please continue in the D4 issues topic

A bit of gossip regarding the NIkon D4 video issues.

We all know how good Canon are with their DSLR videos and it seemed to be a bit odd the Nikon D4 was er, not so good. Well mine was shocking in DX crop, ok in FX crop but great in CX crop.

Anyway as some of you know I've had problems with the exposure when shoting stills and my D4 was replaced with a new one.

Now this new one is very different, the stills exposures are great and so is the video, the FX quality is excellent, what I had expected from the outset.

So what's the gossip?

Well unless its hidden in a sub menu which I have yet to find, Nikon have removed he DX crop for video! The FX and CX are both there but DX has gone. This is interesting because the camera is marketed as having 3 video modes, and my new one only seems to have 2!

I shall be calling NPS this week to fine out more.....

By the way, welcome to the forum! (we forgot to do that in our exceitement).

I know from experience that there will always be a bigger and better camera. So that feeling is never going to go away. :)

But from what you describe, I think you're going to love your FX body.

Sorry, i forgot to mention, that i'll drop the 200euros for the 50mm 1.8G anyway. A friend of mine gave me his d7000 for a few days only with the 35mm lense, and i found out that i could use it for so many things. So a 50mm for full frame is a must, and it's so cheap :)

Sorry my D7000 comment was directed without seeing you liked to shoot mostly landscapes and had a set purpose for the FX body.

Just a different suggestion instead of the 105 micro, get the 70-300 VR and the 60 F2.8 micro. It would at least give you a little more range coverage and for about the same price. It is all up to your needs though and what you plan on investing in more in the future. I think you will be missing lots of the ranges most people routinely use with just the wide angle and 105. The 105 is however my favorite lens I own and pretty awesome.

Thanks everyone for the tips. Yes i'll shoot landscape most of the time, and when i get close to my subject, i still like wide angle lenses cause it gives very dramatic shots. I decided to go FX instead of DX, because from what i've read and saw, FX gives you much more detailed textures. Also, i wouldn't want to buy a d7000 (which i've used and it's great) and after 2-3 years decide that i need full frame. I prefer to pay more once, than pay and pay and pay smaller amounts. 3 years ago i spent 500 euros and bought a Sony superzoom point and shoot, and i felt like i had the best camera ever. Well, i don't anymore. So i don't want to go through the same thing with DX, since i have the money for full frame.
Thanks again for all the info, 70-300VR looks promising!

I didn't read it well enough. I guess if landscape is your main goal then the D700 might make sense. I would however maybe consider some different lenses. I think you will be kind of limited by just those two. Unless you need a camera right away I would wait and see what the D800 has in store.

sevencrossing said:
ooops

No worries mate...I got your back :D

golf007sd said:
Wrong!

ooops

sevencrossing said:

Remember the Nikon macros have no Vibration Reduction, so depending what you are shooting, use a high shutter speed and or a tripod.

Wrong! The 105 2.8 that we have been talking about dose HAVE VR. So does the 85mm 3.5 (dx). The ones that don't are the 40mm. 60mm's, and 200mm.

If you are not making large prints, then you should able to effectively double the the focal length, tripling it, might be pushing it a bit

Remember the Nikon macros have no Vibration Reduction,( sorry the 105 does ) so depending what you are shooting, use a high shutter speed and or a tripod.

You are probably going to be able to buy a 70-300 for the price difference between a D700 and an D800

PS
If you are into landscapes, don't be tempted to down size to DX. Other than the D3x or medium format the D700 is one the best landscape cameras you can get

For awesome high res panoramas, look at stitching several shots taken with the Macro

Your other option is to raid the piggy bank and get the Nikon 200mm f/4 macro

Well, in fairness John did say he wanted to do landscapes as well, and it sounds like thats his primary goal, so if thats the case, I suppose full frame does make sense.

I will say one thing though, from experience, the camera body for your first DSLR is important. I had been doing pohtography for quite some time when i bought my first DSLR, the d2h, and though I loved it, I honestly felt that was a mistake for me. I still use it occasionally, but it was too much body for me. When i "upgraded" (though in some ways it might have been a downgrade), I chose not to get the d3, because I'm an amatuer. I make decent money, and could afford it if I wanted, but I went with the d300, I found it was a body size more suited towards what I liked to do with it. I dont know if your camera store will let you rent, but if it will, I would suggest renting a body for a few days, before making such a big investment to get an idea of what you really like better.

Paperman said:
Not answering the question but it is somewhat related ....

Let's say we are able to compare shots from

a 12 Mp D300 with 200 mm lens - naturally becomes a 300mm FF equivalent
a 12 Mp D700 with 200 mm lens - cropped to give 300mm

Which one do you think will give a better/sharper result ( not exceeding enlargement print limit of the cropped D700 image ) ?

