Nikon D700 12.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

I am making this review of the Nikon D700 from the perspective of someone who also owns a Nikon D300. To view the reviews on the D300, click here. Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)

Without qualification, the Nikon D300 is a superb camera. So many superlatives have been used with the D300 that I will not repeat them here. All the superlatives used with the D300 applies equally well to the D700. I will add however that as good as the superlatives may have been with the D300, the D700 deserves a bit more.

Let me explain.

The Nikon D700 is equipped with a full frame FX sensor (36.0 x 23.9). This is the same sensor used by the Nikon D3. Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) The D300 on the other hand uses the APS-C sensor (23.6 x 15.8). Both the D700 and the D300 have about the same 12 megapixel rating (with the D300 actually slightly higher).

The D700 having a bigger sensor than the D300 but with about the same megapixel rating means that the size/pixel density of the D700 is much lower than the D300. The ratio is 1.4MP/cm2 vs 3.3MP/cm2 for the D700 and the D300 respectively. A lower ratio means lower noise and this ratio favors the D700. For the D700, this translates to lower noise in capturing the same image than when using using the D300.

The D700 lower noise level in turn translates to the D700 being able to operate at a higher ISO level than the D300. The D700 can operate as high as ISO 25,600 while the D300 can go up to ISO 6,400. It is of course quite rare to shoot at such high ISO as it will always be better to shot at a lower ISO rating. But if both the D700 and D300 were shooting at the same ISO, the D700 will have lower noise levels. Simply put, the higher ISO capability of the D700 versus the D300 indicates the higher level of performance of the D700's sensor vs the D300.

My actual use validates this theoretical advantage. I noticed that while the noise level of the D300 is very good at ISO 1600 and even 3200, the D700 consistently showed lower noise level than the D300 shooting at the same ISO setting and light condition. This is most noticeable when shooting at night with many bright lights in the periphery of the main subject.

In terms of color rendition, I have not noticed any significant differences between the D300 and the D700 in the limited time that I have been using the D700. It may be due to the fact that I have conducted my test at dusk and at night.

When using the D700, the full frame sensor means that one will not need to convert the focal length of the lens by a factor of 1.5x. So a 50mm lens will be a 50mm lens for the D700 rather than its 75mm equivalent when used with the D300.

While this may appear to be a disadvantage on the telephoto side, its gain on the wide angle side is considerable and can only be described as an eye opener. The D700 advantage in wide angle application does not just come from its wider perspective. Rather, it is how the D700 maximizes and makes full use of such excellent lens as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 that makes buying the D700 such an eye opener.

The resulting images taken with the Nikon D700 and the Nikon 14-24mm are clearer, sharper and crisper compared to the D300 even when the focal length in the D700 is zoomed out to its equivalent in the the D300 (21mm in D700 and 14mm in D300).

Vignetting is practically undetectable even when the D700 is used with the 14-24mm glass fully open at its widest focal length (14mm, f/2.8). This is surprising considering that the D700 is now using the full lens instead of just its sweet spot in the center (which would have been to the advantage of the D300 due to its APS-C sensor).

It is not just the wide angle lens that benefited from the D700. Even the slight vignetting I noticed with my 85mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.4 shot w

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

This is an amazing camera. I am not going to go over the specs because you can read about them on just about any camera web site. What I am going to concentrate on is who should buy one and why.

First off, I've read about many folks lamenting having bought the D300 and now feel like the need to "upgrade" to a D700. These are two different cameras for two different purposes and as such don't compete against each other so much as complement each other. The D300 doesn't have the low noise capability (The D700 can get clean images at ISO1600 vice ISO400 for the D300) nor does it have the wide angle capabilities of the D700. The D700 doesn't have the 1.5x multiplier of the D300 so wide angle lenses are truly wide. Additionally, while you can use DX lenses on the D700, you will only be using 5 mp of your sensor.

Another comparison is between the D3 and D700. They both have the same sensor so the image and ISO abilities are the same. The D700 comes slower out of the box but with the Nikon EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for MB-D10 Battery Pack and Nikon D2 and D3 Digital SLR Cameras, Nikon MB-D10 Multi Power Battery Pack for Nikon D300 & D700 Digital SLR Cameras, Nikon BL-3 Battery Chamber Cover for Nikon EN-EL4 and EN-EL4a for the MB-D10, and Nikon MH-21 Quick Charger for Nikon EN-EL4 and EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Batteries (~$500) you will be rocking with 8 fps and great battery life; just barely slower than the D3. Also, I have not found any technical data on the autofocus and processing chip but in my non-scientific side by side comparison the D700 seemed just as fast as the D3 while the D300 appeared noticeably slower. (This was shot with the 85mm 1.4D. This lens does not have Silent Wave Motor focus and therefore relies on the camera's focusing motor.) As I said this is not scientific but I am also guessing that Nikon saved on engineering costs by just transferring the guts of the D3 to the D700 and slowing it down (this is probably the reason the D700 gets such poor battery life (200-300 shots vice 1000 shots) in comparison to the D300).

