holger

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 (latest model), stays on D750 #1 through the entire event.

Nikon 70-200mm f/4 stays on D750 #2 through the entire event.

 

I keep some primes ready for special stuff, but could not do without those two zooms. So not one, but two favorites.

If the customers wants a special look (vintage, film or something), I'll do all and every picture I deliver that way. It's different with b/w: on most weddings I will have 20 - 30 pictures as a second copy, together with the original color version.

 

Holger

Preordered my 18-50 DL today: exactly the travel camera I have been waiting for.

XP2 if you need to scan, HP5 if you work old school, Delta 100 if you work old school and have enough light.

Since the price of the V1 came down some time ago, I bought one with the 10 mm pancake and the 10-30 standard zoom. I added the

30-110 and ordered the wide angle zoom (still on the way...). The V1 has become my main travel camera, and I even use it as the

companion of my D800 on events. 10 MP is not very much, but it's more than enough even for the largest prints I can get out of my HP

printer. AF speed is amazing, the only drawback so far is handling: I do miss some direct access buttons and wheels, but once ISO and

program mode are set, I just shoot away. RAW is perfect, Lightroom knows all my lens profiles, IQ is more than good enough. And all of

this fits in one little bag, which itself finds its place in my computer rucksack. And that's body, pancake, telezoom and soon enough wide

angle zoom. With my D800, all of this would add up to a second rucksack, no chance to pass unseen... And yes, the V1 is rugged, perfect

quality.

Just stumbled over the thread, so I am a little later... If you do weddings, even if only occasionally, the D600 is a no-brainer to me: low

light, cropping, metering, in all of these points the D600 is worlds better than the D300(s). I own both, kept the D300s as backup.

<p>I sold my D300, and I will substitute my now backup-body D300s with a D600 soon enough. I don't shoot anything where crop factors would come in handy, so I prefer to carry a smaller backup body with similar high ISO capacity. DX does make sense in a very small body, like a D3200, but since I got my Sony RX100 I carry either that small jewel, o my D800, nothing inbetween.</p>

Well, in a way I did it. I still got my LF gear going, but MF is sitting in the shelf since I received my D800. I love film, but I don't have the

time required to handle it properly. The D800 let me dig my good old primes out again, and shooting with those on a tripod using life view

is perfect. Results are much better than anything I got out of my V700 so far (maybe my fault, not a MF problem), and workflow fits much

better into my digital dark room. LF is different, this is true film, regardless of resolution LF handels in a way even my D800 can not

substitute.

<p>Regarding lenses: my 28 mm f/2.8 AIS (the CRC-version with a 0.2 m min. distance) is absolutely perfect on the D800. The 24-120 mm f/4 is very good, I use it when tripod is no option and I need to zoom, and for these purposes it's perfect, as well as for a small travel pack (body, 1 lens, flash).</p>

 

<p>I am a very happy D800 / SB900 - user. Results are perfect, and the shutting off problem only happens once in a while. Try not to cover the flash, and keep your SB600 ready in case you have to deliver, but most of the time the flash wan't shut off. I would rather get a used SB900 than an SB800, due to the latter not shutting off when heating up, but shooting on, risking damage or at least major wear. </p>

It's not a question of doubt or belief, it's just facts. A 36 MP-sensor as good or even better than the best 12 MP-sensor of last years top camera maker? At

halve the price? That was science fiction only a few months ago, today it's reality. Even if dxo had only stated "equal" iq it would have been a miracle given the

pixel density.

