Nikon D700

> Sure, there is still and will always be a market for larger glass and more pixels, lower noise levels, ergonomics etc. - but why in 2024 GPS, Wi-Fi, uploading to Instagram and similar functions are not standard in ALL cameras is beyond my understanding. Specifically on uploading to social media and having apps that depend on external APIs — maybe it's because putting Android on such devices and having to constantly keep the social media apps updated "dates" the camera and forces consumers into an upgrade cycle because of software bloat. I've noticed that for some reason, cheap Android phones tend to objectively slow down over the years even without software or app upgrades — as if the cheap Mediatek chipsets and RAM are designed to eventually degrade. Something similar happened to some of the wi-fi connected printers I have owned, which slowly become sluggish and unusable even after factory resets. On the other hand, I can still use my 16 year old full-frame Nikon D700 DSLR purchased in 2008 very, very well. Even back then, it supported a GPS attachment, though it's utter trash compared to in-phone AGPS these days.

I started shooting on a 12mp sensor after spending most of my time on 24mp (Sony A7 II to a Nikon D700) and I was surprised at how much detail was in the 12mp images. Unless you're cropping really heavily or printing really large, you really don't need the resolution most of the time.

My main one, a D700 on "extended loan" from my dad, was used in Iceland in winter (multiple times), in pouring rain, near the Atlantic shore during storms, in the Sahara during dust storms and 45 degrees C, used professionally for event documentation... And that's just from top of my head. Still shoots 10ish fps with the battery grip, has no sensor issues, is still weather sealed and just works. Same for the old F4 sitting in a shelf, or the D750 that replaced the D700 for my dad. I have no reason to doubt Canon is any different (during a lot of those trips other people used Canon, and those held up just fine as well), nor do i have doubt the new mirrorless cameras will be any different. Unless you dump them for prolonged periods in salt water after having them run over by a truck and store them in a warm and humid environment without drying.

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.

I still use my old Nikon D700 for some things, like as a timelapse camera or for simple product shots. The 12 megapixel sensor in the 35mm format is still much better at gathering light (without any fancy AI manipulation) than any modern small sensor camera, and the few Nikon lenses I still have around—one manufactured in the 70s—are extremely sharp and still great for many situations (though lens coatings, even on tiny sensors and smartphones, are vastly improved nowadays).

And being sold used for 700-ish. Heck, an ancient D700 beats any smartphone whatsoever at larger prints and screens. You do have to do some post-processing yourself, true. And you need proper optics, there is only so much you can crop out of 12 MP. Smartphones take great pictures, and I love the fact that it gets a lot more people into photography than back during the film days. making art more accessible can only be good. But let's not kid ourselves, the reason why smartphone photos do look so great is a ton of heavy automated post-processing in device. I'd prefer to have that same functionalities available as stand-alone post-processing software. Or not, I'm fine with darktable.

I'd add especially when buying used in good condition. A D700 for example goes for around 300 bucks. And that is a truely professional DSLR, the smaller sensor actually doesn't matter if you don't plan to prind barn door sized and then brake out a microscope. Back the day, it was Nikon's low light king (obviously not anymore) and basically the same camera as a D3. So still plenty good for ethusiasts and amateurs. For difference to a Z6 you get a lot of good glass (always a better investment than camera bodies) and there should still be some money left over to go to exotic and beautiful places to actually take pictures. If you want more resolution, a D750 goes for a little over double a D700 and a D800 can be had for around 500. If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.