am i crazy to jump on d700 at this time

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

am i crazy to jump on d700 at this time

(30 posts) (18 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

fedorafans

member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 19
offline

i have mine d50 for about 4 years with about 30,000 shutter releases recorded, and within the years, i have purchased 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and tamron 90/2.8, as well as two sb600 flashes and some other light equipments.

Now i have a 10 month old boy at home and he moves around a lot. It is cumbersome to bring the light modifier with me all the time to take baby photos so lots of time the shutter speed has to be set really slow, another big problem i am facing now is the slow AF. More and more i started to miss the good split second to capture a perfect moment.

i know d7000 can be pre-ordered now but i am thinking probably i will be better off getting the d700 since it has more powerful autofocus and ISO performance?

How do you think?

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I don't think you'd be crazy to upgrade to either of those cameras. I would think the D7000, but it might be worth waiting to see what the AF performance is on the D7000 if that's the most important thing to you.

I loved the D90 for short video clips of my kids and I'm looking forward to the D7000.

From the samples I've seen the D700 doesn't have a lot (maybe a stop?) on the D7000 for high ISO performance.

Posted 2 years ago #
lewinp

member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 21
offline

if its not so urgent, you might want to wait until Nikon announces the D700 upgrade (numerous postings on this) - then I suspect the price of a D700 will fall significantly. Most people seem to think February. You have a nice collection of prime lenses that will work good with the full frame.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I have a D50 converted to IR and a D300 (which is the same AF as the D700) and they are leagues apart in almost every aspect. The increase in AF whatever you buy will be night and day for sure! You could throw in the D300s or its upgrade too when that comes out.

I think it comes down to the $$$ for you.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

If you upgrade get a full frame! i assume you are shooting manual and getting every ounce of goodness out of your d50.

if so you will see a huge difference on full frame!

I just bought a d300s as a backup for my d700. The reach on the crop sensor is nice, but the shallow depth of field is what it's all about!

I spent the day in a under lit gym shooting a kendo tournament. I used the d700 and a 300 2.8 VR. the people in the backgroud ruin most packed gym kendo shots, but with this combo i got some REALLY nice shots. If i used the d300s it would have been too long and to much DOF.

I shot
ISO 1600 - 2500
300mm 2.8 (wide open)
1/200 - 1/320

you will never regret going full frame assuming you don't need the extra reach, and you can nail the focus.

Posted 2 years ago #
fedorafans

member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 19
offline

waiting for d800 just takes too long and i think the price will be pretty stiff when it first releases.

lewinp said:
if its not so urgent, you might want to wait until Nikon announces the D700 upgrade (numerous postings on this) - then I suspect the price of a D700 will fall significantly. Most people seem to think February. You have a nice collection of prime lenses that will work good with the full frame.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

Gareth said:I used the d700 and a 300 2.8 VR. the people in the backgroud ruin most packed gym kendo shots, but with this combo i got some REALLY nice shots. If i used the d300s it would have been too long and to much DOF.

Just to be clear. Am I reading this right? Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

Drab said:
Just to be clear. Am I reading this right? Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

yes, though i suppose i would have to run some tests to make sure. but my 70-200 2.8 VRII at 200 on the d300s is 300 equivalent and has FAR more depth of field than my 300 2.8 VR on my D700 when focussed on a person who fills the whole frame.

After reading this,

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

it would appear the D300s has 1.5X the depth of field (this can be good or bad, depending on how many people I want in focus).

I said the d700 was great for indoor kendo, but i used the same lens on the d300s the day before to shoot outdoor soccer, the results were very pleasing, though if i felt like running around a lot, the d700 would look better with more OOF areas.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

Gareth said:
yes, though i suppose i would have to run some tests to make sure. but my 70-200 2.8 VRII at 200 on the d300s is 300 equivalent and has FAR more depth of field than my 300 2.8 VR on my D700 when focussed on a person who fills the whole frame.

That's not what I asked... I asked:

Drab said:
Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

Gareth said:
After reading this,

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

it would appear the D300s has 1.5X the depth of field (this can be good or bad, depending on how many people I want in focus).

EDIT: Bob appears to saying what I'm saying. As I reread the answer given isn't to the question I asked, thus the confusion.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pva1964/sets/72157623286710404/
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html

Posted 2 years ago #
absolutic

junior member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 9
offline

D700 is amazing camera with amazing autofocus/metering. It makes tracking things (kids, animals) in all directions, effortless. I upgraded to D700 in July it is awesome. D7000's tracking/metering is a big unknown Today. The high iso ability is probably going to be great, but that's not everything. If you can't track your kid running and suddenly moving directions, high ISO won't necessarily help if the camera can't keep up with sudden changes of movements. It has been established time and time again that D700's autofocusing system CAN. Judging from the fact that Canon 5D Mark 1 still sells used for $1000 after 5 years even after 5DM2 has been out for 2 years, it is safe to say that D700 will hold its value even after the successor will come out.

Posted 2 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

i don't think it's crazy.

The price point for any replacement will be 10% more than whatever is on the market now. . .(usually). . .

and the D700 sensor is still pretty damn amazing. . .to get noise levels close to a D3s (newer 12mpx FX sensor), just use DxO software or DeNoise/Noise Ninja, you'll easily gain the 1.5 stops lost when comparing the two. . .

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

I agree, your body is aging anyway, it's nice to upgrade every once in a while.

Posted 2 years ago #
fedorafans

member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 19
offline

i guess i will hold off until i see how well the AF performance is on D7k then make decision.

man, i wanted a d700 badly..

Posted 2 years ago #
smarterchild

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 678
offline

I'd say get the d700. The full frame is that good :)

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

the d7000 has 16MP, video and possibly as good high ISO as the D700.

