Introduction

The Nikon D700 is a camera from a better, vanished time. Until July 2008, Nikon only had what is known as ‘DX crop’ sensors; the D3 camera, released the prior year, was the first full frame DSLR that Nikon made. DX sensors are significantly smaller than full frame (FX) which matches 35mm film before digital took over. At that time, it was almost seen that Nikon were not taking full frame seriously. However, this all changed with the D3 camera which surfaced in 2007, and following that with the release of the D700 in July of 2008. The D700 was my second digital Nikon camera that I ever bought from new in 2010 (the D90 being the first). The D90 was not a bad camera, however I lusted after the ‘proper’ full frame format and the beautiful design and ruggedness of the already impressive status of the D700. While today, it's not the latest and greatest in terms of megapixels or advanced autofocus features, it remains a very capable camera for various photographic genres. The images posted here span from about 2010 right up until present day.

D700 and 50/1.8D - a truly non distorting 50mm

‘Filmic’ Look

Many shooters dream of a time when film had it’s heyday. For a lot of my work, I strive to find a place that doesn’t feel so digital. This can be difficult in today’s shooting landscape. The D700 has a colour reproduction and grain structure at high ISO that really reminds me of film. The best part about it is, it requires no effort to get there. Simply dial in your settings, fast prime, light and subject, and Voilà:

The Film look is associated with the D700 — D700 with no noise reduction at maximum ISO of 6400. It produces a filmic look, and the grain is beautiful

(Please appreciate that all images are compressed for the web, thus the grain structure is actually altered and compressed in all images shown here).

Some Specs

The D700 has a 12 megapixel sensor and a very capable 51 point autofocus system, which is pulled straight from the D3. It also shares it’s 1,005-Pixel 3D Colour Matrix Metering II that provides good metering, enabling accurately exposed scenes off the bat. (The D700 runs a little hot on exposure, compared to modern sensors which higher dynamic range, clearly a design intention aimed at promoting good subject exposure at the potential loss of some highlights - this is the opposite to modern sensors generally speaking, which have meters which tend to underexpose a little more as they allow huge shadow pullup they are inherently designed to protect highlights). The D700’s ISO range is a very usable 200-6400. I will use right up to 6400 with care for my exposure when required. It has a vibrant 3″ 921,000-dot VGA colour LCD monitor. It is capable of shooting at 5 FPS natively, or up to 8 FPS with a grip attached. In fact, the D700 inherited most things from it’s bigger brother, all wrapped into a small, solidly built package. And that package is just as you have heard. It has a rugged magnesium-alloy construction to it’s entire base frame where all important components are directly attached and housed within it.

Dynamic Range

The D700’s dynamic range is just over 9 stops at base ISO of 200 (never shoot in the trick modes below this - it just gives you less highlight latitude). We can see here, that compared to the D810 which came many years later (and still considered class leading even today) it struggles to match it’s phenomenal dynamic range. This means we need to be obtaining good exposures in our pictures off the D700 for absolute best results. That does not mean we cannot save a picture that is a bit underexposed, but we should probably get out of the modern shooter mindset of exposing for highlights and raising shadows by 5 stops. Not really a good way of shooting anyway. If that were required, we should be ideally bracketing exposures, and exposure blending after the fact. This leads me onto the next topic which is often misplaced when considering exposure and ISO. Remember that the only real two things that determine actual exposure, are aperture and shutter speed. ISO is an amplification of signal after the fact, and doesn’t increase the number of photons collected in any given exposure. It does however, warrant consideration that we shoot at optimal ISOs for our intended picture. Let’s look at this next graph, coined as ‘Shadow Noise Improvement’:

Shadow Noise Improvement - Courtesy of William Claff of PhotonstoPhotos.net

As we can see from William Claff’s analysis of the sensor in the D700, shooting above ISO 400 provides a notable improvement in shadow noise (read noise). After ISO 800, the D700 sensor becomes ‘Isoless’ - meaning if we shot at ISO 1600 and had to bump our exposure by one stop in post, would generate exactly the same amount of shadow noise as shooting at ISO 3200 in camera. Why does this matter? Well, if you are trying to protect highlights, you might as well shoot at ISO 800 maximum, and in post production bring the exposure up. Of course the shot will look dark on the LCD monitor, however in processing you will gain much more highlight latitude to play with. Photonstophotos.net is a highly trusted and valuable source of information and nearly every camera that matters has been covered. No matter what camera you own, I urge you to check out William’s page in order to see how to best use your camera sensor for your intended goal. As they say- ‘the more you know’…

50mm f/1.4D lens — D700 and 50mm f/1.4D. ISO 200, f/2.5, 1/3200

Sensor Resolution and It’s Role in a Picture

You may read these specifications and baulk at them. Only 12 megapixels? It can be very easy to get swept up in what we want vs what we need. I have a D810, D850 and a Z8. These cameras (D850 and Z8) are high resolution monsters, with incredible noise performance high up in the range, and bags of detail. However for a lot of my work it’s just too much. With portraits, that’s grey hairs, every poor, line and crack on someone’s skin that I gotta play about with, otherwise I might as well just downsize the output to 12MP anyway. At one point even I fell into the trap of thinking that it ‘made no sense’ to keep a D700 alongside such high megapixel monsters. I’m glad I didn’t waiver in my thinking. In fact, that is one thing about me, I am a pretty straight shooter (see what I did there). My opinions tend to stay fairly stable, and the only time I change them is if evidence presents itself to change my mind. However in this case, 12MP is excellent for portraiture, and I still stand by this today. You may not know this, however Nikon were questioned about how they were stuck down at 12MP around the time of the launch of the D700. This was because Canon was already offering the 5D mark II with 21MP (a huge resolution for the time). Nikon had a very intelligent response. To paraphrase, they said that they could either keep the wonderful colour and tones, or they could pump up the numbers, both MP and ISO and show the detail with incredible ISO performance (at some detriment to colour it must be said because it would involve the CFA being made weaker, and colour becoming less delineated - thus stronger RAW transforms would be required to compensate).

Nikon D700 and 135 f2 DC - Incredible Bokeh — Arcade Kid - D700 and 135 f2 DC Nikkor

Regarding final output, frame properly with the correct lens, and the cropping problem (which is of course limited with a 12MP sensor) goes away. After we put that problem to bed, we are faced with 12 million gloriously large quality pixels in a properly composed scene. Further to this, consider that resolution importance is dramatically overplayed for printing. Unless we are talking about extremely large prints, which are viewed ultra close (aka, Billboards don’t apply to this situation), the D700 will be absolutely fine. Also, of course, it will be absolutely fine if you post on social media too.

To come onto the other points, the D700 only does 5 FPS? No eye detection autofocus? How can we live with this? It’s quite simple to realise, that the strengths of this camera play to it’s simplicity in producing beautiful colour and tonality in the still image. Portraits don’t require eye autofocus. I have this ability in my Z8, and whilst cute and all, and perhaps it is even nice to have in some situations, it’s not helped me make any better images, not really, not if I am honest about it. 5 FPS? Well, if you need 20 FPS (clearly you are a sports shooter then, otherwise if you are shooting portraits at this speed you are seriously misguided), then simply buy a modern DSLR or mirrorless camera and be done with it, otherwise consider why you think you need 20, 30 or 100 FPS? Do you have any idea how painful it is to look through a few seconds of pictures shot at 30 FPS to see the scene barely change between them, and have to spend time culling them? I think I did this once by accident on a modern camera and I am never going to repeat it.

