Lance B, why D700?

Started May 29, 2010 | Discussions
rwl408 Senior Member • Posts: 1,849
Lance B, why D700?

Congratulations on your new toy! I hope you don't mind sharing why you chose D700 over other possible contenders (5D2 and A900/A850 specifically). Lens system? AF? or deficiency in other FF body as you see it?

I know you probably spend more time over at Nikon forum now but I thought it would be better to ask the question in a "neutral" forum (and test your proclamation that you are not leaving Pentax forum at the same time :)).

-- hide signature --

Rick

Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 32,666
Re: Lance B, why D700?

rwl408 wrote:

Congratulations on your new toy!

Thank you, Rick.

I hope you don't mind sharing why you chose D700 over other possible contenders (5D2 and A900/A850 specifically). Lens system? AF? or deficiency in other FF body as you see it?

I know you probably spend more time over at Nikon forum now but I thought it would be better to ask the question in a "neutral" forum (and test your proclamation that you are not leaving Pentax forum at the same time :)).

I chose the D700 due to many small reasons that add up to make it a better choice for me than either the 5D or Sony FF offerings. I wanted FF mainly for the bigger VF, but also the other reasons that FF offers in IQ etc - except of course the size, weight and price!

The D700 is most like the K-7, but bigger, I believe better built than the others. It has a better user interface than either the Canon or Sony. It has on camera flash whereas the 5D didn't. Nikon offers a better overall system than Sony. I like the Nikon lenses. The high ISO was the clincher. Over all image quality was outstanding. The AF was touted as amongst the best. It seemed to be more of a photographer's camera, most like Pentax.

I still love my Pentax gear and I still have most of my Pentax gear and am likely to keep it.

You've got to understand that Pentax do so many things right. In camera SR, fantastic lenses, great ergonomics, the K-7 has brilliant build quality, they are looking after the APS C system very well with their lens line up. For compact use, the Pentax system is unbeatable, IMO. No other maker has lenses like the Limiteds, the DA* line up, nor those old fantastic lenses that can be used.

It's just that I wanted FF.

-- hide signature --

Rick

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more
moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
I'll second that

.

I'd agree with everything Lance has said. I chose the D700 over the 5D II because my two main upgrade ' wants ' (note I avoided needs ) were AF-lock speed/accuracy (especially in low light) and excellent high ISO performance. The D700 brought me the greatest delta from my Pentax system in these two areas.

(Also, there was some excellent Nikon used glass I could get my hands on that was better than the Canon equivs. at a better price. We're talking 'bout a little think called LBA here. )

For things like adequate-light portraiture/candids/architecture/landscape/flora, my K20D is still more than adequate. In any application that doesn't require very fast AF or high-ISO, I'm reaching for my K20D and a nice M or Limited more often than not.

As Lance suggested, moving heavily into a new system can show in stark relief not only where your first system is lacking - but also where it shines. I think I actually have a greater appreciation for what Pentax offers after shooting Nikon DX for over a year now and FX in the past couple months.

.

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
ManuH
ManuH Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Lance B, why D700?

Lance B wrote:

I wanted FF mainly for the bigger VF,

Is that really so different? I could not see that much difference between my K-7 + KPS 1.35x magnifier and the D700 VF.

but also the other reasons that FF offers in IQ

In good light, it's only 12MP, the gain is not really there and you lose the reach of APS-C. In low light, of course it's another story.

Xavier Caves Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Lance B, why D700?

VF is probably bigger on the Sony or Canon. The Nikon viewfinder is definitively bigger than the K7. I might be wrong but K7 + amplifier eats a lot of framing room, what you see is not what you get.

Regarding the IQ at base ISO. The dynamic range of the D700 gives you much more room in the highlighs than the K7 and if you need to push shadows the noise is more handeable. Resolution wise I find the D700 is more forgiving with lenses than the K7 and IMO takes the sharpening much better.... but I still having doubts on whether or not the D700 is 2000USD better than the D90/k7...

ManuH wrote:

Lance B wrote:

I wanted FF mainly for the bigger VF,

Is that really so different? I could not see that much difference between my K-7 + KPS 1.35x magnifier and the D700 VF.

but also the other reasons that FF offers in IQ

In good light, it's only 12MP, the gain is not really there and you lose the reach of APS-C. In low light, of course it's another story.

JensR Forum Pro • Posts: 17,971
Re: Lance B, why D700?

but I still having doubts on whether or not the D700 is 2000USD better than the D90/k7...

Interesting prices.
D700: 2000 Euros
K7: 900 Euros
1100 Euros = 1350 USD

-- hide signature --

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

Xavier Caves Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Lance B, why D700?

I was coarsely rounding the US prices 2500 vs 700-800. I still having doubts on whether or not the D700 is 1350 USD better than the D90/K7/.. for an amateur photographer. At any case, I do think that if you love photography and the D700 fits your budget you can be a happy camper with it.

JensR wrote:

but I still having doubts on whether or not the D700 is 2000USD better than the D90/k7...

Interesting prices.
D700: 2000 Euros
K7: 900 Euros
1100 Euros = 1350 USD

Adam Aitken Senior Member • Posts: 1,490
Re: Lance B, why D700?

Jens

Is there a really big price difference between FF sensors and APSC? Or is that going down? Lance is probably one of the few experts around on comparing the K-7 and the Nikon D700, and he says the he moved to D700 for the FF. His new pictures, posted on the D700 forum certainly show the added bokeh and sharpness of the Nikon glass he's using. But as far features and useability, there's not much difference. So I agree that K-700 is now one of the best values DSLR bodies around, especially at 900 euros!

Adam

-- hide signature --

'Photography is nothing else than a writing of light' - Eduardo Cadava (and a whole lot of other stuff!)

http://adamaitken.blogspot.com
http://www.pbase.com/adam_aitken

PPG - http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/adamaitken

 Adam Aitken's gear list:Adam Aitken's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Pentax K-7 Pentax K-5 II Fujifilm X-E3 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL +5 more
OP rwl408 Senior Member • Posts: 1,849
Re: Lance B, why D700?

Lance B wrote:

The D700 is most like the K-7, but bigger, I believe better built than the others. It has a better user interface than either the Canon or Sony. It has on camera flash whereas the 5D didn't. Nikon offers a better overall system than Sony. I like the Nikon lenses. The high ISO was the clincher. Over all image quality was outstanding. The AF was touted as amongst the best. It seemed to be more of a photographer's camera, most like Pentax.

Lance,

Thanks for taking the time to let us know what you see in D700. I am interested in FF, for some time now, but just can't justify paying that kind of money for something that I will probably use 6 to 8 weekends a year. Too bad, Pentax doesn't have FF and there is no indication that thing will change in the future. I really enjoy the good value of Pentax DSLRs. I bought DL as my first DSLR for US$ 367 (new, with kit lens) in 2006 and still use it to date. And it was built tough too. Earlier this month, I took it (the only camera for the trip) to Zion NP, Bryce Canon NP, and Valley of Fire (ok, Las Vegas too). I dropped it from my lap to the shuttle bus floor at Zion and fell to the ground with it when I stumbled over a bush at Valley of Fire. Wife thought I subconsciously wanted to destroy it to get a new one but it just kept on going.

-- hide signature --

Rick

Krazy_Kow Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Congrats mate ...

Ive been conisdering this path for a while but since I cant have a foot in both camps and still have a meaning relationship with my wife Ive chosen to live vicariously ... please keep us in the loop ... LOL ...

-- hide signature --

David

-sadly lacking a witty clichéd comment-

pandalee Veteran Member • Posts: 3,075
Re: I'll second that

sorry you are wrong , in real life the AF is the same , the D700 outer AF is not good , they are not cross type.

the 1D4 has the best AF.

and as long as you use only center aF , the 5D2 AF is actually really good even in really low light , it is unfairly mligned by Canon to Nikon switchers who have tojustify their switch.

I have had all of these cameras and I can tell you , their AF perfomance in real life use for event work is actually not that different.

Where the Nikon does much better than the Sony and Canon is Matrix metering and auto ISO implementation , the 5D2 and A900 auto ISO are useless compared to the D700 or the K7.

as for build quality , it is just your perception that Nikon BQ is better than the Canon or Sony, no they are about identical BQ wise and equally sealed or unsealed.

in real life use though, I believe my 5D2 is actually more durable than the Nikon because the 5D2 does not have pop-up flash and it is the weakest link of any camera.

so, dont pressume build quality or AF of Nikon is so much better than that of other fullframes unless you have used all 3 in real life work.

in fact , as opposed to what many blieve,Nikon AF is slower than Canon and Sony , IMO, the Sony A900 has very fast AF ,definitely faster than any of Nikon fullf rames in terms of initial AF acquisition time.

and the 5D2 AF faster , dont confuse frame rate with AF speed.

maybe what you wanted to say was Nikon tracks a bit better than the Canon and Sony ? then I agree , the D700 tracks a bit better than most of Canon and Sony but just teeny a bit better.

finally, dont get me wrong I use the D700 still and I know it is a good body but dont exaggerate the difference between fullframes from Sony, Canon and Nikon.

and Nikon is now suffering from its new finacial crysis , it has reported its stepper sells dip down a bit and it is now totally dependent on the image division of it and even te image division of Nikon is not doing well due to its total lack of any high resolution sensor(Nikon now has no sesnor relationship with Sony for its fullframe, now, it is working with Renasas).

so , as much as I like the D700 , I am really seriously considering selling it to get some new L or Zeiss primes for my 5D2 and 1D4 or some new Lmited primes for my new Pentax as I loved it so much.

they are all good but IMO, Canon, Sony and Pentax are safer bet now , Nikon is a tiny company in comparison to Sony, Canon or Hoya.

when Pentax was an independent compny , I never thought about buying into its system but I am sure , it is a very stable company now, not losing money any more unlike Nikon.

even Oly is much bigger than Nikon as a whole company, and as mix of video and still is the future, it may be safe to stay a way from Nikon...........unless you dont care about a whole system or any future upcoming bodies.

