Nikon D700

looks like the dslr market is reaching full maturation. shouldn't be too long until they start exploring smaller niches. ;)
 
Problem with in body IS is that it doesn't help when you look through the viewfinder. Another thing is that it won't work as efficiently with long lenses (although that may be a matter of further development).
 
I saw a lot of Nikon D3s in Europe, used by journalists mostly (hang out enough in any large city and you'll see them). Usually, these cameras leave me cold, but I liked the D3 layout... and especially the round eyepiece in the viewfinder. I never liked the square ones. I see this one has all it takes, plus the round eyepiece (reminiscent of the F5). I will have to save for this one. Or, who knows, may be we'll be looking at another FX Nikon next year around this time.

Thanks for posting the information! :)
 
Pitxu said:
Nikon really seem to be going all out at the moment.
Click to expand...

You haven't seen it all yet!

Ready for D3X??
24 Mega Pixels.

Did you guys wonder what the D700 going to do to the D3? There is more to come.

Hold on to your cameras you Canon Shooters :D

Kiu
 
I expect to see speedy primes from Nikon either this year or next, just a gut feeling. They've been hearing enough about this from pros and they've gotten much better at taking notes.

I harped on plenty, about the need for what looks to be the D700 camera and updated primes and I would usually get the "I'm not telling" kinda look. These are the same Nikon reps who had me sign an NDA before letting me test drive the D3 last summer so I'm optimistic.

It appears Nikon also understands the usefulness for selective leaks as well.
 
Nikon Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...
Prepare yourself to be heavily disappointed.

I too have some Nikkor Ai-S primes (20/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2,
50/1.4, 50/1.8, 55/2.8 Micro, 85/2, 105/2.5, 108/2.8 ED).

I have used them all on a D70 with a handheld meter just to see how these lenses would behave in front of a sensor.

Only the 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 55/2.8 Micro, 85/2, 105/2.5 and 180/2.8 ED performed well to very well (the 180/2.8 ED performing the best but it ain't your daily focal length).

In front of a 24x36 sensor the problems which all the other Nikkor Ai-S lenses of mine had in front of a DX sensor will be worse (mainly, chromatic aberration towards the corners and as a result, unsharp images).

So if you want to be happy with the D700 24x36 sensor you will have to buy recent "telecentric" lenses from the last AF-D/G Nikkors batch or, maybe, some of the Zeiss ZF ones (a friend of mine told me the Distagon ZF 35/2 was a killer once mounted on his D3 while his Nikkor AF-D 35/2 was very poor).

I guess not many people have the least bit of idea of what "full frame" means anyway. By itself, it doesn't mean anything if you don't mention the pixels count and the dynamics and some other things like the sensor heat transfer properties...

Since none of my Nikkor Ai-S wides would perform well on the D700 I'd rather go for a D300 and the 18-200 VR DX zoom if I was to buy one of the recent Nikon DSLRs.

What I'd have liked Nikon to manufacture very much would have been a D40X, sort of, having less "all-auto-everything" gadgets and none of these pesky results programs BUT having a prong for metering with the Ai-S lenses, so that I could have used my 50 to 180 primes on a simple yet efficient Nikon DSLR at a price of $1000 or so.

Now their policy of having me forced to buy at least their $1800 D300 to use my Nikkor lenses on a Nikon camera just beats me.
 
Last edited:
...or, which one is going to hold its value better, M8 or D700? :)
 
Last edited:
You can use DX-Lenses and the camera switches to a DX mode where you have a resolution of 2784 x 1848 (5.1 MP). ?????. Who needs such a gimmick. For people switching from their D40 and who don't have the money for a FF-lens so they have to use the D40-Kit lens???
 
Some people have excellent DX lenses, like the 17-55/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4.

It's not a totally useless gimmick.
 
Sam N said:
Some people have excellent DX lenses, like the 17-55/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4.

It's not a totally useless gimmick.
Click to expand...

that is true but resolution is reduced to 5 MP. For a professional use this should be a problem.
 
tom.w.bn said:
that is true but resolution is reduced to 5 MP. For a professional use this should be a problem.
Click to expand...

Why? - we got along on 4-6mp dSLRs for years without a problem. And even at 5mp, the image sites are huge, performance appears to be very good, and very clean.

If you're that worried about image quality and resolution - looking at dSLRs is the wrong place to start.
 
rogue_designer said:
Why? - we got along on 4-6mp dSLRs for years without a problem. And even at 5mp, the image sites are huge, performance appears to be very good, and very clean.

If you're that worried about image quality and resolution - looking at dSLRs is the wrong place to start.
Click to expand...

Some picture or stock agencies have restrictions with the resolution they accept. For this purpose 5 MP is definately not enough.
And if a pixel peeper buys this camera we all know that 5 MP will not be enough even if he only prints 10x15cm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom