D700 thoughts.

Glenn, first of all you must understand what means sensor sizes, image circle and why there is a crop factor. Full

format lenses works on small sensors but DX lenses doesn`t work on full frame sesors.

 

Your lenses are projecting an image circle that cover the DX sensor area, but not the bigger FX sensors. The D700

have the feature of working with DX lenses, using only the same area of a D300 sensor.

 

The issue is that this area only have 5Mp, vs the 12Mp of the same area on the D300. It means a much smaller

image, less detail on big prints. Then I`d prefer to use a D300 with this DX lenses.

 

With the DX system, we must apply a crop factor of 1.5 for comparison purposes with full format cameras. A 12-24

DX lens on a DX camera (x1.5) equals a 18-36 FF lens on a FF camera. Ìt is then not as wide as it could seem.

Anyway, as a DX lens it cannot be used on a FF camera but on a cropped area as we have seen above.

 

The benefit of full format sensor can be resumed on three points: better performance at high ISO (cleaner images),

more lens options, specially wides (e.g. 14-24/2.8 and primes) and narrow DoF.

 

Why should you buy a D700? Only because you know your needs will be satisfied with the D700`s features. If not,

overkill choice. "If you don`t know if you need it, then you don`t need it... "

THANKS ALOT

just saved 3 thousand

 

www.glennlosackmd.com

What lenses with the same latitude like a 12-24 or 18-200 ( fantastic lenses ) would work on this FX D700 camera?

i am guessing that the D700 must work with single focal length lenses? or quite expensive glass?

 

could you give me an example of what lenses would be compatible that compare in prices with the above mentioned glass?

 

its sounds like id be spending thousands more just to get appropriate non DX glass for the D700 right?

 

thanks

I can't think of anything in full frame to compare to those two lenses. Maybe there are some advantages available only to small

sensor digital cameras. If there is something comparable to the 12-24, 18-200 combo in full frame they would cost a fortune!

There is no equivalent to the DX 18-200 for full frame format on Nikon. It must be something like a 28-300mm; there is a 28-200, don`t know how it performs on digital.

 

The AFS 14-24/2.8 could be one of the best reasons to buy a D700. It isn`t cheap, too. Otherwise there are some lenses in the 12-24 range for FF, like the AFS 17-35 (also expensive), 18-35, and not as wide, a 20-35. There are also 18, 20, 24, 28 and 35 primes in different versions, athough all manual or with the "old" style "screw type" AF coupling.

 

"its sounds like id be spending thousands more just to get appropriate non DX glass for the D700 right?"

 

It depends on the performance. Pro-level (f2.8) lenses are expensive, expecially that designed for this FX sensors. Consumer film lenses are not that expensive, some are really good and cheap (think on the AFD 50/1.8).

The image that opens this thread has been taken with this combination, wide open. At f4-5.6 sharpness is breathtaking. It is the cheapest available Nikkor, thought.

I Thank you all. I really do. You all sound like earnest people with good hearts.

But

most of you will have to agree with what i am about to say!

 

It is not the camera nor the lenses that makes a photograph or a great photographer!

I have absolute proof of that. My photography is proof of that.

 

All this commercial conspicuous consumption you all seem to be ( and i dont exlude myself from ) is mindboggling. Next year you will all be raving about a NIKON 800

and the year after that the D900. It is utter nonsense in my professional opinion.

 

There has to be a time when you say its the person pressing the shutter that really counts.

A great photographer must not be afraid to shoot close up front and find interesting subjects.

He or she must have great imagination. A steady hand decent equipment , NOT the best the latest, the

FX the DX the whatever X.

 

People have won huge awards and produced fabulous famous and unforgettable images with a pentax K1000 and a slow vivitar lens.

 

We all need to take a breather and realize its not the CAMERA its not the Lens. Its the person clicking the shutter that counts and all that counts.

I am lucky to have reallized this at an earlier age. I do hope you all realize this and wish everyone a great day.

 

Glenn Losack

<b>"...Next year you will all be raving about a NIKON 800 and the year after that the D900. It is utter nonsense in my professional opinion..."</B>

<p>

IMHO - many other "professional" photographers may question your "professional" opinion after you posted your earlier remark concerning the 18-200 VR lens. You stated it was a "fantastic lens" along with the tokina 12-24 lens.

<p>

It may very well be a very good plastic, consumer lens and a good lens for travel purposes - but I do not know any real professional photographers that actually use it in their professional work. It is too slow with too much distortion on both ends of the zoom for most serious photographic applications.

Russ, don't tell that to the guy that won Magnum Photographer of the Year with an Olympus 5060 point and shoot.

I know for a fact that the Olympus 5060 point and shoot doesn't use the Nikon 18-200 VR lens!

 

;)

you get the idea of what im saying

 

what is a pro photographer ?

 

someone who earns his money making photos????

 

many do it with a polaroid, in INDIA ASIA S AMERICA they work with old RUSSIAN cameras

 

I have no clue what a professional photographer is according to your definition.

