acarodp

<p>Something puzzles me in the OP question, and I don't see this addressed in detail in the previous responses. It is the fact of considering D300/7000 and D700 together as possible options, without a word on lenses. The improvement between D200 and 300s or 7000 can be debated, but lens choices stay the same, except for the fact that the D7000 will tax them somewhat more.<br>

But the D700 is a FX camera and as such it forces you to entirely rethink your lenses. The ones you own already might be FX compatible, but the role of each of them will change with FX, as well as their performance, so you would have to go through the process of readjusting yourself to the new format, and you would likely end up buying some new lens. If then you have some application covered with DX glass, you have to consider if there is a desirable FX replacement and how much it is going to cost you. Going the D700 route is a much more complex business than just updating a DX camera to the newest model. In my view, you buy a D700 because you WANT to go FX (there are many good reasons to), and you are willing to take the effort and the expenses that the transition brings. You don't do it just because you want to upgrade your camera body.</p>

<p>This said, I did this transition (D200->D700), and I can tell you that the improvements are big, fat and readily perceivable in what I do. Then again, when I did so the D7000 was not around: it would take you a good part of the way between D200 and 700 with some (not very annoying I guess) compromise on the build/ergonomics front. Not quite ALL the way to what I see, but far enough, and without breaking your lens "training".</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really like the 20/2.8D, and I think it gets a bum rap from a lot of folks that don't shoot or have never shot with one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 20 2.8 AF-D was likely my favorite lens on film. When moved to digital (D200, so DX) I was convinced I would have been happy again. Not so. My kit 18-70 (a very good kit zoom, but still a kit zoom) was outperforming it easily at wide apertures. When I bought a 12-24 f4, the difference broadened further (not by much). I was surprised, I guessed that perhaps my copy got somewhat damaged in the last times. I had, luckily, access to two more copies from friends. I tried them both, with results which were indistinguishable from what I got from my copy. My 20 2.8 D sits in the closet since then. When I moved to FX (D700) i pulled it out again to see how it performed there. Not good at all. My DX 12-24 f4 at 20mm covers the FX format: it is by no means good in the FX corners, and still it outperforms the 20 2.8.<br>

So not only I shot one, extensively: I shot three of them, and it is not a good lens on digital. Mind you: it can work, depending on your purpose: stopped down to at least f8 is acceptable (but not great) if sharpness in the center is important, provided you don't look at the corners. If sharpness is not crucial (I shoot mostly street, and I'm fine shooting a 50 1.4 D at 1.4 if needs arises) it can get the job done. If I owned one (I do in fact) and I had to use it as a stopgap until I buy a modern lens, or as a very rarely used lens I keep for special applications, I would use it. But I would not buy one, because it is not a lens I would want to use if I had a choice. Factor in that I want lenses to perform in the f2.8 - 8 range mostly, because it is what I use. It is rare for me to shoot at f11: a landscape shooter who never goes below f8 might find the 20 D more acceptable than I do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also love my 135/2D DC, as well as my 80-400 VR - sterling IQ from older AF-D lenses that regularly get dissed online.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about the 80-400, but I own, use, and love my 135 f2 DC (non even the D version), and I don't remember people dissing it online. My understanding is that it is a very respected lens. I think Nikon could and should come up with an updated 135 f2 (they can drop the DC feature for what I'm concerned) mostly to include AFS and update the coatings (it is not a very contrasty lens), because I guess somebody buying an expensive lens now has the right to expect up to date technology at that price. But I would not upgrade mine since it does a great job already.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's the "dumbing down to the lowest common denominator" I mentioned before... <br />Don't you like to have the option of manual exposure on your camera? Those who don't know how to use it can either stick to full program, or learn, perhaps ruining some shots in the process, but that's not a good reason to get rid of the 'M' setting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anytime somebody designs an interface, be it on a camera or on a website, he has to decide which control options to give to the user, a choice which, among other things, has to balance simplicity with usefulness. Some options will add enough to the usefulness to overcome the added complications, some other will not, and the thing is tailored to the intended user. So, the fact that a given option is deemed useful (e.g. the M mode) does not make EVERY conceivable option useful.<br>