People won’t notice resolution issues at all; however they will notice the unique look to the files if you learn how to get the best out of the camera. Infact, sometimes the images are more akin to a painting:

D700 producing painterly images — The Bride - D700 with 50mm f/1.4D shot wide open

The D700 camera was discontinued many years ago and replaced by the D750, (much to the disquiet of the D700 fanbase), a body that was much less solidly built; it had multiple recalls and issues with flaring due to the mirror box design. (The D700 didn’t have a single recall). The D750 didn’t have the pro level control system found on the D700 and ultimately just doesn’t have the classic output that the D700 can provide. Regarding the D700, many have called it the best camera in the world in terms of price to performance, and ultimately the output it can achieve so simply. This sensor really has a totally unique tonal colour palette that is unmatched. Many say that they can match this with any camera in raw processing; I have yet to see evidence of this in real world results. There are many reasons that this camera is still considered legendary.

Beautiful skin tones with the D700 camera — Discovering Tools

Ergonomics

The D700 is a beautiful looking camera on the exterior, and is an ergonomic masterpiece to those that take it into their hands and shoot with it. The button layout is solid and logical, and no menu diving is required to operate the camera properly, just like a film camera. This is how it should be. I utterly detest some modern mirrorless cameras that have removed buttons to force me to menu dive for regularly required shooting functions. This is just plain stupid. We don’t have that problem here. The optical viewfinder is gorgeous, despite showing about 96% of the frame as we look through it, never causes a problem in the type of shooting I would use the camera for. Consider that mirrorless tech now is a ways away from the first major iterations: for example the Z7, in that camera’s like the Z8 have hardly any or no perceptible lag when shooting. Despite this, there is still a case to be made for a large and bright optical viewfinder as is found here.

There are several things I would touch on here. There is absolutely zero lag with these designs; the subject comes in at the speed of light through optical finders. Secondly, in genres such as wedding / portrait and others that involve long staring contests of the photographer looking through the finder, optical finders are still relevant, and dare I say it, better. Think about this for a second. DSLRs do not need to power an electronic feed for you to see and compose your image. You can have your settings down and simply wait for the decisive moment. Doing this with mirrorless involves chewing through batteries simply waiting on the picture. This may or may not affect a shooter; however it is important to consider. The last advantage can also for some be seen as a disadvantage by some. For me, it is nice to observe subjects without any electronic representation. As long as one knows how to meter and understands exposure, this is generally not an issue. Shooters now are growing up in a world of smartphones, where they need to see what they are going to get on the mirrorless screen in order to make a picture. However, even things like brightness can throw people shooting like this off, so it is best for them to go back to basics and learn how to meter and use histograms. Of course, the other side of this coin is that in low light, mirrorless cameras can have the advantage in that they can electronically boost the signal. When you think about it, since DSLRs have live view, this should have been technically possible with DSLRs too in live view mode, just not via the optical viewfinder. The shutter and mirror in the D700 are iconically noisy. Birds can fly out of trees when you take a shot nearby; people can and will hear this camera in operation. Despite this, it is reassuringly solid and that’s-that. The strap is bold: proudly displaying you are shooting with a D700 and that it is FX (full frame). This was a badge of honour on it’s release. (This was the first time that Nikon showed it’s digital full frame prowess, along with the D3 camera).

I love the D700 sensor. I use it more than most other DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras I own — The D700 has no problem in low light

The Autofocus System

The 51 point autofocus system in the D700 still holds up today for what I do. And I mean I can push it in the dark with ease and still achieve sharp images. This shot is ISO 6400, 1/60, @ f/1.4 with a 50mm prime. Babies tend to move erratically. However, I just wait for the pause and we have the picture. I can push much more than this however. I can hand hold down to about 1/25 or there abouts with a 50mm prime and still get what is essentially ‘pixel level’ sharpness. Just look at the below, shot at ISO 6400, 1/25 and f/1.4. This is no mean feat, and I have done very little processing (and no noise reduction). I am not a big noise reduction guy, as in my opinion it leaves images looking plasticy and plaquey with a digital feel. If using, I urge you to employ very low amounts of this stuff:

Nikon D700 autofocus in low light — ISO 6400, 1/25, f/1.4 with 50mm f/1.4D prime lens

