Reading mode: Light Dark

Hobbyist thinking about Nikon: D600 or D700?

Go to last post
W

WT21

Veteran Member
Messages
5,578
Reaction score
895
Location
US
I am a hobbyist looking to get back into FF (after using Canon 5D classic).

I don't really like Canon's controls, and I like what I've gotten to play with, in trying out Nikon.

But, I usually buy slightly older equipment to save some money. But looking at the D700s, they aren't substantially cheaper on the used market than a new D600. Is there a reason the D700 is holding up value so highly, even with D800 and D600s on the market now? Is there something about the D700 that is special?

On a side note, I am also considering either a D90 as a cheap way to try out Nikon or a D7000, because I'd really like micro-adjust. But I'd really prefer to go FF.
 
I'm sorry to say this but camera bodies are technology, and old technology is just that - old. You should really be applying a depreciation rate that reflects that (maybe 30% per year).

The D600 doesn't reflect the current state of the art - it is where sensors should be given current technology for good entry level full frame cameras. You should have many different FF cameras from other manufacturers performing similarly coming to market in the next few months. Unless you need something specifically from the D700 such has high fps with the grip and you need Nikon mount or small files for workflow reasons, something current will serve you better.

No sensor made four years ago was perfect, and nothing today is either. Till we reach that stage, technology will continue to develop and old products will become obsolete. This is not to say that you can't use old products - you can, but it makes no sense as something newer could simply do it better.

The higher resolution is incredibly useful for everything from downsampling to distortion corrections.
 
So what are the Many FF dslrs coming to market in the coming months? Sony canon and nikon are the only FF camera mfgs, and pretty sure that 2012 was the year for new models. And the D600 IQ is certainly state of the art, by any criteria, compared to any camera out there. And for any camera under 2800$, it is by far the most state of the art camera.
 
Nikon D700 has a full metal/ heavy/ rugged pro body and the AF control buttons of D700 are way way more professional IMO... BTW ISO performance of D700 is still one of the best at the moment...
WT21 said:
I am a hobbyist looking to get back into FF (after using Canon 5D classic).

I don't really like Canon's controls, and I like what I've gotten to play with, in trying out Nikon.

But, I usually buy slightly older equipment to save some money. But looking at the D700s, they aren't substantially cheaper on the used market than a new D600. Is there a reason the D700 is holding up value so highly, even with D800 and D600s on the market now? Is there something about the D700 that is special?

On a side note, I am also considering either a D90 as a cheap way to try out Nikon or a D7000, because I'd really like micro-adjust. But I'd really prefer to go FF.
Click to expand...
--
Cenk Ogurtani
http://www.facebook.com/CenkOgurtaniWildlifePhotography
 
Sony have two.models Announced already plus another with Hasselblad, Leica have launched a new more usable M with CMOS sensor and liveview. I am sure that full frame oferings from Fuji and Olympus will follow.

The manufacturer that stands alone with outdated sensors now is Canon.
sandy b said:
So what are the Many FF dslrs coming to market in the coming months? Sony canon and nikon are the only FF camera mfgs, and pretty sure that 2012 was the year for new models. And the D600 IQ is certainly state of the art, by any criteria, compared to any camera out there. And for any camera under 2800$, it is by far the most state of the art camera.
Click to expand...
 
The D700 was not a pro camera, but termed a pro-sumer camera meaning it was designed for hobbyists, like the D300. Now the D800 trumps it in every performance category except fps because it reflects a realignment in Nikon's approach to the market with more specialiation. Speed needed, they make the D4. IQ most important? They make the D800. Now, with the D600, they add value to the IQ equation and trump every other camera made except the D800 in IQ for a low price affordable by any FX shooter.

The D700 is liked by many because they have it and like the balance between speed and IQ, not tops in either but good enough for general work.

Frame rate and focus points are criteria and specs which really are not as important as some believe. A fast rate without great tracking results in worse keeper rates than an experienced user gets in action scenes with single shot. An advantage of the new version of D4/D800 AF is their ability to track very well, best I have seen with any camera after initial lock.

So which to buy? A D700 will work fine for general work but master of none. The D600 has superior IQ in just about every measure. It is a little slower in frame rates but if you actually NEED frame rates, a used D3s will be what you want. The shutter is tested to a longer life on a D700 but buying used has already used up many of those actuation. A D700 is getting to be a better deal due to sudden drops in value, around $1300 now. As far as longevity is concerned, none of the recent Nikon's have shown themselves not to be reliable and rugged.

If you are a D300 shooter, the D800 or D700 are both very similar in size and button placement so if you want your old habits to continue get one of those. If you are coming from any other camera, you will be adopting new habits anyway so there is no benefit from any particular layout.

