Best camera I have ever owned, and I have owned many. 12 MP is plenty, and you get absolutely oustanding pictures with great resolution. When teamed up with fast, high quality FX lenses, pro results are possible. The attached flash is almost unnecessary, since with the high ISOs you can just about take pictures in the dark.

Having done a lot of research on this camera and reading all of the positive reviews I knew I would be getting a quality piece of equipment. This camera has been reviewed to death so there is really nothing new I can add just to say the only thing that gave me pause was the price tag. Let me assure you that this camera exceeded every expectation I had and is worth every cent I paid for it.

There is a reason this camera has single handedly converted more Canon shooters than any other. The D700 will add a whole other level to your digital photography. Just do it, you won't be sorry.

I've been a semi-pro digital user for five years. I started wtih a Fuji S2, moved up to the Nikon D2H (horrible reliability, expensive), D2Hs, D200, D300 and finally the D700.

With every camera prior to the D700 there were compromises and Nikon was always two years behind Canon. Finally, when the D3 came out, they were in the lead again, but the price was too much for my semi-pro use to justify. So I struggled along with a pair of D300s for another eight months. The D300 is an excellent camera, however, it has some serious flaws: It overexposes and is particularly hot on the red channel. It's higher ISO performance is mediocre and really kills detail. And it's DX.

I bought a D700 for $2950 and, predictably, the price fell $200 a few days after that. But I needed it for an assignment that would involve shooting in a dimly light garage.

The camera worked perfectly, although once again, I am seeing overexposure in some scenes. The auto WB is much improved over the D300. The dynamic range is much improved, as well. And the AF seems faster.

This camera has me going back to prime lenses. The DOF is much shallower and the bokeh much nicer with my 85mm and 50mm lenses on the D700. Eventually, I want to be all primes on the long end. My 300 f/4 gives wonderful results on this body. The 70-200 is a mixed bag. I'm just not happy with the look of the images. They are not as sharp as they are on the D300 (I kept one). Weird. I'm still testing.

I love everthing about the D700 except it's tendency to overexpose and the fact Canon's competitor has video and more MP. Video really should have been on this camera; after all, the D90 at 1/3 the price has it. Nikon dropped the ball by not including it on the D700. Two months after being introduced, the D700 is already a somewhat obsolete camera, thanks to Canon's offering of more mp and video.

All that said, as a Nikon user I'm glad to finally have 5D image quality in a full-frame Nikon, even though it comes at a premium. I feel the current combo of the D300/D700 will last me for several years, and will eventually result in a transition to almost all prime lenses, if Nikon ever gets its act together and offers some worthy wide angle primes to match with this body. Meantime I find the 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 105 micro, 180 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 to be excellent matches for this body. The Beast 28-70 f/2.8 is also a good performer on this body, as is the 14-24 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is questionable.

Be sure to get the grip for best balance and extended battery life. I find the D700 has better battery performance than the D300. Also if you do portraits, get a portrait Expo Disc and download the portrait custom setting for your camera. The results are very nice.

I purchased the Nikon D700 about three weeks ago now and it is an awesome camera. My previous frame of reference is my four year old Canon 20D and the D700 beats the Canon on every front. The added dynamic range of the Nikon's full-frame sensor means most photos are well exposed - including the sky and shadows. Often only minor adjustments are required post camera (I use Lightroom 2). I've also found that the autofocus on the Nikon D700 is light years ahead of the Canon. Focusing is not a problem. Then there is the low light performance of the Nikon D700. Wow! Indoor photography without flash is now possible. I purchased my D700 in a kit with Nikon's 24-120 mm zoom lense with vibration reduction. The vibration reduction combined with the ability to shoot at higher ISO settings means photos of moving subjects can be shot at higher shutter speeds - resulting in less blur. Overall, I am very satisfied with the D700.

I've owned it for over a month now and this seems to be the digital SLR I've wanted since I stopped using my old Nikon F. I have owned the D200 and D300, but as expected, this surpasses all. You really need to look through the viewfinder to appreciate the beauty of full frame. It is as if someone turned on the light. And with a fast lens, it is so much brighter than a cropped sensor camera. I added Nikon's magnifying eyepiece and rubber cup - as a result I use autofocus a lot less.

The other aspect that sets this camera apart is its ability to render color. It is hard to articulate, but there is a certain "rightness" to the colors.

There are too many features to discuss, but one that I really have come to appreciate is auto ISO. In low light situations, the full frame sensor is simply masterful at letting you shoot at ISO 3200 when needed.

This camera cries out for good glass. Do not put a cheap lens on this camera! Not only will it expose any fault a lens has, but you will cheat yourself out of the superb results this camera will yield. I splurged for the 24-70 f2.8, and it is a marvelous lens, very sharp and contrasty, albeit large, somewhat ostentatious and heavy. I am getting some unwanted "that's a big camera" comments. It is not a kit for times when discretion is needed. If you want the ultimate portrait camera, this paired with the 85mm f1.4 or 1.8 would be it. Great job Nikon!

I am relatively new to Nikon cameras. I have a Canon Mark III and 5D as other bodies. I have seen that other readers giving 4 stars based on small or personal preferences. In my opinion, D700's technological advancement over 5D is light years ahead. I don't think most wedding photographers will argue against the 5D's image quality and reliability. But also remember its cost when it was introduced. Nikon definitely done an excellent job with this one. And the price is very reasonable.

The Nikon D700 is exactly the digital SLR that I envisioned when I first heard that such an animal existed. After over a quarter-century of shooting film and gradually realizing the advantages digital holds for me through using a high-end point-and-shoot as an adjunct to my faithful old Nikon SLR film camera, I eagerly bought a D70s ... and was exceedingly frustrated and disappointed. My familiar old lenses responded differently (the 1.5 "multiplier effect") ... when they responded at all (a "non-CPU" lens could be mounted, but all camera exposure and metering functions were disabled, making the result disadvantageous even compared to a pre-AF film body and lens).

Not any more! Even though the D700 was primarily intended to be used with auto-focusing (AF) lenses, it also functions superbly with my non-CPU (manual focus) lenses, only losing the "shutter priority" and "program" modes (because, of course, the camera can't alter the aperture ... that's my job on any non-CPU lens) ... the D700 can even give me focusing feedback after I enter a manual lens's information into the D700's menu. I once more feel like I have good, quick control over the aspects of photography that create the character of my photographs. No more fumbling with lots of fingers over several sets of buttons to tell the camera the simplest things ... it's back to rotating the focus and aperture rings (or not, if I choose the AF lenses).

And the annoying "multiplier effect" is gone with the D700's full-frame ("FX") sensor. My 50mm lens -- my mainstay -- is now a true 50mm lens again (if you have to ask why that matters, the D700 isn't for you). I personally don't pursue wide-angle photography, but I definitely can see how those who do (and who haven't been able to afford a D3) will be doing cartwheels if they can get their hands on a D700.

The D700's viewfinder is also light years above my D70s, making everything from focusing to composition that much easier and more precise. The D700's whopping big LCD screen is also a big advantage. When in review mode, the display is large ... or, at my choice, the increased data option shrinks the thumbnail to a still-valuable size and places the data around the photo instead of over it like the D70s does.

I'm finding the grip very comfortable, and although the weight is hefty compared to any point-and-shoot, it is a well-balanced camera and that weight doesn't bother me. Being able to shoot in RAW mode is resulting in not only better end-result photos for me, but also (once I get the RAW files on my computer) much more accurate feedback on what I can improve about my technical choices ... and one of digital photography's most significant advantages is that faster feedback. Also of note for those who like working in RAW, unlike the D70, I now have the option to shoot ONLY in RAW mode, not just RAW + JPEG, and that saves valuable memory space.

My only negative comment so far is that Nikon's proprietary software (included with the D700) is necessary to download photos to one's computer. I'll adapt, but it just seems an unnecessary restriction.

Even though it's priced well under the other full frame Nikon, the D3, the D700 certainly does not come cheap. For me, it was the only affordable solution, and well worth every penny. If you spent years shooting film and count a bundle of old Nikon lenses among your close friends, the D700 is going to make you wonder if you'll ever stop grinning!

***

Update, November 21, 2008: I've had the D700 for three months now. Three months isn't a long time to evaluate durability, and I'm certainly not one of those people who shoots 1000 or more captures a week (I still have frugal film habits), but early use is one of the common timeframes for quality problems to surface. I'm certainly pleased that I've experienced no problems with the camera's function.

