Hi All,
I'm reviewing my options at the minute, and have a couple of questions about the d700.
I am interested in a high level of detail, and high ISO shooting so it does seem the way to go, but I would have to sell my D90 and my 10-20,sigma 105, nikon35DX, ( I hardly ever use those lenses these days ) and probably my trusty 18-70 ( which i use a lot ) to get close to the price.
That would leave me with a 50 1.4 as my only lens. . . Or I could sell that and get on old 28 f2 or something as I tend to shoot at the wide end of things. I like the fact that older nikon lenses would work OK on it, and I am OK about manual focus.
Would I see a difference in the amount of detail, or that hard to define concept, quality?
Any recommendations on inexpensive lenses. ( I can't afford a 24 70 2.8! )
Should I stick with what I have? A D700 is bloody expensive. . .
And no, I'm not going to use film, sorry.
Jon
ps - what happens if you use a dx lens on a ff camera?

It has the best view finder on the market,great camera!!

Wait a couple of weeks for a significant price drop on the D700. A D800 or maybe D900 is very close and the production of D700 is about to cease (maybe stopped already?). You will still find it in the shops and online for a couple of months after the introduction of the next model.

See www.nikonrumours.com for details.

DX lenses will just show heavy vignetting in full frame. I think the higher ISO capability from yours will just be one stop more. Worth it? A D700 would be the next logical step from a D90 anyway, with my limited know-how.

Hi Jon.

The 50mm 1.4 works great with the D700. It was the lens I used most on my D3 towards the end and the one I was most sad to part with.
Demand is strong for FF lenses so expensive to buy, but they keep their money well.

A good all rounder for you would be the 28-200mm G. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm

That and your 50mm should keep you going until you can save up for the more exotic stuff.

If I ever gave up on the Leica I'd probably get the D700 rather than the D3. It's a great camera and very well put together.
Why not bag a second hand one, especially if they announce a D800. The only thing the D800 will have over the D700 is filming capability and better ISO, but you don't need it. I used to be able to take pics in the dark with the D3 but there's little point. You still need light for a decent photo. The higher ISOs come in for sports and action in normal/poor light.

Hope that helps.

Cheers
B

I had a D3 (same sensor) that I used with a 24-85 semi pro lens... on the short end it was terrible, much more than on my old D70 on the long end excellent. The D3/D700 needs good lenses. Using a DX lens will give you heavy vignetting - though you can use a DX mode, which will give you 6mp images.

It was stolen and I decided to buy - after the insurance paid back the D3 + several lenses - a D700 + 24-70 f/2.8. And I'm very, very happy. Excellent IQ all the way - short to long end; 200 - 3200 ISO.

I decided to buy this camera - since I'm doing mostly architectural photography - for it's FF sensor and the ability to use the latest 24mm T/S lens. I'm pretty sure that I would be as happy with a D300 or even D90 if I wasn't doing architectural stuff. Anyway, you will be only happy with a D700 (or equivalent camera) if you have the right lenses. My two cents ofcourse. If you have any other questions about the D700, let me know...

I recently spent a couple of months collecting used prime lenses. I have 4, 20mm AF-D f2.8, 35mm AF-D f2, 50mm AF-D f1.8 and 85mm AF f1.8. I also have the 60mm AF-D Micro. Any and all of these lenses will give you VERY good results on the D700. I really wish I had money for one. I also have the 24-85mm AF-S mentioned above. I have mostly all "FX" lenses because I also shoo with a F100. You should definitely keep the 50mm f1.4, it is an EXCELLENT lens and will give an accurate 50mm view on the D700 instead of the 75mm view you get on the D90. If you like to shoot wide, the 35mm or the 28mm will be a nice second lens. I have no real problems with the 24-85mm but I shoot mostly with the primes so I don't really use it much. If you stretch to get the D700, then please take your time and get only good to very good glass as you can afford. Bob is probably right about the near future with Nikon bodies. If you are careful you might get a really good deal on a used D700, there are always those who will chase the new versions as soon as they come out.

Hi,

The D700 is worth every single Euro you pay for it and with the 50 mm the best solution you can have! There is nothing comparable! Of course you can use DX lens on the 700 and no problem with this. The 24-70 and the 14-24 is the best you can get on the market! Canon is far behind that believe me!

Robert

There are definitely great lenses available that are affordable if you don't mind manual focus. The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is a dream, especially with full frame. With that and my 50mm, I need little else! Will invest in a 105mm f/2.5 and something longer later. Anyway, just make sure the D700 is right for your needs, the lenses shouldn't be a problem after that. If you have full frame and good high ISO capability, you're set for a very nice photography experience, for a very long time! The D700 is a long-term goal for me for specific applications, but using film and maybe a D40 at the moment suits me just fine.

