Nikon D700 vs D400 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Nikon D700 vs D400

(19 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

d700 d400 d300s

heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Was just wondering what the differences would be between a D400 and the D700 Disregarding the FX vs DX FOV.

Extrapolating from the D300S. I would assume that the D400 will have the 2 cards as an advantage over the D700. what about High ISO do you think that the D400 HighISO will be close to the D700? what about price. I am considering getting a Used D700 (early next year) instead of waiting for a D400 and use it as a "High ISO dx camera". so was looking at the feature list of teh D700 vs the expected features of the D400. in my mind it would seem that they could be very close feature wise.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Heartyfisher, I would think at the very least that the D400/D500 will have an improved expeed processor. Also it's possible that it COULD have a new AF system. The Multi-Cam3500 is due to be passed down to the mid range soon. Perhaps the D90 replacement? I don't see the basic Gen2 features changing that much yet.

Nikon is working on their own sensor I heard form somewhere. With that, I think improved ISO is a given and that's Nikon's track record. However I'm not sure if it will be as good as the D700, not yet anyway but certainly at least a stop higher than the D300. The D700 is two stops higher at least.

Posted 3 years ago #
alan_hyatt06

member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 34
offline

I found that the disadvantage of getting the full frame camera like D700 is lack of lens selection. Most of the time, the lens for full frame are very expensive and not so many choices.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

You have a plenty of lenses that were designed for film bodies - it was the same "sensor" size.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I agree Alan, when I contemplate a D700 I know I'll miss my 16-85 and 10-24 combination. Yes, I know I can cover those focal lengths, but not with two such small, nicely overlapping, filter capable, lenses. With a 67-77 step up I can even use the same filters. Ratios of 5.3 for the mid-zoom and 2.4 for ultra wide are extremely useful.

There are no comparable FX lenses. Wide zooms are either the 17-35 or 14-24 with ratios of 2.1 and 1.7 and mid is the 24-70 with a ratio of 2.9. Further, the 14-24 takes no filters, the broader mid-zooms are not well rated and 70mm is not long enough, I'd need something into the short tele range. Yes, I can go to my collection of primes, but those two DX lenses have really spoiled me with their excellent optical performance.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Thanks for your responses. I am not really considering the FOV and lenses, as my current lenses will work for both dx and fx for what I need from my lenses. So, it is clear that the D700 is "better" than the D300S (or is it?), but will it still be "better" than a D400? in what way?
@Gentoo : Are you saying that the D700 AF is better than the D300S? I thought they were the same.

So is it only the High ISO of the D700 that makes it better? ( Though I must admit that that is what is drawing me towards the D700) I also have an event I will be shooting in early january that High ISO would be really really useful. ISO 3200 and my f1.4 was not good enough for the venue. (I tried it)

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

heartyfisher said:
So is it only the High ISO of the D700 that makes it better?

Full frame and larger photosites should give you an increase in sharpness, color accuracy, and contrast as well, all things being equal*.

*Which they aren't, but as a rule-of-thumb it still stands.

ted2001 said:
There are no comparable FX lenses. Wide zooms are either the 17-35 or 14-24 with ratios of 2.1 and 1.7 and mid is the 24-70 with a ratio of 2.9.

It's hard to make a zoom cover more than ~2x (when you're away from 50mm) (esp. on the wide end) while maintaining all the qualities one expects for $1800. If you want a FX mega-zoom get the old 28-200. One can find an excellent dealer copy for ~ $250 IIRC and from an individual for less.

ted2001 said:
Further, the 14-24 takes no filters,

14mm on FX/Film is wider than anything you've seen on DX and combined with the size increase to cover the FX frame means the filter would be as expensive as the lens. ;)

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I don't think the old 28-200 in any way would replace my 16-85 VR lens, besides, that's more of an 18-200 replacement. Further the width of the 14-24 vs 10-24 at widest is 14 vs 15mm, not much. The lack of filter and huge front element make the 14-24 that much less useful and prone to extremely expensive front element damage. I'd sacrifice that 1mm of width to use filters and protect my front lens element. Now faster and perhaps sharper, I won't argue.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

["@Gentoo : Are you saying that the D700 AF is better than the D300S? I thought they were the same."]

Heartyfisher, no, I'm not saying that. They do have the same AF system. Just one is tweaked for the smaller sensor. What I was saying is that a replacement for the D300/300s (and therefore even for the D700) could very well have a new AF system. The Multi-Cam3500 could very well be passed down to the midrange level. It was one guess I made about a D300 replacement being improved. One thing that might make it worth it, otherwise, if it just has a dual card slot and maybe better ISO and video, such a new body may not be worth it.

In other words, this new camera will need some other things to make it worth considering. I like the dual card slots a lot but if I get a D400/500, I need at least a one stop improvement in ISO, faster expeed and an improved AF. I like the multi-cam3500 and I'm very satisfied with it's performance. Therefore if the D400/500 has it as well but offers little else, I might as well stick with my D300.

Hope that makes more sense.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

ted2001 said:
I agree Alan, when I contemplate a D700 I know I'll miss my 16-85 and 10-24 combination. Yes, I know I can cover those focal lengths, but not with two such small, nicely overlapping, filter capable, lenses. With a 67-77 step up I can even use the same filters. Ratios of 5.3 for the mid-zoom and 2.4 for ultra wide are extremely useful.

