Should I keep my Nikon D700?

Embrace m4/3

4 (30.8%)

Keep the D700

9 (69.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[jeremypayne]

I have a D700 and a GF1.  I really, really, really love the D700 ... but she's a big gun.

Should I ditch the D700 and embrace m4/3?  I could sell my D700 kit and really go m4/3 crazy without having to spend a dime out of pocket.

Should I?  Will I regret it?

I have a D700 with the 24-120, 50 1.4, 17-35, 70-200 and lots of smaller accesories - from ballheads to TCs.

For the GF1, all I have is the 20mm pancake ... I would buy a new body (GX1?, GH2?), the new 14-42, the 45-175 and 100-300.

[JonathanRimmel]

No, don't keep your Nikon D700...

Give it to me!  

Actually this really depends on your needs. The D700 is a great camera, personally I would not part from it unless it no longer served its purpose. If another system better fulfills your needs, then by all means go for it. But if you find that the D700 is still very useful to you, then keep it. Additionally the D700 is going to be able to do things that m4/3 cannot. Especially in low light. If it were me I would use both (if finances allowed) and get the best of both worlds, raw power and portability.

[Chairman Bill]

I went from a 4/3 to a Nikon D200, to the D700. I'd never go back to either previous format.

[NikoJorj]

Not only formats involved here, but form factors too...
IQ-wise, the D700 is ahead, but one may not need this advantage these days.

For me, I use my goodol'Rebel much less since I received my EPL1 : much more portable, and the easiness to expose to the right of the Olympus makes for the IQ difference with the Rebel in most situations.
What I really miss with the Oly is the ground glass finder. Even if the Rebel's one is small and not that bright either, it's still way beyond the VF2 EVF in harsh sunlight, where shadow lisibility suffers and makes composing tougher on the Oly.
So, I will probably keep the DSLR (or even upgrade it if it breaks).

[kencameron]

I have a 5dMkii and an x100. The 5dMkii and its entourage of lenses spend a lot of time alone in a dark place because their bulk does not sit well with my current  "on the move" photographic style, even though whenever I do take them out I love their IQ and general quality. But I also far from happy with only only one focal length on the x100. None of the alternatives totally fits the bill. The Fuji's brilliant viewfinders have spoiled me for anything inferior (although I haven't yet looked through Sony's new EVF). The 5dMkii similarly sets a certain minimum requirement in relation to video. The NEX series requires big fat lenses. Micro 4/3 seems to lack decent longer primes. I would love a movable screen - my first ever digital camera, a CoolPix something, had one and I miss it and say a little prayer whenever I pass the lake into which I dropped it quite a few years ago. I also realize that if my photographic interests change, the 5dMkii could come back into its own. I can't afford another system without disposing of  something. The outcome - paralysis. which isn't so bad, really, as I am very fortunate to have two brilliant cameras - the problem certainly isn't the equipment. And  Fuji are said to have a mirrorless in the pipeline. I will check back again next year.

[Ken Bennett]

I'm moving all my personal photography, and some of my walking-around professional work, to m4/3. I'm sort of in the same position as you -- trying to figure out if I should sell my personal Canon gear and add a few m4/3 toys tools. I'll keep the big cameras at work (no choice, they belong to my employer), but I'd love to have another m4/3 body, probably a G3, and the 7-14 to add to my GF1, 14, 20, and 45/1.8 (that 45 is awesome, btw.)

Given that I have 40D bodies, there's not a huge IQ difference except at higher ISO values, so I pretty much never take the Canon gear out anymore. (Anyone want a good deal? <g>) So for me it's a pretty easy choice to sell the Canon for the m4/3, especially because I will still have the pro gear at work. In your case, I'm not so sure. I think I'd want to have both systems, at least for now. But I suppose that depends entirely on what you shoot.

Good luck...

[BernardLanguillier]

The key is to understand when/how you take pictures and to have the right equipment for each pattern.

As far as I am concerned, I have identified 4 main types of photographic activities in my life and put in front of it what I think is the best tool on the market for me considering my constraints and legacy:

1. Super casual, no intend to take pics -> iPhone 4 + Schneider lenses
2. Casual, possible photographic opportunities mostly with people and snaps, often in dark places, video possibly needed -> Nikon J1
3. Serious photography
3.1 Weight/bulk is severely constrained -> Nikon D7000 + one lens
3.2 Best quality is key (which can mean detail, quality of bokeh,...) -> used to be Nikon D3x, will be Nikon D800 when released + 2/3 lenses + pano kit + tripod

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

you mean there is such a thing as too many cameras??? Who knew?

Seriously, the Nikon is your key to possibly the most diverse and adaptive camera system existent. It's entirely possible that your needs will change over time and Nikon will have a solution. And of course there are some situations where a pocket camera is just what you need.

But you should do what suits you best.

[EgillBjarki]

If you use your D700, keep it. If you are not using it, or very little, I would sell it.

I have a D700 and a GF1.  I really, really, really love the D700 ... but she's a big gun.

Should I ditch the D700 and embrace m4/3?  I could sell my D700 kit and really go m4/3 crazy without having to spend a dime out of pocket.

Should I?  Will I regret it?

I have a D700 with the 24-120, 50 1.4, 17-35, 70-200 and lots of smaller accesories - from ballheads to TCs.

For the GF1, all I have is the 20mm pancake ... I would buy a new body (GX1?, GH2?), the new 14-42, the 45-175 and 100-300.

[usathyan]

I am in the same boat and seriously contemplating selling D700. The GF1 is just perfect for the kind of shooting I do...

[JohnBrew]

Keep it. Destined to be a classic. Does everything RIGHT!

[bjanes]

The key is to understand when/how you take pictures and to have the right equipment for each pattern.

3. Serious photography
3.1 Weight/bulk is severely constrained -> Nikon D7000 + one lens
3.2 Best quality is key (which can mean detail, quality of bokeh,...) -> used to be Nikon D3x, will be Nikon D800 when released + 2/3 lenses + pano kit + tripod

Bernard,

I assume that the D800 would be an updated D700 (compact body) with higher resolution. Nikon might update the D3x first to avoid pulling the rug out from under that update, before updating the D700. After all, the D700 followed the D3. I know you are in Japan and have your ear to the ground about events there. What do you hear?

Regards,

Bill

[PeterAit]

I am sort of in the same boat with basically the same cameras. After an Alaska trip with just my G2 and 2 lenses, I began to doubt the real need for the D700. Now with a G3 and 4 lenses covering 14mm to 600mm equivalent, I have more doubts. I ran some informal comparisons and try as I might I could not see any advantage of the D700 - but only at low ISOs. At higher ISOs (>=800 certainly and maybe 400 as well) the D700 is clearly lower noise than the G2/3. I have kept the D700 so far for rapid sequence shooting and the ability to use a remote, but how important are those? And, being an amateur, I don't need to impress clients with a big honking camera!

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

I assume that the D800 would be an updated D700 (compact body) with higher resolution. Nikon might update the D3x first to avoid pulling the rug out from under that update, before updating the D700. After all, the D700 followed the D3. I know you are in Japan and have your ear to the ground about events there. What do you hear?

I don't hear much Bill... not much more than whatI heard at Nikon rumors.

Which would indicate that the D3x and D700 will be replaced by a single body in a D700 form factor and with a resolution of 36MP... very soon. But this could be completely wrong of course.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I had a D700 for a very long time. It was perfect. Did everything right, made amazing images and was rather small. Size wise it really isn't that big compared to other cameras. Then I got the D3s and used the D700 as a backup for sometime, and then sold it to a friend because I really didn't need it anymore because I had the D3s. If you use a ff sensor camera, you can't consider stepping down that far to m 4/3. The amount of control and image quality between a pro-ff camera and a m 4/3 is greatly tiled in favor of the pro-ff.

[AlfSollund]

I have previously owned D700, and have for 3 months used the GH-2. For me as an amateur I can live with the GH-2.

I would however consider Sony NEX-7 with adapter to other glass (for me Leica M).

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Frankly I'd get the Nex-7 if your looking at one of those. I have an M9 and an M7 so I know where you are coming form on using Leica glass.....so I think the Nex-7 far out preforms m 4/3 in everything that I have seen.

I'd still keep the d700...........

[jeremypayne]

After trying to use the GF1 + 20mm at an indoor family event where I normally would have used the D700 and 50/1.4 I can say with absolute certainty that I will not be selling the D700.

I will probably still get the Gx1 with the 14-42 X, but I will not be selling my D700. 

[Brian Hirschfeld]

[Rob C]

I'd never part with my D700 because of its splendid quality in available darkness. I also think that coming from film, cut-down 35mm isn't ever going to satisfy.

On the other hand, though the camera is pretty much perfect, these cameras get heavy after a while around the neck. I would also like to get rid of the D200 that introduced me to digital, but the money offered for it is a joke - on me. I'd love an M9 with a 35mm optic as an alternative camera, but at the price, and just for fun, no way.

Rob C