I have also been a long-time Canon shooter and recently got very pissed that my 40D couldn't handle low-light situations, so I bought a D700 based on the glowing reviews I had read. I could have bought the 5D2 for the same money I spent on the body plus 1.4 50mm but wanted to see what the Nikon was all about.
All I can say is WOW, this camera is amazing. The controls and amount of customization you can do are simply amazing, and the pictures...holy cow. Image quality is stunning, and the ability to customize sharpness, saturation, it's awesome.
My favorite feature is that you can make it so pressing the little button on the stick zooms into a certain length (low, medium, high) and then you can scroll through the pics with the back button to see which pics from a set are sharp. And also how left/right scrolls between pics, and up/down puts up an RGB histogram.
My 40D seems like a toy compared to this camera, and I realize it's not fair to compare a $750 body (what I paid for it used) to a $2300 body but I am sold. This D700 is just glorious and totally exceeded my expectations. I've shot both cameras side by side in the same setting and the pictures from the D700 are just better, by a long shot.
I can even customize the file name and add copyright info to every file too.
I would miss some of my Canon lenses for sure. 35L and 135L are my two faves, and I have my eyes on the 24L II and 50L. Whether Nikon will get it together enough to address these gaping holes (f/4 zooms as well) is anyone's guess.
There is definitely a lack of fast primes in the Nikkor lineup. However, the 135mm f/2 DC is one of my favorite lenses (and the Defocus Control has some useful applications -- tho mostly I do use it in the normal/neutral setting). Definitely worth a look to fill that slot in your Nikon lineup.
yeah, no pro-quality f/4 zooms either, but this bothers me less (since I prolly wouldn't be looking for one)
Another fun thing with Nikons is that you can use a whole array of old MF lenses (AI/AI-S).
Thing that bums me out about the current FX lens situation this week, is my own pessimistic take-away: Only new DX lenses (how committed to FX is this company really?), no f/4s, still no AF-S primes, ahh but the wonderful 135mm DC is nice. (...takes mental stock for minute...) Erm, is that $1000 135mm got really fast, quiet AF?
Oh, it's a screwdriver?
ho hum.
Only a guy who owns the stellar EF 135L could feel ho-hum about another 135 f/2. Don't worry though, I'll cheer up this weekend—doing Muench's Santa Barbara Spring Fling! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Only a guy who owns the stellar EF 135L could feel ho-hum about another 135 f/2. Don't worry though, I'll cheer up this weekend—doing Muench's Santa Barbara Spring Fling! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
See you there.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Thing that bums me out about the current FX lens situation this week, is my own pessimistic take-away: Only new DX lenses (how committed to FX is this company really?), no f/4s, still no AF-S primes, ahh but the wonderful 135mm DC is nice. (...takes mental stock for minute...) Erm, is that $1000 135mm got really fast, quiet AF?
Oh, it's a screwdriver?
ho hum.
Yeah, it would be nice if they would update the 85/1.4, 105DC, and 135DC to AF-S, but since it'd be unlikely that I'd actually upgrade... meh... (and they focus fast enough on my D700 and D300 -- less happy on a D70/80 tho)
Technically there are a number of AF-S primes tho:
50/1.4G
60/2.8G Micro
105/2.8G VR Micro
200/2G VR
300/2.8G VR
300/4D
400/2.8D
400/2.8G VR
500/4D
500/4G VR
600/4D
600/4G VR
yeah, i know the only one in there that i normally think of when i'm thinking af-s primes is the 50/1.4G (and judging from reviews, I'd be more likely to get the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM if I were to get another 50), they need to work on a 28/1.4 and/or new versions of 20/24/28 that are faster then f/2.8 (af-s preferred obviously, but they've got nothing right now)
also that 35mm/1.8G DX lens is AF-S too, i think (not that it does me any good on a D700) -- I don't need/want this lens, but it makes sense for Nikon to have this. DX cameras vastly outsell FX, and they need a small/cheap "normal" lens that works on the D40/60/5000, etc. As for focusing on DX, outside of the new 35/1.8 and the 55-200 DX lenses, all of the other DX lenses are wide-zooms (and the 10.5 fish), starting at 18mm or wider, which are necessary for DX users. If they were coming out with DX versions of a 50/85/70-200/etc, then I might be concerned)
Ahem....
