SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Welcome to UHH! The benefits of better resolution in an image far outweigh the problem of larger file size! These days storage is inexpensive. As for workflow, it will be impacted if the computer setup is inadequate for the job. LR and PS have certain requirements on their own that need to be met. It seems reasonable to believe that anyone who spends the money for an expensive, high-quality camera ought to be willing to invest in a system that can handle the processing.

I went through this, going from a laptop to a desktop to accommodate my editing needs for photography. Then last year, with a better camera [more megapixels] and higher objectives for editing, I upgraded that desktop by replacing a number of its components. There are more changes I can make, but later when they become necessary. Plus I will buy larger hard drives when necessary!

Bipod

I agree with previous posters: if you like what you've got, stick with it.

The d700 has an FX full-frame sensor, so all you'd be doing is moving to a higher pixel density:
Nikon D700 pixel density: 1.41 MP/cm².
Nikon D850 has a pixel density of 5.32 MP/cm²
Optically, there'd be no change. So in situations where the resolution is limited by optics (say f/22),
you would not get any improvement. In situations where resolution is limited by sensor pixel density
(say f/4), you would. But whether you would actually ever see the improvement depends on what
you do with your images.

Specifically, how much resolution you need depends on how large you display your images. Were you
to make 8" x 10" or larger prints, then you might benefit from 20 megapixels. When it comes to resolution,
the subject, style and size of the final image determines what camera you need. (There are some jobs that no
full-frame camera can do--they require medium format or even a large format film camera. Thank heaven
that doesn't apply to what you do!)

However, resolution is only as good as the weakest link in the chain: lens, aperture, sensor, file format
(including lossy compression if it's a JPEG), post-processing and printer or monitor. So you might have to
change how you work to see any real benefit.

If you are happy with the images and with using the camera, then that's a slam dunk. You don't need to be able
to produce any possible image--only the subjects, styles and size of images that you produce. A bird in the
hand....

texashill Loc: Texas Hill Country

It would be interesting to compare photos from two cameras that were introduced about the same time, Sony a7S II (12 megapixels) and Sony a7R II (42 megapixels). The S has larger pixels and was designed for low light and I suppose greater dynamic range. The R would be better for cropping. It would be interesting to take a variety of shots in different conditions and different purposes and see. I speculate that the S would be best for me and for most people.

This topic makes me wonder about Topaz AI Gigapixel. I don't have it but I have watched videos of photographers using it and claiming that it is a game changer. Perhaps software that allows for a 600% upscale while perfectly preserving image quality might alter camera buying decisions.

Rational1

At a certain point (depending on how and what you shoot) you can have too many pixels - when shooting zoom with no tripod, or moving the camera VERY slightly can cause image blur when you increase your sensor pixel count. I find at 25 megapixels I can shoot (handheld with plenty of time) with a 175 fully zoomed and get clear, sharp results. At 50 megapixels I have to move to a tripod (and sometimes a remote release) to prevent camera movement from causing blur. The more pixels the greater sensitivity to movement, all other things being equal.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

Digital Photography is still relatively new with improvements being made every year.
I and many others would suggest that you rent a modern camera and try it out.
Try the rental side by side with your existing camera.
Compare the results and decide from there.
Good luck. I’m sure you’ll soon be enjoying your new toy/camera :)

reverand

I moved from the Nikon D750 to the Nikon D850, and early on, using the same lens, took a series of photographs side by side, all at f/11, and at ISO 200, ISO 800, and ISO 1600. I blew up the prints to 14 x 21. The difference was in the range of colors. The D850 gave me more subtle shades of brown, and a better sky--for the D750, the sky started to lean toward lavender, but for the D850, the sky was blue. I couldn't tell the difference in sharpness at that level of enlargement, unless i used a 4x magnifier. It was also almost impossible to tell the different ISO levels apart.

Later on, I made some extremely big prints from the D850, and was astounded by how much detail was available. For extremely big prints, the bigger the sensor, the better. For what you're doing, if you're satisfied, stay with what you've got: your gain with the bigger sensor will be in dynamic range and range of colors. You won't notice a difference in resolution. Also, you'll be able to boost the ISO without noticing any noise. You will, however, have images that take up a hell of a lot of space on your hard drive.

tomcat

That was the reason that I traded my D800 for a D750. Just too large of a file to maintain any efficiency and was chewing up too much external hard drive space.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

Megapixels are your friend, the more the better.I have a D-7000 and a D-800. The D-7000 does a decent job but their is so much more with the D-800. Happy Shooting.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I had your D700 and the D300 they were and I assume are great cameras.
I dont know if the investment will make you feel better with more pixels.
I owned many Nikons and including the D800 two of them. I would take the
D700 right now if I could go back. I used to trade up and of late ebay has
done well for me my stuff is in good condition.
A favorite of mine is the D7000. Loved the camera.
I haven't had the experience with some of the later Nikons like the 750, 850 etc.
But the feel and function of the 700 I have not forgot.

User ID

D700 may have "only" 12MP but they are
widely regarded as some of the very best
pixels around. Yes, there IS such a matter
as pixel quality, quantity is not everything.

If you double your MP count, 24 being a
rather common MP count lately, if all else
could be held equal, you get a 40% gain
in print size for prints of equal apparent
quality. BUT all else WILL NOT be equal.
The d700 has those superior pixels.

Sooooo .... verrrrrry approximately, 24MP
will get you about 20% improvement over
your d700.

There's other benefits to newer cameras,
but it should be quite clear, by the above
math, that whatever newer camera you
lust for, it had better be fully affordable
WITHOUT parting with your d700 ! ! It's
nearly universal that former d700 users
serious regret letting go of them :-(

Keep calm and carry on.

.

sbohne

Absolutely 100% correct. My first digital DSLR camera was a Fuji S1. I think it was a 4 MP sensor. The lowest ISO was 400...I had to use a neutral density filter on the lens AND ND gels on the light heads so I wasn't shooting everything at f/11! Next was a Fuji S2, a big jump to 6 MP.

I made 40x60 prints from both cameras.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Even though I very rarely use my D700, I can't see myself ever parting with it.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I am simarily situated.

Bipod

Maybe if you are printing roadside billboards.

Ever watch people in gallery? They walk right up to prints. And if your print looks fuzzy
or pixellated at a viewing distance of 2 feet, it won't sell.

Reality check: the competition for fine art photography is reproductions (made by
photo-lithography). An original print must look better than a litho.

And unlike photographers, most lithographers are trained and understand the theory.
They use step wedges and resolution targets and calibrate their equipment.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

AGREE ........one of your better comments