D700 too much of a camera for me?

[anubis404]

Your choice of lenses above tell a different story.

Huh?

 

[inTempus]

If you're worried about the weight, work out and buy a god strap.

Can you post a link the God straps? I would like to check those out, they sound interesting.

 

[blash]

used D200 for sure ($500-$600 on eBay). Much better to sink the money in glass rather than bodies. You can then pick up a 50mm f/1.4D and some nice zoom lenses like an 18-200 or, for reaaaaaaly nice pro glass, a 70-200 or 24-70 which cost like $1600-$1700 each.

If you want landscapes or wide in general, either be prepared to spend an enormous amount of money not just on the D700 (to get rid of the crop factor) but also on the appropriate lenses.

Budget route - go back to film, F100 is a fully automatic body, $280 used combined with a 24mm lens at $240 used means just over $500 for kick-ass landscape shots. Professional landscape photographers still shoot film anyways, why do something different than the professionals? But from what I see in your flickr gallery, wide isn't really your thing, so it's irrelevant - the crop factor will help you on the telephoto end of things.

 

[001fj]

Hello,

Can someone explain why some cameras are preferred for landscapes, while others for action, and others for portraits...etc? What is differentiating certain cameras from others to do a certain job "better"?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Huh?

I thought the same thing too, you've got some pretty nice lenses..

 

[inTempus]

Hello,

Can someone explain why some cameras are preferred for landscapes, while others for action, and others for portraits...etc? What is differentiating certain cameras from others to do a certain job "better"?

Take the Canon 5D2 for example, it has a full frame sensor which allows it to capture more of the scene. This is generally desirable for landscape photographers trying to maximize FoV (field of view) coverage and to get the most out of their lenses like ultra-wide angles. The trade off is that you have slower shutter speeds (3.9 frames per second) than you would have with a crop sensor camera like the 50D (6.3 frames per second). It's view finder also has 98% coverage whereas the 50D's only has 95%.

For sports you're typically trying to track and shoot fairly distant subjects that are moving quickly. You want to get as many continues shots as fast as you can to try and capture that perfect shot. The shutters typically work faster on the crop sensor bodies like the D300 or 50D. That's where high frames per second comes into play. You also want a fast and accurate auto focus system. The crop sensor captures less of the scene but they work well with telephoto lenses so the lack of FoV coverage is a trade-off people can live with.

The D700 can do either role well. The D700 gives you a razor sharp AF system in a mid-tier body. Canon requires you to step-up to their 1D series for improved AF. The D700 borrows the AF system from the M3 which gives it 51 AF points. About the only thing a crop body like the D300 has over the D700 is how fast it can shoot. It can do 6 fps in its stock configuration or a blazing fast 8 fps with the battery grip installed.

You can shoot sports with the D700 without a problem. I would say the D700 is probably the best camera in its class and is able to do just about anything you would ask of it. But the D300 is no slouch either, you just give up the full frame sensor.

 

[Mike_E]

Can you post a link the God straps? I would like to check those out, they sound interesting.

Sorry, no. It takes a special phone to order one and I'm afraid that I've lent mine out already.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[JerryPH]

Easy there sunshine....... I love my little $300 35mm lens.

Ah, but that is not your first or ONLY lens ... and that kit lens that they are looking at will hinder more than help that D700 in terms of getting the best results out of it.

Basically, if you look at the vast majority, most will fill out their 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 before going to primes. At the very least, they will get 1-2 high end zoom lenses, then go primes.

For my D700, the order of lenses was:
(* bought before I had the D700)
* AIS 35mm F/1.8
* Nikkor 50mm F/1.8
* Nikkor 70-200
* Nikkor 85mm F/1.4
* Sigma 105mm F/2.8 macro

(bought with or after I had the D700)
Nikkor 24-70
Sigma 16mm F/2.8 fisheye
Nikkor 14-24 is coming in April


The only reason it is in a lightly screwed up order is becuase I had a D200 and bought some FX lenses before I had the D700.

I bet if we look at your list, you will have a few useable zooms before the primes. The thing is that if someone who is a total newbie (to me, anyone that goes from a P&S to a D700 *is* a newbie, I do not care if they had P&S cameras for 25 years), is that they have no collection of quality lenses to use on their D700, and if you don't have any quality glass, you will need to purchase it... kit lenses are NOT quality lenses... they are cheap for a reason (LOW quality!).

