Going FX
InsuredDisaster
Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
Finally the stars aligned and I'm going FX in a few weeks. Was sorely tempted to blow every penny I've got and then some on the D3s for that insanely high ISO performance but the sheer size of the thing stands out too much. Here in China, conventionally sized DSLR's are everywhere, but I've never seen anything so hulkingly huge as a D3 in public. (Though I've have seen a few $10,000+ rigs of a certain 5 lettered brand that appeals to manual camera enthusiasts). Yes, I'm white, but my lenses are all black.
The other thing was that I didn't like the grips on the D3. The vertical grip didn't feel nearly as good as the MB-D10 grip that I can use if I desire. Truly strange was this used sample. Whoever owned the thing had gone through a bit of trouble to not use any of the auto features. I was under the impression that the auto exposure and focus on the D3 were A++ but yet this camera was all set to fully manual, spot metering, and then to top it off there was some sort of split image view screen. I'm going to guess the owner traded up to an M9 when it came out and has probably never looked back. Finally the exposure meter is in the wrong place someone not accustomed to such a design.
So I figure D700 will be the perfect size and will go very well with my D300 which looks like it's been in battle. Nikon PRC freaks out whenever they see my lenses minus a lens cap and then their reaction to seeing the scratched finish on the 300 is more akin to a mother's reaction to the Jackson baby dangling incident.
I nearly jumped to FX right after getting my D300 which was a month or so before the D700 came out. But now seeing that the D700 is a full $1000 less than what it was way back, I think it is the perfect time to upgrade. And with this belief, I feel that while the D800 will be released next Tuesday, about 5 minutes after I pay for the 700, I shall be content to know that I saved a crapload by waiting a few years.
I did look for used 700's but was unable to find but 1 in the area. There were probably a dozen used 300's, 2 D3's, a D3s and a D3x. I'm going to guess that when one buys a 700, there is nothing to upgrade to.
I'm really looking forward to using my 35mm and 24-70 as a wide angle.
Now if only I could get Dell to fix my computer, I can start clearing my memory cards!:dunno
The other thing was that I didn't like the grips on the D3. The vertical grip didn't feel nearly as good as the MB-D10 grip that I can use if I desire. Truly strange was this used sample. Whoever owned the thing had gone through a bit of trouble to not use any of the auto features. I was under the impression that the auto exposure and focus on the D3 were A++ but yet this camera was all set to fully manual, spot metering, and then to top it off there was some sort of split image view screen. I'm going to guess the owner traded up to an M9 when it came out and has probably never looked back. Finally the exposure meter is in the wrong place someone not accustomed to such a design.
So I figure D700 will be the perfect size and will go very well with my D300 which looks like it's been in battle. Nikon PRC freaks out whenever they see my lenses minus a lens cap and then their reaction to seeing the scratched finish on the 300 is more akin to a mother's reaction to the Jackson baby dangling incident.
I nearly jumped to FX right after getting my D300 which was a month or so before the D700 came out. But now seeing that the D700 is a full $1000 less than what it was way back, I think it is the perfect time to upgrade. And with this belief, I feel that while the D800 will be released next Tuesday, about 5 minutes after I pay for the 700, I shall be content to know that I saved a crapload by waiting a few years.
I did look for used 700's but was unable to find but 1 in the area. There were probably a dozen used 300's, 2 D3's, a D3s and a D3x. I'm going to guess that when one buys a 700, there is nothing to upgrade to.
I'm really looking forward to using my 35mm and 24-70 as a wide angle.
Now if only I could get Dell to fix my computer, I can start clearing my memory cards!:dunno
0
Comments
you can check the site Nikonrumors for some speculation...id wait till the end of september just incase nikon does plan to release a replacement for the D700
ProjectPhotobooth
I wonder if they're going to put VR on the 24-70 2.8???
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Additionally, I think the price will be back up to around 3,000 unless Nikon really floors the pricing.
I've got the 24-70 and the 70-200 in as well as a 35 F2 and 50 1.4. You'll probably think that a lens is missing in this lineup. Give you a guess as to what it might be?
Give up?
I figure by buying the 700 now rather than a more expensive replacement in the future, I'll probably be able to swing a 14-24 2.8.
On the 300, one of my most used lenses ever is the Sigma 10-20. It is getting a bit beat up lately after it was involved in a motorcycle crash a few months back. For the record, I've been really happy with the lens and it does seem to be able to take a terrific blow (the filter was smashed and bent on the lens) but it is a bit slow. I've been scouring the alternatives but I really want a fast lens. I was considering the 14-24 already but it will be a bit wasted on the 300. So I'll get the 700 and hopefully be able to complete my Nikon pro-glass lineup.
I'm sure the 24-70 will do well if it gets VR. I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't have it already, though it's already a somewhat heavy beast.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Yeah,they might be some great lenses, especially the 24-120. I'm sure that once I get the 700, the 24-70 will be "wide enough" but I'll lose a lot on the top end. But when I'm ready to buy, I'll see what is out there. Generally, I don't like to wait on rumors. I might wait after something is officially announced until it starts shipping, but life is too short to wait.
