Reading mode: Light Dark

Upgrade D7200 to D700

Go to last post
HP McGargo said:
If the vast majority the images posted on this website reflect the photographic skills in the composition, lighting & subjects photographed, then a 10 y/o cellphone camera would serve most people very well. The preoccupation with specifications is what this place is all about as photography has and still remains an abstract concept. For the regulars in these forums, its never about the skill its only about the specs and the specs are never enough, are they? They want double digit D/R to salvage a photo a monkey could have shot better the first time, they want AF to allow a blind person to track and photograph a hockey puck, they want over pixelated sensors to take photos of test patterns, telephone poles and pets, they want all of that and much more. Its never enough, is it? The goal is an idiot proof camera which is intended for them. That way they don't have to actually use all the amazingly efficient controls which have existed for many years. And of course even when they have the latest & greatest camera, loaded with every conceivable feature they still need a complicated and costly image editor to salvage the photos. Its a never ending circle.

The D700 is arguably one of the best DSRL's ever made and today its an amazing bargain. A camera which even today is more capable than the majority of the gear collectors in these forums. Not true? LOL, just look at most of the work produced with the D800, D810, D850's etc etc.

A very sad reality.
Click to expand...
One of the more condescending and cynical posts I’ve read here in awhile. Your intention appears to be more about demeaning forum participants and the desire of other photographers to upgrade their gear than arguing the pros and cons of the two cameras. You could have essentially achieved the same end by inserting "D7200" for the your only reference to the D700, above.

Alan
 
Last edited:
HP McGargo said:
[...] people that use what they have and endeavor to define the art of photography with every image they create.
Click to expand...
Photographers. I could't have found a better definition.
 
While I tend to agree with what you wrote, I think you're missing the point here

The question was never "is the D700 a good camera?" - of course it is, as good as it was 10 years ago - but rather "is the D700 an upgrade for a D7200?" - no, it is not.

Unless you very specifically need something that only FX can do, or can't live without a full weatherproof magnesium alloy brick, the D7200 is better at almost everything.
 
Last edited:
lightandaprayer said:
BillyBobSenna said:
For many people, photography is a hobby and a significant part of the hobby is learning about gear and following the latest technical trends. I see nothing to be embarrassed about if you find joy discussing camera tech and wanting to buy and debate the latest tech.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I think that you missed the point of McGargo's post. . .
Click to expand...
Could be. My interpretation McGargo's post was that gear lust was not good ("A very sad reality") and I disagreed with that opinion.
 
ZeBebito said:
Interesting point of view. However none is obligated to use all camera features, you still can work with ISO, aperture and shutter speed and forget about everything else.

I would think the DF gives the closest experience to any film Nikons, at least it has dials.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, that is still the case. . . I basically set-up a DLSR so I can use it like a fully manual film Nikon. I wish that Nikon had retained aperture rings on its lenses; I think that using a command dial is not as intuitive nor ergonomically sensible as using the left hand which is already supporting the lens. Whether I use the front command dial for the shutter or aperture, I need to alter my grip to use it. . . I don't care for that.

The main thing that the Df has that resembles the old Nikons are the dials. But they are rather superficial compared to the things that impress me about the Nikkormat vs. a typical DSLR. The sensor is the best thing the Df has going for it. . . It resembles a film-era Nikon but it has the build-quality of a consumer DSLR. The Df has too much plastic for my taste. It is closer to a D7200 than a D700 and priced at a significant premium considering what you get.
 
HP McGargo said:
BillyBobSenna said:
HP McGargo said:
If the vast majority the images posted on this website reflect the photographic skills in the composition, lighting & subjects photographed, then a 10 y/o cellphone camera would serve most people very well. The preoccupation with specifications is what this place is all about as photography has and still remains an abstract concept. For the regulars in these forums, its never about the skill its only about the specs and the specs are never enough, are they? They want double digit D/R to salvage a photo a monkey could have shot better the first time, they want AF to allow a blind person to track and photograph a hockey puck, they want over pixelated sensors to take photos of test patterns, telephone poles and pets, they want all of that and much more. Its never enough, is it? The goal is an idiot proof camera which is intended for them. That way they don't have to actually use all the amazingly efficient controls which have existed for many years. And of course even when they have the latest & greatest camera, loaded with every conceivable feature they still need a complicated and costly image editor to salvage the photos. Its a never ending circle.

