don_durham

<p>If you choose the D700 your best bet, in my opinion, is the Nikkor 105 2.8. Great versatility for a "prime" and you can get as close as you want.</p>

I bought a 24-120 a couple of years ago because I couldn't get an 18-200. I was perfectly happy with it although a bit soft at the long end. When I got the 18-200, I sold the 24-120 (because the 18-200 is so much better) and never looked back. While I strongly agree that the D700 should not be in a "kit" I also know that its more than obvious that Nikon over-produced the lens and needed to get rid of it. The good thing? Many are buying the kit and selling the 24-120. There are a ton of them on the market and can be had used (read brand new) for very cheap. Almost worth getting another one for fun.

Anyone who wanted a D3 has one. Now the D700 is out for those who "really didn't need a $5000 camera" but thought they just had to have full frame. Wait a few more months. Nikon will have something even better out and all of this stuff will be "great deals." Thankfully, the only thing that really doesn't diminish is glass.

Dr Dweller, I reviewed some of your images...try a 35mm and take the film for processing and scanning, or buy a

nice scanner yourself. For the type of images you are producing, under the conditions you are producing them, I

think you might be way happier. For less money than the D700 you can buy a nice F6, use all your lenses to their

utmost, and get better results. You don't need the high ISO performance nor the speed, and the overall resolution will

be better.

The D700 looks like an answer to some people's prayers. A very nice camera, although it obviously doesn't seem to

suit the external aesthetic requirements for some. But I can't, for the life of me, see why you would trade into a D700

from a D300. Yes, the FX sensor is cool but does it really increase your capabilities that much? The introduction will

certainly fill one bill for me...it will provide a whole bunch of D3's and D300's on the market for way less than retail, as

did the introduction of the D300 greatly reduce the value of the D200, a very fine camera and not necessarily very old

technology.

 

Decide what you want, wait six months to one year and buy it then. With the money you save you can buy some

really great Nikon glass, which never loses its value if you buy intelligently.

 

If you're a pro and someone else is footing the bill, go for it.

Saw very little in any of the responses regarding quality of the product. Not all wedding

photographers are the same. If you provide the very highest quality product it will be in

demand by those who can afford to pay the price. If you are more focused on how

much to charge than on the quality of the work, it will forever be reflected in what you

are paid. Become the best you can, be innovative, stand out and the money will come.

If you currently own a DSLR that you paid over $500 for, the D3 (or the D300) is meaningless. I've seen plenty of really outstanding photos on this site taken with a P&S. But if you are in the market for a camera and have the resources and the REQUIREMENT then they are really good alternatives. But still, pity the Canon buyer who will pay 8 grand for 21 megapixels.

I looked at your portfolio. You are certainly ready for an SLR if you think you need one. You

get outstanding resuts with the A640. Look at the 18-55 (better lens and cheaper) and the

70-300 and you will be set for a long time.

You'll get some really interesting responses to all of questions. It sounds like you are

asking (without really asking) if you should go Nikon or Canon. All of the types of work

you mentioned require a different set of priorities but siffice to say that either system will

probably do what you want it to do. I suggest you go to the camera store and play with

both systems a little, look at available lenses and cost, don't listen too much to the

salesman because he probably prefers one or the other and will try to sell it to you and

then buy what you really feel comfortable with.

Start building cameras and lenses and rent any other equipment you feel like you need

and then you will decide whether or not you NEED it. Then you can invest in it.

The truth is you can make great photos with any kind of camera. Just touch as much as

you can and you will find out what you like. I shoot Nikon, both digital and film, but Canon

has great stuff.

Good luck and enjoy.

The 18-200 is a great lens but not so much for portraits indoors. You can easily find the 50

1.8 for $60-75 bucks used and it is perfect. Play with white balance and just shoot a bunch

of pictures. You'll find lots of good ones.

 

And trolls live under bridges!

For someone already familiar with an FM2 the ONLY choice is a D40 (don't bother with the D40x.) I've recommended them to several people who were frustrated trying to take "snapshots" with the compacts. And you can grow with it.

I wholeheartedly agree with every single post. There are more sports pros using Canon because of frame speed. There are more Nikons being sold, in total, because Nikon sells the best consumer/enthusiast offerings. To get anything from Canon to compare to a D200 would cost around three grand for the body. But you can get a "close-to-pro-grade' Canon way cheaper than the D2x.

 

Both are really good cameras and really good systems. Both have some wonderful lenses. Canon doesn't have anything to compare to the 18-200 VR...yet. Wait a while.

 

Go to a good camera store, handle all of them, decide on a budget and buy what you are comfortable with. You will get great pictures from any of them.

I've heard people who constantly look through the view-finder (shooting sports, etc.) actually becoming "sea sick" with the movement. It is very common, there is nothing wrong with the lens and if you shoot a lot you will get used to it.

Shooting indoors with white balance set to auto. Change to incandescent and try that.

I got here through Ken's site. I read it almost every day. Now I will be reading photo.net every day also.

I love Ken's site. I don't think he writes satire. I think he is a dry wit, somewhat egotistical and given to fits ofpouring out whatever comes to his mind that day. If you read him religiously there are a large number of contradictions in his opinions. He obviously doesn't re-read his journal very often. But that's like almost everyone else.

I have no idea where I fit in his categorization of people who put images on paper. I am older (59), I have a Nikon D200 and four lenses, and I just love to carry it around, snap pictures and maybe print one or two out of a hundred or more and hang them unframed on my wall.

I also greatly enjoyed Alex's lengthy review. All true and all critical but well done and not terribly self-serving.

I realize this is an old thread but I hope to be contributing more as time goes on on this site.