Reading mode: Light Dark

Upgrade D7200 to D700

Go to last post
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...
Since when is $3000 a "budget price" for a DSLR? Nikon's D3xxx and D5xxx cameras are the budget price DSLRs in its lineup. And the second part of your post is simply laughable. . . The D700 was considered to be a "budget price" D3. It has the same sensor as the D3 and it has a build quality akin to the D3 in a smaller package. Being a location photographer who has to carry multiple cameras, I have always gravitated to the smaller Nikons. The D700 is right up my alley. That "brick" moniker posted earlier is intended to be disparaging but the D700 is a brick. . . A solidly built DSLR that has a reputation for reliability. I don't remember there being any recalls or posts about the D700 letting photographers down when the going gets tough. It's the main reason the D700 has attained its classic status.
 
seahawk said:
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...
elitist

1. someone who believes in rule by an elite group

adjective
relating to or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite: older men with an elitist attitude about music | the image of polo as an elitist sport.
• demonstrating a superior attitude or behavior associated with an elite: some that say he is a spoiled, elitist snob.

noun
a person who believes that a society or system should be led by an elite: critics portray him as an out-of-touch elitist.

Nope, McGargo isn't an elitist. . . He simply posted a perceptive viewpoint that apparently struck a nerve when you read it.
 
Had two of them; one a very early USA model, then one of the last ones - there was a bit of an improvement I thought in the raw image from the first to the last. Could be enhancements that are always made during a long production run, or just sensor variation, either way both great cameras. Solid, very solid.

I also owned a D3 during that entire period - solid though the D700’s were, they were no D3. There really is a build quality difference. There really is a reason the single digit pro bodies are typically twice the price of the next closest model in the Nikon lineup.

In a pinch, I probably could have driven in tent pegs with the D3 without damage; solid though the D700 was, it never struck me as rising to that level.

Additionally, if you’ve had the pleasure of having a D body ‘slam’ a lens into focus, you appreciate the difference in build quality. Most of us don’t need that build quality, as those that do are likely not visiting these forums (a few very notable exceptions), but like an exotic car, it’s fun to have if you can afford to do so.

If one goes back to the summer of 2008 and reads the posts regarding the introduction surrounding the D700, they’ll find some strongly held opinions, a good bit of discussion, and some frequent posters names back then who no longer are contributors to this site, but whose names are recognizable to Nikon shooters. Perhaps worth a visit - controvery on new models, or about build quality, is not a recent development.

The D700 was a delight; anyone who has not shot with the 700/D3 sensor, and can pick one up at a very reasonanble price should do so. As a companion to an outstanding dx sensor/body such as a D7200, it would a ‘no brainer’. As an aside, if one can pick up an old CCD sensor such as a D2xs, that too is a wonderful walk down memory lane...

There seems to be so much discussion about topics that shouldn’t warrant as much emotion or discussion, and the posts continue endlessly. Seems like too many need to spend less time posting and more time shooting, or better yet, working on their processing technique. Just MO

Bodies are great, can’t beat good glass...

regards
 
Last edited:
lightandaprayer said:
lightandaprayer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
+1 - and by a significant margin maybe 98% of the time
lightandaprayer said:
lightandaprayer said:
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...
elitist

1. someone who believes in rule by an elite group
Click to expand...
What has being "elitist" got to do with reality and common sense?

You seem to categorise reality and common sense as automatically being elitist :-(
 
Last edited:
if it truly is a great price, then this could be an opportunity to find out what the d700 is all about as you could put a couple of thousand clicks on it and then sell it on for what you paid. What have you got to lose?

But I wouldn't.

I don't see it as an upgrade to the d7200 and I'd certainly keep that body no matter what (actually, I'd sell it and get a Fuji/Olly/Sony mirrorless as I value convenience over anything else for non-pro photography).

The d700 was second to non when there weren't other sensible FX options. Now it is well down the pecking order which is why there are bargains to be had - old tech loses value quickly. That said, the 700 must be getting about as low as it can. Other than very low light focus and focus tracking I see the 610 as a much better camera. If focus is an issue then the 750 is the one to go for. Now the 850 is out there are some great bargains to he bad on 800/810, though I see the cheaper cameras as better 'allrounder' options.

--
Wedding and fine art photographer www.johnleechstudio.co.uk
 
Last edited:
rbmphoto said:
Had two of them; one a very early USA model, then one of the last ones - there was a bit of an improvement I thought in the raw image from the first to the last. Could be enhancements that are always made during a long production run, or just sensor variation, either way both great cameras. Solid, very solid.

I also owned a D3 during that entire period - solid though the D700’s were, they were no D3. There really is a build quality difference. There really is a reason the single digit pro bodies are typically twice the price of the next closest model in the Nikon lineup.

In a pinch, I probably could have driven in tent pegs with the D3 without damage; solid though the D700 was, it never struck me as rising to that level.

Additionally, if you’ve had the pleasure of having a D body ‘slam’ a lens into focus, you appreciate the difference in build quality. Most of us don’t need that build quality, as those that do are likely not visiting these forums (a few very notable exceptions), but like an exotic car, it’s fun to have if you can afford to do so.