 

 

i stand firmly on what i said above!

 

NO harm done

peace

 

glenn losack MD

<b>"...glenn losack MD..."</b>

<p>

Are you a professional photographer who works in Maryland or a medical doctor?

<p>

Just curious since you don't have your website listed in your profile. I would love to see examples of your work if you really are a professional photographer. I really enjoy looking at the work of other professional photographers so I can learn and improve my own work.

<p>

Please post a link to your website and/or a link to your work so we can all see the great results that you get with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens.

Glenn, while you are right that it is the photographer that makes the image, not the camera, a lot of us have been waiting

for the D700 for a long, long time.

 

I like my D3 very much, the handling, the shutter lag and build are great, but for some things, it is just too big or heavy

for my line of work. The D300, while it puts out a nice file, it breaks a cardinal rule for me personally and my style of

shooting: It crops all my lenses to a point of which I have no use for or don't particularly care for.

 

You can argue all you want about the merits of DX, I hated it from day one and I have been using digital since 1994. It

was not fun going to Canon for a couple years while I waited for the right gear from Nikon.

 

So if the D800 goes to ISO 50,000 and is 18 MP, cool, I might get it, I might not. But full frame is paramount for my line

of work and the style in which I shoot.

 

So lets not lose sight of why the D700 might be one of the most exciting camera to come from Nikon in a very long

time....

Russ, with all due respect, I am a Medical Doctor for the last 28 years.

I am licensed in Maryland ( btw ) and other states.

I am published in National Geographic, American Photography, Popular Photography, numerous magazines too many to mention. So enough said. The proof ofcourse is in the pudding. so without further adieu.

please go to http://www.glennlosackmd.com

 

enjoy " The Absolutely Marvelous Photography Of Glenn Losack" A Psychiatrists' View of the world

 

my pleasure to invite you in.

 

http://www.glennlosackmd.com

 

Thanks for your interest in my work. Anything i can do to help please feel free to ask.

 

one of my most recent favorite photos of which there are literally hundreds

 

http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/discussionDetail.asp?threadID=951734

 

http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/discussionDetail.asp?threadID=949442

 

all the best

 

google me.....................

Not to be too off topic, but whenever I hear that someone has been published in National Geographic, I am curious to see what was

published and

where.

 

So I simply googled your name and then the magazine and found that not only are you not in the June issue which I am

in, you are in what is called the "Daily Dozen" that editor Susan Welchman compiles from hundreds of amateur

photographer entries, an online semi-finals of the printed monthly installment of "Your Shot" which does appear in the

magazine.

 

What I am getting at is in the interest of full disclosure, make it clear to those who would read your site that you were in

an online piece of amateur photo work and not in a published feature as one might go as far as thinking.

 

I have 11 images published in the June 2008 issue. But since I was shooting for National Geographic's advertising

department for the Aspen Environment Forum, I will not be putting National Geographic in my resume since that would

be a false statement in terms of being published in a journalistic sense. Once I do get a story published, then I will

happily add it to my resume.

 

Just something to consider as you tell people what you do and who for...:-)

Hey Mr. Daniel Bayer !

First, glad you went checking on me. Im flattered.

i must tell you that i find that

you are insulting and publishing false material here.

I hope you recogize that.

 

Let that be known to all.

 

whoever said i was in the JUNE ISSUE?????? I didnt !

 

why not go and

check out the April issue........

and ill accept your apology, with much reservation.......

if this is a contest who is truthful and who is not....... then i win!

 

and what is the difference what kind of photograph is in NG. The mere fact is that i am in it and the photo has won me international awards.

 

I will go on doing excellent photography and dust off my framed picture of the month in APRIL for NG of which i am extremely proud of.

 

How dare you?

you should be ashamed of yourself!

Easy there killer, I found it here, you make no reference of where or when so how was I to know or anyone for that

matter?

 

http://photographerno1.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/national-geographic-june-2008/

 

So while I will apologize for not having all the information I should have had, I must say that your ego gave me second

thoughts in doing this which is too bad. You might want to check that, eh?

 

The image of the blind man in the 4/08 issue is nice, but let the viewer decide if your work is "Excellent" or "Marvelous",

it does not speak well of you to gloat in such a manner...especially with having an image of the Petronas Towers with

flying space craft photoshopped in on your site, LOL!

Shun :

 

>> If a larger format were always better, the norm wouldn't have gradually gotten smaller and smaller from 8x10 to 4x5 to medium format to 24x36mm .... over the last century. <<

 

I beg to respectfully disagree Shun...

 

What remained more or less unchanged (for a given period) was the threshold of image quality. Progress made smaller fromat cameras able to deliver this "required" quality and as they were more practical for use and allowed for a more dynamic style of photography, they became prevalent.

 

But any attempt to use a smaller film format than the 24x36 standard became invariably a failure in film era, the last one to date being the APS format.

 

Ilkka explained more than once, using MTF reference, you will need a better lens to obtain the same results with a smaller sensor even if the resistance to noise at high ISO and dynamic range issues of smaller pixels were solved, than with a larger one, both sensors having the same pixel count.

 

This means, the argument of shorter, so cheaper, focal lengths to obtain the same apparent magnification will be void as far as price is concerned as the sensor quality will progress. Because, for example a 200mm lens in DX format will need to be a far better (so a more costly) lens optically speaking than a 300mm for an FX format to get the same results.

 

My personal experience also tells me a smaller, lighter, camera body (as far as the DX format will indeed alllow a truly smaller camera, of which I doubt when I compare the size of a D700 to the one of a D300) may be not the best deal when you go to using long tele-lenses (a domain where the size of the lens makes it far more obtrusive ans heavy than the body it is attached to), weight balance being better with a heavier body.

 

How good the D300 might be (and it is a good camera), unless you absolutely want (or need) the latest Nikon zooms and don't even look to second hand primes, the difference of price between a D300 and a D700 is not so important and even may be totally negated when you consider the cost of the lens to go with the D700 and the relative expected time before total obsolescence of both cameras.

 

I have the feeling the choice between the D300 and the D700 equates to chosing between the last of the line of Nikon semi-pro DX format DSLR and the first of the line of FX format Nikon semi-pro DSLR...

 

Unless you have a bunch of DX lenses in your bag or specialize into long-tele lens use, or - like you do - have the possibility to afford the D300 as a second body in company with a D3, I see no positive reason to get a D300 instead of a D700.

 

FPW

Thank you FP Weill, Your comments are very informative. Let's get away from personal arguments here.

Photography with nikon d300 is great !

 

http://www.holisticdesign.info

"It really all comes down to money. If the two cameras were the same price, there isn't a D300 defender here that wouldn't trade his camera in a second for the FX D700, me included."

 

Depends on what you plan to use your camera for. As Shun correctly says, DX suits long lens shooters better and I would rather use my D300 for macro work, where the format gives me better working distances, lighter glass and more convenient, reliable focusing.

 

Mind you, I find many of the arguments in favour of using a FX format camera (of modest pixel count) for general photography compelling, and I have just bought a D700 with a 24-70 as a replacement for my D2xs and 17-55. While it goes without saying that the high ISO performance is as amazing and as liberating as everyone says it is, I'm finding the results at low ISOs to be favourable too. My rather unscientific side by side tests against the D300 seem to suggest that the D700 delivers noticeably better tonality and the images seem to have an almost 3D quality. I confess the improvement surprised me, as I'm a big fan of the D300, but as I was using a 20mm F2.8 AIS lens on the FX body, and the Nikon 12-24 on the DX, the result should be treated with caution.

 

I also agree with Ilkka's point that, all things being equal, the D700's FX sensor makes less demands on the lens (apart from issues relating to coverage, obviously) than does the D300 with its higher pixel density. I feel this is a particularly strong point in the D700's favour and wonder whether the resolution of the D700's sensor is actually nicely in sync with a resolving power of much of the Nikon lens back catalogue. I certainly fear that the high megapixel sensor on any forthcoming D3x, that many are speculating about, may reveal the limitations of all but the most recent Nikon lenses. I certainly remember being less than impressed with a set of landscapes shots I was shown by the proud owner of a new Canon 1DS Mk3. The camera was terrific, but the wide angle L series lens he used it with was not.

 

In many ways, it could be said that having both DX and FX represents the best of both worlds and I for one hope that Nikon continue to develop both.

and that's a psychiatrists view of his world... t

<b>"and that's a psychiatrists view of his world... t"</b>

<p>

Now Tom - how do you REALLY feel about that? Let is all out - talking about it will make you feel better.

<P>

And while you are at it - tell us all how you feel about someone photoshopping a flying saucer into an image and posting it on their website.

I am just going to kindly bow out, LOL!

 

I love the D700, it is simply the digital camera I have been waiting for over 10 years. The star shot above was at about 2

AM with my Carl Zeiss 35/2 at F/2, 20 seconds, ISO 6400.

 

Later in the morning, I got this shot with the same lens. I used a WB setting of cloudy and knocked the pop-up flash to -

2 stops.

 

Enjoy the D700, it is a stellar camera!<div></div>

Malcolm, I am in total harmony with your thoughts.

 

I was excited and ready for a D3X this year but now, the D700 changes everything. It probably is much better this way.

What you say about the D3X and resolution is exactly right. I have the proper glass and it will be interesting to see the

results when the time comes. But this will be one camera that i don't pre-order.

 

My D700 arrived yesterday and tomorrow is my first interior shoot with it. I'm going to test the 14-24 with the 17-35.

Eventually, the 14-24 on the D700 and the 17-35 on the D300 (with a perspective of 26-52mm) will cover over 90% of my

shoots and be a dream team. 35mm on DX is great for capturing details in one part of a room.

 

I've seen countless threads all over the net asking D300 or D700? Such a silly question because the answer is such a

personal one. For me, the answer was obvious.