• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

D700 replacement???? (1 Viewer)

I certainly hope that it is more than a revamped D610….. what it needs is a decent OVF, group AF, high frame rate.
FX is fine by me….. could care less about video.
 
the risk is that nikon cut corners on the viewfinder,
fx is nice, as long as nikon won't torture us with even more mega pixels
 
Last edited:
I agree the D750 looks like it has a lot to offer for its price. Not ideal for birds, but it has pretty much everything else important to me in a top SLR for "other" photography. I like the tilting LCD, compact but robust alloy build, WiFi (finally), and strong overall specs including autofocus and video. Nice that it takes the same battery and memory cards as my D7100. Altogether pretty appealing. And I'll add that the new 20 mm f1.8 lens looks like it could be a great value too, on paper anyway.

But I think the new Canon 7D MkII may be the new top SLR for birds, at least according to the latest unofficial specs.

Dave
 
Seems like general disappointment amongst "enthusiasts" ….. as it looks like the D750 should be called the D650 at best

Nikon will never now replace the D700 with a model that is as near to the D4/D4S as the D700 was to the D3 ….. the D700 is a great body but it looks as if Nikon made a (marketing) mistake by aligning it too close to the D3, (at the time)

IMHO - the only new Nikon models at the upper end that are worth buying that will have some "longevity" are the D810 and D4S

IMHO, the D750 will be down to 60% of it's value in 18 months time especially after Nikon have produced one or two "upgrades" to it, as it seems now to be Nikon's will to do so….. and it looks like Nikon never intended to replace the D700, (or indeed release a replacement for the D300), all they have done is call it a D7xx to take it away from being associated with the early problems that the D6xx had

At least I am "more" happy with my D700 now and accept that the only option I have is to use my D7100, (which I cannot engender any fondness for, for birding)

pity ……. a used D700 is still a good buy as is a used D800 …. I am sure that the D810 is a marvellous camera ……. and the D4S will stand out for some time to come as it was only released in February last

If money is tight a used D800/D800E seems to way to go, if it is not the D810 or D4S

We will see what Canon say about it all
 
Last edited:
JPAC said:
The Canon 7D2 is the D300 replacement.
Click to expand...

Yup. I agree. For now, and maybe forever period. But at the same time the D7100 is better overall for me as a bird camera than the D300. And when the D7300 arrives, I'm sure it will be yet a little better, maybe good enough to satisfy me.

I never had a D700, so can someone help me and fill out this list of ways that the D750 "sucks" compared to the great D700?

* fps speed and buffer
* max shutter speed
* AF-on button
* build quality ?
*
*
However big this list is, I still think the D750 would have to be WAY better overall than the ancient D700 (just like the D7100 is to the D300)... The D750 offers many of the best features of the D810, and a few extras to boot... The main reason to go for the D810 is the extra resolution (which would be important for birds).

I thought the D750 had full alloy build, but I now understand it is only partial alloy, metal in back, carbon fiber in front. This doesn't bother me too much. I like what the dpreview first impressions review said: "The overwhelming impression given by the D750 in our hands is one of density. It's clear that Nikon has packed a lot into the D750's compact frame, and while hard to describe, the camera definitely gives an impression of being heavier than expected, and reassuringly solid."

Thom Hogan sure calls it like he sees it and doesn't pull any punches in his remarks (here). I appreciate that and I think he makes a lot of good points as usual. He calls it a "fixed D600/D610." But despite the oil spots on the sensor issue and the way they denied it initially, these were/are already good cameras, so an improved D610 is not an entirely bad thing...? I also like this other piece he wrote about 4 things to upgrade before your camera body. Pretty good advice.

Dave
 
opticoholic said:
I never had a D700, so can someone help me and fill out this list of ways that the D750 "sucks" compared to the great D700?

* fps speed and buffer
* max shutter speed
* AF-on button
* build quality ?
*
*


Dave
Click to expand...

