How would you change Nikon's D700?
By Darren Murph 
posted August 29th 2008 6:30PM
posted August 29th 2008 6:30PM
posted August 29th 2008 6:30PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The onboard flash isn't worthless because it can at least operate as a CLS master potentially saving a penny pincher a good few hundred dollars from buying a SB800/900 or SU800.
If we are lucky and they do include wifi in the next lineup then we might also see W(iFi)CLS
You are spot on. Most of these comments are coming from people that are pixelbating without having ever touched the D700, let alone shooting day in and day out to really know the camera. The only thing that I would add it to replace the card slot door, go back to the tried and true D200/300 door. I am always opening the damn door when pulling the camera out of my bag.
Always take off the lens cap before shooting.
The price? still it is good for a full-frame
Nothing, this is the perfect camera for the price and features.
Quote From Josh Warner
"As for your CF jab: I hope they stay with CompactFlash for all of the Dx00 and up models in the forseeable future; it's faster, cheaper, and has more capacity at the same price point as any SD or smaller form factor."
I disagree (somewhat), It may be faster but it is not cheaper. I use both and SD is well cheaper. SD is catching CF in speed and CF will need some type of Super-High-Tech advantage to regain momentum.
My biggest gripe is the fact that DX lenses get cropped all to hell. not a big deal if you are just starting out, but if you have a few DX lenses already, you can tack on a extra couple grand to get FX compatible lenses.
That's not really a complaint about the camera though is it, more a complaint about basic physics...
Or would you prefer Nikon not make the DX lenses and force you to buy the larger, heavier, more expensive FX glass even for cameras which don't need it? ;)
The nikon D700 is a little over priced. Put it this way, you can buy pretty much 2x D300 for its asking price. But the quality is pretty much up there with the best. In my opinion, it makes getting a D3 only worth getting for the bragging rights that you`ve got the best nikon out there!
Yes D-movie as they call it would be nice on the more exprensive range of nikons but are pro-photographers really going to look cool take 720p film? The way I would like to see things, (which wouldn`t supprise me if it does occur), is if nikon start doing video camcorders. Think about it for 1 second here... the ability to use your nikon lens for video would be awesome. The problem with the video market today is that you either get average video cameras with fix lens or you go or you sell your car and get a red one. nikon could create a new market here...
As for the D700, I`m going to sit this one out. I`m a D200 owner and can`t justify the small improvement for the price. Another 2 years and I`ll take the D700 replacement.
RE "you can buy pretty much 2x D300 for its asking price"
This may be true although you do realise that 2 x DX sensors don't come close to a single FX sensor. Especially those of us coming from Nikon's film cameras and our arsenal of FX lenses. Thank you Nikon for returning to me my love of my AF-D 80-200mm f2.8!!! :-D
The focus button C/S/M is in a bad spot. My hand consistently flips from "single" to "continuous".
Drives me nuts. I did put a vertical grip on hoping to avoid this issue, and am now aggravated by the fact
that I have to remove the grip to charge the battery. Other than that, I think the camera is pretty great.
It's not really a pro camera. As it's banging around the flash pops up a lot, and the autofocus is mediocre
in regards to speed. I know I'm knit picking here, but it's really loud.
I look forward to the next gen. D3
I wish they'd get rid of that goddamn super-bright white autofocus assist light. It makes any non-blind person cringe just before snapping away. Stupid design. I notice the D3 doesn't have it.
Or if you did not bother to read the manual, just use a little piece of black electrical tape over that little lightbulb. Should serve you just right. :)
I haven't tried this camera but the 100 and 200 I shoot I just turn the assist light off.
@fletch Um, you do know that you can turn the AF-assist light off right?
Physically, the camera is solid as a tank..as usual! Magnesium alloy rules!!
Perhaps for a future camera:
- A sensor with a true ISO 50 sensitivity for studio lighting purposes and shooting crisp detailed landscapes, not some faux setting in the software
- 100% viewfinder
- True 16 bit RAW file A/D conversion for greater tonal range, smoother transition and better detail. Currently, the 14-bit option is just interpolated from a 12 bit converter, The 1Ds Mark III does the same unfortunately.
- a 16-18 MP version in the same body, with a 9 x 9 nm pixel pitch to capture more dynamic range and detail. 16-18 MP is really all you can cram on a sensor of 36 x 24mm if you still would like to keep the pixels at a decent size.
- 4:5 aspect ratio
that is all!
To those constantly griping about the lack of SD:
This is a PROFESSIONAL level camera.
1) Any working professional has a large stock of CF cards. NOT SD. they're not going to be happy watching all their old cards get voided out.
2) CF is more DURABLE. If i'm in a rush, which I often am when working, I can throw a CF card in my pocket till I have time to properly file it away. I don't have to worry about it getting damaged. The last time I did that with an SD card It caught on my cell phone just right when I sat down and bent into a pretty little L-shape. NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR A PROFESSIONAL.
so seriously, enough with the "I want SD" already.... SD is not the professional standard, and I hope to God it never is in the future...
Change:
I haven't played with one as much as I have a 5D, but I feel that the AntiAliasing filter is stronger on this than the 5D leading to softer images... That's the first thing I'd fix. Second thing to change of course is the price. The movie feature of the D90 is cool but I'll need some time to see how useful it really is. Finally I might like a good manual power-down of the on camera flash 1/2,1/4,1/8 down to a 1/64th or so. I really don't use it much but sometimes it's useful as a slave for the broncolor pack, and while it's doing that it can provide a little front fill for catch lights, but you need to manually set that (unless they already have that and I missed this somewhere--like I said I haven't played with it much.)
Don't Change:
-A lot of people want an internal GPS, these people are general consumers who want to geo-tag their pictures on flickr. An internal GPS would be good for that, but it would not be nearly as accurate as people who use it for forensic work or want to reposition their camera another day. External units have a much better antenna and are far more accurate... consumer vs. professional. Give me the external unit anyday (on the rare occasions when I need it)
-SD vs. CF When you've been shooting for a long time and have well over 100GB worth of CF cards, you really don't want to switch over to SD. Also the more you use them, the more you realize the CF cards stand up a lot better to heat, cold, moisture, and general abuse. Keep the CF card in the advance-amateur and pro cameras, SD is fine for the D90 and below.
-Auto/Manual focus. I need this to be a switch I don't have to look at or think about. If I have the camera in auto-focus and it's screwing me up, I NEED to be able to switch to manual without taking my eye out of the frame or thinking about it. Likewise if I have been in manual and I see a situation unfolding, I want to be able to switch back to auto without looking while I'm bringing the camera to my eye. A software or button combination requires too much thought. Nikon has had that switch in the same place for a long time and you get very used to it being there.
-@RyanTV you have to be a moron. 1) sharpness is a factor of the AA filter (yes the lens can be a factor too, but there is a noticeable difference between the bodies even with comparable lenses. 2) "DX lenses get cropped to hell?" They will get cropped exactly as they are on a DX format sensor. So if you bought those lenses for a D70s they will act just like they do on that camera. I also believe like the D3 there is a way to over-ride the cropping but you will see the limits of the lens as it vignettes the corners of the sensor and gets very soft around the edges that aren't completely vignetted. DX and FX are different formats. It's the difference between 645 and 35mm, or more specifically 35mm and APS. Smaller formats will be lighter and quicker, larger formats give you better clarity and sharpness but take bigger, more expensive glass... that has always been the case in photography.
My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have interchangeable focusing screens.
I love using manual focus lenses like the Noct-Nikkor and 105mm ff1.8 AIS. The D700 has a focus-confirm light that lets you know when you've focused properly, but there is no substitute for actually *seeing* where the razor-sharp focal plane lies with your very own eyes.
A precision focusing screen (which can be used on the D3, BTW) can make focusing lenses with large apertures a very pleasant experience.
If the D700 would have supported interchangeable screens, I would have one in my bag right now. But it doesn't, so I am stuck waiting for the 5D successor.
Definitely lower the price. While I realize that this is not the place of the D700, I do wish that Nikon released a prosumer camera that:
1) Was an FX camera - I shoot wide-angle a hell of a lot more than I do telephoto. Does this mean that I need to purchase better glass? Probably - but that's part of photography, unavoidable.
2) Had a very large emphasis on sharp photos rather than megapixels - I NEVER do poster-size prints and I nearly always frame the picture right the first time. I would much rather have a poorly framed, small, sharp photo than a large, blurry photo because all blurry photos are pretty much worthless whereas with sharp photos you might be able to salvage something.
3) Basic controls for aperture, shutter speed.
4) Self-cleaning sensor so minimal maintenance is needed (sending your only camera away for WEEKS sucks. A lot.)
So really, a different kind of D90.
I love this camera.
$2000 less than the D3 for the same sensor.
Fantastic low light capabilities and a built in flash that can act as a master for the Nikon wireless flash system.
I would love for the camera to be cheaper, but then again, I want everything to be cheaper.
You know with the MB-D10 vertical grip & EN-EL4a/4 big battery the camera gets 8 FPS right? Same case with the D300, which I have now, and which the MB-D10 is compatible with.
Please stop dropping lines about the Red Camera, it is an amazing camera, really it is. There is almost no piratical use for it now. Really $17k for something that cant be fully used? No way. Most major films are still shot in 35mm. Watch the credits on them and let me know how many of them use Red Cameras...none. Yes in the near future you might see more and more films, but only the ones with the $150 million plus budgets.
And the Red scarlet? Also amazing, but again the pro/prosumer is not going to pay a lot of extra hundreds for something they can't benefit from fully. The reds are just to expensive and too impractical.
To me, other than the issue of me not owning one, the only thing I would change is getting rid of the pop up flash. If you need a flash, attach one (SB400 is small enough that you shouldn't have space problems).
1) Higher ASA push - the 50d can push to 12800 if necessary, black and white only? (wow grain)
2) Higher FPS and better buffering so you can maintain at least 6fps for sports
3) Honestly, better glass.
4) DoF button for aperture changes (the old canon elan series had this button and it was VERY useful
5) Speed up RAW man, just speed it up
6) White balance - always having to modify it in photoshop is annoying as opposed to it being much better on the camera itself
7) Vertical grip and/or extra hardcore LION battery (no nicad or nimh) pack attachment. Needed.
8) Get rid of flash - If you are using this camera, you have offboard hotshoe'd flashes and/or lighting gear.
9) 4:5 and fullframe viewfinder. Sick already of 95-98% viewfinders and/or image cropping
10) And finally, "higher grain full frame image sensor". Just because something is full frame doesn't make it a great sensor.
i have more gripes about the specs but I'll wait lol (especiailly since im going to purchasing this as a second camera with all new glass - i currently have the 20d, upgraded to the 40d and they just blow everything away with regards to fire time, write time, and the amount of available glass. (Tamron, i love you.)
1) The D700 goes to ASA 25,600. This is higher than the 50d and really, how much more do you need?
2) Already has 5FPS natively, 8FPS with battery pack
3) Honestly?
4) Doesn't every SLR have a DoF button? Hasn't that been a standard feature for a decade?
6) White balance on this generation (D300, D3, D700) is some of the best I've ever seen. Does anyone else have any complaints in this department? Didn't think so.
8) The onboard flash is useful for users who don't have a hotshoe flash (or at least have one immediately available) and can be used to command slaves. In fact, one of the more common complaints for Canon's and Nikon's pro-grade cameras is that they should *add* a flash.
9) 98% finder is pretty good. 4:5 view? Get a Hassy or Mamiya. Besides, I believe there is a cropping feature in the menu to do this for you.
10) The entire reason for making this "only" a 12MP sensor is because the sensor pixels are large and can collect more light with less noise, hence the ridiculous ASA numbers with minimal noise. Smaller pixels will necessarily mean less light collection and higher noise.
Speaking of available glass, I'm pretty sure that Tamron makes all their lenses for both Canon and Nikon mounts. So does Sigma. And Tokina. And most other third-party players.
I actually like the built in flash.
It gives me command over my other Sb800s,Sb600s, and Sb900s without having to use one of them.
RE "I actually like the built in flash"
Me too although more for the reason of not having to use/carry an SB when I really don't need one or simply when I find myself caught with my pants down and don't have an SB.
However, if the choice was between the flash and GPS (and/or a wicked 11n wireless untethered mode to another wireless 11n device) then I might have to think about that one.
Just because the d700 has the same resolution as the 5d it should be priced the same? No wonder all the marketers think that consumers only care about is megapixels. What about pro autofocus, high ISO, weather sealing and VGA resolution LCD? There is your 1k difference right there. It is unreasonable to expect a pro body for 2k.
Hey guys,
I just got my D700 with 24-120mm lens two weeks ago. There is not much to say. Everything about is great which is not to say that there could be something wrong :), so far i have not found any problems and i can not say that I would changed anything about D700. Its well build, fast to shoot, great quality of the photos and everything that you could expect from full frame SLR. The fact that it can go up to 25,600 ISO is an understatement, have you guys seen the images in that level of ISO :) U will still spend a bit of time denoising them in photoshop anyway:) Would i recommend it to my friends, absolutely YES. In the end its aviously great SLR camera but do you want to spend 3.something 000$ on the body, thats the big question.
Any questions, let me know :)
With Respect Dantes.
Re: "(more if you add the grip...but for that price you might as well go to the D3)"
The mb-d10 grip is only $230, no where near $2k.
----
True enough I guess, I was thinking more along the lines of when I had to purchase it. I wanted the high FPS which meant I had to by the EN-EL4A (only that and 8AA batteries gives you the 8FPS), the charger, the BL-3 and the grip. When I got it there was no kit and it cost me about $600CDN. I do notice there are kits on sites now which seem to be considerably less.
Don't forget with the D3 you are also getting a shutter that is supposed to last 300,000 frames as opposed to 150,000 on the D700. (though an extended warranty could be just as effective)
how would i change the the d700? loose that nikkor krap and put some canon glass in front of it. (ahhhh the best of both worlds)
What would I change? The CF card door. I'm not particularly fond of it either.
The door should also be able to double as a cheese grater, chip cutter and a bottle opener… now THAT would be truly useful. Maybe a free set of steak knives in the box would placate some. ;-)
These things are Miracle Cameras - have 2 D3's and 2 D700's. Over 30 years pro - have used pretty much every camera every made. Was one of many many pros who never believed digital would ever surpass film. The D3 AND the D700 have not
only SURPASSED film - they've surpassed my wildest dreams. But since you ask - Sure - I'd love 2 CF slots instead of 1. The CF door doesn't bother me though. Like most pros who used to shoot film - I remember all the various pains-in-the-rear film camera backs and the mechanisms that went with them. Also like most pros, I've long been used to having to stick a little piece of (real) gaffer tape on various buttons and dials and flaps etc... on camera bodies, lenses and flashes just to keep everything nailed down. If you were to look closely at any pro photojournalist's or sports shooter's equipment - regardless whether they use Canon or Nikon - you'll see the same. We use Ducati CF cards up to 8GIGs and the ONLY TIME I need to open that CF door is when I arrive at home office and set my gear down on the cleaning/organizing/ Gear-Table. So the CF door is a non- issue.
What would I LIKE TO CHANGE? I'd like a rubberized titanium completely bullet proof indestructible camera. Other than that - these cameras are capable of doing so much more than most creative minds, than even most professionals can throw at them, it's just SILLY to even consider more. I think probably the only people who would argue otherwise are non-pros who simply love debating over theoretical limits rather practical applications.
As to NIKON Glass - I use the tools that do the job best for me. Around 1991 I switched to the EOS system because the new Canon auto-focus worked so well. The EOS1 and 1N bodies were ok - but the lenses focused much faster and better than the Nikon in auto-focus modes.
Since then however, I've switched back to Nikon. The new Nikon focus system is so much more accurate AND reliable than Canon it's just WILD - and beyond that - the NIKON GLASS sharpness / resolution is incredible. Just try the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 on a D700. You won't even believe it when you see it. The same goes for the 24-70 f2.8. Nikon has a new mid-range 70-200 2.8 on the way soon that will be amazing - meanwhile - as good as the Nikon current 70-200 VR is, the older 80-200 f2.8D lens is amazing on the new full frame sensor Nikons. I love my 300f2.8VR - talk about sharp! But the humble 300 f4.0 will blow your mind for way way less $. And as for the 500mm? The new Nikon 500 f4.0 VR is incredible and I love it - but I also have as a back-up, a Sigma 500 f4.5 in Nikon mount and it is absolutely equally as sharp and quick as the Nikon. For half the price.
I have a dozen guys who work for me some of whom use Canons. I'm being honest here - the Canons have the highest rate of problems, the worst noise, and least accurate meters. The Canon image sensors get dirtier faster and that is especially true with the 5D. Ugg Lee Dirty. All my guys lust after the Nikon D3 and D700 image quality and focusing accuracy. And most are switching to Nikon. I tell them, do it now whilst their are still people out there who believe the Canons are better - you'll get the most for your used equipment to put towards the Nikon stuff.
Finally - I'll say this: If Black & Decker were to come out with a better camera tomorrow, I'd switch to that - because I need the best in order to beat my competition. And while I don't mind sharing all this with you here on this forum - the LAST people I would want to read this are my competitors! I hope they ALL continue using Canon! heheheee.....
I sold my D300 and 3 DX lenses just to get my D700. I had it for 4 days. It short circuited and I had to ship it right back to Nikon :(
Nevertheless I imagined to get in a few photo sets in on Flickr since it literally never left my hands the entire time.
One thing I'd like to see is a firmware update with the stuff they put in the D90 to get movies... even if there is no mic, that can be fixed with a hot shoe connector. Even so, I wouldn't mind silent movies anyway.
The viewfinder being 95% isn't as bad as people say it is. It's nice and big so I'm not worried about the not having 100% coverage.
It would be neat to have the professional crop sizes straight out of the camera rather than post production
The flash is good. I don't care what people say about it being worthless. It's a great way to trigger remote flash for us strobist lovers.
I'd be curious as to why it dropped that 1 extra fps from the D300... strange. Which brings me to another point, why does the shutter sound so week? It sounds like my cat trying to flick at the coffee table. I just want to yell "stop." Eventually you get used to it, though.
More function buttons please. I mean really, why not just put a small strip of four of them right down the side. Just call 'em fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4. Any extra "on body" controls are great.
Still love the ergonomics. Copying the D300 was an excellent idea. Interesting thing to note in one of Nikon's promo videos for the D700, one of their shooters explicitly mentioned "the Nikon D700 is perfect for a woman..." Worth noting (although I'm not a woman).
Nikon,
We are anxiously awaiting the addition of hd video recording capability to the D700. We are not concerned by the D700's lack of microphone hardware. Many of us are making the jump from point-and-shoot camcorders to DSLRs specifically to utilize our collections of expensive Nikon lenses and make professional looking movies without shelling out > $10K for a pro movie camera. It should be noted that pros generally record audio separately with external microphones leading to a dedicated audio recorder. Sounds and music are then mixed into the video during the editing phase. Those seeking a built-in microphone probably don't need the image quality a D700 can provide, and would be better suited shooting their YouTube videos with a standard camcorder or pocket camera. For those of us who seek to use the D700 in concert with a separate audio recorder, we implore you to add video capability via a firmware update. The D700 may not have the horsepower to encode h264 streams, but motion-jpeg streams could be used instead. If this request can be met, then more photographers will have a reason to consider the D700 over the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon, please make this happen!
Loyal D700 owners.
I almost bought this camera.... but I did not.
The reason is simple, I have a couple of DX Lenses, and some other full frame lenses. The D700 offers a "DX Crop" mode. However, with the crop mode you get roughly 5 million pixels for DX lenses. The 18-200mm DX VR lens, while not the sharpest, brightest lens, is certainly versitle. As many people have pointed out, there is really nothing else out there that compares in terms of quality, and range. It is hard to part with.
So what does this all mean? The bottom line is that the sensor on the D700 needs to be larger, such that you get a "bonus" for full frame use in terms of pixels, but nothing is lost by using DX lenses with the camera. Essentially a 20MP (like the canon) sensor is needed so the DX lenses yield the same or higher number of pixels as the high/mid/low end DX format cameras (D300/D90/D60).
I suspect that the successor to the current D3 will offer something alongs these lines.
The 700 is just not versitle enough if you don't have a couple extra camera bodies lying around.
The onboard flash is one of my favorite features - I can control strobes or my SB-800s with it. I can't understand why its existence pisses so many people off - if you don't want it, don't use it. Also, with the right 'over the lens' diffusor, the onboard flash is also better than you'd think for throwing a splash of light for outdoors shots to brighten the eyes up a bit.
God bless Nikon for leaving it on there, but that being said, I would trade it for GPS in a second.
Give me a FASTER FLASH SYNC SPEED and i'll be happy. When are they gonna figure that one out? After that i can finally retire my medium format and almost give up film.