PDA

View Full Version : Which full-frame dSLR?



shinji
27th December 2008, 04:04 PM
Hoping that I could get some opinion from MT photography brain trust by asking 2 certain full-frame dSLRs:

Canon 5d Mk II

Nikon D700

These two cameras have been compared by ppl on the web who gave real world experience as well as ppl just comparing specs of the two and looking at sample photographs. Anyway, after trawling the web for weeks both give conflicting reviews and comments. So I'm still undecided as to which I get.

I've decided and settled for a full-frame but the question is which one. I will be getting camera body only and get a 50mm prime lens seperately.

A bit of background, Ive been using Dad's old film SLRs being a couple of Canons. He does have a few lenses but due to bad storage from moving overseas the lenses have gone a bit moldy hehe. So, I'm not bounded by my previous inventory of lenses and have a clean slate :)

So far I'm getting the impression that the new 5d2 is most appropriate in the studios and/or around predictable lighting conditions. Whilst the D700 is all about getting that shot with its advantage in having the most flexible aperture, shutter and ISO modes.

Thanks in advance

B

Supreme
27th December 2008, 04:28 PM
Must everyone post a thread about every purchase they make? There's heaps of reviews on the internet. Go to dpreview and see which one you like best? Between Nikon and Canon it basically comes down to which brand you prefer.. you can't go wrong with either.

grorr76
27th December 2008, 04:31 PM
as above, its like choosing between a holden and ford

kevinnugent
27th December 2008, 05:09 PM
Gee, here I was thinking this was a forum and part of that idea is to discuss things like...oh..... getting a new camera. Silly me.

shinji, honestly in my opinion either are great but given your background as stated I'd be looking at the 700. I have the D90 and the Nikon system just suits me better.

Good luck with it.

Kevin

kyte
27th December 2008, 05:52 PM
Hoping that I could get some opinion from MT photography brain trust by asking 2 certain full-frame dSLRs:

Canon 5d Mk II

Nikon D700


Have you considered the Sony at all? Just thought I would throw it into the mix... A900.

I think I might be looking for a full frame for my next but I am thinking I might prefer the 5D rather than the 5D MkII... just because with the MkII they are cramming heaps more pixels onto the same sensor. I reckon it must have the same effect as has been had on compacts and semi compact cameras with tiny sensors trying to cope with 8 and 10MP.

El Guardo
27th December 2008, 06:43 PM
So far I'm getting the impression that the new 5d2 is most appropriate in the studios and/or around predictable lighting conditions. Whilst the D700 is all about getting that shot with its advantage in having the most flexible aperture, shutter and ISO modes.

Duncan Davidson - D700 Field Report (http://duncandavidson.com/2008/11/d700-field-report-from-web-20.html)
A nice write up by someone who earns a living from photography, has been a longtime Canon user, and recently added a Nikon to his arsenal. Conclusion is very similar to that which you suggest above: if you're in a studio or doing landscapes then probably the Canon (unless you require a specific Nikon lens); if you work in low light, Nikon is a must.

new2mac
27th December 2008, 07:15 PM
You won't go wrong with either.
The only difference/advantage is the Canon's video capability.

Best advice - go to a store and hold both cameras. Take your own card and rack off a few shots if you're allowed. You'll know which is for you.
As said it's like buying a car - you can feel the right fit.

digoxin
27th December 2008, 07:51 PM
This my take from taking over 5000k shots on the D700 and reading about the 5DM2 and Sony A900 online.

FIle resolution - 5DM2=A900>> D700
Low light - D700>5DM2>>A900
Autofocus/Built - D700>>A900>5DM2

If I the money was not an issue I would get the Sony A900 and Carl Zeiss for absolute resolution and the D700 for low light capabilities.

