Yet another Nikon dilemma

Davidoff

This is more of a thinking out loud post than a real question but maybe I'll get some helpful input and help out others in similar situations in the process. Will be long

I'm a believer in having just enough gear to get along and not get in the way, buying only things that I really need, no more no less, and using them until repairs are too expensive or I get a good deal selling them off. For example, I had a D70s, my first camera, until 2010.

I bought a D90 that same year because the D70s had a few problems and then it fell on the floor and I found a great deal on a D90. Of course, I would have preferred a D300s but at the time it was over twice as expensive as the used D90 I bought and even though I could use the extra features I couldn't justify it. Also, I wasn't going to spend that much on a camera that wasn't even the one I really lusted after, the D700.

Other than my own work which is rarely properly paid, I sometimes assist others in weddings where my gear has never really been an issue and if really needed they can generally lend me something for the day.

However, after extensively using the 5D MkII for several different purposes I decided I was not going to invest in a crop body or lens again. The responsiveness, viewfinder, sharpness and reduced depth of field spoiled me for DX.

This year I may assist in a hand full of weddings where a D700 would be handy but more importantly I may do a couple on my own. In that case it's not just a matter of wanting a D700, it's also a matter of needing two bodies. Keep in mind that even if it is a good year for assisting and I do get one or two weddings for myself they would not come even close to the price of a D700 and an FX lens.

Now that the D800 was announced it may be the last few months where I can buy a new D700. At the moment a D800 is 1000€ more than a D700 which I must admit is a smaller difference than I would have expected. As you can expect I'm considering both. Pros for the D800: new, top of the line body and files, longer shutter life, better viewfinder, screen and af, usb 3 as well as dual cards and great video.

For the D700: 1000€ cheaper, does what I need worlds better than the D90, much more manageable files.

Do you think it's a bad idea going for a D700 now ? Do you think it's late for that and it would just lose value really fast ?

Thanks for reading, looking foward to some input

Matthew Saville

As someone who "made do" with a D70 until 2010, I'd say you're a prime candidate for scooping up some "upgrader's" D700. Talk 'em down to $1800 or so, and go for it.

The D700 is just one of those cameras that isn't going "out of style" any time soon. Nikon pulled out all the stops, so unless you REALLY need megapixels, or video, it could last you forever.

=Matt=

Davidoff

Thank you Matthew. My problem with upgrader's D700 is that I'm seeing them go around here for 1500€ or 1600€ and they are rare for now at least. I think I'd prefer to pay an extra 200€ for a new body with 2 year warranty than a used one that can have anything from a month's use to a couple of years'. I don't really need mp's or video but what's making the decision harder are other things like weight, dual cards, focus, screen, viewfinder, dynamic range... for an extra 1000. And the fact that the D700 will soon be a 4 year old camera.

timpoitevin

Davidoff wrote: »

Thank you Matthew. My problem with upgrader's D700 is that I'm seeing them go around here for 1500€ or 1600€ and they are rare for now at least. I think I'd prefer to pay an extra 200€ for a new body with 2 year warranty than a used one that can have anything from a month's use to a couple of years'. I don't really need mp's or video but what's making the decision harder are other things like weight, dual cards, focus, screen, viewfinder, dynamic range... for an extra 1000. And the fact that the D700 will soon be a 4 year old camera.

I'm in the same boat. I'd much rather own a D700 for the low-light capabilities (I shoot music and theater) than the D800. I wish Nikon would drop the price of the D700 and continue making it, but I'm sure they wont. So I'm stuck without a viable D700 alternative unless you spend twice as much for the D4, which I can't justify. Our only hope is that Nikon surprises us with a new, downsized D4 with fewer MP in the D700 price range - something I also don't see happening any time soon (there isn't even a rumor about it). So for now I will carry on with my D300 and stretch my ISO 1600 shots as best I can until a viable FX low-light camera comes along that will take advantage of my 2.8 lenses. Here's to 2014 being a good Nikon release year...

perroneford

timpoitevin wrote: »

I'm in the same boat. I'd much rather own a D700 for the low-light capabilities (I shoot music and theater) than the D800.

Current testing shows the D800 to be equal to or slightly better than the D700 in low light capability. So, what's the issue?

Davidoff

perroneford wrote: »

Current testing shows the D800 to be equal to or slightly better than the D700 in low light capability. So, what's the issue?

Exactly. I'd be really surprised if a resized D800 file isn't at least as good as a D700 file at the same iso.

perroneford

Davidoff wrote: »

Exactly. I'd be really surprised if a resized D800 file isn't at least as good as a D700 file at the same iso.

The testing I've seen suggests it's as good WITHOUT the resize. With the resize it looks to be pushing into D3s territory. Or at least that's what I saw when I processed some D800 files and compared them to my D3s at the same ISO.