SkintBrit said:
(perhaps mistakenly) don't feel that expenditure is warranted.

I believe the cost of any new equipment, has to be warranted

Had I owned two D700 bodys I am not sure I would have bought my D800 but I did need a second body, so I got a D800

The problem is now having been spoiled by the results of the D800, I am tempted to get a second D800, but the cost is not justified

PB PM said:
There is a cost different if, a) you already have FX glass, B) don't have an extra $1000-1200 to spend on a camera body.

For amateur use the D700 is more than enough. ......

agreed

I believe Nikon felt the D700 was a bit pricey for amateur use, hence the D600

They also felt Professionals wanted something better, and were prepared to pay for it, hence the D800

The D700 has been/ will be , replaced by two cameras

@PB PM - c'm upgrade to d800 with Your current CF cards and feel the same like shooting on film: 50 snaps on 4GB card :)

I also think that the D800 is not a replacement for D700, just give Nikon some time and wait for D700 mark II :) I also doubt D600 is a direct replacement of D700, it's gonna be a totally new camera, much cheaper and directed towards less demanding shooters.

PB PM said:
There is a cost different if, a) you already have FX glass, B) don't have an extra $1000-1200 to spend on a camera body.

For amateur use the D700 is more than enough. I have been tempted to update to the D800, once and that was for about 5 minutes. Within that 5 minutes I remembered the other costs of upgrading. New batteries (need at least two backups), new grip, new camera quick release plates, new memory cards (I wouldn't want to use cards smaller than 16GB with the D800 and all my current cards are 4GB or 8GB). Add those things in and you have an additional $600-1000. The cost of the camera alone isn't the real issue in many cases.

Plus 1, Couldn't have said it better myself. It's not just buying a new body that you have to think about. If my life (or career) depended on it, I've got the money to go out and buy multiple D4's, the reason I don't is I (perhaps mistakenly) don't feel that expenditure is warranted. I feel the RRP that ALL of the mainstream dealers seem to be selling at is too high, and that cost is just the start by changing bodies. I'm sure I'm just being paranoid and cynical, but I simply don't believe that every new camera needs to have a new battery/charger/mains power adapter/grip/memory card configuration etc etc. Yes, I'm pleased that XQD has been developed, I'm not against progress, and design changes to accommodate them, I just hate feeling like I'm being used as a cash cow. £650 for a WT-5!!!! My ar*e.

Sorry rant over, where were we, oh yes the D700...... I still don't believe the D800 is it's replacement, maybe the D600?

There is a cost different if, a) you already have FX glass, B) don't have an extra $1000-1200 to spend on a camera body.

For amateur use the D700 is more than enough. I have been tempted to update to the D800, once and that was for about 5 minutes. Within that 5 minutes I remembered the other costs of upgrading. New batteries (need at least two backups), new grip, new camera quick release plates, new memory cards (I wouldn't want to use cards smaller than 16GB with the D800 and all my current cards are 4GB or 8GB). Add those things in and you have an additional $600-1000. The cost of the camera alone isn't the real issue in many cases.

I was thinking to keep my D700 as a second body, mounting the 14-24 on it while keeping my D800 mounted with the 24-70. After 3 weeks trying to shoot in that fashion, I end-up swapping the lenses all the time because I like the D800 so much more. This second body thing is not working for me and do not save me any time nor mout-dismount burden, it just makes it worst.

Looking at my D800 pictures, I find them to have a wow-factor that I rarily got with my D700 (which I used to find too soft).

So, like others, I see no reason to prefer a D700 over a D800 and I will sell mine.

Lower cost? The cost differential over the entire system (lenses, flash, bags, batteries etc.) is negligeable. The better quality is worth the money and makes the lenses shine.

I have a 700 and a 800

The IQ of the 800 is in a difference league

I keep the 700 with a M10 for the rare times I need a higher fps

but given a choice between two, the 800 wins hands down

If I needed a high fps for work, rather than fun, the D4 would be the answer

I can think of a two reason why someone might want the D700 over the D800. First, the camera doesn't slow down as fast when shooting action. Second, price.

@Kanuck - You do great work. Why do you prefer the D700 to the D800?

shutterdancer said:
I really hope that you're right Wataru,but at the moment,the horror stories are just too overwhelming....let's just say that half of them are coming from buyers that are upgrading from P&S because those huge MP's just sound so cool....that still leaves 50% of semi pros and pros who seem to have problems that can't be explained!

They could be all bad but mine, who knows... But I'm making money with mine. I had a great shoot on Tuesday that included video, and the real strength is those huge MPs. I am writing an operator's manual for a device used to detect cracks in nuclear power plants (among other things) and the ability to stand way back or use a wide angle and crop to a key part of the scene with excellent resolution is putting cash in my pocket and saving a huge amount of time.

I'm also really happy with dynamic range. I'm taking shots of lots of illuminated objects on dark backgrounds, and the color rendition and detail in both the lighted areas and the dark areas are fantastic.

Also, unlike the past, I am using one body for both stills and videos--and the videos are excellent. (hint--get an external mike)

I did the whole shoot with just two lenses: a 24 and a 105. I was thinking about getting a second body (a D600), but I don't need to change lenses so often now, so I'm getting two bodies work out of one. Three if you count my retired video camera. So far I am a happy user.

I really hope that you're right Wataru,but at the moment,the horror stories are just too overwhelming....let's just say that half of them are coming from buyers that are upgrading from P&S because those huge MP's just sound so cool....that still leaves 50% of semi pros and pros who seem to have problems that can't be explained!

sevencrossing said:
Its listed on the UK site but no one has had any for weeks

why would any one want a D700? the D800 is much much better

if you are desperate for a D700 I might sell you mine

Sevencrossing, I'm not so sure that I agree with you completely. The D700 is a fine camera and the best I have ever used, and that includes the F100, and F90X as well. I prefer it still even after 40,000 shots now with the D800e.

shutterdancer said:
Gone,but not forgotten.....and who knows....with all of the reports of buggy D800's....they just might make a comeback ;)

I'm not sure there are as many buggy D800s as you might think. Still, if you want a D700, I saw one on the shelf at Canoga Camera last week.

Gone,but not forgotten.....and who knows....with all of the reports of buggy D800's....they just might make a comeback ;)

You snooze, you lose.
I'm sure a few D700's will be hitting the used market as more people buy the D800.

If you go to the B&H website, the D700 body is listed as discontinued.

Since the D700 has been replaced by the D800, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be discontinued. In addition it seems likely that the D600 will be announced in September.

There was also an article on that on the main blog yesterday. It said that the D700 is listed as discontinued at most US retailers.

Its listed on the UK site but no one has had any for weeks

why would any one want a D700? the D800 is much much better

if you are desperate for a D700 I might sell you mine

Not archived at Nikon yet.

I was on another forum and someone posted that the D700 has been discontinued. Has anyone else heard this? Is it being replaced in the next few days or so?