<p>I am just adding FX to my bag. For tele and macro, I prefer DX (longer reach, more DOF at the same effective length). For landscape, portrait, nightshots it's FX. If you can afford it (and to me, many of us with pockets deep enough to get a D700 plus lenses should be able to afford a used D300, D90, D7000 or whatever as backup and second body), use both. In analog times, I don't remember asking myself "35 mm or MF?", both formats had their purpose. </p>

<p>... don't know if I can activate a link: <a href=" (the first picture is way too small, hope this links works better)</p>

<p>I own both the lens and the D300, no problem focusing manually. You just have to be carefull when using it wide open at shorter distances, but focus confirmation of the D300 helps. No issues, I love the lens, it's small, light and tack sharp.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Not really, I have had better results with VR "Active" than with no VR. Sure, super-heavy gyro things will further improve results, but that's out of my financial reach (plus I don't shoot aerial full time).</p>

<p>Exactly what I am looking foward to... 3 times the resolution compared to my faithful D300. Keeping the camera steady enough will be the main challenge, I suppose, at least with the sort of plane I fly with. VR will be essential, even if I would love to use the 50 mm f/1.4 AF-S for its sharpness. Wait and see...</p>

<p>I ordered the D800, but just for one reason: landscape and portraits, both on a tripod. For most of my shooting the D700 would have been more than enough, I even thought of getting a used D3s (high ISO is important for part of my work). I still am not entirely convinced that this will be the perfect body for me, but since Nikon will have difficulties delivering the ordered bodies in the months to come, I suppose I will always be able to sell it without a great loss and get a D3s or whatever instead.<br>

The tripod thing is common sense: want perfect sharpness out of my D300? Tripod, lmu, self timer or cable release. Want perfect street shots? Don't pixel peep, there is no way to get 100% sharpness in that situation in low light, and I don't even care that much, the goal simply is different in this case.<br>

Sure, 100% of the D800 shows more detail than 100% of a D300 pic, so motion blurr will be larger in comparison to pixel size on the D800. But that's for pixel peepers only, and for perfectionists shooting stills and windless landscapes. For the rest of us, with the D800 you can have both: near-MF-quality, if you work as described, or just as good as a DSLR can be within normal handling and lens issues. </p>

<p>I just ordered the Think Tank urban disguise 35 V2 for the same purpose: I travel a lot for my work (project manager). Until now I only carried a p&s with me, but encountered many situations where I would have loved to use my D300 instead. I could test a 35 model, and fit the following into the camera compartment: D300, 17-55 mm f/2.8 AF-S (attached), 35 mm f/1.8 AF-S, 200 mm f/4 AIS (very slim and rather short compared to modern AF teles) and flash. My Lenovo fits perfectly in the back part, and accessories both from Lenovo and Nikon find their place in the front pocket. Size and handling are perfect, if traveling by train or plane I will just leave the 200 mm at home, things tend to get heavy with all of it in the bag.</p>

<p>I bought both (or nearly, mine is the 50 mm f/1.4 AF-S), and I am waiting for a something like a 20 or 24 mm f/1.8 to complete the range. Most of my shooting is done with the 50 mm, I like the short tele. I own a 17-55 mm f/2.8 AF-S too, but it sits on the shelf or on the backup body most of the time: autofocus is so much faster and spot-on with the 1.4 and 1.8 lenses, even if for most pictures I use f/2.8 or f/3.5 (more DOF), autofocus works better with these primes.</p>

<p>I would opt for the 50, and hope for a 24 or something for the wider end (group shots).</p>

 

<p>On the swiss Nikon price list D700 and D300s are still listed, while the D3s has disappeared (D3x still listet though). Different stock quantities in different countries? I too don't expect prices to fall too much (street price of D300s in Switzerland is around 1'350 CFH today compared to 1'890 CHF list price), with the D700 / D800 it will depend on the D800 list price: should it be much more expensive (+30% or more compared to D700), D700 will remain stable. Wait and see....</p>

<p>FX = Full frame sensor, sensor size 24 x 36 mm as in good old film days.<br>

DX = cropped sensor, roughly half the size of FX, crop factor 1.5 (so a 50 mm lens on FX becomes a 75 mm lens on DX)</p>

<p>Your 7D would be a DX-body in Nikon terms. </p>

<p>Top of the line lenses: no named difference between crap and L-lenses, Nikon only sells top of the line lenses :-)<br>

The professional ones are the f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, plus lots of specialties in between (macro, called micro with Nikon, shift + tilt and such things). The one thing to take care of is the DX/FX difference: Nikon produces a range of lenses that just cover the smaller DX sensor and don't get you a full frame picture on FX.</p>

<p>The allround pro zoom in DX terms is the 17-55 mm f/2.8, while it's FX brother would be the 24-70 mm f/2.8. Both built like a tank, optically better than many primes of the past, great lenses.</p>

<p>This is just for information, I would first follow Shuns advice and learn. My brother in law uses a D7, and he does get perfect results in low light, equal to what I squeeze out of my D300.He shoots RAW and knows his tools. I just prefer Nikon handling, lenses and colour, otherwise a 7D would well be on my shopping list. </p>

<p>Regarding lenses, they are all f-mount, so don't get me wrong, no need to buy everything new when switching from DX to FX. BUT: pure DX lenses have a smaller image circle and do not cover the FX sensor completely. FX Nikon bodies crop automatically. FX lenses work perfectly on DX bodies, they just happen to be "longer" due to the smaller sensor. I was tempted to get the 24-70 mm f/2.8 for my D300 so I could keep using it when switching to D700 or similar one day. I ended up buying the 17-55 mm f/2.8 DX lense, since 24 mm just is not wide enough on the wide end. That's what I mean by different perfect setups for DX and FX.</p>

<p>Regarding high ISO: one more thing is to shoot RAW and use a valid software. I am happy with the results I get from Lightroom. So workflow and software may be another point to check.</p>

<p>If video AND low light are important to you, get the D7000. Back- or frontfocussing an be an issue on any camera, but both are easily corrected by Nikon service. I have owned 2 D300 and one D300s in the past years, one of the D300 had a backfocussing issue, Nikon repair service corrected it under warranty in no time.</p>

<p>If low light is important and video not, get the D700. In my eyes, DX or FX are two very different choices regarding lenses. Either build the perfect DX setup, or create a perfect FX world. Switching is not as easy as it seems, since all of your lenses change, even if you start with FX lenses only on a DX body.</p>

<p>Compared to the D7000, D300s is one generation older. BUT: handling to me is much better (that's why I stick to my D300 and D300s), and differences in IQ, even if they seem worlds appart in dpreview- and DxO-comparisons, depend much more on personal knowledge and technique than on Dxxx used.</p>

<p>BTW, what is wrong with your 7D? I am non Canon fan, but the 7D seems to be a very capable camera to me, maybe it's more about lenses than cameras?</p>

<p>Thanks to all of you for the terrific input!<br>

Ikka, in my place the D700 is somewhat more expensive, and the problem is: I do not own FX lenses as of now. So getting a D700 plus a valid lense is just too much for my financial reach.<br>

Frank and Bill, I think the noise discussion finds an interesting point in the article mentioned by Roger, whom I thank for the link. I prefer these reviews (Steve Huff is another one) to the purely tecnical comparisons, but as always it's all about our priorities.</p>

<p>As said before, I think I will order my copy without selling my D300. Should the NEX-7 fulfill my expectations and needs, I'll keep it. Otherwise their will hopefully be enough happy second hand buyers around for a mint NEX-7.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all of you, now let's go out and shoot with what we have :-)</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the feedback. With a perfect timing tonight they put the detailed review of the NEX-7 on dpreview. Lots of positive aspects, but also some cons.</p>

<p>Thomas, yes, it's neither payed nor just my private shooting, somewhere inbetween (I am no pro, but the one who does the job in 3 churches, so it's serious, even if not payed to full extent).</p>

<p>Dave: I'll keep the D300 and will replace it some day with Dxxx, that was one part of the decision followinig the feedback here. DSLR flexibility and handling is too important in too many situations.</p>

<p>So I will probably stretch my bank account and order the NEX-7 without selling the D300 and see if it lives up to my expectations and dpreviews test results. NEX-5 is no alternative due to the missing viewfinder, while the X100 keeps sitting somewhere in the back of my head due to its combination of picture quality, viewfinder and small size. X10 is no alternative here, 85% viewfinder and small sensor smells like some sort of x100-make-believe. The only thing I will have to wait for is fast Sony or Zeiss lenses for the NEX.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for the input, you've helped clear my thoughts a lot,<br>

Holger</p>