mjt

<p>Other posters have covered the techie advantages of this lens. I suggest you also check out the 28-70 2.8 as a "bargain" 24-70 :)<br>

I shoot a lot of concerts and that is my prime [sic] lens of choice (mated to a D3/D700/S5 Pro). I've used other lenses (zooms and primes) in this similar range and <strong>nothing</strong> can touch this lens. Tack-sharp, fast focusing in dim conditions, and of course f2.8 across the range. The 24-70 has additional coating(s) which make it a tad better, plus a little more reach at the wide end.<br>

It's also a great portrait lens, producing great bokeh. I mostly shoot portraits with the 70-200 2.8, yet I use the 28-70 about 30% of the time. You can probably find the 28-70 used (say, at KEH) for about $1400 or less.</p>

<p>This isn't a side affect of the lights. When the D700 first came out (and to this day), the banding issue was discussed in the DPReview forums (same with the D3). Go to the DPReview D3-D1/D700 forum and type, "d700 banding" (no quotes). Here's a post going back to Sep 2008: <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29409559">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29409559</a>. The banding mostly occurs in very specific "photographic environments".</p>

<p>Next time you're wanting to shoot a "motorsport" event, go for a motorcycle event. Much more intense and provides for more (better) exciting shots. AAMOF, a MotoGP event is coming up July3-5th. Getting shots of these folks over on their knee in the corners is rewarding (and for the rider - I know, I'm a weekend racer:) Outdoor motocross events are all equally rewarding to shoot.<br>

A suggestion - shooting a race car (or motorcycle) on the track with a fast shutter speed is a no-no - it tends to "stop" the spinning action of the wheels - it looks as if the car is parked on the track. Better to slow the shutter and pan with the car/bike - the blurred wheels provide the visual cue of movement to the viewer. </p>

<p>The majority of portraiture I do is with the 70-200 2.8 VR<br>

and next in line is the 28-70 2.8.</p>

I'm in complete agreement with Thom Hogan ... $3k USD for the sensor?<br />

Get real Nikon. http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm<br /><br />

 

It might be worth mentioning that Michael Reichman canceled his D3x order.

As Michael said, if you're concerned about slightly improved<br />

flash exposure, the "D" version would be the way to go.<br /><br />

 

If you're questioning the $50 difference, and you dont need the<br />

"flash improvement" (which is minimal), then the non-"D" version<br />

is fine enough.<br /><br />

I want to be sure we're clear on one point, because there<br />

will be folks lurking threads such as this, who are new<br />

to digital photography, and will interpret what's being<br />

said as, "a 300mm lens on a DX body will give me the<br />

same <b>magnification</b> as a 450mm on an FX body".<br /><br />

 

That is simply not true. The ONLY difference is that the<br />

300mm on a DX body will <b>CROP</b> the image to appear the same<br />

as a 450mm lens on an FX body.<br /><br />

 

It's not magnification, it's crop (or field of view).<br />

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

Laura - I shoot quite a bit of roaming concerts and bands<br />

at local venues. You know what - I like the first one better<br />

than the "repaired" second image. And many of the bands that<br />

I shoot would prefer the first, because it presents the mood<br />

of the show. <br /><br />

 

The second shot looks flat and muted, with no "character".<br /><br />

 

It also depends on the band's genre. You'll find with most<br />

rock, punk, new wave, hard core, bands, they want the look<br />

of the venue. I've found if a band wants clear shots (white light),<br />

then you shoot staged shots in the venue or outside. <br /><br />

 

Another way to "cure" this photo is to change it to grey-scale<br />

or some other "no color" style or some wildly creative "fix".<br />

For example, I've used Edge Detect or Neon on a photo like<br />

this and the band went ga-ga over it.<br /><br />

 

The problem with shooting venues like this is that you really can't <br />

nail the white balance, because the lighting is ever-changing.<br />

Personally, I think it's more about being creative in post-processing<br />

than it is in being "pre-prepared".<br />

BTW, don't forget to shoot RAW - additionally, Noise Ninja will be your friend in this situation.

I'm not sure there's a steadfast rule of settings for a concert, since each concert is lit<br />

and positioned differently, to include the "lightshow" the band may have specified.<br /><br />

 

The best guidance I can give is to start out with at least 800 ISO - you will most likely move<br />

UP in ISO, depending upon the shutter speed you will require to stop the movement. It<br />

would be great if you can find a loaner lens that is faster, obviously a 2.8 or faster. Most all<br />

the concerts I shoot are above 1000 ISO.<br /><br />

 

Anyway, I suggest starting at ISO 800 under concert conditions and check the<br />

histogram and adjust accordingly.

(Failed to mention these are D700 NEFs, with ViewNX on OSX 10.5.5)

I have an entirely different issue - when I open a NEF file and click the<br />

RAW button, I get a message, "Unsupported File Type" - these are virginal NEF files.

Have you applied the latest firmware update? Drain the battery<br />

completely and charge it. Ensure all contacts are clean.

I'd get Thom's guide: http://www.bythom.com/f6guide.htm

The 85 is "phenom" to use your words. However, I have no experience with<br />

the 105 to compare, as you asked. I suggest you check reviews from Bjørn:<br />

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Personally, I avoid eBay like the plague. I ordered my D700's via Jellyfish, er, Cashback Live,<br />

at 15% off from J&R. I should get the Cashback checks at the end of this month.

A lot of great answers in here. I think the consensus (as it should be) is<br />

"35mm" cameras (be they film or digital) have a different focus [sic] than<br />

their medium format cousins. I have not read Reichman's article, but it<br />

would be interesting to read his technical test methods. Personally, I would<br />

say that a 12 MP DLSR can't compete with a 6x7 scanned transparency<br /><br />

 

For those interested, Thom has a matrix showing "comfort zones" of print sizes<br />

from various MP sensors: http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm<br /><br />

 

Although a bit off-topic, I'd like to touch on the brief white balance discussion<br />

in this thread. First off, it's my opinion that all DSLR's perform [consistently] poorly<br />

in any light other than that of a 25% cloudy day (outdoors of course) - I'm speaking<br />

about a DSLR in AWB mode. And they don't always get it correct out in a fairly sunny<br />

day, either. It's my experience, even with the high-end D3 - if I fire off a sequence<br />

of shots (say a football play in action) 2 to 3 of the 6 shots' WB will be off. The reason<br />

for this is that the camera must continue to make a decision about what the light source is.<br /><br/>

 

With that said, everyone should ALWAYS shoot with a CWB setting, be it either in-camera<br />

or in post processing - in other words, dont trust the AWB setting.

@Michael Ellis wrote, "As I am a tight budget and can really only afford to purchase one software

package which represents the most value for money in terms of features. LR2 or NX2?"

 

Nothing beats Lightroom for its seamless workflow, but nothing beats NX2 for

its recognition of the D700's Nikon-specific features. You have to decide if you

will be using those proprietary features - if so, NX2 is the way to go. Personally,

I have both (plus Bibble Pro) and I always return to Lightroom, because it,

quite simply, is the best post-processing tool (for my needs, of course).

 

I suggest you install the evaluation copy of both programs and decide for

yourself which is the better tool.

Some of the interesting highlights of the new feature set:

 

# Sharpness, Contrast, Highlight Protection, and Shadow Protection adjustment functions have been added to the

Quick Adjustment palette.

 

# Fine Adjustment, and Tint adjustment functions have been added to the White Balance section of the Quick

Adjustment palette.

 

# When Use Gray Point is selected for adjusting white balance from the Quick Adjustment palette, the size of the

point can now be selected from 3 pixel sizes.

 

# In Full Screen display mode, file order / total file number is now displayed in the bottom bar.

 

# In Full Screen and Image Viewer modes, the zoom ratio is now shown.

 

# Two separate image rotation icons, Rotate 90° CW and Rotate 90° CCW, are now available in the toolbar. A Rotate

180° has also been added to the context menu*.

 

# Full screen slideshows of all images can now be displayed when no images or just one image is selected in the

Thumbnail area.

 

# When a window is displayed on the secondary monitor in a multiple-screen environment, the display profile can

now be changed to that of the secondary display profile.

Get it while it's hot: http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm

http://www.bythom.com/d700announce.htm<br /><br />

 

The problem I see is that Nikon wants to follow their film-body naming convention,<br />

but that doesnt work for digital, because the film bodies had a 5+ year life cycle,<br />

which is in contrast to digital bodys' life cycle.<br /><br />

 

What they should have done is name the camera based on the sensor type:<br />

Nikon DX1, DX2, DX3, FX1, FX2, FX3, etc. They could then post-fix the "grade"<br />

of body, such as DX1P (P=Pro), DX1C (C=Crossover/whatever), DX1C (C=Consumer).<br /><br />

 

So all they need to do is increase the number by one for each generation - everyone<br />

would know that the FX9P is the ninth generation FX Pro body, and so on.

Check for a firmware update.

You're always better off with top-notch glass, so I want to answer you directly:<br />

go with the D300 and 70-200 - that lens is irreplaceable. Eventually, if you decide<br />

to go with the D700/etc (FF), you'll enjoy it even more.<br /><br />

 

Granted, I dont have experience with the 55-200mm, but with that lens, considering<br />

what you're shooting, you'll most likely be at 5.6 at best. The 70-200 2.8 will, forgive me,<br />

"smoke" the 55-200 with regards to speed and quality. Combine it with the D300 and you<br />

have a great combination.

@Rene' Villela wrote, "Do you have a credit card? That will take care of any problem deciding!"<br /><br />

 

Ok, so your answer might be a bit TIC - however, it is very, shall we say, uneducated.

@MS Keil said, "mj t, your response means that you get less blown out highlights<br />

and better shadow detail with S5, that is not only for people photos? And: Does this<br />

hold for JPEG, RAWs or both?"<br /><br />

 

To answer the first part of your question, "yes". The S5 Pro is notoriously<br />

known for its ability to recover highlights. I spend less time "tweaking" S5<br />

images, compared to tweaking images from the D700/D3/etc. Every camera<br />

requires some level of tweaking (DSLRs, that is). Tweaking photos, that is. As<br />

ridiculous as it sounds, I spend less time with S5 RAFs than I do with NEFs. <br />

Additionally, the out-of-camera JPGs from the S5 are "ready to go"<br /><br />

 

Dont get me rwong - I wouldnt trade a Nikon body for anything else, but when<br />

it comes to people photos, the S5 has the upper edge for "out of the camera" images<br />

(with less work). And the DR on the S5 is unbeatable.<br /><br />

 

However, please consider your photographic genre. For me, the S5 excels<br />

with events such as weddings and similar events. The Nikon's excel at everything else.