Photoshop Insider

Nikon D700 Review (By Scott Kelby)

By Scott on Friday, August 15th, 2008 at 5:22 am | Reviews, Photo Gear.

A few weeks back, I went ahead and bought the new Nikon D700, but I really wanted to spend some time with it, and shoot in a number of different situations and scenarios, before I gave you my review. Now that I have a few thousands shots on it, I’m ready to share what I’ve learned.

My Field Report
The D700 was announced on July 1st, and Nikon seeded a number of photo sites with an early review unit, so for more than a month now we’ve all had access to very detailed write-ups of every single pixel, technical aspect, and mechanical specification possible. So, when I do a review, I want to bring a slightly different angle to it, so it’s really more of a ‘Field Report’ (what I liked and didn’t like and my personal impressions from actually using it out in the field).

My challenge in writing this field report, is that while it’s true the D700 is a new camera, it’s really two existing cameras made into one (the guts of a Nikon D3 inside the body of a Nikon D300), so I’m not going to have a bunch of exciting new features to share that everybody doesn’t already know about, so it’s really going to be a “feel for the camera” type of report, and my feelings on who might want one and why. We’ll start with a quick recap of what the D700 brings to the table.

Comparing it to the D300:

It looks just like a D300, and if you didn’t look at the name on the front (or the camera strap), you’d probably never know, so cosmetically, they’re very much the same, except that the D700 is slightly taller because of the updated viewfinder, and the D700 has the new flash sync and remote caps. Also, on the back the viewfinder area looks more like the D3’s, as does the multi-control wheel.
Since it has the D3 chip inside, you get two things: the Full Frame FX format sensor, and the incredibly low noise at high ISOs that made the D3 a truly groundbreaking camera. Although many working pros use the D300, Nikon (and many camera magazines), have always positioned the D300 as a consumer-level camera, but with the inclusion of the D3’s sensor, the D700 is a professional grade camera (just in a smaller package).
The D700 does have the D3’s Virtual Horizon feature (that gives you an aircraft-cockpit like readout to help you keep your camera level when shooting on a tripod), and on the D700 you can add this Virtual Horizon as an overlay when you’re using Live View.
The View Finder shows 95% of the actual frame area, vs. the 100% view you get from the D3’s viewfinder.
The Auto-Focus has been enhanced as well, and is an improvement over the D300’s (which is no slouch itself).
The downside of Full Frame is that for some shooters, it’s a disadvantage. For example, when I’m shooting sports, I get closer to the game (by around 50%) using a D300 because of the 1.5 DX magnification (my 200mm lens gives the equivalent of a 300mm lens on a full-frame sensor). I lose that advantage with a full frame D700.

Comparing it to the D3:

The D700 has something fairly significant that the D3 doesn’t have; a pop-up flash. Now, you might be thinking, “Well, who would want to use pop-up flash anyway?” You can use it to wirelessly trigger an off camera SB-800 or SB-900 flash, without having to have a 2nd flash or a separate commander unit. For me, that’s huge.
The D700 has the built-in Dust Sensor cleaner the D3 doesn’t have.
The D700 doesn’t have two memory-card slots.
The D700 is smaller and lighter than the D3 (but again, it’s not a pro-rugged as the D3, which is born to take a lickin’).
The D700 doesn’t have the little horizontal LCD at the bottom back of the camera for seeing, and changing, White Balance, ISO and Quality.
It doesn’t have as fast a Burst mode as the D3 (it does 5 fps with the body only. Add the battery grip and it goes up to 8 frames per second).
There are some tweaks to the software (like the ability to assign any camera function to the preview buttons on the front of the camera).

Things I Really Liked:

Besides the really obvious stuff (like High ISO and Full Frame, and the inclusion of a pop-up flash for triggering wireless flash), I really like how you access the memory cards—there’s no annoying memory card door button to push first—it’s just a simple slide of a panel (more like you have on some Canon models), and I think this is a step in the right direction for easy usability (hey, the little things matter).
I like that you can use the same batteries as the D300, so now I’ve got plenty of batteries for each camera (since I have both). The charger is smaller, and carrying a spare battery or two takes much less space and weight than the larger batteries on the D3.
I particularly like one change they made on the back of the camera; they moved the Info button to the far lower side of the LCD, and now it’s easily accessible with your thumb. It just seems like the perfect place for, and putting it there will probably get a lot more people using it.

What I didn’t like:

I could only come up with one thing that I didn’t like about the D700, but to me, it’s pretty significant. I don’t like the feel of the shutter. To me, it feels soft and kind of mushy (compared to either the D3 or the D300). This really surprised me, becasue one of the things I love best about Nikon cameras is the feel, and even the sound, of the shutter. It usually feels crisp. It sounds crisp. But to me the D700’s feels soggy and slow. By the end of the first day’s shooting, I was starting to get used to it, but that doesn’t mean I like it. I know that some people will like this new Carbon Fiber shutter better, and to some it just won’t matter, but if I could change one thing; this would be it.
There is one more issue, but it’s not a D700 issue; it’s a full-frame issue. The problem with the D700 is the same problem as with the D3; to really experience the full frame sensor advantage, you really have to have lenses that were made to take advantage of the full-frame sensor. If not, and you put DX format lenses on the D700, you get a 1.5x cropped image that’s only around 5 megapixels. If you have a lens like Nikon’s 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens, then you’re in luck—it works great with full frame, and doesn’t do the “DX Crop” thing. However, if you have the popular 18-200mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 VR lens, then your image will be cropped down to 5-megapixels. Hey, better you hear it from me, than learn it the hard way. I guess what I’m trying to tell you is this; you’re probably going to need more than just the D700 body. You’re probably going to need to buy a lens (or two) to make it worth your investment. If you shoot portraits, the incredibly crisp new 24-70 f/2.8 FX lens runs around $1,700. If you shoot landscapes, Nikon’s fabulous 14-24mm f/2.8 FX lens costs around $1,550. In short; you’re going to need the money you save from not buying a D3.

