Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
If I thought I could lift it, I would be lusting after one.
Nikon D700 specs?
- Thread starter riggers
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
If I managed to split myself into several parts all working concurrently on a myriad jobs, possibly.
It's even bigger and heavier than the D300 and that's as big as I want to go.
Cid
Proper break this time
You could put a bit of advertising up... Do it subtley, y'know post something like 'by the way, I've just been speaking to Nike's manager and in fact they're all pretty good chaps'. No-one would notice, and if it's not a banner it doesn't really count. And it'd be for a good cause, if you've got a better camera you're more able to keep the boards running.
<thread resurrected because want>
<thread resurrected because want>
And I have noticed.
editor
hiraethified
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
I think for most people it would be foolish to buy this camera before the 5D replacement announced/tested. While the D700 is clearly streets ahead of the current 5D, it has basically taken Nikon three years longer than their competitor to come up with a second-tier camera that is still pro-quality. So I wouldn't be surprised if the new Canon immediately trumps it.
And if you've currently got a DX body, your lenses wont be much use on the D700 anyway
And if you've currently got a DX body, your lenses wont be much use on the D700 anyway
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't know about that. I'm certainly not likely to switch to Canon over some spec differences, given that I have a bunch of Nikon stuff that works just fine.
I don't do much serious wide-angle either, so I'm not too bothered if my one DX lens has to stay on the D200 for the rare occasions when I do want to go wide, but I'm rather intrigued to see what my lovely old AIS 28/2 would do on one of these things in marginal light conditions (which are generally the kind I find most interesting, hence my collection of old fast lenses). I don't do big prints so 12MP is plenty for my usage. Indeed, the D200's 10MP is probably enough and I'm not entirely sure if I'm in the market for one of these even after they do start getting discount-priced.
The low-light capability is intriguing though and I have several very nice old short teles that would benefit from being back to their intended field of view, but that's not exactly a compelling argument for spending that much money, especially when I mostly use an ancient F3 film camera at present.
I don't do much serious wide-angle either, so I'm not too bothered if my one DX lens has to stay on the D200 for the rare occasions when I do want to go wide, but I'm rather intrigued to see what my lovely old AIS 28/2 would do on one of these things in marginal light conditions (which are generally the kind I find most interesting, hence my collection of old fast lenses). I don't do big prints so 12MP is plenty for my usage. Indeed, the D200's 10MP is probably enough and I'm not entirely sure if I'm in the market for one of these even after they do start getting discount-priced.
The low-light capability is intriguing though and I have several very nice old short teles that would benefit from being back to their intended field of view, but that's not exactly a compelling argument for spending that much money, especially when I mostly use an ancient F3 film camera at present.
lobster
Well-Known Member
And if you've currently got a DX body, your lenses wont be much use on the D700 anyway
The D300 is the better choice if you have a bunch od DX lenses as it gives the better quality. The D3's DX resolution is 5 MB. The D700s resolution is 5MB as well.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I'd be quite surprised if anybody owns more than one DX lens (or maybe 2 if they're wide-angle fanatics I guess) and there are plenty of nice reasonably priced old primes: 20/2.8, 24/2.8 etc and at least one zoom, the 20-35/2.8, that go back to being wide-angle on a D700 if you don't want to spend big money on one of the new high-tech wide zooms. Perhaps I'm a bit eccentric but I can't think of any photography I've seen using wider lenses that actually appealed to me. 20 is plenty I'd say and 24 is probably wide enough for most people's needs.
I'd see the D300 as more advantageous for people who use longer teles, birders and so on, where it's worth a few 100mm of lens cost, and the D700 as more advantageous for stuff in the traditional PJ or wide to short tele range.
I'd see the D300 as more advantageous for people who use longer teles, birders and so on, where it's worth a few 100mm of lens cost, and the D700 as more advantageous for stuff in the traditional PJ or wide to short tele range.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
And if you've currently got a DX body, your lenses wont be much use on the D700 anyway
Errrr, they'll work just fine. The camera knows its a DX lens and gives you framing lines on the screen accordingly.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
They'll have to seriously overhaul their flash system then, Nikon is streets ahead of Canon in that regard.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
The lenses will obviously work, but no amount of framing lines will get away from the fact that your lenses will have an odd range.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
That is true. But it doesn't detract from the fact that for three years the 5D has been the only budget-priced pro DSLR on the market, and that Nikon are playing catch-up with the D700.
(No vested interest from my by the way - I'm a Nikon user, very interested in the D700, but waiting to see which way it goes before committing to an upgrade)
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I had a play with one the other day in a shop. Lovely big viewfinder, much more like my F3HP than my D200. The camera seems very slightly bigger than the D200, but I doubt you'd notice a difference the way you would with a D3 say.
I did a bit of ISO 3200 and 6400 and as far as I can tell from zooming on the preview screen the quality was excellent, but obviously you'd need to see the files on a proper screen to be sure.
I did a bit of ISO 3200 and 6400 and as far as I can tell from zooming on the preview screen the quality was excellent, but obviously you'd need to see the files on a proper screen to be sure.
editor
hiraethified
I think you need to weigh up if it's really that much better than a D300 for your needs.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
anyone seen any in-depth IQ comparisons between the D3/700 and the D300? My suspicion would be that this will be the only area that really separates the former two from the latter.
What is the D300 like in low light?
Going for a D80 > D300/700 is a big step up...
Noticed in Heathrow T2 Dixons today that the D700 was £1700 can see the high street price dropping some more over the next months once stock increases.
Wonder if the D90 introduction will also reduce the price...
Does anyone else find the Nikon line up slightly crowded at the moment?
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
somewhat bottom-heavy in comparison to Canon, yes...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Some sensor quality comparisons here from Dx0 Labs.
Basically Nikon in 1st (D3x), 2nd (D3) and 3rd place (D700) then the Canon 1Ds III in 4th. Only the D3x is different enough to be obvious though apparently, the others are pretty close.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10143368-39.html
Basically Nikon in 1st (D3x), 2nd (D3) and 3rd place (D700) then the Canon 1Ds III in 4th. Only the D3x is different enough to be obvious though apparently, the others are pretty close.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10143368-39.html