Some might look at this and think ‘wow that is noisy’. These people are simply so used to aggressive noise reduction, they’ve forgotten what a true low light film-like image actually looks like! Aggressive AI noise reduction is ugly as sin, conjures up the digital look and consider I’ve used absolutely zero in this shot so we can observe the natural grain structure in true low light. At the camera’s maximum ISO of 6400 IMO things look good, natural, organic. (Also consider, the shot is not the full size and compressed for online viewing). Now I know that some may be reading this and thinking ‘ISO 6400, that’s not that high’. Perhaps not, when cameras now go up to over 1 million ISO. However, real photographers’ know this is for the most part, just a gimmick. Consider that when we are using an f/1.4 prime lens at 1/50 and wide open, with our ISO at 6400, you will barely see the subject in the finder. This is the definition of low light, and in fact, we need to be sure there is actually a picture to be made in these cases, if shooting available light only. (With flash, a picture can always be made of course). When we consider low light, we have to look at the aperture and shutter speed used in the shot. The picture above was hard to make out with my eyes. We can see the motion blur of the hand behind baby, revealing just how slow I’ve dragged the shutter to let in as much light as possible for this situation.

For ultra low light, it’s best to use the central cross hair autofocus point in the D700. This means you get the best sensitivity (the central point is always the most sensitive in low light). Of course, I will not sit here and say that I never get misses with this system; I do, however all cameras will miss the odd shot. The point is, it’s workable and useable and can produce beautiful results when using the right lenses. I will of course use a speedlight often in ultra low light, however not for babies just before bedtime! If using a good speedlight (I recommend Godox), you get a red autofocus assist beam, It makes it almost impossible to miss a shot in terms of focus. I like this function a great deal! I have some other tips re focus. You have options: You can shoot in single point AF-S mode, and enable the illumination beam (works up to a good few meters and more). It is a little intrusive, however, you’ll always hit your mark. If you want, you can turn that off and put the camera into AF-C mode, this way it is easier to focus and recompose; still using the central point for the maximum sensitivity possible.

Nikon D700 Colours using ‘Camera DX2 Mode 1’

The Colour

The D700 has a colour Sensitivity metamerism index (SMI) of 83 for daylight and low light incandescent conditions. (Source: DXO). This is very strong, and gives us information about how well the camera differentiates individual colours and their individual hues. Have a look at this image from dpreview.com which shows colour separation problems from other cameras, that the D700 does not have: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53185762?image=0. Here we can see four CMOS cameras. The D700 by far pulls out the gold tones the best. The D800 really skews this hue to yellow. The reason for this is that the D700 has a much stricter Colour Filter Array than the D800 does. The sensor doesn’t actually see colour at all without the CFA component. At the dawn of the digital camera age, many manufacturers kept the CFA very strict at differentiating individual hues and saturating them properly. As time went on, and the demand for cleaner high iso increased, they were generally weakened in order to let in more light. The D700 has a CMOS sensor; however you will hear most internet chatter about good colour belonging to cameras which have CCD sensors. This is a misnomer. The reason that this is happening it because people incorrectly assume the CCD is producing the unique, or better colour than the CMOS. The D700 is one camera to prove this to be inaccurate. It just so happens that the CFA sitting atop of the sensor of many early digital cameras was more strict. The CFA generates the colour, not the sensor itself. To read more about why the CFA is so intrinsic to camera colour see my other article here. Some state that it should be technically possible to create the D700 output in a modern high resolution camera. This would involve profiling for individual illuminants such a daylight, tungsten light, etc. I have not seen anyone do this that convinces me the files came from a D700. Further to this, it would be an absolute undertaking. Why not just, you know, own a D700? The D700's colour rendering is often praised for its ability to capture subtle nuances in skin tones, with reds and oranges rendered beautifully:

D700 makes images like paintings — Owl Carving - D700 with 50mm f/1.4D

To get as close as I can to the ‘proper’ D700 output out with of Nikon’s NX-Studio (clunky, but highly recommended to keep a pure colour workflow), I use the Lightroom profile ‘Camera DX2 Mode 1 through 3’’. While most of the profiles in LRC are close to match camera profiles, these are developed by Nikon and exactly match. If you take the time to install them on the D700 and ensure you make Lightroom use the D2X profiles on import (easy to do, just go into preferences within the Lightroom interface), everything will match up for a nice easy edit process.

