D700 - The What and Why - A First Field Report

[Ray]

What Canon does is take features such as 100% VFs and make you pay $4500 for it (and then give you a cropped 1d3 sensor). They hit the AF in the head with a hammer before putting it in any non 1 series body; Nikon has reversed that trend. Canon cripples frame rates; Nikon is offering choice. Canon uses outdated Digic 3 processors (appeared 3 years ago in P&S cameras) in their $8k flagship and even have the gall to stick a crummy low res LCD on the back (give me a break on that one..). I actually had a Canon rep tell me the LCD was just as good as what Nikon was using (both cameras were in front of me). I stared at the guy, asked him if he was serious, and then walked away; it was clear I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with someone making that comment. Look at canon's UDMA support (if you can find it). The list continues; Canon is about over charging for features and always has been. Even my 20+ year old New F-1 lacked a 100% VF, while the F3 had it. The difference is that I've been willing to pay the freight in the past. I'm finally fed up and don't want to play the game anymore.

It's time Canon stepped up to the plate. They can do so much, but they are so cheap from a features perspective it's incredible. You may feel differently.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From an amateur's perspective, I can say that I never experienced any Nikon envy until recently.

Nikon have definitely stolen a march on Canon. By the end of the year, Nikon and Sony look as though they'll have the DSLR market sewn up. Where is there for Canon to go?

Consider, in a few months time Nikon will have on offer a choice of two full frame 12mp DSLRs and a 24mp full frame. Sony will also have (presumably) a less expensive 24mp full frame with anti-shake sensor image stabilisation.

I've always been of the opinion that any less than a doubling of pixel count is not significant. Less than a 50% increase is virtually invisible. These progressions of Canon from 8 to 10 to 12mp in the cropped format, and from 12 to 16 to 21mp on full frame are not interesting.

[macgyver]

What Canon does is take features such as 100% VFs and make you pay $4500 for it (and then give you a cropped 1d3 sensor). They hit the AF in the head with a hammer before putting it in any non 1 series body; Nikon has reversed that trend. Canon cripples frame rates; Nikon is offering choice. Canon uses outdated Digic 3 processors (appeared 3 years ago in P&S cameras) in their $8k flagship and even have the gall to stick a crummy low res LCD on the back (give me a break on that one..). I actually had a Canon rep tell me the LCD was just as good as what Nikon was using (both cameras were in front of me). I stared at the guy, asked him if he was serious, and then walked away; it was clear I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with someone making that comment. Look at canon's UDMA support (if you can find it). The list continues; Canon is about over charging for features and always has been. Even my 20+ year old New F-1 lacked a 100% VF, while the F3 had it. The difference is that I've been willing to pay the freight in the past. I'm finally fed up and don't want to play the game anymore.

It's time Canon stepped up to the plate. They can do so much, but they are so cheap from a features perspective it's incredible. You may feel differently.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep. I agree, especially about the LCD (total crap!) and the crippling of non 1-series cameras. (Especially the 5d) Nikon gives you D300 that is 95% of the D2X's, pentax gives you full sealing in a $1000 USD body, etc, etc, etc. Maybe its just differing design/marketing ideologies, but I think I prefer Nikons way of doing things.

[vandevanterSH]

"The D3 provides an integral vertical grip, release and controls, whereas the D700 can have these added by attaching the accessory grip. (They're there when you need them and not when they're not, reducing bulk and weight)."

A minor complaint about the MB-D10 battery grip is, to me, the annoying feel of the large notched wheel under the fourth and fifth fingers while using the vertical grip.

Steve

[ruraltrekker]

I've been shooting over 30 years, have used both systems, and I'm a working photographer. I prefer Canon, but they're wearing me out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am a working photographer as well, doing national advertising - all on location. I use a couple of 1Ds series cameras and a small group of Canon lenses. Don't see any reason to own anything more. I just don't loose sleep at night over what my equipment supplier is/is not doing. As a photographer who makes one's living shooting commercial work I just expect that nothing is perfect, from my camera to the weather and everything in between.

I was always under the impression that if you feel you are being ripped off by someone you just go find someone new to do business with, even if it costs you more. Life is just too short.

Ken

[Panorama]

I am a working photographer as well, doing national advertising - all on location. I use a couple of 1Ds series cameras and a small group of Canon lenses. Don't see any reason to own anything more. I just don't loose sleep at night over what my equipment supplier is/is not doing. As a photographer who makes one's living shooting commercial work I just expect that nothing is perfect, from my camera to the weather and everything in between.

I was always under the impression that if you feel you are being ripped off by someone you just go find someone new to do business with, even if it costs you more. Life is just too short.

Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're right, nothing is perfect, but my 1VHS - which I use on a regular basis - comes close.  

In the many years I've owned that camera, I've always been satisfied and that's what's important to me. It met my expectations and always delivers. Digital is not a mature market though, and that makes a rational film to digital comparison difficult.

Anyway, the gear head in me and the "what's possible vs. what we get" questions in an immature market cause dissonance. As I said before, I prefer Canon, but the stingy upgrade cycle is what's wearing me out. I'd like to get off the wheel. Instead of offering the best they can, Canon deliberately withholds features so they can offer something "new" in another year. They charge a "premium" [their word, not mine] simply because they've had no real competition. While customers are numbers on a spreadsheet (like many companies) but withholding features such as a decent LCD and respectable UDMA support on a 1Ds3 is untenable to me.

I understand marketing, but there's a line where a company becomes Intel-like (the worst market churning company I've ever seen) and Canon has crossed that line. That's my opinion, if yours differs, that's fine but it's just another opinion. If you're satisfied with what you have, that's fine too. I am not satisfied with the current line up, and believe Canon's behavior is wearing quite thin on lots of people.

Regarding the suggestion to "switch", I applaud Nikon for finally offering competitive products, but they do not offer what I want yet either. I'm not about to move to a company that can't deliver more than 12MP...

[ruraltrekker]

Regarding the suggestion to "switch", I applaud Nikon for finally offering competitive products, but they do not offer what I want yet either. I'm not about to move to a company that can't deliver more than 12MP...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I totally agree with you. My first assistant, a past nikon user who switched to canon via a 5D, is going back. I think it is the right choice for him but obviously not you or I.

The best part of all of this new Nikon surge is that you may see Canon change from the position that you dislike. I personally  never paid attention to any of what you don't like. I just picked what I needed and paid the price and then bill it on to my clients each & every time I shoot a job - a digital gear fee.

Ken

[larsrc]

Michael, with the high quality pixels on the D700/D3, which you say can be uprezzed a lot, does the 1.5x crop factor of the D300 really make it that much more interesting for tele?  In other words, would an up-rezzed crop from a D700 match a D300 (given the same lens)?  Which of them reaches its up-rezzing limit first, and by how large a margin?

If we can assume that the upcoming D3x has pixels at least as good as the D300, then it certainly will be as useful for long tele, though at a slightly higher price point:)

-Lars

[michael]

Michael, with the high quality pixels on the D700/D3, which you say can be uprezzed a lot, does the 1.5x crop factor of the D300 really make it that much more interesting for tele?  In other words, would an up-rezzed crop from a D700 match a D300 (given the same lens)?  Which of them reaches its up-rezzing limit first, and by how large a margin?

If we can assume that the upcoming D3x has pixels at least as good as the D300, then it certainly will be as useful for long tele, though at a slightly higher price point:)

-Lars
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no simple answer. The D300 has smaller photo sites and therefore has higher resolution than the D700/D3, which have the same MP count. This really only starts to become of significance when one is making prints larger than the native resolution can sustain (at around 180 ppi in most situations), though it can sometimes be seen in smaller prints as well.

So for example, when I go to Botswana to shoot wildlife in September I expect to shoot with the D300 on my longest lenses when reach is necessary, rather than with the D3 and then cropping and enlarging.

But, when the light levels are low I'll shoot with the D3 because its two stop advantage over the D300 is likely a better compromise. No one camera does it all.

Michael

[bjanes]

From an amateur's perspective, I can say that I never experienced any Nikon envy until recently.

Nikon have definitely stolen a march on Canon. By the end of the year, Nikon and Sony look as though they'll have the DSLR market sewn up. Where is there for Canon to go?

Consider, in a few months time Nikon will have on offer a choice of two full frame 12mp DSLRs and a 24mp full frame. Sony will also have (presumably) a less expensive 24mp full frame with anti-shake sensor image stabilisation.

I've always been of the opinion that any less than a doubling of pixel count is not significant. Less than a 50% increase is virtually invisible. These progressions of Canon from 8 to 10 to 12mp in the cropped format, and from 12 to 16 to 21mp on full frame are not interesting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm an amateur too, who has been shooting with Nikon for 35 years. When I first went digital, I went with the Nikon D70 because of my investment in lenses. Until I got the D3 6 months ago, I must confess I had a serious case of Canon envy.

The D3 is comparable or better than the 1DM3, but they still have nothing to compare with the 1DsMIII. Flame wars of Nikon vs Canon are futile. Both systems are now very good and the photographer will choose between them according to personal preferences and needs. Switching brands can be unpractical if one has a large investment in glass and accessories, but it is feasible for pros who have fully depreciated their current system.

Bill

[Quentin]

The D700 seems to be in stock in several UK photo stores.  Suddenly, despite my earlier reservations, I feel I should buy one. Someone talk me out of it before its to late.

Quentin

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I got the impression that an 3DX is probably on it's way using a 24 MPix sensor from Sony, I guess that would be comparable to 1DsIII.

Best regards
Erik

I'm an amateur too, who has been shooting with Nikon for 35 years. When I first went digital, I went with the Nikon D70 because of my investment in lenses. Until I got the D3 6 months ago, I must confess I had a serious case of Canon envy.

The D3 is comparable or better than the 1DM3, but they still have nothing to compare with the 1DsMIII. Flame wars of Nikon vs Canon are futile. Both systems are now very good and the photographer will choose between them according to personal preferences and needs. Switching brands can be unpractical if one has a large investment in glass and accessories, but it is feasible for pros who have fully depreciated their current system.

