tntcorp wrote:
there was another fmer who took the slower d800 to a polo (horseback) competition and post the crisp action photos as samples of the d800 af. from my opinion, i don't believe the images received much post processing.
do a search on "d800 autofocus is crap... not" or some similar phrase to view the images for yourself.
tom
Yes, I remember that thread. The D800, in my experience, does 3D tracking significantly smoother than the D3s. It also performs well in focus acquisition in low light situations where the D3s would hunt. However, I still give the edge to the D3s in terms of accuracy and the fact that it still has an AF-ON button to decouple autofocus from the shutter release button for trap focusing.
I own a D7000 and recently picked up a D700 with 10k clicks and battery grip for $1600. Keeping the D7000 as a backup and for video if needed. May eventually sale the D7000 and get a D800 for primary but not soon.
Since you aren't making money from your camera, you might be ahead to sit it out and wait for the replacement to the D300. I have no doubt it will be a better camera than the D700, and will be half the cost of a D800. All your current lenses will work on it, and that should leave enough money for you to buy a decent portrait lighting system (assuming you don't really have much.) At any rate, there is no way I'd buy a new D700--it's dated technology and you'll lose a ton of $$ right off the top.
Recently, I am using both the D700 and D800 and both are good cameras without the reported focus issue on my D800.
For your type of shooting I would say D700 suits you more than the D800 due to the following reasons:
1) D700 are for machine gunners and D800 are for snipers. Machine gunners just blast away hoping to get just that one shot that hits the target, while the snipers wait for just that single shot to make a kill.
2) D700 are for functions, sports and wedding where lots of shots are taken and sorting and processing are needed, with the smaller file size do help.
D800 are for advertisement, arts, landscapes, studio work where only a few well planned shots are taken, and the large file size helps in the enlargement needed for final printout. Just like most medium format users do.
hans98ko wrote:
Recently, I am using both the D700 and D800 and both are good cameras without the reported focus issue on my D800.
For your type of shooting I would say D700 suits you more than the D800 due to the following reasons:
1) D700 are for machine gunners and D800 are for snipers. Machine gunners just blast away hoping to get just that one shot that hits the target, while the snipers wait for just that single shot to make a kill.
2) D700 are for functions, sports and wedding where lots of shots are taken and sorting and processing are needed, with the smaller file size do help.
D800 are for advertisement, arts, landscapes, studio work where only a few well planned shots are taken, and the large file size helps in the enlargement needed for final printout. Just like most medium format users do....Show more →
jmcelvoy wrote:
I'm looking at upgrade from my D7000 to either the D800 or D700. I'd like the full frame sensor & better image quality at higher ISO. I do mostly High School Seniors with an occasional family and maternity session. With some of he seniors, I go out and photography them at their sport. It's about $800 more to get the D800...will I see that much in return?
The D700 was great in its time and a lot of people are still happily taking photos with them today, but the D800 is better in pretty much every way. The D800 sharpness, colour quality, and dynamic range is state of the art in 35mm. The D700 technology is four years old and rather dated by today's standards.
Whether it's worth the extra money to you is subjective. To me it doesn't make much sense to pay good money for old technology when the newer stuff is so much better.
I've been going through this upgrade dilemma myself. I have enough funds to upgrade to a D800 but the huge NEF files scare me. As it is, my mac mini is already struggling to process 12MP NEFs... with the 36MP NEFs I think it would probably blow up If you don't print huge and you just want an all-around camera, I'd say either get the D700 or wait for the D600 and use the extra money for glass. No one ever regrets buying quality glass.
I shoot landscape so the extra resolution is AWESOME!!!! That being said, I have a hard time getting sharp handheld shots like portraits using the same technique that I successfully used with my D700. The other day I was talking to my brother about this same thing, and he asked well it's just 3x the resolution, doesn't that mean that at when you print the same size the images would look the same. I told him no because I had 1 sharp pixel before and now i have 3x un-sharp pixels in its place. It has been really frustrating.
The only way I think a D800 is worth it is if you are using strobes or a tripod outdoor well lit is probably also an exception but I haven't tried. Outside of that better results are easier had on a D700. Hope you find what works best for you!
I'd be willing to replace my 7000 with a 800 if they ever come out with a firmware to reduce the size of the raw files. Once and if that happens I migh just be on that bandwagon.
To me it doesn't make much sense to pay good money for old technology when the newer stuff is so much better.
yet people continue to pay ME "good money" in this troubled economy to shoot their rodeo kids
with my 'ancient D3' I'd take another before buying a crippled D800. I need a Pro body with frame rate.
I don't pray and spray, rather need the speed to keep up with what I see AND capture. Don't need 24 or 36 MP's
either and I'm doing incredibly well with just 12 (D3/D300s/D2Xs)....thank you very much.
I'd take a NIB D700 in a heartbeat as a backup, preferring FX "pop" over my stellar D7K's IQ, YMMV
Just remember kids....newer isn't necessarily better. They're tools that do our bidding, learn 'em and enjoy.
hans98ko wrote:
Recently, I am using both the D700 and D800 and both are good cameras without the reported focus issue on my D800.
For your type of shooting I would say D700 suits you more than the D800 due to the following reasons:
1) D700 are for machine gunners and D800 are for snipers. Machine gunners just blast away hoping to get just that one shot that hits the target, while the snipers wait for just that single shot to make a kill.
2) D700 are for functions, sports and wedding where lots of shots are taken and sorting and processing are needed, with the smaller file size do help.
D800 are for advertisement, arts, landscapes, studio work where only a few well planned shots are taken, and the large file size helps in the enlargement needed for final printout. Just like most medium format users do....Show more →
LOL yet people continue to pay ME "good money" in this troubled economy to shoot their rodeo kids
with my 'ancient D3' I'd take another before buying a crippled D800. :O I need a Pro body with frame rate.
I don't pray and spray, rather need the speed to keep up with what I see AND capture. Don't need 24 or 36 MP's
either :doh: and I'm doing incredibly well with just 12 (D3/D300s/D2Xs)....thank you very much. :p
I'd take a NIB D700 in a heartbeat as a backup, preferring FX "pop" over my stellar D7K's IQ, YMMV
Just remember kids....newer isn't necessarily better. They're tools that do our bidding, learn 'em and enjoy. :beer:...Show more →
Well in this case newer is definitely better, in pretty much every way.
It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should drop everything and make a mad rush to upgrade. For some the D800 file sizes may be cumbersome and the computing resources required must also be taken into consideration. The changes in workflow require some adjustment, and perhaps some software upgrades may be necessary as well. All of these require time, effort, and money. Everyone has different needs and wants, and whether it's worth it is subjective to each individual.
The point I was making is that sensor technology has improved a considerable amount in the last four years since the D3/D700 were introduced. I can get much sharper jpegs with better colours and more dynamic range than raw files out of the D700. Raw D800 files are extremely malleable in post processing and for my workflow require a lot less work to get decent output, compared to D300/D700 raw files, which in turn makes my workflow more productive. But I did have to spend money on a new computer and additional storage to get there.
I'm glad your equipment is working well for you. It was good in it's time and it's still good today, and will probably still be good well into the future. The D800 really isn't a sports/action camera and anyone considering that kind of use should look at other options. The OP doesn't shoot rodeos and he doesn't need a high frame rate. For portraits and seniors it's a no-brainer; the D800 will provide him with better quality for his needs than the D700 will.
I have and still use my d800 for action shots and macro and landscape and portraits and and and.... My d700 I use right along with it and am very happy. The d700 files amaze me still to this day. I really use the d800 for me and my d700 is my work horse money making machine. Guess I'm getting another d7000 as well soon for a little more reach. I loved my first d7000 but needed extra cash at the time to get other equipment...
trenchmonkey wrote: yet people continue to pay ME "good money" in this troubled economy to shoot their rodeo kids
with my 'ancient D3' I'd take another before buying a crippled D800. I need a Pro body with frame rate.
I don't pray and spray, rather need the speed to keep up with what I see AND capture. Don't need 24 or 36 MP's
either and I'm doing incredibly well with just 12 (D3/D300s/D2Xs)....thank you very much.
I'd take a NIB D700 in a heartbeat as a backup, preferring FX "pop" over my stellar D7K's IQ, YMMV
Just remember kids....newer isn't necessarily better. They're tools that do our bidding, learn 'em and enjoy. ...Show more →
I am pretty sure that your clients don't really care if you shoot with the D3 or D800, or that they even know what camera you shoot with. They are paying the photographer himself.
trenchmonkey wrote: yet people continue to pay ME "good money" in this troubled economy to shoot their rodeo kids
with my 'ancient D3' I'd take another before buying a crippled D800. I need a Pro body with frame rate.
I don't pray and spray, rather need the speed to keep up with what I see AND capture. Don't need 24 or 36 MP's
either and I'm doing incredibly well with just 12 (D3/D300s/D2Xs)....thank you very much.
I'd take a NIB D700 in a heartbeat as a backup, preferring FX "pop" over my stellar D7K's IQ, YMMV
Just remember kids....newer isn't necessarily better. They're tools that do our bidding, learn 'em and enjoy. ...Show more →
brewercm wrote:
I'd be willing to replace my 7000 with a 800 if they ever come out with a firmware to reduce the size of the raw files. Once and if that happens I migh just be on that bandwagon.
They already have a way to reduce the size of the raw files. They have 3 levels of compression. The more compression you use, the smaller the file and, if the manual is to be believed, the differences in file sizes are significant.
Actually it is a silly post that gives no consideration to how the OP might use a camera. I shoot with the D700 and neither shoot functions, sports nor weddings and never blast away.
The D700 may be old technology but Nikon really hit a sweet spot with that camera. Yes, the D800 is newer with a number of changes, some of which are appealing to users, some of which make it unattractive to other users. If you need 36 megapixels, this camera is a dream. If you don't, 36 megapixels are either a waste or a pain in the butt. The week I shot with the camera demonstrated all of that. I also discovered the re-designed grip simply doesn't work for my hand.
I'm grateful that I've had two and a half years with the D700 and don't see myself rushing out to buy the D800. Were I in OP's situation I'd likely be asking the same questions. I don't believe buying a used D700 at a good price is a mistake if you're content with a 12 megapixel camera. Unless you need the features of the D800 mentioned in this thread, you'll do fine with the older camera. It remains an awesome great performer.
If you don't print huge and you just want an all-around camera, I'd say either get the D700 or wait for the D600 and use the extra money for glass. No one ever regrets buying quality glass.
yet people continue to pay ME "good money" in this troubled economy to shoot their rodeo kids 
I need a Pro body with frame rate.
and I'm doing incredibly well with just 12 (D3/D300s/D2Xs)....thank you very much. 
