Nikon D700- thoughts?

[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).

Peter, because that consistency is part of what you are, that makes you interested in photography in the first place. I just can't believe that people have such wide interests that would preclude the focus on a specialty which, in turn, leads to the logical selection of suited lenses. I'd have thought that not doing it for a living would allow even more specialisation - no calls to be a jack of many trades even if you are interested master of but one!

But hey, the sun's out, I've cleaned the kitchen sink, it's almost eleven in the morning and I haven't even had my shower yet! Who has time to take pictures when there's LuLa?

Rob C

[Rob C]

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?!

Marko

If you get the 24-70 and it bites you in the ass, don't say nobody warned you. How many wides do you need anyway? Seems you are too usure of what you intend doing to be buying stuff on internet advice! Or maybe that's why you would do that. What do we know about what you are or want to be? You speak of portraiture and fashion - where do the wides come into the equation? Save your money in order to finance shoots and build up a portfolio - do that well and the lenses will follow by themselves. Hell, they are only tools, however much some choose to turn them into stardust.

Rob C

[PeterAit]

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?!

FWIW, check out Amazon's prices for the D700. I bought mine last September and saved some $400 over any other price I could find (US warranty). Plus, they had a "1 year same as cash" promotion, hard to resist (although maybe not available now).

[HCHeyerdahl]

I have a D700 and a D3x and the 14-24 and the 24-70.  I would like to try some primes to see how much better files I get. Which primes do you recommend as superior to my zoom lenses in this focal range and prehaps up to 135?


Christopher

[LKaven]

I have a D700 and a D3x and the 14-24 and the 24-70.  I would like to try some primes to see how much better files I get. Which primes do you recommend as superior to my zoom lenses in this focal range and prehaps up to 135?

60mm f/2.8 micro AF-s - super sharp with excellent bokeh, excellent for fashion photography and product photography (up to 1:1)
85mm f/1.4 AF-d - the portrait-optimized lens with truly amazing bokeh
105mm f/2 DC - portrait lens with superb bokeh and "defocus control"
135mm f/2 DC - similar to above
180mm f/2.8 AF-d - an amazing medium tele, super sharp, great bokeh, and reasonably priced

From 28mm to 35mm, I'd stay with the 24-70 f/2.8g AF-s.
For 24mm and under, I'd stay with the 13-24 f/2.8g AF-s except in the case of the 24mm f/1.4 AF-s.

For manual focus, check out the Voigtlander 20mm Color Skopar, the Zeiss ZF2 primes, or Nikon legacy primes like the 28 f/2 AIs, 105 f/2.5 AI-s, 58 f/1.2 Noktor, 35mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.4 (the last three being rare and somewhat expensive)

[JohnBrew]

Marko, I spent last week with a friend in Maine shooting D700's (his and mine). He took delivery of his D700 and a 24-70 right before I arrived. He is thrilled with both items (he was shooting a D200 before). I only shoot primes so zooms don't interest me. I read where you were trying to decide if a 14-24 was in your future. It might be, but if it is the only FF lens you buy you will severely limit yourself to what you can shoot. I think a 24-70 makes more sense as a first lens. Here's an image I took last night...(with a Zeiss 50 stitched  )

[HCHeyerdahl]

60mm f/2.8 micro AF-s - super sharp with excellent bokeh, excellent for fashion photography and product photography (up to 1:1)
85mm f/1.4 AF-d - the portrait-optimized lens with truly amazing bokeh
105mm f/2 DC - portrait lens with superb bokeh and "defocus control"
135mm f/2 DC - similar to above
180mm f/2.8 AF-d - an amazing medium tele, super sharp, great bokeh, and reasonably priced

From 28mm to 35mm, I'd stay with the 24-70 f/2.8g AF-s.
For 24mm and under, I'd stay with the 13-24 f/2.8g AF-s except in the case of the 24mm f/1.4 AF-s.

For manual focus, check out the Voigtlander 20mm Color Skopar, the Zeiss ZF2 primes, or Nikon legacy primes like the 28 f/2 AIs, 105 f/2.5 AI-s, 58 f/1.2 Noktor, 35mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.4 (the last three being rare and somewhat expensive)

Thanks!

I don`t do much portraits, mostly landscape and street photography.
When you say the lenses are optimised for portraits, would that imply that the maximum sharpness is in the larger apertures (say 2.0 - 5.6 or something)?
Perhaps the 60mm macro would be a lens to try!


I  actually have a manual focus  Nikkor 35mm f/1.4. and a manual focus Nikkor 20mm 1:2.8.  I got them new from B&H a couple of years ago. I tried them for a couple of frames on my D2x but didn`t really see any big difference compared to the 17-55 which I used at the time.  Guess I will have to give them a second chance.

Christopher

[LKaven]

Thanks!

I don`t do much portraits, mostly landscape and street photography.
When you say the lenses are optimised for portraits, would that imply that the maximum sharpness is in the larger apertures (say 2.0 - 5.6 or something)?
Perhaps the 60mm macro would be a lens to try!


I  actually have a manual focus  Nikkor 35mm f/1.4. and a manual focus Nikkor 20mm 1:2.8.  I got them new from B&H a couple of years ago. I tried them for a couple of frames on my D2x but didn`t really see any big difference compared to the 17-55 which I used at the time.  Guess I will have to give them a second chance.

Christopher

The portrait lenses are mainly distinguished by the care that was taken in fashioning the bokeh, and in the case of the DC lenses, the defocus control.  But otherwise, they are general purpose lenses, that tend to be a bit sharper stopped down across the frame at f/5.6.  But they are sharp in the middle wide open as you'd expect.

