Nikon D700- thoughts?

[MarkoMijailovic]

I've been looking to make the leap from DX to FX format for some time now, and coming from a D90 (which I truly think is a great camera), the D700 seemed like the logical next step.

I'm wondering if anyone on here as any experience with this model and if perhaps you could maybe post some of your work.

I've got the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II lens, as well as the 50mm f/1.8 + the D90 kit lens, which I'd be getting rid of... should I look at the 24-70 + another prime? I'm big on portraiture, so another prime would be great. Thinking either the 135mm f/2 DC or 85mm f/1.4. I'd mainly be doing fashion and portrait photography, with the odd landscape or two. I'm a student, so I'm hoping I make the right decision as the gear has to last me quite some time!

Any input is appreciated! Thanks in advance.

[Chairman Bill]

I moved from a D200 to the D700 and have absolutely no regrets; neither willl you (unless Nikon bring out a D700x for no extra cost!). Its low-light ability is superb & the larger viewfinder image is a real bonus.

[JonathanBenoit]

Wrong Forum

[Rob C]

I moved from a D200 to the D700 and have absolutely no regrets; neither willl you (unless Nikon bring out a D700x for no extra cost!). Its low-light ability is superb & the larger viewfinder image is a real bonus.

Marko,

I have both these cameras and think them pretty good; The viewfinder of the 200 was much improved when I bought the magnifier for it and the 700 seems perfectly good as it is, though I would imagine that the magnifier for that would make it even better.

I bought the 24-70 and it was the first really awful lens of my life, as well as being the first and last zoom I shall ever consider; it has long gone. I can't for the life of me understand why some photographers are willing to pay the money for these sorts of lenses and then accept that they fail - usually at the wide end - but still consider them worthwhile. Holy mother, etc. buy primes and be sure!

If you want to do portraits, in the sense of headshots, go for a 135mm which gives you full heads at around 5ft and little to no distortion; if you want to do closups too, then perhaps you will find the 105 micro very useful in both fields. I bought a used, manual one of those, against my better judgement, but am actually thrilled with it. But probably the best results I've seen yet come from the simple, manual 1.8/50 Nikkor that I have. If you want to do exterior fashion, then the 180mm brings you into the realm of considered work; in fact, it's when stepping the focal lengths up to 135mm + that I think the 35mm systems come close to allowing the photographer to experience the 6x6 train of thought.

I would buy a D700 again.

Looking for other peoples' web results is a waste of time; all you see are jpegs and good/bad processing or even camera technique. It means zilch.

Rob C

[fredjeang]

Marko,

I have both these cameras and think them pretty good; The viewfinder of the 200 was much improved when I bought the magnifier for it and the 700 seems perfectly good as it is, though I would imagine that the magnifier for that would make it even better.

I bought the 24-70 and it was the first really awful lens of my life, as well as being the first and last zoom I shall ever consider; it has long gone. I can't for the life of me understand why some photographers are willing to pay the money for these sorts of lenses and then accept that they fail - usually at the wide end - but still consider them worthwhile. Holy mother, etc. buy primes and be sure!

If you want to do portraits, in the sense of headshots, go for a 135mm which gives you full heads at around 5ft and little to no distortion; if you want to do closups too, then perhaps you will find the 105 micro very useful in both fields. I bought a used, manual one of those, against my better judgement, but am actually thrilled with it. But probably the best results I've seen yet come from the simple, manual 1.8/50 Nikkor that I have. If you want to do exterior fashion, then the 180mm brings you into the realm of considered work; in fact, it's when stepping the focal lengths up to 135mm + that I think the 35mm systems come close to allowing the photographer to experience the 6x6 train of thought.

I would buy a D700 again.

Looking for other peoples' web results is a waste of time; all you see are jpegs and good/bad processing or even camera technique. It means zilch.

Rob C

Curious Rob,

I had the same experience with the zooms and they are gone. No way I'm going to invest again in such things unless I do sport (and I doubt that could happen). I'm happy with primes and 100% manual and yes I have a zoom but a vintage manual from the 70's.
The reason why, is that you can really do movies, the focus is so smooth that with an adapter you can use them as cine zooms. Try that with the current zooms.
Oh and yes, curious how the sensor suddenly gives much more with good optics.
I've heard 100% good things from users for the D700.

