Where to go after D700?

[Photoguy365]

Ok. So I purchased a lightly used D700 about a month ago. I definitely enjoy the camera, and it produces excellent images. I foresee the camera lasting for a while. However, I am allways looking at the future. I rented a D800 and played with it for a couple of weeks. While it is an excellent camera, and the images are stunning, the fact that you damn near have to have it on a tripod to get sharp images is not exciting for me. I like to move when I shoot. And while I am a little rusty around the camera, I know that I can hand hold sharp images with my F5 down to 1/30 of a second. Hand holding the D800 was a nightmare. Even 1/500 seems a bit soft. So my question is when I decided to move on from the D700, where do I go? I was thinking about maybe a used D4? I have plenty of time to decide, but I want to start researching now. 16MP would allow for larger prints with more detail...maybe? I like to do landscapes, but I also want to do sports. I need something that will perform at indoor swim meets and concerts. I need good low light performance, and I need it to flat out move.

Anyway... looking forward to hearing your advice. Thanks!

PS... I own and used good glass. So I know that isn't my issue.

 

[Eric Rose]

The D700 was one of the few cameras I have regretted selling. It is one of the best low light cameras out there and the big pixels are so great at capturing stunning colour and resolution. You can't go wrong with it.

 

[Photoguy365]

Yeah... after doing some research, I maybe better off with the D3s. The Expanded ISO range would probably be better than the D4 from what I've read. I do really enjoy the D700 though. It's definitely a keeper.

 

[Ste_S]

While it is an excellent camera, and the images are stunning, the fact that you damn near have to have it on a tripod to get sharp images is not exciting for me. I like to move when I shoot.

I'd move away from DSLRs and look towards mirrorless with stabilised sensors. Something like the Olympus OM-D range or one of the newer offerings from Panasonic.

I have a Panny GX80 with dual in body and lens stabilisation and I have zero issues getting a sharp image at 1/10sec (but you of course get motion blur from subjects at that slow a shutter speed)

 

[etn]

Have you looked at the Df? I very much like mine (when I’m not shooting film, that is). It has the outstanding sensor of the D4 in a smaller form factor. Never owned a D700, but according to my buddy who has a D3 (same sensor as D700) and extensively used my Df, the latter sensor is an order of magnitude better in terms of noise and color rendition.

However I agree with Ste_S, modern mirrorless are outstanding. If you (like me) own tons of Nikon glass and want to keep it, it makes sense to stick with Nikon. If you don’t, you don’t lose much switching: smaller form factor, similar image quality, great glass (e.g the Fuji 23 and 56mm lenses... wow!) The biggest disadvantage of mirrorless in my opinion is the comparatively poor battery life.

My 2 cents...

Etienne

 

[Photoguy365]

See that's the rub. I've been shooting Nikon since the early 90s, and have a bunch of glass. I would prefer to not change systems. When everything "worked out" correctly, the D800 images are amazing. However, anything I shot below 1/500 was unacceptably soft. I was interested in the D4, as prices are falling, and I actually prefer the body size. However, some of the reviews that I have read do not shine a positive light on the camera. The D750 on the surface seems like a no brainer, but I much prefer the control layout of the D700. Not sure why they changed it for the D750.

 

[MattKing]

Something is strange with your D800.
The examples I have seen from the people I know with a D800 are extra-ordinarily good. No "soft" images arising from the camera.

 

[Photoguy365]

I could get the D800 to produce sharp images, but it was much more of a process. Making sure that everything was right. I found that you have to bounce the focus point around a lot- instead of using the center point and then recomposing. To me this slows down the work flow. And even though I have what I consider to be good glass, I had to do a lot of adjustments in the lens adjustment menu. Something that NEVER had to be done with my film cameras. I’m not saying that the D800 isn’t a good camera. I just don’t feel like it is the right camera for me. I really wish the D750 would have been a true D700 replacement.

 

[Down Under]

A Nikon (or any DSLR) even with D700 capability will be able to produce outstandingly sharp images, IF it hasn't been dropped.

Which happened to my oldest (I have two) D700 Nikons last year. One of our house felines climbed into my camera cabinet and knocked it to the floor. All my shots thereafter were slightly on the fuzzy side, not quite blurred but also not quite as sharp as I was used to.

At first I suspected the camera's age (bought new in late 2009) and/or its use (135,000 images), or even my 1990s Nikon 28 2.8 (early AF version) as the likely culprits.

Last month I had the camera professionally checked and the sensor cleaned, and my (old and very experienced) repair person in Melbourne told me the sensor was "unaligned" (out of alignment) and had to be adjusted. Which he did. At a cost, but it was well worth paying for this repair. All is well with my camera again, and my results are again sharp enough that I can now consider delaying the purchase of a new Nikon Z6. So a ton of money saved.

I have a vintage D90 (also bought new) which has been mollycoddled throughout its life, and still produces excellently sharp images even in RAW mode. Large prints are easily made with my D90 images and I've had images reproduced (even a two page spread) in architecture books that retain their sharpness and colors to an amazing degree.

This point seems to not have been given any consideration by posters in this thread. According to my Melbourne repair wizard, one in three DSLRs he gets into his shop for repairs appear to have been dropped. Apparently sensor realignment is fiddly and takes time, but can be done on any DSLR.

For these reasons, I'm reviving this thread. As always, others' input re this will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Austintatious]

If the images on the D800 are not sharp, have you tried the AF fine-tuning procedure ? Needs to be done for each lens that your not happy with the results it produces.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The D700 was one of the few cameras I have regretted selling. It is one of the best low light cameras out there and the big pixels are so great at capturing stunning colour and resolution. You can't go wrong with it.

Interesting; I liked the color of the D200 but hated it with the D700. Now the D800 has excellent skin tones again. In my view the D800 is about the best DSLR out there. Don't know what the OP's issue with it could possibly be; it's heavy; yes but, that helps with shutter vibration and there are VR lenses out there.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If your D700 does the job, there's really no reason to move on unless you want a lighter/smaller camera. I've decided my D700 is the last digital Nikon I'll own because I'm completely pleased with the images it produces. I'll admit that I was intrigued by Nikon's new mirrorless cameras, but I don't want to have to rebuild my lens collection (or use my existing AF lenses with an adaptor).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If your D700 does the job, there's really no reason to move on unless you want a lighter/smaller camera. I've decided my D700 is the last digital Nikon I'll own because I'm completely pleased with the images it produces. I'll admit that I was intrigued by Nikon's new mirrorless cameras, but I don't want to have to rebuild my lens collection (or use my existing AF lenses with an adaptor).

I do not see the attraction with mirrorless either.

 

[choiliefan]

For me the attraction of mirrorless is the ability to use all kinds of lenses via adapters and kludges.
I love my M43 Lumix but wish the sensor was full frame. Would really like to see how my 50mm Summar and a couple old Heliars render on digital. I have a Metabones-type focal reducer for my Nikkors but alas, only have the M43 sensor to play with.
Medium format mirrorless is a more fantastic dream for me...

 

[removed account4]

Ok. So I purchased a lightly used D700 about a month ago. I definitely enjoy the camera, and it produces excellent images. I foresee the camera lasting for a while. However, I am allways looking at the future. I rented a D800 and played with it for a couple of weeks. While it is an excellent camera, and the images are stunning, the fact that you damn near have to have it on a tripod to get sharp images is not exciting for me. I like to move when I shoot. And while I am a little rusty around the camera, I know that I can hand hold sharp images with my F5 down to 1/30 of a second. Hand holding the D800 was a nightmare. Even 1/500 seems a bit soft. So my question is when I decided to move on from the D700, where do I go? I was thinking about maybe a used D4? I have plenty of time to decide, but I want to start researching now. 16MP would allow for larger prints with more detail...maybe? I like to do landscapes, but I also want to do sports. I need something that will perform at indoor swim meets and concerts. I need good low light performance, and I need it to flat out move.

Anyway... looking forward to hearing your advice. Thanks!

PS... I own and used good glass. So I know that isn't my issue.

No clue where to go .. but when my D200 croaks I'm either getting a D300 or Leica Q ... ( USED )

 

[choiliefan]

No desire to go full frame?

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless your wedded to Nikon lens I recommend a Sony A850, full frame, last traditional SLR, lens are plentiful and run the range from kit lens to midrange and pro level. The 900 is a little more and has faster PFS and a 100% viewfinder. As Sony A bodies have built in anti shake I can hand hold mine to around 1/10 with good results. Other option is Pentax K1.