Did Nikon screw up?

Started May 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP jacobwhite Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Did Nikon screw up?

anotherMike wrote:

Nice first post on dpreview. You know, coming into the Nikon forum for your first time with negativity about Nikon. Kind of like if you and I met on the courts, at the bar, at some landscape icon and you invited me over to your house for the first time and I responded by calling your wife fat and ugly and then beating your kid. So if you're getting a lot of flack, well, you probably deserve it.

I didn't actually got any big issues with anyone's responses... so that's alright. I figure here is the best place to get an answewr about my Nikon woes.. I'd rather stick with Nikon than change - don;t get me wrong. I don't have 10K in my back pocket.. so this is where I'm trying to resolve some of my (mis-) conceptions

Normally I'd join in the party, 'cause I have less than zero tolerance for the BS I find so often in this forum, but you know what? I had a really, really good day in a nice location taking pictures, so for once I"m actually going to respond as neutrally as I can.

You buy a D800 (or better yet, D800E) if you want, from low to mid ISO, by far, without ANY question, the best image quality. I don't know who fed you that BS that the 5Diii had better image quality than the 800 if we're talking low ISO. No banding, way cleaner shadows, and decent color - colors BTW are more going to be how you work with your chosen raw converter and set WB. Large file sizes? Not that much bigger than the 24mp bodies in real life.

Sorry - I may have said this the wrong way... High MP alsways cause certain issues. But that's not the point I was trying to make. I don't need high IQ / MP - for high MP/IQ I use Medium Format. What I look for in a 35mm system is robustness, speed and IQ at decent image sizes - because typically I will have a workflow attached to it and deadlines.

You buy a Canon 5Diii if you are willing to give up the very best in image quality and drop back to about 3rd place (I consider both the 800 and the 600 to be superior in image quality) in order to get the best AF system in terms of first focus acquisition speed.

There is no trade-off because I don't own the 800 or 600.. I have the 700. The 700 is mainly fine, just a bit dated and has no video ... As mentioned I am not looking for absolute IQ. The D600 certainly is interesting but it has other issues - such as the distribution of the AF points... they're all crammed .. and yes to me (remember speed) is super important to me. More important than IQ in this relative superb IQ level. I care in as far as I do not get myself a D7000 for example.

This is a tradeoff you must think about, but let's be honest - Nikon never has beat Canon at 1st acquisition AF anyway, and yet I know professional NFL photographers who routinely shoot both systems who have no problem using pro Nikons, so we have to get real about how often,

If I was going to shoot NFL I'd go D4... fullstop...

realistically, the fastest 1st AF is anyway. You also might consider a Canon 5Diii if you are a jpeg only shooter and/or you're limited in your skill set with raw processing.

I am a master in Raw...

The water gets murky if you're an event shooter.


The 5Diii is one of those cameras that's pretty good at a lot of things but excellent/world class at nothing (kind of like the D700 was honestly)

EXACTLY.. that's what I was saying ... as a D700 shooter I feel the 5d is the repalcement - not 600 or 800...

while the D800E is a bit more "tuned" towards the landscape and studio market.

Exactly - for that I use Medium Format. Which is why I don't need MP and its trade-offs. I use 35 mm for what it is good: speed, robustness and good quality for size.

If you're specifically a high ISO shooter, frankly you need a D4 or a Canon 1DX and nothing else, with the D600 probably being in third place followed right behind with the 5Diii.

Not a high ISO shooter... the D600 is a good case - but the AF array is ridiculously crammed in the middle. I do a lot of point focusing - so I need them to be spread out.. which again leads me to ....

Frankly if you already have a large investment in Nikon glass, I don't see the point of switching.

That is absolutely true. And that's the main reason main I will probably not do the switch... so I need to figure out which one ... 600 or 800 or wait....

And you have to ask yourself, how bloody often do you REALLY use those way off center AF points anyway?

ALL THE TIME!!! I am quite a traditional shooter. I don't trust fully automatic AF... I actually arrange AF constantly... Its super important...

Of course, the other question is do you REALLY need to upgrade the D700.... if you're not making large prints REGULARLY, you might be better served by improving the things you're not so good at.


Yeah - which is why I might stick with it.. its just that video could be a new line of business... and the D700 doesn't cater for it...

 jacobwhite's gear list:jacobwhite's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow