Nikon D700 Review (By Scott Kelby)

d700.jpg

A few weeks back, I went ahead and bought the new Nikon D700, but I really wanted to spend some time with it, and shoot in a number of different situations and scenarios, before I gave you my review. Now that I have a few thousands shots on it, I’m ready to share what I’ve learned.

My Field Report
The D700 was announced on July 1st, and Nikon seeded a number of photo sites with an early review unit, so for more than a month now we’ve all had access to very detailed write-ups of every single pixel, technical aspect, and mechanical specification possible. So, when I do a review, I want to bring a slightly different angle to it, so it’s really more of a ‘Field Report’ (what I liked and didn’t like and my personal impressions from actually using it out in the field).

My challenge in writing this field report, is that while it’s true the D700 is a new camera, it’s really two existing cameras made into one (the guts of a Nikon D3 inside the body of a Nikon D300), so I’m not going to have a bunch of exciting new features to share that everybody doesn’t already know about, so it’s really going to be a “feel for the camera” type of report, and my feelings on who might want one and why. We’ll start with a quick recap of what the D700 brings to the table.

Comparing it to the D300:

Comparing it to the D3:

Things I Really Liked:

What I didn’t like:

The Bottomline
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). The new sensor, the autofocus, the low noise—it all adds up to photos that just beat the D300 (with the D700 you get D3 quality photos, which the D300, good as it is, just can’t deliver).

If all I can find to complain about is the feel of the shutter, this must be one heck of a camera (and it truly is). It puts a full frame 35mm size sensor in a lot of folks hands for $2,000 less than they expected, and they added features that even the D3 doesn’t have, which really makes it a pretty insane deal.

So, the question is; why would anybody buy a D3, when they can buy a D700 with a battery grip, and have nearly the same camera for almost $2,000 less? That’s a good question, and I can’t swear that if a friend asked me if they should spend the extra $2,000 for a D3 that I could look them in the eye and tell them it’s worth it. If they’re a sport shooter or a photojournalist, then I’d probably say yes. Outside of those two groups, I’d have a hard time justifying the extra cost.

Then, who should buy a D700? It’s for anyone who wants to shoot handheld in low light (at higher ISOs than you would ever consider with a D300, like 6400 ISO). It’s for anyone who really wants the advantage of shooting with a 35mm-sized full-frame sensor, and it’s for anyone who just wants better looking images than they’re getting now with a D300 or lower. So, in short, if you’ve dreamed of a D3 without the D3 pricetag, your dreams have finally come true in the Nikon D700 (and it’s why I’m awarding it my “Scott Thinks It’s Hot!” Award). Way to go, Nikon!

(photos courtesy of Nikon).

Exit mobile version