine was doing OK processing the files. It was more sluggish than processing my D90 files of course, but it only bothered me because I'm the impatient type. If it's taking more than a few seconds for the image to settle fully clear, I'll look for ways to go faster. I had stuck more RAM in that laptop, so it was at it's limits really. I could have gone for a cheaper i5 machine which would do the job, but went for the i7 with a half-decent graphics card while I was at it. I didn't have to spend that much though. I would say you'll find a decent enough machine, especially desktop, for less than 500 - you could go to the used market, there are always gamers offing their 'old' rigs - old to serious gamers is like a year ...
 
GHP said:
No, I haven't actually tried loading and processing a D800 raw file yet.
Click to expand...


I've just PMed you with a link to my web space to download one of my RAW files.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think you my be surprised. Seriously what spec is your machine? It can't be THAT bad if it's 4 years old, unless it was a budget lap top, in which case it may have it's work cut out.

Want a D800 RAW to play with?
Click to expand...

Well I am currently using an Acer Aspire laptop, because my i3 desktop died a couple of weeks ago, so I have now sourced a new desktop, which I shall be ordering in the next few days. It is an i7, with 16Gb RAM, SSD, 3Tb Hard drive etc etc,

And I would LOVE a D800 file, to see what I am up against.
thats a very kind offer, and it is appreciated, thank you David.
I have dropbox if that's any good to transfer it?
 
We cross posted... see my post above.

I reckon the lap top could hack it actually. It will be sluggish, but once the image has loaded, I reckon it won't be as bad as you think.

The issue is do you have a version of lightroom or adobe camera raw that can read a D800 raw file?
 
A desktop will run better than any laptop. Your i7 with all that RAM + HDD space ... not a problem.
 
Of course... I was just saying it may not be NECESSARY to upgrade to a big desktop. Anyway.. he's got a D800 RAW now, so I'm sure the evidence will be in soon, so we'll see :)
 
That was meant in response to him, not your post sorry ;) Just the desktop he mentioned there is more than good enough.
 
Well, my flabber is well and truly gasted !
Thanks to Pookeyhead I just had a play with my first D800 file.
It opened fine in Elements 10, and I managed to do a few basic changes to the image without any real problem.
As you said, it was a bit sluggish, but no-where near as bad as I thought it was going to be.
I'm still getting a new desktop though, but I do stand corrected.
Thanks again Dave for your help.
 
Welcome.

Myth = busted.

My work here is done :)
 
Good stuff, hopefully others with that fear will read and re-think ;)

Oil spots?? D800?? Nevah!
 
As Gary can now attest to, my RAW files are oil spot free :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
This isn't a problem. I can't believe you're holding off on buying the camera you want because you may have to clean the sensor :)
Click to expand...

I guess I'm a cautious man. It's still a new camera. I'll wait until a large number of them are out there, been knocked around at weddings, rained on, dropped and other people have put them through hundreds of thousands of actuations before I part with £1k+ of my hard earned cash. The D700 has been tried & tested and come through with a fantastic reputation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top