Sunday musings: make the D700 better by throwing out 80% of its features

[ShunCheung]

<p>A number of well known nature photographers shoot RAW + JPEG basic in the field precisely because a smaller JPEG file is great for quick reviews, especially when you travel with a smaller, less-powerful laptop and slower portable hard drives. I attended a seminar by Frans Lanting 2 years ago, and he has that practice. I was just on a 2-week Galapagos trip with Tui De Roy, and she does that as well. They both use the D300/D300S instead of D700, though.</p>

<p>Concerning the pop-up flash. While it is fairly useless as a main light source, on the higher-end Nikon DSLRs with a pop-up flash, from the D80/D90 and up, including the D7000, D300/D300S and D700, it is very useful as a CLS master. Once I forgot my SU-800 controller at home; the pop-up flash on the D700 saved my day.</p>

<p>In my particular case, since I shoot a lot of drastically different subjects, I need fast AF and frame rate for wildlife and sports, I need high-ISO capabilities for the indoor events and occasional weddings I shoot, and I need pixel count for landscape. And in these days I also capture some occasional video with my D7000. My day job is software so that I am used to high-tech products. As I said in this current thread: <a href="00Ytvg">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg</a>, I can take full advantages of most of the new features Nikon can pack into the D3S, D700, and D7000. Forget about eliminating 80% of them; if they remove 25% of them, it can be a disaster for me.</p>

<p>But that is just me. I am fully aware that I am not your typical Nikon user and don't try to speak for other people.</p>

[tate_jackson]

<p>While a agree with most of the responses about why Nikon designs cameras the way they do, I think it would be fun to own a digital version of a FM-10 or a Pentax K1000. Manual focus, manual flash, manual apeture and shutter, shoots raw only. No menus, just dials</p>

<p>Other than possible education value, I doubt there is a market for a camera like this, but I would have a lot of with this camera if it did exist.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Surely the D700 already has a Luddite Mode? Populate 'My Menu' with just the settings you actually use, never select the other menus again, and forget about the additional options. You can't do anything about the flash, but nearly everything else can be hidden. Get someone else to do this for you, and you'll never know the extra features existed in the first place!</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Funny topic, just a couple of days ago Nikon was being criticized and doubts raised about them "missing the boat" because they risk to be behind for not adding more features and following the Mpx race, video and other "improvements" as well as delaying the successor to the D700.<br /> Now, here we are with some complaining about too many things added to the model that should be replaced by something hyperminimalist, and I wonder how many micrograms the "new" model would loosed compared to the present one just because cutting firmware instructions would avoid maybe two or three transistors.<br /> It would probably also be a wise move to change the name to D7, cutting those two unnecessary zeros...lol...and this would be a rather conservative attitude because even the 7's utility may be questionable...lol</p>

[pankaj purohit]

<p>I would say more directly, I need a cheaper FX DSLR, thats it.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I also think the pop-up flash should be redesigned.<br /> I also use it (only) as a flash master operating device, but I think it can be greatly improved. Personally, I find it to be either a useless flash head or a clumsy CLS operating device, that also seems to interfere with the pentaprism design.<br /> I`d prefer to have a good something, instead of a "less-good" everything...</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>This makes no sense. A specialised camera or niche camera is likely to be bought by a certain group of people, so R&D and production costs would be higher than a mass-produced model. Such a camera would actually be much more expensive, ala Leica digital M.<br /> Secondly, alot of the features mentioned earlier saved my life in the field, both as an amateur and profesional photographer.<br /> - Active D-Lighting, small size Jpegs and control over saturation, contrast. Very necessary since I shoot time-lapse and I can't afford a card that would take 2000 14 bit raw files, let alone a computer that can process all that. Nor do I have the time to work with raw files for time-lapse. This is a recent example where Auto D plus jpeg customisation got me out of the ditch: http://vimeo.com/22583878<br>

- pop-up flash. I went today on a model shoot only to find out that my wireless triggers ran out of bateries. My flashes all work in I-TTL and can be controlled via the pop-up. Also, if I want to shoot in sunlight, my triggers are useless since they go up to 1/250. My popup can control in FP as far as I remember, I used this feature more than once.<br>

Sample from today, I had to go round using triggers: http://www.photo.net/photo/13481512<br>

- 12 bit raw: I use it all the time as a wedding photographer. This way, using compression and 12-bit I can get 1500 images on a 16 gig card. Otherwise, I can get less than half shooting 14 bit.<br /> - video. I love video, I shoot video every time I can get my hands on my friend's D90 or D300s. Too bad that the D700 does not feature it.<br /> The list can go on and on. Some guy could say that he does not need high ISO, another could say that he shoots in the studio so no need for weather proofing or magnesium body.<br /> People here seam to crave for something like a canon 5D, but wouldn't buy it because it is outdated, or a leica M9, but can't afford it. Nothing is perfect and Nikon doesn't employ mind reading elves in order to manufacture their cameras.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>Built-in flash? Nice, even I admit that. But get rid of it. I don't need this feature. And it blocks some of the PC lenses from shifting all the way up (AFAIK).</em></p>

<p>Agreed. And I am coming in from the Canon EOS camp here. Popup flashes are silly. I am commmenting more "in general" and not a 'swipe' at Nikon since the 5D2 is similar, but lots more pixels than the D700.</p>

<p><em>Active D-Lighting? I don't care. I can do that on the computer.</em><br>

Agreed. Plus on-the-go laptops are Powerful.</p>

<p><em>JPEG size and quality levels? Really? Can't I do that on the computer? How about just one setting: fine, full resolution. There. Fixed.</em></p>

<p>100% agreed. 14-bit raws are plenty of image.</p>

<p>Contrast? Sharpness? Saturation? Tone curves? Talk to the hand...</p>

<p>100% agreed. Raw has all the info one needs.</p>

<p><em>Video is likely to be included in the D700's successor. You can guess my attitude to that.</em><br /> There you're wrong -- HD video is a NICE feature, even if rarely used.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>A specialised camera or niche camera is likely to be bought by a certain group of people, so R&D and production costs would be higher than a mass-produced model</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It wouldn't be expensive if it were mass produced, which is what I'd like to see.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Very necessary since I shoot time-lapse and I can't afford a card that would take 2000 14 bit raw files, let alone a computer that can process all that</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's actually an example of a 'specialised' use. Time lapse is cool, though.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>12 bit raw: I use it all the time as a wedding photographer. This way, using compression and 12-bit I can get 1500 images on a 16 gig card. Otherwise, I can get less than half shooting 14 bit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the exact opposite philosophy. The last wedding I shot (I don't shoot many at all) was done with 8GB cards and 14-bit RAW, uncompressed. I don't want 1,500 images on one card. And the 14-bits may have helped with highlight recovery (RGB matrix metering, when I use it, isn't 100% accurate, so it's good to be able to have a wide DR).</p>

<p>Dan, I'm glad you liked the post! Ken, I wish that you worked for Nikon. :-)</p>

<p>BTW I think a second card slot, a-la D300s, is a good idea. There's nothing wrong with redundancy and security. Three slots or more, though, I'll pass.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>Well, it wouldn't be mass produced because only some folks would buy it. To put it plainly, if the D700 would have had the specs you suggest, I would have bought another camera instead. Like me, others would have done the same, because features they would have considered essential would have been missing. So no more mass-production.<br /> About the 14 bit, I undestand the advantage of having it but strictly for my weddings it just is not necessary to shoot since I shoot manual and I rarely compensate the exposure with significant values, and when I do, 12 bit more than does the job.<br /> I would rather have the choice of settings, rather than wish I had it and miss shooting opportunities for a menu item that would have added 0.2$ to the cost of the camera.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>It seems we're about to ask for a brand new concept of camera from manufacturers, like in the car industry we could have a basic platform (no need to refer to the poor D700 criticizing it for having this and not having that - even if taking it as a benchmark may mean that most part found it to be a good option at a certain point in time) and leaving all the rest as optionals that we could choose while filling the manufacturing order, for instance:<br /> Body - convertible (removable prims, with choices of wlf, prism with and without built-in flash, changing focusing screens), hatchback, sedan (with fixed prism) and van (with fixed battery grip);<br /> Engine - choice of various sensors, something like 2 liters=DX, 3 liters=FX;<br /> Gear box - automatic, 5 speeds, 7 speeds, and so on (here you could indicate your preferences related to command style, see buttons and function buttons);<br /> Fuel container - choice of battery model and capacity<br /> Driving assistance - think of ABS, ESP and others - the type, kind and number of regulations via firmware (you name them);<br /> On board computer - the menu system for the geeks, none for the purists<br /> As a simple example, this does not claim to be complete nor very well organized and is open to suggestions for new optionals, amendments, addition of new ideas and even deletion of the bad ones.<br /> Obviously, at the end of the form you could be surprised by the price but at least you could get "your" ideal camera...and later on all conception criticism would be on your own account with no need to blame someone else.</p>

<p> </p>

[indraneel]

<p>Here's my take: NO BIG YELLOW NIKON D700 LETTERS on the (free?) strap ! (Live and let live)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Indraneel - it only has a mug-me label on one side. I just use it the other way round.<br />

<br />

There are things I'd like the D700 to do that it currently doesn't. Are there D700 features that I don't use that get in the way? Not so much.<br />

<br />

Re. the flash: it's rarely useful to me for fill flash or a CLS trigger. But rarely isn't never. Rarely means I wouldn't have bought an SB-400 (which wouldn't work on my F5 anyway) or an IR trigger, so I would have missed shots that the integrated flash saved.<br />

<br />

As I've said recently in another recent discussion, what I'd really like is for Nikon to open up the interface so I can add the features I want myself. Do that, and I'll gladly produce a skin that disallows the setting of anyone's "unwanted" options (or at least, hides them more thoroughly), on the understanding that nobody expects to use the same tech support/user guide/help forum as anyone else. An open BIOS would even be a decent test bed for features for future cameras (which I have to assume are getting a hardware upgrade anyway, and therefore aren't going to be differentiated just by software tweaks). Nikon - you know it makes sense... :-)</p>

[peter_petrov1]

<p>Karim, it has already been written above. You want just a small and essential set of optionss in the menu. Instead, Nikon provides a hundreds of options in a large menu, most of which look meaningless to you. This is how Nikon sells 1001 options to justify a high price. They don't care about selling the same camera for less money with only 20 options in the menu and the rest simply not visible. They probably think this would not bring more profits. And also, they (and all other camera makers) prefer selling a closed system where you cannot tweak the firmware as you could do, for example, with a wireless router like WRT54GL.<br>

In general, I do agree with you, it would be good to have a small digital Nikon DSLR without built-in flash and with just a small feature set. No matter if it looks like FM or D3100, or if it is DX or FX - as long as it is priced below $1000, has built-in motor, and uses standard (AA) batteries, I would buy it and use it for many years :)</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>In short, yes, agree with Karim.</p>

<p>Also, the physical controls are also not well designed.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems we're about to ask for a brand new concept of camera from manufacturers, like in the car industry</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In other words, most cameras would cost between $10,000 and $60,000?</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>This is how Nikon sells 1001 options to justify a high price. They don't care about selling the same camera for less money with only 20 options in the menu and the rest simply not visible. They probably think this would not bring more profits.</i><P>

Most of those 1001 options come from the software. They add no material cost to manufacturing the camera, except maybe the cost of a couple of extra buttons. They don't care about selling the same camera for less money and only 20 options because it would cost just as much to make. Getting rid of a couple of buttons and taking out a few lines of code from the firmware does not magically reduce the cost of a camera by 60% or more.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nikon <i>could</i> provide a menu option that hid a lot of the features, although given that it would have to be configurable as to <i>which</i> features are wanted, it's unlikely to be so different from the existing "my menu" feature. Hiding functionality more thoroughly is just going to lead to a support issue; with the current scheme, anyone who vaguely knows their way around a Nikon DSLR can find the equivalent features in any other one, and the tech support staff know what's available and where everything is. With a few exceptions, Nikons are pretty easy to use and configurable. They even have a "use the wheels in Canon mode" option!<br />

<br />

Simon - can you elaborate on the physical controls not being well designed? An awful lot of effort goes into them. There are a few changes I'd like (I rant quite frequently about how the camera shoud be usable with just the right hand, given that my left is often supporting a big lens) but in general I've been pretty happy with the way a lot of functionality has been mapped to controls that can be used without looking at them.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon <em>could</em> provide a menu option that hid a lot of the features</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They did that on the D70. It went over like a lead balloon.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Simon - can you elaborate on the physical controls not being well designed?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite a lot to say, and not much time to say it. Generally, I have the impression that the layout was designed by committee(s), and that the biggest concern was to reduce cost. And the committees must have been made up of non-photographers. I say that with the caveat that I love my D700(s), it's a brilliant camera, but wish the controls were (much) better thought through.</p>

<p>The core of the problem is that they try to make everything controlled by three fingers on the right hand, using two command dials that change their function depending what mode you're in and how you've programmed the camera.</p>

<p>There are three absolutely core functions on a camera that need separating from all the chaff and need their own dedicated physical controls. A camera is pretty much a black box with lots of clever modes designed to control these three attributes in different ways. These are: aperture, shutter speed, and focus.</p>

<p>Yes OK, in a digital world you can probably add ISO and WB to those three, but you aren't normally playing with ISO and WB from frame to frame.</p>

<p>Film autofocus cameras pretty much evolved to an excellent level of ergonomics where there was a ring for aperture control (typically thumb and second finger of left hand), a knob for shutter speed (thumb and 2nd finger of right hand), a button for autofocus (thumb of right hand), a shutter release (right hand fore finger). And a separate dial for exposure compensation. There's inevitably a little bit of cross-over of finger use, but generally each function had its own physical place that felt nicely under the hand, and there was little scope for confusion.</p>

<p>Assuming you reprogramme the D700 to make it more sensible than the default settings - eg. to disable autofocus on pressing shutter release button, there are still a host of problems and scope for confusion. These include:</p>

<ul>

<li>The function of the rear and forward command dials changes a lot depending what mode you are in. Sometimes the rear dial may change the exposure compensation (if you're lightly depressing the shutter release and have disabled the silly exposure compensation on top), sometimes it might be changing aperture (aperture priority, if you've programmed it like that), but in other modes (from memory, in manual) it will switch function with the front dial and start changing the shutter speed instead. You can't programme this switching out adequately in the custom set up menus.</li>

<li>With the function dials you can't physically feel whether you've reached a limit eg. if the lens is fully opened or stopped down. With traditional aperture ring, reaching full aperture was done in one positive movement, and you hit the end stop, with this silly command dial you have to keep moving your thumb back and forth rotating it with several movements until it reaches fully open, and the only way you know it has reached fully open is by peering at the LCD screen and trying to remember the max aperture for that lens. If you've switched lenses and there is a lot of action going on, it's easy to mess up.</li>

<li>The AEL is pretty much useless, because after a bit of time, eg. if you don't press the shutter release for a few moments, then it unlocks itself. It always does this at the worst possible time. Nikon should have a look at control like for example the Contax G2, where there is a positive flicking of a physical switch, and the exposure goes nowhere until you've flicked the switch back.</li>

</ul>

<p>I could go on and on, but you get the general idea. Aperture, shutter speed, focus, exposure compensation, they all need their own physical nice big knobs. It would be great if they were even actually usable in gloves, just like professional cameras in the days when ergonomics were actually considered important.</p>

<p>This is one thing that Leica really seem to have got right. Nikon should stop pussyfooting around with ridiculous buttons and command dials.</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>All the Nikon dSLRs have the same basic ergonomics more or less but I agree with you Simon.</p>

<p>BTW, to stop the AEL from coming "undone" expand the time before the metering shuts down (aka auto metering off). Set it to 30 minutes or so, the battery you waste is miniscule. If you however shut off the camera it will still forget your settings. Flash lock also behave the same way as auto exposure lock.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd like a control wheel for the ISO setting.</p>

<p>Also reading interviews with Nikon engineers it seems that most are just casual photographers. But to be honest most cameras are made to be shot by non-photographers.</p>

<p> </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Quite a lot to say, and not much time to say it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me try to sum you up: if a function cannot be expressed as a physical dial, switch or button, it should not exist. End of story. Full stop. Period.</p>

<p>Here's a challenge for anyone (inspired by the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html">Christopher Hitchens challenge</a>*): find me a feature that cannot be expressed physically that would make any camera significantly more useful. I bet you can't.</p>

<p>* <small>name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.</small></p>

[jwenting]

