john_n._wall

<p>I did mention that my usual and customary camera is a D700.</p>

<p>Good point about cross-body compatibility of gear.</p>

 

<p>Yes, that's a link to a PREVIEW, not a REVIEW, sadly.</p>

<p>They did a group review a couple of days ago of a group of 5 cameras in this category, but did not include the P7700.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Y'all don't fuss, please. This is all good conversation.<br>

Its about the tradeoffs between size, image quality, convenience, range, etc among alternatives to carrying around a DSLR.<br>

I have a D700 which I love, except when I don't want to carry it around, like on a trip, at least some of the time.<br>

I have a Panasonic LX-3, which I've made images with practically in the dark that I can print up to 12x18 and am very happy with. So for me the sensor size limitation is perhaps acceptable, other things being OK. <br>

One attraction of the P7700 is the speed of the lens and the range of the lens. <br>

I guess I'm waiting for DP Review to review the P7700 and compare it with the alternatives at $600 and up like the Sony RX100 and the Canon G1, as well as the Fuji models that have zoom lenses and the other models in this category closer in price to the P7700 like the LX-7 and the Canon G15. </p>

 

<p>Lots of good features for the Fuji X100, but you have to be ready to live with a 35 mm lens for all your shots. I would think the real competition for the P7700 would be the Sony RX100, which has a larger sensor, but a slower lens. Or the Canon G1.<br>

Both of the latter are also a lot more expensive.</p>

 

<p>I'm interested in a point-and-shoot for when I do not want to take out the SLR.<br>

The Nikon P7700 seems to have a lot going for it, but I can't find much serious discussion of its quality.<br>

Sure, the Sony RX100 has a bigger sensor, but the 7700 has a faster -- and longer -- lens.<br>

What do folks make of this new Nikon?</p>

<p>KR says he gives his opinions for the money, and you know about people who do it for the money.</p>

<p>Nikkor 24-120 f/4</p>

<p>Stupid, arrogant dealer stories, part 2 --</p>

<p>When the D700 was released, I thought I wanted one and decided to heed the call of those who urge us to buy locally.</p>

<p>I went to my local camera dealer and asked to hold a D700.</p>

<p>I was told I could not hold one because the dealer did not regard me as a serious photographer and these were only for serious photographers.</p>

<p>Needless to say, I bought my D700 from B&H and the only reason I now shop locally is when I need something today rather than tomorrow.</p>

 

<p>Second try to post an example.</p><div></div>

<p><img src="<a href="http:/www.flickr.com/photos/jnwallphoto/6259165788/" title="Julia in Playhouse 72 by JNWALLPhoto, on Flickr"><img src="http:/farm7.staticflickr.com/6179/6259165788_9527d813f2.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="Julia in Playhouse 72"></a>" alt="" /></p>

<p>I think the 24-120 is a fine portrait lens. I use it often to make portraits of my granddaughter.</p>

<p>I had the 24-85 f/2.8-4 and my copy was not sharp, compared to the 28-105, which I also had -- all for use on my D700. I replaced the 24-85 with a 24-120 and have never looked back. My 24-120 f/4 is as sharp or sharper than the 28-105. In my view, the 24-85 2..8-4 is a dog nikkor. Do what is good for you and get a 24-120.</p>

<p>I had a copy of this lens for a while but found it to be soft.</p>

<p>I compared it closely with a 28-105 Nikkor and found the 28-105 to be significantly sharper throughout the range.</p>

<p>I sold both lenses and bought a 24-120 f/4. Its a great lens. I haven't looked back.</p>

<p>Eric writes, "both new buyers and upgraders may end up with bells and whistles they don't need, just to get the features they actually want."<br>

I agree completely, but that's actually been true for generations of Nikon bodies, way back into the film era.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all your input. B&H has my 24-120 on the way to me.</p>

<p>Shun, its precisely what are the limitations of the 24/120 that I'm trying to find out. </p>

<p>I'm going to shoot mostly portrait and street with it, mostly wide open to get as much separation between my subject and the background as I can. I want the wide end for street work and the long end for portraits and for isolation in the street when I can't get closer to the subject when the decisive moment is happening.</p>

<p>Most everything people have said here so far sounds good to me. </p>

<p>Great conversation so far, and Ellis's and Shun's comments especially are motivating me to get out the plastic.</p>

<p>I usually shoot portraits and street photography, and like the 24 mm focal length, so there are good reasons for me to have a go at this lens. I used to have a 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor but I was never quite sure how it was better than a 50 mm lens plus a step or two forward or backward. So the 24-70 is not that more attractive.</p>

<p>Interesting, though, the comparison of this lens with the 28-300.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell loves the 28-300, but that doesn't mean its a bad lens. Others have said in direct comparison with the 24-120 that in their common range the 24-120 is sharper than the 28-300. I've never used a VR lens so its a bit hard for me to think about hand-holding a 300 mm lens and getting sharp images.</p>

<p>Among people I trust (as compared to Ken Rockwell), Bjorn Rorstlett likes the 24-120, or so he said in a post to a bulletin board, though sadly he is no longer doing detailed reviews.</p>

<p>Thom Hoban hasn't weighed in on it yet. But I may not be able to wait for Thom.</p>

 

<p>Comparison, please, for these alternatives to the much more expensive Nikkors? This is for an FX body.<br>

I am very aware that the Sigma is much better from 24-27 mm and the Tamron is much better from 71mm-75mm, but obviously I'm interested in how they compare through their common focal lengths.</p>

<p>This lens would replace for me a Nikkor 28-105 f.3.5-4.5 lens.</p>

<p>Film -- F4, with the MB-20. Digital, D700. The D700 feels like a digital F4 to me. Same sized body, same incredible combination of flexibility and capability.</p>

<p>I ran into Bruce once when I was making some images in Times Square. He was doing his street thing, but stopped when he saw my camera, and we had a nice chat. I found him to be a really great guy, very personable, very approachable.</p>

<p>I think he's a phenomenal photographer, whether on the street or doing documentary work for Magnum. His manner on the street? Doesn't everybody behave that way in NYC?</p>

<p>The D700 is the single most satisfying camera I've used, and I've used lots of cameras. I love the feel of the body, the flexibility the chip gives me for adapting to changing light levels when shooting hand-held, the fact that I can use all the f/2.8 zooms and fast primes I used to use on my film cameras, the infinite range of things I can do with the image once I've made it, and on and on.</p>

<p>Yes, the slightly cropped viewfinder takes a bit of time to get used to, but there is nothing wrong with the image that was posted that a flick of the mouse won't fix in PhotoShop. We aren't shooting slides any longer, folks.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the simple fix for the viewfinder is to crop one's images to what the viewfinder shows, and voila, a 100% viewfinder. I bet it can be done automatically.</p>

<p>Must be the season, but many of the responses on this thread to the original question are especially testy, uncivil, and downright grouchy. This is supposed to be a kind of community, folks; lets try to be neighborly.</p>

<p>I had both the 24-85 and the 28-105 and for me the 28-105 won out on sharpness hands down. I kept it and haven't looked back. Makes first-class images for me, and I usually shoot wide open.</p>

<p>The 28-105 has had a good reputation for a long time. The 24-85 has had not so good a reputation. People I respect evaluate it as better than the 24-120 but not as good as the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, which they say is the hidden gem in this zoom range. </p>

<p>Except, of course, now, I too am waiting for the 24-120 f/4 with my credit card in hand.</p>

<p>I tried a 24-85 f/2.8-4 for a while and found the images I made with it did not please me as much as ones I took with the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. I think that's the current lens of choice at this focal length if one's credit limit does not have room for the 24-70 f/2.8.</p>

<p>On the other hand, there is a strong rumor going around that Nikon will release a 24-120 f/4 in the next month or so with VR and nano coating, so maybe all our dreams will come true.</p>

<p>Actually it is available for $45 from her website, here:</p>

<p>http://www.mvswanson.com/</p>

<p>Click on <Business Book> from the home page.</p>

<p>Apparently if you go to one of her presentations you can get the book at a lower price.</p>

<p>You will also want to check out her blog here:</p>

<p>http://marketingphotos.wordpress.com/</p>

<p>I've read her book and find it very useful. Good advice, lots of information, a bit expensive but overall very helpful.</p>

<p>I want a 24-120 f/4 VR lens to use on my D700.<br>

I'm very happy with my D700 except that the viewfinder image seems shifted to the left so that the "extra" image one gets in the file seems all to the right of the image. Makes framing difficult when I want to shoot without cropping.<br>

A 100% viewfinder would fix that but so would a central placement for the viewfinder image.</p>