The D700 is arguably one of the best DSRL's ever made and today its an amazing bargain. A camera which even today is more capable than the majority of the gear collectors in these forums. Not true? LOL, just look at most of the work produced with the D800, D810, D850's etc etc.

A very sad reality.
Click to expand...
For many people, photography is a hobby and a significant part of the hobby is learning about gear and following the latest technical trends. I see nothing to be embarrassed about if you find joy discussing camera tech and wanting to buy and debate the latest tech.
Click to expand...
If you find joy in discussing camera tech, trends etc, good for you and far be it for me to convince you otherwise. I find joy in creating images with my camera and leave the tech to the manufacturer and like you, I'm also not embarrassed. Lets agree on this; theres people that buy gear for the sake of ownership, specifications, new issue, etc., and theres people that use what they have and endeavor to define the art of photography with every image they create.
Click to expand...
I hope I am in both camps. I buy the best technology camera I can afford. Years ago, I was covering a wedding reception for a mate in Oslo, and, was putting my Contax G1 and Nikon F90X with 80-200mm and various flashes away so I could join the party, and, a guy came over from another table and said "I hope you don't mind, but, my, what great, expensive camera gear! Are you a pro?". "No", I replied, " But I drive an old Volvo back home in Australia". He laughed, "So, do I, he said.

My cameras are my Porsches, 'can't afford the Porsche. I love having the best gear I can justify. Having said that, as others have said, the D700 (and the 5DMkii.. the A900 misses out only because of the noisy sensor) are design points, benchmarks that will stand the test of time.
 
BillyBobSenna said:
lightandaprayer said:
BillyBobSenna said:
For many people, photography is a hobby and a significant part of the hobby is learning about gear and following the latest technical trends. I see nothing to be embarrassed about if you find joy discussing camera tech and wanting to buy and debate the latest tech.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I think that you missed the point of McGargo's post. . .
Click to expand...
Could be. My interpretation McGargo's post was that gear lust was not good ("A very sad reality") and I disagreed with that opinion.
Click to expand...
In response to your post and Alan's comment. . . It's not having an interest in the gear and technology that is the problem; show me a photographer who isn't into his/her gear, it's always been a part of photography. It's the level of "gear lust" and spec chasing that is so absurd, rather than putting that time, energy and money into learning the techniques of our craft. Modern photo technology and the encouragement from peers supports the illusion that one can rely on the tech and remain happily ignorant of the essential skills required to create fine photographs.

Photographers were making great photos with the D700 ten years ago when its tech was among the best then available. Technology has certainly marched forward since then. . . But don't blame the camera and its "limitations" if you can't make a good photograph with it. The real limitations are in the mind of the person behind the camera. Talented photographers have always been able to compensate for and transcend the limits of the technology of their time to create memorable images.
 
Stacey_K said:
seahawk said:
Stacey_K said:
UGPRO said:
I know the skintone and colors are subjective but i never felt any other Nikon FX other than D700, D3 and DF to render such skintones and colors. I tried all other cameras either borrowing from friends, at camera stores or buying and returning on Amazon/B&H, sorry nothing impressed when portraits were shot.
Click to expand...
You will probably like the D4 too, I'm loving mine. I have a D800 for landscapes (who cares if the AF is perfect in that use, I'm not using it!) and a D700/D4 for portraits. My D750 only has 600 clicks, was sent back for recall, then died 200 clicks laters and send back again, now freshly repaired, is going on ebay. I NEVER liked the skin tones out of that camera, even spending hours working from Raw trying to get them right.
Click to expand...
And that will be of no interest to the thread starter, because he shoots:

"3. The majority of my photography would be classed as architecture really, (our business is essentially design and build construction) so dynamic range/low light capability is not too much of a worry, as I only shoot in good weather conditions! The rest of my photos are a mixture of events and landscapes/seascapes."
Click to expand...
What exactly do you think he will be shooting at events?
Click to expand...
Yes, lets get a camera perfect for 10-15% of what you shoot and worse than what you have for the remaining 85-90%. Makes total sense.
 