So without further ado:

Buy the Nikon D700 12.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) if:

You need to shoot in no flash low light situations. With a 1.4 lens at 1600 ISO you would be amazed at the quality of the photos! If you are not doing close up work of people you can get great shots @ 6400 ISO. If you can stand a grain in B+W(a very cool effect by the way), then you can get good shots @ 25,600!

You want to shoot ultra wide. With no multiplication factor, you can shoot truly wide angle photos. The 14mm is 14mm not 21mm like on a DX camera. Also, although you can get the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens which will be the equivalent of 18-36mm, it will still have the distortion of a 12-24mm lens. So compared to the FX D700 you would get 14 deg less width with more distortion.

You are willing to spend $4500 more on the lenses. The body is disposable, the lenses are what last. You could get away with a 50mm 1.4 and that would be a fine place to start and a great way to learn how to frame a picture. However, I would recommend the following 3 lenses and I would recommend getting them in the following order. 1) The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - $1000 (Super fast, incredibly shallow depth of field, and amazing construction. Get this lens and practice getting good with a fixed length lens! Get this lens over the 85mm 1.8 for the construction and 9 blade design. You will be blown away with how low the light can be and you can still get the shot! (Rumors have it that Nikon is about to replace this lens with a new improved version. I expect the new lens will be better but will likely cost 1.5 to 2x as much.) 2) The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - $1700 This is the len

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

I've been a semi-pro digital user for five years. I started wtih a Fuji S2, moved up to the Nikon D2H (horrible reliability, expensive), D2Hs, D200, D300 and finally the D700.

With every camera prior to the D700 there were compromises and Nikon was always two years behind Canon. Finally, when the D3 came out, they were in the lead again, but the price was too much for my semi-pro use to justify. So I struggled along with a pair of D300s for another eight months. The D300 is an excellent camera, however, it has some serious flaws: It overexposes and is particularly hot on the red channel. It's higher ISO performance is mediocre and really kills detail. And it's DX.

I bought a D700 for $2950 and, predictably, the price fell $200 a few days after that. But I needed it for an assignment that would involve shooting in a dimly light garage.

The camera worked perfectly, although once again, I am seeing overexposure in some scenes. The auto WB is much improved over the D300. The dynamic range is much improved, as well. And the AF seems faster.

This camera has me going back to prime lenses. The DOF is much shallower and the bokeh much nicer with my 85mm and 50mm lenses on the D700. Eventually, I want to be all primes on the long end. My 300 f/4 gives wonderful results on this body. The 70-200 is a mixed bag. I'm just not happy with the look of the images. They are not as sharp as they are on the D300 (I kept one). Weird. I'm still testing.

I love everthing about the D700 except it's tendency to overexpose and the fact Canon's competitor has video and more MP. Video really should have been on this camera; after all, the D90 at 1/3 the price has it. Nikon dropped the ball by not including it on the D700. Two months after being introduced, the D700 is already a somewhat obsolete camera, thanks to Canon's offering of more mp and video.

All that said, as a Nikon user I'm glad to finally have 5D image quality in a full-frame Nikon, even though it comes at a premium. I feel the current combo of the D300/D700 will last me for several years, and will eventually result in a transition to almost all prime lenses, if Nikon ever gets its act together and offers some worthy wide angle primes to match with this body. Meantime I find the 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 105 micro, 180 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 to be excellent matches for this body. The Beast 28-70 f/2.8 is also a good performer on this body, as is the 14-24 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is questionable.

Be sure to get the grip for best balance and extended battery life. I find the D700 has better battery performance than the D300. Also if you do portraits, get a portrait Expo Disc and download the portrait custom setting for your camera. The results are very nice.

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

The Nikon D700 is exactly the digital SLR that I envisioned when I first heard that such an animal existed. After over a quarter-century of shooting film and gradually realizing the advantages digital holds for me through using a high-end point-and-shoot as an adjunct to my faithful old Nikon SLR film camera, I eagerly bought a D70s ... and was exceedingly frustrated and disappointed. My familiar old lenses responded differently (the 1.5 "multiplier effect") ... when they responded at all (a "non-CPU" lens could be mounted, but all camera exposure and metering functions were disabled, making the result disadvantageous even compared to a pre-AF film body and lens).

