Ken rockwells review on the d700

[DoubleT]

heres his review on the d700, i always find his reviews quite benificial.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700.htm


one quick question ....


With the FX sensor would that make my 200mm lens a true 200mm lens?

and my 10-20 DX lens useless?

[combat squirrel]

Looks an immense camera, and yes 200mm would be 200mm, no crop factor, and the DX lens would not work correctly in that severe vignetting would appear in the corners, could be used to creative effect I guess. The fov on a FF is around 16/17mm to what is 10mm on a crop.

[devitt]

Thanks for that, will have a read of it later. Anyone know if any reviews are out soon in any of the magazines for the D700?

And yes doubleT, it would make it a true 200mm as its not a cropped sensor on the D700. And I am pretty sure the 10-20 sigma would not fit/would suffer vignetting big time.

[devitt]

beat me to it combat squirrel:bonk:

[combat squirrel]

ha no worries, just thought though, does this camera operate in 'dx compatable mode', in that it will ignore the outer set of pixels and just output the 'ok' areas of the image? but lowering the pixel count in the process no doubt.

[Blapto]

Yes, it has a 5MP DX mode.

Ken Rockwell doesn't have an actual review up. He's probably never ever seen or held an actual D700, it's all based on the stats.

[DoubleT]

ok thank guys,

i think that may be enough to sway me away from buying one.

i like the fact that my longer lenses are 1.6 times longer

ive always struggled for length :'(

[Shak]

ok thank guys,

i think that may be enough to sway me away from buying one.

i like the fact that my longer lenses are 1.6 times longer

ive always struggled for length :'(

We had this conversation the other day lol! I think I've decided to keep the D300.

[AliB]

ok thank guys,

i think that may be enough to sway me away from buying one.

i like the fact that my longer lenses are 1.6 times longer

ive always struggled for length :'(

Call me a pedant but they are not 1.6 times longer, the focal length does not change, the field of view does. The sensor is smaller so it gathers less of the image created by the lens and the camera's electronics then blow it back up to a 35mm equivalence. Hence you get a lens equivalence factor, not a magnification factor. And yes it is sometimes useful, no matter what it is called. :)

[Steep]

i like the fact that my longer lenses are 1.6 times longer
(

Not wanting to start this up again. but they're not longer, 200mm = 200mm no matter what camera you attach it to.

[Jamougha]

Hmm so then my sigma 10-20mm is a longer lens than the 4.7-17.1mm one on my point and shoot. :lol:

People use the term long to refer to reach, not focal length.

[foodpoison]

I wish my body had a 1.6x crop sensor ;)

I've never really found Ken Rockwell's reviews all that helpful, but the image side by side comparisons are always good.

[Monkey]

ermmm, 1.5x crop on a nikon, canon is 1.6x, and pentax it 2.0x

[sprog]

So he's basically cut & pasted the sales blurb onto his site.... again.

Seems to have a very loyal following does our Ken.

[barneyrubble]

It's split pretty much down the middle. There are those that love him, and there are those that can't read a word of what he is writing without pouring scorn on it.

[King_Boru]

ermmm, 1.5x crop on a nikon, canon is 1.6x, and pentax it 2.0x

Pentax is 1.5x. Olympus is 2.0x.

Anyway, it isn't really a review as the obvious has been stated which anyone with a bit of common sense can sum up. I find that Ken Rockwell's reviews state the clear obvious time and time again. Kind of pointless. Though as stated his side by side comparisons are some of the better around. His predictions are usually pretty good too.

[Nod]

ok thank guys,

i think that may be enough to sway me away from buying one.

i like the fact that my longer lenses are 1.6 times longer

ive always struggled for length :'(


Two points...

#1 - Quite apart from the fact that a 200mm lens is always a 200mm lens - it can't grow magically - the crop factor on Nikon DSLRs (pre D3/D700) is 1.5x rather than the 1.6x of some Canons.

#2 - If you want to keep the length, keep the older DSLR as a 2nd body to any FF body you might upgrade to. It might mean saving for an extra month or 3 but in that time the price of the new body may have dropped a bit as well!

[Adam Rowney]

Pentax is 1.5x. Olympus is 2.0x.

Anyway, it isn't really a review as the obvious has been stated which anyone with a bit of common sense can sum up. I find that Ken Rockwell's reviews state the clear obvious time and time again. Kind of pointless.

I think his site is very useful for someone who is beginning to learn photography. What might be obvious and pointless to you, may be interesting and help teach others. And if he does cut and paste some things often, at least it means there is a large database of information for those who do not have the time to look around.

[Nod]

The biggest problem I have with KR is that there's no way of telling what's true and what's BS that he's made up for his own ammusement or an April fool's gag. Too many people treat everything he writes as being the truth, the whole truth etc. LARGE pinch of salt with every mouthful - or just steer clear of the site.

[Flash In The Pan]

One thing you'll notice with KR is that if he owns a lens then it will be the best thing since sliced bread. Take the 18-200 VR for an example. He goes on and on about how it is the perfect lens, better than anything else, yadayada. Trouble is, it's not perfect, it's an average consumer-grade Nikon lens with a variable aperture. Sure, it's handy if you don't want to be lugging a load of lenses about or are too lazy/scared to change lenses, but that doesn't make it perfect, it makes it convenient.

People were reading his glowing review and then buying one expecting it to produce images that surpassed those from Nikon's pro line up and then being disappointed with their example because it didn't seem to offer the stunning performance KR said it did.

Anyway, what was this thread about, oh yeah, the D700 :lol: Looks good on paper, but I can't see any reason to ditch the D300 to buy one, not until I've tried one at least....