donald_weston1

<p>I have had both the D700, 5D mark I and II, and now have the D7000 in addition to my D300 and D3100. For my needs, the D7000 fills all I need for now and for sometime into the future. IT is well built and is everything Shun says it is. IMHO, I agree with Shun 100% on his statements, even down to memory card preferences. I have never had a CF card fail back to my original 340Mb one, but have had two SD cards fail within 2 yrs. That doesn't mean I won't look at a D800 or D400, but the D700 is not going to give me anything I don't already have or better...YMMV</p>

<p>From what I have heard about the 28-300VR Nikon, and I have one on order, I would look at this for the trip as most people say it is sharper then the 70-300mm VR lens. I have that one too, and it is just OK, but I like large prints, and I do not find it as sharp as my 16-85. Either a so-so copy or just pushing the lens/camera combo too far, here is an image from the weekend up in Maine. I would say it is sharp enough for web use and maybe small prints only...<br>

The 28-300mm VR maybe a good overall travel lens and good for India stuff too, but it ain't cheap..</p>

<div></div>

<p>AS a owner and user of both the D3100 and 70-300VR, I have the following comments. For large birds that you can approach to a reasonable distance, in decent light, this combo may satisfy, for all other types of bird shooting this combo just won't do it. You need more focal length and higher fps, especially for birds in flight. Yes the old timers used a MF camera and got shots, but there were lots of misses too. Today, thanks to the wonderful technology we all can get our hands on. I own a D300 and will keep that until the D7000 is available or a direct replacement for the D300. The D3100 is a very nice camera, and has become my P&S as it were with either my 16-85 or 18-200. It will be my backup and main camera when circumstances are appropriate for its use. Image quality is at least as good as the D300 when you are using the camera within its subject range..at subject extremes use a better tool for the job....YMMV, Don</p>

<p>Have checked with google search but no listings for this specific info. Am going to be in California the week leading up to and including the holiday. Have been to Yosemite twice before years ago and wondered what things would be doable this time of the year. I know the Tioga Pass road most likely will be closed by then, which is unfortunately too bad. Will be heading in from San Francisco area and spending at most two to three nights in park.<br>

Another alternative is just stay on coastal areas and go south to Carmel/ Big Sur area for the same 2-3 nights...have been there also, luckily, but lots to shoot and things are always different, right? comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Is my desire to return to Yosemite over shadowing reality of what there is to shoot this time of year, I mean, fall folliage and waterfalls will be gone by Thanksgiving? Correct? Would I just be better doing in the coast and leaving Yosemite for another time of year down the road.<br>

Thanks for all your great advice...best, Don</p>

<p>I have had both the 5D1 and 5D2 and consider them nor any other Canon dslr as plasticky. One does not expect a 5D series camera to be a cinder block like a 1D but they are solid enough. I don't try to mishandle any of my gear, but don't coddle them either. I don't expect them to drop 6ft to the pavement and come out unscathed, while a 1D series might survive, not so sure about that either, I bet depending on how it landed it or a D3 might suffer a catastrophic failure also. For that kind of trauma, you would be better with an old film slr like a F2 or F3 or Canon F1. I would not expect any modern electronic device to survive that kind of fall or worse, but that is just me. Less then that, I have not had one failure withe even my Xsi type bodies, rain or shine....jmho....<br>

anyway, never had a problem with any cf/battery doors ever and do not mind not having an extra catch to keep them shut, they work fine as is. Obviously if you are shooting in a desert or near ocean, normal common sense should prevail. IN extreme conditions, different equipment might be better....best, Don</p>

<p>Don</p>

<p>I may becoming late to this dance but here goes. I have owned until last week both a D700 and a 5D2 kits for about a year and year and a half respectively. I just sold the D700 last week to a friend. I still have but am going to be selling off the remaining Nikon gear. All that follows is just my OPINION. Both of these cameras are great, as are the systems. My choice is personal for what I feel the most comfortable with and my needs. I have been doing photography mostly as a hobby for over 40 yrs and have shot all kinds of film formats as well.</p>

<p>That is the background, I owned the 5D2 first and had issues with it in the early firmware stages, as far as focusing etc. This is not new, had the same issues with the 5D1 and actually bought and sold 3 bodies over 18 mos until I got a "good one". I bought the D700 and enlarged my Nikon stuff because of just that issue. Nikon focus was much more dependable and it does not matter if you have only 12mp if it is sharp and your 21 mp is not. Blur is blur. That said, I like having the extra mp when the image is sharp and have the luxury to crop when needed. No one will argue there is more potential to crop with 21 mp then 12mp. I do not own any lenses longer then 300mm FL. for either system. I do not count pixels as much as print large, 24x36+.</p>

<p>What happened recently is I decided finally to upgrade the firmware in the 5D2 to get it ready to sell off one system. I have two kids in college and money is tight and really do not have a reason to keep two systems up to date and complete at this point. I updated to firmware 2.07 I believe, and decided to "try it out again" to make sure nothing had changed negatively. Well shooting with my primes, like a 24mm EF and 50 mm macro ef, I was blown away. I finally had the camera I had wanted all along. This with NO MF calibrating each lens. Something I just refuse to do, call me stupid or a courmudgeon, your choice.<br>

And I know no one will tell me the firmware update was supposed to do what it did, but I can see no other reason for the change....Occams' Razor..... Anyway, now I have a Canon body that focuses well and images are what they are advertised. I prefer Canon ergos, again just me, have to do less PS to get the color and tone the way I want them, without extra manipulation. I do not shoot for catalogs, just landscape/travel. I want the images to look the way I want, not some standard or editor. Now to sell off the remaining Nikon gear to a Nikon person and fill in my Canon kit.</p>

<p>Buy and use what you are comfortable with, if you do not make large prints the difference between the systems resolution wise is minimal and frankly without the need to print large you are not gaining a whole lot, if anything. Noise is not important for me, as most of what I shoot is on a tripod and under ISO 3200, which is useable. Look at prints the size you need, to determine whether noise is a factor for you, not at 100-300%. The 5D2 is an amazing camera, light, fast enough for all but sports, just make sure you have a late firmware installed. Can only imagine what stitched images would look like large.....I also refuse to give up AF and while I always loved Zeiss lenses on my Blad, I will stay with Canon AF...</p>

<p>To OP if any questions feel free to email me back....</p>

<p>Been there and done that, albeit 20 yrs ago. I had great intentions and thought I was going to be able to capture it all with a FM/ 50mm 1.4 also. I was going to be allowed to shoot only from the head area, not from the other side of the action by my wife. I brought a small kit, lenses with flash etc. My wife was giving birth to twin girls, 5 weeks early. I am a dentist and have seen and done surgery so I felt at the time I was prepared for anything. It was a natural birth with epidural. No comment on the rest, whatever is right for you and your wife and the medical status. We had been prepared if things needed to change and have the section, but in this case even though they were premies, all went ok. When the time came I was more interested in staying with my wife and offereing support then shooting lots of images. Also, at that time, keeping a steady hand shooting was not part of my abilities when circumstances arrived. Doubt I would have ended up with anything worthwhile image wise. Today with IS or VR, things might be different, but in the end there are far more important things then getting a closeup of the whole thing from the business end. Most of your family and friends will not care to see the actual birth up close and personal. The images of your sweet child after they are all cleaned up is how you will want to remember them and can be done with ease. I also don't know even if the doctors allow any images, video or still, that having another light source or flash, could be a distraction to them and their staff. NOT A GOOD THING, common sense wise, I am sure you would agree, as your child's well being is the most important. I would take a dslr and a 35 -50mm prime and shoot if things go OK and you are able to actually shoot adequately. Having evidence to use at a trial, is the least important thing that should be on your mind.</p>

<p>I use a push pull version for high school football, and it is fine, for the money you can do no wrong. I had a 70-200VR version I that I sold for inconsistent focus, doubt it was much better and for sure was too much for what it cost, JMHO.... btw, I use it on a D300 fwiw..</p>

<p>Definitely use the right horses for courses. There is no perfect camera, but there are great cameras. Have shot everything from 8x10 to a G9 and neither one is good if you need the other. Currently have 3 cameras, a 5D2, D300 and an EP1. This basically covers the gamut of shooting. More often I split the difference and use the D300, which I consider photo swiss army knife. My 4x5 more often then not, sits in the closet unused now for about 3 yrs. I print big up to 24x36 and for that I can tell you, you do not need more then 12 mp, if you are shooting with good technique. Even the Ep1 will allow for this under the correct conditions and good light. JMHO.....</p>

<p>I will second this notion, after many yrs and many bags, for airplane travel I bring a rolling Pelican piece with it all in, including small laptop, and a smaller bag like a Crumpler or Tamrac Express Sling bag, as a personal item bag. When out shooting, the rolling bag stays in car trunk and only the sling bag accompanies me. It will fit a couple of 2.8 lenses and the camera and third lens is around my neck. In a pinch, the body and third lens will fit into the sling bag also. Over 50 I have no reason at all to push my back beyond reason anymore. If I don't have something with me, then I figure out how to shoot it, with what I have, a bit of creativity helps, or I DON'T need to shoot it at all. If one thinks they need every lens and extra to do a full job then you must be a pro and have a young photo assistant or wife to schlepp the heavy stuff and pay them accordingly. That said, too, I shoot more APS-c format when traveling long distance, say to Europe and leave the FF stuff for national parks in the states where more often then not the car and gear are not too far behind...ymmv</p>

<p>here is a second try with the image, same data</p><div></div>

<p>E-P1 and Panasonic 45-200mm lens at 109mm, ISO 250, 1/800 @f/8 fwiw</p>

<p>As a previous owner of a D700 and present owner of a 5D2, I think I may add something here. I switched for exactly the reason given above to make better 24x36 inch prints of landscapes. It comes down to just owning the right tool for the right job. I made the switch a couple of months back and have not looked back. Now I could have stitched images, but this does not work with moving subjects like flowing water so well. I could have used other techniques like image stacking, but in the end I went for the Mps. Some may say, well I should shoot 4x5 film, been there and done that. Not my cup of tea, if it is yours, fine, and lastly, MFDB, which is way out of my budget. I also wanted a camera that I could use for general shooting, which removes the last two options as well. In the end for me, the 5D2 was my choice, it may not have to be yours. </p>

<p>As far as the ergonomics that get mentioned often, for me again this was not a huge obstacle. Each system has it pluses and minuses as far as button/wheel placement. With a thousand images it won't matter either. The only thing that should push a decision is finances and end usage of the gear. The rest is just rhetoric. Simply, the right horse for the right course. IF you were making smaller prints I would agree with previous posters in that the D700 is just fine.</p>

<p>I also wonder if just using the 70-200L IS f4 and cropping with the 5D2 might yield a better result, any further comments on this option....</p>

<p>One more question, at this print size, would there be any benefit to using say a 50D with the 70-200IS L without the TC over the 5D2 with? What are the tradeoffs here, assuming ISO 100 in both cases and everyshot ideally, mirror up, etc...would the higher pixel density be advantageous over the higher pixel count.....? i.e. which print would look more detailed?<br>

greatly appreciate comments here also..Don</p>

<p>That sums it up, I guess, for prints, 24x36 or bigger, do not want heavier or faster lenses, no F2.8 versions or<br>

primes. For use with an impending 5D2. Which would lead to better quality. I know the 70-200L IS F4 would be best<br>

by itself, but that is not the question this time. I want to have about 280-300mm on long end. I have used the 70-300<br>

in the past with a 5D, but don't know if it will hold up to the demands with the updated body....thanks looking for user<br>

opinions please..Don</p>

<p>I may have missed Eli whether you mentioned you were shooting indoor or outdoor high school sports. I have shot for 3 yrs both indoor and outdoor, in good light and bad, and there is a totally different thing inside or out. Indoor shooting, for say basketball, you need high ISO 1600 and beyond and I think a 70-200 VR is not the tool of choice. I used a D300 and fast primes f2 or better, but usually shoot at f2 anyway. A D700 would be ideal, but lots of bucks, but would give you faster shutterspeeds, esp with a MB-D10 grip. The 70-200VR on the FF is also not recommended, due to many issues with sharpness. I sold mine and went back to a 2 ring 80-200/2.8. Still like primes for indoor sports, but that maybe just me...<br>