The D700 has allowed me to shoot in ways I would otherwise not be able too. With iso 6400 and 50mm at F2 the digital sensor is able to see better than what my eye can see. The autofocus is also extremely good in low light with the light assist. With the D200 the iso 1600 was worse than the iso 6400 and the autofocus was less 'sure' than the D700. I was plenty happy with the resolution of the D200 so 12mp is fine with the D700.

soulman
27th December 2008, 08:22 PM
They're both good cameras from all reports. I would choose the one made by the company with the best range of lenses for the kind if stuff you wish to do. Lenses last much longer than camera bodies these days.



Must everyone post a thread about every purchase they make? There's heaps of reviews on the internet.Maybe the OP has already looked at a bunch of reviews and is now looking for some personal opinions. Remember that replying to threads is entirely optional and you are always welcome to just look at another thread if you don't like this one.

shinji
27th December 2008, 11:43 PM
Thanks for all the inputs so far :) and wouldn't mind more suggestions.

The video capability of the 5d mk2, to me, is just a bit gimmicky. I wanted a full frame cos it is the most similar to a film camera.

Soulman, you're right and I have had a look a bunch (more than a bunch really) reviews. Most of them are somewhat biased towards to the amount of lenses they already have.

B

jeremy_warnock
28th December 2008, 12:44 AM
shinji - new2mac is right, we cant make this choice for you both are outstanding cameras and will serve you well. Go to the shop pick both and play with them, see which feels more natural and which menu system you prefer. From a lot of reviews/comparisons I have read the D700 seems to be just crossing the line first ahead of the 5DMK2. The video aspect is still a gimick to photographers looking in that price range handy gimmick but a gimmick until af comes with the video most wont use it for much, but the low light is a home run nikon have been belting. Also remember the 5D seems to have some issue with black pixels at the moment and no fix has been seen as yet

chris
28th December 2008, 02:10 AM
I come from a mainly Canon background - so take this with that in mind.

I currently have the following cameras - 20D, 30D, 5D, 1D3, 5D2. I shoot weddings mainly - but have shot a variety of subjects from landscapes to fashion.

Either camera you are considering is going to be fantastic. Don't get caught up with all the pixel peeping that goes on in the web forums.

I love the 5D2 and it works well - I am sure the Nikon would too. However, both are going to be able to get the job done. Sure each have their own strengths - but neither are going to help you with your composition or your understanding of light.

Look at what you want to shoot and see which brand has the better range of lenses for that. You are going to be stuck with your lenses a lot longer than your body.

Personally I think Canon has the better range of lenses for full frame. Nikon's ultra wide zoom is better than Canon's though.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions. I don't have the black dot issue with my 5D2 body.

bernie234
28th December 2008, 02:35 AM
Go the Nikon D700..... just a great camera, yes the Nikon D3 is better, but when you are ready to trade up there will be a lot more on offer from Nikon.

I do not know a lot about Canon, but the best way to make up your mind would be to go into a quality camera store and handle the 2 camera bodies side by side.

I shoot with a D700 and find the results better than I was ever getting from film.

shinji
28th December 2008, 03:55 AM
Again thank you guys for all the great input! And do keep them coming!



Best advice - go to a store and hold both cameras. Take your own card and rack off a few shots if you're allowed. You'll know which is for you.
As said it's like buying a car - you can feel the right fit.

I have held the 5D2 and the D700 in the camera shop and had them side by side. Personally I find the front/main dial "below" the shutter release with the D700 is more ergonomic c.f. the 5D2 where the dial is situated "top-behind" the shutter release. Maybe I got small hands (as well as short fingers) and reaching for the dial on the 5D2 is a bit of a "reach". However, the hand grips on both cameras I find it as equally comfortable. The D700 body has a heavier feel on the hand compared with the 5D2 body and it is evident in the mass of the camera shown in the specifications.

Perhaps I am still thinking in an "old-school" kinda way like with film cameras. The reason I said that is because the Canons my dad "lend" me is at least 15 year old technology when I picked up SLR photography and the best thing about is it still works! (albeit not great) All I had to do was change the battery for the light meter and I could use the camera. Maybe buying a dSLR nowadays is more like buying a computer, where you can't really (nor expect to) keep a computer for that long. With the digital and electronic parts in the dSLRs, these things degrade/deteriorate much more quickly than the old mechanical SLRs. Alternatively, does dSLRs need "future-proofing" like when we buy a computer?

I made the OP not with the aim to "let you guys to decide" for me nor did I have the intention to. All I was trying to do is getting some real-life user experience from the MT brain trust. Chris made an excellent point about neither of the cameras would make one's composition nor the understanding of light any better. For me, photography is about taking the best shot I can using the strengths and weaknesses of your own camera (tool). I am also not a big fan of post-processing of picture to enhance or "spice" things up to make it look better cos I believe a good picture is what comes straight out of the camera.

Chris,

How do you find the Auto-ISO function on the 5D2? Could it be better implemented or having more flexibility a la D700?

In addition, how about the rate of the continuous shooting mode? (5D2: 3.6fps, D700: 5fps)

Don't worry I am not trying to spark a great debate on auto-ISO and etc. I am sincerely asking cos you do have real life experience with the 5D2 shooting weddings where the above can play a part in getting the best shot possible.

Thanks

B

BLINDER
28th December 2008, 05:55 AM
I'm a D1x, D2x, and as of last weekend, a D700 user.
I would have loved the D3x (a camera I'd been waiting for very specifically) but that particular treasure is priced beyond reason.
The D3x, like my previous two cameras, would have been useful cause I have large hands and like the way the big cameras balance in them! I also like the way of Nikon of course - the thoughtful layout feels far superior to other cameras. My bro-in-law just bought a Canon 450d which I played w/ on Xmas day. I just get used to the aesthetics and ergonomics of the Canon's (but as I've maintained on this forum I don't care which system anyone buys into - the choice is yours).
The D700 is too small for me BUT the files are beautiful. I'm somewhat stunned by the camera's ability to pull information when I would have thought it would be more like my D2x. (When you shoot lots of frames you get a very quick instinct for how a photo will "render").
THe 700 has a 3inch LCD - a great, whacking sized screen (lots of other cams are the same sized of course now). It's let down, to my eyes, in the inaccurate colour and density info it provides. Very misleading. Look @ it for composition only.

Alternatively, does dSLRs need "future-proofing" like when we buy a computer?

No.
The camera you buy today WILL service you for a decade or more.
The good camera's (and we'll place the 5D and the 700 amongst them) are excellent.
Do you need more megapixels? No!
The files are fantastic. They blow up exceptionally well.
There will be more development in sensor technology that will make for better imagery but it is still a way of yet. Buy now and fear nothing.

I am also not a big fan of post-processing of picture to enhance or "spice" things up to make it look better cos I believe a good picture is what comes straight out of the camera.

Welcome to the world of digital.
No offence intended but that attitude is incredibly stale.
I take photo's everyday. I shoot RAW exclusively. Every one of my shots is post processed and is in keeping with the vision I had of the image at the time of exposure.
Nowadays a good picture comes out of the computer for me! And you'd honestly think it was the scene I took. You wouldn't necessarily pick any manipulation.
I find it strange that people have this "honour" code in regard to non-manipulated imagery. It's misplaced.

oneplusone
28th December 2008, 07:52 AM
Exactly Blinder. How many of the truly memeorable shots that have been saan in the past have had NO post work done? I'll hazard a guess and say none.

Even back in the days of film, shots were tweaked for exposure and 'retouched' in the darkroom. It was much more of an art, but then so is good photoshop/aperture/lightroom work.

El Guardo
28th December 2008, 10:49 AM
Luminous Landscape - Sony A900 v. Canon 5D MkII v. Nikon D3X. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml)
A very practical conclusion when it comes to full frame cameras.

timwhite15
29th December 2008, 10:57 AM
This is not an easy decision (I am a D700 user). My 2 bob's worth here is that you should look at your style of photography, and then checkout the lenses available in each system that suit it. The Canon system appears to have more reasonably priced options available in the their telephoto lenses than does Nikon. However, if you like lenses like the 14-24 and 24-70, the Nikon ones are supposed to be about the best available. Personally, I have not found the D700 lacking in the sharpness department. I use the two zooms mentioned above amongst other glass.

Also important to a lesser degree to a hobbyist are the ergonomics. In my opinion, the Nikon rules supreme in this area. That's just opinion though as this is a subjective area.

Remember the bodies come and go over the years, but the lenses are more of an investment - so don't skimp on them.

Hope this helps.

Phase
29th December 2008, 12:01 PM
The D700 is the ticket.

The feel of the camera is superb, the prism is gorgeous and brighter than the Canon's, it has 51 Auto Focus points instead of the Nine on the Canon's.

The body feel rugged, and it is, with a metal alloy body, and is fully weather sealed, and shoots faster than the 5D as well.

I guess if you simply must have moar megapixels than anything else, sure, hit up the Canon, but in almost every other area, the D700 is my preference.

MissionMan
29th December 2008, 12:20 PM
Again thank you guys for all the great input! And do keep them coming!



I have held the 5D2 and the D700 in the camera shop and had them side by side. Personally I find the front/main dial "below" the shutter release with the D700 is more ergonomic c.f. the 5D2 where the dial is situated "top-behind" the shutter release. Maybe I got small hands (as well as short fingers) and reaching for the dial on the 5D2 is a bit of a "reach". However, the hand grips on both cameras I find it as equally comfortable. The D700 body has a heavier feel on the hand compared with the 5D2 body and it is evident in the mass of the camera shown in the specifications.

Perhaps I am still thinking in an "old-school" kinda way like with film cameras. The reason I said that is because the Canons my dad "lend" me is at least 15 year old technology when I picked up SLR photography and the best thing about is it still works! (albeit not great) All I had to do was change the battery for the light meter and I could use the camera. Maybe buying a dSLR nowadays is more like buying a computer, where you can't really (nor expect to) keep a computer for that long. With the digital and electronic parts in the dSLRs, these things degrade/deteriorate much more quickly than the old mechanical SLRs. Alternatively, does dSLRs need "future-proofing" like when we buy a computer?

I made the OP not with the aim to "let you guys to decide" for me nor did I have the intention to. All I was trying to do is getting some real-life user experience from the MT brain trust. Chris made an excellent point about neither of the cameras would make one's composition nor the understanding of light any better. For me, photography is about taking the best shot I can using the strengths and weaknesses of your own camera (tool). I am also not a big fan of post-processing of picture to enhance or "spice" things up to make it look better cos I believe a good picture is what comes straight out of the camera.

Chris,

How do you find the Auto-ISO function on the 5D2? Could it be better implemented or having more flexibility a la D700?

In addition, how about the rate of the continuous shooting mode? (5D2: 3.6fps, D700: 5fps)

Don't worry I am not trying to spark a great debate on auto-ISO and etc. I am sincerely asking cos you do have real life experience with the 5D2 shooting weddings where the above can play a part in getting the best shot possible.

Thanks

B

What do you intend using the camera for? If you don't need the extra MP then I would go for the D700.

chris
29th December 2008, 02:18 PM
In answer to your questions re frame rate and auto ISO.

Auto ISO works fine on the Canon - but I haven't used the Nikon - so hard to compare.

As to frame rate - depends what you want to shoot. If you are going to be shooting sports a lot than the Nikon is a better option. If you want to shoot landscapes and high detail large prints than go for the Canon.

I have a 1D3 for fast shooting - so it is not an issue for me. That said the 5D2 has a fast enough frame rate for my wedding work.

Once again - consider the lens offering from both brands. This is really important long term.

I just want to express - as a professional photographer either of these cameras would suit me fine. I would have no problem shooting a wedding on my 20D if I had to - so all this arguing about who has the best camera drives me nuts. The modern Nikon and Canon DSLR's you are looking at are going to get the job done for you.

