Comments on: Nikon D700 video http://nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:08:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: Macindows http://nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-5956 Macindows Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:34:05 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx#comment-5956 Okay, I'm torn between keeping my D300 or buying the D700.<br /><br />I have a D300 with a Sigma 10-20mm, a Sigma 10mm fisheye, a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, a Sigma 70mm Macro and a Nikon 18-200mm VR.<br /><br />I always wanted to have a fullframe camera, since portrait shots just look so much better with a fullframe and my beloved landscape shooting would also get improved by not having any distortion. In addition I would get an ISO up to 25600!<br /><br />So now I'm asking myself and you: What would you recommend? <br /><br />- Keep my D300 and be happy?<br /><br />- Sell my D300 (& all lenses) and buy the D700 plus new lenses? Okay, I’m torn between keeping my D300 or buying the D700.

I have a D300 with a Sigma 10-20mm, a Sigma 10mm fisheye, a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, a Sigma 70mm Macro and a Nikon 18-200mm VR.

I always wanted to have a fullframe camera, since portrait shots just look so much better with a fullframe and my beloved landscape shooting would also get improved by not having any distortion. In addition I would get an ISO up to 25600!

So now I’m asking myself and you: What would you recommend?

- Keep my D300 and be happy?

- Sell my D300 (& all lenses) and buy the D700 plus new lenses?

]]> By: mike http://nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-5955 mike Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:42:15 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx#comment-5955 Nice very well thought comments i totally agree... the price is to high and in less than a year the other more better camera is comming up..... Nice very well thought comments i totally agree… the price is to high and in less than a year the other more better camera is comming up…..

]]> By: PHB http://nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-5954 PHB Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:06:13 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/06/30/nikon-d700-video.aspx#comment-5954 OK so for an extra $2000 over the price of the D300, people can buy a camera that causes their 105-300mm zoom to return to being a 70-200 mm zoom again. For this they get a modest improvement in low light performance (which is hardly poor on the D300).<br /><br />And within 12 months or so the 22MP sensor will be out and there will be a D3x and a D700x to follow and this camera will be obsolete but the couple of pro lenses they could have bought with the money will still work fine.<br /><br />Certainly there are some folk who need this camera. And if you have already invested in the big lenses and the FX wide angles like the 14mm and 14-28mm zoom you need an FX camera to take advantage of it. But I suspect that most of the folk who run out to buy this could probably buy the D700 neckstrap and fit it onto a D300 (or a D60) for much the same effect.<br /><br />The math for a 22MP FX sensor camera on the other hand would be rather different. You have an FX camera and you also have a 10MP DX mode built in. So you can have the bonus 1.5x stretch on your big zooms.<br /><br />Contrary to what Ken Rockwell claims, the current generation of Nikon lenses are more than a match for much finer resolution sensors than we have seen to date. I took a look at some shots I took in NYC a couple of weeks ago and the focus was 100% sharp right down to the pixel level on my D300. And that was only the 18-200mm zoom.<br /><br />What I would like to see are some comparisons of shots taken on the D300 with the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom at 200mm vs the D3 with the 300mm f 2.8 prime. Granted that stacks a prime up against a zoom, but it is also measuring a slice out of the very center of the frame vs a full frame.<br /><br />The D300 combo costs about a third the price of the D3 combo and has what, a quarter the weight?<br /><br />Mind you, if you are into landscapes, I can see the point in the D700 over the D3 (or D300). You can use those fast, distortion free 14mm lenses but you don't have the weight of the D3.<br /><br />Only reason the weight of the D3 would be tolerable to me is if I had a really big fast super-tele and wanted some ballast on the camera end. But in that case, why not a D300 and a smaller lens? OK so for an extra $2000 over the price of the D300, people can buy a camera that causes their 105-300mm zoom to return to being a 70-200 mm zoom again. For this they get a modest improvement in low light performance (which is hardly poor on the D300).

And within 12 months or so the 22MP sensor will be out and there will be a D3x and a D700x to follow and this camera will be obsolete but the couple of pro lenses they could have bought with the money will still work fine.

Certainly there are some folk who need this camera. And if you have already invested in the big lenses and the FX wide angles like the 14mm and 14-28mm zoom you need an FX camera to take advantage of it. But I suspect that most of the folk who run out to buy this could probably buy the D700 neckstrap and fit it onto a D300 (or a D60) for much the same effect.

The math for a 22MP FX sensor camera on the other hand would be rather different. You have an FX camera and you also have a 10MP DX mode built in. So you can have the bonus 1.5x stretch on your big zooms.

Contrary to what Ken Rockwell claims, the current generation of Nikon lenses are more than a match for much finer resolution sensors than we have seen to date. I took a look at some shots I took in NYC a couple of weeks ago and the focus was 100% sharp right down to the pixel level on my D300. And that was only the 18-200mm zoom.

What I would like to see are some comparisons of shots taken on the D300 with the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom at 200mm vs the D3 with the 300mm f 2.8 prime. Granted that stacks a prime up against a zoom, but it is also measuring a slice out of the very center of the frame vs a full frame.

The D300 combo costs about a third the price of the D3 combo and has what, a quarter the weight?

Mind you, if you are into landscapes, I can see the point in the D700 over the D3 (or D300). You can use those fast, distortion free 14mm lenses but you don’t have the weight of the D3.

Only reason the weight of the D3 would be tolerable to me is if I had a really big fast super-tele and wanted some ballast on the camera end. But in that case, why not a D300 and a smaller lens?

]]>