HP McGargo said:
If the vast majority the images posted on this website reflect the photographic skills in the composition, lighting & subjects photographed, then a 10 y/o cellphone camera would serve most people very well. The preoccupation with specifications is what this place is all about as photography has and still remains an abstract concept. For the regulars in these forums, its never about the skill its only about the specs and the specs are never enough, are they? They want double digit D/R to salvage a photo a monkey could have shot better the first time, they want AF to allow a blind person to track and photograph a hockey puck, they want over pixelated sensors to take photos of test patterns, telephone poles and pets, they want all of that and much more. Its never enough, is it? The goal is an idiot proof camera which is intended for them. That way they don't have to actually use all the amazingly efficient controls which have existed for many years. And of course even when they have the latest & greatest camera, loaded with every conceivable feature they still need a complicated and costly image editor to salvage the photos. Its a never ending circle.

The D700 is arguably one of the best DSRL's ever made and today its an amazing bargain. A camera which even today is more capable than the majority of the gear collectors in these forums. Not true? LOL, just look at most of the work produced with the D800, D810, D850's etc etc.

A very sad reality.
Click to expand...
What a stupid elitist post.

The question never was if you can take good pictures with a D700, the question was if a D700 would deliver better pictures than a D7200 and the answer to that is that it does not.

So by your own logic, you just recommended the thread starter to get a D700, when the D7200 should be plenty enough to create images that most of the D700 gear collectors are just incapable of producing, with their idiotic believe in the general superiority of the large sensor and the ideas of "iconic" cameras.
 
Last edited:
straitouttahell said:
The question was never "is the D700 a good camera?" - of course it is, as good as it was 10 years ago - but rather "is the D700 an upgrade for a D7200?" - no, it is not.
Click to expand...
+1.

Except the D700 was regarded as a budget price first, features second body when launched.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
straitouttahell said:
The question was never "is the D700 a good camera?" - of course it is, as good as it was 10 years ago - but rather "is the D700 an upgrade for a D7200?" - no, it is not.
Click to expand...
+1.

Except the D700 was regarded as a budget price first, features second body when launched.
Click to expand...
It was the baby D3. A relatively stripped down version of the flagship.
 
I pointed out a week ago https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61450081 that the OP's thread title wasn't very helpful, particularly the use of "upgrade", and that if he had phrased it differently, the answer to the real question was obvious - get the D700 if the price was right (we didn't know at the time what was being asked for the copy on offer) and subject to there being "better" FX options if they could be afforded. I wouldn't be so self important to point that out, except that the OP posted not long afterwards that I had come the closest to analysing his position correctly.

"I think @John Michael Winterbourne's post really sums up my feeling - I am leaning towards getting the D700 to run alongside my current set up. Obviously it will work with my 80-200, and I can experiment with different wide lenses (thinking of hiring them as I need them) to see what difference it can make with the architectural type stuff that I do. I can then keep an eye out for a D750 as and when budget allows/prices come down."

P.S. I go away for a few days, and Leonard S is still banging on about the cheap build quality of the D700. Unbelievable, even for DPR.
 
Last edited:
John Michael Winterbourne said:
I pointed out a week ago https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61450081 that the OP's thread title wasn't very helpful, particularly the use of "upgrade", and that if he had phrased it differently, the answer to the real question was obvious - get the D700 if the price was right (we didn't know at the time what was being asked for the copy on offer) and subject to there being "better" FX options if they could be afforded. I wouldn't be so self important to point that out, except that the OP posted not long afterwards that I had come the closest to analysing his position correctly.

"I think @John Michael Winterbourne's post really sums up my feeling - I am leaning towards getting the D700 to run alongside my current set up. Obviously it will work with my 80-200, and I can experiment with different wide lenses (thinking of hiring them as I need them) to see what difference it can make with the architectural type stuff that I do. I can then keep an eye out for a D750 as and when budget allows/prices come down."

P.S. I go away for a few days, and Leonard S is still banging on about the cheap build quality of the D700. Unbelievable, even for DPR.
Click to expand...
But what positive difference would it make? He has the Tokina 11-16 2.8 for DX, which is decent and the D7200 has the better sensor. Sure it makes the 80-200 a different lens again, but the D700 he was looking at has used up over 3/4 of the theoretical camera life and he will have to invest in different batteries as well.