I would not worry about the specs so much, check out which ones works more intuitively for you in your hand and who has the best lenses on offer for what you want to shoot and buy it.

Than go out and work on your technique with your new camera - you will love it whichever one you buy.

Cheers,

Chris

BLINDER
29th December 2008, 03:04 PM
Once again - consider the lens offering from both brands. This is really important long term.

I just want to express - as a professional photographer either of these cameras would suit me fine. I would have no problem shooting a wedding on my 20D if I had to - so all this arguing about who has the best camera drives me nuts. The modern Nikon and Canon DSLR's you are looking at are going to get the job done for you.

I would not worry about the specs so much, check out which ones works more intuitively for you in your hand and who has the best lenses on offer for what you want to shoot and buy it.


I'm going to agree and disagree with you Chris.
Agree on lens choice. Lenses get the job done and both Canon and Nikon sometimes divert, so it becomes real important to sort out what you want and need from a lens in relation to the type of photography you might pursue.
Agree on the fact that either Nikon or Canon would suit but disagree on the fact that they are the same animal. They're not. I quite simply cannot handle the Canon's. The menu system, the backward lens operation, the control placements all make for an awkward and a universally different camera from Nikon.
Others will say the same of Nikon of course!
The best camera is in the eye and hand of the user.
That's why we all keep hammering the point of handling the things in a shop as you said Chris.
Agreed on not worrying about specs. Whether it's an 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, or quadrillion megapixel camera is IRRELEVANT. The cameras built today make brilliant images irrespective of brand.

The Soopa Villainz
29th December 2008, 05:30 PM
I would recommend the D700 all the way. 12.1 MP is more then enough. I'm a D90 owner, and in my view you can not go wrong with Nikon.

Currawong
29th December 2008, 10:02 PM
x3 or x4 about considering the lenses carefully. What moved me personally to go with Nikon instead of Canon was that I liked the menu and button layout better overall. I know at least with the Nikon cameras you can download the manual and read through it. However, with the latest ranges from both companies, they are so close in everything but lenses really.

Supreme and gorr76: Please consider not posting if you don't have something more helpful to add than what you did.

shinji
29th December 2008, 11:09 PM
thanks guy for all the responses. Much appreciated :)

I have also been looking at lenses over the christmas weekend and trying to get an idea of how much price wise they differ for the lenses I'm looking at. But sometimes the comparison gets a bit hard cos the Canon offer a L series lens. Does Nikon have a similar sort of class system like Canon?

Hope this thread doesn't turn into a Canon Vs Nikon contest. Cos I aleady seen too many of those on other forums and don't want to see that on MT :)

timwhite15
30th December 2008, 08:42 AM
thanks guy for all the responses. Much appreciated :)

I have also been looking at lenses over the christmas weekend and trying to get an idea of how much price wise they differ for the lenses I'm looking at. But sometimes the comparison gets a bit hard cos the Canon offer a L series lens. Does Nikon have a similar sort of class system like Canon?

Hope this thread doesn't turn into a Canon Vs Nikon contest. Cos I aleady seen too many of those on other forums and don't want to see that on MT :)

This isn't a Canon Vs. Nikon thing - there is nothing constructive about those wars :rolleyes:

Nikon doesn't designate "L" series like Canon. Traditionally Nikon has placed a thin gold band at the filter end of it's better quality lenses. They are not cheap, but good things rarely are. For examples, you can check out the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 in the zooms - if you must have a zoom. Otherwise any of the primes will deliver images where you will be the limiting factor, not the gear. Canon is the same. Can you please let us know what your shooting style is?

u98925
31st December 2008, 12:00 PM
Keep the second hand market in mind, i just picked up a Canon 1Ds2 for under $3k that had only taken 1900 shots.

decryption
31st December 2008, 12:27 PM
What lenses you need really depends on what you're taking photos of and how much money you have :)

shinji
31st December 2008, 11:50 PM
I haven't really developed a particular style of photography yet. However, I think I'll be most likely taken candid shots of ppl around me and different scenes that I'm in. So the lighting conditions will be unpredictable. I'm also plannng to try my hand at sports photography. Hence besides the 50 prime I will be looking at some fast zooms as well down the track. Any suggestions?

decryption
1st January 2009, 12:08 AM
I haven't really developed a particular style of photography yet. However, I think I'll be most likely taken candid shots of ppl around me and different scenes that I'm in. So the lighting conditions will be unpredictable. I'm also plannng to try my hand at sports photography. Hence besides the 50 prime I will be looking at some fast zooms as well down the track. Any suggestions?

70-200 f/2.8 - no question. That is the lens for you. Also get the 80-400 VR (Nikon - I'm sure Canon has a similar lens) for candids. Far away = good.

dotnet
1st January 2009, 02:35 AM
Far away = good.

Yes, that's the reason all the 'togs at catwalk events sit in the last row with their 600mm lenses :rolleyes:

Cheers
Steffen.

decryption
1st January 2009, 07:38 AM
Yes, that's the reason all the 'togs at catwalk events sit in the last row with their 600mm lenses :rolleyes:

Cheers
Steffen.

Runway photos are not candids. The models know you're looking at them. 80-400 gives you a lot of range for taking photos of people when they don't suspect it. The 70-200 is good too. :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Anthony.

Phase
1st January 2009, 08:54 AM
70-200 f/2.8 - no question. That is the lens for you. Also get the 80-400 VR (Nikon - I'm sure Canon has a similar lens) for candids. Far away = good.

Wait a few months before purchasing either of these lenses

I'm practically drowning in reports these are being refreshed, very soon.

jetsetkiwi
1st January 2009, 10:44 AM
You would hope so, the 80-400 focuses so slow!

chris
1st January 2009, 10:58 AM
Candid street photography should not be done with a big lens on the front of your camera preferably. Something like the 85 1.8 or 135 2 (both from Canon) are very well priced - especially the 85 and would make great candid lenses while walking the street.

Both are quick to focus, very sharp and allow great opportunities at night with their large apertures.

In terms of sports photography - what are you planning on shooting? The 80-400 variants are good only in bright light - so if you are planning on shooting indoor sport or night sport this will not suit.

How far from the action will you be? This will determine the focal length needed.

Cheers,

Chris

Kirium
1st January 2009, 03:24 PM
Wait a few months before purchasing either of these lenses

I'm practically drowning in reports these are being refreshed, very soon.

I hope an updated 80-400 AF-S is released at PMA (as opposed to just being announced..)

jayda
1st January 2009, 10:57 PM
If you are doing sports photography then you should go with the Nikon D700. The Canon 5d/II cameras really aren't fast enough for high action sports.

timwhite15
2nd January 2009, 08:27 AM
If candids and street photography are your thing, then may I suggest a fast prime lens instead of the relatively slow and physically large+heavy zooms. You would do well with anything from 50mm to 135mm, with the 85/1.4 or 85/1.8 being my choice. Sounds like you don't need the most megapixels, but maximum flexibility in a wide range of lighting conditions. I would recommend the Nikon D700 and one of the 85 primes (I have both). There is no substitute for wide aperture. You would expect to pay about $600 for the f1.8 version and about $1300 for the f1.4 version. There are plenty of professionals out there making a living from kit like that, so it will not be your limiting factor. Call Bruce at ECS in Sydney if going the Nikon route and do it soon as Nikon prices are supposed to be rising sometime in Jan to reflect the exchange rates.

Good luck with it all - you really can't go wrong if either system.

shinji
13th January 2009, 04:01 PM
After a bit more physically looking and comparing the two cameras viz. D700 & 5Dmk2 I have decided to get the D700. Now it is just a matter of time to go to various shops to get the best price :)

However, I have encountered a slightly different problem now being I was originally going to get a 50 f1.4 D or G first so I could learn and play with the camera but I am planning to go to an overseas holiday in the next few months thus I need a different type of lens as my first lens purchase. :(

I am looking for good glass quality and versatility....so one of the zooms may be required. I am thinking of the 24-70mm f2.8G or the 28-70mm f2.8D since they are good reviews with them. Are they good for travelling? in regards to shooting different landscapes, buildings and some "I was here" holiday shots.

Thanks in advance and I'm open to other suggestions :)

B

dotnet
13th January 2009, 04:17 PM
I'd still get the 50mm f/1.4. It's a very versatile lens, faster and sharper than the zooms and of course smaller and lighter.

Some 15 years ago a friend's dad used to be highly regarded for his exquisite travel slide shows. He took every single shot with a Rollei rangefinder and 50mm lens...

Cheers
Steffen.

Phase
13th January 2009, 04:32 PM
I am looking for good glass quality and versatility....so one of the zooms may be required. I am thinking of the 24-70mm f2.8G or the 28-70mm f2.8D since they are good reviews with them. Are they good for travelling? in regards to shooting different landscapes, buildings and some "I was here" holiday shots.



B

The 24-70mm 2.8 is obscenely sharp. I cannot recommend a better midrange zoom. It consistently out-resolves Prime lens' in the same range. If you can afford it, you cannot put better glass in front of your sensor.

I love my 24-70.

Although, join the queue, the lens is still, a year after launch, in incredibly high demand.

melbmac
13th January 2009, 04:57 PM
Check out www.slrgear.com for some lens reviews (mostly based on fact).

shinji
13th January 2009, 06:37 PM
Although, join the queue, the lens is still, a year after launch, in incredibly high demand.

damn!

Would the older(?) 28-70mm f2.8D worth considering? Although, a lot ppl are complaining about the weight and given Nikon don't tend to make lite cameras

Phase
13th January 2009, 06:46 PM
damn!

Would the older(?) 28-70mm f2.8D worth considering? Although, a lot ppl are complaining about the weight and given Nikon don't tend to make lite cameras

I'd personally skip it and go straight for the 24-70.

It is utterly breath taking.

BLINDER
13th January 2009, 06:47 PM
damn!

Would the older(?) 28-70mm f2.8D worth considering? Although, a lot ppl are complaining about the weight and given Nikon don't tend to make lite cameras

I've got the 28-70 and it is a real treat to use. Never had an issue with sharpness.
However, if you're using it on a DX format camera you may be wishing you had the extra reach of the 24!!
I've got the D2x and the D700 and it has become my no. 1 lens on the D700 and it will probably never get put back on the D2x.
It's not light at all but I'm 6ft4 in a 100kg frame and I find it ideal.

El Guardo
13th January 2009, 06:50 PM
It is utterly breath taking.

+1

shinji
13th January 2009, 07:35 PM
Thanks guys for the quick replies. I guess now I have to cough up my hard earn for this sharp beauty!

Just one more question for long term planning. Is there a difference between 50mm f1.4D and the 1.4G with respect to IQ and build qualities? Cos at the moment you can almost get 3 1.4D for the price of one 1.4G!!

digoxin
13th January 2009, 07:52 PM
I am getting the new 50 AFS next week. I have been using a 50 AFD for the past 10 yrs. I find the AF slower compared to a 28-70 AFS but my main criticism is that it is quite noisy. I hope the AFS will be improved in this regards. My 50 AFD was soft at 1.4 but was great at F2+. The new 50 AFS the same nano coating as the 14-24 and 24-70 so the IQ should be improved. I am getting a 50 AFS for $555 aud. Where can you get a 50 AFD for $200? The 50 1.8 sells for $170.

chrome
13th January 2009, 08:03 PM
damn!

Would the older(?) 28-70mm f2.8D worth considering? Although, a lot ppl are complaining about the weight and given Nikon don't tend to make lite cameras

You're meant to suffer for your art.

I'm insanely jealous.

Too much cool stuff to buy!

dotnet
14th January 2009, 02:13 AM
I am getting the new 50 AFS next week. I have been using a 50 AFD for the past 10 yrs. I find the AF slower compared to a 28-70 AFS but my main criticism is that it is quite noisy. I hope the AFS will be improved in this regards. My 50 AFD was soft at 1.4 but was great at F2+. The new 50 AFS the same nano coating as the 14-24 and 24-70 so the IQ should be improved.

I just want to point out that the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G does not use nano crystal coating.

Re comparison between the AF-D and the AF-S G, Bjørn Rørlsett has a few comments on his lens review site (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html).

Cheers
Steffen.

digoxin
14th January 2009, 06:07 AM
I just want to point out that the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G does not use nano crystal coating.

Re comparison between the AF-D and the AF-S G, Bjørn Rørlsett has a few comments on his lens review site (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html).

Cheers
Steffen.

My mistake. I was listening to Jasin Boland talk about his gear and he talked about his having nano coating.

Built For Speed (http://apacappzone.intel.com/au/builtforspeed/tutorial.aspx)

shinji
14th January 2009, 04:26 PM
The 24-70mm 2.8 is obscenely sharp. I cannot recommend a better midrange zoom. It consistently out-resolves Prime lens' in the same range. If you can afford it, you cannot put better glass in front of your sensor.

I love my 24-70.



Was doing some further reading at another forum (which is specific to Nikons) quite a few of them are complaining about the front-focus problem from the 24-70mm f2.8G.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

timwhite15
19th January 2009, 05:07 PM
Was doing some further reading at another forum (which is specific to Nikons) quite a few of them are complaining about the front-focus problem from the 24-70mm f2.8G.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

I've got no issue with my D700 and 24-70 combo and have never had an out-of-box quality problem with Nikon. Images are absolutely razor sharp - the lens is stunningly good. Any issue you encounter with back/front focus would be dealt with by the dealer/Nikon Australia.

Also before declaring a "hardware problem", you need to invest some time and effort to completely understand the autofocus systems built into these cameras - there are quite a few config options and thus opportunities for user error.

Phase
19th January 2009, 05:14 PM
Was doing some further reading at another forum (which is specific to Nikons) quite a few of them are complaining about the front-focus problem from the 24-70mm f2.8G.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

I have never had an issue with mine, or even heard of one in real world operations.

Internet forums are more often posted to when there's an issue, rather than when everything is working perfectly. So keep that in mind.

Plus any tiny calibration can be done in-body on a D700. So I wouldn't worry.

shinji
19th January 2009, 05:37 PM
Thanks guys for the replies :) and thanks for clearing a few things up for me before I plonked down my hard-earn

I am now officially a D700 owner ! :D

Picked up a D700 and the 24-700mm f2.8 at the same time last Saturday nite. Was charging the batteries till Sun arvo so didn't have a lot of daylight time to play with it

The user manual is almost an inch thick! :eek: A lot of info to digest and set-up the camera the way I want it to.

By the time I got to outside to shoot a few pic it was dark already so that wasn't so good. I did some nite shots (without a tripod!) and I suck at it! Either that or I got Parkinson's disease heheh

B

dotnet
19th January 2009, 07:58 PM
Picked up a D700 and the 24-700mm f2.8

Wow! Can you post an image of that lens? :rolleyes:

Cheers
Steffen.

shinji
20th January 2009, 03:45 PM
Wow! Can you post an image of that lens? :rolleyes:

Cheers
Steffen.

Sure! I just need to get an extra wide angle lens to fit that lens into one frame :p

my bad....

the 24-70mm f2.8 is quite heavy itself. Wonder how heavy would the 24-700mm would be!! lol

Alessiman
20th January 2009, 03:54 PM
Sure! I just need to get an extra wide angle lens to fit that lens into one frame :p

my bad....

the 24-70mm f2.8 is quite heavy itself. Wonder how heavy would the 24-700mm would be!! lol

You have the same body and lens as my D700 setup. I also lashed out and bought a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 as well.

The next purchase for me will be an SB900