Nikon D700 previewed, demystified

Now that Nikon has deftly slipped the full frame (FX) D700 into the already tight slot separating its mid-range DX D300 and pro FX D3, we know what you're thinking. Huh? Fortunately, both Rob Galbraith and DP Review have given this a thorough analysis along with a titillating preview courtesy of DP Review. As Rob puts it, "If you own a D3 and a D300, then you have in two separate bodies most of the key bits and pieces that comprise the D700." While the choice between the $1,800 D300 and $3,000 D700 is more clear, prospective $5,000 D3 buyers won't be blamed if they profess a desire to hold-out for the 24.39 megapixel D3X expected within the next 12 months.

Read -- Rob Galbraith's take
Read -- DP Review preview

[happy_penguin @ Jul 1st 2008 2:26AM]

Oooooh... pretty....

[SITEiNK @ Jul 1st 2008 2:50AM]

i want this camera.

[Johan S @ Jul 1st 2008 3:21AM]

How's the dynamic range on the sensor?

[Johan S @ Jul 1st 2008 3:37AM]

You know if it can do 5 fps at 12.1 megapixels .. there is prolly a way to get the sensor reading out at 2 megapixels a frame (ie, HD 1080) at 30 fps (HD video). Wonder if a firmware hack can do the job.

[Temple @ Jul 1st 2008 4:48AM]

It can do 8fps with the grip (which is insanely fast). The D3(same sensor) can do 11fps in DX mode (which is around 5MP). From the sensor-side it could likely do 1080p and 30 fps (with the mirror locked up).

While it would be interesting to have a full-frame sensor HD-video camera like the RED ONE. The D700/D3 really isn't a HD video camera, maybe they can make a video camera using this sensor and Nikon lenses, but this isn't the target market of this camera.

[Cybes @ Jul 1st 2008 4:52AM]

Say goodbye to Canon people, Nikon has now almost finished nailing and obliterating the Canon line, 5D and 5D followups wont come close to touching this baby! And once Nikon's D3X comes out, the 1Ds Mk3 can wave goodbye to even being considered competition too!

[Fuzz Martin @ Jul 1st 2008 6:47AM]

Riiiiiiiight. Yeah - I'm going to go sell $6,000 worth of lenses because Nikon released the next camera that will be obsolete in 6 months. Of course, I don't know who would buy my lenses now that Canon is no more.

Dumbest. Comment. Ever.

[Josh Warner @ Jul 1st 2008 8:55AM]

I've seen the example pics, and the Canon 5D still wipes the floor with the D300 DX sensor and the D3 fullframe in terms of sharpness. I'm a Nikon guy (have a D200) and wish it were otherwise, but facts are facts and the pics don't lie.

This camera will be BEHIND the 5D in sharpness, have approx. the same pixel count, and will try to command twice the price of the 5D after rebates? This is nowhere NEAR an 'obliteration' of the Canon line - the 5D will remain superior for 33% less! Nevermind the likely fact that Canon has been sitting on an update to the 5D for a year or two but not bothering to release it, thanks to a lack of competition in the 'affordable' fullframe market.

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. The 5D already is superior to the D700 where it matters: the end image. The 5D may be a bit harder to operate (personally I've always preferred Nikon's controls) but where fullframe matters, namely in landscapes, sharpness is critical for enlargements and the 5D is just better than either of Nikon's 12 Mpxl sensors (DX or FX variants).

Your fanboyism makes people, like myself, who prefer Nikon look bad. Please leave.

[happy_penguin @ Jul 1st 2008 12:11PM]

I'm a Nikon fan and owner, and even I find this comment to be lame.

[Cassini @ Jul 7th 2008 5:48PM]

@Josh Warner

Yeah, right... you know the D700 *is* behind the Canon 5D because of all of your experience with the D700 which isn't even available yet (also keeping in mind that the preliminary reviews Engadget points to are based on pre-production models). And you say the 5D does better than a D3? Please.

You say you saw some photos. Where? Photos taken and post-processed by whom, with what software, with which glass, taken in what kind of lighting, and at what settings, and printed on which printers? Were the photos based on a controlled environment ran by the same person with a motive of true objectivity, or was it just some subjective thing, or fueled by some PR stunt to create a slant of some sort? All I'm trying to point out is that you are *seriously* reaching - there's too much to consider which is unanswered to simply believe your overly simplistic argument based on "I saw some pictures". No one is going to believe that an aged 5D is going to produce better photos than a state of the art Nikon D3 or D700 with their highest quality glass.

Who of us have any reason to believe that a state of the art, full frame, Nikon D700 that won't be shipping until August would fail to produce clearer photos than a three-year old Canon 5D with aged technology?

Talk about anecdotal commentary. And no true Nikon fan (as you profess to be), would ever make such a reaching (and completely false) comment based on zero experience without any true hands on time with the models you're speaking of. (Did I point out that the D700 isn't available yet?).

[revaaron @ Jul 1st 2008 9:06AM]

the all butt hurt person that said that the 5D wipes the floor of with he D3/D300 doesn't know what they are talking about. I admit that I prefer and shoot mostly nikon, but for over a year, I shoot (or shot) with nikon AND canon (5D), but then I got a D3. My world changed that day. Even my gf (also another professional photographer) uses my D3 over her 5D all the time. The D700 will be better in the hands of a photographer that knows how to use it cause it's newer technology and a better sensor. The 5DmII or 7D or whatever will probably have the same thing said about it, but right now there is no beating the D3's sensor.
Also, my 4 year old Kodak SLR/n kills the 5D AND D3 if you are shooting ISO160 (or ISO6). And that camera is suppose to be the worst camera ever.

[Alex @ Jul 1st 2008 1:04PM]

This is the way things stand:

-Every major sports game you go to what do you see?
A sea of white lenses (Canon Ls). Are all the sports shooters going sell all their Canon gear now that the D700 is out? Doubt it. It's worked very well for them so why mess with a good thing. As far as high ISO (which is NIkon's biggest strength) most national arenas are lit enough to get shot @ ISO800-1600 with 300 2.8 IS, 600 F4 IS lenses. For basketball the 85 1.8 from the baseline is unbeatable indoors when it comes to AF and low light capabilities (the 85 1.2 is slower in AF a more of a portrait lens, also weights over 2 lbs).

-High ISO is where Nikon is king. The images that I've seen at high ISO (ISO 6400+) are a lot better than Canon. If you are doing some work where this can come in handy then it would be a big plus. I guess certain weddings where you can't use flash during the ceremony. Then again the 135L f2 can get fantastic results, combine that with a with the 24-70 2.8L on @2 5D and you are all set.

The biggest problem is the Nikon lens lineup.

Canon's huge inventory of lenses (especially 2.8 and and faster with IS) is a big part of the reason why people are into Canon gear.
You're not buying the camera, you are buying a system.

Nikon has better high ISO quality, their flashguns are very accurate compared to Canon's speedlights which tend to overexpose in tricky situations.

[Cassini @ Jul 7th 2008 6:04PM]

My understanding is that part of the reason why you see so many Canons among sports photographers also has to do with the fact that Canon works very hard to market themselves, which includes not only making their L-glass with white casings (for easy brand recognition from any distance - you see a white lens, you know it's Canon), but also by sponsoring many of those photographers by providing them with free top-of-the-line equipment. And who wouldn't want free high-end camera equipment? I can't prove the sponsoring part of it, it's just what I've heard, but it isn't out of the question, and there is a logic behind it.

If you look over and most of what you see is Canon gear, it's going to affect your thinking. You're going to think, "Wow, if all those pros are using Canon gear, then that's probably what I should get." If Canon is truly marketing in that way (which is smart), then it seems to have affected your thinking, too (based on your observations and comments).

Canon has good gear, good lenses, but so does Nikon. And although Canon may have a wider selection of lenses, Nikon has a very nice lineup of 2.8 (and other) lenses.

[husky_1 @ Jul 1st 2008 1:39PM]

in europe Nikon will sell it it at 2500 euros, here you can see an hands on preview (translated by google from italian) http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techup.it%2Farticoli%2Fnikon_d700_nuova_full_frame-0679&hl=it&ie=UTF8&sl=it&tl=en

[Dustin Diaz @ Jul 1st 2008 3:18PM]

This is actually an excellent camera. People that mention that this camera clinches Nikon's entry into the professional sports world, they already did that with the D3. So technically speaking, the D700 is not Nikon's best Digital Camera.
Here's a small clip from when D3's were spotted at NFL games:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/894

The reason you see the sea of canon's is because that's simply what has been around. No photographer in their right mind would sell tens of thousands of dollars of Canon equipment to just jump to a D3 (or this D700).

I personally own a D300, but have graduated from several other earlier Nikon Digitals throughout the years... by which I mean that I did not have to sell a bunch of Canon gear.

[Kohlerphotography @ Jul 7th 2008 7:59PM]

PEOPLE!! We really need to stop this "Canon sucks, Nikon is better or, "Nikon sucks, Canon is better" type of thinking! I am a pro Nikon user that has never used a Canon, but thats not really the object of this. Do you think you could make more money doing events or weddings or whatever with a specific brand? Doubtful, either brand in the hands of a pro WILL produce stunning pictures, PERIOD!!! Any of you that are pro's on this site know what goes into a good photo. Learn to use your brands top line offerings and move on....... I need to go make money with my camera now without worrying what the guy next to me is using.

[Qino-phec @ Jul 8th 2008 3:21AM]

Thank you, Kohl...

Most of you are displaying your ignorance and lack of knowledge like real pros here.

I shoot with a D3, D80, and D300 as well as a 5D.

My 5D out performs my D3 and other Nikons every day regarding image quality. No contest. Want to cry? Go ahead.

I'm a Nikon aligner. But, my 5D, despite it's handling weaknesses, eats my Nikons when I get to my workflow and examine my captures.

The D700 does not improve upon the D3 in the image quality arena.

If your only intent is to blast anyone with an opinion that goes against your blinding wack-off mentality towards your Nikon cameras, then just go away. In the end you are blathering on about nothing and no one with any experience actually cares because you are off-base and you do not know what you're professing.


If all you can do is whine and cry about how awesome this Ninkon is without even handling it, and then moving on to uninformed statements about Canon, you seriously need to re-examine your hobby, or *gasp* profession, and get over yourselves. it's really lame to watch people like most of you make statements that you know nothing about. And, worse, it misguides people who are trying to make informed diceisions. I think this is really, really, lame. **** off.

Most of you are wasting our time, thanks, and don't bother trying again. I suspect that any pphotographer who knows what he/she is doing would be able to make better images with an old Oly E10 than most of you would be able to make with your idolized and blindly coveted Nikon licker D700.

[Cassini @ Jul 8th 2008 4:20PM]

If this thread has shown me anything, it's that everyone's opinion differs, and that none of the performance claims here are truly substantiated. And how could they be within this thread? Not far above your post, Qino, is a post from someone who says that their D3 outperforms the 5D.

The truth is, Qino, that your comments aren't any different than the comments you're complaining about, and no more substantiated. You, too, are making broad strokes without taking anything specific into consideration and seem to have the attitude that we're all just supposed to accept it. Most of the comments consist of: "The photos look better", or "the image quality is better", and, "I'm a pro", like we're expected to think, "Oh, well, that settles it, then", just because there's some passion behind the words. Well, gee, what insight.

No one knows each other here or knows under which circumstances, and with what additional equipment and software, these cameras were tested and used. There are so many variables that enter into workflow, and nothing anyone says here is going to serve as proof that one camera is better than the other. In terms of hardware, it's not just about sensors, it's about glass, too (among other things). And people enter into it, too, because not everyone sees the same way. And what we do with our cameras plays into it, because not everyone uses cameras with the same purpose, which is also why some people shoot with multiple camera models and brands. Post production also plays into it. But with all that said, if we're looking for the opinions of others to determine what's best, we're going to have to stick with DP Review and similar professional sites, because nothing here is gonna cut it.

When people say, "I'm a Nikon fan", but then say their Canon, (which they claim they own and/or use) produces better quality, it's completely perplexing to me, when considering that the goal of anyone, especially a pro, is final image quality. If your 5D is that good, then why on earth would you ever touch a Nikon? Based on your blanketed statements of performance, why wouldn't you just use your Canon for everything? And wouldn't your assessment naturally make you a Canon fan?

I mean, pardon me, if I find it a bit hard to believe that a three-year old Canon outperforms a state-of-the-art, and more expensive, Nikon with comparable glass. Are we to think that Nikon is lagging three years behind Canon in image quality? That their best efforts are still no match for an aged 5D, under most or all conditions? And keep in mind, if the roles were reversed, I would think the same thing. Canon is not three years behind Nikon, either.

Personally, I don't care which camera outperforms the others... if it's Nikon, great; if it's Canon, great. So if you think I'm siding with brand over truth, trust me, I'm not. It's fine to share your opinion - nothing wrong with that. We're not all going to agree on everything. But what I get frustrated about are people making unsubstantiated claims, or sharing their opinions of the cameras as though everyone else is stupid if they disagree, or talking about cameras that aren't even out yet as though they are. None of us know what the D700 will truly do until final production units are in our hands.

[Cassini @ Jul 8th 2008 4:46PM]

Two things I forgot to mention in all that I said - two major things - that play into the final results, are skill and experience, both in terms of photography in general, and the brand and model of camera being used.

Some people use their cameras like machine guns and roulette wheels, where as others, actually know what they're doing and plan things out, truly putting their skill and experience to use and to the test.

Not everyone's skill and experience levels are the same, and some people are more comfortable using Canon, and others, Nikon. These are obvious points, but one's that get overlooked because people get so focused on sensors and glass and the like, they forget the rest. Give a pro a Canon, he might use it like it's an extension of his hand; give the same pro a Nikon, and maybe he won't wield it with the same skill. What you're most comfortable and familiar with plays a major part in how a camera performs and the quality of photos you'll take.

Little of that seems to be taken into consideration here when claims are being made.

[Kohlerphotography @ Jul 11th 2008 5:47PM]

That is exactly why it is very important for all purchasers, amature and pro alike to try different brands and pick the one they find to be more comfortable and user friendly. Cassini, I completely agree on your post-processing comments. A crappy pic can be made to look extremely professional if the individual has great post-processing skills. I would also like to point out that a good tripod rig and steady hand have great visual impact as well on the final image. But, as far as brand name goes, pick the one that best suits your photographic needs. Personally, old technology does not always make for a bad photo. Just some non-bias thoughts to add for the community to read and enjoy.

[Cassini @ Jul 11th 2008 9:20PM]

Indeed. And you're right - older technology definitely doesn't make for bad photos, at all. If that weren't the case, then no one would've taken so many great photos from years past. And good point about a steady hand!

So much of it has to do with the skill of the photographer. Shoot (no pun intended), Ansel Adams could've probably took an award winning photo with a cheap P&S! :)

[Kohlerphotography @ Jul 11th 2008 9:42PM]

Cassini, imagine for just a moment that Ansel Adams was exposed to the power of digital! Could you imagine the shots we would be looking at?! We pros would be taking more time looking at his stunning work than working ourselves!! It's true!! Here is my quick story, I grew up Nikon since my late father was an avid Nikon user, he made the quote of saying that he used Nikon only because of the flash technology. So, I continue his tradition with Nikon, I have nothing against any other brand since I have never used them. A pro in my area ( N.E. PA) uses Sony equipment and works on a 6 figure budget per year!! Is he better than a Nikon or Canon pro? That is hard to compare photographers but, he makes BIG money with great equipment and the only thing that counts is the fact that his customers are happy and he delivers the work order on time and complete. The people on this site that are bias need to take a chill pill and realize they should focus their energy on marketing and market research as opposed to Canon or Nikon bashing. I make a rather lavish income with Nikon equipment myself, could I make more or less with other equipment? Doubtful at best. Work with your brands best and move on folks......... Learn your equipment and then you can call yourself a professional photographer. Do not upgrade unless you REALLY need to, anything less and you are in a constant learning curve of new equipment. Your workflow suffers and that flows down hill to your customers and clientele. Sorry if you all may disagree, but it is the truth folks.

[Cassini @ Jul 12th 2008 2:58AM]

"Do not upgrade unless you REALLY need to, anything less and you are in a constant learning curve of new equipment. Your workflow suffers..."


Boy, isn't that the truth! And it's worse for technophiles... we love technology so much, it makes it even more difficult to finally say, "enough!"

There *is* a time to upgrade (and I *am* eager to see how the D700 performs), but learning skills aside, being in a constant learning curve for equipment is a real drag. And it doesn't take long before it also sucks the fun and life right out of what we do, which as you say, reflects in our work. And as a result, we close off the chance to really shine and unlock much of our potential. Sometimes I don't think people realize how much "upgraditis" really affects them.

[Dodge Burns @ Jul 29th 2008 7:50AM]

Josh Warner and Quino-phec are obviously just Ken Rockwell groupies. Their comments and attitude online mirror Ken Rockwell's to the letter!

Josh is probably referring to the conclusions that Ken made while comparing The D3, D300 and the 5D on his site (sounds a lot like the cameras that Qino-phec just happens to own-doesn't it?). Ken points out that the sensor on the D3 has larger pixels to gather more light and allow the camera to work better at higher ISO's than the 5D-at the cost of slightly poorer quality at lower ISO's! Why do you think the Nikon starts at 200 ISO, and the Canon starts at 100 ISO? The little bit of image quality Nikon gives away from ISO 100-200, pays off with bigger dividends with an ISO of 6400 with the Nikon,as opposed to ISO 3200. with the Canon. Remember, the Nikon can be set to ISO 100, but with a loss to higher ISO's.

This is should not construed as a failure or oversight on either company, they are both rolling the dice on what they feel the target consumer base is looking for.

I am not sure what Quino-phec is referring to in regards to "workflow" because the D3 runs rings around the much older 5D when it comes to shooting,writing to your card and downloading to your computer. Perhaps he should upgrade to a better "Photoshop" computer system that handles your files faster!

Oh, one more thing. Anyone serious about shooting Landscapes should probably look into Medium Format. But then, your Pros-so you probably already Know that!