4 ms·

I had a D700. What a camera. Not surprised you had it serviced—if it’s a reasonably cheap repair job, that is still a great body if you don’t care about resolu

I had a D700. What a camera. Not surprised you had it serviced—if it’s a reasonably cheap repair job, that is still a great body if you don’t care about resolution. (And people put way too much emphasis on resolution.) I swear that thing ran on fusion or zero-point energy. It could be nostalgia or just me being old, but I am sure it got vastly better battery life than my current mirrorless camera.

turminal 4y ago
> but I am sure it got vastly better battery life than my current mirrorless camera. That sounds about right. Mirrorless cameras need to do a lot of image processing and that affects battery life significantly.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Definitely, compare to a DSLR which is only fully powered-on when your finger is on the shutter button. Otherwise it's basically asleep 99% of the time, if the screen's off.
- dylan604 4y ago
  and you know, run the screens that affect the battery life significantly.
jjav 4y ago
> It could be nostalgia or just me being old, but I am sure it got vastly better battery life than my current mirrorless camera. Not nostalgia, DSLRs get vastly better battery life than mirrorless cameras. Because there is nothing using electricity in the optical path, you're just looking through the lens. A mirrorless on the other hand is constantly using power for the screen.
hef19898 4y ago
It's my dad's back-up body, I switched his D200 back im exchange and got a D300 with, IIRC a shuttet count of 30k-ish, as a back-up. Service was 90 bucks, sensor and mirror cleaning, firmware update, general service, AF and exposure config, laser callibration of the mirrors and prisms. Rather decent IMHO, I have yet to get it back, looking forward to it! Battery life if great, during a full week in Iceland I charged the two batteries once, and propably wouod have made without charging. Resultion is, at least for me, only proplem when it comes to cropping. Not cropping in changing the format or to cut of the corners (the D700 viewer covers only 95% of the picture which can lead to some stuff at the borders of teh image you don't want there) but rather croppong out stuff like bird to enlarge them. Then, and only then, the 12 MP are an issue. Otherwise a lower resolution forces you sinpmy take better pictures in the first place. And for online use 12 MP are plenty anyway, I don't plan to print a house wall with my photos. And lower resolution means smaller files, which a benefit in itself. I love that camera, if simply because it gave me back the joy of photography.
- perardi 4y ago
  I had to go back and dig up a D700 photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/8836490860/in/album-72157633702028088/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/8836490860/in/album-72... Yup. Image quality holds up! …OK, that’s not entirely fair. It’s more that the image quality of the absurdly expensive lens I rented for that weekend holds up. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f2.8g-ed-vr-ii.html https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-le...
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Putting 1k bucks in a lense is such better investment than putting the same in a camera body when it comes to image quality. Another benefit of a low resolution body, lenses don't need to be as absurdly good as they have to be for 24/66 MP plus bodies abd are correspondingly cheaper. Which leaves more money to travel to all those nice places to take nice pictures and enjoy yourself. Not that I would say no to Z9 with corresponding glass if someone gave it to me!
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      > Putting 1k bucks in a lense [...] The one linked by the parent is $5.5k.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        I saw that... 1k is a lens I look at sometimes twice per day... Well chirstmas is coming, slowly but surely...
asdff 4y ago
DSLRs always lap mirrorless cameras for battery life. There's practically no battery drain when its on until you actually shoot the shot since you are taking in light with a passive prism to compose your shot, versus the sensor having to be on and a display somewhere being powered with the mirrorless camera. Sony A7 shoots like 400 shots per charge. 5d mk4 lasts for twice as many shots otoh.

turminal 4y ago

> but I am sure it got vastly better battery life than my current mirrorless camera. That sounds about right. Mirrorless cameras need to do a lot of image processing and that affects battery life significantly.

HPsquared 4y ago
Definitely, compare to a DSLR which is only fully powered-on when your finger is on the shutter button. Otherwise it's basically asleep 99% of the time, if the screen's off.
dylan604 4y ago
and you know, run the screens that affect the battery life significantly.

jjav 4y ago

> It could be nostalgia or just me being old, but I am sure it got vastly better battery life than my current mirrorless camera. Not nostalgia, DSLRs get vastly better battery life than mirrorless cameras. Because there is nothing using electricity in the optical path, you're just looking through the lens. A mirrorless on the other hand is constantly using power for the screen.

hef19898 4y ago

It's my dad's back-up body, I switched his D200 back im exchange and got a D300 with, IIRC a shuttet count of 30k-ish, as a back-up. Service was 90 bucks, sensor and mirror cleaning, firmware update, general service, AF and exposure config, laser callibration of the mirrors and prisms. Rather decent IMHO, I have yet to get it back, looking forward to it! Battery life if great, during a full week in Iceland I charged the two batteries once, and propably wouod have made without charging. Resultion is, at least for me, only proplem when it comes to cropping. Not cropping in changing the format or to cut of the corners (the D700 viewer covers only 95% of the picture which can lead to some stuff at the borders of teh image you don't want there) but rather croppong out stuff like bird to enlarge them. Then, and only then, the 12 MP are an issue. Otherwise a lower resolution forces you sinpmy take better pictures in the first place. And for online use 12 MP are plenty anyway, I don't plan to print a house wall with my photos. And lower resolution means smaller files, which a benefit in itself. I love that camera, if simply because it gave me back the joy of photography.

perardi 4y ago
I had to go back and dig up a D700 photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/8836490860/in/album-72157633702028088/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/8836490860/in/album-72... Yup. Image quality holds up! …OK, that’s not entirely fair. It’s more that the image quality of the absurdly expensive lens I rented for that weekend holds up. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f2.8g-ed-vr-ii.html https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-le...
- hef19898 4y ago
  Putting 1k bucks in a lense is such better investment than putting the same in a camera body when it comes to image quality. Another benefit of a low resolution body, lenses don't need to be as absurdly good as they have to be for 24/66 MP plus bodies abd are correspondingly cheaper. Which leaves more money to travel to all those nice places to take nice pictures and enjoy yourself. Not that I would say no to Z9 with corresponding glass if someone gave it to me!
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    > Putting 1k bucks in a lense [...] The one linked by the parent is $5.5k.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      I saw that... 1k is a lens I look at sometimes twice per day... Well chirstmas is coming, slowly but surely...

asdff 4y ago

DSLRs always lap mirrorless cameras for battery life. There's practically no battery drain when its on until you actually shoot the shot since you are taking in light with a passive prism to compose your shot, versus the sensor having to be on and a display somewhere being powered with the mirrorless camera. Sony A7 shoots like 400 shots per charge. 5d mk4 lasts for twice as many shots otoh.