The Bottomline
The D700 just takes a better looking photograph than the D300 (and really, that’s what it’s all about—all the rest is really just bells and whistles). The new sensor, the autofocus, the low noise—it all adds up to photos that just beat the D300 (with the D700 you get D3 quality photos, which the D300, good as it is, just can’t deliver).

If all I can find to complain about is the feel of the shutter, this must be one heck of a camera (and it truly is). It puts a full frame 35mm size sensor in a lot of folks hands for $2,000 less than they expected, and they added features that even the D3 doesn’t have, which really makes it a pretty insane deal.

So, the question is; why would anybody buy a D3, when they can buy a D700 with a battery grip, and have nearly the same camera for almost $2,000 less? That’s a good question, and I can’t swear that if a friend asked me if they should spend the extra $2,000 for a D3 that I could look them in the eye and tell them it’s worth it. If they’re a sport shooter or a photojournalist, then I’d probably say yes. Outside of those two groups, I’d have a hard time justifying the extra cost.

Then, who should buy a D700? It’s for anyone who wants to shoot handheld in low light (at higher ISOs than you would ever consider with a D300, like 6400 ISO). It’s for anyone who really wants the advantage of shooting with a 35mm-sized full-frame sensor, and it’s for anyone who just wants better looking images than they’re getting now with a D300 or lower. So, in short, if you’ve dreamed of a D3 without the D3 pricetag, your dreams have finally come true in the Nikon D700 (and it’s why I’m awarding it my “Scott Thinks It’s Hot!” Award). Way to go, Nikon!

(photos courtesy of Nikon).

Comment form for this post

^#1

Great Review. Thank you for that.
After shooting with a Nikon D50 for about 3 years, I just got a “used” Nikon D200. Beside the fact that i also love the sound of the Nikon shutter (Canon has a crappy one, right? ) I love the easy handling. I think i will stay with it for a couple more years and see what comes out in near future

Dennys Hess on August 15th, 2008 at 5:43 am

^#2

When I wanted to upgrade from my D80, I only had the choise of D300 and the D3 but considering the price difrence and the new costy lensess I needed to by for the full frame, I whent with the D300, and knowing now from you about the crop factor from the full frame, I’m glad I whent with the D300, thanks for making me not being sorry for not getting the D700 Scott.

Feras on August 15th, 2008 at 5:55 am

^#3

I just sold my Canon 5D and 6 “L” series lenses to switch to the D700 and though I lost a good chunk of the investment I made in Canon, I don’t regret it one bit. The Nikon D700 is just one HECK of a camera! Believe me, making this switch was difficult - I love Canon. But I do so much low light shooting that I just couldn’t resist this camera. The quality difference at high ISO between the D700 and the 5D is night and day. No contest - the D700 comes out way on top. I had been using Canon’s 50mm f/1.2L to get good hand held shots at nighttime events but slow focus and super-shallow DOF was driving me crazy. Now shooting with the D700 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a DREAM. Nikon has clearly surpassed Canon with their higher-end camera bodies. Canon ought to take note and push themselves a bit harder before they lose too much traction.

Thanks for the review, Scott. I agree with all of your comments. I had planned on going to the D3 after spending an afternoon with Gabriel at B&H in NYC but a friend later talked me into going for the D700 and I’m totally happy that I did. Now I can spend the saved $$$ on more glass! (For some reason my fiancé doesn’t understand that logic…)

Mike Downey on August 15th, 2008 at 6:14 am

^#4

The ~95% viewfinder display is a real let down for me. I currently shoot with a D200 and have been doing some architecture shooting for stock recently. In this scenario it’s really important to see the whole picture so you know where the lines go etc. I was looking forward to a mini-D3 to get 100% viewfinder coverage but without it - I’m in no rush to move up.
(don’t fancy / need the larger body of a D3).

Daf on August 15th, 2008 at 6:32 am

^#5

QUOTE: “But to me the D700’s feels soggy and slow.”

That’s a pretty damning statement. It’s an issue that would manifest itself with… Every. Single. Shot. So your review seems a little like the old cliché, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

From the specs I saw, the D700’s shutter response is very competitive, so I’m more than a little puzzled. What’s the deal?

KimH on August 15th, 2008 at 6:52 am

^#6

Nice to read so deep review. I need to compare prices some time after release. But it looks pretty nice for my next camera upgrade!

ilya on August 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am

^#7

I am a Canon shooter but when I look to upgrade early next year the 700 may be the way that I go. Canon really needs to step it up. I think Nikon may be winning the race.

matt on August 15th, 2008 at 7:27 am

^#8

Re: the downsize to 5MP with DX lenses… I’m a huge Canon fan and it would require alot for me to do the switch but I would love if Canon also downsized to a lower MP with my EF-S lenses. This is actually a really good feature on the D700

Raven on August 15th, 2008 at 7:58 am

^#9

On winning the race, is it me or are most sporting events seeing black lenses more and more? Canon did the ad for several years about the white or grey lenses dominating. Look at the baseball games, and especially the Olympics, and the black lenses are back. For PJ and sports, the low light advantage seems to be HUGE. It makes me very glad to know the money I invested in my lenses over the years has been rewarded by great bodies as well.

Thanks Nikon.

