warren_gleich6

<p>Well, I pulled the trigger this weekend after much contemplation. I picked up a new D700 from my local dealer who took a couple of older AFD lenses in trade. For me, this was a perfect choice.</p>

<ul>

<li>My investment in full frame glass has paid off. I am already using the 80-200 2.8 AFS more than ever before. On DX, it was a little long for most stuff I was shooting so I left it home more often than not.</li>

<li>The D700 feels very nature to my D200 head. The layout of buttons and functions were so close I did not need to open the manual until I accidentally locked out the Aperture Control.</li>

<li>Auto-ASI is really useful whereas on the D200 it was kind of limited.</li>

<li>All my batteries and card work from the D200.</li>

<li>My travel workflow has migrated to using an iPad to load pictures for viewing. I get more pictures on the 64gb iPad I am using.</li>

<li>I am absolutely happy without video capability. I played around with D7000 and while video is kind of cool, I don't have the mind set for the shot and am better off with a simple point and shoot for grab video (I always carry a cheap Canon P&S to give to locals to take my picture).</li>

<li>I could not wrap my head around the interface of the D7000. It felt too much like the N70 I started with years ago. I learned on my Dad's '53 Leica IIIf in junior high and I like controlling the settings and not using Scenes.</li>

<li>The money saved is going towards a replacement for the 35-70 2.8 AFD at a later date (perhaps the 24-120 AFS VR).</li>

<li>Most importantly, image quality is amazing. I took an imagine at twilight in our living room and it was the first time my wife ever asked for me to send her a picture from viewing on the camera.</li>

</ul>

<p>As an aside, I am astounded by the price of used D700's, D300, D300s' and D7000 in the New England market. I have only seen one that would be considered a deal (low actuations and good price) in several months and kick myself for not jumping.</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Warren</p>

<p>Thanks all for some great advice.<br>

I also saw the "Rumor Correction" on the D600. It made no sense to me that Nikon would not include an AF motor in a $1500+ body.<br>

I am going to wait a bit on this and let destiny play out. I was really thinking of the D700 and used prices were ludicrous in Boston/NH. Some new inventory finally showed and I thought I would have a limited window to buy but the reality is for me unless I get a decent priced lower actuation used D700 at a decent price, I will kick myself for not getting something like the D600 or D800 a little later. I am going to look to sell the 10-24 AFS DX as I am destined for FX.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Warren</p>

<p>Well, this topic has been beat to death in numerous threads on lots of forums, but I thought I would get some feedback directly.<br>

<br />I am a avid amateur photographer that has been using a D200 happily for a number of years. I came from film (F100) and as such have always invested in good glass when possible. I am looking to upgrade from the D200 and the timing is not perfect. I am heading to Yosemite in August and would like to have a new camera with some time on it before I go. I am considering the D7000, D700 and D800 (although not for this trip due to availability and cost).<br>

My current lenses are what I have fine tuned over a number of years and I want to get the most out them. I am concerned that the D800 may be too much, but feel they would excel on the D700 or D7000.</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 17-35 2.8 AFS</li>

<li>Nikon 12-24 4.0 AFS DX</li>

<li>Nikon 35-70 2.8 AFD</li>

<li>Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFS</li>

<li>Nikon 105 2.8 AFS Micro</li>

<li>Nikon 85 1.8 AFD</li>

<li>Nikon 50 1.8 AFD</li>

<li>Nikon 300 4.0 AF</li>

<li>Nikon TC-14 modified for the 80-200 AFS and 300 4.0</li>

</ul>

<p>I am not heavily committed to the DX world and enjoy people and landscape/travel photography. I am attracted to FX to utilize my kit as I did in the film days (isolated DoF, etc.).<br>

<br />I have played with the D7000 a bunch and it does not feel a functional or solid as my D200. I get that this is the latest DX and is higher resolution than the D700/D200 and most affordable. I don't really care about video, my priority is image quality and expect a major increase in High ISO quality. I hear a lot of teething pains with the D7000 (focus and metering).<br>

The D700 feels really good to me and I like the controls. Being FX would be great and I understand the low light capability is great. I am looking for opinions on image quality between the D700 and D7000. Not enlarging to bigger than 11x14 and I am looking for dynamic range and noise comparisons.<br>

The D800 of course looks sweet. Not sure if my lenses will stand up (maybe reading too much pixel peeper stuff). The cost and availability takes it out of the running for my Yosemite trip so that is why I am focused on the D700/D7000.<br>

<br />Lastly, I could wait for the rumored D600 but that appears to not have a built in motor for AF and that would be a bummer for most of my kit. It would be perfect it there was a D700s with more resolution and DR.<br>

Any thoughts and opinions are appreciated.</p>

<p>Warren</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was shooting film when I went and basically live on the wide side. My (DX) kit for Venice now would be 17-35 2.8, 12-24 4.0, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. I would highly recommend a bogen mini table top tripod. I used mine extensivly braced against walls and placed on ledge for both inside shots and evening/night shots. I would not bother carrying a flash as most interiors don't allow it due to the artwork. I also recommend a cheap point and shoot for snaps of yourselves. I felt more comfortable giving a cheap camera to a stranger to take pictures of my wife and I. Never had a problem, but there are a lot of theft in the crowded areas like St Marks square. If you have a choice, I highly recommend staying in Venice even though it is very expensive. There is a marked difference in the pace and friendliness of the city after all the cruise ship and tour crowd leaves.</p>

First off congratulations. There is nothing to compare to what you and your husband are about to experience. Take LOTS of pictures, you won't really remember the first 6 months in detail (speaking from my experience).

 

Bear in mind my camera advice is based on using a film camera F100 and a P&S digital. The first year my most used lens was the Nikon 105 micro AF-D. At first, babies don't move a lot and you can zoom by walking and the close focus allows you to get frame filling details without running into minimum focus. I have a wonderful image of my daughter new born holding my finger that I would not have gotten without this lens. I am not sure if you would need to adjust and go with a 60 micro on the digital due to the 1.5 conversion. My second most used lens was a Nikon 35-70 2.8 AF-D. Just enough zoom range for pictures with Mom and Dad and family. I would recommend a flash also. Probably a SB-600 is enough but get a diffusing dome. I had a F70 with a built in flash and in my experience all too often the red eye was very bad due to being so close to the lens. I also tried to bounce the flash when they small because they always whinced when the flash went off.

 

Bottom line, get the kit lens, Nikon 105 2.8 micro and a SB-600.

 

Oh and since you are shooting digital, pickup a Maxtor external USB hardrive with one touch backup. It can be configured to back up you PC or any specific files with one touch. I know at least three couples that lost all the baby/kid pictures due to hard drive crashes or stolen laptops.

 

Warren

Well, I own a 80-200 2.8 AFS, Nikon TC-14 and 300 4.0 AF. I shoot film, but am looking to go digital so and looking forward to the 1.5 factor of digital on a D70. So, othere here have said and cannot agree more, the 300/4 AF is an amazing lense for the money. I do tend to use it with manual focus when shooting lanscape so the AF speed is not a problem. I would recommend getting it and saving for a Nikon converter the quality is impecable.

 

Warren