Aren't optics like wines? The older the better.

[PeterAit]

I've been looking to make the leap from DX to FX format for some time now, and coming from a D90 (which I truly think is a great camera), the D700 seemed like the logical next step.

I'm wondering if anyone on here as any experience with this model and if perhaps you could maybe post some of your work.

I've got the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II lens, as well as the 50mm f/1.8 + the D90 kit lens, which I'd be getting rid of... should I look at the 24-70 + another prime? I'm big on portraiture, so another prime would be great. Thinking either the 135mm f/2 DC or 85mm f/1.4. I'd mainly be doing fashion and portrait photography, with the odd landscape or two. I'm a student, so I'm hoping I make the right decision as the gear has to last me quite some time!

Any input is appreciated! Thanks in advance.

I stepped up from a D80 to a D700 and have been delighted (except for the weight, but what can you do?). The 24-70 is a terrific lens but you will see some loss in quality under 30mm, where it is merely very good instead of excellent. It is a big and heavy lens, so you have to decide if having it's modest focal length range in one lens is worth the cost and weight.

[condit79]

Definitely go full frame.  And I wouldn't buy a prime longer than 135mm for fashion unless you're shooting in REALLY big locations or always outside.  Plus, all that compression can look a bit wierd/dated.  I would say 90% of my paid work is shot on a 50mm lens with an occasional 28mm and a 135mm if I really need something longer.  Primes are the way to go if you're doing portraiture, plus you already have a long zoom.  There's no need for more zooms unless you're going to do events, and the occasional event I cover for a client is done with all primes and some of those that I use are only manual focus.  

Honestly, you get so much more for your money out of primes, and that Nikon 85 f1.4 is a great lens for portraits and a 24mm would be great for your occasional landscape needs.  Save the money you'd spend on a 24-70 and use it to make some great work.

I had a friend who's established in the art world look at my portfolio 4 years ago and he said to me that it was all good, but it was a bit all over the place and that he could tell it was because I used zooms a lot.  Using one or two focal lengths to do your work can make a big difference as it starts to create a "point of view" and consistency.  Remember, you don't need 10 lenses and 5 bodies to be a great photographer so get your d700, pick another prime and shoot with the new body first and see what's lacking for you.  THEN spend more money.  At this point you should try to travel light and shoot you butt off at every possible opportunity if you're still a student.  Use your money to make work as that body of work will then get you gigs so you can really buy some gear if you want.  But then again, I've gone from a 5d to a 1dsmkII (with all zooms) to a p30+ then back to a 5dmkii with a few light primes.  Now I feel light, happy and really able to just focus on work and forget the gear.

[Rob C]

Definitely go full frame.  And I wouldn't buy a prime longer than 135mm for fashion unless you're shooting in REALLY big locations or always outside.  Plus, all that compression can look a bit wierd/dated.

condit79

I agree with most of what you have written here, and the only quibble is with the idea that compression looks odd. It can look beautiful, whereas I can't say that ever about the opposite end of the lens spectrum.

During a period in the 60s/70s one saw a lot of closeup fashion (half-length) done with 35mm or wider; I did it myself, and if you were a little high, then the top of the model's head distorted, giving the obvious clue of what you had been doing. Which, of course, is why we all did it: we were trying to show the competition how cool we were, as is the curse of photgraphy and the reason behind most 'looks': we shoot for other photographers.

http://www.wibagency.com

if you want to see the master of long lenses: Hans Feurer.

I'd take that style before any wideangle shots of fashion!

Rob C

[MarkoMijailovic]

Guys, thank so much for the very useful replies! I really appreciate it.

Okay, so I'm set on the D700... I'll probably pick it up this week and try out the 135mm they received for me (I'm not obliged to buy it) as well as the 85mm. I'm also a fan of primes over zooms, but sometimes I just really need the zooms, if for nothing else other than versatility.

