D700 + AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 (Landscapes)

[eddie_cheng1]

Good day.

 

 

I came from the FM, F100 and am using a D70S with the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 for most of my photography. I am

mainly into landscapes, seascapes and cityscapes. Occasionally, I throw in the AF 85mm f/1.4D to the mix.

 

The current price of the D700 makes me want to get back into that kind of SLR I was so used to: large VF, familiar

focal length (DOF), etc.

 

Please clear my doubts:

 

Compared specifically to my above combo (6MP DX + 17-35mm f/2.8), would I see a performance boost by moving to

the 12MP D700 FX + 17-35mm f/2.8 especially for landscapes and seascapes where most of my photo-taking would

be on a tripod and at base ISO. I.E. it is a given that FX scores highly in the high ISO range but will the D700 have a

noticeable advantage over my D70S at base ISO?

 

6MP D70S vs 12MP D700:

Of course, a 12MP D300 has higher pixel density compared to a 12MP D700 although both have similar

resolution -- thus the D300 may be better suited for landscapes (forget about lens for this particular point) and I may

not upgrade so soon if I have a D300 now -- BUT what about a 6MP DX vs a 12MP FX? Is there a performance gain

(or enough of a performance gain) to justify the upgrade?

 

P.S. I know that MF is the way to go if I am critical of landscapes but let us just keep to 35mm SLRs.

 

Lastly, will the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 be compromised on the D700? Granted that the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 is said the

be "much better" but it just does not "fit" my focal length.

 

Thank you.

[Jerry_]

When going from a 6 Mpixel D50 body to a 10 Mpixel D80 body, the improvement in image quality was easy to see. So, my guess, going from a 6 Mpixel D70s to a 12 Mpixel D700 would also be an improvement. Of course, the lighting and your skill (along with some luck) will have some bearing on your images. If you want your 17mm lens to 'behave' as a 17mm lens, then you should *maybe* rent a D700 and see if that is what you are looking for.

[james_symington1]

The 17-35mm on FX cameras works wonderfully well for landscapes (almost all I shoot) so have no doubts on that score - keeping it stopped down to f5.6 or f8 you get first class results. It is my most used lens when shooting landscapes on digital.

 

I've never used a s D70 but I think I can safely say you will notice quite an improvement in image quality resulting from capturing more detail (provided you print large enough to display it), probably a good jump in the dynamic range you can capture, the ability to shoot at higher ISOs and retain good quality (should you need to for the sake of freezing subject motion).

 

I very much doubt you will regret this upgrade.

[frank_skomial]

Your expected improvements will come with the FX sensor more than with extra MPixels, unless you print large and not doing postprocessing.

 

Changing from D70 to D200 did not produce instantly noticeable quality gain, and required a lot of efforts to even match qualities. Many people were disappointed at the time D200 or D80 were released, expecting more of an improvements, and were strugling to achieve just as good results as they were used to with the D70. It is getting more of photographer's maaster the camera and technique. However, the FX format seems to be a larger quality leap, if matched with best lenses.

[ShunCheung]

The 17-35mm/f2.8 works wonderfuly on the D700, especially as a landscape lens. On the FX format, that lens will

give you a much better near-far wide perspective that is typical for landscape work.

<P>

The attached image was captures with that combo at 24mm.

<P>

<center>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8042454-md.jpg">

<P>

Nikon 17-35mm/f2.8 on D700, at 24mm, f5.6

</center>

[eddie_cheng1]

Thank you for all the feedbacks. My doubts have been cleared.