There are no comparable FX lenses. Wide zooms are either the 17-35 or 14-24 with ratios of 2.1 and 1.7 and mid is the 24-70 with a ratio of 2.9. Further, the 14-24 takes no filters, the broader mid-zooms are not well rated and 70mm is not long enough, I'd need something into the short tele range. Yes, I can go to my collection of primes, but those two DX lenses have really spoiled me with their excellent optical performance.

Don't forget about the 35-70 2.8!! It has 99% of the optics of the 24-70 and a fraction of the weight. . .

This is one of the primary reasons I haven't jumped ship yet. . .the FX com parables are SO HEAVY and EXPENSIVE! Yes, I'm sure there are IQ advantages, but IMO, probably only for pixel peepers . . .

To that end, my 50 1.4 and 60 2.8 are FX/DX and if I were to switch, I would have to sell the 35 1.8/11-16 2.8/55-200 VR (which are super light and great); comparable purchases would be the 14-24 2.8 ($1799) and 70-300 VR ($550). . .plus a 35-70 2.8 ($500 used). . .so I'd be out $1800, and might be able to get about $850 for all the DX lenses that don't carry over. . .makes me wonder is that extra $1k and extra weight worth it?

Posted 3 years ago #
alan_hyatt06

member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 34
offline

If you really shot the photo beyond ISO 1200 (inside the dim light condition), then you should get FX otherwise DX would be good enough. DX has more choices as far as lenses go especially the third party lenses. If the light is good, there is no different between DX & FX if you match them with good lens respectively.
If fact if you want to shot landscape, the best wide angle lens in the market is Tokina 11-16 that give you an amazing photo when you shot with DX camera like D90 or even D300. However to get the best photo, it is still depending on your photographing skills and experiences.

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

D700's HighISO performance is its advantage over the D300s. I'd say the D300s has the superior autofocus as it covers practically the entire frame, whereas on the D700 it only covers the DX crop portion of the frame. I love my D700 and wouldn't ever consider trading it for a D300s, as the IQ is brilliant with silky smooth images.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Hi all, Thanks again for the responses. To summerise..

* I am not really interested in the discussion on the lenses as my set works fine for me either in dx or fx. but dont let me stop yous all from your lens discussions :-) this place tends to meander and that's its charm ! :-) PS:I have the 35-70 :-)

* pro D700
** Images will be sharper when used with my current lenses. This I like!
** Better High Iso although the D400 will probably be close.
** Available now.
** Images "Smoother" ??

* pro D400
** Better AF, even if using current tech but may have new AF tech
** Dual Card slots
** Video - almost forgot about this one (lol guess I wont be using the video!)
** Smaller lighter
** Viewfinder is 100 %
** Dust risistance
** ISO probably comparable to D700.
** More MP? 14? May depend on what Nikon will push, more MP or better High ISO.

Anything else to add?? Did I miss something?

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Yes you forgot to call it a D500 and your list reminds me of KR's reviews of non existent cameras :^) Just wait to see what Feb 2010 brings. Or since your comparing/planning to buy a used D700 anyway just get it now and start enjoying it.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Hey! this is a roumour site.. we all "know" what the specifications are of equipment before they are announced!

er why february? I thought the D800 was going to be announced in december?

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

You don't follow the main NR blog much do you hearty? ;^)

The "D800" was only "rumored" to be announced in December by a member who said his friends of friends who have relatives who work for Nikon and they heard it from...kind of a thing. This person said the "D800" would have better specs than the still-not-in-stores D3S. (more megapixels,better HD video, etc.)Nobody really thinks this will happen. Not even Carlos Ormazabal, who is Nikon's Product Manager for Spain.

In an online forum interview he kinda laughed off the idea that a D700 replacement would have better specs than the D3S. He also said that we should look at Nikon's previous announcement dates to get an idea of when a D700 replacement would come along. So at the earliest, according to him, that is summer 2010.

I said wait until Feb.2010 because that's when the next round of possible announcements will happen because of the PMA conference. A recent rumor on the NR main page says a D500 (Nikon's supposedly skipping the number 400 for some reason) and or D800 will be announced then.

There you're all caught up now with the latest info as of today. :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

From Niko no less:

Anyway Niko if they upgrade don't you think it has to be closer to the Canon 5D MKII or don't bother. I would rather see a D90 size FX anyway

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

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

I agree, Pete. Sometimes I wonder if a D700s was planned but then when Canon released the 5DII Nikon had to scrap it to focus on getting a competitive D800 out sooner than they had thought. February wouldn't surprise me.
The D700 is small enough for me, but I admit if the price was quite a bit lower, I'd probably buy a D90 sized FF body instead. Making a more affordable FF camera seems like a good way to increase sales volume to recoup the sensor production costs (I assume that was what the D700 was designed to do with the D3's sensor, but they could take it a step further).

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

I'm hoping for a new full frame camera (not D700 replacement) come February as well. A D90 FX would really hurt low end DX camera sales, but then again that same logic could have been used to dismiss the D700 rumors.(i.e. A D700 will kill D3 sales)

Nikon had a 4megapixel "flagship" camera going up against 8, 10, and 12 megapixel canon's for many years. So don't expect Nikon to up the mp war.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Nikon D700 vs D400

Reply