I'll have to see how the 700's higher ISO abilities handle the 24-70 at 2.8 and f4 first. I am a firm believer in wide aperture lenses and feel that on the 300, I'm constantly shooting everything at 2.8 when the sun goes down. But then again, I rarely go above 1600. I think I'd rather use the 700's higher ISO to increase the shutter speeds at night, rather using smaller apertures, but we'll see.
I really want the 24-120...but that dam "N" means it won't be cheap
ProjectPhotobooth
But the f4 means "cheap" compared to f2.8. And way lighter. And Hi-ISO doesn't weigh anything!!!!:D. I'm not saying the rumored 24-120 f4 VR will be "as good as" the 24-70 f2.8 (non-VR) but I'll bet it will cost less.
So . . . more reach . . . VR . . . N . . . sounds sweet.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
As this camera has been out for years now, I'm sure that anyone interested in it has read all the reviews out there or is too busy shooting with theirs to read the reviews. But here are my first impressions coming from the D300:
Improved ISO performance was one of my primary concerns. I normally am willing to shoot at an ISO of 1600 with the D300. 3200 is used if I have to, but 6400 is useless. I really wanted to be able to shoot things at night and be able to achieve fast shutter speeds to stop a typical dancing couple, or similar action speeds. All of my lenses are 2.8 or faster with the exception of my Sigma 10-20mm zoom but I still was just not getting the results I was seeking with the D300.
I did briefly consider the D3s, but ruled it out due to a $3,000 price difference, the larger size and weight, control layout differed, and the grip didn't feel as good as the 300 with the MB-D10 attached.
The D700 so far seems to do 3200 with ease and may even handle 6400 well enough to be used fairly regularly. I've not really had much of an opportunity to do much testing or pixel peeping, but I'd say that ISO 12800 is slightly better than the 300's Max ISO of 6400. The 25,600 is somewhat worse than the D300's max ISO. But hey, I'm shooting at freaking 25,600. Note: my test was not completely fair as the scene and lenses changed a bit in between shots. I suppose I could do a better test, but I'm also sure that you can find such a test online. I'd say I'm gaining around 2 stops ISO improvement, more or less.
However, for my needs, I'd not really consider an F4 if I can get a 2.8 instead, since that would just about cancel out my ISO gains.
The other issue I had with the 300 is with my lenses. I have a Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 10.5 fisheye in the DX format. In the FX corner, I have a Nikon 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8, a 35mm f2, a 50mm 1.4 and a TC-2EII for use with the 70-200. I'd intended to upgrade to FX almost as soon as the D700 came out, so I've had a few years to acquire high quality glass.
But to my annoyance, I felt that I was underutilizing a lot of it due to the DX reach effect. The 24-70 didn't seem wide enough. The 50mm was to much of a telephoto for the situations I wanted to use it in. The 35 was great, except it acted like a 50mm and I wanted it as a 35mm. I find the 35 and 50mm wonderful lenses due to their size and light weight, and enjoy using them as walk around lenses. I wanted to see them back on an FX sized sensor.
The 24mm is now enourmous and wonderful. The 70mm end is of course not quite as telephoto as I'm used to but I found that I wasn't immediately reaching for the 10-20. Instead I mounted the 70-200 on my D300 where I think it makes a great pairing.
The 24-70 is a whole lot wider now, and me likes!
The Nikon 50mm is great right now. I'm really happy with the transformation. But I'm a bit busy right now so I haven't been able to shoot that much today. I'm sure that I'll find the other lenses are just better when shot on FX.
There are a few small problems though. First, the DOF seems to be a whole lot shallower on FX. I generally ran around with lenses opened up to 2.8 or 1.4 or whatever number the fortune cookie said that day and the DOF was usually adequate. But it really seems to me that on the FX sensor 1.4 is quite a bit shallower than it was on DX. I'm stopping down a bit more.
Intentionally done, the background is obliterated, but even then, almost nothing in this photo is in focuse, the DOF is so shallow. (50mm @1.4)
On the other hand, I've rarely had a DOF like this show up with DX. Normally, I'd have to get right up close to something to render something so out of focus. Here, the flowers are distractingly out of focus. 50mm @1.4
The good news is that to me, this makes photos look a bit more "film like."
The reviews on the net often rate a lens as less perfect on FX than DX since the edges drag down the score when mounted on FX. Generally, I don't care. The Nikon 50mm 1.4D that I have was designed for film back in the day and it was plenty good back then so it will be plenty good on my FX sensor now. That said I do notice a bit of fringing on one shot so perhaps there might be a noticable difference. But I can't go back and reshoot the picture with the 300 to compare now. I will casually watch to see if I notice any difference with the lenses now, but I'm not going to study images intensely. The D700 does come with some corrections built in, like a vignetting compensation setting so I don't expect to see that many issues. Most of the lenses to be used on the D700 are top line lenses anyway.
So I think the D700 seems to have fulfilled my desires so far.
Some additional impressions, but I wish to make clear that I know that many things on the 700 were borrowed or pulled from the D3, and that the 700 is not the successor to the 300. However, as I'm mostly familiar with the 300, I am writing from that perspective. I'm sure some things would not be noticed by someone coming from the D3/x/s:
I would like a quieter shutter and don't understand why this is so hard for Nikon to do. For example, perhaps in liveview, the mirror need not snap down for each shot. I did try the Q mode on the D3s and didn't find it to be that quiet. The 700 sounds different than the D300, but seems just as loud. It is more of a sharp "click" sound compared the my D300's "clacking" sound.
Speaking of Liveview, something I didn't know about until recently was the fact that you can program one of the buttons to activate liveview on the D700. Great, but I already don't think there are enough buttons on the D300/700. I'd have liked to have seen a dedicated liveview button somewhere on the camera. Actually, I'd have liked this button to be programmable to whatever I want. Live view most likely, but I tend to want FV lock, Exposure lock, bracketing, and preview (perhaps even more important on the 700 than the 300) programed so adding another function to this list just makes it harder to figure out what makes it to which button. However, being able to activate LV with a quick button fix is very nice.
Speaking of assigning buttons, the "info" button has been moved off the left column of buttons to it's own dedicated button. I think Nikon could have left it on the "protect" button where it was on the 300, but when you hit the new "info" button, the info screen pops up showing you oodles of info. (The top LCD screen by the way seems smaller and displays less information than the D300, though nothing important has gone missing) If you hit the info button again, you can actually change some of the setting right then and there, including all of the programmable buttons. You can also turn on NR, change your color space (does anyone need to change that routinely?) or alter your picture control and custom setting banks. I think this is rather nice since before I had a lot of that on my own little cutom menu tab on the D300. I wonder if it is possible to program these info options though so that say, instead of "color space" and could add the interval timer or multiple exposure option. It might be, but my manual is in Chinese so I don't know.
The multicontroller pad on the back is different than the D300's and this one makes a loud click when you press it. I like the D300 one better, as it was a soft press type and quieter.
There are some changes in the menu, and some additions. One baffling addition is a "shutter speed and aperture lock." I guess for some applications you don't want your settings changes when in manual mode. I just turn the camera off when I don't want things changed. Just kidding. Just seems an odd setting. Anyone use this?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I really do not see the need to ever upgrade again... Is this a first?
What raw converter do you use, if any? Try Capture One 5.1, it really treats the D700 files very nicely. And it does purple/violent much better than NX2.
I use Lightroom 3 only the first photo had any processing on it. The other two photos weren't worth the time! None of the photos are perfect but with those last two I was just blasting away to see what the camera could do.
I like lightroom since it organizes my photos as well. I think I may have tried NX2 a while back, but to be honest, I'm kinda annoyed that Nikon sells me a 2,000+ camera and they only include the most basic and useless peice of software. I think NX2 should be included with every Pro or Semi-pro camera they sell. Leica includes lightroom with their basic non AF camera!
I haven't tried the Phase one, but maybe one day I'll get around to it.
Haha I think it's funny how everyone feels like that when they upgrade to FF. I wonder if I'd feel the same way if I ever upgrade to FF.
I think the D95 was confirmed recently, just FYI.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
I'm overall quite happy with it.
In fact, I'm so satisfied with the D700 I have begun to feel that D300 is inferior. But before I get flamed, let me explain.
The 700 produces incredibly sharp, detailed images where as the 300 seems to (without a lot of pixel peeping) be producing images that are not nearly as sharp. These are just the RAW images straight SOC I'm taking about. I'm beginning to wonder if the AF system on the 300 needs some attention. I'm going to do some sort of test and then see. Tonight I had both cameras set on manual, same exposure and ISO, both using the 70-200 and the 300 kept missing focus while the 700 nailed it.
ISO of course the D700 wins hands down. I see a big difference even at ISO 800. With the 700 I really think that 3200 is very usable. 6400 is pushing it a bit I think.
The 24-70 has suddenly become a much better lens as I like the wider angle. I've mentioned this before but I really enjoy this benefit. In the past my 10-20mm was one of my most used lenses, even serving as a walk round lens (I think I've got a bug for a focal length of around 30mm.)
I think that if you like wide angle lenses and value high ISO performance, then FX might be a good option for you, especially considering that here in China there is only about a $400 difference between the 300S and the 700. The downside is that you need the FX lenses. I'd strongly suggest to anyone considering purchasing anything but the widest lenses to go with FX compatible glass should you be the type who uses a D300 or any of its comprable siblings. I'm sure the 700 will only get cheaper so an FX upgrade may be more affordable than ever.
That being said, I do think that if you are looking for super wide, DX may be the more affordable. Looking at say, a Nikon 16-35F4 (FX) you are out around $1,000 whereas the Sigma DX 10-20 3.5 is about $650. Or you could save almost $200 by going with the older, albeit slower, version of the Sigma. Which is somewhat of a dilemma for me as I'm considering replacing my damaged Sigma. But should I go FX and get one off the Nikons, eithe the 2.8 or the F4, or replace it with another DX Sigma? I guess the answer will depend on which body I plan to use the wide angle on the most.
I think FX was worth the money for me and I'm extremely happy with low light performance the most.
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses