Nikon D700 - Worth it?

WillNicholls

WillNicholls

Messages
2,004
Name
Will
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to upgrade my kit.
I know it's a pretty heavy price tag, but I've saved up towards this and I'm just looking to make sure it's the right decision.

I shoot primarily in very low light in woodlands, and the D80 I have at the moment just can't cope with ISO levels much about 400.

I've tried a D300s, and that was a huge improvement. The ISO let me capture what I wanted, but the quality of the image was still below what I wanted. After looking at reviews on the D700 and seeing how much better it is than the D300s in the ISO department, I think it is the right choice.

What does everyone think? For wildlife photography this is surely the perfect camera?

EDIT: I have a Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 lens (terrible). As this isn't a full frame lens - what disadvantages is that compared to having the full frame FX lenses?
 
Last edited:
I asked the same My thread... may help you to decide..

Then again it might not....
 
The easy answer is 'yes, the camera is worth every penny' because I love mine and think it's the best body I've owned, but you do need to take into consideration the cost of additional/replacement lenses too if you're not too happy with the quality of the Sigma you're already using.
 
Are you sure the 170-500 isn't suitable for FF? I used to use mine on film bodies and it didn't vignette. Looking at an old WEx ad with the lens listed, it says it's a DG lens, so IS FF (DC denotes that it would be Dx/APS-C). It's not the perfect lens but I'm not sure you'll get the reach any cheaper (apart from mirror lenses...) The small max aperture is offset by the very good high ISO performance of the D700 which does allow reasonably fast shutter speeds even at slow apertures.
 
I think someone called it The Vampire Camera because it loves to come out in the dark

It really shines at high ISO, all you've read is true.
This is at ISO 5000 I'll happily shoot much higher.
5132111625_eac9236690_b.jpg
 
Obviously there's gonna be some grain. I sell these printed 10x8. They look fab. Never bothered to sharpen.
 
Shot the image you see here with the 70-200 2.8 VR1
 
Much as I think the D700 is a great camera (and I am lusting after one), I think you may be better off getting a second hand D300 and 70-200mm 2.8 (or 24-70 2.8) for the same price roughly as a new D700. The ISO would be nice, but if you have poor glass you will not get great images. Or, maybe get the D300 plus a prime or 2 or even a prime and a Tamron 28-75 which is very close to the Nikon and can be had for around £200.
 
The question is how much of that range on the Sigma do you actually need?

If you couple a great body with a poor lens you will still get poor images, albeit with high ISO your keeper rate should go up.

It's going to be a balance between glass and body. The D700 is awesome but demands good optics to get the best out of it. You may be better off considering a D300/70-200 and 2x converter. You'd still have as good a max aperture but with much better optics and better high ISO. And you get more reach with the Dx format.

So what subjects are you shooting and what range do you really need?
 
cambsno said:
Much as I think the D700 is a great camera (and I am lusting after one), I think you may be better off getting a second hand D300 and 70-200mm 2.8 (or 24-70 2.8) for the same price roughly as a new D700. The ISO would be nice, but if you have poor glass you will not get great images. Or, maybe get the D300 plus a prime or 2 or even a prime and a Tamron 28-75 which is very close to the Nikon and can be had for around £200.
Click to expand...

With regards to the above--If i shoot on the D300 with an f2.8 Sigma 120-300 at ISO 1100 and shoot with the same with the D700 at ISO3200 then the images from the D700 are much better and have less noise in them. If you buy a D300 then you will always lust after the D700 and wonde how good it is.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
With regards to the above--If i shoot on the D300 with an f2.8 Sigma 120-300 at ISO 1100 and shoot with the same with the D700 at ISO3200 then the images from the D700 are much better and have less noise in them. If you buy a D300 then you will always lust after the D700 and wonde how good it is.
Click to expand...
i have 2 d300 and dont lust after a d700, i lust after a d300 with better high iso.(and thats not a d700):thinking:
 
But the OP was wondering how much better at high ISO the D700 was over the D300/S and i am telling him its way way better and he has stated he is shootng in low light conditions. After buying both my opinion is to buy the D700 in his situation.

My situation is that i take the D300 when doing wildlife and the D700 for low light weddings etc, so both have their place.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
But the OP was wondering how much better at high ISO the D700 was over the D300/S and i am telling him its way way better and he has stated he is shootng in low light conditions. After buying both my opinion is to buy the D700 in his situation.

My situation is that i take the D300 when doing wildlife and the D700 for low light weddings etc, so both have their place.
Click to expand...
fare point mark.if nikon dont bring out a d300 with better high iso soon i might be getting k5s instead.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
But the OP was wondering how much better at high ISO the D700 was over the D300/S and i am telling him its way way better and he has stated he is shootng in low light conditions. After buying both my opinion is to buy the D700 in his situation.

My situation is that i take the D300 when doing wildlife and the D700 for low light weddings etc, so both have their place.
Click to expand...

Looking at what the OP has said, yes, his main concern is ISO and the D700 is the bees knees for that. BUT, if you used the d700 with his current lens would results be as good as say using a D300 and 70-200VR?
 
went fro a d700 to a d300s . outdoor good lighting images seem same from both cameras but lo light it seems to me there is a big difference . I can shoot over 2000 iso with very little visible noise on my d700 but on my d300s above 1000 is pushing it. waiting for the reviews on the d7000 which seems promising
 
WillNicholls said:
I use the whole 500mm of the lens, and I know that lens quality matters but I am looking into getting sponsorship for a better lens and have been referred by Nikon to various places to try.



Oh okay - so as it is a full frame lens what benefits does that bring on a full frame camera? (sorry not good with this!)
Click to expand...
nothing it will still be a 500mm lens. and give the field of view of 500mm compared to if it was on a 1.5x crop sensor it would give you the field of view of 750mm on a full frame(d700)
so to get the same field of view as a 1.5x crop (d300) you would need a 750mm lens on the d700.
 
Last edited:
WillNicholls said:
Ah okay - so it will appear to be a shorter distance? Right.
So what are the benefits of going full frame instead of a Dx?
Click to expand...
the benifits of going full frame (d700) less noise at high isos, the disadvantage of full frame is the field of view (less reach or as you said shorter distance)
as for the d300 and d700 there pritty much the same just a different sensor. the d700 has slightly better weather sealing and build,
but the d300 is still built like a tank.
 
scottthehat said:
the benifits of going full frame (d700) less noise at high isos, the disadvantage of full frame is the field of view (less reach or as you said shorter distance)
as for the d300 and d700 there pritty much the same just a different sensor. the d700 has slightly better weather sealing and build,
but the d300 is still built like a tank.
Click to expand...


Ah I see okay. Just strange, people say you will never go back so I assumed there was more to it.

I hope I can cope with a loss in the appearing zoom though!
 
Also the advantages of FX are bigger and clearer viewfinder, slightly more detail, better highlight recovery.

Disadvantages are, needs top quality lenses, a crap lens will cripple the quality of the camera, weight and... Hmm thats about it.
 
A D80 will be a lot more forgiving. A bad bit of glass infront of the D700 sensor will show that lenses flaws a lot more than it will on the D80.
 
I saw some pictures comparing the pentax and d7000 at high iso on another site and they both looked pretty outstanding. I haven't seen and other pictures from it though so can't really comment on how well it copes with detail recovery or anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top