.... yes, too right, Pindy. Been there, done that. Just until some weeks ago I've owned a Canon 30D with a nice set of L lenses, and for over half a year I've been brooding over the idea of changing systems. It's not an easy step, and please don't ask me how many evenings I've sat at home with my calculator....
So, eventually, after the 5DMkII came out, the decision was easy: I want a camera. If I want to shoot video, I'll buy a video cam. Point.
The calculation was: If I buy a 5DMkII, I'll have to invest x EUR for the body plus x EUR for a new macro, as mine was only crop factor, minus amount x for the sale of my macro. If I buy a Nikon, I'll have to make amount x from the sale of my lenses to buy new ones, and invest x EUR for the body.
For a test, I've put my lenses for sale in a forum, and within 2 (two!!) hours, I'd sold them all, for the amount I wanted. One week later, I started playing with the new baby and the instruction manual coming along with it.
Don't overlook the AI-S manual focus lenses, many of them are of excellent quality and are built better than modern AF equivalents or even boutique third-party products like those from Zeiss/Cosina. These lenses can be had cheap used or bought brand new.
For that matter, don't overlook AF lenses either. Some of them are rather quiet and focus faster than the AF-S versions. The AF-S lenses are always nice for manual focus override and the fact that the focus ring does not rotate, but otherwise it's not a big deal on smaller lenses.
Don't overlook the AI-S manual focus lenses, many of them are of excellent quality and are built better than modern AF equivalents or even boutique third-party products like those from Zeiss/Cosina. These lenses can be had cheap used or bought brand new.
For that matter, don't overlook AF lenses either. Some of them are rather quiet and focus faster than the AF-S versions. The AF-S lenses are always nice for manual focus override and the fact that the focus ring does not rotate, but otherwise it's not a big deal on smaller lenses.
Handled (man-handled is more the term) a friend's Contax RTS III today and immediately fell back in love with the split-prism screen and MF. he had a Distagon f/1.4 35mm on it. MMMMMMMMM.
Having said that, I rented a 70-200 which has the fastest focusing (on a D700) I've ever experienced on an AF camera. In continuous servo, you would hold it on and point the lens at 200mm repeatedly at two objects that were comfortably 100ft apart from each other (one was 50 ft from me, the other was 150 ft from me) and the lens and camera would focus the two faster that my eyes could. That lens focused faster with a 1.7x on it than my old EF 70-200 f/4 or 2.8 ever could. I really understood why the Nikon current AF is so good.
Handled (man-handled is more the term) a friend's Contax RTS III today and immediately fell back in love with the split-prism screen and MF. he had a Distagon f/1.4 35mm on it. MMMMMMMMM.
Having said that, I rented a 70-200 which has the fastest focusing (on a D700) I've ever experienced on an AF camera. In continuous servo, you would hold it on and point the lens at 200mm repeatedly at two objects that were comfortably 100ft apart from each other (one was 50 ft from me, the other was 150 ft from me) and the lens and camera would focus the two faster that my eyes could. That lens focused faster with a 1.7x on it than my old EF 70-200 f/4 or 2.8 ever could. I really understood why the Nikon current AF is so good.
I've used that lens quite a bit and love it. Excellent low light performance, especially with the D700. I'd probably pick one up if the price is right, say when the eventual successor arrives. Otherwise, I've had good luck renting it whenever I need it. I have a 70-210 F/4 for day to day use -- it doesn't focus particularly fast, but it's sharp and well built.
I have a 20/2.8 AI-S and 50/1.2 AI-S -- both are exquisite. Perfectly smooth and well damped focus, accurate infinity stops, and small size. I find I have no trouble focusing them on the D700's stock screen, and when in doubt, the three-segment focus indicator is very helpful.
I love these two lenses so much, I'd get the 85/1.4 AI-S to go along with them, but I'm already well covered in that range.
