literally unmogged even to this day
>>4491626mogged easily by the Canon 5d mkii, I'm afraid.
>>4491628Prove it.
>>4491628Consider the fact that the d700 is still widely used by amateurs and professionals alike while nobody uses the 5d mkii today for anything.
>>4491626it was mogged before it even released by the Nikon F100.And before you type whatever you are going to type simply look at these 2 flickr groupsd700:https://www.flickr.com/groups/d700_discovery/pool/f100:https://www.flickr.com/groups/f100/pool/The difference in quality of photos between the 2 groups is just astounding.
>>4491639this is literally every film vs every digital that ever existedapples to oranges
>>4491640literally unmogged by any digital camera even to this day**mogged by most film cameras
>>4491639I'm 10 pages deep on both when do I notice a difference? f100 just looks like you ran a d700 raw through a generic film preset in post
>>4491638Considering that basically no d700s are still working and they have a dogshit plastic mount underneath the metal ring and they have sickening unusable colours, I'm going to say yeah, the 5dii mogs it in every way. Not to mention 5d2 has working autofocus, access to good lenses and is cheaper. >t. professional still using 5d2
>>4491643I was at a wedding last week and the photographer was using a d700 and a D7100
>>4491639I love film so much bros
>>4491626It's a shame that Nikon never made a proper successor. D750 feels like a plastic toy in comparison.
>>4491639I remember back in the day it was the cheapest Nikon FF, but still went for +$2500 at the time, and I really wanted "FF", so I just picked up an F100 for under $200 instead.>>4491628Also remember back then D700 vs 5D2 was a common subject of every photo forumPretty crazy in hindsight that even with a 5D3, on Canon you could only spot meter off the center point (instead of any AF point with Nikon), all the more reasons BBF / focus and recompose was the standard
>>4491626dear anon thats early cmos, nothing to write home about unless pic has content
>>4491644say how many guests?
>>4491649no you do not orkodak you press the button and we do the rest
>>4491652it was really bad canon bros could boast matrix bullet time canon and nikon bros were like muh 17-55mm 2.8 is versatile as any with ptlens
>>4491626mogged by first gen mirrorless lmao
>>4491666Prove it
>>4491669No, you prove it doesn't. This whole thread is faggot tier no photo bullshit. The fact the industry has moved on from the D700 is proof enough that it belongs in the dust bin of history. Post photos that prove otherwise or stfu faggot.
>>4491695>no u>projectionKek
>>4491666first gen mirrorless had like 1.1 update for pdaf at somepoint?
>>4491626>me, owning a D850lmaoing@ur lyf
The most dogshit color science I have ever experienced came from a D850 and a Z7II. All tech no soul cameras incapable of handling light that deviates at all from a standard illuminant. Even a sony a7rIII is... about as good.Just get it over with and get a canon. They aren't +6 EV shadow push cameras but they're fine if you know how to take a photo.
>>4491626i had a d700 for a few months. didn't shoot with it much since it's quite cumbersome for edc but it was extremely high on the photo:price ratio. maybe unbeatable in this realm. don't remember exactly how much i got it for but it was probably like 200-$400 after adding the lens. very little money for a quick, durable camera that makes nice pictures. besides the bulk, my only annoyance was that it uses CF storage
>>4491719The z7iis raw files all have a horrid green tint in capture one. Its really not that good of a camera. The autofocus is almost as bad as a foolji also.
D700 shines at high isos.The noise looks good.
>>4491666not first gen nikon lol
