john_newell2

<p>If it were me...and I have owned/own now the D100, D200, D300 and D700...I would sell the D200, buy a D700 and sell the two DX lenses and replace with either a 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/4VR. As an alternative on the lenses, I might replace the 37-70/2.8 and the two DX lenses with a 24-70/2.8. The D700 is still a brilliant camera and you have enough FX lenses that moving out of the DX world doesn't sound like it will be a huge problem.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have had my D700 for over three and half years, and I too have never run into such "very rare case." To me, if it ain't broke, I wouldn't fix it.</p>

</blockquote>

 

This is obvious good advice. The other side of the argument is that manufacturers are notoriously less than candid about the full set of changes, so perhaps there is some real issue that the upgrade fixes...though if there was, we would probably have had endless threads about it? Dunno. BTW, the US instructions have an amusing (maybe) typo in one section where it refers to the D7000. (It is a typo...I went ahead and did the upgrade and all seems to function as expected...)

 

<p>US site: <a href="http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17802">http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17802</a><br>

I applied the update and the front of my camera now reads D900. What gives?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Forget a new 80-200/2.8 D ED, a used 80-200/2.8 AF-S is the superior lens. keh has a bargain one for under $1000 USD if you can go that far. I have bought bargain and ugly lenses from them that were terrific, and worth more than what I bought them for.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agree strongly on the AF-S version. The optical quality is really terrific. The only thing to be careful about is dying motors, but you won't have any trouble spotting that (squeeeeeeak!). That and the useless tripod mount...</p>

<p>For quite a while, my working gear (what was in the bag as opposed to the rest of the accumulata in semi-storage) was a pair of D300 bodies and the Tokina 11-17, Nikkor 17-55, Nikkor 80-200 AFS, Nikkor 300/4 AFS and a TCE-14. It was fast, flexible and relatively portable. </p>

<p>In your place, I'd sell the 80-400 and replace it with the 300/4 AFS.</p>

<p>I agree with the posts above indicating that indoor/outdoor is the first big cut. If indoors, like basketball, high ISO performance matters a lot, and you should look at the FX bodies.<br>

Outdoors, where high ISO isn't as likely to be a factor (at least for daylight use, as opposed to use after dark), the crop sensor that effectively extends the focal length may be a plus. In my experience, buffer and write speeds are critical, and make the D300/D300S a much better choice than the D7000.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you're shooting sports you'll love the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In most cases, only if shooting <strong><em>indoor</em></strong> sports. Outside, the crop factor of the D300 might be a big advantage.</p>

<p>You more than have your answer, but I was out today shooting pictures at the Head of the Charles Regatta with a D300 and D200. Other than write speed, the D200 does just about the same things that the D300 does, and it has a slightly different look that I like. </p>

<p>Until recently I was still using a D100. The slow write speeds are really the reason it's no longer here. Image quality was fine.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ninety percent of everything I shoot can be covered with a 17-55/2.8 and an 80-200/2.8. Big and heavy but with superb image quality, you can pick these up used for a decent price and be set for many years. Rick H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My experience is the same. </p>

 

<p>I apologize to those who posted above. I need new glasses. I mis-read F100 for D100. Inexplicable...sorry.</p>

<p>You can't, at least not from the EXIF data.<br>

<br />I owned and used and liked a D100, but if I wanted to buy a 6mp camera today, I'd buy a D40 in a heartbeat and the D100 wouldn't even pass through my mind.</p>

<p>According to Stefan Daniel in the LL interview, there has been no change in weathersealing from the M8 to the M9.</p>

<p>Owned both, used both a lot, sold the Tamron. On brick walls and bookshelves, the Tamron was the equal of the Nikkor. On real life subjects, the Nikkor was noticeably better. It also focused a good bit faster, if that matters.</p>

<p>There are some date typos above. There was never an M6TTL made by E. Leitz GmbH. All M6TTl bodies were made by Leica and had red dots that said "Leica." If one managed to leave the factory with a "Leitz" dot (which is very doubtful), it would be a case of a leftover dot at the bottom of a drawer somewhere. The reason I doubt that is that I've seen the red dots being applied during the Leitz era and they were on a long strip like stickers and were applied to the cameras in the same manner. Someone could have re-used a used/old or new/old stock dot on a TTL, however.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will the E3 be sufficient for the D700 when shooting Raw + jpg Med/Fine @ CH? I'm not interested in the UDMA dnld spec to the computer, to warrant double the price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you want to shoot more than ~ half a dozen raw exposures at CH.</p>

<p>One or two minor follow-ups on the rental. The dealer who rents the camera may be willing to sell it to you (or not). And if so, the dealer may be willing to give you credit for the rental fee. My experience was that the package the dealer I rented from was not competitive with the Leica refurbs, but ymmv. Make very sure you understand whether you get a Leica warranty with a purchased rental and how long the term of the warranty is if you go that route.</p>

<p>Absolutely agree on renting it (the Leica "Test Drive") program. I rented an M8 and a Summarit for $100 for a week. It was money very well spent.<br>

I like my 50s more now that they are cropped like a 66mm - ymmv. <br>

Agree on the bugs being out of the M8/8.2 now for the most part. Wait and see on the M9, but there is nothing to suggest that it won't have bugs, and nothing to suggest speedy resolution, if history is any guide.<br>

I compared the files I got from the rental M8 to my M6+Coolscan files and sold the M6es. YMMV. BTW, if you rent, find out what the firmware version is. V2.xxx has, among other things, much better AWB. I also think that jpgs out of any M8 tend to be less indicative of what you can really get if you work from raw files than is the case with Canikon DSLRs.</p>

<p>Take a look at another thread running right now. The FE2 bodies are all much older than the FM2n bodies, and parts are in general no longer available new, so if/when something happens, you'll have to buy a donor body. FM3a is a great camera but a little pricey.</p>

<p>If the OP can afford to upgrade from a D90 to a D3x, he can perhaps afford to toss his existing lenses as well? Anyone who can plunk down $7300 for a new camera for everyday use can swing two or three $1800 lenses into the bargain?</p>

<p>The LR camera profiles for a specific camera don't say "D200" or whatever - they just come up as "Camera Standard," "Camera Vivid," "Camera Landscape," etc. IIRC. LR detects the camera and won't allow you to use, say, a D300 setting on a D700 file. The exception is that you can download the D2X Mode settings and those _will_ show up as such and can be applied to any NEF.</p>

<p>Optech makes two sizes that fit the M body perfectly (short and long lens). I use them mostly for cushioning when the camera is in a bag, but I am using a similar case on my LX-3 as its full-time case. They work very well, but cases are very specific to your needs and preferences.</p>

<p>Sorry, am on holiday so pics are on another machine - but the difference was that the Tamron pictures were basically 2D, where the Nikon pictures usually have a very 3D effect.</p>

<p>I owned an excellent v1 copy of the Tamron and bought the Nikon. I owned both for a couple of weeks and did a lot of parallel shots. On more or less 2D subjects they were essentially equivalent. In real life shots of people, there was no comparison. I was actually amazed by how much better the Nikon was. I'd recommend it strongly; the difference can be seen.</p>

<p>It's not moisture, it's a plating defect. My unscientific observation of various cameras over 20+ years is that some will continue to deteriorate for no particular reason, even if cared for carefully. Dick's advice is what's right. There's a good chance it will get worse, and it is a resale killer.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the reason to buy an SB800 is not future compatibility but backwards compatibility. If I wanted to increase my peace of mind about future compatibility, I'd go with the SB900. However, given the scalpers' prices prevailing these days for SB800 units in good condition, $280 might be an almost failure-proof purchase...</p>