Just came back from a weekend Muench workshop shooting a lot with the 70-200 and I gotta say it was extraordinary. I don't notice ANY vignetting problems as is widely reported and the focus was so fast, I had BIF in focus in no time at 5:45 AM. The performance with a 1.7x TC exceeded my expectations.
I was struck by the similarities. I made no attempt at matching anything in post-processing.
Canon 5DmkII w/ 70-200 f/2.8 IS:
Nikon D700 w/70-200VR and 1.7xTC:
I've said it before, but any debate regarding these cameras is clearly not about the IQ. Modern cameras are simply magic. How lucky we are to be photographing in 2009.
I've shot a few thousand pics with the 70-200, and a quite a few more with the TC-20E. Unfortunately, Smugmug doesn't support image search by exif data (or at least, I can't find the option for it), so I've had a hard time finding any examples of this combination!
Here's one at 400mm:
I haven't tried the 1.7x, but I've heard it's sharper. For me, the 2x is sharp enough and the ability to turn a 70-200 into a 140-400 is very nice indeed. In fact, I prefer this combination over the 80-400.
One thing I really admire about the 70-200 VR is the build quality. It feels like the thing was made out of a tank barrel. When it's eventual successor comes around, somehow I doubt it will be built to the same standard.
I hear you on the build quality. It was really rock solid, except for the rubber ring that holds the filters on—it often stuck to my Lee filter rings and came off with it.
Would any of you Nikon peeps recommend the 35 f/2?
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited April 27, 2009
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I like SmugMug / D-Grin. Level-headed discussion, a friendly tone in a direct head-to-head comparison, etc. etc. Thank you!!!!
Would any of you Nikon peeps recommend the 35 f/2?
Yes, a fantastic lens considering the price compared to the Canon 35 L. And if you buy it used, you should retain most of it's value if/when a Nikon 35 1.4 AFS comes out for FX... (Seeing as Nikon recently engineered a 1.8 DX...)
Or if you want wider, consider the Sigma 28, 24, or 20mm f/1.8's... Not as sharp as a Nikon, but still worth their price...
Although Pindy, I have to say, in those two flower pics the Nikon's bokeh looks far worse than the Canons. Caused by different focus distance and / or the 1.7x TC? Or is the Canon 70-200 just THAT creamy?
Although Pindy, I have to say, in those two flower pics the Nikon's bokeh looks far worse than the Canons. Caused by different focus distance and / or the 1.7x TC? Or is the Canon 70-200 just THAT creamy?
=Matt=
Thanks Matt. Your matter-of-fact blog, being neither fanboyish nor too grass-is-greener-y, has somewhat informed my original tone, so give yourself a hand!
As for the comparison, I realise it's not completely fair; The Canon lens had a 12mm extension tube on it, which I think altered the response somewhat and the Nikon 1.7x bumped the minimum aperture up to f/4.8 and I'll bet the MFD had something to so with it as well. I don't consider myself a bokeh hound, especially because I find mid-range bokeh pleasing as well. I imagine some must find it very hard to appreciate anything other than fully-wide-open blur—it's addicting innit?
I mentioned this elsewhere on this board, but I'm confused as to why Nikon gives you only a 1-stop spread in it's bracketing capabilities. You can choose .3, .7 or 1 stop either side, but not, say, -2, 0, +2. If you want that wide of a spread, you have to set it to take 5 (out of a possible 9!) exposures instead of 3 (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2). Pixels are free, but card space is not!
Canon, a company who sees fit to limit all metering to ±2 stops in all but it's 1D cameras, lets you do -2, 0, +2 without a fuss, but stops at giving you 3 bracketed exposures. Having just got my bracketing on last weekend, I have started to take a bigger interest in this, whereas I could have cared less before. I also find it curious that Nikon have no way to toggle bracketing on and off from its menus—you MUST have it programmed to one of the 3 programmable buttons. If it's on, and you reprogram the button to something else, it stays on until you... yep, reprogram the button back in order to turn it off. I suppose you could work it into one of the shooting banks, but I haven't been moved to touch these yet. Being quick to manipulate is why I bought the thing in the first place.
Having said all that, 3 exposures was plenty. 2 would have sufficed in most cases. And I learned to love Smart Objects when I only had 1.
Hmm. Getting more dedicated to the Nikon kit. Bought an SB-900 and boy, if that isn't an amazing flash. It's clearly the best engineered "flash kit" ever in this form factor. You can fit ALL the accessories in the supplied case:
Dome diffuser
The little gel book that has full and half CTO and Flourescent gels
The gel holder cap that is made to fit under the dome diffuser (genius)
The little stand/foot
The gels have a little chip that tells the camera the correct WB to use. The power switch does what its supposed to: instantly makes the flash a slave or master with no menu-chording-buttons nonsense. I like that you can optically trigger it. The fact is, I want another one, so my 580exII and ST-E2 are in the FLEA MARKET. I think I'm cool with moving flash-related activities to the D700.
Besides, I really was happy with the 5D as an outdoor camera on the recent workshop, so, having just sold my 35L and 24-105L (I'm so, so sorry 35L), I'm making room for a mkII TS-E, when they ship.
But... the fact is the proceeds are going toward a 14-24G. I had the conversation with myself "are you unconsciously 'switching'?" Nikon has Tilt-shifts on offer now and let's face it: the big reason I'm holding the Canon close is the resolution. The video is nifty for me but no more than that. But I know that something like a D700x is inevitable and will be decently affordable, at least, within my own moral rat's nest.
I started to have the dread of carrying two systems and maybe that's what precipitated this. On the one hand, I like that I can use/buy/rent/borrow more of the best and most popular lenses, but I'm starting to wish it was all one system and that my backup body fit with all the same gear.
Why do something simply when an absurdly convoluted alternative is available? :cry
I just read Thom Hogan's Desert Island article—good reading, if landscape-centered. I have often thought of carrying a more stripped-down setup, so I like the spirit of the article. Where he and I differ is that I shoot a lot of people, so those obnoxious 24-70 f/2.8s are quite appealing.
I just read Thom Hogan's Desert Island article—good reading, if landscape-centered. I have often thought of carrying a more stripped-down setup, so I like the spirit of the article. Where he and I differ is that I shoot a lot of people, so those obnoxious 24-70 f/2.8s are quite appealing.
I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
Comments
All I can say is WOW, this camera is amazing. The controls and amount of customization you can do are simply amazing, and the pictures...holy cow. Image quality is stunning, and the ability to customize sharpness, saturation, it's awesome.
My favorite feature is that you can make it so pressing the little button on the stick zooms into a certain length (low, medium, high) and then you can scroll through the pics with the back button to see which pics from a set are sharp. And also how left/right scrolls between pics, and up/down puts up an RGB histogram.
My 40D seems like a toy compared to this camera, and I realize it's not fair to compare a $750 body (what I paid for it used) to a $2300 body but I am sold. This D700 is just glorious and totally exceeded my expectations. I've shot both cameras side by side in the same setting and the pictures from the D700 are just better, by a long shot.
I can even customize the file name and add copyright info to every file too.
www.tednghiem.com
yeah, no pro-quality f/4 zooms either, but this bothers me less (since I prolly wouldn't be looking for one)
Another fun thing with Nikons is that you can use a whole array of old MF lenses (AI/AI-S).
Oh, it's a screwdriver?
ho hum.
Only a guy who owns the stellar EF 135L could feel ho-hum about another 135 f/2. Don't worry though, I'll cheer up this weekend—doing Muench's Santa Barbara Spring Fling! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Yeah, it would be nice if they would update the 85/1.4, 105DC, and 135DC to AF-S, but since it'd be unlikely that I'd actually upgrade... meh... (and they focus fast enough on my D700 and D300 -- less happy on a D70/80 tho)
Technically there are a number of AF-S primes tho:
50/1.4G
60/2.8G Micro
105/2.8G VR Micro
200/2G VR
300/2.8G VR
300/4D
400/2.8D
400/2.8G VR
500/4D
500/4G VR
600/4D
600/4G VR
yeah, i know the only one in there that i normally think of when i'm thinking af-s primes is the 50/1.4G (and judging from reviews, I'd be more likely to get the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM if I were to get another 50), they need to work on a 28/1.4 and/or new versions of 20/24/28 that are faster then f/2.8 (af-s preferred obviously, but they've got nothing right now)
also that 35mm/1.8G DX lens is AF-S too, i think (not that it does me any good on a D700) -- I don't need/want this lens, but it makes sense for Nikon to have this. DX cameras vastly outsell FX, and they need a small/cheap "normal" lens that works on the D40/60/5000, etc. As for focusing on DX, outside of the new 35/1.8 and the 55-200 DX lenses, all of the other DX lenses are wide-zooms (and the 10.5 fish), starting at 18mm or wider, which are necessary for DX users. If they were coming out with DX versions of a 50/85/70-200/etc, then I might be concerned)
Nice. Look forward to it!
