Decision to go FF with....

Graham00

Graham00

Messages
3,145
Name
Graham Mc
Edit My Images
Yes
After Christmas i'm seriously thinking of going full frame with landscape photography, a D800 paired with the 24-70 f2.8 was going to be the obvious choice but now i'm thinking of getting a secondhand D700 paired with the 16-35 f4.
The latter lens from claims to be a little sharper and 30% cheaper, plus it's lighter too, i will still keep the D300 and longer lenses for the extra reach for wildlife, motorsports and some landscapes too because of owning a 10stop 67mm filter for seascapes.
Any reason why i shouldn't ?
 
Nope, great combo. The VR is genuinely useful.
 
If you've read that the F4 is sharper on Ken Rockwell's site, then I'm afraid you've been misled. It's not. It's not terrible, but it's still £900 and and unless you really need the 16mm it's a great chunk of cash for a lens that will have all it's flaws made apparent by the D800's resolution. The only thing I'd consider with that focal length range is the truly awesome Nikkor 12-24 F2.8.


Also.. D700? It may be full frame, but 12MP? If you're buying a FF camera mainly for landscape, then I'd seriously consider the D800, or maybe the D600.

For landscape, I'd consider the D800 and Nikkor 24-70 F2.8, or even the Nikkor 28-70 F2.8... which is also a very good lens.

...or primes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I use an 16-35 on my D700 and I can safely say it's my sharpest lens corner to corner.

And really, 12mp is more than enough for 99% of people's needs. If it were a choice between a D700 and 16-35 or a D600 and a crappy lens then I know what I'd take every day of the week.
 
My 16-35mm f/4 VR is sharper to the edge an any aperture than both the 14-24mm lenses i owned on my D3S and D700, its not as sharp in the centre until f/8 and diffraction creeps in sooner than the 14-24mm but as i use it mostly at f/8 and for interior/inside stadium handheld work the VR was a no brainer for me personally, both suffer some distortion which is easily corrected but effectivly means you need to lose 1-2mm on the wide end

I would consider the D800 though, thats where im going if i can get one cheap enough
 
Good point David, do ya know i thought for a while that the D700 was around 16mp, it looks like i'll be going the D600 route then, i won't need external switches for metering/focus as it will be set for landscapes mostly evaluative.
24mp is probably as far as i want to go.
Also need to look at lenses yet...again lol. it seems so much easier if you're a Canon user.
 
Having said im going for a D800 dont be afraid of the 12mp D700 files, ive got some of mine which have been printed 40ft wide and 9ft high and these were even slightly cropped from the original file, all depends how far away you will be looking at them from.


Graham00 said:
Good point David, do ya know i thought for a while that the D700 was around 16mp, it looks like i'll be going the D600 route then, i won't need external switches for metering/focus as it will be set for landscapes mostly evaluative.
24mp is probably as far as i want to go.
Also need to look at lenses yet...again lol. it seems so much easier if you're a Canon user.
Click to expand...
 
Pookeyhead said:
If you've read that the F4 is sharper on Ken Rockwell's site, then I'm afraid you've been misled. It's not. It's not terrible, but it's still £900 and and unless you really need the 16mm it's a great chunk of cash for a lens that will have all it's flaws made apparent by the D800's resolution. The only thing I'd consider with that focal length range is the truly awesome Nikkor 12-24 F2.8.

Also.. D700? It may be full frame, but 12MP? If you're buying a FF camera mainly for landscape, then I'd seriously consider the D800, or maybe the D600.

For landscape, I'd consider the D800 and Nikkor 24-70 F2.8, or even the Nikkor 28-70 F2.8... which is also a very good lens.

...or primes.
Click to expand...

I sold my 24-70 once I bought the 16-35.

The 16-35 is great, as is the 24-70. This isn't from reading what some bloke says online, its from using them both for a long time.

And the d700 always was and always will be perfectly fine for landscapes. You don't need the latest and greatest gear to take good photos.

I've printed several 40x30 inch prints and they are flawless. I could go bigger, but my house isn't big enough to house them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was also thinking of the cropping factor at the higher resolution, when i crop off from a D300 file it can be quite noticeable with 12.3mp, with the D800 it isn't even at 100%
Just something else to consider really if i really need/want to with an image.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I sold my 24-70 once I bought the 16-35.

The 16-35 is great, as is the 24-70. This isn't from reading what some bloke says online, its from using them both for a long time.

And the d700 always was and always will be perfectly fine for landscapes. You don't need the latest and greatest gear to take good photos.

I've printed several 40x30 inch prints and they are flawless. I could go bigger, but my house isn't big enough to house them.
Click to expand...

You can print any image as big as you want.. but a 12mp image will not be flawless at 40 inches. It's native resolution is only 17.7 inches @ 240 dpi, or 14 inches at 300dpi on the longest side. I'm sure they look great, but the difference between the D700 and D800 in a large print will be chalk and cheese... in fact I know it is from comparing prints from my old D3 and my D800. The difference is staggering.

Someone considering upgrading to full frame exclusively for landscapes would be making a mistake to consider a 5 year old 12mp camera. I know you're probably very pleased with it, and there's no reason not to be, as it's a great camera, but it's hardly the ideal tool for a landscape photographer wanting to upgrade.

The 16-35 f4 is not a bad lens, but it's soft in the corners at 16mm until you stop well down. That's not the end of the world for a landscape photographer, but for a few hundred more, you can get the 14-24 f2.8 which is one of the most staggeringly superb lenses ever made. If you're thinking of buying full frame high resolution cameras for landscape photography, then you really shouldn't be compromising them with optics that are anything less than the absolute best. I know the 14-24 is more money, but if the OP was considering the D800 and has now decided he wants the D600, then he's just liberated £600... I'd stick that straight back into my lens budget and get the 14-24 f2.8. If you need anything longer, then buy a couple of slower primes.. a 35 and a 50 perhaps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks David for taking the time to write that, the 14-24 f2.8 on a D600 sounds like the best option for me, i could stretch to the D800, but i'm not going pro, so it could be a waste of money.
 
The 14-24 is one of those hall of fame lenses that once you buy it, it will be with you for the rest of your life, and you'll never have to think about buying a ultra-wide zoom lens ever again.... not unless there's a serious paradigm shift in lens design in our lifetime. Cameras come and go.. but seriously great lenses will outlive you.. unless you drop them :)


The ONLY thing with the 14-24 I've found is it is sometimes a bit tricky to control flare off axis. I sometimes find I have to shade the front element from sunlight hitting it with my grey card. A small price to pay for such awesomeness.


Graham00 said:
Thanks David for taking the time to write that, the 14-24 f2.8 on a D600 sounds like the best option for me, i could stretch to the D800, but i'm not going pro, so it could be a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Used with care, that lens will wring every last drop of detail from a D600 without breaking a sweat... well worth the money.
 
Last edited:
I have owned both the 14-24 and I am using the 16-35 the latter is fantastic, the former is simply in another world. However the 14 cannot take any filters, an important point to me. I love the vr on the 16 and believe me it's sharp enough.

Whichever you buy you will love the image quality.
 
Thread tidied, for goodness sake, please try and be nice to each other.



Just for info, I recently hired a 16-35 for some interior work, with a view to possibly buying at a later date [also umming and ahhing between that and the 14-24] and I was more impressed than I expected to be. There was some barrel distortion and very slight vignetting at the wide end, though no where near as much as the 10-20 offers on the D300 [which would have given me roughly the same sort of angle of view and meant I 'lost' a lot less of the image applying correction], but edge to edge sharpness, even wide open, was impressive. I mainly used it however at F8 where it was super good. Has it helped make my mind up...no, not remotely, even more undecided now, might have to hire another 14-24 before deciding once and for all. ;)
 
Graham00 said:
After Christmas i'm seriously thinking of going full frame with landscape photography, a D800 paired with the 24-70 f2.8 was going to be the obvious choice but now i'm thinking of getting a secondhand D700 paired with the 16-35 f4.
The latter lens from claims to be a little sharper and 30% cheaper, plus it's lighter too, i will still keep the D300 and longer lenses for the extra reach for wildlife, motorsports and some landscapes too because of owning a 10stop 67mm filter for seascapes.
Any reason why i shouldn't ?
Click to expand...

No problem with that combo, the 12mp of the D700 is plenty, and it has proved itself as a superb camera, and whilst not quite up there with the 14-24, the 16-35 VR is no slouch either.

It all boils down to how much you want to spend, but whichever way you go from the suggestions above you will not be disappointed.
 
I've noticed because of the D800's popularity, the prices of the D600 are dropping like a stone all over Europe.
After reading the spec and tests it seems the full frame body (24mp) to go for and i just need to think about the lenses, thanks for all your replies.
 
gramps said:
Whilst camera raw upgrade is available for D800 files it looks as though D600 files need CS6 which might impact on the upgrade costs ... unless anyone knows different?
Click to expand...
So i can open up the files in Lightroom4.3 but not in Elements 10 ?
i suspect a plug in of some sort is needed but if there isn't such a thing...:'(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top