Reading mode: Light Dark

D700 users how do you go back to any other DSLR?

Go to last post
U

Ualnosaj

Active member
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Long time photographer, started with the FM2 and FE2 bodies just to "date" myself here. I've always had a primary and backup camera, last few years D200 + D60. There has never really been much difference other than AF points and the odd features. Then a year and half ago I changed to D700 + D200... then recently "downsized" to D700 + D80 (smaller). I've noticed that I just can't bear to use the D80 for anything other than really quick snaps with the 35/1.8G.

The problem is I've been so spoiled by the magnificent high ISO capability on the D700 coupled with the 50/1.4G. It absolutely slays available light photography, and I routinely go up to 12,800 without worry. Throw in a round of DxO Optics and everything is clean.

So here's what my post is about. Other than using your "non-D700" in great light outdoors or with flashes, do you cringe about not picking up the D700 for indoor/general shots? Are you spoiled by the D700 high ISO capability? :)
 
I rarely use the high ISO capability of the D700. I rarely get above ISO 800. It would be nice if the D700 had a true ISO 100 or even IS0 50. I do a lot of outdoor portraits with the 85mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4 lens. We also use the 70-200 VRII for portraits. There is more to life than high ISO photography.









Respectfully,
David Miller

PS I am gratefull that the D700 can do high ISO photography just in case I need to do some but I don't go out of my way just to turn up the ISO when I don't need too.
 
I carry both D300 and D700. I don't hesitate to use the D300 as long as I can keep the ISO to 1600 or below, but I do prefer to use the D700 when either camera will do. My D300 is mostly used for reach now.

This week I took the D700 with 80-200 f2.8 to my granddaughter's Christmas play. (She's in kindergarten). When I got there, I realized that the lighting was low enough that point-n-shooters (and 'ordinary' DSLR users) were going to have no luck getting decent shots due to the lighting. The D700 was going to be decent at ISO 3200, but it was short on reach.

I went back out to the car, where the backpack full of gear was, and brought back in my D300 and my 300f4. The 300F4 went onto the D700, which was usually shooting ISO 2500-5000 the rest of the night. The 80-200 went onto the D300 and was set to ISO 1600 and about F3.5. It all tended to work just fine.

I have a D200 as well, but that would not have worked just fine!

My wife has a D80, and I get really tired of its erratic matrix metering, and generally slowish performance. I'd much rather use the D200 as a DX backup.

My D200, D300 and D700 are so similar in body and controls that it's no problem for me switching between any of them. And I like the D200 better in bright sunlight than the D300.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net
 
You could always use your D700 as a backup camera for a D3S! (tongue in cheek)
--

In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different.
http://www.intouchimages.com
 
It's closer to the D700 in high ISO than any other APS-C out there, any maker. Actually, at base ISO if you want to push shadows it is possibly better (color especially). And it's a more capable body than the D80 at about the same size/bulk.
Ualnosaj said:
Long time photographer, started with the FM2 and FE2 bodies just to "date" myself here. I've always had a primary and backup camera, last few years D200 + D60. There has never really been much difference other than AF points and the odd features. Then a year and half ago I changed to D700 + D200... then recently "downsized" to D700 + D80 (smaller). I've noticed that I just can't bear to use the D80 for anything other than really quick snaps with the 35/1.8G.

The problem is I've been so spoiled by the magnificent high ISO capability on the D700 coupled with the 50/1.4G. It absolutely slays available light photography, and I routinely go up to 12,800 without worry. Throw in a round of DxO Optics and everything is clean.

So here's what my post is about. Other than using your "non-D700" in great light outdoors or with flashes, do you cringe about not picking up the D700 for indoor/general shots? Are you spoiled by the D700 high ISO capability? :)
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
I use D7000 now and d90 before,
but here's a thing.

D7k is soo good, and in my opinion it even outperforms d700 at some occasions, so I'm really keen to see D700 upgrade if ever comes out.

I primarily use D700 with 14-24f/2.8 which is wonderful for wide angle shots of architecture.

It's funny I used to love my photos of interiors with D700 and thought there's no better camera. Now, same lens, same body similar scenes, and all photos seemed a little washed out comparing to D7k. Even high ISO is remarkable in D7k (don't want to claim better than D700..)
So my suggestion is D5100 ;) or D3100

--
Capture the right moment.
 
