First DSLR 7D or D700?

[inTempus]

The Canon is only usable with EF and EF-S glass, which only goes back to the 80's.

"Only"? There are about 120 first-party Canon lenses available for EF and EF-S mounts, with focal length ranging from 10mm to 1200mm. It's also compatible with third party Sigma and Tamron lenses. So unless you have a massive collection of vintage lenses, I don't see how having a wide range of modern lenses is a bad thing. :raisedbrow:

You have to wonder how many people are going to drop $2700 on a top of the line camera then start hitting swap meets and garage sales looking for 30+ year old lenses?

 

[Derrel]

There were some fantastic lenses made in the 1960's and 1970's...a 40-year old Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 is a far better lens than a six month old Canon 50mm 1.8 EF-II. I have an old 1960's 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar that is as sharp as my Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS is.

A Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 is still one of the world's best small telephoto lenses, no matter if you have the version made from the late 1960's, or a 1980's, 1990's, or 2000's model. This was in fact "the" lens that made Nikon's fame.

A 1977 Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF supertelephoto is still a superb lens (I own one). I have a "new" one, made in 1982.

A 1970's-made Vivitar 600mm f/8 Series One solid catadioptric lens, made out of three pounds of solid optical glass by Perkin-Elmer (the same NASA space program contractor) is one of the finest mirror lenses ever made.

A 1950's era Leica 135mm short-mount bellows lens is one of the finest macro lenses I have ever seen.

A 1969 Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 manual focus lens can resolve single human hair at 30 meters.

Canon cameras are GREAT, because they can use all these lenses, with simple adapters! EOS cameras can accept 9 different lens mounts with adapters.

 

[inTempus]

Derrel,

I never said there weren't great old lenses (I know there are), my question was how many people that drop $2700 on a new body equip that new body with 40 year old lenses? I'm sure there are a few, no doubt, especially connoisseurs like yourself. But I would guess they comprise a minority of new camera buyers.

Most novices just getting started today have little desire to scour the used lens bin at their local pawn shop looking for glass they have no idea even exists. I would hazard a guess that most new users, like myself, shop for newer lenses. Most new users will assume a new lens is better than a 40 year old lens - right or wrong.

Yes, the Canon mount is cool as you can use Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, M42 mount lenses, Leica R mount lenses, etc. But I'll probably never buy one of those old badass Nikon lenses or an adapter to use them. I simply have no desire or need. I've yet to meet anyone who did have any interest... and I know some diehard Canon shooters who have been shooting professionally for years.

As for image quality, as soon as I find something wrong with one of my images that I can attribute to my Canon L lenses being deficient, I may switch to Hasselblad or maybe even a D3x. So far I've been nothing short of amazed with the performance of my bodies and lenses. I can afford a D3x if I wanted one, but I honestly don't. That may change. I've done stranger things than dump all of my gear to switch to another brand.

 

[Antithesis]

And I have no doubts to the ability of your L lenses. And I have many doubts that the OP will be rifling through bargain bins at a flea market looking for vintage glass. But, if you go to sites like keh.com or ebay, you can find some good quality MF lenses at low prices. But, I guess this applies to both bodies. Do the adapters allow you to actually meter and such?

 

[Garbz]

Well after spending $2700 on a body he may not have money left for lenses :lmao:

Seriously though I just noticed no one brought it up. Everyone was attacking the OP's experience as a reason not to get these top of the line cameras, but which one of these would make you happier:
D700 + single kit lens
D90 + 2 professional f/2.8 lenses?

 

[Antithesis]

^^^^^

I also have to agree with people that a $2000 camera body for casual snaps might be overkill. You can spend a quarter of that and get a camera that will give you good results too, leaving yourself a lot of money for the more important part of the equation: lenses.

I agree with the latter completely. The $2700 camera body will be a paperweight in 3 years. Granted, it is Nikon's only full frame body outside the D3 line, which may influence the purchase.

Still, if full-frame is super important, a used 5D can take some amazing pictures as well.

 

[BrettD]

Well after spending $2700 on a body he may not have money left for lenses :lmao:

Seriously though I just noticed no one brought it up. Everyone was attacking the OP's experience as a reason not to get these top of the line cameras, but which one of these would make you happier:
D700 + single kit lens
D90 + 2 professional f/2.8 lenses?

