Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Dwight Schrute, Jul 25, 2008.
Supposedly they should start shipping tomorrow.
I'm getting one... but not tomorrow.
i dont need a fool frame.
too spensive bro. i'm not as ballin' like the rest of OTAP
I decided to get the D300 instead
If I come into some extra $$, I'd pimp out my glass and lighting gear waaaay before buying a new body.
1. bodies are disposable
2. I haven't run into a situation yet and said 'man, I wish my D80 could do this...'
Oh, I thought you had other reasons. I'm just going to save up for it rather than impulse spend like I have in the past 4 months.
hows 1600+ ISO on the D80?
I have no need for full frame right now. Plus I like the extra reach a crop sensor gives me. However, any lens I purchase in the future will not be a DX lens to prepare me for the jump when I'm ready.
who gives a fuck, I own a flash.
not to be a dick, but anyone here who says they can't survive without crystal clear ISO 11tybillion is doing it wrong.
lame reason. sure, bodies will eventually need to be updated, but comparing a dslr to this is gay.
High ISO image quality does matter with sports/action photography where you need shutter speeds of 1/250+ to prevent motion blur, or the wedding photographer that can't use a flash.
You don't have to tell me, I'm keeping my D80.
all the new features in the universe won't make your photographs better. Neither will the megapixors....
glass will. lighting will.
The body is not as important is OT thinks it is.
And whatever you think you're gaining by buying a d700 today will be obsolete tomorrow when the d800 comes out.
Minus whale keep what you've got until you actually *need* a newer body.
I think you're taking it way too literally. Bodies are disposable because next year, there's always something new and better about the bodies they come out with. Hell, the D300 came out last year and was the greatest semi-pro camera ever... people went nuts (myself included) and bought them up like crazy. This year, the D700 is out and the D300 might as well be the D200 because everybody (myself included) would love to sell and blow another $1500 to get the newest thing.
Lenses on the other hand... I wouldn't sell my 70-200 VR, 50 1.4, or my 28-70 2.8 for the world because I know they'll fit any body Nikon has to offer.
But those people already have the equipment they need to do their job. In that regard, the d700 still doesn't have a significant advantage to what they should already be using.
and if you're a pro in the field, you're not even discussing whether or not to get it, because like any good tradesman, you use the best tool for the job. and if the d700 is it, then you've already purchased it.
I'm keeping my D80 and my D300... for now.
lenses though... always on the look out for some good shit.
I keep looking for that 11-16 2.8...
ok. enough starting trouble... I'm off to bed.
But, for the prosumer, the D700 would be a worthwhile upgrade for the Nikon user that has been using a D100/D200/D80 and wanted something with a wider dynamic range, higher ISO performance, etc
When I retired my 20D for the 5D as a back up body, I was amazed at the image quality from the 5D. The 20D simply cannot reproduce the same dynamic range as the 5D. Was it a necessary upgrade? Not really since the 1D is my primary body, but the addition of a 5D definately was an improvement. I know my way around a camera so it's not skill-related. There are some things that the 20D simply cannot do that the 5D can.
The same can be said about the D700, a prosumer level full frame body for Nikon. It fills a void for those who fall between the D300 and D3.
I shoot in a lot of non flash situations..
Try shooting moving objects/people in the dark when you're not allowed to use a flash and you need crisp shots w/o the movement showing.
The only question in my mind is justifying the jump. I was waiting for the D3 to drop cause I knew they'd be putting something out soon and so I never got the D2. That in mind I have the En-el3e batteries and no En-el4a batteries... So what right? Except talking to one of my fellow photographers who has a D1/D2 ect.. he has 2 or 3 En-el4a batteries where as I've never even had 1 En-el3 go bad on me..
Cliffs - alreayd have compatible gear for the D700 (batteries/chargers ect) D700 = $2999 and D3= $5000 Batteries are twice as expensive for the D3 and seemingly die (as in become not usable, not as in use up charge ) a lot faster according to a fellow pro shooter.
yup you definitly have the right idea.
people laughed at me when I had the d70 with the 12-24, and the 70-200 but those lenses sure as hell helped me..and I still use them even though my D70 is nothing more than a paperweight these days.
While I do agree I am tempted A LOT by the D700..id rather make the jump to FF once im prepared and have all the lenses and flashes I need