I occasionally use my D90 with the 300 f/4 or Sigma 100-300 f4 for 'reach' in good light, and use my Pentax K20D + some excellent Pentax lenses for a smaller carry-around kit all the time, but it's hard to imagine not shooting the D700 for anything indoors, or anything that required great AF & low-light performance. Everything else seems frustrating in those situations.

.
--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/
 
Ualnosaj said:
So here's what my post is about. Other than using your "non-D700" in great light outdoors or with flashes, do you cringe about not picking up the D700 for indoor/general shots? Are you spoiled by the D700 high ISO capability? :)
Click to expand...
No I don't cringe! My non-D700 is a D3s! Last summer my wife and I went down to France for a wedding, and, given that there wasn't going to be so much low-light activity expected, I left the D3s behind, and just took the D700. My neck was so happy! The D700 did brilliantly (as, I must confess, also did the Canon G12).

--
Richard
 
Ualnosaj said:
Long time photographer, started with the FM2 and FE2 bodies just to "date" myself here. I've always had a primary and backup camera, last few years D200 + D60. There has never really been much difference other than AF points and the odd features. Then a year and half ago I changed to D700 + D200... then recently "downsized" to D700 + D80 (smaller). I've noticed that I just can't bear to use the D80 for anything other than really quick snaps with the 35/1.8G.

The problem is I've been so spoiled by the magnificent high ISO capability on the D700 coupled with the 50/1.4G. It absolutely slays available light photography, and I routinely go up to 12,800 without worry. Throw in a round of DxO Optics and everything is clean.

So here's what my post is about. Other than using your "non-D700" in great light outdoors or with flashes, do you cringe about not picking up the D700 for indoor/general shots? Are you spoiled by the D700 high ISO capability? :)
Click to expand...
Good post and I agree that basically anything less than D700 IQ causes me some annoyance now. The cam has totally spoiled me ;-) It just delivers and delivers.

I do use the D7K on my 500VR all the time, and I've been hauling out the D300 more of late as my indoors D700 backup since it has an AF advantage over the D7K in that situation.

For the past year I have given my D7K every opportunity as a backup in all the versatile situations I use the D700 for, and it has left me wanting in lower light from an AF and noise perspective (it sometimes just does not get the job done).

So, I'm taking the plunge and changing my kit from 2 DX cameras and one FX, over to 2 and 2. In most cases where I try to use a DX cam as a backup to my FX rig, the FOV doesn't quite work out and as I said am not as ecstatic about DX results in low light.

It has taken me a lot of years to finally take Thom's advice about shooting FX-FX or DX-DX at any one time - of course he was right all along! I do like DX-DX when I'm out shooting wildlife so I'm going to keep my DX cams and use them in situations where they excel.

So anyways, I'm anxiously awaiting developments on Nikon's upcoming FX camera announcements.

--
Best Regards,
SteveK

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
 
They're not on the same league, but the D7000 is very fun to shoot and in many ways (hello, shadow recovery at base ISO?) is better or matches the D700. At higher ISOs (2500 and above) the D700 rules. But up to ISO 1600, they do a good tit-for-tat. The D7000 is a lot easier to carry when I'm going for long walks or hikes. Actually, it's getting most of the action lately, so there you go. I go "back" to the D7000... or is it forward . Hard to tell, and I really don't care so long as I can capture compelling photos.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/
 
To quote some of you:
Ualnosaj said:
It's closer to the D700 in high ISO than any other APS-C out there, any maker. Actually, at base ISO if you want to push shadows it is possibly better (color especially). And it's a more capable body than the D80 at about the same size/bulk.
Click to expand...
Well the problem is this... I gave the D200 to my father along with all the DX lenses, then bought the D80 because it was the smallest decent model with top LCD, screw drive, and $350 for mint condition about 4000 actuations. Of course, that caused me to re-add some DX lenses to the mix again. The D7000 simply is in a difference price "league" in itself ;)
Ualnosaj said:
I have a D200 as well, but that would not have worked just fine!
Click to expand...
I agree, but yet I took all the pictures of my first born using the D200 and they turned out wonderfully. These days I wouldn't be able to go back the limiting high ISO (for indoor w/o flash for infant) and small LCD.
Ualnosaj said:
So my suggestion is D5100 or D3100
Click to expand...
Those just seem like toys compared to the handling on the D80. I can't put my finger on it why... (well, no screw drive is a start).
Ualnosaj said:
but it's hard to imagine not shooting the D700 for anything indoors, or anything that required great AF & low-light performance. Everything else seems frustrating in those situations.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm feeling.
Ualnosaj said:
given that there wasn't going to be so much low-light activity expected, I left the D3s behind, and just took the D700. My neck was so happy!
Click to expand...
What I feel as well, except I'm about the D700 -> D80 ;)
Ualnosaj said:
The cam has totally spoiled me It just delivers and delivers.

