Switch to D700

simonfw

simonfw

Messages
187
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently use a Canon 40d. Use mainly for studio, concert and some sport. Like the camera but for studio would like to go full frame. For concerts I need higher ISO low noise options.

The downside of switching to a full frame might be sport but the D700 is quite quick (unlike 5d option), has great AF for sport (again unlike 5d ). I know I could use extenders or just longer lenses for reach (any recommendations?)

Any views on the swop. It will cost me money - but I hope not to lose on lenses as I got them before the pound went down! My other option would be the 5d mk2 but the Nikon seems to be more versatile.

Cheers
 
The D700 is a great camera.
Also it has great low light so if needed that comes into play too.
The other problem is it is expensive to switch over but in my option worth every penny.
 
I would wait a wee while, rumours about the D800 are out and from what I have been told it will be an awsome camera. Or so the nikon rep said! Only problem fir me is that it isn't Canon.
 
Looks like the d3 then a wait though for a 800 or 700s. Are you sure the 800 is on its way soon?
 
I think it is more likely a D700s rather than the D800 either way just because a new camera comes out it does not make the old on worse. The D700 is a superb camera and will do what you want. The effective reach can be fixed with a 1.4TC (well nearly) and by upping the ISO you can make it quick even in poor light.
 
D700 will do what you want. Fantastic camera. There will always be something newer and better, but when, and how much, is less clear.

A pretty safe bet is a Canon 1DMk4 in January, possibly before, which is Canon's real Nikon D3 rival. It's certain to be pretty damn special and might make more sense with your current lenses.

If you can wait, that is what I would do, if only out of curiosity. But then of course, if it is really good, Nikon will be forced to respond with the D800/D4 which is surely ready and waiting for the time when market pressure demands it (ATM, I don't see any pressure on Nikon to upgrade just yet).
 
seems to me that the main issue will be getting a second 'portfolio' of lenses for the Nikon, if you're set up with Canon for now & then getting used to the different Nikon interface... may be a bit hassle if you intend to keep the two systems in parallel...

... but if it's a straight 'swap' option from the 40d to a d700, i'd definitely recommend it.
 
I had a 40d switched to a D700 now i have a 50d, tells its own story really.
I had been a canon man for 25 years sold all my gear to buy the D700 and did not like it.
In many ways it is a great camera although i did not like the Nikon colour reproduction and hated having to set the exposure comp for every pic in the sun as the Nikon metering system does not work.
i also found the Nikon quality lenses to be around 30% more expensive than Canon L glass.
In the end enough was enough and i am back where i belong in the loving arms of Canon. ahhhhh
 
I have a 50D and wanting to go full frame... the D700 is great camera and so is the 5DII but as said not a great action camera with its 5 FPS and limited focus points.

I am sticking with the 5DII as my next camera and will probably have the 50D repalced by the 7D when it gets passed it sell by date - thats not oging ot be a while yet!
 
The 5dMkii has very impressive high iso as well as the D700, my brother has the 5dmkii and myself the D700 and comparing high iso images you'd have a very hard job telling the 2 apart. (but d700 has better fps by far, especially with a grip)
 
Gripped D700 would be the answer?
 
If you really need full frame, the stick with Canon and go for the 5Dmkll, but personally, I'd stick with a cropped sensor for sport, wildlife and gigs and go for the newly released 7D....as long as the hands on reviews match the pre-release write-ups! It's supposed to be as good as the 5D for low light qualities and great for sport and wildlife. I'm waiting to see what real-life testers think, but it's probably my next move.
 
I used my 5d2 for athletics championships not long ago..It took me just few mins to get used to only 3fps instead of 6 i had on 40d and after that almost every single shot was spot on.
5d2 is just an amazing camera. I had a go with d700 and didnt like it at all...
 
My advice would be to hire the D700, and see how you get on with. If you're happy with the feel of the Canon, chances are you won't like the D700.

In my opinion there's a big difference in the way the makes feel. Personally, I dislike the feel of a Canon, but love the Nikon feel, only you can decide :)

either way just because a new camera comes out it does not make the old on worse
Click to expand...

Couldn't be a truer word spoken :thumbs:
 
D700's AF system is superb, no problem for sports. Flip side is potentially needing to either get longer glass or cropping to get same field of view you are used to from APS-C sized sensor bodies like your 40D.

Low light gig photography it will shine and then some, it truly is superb for "action portaiture"

To weigh up the 5D MkII by comparison, whilst image and ISO capability they are equal the D700 comes into its own for its high speed AF system. A 5D MkII is not a good choice for sports (full frame issues being equal across them both).