I guess the best 60mm you could get would be the Coastal Optics, a true apochromatic across the entire visible spectrum.  But it costs $5k.  But the Nikon 60mm is supposed to be a gem all around.

[revaaron]

I have the D3 (I went D100->D70->D2H->D2X->D3) which is basically the D700 and is the best investment I've made camera-wise besides my 17-55mm lens. So extremely happy.

[MarkoMijailovic]

Just a little update...

I bought the D700 today!!!

While it was bittersweet parting with that much cash (I'm a student), the results it has yielded thus far (in it's short time with me) have been very satisfying and well worth the price of admission.

Coming from the D90, a crop sensor (x1.5), I instantly fell in love with the "true view". What I mean by that is that my 50's an actual 50 on it... 70-200 an actual 70-200 (okay, maybe not an actual 70-200... owners of this lens know what I'm talking about lol), etc. It's making me see my 50mm 1.8 in a new light! The 135 mm f/2 is a BEAST on it. Nothing bad can be said (so far) about this camera. The autofocus is lightning fast and spot on (especially when set to 3D tracking).

Aside from the price, the other not so sweet part of it was finding out just a few days ago that the D900 will be released at Photokina next month and in stores the following month. Knowing that, I might just hold onto this guy for a couple weeks while I'm still within the stores return policy, and see how I feel at that point. The HD video and higher resolution that it's rumoured to have would be great for me as I used my D90 quite often to capture motion... remember, I'm a student! Can't exactly afford both an HD video cam AND a full frame DSLR. Not to mention, I'd retain more clarity when doing crops with the slightly higher resolution, which is rumoured to be around the 15-16 mark.

D900 and price aside, I can truly say that I've found THE camera for me... This thing ought to keep my happy for quite some time, especially with the glass I've got. The ONLY thing I need now is a wide lens as my widest is 50mm. Crazy, eh?! The D90 went along with the 18-105 which was my wide angle. The 24-70 f/2.8 that I tried out today was great, though maybe a prime (24mm) is in order. Lighting is the only other area I need to invest in now and then my dream setup will be complete!

Sorry about the long post, I'm just super excited about my new camera!

For anyone interested, you can check out some of my work at www.flickr.com/markoandmarko

All that you see up until now is done with a D90. From tomorrow onwards, it'll all be D700.

Thanks for viewing!

[MarkoMijailovic]

I should also add how incredibly impressed I am with the high ISO capability of this thing... It may sound jovial to some on here with a D3s or whatever other ISO-monster's there are, but I've never (happily) shot above ISO800... always started getting noise... and noise... well... I hate it! This thing will do ISO 3200 and get the same level of noise as the D90 did in the 6-800 range. While going above 800 on the D90 is, of course, possible, the results were not to my liking. Shooting at 1600 on the D700 I found no noise, which to me was very impressive. I'll definitely, thanks to this feature, be doing a lot more available light shooting in darker environments. 75% of my work is done in available light... I feel like that number's about to go up an extra 10%. Nikon's doing it right!

Last thing... When looking at the D700, I was very seriously considering just saying "eff it" and jumping onto the Canon band wagon with the awesome EOS 5D MK II... I wasn't THAT deep into the Nikon glass game that I couldn't just sell them off and start fresh. With a 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, 135 f/2 DC and a 50mm f/1.8 it wouldn't of been that tough. The 5D had things going for it that the D700 didn't... higher resolution, 1080p HD video (HUGE to me), etc. While even the next generation D700 (whatever it'll be called- be it the D900 or D700s) almost certainly won't have as high a resolution or as good video recording capability, I'll still be happy I went with Nikon, and here's why: it just feels so much better in my hand! Might seem like a minuscule detail when it comes to a trade off as big as higher resolution and HD video, but to me it's worth it... the ergonomics are heaps better, to me, than those of the Canon's. Not to mention there's a button for everything so that you're not left scrolling through menus for longer periods- periods during which you could be shooting! On top of that still, there's the Nikon glass... which to me is the best out there. No doubt Canon makes some real gems, like the 85mm f/1.2 (drool), but Nikon is 'it' for me when it comes to lenses. Even thought of going the 5D MK II route and just grabbing an adaptor for use with my Nikon's. Ergonomics and glass aside, I can't say those are the only reasons I went with the 700... I mean, aside from when I'm cropping and don't want to lose resolution/clarity, how often would I really utilize all the megapixels the Canon offers? As for video... while I'm without the ability to record video now (something that's significant to me, since I'm into making short films), I'm sure the next D700 will be great at it... I'll just have to wait until then.

I'm not some crazy Nikon fanboy, I'm just a passionate student photographer who shoots with what he likes and feels comfortable with. No brand preference here.

[LKaven]

Marko, do you have any link to your source on the (plausible) D900 rumor?

[MarkoMijailovic]

Marko, do you have any link to your source on the (plausible) D900 rumor?

It's just a couple of employees at the camera store where I bought the D700 (Henry's).

[LKaven]

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?!

The 14-24 is sharp from corner to corner wide open, and very close to the optimum (f/4-f/5.6).  You do not have to stop down.  From what I've seen, the 16-35 doesn't attempt to match that performance.  But the 16-35 does look like it handles, does take filters.  The 14-24 is a bit imposing for street shooting. [When I carry the 14-24 in Tribeca, I surprisingly often get mistaken for a paparazzo.  Seriously.]  But there is no other lens alive that looks that good.  These might weigh into your decision.