I had it, and I wish I didn't sell it for the D800…

BUT…
Things might not have been better in the past…

* carbon plastic today is probably as good as magnesium (or even better), though it feels bad in the heart…

* D750 AE-L button can be assigned as AF-on button

* 95% viewfinder on the D700 = NOT pro-grade was annoying

* the D700 display was not good enough

* D700 was heavy..but the grip was at least sufficient to hold it (which lacked in D800)

* D700 image quality was about the same as Canon's current…;)
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...n-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-D700___795_441

* D700 shutter sound did wake up the whole block of birds when in a hide…

* D700 had only 5 fps without battery grip!! (D750 have 6.5) and with D750's better battery cap. (25% better) grip will be less useful

* D700 was more expensive when released

* Lowest ISO for D750 is 100 (D700 was ISO 200) and 1/4000s therefore would be sufficient.
(no, expanded mode does not count..DR is reduced)

sometimes it takes a while to understand nikon's thinking and evolution,
But D750 is definitely the most interesting cam in the
nikon line-up today below D4S.
And maybe the perfect side-kick for the D4S…
 
Last edited:
Be interesting to see what the buffers like, a big weakness in some of Nikons recent cameras. Hopefully nearer to the D810 rather than the D610.
 
Helios said:
Be interesting to see what the buffers like, a big weakness in some of Nikons recent cameras. Hopefully nearer to the D810 rather than the D610.
Click to expand...

100 jpg - same buffer size as in d300/d700/d610

but a big buffer is pretty pointless with low fps

obviously nikon won't let d750 (or any other camera) compete with D4s
when it comes to speed

otherwise video is an alternative…not present in D700…
 
Last edited:
The buffer seems to be quite low, about 2.5 secs worth - maybe 4 secs ...... disappointing for many.
 
Last edited:
To upgrade my D300s the way to go seems to be the D810. Pro build, all magnesium alloy, with the big buttons, dedicated AF button, pro controls. In DX format you'd have 16MP at 6fps (7 fps with battery pack), and a buffer which would allow you to shoot continuously.

Just a very expensive upgrade. I'm sure the Canon 7D Mk II will be a lot cheaper.

Other options would be used D800's, D3s's, or D4's.

With the D610 plastic body, and no real improvement in fps or buffer, this isn't the camera for me.
 
Helios said:
To upgrade my D300s the way to go seems to be the D810. Pro build, all magnesium alloy, with the big buttons, dedicated AF button, pro controls. In DX format you'd have 16MP at 6fps (7 fps with battery pack), and a buffer which would allow you to shoot continuously.

Just a very expensive upgrade. I'm sure the Canon 7D Mk II will be a lot cheaper.

Other options would be used D800's, D3s's, or D4's.

With the D610 plastic body, and no real improvement in fps or buffer, this isn't the camera for me.
Click to expand...

I think that it depends on what you shoot and the glass you want to buy

I come to the conclusion quite a lot that the Canon 7D plus Canon 400mm f5.6 is the most cost effective walk around nature lens that produces a good quality image

I am a Nikon shooter …… but you can buy that combination, camera and lens 7D + 400mm for less than the new Nikon 80 400mm VR and the IQ from the prime is better and the set up far lighter and easier to hand hold although it does not have VR …….. if the 400mm f5.6 took Canon TC's and the AF was not crippled with the TC I would grab one tomorrow
 
Buying a FF cam to shoot DX seems crazy,
D800 for actionphoto ... Nooo...Btdt
A used D3s is probably the best alternative
Great cam!

D750 is a compromise,
We love that in sweden...
;-)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

T
Upgrading Tamron 150-600 to Canon 200-800; a small wall of text.
Replies
2
Views
3K
KPF
K
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
21K
alicianewbie
A
W
NE India. Eaglesnest and Singalila NP.
Replies
6
Views
5K
mjh73
mjh73
O
A futile attempt to replace my 10x42 Engage.
Replies
19
Views
4K
[email protected]
D
M
Eight 8X reverse porros compared
Replies
0
Views
3K
MarylandUSA
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top