D700 Agony

[bikealps]

<p>I have a D90 + SB-600 + a bag of lenses: 28mm f2.8 AF, 50mm f1.8 AF, 105mm f2.8 AF micro, 300mm f4 AF, 12-24mm f4 AF-S ED G DX, 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 AF-S ED G VR DX, and 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF-S ED G VR.<br>

I photograph bicycle racing, bicycle touring, travel, friends (mostly at parties), outdoors, food.<br>

I have decided to buy a 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 because:</p>

<ul>

<li>f2.8 will give me narrower depth of field</li>

<li>70-200 is the right range of focal lengths and a zoom is essential for bicycle racing</li>

<li>f2.8 will give me faster AF</li>

<li>VR will be great for non-action people photos when I don't have full sun</li>

</ul>

<p>I have made great strides on spousal approval but am not ready to call the question yet. :-)<br>

I would also like to get a camera which has better AF -- 51 points, closest subject focusing mode -- for sports (bicycle racing).<br>

I would like to get a full-frame camera because:</p>

<ul>

<li>all my lenses will be 1 stop faster in terms of depth of field (!)</li>

<li>I'll get better image quality from my lenses</li>

<li>the 70-200 on a crop body is a bit too long for people photos, especially across the table</li>

</ul>

<p>So, I must wait to see what Nikon announces. Either</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon announces an upgraded D700 in which case the D700 price drops and the new model is more expensive (my decision, buy D700 or pay for the extra features) OR</li>

<li>Nikon replaces the D700 and the price probably doesn't go up by much (and I go buy one)</li>

</ul>

<p>So, I'm figuring Nikon's D700 upgrade might have:</p>

<ul>

<li>some video features (not sure I care)</li>

<li>full-frame viewfinder (sounds nice)</li>

<li>more megapixels (maybe not so important, but gotta keep up with Canon on marketing)</li>

<li>maybe better ISO</li>

<li>possibly (unlikely) an automatically cropped viewfinder like D3 with modes such as 24x36, 24x30, ... I really enjoyed the panorama mode on my APS point-and-shoot in the late 1990s ... such a mode with a fisheye might be pretty cool -- or does stitching just obsolete this?</li>

</ul>

<p>What else do we expect? and will they announce in September or do we have to wait a year?<br>

also, D300 has 51 AF points... in the D700, do they use the same exact chip, in which case the AF points are all grouped in the middle (not so good) or do they spread them throughout the viewfinder?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nikonrumours claims no D700 replacement this year (although the D90 may get replaced). Reviewers are starting to make more of a point of the 12MP limit of the D700 - although it's been enough for all but one of my photos, and that's a poster-sized landscape - but I'm not sure that Nikon will give the D700 the D3x's sensor until they have a D4x lined up. The D700 didn't hit the D3 too hard because there were enough low-light shooters that wanted the D3's frame rate. It'd be hard to stick a D3x sensor in a D700 and cripple it enough that it wouldn't hurt D3x sales; there's more difference between the handling of a 5D2 and a 1Ds3 than there is between the D700 and D3. The D700 hasn't been hurt as badly as it might have been by the Sony high pixel-count bodies, which might have pushed it sooner.<br>

<br>

My guess, and it's not based on any expertise or inside knowledge, is that we might get a D700s with the D3s (high ISO) sensor, video and a quiet mode, like the D300s. However, the DX bodies are finally gaining pixels, so maybe Nikon will have to do a high pixel count D700 to stop it being hurt by the cheaper parts. In which case, it's hard to know whether they'll use the sensor they've already got, or come up with a new one. There are rumours that Nikon might start making their own sensors, which might make it harder for Nikon to produce a half-way house. I'd love it if it got the D3x sensor and a D4x with a higher pixel count got launched - but at some point the glass won't take it.<br>

<br>

I doubt we'll see a cropping viewfinder - D3 reportage photographers need to know the framing without having time for post-processing, but I suspect D700 users are expected to have more time on their hands and make cropping decisions in post. I certainly do.<br>

<br>

The D700 AF sensors are central, I think the same size as the D300's, and therefore don't cover the edges of the frame. DPReview have a representation of where they are in their review. This seems to be normal, probably because of the light path in the camera - Canon's full frame bodies cluster the focus points as well. That's not to say they won't change it, but I suspect the AF system is unlikely to get an upgrade, since it's already well-regarded. I believe, from a D300 review, that the AF system is more responsive on the D700 and D3, but that's processing rather than the sensors themselves.<br>

<br>

I hope that helps. We can now see how wrong I am.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The spacing on the D300 AF points covers the finder more, as they are the same exact physical placement, just with the outside area "cropped out".</p>

<p>The D300 is especially good for sports because of this.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

You're buying a camera, not making a statement. If the D700 fills your needs, then go for it (especially if your spouse's objections are losing steam). Now, if you want the latest toy, wait.

 

I bought mine in November 2008 and never regretted it. Never will, actually, but then, I don't intend to replace it with anything "better" until it dies. Given the way I treat it, it may happen in some 4 or 5 years, and by then full-frame digital cameras won't be that expensive... or I may lay my hands on a used D700 with some mileage left. In the meanwhile, I will have taken the photos I wanted and enjoyed the ride. Don't worry about things that haven't happened. Just bite the bullet.

[rossb]

<p> Being a cyclist I think about photogrphy and touring a lot. The D700 seems like a tank of a camera to carry on a bike. Are you talking about carrying the camera on tour or taking a photo of somebody headed down the road. But whatever your plans are the D700 is a nice camera. I would not know when it will be replaced or what kind of gadgets they may add to the replacement model. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>lemme get this straight: you say you want a 70-200 but then say its too long for people shots on DX so that's why you want a d700? how does that resolve your 2.8 issues?</p>

<p>as peter mentioned the d700 may actually be worse for sports.</p>

<p>you seem to be trying hard to justify what amounts to additional expense, which may be unnecessary.</p>

<p>consider:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>the 'better image quality' will be negligible unless you are printing at huge sizes or pixel-peeping with a microscope.</li>

<li>you do get better high-ISO performance, about one stop, which may allow you to shoot at smaller apertures than you would otherwise in dim light. but this only comes into play above ISO 1600.</li>

<li>the d700 has the exact same number of MP as the d90--12--you would need 24mp FF sensor to compete directly with a 5dMKII.</li>

<li>the D700 's VF offers 95% coverage, compared to the d300's 100%.</li>

</ul>

<p>so, is that worth it?</p>

<p>for sports,i would say no, especially because you would either have to get a d700 and a 2.8 lens, or shoot action with a 70-300. also, you'd need the 70-200 II, which is more expensive than VI by several hundred dollars in addition to the cost of the body.</p>

<p>it's your money, but i'd maybe wait for the d3s or d3x sensor to trickle down to the sub-3k level before jumping to FF. instead, i'd consider a d300s with a sigma 50-150 (same FL as 70-200 on FF) if a 70-200 or 80-200 is too long on DX.</p>

<p> </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Here's my take on it... </p>

<p>I have 3 D300's - 1 is exclusively for sports - it has 132k shutter clicks and will be my sports body until it dies. </p>

<p>2 are lower click counts that will be wedding / senior / portrait camera backups for the d700. </p>

<p>D700- what I have found is that the Image quality and High ISO performance rock - the speed is slower (Frame burst) and AF than the D300 - at least that's the behavior I'm seeing. </p>

<p>Eric - last time I checked D300 had 95% viewfinder coverage too.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>According to specs, the D300 and D300S have a "100%" viewfinder, but even for those that are specified to have a 100% viewfinder, including the D3, D3X ..., their viewfinder are more like 95% to 98%.</p>

[Two23]

<p>When I've put a lot of money on a camera body, almost every time I was disappointed. For what you are wanting to do, I'd wait for a replacement of the D300s (D400?) Put the $1,000+ you will save either into more flash (which can make a HUGE difference,) or a better lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[photo5]

<p>I was unimpressed with the D700 image quality as compared to the D300. The D300 is sharper (more fine details rendered) than the D700, which has very heavy-handed anti-alias filtering. The D700 shines at ISOs higher than ISO 800, the limit of the D300's fine image quality (anything above that gets noticeably noisy). I didn't like the chunky body of the D700, and the 90% viewfinder coverage was frankly a joke for a camera at that price point. Nikon has a lot of work to do to spruce up the replacement for the D700. Meanwhile, the D300 is a pleasure to use, and mine still has less than 10k clicks on the shutter. Today I took just under 600 frames at a car show, and the battery indicator barely moved even with dozens of exposures inside the cars using the pop-up flash.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Consider the worst case scenario. You can sell the D700 when the replacement comes out. Yes, you'll lose some money on the deal, but think of the bright side.</p>

<p>(a) You won't lose your full investment.</p>

<p>(b) In the time between NOW and when a Dxxx is actually AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE, you can take a heck of a lot of amazing photos with your trusty D700.</p>

<p>If THAT is the worst case scenario, it doesn't really seem that bad when you think about it.</p>

 

[pjahans]

<p>I have similar interests and equipment, shooting cycling and triathlon events, except that I recently bought a used D300 and now use it much more than the D90. It is a great sports camera, very fast and with excellent focusing options. My next big purchase will be probably a used or refurbished 70-200 VR I and an SB-900 flash to replace my SB-600. The claimed edge softness of the older version telephoto has less effect on the DX format. Don't underestimate the importance of good fill flash in daylight shooting - the SB-900 is powerful and can work with an optional battery pack for fast recycling.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>Thanks everybody!<br>

<br />OK, so the 70-200 definitely makes sense. I'm going to hold off on a new body for now.<br>

<br />The D300 doesn't add that much (51pts AF, closest AF point mode) to justify a purchase. Also, I'm getting better at setting the AF points while I shoot.<br>

<br />I'd love a D700, but I think I'll wait to see what the announcements are, this year or next.<br>

<br />I'm disappointed to hear the D700 has the 51 AF points all in the middle. Seems like this misses the whole point of 51 AF points. Interestingly, Graham Watson (world's most famous bicycle racing photographer <a href="http://www.grahamwatson.com/">http://www.grahamwatson.com/</a> ) uses 2 D3s, so this isn't an issue for him.<br>

<br />Ross -- you're right a D700 is way too big for on-the-bike photography. I almost never take the D90 on the bike. On the bike I use a Canon G10 point-and-shoot, which is overkill and a brick. I really should get a smaller point-and-shoot. On rare occasion, I will take the D90 and one lens on the bike or my whole Lowepro backpack (fully loaded it is 17 pounds, heavier than my bike!), but this is only when I am shooting a road race and need to use the bike simply as transportation. Most bike race photography is done on foot.<br>

<br />Eric -- 70-200 is a good focal length for bike racing, either on DX or FX. Generally you need something long, and having a zoom is really handy. In pro photographs, the 70-200 is the most common tool. A wide angle zoom is often used. Other focal lengths, such as 300, 50, and a fisheye are good tools to round out the kit. I have everything but the 70-200 and the fisheye. I don't need the fisheye.<br />For people photos (parties, etc.) a 70-200 is a bit long on DX. Oh well. In theory I would also buy a 24-70 f2.8 FX or 18-55 f2.8 DX, but no way is that amount of cash escaping from my wallet now.<br>

<br />Another advantage of the 70-200 is that in most cases it will actually lighten up my kit because I won't have to carry the 70-300, 300 f4, and the 105 micro.<br />Still working on spousal approval for the 70-200.<br>

<br />Thanks again for all the help!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm disappointed to hear the D700 has the 51 AF points all in the middle. Seems like this misses the whole point of 51 AF points. Interestingly, Graham Watson (world's most famous bicycle racing photographer <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.grahamwatson.com/" target="_blank">http://www.grahamwatson.com/</a> ) uses 2 D3s, so this isn't an issue for him.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All full-35mm-frame DSLRs have the AF point concentrated in the center of the frame. If anything, the Canon 5D, 5D Mark II and Sony A900, A850 are worse. The Canon 1Ds series and Nikon D3/D700 have that problem but not as serious.</p>

<p>If you shoot sports, the placement of the Multi-CAM 3500's 51 AF points is great on FX. The problem is when you shoot portraits, especially when the camera is in the vertical (portrait) orientation.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>Hi Shun,<br>

very interesting. I never thought of that. Nice to know I am using a superior camera (D90). :-)<br>

another observation: on the D700 you can't see the focus points unless you move them. with all the practice I have now diddling the focus points, that would drive me nuts. I guess I'd have to learn new skills.<br>

people who shoot sports with D700s and D3s all seem to be very happy, including guys who shoot bike races.<br>

interestingly, I went to the velodrome this weekend and used nearly every lens I had. the photo I posted for wednesday was taken with my slow f4.5-5.6 70-300 zoom. I guess you can make good images with a brownie!<br>

still planning on getting that 70-200</p>