 

[JE Kay]

There is no such thing as too much camera. The only thing that changes with DSLR's is the learning curve to operate them as far as menus and most of the useless settings they code into them. DLSR's aren't cameras, they're computers that capture data via the sensor and output image files. (That's not supposed to sound as snobby as it does, really) It goes to the argument about having too much camera.

The principles of photography still apply, for the most part, even with digital. If you don't know how to compose the shot, or what makes a 'good' photograph it won't matter what you use, it'll be a tack sharp well exposed bad image.

If you can afford it, go FF and go pro, you'll never regret it. If image quality matters that is. Doesn't matter if it's Canon or Nikon now, although Canon does offer more choices on the FF side. A 1D MKII series is still an incredible camera as is the 5D, pop on fast L glass and you'll see.

Also remember you don't have to buy new, if you're buying pro equipment that has been cared for you'll be miles ahead over buying new consumer hardware. You never go wrong buying pro if you can.

Always spend the most you can on lenses, that's what matters most. :thumbup:

(And I'm not Canon biased, I actually prefer Nikon products)

 

[bhop]

Personally, i'd go for the d700. I never understand why people think that a camera is 'too much' for them, unless they're talking size/weight or something specific. You can always learn to use your equipment..

I wanted to mention somethin, earlier you (O.P.) mentioned you didn't want to get a D90 or XSi.. IMO, those two cameras aren't in the same class. A d90 doesn't have the same limitations as the XSi. D90 is more of a 50D class of camera.

 

[kundalini]

Huh?

Just as a "for instance"... why choose the 80-200mm Nikkor over the gold standard 70-200mm? The OP did state that price was not part of the consideration.

I bet if we look at your list, you will have a few useable zooms before the primes.

Okay, you got me, so I got the 55-200mm lens along with the 18-55mm kit lens with the original purchase and they have become some nice paper weights. But I then got the primes before the "big boy" zooms.

 

[anubis404]

I thought the same thing too, you've got some pretty nice lenses..

Yea, and an outdated entry level body lol.

 

[anubis404]

Just as a "for instance"... why choose the 80-200mm Nikkor over the gold standard 70-200mm? The OP did state that price was not part of the consideration.

Because price was an issue. I could barely afford the 80-200, and even if I could afford the 70-200, a slightly better AF system and VR are not worth twice the price. As I said before, I would've invested that money in better glass. If my info is correct, the 70-200 and 80-200 are optically the same. I suppose you could also why I didn't get the Nikkor 17-55 instead of the Sigma. Again, cost was an issue. I got the best lenses that my budget allowed.

 

[kundalini]

Because price was an issue. I could barely afford the 80-200, and even if I could afford the 70-200,...

Ummm, that would be for YOU. The OP had already stated that cost was not an immediate concern.

.... a slightly better AF system and VR are not worth twice the price. As I said before, I would've invested that money in better glass. If my info is correct, the 70-200 and 80-200 are optically the same.

Since I happen to use Photozone.de as my first port of call for lens reviews and will only use the Verdict as a basis for my comments in this instance, the consensus is quite apparent in the grand scheme of things from many other sites that do lens reviews of the superior 70-200mm. The fact that it is not in your price point is irrelevent.

Verdict
Despite its age the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is a great lens both mechanically as well as optically (assuming you can get a good sample). The resolution is on a very high level throughout the zoom range and neither distortions nor vignetting are big issues (on an APS-C DSLR). CAs can be visible at times but the problem isn't overly pronounced. It is a joy to use this lens and the relatively large aperture provides some creative potential in the convenient package of a zoom. The comparatively low price tag is also a good argument to have a deeper look into this interesting option ... unless, of course, you can afford the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR.

There is a reason for the difference in cost between those two lenses.

 

[anubis404]

Ummm, that would be for YOU. The OP had already stated that cost was not an immediate concern.

Right, so my argument would be go for the best glass possible and worry about the bodies some other time. The 80-200mm was the best glass possible for me.

There is a reason for the difference in cost between those two lenses.

I never said there wasn't, however this lens depends on your needs. If you are shooting professionally, then this is definitely a good lens to have. However the quality of the pictures are identical to the 80-200 2.8. I suggested to the OP to buy the best glass possible, and when I said glass I meant it literally. If he can afford the extra doo-dahs such as VR and AF-S, and he needs them, then he should go for it. If not, the money can be better spent on other things.