Nikon does not do vide right, just don't underestimate Sony, Canon, Panay and Samsung all know how to do video right as all of them are video campnies.

pandalee Veteran Member • Posts: 3,075
Re: Lance B, why D700?

Pentax does not have FF but what is full frame then?

135mm format? why is it suddenly called fullframe in digital era?

it is not full frame , just old dated format from film era , it may die soon as MFB price goes down eventually and APS-C quality goes up.................

if APS-C IQ becomes at least as good as the 5D2 level or A900 level , not many need the so called fullframe any more.

and those who really need exceptional IQ ,all go for MFB route eventually.

for me socalled fullframe is just a stopgap solution , I have a D700 and a 5D2 but I think Pentax is doing right not wasting its very limited R and D money on silly dated format but it is developing MF as cheap as FF.

who buys the 1DS4 or the D3X when we can get a MFB in the same price range ?

I think I 'd rather have Pentax 645 +K7 than Canon, Nikon Sony socalled-fullframe(but smaller sensor than MF) any day.

Pentax has been doing all right since it became a part of Hoya.

ManuH
ManuH Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: I'll second that

pandalee wrote:

and even te image division of Nikon is not doing well due to its total lack of any high resolution sensor(Nikon now has no sesnor relationship with Sony for its fullframe, now, it is working with Renasas).

The D3x is not using the 24MP Sony sensor? I didn't know about Renasas but the recent D3s sensor performance is incredible.

ManuH
ManuH Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Lance B, why D700?

pandalee wrote:

135mm format? why is it suddenly called fullframe in digital era?

Because from the start manufacturers gave us a crop of what our mount is capable of. It was very unfortunate for people who had good glass from the film era, they lost all their wide angles. It was a cost cutting measure because sensors are very expensive to produce.

if APS-C IQ becomes at least as good as the 5D2 level or A900 level , not many need the so called fullframe any more.

But by the law of physics, the FF sensor will always have about 2 times the surface and around 1 stop advantage.

but it is developing MF as cheap as FF.

I heard that the Kodak sensor used in the 645D costs around 4000-5000$ by itself. Some FF cost no more than 2000$...

who buys the 1DS4 or the D3X when we can get a MFB in the same price range ?

Because FF cameras are more flexible (more lenses, faster, etc.) But for pure resolution you're right, the 645D is more tempting than a D3x.

Pentax has been doing all right since it became a part of Hoya.

It's too early to tell IMHO.

Neil Morgan Senior Member • Posts: 1,243
Re: Congrats mate ...

Hi Krazy Kow,
Same, same...

So it came as great surprise when she said "buy one if you really want it" and so it was. I love her dearly
Cheers Neil

Krazy_Kow wrote:

Ive been conisdering this path for a while but since I cant have a foot in both camps and still have a meaning relationship with my wife Ive chosen to live vicariously ... please keep us in the loop ... LOL ...

-- hide signature --

A Birth Certificate shows that we were born.
A Death Certificate shows that we died.
Pictures show that we lived!

http://www.nmphotoworks.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knumbnutz/

Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 32,666
Why D700. Here's why. Sample images x 6

From a trip too the zoo today.

D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC, 280 mm, 1/125 sec, f/7.1, ISO 3200

D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC, 280 mm, 1/250 sec, f/11, ISO 800

Crop of above.

D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC, 280 mm, 1/250 sec, f/7.1, ISO 400

D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC, 280 mm, 1/400 sec, f/5, ISO 800

D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC, 280 mm, 1/125 sec, f/5, ISO 3200

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more
Tom Lusk Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Uh, Panda...

"Nikon is a tiny company in comparison to Sony, Canon or Hoya."

Nikon : Total assets : 740,632 million yen

Net assets: 372,069 million yen

Hoya : Total assets : 549,736 million yen

Net assets: 351,472 million yen

All figures from recently released 2009 year-end reports.

If Nikon is tiny, Hoya is tinier.

As for Nikon's financial crisis , you're out to lunch on that one too.

Tom Lusk Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: Why D700. Here's why. Sample images x 6

Beautiful, Lance.

You've let your photos do the talking and pictures ARE worth a thousand words!

Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 32,666
Re: Why D700. Here's why. Sample images x 6

Tom Lusk wrote:

Beautiful, Lance.

Thank you very much, Tom. Much appreciated.

You've let your photos do the talking and pictures ARE worth a thousand words!

Sometimes it's best to do it that way.

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more
sfa1966
sfa1966 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,474
Re: Why D700. Here's why. Sample images x 6

Very nice! The ISO3200 is especially compelling. Bet you don't use the Noiseware software so much these days either ...

So now my prediction: You will slowly, if reluctantly, sell off your Pentax gear. All of it. Even the FA lenses you were keeping for a possible future FF.

I'll give it 12 months.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

 sfa1966's gear list:sfa1966's gear list
Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2 Merrill Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads