# D700 or D800 DILEMMA



## Pete'sGirl (Feb 7, 2012)

I finally bit the bullet and the bought the D700.  A week and a half later they come out with the D800.  I can still return the D700 for a refund and order the D800.  But is it worth it?  I do mainly portraits (babies, children, engagements) and have done a few events (two baptisms and a wedding.)  Photography is currently a side job for me.  I don't care about the body being lighter, and I am not sure how I feel about the video (not sure if I'd use it much or not.)  And isn't 12 mp enough?!  36+ mp has to have some drawbacks, no?  Or am I crazy not to send the D700 back and go for the D800?
I am so torn - advice please!


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 7, 2012)

If you return your D700, it will still be a couple of months before you are actually able to get a D800 IN HAND.  Do you think your're going to need 36MP?  Have you yet?  The answer to those two questions is likely the he answer to whether or not you should return your D700 and order a D800.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 7, 2012)

I think you answered your own dilemma - 





> I do mainly portraits (babies, children, engagements) and have done a  few events (two baptisms and a wedding.)  Photography is currently a  side job for me.  I don't care about the body being lighter, and I am  not sure how I feel about the video (not sure if I'd use it much or  not.)


For what you need its enough. 
Earlier today, friend of mine ordered his 800. Another buddy of mine says that he isn't buying anything #1 that is a first batch #2 since he still have his 2-D3 and D700, he isn't buying another body unless one of his brakes.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 7, 2012)

I also just bought a D700, and I'm also very excited about the D800, like every other member on this forum.

To answer your question, yes 12MP is enough......for most applications.  However, if you're working in a studio (home or professional), or you do landscape, architecture or commercial/corporate, then 12MP probably isn't going to cut it.

The drawbacks of 36MP are mostly due to the size of the files, and the computer needed to process the files quickly and efficiently (I read a D800 RAW file is about 75Mb in size.)

Since you mentioned you can return it, I'm guessing you bought it new.  If that's the case you probably paid $2600-2700 for your D700.  The D800 is only $300-400 more than that.  You'll make more than that back if you ever chose to sell it.  The only downside to returning the D700 is that the earliest you'll get a D800 in your hands if you pre-order today will be the end of March.  If that's not a dealbreaker for you, then.....

Bottom line:  If it was me, I would already have my new D700 boxed up.  The D800 isn't just an incremental update like the D4.  It's 3 TIMES THE RESOLUTION, a brand new sensor and image processor, and full HD video.  

I think you'll regret it if you don't choose the D800.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm hanging on for the ride with my D700 too, unless the D800 rolls out and just blows everyone away. I'm not feeling it yet.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 7, 2012)

> (I read a D800 RAW file is about 75Mb in size.


seriously?!
Holy Crap.


----------



## Pete'sGirl (Feb 7, 2012)

What kind of studio work requires 36 mp?


----------



## SCraig (Feb 7, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I also just bought a D700, and I'm also very excited about the D800, like every other member on this forum....


No, not every member.  This one isn't interested.


----------



## Pete'sGirl (Feb 7, 2012)

SCraig said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > I also just bought a D700, and I'm also very excited about the D800, like every other member on this forum....
> ...



Why not?  Just curious - I want opinions.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 7, 2012)

Pete'sGirl said:


> Why not?  Just curious - I want opinions.


First, I have no use for 36 megapixels because I don't have the lenses to back it up. I'm of the opinion, and it may be a wrong opinion, that the only way to get the most out of a 36mp camera is with exceptionally sharp lenses and mine don't fit that category.  I have "Good" lenses, but I don't have "Exceptional" lenses.

Second, I'm not convinced there is any software that can reliably manipulate a 36mp image.  And if it can I suspect it will take a lot of computer to handle them in a reasonable amount of time.  I heard, and you know as well as I do how unreliable unfounded information can be, that Nikon is shipping a newer version of Capture NX2 with the D800.  They already have a 64-bit version out, which eliminates the 4gb memory limitation, but I heard that there is a newer version than that shipping with the D800.  Some of the medium format cameras probably top that limit but I haven't heard how well most software will handle files that large.

My concerns may be unfounded but since nobody has one yet that answers aren't yet known.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 7, 2012)

Pete'sGirl said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



I'm much more interested in picking up a used D700 than I am a D800.  I don't want that kind of resolution.  I want larger pixels because they are a bit more forgiving and don't require THE best glass to look sharp.  I also don't care much about how it will print at 36"x48"...  Anything I print, 12-16MP will be just fine.


----------



## Pete'sGirl (Feb 7, 2012)

Just curious again - what is the largest you have successfully printed images with the D700?  By successfully I mean something that can be framed and hung up on a living room wall.


----------



## rgregory1965 (Feb 7, 2012)

I thought once about full frame...and the D800....but Im a rookie and in love with my D7000 16.7MP crop sensor.....


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 7, 2012)

rgregory1965 said:


> I thought once about full frame...and the D800....but Im a rookie and in love with my D7000 16.7MP crop sensor.....



 I only got the 16.2MP version


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

D800 vs D700 Comparison | Nikon D800


----------



## kundalini (Feb 7, 2012)

I bought my D700 about six months after it was introduced.

IT STILL ROCKS!!!!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

kundalini said:


> I bought my D700 about six months after it was introduced.
> 
> IT STILL ROCKS!!!!



+1 and no regrets


----------



## Pete'sGirl (Feb 7, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> D800 vs D700 Comparison | Nikon D800



Thanks for that.  I actually read that before I posted here.  Just wanted other thoughts.  I could wait until March for the D800, but I am still debating whether or not it worth the extra $$ that I could put toward a new lens or something.  

To reiterate my last question, what is the largest you have successfully printed images with the D700?   By successfully I mean something that can be framed and hung up on a  living room wall.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

Pete'sGirl said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > D800 vs D700 Comparison | Nikon D800
> ...



I've done 16x20 prints, haven't had a need for bigger.  About to have a 20"x30" canvas done at Menaul Art in Clearwater FL. I'll let you know how that goes with my D700


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 7, 2012)

To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed at the 36mp size. I was hoping for around 30mp with better low light ISO. Oh well, I guess we will have to wait and see. Most of the sample images online do not go past 800 ISO and they look great. I guess if anything, you'll have to do a lot of down sizing the resolution. I'm glad to see the new D800 uses the same battery as my D7000.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 7, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> To answer your question, yes 12MP is enough......for most applications.  However, if you're working in a studio (home or professional), or you do landscape, architecture or commercial/corporate, then 12MP probably isn't going to cut it.



I've done weddings, landscape, and commercial shooting with a 12MP 5Dmk1. I've never needed any additional resolution for those applications. As a matter of fact, I've got prints up to 20x30 from it... and they look great. I could probably even go larger if I wanted to. Also keep in mind that the 5Dmk1 (while it is full frame) is a few years older than the Nikon D700... Not that it matters that much. 

I have a 5Dmk2 as well, at 21MP. Frankly, I hate that the filesize is so large. It takes up a lot of processing power, and doesn't really amount to a whole lot when all is said and done. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE shooting with the 5D2, but I also still LOVE my 5Dmk1 for a whole different set of reasons. 

So, I would argue that 12MP is enough for what you and MOST people are doing, OP. I'd stick with the D700 IMHO... Unless you have a beastly editing rig and a terabyte of storage or more.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 7, 2012)

Pete'sGirl said:


> Just curious again - what is the largest you have successfully printed images with the D700?  By successfully I mean something that can be framed and hung up on a living room wall.



To answer this question directly (I did in my other post) 20x30, and I could probably go larger. (From a 5Dmk1 which is 12MP)


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 8, 2012)

Pete'sGirl said:


> Just curious again - what is the largest you have successfully printed images with the D700?  By successfully I mean something that can be framed and hung up on a living room wall.



20X30" using Perfect Resize Pro software to enlarge it. Looks fine.


----------



## Josh220 (Feb 9, 2012)

I am battling between the D800 and D700. Closer to launch date, D700 prices will probably drop somewhere in the neighborhood of $500. Something that recently pushed me pretty hard in the direction of the D700 is the price of the battery grip for the D800. MSRP is over $600 and actual retail looks like it will be $500. That is ridiculous...

As of now, I feel like if you don't need video, there is no reason to go with the D800 over the D700, especially when you take into account the possible issues in the first batch. 6 months from now may be a different story when the kinks are worked out and there's much more feedback and tests to compare to.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 9, 2012)

where did you find that price for the grip? I tried to order one from B&H and was told it hasn't been made available to pre-order yet. I find it hard to believe it will be $500 or even close.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 9, 2012)

Go for the D800, I know I am


----------



## Josh220 (Feb 9, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> where did you find that price for the grip? I tried to order one from B&H and was told it hasn't been made available to pre-order yet. I find it hard to believe it will be $500 or even close.


 
B&H has them listed at $499 and I don't see it dropping much, if any, when they are actually available. You can't buy them yet though, so I hope they lower the price. I just don't see that as likely since the MB-D10 is listed at $3xx and sells for $2xx. Same ratio as $6xx and $499. 

As much as I try talking myself out of it, I doubt I'll choose a 4 year old body over the new model. I will, however, probably wait to see what kind of kinks arise in the first batch. It'll give me more time to justify the cost. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## billydoo73 (Feb 13, 2012)

i have a D700 and D7000.  i shoot weddings and portraits.  i do not need a D800.  most people don't.  the RAW file size alone scares me!  ~75mb.  i will fill up an external HD in no time.  my D7000 shoots amazing video.

people get all nuts about new gear.  to someone that shoots for dollars, it is just another expense that eats into profit.  UNLESS the D800 gave me something that i simply CANNOT get done with the D700, then "upgrading" is a NET LOSS.  i can get it done nicely with an FX D700 at ISO 3200-6400.  the D800 will serve me no purpose.

...even Cliff Mautner makes reference to the D800 being equal to the D700 ISO performance.  and he was one of the few pros to test the D800 months ago (and is top 10 photog).

keep the D700 and buy more glass.  it comes down to REAL WORLD USE and not online stats.  sure, the D800 is better on paper, but what is "better" for a job?


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 13, 2012)

Certainly what billydoo said is true but the OP just bought a D700 and has option to return and buy the latest and greatest with only a few more dollars.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2012)

Honestly--I would return the D700 and have the dealer apply the price toward a new D800...you can always re-size D800 images. I have not looked too hard, but I DO KNOW for a FACT that the D800 can shoot in FX, 5:4 ratio, 1.2x FOV, and 1.5X FOV or DX formats. The 5:4 or "8 x 10" proportion has some benefits. The D800 will likely be the camera in its category for the next four years or so. I think I would go with the "new", and let the old slide on by.

If the D800 can shoot RAW at the various different smaller capture sizes like 30MP,27MP,17MP,and so on, that would make it very useful for times when one wants raw images but will not need huge files. I KN OW for a fact that the D800 can make JOPEGS in smaller sizes like those I listed. In the DX crop mode, I think it's about 16.7MP or somewhere in that area...


----------



## billydoo73 (Feb 14, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Certainly what billydoo said is true but the OP just bought a D700 and has option to return and buy the latest and greatest with only a few more dollars.



but is it the latest and greatest?  at 36mp, you better have high quality pro glass and excellent technique.  otherwise, those 36mp are going to haunt you.  the D700 and D800 are going to perform almost the same in low light.  etc.

the D800 is a GREAT camera on paper, but sometimes you just don't need the "newer version."  even Nikon says the D800 is "Along side" of the D800, not a true replacement.

in any case, it's your money and you know what you need.  if you need 36mp and video then go for it!


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 14, 2012)

Well you could wait a while until there is more information available but by then you'll have missed the D800 boat and not beable to return your D700 in free exchange. The D700 is a great camera, superduper great. It does what anyone really needs but I have had instances where I could have used that 36mp.


----------



## billydoo73 (Feb 14, 2012)

first off, we need to know your lenses.  are they all "pro" glass?  if not, that 36mp will certainly bring out the flaws in the glass.  we're getting to high-end medium format resolution here guys.  you can't get a great body anymore WITHOUT high-end optics.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 14, 2012)

I suppose I just assume too much, I mean if you have interest in buying a top quality body I'd just assume the same for your lenses.


----------



## poker_jake (Feb 14, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> I suppose I just assume too much, I mean if you have interest in buying a top quality body I'd just assume the same for your lenses.



Exactly, no one is going to buy a 3k+ body with a $200 lens


----------



## Tee (Feb 14, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> I am battling between the D800 and D700. Closer to launch date, D700 prices will probably drop somewhere in the neighborhood of $500.



I hope it drops that much.  I'd love to snag up a second body.  However, I have a feeling the D700 will retain value for a while longer.  I have zero data to back up my assumption, just a hunch.  The D700 still gains respect and for people like me, I have zero interest in video functions.  I'll give it a year before it drops below $2,000.  I hope I'm proven wrong, though...and quick.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 14, 2012)

Personally speaking, Why not have the creme of the crop?
Poeple will say they don't want it because a lot of people can't afford it, along with a top notch lens.
Or several top notch lenses.
Who cares about how much hard drive space 36 mp will take up? 
Terabyte drives are cheap. Hard drives are cheap. 
If you haven't upgraded your computer to a quad4 or better.....with at least 4 gigs of memory......why not?
Doing this, you'll need to sooner or later. If one can afford it, why not have the baddest thing out there?
You're only going around once.
Better do what you like to do now.

Get the D800


----------



## ph0enix (Feb 14, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> I am battling between the D800 and D700. Closer to launch date, D700 prices will probably drop somewhere in the neighborhood of $500. Something that recently pushed me pretty hard in the direction of the D700 is the price of the battery grip for the D800. MSRP is over $600 and actual retail looks like it will be $500. That is ridiculous...
> 
> As of now, I feel like if you don't need video, there is no reason to go with the D800 over the D700, especially when you take into account the possible issues in the first batch. 6 months from now may be a different story when the kinks are worked out and there's much more feedback and tests to compare to.



As much as I would love to agree with you so I could get a D700 for around $500 (despite not planning to go full frame at this time), that's definitely not going to happen.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 14, 2012)

Pete'sGirl said:


> Just curious again - what is the largest you have successfully printed images with the D700?  By successfully I mean something that can be framed and hung up on a living room wall.


I've made many 16x20's and a few larger - the D700 is a fantastic camera for that size print.

The 36mp sensor in the D800 has several purposes as I see it:

1) Making really big prints - at 240dpi, the D800 images will create a 20" x 30" print. With a little up-sizing, or lower resolution, you can get bigger prints;

2) Cropping: When shooting subjects such as wildlife at a distance, even with a telephoto lens, you may not be able to get close enough. A 36mp image gives you the ability to crop a significant portion of the image out, and still have a printable image.

3) Low noise: Although the smaller pixel size of the D800 means the high-ISO performance won't be as good as the D700 or D3, it "could" be a lot better. Downsizing an image with a lot of noise can significantly reduce the appearance of the noise. How significant this point will be is to be seen, but I have taken ISO 6400 images from the D800 and downsized them to 12mp, and they seem to exhibit less noise than the D700 native 12mp size at ISO 6400. Of course I can't take the same sample image with the D700, so it's not an "apples to apples" example.


----------



## orunraandoreo (Feb 14, 2012)

I would definitely go for the new model if I can afford...


----------



## Tee (Feb 14, 2012)

ph0enix said:


> As much as I would love to agree with you so I could get a D700 for around $500 (despite not planning to go full frame at this time), that's definitely not going to happen.



I initially thought the same as you but I think he means the price will drop $500 not the D700 will cost $500.


----------



## Carny (Feb 14, 2012)

If being without a camera until march isn't a problem, then I would send the 700 back now.  Then you can decide once the 800 starts having feedback, and chances are the 700 will drop in price.  You could still get the 700 and maybe cheaper


----------



## lemonart (Feb 16, 2012)

Just as a bit of a dreamy tangent, what would seriously be cool would be to adjust the MP size without changing the crop.  Not sure of that's physically possible... But it'd be a hell of a feature .

Lem


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 16, 2012)

it wouldn't serve any purpose to do so as the photcite (sp) size would remain constant. Now if you could change that, that would be amazing


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 16, 2012)

bertsirkin said:


> Pete'sGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious again - what is the largest you have successfully printed images with the D700?  By successfully I mean something that can be framed and hung up on a living room wall.
> ...



Huh, you have a D800? Even though they are not released yet.


----------



## poker_jake (Feb 16, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> bertsirkin said:
> 
> 
> > Pete'sGirl said:
> ...



He probably took the full size, high ISO samples that they provided on various sites.


----------



## Heitz (Feb 16, 2012)

$3000?  Why, that's $83 per mega pixel.  That must mean I can pick up a D700 for $1000, right?  I'll just sit here and wait for it.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 16, 2012)

I really,really think people are jumping the gun on condemning the D800's high-ISO capabilities. The camera is not even OUT yet,and there are fewer than a dozen decent samples, all in JPEG Mode, available. The sensor in the D800, as Thom Hogan pointed out "is at least two generations newer" than the one used in the D700...

As with the D3s vs D3x 12 vs 24 MP issue...careful workers were able to take D3x images at 24MP at up to 3,200 ISO, and equal the D3s's ISO 3200 performance by using noise reduction, and STILL having a bigger image after all the NR was performed on the files...I think the D800 ought to be able to produce High-ISO images every bit as good as the D700 can--or better--with smart handling of the camera and the files. But working with a handful, or fewer, web-hosted JPEG images...uh...not really a proven way to determine how a camera will behave.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm banking on it


----------



## xyphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

Heitz said:
			
		

> $3000?  Why, that's $83 per mega pixel.  That must mean I can pick up a D700 for $1000, right?  I'll just sit here and wait for it.



You are 100% correct. We will wake you up when the price target is hit.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 16, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Huh, you have a D800? Even though they are not released yet.



I don't have one yet, but sample images are readily available from many sources.


----------



## lemonart (Feb 17, 2012)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> it wouldn't serve any purpose to do so as the photcite (sp) size would remain constant. Now if you could change that, that would be amazing



That's what I meant... You develop some kind of proprietary hardware or algorithm that intelligently combines groups of photocites giving the ISO behaviors that go along with larger photocites .  No problem, right? 

Lem


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 22, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I really,really think people are jumping the gun on condemning the D800's high-ISO capabilities. The camera is not even OUT yet,and there are fewer than a dozen decent samples, all in JPEG Mode, available. The sensor in the D800, as Thom Hogan pointed out "is at least two generations newer" than the one used in the D700...
> 
> As with the D3s vs D3x 12 vs 24 MP issue...careful workers were able to take D3x images at 24MP at up to 3,200 ISO, and equal the D3s's ISO 3200 performance by using noise reduction, and STILL having a bigger image after all the NR was performed on the files...I think the D800 ought to be able to produce High-ISO images every bit as good as the D700 can--or better--with smart handling of the camera and the files. But working with a handful, or fewer, web-hosted JPEG images...uh...not really a proven way to determine how a camera will behave.



This site has some excellent 1:1 examples with NR turned off: High ISO - The MansurovsFrom what I can see the noise levels are similar to a D7000, which is what I would expect since the D800 is nearly identical in pixel density to the D7000.

When Nikon claims that the low-light performance is about the same as a D700, it seems to me that they are taking into account the benefit of extra resolution not noise levels.  It may be a little better then a D7000 due to a small incremental improvement in technology, but I highly doubt it will be as good as a camera with nearly half the pixel density.

I see pixel size/density in similar terms to performance car engines, you can add turbos and crank up the compression, but in the end there's no replacement for displacement! volume matters!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 22, 2012)

The car analogy is good, as far as it goes...but I had a Ford Thunderbird Supercoupe with the 15,000 RPM supercharger system on a modest-sized V-6...far,far,far better than any slow, laggy "turbo" system...and much hotter and faster than the bigger CID V-8 normally aspirated engines in the same exact body...

Anyway, last night I saw some side-by-side D800 vs D700 samples, done of sodapop cans with very fine dot (screen, looked like 130 line screen) pattern designs...the D800 images looked better, even at 12,800 and 25,600 with either NR ON , or with it set to OFF...the D800's image quality looked superior to me. At every ISO level,and in each and every comparison--with NR ON, or OFF...the 36MP camera with the newer sensor looked better in terms of noise.

Pixel density might be similar, but you are comparing two different sized sensors, of VERY divergent overall "displacements"...car and engine analogies are not always appropriate, but from what I am seeing, the 3x greater "displacement", ie 36 million pixels, not 12 million pixels, allows the D800 images to be run through heavy, intense noise reduction, and STILL the user ends up with more resolving power, and lower visible noise...

I still think people are going to be pleased with even just simple bicubic reductions of the 36MP images down to 12 or 16MP for printing...


----------



## detter (Feb 24, 2012)

I'm in a moment of indecision. I currently own a D700 and some fairly good Nikon lenses. I don't work in TIFF or RAW, but rather JPEGS. My 100% file size usually run 6 - 7 MB. My quandary arises when I crop. I generally try for optical cropping at the time of actuation but better compositions invariably appear during post production editing. The resultant software cropping yield files in the range of 2.5 - 3 MB or maybe smaller; not suitable for 8 x 10 prints.
I THINK ??? I would be happier with a D800 post editing file size of 10 - 12MB. YES ???   NO???  Would I notice appreciable noise or loss of detail in cropping?
Thanks!


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 24, 2012)

detter said:
			
		

> I'm in a moment of indecision. I currently own a D700 and some fairly good Nikon lenses. I don't work in TIFF or RAW, but rather JPEGS. My 100% file size usually run 6 - 7 MB. My quandary arises when I crop. I generally try for optical cropping at the time of actuation but better compositions invariably appear during post production editing. The resultant software cropping yield files in the range of 2.5 - 3 MB or maybe smaller; not suitable for 8 x 10 prints.
> I THINK ??? I would be happier with a D800 post editing file size of 10 - 12MB. YES ???   NO???  Would I notice appreciable noise or loss of detail in cropping?
> Thanks!



Shoot raw. Try to nail the composition in camera so you don't have to Crop as much. That camera should have no problem making significantly larger prints than 8x10. Also, if you make your own thread, you might get more responses.


----------

