Why isn't the Nikon D700 selling for peanuts?

>>3033137
full frame

'classic' camera, first-in-class, had insane momentum

File: DSC_0056.jpg (373KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1500x1125px

It's an excellent camera, pretty much exactly the F100 in digital form. The D3400 beats older cameras on useless DxO metrics but it's a plastic toy with only one control wheel and shitty ergonomics. Buy whichever camera better fits your needs and seems like a better deal to you.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6503
Camera Software	17.1.2.A.0.314_9_f300
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:17 07:46:47
Exposure Time	1/32 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	80
Exposure Bias	1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1125
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3033137
CF interface is better than SD and XQD

Hopefully there's someone here with aany hardware knowledge to discuss or confirm that

File: retard alert.jpg (25KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 493x342px

one of the best cameras ever made and you're comparing it to a toy camera. If you even don't know how to use a camera to take photos, why are crying about 'record movies'?

it's over your bed time, anon.

So I'm looking to get a camera, as I'll need one while studying abroad in Japan (one of the required courses is digital photography). However, my primary personal focus is video production, and I don't have the money to shill out for an optimized camera in both areas. Is there a camera that is decently intelligent in both respects?

>>3033179

a7R II

>>3033179
5D2
cheap and top quality

>>3033187
>$3200
>$1650
haha guys j-just kidding

Shit I really need to get my work hours back...

File: KEH.jpg (118KB, 1377x644px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1377x644px

>>3033196
???

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Jorge
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3033203
5d2 barely does video.
The a7ii is a smarter choice.

>>3033137
Ergonomics. If you shot with a D700, you'd get it.

>>3033137
>D700 can't use AF-P
Source?

>>3033219
if it was good enough for the avengers and house, it's good enough for a fucking student

>>3033203
look on ebay
much cheaper, i absolutely love mine and honestly is bloody fantastic

>>3033234
Nikon.com

Basically af-p is for D7100 and so on. Even a D7000 won't autofocus with them.

>>3033137
>D700 can't even go to ISO 100.
Why are Nikon crippling themselves like this?

Don't they realise the camera market is insanely cutthroat?

>>3033239
But my D3300 works just fine with my 18-55 AF-P

>>3033246
Lower resolution meant bigger pixels and thus higher base ISO.

Plus it's not a top priority since you can always use an ND filter to get the same effect.

>>3033251
I'm pretty sure that is just locked by firmware. It has nothing to do with pixel size.

>>3033252
And pray tell why would Nikon artificially increase their base ISO?

Some models even have "L" modes to lower ISO through software.
You think this also unnecessary? - could the D810 go to ISO 1 if only they just "unlocked the firmware"?

>>3033254
>And pray tell why would Nikon artificially increase their base ISO?
That's what I'm asking. Why are they crippling their hardware.

>>3033256
Because they're not.

The D700 even has an "L1" mode to simulate ISO 100.
They would not have gone through that trouble if they could physically get the sensor to ISO 100.

>>3033257
So it's just ISO cheating then. They took ISO 100 and renamed it 200.

>>3033258
I don't think you quite grasp how ISO works.

>>3033137
>WHY IS PRODUCT EXPENSIVE, I WANT IT FOR LESS.

this, you entitled little cunt, is known as supply and demand.

There's a really easy way to get a new camera for a much more affordable price though, just get richer.

>>3033250
That's because it's newer.

>>3033239
This is completely idiotic design choice, but in reality it's not like there isn't a massive amount of non af-p lenses to choose from to use on an older camera body.

>>3033264
Nikon just need to update the firmware and it would work.

Why won't nikon release the source code of the firmware from older cameras. They are old anyway. Just let people unlock their full potential.

>>3033265
>I KNOW BETTER THAN NIKON ENGINEERS

Lol, you're a dumb kid.

>>3033273
Have you ever heard of Magic Lantern?

Camera companies put artificial limits on the hardware all the time.

>>3033273
What is Nikon D3100 hacked firmware that increases the recording time limit?

>>3033303
The max movie record time is there because of a stupid EU tax law.
All camera brands have it because the alternative is paying a hefty import tariff.

Nikon has the best backwards compatibility in the industry.
If something isn't possible you can bet it's because of physical limitations, not firmware.
My guess is a stepping motor requires precise voltage control through the mount.