If one goes back to the summer of 2008 and reads the posts regarding the introduction surrounding the D700, they’ll find some strongly held opinions, a good bit of discussion, and some frequent posters names back then who no longer are contributors to this site, but whose names are recognizable to Nikon shooters. Perhaps worth a visit - controvery on new models, or about build quality, is not a recent development.

The D700 was a delight; anyone who has not shot with the 700/D3 sensor, and can pick one up at a very reasonanble price should do so. As a companion to an outstanding dx sensor/body such as a D7200, it would a ‘no brainer’. As an aside, if one can pick up an old CCD sensor such as a D2xs, that too is a wonderful walk down memory lane...

There seems to be so much discussion about topics that shouldn’t warrant as much emotion or discussion, and the posts continue endlessly. Seems like too many need to spend less time posting and more time shooting, or better yet, working on their processing technique. Just MO

Bodies are great, can’t beat good glass...

regards
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you wrote. . . The Dx Nikons are designed for photographers who need their build-quality and features and the price reflects what goes into designing and building the beasts.

My comments re the D700 are geared toward the other non-Dx Nikons and my experience using them doing PJ and editorial gigs for 30+ years.

In my experience most pros don't use the Dx Nikons and many who do use the Dx cameras combine them with the smaller bodies. There are various personal reasons for doing so, the (obvious) #1 reason for NOT using a D3/4/5 is they don't need the camera features. They're BIG/HEAVY and I don't know anyone who wants to carry more than they need to when traveling on planes ranging from A380s to single-engine Cessnas, not to mention helicopters. COST being another factor if you are freelance. . . Example: I could buy 3 FM2 bodies for the cost of 1 F3HP and have $50 remaining in my pocket. A freelancer might own between 4 and 8 cameras at any one time. I enjoyed the F3 but the 1/200 and later 1/250 flash sync of the FM2n killed the F3 for me (and a lot of pros as well. . . the LA Times bought 40 of the former as soon as they could get theirs hands on them. Those tiny cameras held up under the beatings the staffers put them through. . . An FM2 is nowhere near a D2X but it's a tough little bugger.) The same logic continues in The Digital Age, the prices have changed just a wee bit. ;-) New prices 1 D2 = 2 D700 bodies price-wise, the same as today's comparable Nikons. (Estimates. . . I'm doing this from my 64 year old RAM.)

The D700 simply impresses me as the best-built non-Dx Nikon we have seen since the move to digital. IMO but that's all that we have here, no? It's super reliable. There are reasons why the camera is wildly popular 10 years after its introduction. Sure, its shutter is LOUD but I think it's because it could stop a speeding bullet. . . Would I like 16MP? Yes but 12MP is fine for everything I do. . . Coming of age shooting Kodachrome I never got in the habit of cropping after the fact; I can recall cropping only 1 image in post-processing since moving to digital and that was 9 years ago. It held up just fine and that was from a 10MP sensor. (Certainly picture editors have cropped my images to fit layouts but not so much that the quality visibly suffered.)

Some people have gotten way too hung-up on this thread's title. I'm certain that the OP could change it if he could. . . The OP wants to try an FX Nikon that doesn't cost too much money. He has heard about the D700 and is intrigued by the fact that photographers who can afford the latest FX cameras either keep their old D700 or buy a used D700. Someone suggested getting a D610. The D610 is not the same user experience as a D700, whatever its tech specs. The D610 will be like using a D7200 with a full-frame sensor. So like someone else recommended, get the D700, find out what all the fuss is about and then sell it if you don't like it/want a different camera and likely get most if not all of your money back. Win-Win.

Thanks for the CCD tip. . . I've held on to a D200 mainly for its CCD sensor. (Not that I haven't been tempted to get a D2X, especially at its current used price.) But it's just too big and I appreciate having a DX-size Nikon around the house. If I get another old digital Nikon it will probably be a second D700. I'm smitten. . . (Be sure to look up what that means; it's probably not what you think.) What I don't understand is why some people care so much about another photographer's personal choice re which camera he/she prefers. . .

Regards to you too
 
Last edited:
Leonard Shepherd said:
lightandaprayer said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
+1 - and by a significant margin maybe 98% of the time
Leonard Shepherd said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
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...
elitist

1. someone who believes in rule by an elite group
Click to expand...
What has being "elitist" got to do with reality and common sense?

You seem to categorise reality and common sense as automatically being elitist :-(
Click to expand...
Leonard, you're not making any sense. . . You quote something I did not write and then you use something else that I posted out of context. Get a grip man.
 
Last edited:
Of all the kit I have owned, I miss this lot.



7a3600e808504aada7e982fb7e92bd9a.jpg

FF, and, as small as an em1.2. Now why, Kyocera didn't produce a dgfital version, I do not know, the optics were superb, and, the ergonomics amazing.

--
karl reed "let's change the tone-civility is in!"
 
Sorry to add a negative comment after two such sensible posts, but just to avoid confusion, both the D2X and upgraded D2Xs both had CMOS sensors.
 