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

The D700 seems to be in stock in several UK photo stores.  Suddenly, despite my earlier reservations, I feel I should buy one. Someone talk me out of it before its to late.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay!  

Quentin,
Didn't you own, and perhaps still own, a 14mp full frame DSLR, the Kodak 14n?

Several years later you are now contemplating the purchase of a 12mp full frame DSLR that doesn't even have the benefit of 'no AA filter'??  

[Quentin]

Okay!   

Quentin,
Didn't you own, and perhaps still own, a 14mp full frame DSLR, the Kodak 14n?

Several years later you are now contemplating the purchase of a 12mp full frame DSLR that doesn't even have the benefit of 'no AA filter'?? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

Nice try, impeccable logic (and yes, I still have the Kodak) and you almost talked me out, but temptation is getting the better of me, particularly as a good friend of mine has been raving about his D3 file quality.  

Guess I am but a weak mortal  

If I proceed then I will report back on findings

Quentin

PS Here is my completely useless logic:  It could be a dry run for a D3x and wouldn't a D700 and D3x be a pretty versatile combination?

[ErikKaffehr]

Well, here is my take,

The D3X will make stiff demands on the lenses. Think of D700 as Tri-X and D3X as Panatomic-X. If your lenses are good enough D3X is something to be seen. If you get the D700 you will have an excellent low light camera and a good backup for your presumed D3X. However, difficult to predict the future is... My guess is that a D700X or D900 may be lingering somewhere below the horizon.

Another issue is that we have a lot of raving about image quality. But what is meant by image quality? Talking about pixel quality may not make sense, what really counts is what you can have in your print.

Best regards
Erik

Ray,

Nice try, impeccable logic (and yes, I still have the Kodak) and you almost talked me out, but temptation is getting the better of me, particularly as a good friend of mine has been raving about his D3 file quality. 

Guess I am but a weak mortal   

If I proceed then I will report back on findings

Quentin

PS Here is my completely useless logic:  It could be a dry run for a D3x and wouldn't a D700 and D3x be a pretty versatile combination?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Theodore]

The D700 seems to be in stock in several UK photo stores.  Suddenly, despite my earlier reservations, I feel I should buy one. Someone talk me out of it before its to late.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quentin - now having a tracking number in hand for Saturday delivery myself, I'm afraid that I'm not qualified to even attempt to talk you out of it.  Best of luck with the decision.

[CJL]

I only have my own trained eyes to tell me the truth and don't have the necessary naivete to believe authors/web site that tells me I'm mistaken.

Me too... that's why I sold my 5D's, and will be picking up my D700 later today.  

[Quentin]

D700 acquired, from LCE in Norwich.  A friend and I went together then had a quick test out over a pint at a local pub,  Said friend had just sold his D3, which he found too large and bulky.  So far, most impressed, but its very early days.

Quentin

[Ray]

D700 acquired, from LCE in Norwich.  A friend and I went together then had a quick test out over a pint at a local pub,  Said friend had just sold his D3, which he found too large and bulky.  So far, most impressed, but its very early days.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You didn't give us much time to talk you out of it.  

For me, the initial cost of a D700 would be around $6,000 because I don't have any Nikkor lenses. My Nikon envy is only slight from the perspective of body features, having already proved to myself that the claims of low noise at high ISO (of the D3) are much exaggerated.

It's the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 lens which interests me more. I doubt whether any landscape shot I could take would be noticeably better as a result of my using a D700 in place of a 5D, but I think it's quite likely that such a shot would be better, noticeably sharper, especially at the edges, have less distortion and be slightly wider as a result of my using a Nikkor 14-24 in place of my current 15-30 Sigma.

I notice a kit deal on the internet consisting of the D700 plus 14-24 lens for A$6095. I normally travel with a back-up camera that also serves as a telephoto extender, ie. cropped format such as the 20D and now 40D. Travelling with a D700 plus 14-24, and a 40D plus 24-105 and 100-400 would be workable, except for that gap between 24mm and 39mm.

However, I have a wide format printer (the Epson 7600) and therefore a 24mp DSLR would be much appreciated. I think I'd be better advised to play the waiting game. I'm hoping that the delay in the announcement of a 5D replacement is due to Canon withdrawing its 16mp upgrade that was almost ready to go when they learned that Sony had developed a 24mp FF sensor.

I assume that these large corporations have a road map and allow themselves the flexibility to bring forward future projects in order to meet current market competition.

[Theodore]

I notice a kit deal on the internet consisting of the D700 plus 14-24 lens for A$6095. I normally travel with a back-up camera that also serves as a telephoto extender, ie. cropped format such as the 20D and now 40D. Travelling with a D700 plus 14-24, and a 40D plus 24-105 and 100-400 would be workable, except for that gap between 24mm and 39mm.

Ray - just curious, what currency are those dollars in?  It looked $1500 high for that kit i(D700 plus 14-24) in the US / US dollars.

[vandevanterSH]

Ray - just curious, what currency are those dollars in?  It looked $1500 high for that kit i(D700 plus 14-24) in the US / US dollars.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From LL sponsor B&H, the "perfect" D700 kit (D700, 14-24 & 24-70) would be ~$6,200.

Steve