Reading mode: Light Dark

are you selling or have sold your D700?

Go to last post
No, Bought mine over a year ago and feared that D800 would appear a week after, was already rumored then, but not with these specs. A year of photography later, results are very good in prints up to A2. They are as good today as yesterday! But D800 fits my kind of work, so I think I will have one in due time. Point being, D700 has not become bad because something better came along.
--
javokro
 
TFergus said:
Mauro.B said:
TFergus said:
Really ?

The couple PJs I know seem to use small sized JPGs for multiple reasons... speed of processing... plus if it's only going into newspapers or web pages... starting with RAW wouldn't even be noticeable.
Click to expand...
PJ's I know only shoot raw.

I shoot raw, since I often do not have time to set spot on wb and need exposure latitude on location and under pressure. Starting with raw is noticeable .

You know pj's who shoot small jpegs and do not think raw would make the difference. So, your point is ?
Click to expand...
My point is... they don't whine about having to deal with 350 NEF sized files (as in your first post), because they have a choice not to . Nor would anyone viewing their published PJ photos know if they shot RAW or not.

Nor do I believe it's a "common situation in reportage".

Unless you work for Life or Nat Geo... why is white balance an issue for your "reportage" snapshots.
Click to expand...
Agreed! however you can set your white balance correctly in camera and then use JPG.
 
user_name said:
I'm seeing some D700 prices just below $1900 on eBay and two last night on CraigsList for $1900 each.

Prices may fluctuate a little, but I suspect we have more to go in the downward trend of used D700 prices in the next few months.

Most of the depreciation will come early on and then it tends to fall at a lower rate.
Click to expand...
I sold mine for $2,300, almost what I paid for it in early 2009. I lost $5 a month if that while owning it, LOL!
 
My D700 has 716k cycles on it, and it's beginning to fail. I can't complain, obviously. I'm 3rd in line for a D4 at my local dealer and when it arrives I'll be sending my D700 to Nikon for repair. I'm not comfortable selling a camera this used to anyone, but I'm so fond of it that I plan to see how far I can get it to go.
 
lol, indeed! And lucky! My dealer askes me how many I have now every time I walk in the door!
 
FinancialWar said:
I have just sold my D700 for $1900, I think for another $1000, the video capability and the extra 24mp count is more than worth it.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Nope, will naturally keep mine. Its as good as ever, don´t need video and don´t need the extra resolution, it will just require more computer power and the 12mp is enough for good and large fine art prints... :-)
 
will keep my D700 have no interest in Video, post processing stills already takes to much time much less editing video. But if I do see a big difference in IQ I might go into pocket.
--
SHOOT TO THRILL: MAC WEST NYC
 
Fullframer said:
Agreed! however you can set your white balance correctly in camera and then use JPG.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand, but I developed my raw-based workflow, mainly use raw + jpeg but end up invariably keeping the raw version.

All my colleagues in the two agencies do the same. We do not shoot sport, we specialise in protestations, post-war areas and conflict zones. Too much pressure to think about setting, or worse adjusting, wb during shooting.

I find it harder editing files than fixing wb and exposure in lr.

Best regards,

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.romephotographyworkshop.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto
http://www.24per36.com/fotografi/mauro-benedetti
 
After the nosedive (powerdive?) the resale value will take thx to the D800/800E it just wouldn't be worth it. Besides, part of what I shoot requires high frame rates, which is why I added a 7D, so 4fps is really a deal-breaker for me. If the D800 was fast and had 36MP (no chance, I know) I could possibly see it replacing both my D700 and 7D, except that there are some glaring gaps in Nikon's short-medium length fast tele range that Canon have covered, at reasonable prices (again, my particular requirements, YMMV). Unfortunately as a 100% unpaid hobbyist I simply can't justify spending the bucks on a 1D X, which sounds just about right (except for the grip).

I can absolutely see the attraction of 36MP, especially after checking out the full-size sample images, but for my purposes as an "all-round" camera I would have preferred half the MP, the same or better ISO performance and even more speed - ideally full-speed shooting without the grip.

Then again I realize that not too many people have those specific requirements... que sera sera!

Scott
 
NeilJones said:
So you don't want your digital images to look better?

Yeah, probably bes thatt you don't post here much. You stick with your old technology. I'm sure you clients will love that!! Good luck.
Click to expand...
My clients are very happy with my work. I have D3S and two D700. The D800 is useless for event and sports photography. I now prefer to put my money into glass.

If MP is important to you why didn't you go for a D3X or run over to Canon for the 5 D2?
 
I kind of got screwed on this one. I finally broke down and bought the D700 in September 2011 (for $2700) to move up to full frame, tired of waiting for the update. Now, not only did they come out with D800 a few months later, but they came out with the perfect camera for my shooting style - landscape, studio, portraiture. So i have a friend that's selling his D300s to buy my D700 and i pre-ordered the D800. I'll get about $2200 for the D700 so I'm losing about $500 to upgrade. Such is life...but I shouldn't need a camera for years to come (or a camcorder for that matter).
 
You didn't get screwed, you got greedy (no offense, its just an expression). As a rule of thumb, in the very last year of production, you should buy used, not new -- or buy a lower model in the end of its first year (when its been dropped a bit in price but will hold its value). I would have sold you my perfectly good D700 for $500 less than you paid.

That being said, I don't think I will sell it for $1800. Seems to me $2000 is a solid value for it. And $2100 is good for the seller, $1900 good for the buyer. Demand definitely exists for this camera, because a lot of people are bitter they missed the lowest prices, and many more just do not want to deal with paying $1000 more for more pixels/video.

I probably won't sell mine until a D4S comes out, being an ISO junky. I'll probably lose another $500 because of that, but I don't see the D800 or the D7K as viable alternatives to D700.

For my purposes, buying a D800 would be just like throwing away $1000 to have my computer slow down.
--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Question Question
Did my D700 Die ?
Replies
13
Views
5K
photoholiko
P
A
  • Question Question
Opinions on D700 vs D810?
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
58K
Alte
A
H
D700 Still holds it's own, I think.
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
crsantin
C
A_SCY
  • Question Question
Nikon D700 Erratic behavior. AF stopped, Battery Drops , Curtain stay close
Replies
16
Views
6K
Dak on cam
Dak on cam
D
What lens should i get alongside an D3s?
2
Replies
27
Views
17K
Parry Johnson
Parry Johnson

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top