D700 - Future Digital Classic or Just Another Very, Very Good Camera...????

donaldejose

D5100 2015 This image was just published as a banner across the top of a magazine page.

donaldejose

Nikon 1 V2 2015

donaldejose

D600 2014

donaldejose

D600 2016

donaldejose

D750 2015

donaldejose

D500 2017

donaldejose

D500 2017

donaldejose

D500 2017

donaldejose

D500 2017

donaldejose

D850 2017

donaldejose

D850 2018

donaldejose

D850 2018

donaldejose

D850 2018 from that fitness instructor shoot I mentioned in my first post

donaldejose

D850 2018

donaldejose

D850 2018

donaldejose

D80 2009

donaldejose

Z6 2018

donaldejose

Z6 2018

donaldejose

These examples run from a small Nikon 1 V2 14 mp 1 inch sensor to D3100 14 mp DX sensor to a Nikon D850 45 mp FX sensor. You can click through to flickr to view the image larger and see the exif data. My point is that when viewing these images on social media it is hard to tell the difference. Of course, there is a difference in the file. It just gets mostly "downsized out and thrown away" when the original file is posted on social media. If people don't start to print large size prints the social media viewing of photos will destroy most of the need to get a camera any better than the one that is in your cellphone. You can see why camera sales are dropping.

PB_PM

GPDen said:

Now the simple question here is, is this a classic and much sort after antique Nikon camera of the future? The above is my D700 circa 23k clicks which is in great condition and which I still love dearly. However, I am looking to ‘chop it in’ very soon ...

The answer is simple, digital cameras are here today and gone tomorrow, devices for recycling once they are no longer useful. Why? One day you will no longer be able to get batteries for them, and when that day comes they become paper weights. None of them are "classics", and collectables would likely be a working D1 (First Nikon made DSLR) and D3 (first Nikon FX camera). It's not very often that general consumer models fall into that category.

I had a D700 from 2011-2016, purchased it just before the Nikon factories in Japan were damaged by an earthquake, and (IMO) build quality started to drop as Nikon tried to recover and introduce cost cutting measures. Evidenced by recalls and problems in many cameras since that generation. My D700 got most of the use in the early years of ownership when I was shooting wildlife, tennis, other sports and portraits. The only thing I miss about the camera was the far superior build quality it had over the modern bodies, it was a solid camera, not something I can say for the D750 and D810 I use today. They aren't bad, but not as good either. Otherwise I miss nothing about it; compared to modern cameras it's images are noisy, auto focus inferior in low light, and you really needed to stick to the most central focus point to get the best results in those low light situations.

Ton14

I still regret I bought the D300 instead of the D700 as an upgrade for my D200 and stayed with DX. The D300 was the best camera for noise in those days and until ISO 3200 it is still the best, but only 12mp, what was huge compared to the D70.

At that time I read an article from "Lensrentals" that the D700 has a real Nikon developed and produced sensor.

If I had this camera I would keep it forever, but the result would be that I have to keep the 24-70 mm f / 2.8 and the 70-200 mm f / 2.8, because that was THE top quality combo in those days (and still is) or keep some good primes.

At the moment I keep my D600 with the 70-200mm f/4, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and the 60mm f/2.8 macro next to my Nikon Z6, also because the Nikon Z6 is not capable for some kind of photography and I can use the lenses on the Nikon Z6.

donaldejose

It is OK to keep, enjoy and shoot vintage cameras/lenses in appropriate situations. There are many ways to enjoy photography. Of course, for your "main camera" it is hard to avoid the lure of the "latest and greatest" which expands capabilities in certain situations (many of which you rarely shoot - for example, how many of us really need to shoot at 6,400 ISO and above?). Let's say you are shooting a portrait in good light or under studio strobes where you can use base ISO and it will never be enlarged more than 16x20 (likely no more than 8x10). There is no reason you cannot use and enjoy the D700 with aged lenses for that work. In fact, I am thinking a $600 budget for a new photographer would be better spent on a D700 kit than on a D3500 kit. I would rather see those vintage bodies and lenses used by photographers than see them thrown away. Why encourage junking old tech which still can be used and enjoyed in certain situations? I am going to start collecting them as they become cheap with age and put them to some use.

PB_PM

donaldejose said:

It is OK to keep, enjoy and shoot vintage cameras/lenses in appropriate situations.

Indeed, if you have one and it works by all mean keep using it. Which is why I said, “when no longer useful”. They are still useful today, but that time will come to an end in the nit to distant future.

I would most likely not go out of my way to buy an old camera like that for a few reasons though (unless it was in mint condition and cost less than $500), 1. Right now they are over priced for what they provide in terms image quality and user experience. (A used D7100 would really be a batter choice than a D700 for most, and costs the same or less used), 2. Many of those cameras are very beat up, rubber is pealing off and need replacement, viewfinders full of dust and gunk, focus alignment is off due to never being sent in for service, sensors are dirty or scraped by user cleaning, (when I was working as a photographer I serviced my cameras every few years for many of these types of things), 3. From smoking homes (not something I would tolerate), 4) The OEM batteries are getting old and starting to die, and replacements are still expensive or knockoffs that don’t work well. I still have a D300 (2006 vintage), with too many shutter clicks and use scars, to be worth selling, the batteries don’t last long anymore, and knock offs haven’t been worth the asking price in my experience.

donaldejose

It seems to me going back to the D3 FX and following FX bodies is still "useful" in many situations today as long as those bodies are in good condition. Of course, "useful" all depends upon "for what?" I have watched low shutter count D300 bodies selling for $130 US but not purchased them because, although I am sure they are strongly built, it seems to me a DX sensor of that era would now be too limiting to use much. However, I may be wrong. Everyone can make their own choices as to what is "still useful" today for the task they have at hand. I am experimenting with that myself and don't yet have the final answer. As I mentioned so many images these days will never be used other than on cell phones and social media displayed on computer monitors. Few will ever be printed. I posted images above from a Nikon 1 V2 and from a D80 as examples. People can click through to flickr and determine for themselves how "useful" those old sensors are and at what point they no longer are worth the e-bay price. I know a guy still shooting with a Leica M3! I suggest that if I took all the sensor IDs off the above posted images most people would be hard pressed to know what sensor recorded each image based only on viewing that image on this site without clicking through to examine it larger on flickr. If that is true are not all of these sensors "still useful" if the end product is posting to social media?

PB_PM

You are coming at this from a studio shooters point of view, so I understand where you are coming from. With light control, yes those old cameras are fine, even the D300 is more than usable below ISO1200 like that. Don’t think I could tolerate going back to a D80 (my first DSLR), other than for controlled lighting situations, that’s for sure. Same reason I don’t buy film for my film cameras anymore, they aren’t the best tool I have, nor enjoyable to use (for me).

I use my cameras with controlled lighting less than 10% of the time, so the old cameras really show their weaknesses, I don’t even use my flashes (they are bulky, heavy, get in the way) very often and prefer natural light shooting for the most part. Not much into portraits either, other than family photos, but my time for shooting is very limited these days, and I find myself using video more often as well, something those old cameras lack altogether.