After going back and looking, I realized that you are correct. Having had the D200 and the D2xs, the images had similar qualities, and I just assumed (yes that word) that the D2xs had a more extended version of the D200 sensor. My bad!

I actually did prefer the D200 images, and have very fond memories of that sensor and body. I took 4-10K images per month with that camera for a couple of years, and actually thought the successor D300 images were a step back, or at least in the wrong direction. Much like the FM2n, mentioned by a previous poster, that was favorite of mine in the early ‘90’s before I converted to AF only, some of the older digital and film gear was pretty special.

ps. No need to ever apologize for weighing in with factual correctness! Accuracy is not negative. rbm
 
Last edited:
i was really lucky to find a new out of the box with just 7 clicks (i shot 2 for testing)
A legendary camera for anyone who knows which the real value of this beast!



78195cc4aa6944cca68e85a15c5b6d71.jpg



479ee4b7f92b45a7a9dcba48494af79e.jpg



759a98ca272942fb9e7edfe865131d7b.jpg



11463ef319514e53aabf3b162a25e8a0.jpg



6d3aa291b4d74d79bbd5c75b9c785e46.jpg



18c92630607b4e0bbe97a32a2c485ac1.jpg
 
Just Nick said:
I was really lucky to find a new out of the box with just 7 clicks (i shot 2 for testing)
A legendary camera for anyone who knows which the real value of this beast!
Click to expand...
You're a bit late to this particular thread, don't you think? In the other one you started recently, you began by asking about "the value" of a low shutter count D700 that you could buy for a little over £500, GBP500. Anybody reading what I'm saying here will have no trouble in finding that thread, and if they do they will find that it split into two strands.

The first, which this Forum wearily resurrects every now and then, is about whether buying a D700 "makes sense" these days - as a camera to take photos with.

The other strand, and the one which always seemed more important to you (given that you already have a working D700) was to do with your idea of buying this particular low mileage camera and then putting it back in its box and storing it not for posterity, but as a financial investment, to be sold again, for monetary profit, as a "Collectible" camera.

That notion is completely at odds with this particular thread, which has only been, so far, about actually using a D700 here and now.

So please come clean - you seem to be claiming to know the "real value of this beast", so do you mean "value" as a tool that you will be using to take pictures, or is it going to go back into its box so that you can get a better price years down the line?
 
Last edited:
John Michael Winterbourne said:
Just Nick said:
I was really lucky to find a new out of the box with just 7 clicks (i shot 2 for testing)
A legendary camera for anyone who knows which the real value of this beast
Click to expand...
You're a bit late to this particular thread, don't you think? In the other one you started recently, you began by asking about "the value" of a low shutter count D700 that you could buy for a little over £500, GBP500. Anybody reading what I'm saying here will have no trouble in finding that thread, and if they do they will find that it split into two strands.

The first, which this Forum wearily resurrects every now and then, is about whether buying a D700 "makes sense" these days - as a camera to take photos with.

The other strand, and the one which always seemed more important to you (given that you already have a working D700) was to do with your idea of buying this particular low mileage camera and then putting it back in its box and storing it not for posterity, but as a financial investment, to be sold again, for monetary profit, as a "Collectible" camera.

That notion is completely at odds with this particular thread, which has only been, so far, about actually using a D700 here and now.

So please come clean - you seem to be claiming to know the "real value of this beast", so do you mean "value" as a tool that you will be using to take pictures, or is it going to go back into its box so that you can get a better price years down the line?
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot for spending your precious time to write all this.
I don't need to hide of any post or to feel obliged to give an explanation to anyone.
Apparently, you missed this one which I suppose it would have prevented you from writing all this!

"Thanks all guys for your comments and inputs. I have just received it.

Finally it had just 7 clicks (i took 2 shots to try it)

independently of anyone thinks about this camera i feel really happy and am not going to sell it for any reason!"

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
 
No, I didn't miss it, it was what prompted me to reply in this thread. And you still haven't answered my question here - are you going to use it (adding to its precious low shutter count) or put it back in the box because it may be "collectible", even if it's going to stay in your own collection?
 
John Michael Winterbourne said:
No, I didn't miss it, it was what prompted me to reply in this thread. And you still haven't answered my question here - are you going to use it (adding to its precious low shutter count) or put it back in the box because it may be "collectible", even if it's going to stay in your own collection?

Yes.I am going to use it when my first and second D700 will die out (The new one is the third in my collection)
This is what i get from my first two D700's

Click to expand...
 
OK, I think I've got it - this is your third D700, but you'll only start using it when both of the two you already have, have both stopped working.

How does that relate to the "value" of your recent spend of a bit more than 500 pounds on a minty D700 that will have to wait quite a long time before both of the others have stopped working?
 
lac111 said:
OK, so for architecture AF performance is not of much concern. I realize you have this "deal" offered for a well used D700, any thoughts to a D600/610? Likely cost a little more, but would pair better with the D7200 and get you into FX.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I moved from a D7000 to a D600 - and pretty much all the control buttons were where my fingers 'knew' they were. I've got a D750 now, too - and it's very similar to the 600 (except it has a tilting liveview screen and is a few g lighter)
 
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