Nikon D700: possible purchase.

[Shanghai Steve]

Hello all
I was out and about today getting some shots and happened upon a couple of shops selling second-hand camera gear. One body caught my eye: a Nikon D700. I had a good look at it; everything is clean and free from abuse; no shiny spots on the grip or around any controllers. All seals present. All buttons working. I had a close look at the mirror and it is spotless, then set the mirror up for cleaning and the sensor is also pristine. The rear joystick seems a tiny bit loose and woolly but this was the same with two others I looked at in another shop. I was allowed to take a couple of shots with a borrowed nifty fifty- the shutter release was quick and tight, with a pleasing "snick" to it. All in all, there really don't seem to be any problems; a lightly used D700 for 4,500 RMB. I only have one reservation and that is the shuttercount. The shop owner stated 5,000 actuations but since we were speaking Mandarin and this figure seemed to be at his fingertips rather too quickly, I'd love to know if I can simply pop in an SD card, format it, take a random shot and look at the file number to reliably determine the number of actual actuations.

Right now I'm using a sony A6000, which has about 0.4 E.V. more colour depth and an unfortunate +1 E.V. dynamic range at base ISO, but the High ISO rating on DXO is about 3/4 E.V. higher, so I assume that by the time I get to around ISO 1,250, the DR difference will be negligable and the noise benefit will be obvious. OK, I lose HALF the resolution, but there is just something about those pro DSLR monsters which is very appealing. And of course, the D700 was part of thee classic period of Digital Nikon.

Thoughts?

[Tringa]

I've never done this myself but there is a lot of info online about finding the shutter count, eg -

https://photographylife.com/how-to-f...nd-canon-dslrs

Dave

[thetraveler]

I had a D700 for years, along with the four best Nikon lenses (missing only the 14-24) 50, 24-70, 70-200, 85
The images were gorgeous and I loved it but after a 5 week trip around northern Laos, I realized that a fullsize FF camera and lenses were just too heavy for me to haul all the time.

Now I use a m 4/3 for street stuff and a Sony A7II for working in one place.

For street shooting, imo , it's doable but far from the best option.

[Manfred M]

I had a D700 for years, along with the four best Nikon lenses (missing only the 14-24) 50, 24-70, 70-200, 85
The images were gorgeous and I loved it but after a 5 week trip around northern Laos, I realized that a fullsize FF camera and lenses were just too heavy for me to haul all the time.

Now I use a m 4/3 for street stuff and a Sony A7II for working in one place.

For street shooting, imo , it's doable but far from the best option.

I'm in the opposite corner. I bought a Panasonic GX7 for travel and while I get decent images from it, I curse it every time the light gets low and I don't get the shot I want. I do have the the 14-24, 50, 24-70 and 70-200 Nikkors and will generally travel with all except the 50, whenever weight and space are not an issue. I can get the shots and quality with them. I also tend to travel with a large Feisol CT-3372 tripod with a RRS BH55 ball head,

If weight / size is an issue, I'll travel with the smaller body (2 months of backpacking across South Asia back in late 2014), but just got back from a trio to Europe with the large stuff.

Just as a side note - I'm not sure if I would use a D700. At only 12MP, I find that resolution a bit limiting for large prints.

[Shanghai Steve]

I am very happy with my A6000; it's a brilliant piece of kit, producing wonderful images. I have little doubt that the D700 will necessitate an adjustment. I shot with a GX1 for a couple of years. I adored that camera. It fit like a glove, never let me down, but in the end, the IQ just wasn't good enough. The Nikon is just...something I want. I relish the challenge of dragging the best out of it, discovering its limitations and becoming aware of the advantages. There is no doubt either that many shots far nicer than any I have to my name, have been produced by DSLRs of that vintage.

[dubaiphil]

Just as a side note - I'm not sure if I would use a D700. At only 12MP, I find that resolution a bit limiting for large prints.

!!!

How big do you print...?!?

[dubaiphil]

Well I'm still shooting with one - A3+ prints and larger look great, and for street photography it's been ideal for me. 6 years and 65,000 clicks of ownership and it's still ahead of my learning curve, and built like a tank too.

So for me, it's still fit for purpose, and if you've found a genuine low mileage model I'd snap it up. Lots of D700s were and still are used as a backup for a lot of D3 and D3S pro shooters.

[Manfred M]

!!!

How big do you print...?!?

Usually minimum of 17" x 22".

[george013]

Usually minimum of 17" x 22".

When I read this article well, you can go double with the D700 files.
http://www.photokaboom.com/photograp...g_distance.htm

Steve,

Last year all my gear was stolen among a D700 and a 28-70 af-s 2.8. After I received the money from the insurance I bought back a D700 and a 28-70 af-s 2.8. A good combination. Have a look at it.

