Nikon D700

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RLL, Jul 29, 2008.

  1. RLL

    RLL Guest

    Am considering the Nikon D700. Any early comments?

    Thanks,

    - Russ
     
    RLL, Jul 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RLL

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:02:48 -0700, "RLL" <> wrote:

    >Am considering the Nikon D700. Any early comments?
    >

    I saw one last night at the camera club meeting. A full-frame entry
    in the camera market. The camera store owner who brought the camera
    commented that the obvious gap in numbering and the jump up to "700"
    convinces him that Nikon will offer additional full-frame models at
    more affordable prices.

    What impressed me more than the camera was the new flash. I didn't
    catch the number, but it has a focussable beam.

    He's selling the 700 with a 24/120 at $3,000. Another (I think it
    was) $500 for the flash.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RLL

    Akiralx Guest

    "RLL" <> wrote in message
    news:JaHjk.4800$...
    > Am considering the Nikon D700. Any early comments?


    Looks excellent - not much bigger than a D300 but with 95% of the D3
    capabilities, and all of the image quality. That means outstanding high
    ISO, up to usable 25600.

    You may enjoy this, D300 + 17-55 v D700 + 24-70:

    http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/07/30/8930.html
     
    Akiralx, Jul 30, 2008
    #3
  4. Hi
    Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX lenses.
    Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
    configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.

    Is this true?

    If so, then a lot of upgraders need to consider upgrading a lot of glass
    too!

    Joe

    "RLL" <> wrote in message
    news:JaHjk.4800$...
    > Am considering the Nikon D700. Any early comments?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > - Russ
    >
     
    Joe Fitzpatrick, Jul 31, 2008
    #4
  5. RLL

    Burgerman Guest

    "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    > Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
    > lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
    > configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >
    > Is this true?




    It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    miserable 5 megapixels.

    So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
    wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
    I am also in this position too.
    And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!

    But I have to do it...
    Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?

    D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made in
    japan one too...
     
    Burgerman, Jul 31, 2008
    #5
  6. RLL

    Frank Arthur Guest

    "Burgerman" <> wrote in message
    news:ITnkk.701$2...
    > "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi
    >> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using
    >> DX lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some
    >> horrible configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>
    >> Is this true?

    >
    >
    >
    > It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    > miserable 5 megapixels.
    >
    > So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of
    > expensive wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand
    > pounds to the bill.
    > I am also in this position too.
    > And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >
    > But I have to do it...
    > Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a
    > D300?
    >
    > D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    > And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a
    > made in japan one too...
    >

    What will you do if the D800 comes out? Your D700 will probably be a
    big dissapointment.
     
    Frank Arthur, Jul 31, 2008
    #6
  7. RLL

    Burgerman Guest

    "Frank Arthur" <> wrote in message
    news:NOpkk.1835$...
    >
    > "Burgerman" <> wrote in message
    > news:ITnkk.701$2...
    >> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hi
    >>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
    >>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
    >>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>>
    >>> Is this true?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    >> miserable 5 megapixels.
    >>
    >> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
    >> wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
    >> I am also in this position too.
    >> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >>
    >> But I have to do it...
    >> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
    >>
    >> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    >> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
    >> in japan one too...
    >>

    > What will you do if the D800 comes out? Your D700 will probably be a big
    > dissapointment.





    I would probably buy one. Why not if its better? My D300 is well over a year
    old and about 7k shots. And its paid for itself many times over.
     
    Burgerman, Jul 31, 2008
    #7
  8. RLL

    Paul Furman Guest

    Burgerman wrote:
    > Joe Fitzpatrick wrote
    >
    >> Hi
    >> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
    >> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some
    >> horrible configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>
    >> Is this true?


    Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?

    > It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    > miserable 5 megapixels.
    >
    > So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
    > wide and telephoto lenses too.


    It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
    wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice
    affordable compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is
    going to cost a lot more and a DX body makes more sense.

    > Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
    > I am also in this position too.
    > And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >
    > But I have to do it...
    > Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
    >
    > D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    > And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a
    > made in japan one too...
    >
    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Jul 31, 2008
    #8
  9. RLL

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:10:28 -0400, "Frank Arthur" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Burgerman" <> wrote in message
    >news:ITnkk.701$2...
    >> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hi
    >>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using
    >>> DX lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some
    >>> horrible configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>>
    >>> Is this true?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    >> miserable 5 megapixels.
    >>
    >> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of
    >> expensive wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand
    >> pounds to the bill.
    >> I am also in this position too.
    >> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >>
    >> But I have to do it...
    >> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a
    >> D300?
    >>
    >> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    >> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a
    >> made in japan one too...
    >>

    >What will you do if the D800 comes out? Your D700 will probably be a
    >big dissapointment.
    >

    According to a camera store owner - and Nikon dealer - in this area,
    he expects Nikon to come out with something between the D300 and the
    D700 that is a bit less pricey. Most of the features, but costs cut
    somewhere.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 1, 2008
    #9
  10. RLL

    Peter Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:Rpqkk.8952$...

    >
    > Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?



    It's optional on the D700 too.

    As for the "telephoto" effect, that is a misnomer. If you put a 300 lens on
    a DX box, you get the magnification of a 450, but not the compression. It
    seems to me that since the resolution of the new sensors approach the
    resolution of the glass, one can use the image magnification algorithm in
    the processing program to obtain the same effect.

    One of my friends is using his 12-24 and 10.5 on his 700, with the DX option
    turned off. and the rectlinear correction in Capture. He claims to have some
    interesting WA effects, even after adjusting for the difference in image
    size on the sensor. I will probably get to see them in about 2 -3 weeks.
    >


    > It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
    > wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice affordable
    > compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is going to cost a
    > lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
    >

    See my above comment.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 1, 2008
    #10
  11. RLL

    Paul Furman Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote
    >
    >> Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?

    >
    >
    > It's optional on the D700 too.


    Ah, nice. I'm on the verge of getting one, grasping for excuses to put
    it off.


    > As for the "telephoto" effect, that is a misnomer. If you put a 300 lens
    > on a DX box, you get the magnification of a 450, but not the
    > compression.


    I'm pretty sure it's identical other than lens resolution and depth of
    field.


    > It seems to me that since the resolution of the new
    > sensors approach the resolution of the glass, one can use the image
    > magnification algorithm in the processing program to obtain the same
    > effect.
    >
    > One of my friends is using his 12-24 and 10.5 on his 700, with the DX
    > option turned off. and the rectlinear correction in Capture. He claims
    > to have some interesting WA effects, even after adjusting for the
    > difference in image size on the sensor. I will probably get to see them
    > in about 2 -3 weeks.


    I'm looking forward to that almost full circular fisheye view from the
    10.5. And I'll finally get benefit from my (seemed like a stupid idea
    for the last few years) Sigma 12-24 with full frame coverage which will
    give a DX equivalent of 7.92mm rectilinear view on FX :) I have a dozen
    or so lenses and only the 10.5 is DX so it should be fun.


    >> It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
    >> wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice
    >> affordable compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is
    >> going to cost a lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
    >>

    > See my above comment.
    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 1, 2008
    #11
  12. RLL

    Peter Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:t_ykk.17685$...
    > Peter wrote:
    >> Paul Furman wrote
    >>> Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?

    >>
    >>
    >> It's optional on the D700 too.

    >
    > Ah, nice. I'm on the verge of getting one, grasping for excuses to put it
    > off.
    >
    >
    >> As for the "telephoto" effect, that is a misnomer. If you put a 300 lens
    >> on a DX box, you get the magnification of a 450, but not the compression.

    >
    > I'm pretty sure it's identical other than lens resolution and depth of
    > field.
    >
    >
    >> It seems to me that since the resolution of the new sensors approach the
    >> resolution of the glass, one can use the image magnification algorithm in
    >> the processing program to obtain the same effect.
    >>
    >> One of my friends is using his 12-24 and 10.5 on his 700, with the DX
    >> option turned off. and the rectlinear correction in Capture. He claims to
    >> have some interesting WA effects, even after adjusting for the difference
    >> in image size on the sensor. I will probably get to see them in about
    >> 2 -3 weeks.

    >
    > I'm looking forward to that almost full circular fisheye view from the
    > 10.5. And I'll finally get benefit from my (seemed like a stupid idea for
    > the last few years) Sigma 12-24 with full frame coverage which will give a
    > DX equivalent of 7.92mm rectilinear view on FX :) I have a dozen or so
    > lenses and only the 10.5 is DX so it should be fun.



    Yeah I thought the Sigma was a stupid idea and got the Nikon 12-24 about a
    year ago.


    I was in B&H the other day, they were almost giving away D200s.
    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 1, 2008
    #12
  13. Hi and thanks for the confirmation about using DX lenses.
    I haven't seen the difference between the D700 and D300 for noise. I found
    the improvement re noise between the D300 and D200 amazing. Noise is a real
    issue for me as a wedding photographer, but can't justify £6000-£7000
    investment against increased competition, lower prices and now the credit
    crunch tempting brides to use a friend with a point and shoot!

    But please hack me off and tell me how wonderfully the D700 has practically
    no noise at 7,000,000 ISO!
    "Burgerman" <> wrote in message
    news:ITnkk.701$2...
    > "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi
    >> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
    >> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
    >> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>
    >> Is this true?

    >
    >
    >
    > It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    > miserable 5 megapixels.
    >
    > So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
    > wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
    > I am also in this position too.
    > And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >
    > But I have to do it...
    > Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
    >
    > D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    > And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
    > in japan one too...
    >
    >
     
    Joe Fitzpatrick, Aug 1, 2008
    #13
  14. "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:Rpqkk.8952$...
    > Burgerman wrote:
    >> Joe Fitzpatrick wrote
    >>> Hi
    >>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
    >>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
    >>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>>
    >>> Is this true?

    >
    > Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?
    >
    >> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    >> miserable 5 megapixels.


    >> IN DX FORMAT getting a good wide-angle is a problem sometimes a real 20mm
    >> lens (rather than effective 35mm) would be really usefull.


    >> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
    >> wide and telephoto lenses too.

    >
    > It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
    > wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice affordable
    > compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is going to cost a
    > lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
    >
    >> Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
    >> I am also in this position too.
    >> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >>
    >> But I have to do it...
    >> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
    >>
    >> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    >> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
    >> in japan one too...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > Paul Furman
    > www.edgehill.net
    > www.baynatives.com
    >
    > all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Joe Fitzpatrick, Aug 1, 2008
    #14
  15. RLL

    Burgerman Guest

    "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi and thanks for the confirmation about using DX lenses.
    > I haven't seen the difference between the D700 and D300 for noise. I found
    > the improvement re noise between the D300 and D200 amazing. Noise is a
    > real issue for me as a wedding photographer, but can't justify £6000-£7000
    > investment against increased competition, lower prices and now the credit
    > crunch tempting brides to use a friend with a point and shoot!



    Just check out the D3 pics.

    I had a D200 and the D300 as it was less noisey. The D3 and D700 are a mile
    ahead. Forget about noise its usable at very high ISOs without issue.




    >
    > But please hack me off and tell me how wonderfully the D700 has
    > practically no noise at 7,000,000 ISO!
    > "Burgerman" <> wrote in message
    > news:ITnkk.701$2...
    >> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hi
    >>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
    >>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
    >>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
    >>>
    >>> Is this true?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
    >> miserable 5 megapixels.
    >>
    >> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
    >> wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
    >> I am also in this position too.
    >> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
    >>
    >> But I have to do it...
    >> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
    >>
    >> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
    >> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
    >> in japan one too...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Burgerman, Aug 1, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. frederick

    Nikon D700

    frederick, Jun 18, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    668
    frederick
    Jun 19, 2008
  2. none

    D700 At Nikon USA :)

    none, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    679
    Paul Furman
    Jul 3, 2008
  3. Andrew Koenig

    B&H has the Nikon D700 in stock

    Andrew Koenig, Jul 25, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,354
    Richard
    Aug 4, 2008
  4. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Digiscoping with Nikon D700?

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 5, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,262
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Dec 9, 2008
  5. USU Shooter
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    3,149
    Paul Furman
    Feb 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page