i think you were confused with what lens he showed you... canon has the 85 1.8 and 2 85 1.2L lenses...

at any rate... im eager to see what canon has in store to replace the 5d2 because unless you want it for video, the d700 blows the canon out of the water imho.

what kind of irks me also is the fact that everyone clammors about DSLR video shooting but dont realize that it takes a TON of work to use a dslr and make great videos... you are much better off getting a flip camera instead. You have to be super dedicated to use a DSLR for video.

ithurtswhenipee said:
No one is wiping their brow and exclaiming, "whew! It's good thing that Nikon D[7000] whatever came out. Now we don't have to drop $30k on an entry level Red One rig."

I am!

ithurtswhenipee said:
It is also not intended to be practical for shooting birthday parties and dance recitals - thats what camcorders are for.

Precisely!

Back on-topic (almost):

I have to admit, after playing with a friend's Canon 7D one afternoon, I really liked it!

aetas said:
I dont myself use video(plus I dont have it)...

Well, it stands to reason then. ;-)

Way off subject but great name!!!

casperwb said:
Anyway, what is this stuff about having to shoot video with a DSLR? Everyone has gone crazy about this in the last year or so. Rent a professional video camera or buy one if video is that important to you.

well said, video cameras are so much eaiser to use, DSLR's are clumsy to use for video.

With most of the little extras that make video cameras easy to use missing on DSLR's what's the hype ?

sorry if this is off topic, just had to get my 2 cents in.

I am a still photographer. I never really had any intentions of venturing into the realm of video or film making mostly because of the steep financial investment in pro video gear. Then the D90 starts the HD DSLR video ball rolling. Suddenly I have within my grasp another creative tool rolled into something that I can not only afford, but I would already be using for still photography. Granted the D90's video is crap compared to pro gear, but it is far better than any P&S or standard def camcorder. And the D7000's video is far better then that. Still no competition for pro gear, but it isn't supposed to be. That is where I think you and others that poo-poo DSLR video are missing the point. No one is wiping their brow and exclaiming, "whew! It's good thing that Nikon D whatever came out. Now we don't have to drop $30k on an entry level Red One rig." It is also not intended to be practical for shooting birthday parties and dance recitals - thats what camcorders are for. What it is supposed to be is another tool rolled into an existing platform that is "good enough" to satisfy the creative energy that probably wasn't even there before HD DSLR.

I dont myself use video(plus I dont have it) It is not something i enjoy doing. But if i had it i might use it every now and then, maybe some slow motion stuff even. I think that some people want the best of both worlds casperweb. If they can be able to shoot video and photos let them. I for one will be happy with stills. If video gets more people to move over to nikon which gets more research which gets better cameras in the future more power to them. If someone does not like the video function dont use it right.

Anyway, what is this stuff about having to shoot video with a DSLR? Everyone has gone crazy about this in the last year or so. Rent a professional video camera or buy one if video is that important to you.

well said, video cameras are so much eaiser to use, DSLR's are clumsy to use for video.

With most of the little extras that make video cameras easy to use missing on DSLR's what's the hype ?

sorry if this is off topic, just had to get my 2 cents in.

I have had the 5Dmk2 and 7D (among others) from Canon. After a decade with Canon, I had enough of the Canon AF troubles and decided to try Nikons for a change. I prefer reliable AF to fast AF.

What you say about FX being an eye opener may be true for you. I knew what was in store for me when I got the full-frame 5Dmk2. So on surprise there (less noise, bigger pixels- same old stuff based on physics).

FX or DX are only different implementations of a tool. And just that. It really does not matter which is used if the image taken is what the photographer was after.
In fact, I prefer the DX format because the increased depth of field. I do not want to take sharp photos of people´s noses only when taking portraits.

I find the crop factor more useful than not. I seldom need a wider FOV than 16mm DX (or 24mm on FX) can produce. If I do, I prefer to make a panorama from multiple images taken with a 85mm lens (no distortion)

--

Anyway, what is this stuff about having to shoot video with a DSLR? Everyone has gone crazy about this in the last year or so. Rent a professional video camera or buy one if video is that important to you.

My only question is: what kind of wedding photographer let you play with his cameras during a wedding for half an hour?! ;-)

Yes good points it really comes down to what kind of shooting you are doing and which camera format best suites your needs. However, should the man switch camera brands to get the camera with the best specs thats another question and one that has been well debated before. Nikon never answered Canon in terms of the 5D Mark II although many people say the D700 is better. What kind of lenses do you have there Poo Party?

FX is great if it suits your target subjects.. but DX is also great (and cheaper) if it suits your target subject. so It really is subjective and you should get the tool that best fits your needs. I will probably get an FX some day (soon? the D700 when it drops in price more) But DX fits my primary subjects better.

I believe that DX and FX each have different purpose.. I don't usually take wide shots and I tend to do more telephoto. I thought about buying the D700 but I figured FX lenses will cost more and won't have as much reach as DX could. I saved up some money that I could have gotten D700 and I used it to get great lens like 70-200mm VR and more. So I think it really depends how you use your camera.

Can't say I agree with the conclusions about FX versus DX. My D300 gets the most use here. My D700 goes out the least. However I still feel right now the D700 is one of the best buys in DSLR period. Better get your glass straightened out though is you go FX. I am still using mostly FX Nikkors from my F5 which I still own , will never sell, but almost never use now.

It is a smarter idea to invest in glass first, but not a good idea usually to weight for a camera body especially if the body isn't made yet. With either the D700 or 5D Mark II you can't go wrong. The new D7K sounds great, but not full frame which poo party sounds like he wants. Tough call here...

If the tech in the D7000 is any indication, the D800(or whatever) might really be worth the wait. the OP doesn't seem to be in any rush, so if you have any money to spend now, get the glass and wait for the body.

Yes my brother uses the 5 D Mark II and its a wonderful camera. We have argued for hours over Nikon's superior glass to Canon, but the Mark II takes great shots. FX is the way to go I think so you would really enjoy the jump. Why not jump on the D700 now? I bet there still won't be a refresh for another half year despite various reports supporting early 2011.

Was at my sisters wedding, and the photog was using canon, as ive become accustomed to seeing at weddings. Approached him, got to talking, and told him i was considering entering the FX world… and, with used 5d MK2’s being cheaper than d700’s, and the fact that they have video, and higher res, am considering switching to canon. I asked about the autofocus, and he stated it has some faults… He went on to say he’s impressed by Nikons latest efforts, and is looking forward to a d700 upgrade, and may consider switching. He also showed my a 85 1.4 that a client managed to bump and have it drop off a table, only to leave a nice dent in the filter ring, but the lens worked perfectly. All canon gear, no sigma, tokina, or tamron.

Anyway, I got about a half an hour on the 5dmk2, and also the old 5d. Going into this, I was considering the d7000 for the high iso, but after playing around with the 24mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 on FX bodies, ive concluded that ill keep saving for FX. This is coming from a current D60 owner, and the depth of field on FX is just incredible. Blows DX out of the water.

So, whenever I hear people say that FX is soooo much better, I never know what exactly that means… but now I do. It really is soooo much better. High iso, amazing DOF, and the feeling quality in ones hands is something that my d60 is def missing. Cant speak too much for the d300 line, although I do remember saying my d60 felt like a toy after holding one of those… and it is.

Seriously, all the DX-ophiles hear ranting and raving about the d7000, need to spend some quality time with an FX body and a nice fast lens. It’ll change your perception of photography.

Respectfully yours
- Future FX user waiting for a D700 replacement

P.S. Dont bother with the original 5D... autofocus was super slow.