File :-(, x, )
Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
sup, nikonfags?
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>215440
oh sh--
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070103nikond700previewed.asp
>> Anonymous
>>215440
Fake as shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>215440
I'm shocked it's out so soon, it's usually a few months between announcement to release.

I'm still waiting for the D90 to replace my D50 and some new AF-S primes.
>> Anonymous
will make a good companion body for the D3
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>215458
And we Canonfags are still waiting for the new 5D. Quit toying with us, Canon! ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>215458
I'd really like to see some souped up new Nikkor primes. It seems to me like a lot of their older glass is better quality than the newer AF stuff (like the 28/2.8 AIS and the 20/4 MF lenses).
>> Anonymous
>>215463
You'll get yours by Christmas ad by then the D700 might finally be in stock regularly.
>> Anonymous
>>215464
I'd kill for some AF-S pancakes.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Goddamn it, where the hell am I going to get $3000 from...
>> Anonymous
that shit looks like xbox hueg!
>> Anonymous
>>215473

it oughta be, it's a FF camera
>> Anonymous
holy shizzzz, ff?!
>> Anonymous
>>215468
selling 10 panos
>> Anonymous
so... it's a 5d... but 3 years late...
>> Anonymous
>>215474
Compared to an APS camera, a FF one must have:
- a larger sensor and mirror - but both are inside the mirror box, which has to be equally thick on FF and APS cameras in order to maintain the flange focal distance;
- a larger prism - however, it hasn't to be xbawks hueg if you sacrifice a bit of magnification.

So there's actually nothing preventing them from making an Olympus E410-sized FF camera, however, few people would be interested in it since it won't be cheaper than a 5D/D700 (not to mention it will go against the common "BIGGER=BETTER=MORE EXPENSIVE" marketing strategy)
>> Anonymous
>>215468
Don't forget thet you'll have to buy some new lenses, too, so it's probably closer to $5000 D:
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>215486
>Also supports DX lenses, viewfinder automatically masks (5.1 megapixels with DX lens)
>> Anonymous
>>215488
uh-huh, enjoy your 5 megapixels and olympus-sized viewfinder for $3000.
>> Anonymous
You know, even the pricing is relatively better than Canon's on this body. 2500 bucks for it new, when the 5D, that's been out for 3 years (or more? I cant remember) is just starting to reach 2000.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>215486
Actually I'm suprisingly good for that, Only DX lenses I have now are the
Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 18-70
Sigma 30mm f1.4

My 15mm f2.8 fisheye, 24mm f1.8 and 50, 85, 80-200, 300, and 105 macro
All = full frame still

Plus they still work, they are just 6mp and a cropped viewfinder...
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>215481
Lol True, And I just got all the prints to complete my portfolio today.
I will have to be more aggressive in marketing them!
>> Anonymous
Is it weathersealed?
>> Anonymous
>>215482

yeah cause the 5D has the sensor cleaner, high iso performance, 5FPS (8FPS), Proper weather sealing, etc etc.

Try again jealousfag
>> Anonymous
Where's Jeremo that nikonfag? He'd probably want a piece of this.

Someone go check on /fa/ for his whoring ass.
>> Anonymous
Fuuuuuuuck. No more D300 for me then, that's for sure.
>> Anonymous
>>215494
Those wide and standard zooms are the biggest problem for me. I would have to replace mine with something like 17-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 for $1500+ each if I want to upgrade to the D700 (I can get some sigmas instead, but then where's the advantage of a full frame camera?)

And the lack of a VR standard zoom in Nikon FF lens lineup is disappointing.
>> Anonymous
>>215496
it's positioned between D300 and D3, so it better be
>> Anonymous
>>215506
>>And the lack of a VR standard zoom in Nikon FF lens lineup is disappointing.

what?

24-120mm VR

I don't believe ANY maker has a 24-70 with VR or 17-35 with VR... it's simply not needed on wider pro zooms.

Why is using Sigma disadvantageous to FF??

>>215505

Ask yourself, do you NEED a D700? The D300 is still a viable camera and it's a heck of a lot cheaper too.

D300 + 17-55mm Nikkor = D700 Body only.

>>215496

It's essentially got the D300 body. So Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>215510
i use the d40
>> Anonymous
>>215510
Bit of both, really. I know the D300 is perfectly good and I could take the same quality photos using my D80 (on good conditions), but that noise handling on the FX is what swings it for me as I do a lot of low light stuff. Of course I won't be jumping straight on there, if all the gearfags are tripping over themselves selling their pristine D300's I'm on that shit.
>> Anonymous
>>215521

The D300 handles HIGH ISO just fine.

Obviously it wont be as good as FX... but again do you need it enough to spend an extra 1300?

The D80 is a pretty good performer as it is. I think you'll be okay with it and Noise Ninja for a while longer.
>> Anonymous
>>215525
True, the D80 + Noise Ninja combo is pretty good. It all depends on the price I can get the D700 for from places like Hong Kong, since UKers get ripped off a lot for camera gear (and everything else), so the price difference to me may not be as large as it is to you.
>> Anonymous
>>215532

Don't bother with HK, get the camera from the states, it's cheaper. Unless of course you travel to HK then it'll work out to be the same since getting the camera from the states you'll have to pay whatever custom duties you need.
>> Anonymous
>>215534
I'll probably pick one up personally when I go to either place, so customs isn't an issue for me.
>> Anonymous
>>215537

The states it is then.
>> Anonymous
Well if the price of D300 is starting to drop then I'm going to get one of those. FX = A lot of more expensive stuff like extra lenses you can't afford as a student.
>> Anonymous
Hum... I was thinking about getting a D300, but now I'm wondering if I should rather get the D700 as my D70's replacement.

Considering I'll be buying the F6 first -so I'll have to get FF lenses- I don't mind getting a full frame dSLR.

Nikon wants me to be a poorfag :(
>> Anonymous
>>215440
oh shit.. this review is better with fucking sample photos:

http://NikonD700.on.nimp.org

>>215450
and this IS real
>> Anonymous
>>215562

...unless you're making at least a bit of money off of photography i dont see why everyone is crying poor when they can buy a non FX camera have a DX for much much cheaper.

Teh D300 is more than enough for most, do you ABSOLUTELY need a D700 without the need to show off?
>> Anonymous
>>215565
Looks no bloody different from any other shot taken with any other dSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>215567
I don't care about show-off. I'm not that stupid to buy a camera just to pimp it around.

But since I'll be getting the F6 (and lenses for it) a digital FF will allow me to use said lenses too. Plus, I'm rather interested on the much better ISO performance.

If I go for the D300, I'll actually spend more money since I would end up getting the 17-55 for it, plus the 24-70 for the F6. If I get the D700, the 24-70 would be enough for both.
>> Anonymous
>>215571

ahh no, not really.

D300 + 17-55 = D700

Unless you're not in the states.

About showing off, you're buying top grade products and you obviously don't intend to make money off of it. But whatever, it's your money. Spend it how you want.
>> Anonymous
>>215565

wow.. those samples are fucking beautiful
>> Anonymous
>>215572D300 + 17-55 = D700
Not really, but anyway. And no, I'm not in the states.

>About showing off, you're buying top grade products and you obviously don't intend to make money off of it.
Obviously? I do plan making money off it in a future.

But besides, that's not the reason (for me) to buy top grade products. The fact that they are top grade products is why I'm buying them. Same rason why I don't buy shitty acrylics, watercolors or brushes.
>> Anonymous
>>215576

D300 = 1700 + 17-55mm = 1200

D700 = 2999

... work it out yourself
>> Anonymous
Damn. Canon really has some pressure on them now. 5D MkII probably ain't even close to the D700 in terms of features. Image quality is probably alike or better.

Well, my 5D MkI still produces, so i shouldn't complain. And unlike people in this thread have mentioned, i got mine new for 1600 - the cashback.
>> Anonymous
>>215578
Yeah, same price. But same quality - which is what I was talking about?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
SWEET
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>215582
OMG FF
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
D3 SENSOR STUFFED ON A D300 OMFG
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ONLY FOR 3 GRAND
>> Anonymous
rofl
>> Anonymous
Two things about this I hate:

- They're calling it a "professional camera" (a bullshit term but one with a relatively well-understood concept behind it) when it's inferior to the D300 in everything except sensor size. If this is to be called a "professional camera" then so should the D300.

- One of the main inferiorities: not full coverage finder. WTF, Nikon? I thought you were finally starting to move, at least at the high end, to being sensible about this by giving the D300 one.
>> Anonymous
>>215595
Wait how is it inferior to the D300? And how is sensor size an "except" kinda afterthought factor?
>> Anonymous
>>215565

what the fuck? are those pics real? they look better than 1Ds quality!
>> Anonymous
>>215595

STFU you faggot, you don't know what you're talking about.

The D300 and D700 are almost identical aside from the sensor size. Only real "inferiority" is the FPS, 6 vs 5.

The D300 is 'semi' pro... obviously being FX it's slightly higher so it's pro...

or i'm pretty sure that's how NIkon PR would explain it.
>> Anonymous
>>215510
Sony/Pentax has VR on all their lenses...

>>215619
And the grip brings it back to 8fps, same as the D300.

>>215595
The 5D doesn't have a full coverage finder on it either. You're just not going to get everything the D3 has for two grand less.
>> Anonymous
>>215619
The whole idea of categorizing cameras into professional and amateur, is ridiculous in itself. Different strokes for different folks; a professional sports photog might very well prefer a cropped sensor camera to ff.
>> Anonymous
It's over, Canon is finished.
>> Anonymous
>>215624
Probably would, longer reach and the AF points will cover more of the frame.
>> Anonymous
D300, D700 - same camera, different sensors.

In my photography dx > fx.
>> Anonymous
>>215624
exactly right. you can tell a pro body from an amateur one based on the build, not on the specs. Ones built like a tank are pro. I mean, look at the D2H - 4mp. Not a pro camera? Yea right.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>215623
But Sony/Pentax don't have or need FF lens lineups for the time being :D
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
"...and the Lord said, Let there be Flash!"

Nikon > *

/end
>> Anonymous
>>215565
seriously, in front of my dad. I have never been so embarased in my entire life. fuck you go hero
>> Anonymous
>>215510
The 24-120 is made of budget zoom and fail.
I can get both f/2.8 and VR on a standard zoom in Canon, Pentax and Olympus crop-sensor systems, and I can get f/4 and VR on Canon full-frame, so the lack of bright VR zooms in the Nikon system seems disappointing in comparison. Sure, VR doesn't help for moving subjects, but I'd still like to have it.

>Why is using Sigma disadvantageous to FF??
Last time I checked, Sigma versions of 24-70 and 17-35 kinda suck when compared to their Nikon counterparts both in optics and build quality.
>> Anonymous
>>215532
>>215534
>>215541
Enjoy getting buttraped if it breaks and you need warranty repair.
>> Anonymous
Kill a hooker
>> Anonymous
>>215657
Camera insurance.
>> Anonymous
>>215601

Less FPS (doesn't really matter, but it's still an inferiority) and 95% versus 100% viewfinder coverage

Sensor size matters about as much as FPS. "OOO LOOK I'VE GOT LESS NOISE!!!111!!" It's ridiculous.

>>215619

See above. Also, why is it that whenever I take a less-than-cumming view of any new product I end up getting flamed?

>>215624

Like I said, it's a bullshit name, but what it designates is pretty well defined: higher frames per second, viewer coverage, customizability, and durability, and weathersealing, than other models. 95% is par for the course, and otherwise except for the sensor and FPS it's a D300. So how is the D700 whopped in with the D1/2/3 series as a "professional" camera?
>> Anonymous
>>215623
>The 5D doesn't have a full coverage finder on it either. You're just not going to get everything the D3 has for two grand less.

You get pretty much everything the D3 has except the larger sensor with the D300; I don't see why this would be any different. There's no reason, anyway, why any serious digital camera should have less than 100% coverage. It's not even like film where they could hide behind the "it's the area of a mounted slide" excuse for being cheapskates. It shouldn't cost too much more for them, and if they really wanted to be absolute money grubbing whores they could easily pass whatever it was (couldn't be more than $200 or whatever) on to the customer without hurting sales. If someone could afford a $3,000 camera they can afford a $3,200 camera.

(As evidence it can't cost too much: the D300 isn't much more expensive, if at all, than the D200 was when new.)

Also, nevermind the 5D, I expect progress in camera design just as much if not more than I expect progress in image quality.
>> Anonymous
I heard that the sensor cleaning is the reason for the 95% coverage "only".
>> Anonymous
>>215688
If they gimped the finder for a useless marketing feature like that then my raaaage will be unmeasurable.

Seriously, the design and engineering process needs to be absolutely seperate from marketing.
>> Anonymous
>>215697
I wouldn't call it exactly "gimped". There's still plenty of reasons for nikonians to acclaim that they have the best camera(s) on the market ;)
>> Anonymous
What's up with people complaining about the viewfinder coverage?

I understand that it's obviously better to have 100% coverage, but my D70 has 95% too, and I don't think it's a biggie when it comes down to take shots.
>> Anonymous
>>215703
They shoved the sensor from one camera with 100% coverage into the body of another camera with 100% coverage and it wound up with a finder with 95% coverage. It's gimped.

I'm not saying it's a bad camera, just that it's worse than it should have been for no real reason at all, and that them calling it "professional" while not calling the D300 "professional" is silly.
>> Anonymous
>>215703
Also please stop the brand stuff; I'm not knocking Nikon cameras, I'm knocking a design decision (the finder) and one of two marketing decisions that are inconsistent (calling the D700 "pro" but not the D300).

FWIW, I think the D300 is probably the best designed DSLR made yet. I have no more against Nikon than I do anyone who makes a camera with serious aims and skimps on the finder to save a few bucks.

>>215706
It's important for some people, not important for others, depending on your shooting and composition style.

But there's no reason *not* to have it except a little extra cost either Nikon or someone buying a $3,000 camera could afford.
>> Anonymous
>>215711
Well, I know a "big" camera such as the D700 should have 100% specially considering it's little sister has 100%. Kinda annoys me.

But on the other hand, 5% isn't much. As I said, I never had any problems with my D70.
>> Anonymous
Ironic. Isn't that a 16-85mm VR on there?
>> Anonymous
>>215725
Scratch that. Probably a 24-105 VR
>> Anonymous
oh no, there's more in your frame! Crop, jesus. It's better than a rangefinder.
>> Anonymous
I'm totally stoked about the d700 and teh sb900 coming out because it will drop the prices on the d300 and the sb800. Since I like to do a lot of bird photography, the DX sensor is just peachy for me (adding that extra 50% reach).
>> Anonymous
>>215783
Yeah but it will be months before the D300 is going to drop again
>> Anonymous
>>215688

Again you're just trolling

100% on DX = 75% REAL coverage (APS-C SENSOR)
95% on FF = 95% REAL coverage (FF SENSOR)

Which one's the bigger viewfinder now?

So you're wrong, again.

You honestly don't know what it is you're talking about. Do us ALL a favour and STFU.

Have you used any of those two?
>> Anonymous
>>215753

Shooting with brightlines is a different experience, A. Also, inaccuracy in them is to be expected but should be eliminated- Leica developed the technology for accurate framelines that move with the focusing, but only built a prototype. The other there's no obstacle except cost and it's been done in real cameras. If I'm using an SLR and putting up with all the disadvantages, it damn well better live up to what TTL can do, especially when the only reason they're not is a few extra bucks.

>>215791
I'm actually going to call troll on you. No one could be so daft as to think coverage and magnification/size are the same thing.

In case not,

Coverage = what percent of what your lens sees you see. The Olympus E-3 has a typical tiny, low-magnification Four-Thirds viewfinder but it has 100% coverage and shows exactly what the lens sees. The film Rebel has a much larger, higher-magnification viewfinder but only 90% coverage. Ten percent of the frame is flat-out missing.

Size: How big it looks.

Magnification: How big the scene looks compared to real life. A 1x magnification finder would look the same size as real life, a .76x magnification finder (The 1Ds Mk. III, the most available on any DSLR) looks 76% as big as real life.
>> Anonymous
>>215803
NOT>>215791

But for all your whinging, there's live view on the LCD for 100%

You do seem like you're trollin or just really caught up on one minor detail which you seem to fault the entire camera over. It's okay man, it's just a camera.
>> Anonymous
ITT : bunch of fags discussing camera specs that none of them will actually give full use to, because they suck at photography.
>> Anonymous
>>215804
Right, I'm not that poster.

