Nikon D700

While expensive, this is probably the best purchase I've made in cameras, and which I'll hope to keep for several years to come.

Mainly it's the big sensor and incredible ISO performance. I've been able to shoot at ISO 1600 and get completely clean results, and at ISO 4000 in fair-good light only requiring a little cleanup to use. The burst speed is good as is, and great with the battery grip.

Standard 35mm lenses now have correct zoom ratios, where on older cameras like the D200 they had a 1.5X crop ratio due to the smaller sensor. What this means is a 50MM lens is really 50MM again rather than acting like an 85MM.

Lenses intended for DX cameras (D200, D50, etc.) will work on the D700 but are essentially wasting half the sensor space. Ultra wide angles (like the 12-24mm) will end up vignetting to the point of making a circle at 12mm. On the other hand, a cheap Tokina 19-35mm is now an ultrawide with almost the same coverage and it looks better to boot.

The D700 will work with older AI and AI-s lenses, non-AI lenses have to be modified to use and WILL damage the camera if mounted otherwise. So all those old manual focus gems can also be used. I've tried everything from a 55mm f1.2 to a Russian "Arsat" 80-200mm and they work fine, just remember the warning about non-AI mounts and program the lenses in the menus.

The camera has a hefty body with metal frame, and is built to last. The LCD is 3 inches diagonal and visible from a wide angle. The battery grip is a little different, it only has one extra battery in it and works in conjunction with the one already in the camera. This is actually an improvement as you no longer have to take the battery door off and stow it in the grip, just a rubber plug for the contacts.

It's expensive, but worth it if you need it.

The camera is heavy and best for people with big hands.

It's easy to get spoiled when using it, noise becomes an issue at ISO 5000, but by comparison my D200 had a practical limit of ISO 1000 before images just simply couldn't be cleaned up.

It needs the old style full frame lenses, so if you've bought all DX in the past few years you're not out of luck but not really using to to potential.

The RAW format is new and not all image editors support it...yet. Picasa just started with Beta 3.

It's not very good for infrared (IR) work. With a Hoya R72 filter It will take pictures by brute force (highest ISO settings) but you will finally being seeing lots of noise. This will not affect 99% of the photographers out there.

D50, D200.

Haven't had to use it yet.

This is a great product. I mainly got it to shoot at high iso's in low light situations.

Full review in my photolog with actual pictures taken with the d700 at:

http://portfoliage.com/?page_id=48

I have spent about 1 month with the d700 and got it to replace a d200. They are worlds apart if you need to shoot with small aperture's and higher shutterspeeds when the light is low - for example,. macro or a cloudy day.

High ISO's
Fast

Heavy
No vertical grip without extra purchase
Expensive

d70,d200,d3

Always good.

The big question is, is it worth twice the price of a D300? Yes, and no.

I had to try it due to the rave reviews of the D3, but with the smaller size and cheaper price. For direct comparison, I have a D300 as well, and wanted to know the full-frame high-ISO benefits since most of my shooting is mountain biking in the dark pacific northwest woods. I usually don't have time to setup lighting and have to travel light, so this D700 is the hot ticket for speed in available light.

My D200 had terrible battery life and really bad grain at ISO 400 and higher. Definitely was improved with D300, although I never took it over 800, and usually kept it at 400. D700 is set at auto ISO up to 1600, images are completely grain free. 3200 is hardly noticeable, but I'm keeping it at 1600 max. I can't see where you'd ever use Hi1 and Hi2 (12,000 & 24,000 ISO), as they are ridiculously grainy. I have seen several shots from the olympics at ISO 2000 on a D3 and if ISO 2000 can be published, I got the right camera for sports for sure.

Crop factor of DX is proving to be more of an issue than I imagined. I now find myself needing a longer telephoto, which means bigger and heavier. So far it looks like the FX format is going to lead to a huge collection of glass for me to be able to cover all ranges. But, atleast I have faith that they won't be switching from FX format with lenses for the next decade or hopefully longer.

My camera bag is much heavier now with such high-end lenses. If you are completely obsessed by ultra high-end image quality, FX is for you. If you're trying to be compact and light, DX is going to be the better option, at near the quality (but not quite). D300 is an advanced-amateur/ semi-pro camera, and suits the needs of just about every advanced amateur. D700 is a pro camera and takes your already great images to the next level.

Due to the absolutely stunning image quality I am forced to sell my D300 and deal with the added bulk of additional lenses. The price is very expensive until you start shooting. Then it becomes very clear that it is amazing how much technology is crammed into the D700, especially for the price. Now that I have a pro camera in a semi-pro body, I'm thinking that I will not need to upgrade again for a long time...hopefully.

High ISO is as you have heard. 2-3 stops faster, alot when it comes to freezing the action with a fast shutter speed.
Autofocus is even faster than D300, especially continuous with 3D tracking. Lightning fast with my 70-200 f/2.8.
Dynamic range is excellent, white balance is even better than D300.
High-speed continuous shooting at 14-bit NEF is pretty amazing - I get 13 shots at 5 fps before filling the buffer, but the buffer seems to clear faster than D300. D300 can only hit 3 fps in 14-bit mode. I'm not sure how much 14-bit helps, but I'm amateur so I'll take whatever help I can get.
Viewfinder is bigger with greater clarity and field of view.
Image quality is absolutely stunning. You get what you pay for.
Metal body, rubber seals.
Nikon's amazing CLS wireless flash system has me hooked on Nikon for life.

Big & Heavy. Not the camera, but the lenses. You're not going to be putting cheap lenses on this baby! I've got a 14-24 f/2.8 and it is a big anchor. Shooting with it is no problem, it's carrying it around in a pack all day that has me reconsidering the FX thing.
Built-in flash is useless with high-end glass (shadows), except for when used with Nikon's amazing CLS wireless triggering system.
CF card door has a different design than previous Nikons and doesn't look as water-tight, but we shall see since I shoot alot in the rain.
No crop factor means regular 35mm format. Wide angle lenses are expensive, telephoto lenses have decreased range, although FX is the same as it was in the pre-digital days.
SOFTWARE UPGRADE: if you use LIghtroom 1.3-1.4, you'll have to pay $100 to upgrade to Lightroom 2.0, and it is not any different than the previous version (though files seem to upload more quickly).
With any of these high-end cameras, file storage will become an issue. I purchased a Drobo for external storage.

D70s, D200, D300

have not used