Why a D700?!

As a Canon user the answer to this is pretty obvious to me. However, having been asked this question, I thought I'd share my answer here.

The reason some Nikon users can't see the point, is that when a grip is included in the price of a D700, the cost comes close to the Nikon D3, which is more rugged and faster.

The whole point of the camera for me would be to use it without the grip, making it smaller and marrying it up with a handful of prime lenses and going old school. This won't work for some more newsy situations, but for reportage, features and portrait jobs its a perfect setup.

Along with two Canon 1D MkIII bodies, I also use a couple of 5Ds. I have a bag (ThinkTank Photo Urban Disguise) with two 5Ds, a flash, and a bunch of primes: 20mm f2.8, 28mm  f1.8, 35mm f1.4L, 85mm f1.2L II and a 135mm f2L. This is the bag I pick up for the types of work mentioned above. The 1D MkIII, zooms and long glass is used for traditional news and extreme weather conditions (as its weather sealed).

The Canon 5D without doubt has revolutionised how photojournalists work. Its given us amazing image quality in a small body, with small batteries and chargers. All one has to do is look at the amazing work produced by photographers like Sean Smith (The Guardian) and multi award winner Daniel Beltra.

The D700 still has to prove itself, and I have no idea about its image quality or handling. The one thing which is certain though is that Nikon are way behind Canon on prime lenses. None of the Nikon glass (apart from the super telephotos) have built in silent AFS motors and at the high end, the range is very small. Nikon needs to bring out fast aperture, AFS primes covering the wide to short telephoto range. This married to the D700 could promise a killer system.

Rumours have it that the Canon 5D replacement is due later this year. I for one can't wait to see what Canon have done. It'll definitely be interesting to compare the 5D MkII and the D700.