Nikon D700

The high ISO performance of the D300 is great enough as it is, and f/2.8 is plenty fast enough on my 24mm. It only gets better on the D700.

Also one can shoot in DX mode to get the crop factor back, although not at 12 megapixel.
 
Personally, I think this whole "bokeh" thing is a bunch of malarky.


I could care less what my "out of focus" areas look like. I even like the "donut" effects from mirror lenses.

"Bokeh" is one big internet meme that got blown all out of proportion and is now taken seriously by the great unwashed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuubL said:
Limited DOF, Bokeh, etc. are important again, especially with full-frame sensors!!
Click to expand...

I agree, to a point. I guess I see that as more important when I'm using an RF. I'm not looking for a wide, fast lens with a dSLR (or any SLR) for many uses at all. Not uses that would need me to limit the DOF severely.

And since suddenly my 50 is an actual 50 again - I have plenty of speed and DOF control there.

*shrug*

Nice to have, but not a dealbreaker for me.
 
M. Valdemar said:
Personally, I think this whole "bokeh" thing is a bunch of malarky.

It really doesn't make much of a difference except to a bunch of nut-jobs.

I could care less what my "out of focus" areas look like. I even like the "donut" effects from mirror lenses.

"Bokeh" is one big internet meme that got blown all out of proportion and is now taken seriously by the great unwashed.
Click to expand...
OK, bokeh may be a subjective eye-of-the-beholder thing, but narrow DOF is not. There are stunning examples of its use in portraiture.
 
HuubL said:
OK, bokeh may be a subjective eye-of-the-beholder thing, but narrow DOF is not. There are stunning examples of its use in portraiture.
Click to expand...

Narrow depth field is not argument for FX it's an argument for a 6x7, or large format, thats when low DOF gets interesting :)
 
Now I'll need a 35/2 and an 85/1.8 or 1.4. My prime pair for 95% of shots is 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 on the D300...
 
M. Valdemar said:
What a bunch of aging grumblers. The D700 looks great. If you don't like it don't buy one.

Yes, we know how clever you all are. Ha ha ha. Your film cameras are marvelous, you can swap "sensors" (film), and you don't like these new-fangled gadgets. Bully for you. I guess you told them.
Click to expand...

Was this little rant prompted by me? If so, and leaving aside my smart-alecky responses to unsolicited sneering from know-nothing Canonistas, I must have not said clearly enough that I would love to be able to justify the cost a of D700. For me the point of comparison is not film cameras (even though mine certainly are "marvellous") but the D300, which for me is a better fit and does everything I need it to. That certainly doesn't stop me appreciating or wanting the new model though.
 
M. Valdemar said:
Personally, I think this whole "bokeh" thing is a bunch of malarky.

It really doesn't make much of a difference except to a bunch of nut-jobs.

I could care less what my "out of focus" areas look like. I even like the "donut" effects from mirror lenses.

"Bokeh" is one big internet meme that got blown all out of proportion and is now taken seriously by the great unwashed.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go sell your leicas/nikkors/zuikos/whatever and cut out the bottom of a coke bottle and stick it in front of your camera. Bokeh/sharpness/color rendition/ergonomics/flare control... they're all valid characteristics of a lens. This is a gear/photography based forum and it's only natural to have people on here assessing things like lens characteristics. Formula 1 drivers don't drive Reliant Robins because they don't care if it only has 3 wheels.... Chefs don't put motor oil in salads because they don't care if it's not olive oil.

Zing.
 
Matt White said:
...

And I still really, really want in-body stabilisation.
Click to expand...


Here here, anyone else notice that the companies (canon and nikon) who have a range of image stabilized lenses have refused to put in body image stabilization in their dslr's? Doesnt that seem a little petty?

In a year or so I will be looking to update all my DSLR gear if there is no digital RF more suitable for me on the horizon. After using some pentax and sony digital cameras I have to say I really like the idea of in body IS and the fact that canon and nikon dont want to bother annoys me a lot. Yes I do shoot a lot of high ISO low light and slow shutter speeds for the one person who is going to ask, in fact a majority of my digital is that, which is one of the reason I got into digital in the first place, low light shooting is the domain of high iso and it can be a lot of hit and miss, why not make it a little easier?
 
kipkeston said:
Sad, nikon still can't give me what I want, FX with wide fast primes.
Click to expand...
You have quite a few fast & wide prime Nikkors to choose from...

MF - 35/1.4, 28/2, 24/2, 20/2.8, etc.
AF - 28/1.4, 20/2.8, 18/2.8, 14/2.8, etc.

And like Nh3 mentioned, Sigma also makes a 28/1.8, 24/1.8, and 20/1.8 for F-mount.
 
From where I sit a DSLR like the D700 makes a lot of sense. I have some Nikon wide glass that is going to be used at its intended field of view finally. If I were to have bought a D300 and a Nikkor 12-24 to replace the primes I already have the cost would have been near enough the same as buying just the D700. DOF on the FX sensored D700 should be near enough to film 35 for my use. I got along fine for years using 800 print film when I needed to and the D700 should give me that and more. Yes, the lack of in body IS annoys me but again the high iso capability which the D700 should produce basically cancels that out. Would I like a smaller/lighter FX bodied DSLR? Yes but I will settle for the D700 as I am not getting any younger and I have waited for Nikon long enough to bring me a DSLR like the D700 already. A DSLR is more versatile for the all around use that I want. I am not surprised at some of the negative comments on this thread after all it is a range finder forum. If Leica were to have an M9 out with similar FX sized sensor and high iso capabilities out fewer noses would be out of joint. Who knows. they may still do that. I hope.

Bob
 
No camera will please everyone - but Nikon needed a place maker between its D300 and the D3. I'm glad they chose the 12 MP full frame route to allow for better low-light performance.

For those who need the extra MP - the Canon 5D Mk II and Sony's full-frame entry will be released soon enough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom