File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/

New gods have arrived. Highly Recommended.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
it's interesting, i just wonder ewhy they used a 85 1.8 with the d700 and a 85 1.4 with the 5D

the nice things said about Sony's 24mp sensor is interesting too.

Though it's moot, i'm waiting for a proper 5DII review... cause i may well be jumping ship
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
And the D700/D3 really isn't that much better than their Canon counterparts either, seen the 1ds3 pushed to 12800iso and it was quite fine to use.

Consider this for a moment, I have a D700 and D300, and I've had a long and hard thought about my gear and I've decided to switch, for many reasons.
>> Anonymous
>>271293
Double the price of a d300 for only a FX sensor. Awesome...
>> Anonymous
>>271324
It'd be worth it if it had Creative Auto Mode.
>> Anonymous
>>271324
Same story with Canon, though. Prices for the 50D and 5D Mk.II are pretty similar to Nikon's offerings.

Besides, you get a lot more than just the sensor. The D700's pretty much a D3 without the battery grip, so it's a cut above the D300 in a lot of ways.

I think the 700 may well prove to be a quite successful camera for Nikon, actually. The only things you lose with the 700 are a few FPS and a few hundred shots per charge, but it's made up for by a smaller formfactor and a lower price. Nikon's strongest segment is still in landscape, product photography, fashion, and similar more-controlled, less frantic applications, which this camera seems solidly targeted toward.
>> Anonymous
>>271361
>Besides, you get a lot more than just the sensor. The D700's pretty much a D3 without the battery grip

Like what? The D300 is also pretty much a D3 without the battery grip and FX sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>271364
wat
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
If you need an FX sensor, you know who you are, you know why you need this camera. Those who don't care, don't bother with the D700, just get a D300, it's a fuckin hell of a camera for half the price.

I'd think most consumers would dislike FX. "Why are all my pictures out of focus?" DX is much kinder in terms of depth of field.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>271370
To add to this, I'll say that I think the 5DMkII has got a LOT more bang for the buck. It's an insane, gamechanging camera. However, it's EOS mount. I'd much rather use Nikon's lenses and speedlights, namely because I can afford them. I'd dig a fully Canon system, I just can't shell out those L prices.
>> Anonymous
>>271370


That and unless you buy top-end lenses FF is useless.
>> Anonymous
>>271364
Higher-power processing, better high-ISO performance, dynamic range, build quality, efficient access to WB, ISO, etc, more customizable settings and controls, better menus, better finder, etc.

A lot of that stuff relates to the FX sensor, but that's sorta natural. I wouldn't ever buy a D700, because I shoot things that go fast and are reasonably far away, and DX cameras are totally fine for 99% of /p/, but there are certainly people for whom the D700 is more than worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>271371

u forgot to take away ur trip, faggot
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>271374
Fortunately Nikon has produced top-end lenses for decades, there's millions of'em. You've gotta be pretty ghetto fabulous to use older AI-S stuff and not mind modern contrivances like... autofocus... :( But if you take it in stride and have fun with it, it's a really cheap yet high-quality way to go. Oh, but get a good bag, because you're going to be schlepping a ton of glass, hah. At least they're smaller than their autofocus brethren and almost all use 52mm filters.

I'm not trying to come off as an asshole or troll or anything, just so it's understood. I'm just talking about why I use what I use.
>>271378
Totally right, the FX/DX distinction is so fine as not to matter to most people, I certainly would never recommend one to someone just dipping into photography as a hobby, or even starting to study it.
>> Anonymous
>>271378
>Higher-power processing
D700 has less FPS than both D3 and D300.

>better high-ISO performance, dynamic range,
This is directly related to the sensor.

>build quality,
Now you're just nitpicking.

>efficient access to WB, ISO, etc
I dunno, D300 and D700 have exactly the same WB/ISO/etc. button layout.

>more customizable settings and controls, better menus,
Not much of them, and those customizable settings are used by like 1 person in 100.

>better finder
Bigger size, yes, but D300 has more coverage.
>> Anonymous
>>271401

>>better high-ISO performance, dynamic range,
>This is directly related to the sensor.

Partially, but it's also largely related to other electronics and software. I know the difference when the 2.0 firmware that updated my D2X to D2Xs specs came out was pretty substantial.

>Not much of them, and those customizable settings are used by like 1 person in 100.

Yeah, but you have to realize that the other 99 out of those hundred aren't really the audience that has a need for something like the D300.

Again, the real point of the 700 is to be a compact, light version of the D3, not an upgraded D300. The people who really need it know exactly why they'd want/need such a camera, the rest of us don't have much use for it. I, for one, prefer DX myself, I'd go for a 300 over a 700, and it's a big part of why I haven't found a real justification to move up to a D3 over my D2. For plenty of people out there, though, there's ample reason.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>271384
lrn2reading comprehension. He was expanding on his first post, not pretending to be someone else agreeing to it. That's why it starts with "To add to this"
>> Anonymous
>>271407
>Partially, but it's also largely related to other electronics and software.
According to dpreview, the in-camera processing in D700 sucks cocks when it comes to dynamic range and you're better off tweaking raws in ACR.