Truly, an extra $1k to $1.5K for the body isn't going to make any difference in my purchasing of lenses. I just would like to get something that I will be happy with the first time. I assume the D700 will give me all the photographic quality I could ever want and that is one of the main reasons I was looking at that model - well that and my semi-professional neighbor has one and has offered to share his lenses with me. I was thinking of the 24-70 2.8 as my first primary lens. I noticed a Nikon 18-200 lens made for DX cameras that is very reasonably in price. Does the fact it's made for the DX image sensor mean that I can't use it on the D700?

 

[schumionbike]

you can use a dx lens on an fx camera, except you'll only get 5.1 megapixel instead of 12.1 megapixel. In my opinion, it's not worth it. Use FX lens with FX camera. the funny thing is 5.1 megapixel is probably enough for at least a sharp 12x18 print.

 

[Antithesis]

Well after spending $2700 on a body he may not have money left for lenses :lmao:

Seriously though I just noticed no one brought it up. Everyone was attacking the OP's experience as a reason not to get these top of the line cameras, but which one of these would make you happier:
D700 + single kit lens
D90 + 2 professional f/2.8 lenses?

Truly, an extra $1k to $1.5K for the body isn't going to make any difference in my purchasing of lenses. I just would like to get something that I will be happy with the first time. I assume the D700 will give me all the photographic quality I could ever want and that is one of the main reasons I was looking at that model - well that and my semi-professional neighbor has one and has offered to share his lenses with me. I was thinking of the 24-70 2.8 as my first primary lens. I noticed a Nikon 18-200 lens made for DX cameras that is very reasonably in price. Does the fact it's made for the DX image sensor mean that I can't use it on the D700?

There is little point in using cheaper, consumer quality glass on an expensive body. It's kind of a backwards approach to image quality. Most people put nicer glass on a cheaper body. But, if you can afford to put nice glass on a nice body, then go for it. Once your knowledge catches up with your gear, you'll be on track for some awesome photo's. Oh, and I wish I had as deep a pockets as yours .

 

[Garbz]

Um the 18-200 is probably the worst lens I have used in terms of image quality (except the 50mm f/1.2 but even that one is quite respectable above f/2).

If you match the D700 with the 18-200, you will be disappointed and it will have nothing to do with the 5mpx resolution. In cases like this I really need to re-iterate my original point that a D90 with 2 pro lenses will outperform a D700 with crap bolted to the front in every way except low light performance. In my opinion not worth it, but I've seen this combination before (by a friend who upgraded but had no decent lenses) and she seemed happy. At least she may one day. She's bought 3 lenses in the past year because she was fed up with the poor results.

 

[BrettD]

Okay, thanks for the info about the DX lenses. I was noticing the 18 to 200mm thinking it may be a useful range if I didn't take along any addition glass somewhere. Sounds as if you are liking it to buying a ZR1 Vette or Ferrari and going to Kmart for rubber. No DX lenses it is. :thumbup: I'm still going to give the Canon a chance, but I think there're too many little bonuses with the Nikon to ignore. Any suggestions for a good all-around lenses other than the 24-70? Once again, I really appreciate the help. :thumbup:

Edit: Any opinions on the 24-120 variable aperture Nikkor?

 

[Antithesis]

If you have a large budget, many people do the 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 combo (the "holy trinity"). But, that's like $5-6k worth of glass. But, it gets you from the super-wide clear through 200mm telephoto with the highest quality zooms available. You'd probably want to wait and grab the newer 70-200 f2.8 VRII that comes out next month, but it would be advisable to put a deposit down soon as they will go quickly when they are first released.

You'd pretty much have one of the best setups available which can be complemented with a few nice primes like the 85 f1.4, 50 f1.4, etc.

 

[Wolverinepwnes]

wow, going big with the first DSLR! besides the camera, consider what lens you will be needing, and that you will most likely stick to that brand for life due to the investments in the glass you will be making! I personally like the nikon glass far more than canon's but thats just me! so i would say out of ur two choices i would go with the D700!!

 

[Kegger]

I'm one of those few people out there that use a big expensive camera with older glass.

Nikon of course, haha.

You already have the glass, and it can be used quite easily with the newer bodies, and even tells you when you've got focus lock. I say go out and pick up a D300, not the s, and get to shootin. Customizable menus for all of the glass you currently have if it's not AF glass, and you'll actually save some money doing it.

 

[SlimPaul]

How about the new D300S? It's much cheaper and retains most of the functions of the D700, apart from an FX sensor, which for me is an advantage when I want to use my 70-300mm, and you can go as wide on a DX for less money. The choice is yours.