I am making this review of the Nikon D700 from the perspective of someone who also owns a Nikon D300.

Without qualification, the Nikon D300 is a superb camera. So many superlatives have been used with the D300 that I will not repeat them here. All the superlatives used with the D300 applies equally well to the D700. I will add however that as good as the superlatives may have been with the D300, the D700 deserves a bit more.

Let me explain.

The Nikon D700 is equipped with a full frame FX sensor (36.0 x 23.9). This is the same sensor used by the Nikon D3. Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) The D300 on the other hand uses the APS-C sensor (23.6 x 15.8). Both the D700 and the D300 have about the same 12 megapixel rating (with the D300 actually slightly higher).

The D700 having a bigger sensor than the D300 but with about the same megapixel rating means that the size/pixel density of the D700 is much lower than the D300. The ratio is 1.4MP/cm2 vs 3.3MP/cm2 for the D700 and the D300 respectively. A lower ratio means lower noise and this ratio favors the D700. For the D700, this translates to lower noise in capturing the same image than when using using the D300.

The D700 lower noise level in turn translates to the D700 being able to operate at a higher ISO level than the D300. The D700 can operate as high as ISO 25,600 while the D300 can go up to ISO 6,400. It is of course quite rare to shoot at such high ISO as it will always be better to shot at a lower ISO rating. But if both the D700 and D300 were shooting at the same ISO, the D700 will have lower noise levels. Simply put, the higher ISO capability of the D700 versus the D300 indicates the higher level of performance of the D700's sensor vs the D300.

My actual use validates this theoretical advantage. I noticed that while the noise level of the D300 is very good at ISO 1600 and even 3200, the D700 consistently showed lower noise level than the D300 shooting at the same ISO setting and light condition. This is most noticeable when shooting at night with many bright lights in the periphery of the main subject.

In terms of color rendition, I have not noticed any significant differences between the D300 and the D700 in the limited time that I have been using the D700. It may be due to the fact that I have conducted my test at dusk and at night.

When using the D700, the full frame sensor means that one will not need to convert the focal length of the lens by a factor of 1.5x. So a 50mm lens will be a 50mm lens for the D700 rather than its 75mm equivalent when used with the D300.

While this may appear to be a disadvantage on the telephoto side, its gain on the wide angle side is considerable and can only be described as an eye opener. The D700 advantage in wide angle application does not just come from its wider perspective. Rather, it is how the D700 maximizes and makes full use of such excellent lens as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 that makes buying the D700 such an eye opener.

The resulting images taken with the Nikon D700 and the Nikon 14-24mm are clearer, sharper and crisper compared to the D300 even when the focal length in the D700 is zoomed out to its equivalent in the the D300 (21mm in D700 and 14mm in D300). Vignetting is not noticeably worse even when the D700 is used with the 14-24mm glass fully open at its widest focal length (14mm, f/2.8). This is surprising considering that the D700 is now using the full lens instead of just its sweet spot in the center (which would have been to the advantage of the D300 due to its APS-C sensor).

It is not just the wide angle lens that benefited from the D700. Even the slight vignetting I noticed with my 85mm f/1.4 shot with the D300 at f/2.8 is not considerably worse in the D700. I am very surprised at this rather unexpected results as I had expected the opposite. At any rate, vignetting is easily corrected in post-processing.

Still, I should add that for corner to corner sharpness (such as in landscape photography), the D700 with its full-frame sensors will be more demanding on the lens than the D300 with its smaller APS-C sensor.

As to the physical differences between the D700 and the D300, while these two models are roughly equal in size, the D700 is slightly heavier than the D300. This is not an issue for me at all.

What tilts the balance in favor of the D700 is its view finder which is significantly brighter and better than the D300. This difference is very noticeable when switching from the D700 to the D300 and vice versa.

This much improved viewfinder however is a mixed blessing. One disadvantage that the D700 has over the D300 is that the D700 viewfinder captures only 95% of the image while the D300 viewfinder captures 100% of the image shot. So the actual image captured is slightly bigger than what appears in the D700 viewfinder. I understand that this resulted from fitting the bigger sensor from the D3 into the body size of a D300. Given the better image quality of the D700 viewfinder and the better quality of its pictures, I am willing to work with this disadvantage and simply compensate for it during actual use. But I hope that Nikon corrects this though in its next iteration of the D700.

The D700 has an advantage over the D3 as it has an integrated flash which the D3 does not have. The integrated flash is extremely useful when used with the other components of Nikon's Creative Lightning System.

The Nikon MB-D10 Battery Pack Nikon MB-D10 Multi Power Battery Pack for Nikon D300 & D700 Digital SLR Cameras from the D300 fits the D700 perfectly well. This is very convenient as I can opt for a smaller and lighter package when I do not need the MB-D10 for high-speed shooting. This is one advantage that the D700 has over the D3 where the battery pack is integrated with the camera. But a D700 with an MB-D10 is bigger and heavier than a D3. And even when the D700 is equipped with an MB-D10, the D3 is still faster. This makes the D3 a better unit for sports photography.

Since I shoot mostly portrait, special events and landscape and seldom shoot sports, the D700 is perfect for my needs and I can do without the D3. The D700 lower price tag means that I can get the D700 with at least one of Nikon's professional lens.

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens - New, expected release by Nov. 2009

Nikon 135mm f/2.0D AF DC-Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Ideally, the D700 should not be used with the DX lenses. This said, it is possible to use the DX lenses with the D700. The D700 makes the switch to DX lens automatically without need to fiddle with any control. Because the DX lens covers only a section of the D700 sensor, the maximum resolution of using a DX lens on the D700 is only 5.1 megapixel. This smaller coverage is automatically delineated by a box in the D700 viewfinder. In addition to the lower resolution, the extreme two ends of a zoom lens is not usable. Within these limitations, the D700 can use DX lens and produces very good pictures albeit on a smaller resolution / file size.

The D700/FX (1.0x factor) and the D300/DX (1.5x factor) effectively doubles my lens option. For those planning to own both the D300 and the D700, it would be wise to choose a glass that would be usable with both bodies.

In closing, I consider the D700 a good complement to my D300. Except for my Nikon 18-200mm DX lens (which I bought for my Nikon D200), all my glasses and accessories for the D300 can be used with the D700 at its full resolution. I will use the D700 in those times when I need the best results shooting wide angle and/or at high ISO speed. In those times when I need the extra reach, the D300's 1.5x crop factor makes the best use of my telephoto lenses.

Edit: November 22, 2008

I continue to use both the Nikon D300 and the Nikon D700 and often bring both together whenever I go out to shoot. In those times when I just bring one camera body, I choose the D300 whenever range and higher pixel density is a major concern (bec. of the 1.5x crop factor effect on the field of view due to the smaller APS-C sensor but with resolution still at 12megapixel). The D300 is an excellent camera and its 1.5x factor is very handy when I need to reach out with a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom or with my 180mm f/2.8 prime without need of using a teleconverter. For almost every other instance, including portrait, landscape and low light photography however, I find myself reaching out for the D700.

After over 3 and a half months of use, I can safely say that the color depth of the D700 is significantly much better than the D300. The range of colors, the color details, the varying shade of colors, and the dynamic range that the D700 is capable of capturing is considerably better and richer than what the D300 is capable of. This advantage is best appreciated when taking portrait and landscape photos. The difference in dynamic range is specially noticeable when shooting at higher ISO settings as noise imposes considerable limits on the dynamic range possible. The D700 is clearly better than the D300 on dynamic range at high ISO settings.

One other difference I should mention between the D300 and the D700 is the difference that the sensor size has on effective depth of field. The bigger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field while the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field. Point and shoot cameras with minuscule-sized sensor often have the greatest depth of field.

The D700, having a bigger full-frame sensor, has a shallower depth of field than the D300 (which has the smaller APS-C sensor) at the same aperture setting given the same equivalent lens focal length. The difference in the effective depth of field is about one stop. At the same equivalent focal length, the equivalent depth of field of a D700 at f/2.0 would be a D300 at f/1.4.

The shallower depth of field of the D700 would be an advantage to a user who would like to isolate a subject and blur the background. The deeper depth of field of the D300 would be an advantage to a user who would like to keep several subjects at difference distances in focus. I use the D700 where I need to isolate a subject, blur the background, and get the best bokeh. This effect is most noticeable when shooting at wide open apertures from f/1.4 to f/2.8. This, plus the color advantage of the D700, makes the D700 my preferred body for shooting portraits.

Finally, one difference I notice between the D700 and the D300 is that the D700 has a better damped shutter release button. I find that it is easier to release the shutter in the D700 than in the D300. This makes a big difference when shooting at low shutter speeds.

This is an amazing camera. I am not going to go over the specs because you can read about them on just about any camera web site. What I am going to concentrate on is who should buy one and why.

First off, I've read about many folks lamenting having bought the D300 and now feel like the need to "upgrade" to a D700. These are two different cameras for two different purposes and as such don't compete against each other so much as complement each other. The D300 doesn't have the low noise capability (The D700 can get clean images at ISO1600 vice ISO400 for the D300) nor does it have the wide angle capabilities of the D700. The D700 doesn't have the 1.5x multiplier of the D300 so wide angle lenses are truly wide. Additionally, while you can use DX lenses on the D700, you will only be using 5 mp of your sensor.

Another comparison is between the D3 and D700. They both have the same sensor so the image and ISO abilities are the same. The D700 comes slower out of the box but with the Nikon EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for MB-D10 Battery Pack and Nikon D2 and D3 Digital SLR Cameras, Nikon MB-D10 Multi Power Battery Pack for Nikon D300 & D700 Digital SLR Cameras, Nikon BL-3 Battery Chamber Cover for Nikon EN-EL4 and EN-EL4a for the MB-D10, and Nikon MH-21 Quick Charger for Nikon EN-EL4 and EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Batteries (~$500) you will be rocking with 8 fps and great battery life; just barely slower than the D3. Also, I have not found any technical data on the autofocus and processing chip but in my non-scientific side by side comparison the D700 seemed just as fast as the D3 while the D300 appeared noticeably slower. (This was shot with the 85mm 1.4D. This lens does not have Silent Wave Motor focus and therefore relies on the camera's focusing motor.) As I said this is not scientific but I am also guessing that Nikon saved on engineering costs by just transferring the guts of the D3 to the D700 and slowing it down (this is probably the reason the D700 gets such poor battery life (200-300 shots vice 1000 shots) in comparison to the D300).

So without further ado:

Buy the Nikon D700 12.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) if:

You need to shoot in no flash low light situations. With a 1.4 lens at 1600 ISO you would be amazed at the quality of the photos! If you are not doing close up work of people you can get great shots @ 6400 ISO. If you can stand a grain in B+W(a very cool effect by the way), then you can get good shots @ 25,600!

You want to shoot ultra wide. With no multiplication factor, you can shoot truly wide angle photos. The 14mm is 14mm not 21mm like on a DX camera. Also, although you can get the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens which will be the equivalent of 18-36mm, it will still have the distortion of a 12-24mm lens. So compared to the FX D700 you would get 14 deg less width with more distortion.

You are willing to spend $4500 more on the lenses. The body is disposable, the lenses are what last. You could get away with a 50mm 1.4 and that would be a fine place to start and a great way to learn how to frame a picture. However, I would recommend the following 3 lenses and I would recommend getting them in the following order. 1) The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - $1000 (Super fast, incredibly shallow depth of field, and amazing construction. Get this lens and practice getting good with a fixed length lens! Get this lens over the 85mm 1.8 for the construction and 9 blade design. You will be blown away with how low the light can be and you can still get the shot! (Rumors have it that Nikon is about to replace this lens with a new improved version. I expect the new lens will be better but will likely cost 1.5 to 2x as much.) 2) The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - $1700 This is the lens pros use to earn their living. (It has been 5 years since Nikon updated this lens so it is due for a replacement soon but again I am sure it will be more expensive and this lens rocks right now) 3. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens - ~$1600. Stupid fast, stupid wide, and stupid great. What more can you ask?

Buy the Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens if:

You want an amazing all around lens. The Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens (27-300mm equivalent) You really never need to take this lens off. You can shoot wide (27mm) and telephoto (300mm) Wow this lens does it all.

You want to shoot long. If you take a D300, the 70-200mm 2.8, and a 1.7x teleconverter you get a 178-510mm F4.8 for $3600!! Or add the 300mm 2.8 and you get a 765mm F4.8 for $6500 ($3000 cheaper and 5 lbs lighter than a 600mm F4 lens). Totally astounding.

You shoot in relatively decent light. Until I got the D700, I routinely shot great portrait shots at home, at night, and with poor lighting using the D300 and the 85mm 1.4 at 1/30s and ISO200-400.

You want to buy and take advantage of DX lenses. Really you only need 2 lenses with the D300. You will want the 18-200mm and the 12-24mm. That will cover everything you need for a grand total of $1500. I would still recommend the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens. A stupid fast 128mm 1.4 on the D300.

Buy the Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) if everything about the D700 fits your shooting requirements and:

You shoot more than 3000 photos per month. The D700's shutter is rated to 150,000 cycles while the D3 is 300,000. Nikon's generational replacement cycle for their flagship camera is 4 years. That means if you shoot ~3000 photos per month you will shoot ~150,000 shots in 4 years and it will be time to replace the camera anyway. If you shoot 10,000 shots per month you will have to replace the camera in 15 months. However, with the D3 you would not have to replace the camera until 30 months.

You earn your living shooting photographs. Memory cards rarely fail but do you want to lose thousands of dollars and your reputation by risking it. Get the D3 and set it to write the images to both cards. Yes, there are other techniques to minimize your exposure to this failure but none are as easy and reliable.

You don't want the option to remove the battery and vertical grip. With the D700 you can add the MB-D10 to make it 98% of the D3. However, if you don't want the weight or need the speed you can remove it and save the space and weight. This is useful for long hiking trips (However, I would recommend a D300 for this unless you were hand shooting in low light).

I've been a semi-pro digital user for five years. I started wtih a Fuji S2, moved up to the Nikon D2H (horrible reliability, expensive), D2Hs, D200, D300 and finally the D700.

With every camera prior to the D700 there were compromises and Nikon was always two years behind Canon. Finally, when the D3 came out, they were in the lead again, but the price was too much for my semi-pro use to justify. So I struggled along with a pair of D300s for another eight months. The D300 is an excellent camera, however, it has some serious flaws: It overexposes and is particularly hot on the red channel. It's higher ISO performance is mediocre and really kills detail. And it's DX.

I bought a D700 for $2950 and, predictably, the price fell $200 a few days after that. But I needed it for an assignment that would involve shooting in a dimly light garage.

The camera worked perfectly, although once again, I am seeing overexposure in some scenes. The auto WB is much improved over the D300. The dynamic range is much improved, as well. And the AF seems faster.

This camera has me going back to prime lenses. The DOF is much shallower and the bokeh much nicer with my 85mm and 50mm lenses on the D700. Eventually, I want to be all primes on the long end. My 300 f/4 gives wonderful results on this body. The 70-200 is a mixed bag. I'm just not happy with the look of the images. They are not as sharp as they are on the D300 (I kept one). Weird. I'm still testing.

I love everthing about the D700 except it's tendency to overexpose and the fact Canon's competitor has video and more MP. Video really should have been on this camera; after all, the D90 at 1/3 the price has it. Nikon dropped the ball by not including it on the D700. Two months after being introduced, the D700 is already a somewhat obsolete camera, thanks to Canon's offering of more mp and video.

All that said, as a Nikon user I'm glad to finally have 5D image quality in a full-frame Nikon, even though it comes at a premium. I feel the current combo of the D300/D700 will last me for several years, and will eventually result in a transition to almost all prime lenses, if Nikon ever gets its act together and offers some worthy wide angle primes to match with this body. Meantime I find the 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 105 micro, 180 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 to be excellent matches for this body. The Beast 28-70 f/2.8 is also a good performer on this body, as is the 14-24 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is questionable.

Be sure to get the grip for best balance and extended battery life. I find the D700 has better battery performance than the D300. Also if you do portraits, get a portrait Expo Disc and download the portrait custom setting for your camera. The results are very nice.

The Nikon D700 is exactly the digital SLR that I envisioned when I first heard that such an animal existed. After over a quarter-century of shooting film and gradually realizing the advantages digital holds for me through using a high-end point-and-shoot as an adjunct to my faithful old Nikon SLR film camera, I eagerly bought a D70s ... and was exceedingly frustrated and disappointed. My familiar old lenses responded differently (the 1.5 "multiplier effect") ... when they responded at all (a "non-CPU" lens could be mounted, but all camera exposure and metering functions were disabled, making the result disadvantageous even compared to a pre-AF film body and lens).

Not any more! Even though the D700 was primarily intended to be used with auto-focusing (AF) lenses, it also functions superbly with my non-CPU (manual focus) lenses, only losing the "shutter priority" and "program" modes (because, of course, the camera can't alter the aperture ... that's my job on any non-CPU lens) ... the D700 can even give me focusing feedback after I enter a manual lens's information into the D700's menu. I once more feel like I have good, quick control over the aspects of photography that create the character of my photographs. No more fumbling with lots of fingers over several sets of buttons to tell the camera the simplest things ... it's back to rotating the focus and aperture rings (or not, if I choose the AF lenses).

And the annoying "multiplier effect" is gone with the D700's full-frame ("FX") sensor. My 50mm lens -- my mainstay -- is now a true 50mm lens again (if you have to ask why that matters, the D700 isn't for you). I personally don't pursue wide-angle photography, but I definitely can see how those who do (and who haven't been able to afford a D3) will be doing cartwheels if they can get their hands on a D700.

The D700's viewfinder is also light years above my D70s, making everything from focusing to composition that much easier and more precise. The D700's whopping big LCD screen is also a big advantage. When in review mode, the display is large ... or, at my choice, the increased data option shrinks the thumbnail to a still-valuable size and places the data around the photo instead of over it like the D70s does.

I'm finding the grip very comfortable, and although the weight is hefty compared to any point-and-shoot, it is a well-balanced camera and that weight doesn't bother me. Being able to shoot in RAW mode is resulting in not only better end-result photos for me, but also (once I get the RAW files on my computer) much more accurate feedback on what I can improve about my technical choices ... and one of digital photography's most significant advantages is that faster feedback. Also of note for those who like working in RAW, unlike the D70, I now have the option to shoot ONLY in RAW mode, not just RAW + JPEG, and that saves valuable memory space.

My only negative comment so far is that Nikon's proprietary software (included with the D700) is necessary to download photos to one's computer. I'll adapt, but it just seems an unnecessary restriction.

Even though it's priced well under the other full frame Nikon, the D3, the D700 certainly does not come cheap. For me, it was the only affordable solution, and well worth every penny. If you spent years shooting film and count a bundle of old Nikon lenses among your close friends, the D700 is going to make you wonder if you'll ever stop grinning!

***

Update, November 21, 2008: I've had the D700 for three months now. Three months isn't a long time to evaluate durability, and I'm certainly not one of those people who shoots 1000 or more captures a week (I still have frugal film habits), but early use is one of the common timeframes for quality problems to surface. I'm certainly pleased that I've experienced no problems with the camera's function.

The D700 continues to exceed my expectations as a camera and as a true successor to my film camera. It has put the fun back into photography for me -- once set up to my preferences, the D700 stays out of my way and lets me photograph the way I have for decades, with the pleasing results I'm used to getting ... and with all the advantages of digital capture. Despite my miserly film-born habits, I've happily made enough digital images to account for almost half the camera body's purchase price if those captures were translated to film and developing.

Now that I've established a workflow (Nikon Transfer to Adobe Bridge CS3 to Photoshop CS3), having to use Nikon Transfer for downloading images is a non-issue at home. On the road, though, I'll have to wait until returning to my own computer (with the Nikon Transfer software) to see my pics, so this is still a definite limitation.

What has totally blown my mind is the D700's performance in low light. I never expected high ISO captures to be so useable, let alone what I've gotten at ISO 6400. I'm shooting in the house with ambient lighting and no flash and actually getting a high percentage of "keepers"! No longer do I shrug and say "too bad, not enough light" nor does a flash disturb my subject and alter or destroy the mood. I've also found I can capture good images at indoor events and competitions (such as llama and horse shows) without flash, making my presence a non-issue instead of a potential disruption. As a result, the D700 has given me a brand new opportunity to capture a significant segment of my world in pixels.

No, ISO 6400 image quality is not equivalent to ISO 200, nor is it often really suitable for 100% size printing or display (11.8"x17.7"). But for smaller prints and display (in the 25-50% range), it's remarkable, and certainly superior to anything I could possibly have captured with any other DSLR (besides the D3, which has the same sensor), let alone on film (because I primarily shoot nature outdoors, I never could justify loading any film higher than ISO 400 in my Nikon FE). I have never in my life had anything printed larger than 8x12 with one exception, and usually I've not even printed that large, so the limitations on the D700's ISO 6400 are minimal for me (and what it can do is still not achievable otherwise). To see some actual samples, you're welcome to go to my Flickr photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishingcat) and search for photos tagged with Nikon D700 and ISO 6400, or just search for Nikon D700 and look at the EXIF data for the resulting photos if you prefer. Unless the photo is also tagged with "noise ninja", it has NO noise reduction (I'm from film, remember -- minimal digital post-processing skills at this time!. If you have and use noise-reduction software, you already know what further improvements can be made in the dark areas of the captures.

I do have one new quibble with the D700 -- I wish Nikon had not limited the non-CPU lens menu to only ten lenses. Because I'm coming from years of comfort with shooting manual focus lenses on film, that's what I do on the D700 ... and as a result, I've got all ten slots full! If I want to use a teleconverter (or if I acquire any other manual focus lenses), I have to re-program one or more of the slots. Hopefully Nikon will provide a firmware update to address this, although I'm not holding my breath either. Certainly a huge percentage of people love their autofocus lenses; the demand and financial return to NIkon for such an update probably isn't significant from a marketing standpoint.

I'm also finding that it would have been more logical for the Auto-ISO setting to be available through the dedicated ISO button instead of in the shooting menu. Again, a possible firmware update could address this ... if Nikon feels it's warranted. It's not impossible to work around, just less convenient than it could be. I'm not sure if other currently available DSLRs share this arrangement or not.

Initially I would have said that those people who started photography with DX format (or who converted to digital years ago) would not see any major benefit in the D700. Now I'm not so sure.

Certainly anyone who has only DX lenses would be financially impacted by also needing to purchase good full-frame lenses to actually benefit from the D700's full-frame capabilities; anyone whose preferences include telephoto and wildlife photography will also be disadvantaged by losing the "reach" that the 1.5x DX multiplier provides if they sell their current Nikon DSLR to finance a D700. (You can use DX lenses on the D700, but they use a smaller portion of the sensor, resulting in a lower MP image ... hardly a reasonable use of a $2.5K+ camera.)

However, for low ambient light photography, the D700 has no equal (other than the significantly more expensive D3). Before experiencing what the D700 can do, I said, "Well, I don't really use high ISO, so I don't need that capability." Now that I have the capability, I'm really using it, and I wouldn't give it up for anything.

Fortunately, even if the choice is not entirely clear-cut, the choices ARE there. Thank you, Nikon!!!

First things first: I had waited for a camera like this to go digital. Of course, as part of my transition and as a way to cope with the learning curve, I decided to look at this camera as if it were some type of cross between the Nikon F100 and the F5. It does have the heft of the latter, and the ease of use of the former. The complexity of the menus was intimidating at first, but a couple of evenings with the manual, camera in hand, took care of most of my questions. Now, I simply take photographs with my film lenses and the behemoth I purchased to accompany this camera: the AF-S 24-70 f2.8.

Even for a newbie in the digital world, this camera is fairly uncomplicated; since the layout resembles so much that of the F100, the photographic part of the workflow was a joy. However, things get complicated in the digital end: 1. Do I have to shoot RAW, JPEGs, both? 2. What to do with RAW files? 3. How to download them to the computer? 4. Which type of cards works well with the camera? 5. Do I need Nikon software absolutely?

Answers found:
1. Not necessarily; the best compromise is to shoot RAW and JPEGs at the same time, but it may create storage crisis.
2. One can treat RAW files as digital negatives and that helps in case one screws up a JPEG.
3 Either from the camera or with a card reader, the choice is personal. I've done both, and found I like the card reader better because it won't use camera juice.
4. Best: Sandisk Extreme III or Lexar Pro, with a transfer speed of at least 80 MB/sec.
5. No, unless one wants to replicate some of the in-camera editing.

And this brings me to something else: the D-Lighting magic wand! I simply love this feature, but I don't use it while shooting, as it creates an unnecessary amount of noise. However, together with the color rendition, I like D-Lighting a lot. I dislike the fact that not all AF sensors were created equal (some in the periphery are not cross-sensitive), but then, it's relatively easy to work around this problem. In short, for those going digital from an extensive film background, it's an excellent camera body, and it will remain unparallelled for a long time. Who needs more megapixels when the camera is so well-crafted?

Did I mention that it fell on the floor on my third day of ownership? Granted, it fell of a chair because I pulled the strap with my foot. Nothing happened. Also, I took it on a walk in the frigid winter of IL, and the camera worked as well as any of my other weather-resistant Nikon bodies.

One recommendation: do not use the Nikon strap. It hurts! From experience carrying heavy cameras, get a slightly elastic strap, as the camera can be very heavy, esp. when combined with the 24-70 or the 80-200.

I've been shooting for over 30 years, shooting Nikon, Canon, Leica and Olympus. I'm a believer that the photographer is far more important than the camera, and I can pretty much get great results from any camera. But this camera simply stands out from the pack. It is nearly perfect. And I say that as someone who usually gets professional cameras.

If you want to know about the camera, read the review on [...]. No sense in me adding more.

After living with this camera for 9 months, I have lost all desire for any other camera. I'm a gear-head and love to get my hands on new equipment. I love getting new cameras and always figure out what I would improve on it. But this camera just does everything and I (this amazes me) just don't care what else they come out with. The feel, the controls, the image quality and overall performance is simply amazing. It is nearly perfect - so what are the "flaws"?