Generally speaking:
D2X Mode 1 is for skin tones
D2X Mode 2 is like neutral/flat, awaiting post processing
D2X Mode 3 is like vivid/landscape

As mentioned, you barely need to edit these files. Most of the time I don’t grade them or change white balance. It involves a bit of contrast, shadows, midtones, highlights and curve work, with occasional masking and that’s it. I’ve included the elusive picture controls below, (they are very difficult to find now). Shooting in neutral (NL) isn’t too bad on the D700, however it is always a touch too green - use that to effect if you wish. I at least recommend you trial the D2X profiles described above and downloadable here:

Download the D700 Picture Controls Here

Click the download button above, then unzip the files - you’ll obtain a folder called ‘D700__M’ with all the varying picture settings within it to use on your D700 camera.

Rendering

I have spent a lot of time shooting people at weddings in particular, however also out with those situations. I am a photographer who is able to light, however the way in which life works and presents itself to us, and the impromptu nature of situations, when I am not working professionally, I prefer to find light than to carry lighting gear with me everywhere I go. Do not mistake this for a laziness to learn lighting, I often still at least take a speed light with me in case. In fact, I urge anyone that doesn’t know how to use a basic set of speed lights both on and off camera, to learn the lighting craft. Then go further with the multitude of light modifiers until they begin to understand light on a deeper level. Don’t be that available light shooter because you are afraid of flash. Be it because you understand flash and use it when it is needed, and because you have begun to truly understand the nature of light.

I have spent a great deal of time deciphering from people on what they actually want from portraiture of their child or family member. The answer is very obvious, however so many shooters are blinded to it by years of marketing brainwashing and internet forums that discuss gear all day long. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is utterly simple what they want; to look good in the pictures we take of them. That’s it. Stripped back, this is the essence for portraiture, which if you think about weddings in particular, is just a continual one after other portraiture session with the element of continued surprise. The D700 directly links into this goal that people have for having their picture taken. Allow me to explain. The D700 has 12 megapixels, lower by today’s standards compared with monster megapixel cameras available now on 35mm format (at the time of writing 60MP). It also has a thick anti-aliasing filter in it’s design. Both of these combined leaves a subtle blur or softness to the images, of course that can be tailored a little in post processing, but it will never look as sharp and crunchy as a high megapixel camera, and that’s a good thing. (I can already hear people telling me that you can blur things in post. It doesn’t quite work the same as native output for me, and it also takes time to do per file, so consider this more deeply). Remember what I said. The D700 helps achieve that one goal that people have. To look good. No one over the age of 30 wants to see the wrinkles and the like on their face in a still image. Portraiture should capture the essence of a person. A singular image of them that tells a story. When we look at people, our brains tend to filter out some imperfections, we don’t remember that when they smile or scowl that their face is a bit wrinkly. If we show a picture of too much reality, it’s not going to go down well. This is not what people want to see in a portrait of themselves. There can be a huge task of fixing the sharp - crunchy look in an ultra high resolution camera. It takes me to the fact I am using mist filters on high resolution sensors, in a similar way that cinematographers are doing in film to make things look less sharp and crunchy. This is also, without knowing specifically how to achieve it of course, what people want. I don’t need any of this with the D700. So many shooters have listened to the internet and bought the marketing koolaid that they needed more megapixels to be a better photographer, without considering the essence of it, and what ultimately matters most. The D700’s rendering is just right for all of this. It’s just right for skin and people. Skin tones look amazing, as do colours and tones.