Bill

Bill Bogle Jr. on August 15th, 2008 at 8:02 am

^#10

A rising tide raises all boats. Well done Nikon

Adam and His Feet on August 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am

^#11

Hey Scott - I was saving for the D3 and then the D700 pokes its pretty head. With the battery grip - i think its a pretty great deal. Thanks for the write up.

arun on August 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am

^#12

Scott,
Thanks for the review. The day I first read about the D700 I went to my local dealer and ordered one. I already had a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, and I also got a 24-70 f/2.8 from B&H. This camera just rocks! The only thing: I sure miss the range of my 18-200 lens I used with my “old camera” a D300. Maybe Nikon will build a full frame 18-200!!

Bryan Whitehead on August 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am

^#13

Hey Scott,
Thanks for the review, I was going to get it anyways… but uhm, quick question.
If I attach the popular Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens, will that crop it down or will that be fine as full sensor lens?

Sascha Njaa on August 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am

^#14

Nice review; thanks for putting this together. It’s very helpful, and I’ll now probably buy the D700 as a second camera/lens conbo to go with the D3. One point of confusion however…

I’ve NEVER understood the “advantage” of the 1.5X magnification on the DX sensor. If you want the “magnification” on the FX, why not just crop the picture to the DX size and print it. Personally, I think this whole issue was invented by the marketing folks, back before full frame sensors were available, as a way to overcome the disadvantage of the smaller sensors when digital SLRs first appeared (marketing people are good at that sort of thing; it’s call spin). This is the same thing as the “digital zoom” feature you see in P&S cameras, no doubt another term coined by the marketing gurus.

Of course, I realize there is a loss of resolution by cropping an FX image to DX for the “magnification” factor. But this really isn’t an issue with the 21MP sensors from Canon, and it won’t be with Nikon either, once they offer sensors with higher pixel counts. For now, I wonder if you’d really see the difference.

If I’ve missed something I would sincerely appreciate an explanation. Otherwise, that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Ron Carroll on August 15th, 2008 at 8:35 am

^#15

To Kim H:
I’ve talked to some of my friends who own D700’s, and although they agree the shutter feels different, apparently I’m the only one that doesn’t like the feel, so it would be unfair of me to “damn” the whole camera over something that only I’m seeing as a minus.

I would hate to steer someone away from one of the best cameras ever made, because of something that affects me one way, but for other users isn’t an issue at all.

Hope that helps clarify things a bit.

-Scott

Scott on August 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am

^#16

Scott,

Thanks you for the great field report. Your info and opinion that you provide are always great to read. My wife doesn’t thank you as this confirms my desire to upgrade from my D200.

Frank

Frank Weichmann on August 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am

^#17

Confused about the magnification factor comment. I’ve read several articles on this subject matter and I think the correct terminology should be crop factor. The sensor is not really magnifying anything. It’s just giving you less of the image captured.

Sam on August 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am

^#18

@ Ron Carroll

Besides the fact that you are reducing the resolution of the image by cropping the D700 to the D300’s field of view, which means you would get a smaller uninterpolated print at the a given resolution, the DX size sensor has an advantage in that it uses a smaller area of the Image Circle that the lens is transmitting back to the sensor. In theory, the sharpest part of a lens’ Image Circle is at the center, as it reaches the edges, it can lose some sharpness, so using less of the circle means you are using the sharper portion of the lens and should get better edge to edge sharpness. Also as any lens distortion usually is more noticable at the edges, the DX sensor “crops” out that portion of the image sensor.

That being said, you lose out at the wide end with DX, as your lenses won’t be as wide as they could be on an FX sensor. Also at the same Megapixel Count, the photosites on a DX sensor are smaller, which translates to poorer signal to noise performance. That is one of the reasons that the D3 and D700 stayed at 12MP and can be cranked up to 6400 ISO with very usable files. If a hypothetical D3x were to be announce with a 21MP count, do not expect the same noise performance as the D3 has now.

Scott,

I have to admit it, I gave you a hard time about a post you did a month or so ago when you only recommended the D300 to a first time SLR buyer, but after spending the day at B&H listening to the Nikon demonstration, I came away not so much impressed by the headline features of their cameras, but in the details that they thought to include.

I think that adding things like the Virtual Horizon indicator or the ability to autofocus in Live View mode and while you don’t like it, the choice of using your DX lenses on an FX body are the places where Nikon is differentiating itself from Canon. Nikon is focusing on making improvements to the user experience with these UI options that Canon isn’t. Combine that with their noise performance, Nikon is making a compelling case that their designers are more in tune with the needs of the photographer that this somewhat arrogant approach that Canon designers seem to take.

While I don’t think I will be running out and selling my L-Series glass just yet, I think that any first time buyer in the market today, or any event photographer should be giving the edge to Nikon. That may all change by the end of next month after Photokina, but for the time being I am very impressed with what Nikon has done.

Alessandro Rosa on August 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am

^#19

You did not note the lack of VR in these new really expensive FX lenses. Does IOS 6400 and F2.8 make this unnecessary? Or maybe pros are supposed to have a steady hand.

james wilson on August 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am

^#20

Scott,
I’ve read many reviews of the D700 (and I have one) and I must say that your clear, straightforward review is the best of all. It is an excellent guide for anyone trying to make a decision about whether to buy this camera.
Gayle

Gayle on August 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am

^#21

Thanks for the killer review Scott! Wow, I think this post is going to make it challenging to get your hands on a D700! lol

@ Sascha: I think you’ll be good to go with the 50mm. I’m currently shooting with a D3 and the 50mm f/1.8 is my favorite lenses to use on it (’cause the other ones make it a seriously heavy camera that can weigh you down after a couple hours in this Florida heat) and the D3 still provides full-11MB+ files with that lens. Scott, can you confirm if this is true on the D700?

Now if Nikon would only hit us up with a full line of FX lenses!!
(:
~Issac

Issac on August 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am

^#22

Oh! And Bill B., you’re right! http://gizmodo.com/5037406/quarter-million-dollars-of-digital-photo-gear-in-a-single-photo

Issac on August 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am

^#23

I’m also in the same boat as the other Canon shooters who’ve chimed in here. Now that my long-in-the-tooth 20D has paid for itself a few times over, I’m looking to upgrade. 6 months ago I would have told you I’d be a lock for either a 5d MkII (whenever that comes out) or maybe a 1D. Then I had friends start raving about the D3. Then I saw images that were shot at five digit ISO settings. Now this.

I think you’re right, Scott. Unless you’re consistently shooting in situations where the ruggedness of the D3 is a must, the D700 seems like it will be my next camera. Canon is going to have to blow the doors off with anything at Photokina to change my course.

Derek on August 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am

^#24

Hi Scott,

Thank you for the super detailed and personalized review. I have read a few reviews about the D700 before but didn’t see the ‘crop’ mentioned/explained so clearly anywhere (”If not, and you put DX format lenses on the D700, you get a 1.5x cropped image that’s only around 5 megapixels”). Thanks!!

I learn something every time I read your blog, Scott

By the way - I just read this on Slashdot this morning:
Photographers Face Ejection Over Lenses
(http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/1233238)

Merci,
Julien

Julien on August 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am

^#25

Scott ,

Thank you for the straightfull and plain review nowi know what to expect i also have a d3 and a d300 , i think the d700 would be the complement for both cameras specially if you have the grip , i think 12mp it’s more than enough for an event / wedding / stock photog sometimes 5mp is just enough.

What would be your new all around lens combo with the d700??

Talking about the feel and sound of the sutter that’s a real difference for me the d300 feels lousy next to the D3 , my all time favorite in this department is the sound and feel of the 5D . great observation!

Ruben Parra on August 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am

^#26

Thanks for this timely review / report.
I have held off purchasing any new Nikon gear now for a long while. I think this camera will soon be finding its way into my camera bag.
I will finally be able to use some of my older glass again, like the 16mm fisheye and the 28-70 f/2.8 from my days of shooting with an F5.

Thanks.
Alan

Alan Hess on August 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am

^#27

I just missed my opportunity to get a great deal on the D700; so maybe I’ll wait until next month. If you are a member of the Best Buy rewards program and have their “card”, usually every month or so they send you coupons; well the last time they sent the coupons there was one for 12% off that could be used for the D700. They then sweetened the pot by giving 2 year interest free financing! Wow……if $$$ is an issue, this is a great deal! Get a D700 for $2,640 and have up to 2 years to pay for it. I will seriously look at those coupons when they next come in!

Todd Klimek on August 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am

^#28

Now, I think I am ready for the D700

Great point of view !!!

Ben

Ben Olivares on August 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am

^#29

The D300 with the battery grip was alot bigger than the D3 & the D700 is a little bigger that the D300. So is you like the battery grips the camera is just getting to tall & heavy because of the AA’s you need to get 8 fps. & having dual card slots is Well just AWSOME…. Yes ill miss my popup flash but, we all have to pick & choose the best options we would rather have. For i just got tired of putting the battery grip on. From my old N80 to the D3…It was just about time. Also I think people should be careful about spending money on DX lenses. I bet the next D300 replacement will have be FX.

Jared on August 15th, 2008 at 11:44 am

^#30

Hi there,

No comment on your blog, but I just wanted you to know since you “the rolemodel”… get ready for it…

I passed my Photoshop ACE exam! Hiphip…

Sorry for the spam in this topic, but I didn’t found any mailadres.

Regards,
Mario

Mario on August 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

^#31

I just sold my D300 about a week ago along with 3 DX lenses. I’m currently cameraless but my D700 will arrive in about 10 days or so. I’m totally jonesing.
Anyhow, you mentioned one of the cons you didn’t like was the shutter. I know exactly where you’re coming from, but after a while of shooting the D300, it was indeed crisp, but sometimes just too dang loud. There was no secret ninjary, ever. But instead it was like driving a race car on the indy 500 track. Loud and fast. Pop, pop, pop.
So is this new mushy sound a little quieter? Like the D40’s, but only faster?

Dustin Diaz on August 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

^#32

I am lucky enough to have one of these and I absolutely love it. There is noticeable picture quality improvement across the board from the D300. I have been posting my thoughts and findings about it on my blog.

Great quick review and I definitely agree with your points. I think the shutter sound is different but not better or worse. I think it’s neat that it’s made of carbon fiber

Jon Van Dalen on August 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

^#33

Canon shooters: at least wait until the 5D successor is announced next month before selling all your L lenses and switching formats. Nikon’s been kicking our butts all year, but you all know the nature of this horse race.

I’ve had the chance to fiddle with the D700 & 14-24mm lens a little (just a little) and I can say that’s a powerful combo. But I’m not selling all my Canon gear yet. The D3/D700 will prove to be a great thing for Canon shooters because they raise the bar.

And like many of you, I hope Canon’s next full-frame camera can use the EF-S lenses. Such a smart feature, in my opinion, so come on, Canon, copy it!

Zak on August 15th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

^#34

Great review/thoughts. Just upgraded to a D300 earlier this year. Was shooting with a D80, the difference was amazing. I don’t even want to see the D80 any more. Now I’m scared to get my hands on the D700 because I’m not sure if I’ll be able to pass it up. Hopefully I’ll be able to include the D700 sooner than later.

Mike

Mike Paterson on August 15th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

^#35

It’s kinda sorta funny when we are ready to sell our “L” glass when we canon users get leap frogged. This market is in cycles. Both Nikon and Canon leapfrog over each other every couple of years or so. Two years ago Nikon users were jumping ship big time and now canon users are going the same. I actually saw a blog entry somewhere that took the overhead view of the Sports ‘togs and the Black lenses outnumbered the White lenses. (which is incorrect because Canon users can shoot with black, ala Sigma et al.,) but one side is always ready to feel bad about what they have and take a huge loss when it’s the other guys turn. This is technology and it’s a great thing for us.