Well, I wish I could lock the shooting banks. The camera lets you set it up and store your settings in a "bank". This lets you rapidly change to a particlar bank to load your settings. You might have one bank set for sports, another for night time shooting, another for multi-flash lighting, etc. The flaw? Any change you make changes the bank. So your bank changes as you change the camera. That nearly wrecks shooting banks for me. The workaround is to set your banks, then save them to a CF card (I use that old 1GB card I had laying around). Before a shoot, I pop the card in and reload all the settings. I just with I could lock the banks and not have to carry that card around.

And you can't combine the mirror-up mode with the self timer. You either have to use a remote release (another thing to carry) or let it time out (it fires after 30 seconds with the mirror up).

That's pretty much it. Well, it is not cheap, but considering you get the same performance as the Nikon D3 for half the price, this is an amazing deal.

Is 12 megapixels enough? Well, I have a 44" printer and print 24" x 36" all the time from Photoshop CS4. Yes, 12MP is fine for me. If you print larger than that, then more pixels would be nice. Of course, one of the advantages of this camera is with only 12MP, each pixel (sensel) is huge and captures a lot of light. I shoot at night without a flash all the time. This camera is simply capable of doing things that were never really possible before.

Just remember - the camera is an accessory to the lens system. I have a lot of Nikon pro lenses and this camera gets the most out of that glass. If you are thinking about getting cheap glass for this camera, you may wish to reconsider. I'd rather have a pro lens and a low-end camera than a pro camera with cheap glass. Glass lasts for a long time and this camera can use nearly every Nikon lens made since the middle 1960's. Invest in your lenses, because they tend to go up in price, while the cameras get cheaper and better.

If you want a suggestion, consider this camera with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. This combination makes some jaw-dropping images and every girl loves it.

The D700 is an eye-popping instrument! After 25 years out of the photo market, I jumped both feet. I looked at the Canon,,,seemed a bit cheap in the feel market. The 700 is like picking up a milled vault with a lens on the end. Great balance. Beautiful touch and feel...and ridiculous features. I bought this as an end camera; one you cannot outgrow. It has proven to be easy to use and endlessly deep in what it can accomplish. YOUR ability is the only limit. I purchased an 85 1.4 and a 70-200 f 2.8 with the camera and have been blown AWAY but the pictures, in spite of my lack of ability. I've taken 1000's of photo in 40 years...nothing compares to this camera, NOTHING. Expensive? Yep. The best? Yep? Life is short, buy the Nikon D700 and don't look back. A true gem. MCleary

"Wohohoho!" <-- that was what I "said" when I saw the first shots taken with the D700. Maybe this expansive reaction does not describe exactly the differences in image quality nor does say much about handling and ergonomics, however it says that I was QUITE surprised coming after almost one year of using an already wonderful dSLR that I enjoyed a lot.
What I will try to do is to put down some differences between these two cameras and pinpoint some considerations you might be interested in if you want to jump full-frame. Keep in mind that although astonished by differences in image quality, I haven't taken this step yet and the reasons will be explained a little bit later.

The Image - noise, color, accuracy and some more
When talking about Nikon full-frame cameras (D3/x and D700 - for the moment...) what probably comes first to one's mind is high ISO low noise capability. The improvement in this area is so dramatic that this alone might be a reason to go FX. Endless debates about EV differences in noise levels may continue for ages and, probably, no definitive objective answer will be written down. The point is that shooting at ISO 6400 is a must if you want to truly understand what high ISO low noise really means. True, a relatively lower resolution, 12mp sensor helps achieving such results, but the key here is not only the noise is less obvious or less chroma or... whatever, is the fact that, combined with the dramatic dynamic rendition in image of this camera, D700 allows you to do things that were not possible with D300 (or other DX camera) without a drastic reduction in detail and smudging shadows with impossible noise. For example - and that is the best argument I can raise - I am a big fan of underexposure as creative tool in photography. With the D300 I had to pay attention of exposing correctly at high ISO - maybe to overexpose a bit - then to bring down exposure in Capture NX2 if I wanted to achieve a 1/ creatively underexposed image with 2/ inapparent noise in shadows and 3/ preserved details, all these at ISO higher than 1000. To my surprise, D700 is much more forgiving with drastic (>1EV) underexposure in what relates to noise levels and lack of suppression of details. The image is clearer and more detailed that a corresponding DX one, underexposed with the same amount. The direct consequence of this is less time in post-processing (which I am not a very big fan of) and more keepers for your portfolio. Oh, and by the way, talking about Capture NX2, don't believe all those that complain about it. At least on my 4GB 2.4 iMac works flawlessly and, up to this moment, is the best RAW convertor for NEFs in my opinion.
Back to noise, you might be interested to find out that ISO 6400 is a new, virgin territory to be explored with the D700 and this opens you the world of almost noise-free still photography at candlelight (exposure at 1ft/ 30cm from a small candle is 1/60 sec at F/1.4 at ISO 6400). Of course, you can push the limits and go further if you have a less expensive lens (mark that I avoided the term "non-pro lens") using a good de-noising software in post-processing. Coming to that, I tried Noise Ninja, Imagenomics Noiseware and some other software but, whenever I need to artificially remove noise, I always get back to Nik Software Dfine 2.0 which is a superb plugin for Photoshop. In my opinion, it does the best compromise in noise removal vs. detail preservation. Get the trial version and make some tests, you will understand my point.
One more thing about high ISO: usually performance at these levels come at a price: sacrifice in detail rendition and errors in color accuracy. If the first was covered some lines above, I just want to say some words about color at high ISO.
Contrary to some beliefs, color accuracy depends not only on the gear but most important to the quality of light. One has to work with a balanced spectrum to achieve good color rendition and maybe this is the reason that difficult colors (e.g. skin color, colors in shaded areas etc) should have high quality light sources to be put in their real value in a photograph.
Strangely enough, the best artificial light source that comes immediately after the natural sun (with a bit of energy "taming"), is the cheap incandescent lightbulb (see color spectra vs energy for incandescent bulbs, lowell lamps and xenon lamps compared to CFL and laboratory reference lamps). Thus, even at low light energy, D700 behaves wonderful and on PRE white balance setting color accuracy is excellent and quite identical over the entire range of ISOs up to 6400. This is even better under natural light, color gamut is well preserved with a slight reduction in shades of deep red and blues (sky gradients may become slightly masked at high ISO levels. Overall, colors are exquisite and beautiful and extremely natural as long as you shoot under balanced light or, at least, under balanced gradients of light. Keep in mind that the worst white balance scenario is, always, auto white balance and fluorescent which, due to the inherent limitations of color distribution within fluorescent spectra, photos tend to have unpleasant hues.
What is different, too, from D300 is the noise absence at low ISO levels, maybe more important than the same behavior at high ISO.

Optics and cost of transition
The conclusions of the discussion above will provide you a huge latitude of creativity. You will not feel "limited" anymore even using lower quality optics. However, if you own a lineup of consumer-grade optics, some deteriorations in the outcome will be evident. The problem is that with a higher pixel pitch and full frame, all, but ABSOLUTELY all flaws of your lenses will show up in capitals. D700 comes with a kit lens that serves better as body cap than optics on such a camera. Get rid of that AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF QUICKLY, otherwise you might feel the urge to send your D700 to Nikon for a checkout. Not even the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras will be spared, some vignetting will be obvious under certain shooting conditions (clear sky that covers half of image, large areas of light and uniform color etc). The latest additions from Nikon optics, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens are both good match for this camera and also some of the older lenses, especially the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF , the 35mm f/2 AIS and the 105 AIS versions of the lenses (which render a creamy, "de-focus"-like of images). Unfortunately, the rest of the pro grade lenses from Nikon are out of reach of the majority of us, but one can try and feel impressed by the older 80-200 or a fixed 300 f/4 that are to some match of this superb but unforgiving camera.
This may create a budget problem and it is the main reason I haven't upgraded to a D700 yet (although my fingers burn...). If you just make a quick cash flow analysis, the investment for getting a FF "pro-grade" image with a D700 will hang heavy on your income, and includes the body and, MANDATORY, a pro-grade lens. And I will strongly suggest to go for the 24-70 f/2.8 nano coating AF-S something, which is the best walkaround zoom you might get for this camera. I have sold my 17-55 (a superb lens, but DX) and got the 24-70 just to be prepared for the next year upgrade to the FX format and decrease the financial shock one might feel with such a heavy investment in both a body and a pro lens.
Another optical issue is that going only FX with the D700 means that you have to say goodbye to any Sigma 10-20mm, or Nikon 12-24mm, or Tokina AT-XAF124DXN 12-24mm or whatever cropped format wide (or extrawide) zoom unless you want to cripple resolution to 5 mp and work in the DX mode (selectable in the D700 settings menus). The only option for FF is the new 14-24 f/2.8 Nikkor. Folks, this lens is incredible. It performs so well that even Canonites are prospecting getting them with adaptors on their pro bodies. But- and I hate to say that - it has some MAJOR functionality flaws that are extremely non pragmatic: different from - for example - the 16-35 Canon L, the 14-24 cannot take filters on the front. Bye bye polarizing filters and protection of the bulky rounded glass that protrudes like a fisheye. And going wide and pro, now, will cost you almost another 2 grands (even more in Europe). Nikon thought it well, and it gives you no choice: wanna the best wide and worldwide performance on a 24x36 FF ? Empty your plastic. It is simple as that.
The conclusion is that upgrading to D700, although fascinating from image quality point of view, latitude of photographic creativity and performance will cripple your financial health. Of course, this holds true if you don't opt for a tammy or another cheap glass for your D700, which case might prove that you are... strange.

Body, controls, ergonomics
Who owns a D300 will immediately notice two annoying things: disappearance of the CF compartment lever and a smaller (=shorter) top LCD panel. The prism block is not so evident at first look, though obvious when putting both cameras side by side.
The CF card compartment has a D80/D40/D60 way of access, by sliding it open. This compromises the weatherproofing of the entire camera and if you are curious if I'm right, just try using it under rain. I've used my D300, I don't have the guts to do the same with the D700. One might argue that the popup flash (present on both D700 and D300) is also a weak link and I agree, however, having a sliding lid for CF compartment is a downgrade in my opinion and the most ZZZZ thing (replace with the metaphor of your choice) somebody could do with with such a camera. A minus 10 stars for that alone.
The dimensions of the top LCD might or not be an issue. However, more important is the cropping of the viewfinder to 95% coverage from the 100% of the D300/D3. Some say "because of the popup flash". Probably. Popup flashes have junk efficiency anyway, so why to cripple view in the viewfinder for this reason - it beats me. Moreover, try using the popup flash with a longer lens - nice effects you get !
So, Nikon, no excuse for the CF compartment lid and the viewfinder coverage which IS very important for composition.
The distance between the grip and the lens is slightly smaller than on D300. For me - it is a good thing since I have better reach for the function buttons on the right side of the lens, but I suppose this may be an issue for those with thicker fingers.
The multifunction wheel is more protrusive and the center selection button is something very useful. This IS an improvement over D300 when pushing the center of the multifunction wheel may accidentally activate other switches of the wheel. This was quite annoying especially when writing comments or labels for functions and settings.
Aside from these, the rest is identical with the D300. Ah, oh, I forgot: the unlocking lever for the CF compartments from D300 has been replaced with an "info" button which reminds me of the never-dying "print" button on the Canon bodies. Useless for such a camera. However, this may be debated. I leave it to you. I prefer to have better sealing.

Versus D3
It is arguable if spending almost double will bring you something of such a tremendous value that will worth the money. I don't think so, at least for the serious amateurs and maybe some of the pros also. However, D3 is quite different from fps point of view and some other "minor" differences (two CF cards, locking lever for CF compartment, no popup flash = better sealing etc) which might compel some of you to spend even more.

Conclusion
Man, but I wrote a lot ! The idea behind all this is that D700 IS THE ultimate a serious amateur may wish for now. Together with D3 has the best high ISO noise and color performance, excellent low ISO noise (= absence, different from D300 which is somewhat noisy on solid colors), FANTASTIC color accuracy for normal shooting conditions (ISO 100-800), incredible focus accuracy, cool feeling when handheld and, coupled with latest Nikkors - superb optics, sharpness, color balance and a very artistic (but realistic) look of the images. However, this comes at a price, you need expensive optics to match the body performance. The choice is yours. I made mine: I'll gonna wait for a while and make a smooth transition from the superb D300 DX to completely new (and certainly better) photographic horizons.

I hope this review will help you.

Happy holidays

12/21/2008

My first DSLR was the Nikon D50, then I upgraded to the Nikon D80. When the D700 was announced, I was patiently waiting for the yet announced Canon 5D replacement and was waiting to join the Canon side. Then when I saw the specs of the D700, I was floored. But what about image quality??

I've had the camera for a week, and took 3,000 pics, and it is amazing. I paired it up with a 50mm f/1.4 and the results are magical. Colors are vibrant, lowlight is ridiculous good. All around an amazing camera. Light years ahead of the D80 and the 5D. I did a shoot where I was able to compare images between the 5D and the D700, and it's just not even close. Don't know what then next 5D will be like, but the D700 is a winner, and worth every single penny.

I couldn't be more happy with the purchase of Nikon D700 Digital SLR camera. It replaced my 3-year old and retiring Nikon D200, which I have put well over 100,000 images through (and it's still going strong.)

I'm an actual photographer, not a camera-aholic who buys camera equipment and lenses as "collection". So a camera that "feels right in my hand" is very important to assist my creative productivity flow.

The camera have a very solid construction, it is said to use a thicker magnesium body than the D300 and D200, and is very water-resistant (one reviewer used the camera for 4+ hours in the rain with absolutely no problem).

For the first time, I have absolutely no worry about setting my ISO at 6400 and know for a fact the images will come out far superior than that would produce on my old D200 with iso of just 640, sharpness and resolution wise. The High ISO performance is astonishing on D700, thanks to Nikon's full frame 12mp sensor (the exact same sensor that's been used in Nikon's top of the line D3). The sensor's default setting produces neutral, film like results, with the ability to fully customize color/contrast/sharpness.

The ability to produce 14bit raw files would put some of the most critical photographer on the ease, knowing that they will not compromise on the shadow and highlight details while shooting in 14bit raw. However, in my field test the difference is impossible to distinguish with human eye, it can only be detected with the aid of a histogram.

I love the cameras ability to customize at least 3 different function keys for various tasks (the DOF button, Function button and AE/AF-Lock button). The ability to use the en-el4a battery with the MB-D10 grip is a huge plus (although the grip, adapter, the battery itself and the charger for battery costs well over $500 dollars), it enables the ability to shoot well over 2,000 images on a single battery charge, and amazing 8.1fps frame rate (16 raws continues shooting, or unlimited jpgs)

The LCD screen is truely a joy to stare at, it offers 3x more pixels than the old 320x240pixel screen. With 178 degree viewing angle, and anti-glare coating all help ensure accurate color rendition. (mine comes with 1 stuck pixel however that's not noticeable unless screen is displaying complete black)

If you've used Nikon's DSLR before, you'll be at home with D700's menu system, very intuitive with a help function which explains every setting on the fly. Some really useful features include: Self sensor cleaning, Mirror lockup, Multiple exposure, Intravelmeter, Visual horizon and much much more.

Nikon's Speedlight flash system is the best in the industry, and Canon's offerings are all far behind. This camera's build-in flash can remotely control SB-900/800/600 flashes to be fired at distance. Nikon's i-TTL metering is spot on every time during most normal shooting situations.

Some little detail that I really appreciate is the build in rubber caps for the accessory socket and the pc flash sync socket, now I would never have to worry about losing those little caps anymore.

Rival Canon 5D Mark II have the pixel count advantage and the ability to record videos, which would attract a lot of photographers who's also doing motion film works, or landscape photographers who want the absolute highest resolution at lowest iso settings, downside of the 5d mk ii is the increased noise pass iso 1600, lower frame rate, cheaper build, and lower quality lens offerings. Oh wait, did I mention about the ultra tiny buttons that's impossible to press when wearing gloves during winter time?

I would highly recommend Nikon D700 for it's serious high iso performance and incredible usability.