>the real point of the 700 is to be a compact, light version of the D3, not an upgraded D300
The real point of the 700 is to make money. And I guarantee that it'll make way more money on rich amateurs (including those who upgrade their D300's) than on pros who need a full-frame body lighter than the D3.
>> Anonymous
>>271371I'd dig a fully Canon system, I just can't shell out those L prices.

lol

compare similar nikon and canon lenses, they're all in the same ballpark, if there is a difference, it's the nikon being more expensive

everyone knows this
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>271488
>if there is a difference, it's the nikon being more expensive
...unless you're comparing with old, used high end glass. E.g., you can get a manual focus Nikon 50/1.2 for low triple digits whereas the same lens for Canon costs over a thousand.

(That specific example is especially relevant since that's exactly what Heavyweather uses a lot of the time on his 5D with an adapter)
>> Anonymous
i wasn't aware a manual focus lens is similar to an autofocus lens

the more you knew lol
>> Anonymous
With the Canon mount you can easily and cheaply adapt loads of lenses to it. One of the benefits of their mount.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
CAR ZEISS FUCK YEAH
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>271493
>i wasn't aware a manual focus lens is similar to an autofocus lens
In terms of optical quality? Certainly. The formula for a 50 hasn't changed much in the past few decades, after all.
>> Anonymous
lol, screw coatings and exotic elements

i can do it old school and be so pro using it wide open, and it's all going to be similar in optical quality!
>> Anonymous
>>271491(That specific example is especially relevant since that's exactly what Heavyweather uses a lot of the time on his 5D with an adapter)

you could've just said i was right without adding that little part about your butt buddy there at the end

thanks
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>271510
>you could've just said i was right without adding that little part about your butt buddy there at the end
And you could've just admitted you were wrong in this particular context.

You're right about new Nikon lenses--they're either on par with or more expensive than their Canon equivalents, assuming a Nikon equivalent even exists. And, as you say, everybody knows this.

But the part about my butt buddy is relevant since he's the particular guy you were replying to and you're wrong in the particular context of him.
>> Anonymous
>>271518You're right about new Nikon lenses--they're either on par with or more expensive than their Canon equivalents, assuming a Nikon equivalent even exists. And, as you say, everybody knows this.

thanks

>> But the part about my butt buddy is relevant since he's the particular guy you were replying to and you're wrong in the particular context of him.

um, how am i wrong? way to protect your butt buddy, friendo

>> I'd much rather use Nikon's lenses because I can afford them.
>> I just can't shell out those L prices.

the old lenses he uses are cheap because they're old
the new "L" lenses are expensive because they're new and Nikon versions are more expensive
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>271526
>um, how am i wrong? way to protect your butt buddy, friendo
>your butt buddy, friendo
>friendo
If you hadn't dropped that 'friendo', you probably could've gotten a much longer argument out of me before I realized you were that one guy who's always trolling me. 7/10
>> Anonymous
um, good job on pulling out a troll/samefag card to avoid an argument

i put the friendo in there because of the butt buddy thing. nice butterfly tactic there
>> Anonymous
>>271544
Other stuff like the writing style and thanking you anytime you say "you're right," no matter how many caveats, reservations, or disclaimers you put on didn't clue you in earlier?

I'm 99% sure this is the same "we'll all be rocking full frame" dumbass.

>>271371
>I'll say that I think the 5DMkII has got a LOT more bang for the buck. It's an insane, gamechanging camera

How so? The video is useful for PJs who have to bring back video (like you) but for everyone else it's nothing to look twice about, and the D90 had it first and the D800 and 400 will have it. Otherwise it's just another 5D except with better high sensitivity performance.

The D700 has more focus points, the 5D II has more viewfinder coverage. If I had to shoot with one of them (I'd take the DX D300 over any other DSLR) I'd take the 5D II for that, but otherwise for everyone else they do pretty much the same stuff.

>>271410
>The real point of the 700 is to make money. And I guarantee that it'll make way more money on rich amateurs (including those who upgrade their D300's) than on pros who need a full-frame body lighter than the D3.

The real point of any product is to make money. Any piece of camera equipment except maybe, maybe digital medium format makes more off hobbyists than pros.

The point-as-a-camera of the D700 is the same as the 5D with Canon: FX format for those who prefer it, in a body that isn't some giant bulky square thing, with advantages there in weight, size, ergonomics, and unobtrusiveness.
>> Anonymous
am I the only one that has noticed that they are going to quickly run out of numbers for naming the cameras soon because of the pattern they use?
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
>>271576
So you don't think D3.1 or D701 is suffice in their next generation of cameras? D300kai, D90beta.
>> Anonymous
>>271576
No, you're not. We've had threads on this.

>>271581
This is, besides being stupid, doubly stupid because it mish-mashes together two stupid numbering systems for no reason.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>271584
>>271581
>>271576
I do want to know what sony are going to replace the A700 with (A800 is stupid) and A900 because I hope to god they dont go A1000~
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
>>271581
I think it'd be funny just to see Nikon troll us like that.
>> Anonymous
>>271588
i've always been confused as to how companies choose their camera 'names'.
i mean, why d700, not a d600, or d350 or something?