Not any more! Even though the D700 was primarily intended to be used with auto-focusing (AF) lenses, it also functions superbly with my non-CPU (manual focus) lenses, only losing the "shutter priority" and "program" modes (because, of course, the camera can't alter the aperture ... that's my job on any non-CPU lens) ... the D700 can even give me focusing feedback after I enter a manual lens's information into the D700's menu. I once more feel like I have good, quick control over the aspects of photography that create the character of my photographs. No more fumbling with lots of fingers over several sets of buttons to tell the camera the simplest things ... it's back to rotating the focus and aperture rings (or not, if I choose the AF lenses).

And the annoying "multiplier effect" is gone with the D700's full-frame ("FX") sensor. My 50mm lens -- my mainstay -- is now a true 50mm lens again (if you have to ask why that matters, the D700 isn't for you). I personally don't pursue wide-angle photography, but I definitely can see how those who do (and who haven't been able to afford a D3) will be doing cartwheels if they can get their hands on a D700.

The D700's viewfinder is also light years above my D70s, making everything from focusing to composition that much easier and more precise. The D700's whopping big LCD screen is also a big advantage. When in review mode, the display is large ... or, at my choice, the increased data option shrinks the thumbnail to a still-valuable size and places the data around the photo instead of over it like the D70s does.

I'm finding the grip very comfortable, and although the weight is hefty compared to any point-and-shoot, it is a well-balanced camera and that weight doesn't bother me. Being able to shoot in RAW mode is resulting in not only better end-result photos for me, but also (once I get the RAW files on my computer) much more accurate feedback on what I can improve about my technical choices ... and one of digital photography's most significant advantages is that faster feedback. Also of note for those who like working in RAW, unlike the D70, I now have the option to shoot ONLY in RAW mode, not just RAW + JPEG, and that saves valuable memory space.

My only negative comment so far is that Nikon's proprietary software (included with the D700) is necessary to download photos to one's computer. I'll adapt, but it just seems an unnecessary restriction.

Even though it's priced well under the other full frame Nikon, the D3, the D700 certainly does not come cheap. For me, it was the only affordable solution, and well worth every penny. If you spent years shooting film and count a bundle of old Nikon lenses among your close friends, the D700 is going to make you wonder if you'll ever stop grinning!

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

First things first: I had waited for a camera like this to go digital. Of course, as part of my transition and as a way to cope with the learning curve, I decided to look at this camera as if it were some type of cross between the Nikon F100 and the F5. It does have the heft of the latter, and the ease of use of the former. The complexity of the menus was intimidating at first, but a couple of evenings with the manual, camera in hand, took care of most of my questions. Now, I simply take photographs with my film lenses and the behemoth I purchased to accompany this camera: the AF-S 24-70 f2.8.

Even for a newbie in the digital world, this camera is fairly uncomplicated; since the layout resembles so much that of the F100, the photographic part of the workflow was a joy. However, things get complicated in the digital end: 1. Do I have to shoot RAW, JPEGs, both? 2. What to do with RAW files? 3. How to download them to the computer? 4. Which type of cards works well with the camera? 5. Do I need Nikon software absolutely?

Answers found:
1. Not necessarily; the best compromise is to shoot RAW and JPEGs at the same time, but it may create storage crisis.
2. One can treat RAW files as digital negatives and that helps in case one screws up a JPEG.
3 Either from the camera or with a card reader, the choice is personal. I've done both, and found I like the card reader better because it won't use camera juice.
4. Best: Sandisk Extreme III or Lexar Pro, with a transfer speed of at least 80 MB/sec.
5. No, unless one wants to replicate some of the in-camera editing.

And this brings me to something else: the D-Lighting magic wand! I simply love this feature, but I don't use it while shooting, as it creates an unnecessary amount of noise. However, together with the color rendition, I like D-Lighting a lot. I dislike the fact that not all AF sensors were created equal (some in the periphery are not cross-sensitive), but then, it's relatively easy to work around this problem. In short, for those going digital from an extensive film background, it's an excellent camera body, and it will remain unparallelled for a long time. Who needs more megapixels when the camera is so well-crafted?

Did I mention that it fell on the floor on my third day of ownership? Granted, it fell of a chair because I pulled the strap with my foot. Nothing happened. Also, I took it on a walk in the frigid winter of IL, and the camera worked as well as any of my other weather-resistant Nikon bodies.

One recommendation: do not use the Nikon strap. It hurts! From experience carrying heavy cameras, get a slightly elastic strap, as the camera can be very heavy, esp. when combined with the 24-70 or the 80-200.

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

I've been shooting for over 30 years, shooting Nikon, Canon, Leica and Olympus. I'm a believer that the photographer is far more important than the camera, and I can pretty much get great results from any camera. But this camera simply stands out from the pack. It is nearly perfect. And I say that as someone who usually gets professional cameras.

If you want to know about the camera, read the review on [...]. No sense in me adding more.

After living with this camera for 9 months, I have lost all desire for any other camera. I'm a gear-head and love to get my hands on new equipment. I love getting new cameras and always figure out what I would improve on it. But this camera just does everything and I (this amazes me) just don't care what else they come out with. The feel, the controls, the image quality and overall performance is simply amazing. It is nearly perfect - so what are the "flaws"?

Well, I wish I could lock the shooting banks. The camera lets you set it up and store your settings in a "bank". This lets you rapidly change to a particlar bank to load your settings. You might have one bank set for sports, another for night time shooting, another for multi-flash lighting, etc. The flaw? Any change you make changes the bank. So your bank changes as you change the camera. That nearly wrecks shooting banks for me. The workaround is to set your banks, then save them to a CF card (I use that old 1GB card I had laying around). Before a shoot, I pop the card in and reload all the settings. I just with I could lock the banks and not have to carry that card around.

And you can't combine the mirror-up mode with the self timer. You either have to use a remote release (another thing to carry) or let it time out (it fires after 30 seconds with the mirror up).

That's pretty much it. Well, it is not cheap, but considering you get the same performance as the Nikon D3 for half the price, this is an amazing deal.

Is 12 megapixels enough? Well, I have a 44" printer and print 24" x 36" all the time from Photoshop CS4. Yes, 12MP is fine for me. If you print larger than that, then more pixels would be nice. Of course, one of the advantages of this camera is with only 12MP, each pixel (sensel) is huge and captures a lot of light. I shoot at night without a flash all the time. This camera is simply capable of doing things that were never really possible before.

Just remember - the camera is an accessory to the lens system. I have a lot of Nikon pro lenses and this camera gets the most out of that glass. If you are thinking about getting cheap glass for this camera, you may wish to reconsider. I'd rather have a pro lens and a low-end camera than a pro camera with cheap glass. Glass lasts for a long time and this camera can use nearly every Nikon lens made since the middle 1960's. Invest in your lenses, because they tend to go up in price, while the cameras get cheaper and better.

If you want a suggestion, consider this camera with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. This combination makes some jaw-dropping images and every girl loves it.

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

"Wohohoho!" <-- that was what I "said" when I saw the first shots taken with the D700. Maybe this expansive reaction does not describe exactly the differences in image quality nor does say much about handling and ergonomics, however it says that I was QUITE surprised coming after almost one year of using an already wonderful dSLR that I enjoyed a lot.
What I will try to do is to put down some differences between these two cameras and pinpoint some considerations you might be interested in if you want to jump full-frame. Keep in mind that although astonished by differences in image quality, I haven't taken this step yet and the reasons will be explained a little bit later.