.... yes, too right, Pindy. Been there, done that. Just until some weeks ago I've owned a Canon 30D with a nice set of L lenses, and for over half a year I've been brooding over the idea of changing systems. It's not an easy step, and please don't ask me how many evenings I've sat at home with my calculator....
So, eventually, after the 5DMkII came out, the decision was easy: I want a camera. If I want to shoot video, I'll buy a video cam. Point.
The calculation was: If I buy a 5DMkII, I'll have to invest x EUR for the body plus x EUR for a new macro, as mine was only crop factor, minus amount x for the sale of my macro. If I buy a Nikon, I'll have to make amount x from the sale of my lenses to buy new ones, and invest x EUR for the body.
For a test, I've put my lenses for sale in a forum, and within 2 (two!!) hours, I'd sold them all, for the amount I wanted. One week later, I started playing with the new baby and the instruction manual coming along with it.
Never regret, utterly happy, and still smiling.
Mon
For that matter, don't overlook AF lenses either. Some of them are rather quiet and focus faster than the AF-S versions. The AF-S lenses are always nice for manual focus override and the fact that the focus ring does not rotate, but otherwise it's not a big deal on smaller lenses.
Handled (man-handled is more the term) a friend's Contax RTS III today and immediately fell back in love with the split-prism screen and MF. he had a Distagon f/1.4 35mm on it. MMMMMMMMM.
Having said that, I rented a 70-200 which has the fastest focusing (on a D700) I've ever experienced on an AF camera. In continuous servo, you would hold it on and point the lens at 200mm repeatedly at two objects that were comfortably 100ft apart from each other (one was 50 ft from me, the other was 150 ft from me) and the lens and camera would focus the two faster that my eyes could. That lens focused faster with a 1.7x on it than my old EF 70-200 f/4 or 2.8 ever could. I really understood why the Nikon current AF is so good.
I've used that lens quite a bit and love it. Excellent low light performance, especially with the D700. I'd probably pick one up if the price is right, say when the eventual successor arrives. Otherwise, I've had good luck renting it whenever I need it. I have a 70-210 F/4 for day to day use -- it doesn't focus particularly fast, but it's sharp and well built.
I have a 20/2.8 AI-S and 50/1.2 AI-S -- both are exquisite. Perfectly smooth and well damped focus, accurate infinity stops, and small size. I find I have no trouble focusing them on the D700's stock screen, and when in doubt, the three-segment focus indicator is very helpful.
I love these two lenses so much, I'd get the 85/1.4 AI-S to go along with them, but I'm already well covered in that range.
I was struck by the similarities. I made no attempt at matching anything in post-processing.
Canon 5DmkII w/ 70-200 f/2.8 IS:
Nikon D700 w/70-200VR and 1.7xTC:
I've said it before, but any debate regarding these cameras is clearly not about the IQ. Modern cameras are simply magic. How lucky we are to be photographing in 2009.
Here's one at 400mm:
I haven't tried the 1.7x, but I've heard it's sharper. For me, the 2x is sharp enough and the ability to turn a 70-200 into a 140-400 is very nice indeed. In fact, I prefer this combination over the 80-400.
One thing I really admire about the 70-200 VR is the build quality. It feels like the thing was made out of a tank barrel. When it's eventual successor comes around, somehow I doubt it will be built to the same standard.
What would the 2x get you—a 140-400 f/5.6?
Yep that's right, a very useable range I might add. It's like a 200-400, just one stop slower and 4 grand cheaper!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Or if you want wider, consider the Sigma 28, 24, or 20mm f/1.8's... Not as sharp as a Nikon, but still worth their price...
Although Pindy, I have to say, in those two flower pics the Nikon's bokeh looks far worse than the Canons. Caused by different focus distance and / or the 1.7x TC? Or is the Canon 70-200 just THAT creamy?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Thanks Matt. Your matter-of-fact blog, being neither fanboyish nor too grass-is-greener-y, has somewhat informed my original tone, so give yourself a hand!
As for the comparison, I realise it's not completely fair; The Canon lens had a 12mm extension tube on it, which I think altered the response somewhat and the Nikon 1.7x bumped the minimum aperture up to f/4.8 and I'll bet the MFD had something to so with it as well. I don't consider myself a bokeh hound, especially because I find mid-range bokeh pleasing as well. I imagine some must find it very hard to appreciate anything other than fully-wide-open blur—it's addicting innit?
Canon, a company who sees fit to limit all metering to ±2 stops in all but it's 1D cameras, lets you do -2, 0, +2 without a fuss, but stops at giving you 3 bracketed exposures. Having just got my bracketing on last weekend, I have started to take a bigger interest in this, whereas I could have cared less before. I also find it curious that Nikon have no way to toggle bracketing on and off from its menus—you MUST have it programmed to one of the 3 programmable buttons. If it's on, and you reprogram the button to something else, it stays on until you... yep, reprogram the button back in order to turn it off. I suppose you could work it into one of the shooting banks, but I haven't been moved to touch these yet. Being quick to manipulate is why I bought the thing in the first place.
Having said all that, 3 exposures was plenty. 2 would have sufficed in most cases. And I learned to love Smart Objects when I only had 1.
Dome diffuser
The little gel book that has full and half CTO and Flourescent gels
The gel holder cap that is made to fit under the dome diffuser (genius)
The little stand/foot
The gels have a little chip that tells the camera the correct WB to use. The power switch does what its supposed to: instantly makes the flash a slave or master with no menu-chording-buttons nonsense. I like that you can optically trigger it. The fact is, I want another one, so my 580exII and ST-E2 are in the FLEA MARKET. I think I'm cool with moving flash-related activities to the D700.
Besides, I really was happy with the 5D as an outdoor camera on the recent workshop, so, having just sold my 35L and 24-105L (I'm so, so sorry 35L), I'm making room for a mkII TS-E, when they ship.
But... the fact is the proceeds are going toward a 14-24G. I had the conversation with myself "are you unconsciously 'switching'?" Nikon has Tilt-shifts on offer now and let's face it: the big reason I'm holding the Canon close is the resolution. The video is nifty for me but no more than that. But I know that something like a D700x is inevitable and will be decently affordable, at least, within my own moral rat's nest.
I started to have the dread of carrying two systems and maybe that's what precipitated this. On the one hand, I like that I can use/buy/rent/borrow more of the best and most popular lenses, but I'm starting to wish it was all one system and that my backup body fit with all the same gear.
Why do something simply when an absurdly convoluted alternative is available? :cry
Good heavens—I may not be a gentleman, but I'm all man. Do I have a girly writing style?
Here's actual proof (with apologies to Schmoo)
*hides*
(and what's wrong with being a nikon gal, huh huh huh??)
Hysterical!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sorted? I'm starting to feel insecure...
I just read Thom Hogan's Desert Island article—good reading, if landscape-centered. I have often thought of carrying a more stripped-down setup, so I like the spirit of the article. Where he and I differ is that I shoot a lot of people, so those obnoxious 24-70 f/2.8s are quite appealing.
I'm firmly in the Nikon camp, but am considering going to the D700 (from my D70). I wonder why Nikon's resolution is so low, relative to the Canon's of simliar quality. I have read a few reviews on this issue, and some of the state that this is a negative for the D700 because, absent scaling, you can really only blow a 12MP pic to 8x12.
What are your thoughts on this?
http://www.gaslightphoto.com
Beginning smugmugger.