http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12354
I made the choice to go “D700″ due to seeing a price drop on new ones, and expecting the availability to plummet. It seems the plummeting might not happen as soon as I expected – and maybe some more people with me (those that lowered the price).
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d300_users/discuss/72157629210400879/72157629372713017/
Due to several reasons I took the decision to get a D700. It arrived 13/2 and I have had opportunity to do some shooting – even though being ill for a few days.
The leap up from the D300 was softened by the fact that I also own an F100 (35mm) that I have shot extensively with the last 21 months. In that time I also have ‘optimized’ the lens collection a bit, by a 35-70 and 80-200 – AF 2.8D on both.
The results so far is rewarding, to 100%. I knew what I looked for due to using the F100, and as I had it there – the result was known.
To pin up the list:
1. Short depth of field is there, with less fuzz.
2. Low light capability is well known, at a super performance level.
3. Handling: Same, same, same and yet once same as a D300. Only the necessary portions changed.
4. Postprocessing needs: No need to upgrade a thing more, again same, same, same and same. 36MP is a the tripple amount of data to handle for each frame, for capability to print triple surface. And 12MP already is enough for me.
5. Availability is now, but likely to plummet – even though it was announced that the D700 will still be in production for some time… But how many will join me? How many dealers will have one in stock?
6. Some local dealers already took a decision to drop the price 10% – good enough for me, that is a MB-D10 for free.
7. I do consider the video options a contamination. To be successful in shooting video you have to gather up with so much extra equipment that the end cost reaches toward a full set of lenses. Even having shot some super8 in my teens and liking it a lot, I’m really not interested.
8. I have began to consider my D300 halfway through its lifespan; likely to live for two or three years if had I continued to use it with the same intensity. May well extend to much longer, as the new toy gets used more. Had I continued to use it as intensely as before, the breakage might well have arrived earlier…
9. Somehow I feel that whatever the "D400" comes with, the cost to take it would be similar to the D700.
Regarding the D400:
Would I like a totally new generation of sensor – sure as hell. But will it work without issues from the start? Ehhm… I don’t want to be a test pilot.
I bet 10€ that the differences aren’t that big.
Sensor will likely be 16MP or maybe a tad more.
Might it have higher ISO capability than the D700 – maybe.
Other options? Video, likely – I don’t want it.
The face detection from the D4, maybe some limited form. (I don’t shoot portraits or people that much, so doesn’t matter).
Likelyhood of it being FX (which was one of the factors speaking for a D700)? Maybe high – it is supposed to replace the D300, but the D7000 is very close… this might be an "upgrade" that is likely.
Now, to conclude all the above – I have little fear that the D700 will be something I consider a bad choice.
I have kept my cameras longer than many others previously, and will likely continue to do so.
edits: Spelling and wording.
endnote:
12MP to 24MP means an increase to a double SURFACE of the sensor, counted in pixels. This means a factor of square root 2 on horizontal and vertical pixels.
To go from
12 to 16MP is 640 x and 416 y pixels extra, 14-15% extra.
12 t o 18MP is 908×616 extra, just above 21%.
12 to 24MP is 1760×1184 extra, 41.4%
=> only 18MP or more will actually make a perceptible difference to 12MP.
Heh, non-perfection is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30164085@N04/sets/72157626739950471/with/5788611370/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157626864603856/