D700 owners

at risk of getting shot down very quickly, but I would say a good summary is your d300 with FX goodness added

Hugh
 
If you want full frame, with all its plus and minus points, D700 is the bizniz.
 
Take your D300, turn it full frame and bobs your uncle (which as a side effect gives yourself a bigger brighter viewfinder and quite a bit better high ISO performance)
 
The downside is that, sooner or later you will want to replace your lenses due to the loss of that 1.5 multiplier you get with DX. Think very carefully about what that shift in view would mean to your lens collection and how you use it.

The FF lenses will also be larger, weigh more and probably cost more.
 
As an ex-D700 owner I'd say that compared to the D300, the biggest downside is the price differential to get that low light high iso performance. Because 90% of the time you will not notice any great difference between the two cameras, other than the other downside - which is the D700 is noticeably heavier. Don't get me wrong here though - it is definitely a far superior camera. You just have to work hard to notice those differences. I miss mine.
 
I wish it had 2 memory card slots, one for jpeg and one for raw, other than that perfection
 
Two things I miss ... 100% viewfinder, it's only 95% on the D700; and the crop factor, which comes in handy when shooting birds and macro.
 
there are no negatives you can use all the wonderfull nikon lens through the years
 
ditchdigger said:
there are no negatives you can use all the wonderfull nikon lens through the years
Click to expand...

No different to the D300, but if you've bought your kit based around that DX multiplier you'll have to change the way you use your lenses, or change the lenses themselves.
 
Negatives:-

1) Not a 100% viewfinder
2) Only one card slot
3) ISO button NOT near the rest of the right hand controls.

HTH
 
I think that weight is the only slight downer - if you grip it it's larger than a D3 :lol: but it is well balanced and a very stable platform.

Also the sound of the mirror/shutter is loud, (due to it's size, but by God it sounds fantastic :clap:) so is probably not best for wedding ceremony shots!

Also Auto-ISO is really useful and I find I no longer need to manually change it
 
reasons i bought a D700

lens are true size a 50s a 50

bright viewfinder [100% not that important theres mor than enough]

low light ability to effortlessly shoot 3200 or more

general feel and capabilities of the camera [may be based on a D300 but it feels nothing like it to me

no built in grip i dont like them,big and bulky,cameras more than fast enough for me and my subjects

i would not swap a D3 for mine
 
reasons i bought a D700

lens are true size a 50s a 50

bright viewfinder [100% not that important theres mor than enough]

low light ability to effortlessly shoot 3200 or more

general feel and capabilities of the camera [may be based on a D300 but it feels nothing like it to me

no built in grip i dont like them,big and bulky,cameras more than fast enough for me and my subjects

i would not swap a D3 for mine
 
I moved from a D300 to the 700 earlier this year. You know the pluses so I won't go over them them but my summary of downsides:

1) Heavier - To be expected really
2) Shutter sound is quite loud as already mentioned above - Sounds great though
3) Viewfinder coverage - To be honest this hasn't effected me in the slightest
4) FX Lenses - Sure you need to fork out more but for what I do I haven't missed the 'extra' length that DX provided.

BONUS - One rarely mentioned benefit that I love about the FX format is the reduced depth of field at equiv FL. Wasn't really expecting that much but it's actually very cool.

Hope that helps.
 
kalibre said:
BONUS - One rarely mentioned benefit that I love about the FX format is the reduced depth of field at equiv FL. Wasn't really expecting that much but it's actually very cool.
Click to expand...

Very true....being a people shooter more often than not, this really appeals to me - particularly when using a nice portrait lens. :)
 
This is looking like a whole lot of reasons to buy one:) And more by default than design, I find myself in a financial position to be able to afford it, plus some new glass.

Having just returned to photography after a long absence (since film) I actually find the lengthening of the lenses a bit annoying, I'm used to a 50mm being a 50mm. I've got a 24-70mm 2.8 anyway so thats no problem, I'd have to sell the 12-24mm I suppose, and get the 14-24 2.8.

Am I right in thinking the grip from the D300 fits the D700?
 
yes the grip fits.

To be hyper critical my D700 over exposes 1/2 a stop (give or take) which gives lovely bright photos and compared to my 5D at base ISO to 800 I would just give the nod to the 5D above that its the D700.

My only real negative is it makes me lazy.... superfast autofocus and auto iso means I dont need as much effort to get a shot I would actually consider printing.
 
Actually, I find the lack of 100% viewfinder very annoying.

I don't do any post-processing, and I like to get my shots perfect in camera. Without being able to see exactly what's going to be in the final shot (at all sides) means I may get unwanted rubbish in the picture.

The way I work around this is, fix the focal range I want to use, scan the area I am shooting through the view finder, then when guess how much will be added (keeping in mind what I've seen when scanning) and then shoot.

Chances are, I still get unwated artifact in my picture... of course, I could crop these out but as I've said, I don't do pp .. so that's not much of an option.

Now, it the D700 had a 100% veiwfinder, I'd be a happy camel jumping all over the moon.
 
fantastic combo

i have remembered one fault more of a nuisance relay

i don't like the rubber usb cover would prefer a hard cover
 
Wail said:
Actually, I find the lack of 100% viewfinder very annoying.
Click to expand...

I found that too. You might reasonably think that the extra 5% doesn't make a difference, but for me it did. Actually, realistically, if I were pushed into a corner and threatened with blunt objects, I'd have to say that that is the only real and truly genuine downside of the 700 against the 300.
 
ditchdigger said:
bright viewfinder [100% not that important theres mor than enough]
Click to expand...

It's not about the brightness of the viewfinder - the 700 is fine in that respect. It's more about the image being larger than what you see through the VF. 5% is quite a bit actually and it generally means an element of guess work comes into play when trying to get a really tight composition or being prepared to crop into the image in PP.

Neither of these are ideal; but at the same time I'm not suggesting it's something which makes the 700 anything but a fantastic piece of kit.
 
Wail said:
Actually, I find the lack of 100% viewfinder very annoying.

I don't do any post-processing, and I like to get my shots perfect in camera. Without being able to see exactly what's going to be in the final shot (at all sides) means I may get unwanted rubbish in the picture.



Now, it the D700 had a 100% veiwfinder, I'd be a happy camel jumping all over the moon.
Click to expand...


This is the only fault that I would highlight with the D700 as well - the lack of 100% viewfnder coverage can be a right royal pain in the arse. Kept my D300 as a backup though becasue of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top