Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: MarkoMijailovic on June 26, 2010, 04:44:56 am
-
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 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.
-
Wrong Forum
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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
-
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.
-
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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showforum=4)
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
Welcome back, Ray - thought you'd been nibbled by one of those tigers...
Rob C
-
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.
-
[...]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).
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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?!
-
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
-
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
-
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).
-
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
-
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)
-
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 )
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Marko, do you have any link to your source on the (plausible) D900 rumor?
-
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).
-
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.