One would think the D700 but I know the bird guys stick to the APS-C thinking their solution is better . I wonder if anyone has had a chance to make such a comparasion.

Here is a thread similar to this http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2714

Not answering the question but it is somewhat related ....

Let's say we are able to compare shots from

a 12 Mp D300 with 200 mm lens - naturally becomes a 300mm FF equivalent
a 12 Mp D700 with 200 mm lens - cropped to give 300mm

Which one do you think will give a better/sharper result ( not exceeding enlargement print limit of the cropped D700 image ) ?

One would think the D700 but I know the bird guys stick to the APS-C thinking their solution is better . I wonder if anyone has had a chance to make such a comparasion.

Bland said:
Hi John, I agree with dslr in getting the 70-300VR. Not only because it's inexpensive but it's also an incredible lens.

In my opinion, to take a picture and crop 1/3 of the picture would be like pouring 2/3 of a glass of fine wine out and replacing that amount with water.

I guess I was thinking the same thing. Why get a D700 to take pictures at 105 mm and crop them down? Why not a DX body...if nothing else to cut the crop factor down. Plus with the savings instead the D700 you can get a 300 f4 or some other lens so you don't have to crop it at all. I brought it up in the other thread, but why go out shooting every picture knowing you are going to crop it. IMO it seems like the most unpaired setup for your intended use. You can take great computer background pictures with a nice P&S and not have to crop them one bit.

To drop $4400 on what you are thinking about seems like not really a good idea.

For the same price D7000, Nikon 105 F2.8 VR, Tokina 12-24 F4, Nikon 300 F4, Nikon 40 F2.8 micro, Nikon 35 F1.8, Nikon 50 F1.8 + Nikon SB700 flash. That is all about the same price.

Up to you though...just my $.02 Thinking about it though you didn't mention your use of the camera though...the cropping question was only directed at the telephoto pictures.

Jplatanou said:
How much (% of original size) would I have to crop, so that I could triple the focal length of a lense? (100mm to 300mm).
I

Hi John, I agree with dslr in getting the 70-300VR. Not only because it's inexpensive but it's also an incredible lens.

In my opinion, to take a picture and crop 1/3 of the picture would be like pouring 2/3 of a glass of fine wine out and replacing that amount with water.

You can get a relatively inexpensive tele zoom 70-300mm VR. I picked up one used in excellent shape for $350. Also, your example of getting 300mm results from a 100mm lens assumes you crop to 1/3 of the original image. The area would be 1/9th, so a 12MP D700 would provide only 1.3MP, not 4MP.

Thanks for the reply and the info! I suppose because of my lack of experience, i have much lower expectations than you guys. So, i'll try the crop-solution first, and if i'm not satisfied with the results, then i'll look into some mid-priced tele. thanks again!

Hello John,

Have look at this discussion. donaldejose was giving some good ideas for you to consider regarding cropping images: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4387

I personally own the Nikon 105 2.8 Macro and find it to be an outstanding lens. It is very fast and sharp! You will find it very rewarding. Moreover, if you ever want to get more than the 105 meters, just get one of the teleconverters that Nikon offers (i have the 1.7), it makes for a great team. Hence, buy both...if the budget allows.

As for the Tokina 16-28, I think it will serve your needs. A friend of mine has it and talks very highly about it. However, when I putt out my 14-24 2.8 he starts to droll. Needless to say, he has a hard time taking it off and giving it back to me.

With regards to the D700, yes it too will server your needs...in the fashion you intend to use it. Yet, given that the D800 is just around the corner, and if you are willing to wait, I would hold off for just a bit. Get the lenses first and other goodies that you may have in mind (flash, tripod/monopod, camera bags, etc..etc.), so that when you do pull the trigger, you will be ready to start shooting on day one.

Welcome to NR, good luck and happy shopping....cheers.

Is that you, donald? ;]

Hi everyone,

I am new to photography, and this is my first post, so please be gentle :)

I plan to buy my first DSLR soon, and I've chosen to go the FX road, probably a d700, or D800 (I'm gonna wait till january).

I have a question about cropping an image in order to get more zoom. How much (% of original size) would I have to crop, so that I could triple the focal length of a lense? (100mm to 300mm).
I don't want to print my photos, only view them on computer monitors, so I think a 4MP photo would be more than enough as a final cropped size. The reason I want to crop is because I cant spend so much money on telephoto lenses and because I'll probably not use them that much (I like ultra wide angle lenses for landscape). So I was thinking of getting the Tokina 16-28 for wide, and the Nikon 105mm for macro and occasionally for tele.
Would the 12MP D700 be enough to crop that much, or would I have to wait for the not-yet-announced D800?

(I hope this post makes some sense, english is not my native language)

Thank you, John.