Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera Body Only

This the best DSLR I've owned. It has so many more plus points than minus, I'll concentrate to begin with on what I think might be considered negatives:

Cons:

(1) "Only" 12 million pixels.

If this is a genuine issue for you, go no further, there's nothing you can do about it - at this price or less, at time of writing, your Nikon option is the 16MPix DX sensored D7000. In full-frame, it's presently just the Canon Eos 5D or 5D MKII (both excellent cameras, 21MPix), or hold out for a '700' version of the Nikon D3X (24.5MPix).

My personal experience is that for the kind of shooting I tend to do, in low light, more pixels are usually wasted, noisy pixels. If you light your subjects or generally shoot short exposures in bright light, _need_ an awful lot of pixels per square millimetre, and have lenses which can do them justice, you might well want to look elsewhere.

(2) Weight.

This isn't an especially small camera. It's a lot lighter and smaller than its enormous top-end stablemates, but it's still a fair chunk of your carry-on baggage allowance and can be a literal pain in the neck after an extended period carting it about. Especially if you have, say, an 80-200 f/2.8 attached to it. At around a kilogram, it's over twice the weight of a Canon EOS 500D, 100g more than an EOS 5D, but quarter of a kilo lighter than a Nikon D3 or Canon EOS 1Ds.

(3) Full frame.

Generally, full frame is a positive thing, but there are circumstances in which the smaller DX frame is advantageous: Lighter, cheaper lenses; perhaps better suited for long-range wildlife photography, etc. With good lighting, a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 makes an extremely affordable and superb portrait lens on a DX crop sensor. 80mm f/1.4 remains expensive, and 200mm f/2.8 is an awful lot cheaper than 300mm f/2.8!

(4) A little noisy

This camera makes quite a clunk when it goes off. Partly because of the fast frame rate and large mirror, I guess. With the MD10 battery grip, shooting at 8fps, this sounds like a mini machine-gun. You wouldn't want to use this to photograph classical soloists in concert, or on live TV sets or whatever, at least not without a blimp, you'd get thrown out.

Pros - pretty much everything, in my opinion:

Everything else I have to say about this camera is good. I absolutely love shooting with this camera, and the results are almost always better than I feel I have any right to expect, encouraging me to develop and improve my photography.

My first DSLR was a Nikon D70, which I bought around 2004. A few years after that I bought a Pentax K10D (I have both Nikon and Pentax lenses) which cost less but outshone the D70 in every way except flash sync speed (the D70's 1/500sec remains unsurpassed, even in Nikon's line-up). I've used a D200, and found it superb. I looked at the D700 when it came out, wanted it the moment I picked one up in a shop, but couldn't afford it. Circumstances change, though, and I eventually bought one, with an MB-10 grip bundled on offer from Nikon.

When I had the D70, I would take 35mm SLRs with me as well - I loved the instant feedback of digital, but the camera's squinty little viewfinder was a pain to use, the DX crop was inconvenient for wideangle. The 35mm cameras were a pleasure to use by comparison and the results with Velvia or Provia, albeit expensive, easily blew away the quality possible with the D70.

With the Pentax, I started to set aside 35mm - the 10Mpixel results were very good, colour rendition much better than the D70, the viewfinder among the best available in DX sensor cameras at the time, the controls quick and intuitive. I'd still carry a 35mm body from time to time, but found myself using film less and less.

First impressions

My first impression of the D700 was that DSLRs had finally made it back to the "real camera" feel of the best 35mm SLRs. I have a couple of Nikon FM2s and a Pentax LX - the D700 was the first DSLR I tried which offered a similar viewfinder and similarly un-obtrusive controls. It is as satisfying and straightforward as any 35mm SLR I've used, and it gives me unprecedented confidence in getting the picture I was trying for. Low-light performance exceeds anything 35mm film can do, and each of the 12Mpixels seems to count in ways they don't on the more densely packed sensors.

Uses

This isn't a studio camera, at heart. Although relatively heavy, it's not actually all that much heavier than the K10D, and it's happiest out and about - rock gigs, street photography, reportage are where it shines. Quick to use, quick shooting, beautiful viewfinder, virtually unparalleled low-light performance, you can get pictures which simply aren't possible any other way. With the K10D and its built in image stabilizer, I got used to shooting at silly low shutter speeds handheld, with a variable hit rate. With the D700, the weight of the camera/grip combo keeps things pretty steady without the need for a stabilizer, and for the first time I can push the ISO beyond 800 and still get pictures worth looking at.

Compatibility

I've a huge penchant for solidly built old manual-focus prime lenses, and with these this camera excels. Like the D200, D300 and other Nikon pro/semi-pro cameras, the D700 works very well with old lenses. It has the lens throat ring which picks up the aperture ring setting from AI lenses, and (obviously) with more recent CPU lenses it offers all the modern conveniences. There are very few Nikon fit lenses made in the last 30+ years which won't work with the D700. About the only exceptions are a few extremely exotic ones which project too far back into the mirror box to use without a full-time mirror lock-up.

For manual focus, the viewfinder is clear, adequately dioptre-adjustable and accurate - I feel confident manually focusing fast lenses (e.g. a 50mm at f/1.4) using the D700, where with the K10D I often found I'd be out if shooting wide open (someone suggested that this was a common issue with modern auto-focus cameras because of the limited effective aperture of the viewing system itself).

Features

I'm not going to go into detail about the D700's many impressive and useful features, many of which I haven't properly explored or have little use for - this information is widely available online. I'll skim the ones which matter to me: The interval timer can be handy, the many picture controls and "active D-lighting" etc. provide all the flexibility you could hope for, the continuous shooting buffer is deep enough that I've never once noticed it slowing me down shooting RAW files. I've tried the 3D tracking autofocus, which really does work, and really is impressive, although as I said I'm more of a manual focus kind of person. The live-view mode is probably the only feature I've tried which I've found wanting - it seems unduly awkward to use, and of course the viewing screen is fixed so this isn't as much use for e.g. macro photography as it might be.

Another noteworthy aspect of the D700 seems to be an apparent reduction in chromatic aberration at the frame edges with certain wide-angle lenses. I don't know whether it's a feature of the sensor itself (different microlens design, sensor elements closer to the surface?), or some digital cunningness, but it's a welcome quality.

Conclusion

In general, control-wise, and for overall feel, I prefer the D700 to the Canon EOS 5D (I haven't tried a 5D MKII). The D700 seems better made than the Canon, and the controls suit me better. On the other hand it's more expensive and has fewer pixels.

No amount of enthusiastic rambling will tell you whether to buy this camera, but I would certainly strongly encourage you to pick one up and try it out if you're considering cameras in this price/performance bracket.

I upgraded to this camera from a Canon Eos 40D because I really wanted the Full Frame capability that is only achievable with film cameras or FF sensors. I should mention as an aside that the 40D is a fantastic camera and really impressed me in every department.

The D700 is a big step up in price but having now owned it for six months, the price for Full Frame is worth it for me.

The D700 is in a class of three; the choices for the non-millionaires are the Sony A900, the Canon 5D Mk II or the Nikon D700 (although they are all still too expensive).

The good news is that there is not a turkey among them; the image quality is fantastic with all three (I only quote from the ludicrous number of reviews I have sadly read).

My choice was ultimately driven by the way in which I use my camera rather than the spec sheets, as the three cameras all point at a different type of photographer. This camera would better suit the intermediate or advanced photographer, as there are lot of menus to learn and much room to configure or hang yourself. On the other hand, the progamme mode does make the decisions for you, although even then you can change the settings.

I mainly use the camera for shooting (in order of importance for me):
my kids running around (speed), portraits (IQ), plays (low light) (speed), rugby, football matches (speed) and lastly landscapes (detail).
I wanted a camera that was fast, had great image quality, worked really well in low light and was FF. On all those counts the Nikon is probably the best package. The Sony and Canon can resolve more detail for landscapes or architecture and can be blown up larger, they probably have the edge in studio / stock photography work.

The Nikon produces skin tones beautifully and is the best performer in low light, although the Canon comes very close (again from my reading, I don't own one).

It is worth mentioning the low light ability of this camera and by that, I mean the ability to shoot at higher ISO than anything else around, yet produce excellent images. You can be shooting handheld, in virtual darkness and produce quality images. Living in the UK, this was really important to me (we specialise in cloud) and the camera is truly outstanding in this respect. Even when there is noise, it is grainy and film like; ultimately it is usable rather than unusable. Less pixels than the competition = larger pixels; this translates into an ability to pick up more light.

The Nikon is much better thought out than my 40D - it is more comfortable to hold, it is easier to change the settings on the fly (you tend to spin dials on the camera rather than having to delve into sub-sub menus), it is more ruggedly constructed and more configurable but on the other hand only has half the resolution of the Sony or 5D MkII. However, it blows up to 50cm by 70cm without pixelation (that's as far as I have got) and beyond that it's academic for me, as I don't have a house big enough to cope with larger prints. For some the ability to resolve the finest detail in landscapes may be more pertinent.
You do need to fiddle a little more with the in camera settings to get the sharpness, contrast etc that you want for your shot but the camera is so configurable that you can really control your output.

The autofocus is excellent on the Nikon (superior to the competition) and I have the grip which gives me 8fps when needed (it did mean buying another memory card as they don't last long on machine gun mode).
The quality of the images I have produced from plays, landscapes and action is really high - note the quality of the images is high, not necessarily the photographer (some of my landscapes in low light are on Flickr, type - Sun Setting Over Woodingdean into Google).

In terms of lenses, the spending does not stop with the camera. Full frame cameras need good glass, as they are devils for showing up the flaws in anything less. I bought the Nikor 50mm f/1.4D - the quality is in a different league and worth the bit extra - I paid about £200. For a zoom I chose the Nikor 80-200mm f/2.8 D, this set me back about £600 but you could probably shave a bit off that price. This zoom is again pro-quality but you could pay significantly more without improving image quality. I also tried a manual 20mm film lens second hand and was not disappointed with the results.

I only ramble on about lenses because a kit lens really does not cut it with this camera and you will be disappointed if you spend mega bucks on the D700 and then go low-calorie on the glass.

I am really happy with the D700, mainly because it suits the type of shooting that I generally do and is a great all-rounder.

I started digital with the D100 which at the time I thought was pretty good, the D200 then came out and I purchased that. The improvement over the D100 was pretty marked. When the D300 arrived I decided that the improvements over the D200 didn't warrant an upgrade. I decided to save my pennies and go the whole hog and buy a D3. Imagine my surprise when they announced the D700! I ordered one right away and it turned up early in August. What can I say about this piece of kit. It does all the blurb tells you it will do, the full frame being a great bonus. I went digital from an F70 so all of my lenses were full frame compatible thank goodness. Everything about the D700 is great although the live view will take a bit of getting used to. Like the D100 and D200 I find in my old age that the notch on the on off switch is too small, wearing gloves in cold weather makes it awkward to feel. I recommend anyone thinking of going for an upgrade from the D200, forget the D300 and go straight for the D700 the extra cost is worth every penny. Try not to buy kit lenses although as a stop gap they will do a pretty good job. The camera only being as good as its lens, fast Sigma lenses go well with the D700. Buy and enjoy you will not be disappointed.