Tom Aellis on August 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

^#36

Scott,

Glad I got my D300 and was to broke to buy the D700

Ken in KY

Ken on August 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

^#37

Scott-

Thanks for the excellent review. Great comments from everyone, too. I do want to point out one additional impact of the DX - FX image size issue: you need a lot heavier lens to get an equivalent focal length. One of the most common user comments about Nikon glass on the B&H Photo web site is weight.

I struggled recently between purchase of the 17-55 2.8 DX and the 24-70 2.8 FX lens for my D300. I ended up with the DX lens for two reasons. First, the FX was $500 more; second, I am not likely to replace the D300 for a couple of years–so I don’t really need FX sized glass. Sure, I’d love all the great glass Nikon makes and I drool over it all the time but, for me, money is an object.

Scott, keep up the good work! I have three of your books now and I’ve enjoyed them all.

Richard Chan on August 16th, 2008 at 12:15 am

^#38

Haven’t you experienced any problems with the memory card door? Moose Peterson didn’t like this door, as it opened a couple of times when it wasn’t supposed to, and felt kind of flimsy.

Second to last paragraph here:
http://www.moosenewsblog.com/archives/2008/08/14/a-week-of-d700-shooting/

Torbjorn on August 16th, 2008 at 4:37 am

^#39

Torbjorn,

I read Moose Peterson’s blog as well and I wouldn’t put too much weight to what he says. About the door, remember, he has been shooting mostly with D1’s 2’s and 3’s for years and all of those have a door lock which isn’t going to open up without you wanting it to open.

Anyone who has been shooting mainly prosumer DSLR’s for a while will be used to this kind of door. If you are really concerned about it, put a little piece of Gaffer’s tape on the door to keep it from accidently openning, but going to that extreme is boardering on paranoia.

Tom Aellis,

I for one won’t be selling my L-Series Glass, but I do have to give credit where credit is due and say that from a usability perspective, Nikon has added some really nice features that I mentioned in my post above that I don’t think you will see from Canon. Just think of how many years the photo review blogs have been clamoring for Canon to put a Mirror Lock-up button on the face of the camera. Have they listened? No. But they continue to add the PictBridge button to every single model including the 1’s and how many photographer’s do you know with a $3K+ Camera that are going to plug their camera into a printer to make prints directly?

Oh and as for the White Lens, Black Lens debate in sports photography, well not that it means very much anyway, but if you take a look at this I think you will have to admit that while there are some Nikkors, it is still predominently Canon.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/08/sports/olympics/20080808_OPENING_PANO.html?scp=1&sq=Opening%20Ceremony%20Panorama&st=cse#

My question is how does the fact that there are more Canon lenses, or that there are more Nikon lenses than in recent years at the Olympics effect the photos that you take? A camera and lens is a tool for doing a job. While you wouldn’t hammer in a picture frame nail with a sledge hammer, you should objectively look at the task that you need to perform and then evaluate which tool fits the bill. Usable available light images at ISO 6400 might mean a huge difference to the Wedding Photographer who isn’t allowed to use a flash at a service. For a Landscape Photographer with an RSS Ball Head Deathlocked onto a Gitzo tripod who has never seen an ISO above 200, is a camera that shoots fairly clean at 6400 even a factor? Maybe they will go for the 21MP’s of the 1Ds or maybe they will really jones over the virtual horizon on the Nikon’s because they are always loosing that pesky bubble level all the time. The point is choose the tool that is going to get you the best results for the photographic situation’s that you find yourself in most often and which fits your budget and skill level; those should be the true criteria which you use to pick out a camera anyway.

Alessandro Rosa on August 16th, 2008 at 7:45 am

^#40

Great review Scott! I currently am shooting with a D3 but am thinking that the D700 would be a really nice second camera to have while shooting weddings. Btw, I am going to Italy for vacation this year. I saw that you were there earlier. Anything specific I should know about? Any advice from your experience? BRAD

Brad on August 16th, 2008 at 10:10 am

^#41

I own a D3 and recently picked up a D700. I agree with scott, the D700 is just amazing. I travel with my camera a lot and the D3 is just too much of a moose to lug around all day. Especially with the FX glass. So now, the D3 is on e-bay. Gonna take a big hit, but the extra cash will go to some new glass. Thanks for a great review Scott.
PS never noticed a difference in the shutter sound until you mentioned it.

Tim W on August 17th, 2008 at 8:28 am

^#42

Hey Scott or anyone else. I have a question. You see I have friend that is a photographer for the local newspaper. Yesterday, I saw him taking some pictures of stuff at a Rib Cook-Off, good ribs by the way. Anyway, it was really bright and sunny outside. He was trying to view the shots through that LCD thing on the back of his Nikon D200. I was just wondering if there is something that can be used to help view images better in the middle of the day where it is really bright and so much glare will get on the screen of the LCD?

Sean on August 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

^#43

Sean,

The Hoodman Loupe http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2007/archives/283.

The current model is discontinued as I think that Hoodman is set to release a new model with an adjustable +/- 3.0 Diopter. http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017 $80 at Hoodman store but currently out of stock.

Otherwise Delkin makes customized shades for most all of the major cameras which sells for around $20. I have never used one and I doubt it is as effective as the Hoodman, but it is an option.

Alessandro Rosa on August 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

^#44

Hey Scott
Thanks for the unique and non-technobabble everyman review of this amazing piece of gear. (I do read the technobabble, but its not nearly as interesting)

Kinda off topic, but the recent blast of posts of LR2.0 got me thinking —

I love the printing module of Lightroom, and am stoked at all the improvements - but there is one feature “missing”, that I would love to see added.