For outdoor daytime, good light, even a 70-300mmVR will be fine. The Dx crop is helpful, and either zoom 80-200 or 70-300VR will do. For night see, above indoor advice. In the end I like my D300 more and more, and will be the one I go to most. If I did just night or indoor stuff the reverse would be the case...jmho...</p>

 

<p>Calvin - I came back to Nikon due to mechanical issues I have had with Canon bodies. Mostly as this relates to focus issues. Yes, the newer cameras have manual focus adjustment to "fine tune" the auto focus, but this in my opinion is BS. From D70 on, I never had issues with any Nikon bodies and lenses. I refuse to believe this is just the way it has to be. If one has not had any such issues consider yourself lucky. I went through 3 5D bodies until I found one that was worth the money, and by then a D300 was for better both in performance and spec. I can honestly say that I gave Canon a "fair shake". In the end I don't want to worry about getting the shot, or having to fine tune each lens that does not perform right. For example, the first 5D with mirror locked up, on tripod, with a 50mm macro ef, my sharpest lens at the time gave images that were not usable at all above 8x10 print, and even that was not great. Dealer I bought it from thought it was all fine, "who needs to do more than 8x10 these days..." I won't comment on that nonsense, but suffice it to say, I had no such issues with Nikon.<br>

AS for image quality, all I can say there are lots of Nikon shooters and myself who would disagree with your assesment on your ratings, but beauty and image quality is in the eye of the beholder, and suffice it to say, for my prints starting at 14x21 or larger, I have no complaints with Nikon, but ymmv. I would also put forth that it depends on what you shoot. I have seen many images of very sharp, wide latitude images online from all makes and unfortunately all though I demand optimum sharpness, when and if needed not all images require Zeiss/Leica sharpness. I would also argue that having such lenses does not guarantee beautiful imagery. There are more things that contribute to such images than the brand of equipment one uses and line pairs per mm or MTF. Gear helps one do a job, and as you mention, ergonomics assist in this. Having things like mirror lockup, self timers buried in menus is not a help and not hard to redesign into a new camera, but I have become more and more frustrated by this with the C brand.<br>

Sorry for the long winded response....</p>

 

<p>Calvin - I came back to Nikon due to mechanical issues I have had with Canon bodies. Mostly as this relates to focus issues. Yes, the newer cameras have manual focus adjustment to "fine tune" the auto focus, but this in my opinion is BS. From D70 on, I never had issues with any Nikon bodies and lenses. I refuse to believe this is just the way it has to be. If one has not had any such issues consider yourself lucky. I went through 3 5D bodies until I found one that was worth the money, and by then a D300 was for better both in performance and spec. I can honestly say that I gave Canon a "fair shake". In the end I don't want to worry about getting the shot, or having to fine tune each lens that does not perform right. For example, the first 5D with mirror locked up, on tripod, with a 50mm macro ef, my sharpest lens at the time gave images that were not usable at all above 8x10 print, and even that was not great. Dealer I bought it from thought it was all fine, "who needs to do more than 8x10 these days..." I won't comment on that nonsense, but suffice it to say, I had no such issues with Nikon.<br>

AS for image quality, all I can say there are lots of Nikon shooters and myself who would disagree with your assesment on your ratings, but beauty and image quality is in the eye of the beholder, and suffice it to say, for my prints starting at 14x21 or larger, I have no complaints with Nikon, but ymmv. I would also put forth that it depends on what you shoot. I have seen many images of very sharp, wide latitude images online from all makes and unfortunately all though I demand optimum sharpness, when and if needed not all images require Zeiss/Leica sharpness. I would also argue that having such lenses does not guarantee beautiful imagery. There are more things that contribute to such images than the brand of equipment one uses and line pairs per mm or MTF. Gear helps one do a job, and as you mention, ergonomics assist in this. Having things like mirror lockup, self timers buried in menus is not a help and not hard to redesign into a new camera, but I have become more and more frustrated by this with the C brand.<br>

Sorry for the long winded response....</p>

 

<p>Calvin - sorry for the delay in response, lost the 17-55, actually traded it after I switched from D200 to 5d for awhile, but also too big, heavy, was no better then a Tamron 17-50mm I had for a Canon 20D[remember I shoot mostly landscape/travel and almost never need f2.8]. Thought I had settled on Canon for awhile, but alas came back to Nikon. Don't know that I would have bought another 17-55 either way, as my intention was to go lighter and FX which is what I have done....fwiw...</p>

<p>Philip and other - totally agree, have the 16-85 vr and 70-300mm VR and even the 55-200mm VR, all of which are great lenses in DX, and the 70-300 in FX works too. But no equivalent lens to the 16-85 exists really. Too bad, would like to have F4 high quality smallish variant with vr for this in FX...too bad, some company should step up....please....</p>

<p>the only wide to normal zoom lens I can afford...OR want to carry..hehe, a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8...it stays on most of the time, next is the 70-300VR, last are specific use prime lenses, mf or af depending on what they are...on rare occasion is an 80-200mm afd Nikon f2.8...10 yrs ago, it would have been used much more but now only for sports stuff. I use the kit mostly for travel or walkabout..sorry can't comment about the 17-55mm don't own one anymore...</p>

<p>SHUN - would you not agree that sample variation can also contribute to this lens varied reputation....I also had a less then stellar copy of the 70-200/2.8 and sold it, and am now happy with an older 80-200.2.8...each to their own</p>

<p>It is a funny coincidence, that since I have been comparing images from these specific cameras, as I own both. I used the D300 exclusively for over a yr, and felt I needed the D700 for the things it was good at, namely most of what has been mentioned above, that being high ISO photography. The humor is that for more normal shooting, images although beautiful from either camera, have more apparent bite[detail] from the D300 in my opinion on print. Now alot depends on the lenses as have been mentioned. I own a great sample of a very plebian 55-200 VR afs, which is extremely sharp, where as for the D700 I was using, maybe a not so great sample of the 70-300VR. This same 70-300 was very sharp on the D300, but less apparently so on the FF body. IT is this disparity in final images that has me perplexed. My quandry now, is to keep everything as is, I do not intend to invest in better bigger zooms for the FF, if anything, I may end up trying my primes again. OR eventually sell, the 12MP FF, and save up for a moderately priced 24Mp Nikon body, with a closer pixel pitch to the D300. DO I need high ISO, when I shoot most landscapes on tripod or could use a fast prime?? I did last fall before I got the D700, for high school sports, not so much now as my commitment to that is over, my kids are in college. I guess all in all, the D700 for me came too late, but I am not willing yet, to sell it, but it is not a slam dunk owning it as I thought, also if it puts such demands on shooting, what of the 24mp cameras, is this not the same?? I think much care and introspection is needed to evaluate what the specific shooting needs are, alas no rental companies exist in my area outside of NYC. Also, one must really consider others advices here about top lenses with D700 or better cameras, average optics are a fools gambit, but I really do NOT want to carry or purchase such bohemoths as 14-24 afs or 24-70afs lenses would require. DO I want to use just primes?? Maybe, will have to see, a couple of small primes is not too bad, and I own such lenses, but what does that do for different subjects???<br>

Primes offer much in the values that I have, and maybe will be the final conclusion for this endeavor. For the landscapes anyway, for which I am after, this may work, and then to use the DX gear for the other situations that don't demand such fine detail or that allow not the time to swap out lenses.....<br>

The other factor in this is my prints start pretty much at 16x24 inches and go up from there....there in lies the need for such resolution....things to ponder..</p>

<p> </p>

<p>simple logic would say if the review or advertisement says it has internal focus, then the lens does not extend in length during focusing from near to far. since no one has mentioned that it has internal zooming, then, it does not have this feature and most likely extends while zooming. the later feature is not all that common on many zooms but high end expensive zooms. i think the only moderate lens I have had that had internal zooming, and I might be remembering incorrectly, was my 17-40L...fwiw. i think internal zooming is a big enough deal that if the lens offered this, this would be mentioned at least as vocally as the internal focusing in the review or ad. jmho....</p>