Nikon D700 review roundup

Now that the dust has settled on Nikon's new D700 DSLR -- but hopefully not on that anti-dust 12.1 megapixel full-frame sensor -- we thought we'd toss together a few general impressions of the new mid-range pro camera. It's pretty much a landslide, the D700 is a major winner for Nikon. Sure, $3,000 is pricey, but for a camera that basically crams the full-frame imaging prowess of the D3 into the highly portable body of the D300 -- and left out only a few pro features in the process -- it's a relative bargain, and Nikon couldn't have done much better for itself. You'll also need to pony up for lenses that were actually built for a full-frame sensor to really get your money's worth, though our hats off to Nikon for letting you use any old lens you please. The only real complaint we heard is that the shutter feels mushy, which is a relevant criticism and an anomaly for Nikon, but unlikely to be a dealbreaker.

Read - Nikonians: "She's capable of making practically all the moves of the rest of the line-up and she's arguably the most versatile of the bunch."
Read - Cameralabs: "Nikon further broadens its impressive DSLR line-up and continues to throw down gauntlet after gauntlet to Canon."
Read - Scott Kelby: "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)."
Read - Imaging Resource: "One of the finest digital SLR cameras ever produced."
Read - PhotographyBLOG: "It comes across as a kind of 'greatest hits' of Nikon DSLRs."

[a @ Sep 8th 2008 11:06AM]

I own a Canon 5D. I'm pretty camera brand agnostic (I don't care that much). My 5D is a couple years old and has paid for itself a couple times over (weddings.....) so I've been thinking about a new camera. There is no new 5D (yet) so I played around with a D700. Its a hefty camera but feels well built. Its took me a few seconds to figure out how to control it (its different but not much, the lens removes "the other way") . Its fast (the 5D at 2.5 Frames per second is no speed demon). But after reading many reviews it seems that the "upgrade" for me isn't worth it. The image quality is pretty much the same as my 2 and a half year camera. the D700 is only a little bit better in low light . Its also 500$ more than I paid for my 5D and over $1000 more than the aging 5D today.

If you shoot Nikon though this is a great camera. I'm coming from film so highly recommend full frame.

[Jeff @ Sep 8th 2008 11:34AM]

What ever happened to the old adage that you don't buy a camera, you buy the glass? (Or the later revision, "you buy a system")?

Do you only have one lens for your 5D, and is it a lens you're unhappy with? I'm just not even sure why you'd consider switching manufacturers completely because another one produced a body that has a couple new features. Camera bodies go back and forth as to which one or the other is better, but a good lens yesterday is a good lens today and it'll be a good lens tomorrow.

Unless you're the kind of person who just walks around with the kit lens and never buys another, there's no point switching back and forth between body manufacturers, and it'll just cost you in the long run.

[a @ Sep 8th 2008 11:46AM]

Your right, lenses are more important than the camera. But in this digital age the camera has become more important (and way more expensive...)

I have many great lenses for the canon system. the 24-105 f4 is superb for weddings and such. I also have a 400mm DO f4 which is fantastic and light (for what it is).

There has been a lot of talk about how "great" the new Nikons are so I figured I'ld check them out as an option for a camera. It was enough better to switch for me.

[Daniel @ Sep 8th 2008 11:50PM]

To say that the D700 is only slightly better than the 5D and only in low light is absolute nonsense. That's what 5D owners say because they read somewhere that the 5D is supposedly sharper than the D3/D700. Of course that's only due to the fact that Canon applies more in-camera sharpening. You can increase sharpening on the D3/D700 and get better results than the 5D.

There is no comparison. Nikon's matrix metering blows the socks off anything Canon has. Same for AF. And you can get a perfectly usable picture at ISO6400. Try that with your 5D. Only slightly better??? I think not.

In fact there have been tests that show that pictures taken with the D3 and blown up to 1DsMIII resolution look better than the 1DsMIII pictures. More pixels != better quality.

Canon makes great cameras no doubt. And the up-coming 5DMII will probably destroy the D3/D700. But right now, even the 1DsMIII can't touch them. To say that the D700 is only slightly better than the 5D is to live in denial.

[sean @ Sep 8th 2008 11:07AM]

As a professional photographer and former Canon user, I have to agree.

The speed, ergonomics and more importantly, image quality, are better than any camera I have ever used.

[[e-mail] @ Sep 8th 2008 11:39AM]

They have practically the same IQ, but the nikon has 2/3 of the camera overall up to date (LCD, ergonomics, ISO, speed...) I own a D700 and I would like to say that it's worth the $3,000... but I can't wait to see the new 5D, litterally I couldn't wait more and had to buy the d700 = )

[justin @ Sep 8th 2008 11:52AM]

I can't even say how much I love my 700 other than to say it's without a doubt the best camera I have ever shot with, including my med format. While obviously the MF has superior image quality, the 700 is so much faster and easier to use in every scenario and the image quality is so amazing, especially at high ISO, that very rarely shoot with anything else.

[Kyle Mahaney @ Sep 8th 2008 11:55AM]

As someone who's been looking for something with a good selection of wide-angle lenses available to upgrade from my ancient Minolta film gear, I think this is it. Not too heavy (D3) and not too plasticky (5D)

[Denver_80203 @ Sep 8th 2008 12:03PM]

Makes me consider selling my D300

At least my glass collection is safe!

[Eric @ Sep 8th 2008 12:40PM]

Nobody who has used a D700 would say it's only slightly better in image quality than the Canon 5D. That's just wishful thinking. And when the 5D came out, it cost more than the D700 does.

The next 5D is coming, and I will be getting one for work next year. But I own and use Nikons and have seen the results from the D3 and D700, and some my prefer the color pallet from the 5D, but as for overall image quality, the D3 and D700 are better than anything anyone else has out, except in terms of resolution, which the 1Ds Mark III wins. But reports are that the D3/D700 images can be blown up to massive sizes and they remain perfectly sharp.

If you own either a brace of Nikon or Canon lenses, there's no reason to switch. They will continue to leapfrog each other as they have since 1959.

[nathan.wong @ Sep 8th 2008 1:18PM]

I'll wait for the D700x that'll have video recording too. I might be waiting quite a long time though. I'm sure Nikon is testing the waters with the D90's video recording capability. However, it's would be awesome to have a 500mm f/8 mirror (reflex) lens and be able to use that to shoot video along with pictures.

[nathan.wong @ Sep 8th 2008 1:19PM]

I'll wait for the D700x that'll have video recording too. I might be waiting quite a long time though. I'm sure Nikon is testing the waters with the D90's video recording capability. However, it's would be awesome to have a 500mm f/8 mirror (reflex) lens and be able to use that to shoot video along with pictures.

[Silverfrog @ Sep 8th 2008 1:29PM]

Yeah. Right. Are you serious?

[nathan.wong @ Sep 8th 2008 2:46PM]

Silverfrog, sure I'm serious. Why not? If it's available, why not use it? Put a 500mm lens on a dedicated video camera. You can't do that unless you spend some major bucks on a video camera that accepts interchangable lenses. If Nikon offers that capability in their camera, why would that be a bad thing?

[Wayne @ Sep 8th 2008 1:23PM]

If they'd released this instead of the D300, I might have bought this instead, but as it came out later, I'll be sticking with my D300 for quite a while. It's far ahead of the D70 I traded up from, and I have a few DX lenses that wouldn't make moving to a FX camera quite worth the price difference.

[Jonas @ Sep 8th 2008 2:14PM]

As someone who recently (last week) switched from using a Canon 5D and L-glass to a D700 -- let me say, it's not the pure image quality that led me to my decision. In fact the 5D has a very slight edge resolution wise over the D700, particularly at lower ISO. However, the technology in that 3-year old camera coupled with the AF system is starting to show its age and there are some points that the D700 makes usability wise that just don't compare when using the 5D. As an engineer, I also find the Nikon 'system' better and easier to use -- so after 10 years of shooting Canon, I'm pretty happy with the D700. No doubt the new 5D or 7D will be amazing, and the D700 is clearly a marker they need to measure themselves by in announcing a replacement (and when it's out, say Oct/Nov will surely retail for slightly more given that the original 5D was $3299 on release).

[keven @ Sep 8th 2008 5:25PM]

the speed and image quality are fantastic, the Nikon D700

[keven @ Sep 8th 2008 5:28PM]

i want to get my hands on it ASAP
http://www.pricestealer.com/deals/2/Camera-Deals/

[David L. @ Sep 9th 2008 1:11AM]

Hands down the best DSLR I have owned in 7+ years of digital bodies. This is the digital body that I have been waiting for all these years. As for the body vs. glass issue. There is no doubt that great glass rules, If the sensor, ect. was as easy to swap out as film was then it wouldn't be such an argument. But it isn't, so the body is still an issue.

[Housik @ Sep 9th 2008 4:12AM]

... and story continues as Sony will release (today?) new fullframe A900 @ 24mpix with 100% viewfinder with just a bit higher price as D700.

[julia @ Oct 4th 2008 4:01PM]

This is all great and good, but what about the lenses, any input? This is coming from someone with limited funds..