D700 - What did i miss?

Started Dec 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,921
Like?
Re: apart from MPX count d700 is a better allround camera.
In reply to Ken Johnes, Dec 24, 2012

Ken Johnes wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Ken Johnes wrote:

fft81 wrote:

Not trolling; just wondering... what does D700 offer that D800 does not?

a couple of things, speed for one

As has already been mentioned (by me), without the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries on the D700, and if you use 1.2x crop on the D800, the fps on the two cameras is the same.

AF

The only difference in AF of the two cameras that I'm aware of (other than some defective copies of the D800 that need to be re-calibrated by Nikon) is that the D800 focuses in one stop lower light.

i cant recall any threads whatsoever where people were complaining about any AF problems with the d700 ;-).

Many users have no complaints with their D800 AF systems. Some users have copies that were miscalibrated, but that can be fixed and is not evidence that the AF system in the D700 is superior to the AF system in the D800.

and manageable file size for both amateurs and pros.

I have no problem managing my current 24 MP file sizes, and I'm sure I will not having any problems handling 36 MP file sizes. Back when 12 MP was the most Nikon had to offer, my computer back then had a harder time with those files and storage was about as expensive (because it costs more then than it does now).

it´s not about the computer, the hardware is much faster these days, but try editing or correcting 5-600 photos you take during a wedding or sports event and tell me the same. that´s where the smaller files comes handy.and 36 mpx is not much of an advantage i believe. i just got it cos i shoot mostly in studio and must deliver 10-15 pics per session, it´s manageable.but sports or wedding guys. hmmm.

The point is that when the D700 first came out it was just as hard to manage the files on the hardware that was generally available then as it is to handle D800 files today on the hardware that is generally available now.

d800 is unfortunately a smaller version of the D3x and not actually an upgrade for the d700.

Funny, it was good to have a smaller and less expensive version of the D3, but a smaller and less expensive version of the D3x is a "mistake." I think you are blinded by your own biases here.

dont get me wrong ,it all depends, i stand by what i wrote for the reasons i wrote above,20- 24mp d800 in a d700 body would have made it a better allround camera.

For you, but not for me. I have no reason to switch from my A850 to a D600 as far as image quality is concerned, and the same would generally be true for 5DII users and D3x users. For me 5 fps is fine, and I also want the greater resolution for DX crop mode too.

second mistake (financial profit i mean) was not using the d800 sensor in a d3x body and call it d4x and charge 6000$, which would have made it costlier but a better workhorse without any of those AF problems and stuff. every one would have been happier, specially the working pros , now they are mostly worried that uncle joe can get a high mp cam and boast about it without breaking the bank.

Totally bogus, and offensive to those of us who don't have $8000 to spend on a high MP camera and do have the skills and ancillary gear to make use of it. We are not all "uncle Joe's" just because we are amateurs, and even pros don't want to necessarily spend additional thousands of dollars if they don't need to do so.

why is it offensive? i too belong to that group, i earn my bread with 10-12 mp cams, i just got d800 cos i need to upgrade and it was cheap,that´s all what i meant .no offense meant to anyone.

What is offensive is saying that if I want a higher MP camera I should be expected to pay an obscenely high price for it. This is especially offensive in light of the counter-argument being offered that if you want a high fps camera you shouldn't likewise be forced to pay an obscenely high price for it. You are being a hypocrite, and that is inherently offensive.

by the way,those guys who dont have 6000 to spend dosent need a 6000$ camera, what about that?.look at MF digital, you dont just buy it to get shots of cats and dogs,you buy it to do jobs which gets you paid better . there is no way any one need 36 mp for a cat or family photo.

Right, and it is also offensive when you imply someone like me is just taking photos of their cat and therefore has no need for high MP. Frankly, you could extend that "argument" to include anyone considering any DSLR -- they should just use the camera on their phone.

sport shooters who want the latest stuff must dish out a few 1000$ more on d4 for a high speed higher MPX cam)

Now you know what landscape and studio photographers felt like for years with Nikon. The biggest difference is sports shooters now have the option of picking up a used D3, D3s, or D700 whereas back then landscape/studio photographers had to go to Canon or Sony. With Canon and Sony offering the high MP cameras for far less, of course Nikon had to come out with the D800 to match and even beat them -- this isn't a "mistake" by Nikon; to the contrary, this is a very good move by Nikon.

please read what i wrote once again.

it´s a mistake by(i should have said `for nikon´) nikon in a way that they wont be able to sell any high mp cam like d3x at that price as long as d800 is there.all i meant was they could have done it.

Nikon wasn't going to be able to sell very many $6000+ high MP cameras anyway, going from a D800 body to a D4 body and from 24 MP to 36 MP doesn't justify a $3000+ premium to most users, whereas the D800 is a very competitive camera as it is against the competition Nikon is getting from Canon and Sony.


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow