Nikon D700 Review

The D700 presents a Nikon user (or a prospective one) with some interesting choices. The camera's mixed DNA, part D3 and part D300, makes both of these other cameras interesting alternatives.

All three offer essentially the same 12 megapixel resolution along with very similar shooting features and functions. In terms of current US pricing the D3 is about US $5,000, the D700 $3,000, and the D300 about $1,700.

Of course both the D3 and D700 are full frame (FX), while the D300 is reduced frame (DX), with a 1.5X factor lens magnification. Since they have the same effective resolution, it would appear that for those photographers with a preference for shooting with long lenses the D300 might be a better choice, at least so long as ISOs under about 1600 are used.

Naturally, the D700 or D3 would be preferable for those shooting wide, since regular full frame wide lenses, like the remarkable new 14-24mm Nikkor, can be used. (Now that Nikon has FX cameras, and presumably with more and less costly ones on the way eventually, I would be hesitant to buy DX lenses any longer. They could end up being dead-end investments).

So? Which camera to buy? A D3, a D300 or a D700?

My take is that if you need the highest image quality, with the highest ISO capability, fastest frame rates, most rugged shutter, a vertical grip and release, and longest battery life, along with audio note taking and dual card backup capability, the choice has to be the D3.

If smaller size, weight, and bulk are important, then the choice narrows. High ISO? Go for the D700 and get 95% of the D3's goodness along with a saving of $2,000. No need for ultra-high ISO, on a budget, and do a lot of long lens shooting? Then, the D300 is a compelling choice.

more : luminous-landscape