I'm not whinging; it's a stupid design decision made to save a couple bucks. There's no reason for it to be less.

Also:

>I'm knocking a design decision (the finder) and one of two marketing decisions that are inconsistent (calling the D700 "pro" but not the D300).

The D700 is a pretty good camera unless they absolutely screwed something up we can't see from the spec sheet and some pictures of it. That doesn't mean the decision to gimp the viewfinder was a good one, or that it's as good as it could've been.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>215803
Lots of RFs (esp. fixed lens ones) have shifting framelines to compensate for focusing issues but even those aren't truly accurate. It's just something you have to accept with RFs.

Back to your spec sheet slapfest now, folks.
>> Anonymous
>>215733

24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR
>> Anonymous
>>215866
From some thread somewhere

"A RF unit with framelines that compensate not only for parallax in x and y, but also shrinks and grows them based on focusing distance. This would solve the problem listed above. Leica already built a prototype like this several decades ago. The camera was auctioned at Westlight this year, along with a copy of the blueprints for the RF."

Do other RFs have it?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OHGOD
LOOK WHAT WE ARE MISSING
OHGOD
IM GETTING AN EVOLT
>> Anonymous
>>215877

LOL
>> Anonymous
Well I'm still getting a D300, price for the D700 would be $4.250 where I live. So its cheaper for me just to buy a D300 at $2.250.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>215871
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/koni3.html

Three are listed right here. Scroll to the viewfinder section, though the entire article - well, site - is a good read.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>215877
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216011
>> Anonymous
>>215791
This hasn't got anything to do with what i said earlier.
>> Anonymous
>>216004

still not as good as http://NikonD700.on.nimp.org
>> Anonymous
>>216027
very nice article, nice hands-on video too. 10/10
>> Anonymous
>>Coverage = what percent of what your lens sees you see. The Olympus E-3 has a typical tiny, low-magnification Four-Thirds viewfinder but it has 100% coverage and shows exactly what the lens sees.
LOL

It's one thing to hate on Four Thirds but another entirely to make shit up as you go along.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E3/E3A3.HTM
>> Anonymous
>>215454

Yeah, I saw him in hardcore once too...
>> Anonymous
>>215454
Fake DC was fake. Notice how the tripcode is left out. I saw it; it wasn't his.

>>216143
What did I make up?

- The E-3's viewfinder has 100% coverage.
- It is a Four-Thirds system camera.
- While it has the best magnification of any Four-Thirds camera, it still trails behind many other offerings by other companies. That magnification figure they give? *That* has to be adjusted (not coverage) for sensor size, because the manufacturers try to pull some bullshit and measure with a 50mm no matter how small the field of view on it is. Divide that figure by half.

When you do adjust, the E-3 has a .575x magnification, better than entry-level cameras and, surprisingly, the Nikon D2 cameras, which have .573. Which is respectable, but still small. I was a bit hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes- I was trying to illustrate the difference between coverage and magnification- but I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyone deriving their opinion on the worth of a camera solely from one line in an unrelated post by an anonymous poster on a message board deserves to take rhetorical devices seriously, as do people who overreact to stuff said about their wife and kids, er, I mean, camera system.

I don't hate on Four-Thirds; I've defended them on here in the past as perfectly suitable if someone doesn't prefer manual focus and so doesn't need a higher magnification. That and a lack of primes are the only real flaws of the system. Otherwise, it's the equal of Canikon offerings.

And I really love how pointing out a flaw or making one even slightly derogatory comment about one aspect of something means I hate it and everything associated with it.
>> Anonymous
>>216187
It's all good.

There's just a lot (A LOT) of misinformation here about Four Thirds is all.
>> Anonymous
so how much do you suppose the price of a D300 is gona drop due to this bad boy?
>> Anonymous
About... hm... nothing?
>> Anonymous
>>216385
so how much do you suppose the price of a D40 is gona drop due to this bad boy?
>> Anonymous
When you make your livelihood, you don't choose the brand that offers an equivalent, even similar system, you choose the brand that is a trustworthy and time-tested tool. Thus, Nikon. There are always distinctions to be made between Nikon and Canon, but I've often heard this statement, and I believe it: Canons are the best cameras made by engineers, but Nikons are the best cameras made by photographers. It's a generalization, but that feels very true to me.