I'm not even 100% sure with the 70-200... maybe I bought it for the wrong reason(s)... I bought it since I heard it's a standard in the fashion photography industry and that it'd be great for portraits. Maybe I was wrong in doing so... I've got a good friend working where I purchased it, so I might still be able to return it (I think it's been about a month or so). I mean I do love it, but for portraits (which is what I mainly do), I prefer my 50mm 1.8... tells me I'd be better of with a longer prime- like 85 or 135 (or 105, as mentioned). What to do...

Thanks again, though, for the help! It's much appreciated. I can't wait to post some shots taken with the D700 once I've got it.

P.S. Which section does this belong in? I'm new here, so wasn't sure where to post it... I saw large sensor and thought it was ok to post here.

[Graham Mitchell]

P.S. Which section does this belong in? I'm new here, so wasn't sure where to post it... I saw large sensor and thought it was ok to post here.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showforum=4

[bcooter]

I'll probably pick it up this week and try out the 135mm they received for me (I'm not obliged to buy it) as well as the 85mm. I'm also a fan of primes over zooms, but sometimes I just really need the zooms, if for nothing else other than versatility.

If you really want to shoot fashion, then realize that about 90% of all fashion photography is shot with a 70/80 to 200 mm zoom on a Canon or a Nikon, mostly a 1ds3 or a 5d2.

Both Nikon and Canon zooms are sharp, easy as can be to use and honestly as much as I don't like zoom lenses, under a pressured day, with a lot of volume, everybody uses one.

For my Canon and Nikons I have 85mm 1.2s, 1.4s and 1.8's and honestly use the 1.8 more than any lens other than the old white 70 to 200 and I don't see any real world difference in the files from that zoom to the primes.   The only downside to the zoom is it's longer than than the 85s but it works.

As far as the magical dof of any lens 645 or 35mm, sure for fun and portfolio we all will shoot wide open or close to it, but for commerce, hardly anyone is going to shoot wider than 2.8.

I also have Nikon D700's and up until recently the D3 and as great as they are at autofocus and wonderful at low light, at standard to low iso I think the colors, especially skin colors are kind of strange.  I've processed files from those sensors in about every processor imaginable and I never like the skin tones, but that's also a personal preference.

BC

[condit79]

If you really want to shoot fashion, then realize that about 90% of all fashion photography is shot with a 70/80 to 200 mm zoom on a Canon or a Nikon, mostly a 1ds3 or a 5d2.

Both Nikon and Canon zooms are sharp, easy as can be to use and honestly as much as I don't like zoom lenses, under a pressured day, with a lot of volume, everybody uses one.

For my Canon and Nikons I have 85mm 1.2s, 1.4s and 1.8's and honestly use the 1.8 more than any lens other than the old white 70 to 200 and I don't see any real world difference in the files from that zoom to the primes.   The only downside to the zoom is it's longer than than the 85s but it works.

As far as the magical dof of any lens 645 or 35mm, sure for fun and portfolio we all will shoot wide open or close to it, but for commerce, hardly anyone is going to shoot wider than 2.8.

I also have Nikon D700's and up until recently the D3 and as great as they are at autofocus and wonderful at low light, at standard to low iso I think the colors, especially skin colors are kind of strange.  I've processed files from those sensors in about every processor imaginable and I never like the skin tones, but that's also a personal preference.

BC

You're right about the f2.8  statement, but I'd rather had a lens that is really starting to get really sharp at f2.8 vs a lens that's wide open at f2.8.  And what about switching lenses takes SO long that you need a zoom on a fashion shoot?  Does that 10 second period really put you over the edge?  I think zooms are sloppy and uninspiring and the OP has the opportunity to build their craft and their portfolio, so yeah some pressured professionals need zooms, but given a choice I think most of us would stay away...

[Ray]

Just a few points of clarification: the difference between a full-frame 35mm sensor and a cropped frame is probably greater than the difference between full frame 35mm and MFDB.

MFDB has the advantage of producing slightly crisper images due to its lack of an AA filter, but the 35mm DSLR has significantly better perfomance at high ISO, has greater flexibility, and is, of course, much lighter and less expensive.