>>3033326
>EU
And Japanese and US tax laws too.

Otherwise they would have removed that restriction in your region.
And before you babble on the software needing to be the same, keep in mind US region and EU region already use different firmware for video standards.

>>3033259
I don't think any of you know how ISO works. Or do you think iso is sensor sensibility to light (the easy manner to explain ISO that it's not that correct)?

Fuck you DXO worshippers. Use your damn cameras.

>>3033203
>>3033219
Alright. I appreciate the help. I've found an a7R in EX-rated used condition for comparable price. I simply can't get an a7R II, so would an a7R be sufficient?
And then in all honesty, would a d3300 be fine for what I need?

File: P0PJa2g.png (458KB, 1584x642px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1584x642px

>>3033381
forgot screen

>>3033147

CF is more durable by a long shot. I've washed my share of CF cards in the laundry and they all still work. I could probably run one over with my semi and it would still be fine. Can't say the same for SD.

I believe both formats have about the same throughput, but CF is damn near bulletproof.

D700 is still as much as it is because of two things: Nikon tax and FF tax. It's the same reason a 1980's RWD Corolla is 5,000 dollars right now; tofu tax. If something has a following it will command a premium.

>>3033142
I'm a pro event photographer and I can do just fine with one wheel as long as there are aperture and iso buttons. Two wheels are a meme.

>>3033387
*just fine in manual, I forgot to add

>>3033384
>CF is more durable by a long shot
The card may be more durable. But I can't say the same for the CF slot.

>>3033384
I have used mainly CF as I'm using my ye olde trusty Canon 40D. I lost one card after it was full of clients photos. It went to the UK and they rescued my photos (yay!). One CF came defective out of the box. At least I believe so as my camera gives error 99 too often for it. I don't use it for client work any more. Actually not at all.

So my point is that I'd like acard that doesn't fail. I try to use an eye-fi but as I shoot underwater it can only back up when it's on the poolside so it's too slow.

Not contributing too much here and I'll go back to editing photos just in a moment!

>>3033392

I used a D200 for over 6 years without ever having CF slot issues

>>3033274
Companies do put artificial limits but ML is not a good example, nothing there actually optimises hardware, it just modifies software to do more. Like it doesn't actually increase DR natively or reduce noise.

>>3033381
Sony is built like a twink ffs just buy the canon, I have the 5d2, built like a tank, CF interface as mentioned earlier and a much better value. Again, if it was good enough for The Avengers, it's more than good enough for you. The video and photos are great up till 6400 iso. Look on eBay btw not keh.

>>3033384
I probably would believe this.

>>3033387
Nikon's 2nd wheel is mostly used for secondary settings in AF modes, flash settings, bracketing, white balance, etc.

It makes a big difference there, but like you said not so much with actual shooting.

>>3033601
Okay so 5d2 over Sony. What do I get with the 5d2 versus the d3300?

>>3033655
That's a bad idea for your purpose since Canon retard-cripples the video in their DSLRs.

You're better off getting an A6000 for 400 bucks.
It allows 50Mbps videos in XAVC S through firmware upgrade.

>>3033674
For fucks sake can someone just stop circlejerking eachother about sony and canon and tell me if the nikon d3300 is fucking good enough? Is that all this board is?

>>3033689
>tell me if the nikon d3300 is fucking good enough?
For you it might be good enough. How the fuck are we supposed to know?

>>3033689
fuck sake lad all you need to know is that buy 5d2. It gives you the best build and hollywood-tier quality. What else do you need?

d3300 is shit build and video quality is sub-par to 5d2. Also crop sensor so your lenses will be 1.5x focal length.

File: 308F4092.jpg (2MB, 1648x2464px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1648x2464px

>>3033137
Why does the 1Ds and 5D still sell for more than $300?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Serial Number	0000021256
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:03 00:51:59
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/22.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1648
Image Height	2464
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3033766
because they're good cameras
would rather have those than any rebel or D3xxx/d5xxx cameras

>>3033769
>would rather have those than any rebel or D3xxx/d5xxx cameras

Me too, I was just making a joke.
I wish you could calibrate focus on the 1Ds.

The original 5D was kind of shit when compared to the later iterations, though.

It's like they stuffed a FF sensor into a consumer body considering the lack of weather sealing and the 95% viewfinder coverage.

>>3033383
>>3033381
The a7ii is a more usable camera and cheaper. The af is much better and it has ibis.

Sensors outresolve lenses, those extra mp won't get you sharper images and will take twice as long to edit and take up twice as much storage.

>>3033844
dude fuck off with your sony shit.

>>3033880
>explains the cons/beneftis of one Sony model over another, which OP said they wanted to buy.

>eughhh stop shilling sony.

There we have it, the average non Sony user is an illiterate moron.

Choose wisely, choose sony.

>>3033886
op was looking at it, he then considered a fucking d3300 over than crap, Sony shill still talks about Sony.

>>3033844
>sensors outresolve lenses
fucj no

>>3033886
Fuck off dude. Honestly I could make due with a fucking EOS 1dS2 if I wanted to because I'm not mentally handicapped when it comes to filmography. I don't need resolution, I need a more versatile dynamic range on a less dense sensor with larger individual reactive cells, and I need decent lenses. I'm not looking for a 4k 60fps $4000 paperweight that couldn't hold down the manuscript for green eggs and ham. After everything I've seen the Canon 5d series have the perfect balance of build quality, modern standards of quality, and pure rugged soul. They avoid camera noise by virtue of the size/density of their CMOS panels and they blow competitively priced cameras out of the fucking water with their ISO.

>>3033892
Lol, yes, go read a book simple jack.

>>3035180
>Arguing canon for low light, low noise.
>literally the worst bodies on the market for this.
And if you want low resolution, large photosites, decent lenses for video and all the noise free pushed shadows, the obvious choice is the a7s or a7sii - nothing else comes remotely close from a non dedicated video body.

>>3033203
I have 5d2. Its ok. To many limits though. Noisy sensor, rear curtain only with ttl. Its ok, and I use it, but I also am waiting for Nikon d750 update because the 5d4 is a failure.

File: Nikon-D600-vs-D700.jpg (37KB, 650x280px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 650x280px

>>3033137

I own a D700. I'm selling to get a D600.

I really love the build of the 700, but I feel like the newer sensor will just benefit me. Also I don't need the crazy good AF system of the 700 since I really don't care about shooting sports.

To be honest, still a tough choice. They're almost the same price bought used though, so I feel like 600 is the way to go.

Anyone here owned both and can tell me what's what?

>>3037889
As someone who went from borrowing a d3200 to owning a d600 I can tell you that it's a great purchase. I never owned a d700, but the d600 is wonderful. It feels great in the hand and performs very well.
Also video.

File: DSC_0055.jpg (246KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 900x1200px

>>3037889
I had a D600, sold it in a fit of gearfaggotry to go mirrorless. When I switched back to Nikon I got a D700 instead. They're both excellent, the grip on the D600 was a bit more awkward and uncomfortable and overall the ergonomics are a bit of a step back from the pro-type layout to more like the consumer model layout. It's still nice, but the D700 feels a bit nicer so you might feel like you downgraded. The AF point layout on the D600 is retarded, it pretty much just covers the center third of the frame.

On the other hand, the D600 has real live view which is actually useful unlike the clunky primitive live view the D700 has. Double the pickles is pretty nice too, and it's also a good step up in high ISO performance, not that the D700 is lacking in ISO performance. Having SD cards instead of CF is more convenient I guess, and two card slots is a nice bonus.

If you're working on a tripod or doing landscape or portrait type of stuff where you're at base ISO using sharp lenses at optimal apertures then the D600 might give you a nice improvement in image quality. If you're more run and gun or if you ever want to beat up your camera outdoors in the rain and stuff like that then you should keep the D700.

The D700 is basically an F100 with a digital sensor crammed in, the D600 is a D7000 with a full frame sensor crammed in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6503
Camera Software	17.1.2.A.0.314_9_f300
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:26 15:39:51
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	80
Exposure Bias	1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3035537
of course the 5d2 is noisy it's an ancient body you autist

>>3037889
sold my D700 for a D810 last year, only because 12mp is way too low. don't know why people are still buying them used, but it worked out well for me.