Imho he would be much wise to save a bit more money and get a younger D610, with the newer sensor and the same batteries as his current camera.

Especially as the price points to a very tired D700 which should have seen some pretty strong use and will probably not be in a good condition. Similar priced D700 here in Germany have serious scratches on the display, not fully working buttons or other problems. One would need pictures of the camera, but the bigger camera dealers here list cameras as "suitable for tinkerers" - which usually points to one or more parts not working.

But even if we say it works. He pays for the camera in addition he might need new spare batteries, charger (if not included) and it would probably make sense to give the camera away for a clean, check and adjust service. I would recommend to find out if at least the camera comes with batteries and charger and take a good look at it, if every button works.
 
Last edited:
seahawk said:
HP McGargo said:
If the vast majority the images posted on this website reflect the photographic skills in the composition, lighting & subjects photographed, then a 10 y/o cellphone camera would serve most people very well. The preoccupation with specifications is what this place is all about as photography has and still remains an abstract concept. For the regulars in these forums, its never about the skill its only about the specs and the specs are never enough, are they? They want double digit D/R to salvage a photo a monkey could have shot better the first time, they want AF to allow a blind person to track and photograph a hockey puck, they want over pixelated sensors to take photos of test patterns, telephone poles and pets, they want all of that and much more. Its never enough, is it? The goal is an idiot proof camera which is intended for them. That way they don't have to actually use all the amazingly efficient controls which have existed for many years. And of course even when they have the latest & greatest camera, loaded with every conceivable feature they still need a complicated and costly image editor to salvage the photos. Its a never ending circle.

The D700 is arguably one of the best DSRL's ever made and today its an amazing bargain. A camera which even today is more capable than the majority of the gear collectors in these forums. Not true? LOL, just look at most of the work produced with the D800, D810, D850's etc etc.

A very sad reality.
Click to expand...
What a stupid elitist post.

The question never was if you can take good pictures with a D700, the question was if a D700 would deliver better pictures than a D7200 and the answer to that is that it does not.

So by your own logic, you just recommended the thread starter to get a D700, when the D7200 should be plenty enough to create images that most of the D700 gear collectors are just incapable of producing, with their idiotic believe in the general superiority of the large sensor and the ideas of "iconic" cameras.
Click to expand...
Stupid post? My post referred to the many "stupid posts? submitted to the OP.
 
HP McGargo said:
seahawk said:
HP McGargo said:
If the vast majority the images posted on this website reflect the photographic skills in the composition, lighting & subjects photographed, then a 10 y/o cellphone camera would serve most people very well. The preoccupation with specifications is what this place is all about as photography has and still remains an abstract concept. For the regulars in these forums, its never about the skill its only about the specs and the specs are never enough, are they? They want double digit D/R to salvage a photo a monkey could have shot better the first time, they want AF to allow a blind person to track and photograph a hockey puck, they want over pixelated sensors to take photos of test patterns, telephone poles and pets, they want all of that and much more. Its never enough, is it? The goal is an idiot proof camera which is intended for them. That way they don't have to actually use all the amazingly efficient controls which have existed for many years. And of course even when they have the latest & greatest camera, loaded with every conceivable feature they still need a complicated and costly image editor to salvage the photos. Its a never ending circle.

The D700 is arguably one of the best DSRL's ever made and today its an amazing bargain. A camera which even today is more capable than the majority of the gear collectors in these forums. Not true? LOL, just look at most of the work produced with the D800, D810, D850's etc etc.

A very sad reality.
Click to expand...
What a stupid elitist post.

The question never was if you can take good pictures with a D700, the question was if a D700 would deliver better pictures than a D7200 and the answer to that is that it does not.

So by your own logic, you just recommended the thread starter to get a D700, when the D7200 should be plenty enough to create images that most of the D700 gear collectors are just incapable of producing, with their idiotic believe in the general superiority of the large sensor and the ideas of "iconic" cameras.
Click to expand...
Stupid post? My post referred to the many "stupid posts? submitted to the OP.
Click to expand...
Yes, stupid post.

Did you mention the D7200 in it?

Did you mention his available lenses?

Did you mention the high shutter count of the D700 he is looking at?

Did you mention the low price of the used D700 and try to give advice on what to look for on such a low price high usage camera?

So how did you help him? The post says nothing but "I am such an awesome photographer, I get better pics with an old camera than most people with the newest one." Might be true, might be not, but then why should he buy a D700 and not a used D50, as the camera does not matter and they are much cheaper...
 
seahawk said:
HP McGargo said:
seahawk said:
HP McGargo said:
If the vast majority the images posted on this website reflect the photographic skills in the composition, lighting & subjects photographed, then a 10 y/o cellphone camera would serve most people very well. The preoccupation with specifications is what this place is all about as photography has and still remains an abstract concept. For the regulars in these forums, its never about the skill its only about the specs and the specs are never enough, are they? They want double digit D/R to salvage a photo a monkey could have shot better the first time, they want AF to allow a blind person to track and photograph a hockey puck, they want over pixelated sensors to take photos of test patterns, telephone poles and pets, they want all of that and much more. Its never enough, is it? The goal is an idiot proof camera which is intended for them. That way they don't have to actually use all the amazingly efficient controls which have existed for many years. And of course even when they have the latest & greatest camera, loaded with every conceivable feature they still need a complicated and costly image editor to salvage the photos. Its a never ending circle.

The D700 is arguably one of the best DSRL's ever made and today its an amazing bargain. A camera which even today is more capable than the majority of the gear collectors in these forums. Not true? LOL, just look at most of the work produced with the D800, D810, D850's etc etc.

A very sad reality.
Click to expand...
What a stupid elitist post.

The question never was if you can take good pictures with a D700, the question was if a D700 would deliver better pictures than a D7200 and the answer to that is that it does not.

So by your own logic, you just recommended the thread starter to get a D700, when the D7200 should be plenty enough to create images that most of the D700 gear collectors are just incapable of producing, with their idiotic believe in the general superiority of the large sensor and the ideas of "iconic" cameras.
Click to expand...
Stupid post? My post referred to the many "stupid posts? submitted to the OP.
Click to expand...
Yes, stupid post.

Did you mention the D7200 in it?

Did you mention his available lenses?

Did you mention the high shutter count of the D700 he is looking at?

Did you mention the low price of the used D700 and try to give advice on what to look for on such a low price high usage camera?

So how did you help him? The post says nothing but "I am such an awesome photographer, I get better pics with an old camera than most people with the newest one." Might be true, might be not, but then why should he buy a D700 and not a used D50, as the camera does not matter and they are much cheaper...
Click to expand...
Good grief sir, step back from the computer, turn it off and go do something else.
 
Just chill & take some pics...haha



00c7484adad6442bbe5b9bab28eb5251.jpg
 
Now you're just being naughty.

In the opener to this thread, OP said "I've been given the opportunity to purchase a used D700 at a good price - upgrading to FX is something I've wanted to do for a while." We subsequently learned that the price was 350 GBP, and the shutter has 115k clicks.

From that limited amount of information, you've created a portrait of a completely mis-used, abused, beaten up old dog of a camera that OP would be stupid enough to buy without checking if it came with a battery or charger.....

And before you reply to this, please take the effort to read my first post in this thread, and the first of my follow-ups, which will give you a good overview of what I think about buying a D700 as an "upgrade" to a D7200.
 
John Michael Winterbourne said:
We subsequently learned that the price was 350 GBP, and the shutter has 115k clicks.
Click to expand...
£350 is close to the price of some UK D3 with a 6 month warranty.

£300 seems a better price for a D700 with about 70% of the Nikon quoted 150,000 shutter cycle.
 
John Michael Winterbourne said:
Now you're just being naughty.

In the opener to this thread, OP said "I've been given the opportunity to purchase a used D700 at a good price - upgrading to FX is something I've wanted to do for a while." We subsequently learned that the price was 350 GBP, and the shutter has 115k clicks.

From that limited amount of information, you've created a portrait of a completely mis-used, abused, beaten up old dog of a camera that OP would be stupid enough to buy without checking if it came with a battery or charger.....

And before you reply to this, please take the effort to read my first post in this thread, and the first of my follow-ups, which will give you a good overview of what I think about buying a D700 as an "upgrade" to a D7200.
Click to expand...
I am not painting a picture, I am describing how 350 Euro used Nikon D700s can look in Germany. Good ones go for about 450-500.
 
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