George

[Shanghai Steve]

That's not unusually large but kudos for it-printing is a neglected art these days! It all depends what you shoot and under what circumstances. A landscape or studio photographer shooting on a tripod at base ISO, with delayed shutter or under controlled circumstances, will necessarily demand great attention to detail. However, viewing 36MP portrait files at 100% is a somewhat daunting experience...at least for the model, with every individual stray eyelash or microscopic mascara goop writ large. Landscapes with plenty of foliage equals plenty of small detail- one can easily understand the desire, even need for many megapixels. Let's not pretend that 12MP is the norm these days. Indeed, 16MP is beginning to seem second-class. The D700 IS a camera from a bygone era...which in this crazy world means it was replaced...5 years ago? That's not in doubt. Neither is the fact that even the hallowed D810 is not as well-made as a D700. No, the D700 is yesterday's tech...but that does NOT mean it can't still produce emotive, satisfying images which can be printed at an effective enlargement. Nor does it mean that every Nikonista sporting the latest body is producing work which is any better for it. Look at.....oh I can't remember his name....he did "Chasing Ice"; some of those shots were breathtaking...and taken with a D200!

[Shanghai Steve]

When I read this article well, you can go double with the D700 files.
http://www.photokaboom.com/photograp...g_distance.htm

Steve,

Last year all my gear was stolen among a D700 and a 28-70 af-s 2.8. After I received the money from the insurance I bought back a D700 and a 28-70 af-s 2.8. A good combination. Have a look at it.

George

Hey man, I don't do zooms.
I'm going to get a 50/1.8D & 35/1.8D.
Thing is, despite the incontrovertibly great strides photographic tech has made in recent years, there comes a time when enough is enough. I used a straight razor yesterday morning. Now I'll be honest, my Panasonic ES-L50 electric shaver actually does a better job, but sometimes I bring out the straight because I feel like it. There's nothing quite like it. The fact that so many experienced photographers still take pleasure in the ownership of these older cameras, is telling. I will either bite the bullet or not...but I will definitely update the membership with my impressions if I do.

[Ian H]

I am still using a D700 for all my photography, had a play with the D810 and D750 and won't be changing anytime soon.

[george013]

....
Indeed, 16MP is beginning to seem second-class......

The D4 is a 16MB camera.

George

[Shanghai Steve]

Well done for noticing.

[george013]

Well done for noticing.

You're welcome.
By the way, I wear a beard.

George

[dubaiphil]

I am still using a D700 for all my photography, had a play with the D810 and D750 and won't be changing anytime soon.

I'm with you, Ian. Just waiting for that D900 to come out with 50+Mp - I so need that resolution for Facebook snaps

[thetraveler]

I'm with you, Ian. Just waiting for that D900 to come out with 50+Mp - I so need that resolution for Facebook snaps

I took a few pictures with the Sony A7R, about 40 meg, using the Zeis Batis 85 and the images had a clarity and depth that was glorious - a very Zeiss look. I think I'm going to buy exactly that combination, although probably holding off until the A9 is announced and A7R used flood the market.

[Shanghai Steve]

Sony are becoming a force to be reckoned with. I also really want an RX1, which scores 97 on DXO. There was a recent review of the A7RII on....I think Luminous Landscape, pitting it against the Pentax 645Z. There were few compelling IQ reasons for the larger system. One massive advantage that mirrorless systems have over traditional DSLRs is focus accuracy. This makes a huge difference for some styles of photography. Something just reminded me of the A6000's 11fps 'machinegun trick." I remember walking past some school-kids and they were larking about for the camera. I switched to 11 fps and moved in really close and they all fled at the sound!

[Manfred M]

That's not unusually large but kudos for it-printing is a neglected art these days! It all depends what you shoot and under what circumstances. A landscape or studio photographer shooting on a tripod at base ISO, with delayed shutter or under controlled circumstances, will necessarily demand great attention to detail. However, viewing 36MP portrait files at 100% is a somewhat daunting experience...at least for the model, with every individual stray eyelash or microscopic mascara goop writ large. Landscapes with plenty of foliage equals plenty of small detail- one can easily understand the desire, even need for many megapixels. Let's not pretend that 12MP is the norm these days. Indeed, 16MP is beginning to seem second-class. The D700 IS a camera from a bygone era...which in this crazy world means it was replaced...5 years ago? That's not in doubt. Neither is the fact that even the hallowed D810 is not as well-made as a D700. No, the D700 is yesterday's tech...but that does NOT mean it can't still produce emotive, satisfying images which can be printed at an effective enlargement. Nor does it mean that every Nikonista sporting the latest body is producing work which is any better for it. Look at.....oh I can't remember his name....he did "Chasing Ice"; some of those shots were breathtaking...and taken with a D200!

Steve - it really depends on the type of photography you do. I like pushing my equipment to the limit and frankly my main issues with the older technology is simply that it doesn't have either the colour range, dynamic range or low noise performance. I did have a hard look at the D810 when it came out, but the improvements in performances versus the D800 were not as significant as what I saw with the D700 vs the D800.

I do consider digital cameras as a "throw away" items and suspect I will replace mine eventually. It's not like film, unfortunately. I can pull out my 35+ year old Leica and still get great images from the old body and old glass. I'm willing to bet my DSLR / mirriorless won't even come close to that lifespan.

[Shanghai Steve]

I assume that in about 10 years time, there will be a slowdown of technological improvement, allowing us to relax our GAS. I only hope the build-quality of those cameras will be as good as that of the D700. If money were no object, I'd have arrived at the Leica dealership some time ago with a creepy smile on my face to buy the new Monochrome and some normal primes. I am aware of the limitations of the rangefinder system, but to be honest, the clincher for Leica for me is the monochrome reproduction. Every time I see my idea of perfect mono, it's from a Leica.