I’m getting my masters in photography and as such, still use the “old school” printed contact sheet way of editing (at least for the first few passes - i shoot photo-j, and my last project was about 11,000 images - its nice to have sheets of images to go through instead of thumbnails on the screen) - this way I can quickly share and have professors and peers mark off and tell me their opinions.

what i would love is for adobe to pimp the options to print filenames under the photos, which they do already - but have the option to print flag status, star ratings and such. I know you can print the “rating” -but that just gives you a numeral value (1-5) under your image. I would love to be able to see a little flag or star, easily identifying my picks in my sheets of images.

I would probably be the only one in the world to use this option , so I’m guessing it will never happen, but hey, you can dream right!!

Thanks for the constantly informative and cool blog.

JB

John on August 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

^#45

Scott - love your site and I’m glad to see that you picked up a D700. I am finding this camera to be stunning. I moved back from Canon (5D) to Nikon with this body. There are tens of little things that add up to a much faster camera for me to use and a much more fun camera to shoot with (and shooting should be fun to my way of thinking). Brief examples are the fantastic implementation of auto-iso, so simple and yet saves me lots of time and ensures that I’m not shooting at a sensativity higher than the one I need (e.g. I might have set it for 1200 based on certain light on a 5D but could have got away with a lower ISO in some parts of a room) and the responsiveness of the AF and how fast the buffer clears leaves me with a camera that is hard to trip up - I am finding that I’m not missing a shot in a sequence waiting for a buffer to clear (with a 300x UDMA card) and the AF is performing so well. Even being able to format a card without going into the menus - selecting format - rolling the thumb wheel to the right and then hitting the center enter button (ala my 5D) is a well thought out feature (reminds me of the mid-film rewind button combination from the Nikon film bodies, if I recall correctly).

A brief aside - you don’t like the sound of the shutter? I find it crisp and solid. The 5D had a nice bass thud to it - much better than the 30D. The D700 gives the impression of speed - as in fast and letting you know it can produce it’s “thwack” quickly on command should the shutter button be held down in “CH” mode. (One note for 5D users - caution, I have my D700 in CH and accidently had my finger hit the shutter as I brought my camera down and I quickly captured 3 frames of a lovely green lawn).

Theodore on August 17th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

^#46

Hey Scott,

thank you for your nice and informative review. It comes handy to me since I’m thinking about changing to a D300 for a few month (I’m using a Canon 5D actually). Not that I’m dissatisfied with my gear, but I love the handling concept of the newer Nikons.

Well one thing you don’t like would be an advantage for me: the ability to use DX at a fullframe camera at all. With Canon you can’t use EF-S (which compare to DX) lenses on a FF or APS-H cameras like the 5D or 1D. It’s limited by the hardware construction. Ok, for sure it’s not THAT killer feature, but it becomes very handy if you where on holidays f.ex. and want to use some light lenses instead of carrying your 14 pound backpack all the time. The DX 5MP are still enough to achieve some reasonable prints.

Thanks again, always a pleasure to read your blog.
Uwe

Uwe on August 18th, 2008 at 2:04 am

^#47

Thanks for the very useful review…

I really like ur expression.. “Scott thinks it’s Hot”

osama on August 18th, 2008 at 7:25 am

^#48

This really is a great camera. I am new to the Nikon world with a D80 and I love it. I have some friends that have the higher models and they are all fantastic!

Embassy Pro Books on August 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am

^#49

#42 - Check out the “hoodman loupe”. You can also cover your head with a jacket or a piece of cloth.

Mark Dalrymple on August 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

^#50

Scott is very confused by the DX vs. FX chip. He incorrectly states:

“I get closer to the game (by around 50%) using a D300 because of the 1.5 DX magnification”

In fact the DX does NOT magnify the image. It crops the images as compared to a 35mm (D700 FX) frame. The D700 FX chip is larger and so covers a wider angle. The D300 DX sensor is smaller and it definitely does not magnify. They both have about 12 mega-pixels though. If you are shooting wildlife then the D300 DX format jams more pixels into a smaller sensor, allowing you to magnify and blow up your images afterwards with less degradation. For landscapes, real estate interiors, and other wide angle applications the D700 FX sensor’s broad coverage is better.

Jeff in Los Angeles on August 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

^#51

Scott,
Quick question, when the D300 first came out, it was touted as being a baby D3 (similar processor) however you said that the D700 is quieter at higher ISO than the D300. Is this because of the sensor size or is the processing that much different? I am thinking of upgrading and am trying to decide if the extra $1,200 is better off into the body or into glass… I only have one DX lens so that’s not a real deal breaker…

Thanks for the awesome site (the boss would kill me if he knew how much time I spent here) and for being such a stand up guy!

Adam

Adam on August 18th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

^#52

Jeff in Los Angeles:
Thanks for catching that. I’m not confused though—I just wrote that really late at night, and used the wrong term. Thanks for setting me straight.

-Scott

Scott on August 18th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

^#53

Scott,
The DX crop function is menu selectable in the Shooting Options menu, under Image Area. With this option turned off the full sensor will be recorded along with any vignetting that occurs when a DX lens is mounted.

The 12-24 f/4 DX can be used at 18-24mm where it fills the full FX sensor. But the 18-200 vignettes almost its entire range. I have a 17-55 at work but haven’t tried it on the D700 to see how it fares. Those are the only DX lenses I have access to.

Bill

Bill H on August 19th, 2008 at 1:53 am

^#54

Just upgraded to D700, shutter really sounds abit weird. haven’t really tested the rest of the features.