So the real question is: is the M mode useful enough? Yes, in some cameras (no surprise that camera phones mostly don't have it). Is the possibility of displaying rating histograms useful enough? perhaps, but perhaps not. I argue not, you disagree, but this has nothing to do at all with whether I want M mode in my camera.<br>

I argue not because:<br>

- the sampling is rarely (if ever) statistically significant. A photo of mine is among the best rated street images of the last week. It has, as for now, 16 ratings. Do you really want to do a histogram with 16 samples and 7 bins? And this is well above my typical number of ratings. The photo of mine that was chosen as photo of the week has 28 ratings. Ratings almost never move away from small number statistics.<br>

- it has been discussed <em>ad nauseam</em> the extent to which rating is basically a game since images are judged quickly, by anybody, in a way which is totally unfit to (nor is aimed to) assess actual quality, whatever it means. Go to the top rated photos. All you get to "learn" from rating is that BEST photos are either B&W nudes of pretty women (if you select by rating sum) or eye-candy birds in flight (by rating average). Both are perfectly fine photographic genres, but what if I'm interested in street photography instead? I must be wrong, since in 20 pages by rating sum I have found not more than 2 street-ish photos.</p>

<p>So what you ask is to be able to draw non-signifcant statistics of a game which holds limited meaning anyway, and little teaching power. This is legitimate, but I really don't feel it might improve your photographic results the way having a M mode on your camera does.</p>

<p>In fact, my feeling would be that following rates as a guidance to your photography is the perfect way to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Hi Josh,<br>

I would like some clarification on a crucial point: by "send some good scotch" I guess you mean single malt. I hope you are not so cheap as being corrupted by some miserable blend right? ;-)</p>

<p>Jokes apart, I think it is really a good solution you guys have found now. People can continue looking for tweaking this or that to make the rating information more useful, but this is, I guess, wishful thinking. Rating is pretty much a game, providing a hint (hint, not measure) of the general gut feeling on the site about your photo. In this sense, in fact, I find the number of ratings almost as important as the value, since it is difficult to get attention on a site where a large number of images is submitted continuously.<br>

This is not going to change, and there is no way to squeeze out more information than this from a rating, especially because it is, and it will stay, a small number statistics thing. Histograms, medians and so on are useful for those who understand them and when a large enough pool of ratings is available. If one or (often I guess) both conditions are missing, I guess they would just create confusion and promote useless discussions about nothing.</p>

<p>Thanks for your work!</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I have the 135, not the 105. Consensus seems to be that the 105 is slightly sharper, but for sure the 135 is plenty sharp, and couples that sharpness with a greatly pleasing rendering and a extraordinary out-of-focus, both being things that one cannot say of all its peers, even when sharpness is there. I'm pretty sure, to what I hear, that the 105 has the same characteristics. So, if really the focal length it makes no difference for you, I would probably go for the 105: it is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and at least as sharp as the 135.<br>

On the specific, I would say that the 135 is tack sharp f4 to f8. It is not very far at f2.8 and it is still very good at f2, but if you really want to squeeze all that is there, also as contrast and DOF is concerned, I would say f5.6 is likely the best aperture. Diffraction might start appearing at f11, but frankly I'm not sure if I ever used my 135 at f11.<br>

On the other hand, I have troubles understanding which kind of application you might need a DC lens for, but NOT care for the focal length. 105 and 135 are not the same for any purpose except perhaps some form of technical photography. Perspective changes, DOF changes even if you move back and forth to frame the same. Or on the other hand, for a given subject type your working distance changes significantly and one of the two will for sure be more convenient than the other. And DC lenses are not conceived for technical applications, they can do it, but is not what they are made for. Their best qualities shine in portrait and reportage type photography: if you want, say, to reproduce documents, a macro lens would serve you as well if not better, since the DCs are purposedly not the most contrasted lenses.</p>