Lens wise you would need good (aka "expensive") glass for both or loose a load of capability.

My colleague shoots with a D700 most of the time now (he also has a D300 like me) and it does work for sport for sure, we exclusively shoot motorsport for media.... The D3 is a better workhorse only really in that its body is more rugged and has a higher burst capability (with the costed upgrade), but equally looses the pop up flash which you might want to use as a remote flash commander.

As for the comment above about colours from Nikon and exposure... the Nikon system is not Canon and once you get over that and realise that all you are saying is that "Canon do it like this and Nikon like that", you just work with what you've got in your workflow. I had to adjust Canon output just as much as I do Nikon to get a finished product, its just that those are different adjustments in my workflow. I can show that difference very easily, because I still have both and still have two different sets of workflow.
 
desantnik, A nice balanced explanation. It would be interesting to see the differences.
 
I seriously considered a D700 a little while back. I get the impression that it's a great camera body. However...having looked at the cost of replacing my lenses, I came away a bit panicked as the there just isn't an equivalent to the 24-105 and 70-200F4 lenses, which I've found to be great day to day lenses. Yes, Nikon do have rather good 2.8 lenses, but they cost just much as the Canon versions, and also weigh a similar amount. It was enough to convince me to wait until Canon sort out their bodies and create the FF version of the 7D, just as Nikon launched the D300, then followed up with the D700. I see it as simply a matter of time.
 
I considered a switch to the D700 from my 450D, but went for the 5D MKII, and I`m glad I did. Try and get hold of Digital Camera Magazine for September 2009. They don`t rate the D700, it`s worse for fine detail and just about everything else, all except for High ISO noise, which is it`s ace. They said it was outclassed by todays offerings from Canon and Sony.

I must admit for sports photography, I think I would opt for the 7D, no contest, I wouldn`t even consider full frame at all. Just MHO.
 
Try to get hold of it yourself and compare! How about for AF? Ok so switching systems can be expensive but to rule it out because some magazine "didn't rate it" is just crazy!

I picked it because it suits the sort of photography I do. I don't believe, although I freely admit I didn't try, a 5D MkII would, purely on the grounds of AF performance.
 
chilliz said:
Try and get hold of Digital Camera Magazine for September 2009. They don`t rate the D700, it`s worse for fine detail and just about everything else, all except for High ISO noise, which is it`s ace.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhhht. :cuckoo:
 
chrisgeary said:
Try to get hold of it yourself and compare! How about for AF? Ok so switching systems can be expensive but to rule it out because some magazine "didn't rate it" is just crazy!

I picked it because it suits the sort of photography I do. I don't believe, although I freely admit I didn't try, a 5D MkII would, purely on the grounds of AF performance.
Click to expand...

sdb123 said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhhht. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Just going on the pics I saw in the mag. :shrug: You (Nikon) guys are a bit sensitive. :lol: :lol:
 
chilliz said:
Just going on the pics I saw in the mag. :shrug: You (Nikon) guys are a bit sensitive. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with being sensitive at all. :)

You really have to use a camera to be able to rule it out and tbh a magazine review isn't worth the paper it's written on IMO. The D700 has the same sensor as the D3....both excellent cameras and more than capable of capturing fine detail (whatever that may be).

I used to own a D700 btw. ;)
 
sdb123 said:
Nothing to do with being sensitive at all. :)

You really have to use a camera to be able to rule it out and tbh a magazine review isn't worth the paper it's written on IMO. The D700 has the same sensor as the D3....both excellent cameras and more than capable of capturing fine detail (whatever that may be).

I used to own a D700 btw. ;)
Click to expand...

To be honest, I would think a mag review is of more use than mine or anyone elses opinion as they will have tried to conduct tests under more controlled conditions, and would be more impartial wouldn`t they? I`m not sure why you would dismiss a review so easily, especially without having seen it.:thinking:
 
chilliz said:
To be honest, I would think a mag review is of more use than mine or anyone elses opinion as they will have tried to conduct tests under more controlled conditions, and would be more impartial wouldn`t they? I`m not sure why you would dismiss a review so easily, especially without having seen it.:thinking:
Click to expand...

I prefer user opinions and actually using equipment myself rather than dismissing an item being reviewed on the say-so of a magazine (that is likely to be incentivised). YMMV.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I seriously considered a D700 a little while back. I get the impression that it's a great camera body. However...having looked at the cost of replacing my lenses, I came away a bit panicked as the there just isn't an equivalent to the 24-105 and 70-200F4 lenses, which I've found to be great day to day lenses. Yes, Nikon do have rather good 2.8 lenses, but they cost just much as the Canon versions, and also weigh a similar amount. It was enough to convince me to wait until Canon sort out their bodies and create the FF version of the 7D, just as Nikon launched the D300, then followed up with the D700. I see it as simply a matter of time.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting (and I think valid) point. The OP has a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. It's hard to see what he might get from Nikon's range that would be an adequate replacement.
 
StewartR said:
This is an interesting (and I think valid) point. The OP has a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. It's hard to see what he might get from Nikon's range that would be an adequate replacement.
Click to expand...

I just bought a really nice Nikon 80-200 f2.8 for £500 (not the push pull one either) :)
 
cowasaki said:
I just bought a really nice Nikon 80-200 f2.8 for £500 (not the push pull one either) :)
Click to expand...

What Stuart and Mr. Sukebe are saying is that Nikon has not catered for quality constant f/4 lenses such as the two Canon examples posted by Mr. Sukebe.
 
sdb123 said:
What Stuart and Mr. Sukebe are saying is that Nikon has not catered for quality constant f/4 lenses such as the two Canon examples posted by Mr. Sukebe.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, there is a gap which Canon fill with their f4 lenses. I was simply pointing out that there are alternatives if you don't mind 2nd hand. This is a real hole in Nikon's line!
 
I started with a fuji S2 pro, then switched to a 20D, I used it for4 years and switched to a D700.
I didnt have to change loads of pro glass, just some mid range consumer stuff.

I got the 24-70 and I am blown away by the handling, speed, in fact I love it!
 
cowasaki said:
Oh I know, there is a gap which Canon fill with their f4 lenses. I was simply pointing out that there are alternatives if you don't mind 2nd hand. This is a real hole in Nikon's line!
Click to expand...

Even then, the Nikon is F2.8, which I'd guess is just as heavy as the Canon F2.8. If weight is an issue (and my wife complains about it), then high quality lightweight lenses like the 70-200F4 are a very nice compromise.

Don't get me wrong, I'd really like a D700, but only if I could use my lenses with it. I'm just a little miffed that Canon are playing catchup on their bodies for what consumers actually WANT, as against what their marketing types think we want.
 
Nikon does not have a "hole" in its lens line up, every focal length is covered, agreed they may be expensive 2.8's, but I wouldn't buy a Porsche and complain about the cost of the tyres. :shrug:
 
treeman said:
Nikon does not have a "hole" in its lens line up, every focal length is covered, agreed they may be expensive 2.8's, but I wouldn't buy a Porsche and complain about the cost of the tyres. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I would disagree. You have the cheaper stuff then a jump to f2.8 glass. Having the option of smaller, cheaper f4 glass would be helpful. Not for everyone but something a little cheaper/smaller would be an advantage in certain circs.
 
You are buying a 1500 quid camera, why would you fit anything but the best glass to it?

This thread is back to the usual thing of whether or not marketing a mid range of glass is something that is worth Nikon's effort... probably not given how many cameras they have sold from the D300/D700 and D3 range, it doesn't seem to have stopped an entire revolution... just check out users on this forum and their gear...
 
Actually Im getting a Sony! Only joking (although Ive heard they are good)

For me it is a choice between a 5d mk2 and the d700. I just think the d700 is more versatile for my needs. I am amazed not to see any real 7d reviews yet either - this doesnt seem right.

With regards to lenses I think you have to pay the money and/or buy older lenses carefully. My experience is you can often sell lenses at not much loss.

I have a friend who has Nikons and I plan to do a shoot with them soon.
 
i find it quite amazing to even hesitate

the D700 is something a little special

ive only recently acquired 2 of the f2.8 zooms by no way my favourite nikon lens and not to me the be all and end

that would be the 50mm and 85mm f1.4s 70-300vr etc.
 
treeman said:
Nikon does not have a "hole" in its lens line up, every focal length is covered, agreed they may be expensive 2.8's, but I wouldn't buy a Porsche and complain about the cost of the tyres. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think they do

Fast wide AF-S primes. AF-S primes under 100mm (50G notwithstanding).

They need to address these.
 
Radiohead said:
I think they do

Fast wide AF-S primes. AF-S primes under 100mm (50G notwithstanding).

They need to address these.
Click to expand...

AF-S 85mm f1.4 & 1.8
AF-S 50mm f1.4 (you acknowledged this)
AF-S 35mm f1.8 (crop only)

Yes they need a nice 20mm (I have the Sigma 20mm f1.8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top