The D700 continues to exceed my expectations as a camera and as a true successor to my film camera. It has put the fun back into photography for me -- once set up to my preferences, the D700 stays out of my way and lets me photograph the way I have for decades, with the pleasing results I'm used to getting ... and with all the advantages of digital capture. Despite my miserly film-born habits, I've happily made enough digital images to account for almost half the camera body's purchase price if those captures were translated to film and developing.

Now that I've established a workflow (Nikon Transfer to Adobe Bridge CS3 to Photoshop CS3), having to use Nikon Transfer for downloading images is a non-issue at home. On the road, though, I'll have to wait until returning to my own computer (with the Nikon Transfer software) to see my pics, so this is still a definite limitation.

What has totally blown my mind is the D700's performance in low light. I never expected high ISO captures to be so useable, let alone what I've gotten at ISO 6400. I'm shooting in the house with ambient lighting and no flash and actually getting a high percentage of "keepers"! No longer do I shrug and say "too bad, not enough light" nor does a flash disturb my subject and alter or destroy the mood. I've also found I can capture good images at indoor events and competitions (such as llama and horse shows) without flash, making my presence a non-issue instead of a potential disruption. As a result, the D700 has given me a brand new opportunity to capture a significant segment of my world in pixels.

No, ISO 6400 image quality is not equivalent to ISO 200, nor is it often really suitable for 100% size printing or display (11.8"x17.7"). But for smaller prints and display (in the 25-50% range), it's remarkable, and certainly superior to anything I could possibly have captured with any other DSLR (besides the D3, which has the same sensor), let alone on film (because I primarily shoot nature outdoors, I never could justify loading any film higher than ISO 400 in my Nikon FE). I have never in my life had anything printed larger than 8x12 with one exception, and usually I've not even printed that large, so the limitations on the D700's ISO 6400 are minimal for me (and what it can do is still not achievable otherwise). To see some actual samples, you're welcome to go to my Flickr photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29588290@N04/) and search for photos tagged with Nikon D700 and ISO 6400, or just search for Nikon D700 and look at the EXIF data for the resulting photos if you prefer.

I do have one new quibble with the D700 -- I wish Nikon had not limited the non-CPU lens menu to only ten lenses. Because I'm coming from years of comfort with shooting manual focus lenses on film, that's what I do on the D700 ... and as a result, I've got all ten slots full! If I want to use a teleconverter (or if I acquire any other manual focus lenses), I have to re-program one or more of the slots. Hopefully Nikon will provide a firmware update to address this, although I'm not holding my breath either. Certainly a huge percentage of people love their autofocus lenses; the demand and financial return to NIkon for such an update probably isn't significant from a marketing standpoint.

I'm also finding that it would have been more logical for the Auto-ISO setting to be available through the dedicated ISO button instead of in the shooting menu. Again, a possible firmware update could address this ... if Nikon feels it's warranted. It's not impossible to work around, just less convenient than it could be. I'm not sure if other currently available DSLRs share this arrangement or not.

Initially I would have said that those people who started photography with DX format (or who converted to digital years ago) would not see any major benefit in the D700. Now I'm not so sure.

Certainly anyone who has only DX lenses would be financially impacted by also needing to purchase good full-frame lenses to actually benefit from the D700's full-frame capabilities; anyone whose preferences include telephoto and wildlife photography will also be disadvantaged by losing the "reach" that the 1.5x DX multiplier provides if they sell their current Nikon DSLR to finance a D700. (You can use DX lenses on the D700, but they use a smaller portion of the sensor, resulting in a lower MP image ... hardly a reasonable use of a $2.5K+ camera.)

However, for low ambient light photography, the D700 has no equal (other than the significantly more expensive D3). Before experiencing what the D700 can do, I said, "Well, I don't really use high ISO, so I don't need that capability." Now that I have the capability, I'm really using it, and I wouldn't give it up for anything.

Fortunately, even if the choice is not entirely clear-cut, the choices ARE there. Thank you, Nikon!!!

This is an amazing camera. I am not going to go over the specs because you can read about them on just about any camera web site. What I am going to concentrate on is who should buy one and why.

First off, I've read about many folks lamenting having bought the D300 and now feel like the need to "upgrade" to a D700. These are two different cameras for two different purposes and as such don't compete against each other so much as complement each other. The D300 doesn't have the low noise capability (The D700 can get clean images at ISO1600 vice ISO400 for the D300) nor does it have the wide angle capabilities of the D700. The D700 doesn't have the 1.5x multiplier of the D300 so wide angle lenses are truly wide. Additionally, while you can use DX lenses on the D700, you will only be using 5 mp of your sensor.

Another comparison is between the D3 and D700. They both have the same sensor so the image and ISO abilities are the same. The D700 comes slower out of the box but with the Nikon EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for MB-D10 Battery Pack and Nikon D2 and D3 Digital SLR Cameras, Nikon MB-D10 Multi Power Battery Pack for Nikon D300 & D700 Digital SLR Cameras, Nikon BL-3 Battery Chamber Cover for Nikon EN-EL4 and EN-EL4a for the MB-D10, and Nikon MH-21 Quick Charger for Nikon EN-EL4 and EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Batteries (~$500) you will be rocking with 8 fps and great battery life; just barely slower than the D3. Also, I have not found any technical data on the autofocus and processing chip but in my non-scientific side by side comparison the D700 seemed just as fast as the D3 while the D300 appeared noticeably slower. (This was shot with the 85mm 1.4D. This lens does not have Silent Wave Motor focus and therefore relies on the camera's focusing motor.) As I said this is not scientific but I am also guessing that Nikon saved on engineering costs by just transferring the guts of the D3 to the D700 and slowing it down (this is probably the reason the D700 gets such poor battery life (200-300 shots vice 1000 shots) in comparison to the D300).

So without further ado:

Buy the Nikon D700 12.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) if:

You need to shoot in no flash low light situations. With a 1.4 lens at 1600 ISO you would be amazed at the quality of the photos! If you are not doing close up work of people you can get great shots @ 6400 ISO. If you can stand a grain in B+W(a very cool effect by the way), then you can get good shots @ 25,600!

You want to shoot ultra wide. With no multiplication factor, you can shoot truly wide angle photos. The 14mm is 14mm not 21mm like on a DX camera. Also, although you can get the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens which will be the equivalent of 18-36mm, it will still have the distortion of a 12-24mm lens. So compared to the FX D700 you would get 14 deg less width with more distortion.

You are willing to spend $4500 more on the lenses. The body is disposable, the lenses are what last. You could get away with a 50mm 1.4 and that would be a fine place to start and a great way to learn how to frame a picture. However, I would recommend the following 3 lenses and I would recommend getting them in the following order. 1) The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - $1000 (Super fast, incredibly shallow depth of field, and amazing construction. Get this lens and practice getting good with a fixed length lens! Get this lens over the 85mm 1.8 for the construction and 9 blade design. You will be blown away with how low the light can be and you can still get the shot! (Rumors have it that Nikon is about to replace this lens with a new improved version. I expect the new lens will be better but will likely cost 1.5 to 2x as much.) 2) The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - $1700 This is the lens pros use to earn their living. (It has been 5 years since Nikon updated this lens so it is due for a replacement soon but again I am sure it will be more expensive and this lens rocks right now) 3. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens - ~$1600. Stupid fast, stupid wide, and stupid great. What more can you ask?

Buy the Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens if:

You want an amazing all around lens. The Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens (27-300mm equivalent) You really never need to take this lens off. You can shoot wide (27mm) and telephoto (300mm) Wow this lens does it all.

You want to shoot long. If you take a D300, the 70-200mm 2.8, and a 1.7x teleconverter you get a 178-510mm F4.8 for $3600!! Or add the 300mm 2.8 and you get a 765mm F4.8 for $6500 ($3000 cheaper and 5 lbs lighter than a 600mm F4 lens). Totally astounding.

You shoot in relatively decent light. Until I got the D700, I routinely shot great portrait shots at home, at night, and with poor lighting using the D300 and the 85mm 1.4 at 1/30s and ISO200-400.

You want to buy and take advantage of DX lenses. Really you only need 2 lenses with the D300. You will want the 18-200mm and the 12-24mm. That will cover everything you need for a grand total of $1500. I would still recommend the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens. A stupid fast 128mm 1.4 on the D300.

Buy the Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) if everything about the D700 fits your shooting requirements and:

You shoot more than 3000 photos per month. The D700's shutter is rated to 150,000 cycles while the D3 is 300,000. Nikon's generational replacement cycle for their flagship camera is 4 years. That means if you shoot ~3000 photos per month you will shoot ~150,000 shots in 4 years and it will be time to replace the camera anyway. If you shoot 10,000 shots per month you will have to replace the camera in 15 months. However, with the D3 you would not have to replace the camera until 30 months.

You earn your living shooting photographs. Memory cards rarely fail but do you want to lose thousands of dollars and your reputation by risking it. Get the D3 and set it to write the images to both cards. Yes, there are other techniques to minimize your exposure to this failure but none are as easy and reliable.

You don't want the option to remove the battery and vertical grip. With the D700 you can add the MB-D10 to make it 98% of the D3. However, if you don't want the weight or need the speed you can remove it and save the space and weight. This is useful for long hiking trips (However, I would recommend a D300 for this unless you were hand shooting in low light).

Well, I finally got my D700 and have had it for about a week now so I wanted to put up some initial impressions of the pros and cons from an experienced amateur's perspective (been taking photos for almost 15 years now, but I wouldn't consider myself in any way a professional).

From the pro side:

I am VERY pleased with the full-frame CCD. Before this camera, I had the D100 and was happy with it, but always was a bit annoyed that my Nikon lenses were converted by the different size of the CCD. Now that I'm back to 35mm, I feel like the SLR acts a lot more like my old N90s. My favorite lens, the 85mm 1.4 produces astoundingly beautiful shots with increadibly shallow depth of field. I'm in heaven.

On the whole, the features I've used so far have been quite impressive. At normal ISOs the quality is just outstanding. I don't think I've ever seen digital pictures with this level of detail period. This said, what really impressed me was the 6400 ISO. I've played around with a number of digital cameras over the years and I don't think I've ever seen a camera that can produce the kinds of low-light images that the D700 does. The noise is so unbeleavably low that I am just floored.

I've been using a 16gb Sandisk Extreme memory card and have been very impressed with the write-speed of the camera. On RAW quality imaged, I can get 800+ shots to the memory card and the transfer rate to the computer is excellent considering the size of the files. Shooting speed is also excellent. I do mostly portraits, but when I do candids I do find myself shooting multiple shots in succession and the D700 performs wonderfully. It does make me curious as to how much faster the D3 is, but I can't imagine it being that much faster.

Some minor gripes (I would discount 1/2 star for these if I could, but rather than rating the camera at a 4, I'm giving it a 5 because I am very happy with it).

1. The live-view is somewhat odd in the way that it works. I was hoping that the camera would lift the mirror and then basically become like an average point-and-shoot. It doesn't really work that way and frankly, makes me appreciate the view-finder all the more. The instructions to get the live-view to work are somewhat complex (it isn't just a switch, you also have to go into menus, make selections, and then depress the shutter button half-way each time you take a picture in order to activate the live-view every time). It is a nice option for when you can't look through the viewfinder easily, but definitely not for all-the-time-use.

2. Software compatibility has some quirks. It seems to me that my Cannon worked with XP and Photoshop right out of the box, whereas with this camera I had to go to Nikon's website and download Codecs in order to get my computer to recognize RAW images... also... why does Nikon insist on calling RAW images NEF files? Seems to add a layer of complexity that is just unecessary. Another odd thing is a note on Photoshop's (Adobe's) website which tries to let consumers know that Nikon and Adobe are "comitted to working together" but actually seems to have the opposite effect given the tinkering that is necessary in order to get NEF files recognized. That said, now that I've got it all set up properly, it works fine and I'm very happy.

Summary: Seems to pack all the bang of the D3, but at a nice savings. Definitely not cheap, but you get what you pay for and it is very nice to be putting my Nikon lenses to good use. Picture detail and quality is through the roof, impressive low-light sensitivity. Full-frame CCD is awesome. Camera feels great in the hand, solid construction, good menus, dials, buttons, etc. all feel great.