Aik Tee on August 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

^#55

Thanks for a great review… my only problem is now deciding between the D300 and D700 as I upgrade from my trusty but dated D70s.

I have yet to find any reviews that tell me where one or the other would be better for an amateur such as myself. As much as I would love it I am having a hard time finding the justification for it…

kayla keenan on August 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm

^#56

Thanks for the review; I bought one this morning [ D 700 ] and like a fool am reading the review afterwards. Any way it backs my own judgement having been a D100 and latterly D80 user I will do my best to read the instruction book. I feel we very often dont get the best out of the camera by never being familiar with all the functions. Many thanks again. I’m glad I didnt go for the D300. david@lochnessimages.com

david watmough on August 28th, 2008 at 9:42 am

^#57

I just switched from the D300 to the D700 and I am so much happier. I have Scott’s trio, the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and let me tell you, the D700 really takes advantage of those amazing lenses.

The photos from my new D700 have the “look” I was after. The only other cams that I’ve seen that have that same look were the 1DMarkIII and the D3, so for $2,600 (Best Buy + coupon), I am right there in the mix.

I don’t think I can go back to a D300 as a backup–might have to save for another 700, it’s that much better. Oh, and I really like the shutter over the D300’s, crisper and quieter IMHO.

The only thing I miss about the D300 is the multi-controller–the D700 uses the D3 controller and to me, the D300 is so much better, not as sloppy and has a lower profile. Too bad that part didn’t carry over from the 300, it was MUCH better, even without the dedicated center button.

Aloha,
Keoni

Keoni Ahlo on August 29th, 2008 at 4:24 am

^#58

Couldn’t sleep, so here I am at Scott’s site! I’ve had the d700 for 2 days, also own the d300 and d200 (I love having the option of multiple lenses immediately ready at events, etc.). I did a quick test last night- I’ve heard it’s still handy to have the dx format for telephoto shooting- makes sense to me, since you’ve got the additional 1.5 magnification. But I’m shooting at a night football game tonight, so wanted to figure out what combination works best in a low-light telephoto situation. I compared the 70-200 2.8 VR on both cameras, along with a nikon 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. Basically, d300 with 70-200 equals the reach of the d700 with same lens and 1.4 teleconverter, with an increase in iso on the d700 to match shutter speeds(you lose a stop with the 1.4x, and 2 stops with the 2x). After the first comparison, I then I tried the 1.4x on the d300 compared to the 2x on the d700 to again get comparable reach. In both situations, adding the extra teleconverter length and higher iso to the d700 didn’t matter- it’s clarity still blew away the d300 combo. In a brighter situation I can still use the d300/70-200/2x combo to get a longer reach (equivalent of 600mm), but for lower light, d700 with higher teleconverters beats the d300 hands-down. Thanks, Scott, for all info you bring to the table!
http://www.khphotography.smugmug.com

Kurt Heinecke on August 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am

^#59

I was a little concerned about the D700 not having an Adobe RAW format. I went down to a local store and took some shots (in RAW format) for comparison to my D200. Adobe Bridge could not view the thumbnails and CS3 would not open them. Did I miss something? The specs do not list the Adobe RAW format ass an option for the D700. I realize that you could take the shots in Tiff or jpg format, but there are a lot of advantages to using the RAW format. Is there an Adobe plug-in that would allow CS3 to process the RAW images?

Tonyp on August 31st, 2008 at 5:35 pm

^#60

I am pretty much sold on the D700, so thanks for the info.
I was interested about the lenses, and whilst I can’t afford the new FX specific ones, I’m wondering if my older wet film lenses (Gold Lettered) ED Lenses will see a return in the final images.
Here I’m talking about the AF-S:17-35 f2.8D and the 80-200 F2.8D & the 28-70 f2.8D. Plus I use the 85mm f1.4.
That’s about all I can carry in my bag plus 2x bodies, 3x SB800 and the above mentioned lenses, so I see no need to go buying new lenses.
Are these lenses compatible and good enough to warrant the investment in 2x D700 bodies over the present 2x D200 bodies?
My work isn’t suffering because I don’t have them, but I’m happy to trade up to the D700’s if the lenses are AOK still and I’m going to see better images from my wedding work.
Love the idea, as we roll into Autumn, of shooting in low light all the evening long here in the UK!
Thanks
Tim

tim fisher on September 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm

^#61

Did attempt to purchased a D3 online - My card got declined and in between I was having a chat with a friend photographer who swears by the D700- He actually pointed me to your site- and that got me to move for the D700
I was cautious about the fact that D700 was going for twice as less clicks to the D3 - But I sort have the feeling that it might not be true and it is just a way to justify the D3 price - Anyway my first D700 is on the way - Off to washington for a job in a few days + a wedding coming soon cannot wait to try it out
Wedding photographer France

olivierlalin on September 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm

^#62

I collect mine in the morning.
TBH, I am 1/2 expecting to be blown out of the water by her, if not, then what does £2k buy you?
Then there’s the problem : if it really is a stallion in a field of cart horses (D200 / D2H) have I done myself no favours at all?!
Will I then need to consider my D200 bodies as dead in the water were it to be so remarkably superior?
That’s Pandora’s Box for sure.
In which case Scott I expect you to contribute some £ towards the 2nd body, since you started all this!
Will keep you posted on how I get on with some jobs.
Tim

tim fisher on September 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm

^#63

Got mine now and the shutter has a very sharp sound. The quick read instryuction booklet is too small and the instructions proper very thicK. But I’m already snapping away with it David.

david watmough on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm

^#64

I traded in a 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens, a 12-24mm f/4 DX lens, a D200 with battery grip and paid some money to get the D700 and haven’t looked back since. The D700 gives you incredible quality for the price you pay for the camera.

