Should I buy another D700

I think folk have realised that even against newer models what a great camera it is, especially at todays prices.
A couple of months ago I was contemplating selling mine, but after using it again have decided to keep hold of it.
I guess they will always come up for sale, but less frequently & obviously higher shutter counts as time passes.
 
In answer to the thread title, YES! (Well, if you want another one.) I'm sure there are better cameras in some respects and others that outperform it in others but unless you NEED the extra pixies from a D800 (for example) or more FPS or a more robust build quality, the D700 is hard to beat.
 
If you can afford it and (as above) you want another one, then yes go for it :)
 
andyred said:
If you can afford it and (as above) you want another one, then yes go for it :)
Click to expand...

I did not mean literally "should I get another D700" - I was illustrating how popular they are still are, in spite of having a (much) smaller sensor and even though the D610 and D800 have superseded them
 
What do you mean a smaller sensor? Its a full frame sensor, the same as any other fx sensor. Do you mean the mp?
If so, that completely irrelevant to most people



BillN_33 said:
I did not mean literally "should I get another D700" - I was illustrating how popular they are still are, in spite of having a (much) smaller sensor and even though the D610 and D800 have superseded them
Click to expand...
 
TCR4x4 said:
What do you mean a smaller sensor? Its a full frame sensor, the same as any other fx sensor. Do you mean the mp?
If so, that completely irrelevant to most people
Click to expand...

so you are saying the number of mp's is "completely irrelevant to most people"

I find that surprising

plus obviously Nikon, Canon and all other manufacturers have "got it wrong"
 
Not many people want or need to print to A3 or larger and even fewer need to crop into their images and still do so. The D700 is perfectly capable of A3 prints so is enough for most people. The relevance is more in the eye of the marketing man who sells excess. Let's face it, the vast majority of shots taken will never see paper and the majority of the shots that do never get bigger than 6x4" so 1800 x 1200 pixels (about 2.2MP) is enough for most people.
 
Nod said:
Not many people want or need to print to A3 or larger and even fewer need to crop into their images and still do so. The D700 is perfectly capable of A3 prints so is enough for most people. The relevance is more in the eye of the marketing man who sells excess. Let's face it, the vast majority of shots taken will never see paper and the majority of the shots that do never get bigger than 6x4" so 1800 x 1200 pixels (about 2.2MP) is enough for most people.
Click to expand...

I know this but it is just that TCR4x4 said "mp's are completely irrelevant to most people" ……….. I would have thought that most people consider mp's as part of their buying decision, I certainly did when I bought the D700 as I have a D7100 and D300 …… and I wanted a smaller mp FX body ……. plus many others have bought the D800 for the 36mp sensor and also with even bridge and compact cameras mp's usually are considered important by most people and not irrelevant, but maybe I'm wrong

One of the reasons I bought the D700 rather than the D800E was the smaller mp sensor size
 
Last edited:
Interesting that the article was published two years ago, still hanging in there :)
 
Bill, I bought a D800 to run alongside my D700 so I could crop into the images and still print big but traded the D800 in against a Fuji X-Pro1 system since I had taken fewer than 500 shots with it in the year I owned it. I simply didn't need all the pixies. In contrast to the lack of use the D800 got, the X-Pro and the X-T1 I also bought have taken well over 2,000 shots in a couple of months.

It's worth noting that other than Sony and Nikon (who I think share the 36MP sensor), none of the other manufacturers seem to have chased a massive MP count in 35mm/FF bodies.
 
Nod said:
Bill, I bought a D800 to run alongside my D700 so I could crop into the images and still print big but traded the D800 in against a Fuji X-Pro1 system since I had taken fewer than 500 shots with it in the year I owned it. I simply didn't need all the pixies. In contrast to the lack of use the D800 got, the X-Pro and the X-T1 I also bought have taken well over 2,000 shots in a couple of months.

It's worth noting that other than Sony and Nikon (who I think share the 36MP sensor), none of the other manufacturers seem to have chased a massive MP count in 35mm/FF bodies.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I have used a D300 for some years, still have it and use it quite a bit …….. I got into "bird" photography and wanted the most pixies on the crops that are common when taking shots of these little things ….. I have never got on with the UI on the D7100, but the number of mp's does make a difference ……. when I used the D7100 for other types of subjects I found that I preferred the D300 …….. so when I saw a low clicks D700 for sale I jumped at it and I am very pleased after taking maybe 300 shots ……… I have not really used the D700 for "birds" yet but obviously the FX v DX sensor may make a difference in that theoretically I will need to get nearer ……. so I will have to do some tests on the D7100 v D700 crops although if I use the D700 in DX mode I think that the image size is 5 mp ……. and when you crop that it of course is lower versus 24 mp on the DX D7100 ……. so in such cases the D7100 should win hands down.

I also find the ISO quality is better on the D700 v the D7100 - which according to (some) reviews, should not be so.
 
I can safely say, with all the cameras Ive ever bought, which must be around 30, Ive never once taken the MP into consideration. If the camera does what I want in regards to weight, functionality, ease of use and all the other important aspects, then Im happy.

