Nikon's D700 a balanced camera for image quality, value, pro handling and MP.

Started 6 months ago | User reviews thread
Josh152
Senior MemberPosts: 1,155
Like?
Re: Used D600 for $1200 seems more balanced
In reply to Horshack, 6 months ago

Horshack wrote:

yray wrote:

Horshack wrote:

  • 2 stops higher dynamic range at base ISO, 1 stop higher dynamic range at High ISO, close to 1 stop better High ISO noise in midtones
  • No High ISO blooming issue
  • No low ISO banding
  • 24MP when needed, modest processing overhead when not
  • Despite cheaper feeling build, haven't read many reports of D600's failing
  • Better Live View
  • Better Video
  • Better LCD
  • Better Auto ISO
  • Better low-light AF
  • Lighter
  • Quieter shutter
  • Lifetime shutter replacement courtesy of Nikon

You forgot to mention that D600 got a second tier AF, and a third tier ergonomics and build quality (not even starting with fps and buffer for those who need it). If I forgot about the QC and oil on the sensor, I still could only think of a D600 as a very mediocre camera, -- not from the point of view of IQ, -- but from just about any other point of view. The D600 has a good sensor (when clean), but that's about it, as far as I'm concerned. Call me a snob or what you will, but when I hold D700 in my hands I feel that it exudes quality from every waterproof pore of its rugged metal body. For me -- it is a totally different experience, and I have zero interest in a D600/610. Case in point, I happen to have a D300 and a D7000. The D7000 arguably has a better sensor (though color sucks big time IMO), but it spends most of its time in a drawer, while the ancient D300 is my DX camera of choice. I would argue that the D7000 stands to the D300 in roughly the same relation as D600 to D700 -- an updated sensor, and cheaper in look, feel, and every other way.

I can' recall the last OOF shot I got with my D600. Outside of not having 100% click to zoom I don't see any shortcomings in the D600's ergonomics. I understand some prefer the 'feel' of 'better build quality', but if that can't be translated into the camera actually lasting longer or taking more abuse then it's just a subjective luxury designation. Luxury is nice but for me not worth the IQ tradeoff.

Personally I think the "all magnesium alloy" body thing is more for marketing purposes than for actually making the camera significantly more durable.

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