Encouraging words guys, thanks. I think waiting a bit is a good idea as I have heard the d800 etc rumours. Also, just after xmas is a bad time to try to sell anything!
lenses are a bit of a minefield. For instance, I saw a 28mm f2 AI on ebay, and the same lens except AIS. I have no idea what the difference is. One might be a gem and the other a lemon. . . ;-) I shall look it up and try to amass a wish list. There is a Nikon dealer who deals out of a village to the north of Cambridge, I will give him a ring as he has a lot of high quality secondhand lenses.
The 50 1.4 is a lens I intend to get with a credit note i have from a camera shop, so i don't actually have it yet :-) It was the best solution I could think of for around £250. I shall investigate the 28 2.8 as well.
thanks a lot for your input.
Jon

Wrong! The difference is much more than that! I'm considering the 700 myself. Not used it, but I've used the D3 which have the same sensor. Excellent!
You'll find lots of good glass for it in the secondhand market, especially manual focus lenses.
For the megapixel side of it.. I just made a 1.1x1.97m print from a shot I made with a D200 a few years ago. It worked very well. I don't know how many here makes enlargements like that? It might not have worked for all kinds of shots, this was a landscape and it worked very well

Hi Lars, from the research I've done, people that have used all those cameras have suggested that it's one stop more of realistic usage. So where you'd be happy with the lack of noise at 800 ISO with the D90, you'd be happy with 1600 with the D700. Depends how much quality you're looking for. If you say you can get great clean images at 3200, then that's cooler ;)

The optics - 28mm f/2.0 AI or AI-s - are very similar. but there is a difference in the near limit ....AI: 0.3m, AIS:0.25m.

This lens - whatever Ai og Ai-s - is extremely resistant against flare and ghosting - you can shoot directly into the sun. That is the reason I have bought it for my D700.

I think it is a better lens, than the 28mm f/2.8 according to what I have read.

I do not think you will regret buying the D700 - I will choose it above the D3 for the dust removal and the little pop up flash, which is convinient, and when I need more fps I use the grip, but without the grip is is light, and I love that. The D3 is not light, but is has some other advantages.

Using the 1.4 or the 1.8 (50mm) will just learn you to do food zoom ;);)

---

We will se if it is only rumours about the "new" D700x, D800, D900, or whatever they will call it - there is also a rumour that it first will be released about spring or summer.

I have a good contact at Nikon, but he said to me: Steinar if I new it, I would not tell it, because then I have to shoot you afterwards ;);)

Don't get shot on my account Steinar ;-) Not sure if I can wait until summer. . . thanks for the info. I think Richard swears by the 28 f2 as well. I'm waiting for him to jump in with some lens suggestions ;-) I shall practice the foot zoom in the meantime.
Jon

You are welcome, and I will not ;)

This totally new rumour should be in few weeks, and if nothing happens, buy the D700, , and you will love it.

If you buy the 28mm f/2.0 (it should not be too expensive, it is an underrated lens, few have seen it.s fine results, but Bjørn Rørslett praise it a lot, and he is right) and then the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8, cheaper than the 1.4, then you are going ?

What is the price for the 28mm f/2.0 AI ?

Here are the prices at Grays in England:

28mm f/2 Nikkor AIS MINT- £545.00
28mm f/2 Nikkor AIS EXC £375.00
28mm f/2 Nikkor AIS EXC++ £445.00
28mm f/2 Nikkor AIS
This lens was priced at £ 950 seven years ago! Optics are perfect. EXC £295.00

And they are normally not so cheap with the used ones (well sometimes new lenses are cheap at Grays), but you get warranty, so E-bay have to be less expensive.

By the way Grays of Westminster is a top firm you really can trust. I can really recommend this firm - have bought a lot.

I didn't see the auction end on ebay so I don't know what it went for. it was about 120 pounds with fifteen hours to go but that doesn't tell us much. . . the AIS was nearer 300 pounds i think.
Jon

The f/2.0 is pretty expensive. I got my 2.8 on ebay for £100, and that's the one Richard has as well. Can't go wrong there. If you want the extra stop faster, then buy a D700 and choose a higher ISO! Hey, wait a minute...

If you wonder about Nikon lenses, check out naturfotograf.com
What you don't find there you probably won't find on the market. Except for the real cheapies..
The lenses are also rated in combination with the different Nikon digital cameras

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is an amazing lens with a fantastic price/quality ratio

Its a FF lens but I use on a 1.5 crop camera never used it on FF.

Guido

If you wane wide angle without compromise go for the 14-24 f2,8! This 28 mm is a grat deal of lens indeed!
Also good like i said is the 24-70 f2,8!

Robert

great choice JBA! the D700 is a dream camera to me. You DO need good glass though, don't cut corners there. My 50mm 1.8 becomes very soft with it, which it didn't with the D300.
I don't know how much better the 50 mm 1.4 will be. I wonder which one you are talking about the 1.4D or 1.4G ? I guess the safe choice will be 1.4G but it's quite pricey.
I own the 24-70mm and 14-24mm... they are unbelievable lenses, TRUE! but they are so f.....g heavy and bulky that they may become extremely uncomfortable throughout a day on the street. It only gets worse considering I'm saving my pennies for the 70-200....
But the point being, a camera like this one without good glass will not be at its 100% potential.

I'd skip the d700 and just use what you have already, truthfully there's no real difference. This consistent obsession with new gear is hilarious. It's all about the light.

Karl, I know where you are coming from about new gear not being the answer in many ways, but the D700 does seem to offer better perceivable quality of detail ( with the right lens ) due to it's bigger sensor, and much better high ISO performance than the D90 can. I might be an idea for me to hire one and see if the difference is what I hope it might be.
Jon

Point taken; its up to you. If you are struggling to afford it, though, it may not be the best option. Your d90 is overkill for most work, in fact, nearly all work you could need such a powerful cam for. Dont buy into the marketing dribble..lenses are more important, light being more important than those. High ISO is a trade off. The more you use, the less sharpness, detail and quality you are able to achieve in the end. In the print its even worse...could nail it and get a great image but what use is that ? If you want better detail you need better light, or better vision.

As of now I'm Drooling on D700, But I'm Holding my Budget because "There is some Smoke, So I think there is Fire" Means new Updated will show in a couple of months :-).
I do have a 5 years old D70s, and it's serve me well,, But I can say that "I Outgrow the camera", I do have some few DX Lens (10.5mm, and 18-70mm DX) and few Primes 35 f2, 85 f1.4, & 105 Micro Non D. and some Few lenses on My Neighbor that i can Borrow 70-200 VR :-).
What is the reason for Update..Well not actually an Upgrade,, Because I will make the D70s Dedicated for my UNDERWATER Photography (This is much more Expensive Hobby by the way, Don't think about it :-) )
Few Reason
1. Focus Point, D70s is 5, compare to 51
2. ISO,,,Are you Kidding me,,,D70s ISO can only use 400 (i mean Useable imae) ,,the rest are Joke!,,,that's One Stop Only
3. Frame per second, only 3 from D70s, and 5 to
4. Dynamic Range is way way better from D700, How Do i know, I used D700 a lot :-) ,, From my Neighbor
5. View Finder,, DX is Tiny,, And FX is AWESOME
6. And So on, on

So For Me,, I think i deserved a better Upgrade compare to you.

So in your case JBA, Karl has Point, Maximized your tools before upgrading it, ISO is not much Difference in D700, how often you Print Big Size to see the lost detail,,, Well me I sell Prints, My D70s Print some 16 X 20 by the help of CS1,,, and you know it's still Awesome,,,,But D90 will be more Awesome. As i can see, your Set up is Good to Go for D90,, If you sell mostly everything and Left one Lens 50 1.4,, you will MISSED more Shots and the Creativity. And then you will get more Sleepless night because your wanting to get more FX lens!

So Final Word, Maximized what you have, wait Couple of months,, and Let's buy together a New D900 :-)
View this Link http://nikonrumors.com :-)

Eric

Thanks Eric,
I shall certainly wait a couple of months. As i don't as yet have any kind of audience for any prints i might do, the level of detail is perhaps acedemic. . . Meanwhile I shall try to stretch my abilities with the D90 and see what I get.
I have seen some beautiful shots of mountain gorillas taken at ISO 3200 with a d700 and they are fabulous. And I do get fed up with finding that a lot of the shots i want to take handheld are at less than 1/30 sec due to dull conditions in the woods etc. A tripod is just too painstaking for my preferred approach.
I've been looking at Lee Friedlander's later work ( new mexico and his tangles of branches stuff ) with his wide Hassleblad and they are just fantastic. Obviously digital can't really get that level of detail, but a d700 and a really good lens might be as close as one can get.
OK, I have some time to make up my mind.
thanks for your thoughts everyone.
Jon

I am with Karl here. I'm saving up for a D40 because I need the digital convenience for certain applications. The lenses will do the rest of the work. I don't think I need any better. I'm only thinking of the D700 "one day" because I want a full-frame digital option to go with my film camera. For your reasons of low light, I think you're onto the right camera, Jon. The price always gets crazy with a stop or 2 faster. Damn this hobby to hell!

Edit: considering you like the wider end of a focal length range, and that handheld issues become less of a problem the wider you go, you must be in some serious darkness! :)

One of the very best investments in gear I ever made was a compact carbon fiber tripod. It is very "hike" friendly, even came with a sling pack for easy carrying and a rock bag for stability in windy/severe conditions. I don't always carry it when hiking, usually only if I know I'm going to be in low light situation like a sunset or a very heavy canopy. I also have a Gorillapod that I always carry when hiking, can be very useful if you don't use front heavy lenses. Works great if you're shooting with primes though.