I still use my D700 at its "lowly" 12MP. I also regularly use a D5100 with whatever thats got and a Fuji X-E2. They all serve different purposes and I couldn't give a damn what MP they are, it doesn't matter one jot to me. Ive printed 40x30 inch posters from the D700 and also from a Canon 50D I used to own.. Both look great.
 
bayer sensors need more mp and to downsample perhaps to match foveon sensor (or what is actually "real" mega pixel) so extra resolution can be useful, and heck i like to pixel peep :)
 
I upgraded from a D7000 to a D700. I could have gotten the D800 had I wanted, I had the money, but after careful deliberation the D700 was a better fit for me. Mainly as I couldn't afford a D4 which is what I would get given the choice just for that slight bit extra crop head room the 16MP offer.

I wanted the FX sensor for better ISO and the better frame rate and ruggedness was a bonus as I shoot wildlife mainly. I really don't need 36MP, the 22? on a 5Diii would have been nice by I'm in too deep to swap at a price I can stomach. My only real complaint against my D700 is the live view is a bit backwards but by setting it to the AE lock I still have 1 button access. Would I get another? Yes, I would. I've even been tempted a few times already.
 
BillN_33 said:
I also find the ISO quality is better on the D700 v the D7100 - which according to (some) reviews, should not be so.
Click to expand...

Those reviews are nonsense as are others which claim D7100's AF is better than D700's - I have both and the D700 is better at maintaining focus than D7100 and produces better DR at any ISO level.

Down sizing the D7100 shots can hide the noise, but I find down sizing D7100 shots often hides the details/clarity of the pics.

If my D700 died tomorrow I'd buy another as it's a great performing all round camera.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
so you are saying the number of mp's is "completely irrelevant to most people"

I find that surprising

plus obviously Nikon, Canon and all other manufacturers have "got it wrong"
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant to most people. Most people these days never actually print their images, so yes it's irrelevant for most people.

It's useful for cropping in if you shoot wildlife or do airshow stuff or something similar, but beyond that, yes, it's useless to most people who hardly ever, or never print. In fact, most people who only show work online reduce their images even further, to around 1200 pixels across or so... which at full frame aspect is less than 1 mega pixel.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
It is irrelevant to most people. Most people these days never actually print their images, so yes it's irrelevant for most people.

It's useful for cropping in if you shoot wildlife or do airshow stuff or something similar, but beyond that, yes, it's useless to most people who hardly ever, or never print. In fact, most people who only show work online reduce their images even further, to around 1200 pixels across or so... which at full frame aspect is less than 1 mega pixel.
Click to expand...

David - again you mis-quote which seems to be your speciality time after time

the original quote was "completely irrelevant to most people"

your have changed it to "it's irrelevant for most people"

do you understand the difference?

but you always tend to focus on parts of the thread that have little to do with the original posting and then try to twist them away from even that ……. have you even read the first posting?

Is English your "first" language?
 
Last edited:
I haven't misquoted you. I quoted everything you said. You asked a question, I answered it. IMO, it is completely irrelevant to AND for most people, yes, as most people just put stuff on-line. If that's what they do, then camera resolution is neither here nor there.

The body of the text I write is not a quote. I included your quote in full however.

"Completely irrelevant for most people" vs. "Completely irrelevant to most people" I fail to see what the difference is, and as I included your full quote I fail to see how anyone could be confused. What's the problem? If it's irrelevant to someone, then it stands to reason it's irrelevant for them also. I fail to see how it can be irrelevant for someone, yet still be relevant TO them?.. unless they're playing semantic games.... pretty much as you are now in fact.

I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to be insulting. If what I write bothers you, please block me instead of insulting me... or, you could try just not insulting me if you want. Either would work. One of these days you'll do this to someone who's first language is NOT English and look like a bigoted knob.


[edit]

To drag it back on topic.... if you like the D700, and already have one, and resolution has not been causing you a problem, then yes, grab another one while they're still plentiful, because apart from resolution, the D700 doesn't really lack anything important that the D800 has.
 
Last edited:
David, without getting too much into semantics, and I apologise if you feel insulted, but

the original quote was "completely irrelevant to most people" - it was not my quote

you originally changed it to "it's irrelevant for most people" ……… and then misquoted your own post by saying "Completely irrelevant for most people" …….. you seem to change words from the original as you go along to suit your argument ……… even your own words

I may agree with your statement but that is not what TCR4x4 originally said and not what I commented on ……… I would content then when buying a camera most people, for varying reasons do take into account how the camera is described, its specifications and the words that they have heard that are associated with what are said to be "improvements" ……… and conversely, for a small minority, I being one when I decided to buy a D700 v D800E, I wanted a body with less mps than the current trend.

Completely is a word that indicates mp's are not considered at all in the buying decision
and
most people means exactly what it says

I may agree that in reality, once the camera has been purchased mp's are then irrelevant for most people in the images that are produced, and to; other than to say that their camera is this or that.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to quote everything verbatim to make a point. That point being that for most people, resolution is not important. There.. I changed the words a little bit again... Oh no!... oh... hang on... no.. still means the same thing, and everyone except you would have been perfectly able to understand it.

It was TCR4x4 that used the words "completely irrelevant to most people" and unlike you, I read between the lines to assume he meant it's not something most need concern themselves with. We're all aware that they do however.... the point of this is to educate them that resolution is irrelevant to 90% of amateurs, so they shouldn't obsess about it.

I understood the meaning intended, as I suspect most others did. You're just being pedantic because you seem to like arguing with me. It's probably very boring for others to read though, so I suggest you stop now.

BillN-33 ---> Blocked. Bye.
 
Oh dear …….. it's BillN underscore 33 ……… not dash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top