However, the D700 compared with a cropped format DSLR like the Canon 50D, is also a rather heavy camera, and in my situation a weight which is exacerbated by a heavy lens such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8.

Primes are almost always better than zooms, with a few exceptions such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 which is as goods as, and sometimes better than a number of wide-angle primes.

However, no matter how good one's prime lens, if it's not the right focal length for the composition, resulting in the need to crop the image in post processing, then its advantage is not only diminished, but the zoom may actually produce better results.

[Rob C]

Welcome back, Ray - thought you'd been nibbled by one of those tigers...

Rob C

[Ray]

Welcome back, Ray - thought you'd been nibbled by one of those tigers...

Rob C

Thank you for your concern, Rob. No tigers this time, but Russian decadence. I've spent the past few weeks living in very cramped quarters on a Russian Cruise ship by night, whilst ogling splendid, excessive opulence in daylight in the form of palaces and churches from pre-communist Russia, mostly restored at great expense for the tourists.

I don't think I've ever seen so many gold-leaf-coated statues in my life. What the heck is going on in Russia? The infrastructure is decaying, but the palaces are gloriously splendid.

[LKaven]

[...]I also have Nikon D700's and up until recently the D3 and as great as they are at autofocus and wonderful at low light, at standard to low iso I think the colors, especially skin colors are kind of strange.  I've processed files from those sensors in about every processor imaginable and I never like the skin tones, but that's also a personal preference.

BC

You also have a D3x, don't you?  How are you liking it?  I've been very impressed so far and it seems way better than the 5DII (which I returned for multiple sample defects).

[PeterAit]

I had a friend who's established in the art world look at my portfolio 4 years ago and he said to me that it was all good, but it was a bit all over the place and that he could tell it was because I used zooms a lot.  Using one or two focal lengths to do your work can make a big difference as it starts to create a "point of view" and consistency.

With all due respect, I find this opinion to be just plain silly. It's like telling a painter that his work would have more "consistency" if he used only 2 or 3 brushes. A photographer who used only a few primes would be constrained by those lenses, and thus his work would have a false sense of consistency. If yuo value consistency, shouldn't it some from the photographer's vision and not from equipment limitations? To be honest, it sounds like marketing BS.

Not that there's anything wrong with using just a few primes - but there's nothing "right" about it either.

[Rob C]

With all due respect, I find this opinion to be just plain silly. It's like telling a painter that his work would have more "consistency" if he used only 2 or 3 brushes. A photographer who used only a few primes would be constrained by those lenses, and thus his work would have a false sense of consistency. If yuo value consistency, shouldn't it some from the photographer's vision and not from equipment limitations? To be honest, it sounds like marketing BS.

Not that there's anything wrong with using just a few primes - but there's nothing "right" about it either.

Peter, isn't that first paragraph a little bit awry? A photographer usually buys the lenses for which he has a need: those that give him what he wants. In other words, what he does, wants to do, are the factors that control what he buys, not the other way around.

Of course, there's no accounting for the collector of bits of glass, but I imagine you weren't thinking about him.

Rob C

[PeterAit]

Peter, isn't that first paragraph a little bit awry? A photographer usually buys the lenses for which he has a need: those that give him what he wants. In other words, what he does, wants to do, are the factors that control what he buys, not the other way around.

Of course, there's no accounting for the collector of bits of glass, but I imagine you weren't thinking about him.

Rob C

I appreciate what you say, but perhaps I didn't express myself well. My opinion is that consistency and a "point of view" are not things you should seek out as ends in themselves, but rather are qualities that your work may develop over time as your skills and aesthetic vision develop. And, why should one have consistency and a point of view? I can't think of any reason that is not related to marketing. If you make your living from photography and need to market, so be it, but I have always held that marketing (pleasing others) is antithetical to real photographic art (pleasing yourself).

[MarkoMijailovic]

I went in to check out the D700 today and really liked it, so I'll be grabbing it probably later this week.

I also looked at the 14-24 f/2.8, which was brilliant, though the sales guy, for some odd reason, kept pushing me towards the 16-35...

I'm really conflicted as to which other lens to get for it as I won't have any wide angles once my D90's gone... to go 14-24 or 24-70?!