I've shot with them all and find the D800 to be the best unless high frame rates are needed, in which case the D3s or D4 is the answer, or video. The D600 with almost identical IQ is the best bargain for top of the line image quality that beat even the prior best imaging DSLR, the $8000 D3x at 1/4 the price. Your friend with Sony or Canons will be envious of your images, regardless of how much they spent because neither brand is at the same level , and in fact seem to be going backwards.
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia
 
The D600 has the state-of-the-art sensor, any camera (including D800 or D4). It has more than capable AF (seems that Nikon updated the D7000's system in many ways). It has video (the D700 does not). It has a good sized body, between D7000 and D800. It shoots faster than D700 w/o grip. It has 100% VF. Larger LCD.

Why go with the older version? The reason that D700 is still valued is the body is a more rugged (but D600 is not bad at all), it's valued by wedding and PJ people as a professional tool. Do you need that?

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
Ignoring price the D600 is a great camera for the hobbyist, in many ways out performing the D700 for hobby use.
The D700 is more robust better suited to heavy use - but old technology.

In the UK the D700 second hand price has dropped 15% since the D600 launch. Second hand it is less than 66% of typical D600 new street price.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge of complex modern camera equipment.
 
+ points for the 700

Well tried and tested

2nd hand prices are getting better and better (and as the 600 comes down in price, so will the 2nd hand 700s)
More convenient file size - and more than enough qual for most purposes

A nikon legend in its own lifetime, just as the D50 was. Its one of those cameras that hit it all just right and its well earned reputation will mean its a solid 2nd hand buy for some time to come - depending on d600 pricing reductions.

The only negative is that its an older sensor, so will be out-performed by the 600.

+ points for the 600
its today
all those extra dots (if you need them)
warranty

The grey areas are things like robustness, if thats an issue. As a noobie camera the 600 has yet to prove itself, quality issues are an unknown at this moment in time. Weather sealing?

Focus - fewer focus points, but still a lot of them - I'm very interested to hear how the 600 performs in this area. I first read it was a d7000 focus system, but it appears that it wrong, it is better.

All those extra dots, if you don't need them, are extra processing and storage. The old adage that memory gets cheaper still doesn't make it free - and if you shoot events or long holidays, then it can mount up. No handicap if you don't have high shoot rates.

If you set your heart on FX, then go for either. I've just bought a 2nd hand 700 and its a brilliant machine (had a d300 for several years). No complaints. Picked it up on Friday night, shot a wedding with it on the saturday and made use of its outrageous low light ability... and to think, a 600 should be better low light!

I will be getting a 2nd FX body at some stage, but am waiting for the dust to settle before committing. I don't want the extra mp of the 600, but I would like the extra low light. It will all come down to whether an irresistible 700 comes along and how many beans I have in my pocket at the time. I won't hesitate if the price is right.

--
UK wedding photographer in the Lake District
http://www.johnleech-weddingphotography.co.uk

For my landscapes and fine art photography:
http://www.johnleechstudio.co.uk
 
Reasons not to get the D600 are money and workflow. I don't need larger files, and I don't really have the $2,200 to put into the body. Canon 5Dc right now are like $500-600, which is a now-brainer, except it's an annoying camera to use (hence it's price I suppose -- no dust reduction, dual-purpose control buttons, back wheel, etc.).

Someone mentioned that D700s are now around $1300. I must be looking in the wrong place, because the ones I've seen are more in the $1800 range (on fredmiranda.com).

fps and mp are not important to me, so an older D700, in theory, would be just fine.
rhlpetrus said:
The D600 has the state-of-the-art sensor, any camera (including D800 or D4). It has more than capable AF (seems that Nikon updated the D7000's system in many ways). It has video (the D700 does not). It has a good sized body, between D7000 and D800. It shoots faster than D700 w/o grip. It has 100% VF. Larger LCD.

Why go with the older version? The reason that D700 is still valued is the body is a more rugged (but D600 is not bad at all), it's valued by wedding and PJ people as a professional tool. Do you need that?

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Click to expand...
 
I was that's what I was seeing. The D600 in the states is $2,200. The D700s used have an asking of $1800, though I've seen a couple as low as $1650.
Leonard Shepherd said:
Ignoring price the D600 is a great camera for the hobbyist, in many ways out performing the D700 for hobby use.
The D700 is more robust better suited to heavy use - but old technology.

In the UK the D700 second hand price has dropped 15% since the D600 launch. Second hand it is less than 66% of typical D600 new street price.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge of complex modern camera equipment.
Click to expand...
 
new camera with new sensors are Akin to buying a new roll of more light sensitive film with better noise/grain handling ...will that make my images any better than I already take...No way...

so what to buy..Hmm...Id still chose a lightly used d700 over a brand new D600..take a look at the images taken with good glass on either a D3 or D700...and you'll see what Im on about

check the link for D700 images and tell me that's any of the new bodies could do it any better..

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=43&camera=972&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

also who needs for resolution than this image

extra res is a poor mans good lens LOL

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joas/3043251094/sizes/o/in/photostream/
 
If you shoot high speed action, buy a D700.
WT21 said:
I am a hobbyist looking to get back into FF (after using Canon 5D classic).

I don't really like Canon's controls, and I like what I've gotten to play with, in trying out Nikon.

But, I usually buy slightly older equipment to save some money. But looking at the D700s, they aren't substantially cheaper on the used market than a new D600. Is there a reason the D700 is holding up value so highly, even with D800 and D600s on the market now? Is there something about the D700 that is special?

On a side note, I am also considering either a D90 as a cheap way to try out Nikon or a D7000, because I'd really like micro-adjust. But I'd really prefer to go FF.
Click to expand...
 
I have looked for those "great deals" on a D700. Not there. Those selling for less than $1700 are generally "well used". One with all the original packaged items with a low shutter count can sometimes go for more than the price of a D600. Don't just look at the price. Look at the camera. Some used D700s come without the charger, which means they are probably stolen. You can find a new D700 here and there. The price is still about $2300.

I can't see a downside with the D600, although I absolutely love the D700. The 1/4000 shutter is a non-issue for me and I suspect for most people. The 100% viewfinder in the D600, however, is a big deal. The D700 only gives you 95 or 96 percent, I think. You have to always be thinking of what's in the frame you don't see, or forget about it and just crop. But cropping a 12mp image is not something you want to do unless you really have to.

I like the controls better on a D700, but you have to believe you can adapt. I did it with a D7000 with those AF controls, and that continues with the D800E. They are different, but you get used to them. Hey, we are all smart people aren't we? DSLRs are complicated machines. If I considered myself the village idiot I would stay away from them.

Get the new camera. I know you will be happier.

--
Roy
 
As far as the D700 goes, it is special. It's essentially a D3 in D300 body. Excellent IQ, excellent handling and a rugged build.

Until the release of the D800 a nice used D700 ran $2000-$2300. After the D800 was released, the prices were $1500-$1700. Now that the D600 has been released, the market for a used D700 has once again shrunk. More D700s for sale to a smaller group of buyers means lower prices. I believe the average selling price of a D700 will drop to $1200-$1500. I think this will happen within weeks.

I'm considering moving from a D300s to either a D700 or a D600. From and IQ standpoint, the D600 has the advantage. IMO, the D700 handling is better. The features are a split with the D700 mostly ahead but the D600 has a couple really valuable new features. Focal length based Auto ISO, 100% viewfinder and video, for example.
WT21 said:
I am a hobbyist looking to get back into FF (after using Canon 5D classic).

I don't really like Canon's controls, and I like what I've gotten to play with, in trying out Nikon.

But, I usually buy slightly older equipment to save some money. But looking at the D700s, they aren't substantially cheaper on the used market than a new D600. Is there a reason the D700 is holding up value so highly, even with D800 and D600s on the market now? Is there something about the D700 that is special?

On a side note, I am also considering either a D90 as a cheap way to try out Nikon or a D7000, because I'd really like micro-adjust. But I'd really prefer to go FF.
Click to expand...
--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com

Art is not real. Art is an artifice, an invention, the product of the imagination and the creativity of the artist. In short, expecting art to faithfully duplicate reality is a misconception, a misunderstanding of the very purpose of art. - Alain Briot
 
I would go for the D600 over the D700.

More pixels - in my testing 13x19" prints have noticable improvement up to 16-20 mpx. After that the improvement is modest. I suggest you download the test files from DPReivew and process them yourself. You can use the D3x for resolution comparison to the D700.

Lighter and smaller - you will take it more often.

IQ appears to be better than the D700 in preliminary reviews I have read and seen. There doesn't really appear to be any high ISO advantage to the D700.

Has the very useful U1 and U2 settings. The less said about shooting banks the better.

FWIW I use to own a D300 but I am primarily a Canon shooter. I've used all three 5D models. I bought a D600 two days. Too early to say
 
The seller can ask whatever price they want. It's the selling price that matters.
WT21 said:
Someone mentioned that D700s are now around $1300. I must be looking in the wrong place, because the ones I've seen are more in the $1800 range (on fredmiranda.com).
Click to expand...
tion, a misunderstanding of the very purpose of art. - Alain Briot
 
Honestly, the D700 though it is a very nice camera, is an old and out-dated product.

The same goes for the 5DMII.

Why settle with an older system when there is newer technology out there?

I personally see no reason for someone to invest in a D700, when the brand new D600 is out there a couple hundred dollars more?

Not to mention, you will have no warranty with your used D700 that can go bad any moment. It is a 4-5 year old camera.

For about $300-400 more you get:

More MP
Full HD video
Better High ISO
Much more Dynamic Range
New Sensor Technology
1 Year Nikon Warranty
Dual SD Card Slots

No brainer to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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