For the past year I have given my D7K every opportunity as a backup in all the versatile situations I use the D700 for, and it has left me wanting in lower light from an AF and noise perspective (it sometimes just does not get the job done).
Click to expand...
That's exactly it.
Ualnosaj said:
The D7000 is a lot easier to carry when I'm going for long walks or hikes.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and more so the D80 but the point here is in those situations, the D700 isn't really "needed" for it's high ISO.

Anyhow, the post is about how great the D700 is and if any others feel spoiled by it. This is in no way putting down other cams but it's just the odd time I pick up the D80 to do a quick impromptu shot indoors, even ISO 800 is a stretch for noise (even with DxO). I digress.

Time to take some pictures!
 
Ualnosaj said:
So here's what my post is about. Other than using your "non-D700" in great light outdoors or with flashes, do you cringe about not picking up the D700 for indoor/general shots? Are you spoiled by the D700 high ISO capability? :)
Click to expand...
Yes, I am very spoiled with the D700. Enough so that I own a pair of them.

I had a pair of D200 bodies when I purchased my first D700 (Jan 2009). After about 2 months, I couldn't stand the D200 - amazing to me because I really enjoyed them before the D700. I sold them both, along with all my DX glass.

Thinking a D300 would be a better back-up body, I added one. It gathered a lot of dust.

After the D800 rumors in January 2010, I had a F2/F3 flashback. When Nikon introduced the F3, pros began buying up all the remaining F2 bodies. The F3 had an electronic shutter control and thus was dependent on batteries. In those days, if you left the meter on you drained the battery - so the last thing we wanted was a dead camera due to batteries.

What if the D800 was NOT as good (for my uses) as the D700?

After a lot of though, I sold the D300 and got a second D700. After almost 2 years, I am quite satisfied with my choice. Other than studio/landscape work that requires renting a medium format camera or a D3x, the D700 is all I need.

Looking back 2 years, it seems funny to have been all worked up over "buy a D700 now or wait for the D800" issue.

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.
 
KnightPhoto2 said:
It has taken me a lot of years to finally take Thom's advice about shooting FX-FX or DX-DX at any one time - of course he was right all along! I do like DX-DX when I'm out shooting wildlife so I'm going to keep my DX cams and use them in situations where they excel.
Click to expand...
+1. I don't think that people who don't have a DX and an FX cam realize how they complement each other, but don't really mix well as backups.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net
 
mmmmmmmm said:
I rarely use the high ISO capability of the D700. I rarely get above ISO 800. It would be nice if the D700 had a true ISO 100 or even IS0 50. I do a lot of outdoor portraits with the 85mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4 lens. We also use the 70-200 VRII for portraits. There is more to life than high ISO photography.









Respectfully,
David Miller

PS I am gratefull that the D700 can do high ISO photography just in case I need to do some but I don't go out of my way just to turn up the ISO when I don't need too.
Click to expand...
(Obviously) I don't think anyone's gonna use HIGH ISO unless it's needed mind...

I regularly shoot with a 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 outside in bright sunlight @ 1.4. Just put the D700 to ISO 100. It's not true 100 but if you watch not to clip the highlights, the quality is exactly as 200. Also I find with the 1/8000 sometimes I can stay at ISO 200 and 1.4 on my lens...
 
I have used a D700 extensively for over thre years & luv it. Six months ago I bought a D7000, one more 0. I find it equally good for photo quality. Well, maybe not low low light.
 
I love my D700.

I also still like (don't love it just like it) my D2H in bright lighting for bird photography.

--
Geoff
Gold Coast, Australia
 
My DLSR progression; D80 to D200, to D700.
Love the ergonomics and metering of D200, IQ at base is very good.

The D700 has afforded me the tool that will get shots that no other camera I have owned will. Bless Nikon.

I still wish for a D700s in Nikons D700 upgrade, (plus the upgraded secret sauce that will be in the D4).
--

When cameras are completely automatic, monkees will be able to take good pictures.
 
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