Every other thing the D700 has is better than the D7000.

If you are shooting inside you need full frame with fast lenses. ideally the 35mm 1.4G when it comes out.

RE:Drab said:
Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

I am unclear, but it seems you want me to say FX shots have the same depth of field as DX shots when the same lense is used.

Well they do.

What is not clear is why I would say that to someone with a d50 who has no idea (assumption) about how these things are related.

The fact that the shot will be completely changed and therefore effective focal length rather than actual focal length is far more useful should be considered.

An identical looking (not theoretical) shot taken using a d700 with 300 2.8 wide will have 1.5 times less depth of field than the shot taken on a d300 with 300 2.8 wide.

Of course in order to take a shot that looks the same on the d300 I would need to be 1.5 times the distance from the subject.

I hope this is clear to everyone.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

fedorafans said:
i guess i will hold off until i see how well the AF performance is on D7k then make decision.

IF the new meter is there for why I think it's there, and IF you use 3D subject tracking, than I think the D7000 AF is going to blow most everybody away.

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

The D700 is an amazing camera and at least we know it is one of the best cameras ever made. I know two people with Nikon D3x that have both said the D700 is simply amazing. They both own D700 also. They use the D700 almost exclusively when they are on the run, not the D3x. If I get a D700 upgrade ALL that I will be getting that for is video. From what I have seen of Nikon video to date, the D700 still looks like a winner. In fact I am going to stick to DX for Nikon video. Depends to on what you get a D700 for? This all makes me think the D700 is still going to look great YEARS from now. I am going to buy a D7000 when I can get it. But FF has its huge advantages. First is the view in the finder.

Posted 2 years ago #
CassiusRoads

member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 15
offline

NSXType-R said:
I agree, your body is aging anyway, it's nice to upgrade every once in a while.

Sounds like something out of science fiction. Almost as funny as when someone on another forum posted that they mainly enjoyed shooting children and animals. Photographic quotes read out of context can be quite amusing.
A little more on topic - The D700 sounds like the right upgrade for you if your priorities are low light shooting and excellent af. The D7000 is probably a great upgrade as well, but how it compares to the D700 for high iso and af performance is still unknown. One other thing to consider is that your 35 f/1.8 isn't really made to cover 35mm, although, if you like a lot of vignetting it'll work fine at large apertures. I'll probably get a D700 some day as it fixes the two problems I have with my D200: tiny viewfinder, and relatively poor high iso performance. With af lenses I'm guessing the D700 and D7000 focusing speed and accuracy will be comparable, but I'm biased towards the D700 since 90% of the time I use mf lenses.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

I thought I was maybe crazy upgrading last Christmas from my D300 to a D700 because I thought there might be a refresh back then! Maybe I felt this way because the D3X was released at Christmas time. Boy, I feel foolish now. Don't wait you could end up waiting forever especially if your finances are in order right now. The D700 is magical :)

Posted 2 years ago #
fedorafans

member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 19
offline

:) what if i take a jump getting a d700 only 20 days later found out d7k almost has the same AF and ISO performance? or only a little bit weak AF and ISO?

again, there is almost 1k difference in price!

Posted 2 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

where did this whole AF-performance thing come from?

D700 has a pro-layout and speed for AF.

There's no way the D7k will equal it. . .it may come close, but it won' have 51 points, and the VF spread of points will be certainly different.

ISO performance is up in the air - most pics I've seen were jpg's, not RAW, so who even knows. . .it'll probably be close, real close, but the TYPE of noise is the key question here. . .the D700 will still probably have "better looking" noise compared to the D7k due to the size of the pixels, etc. . .

So let's no compare the two that directly. . .(still wouldn't mind a D7k in my bag!)

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

CassiusRoads said:
Sounds like something out of science fiction. Almost as funny as when someone on another forum posted that they mainly enjoyed shooting children and animals. Photographic quotes read out of context can be quite amusing.
A little more on topic - The D700 sounds like the right upgrade for you if your priorities are low light shooting and excellent af. The D7000 is probably a great upgrade as well, but how it compares to the D700 for high iso and af performance is still unknown. One other thing to consider is that your 35 f/1.8 isn't really made to cover 35mm, although, if you like a lot of vignetting it'll work fine at large apertures. I'll probably get a D700 some day as it fixes the two problems I have with my D200: tiny viewfinder, and relatively poor high iso performance. With af lenses I'm guessing the D700 and D7000 focusing speed and accuracy will be comparable, but I'm biased towards the D700 since 90% of the time I use mf lenses.

Haha, I see what you meant there.

Honestly, if price is no issue, he could upgrade to the D700, but he'd have to get a couple FX lenses.

Posted 2 years ago #
anjz

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 208
offline

NSXType-R said:
I agree, your body is aging anyway, it's nice to upgrade every once in a while.

LOL!! I didn't read this with the double meaning previously. HA! Now, I almost peed in my pants!

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

Agreed there's no way the D7K can equal the D700 performance except it except it exceeds in resolution. Trust me get the D700.

Posted 2 years ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

Back last November, I was debating over getting the D700 or wait for its replacement. When news broke out that D700 replacement would not be for 2010, for me going D700 in May was a no brainer. Given every thing else I had to buy; switching the body when the replacement comes out is not going to be the biggest expense, especially if the D700 retains its value.

Now with a 10 month old eager to get older and your investments in lenses, I would say that for you, not having any video of your son may be a much worst proposal than not having the elusive and still to be demonstrated better pic of a FF.

D700 and the bigger heavier FF lenses would be quite a cumbersome to add over the rest of the baby stuff you have to carry. Another problem I am facing is that I have almost no picture of myself as my wife finds the D700 too heavy to handle. If your wife is anything like mine, you may have to do all the pictures yourself.

Posted 2 years ago #