135 f/2 DC nikkor — Onlooker - Nikon D700 and 135 F/2 DC Nikkor

Use Case

What do I consider the D700 good for so long after it’s release. Would I use it for sports? Perhaps, it depends on the aims, use case of the end result and many other factors. It’s not necessarily the first use case I would think of, despite the fact that we absolutely could make great pictures with it in that genre. What about landscape work? Again, many capable landscape images have been made with the D700. Landscape tends to favour higher resolution and dynamic range (although there are ways around this), however again, it is not necessarily the use case I would apply to this camera either. So where would I place the D700 now? This is an easy answer, and if you have been paying attention up until now you already know it; without a doubt anything that involves people. I’m talking professional portraits, weddings, photographing ‘stuff’ and ‘things’. The D700 clearly excels at getting skin tones just right, whilst leaving the rest of the scene looking beautiful colour and tonality wise.

Nikon D700 Film Look — D700 with 50/1.8D prime

I can already hear people talking about the D700 and it’s lack of eye-autofocus, or dynamic range, or even resolution. Come on now! You don’t need eye-AF to shoot a portrait. Dynamic range? Still plenty. It has just over 9 stops which is more than film ever had. Resolution? I’ll bet you say this and you don’t even print anyway. I’m looking at my D700 files on a 32” 4K ProArt monitor and they look gorgeous. What is your problem that you need more than this? Most of this is simply marketing chatter to make the user feel inadequate and to get them to buy the latest camera and product. You aren’t a man unless you shoot 60MP! Marketing 101 attempts to destabilise the user’s confidence in what they do and to ultimately convince them they need something else to continue doing it. This is how marketing works. Shooters’ that get past this and understand this concept, tend to grow artistically and technically faster because they aren’t focused on megapixels and other distractions.

D700 blooming problem — D700 high ISO image at ISO 1600. Shot hand-held with a 50mm f/1.4D wide open. (It’s best to stop this lens down a touch at night) NB: No noise reduction used here, so this would look much better if that was employed. Also, I could easily fix the blooming with some edits.

Sensor Blooming

It’s not all sunshine and rainbows shooting with an older body. As you can see from this image, the D700 (and D3, D3s) all suffer from a problem now solved in modern Nikon bodies. Note the blooming from the strong light sources in this image, which causes light to bleed across the image in lines? This is particularly strong at high ISO, however it still present faintly when I shoot this scene at the camera’s base ISO of 200 on a tripod, This can limit the push-pull we can do in processing to get the files to look how we want them to in certain situations. I have PP’d this file mildy which has brought them out more here. This particular problem is the only one that really faces this particular sensor. It’s caused by the pixel well filling and causes the charge to spill over onto adjacent pixels to bleed right across the image into neighbouring pixels as you can see here, known as blooming. Many of the older sensor designs did this, and it is something to be aware of if owning a D700. From what I have seen, some D700’s are better than others in this regard too. I’ve heard Nikon has changed the odd PCB internally to solve / reduce this issue too. This picture was from a copy that had a much stronger affect. The 700 I currently own is much more mild and at base ISO, it is barely present. This makes it a non-issue for me as I would always shoot a scene like this at ISO 200. If your D700 has this problem, either avoid these scenes, use a different camera, or get creative and use it as an effect.

Isle of Arran Scotland — Arran from Portencross - D700 with 24mm f/2.8D

When the D700 get’s it right, it really produces beautiful results with rich colour, with barely any effort required to inject atmosphere in post processing. This image remains to this day one of my favourite, taken in 2011 on Scotland’s west coast. I shot this one using a 3 stop graduated ND filter. (Back then I wasn’t so good with photoshop). I still think grads would be useful for simple scenes like this, and more complex scenes would lend themselves better to luminosity masking which I use more now. The point of this image is to provide proof that a camera is really a tool to an end goal. No camera has enough dynamic range to capture a contrasty sunset in one shot anyway, so we will always need to make technical allowances for this.

85mm f/1.4D Nikkor Baby Portrait — Portrait of a Boy - D700 with 85mm f/1.4D Nikkor

Even at ISO 1000, the D700 easily pulls off shots such as the above. Admittedly, this wasn’t really a light-starved situation. The ISO was selected in order to keep a useable shutter speed for a moving baby and an 85mm lens.

Food Source - Nikon D700 with 85mm f/1.4D

Punchy, vibrant colours are easy with the D700, and the body keeps those tones where they ought to be. Whether it is the most accurate or not, it is some of the most pleasing to be found in any camera.

En Vogue

I’ve noticed a growing trend on youtube with videos featuring old cameras, especially the D700 and other areas that I am also interested in, such as camera’s with CCD sensors. I feel that many of this lot jump on these topics for clicks (and therefore, revenue). Be careful about this. Some I feel are even just parroting stuff they heard and bought a D700 likely just for the video to get their views. I’ll bet some don’t actually use or perhaps even like the camera. This is pretty disingenuous, however it doesn’t surprize these days. Consider that these folks are under pressure to come up with a video of something at least once per week. They will tell you anything: we all know how much clickbait revolves around the youtube machine. There are many that wax lyrical about the D700, but when you actually find out they mostly shoot with a Z6iii or some other camera that produces an output nothing akin to the D700. I do wonder why they love it so much, but don’t have the gumption to use it for paid work. There is a huge dichotomy there and I am often suspicious when I see these videos, or “content” as they seem to like to call it these days. Most are likely just attempts at producing videos that capitalize on what they see as is ‘en vogue’. Most of the time the videos show rather uninspiring images that could have been taken with any camera, with oversaturated reds and yellows to highlight colour in the D700.

D700 for wedding photography — Girl at Wedding - D700 with 24mm f/2.8D Nikkor

I stand by this camera. I still use it for paid work (I have two). I jump between different cameras, depending on the light, location, and aim of the picture overall, however I don’t make videos, or write about a camera I only use to take cute pictures at the weekend. Believe me when I say, I am using it, professionally. I guess what I am saying is, don’t be swept up in buying things because someone told you it’s good, especially on youtube! It’s human nature to want things, however you should take your time and make sure you understand what you are buying, if you decide to go that route. Consider for example, that the Z6iii will run rings around the D700 in low light. However, the D700 will produce a look, colour, and frankly a zen, that the Z6iii cannot match. For example, if we took these two cameras and compared them quickly, it’s easy to see the differences:

D700: skin tones, softer look, F mount lenses with access to a bunch of them that feel very organic, flare and produce glow and off axis flaring, amazing punchy and vibrant colour, a film like look straight out of camera that skews away from digital feel with a competent AF system. Z6iii: extreme high ISO ability, world class AF, bells and whistles such as high res EVF (most beneficial in low light), a more digital, crunchy, plaquey look that needs a lot more work to make it feel organic (if shooting people).

Conclusion

If you read my articles, you already know I use a mixture of equipment. I do this partly because, even although I own the latest mirrorless tech and lenses, DSLRs are still excellent for producing beautiful pictures as I have shown, and they already team up perfectly with the lenses I have owned for more than a decade at the time of writing. Instead of deciding to ditch all my prime lenses I have for f mount and buy them all again on z (no thanks), I kept them and continue to use them. When I am shooting astro or landscape, you will probably find me with a Z8, or D810 body, otherwise I use what I have on F mount. I will admit some of this happened due to me being frugal (I’ve spent enough on photographic equipment over the years, and I am old enough to know that new lenses and cameras are a fallacy to improving one’s craft solely). It went further though, to the realisation that something is sometimes a bit off in modern ultra-sharp lenses and sensors. Call it whatever you want, but for the types of pictures I like to produce when I am not out shooting landscape or astro genres, the D700 produces magic unlike no other camera, and even despite it approaching two decades old, still sees strong and consistent usage for me. For this reason, it remains highly recommended.

If you enjoyed this article, consider following me on Instagram or Facebook.

I have had so much positive response to this article, I am continuing to add to it. Stay tuned. - Last Updated February 9th 2026.

Steve