The Image - noise, color, accuracy and some more
When talking about Nikon full-frame cameras (D3/x and D700 - for the moment...) what probably comes first to one's mind is high ISO low noise capability. The improvement in this area is so dramatic that this alone might be a reason to go FX. Endless debates about EV differences in noise levels may continue for ages and, probably, no definitive objective answer will be written down. The point is that shooting at ISO 6400 is a must if you want to truly understand what high ISO low noise really means. True, a relatively lower resolution, 12mp sensor helps achieving such results, but the key here is not only the noise is less obvious or less chroma or... whatever, is the fact that, combined with the dramatic dynamic rendition in image of this camera, D700 allows you to do things that were not possible with D300 (or other DX camera) without a drastic reduction in detail and smudging shadows with impossible noise. For example - and that is the best argument I can raise - I am a big fan of underexposure as creative tool in photography. With the D300 I had to pay attention of exposing correctly at high ISO - maybe to overexpose a bit - then to bring down exposure in Capture NX2 if I wanted to achieve a 1/ creatively underexposed image with 2/ inapparent noise in shadows and 3/ preserved details, all these at ISO higher than 1000. To my surprise, D700 is much more forgiving with drastic (>1EV) underexposure in what relates to noise levels and lack of suppression of details. The image is clearer and more detailed that a corresponding DX one, underexposed with the same amount. The direct consequence of this is less time in post-processing (which I am not a very big fan of) and more keepers for your portfolio. Oh, and by the way, talking about Capture NX2, don't believe all those that complain about it. At least on my 4GB 2.4 iMac works flawlessly and, up to this moment, is the best RAW convertor for NEFs in my opinion.
Back to noise, you might be interested to find out that ISO 6400 is a new, virgin territory to be explored with the D700 and this opens you the world of almost noise-free still photography at candlelight (exposure at 1ft/ 30cm from a small candle is 1/60 sec at F/1.4 at ISO 6400). Of course, you can push the limits and go further if you have a less expensive lens (mark that I avoided the term "non-pro lens") using a good de-noising software in post-processing. Coming to that, I tried Noise Ninja, Imagenomics Noiseware and some other software but, whenever I need to artificially remove noise, I always get back to Nik Software Dfine 2.0 which is a superb plugin for Photoshop. In my opinion, it does the best compromise in noise removal vs. detail preservation. Get the trial version and make some tests, you will understand my point.
One more thing about high ISO: usually performance at these levels come at a price: sacrifice in detail rendition and errors in color accuracy. If the first was covered some lines above, I just want to say some words about color at high ISO.
Contrary to some beliefs, color accuracy depends not only on the gear but most important to the quality of light. One has to work with a balanced spectrum to achieve good color rendition and maybe this

read more

Pros:

 

Cons:

 

Well, I finally got my D700 and have had it for about a week now so I wanted to put up some initial impressions of the pros and cons from an experienced amateur's perspective (been taking photos for almost 15 years now, but I wouldn't consider myself in any way a professional).

From the pro side:
I am VERY pleased with the full-frame CCD. Before this camera, I had the D100 and was happy with it, but always was a bit annoyed that my Nikon lenses were converted by the different size of the CCD. Now that I'm back to 35mm, I feel like the SLR acts a lot more like my old N90s. My favorite lens, the 85mm 1.4 produces astoundingly beautiful shots with increadibly shallow depth of field. I'm in heaven.

On the whole, the features I've used so far have been quite impressive. At normal ISOs the quality is just outstanding. I don't think I've ever seen digital pictures with this level of detail period. This said, what really impressed me was the 6400 ISO. I've played around with a number of digital cameras over the years and I don't think I've ever seen a camera that can produce the kinds of low-light images that the D700 does. The noise is so unbeleavably low that I am just floored.

I've been using a 16gb Sandisk Extreme memory card and have been very impressed with the write-speed of the camera. On RAW quality imaged, I can get 800+ shots to the memory card and the transfer rate to the computer is excellent considering the size of the files. Shooting speed is also excellent. I do mostly portraits, but when I do candids I do find myself shooting multiple shots in succession and the D700 performs wonderfully. It does make me curious as to how much faster the D3 is, but I can't imagine it being that much faster.

Some minor gripes (I would discount 1/2 star for these if I could, but rather than rating the camera at a 4, I'm giving it a 5 because I am very happy with it).

1. The live-view is somewhat odd in the way that it works. I was hoping that the camera would lift the mirror and then basically become like an average point-and-shoot. It doesn't really work that way and frankly, makes me appreciate the view-finder all the more. The instructions to get the live-view to work are somewhat complex (it isn't just a switch, you also have to go into menus, make selections, and then depress the shutter button half-way each time you take a picture in order to activate the live-view every time). It is a nice option for when you can't look through the viewfinder easily, but definitely not for all-the-time-use.

2. Software compatibility has some quirks. It seems to me that my Cannon worked with XP and Photoshop right out of the box, whereas with this camera I had to go to Nikon's website and download Codecs in order to get my computer to recognize RAW images... also... why does Nikon insist on calling RAW images NEF files? Seems to add a layer of complexity that is just unecessary. Another odd thing is a note on Photoshop's (Adobe's) website which tries to let consumers know that Nikon and Adobe are "comitted to working together" but actually seems to have the opposite effect given the tinkering that is necessary in order to get NEF files recognized. That said, now that I've got it all set up properly, it works fine and I'm very happy.

Summary: Seems to pack all the bang of the D3, but at a nice savings. Definitely not cheap, but you get what you pay for and it is very nice to be putting my Nikon lenses to good use. Picture detail and quality is through the roof, impressive low-light sensitivity. Full-frame CCD is awesome. Camera feels great in the hand, solid construction, good menus, dials, buttons, etc. all feel great.

read more