<p>Hope it helps!</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Shun, I would not say that the 16-35 is weak at 16mm in my experience (and for my own copy of course). So far what I see is that the lens is really impressive between 20 and 28 (unsurprising, center of the range), a bit weaker at 16, but not by much unless you look to the extreme corners. I would say its weakest spot is 35mm, where it loses some bite. It is not bad by any means, but there I would definitely tend to use my 35 f2, which at f4 - 5.6 has a sharpness the 16-35 cannot quite match. The main limit at 16, instead, is the heavy distortion, which actually turns it into a 17mm once you have corrected for it and cropped. But this is an example of what I was saying before about compromises: I mostly use the 20-24 range, have a better (and small, and portable) alternative at 35, and have not all this pressing need for 16-18mm, so the compromises the lens has fit me perfectly.</p>

<p>Shadforth: if you look at my gallery you'll see I'm mostly a prime shooter. The only focal lengths at which I kept using zooms after my "conversion" to primes are the wide angle ones. This comes from a simple fact: Nikon WA primes are not so good, and not very fast, unless of course you think about the tilt-shift or the new 1.4: I have tried the 24 1.4 and since then I lost my peace of mind because that lens is just fantastic: but I cannot afford it.<br>

But I own since the film era a 20 2.8 AFD, loved it on film, but it is just VERY disappointing on digital. My 18-70 and 12-24 both outperformed it easily on DX. The 12-24 outperforms it even on FX, despite being a DX lens (it covers FX from 18 upwards, although the corner quality is poor). The 16-35 runs circles around it. Digital sensors are picky with wide angles, and the design of the 20 2.8 is 20 years old. Longer focal lengths have stood the change much better (I love my 35/2). So I'm all in the "primes are sharper" camp, but it is just not true at these short focal lengths with old designs. Then again, shot at f8 or f11 I guess the 20 2.8 holds its own, but this is not what I do most of the time (but you mention landscape so it is a different story).</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>The OP might be interested in purchasing a subscription to diglloyd.com DAP, which presents a very extensive and, I would say, careful comparison of the current choices of Nikon FF ultra-wide, including 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35. I have used the 14-24 and own the 16-35, but I have never used the 17-35. I don't know to which extent the findings there might be due to sample variation in the 17-35 (the author tried two with same results, he says), but it appears to dramatically lack contrast and sharpness below f5.6 at most focal lengths, and is systematically behind the other two. I am not a sharpness fanatic by any means, but on the basis of what I see there, I would not consider the 17-35 a competitor for either the 14-24 or the 16-35 f4. I guess that 10 years in UWA design and manufacturing have not passed in vain.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35. The short end barrel distortion is awful, and f/4 doesn't help one single bit with low light, subject motion, narrowing the DoF, or brightening the viewfinder. But it's got VR (yawn).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would contend this statement in part. I agree that the distortion is strong at the wide end. Correctable, of course, but annoying indeed. The f4 comment is, I would say, somewhat excessive. DOF: in such focal range, except at 35mm, to reduce DOF by any meaningful amount you have to go below f2, a 24 1.4 is by far your best option if this aspect is what you are after. Low light, for static subjects, the VR in the 16-35 is all but a "yawn" thing, in fact it works surprisingly well (surprisingly for me, I was somewhat skeptical of VR in a WA lens). For moving subjects, of course, it does not help. But with modern FF Nikon cameras (I'm thinking D700 here) one should seriously think whether he prefers to go to one stop wider aperture or to rise ISO one stop. If diglloyd findings about the 17-35 and 16-35 are a guidance, I would definitely sooner use the 16-35 lens at f4 and 6400 ISO, than the 17-35 at 2.8 and 3200 ISO, with confidence that the quality loss would be less significant. Then, there is no substitute to fast glass and what do you do if you need 12800 ISO AND f2.8? True, but this is not exactly going to happen frequently I'd say.<br>

In my experience, a gain of one stop (be it in lens max aperture or high ISO noise alike) is not highly significant in the real world, in the sense that is hardly going to make your life much easier or expand significantly your possibilities. It is of course always welcome. The 16-35 f4 is a compromise lens as any other is. The 14-24 compromises on size, weight, range and cost, but has impressive optical quality, the 16-35 compromises on size (it is indeed large), max aperture and distortion, but is very sharp, has a very useful focal range, is less expensive and has VR (which if your subject is static, helps much more than one stop), and is lighter... I would not call either crippled, just cut for different sets of needs, but both in a reasonable way.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is within my budget range. Therefore the D300s and D7000 fall within it as well. I've heard about some "softness" issues within the D3 family, but have not heard anything about the D700. If I were to go with a D700, is there a better "D" wide angle available? I prefer a prime lens for landscapes, including older AI lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the first issue, I have as you a D200 and now a D700. D3 and D700 have extremely close outputs to what I know (to be expected). Neither D200 nor D700 produce images that "look" totally sharp unless a bit of USM is applied to the full resolution image. This is to some varying extent true for all cameras using an anti-aliasing filter, but I have heard other cameras from other brands do look slightly sharper, while both D200 and 700 have rather beefy anti-aliasing. Myself, I know I have always applied a fixed tiny amount of USM to every full-resolution D200 image as standard part of my postprocessing, I have moved the same process to the D700 files and it looks OK for me there as well, so I would say they behave more or less the same way from this point of view.</p>

<p>Wide angles: here the situation to my experience is not so easy if you want to stick with D lenses. I own a 20 2.8 AFD, and have tried two more copies as a check, and that lens just does not perform on digital. It was ugly on DX, it is worse on FX. Yes it was great on film. I never used a 17-35 2.8 myself, but I keep hearing bad things about it, and if you have access to diglloyd.com reviews (paying , but worth it in my opinion) there is a vast comparison of the Nikon ultra wide angle lenses (mostly the zooms) on D3x, and the two new ones (14-24 2.8 and 16-35 4 VR) perform vastly better in his test images. Based on that, I would never, ever consider buying a 17-35 2.8. But as I said, I never tried one myself.<br>

Of the other D short primes I own, and really enjoy the 35 f2 (which is wide on FX only of course). It is a small, humble lens with a great, consistent performance. Pretty decent at f2 already, flawless by f5.6, draws nicely, good color... and it is cheap too. Definitely a must have. I did not try the 28 and 24 2.8 but I don't hear much love for them around. It gets better if you accept to go for G lenses. I own since a short time a 16-35 f4 VR, and I'm very pleased with it so far. It is big, indeed, but quite light. Sharpness is quite impressive at anything but 35mm (where is still good, just not quite as good as below, and besides, there I would tend to use the 35 f2 anyway). Contrast is impressive, and the VR is surprisingly useful. Mighty distortion, on the other hand, at the wide end, but this can be managed in postproduction. It would of course be better if it was not there. A very well built lens, also.<br>

The 14-24 is almost insanely good by any account, but it is big, heavy, and really expensive.<br>

I tried the 24 1.4, and I can say, you are better off not trying it if you don't have the money to buy it, because it caused me a major case of lens lust... it is SO good. I just cannot spend that money, but if you can, it is an admirable lens.</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I am not surprised you get good images from the D200, I still have mine (despite also having and using mostly a D700) and love it. It is a camera with some limitations, but all are. Within its limitations (mostly noise at high ISO, and if you want, resolution) it produced excellent images which paid the rent and the bills to many professionals, and there is no reason it should stop.</p>

<p>If you want (I don't much believe in "need" in this field) to upgrade, I firmly believe in buying what does the job you want it to do, not in the latest & greatest. So it depends:</p>

<p>- you indeed want the latest and greatest. Stay DX, and go for the 7000, or wait for D400. Go FX, wait for D800.<br>

- you are OK with the resolution you got from D200. Stay DX and buy a D300s (I discarded this option back then, not enough improvement for me). Go FX and take a D700. You get massively better quality images (which does NOT mean better photos, but the sensor output is dramatically better), plus all the nice things you had with D300s also (AF, better MB-10 much better than MB-D200, display etc.), plus a much better viewfinder. But you will have to readjust your lens collection.... which might be good or bad, e.g. your portrait focal length is not anymore 50mm, which is good since the 50 1.4 has fairly poor bokeh (better in the AF-S, but still not good)... you have to see. But going to FX costs you some glass re-thinking anyway.<br>

- You want more resolution. Stay DX, and your only option is D7000. I'm not sure ou gain much in resolution, but it seems other aspects (e.g. noise and DR) are quite good. Handling / build / speed are likely a tiny bit under D300s, but AF at least should be definitely better than in your D200. Plus all the bonuses (video etc.). Go FX, you know the answer is only a D3x right now. Or wait, of course.<br>

-You want video. D7000 in DX or D3s in FX. Or wait.</p>

<p>So, as you see the question is basically if you want DX or FX. I have moved to FX and I'm loving it, but it is a matter of needs and tastes and lenses you use. There is no absolute answer, and the "FX is pro, DX is amateur" story makes no sense (besides, I'm an amateur). But I guess you need to figure out this choice first, once you do, you always have a camera option which is more than competent (except the FX+video case, perhaps). This boils down to lens options that do in FX what you do now in DX. Do you own them? or are you willing to buy them? and do you WANT to use them instead of what you are using now?</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Realistically this is not the best quality glass, its a classic case of "you get what you pay for" but , like frank said, you may want to toy with the AF fine tune adjustment on your D300 and see if that helps.<br /> Personally id sell it and get the 1.4d version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steven, in fact, as it has been pointed out to you already, the 1.8 is pretty much known to be the sharper of the two 85 D (the new 1.4 AFS not counted). The 1.4 has better build, better out of focus rendition (especially front one, which is sometimes not so good on the 1.8), better (for portrait purposes) color rendition, and it is of course faster. But it <strong>is</strong> softer. Not dramatically so, but it is, especially off center. This is most likely a conscious design decision by Nikon, given the intended purpose of either lens: the 1.4 is optimized for portrait work, the 1.8 for more general purpose / journalism shooting. Then again, by f4 they are both sharp corner to corner. </p>

<p>To the OP: the 85 1.8 has perhaps the best wide open behavior I have seen among the fast primes I own (I don't own any exotic stuff like 200 f2), but it is by no means perfect at 1.8, more so in the corners. But the DOF is tiny and I would not dare judging sharpness at the corners at 1.8 except for 1) distant city scenes, so that you can assume everything is at infinity or 2) test cases where you have carefully tested the alignment of the lens with a flat surface being photographed. Keep in mind that at 2m distance, DOF on DX from a 85mm at 1.8 is just 4cm.<br>

It is of course possible your lens is faulty: if it is, quite likely it should also show asymmetry in its sharpness (like the right corners being sharper than the left ones). You may want to test for this...</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> The Sigma 150 is of course slower, but I'm interested to hear someone using it for portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own the non-OS version, as well as the 135 DC. The sigma is a very nice lens, very, very sharp. But the bokeh (at standard portrait distances) is pretty ugly, nervous, with significant outlining. Of course, being a macro lens it is not optimized for bokeh at medium-long distances, while the 135 is, and in fact, its OOF rendition is magnificent.<br>

FWIW, <a href="../photo/8887431&size=lg">this one</a> is taken with the 150 Sigma wide open, and you can see the nervousness of the bokeh in the background (I love the photo despite this, mind you). On the other hand, <a href="../photo/10866172&size=lg">this one</a> is the 135 DC, f4, neutral DC. To me, the OOF is vastly more pleasant here. Then of course, the result depends mostly on what actually is in the background, so the comparison has a relative value, but I have consistently seen the 150 struggle as soon as the background becomes somewhat busy, while the 135 <a href="../photo/7171065&size=lg">seems able to handle literally everything easily</a>. </p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who is to say whether the finger was "accidentally" getting into the image or was "intentionally" placed there to cover something in the scene?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am sorry but this makes little sense to me. Since when a photographer needs to put a finger to hide something, when he just have to move his framing a bit and/or use a different focal length? Now we will deem photographs taken with a 50mm lens unacceptable for journalism, because they leave out (possibly intentionally!) something that would have been in had they been taken with a 20mm? For this same reason, it makes zero sense to consider cropping an unethical modification per se. Every image is by definition a framed portrayal of reality, framed both in angle of view and in time. Any photographer always had the power to misrepresent reality by choosing the angle and the time at when to take, or not to take, his picture. As much as any journalist might choose what to write and how to write it. Rules against e.g. cloning are meant to assure that what is shown is true to reality, but there will never be a way to impose rules on the image processing to ensure that nothing important has been left OUT of the framing, be it in camera or due to cropping. That pertains to the correctness of the photographer (or lack thereof) as much as a good source checking pertains to the correctness and professional seriousness of the journalist. This, I guess, is why Reuters distinguishes between cropping (allowed) and adding/taking away stuff from the image (not allowed), and spends a lot of ink on the need of correctness, accuracy, and balance as attitudes that the journalist should pursue: there is simply no way to completely enforce them by placing rules on the images.<br>

<br />L.</p>

<p>I grew more and more uninterested in the question as time passed, mostly because I grew uninterested in the definition of "art". If you start discussing whether photography is art (or, if a specific photograph might be art), it is because you have a definition of art, a setting of its frontier so that you can say: this is in, this is out. Such definitions have been shattered so many times in history that their pointlessness should be quite obvious by now. Art has no hard definition. The Sistine chapel or the Brandeburg concerts are for sure art. Me scribbling a telephone number over a post-it is not art for sure. For a lot of stuff in between one could go on discussing forever, without such discussion accomplishing anything, adding an atom of understanding to the work you are looking at, or advancing your appreciation of beauty by as much as a nanometer."Art" as a word has its uses, but if one wants to use it as a scalpel to separate the worthy from the unworthy, well, it is his/her problem.<br>

Besides, I have seen plenty of ugly art, and plenty of beautiful non-art. So why exactly should I want photography to be art?</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I do, I mostly use primes from 35 mm upward (both APS and FF but mostly FF now), and zoom below: the Nikon 12-24 f4 on DX, and the 16-35 F4 VR on FX. The reason is simple: I mostly like primes, but below 35 Nikon primes are either out of my budget (the beautiful 24 1.4) or not on par with the zooms. Besides, at these focal lengths I feel less the need for fast apertures. Also, to do the job the 16-35 is doing on FF, I would need two more primes at least (20 an 24) and my bag is already crowded enough as it is.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I upgraded some 6 months ago from a D200 to a D700. I am in love with the D700 sensor, not only because of the noise, but because of the DR, of the color fidelity, of the smoothness of transition fro tone to tone, of the gentle rollover to saturation. And because of the amazing (for one coming from a D200) way these things are preserved when ISO go up. I love the way this not-so-high pixel count, large sensor treats my fast primes: longitudinal chromatic aberration is much reduced (less magnification), purple fringing almost disappears, bokeh defects are less prominent. So for me the "DX vs FX" dilemma simply does not exist anymore since I actually use FX.</p>

<p>This said, the D700 has plenty of nice things over the D200, such as a clearly superior AF, better LCD, much better battery life... I like these things but I could perfectly do without them. When I pick up my D200 I don't think the AF inadequate (for my purpose of course), I don't feel the LCD insufficient. The fact is, the "mechanical" part of DSLR was quite mature already, and its quality depended much more on the price level than on the age of the camera. In this sense, it is not surprising the D200 matches well the D700 since they belonged to the same level in the lineup, albeit at different generations. Then again, the D200 was my first DSLR and not by chance: I felt it to be the first mature camera in its kind, where of course "mature" was defined according to my needs and tastes. So it is not surprising I still feel it adequate.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Hi, I want to report two minor problems with displaying ratings in my galleries, sorry of this has been reported already. Both noticed on this image</p>

<p><a href="../photo/11753631">http://www.photo.net/photo/11753631</a></p>

<p>1) In the "details" tabs, it appears the number of ratings received is one unit less than when looking at the table displaying them all. This does not happen always, in other photos of mine the two counts match. Is it the old "rating from a new member under scrutiny" thing? If yes, disregard.<br>

2) A typo in the table listing all the ratings, the header of the right column should be "# of Ratings" but there is no space between "of" and "Ratings".</p>

<p>Keep up the good work!</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess you just met someone behaving like an idiot. But I don't see what this has to do with the future. Since I can remember, there was never lack of idiots. And I have been told by older members of my family that they remember idiots being around already before I was born ;-).</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I have a D700 and a D200, now mostly use D700 and the answer is a full, fat A. I have precisely zero lust for anything more than the D700. Mind you, it is not flawless, if I were to get a camera made custom for me I would change some little things here and there: e.g. 100% viewfinder and, say, some buttons placed differently. But they would have to give it to me as a present because I would not pay to have solved these things. The flaws the D700 has for my use are just not significant enough. I don't think Nikon will see me buying a new body until this one dies. All I'm lusting after are lenses... I tried the 24 1.4 and I really think I should not have done it, because I cannot justify the cost, but the photos it produces are just scary.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Larry,<br>

all the cameras you mention are 12 MP and so, assuming a otherwise "perfect" photo, they afford the same enlargement. Besides, D90 and D300s have extremely similar sensor/AA filter and should be almost impossible to tell apart. The D300 gives you other advantages, many of which are useful but have nothing to do with print size. The D700 can give you some advantage over the two DX cameras if you go up with ISO: since the D700 is less noisy, a 3200 ISO image can be printed larger from the D700 and still look good, but at or near base ISO this difference disappears, and I would say that at least up to 800 ISO is not going to be significant.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could this be a bad lens? Or is this the expected performance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tried three different 20 2.8 on DX when moving to digital, and none was up to even the 18-70 AFS DX that came kit with the D200. It was a big disappointment since I loved it on film, but I would say yes, it is the expected performance. That lens is just not good on digital.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I fully support the All (no HDR) category. I would also add All (no wide-angle-beach-sunset-landscape-with-foggy-waves-and-round-rocks-or-weathered-branch-in-the-foreground) category ;-) but this would wipe out 80% of the site. And one needs a very wide pull-down for it.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

What you say is true, but there is of course always the fact that most people want (or need) to buy at a given point. And there is a difference between "I wait because I want feature X which the current model does not have" and "I wait because I want to pay 300 euros less". The first one is was I was commenting on before. The second is of course true as well, but there is the usual dilemma: 300 euros less, but three more months without a significantly superior camera (thinking about the OP's D80). Even if you can wait (I could wait forever for example, I have a perfectly functional D200 and I'm an amateur), at a certain point the saving is not worth the waiting. For me, that point came in February. I'm, in fact curious of how much the D700 price can go down still. I might be wrong, But I don't think it will ever go much lower than 1900 euros new, also because as you say the remaining stock will likely be completely exhausted in a short time. So one might end up waiting 3 months to save 100 euros.</p>

<p>In a sense, it is the same philosophy I was describing before. I don't buy a camera because it is the latest and greatest or when it is the best deal it will ever be. I decide what I want in the new camera, I decide what price I'm ready to pay. When the camera I want reaches the price I want, I buy. Once I do, I don't look back. In Italy we have a say which translates more or less as "the better is the enemy of the good".</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>