I am saving up for the 24-70mm f/2.8 so in the mean time I am using a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens on the body at full frame. I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens which works wonders on this body. Used it at a local concert recently and came out with incredible shots.

Sample D700 Photos
http://picasaweb.google.com/beanoo/

Out of curiousity, how much did you need to pay for the D700 camera body Scott?

Cheers.

Nikko Tan on September 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

^#65

Immediate thoughts:
You have to remove the entire motor drive to get at the camera’s 2nd battery as the MB-D10 only takes 1x battery. Rubbish idea.
The card hatch needs a catch as on my other D bodies, it’s way too prone to open at the slightest touch. Not clever at all.
The large rubber cover over the USB, HMDI, DC in is absolutely rubbish. It opens in its entirety almost without provocation.
Still evaluating the images and ploughing through the tome that is the handbook, but favourable thus far.
Tim

tim fisher on September 5th, 2008 at 6:53 am

^#66

I bought my D300 on June 14 (as a birthday gift to myself) in hopes to get a D3 by the end of the year; so, I was irked when the D700 came out just two weeks after I made the biggest purchase of my [photography] life! I still need to master the D300; but, I’m kind of regretting that I didn’t just buy the Canon 5D for its full-frame since my starter camera was the Rebel; it’s like more than half wedding photographers uses the 5D. *sigh*

MsBunn.com on September 7th, 2008 at 4:13 am

^#67

Can’t imagine that the D300 is quite the dud you’re making it out to be.
The 5D has been around for a long time, so it’s popular. I’ve been making a living with the lesser cameras, so don’t beat yourself up over the D300 - I don’t need prints bigger than 20×16 as most everything is Graphi Books and Jorgensen Albums, So the D200 & D2H are still perfect for the weddings and portraits we shoot.
Tim

tim fisher on September 7th, 2008 at 4:49 am

^#68

Scott,

I see an answer for your question: the D3’s cost per shot is smaller than the D700 (even without the grip and more expensive batteries), considering the mechanical lifetime of their shutter systems and alleged reliability. Nikon grants you 300,000 shots with the D3 (US$ 0.0166 per shot) and 150,000 with the D700 (US$ 0.02).

Renato Targa on September 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

^#69

Hey Dude.

I no nothing about photography. I own a D200 and will trade up to a D700 after reading Ur review.
My 2 questions are:

What are the best two lenses to buy extra, for the D700 ?

I will but the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8

Which is the best bag to haul around the D700 plus 2 or 3 lenses.

Thanks

GC

Galactic Cannibal on September 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

^#70

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vt2giant/
for some test images from 200 - 25600 asa.
Tim

tim fisher on September 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am

^#71

scott,

thank you so much for your review and all of your excellent photoshop publications. you are my favorite resource.

i own the following 2 lenses:
nikon ed af-s nikkor 28-70mm
nikon ed af nikkor 18-35

will these lenses allow me to have the full benefit in terms of quality, when used with the d700?

thank you,
david

david on September 28th, 2008 at 1:19 am

^#72

Hi All
I just bought a Nikon D700.
It is awesome. I do agree about the full frame glass. You have to invest in glass but then hey it looks like this baby will stay with me for a long time and so any investment in glass will be worth it. I was very impressed with the image quality and sharpness with this camera.
On the ease of use Ifound it at first a bit difficult to navigate the menus, but once you get used to it, it is a breeze. This camera really comes into its own in very low light conditions delivering excellent picture qulaity, shot after shot. If you have a D700 go outside now switch on all your house lifghts take a picture of your house at night and take another camera and you will definetly see the difference with this camera with the ISO cranked up to 3200 or even 6400. .
Well Done Nikon.

Prakash Bhikha on October 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

^#73

Hi Scott,

I love your work and your blog. I do own a small web/graphic design company in Ireland but I have only recently developed a passion for photography. I bought your Digital Photography books and they are fantastic and have really inspired me to take better photographs. I have been using a canon 400d (rebel xti) using the kit lens 18-55 and a sigma 70-300, this has been fine for the general shots i needed for small business websites imaging their office locations etc. I am very interested in getting a pro camera setup and have been asked to shoot a friends wedding shortly. I wanted to know what you thought of deals like this:
http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300263537338&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RCRX_Pr4_PcY_BID_Stores_IT&refitem=350101382241&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget&_trksid=p284.m184&_trkparms=algo%3DCRX%26its%3DS%252BI%252BSS%26itu%3DISS%252BUCI%252BSI%26otn%3D4

Are these lenses good enough, I really want to start with the best lenses and which 2 lenses would you suggest could give me the best results for a wedding shoot and general product/office location shots for my web design business? Sorry for all the questions but I really could do with your professional advice!

Thanks so much

Leslie on October 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

^#74

Hey Scott,

I’m about ready to buy this camera if I can use the Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200mm but I’ve read that this lens on the D700 is soft at the edges in FX.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page7.asp

Have you experienced this or is this an updated lens?

Thanks,
Stewart

Stewart on October 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

^#75

That’s it, this review seals my descision. D700, handsdown, is my upgrade! My D80 will serve as backup and I will still keep my F5 but on the bookcase more than in the bag once the D700 arrives.

The F5 just delivered spectacular shots the D80 shots were close but not near as saturated or sharp as the F5 shots. Thanks Scott, I can’t wait to get my D700. I already have all fullframe lenses! Thanks for the great review and providing me with overwhelming incentive to pony up the bucks and make the leap!

Rick on October 14th, 2008 at 2:07 am

^#76

I’m switching from b&w film to digital. I work almost exclusively in b&w. Will I get better quality if I shoot in b&w mode or is it better to shoot in color and then convert to b&w.

Thanks.

Julie Foreman on October 20th, 2008 at 9:25 pm