<p>I hear you, Karim. I've not bought a new camera since the D200 went out of production and just bought another one of those.<br />And the stuff you want to cut from the D700 is stuff I never touch on the D200 (except the flash, at rare times when I forgot my SB800 or want to use it as a remote it can come in handy). I shoot RAW only, set the rest to one setting (the same on all bodies) and never touch it again.<br>

But as others say, they're making cameras for a mass market with many different customers, and a lot of them want things different from us. They might not ever touch those options either after initially setting them, but initially set them to something else. And that mass volume keeps the price down more than not having the options would given the smaller market they'd have without those options, so they're a good thing to have as long as you can work without having to constantly adjust them, and that's luckily quite possible.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>They did that on the D70. It went over like a lead balloon.</blockquote>

 

<p>Joseph - you mean the "simplified" custom function menu? (I only know about this because I just went looking on dpreview to see what you might have meant.) I can imagine that this didn't help much... I'm sure that the idea can be done better (arguably the info button + my menu <i>is</i> the same thing done better), but it's always going to confuse someone either by giving them too many options or by hiding the ones they need.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Simon - I understand your feeling, but I think we're going to agree to disagree here. I'm going to preface this with the warning that I like my D700, but there <i>are</i> things I would change.</p>

 

<blockquote>The core of the problem is that they try to make everything controlled by three fingers on the right hand, using two command dials that change their function depending what mode you're in and how you've programmed the camera.</blockquote>

 

<p>I wish this was the case. My biggest objection to the ergonomics is that I <i>can't</i> control everything with three fingers of my right hand. (The D7000 fixed the inability to set ISO right-handed, admittedly.)</p>

 

<blockquote>There are three absolutely core functions on a camera that need separating from all the chaff and need their own dedicated physical controls. A camera is pretty much a black box with lots of clever modes designed to control these three attributes in different ways. These are: aperture, shutter speed, and focus.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm confused - focus is usually controlled on the lens and shutter speed and aperture are each controlled by one dial - and the same dial in manual, aperture priority or shutter priority.</p>

 

<blockquote>Yes OK, in a digital world you can probably add ISO and WB to those three, but you aren't normally playing with ISO and WB from frame to frame.</blockquote>

 

<p>I only don't alter ISO between frames because the D700 doesn't let me do it one-handed - I would if I had a D7000. Instead, my ISO varies between frames by using auto-ISO and exposure adjustment. If I didn't mostly shoot in RAW, I'd be setting white balance frame-by-frame as well, depending on when I trusted the camera to do it right.</p>

 

<blockquote>Film autofocus cameras pretty much evolved to an excellent level of ergonomics where there was a ring for aperture control (typically thumb and second finger of left hand), a knob for shutter speed (thumb and 2nd finger of right hand), a button for autofocus (thumb of right hand), a shutter release (right hand fore finger). And a separate dial for exposure compensation. There's inevitably a little bit of cross-over of finger use, but generally each function had its own physical place that felt nicely under the hand, and there was little scope for confusion.</blockquote>

 

<p>So you like having the left hand jump between manual focus and the aperture ring? It's possible if you only shoot with short lenses; it's impossible if you're hand-holding an image-stabilised 500mm - the left-handed aperture ring simply doesn't scale. As for shutter speed and exposure compensation, by your admission you can't modify them without taking your finger off the shutter. Automate any of these and the knob position becomes meaningless; even if you like relying on muscle memory it's still an ergonomic pain not to have visual feedback of the settings in the viewfinder. And if you've got feedback in the viewfinder, why would you need a separate physical knob? I agree with settings such as exposure compensation having a dedicated button to activate them, but completely separate dials are <i>harder</i> to use, make the camera more unwieldy and more fragile and, yes, more expensive.</p>

 

<blockquote>Assuming you reprogramme the D700 to make it more sensible than the default settings - eg. to disable autofocus on pressing shutter release button, there are still a host of problems and scope for confusion. These include:</blockquote>

 

<p>Ooh. That's dangerously close to "My settings are the one true way to use the camera." Have you met Ken Rockwell? :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>The function of the rear and forward command dials changes a lot depending what mode you are in. Sometimes the rear dial may change the exposure compensation (if you're lightly depressing the shutter release and have disabled the silly exposure compensation on top), sometimes it might be changing aperture (aperture priority, if you've programmed it like that), but in other modes (from memory, in manual) it will switch function with the front dial and start changing the shutter speed instead. You can't programme this switching out adequately in the custom set up menus.</blockquote>

 

<p>In shutter priority, the main (usually rear) command dial controls shutter speed. In aperture priority, the sub- (usually front) command dial controls aperture. In manual, the rear controls shutter and the front controls aperture. By default, hold down the exposure compensation button and the main command dial always controls the exposure compensation. If you disable the "silly" exposure compensation button by enabling easy exposure compensation, rotating the dial you aren't using changes the exposure compensation. I don't use easy exposure compensation precisely because this needs you to think about what you're doing.<br />

<br />

If you've got a camera with only one command dial then yes, what you're adjusting changes by mode. It's a cost, size and robustness thing.</p>

 

<blockquote>With the function dials you can't physically feel whether you've reached a limit eg. if the lens is fully opened or stopped down. With traditional aperture ring, reaching full aperture was done in one positive movement, and you hit the end stop, with this silly command dial you have to keep moving your thumb back and forth rotating it with several movements until it reaches fully open, and the only way you know it has reached fully open is by peering at the LCD screen and trying to remember the max aperture for that lens. If you've switched lenses and there is a lot of action going on, it's easy to mess up.</blockquote>

 

<p>Huh? If you turn the dial too far, it maxes out. Spin the aperture dial and it'll stop changing at the maximum (or minimum) aperture. Run the dial along the side of your finger and I find it'll usually get to one end or other of the aperture range. You don't have to worry about overshooting. This also works for variable-aperture zooms. I'd like a way to clamp the aperture range so that I don't use my lenses when I know they're out of their sweet zone, but you can't do that in hardware. I agree that you can't feel when you've hit a boundary, and I wouldn't object to Nikon adding a phone-style buzzer for haptic feedback when this happens (if it didn't shake the optics too much), but I've never had a problem with it. And the aperture is visible in the finder - I don't need to look at an LCD screen. Do you usually shoot from the hip? I do have a bit of envy of Canon's circular command dials (which you can keep spinning without taking your finger off) - although they take up a lot of the back of the camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>The AEL is pretty much useless, because after a bit of time, eg. if you don't press the shutter release for a few moments, then it unlocks itself. It always does this at the worst possible time. Nikon should have a look at control like for example the Contax G2, where there is a positive flicking of a physical switch, and the exposure goes nowhere until you've flicked the switch back.</blockquote>

 

<p>Just so I'm not being contrary, I agree that this might be nice. Although it would also scupper the re-use of the AEL button for other things.</p>

 

<blockquote>I could go on and on, but you get the general idea. Aperture, shutter speed, focus, exposure compensation, they all need their own physical nice big knobs. It would be great if they were even actually usable in gloves, just like professional cameras in the days when ergonomics were actually considered important.</blockquote>

 

<p>I can use my D700 using gloves. Using my Bessa R in gloves is harder (the dedicated shutter speed knob is very fiddly). An aperture ring is at best an awkward solution - not that physical aperture stops don't have their uses, but it really limits the ergonomics of the lens except in a very few cases. There <i>is</i> a lot to be said for giving each control its own dial - and if you had to go into a menu to change important camera settings (like you do with auto-ISO) then I'd complain. But I really think Nikon have done a pretty good job of making the controls consistent and easy to use without moving your eye from the finder. What they've not done is made the D700 handle exactly like an F4 - but I'm not convinced that an F4 would have handled like an F4 if the technology was available to make it handle like a D700. If your muscle memory is programmed for an F4 (or M3) then I feel your pain, but I would hope you'll eventually get used to it.<br />

<br />

My D700 handles very like my F5 (without the finger contortions for the locking knobs). I don't believe the F5 was a cost-reduced F4 - I believe the changes are there because they're genuine improvements.</p>

 

<blockquote>This is one thing that Leica really seem to have got right. Nikon should stop pussyfooting around with ridiculous buttons and command dials.</blockquote>

 

<p>If I thought that the Leica ergonomics would let you control an autofocus hand-held 300mm f/2.8 properly, I'd agree. There's some tactile pleasure in using a manual rangefinder (or, indeed, in using AI lenses on a D700), but it just won't work across the whole Nikon system. But you may disagree. :-)</p>