Nikon D700 initial impressions

[condyk]

It's a radical move to decide to change systems: not only is there lots to learn about lens and accessory options, and a whole new interface to get to grips with, you also have the cost and hassle of selling the old and buying the new. So the results had better be worth it when you look at handling and image output.

I thought I’d post my initial thoughts on switching as a few people have PM'd for views and it may help anyone else considering the same. I’ve always been brand neutral and bought what I considered might work best for me for the cash I had available – and I have no interest in promoting, or preference for, any brand as such. You can see all the gear I have owned in my Sig so I hope I now have a decent idea of what is possible.

Of course, beyond the rational decision there are always a few intangible elements like the 'thrill of the chase', all the research needed and the rooting out of best buys, as well as the fun of change: some hate change and some love it. I enjoy it! In many areas of life when things get too easy I can get bored, but I change only if there is good reason.

For me the lack of a reliably exceptional 50mm for the 5D, the appearance of the new D700 full-frame and the availability of the new Carl Zeiss line in Nikon mount were the reasons. Good enough? Let’s see …

All my Canon stuff below 200mm has now been sold. The 1D Mk II N and 400mm 5.6 L I am keeping for now as it is just a truly great combo for safari shooting and Nikon have nothing lens wise that gives the bang my truly stellar 5.6 L does.

Costs of switching

One of the great things about decent gear bought second hand is good resale value. Most of my Canon mount stuff was bought by acting quickly when I saw a bargain and doing the deal, or when rebates were around, so there was no risk of depreciation overall.

The Nikon stuff tends to be a tad pricier than the equivalent Canon when bought new, but some of that cost can be minimized by careful shopping around - all my replacement stuff was bought at below average retail meaning depreciation should be minimal if I sell/upgrade down-stream, same as with the Canon stuff.

I see depreciation on bodies almost as a 'rental fee' but on decent lenses I don't expect to lose much at all. The D700 of course is expensive. At release best UK price was £1998 but a week later with careful research, use of a free delivery code and a cash back link via Quidco I got it for around £200 less via purelygadgets.co.uk - an excellent retailer offering great prices, responsive service and a free extended warrantee. In the Canon line up you are looking at around £1150 for the 5D and then £2375 for the 1D Mk III.

Price will inevitably drop a bit more, but £50 here or there is not that relevant to me. The key longer term will be the 5D mk II price, but as the challenge laid down by the D700 is so stiff Canon needs to raise its game and that will reflect in an increased price over the current model. When the new 5D arrives then, as we see every time with replaced bodies, the original 5D value will drop significantly. Had I waited to sell then I would have lost another £200 or so.

So overall my change was as follows:

From ... Canon 5D, plus 17-40 4.0 L, 28-75mm 2.8, 70-200mm 4.0 IS L, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 85mm 1.8

To ... Nikon D700, plus 18-35, 28mm 2.8 AI-S, 35mm 2.0 D, Zeiss 50mm 2.0 Makro-Planar ZF, 85mm 1.8 D, 70-300mm VR, 180mm 2.8 D

It cost me to switch, but if I factor in the profit made on the Canon gear, the projected decreased value of the 5D when the new model is released, and the added cost of an expanded set of lenses then it comes to around £650 overall, which I think is OK - your mileage on changing will vary.

So the next question revolves around whether the change was worth it beyond the financial ... some of the factors will be subjective but handling and image quality should be easy to judge given I knew my Canon stuff so well.

Handling

The first thing I consider is how my gear handles in use. If a lens or body doesn't feel right then I get rid of it. Out of the box the D700 feels right: it is a good weight, decent build, all the buttons work nicely and are well placed, the menu structure is simple to understand and operate. It is fast and pretty intuitive. It is a shooters camera because the things that need to be single click with fast, easy access are just that. The grip is good, more sticky and rubbery than the Canon and better for it, and it feels secure in hand.

However, external build is more akin to the 5D than the 1D series so that is a slight disappointment given the price and it is boxier than the Canon design, which features nice contemporary curves, so again a minus for me.

On the other hand there are lots of small, detailed touches that make it nice to use, like the way the CF cover springs open, a larger CF release button that seems easier to use, the LCD protective screen cover, the LCD screen itself which is superb and puts Canon to shame, the simple and more secure diopter adjustment, the comprehensive rear screen and viewfinder information and its super-sharp, easily readable presentation, the fantastic viewfinder just like the old film days, the ease of changing mode, focus point, WB, ISO, exposure compensation, and so on.

The D700 feels light-years ahead of the 1D Mk II N, but if you're used to and happy with the 1D style lay out then a number of these factors will likely count for less. I use the 1D control lay out no problem but it doesn't mean I necessary like it! The D700 is also much nicer than the 5D to use even if you have less need for the three hands and two feet coordination needed with that model than for the 1D's.

Overall it's a bit like driving in an old 1970’s car where the switches and controls are a little all over the place compared to a car with an ergonomically designed interior. Again, your mileage will vary on this stuff. Some like the grunt factor of an old T’Bird … I prefer the more effortless elegance of an Aston Martin. But that takes nothing from the N as an overall package – if you want to get into 1D territory then it is the best option for your money IMO.

Specifications I am not going to touch on because they are all over the internet. Suffice to say the 444 page manual pretty well covers all the features too!

Gripes

First thing I will mention is that Nikon Capture v2.0 is only supplied as a 60 day trial and then you have to cough up around £150 for a license. I use the excellent Bibble Pro for RAW and it handles D700 files already so perhaps irrelevant to me, but worth thinking about this extra cost.

If I didn’t have Bibble already then Capture would appeal. It really does seem like a great package and the shots possibly have an edge over Bibble – more time needed but I may still switch if I see a consistent and worthwhile difference. So far I don't think I have. Bibble are also very responsive and with v5.0 close to release I will wait.

The lens mount is quite tight and every time I put a lens on I wonder if I am going to break something. It is obviously good that it’s got tight tolerances here so maybe I just need to get used to it. Allied to that is the lens caps and mount are all the opposite way to what we are used to with Canon – so anti-clockwise to mount.

On the lenses with aperture rings you lock the ring at as closed down an aperture as the lens supports, so with the 35mm that I have on it at the moment I simply turn it to f22, flip the lock and it’s done as a once off action – easy as pie, but until you figure it out you get a ‘fEE’ error message and it won’t shoot, which is kinda freaky! It’s probably in the manual but who reads those?

Lenses are another irritant … partly due to price, especially of the long stuff, but perhaps also due to selection. On the latter point, possibly the only lens equivalents that are missing of note are the f4.0 L’s, but for many those are the mainstay’s in their canon arsenal. Certainly for me the 17-40mm and 70-200mm IS L 4.0 were hard to let go.

Arguably, the loss of the f4.0 L's are balanced by the super high quality wide-angles that Nikon provide: 14mm, 17-35mm and 12-24mm and we all know top of the line widey’s are a Canon weakness.

The classic pro set up of 16-35mm 2.8 L, 24-70mm 2.8 L and 70-200mm 2.8 IS are there in Nikon form via 17-35mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR. What is missing are the more 'mid-range' L's. Price wise we’re talking for the Canon £2904 and for the Nikon £2971 – probably not huge, price of a good CP filter, but it is consistent across much of the Nikon range.

What is a bigger issue for me is the price of their longer stuff and lack of an affordable 400mm option, which is a mainstay of safari shooting: no 100-400mm IS L or 400mm 5.6 L equivalent for example. They do have 300mm 2.8 VR’s at £2850, 400mm 2.8’s at around £5400 or the hulkin’ great 200-400mm 4.0 VR at £3600! Mainly big, fast, very expensive stuff.

This is where Canon rules of course with bang per buck around their slower options being very good. Nikon just don’t go to that market segment, but you do have access to the third party stuff if you want to go that route. After my next Africa trip I will probably go 300mm 2.8 VR or 200-400mm VR and D300 for safari in full recognition that Canon offers better value here.

Finally, I don’t like the white ‘Nikon’ lettering across the flash – looks cheap and nasty. In fact, the Nikon’s have a slight ‘bling’ look about them and I personally prefer the more understated Canon look.

Performance

It is the best body I have used … end of story. The image quality is outstanding. It is just effortlessly good: feel, sharpness, ‘pop’, noise, colour accuracy, contrast, white balance, resolution, whatever way you want to look at it the D700 seems to do the job superbly well. I have tested all my new lenses too and all perform well out of the box with no focus or poor resolution issues.

So, in order top to bottom, my very first shot straight out the box, number 0001, with the Zeiss 50mm f2.0, is about the sharpest wide open 100% zero PP crop I have seen on my computer … in the original image you can clearly see the plane of focus and the fibre in the manual cover.

You need to be looking on a decent calibrated monitor ...

http://www.buzzdns.com/manual100pc.jpg

Finally 0007 is a quick, typical PP job with minimal sharpening and ‘auto levels’.

http://www.buzzdns.com/cdcovers.jpg

Sorry they are dull test shots but this is pretty much what I always do to quickly check all is fine when I get a new lens or body. All hand-held, manual focus BTW using the focus confirm light in the viewfinder.

Conclusions

It is easy to be a fan boy and I have always avoided that. I can see the benefits of Canon and Nikon and for me it is knife edge. In system terms Canon is arguably stronger overall, but once you know the lenses you need then you can go either way and be happy if you don't mind paying the extra for most of the Nikon stuff.

I do believe the D700 is a significant step forward from the 5D, which I have always been a huge fan of, and primarily it is in handling and features; but my early opinion is that overall the shots are just a little better, like an ultra-light veil has dropped off the sensor. Stick a grip on and you get a great FPS rate too. The switch has been worth it for me. I would never say it would be worth it for everyone ;)

I'll add a 'high ISO' shot at some point but a couple of shots from last night seem to indicate no problems at 1600 looking at the RAW - I usually get nose bleeds shooting above 400 so I think I am pretty safe.

[MaDProFF]

Good report here,

One ? for me though, you say it is the best body you have ever used,, just wondering have you ever used a 1DS MK2 or 3, not holding a comparison just trying to get a benchmark.

I do agree, the Nikon FF body, and Wider angle Lenses are very appealing

[blonde]

wow, great review Dave and exactly what i was looking for. i think that i know what i am going to do next so thank you for this. btw, i couldn't agree more with you about Nikon pricing of their long tele's. if the 500VR was priced close to what Canon charges for their 500 F4 IS, i would have been in Nikon already.

[condyk]

... you say it is the best body you have ever used,, just wondering have you ever used a 1DS MK2 or 3, not holding a comparison just trying to get a benchmark. I do agree, the Nikon FF body, and Wider angle Lenses are very appealing

No, not used either and as mentioned folks check my Sig to see what I have owned previously. I think it is important the correct benchmark is established and good point. I'd say 5D and Mk III where appropriate which is why I added the prices in there.

wow, great review Dave and exactly what i was looking for. i think that i know what i am going to do next so thank you for this. btw, i couldn't agree more with you about Nikon pricing of their long tele's. if the 500VR was priced close to what Canon charges for their 500 F4 IS, i would have been in Nikon already.

:lol::lol: With ya there bro ... on the one hand you can respect them staying fast for sports and wildlife/birdies, but there is a huge market for slower stuff and 5.6-8.0 is certainly fine my needs much of the time in Africa.

[egordon99]

Nice review. A local friend of mine has been shooting with the D3 and he raves about it. When I switched from Pentax, it was a toss up between Canon and Nikon, and the lens selection of Canon won me over (40D vs. D200 as the D300 was out of my price range), but I have to admit that a D700 with a 24-70 and 70-200 VR is VERY tempting, but my wife would have me commited to the asylum if I make ANOTHER brand switch (I just switched back in March) :lol:

[canuck88]

Thanks for posting this. If a 5D replacement isn't announced by Sept., I'll likely be switching as well... I'm tired of waiting.

[radiohead]

Good review there, fair and balanced.

The one thing that jumps out for me is the IQ comment. So often I hear people who have never used a Nikon claim that they make nice bodies but lag for IQ. Well not any more. Those days are long, long gone IMO as are the days of one make having massive dominance over the other. It's now back to the system each person prefers.

You can happily shoot at 3200 as well, and 6400 is more than usable. I've just had an album delivered that has a D3 shot, 35x25 album double page full-bleed, at 6400 and it prints wonderfully.

[condyk]

Interesting perspective on Nikon lens choice here (http://bythom.com/nikonlens.htm)... agrees a huge gap is in f4.0 L grade stuff.

[blonde]

i have been toying with the idea of buying a 40D and using it with my 500 F4 IS L and than buying a D700 for all the shorter stuff like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. i don't like the idea of having 2 systems but i just can't stand the thought of paying $8k for the Nikon 500 VR.

[radiohead]

I can't for the life of me work out why Nikon have ignored the f4 segment.

That said, more than one pro under NDA on the d1scussion list has said 'wait until you see what Nikon have coming later this year, it's going to fill some major holes'.

[condyk]

i have been toying with the idea of buying a 40D and using it with my 500 F4 IS L and than buying a D700 for all the shorter stuff like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. i don't like the idea of having 2 systems but i just can't stand the thought of paying $8k for the Nikon 500 VR.

I thought about that for a while but I guess I am pretty committed now to Nikon, otherwise I am always gonna be carrying two bodies rather than one a collection of lenses for it. I'm gonna wait a while though as seems there are new lenses in the pipeline. Hate to go 200-400mm VR and then have it replaced :evil:

I can't for the life of me work out why Nikon have ignored the f4 segment.

That said, more than one pro under NDA on the d1scussion list has said 'wait until you see what Nikon have coming later this year, it's going to fill some major holes'.

Agreed ... what list you on Radio'? Nikonians is pretty boring.

[radiohead]

I'd be surprised if the 200-400 was replaced to be honest. There are areas that need addressing first. The release of the 24/45/85 PC-E lenses said a lot though - it's clear that Nikon are intent on really addressing the needs of the pro/high-end market. It'll take them a couple of years to get there though.

The list is here:

http://www.juergenspecht.com/lists/d1scussion/

I gave up on Nikonians for the pointless anti-Canon nonsense that goes on there. NikonCafe is ok and has some knowledgeable folk there. I get a lot from DWF as well but probably no use to you! The FredMiranda Nikon forum can be worth a look.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It reads like a very fair and concise review touching on a lot of important factors, ( while spending too much time dilly dallying about return on investment and depreciation! :lol: )

It sounds like a very strong alternative for 5D owners and new full frame shooters alike.

I'm not surprised that the menu system is better than the older 1D MkII. One of the most significant advances of the MkIII versions was the abandonment of that tired and frankly clumsy/clunky legacy menu system that dated back to the film bodies.
Both Canon and Nikon have been improving these electronic gee whiz menu systems additions to there SLRs since there first DSLRs and are thankfully getting better all the time. The MkII was Canon's last hold out for the 1D series who's menu system seemed trapped in time as the lower cost consumer models were getting better with every new release. Ironic.


200-400mm VR, that is a sweet lens, I can't imagine it is getting replaced any time soon. (released in 2004? ) But be warned it is big and pricey. Like $5K U.S.

I have to assume Noink will jump on the f/4 lenses soon. They are behind Canon obviously, but Canon's foray was fairly recent. It started with the 70-200mm f/4L and then took some time before adding the 17-40mm. The 24-15mm is very recent, and it seemed like ages we waited for that.
Consider the fact that until the D3 and D300 Noink really did not have the bodies that would take as full advantage of an f/4 that Canon did.
Now this is clearly no longer true and I D3 or D700 with an f/4 is probably likely to provide better results at higher ISOs than most of the older Nikon bodies with f/2.8 glass,

[condyk]

It reads like a very fair and concise review touching on a lot of important factors, ( while spending too much time dilly dallying about return on investment and depreciation! :lol: )

One of the most significant advances of the MkIII versions was the abandonment of that tired and frankly clumsy/clunky legacy menu system that dated back to the film bodies.


Aye, well I was anticipating the most common critique (other than 'Duh, well Noink suck'!) and tried to show it doesn't have to hit the wallet too much if you are careful. Plus I am always trying to keep my hobby balance sheet nice and black ;-) I dunno the Mk III bodies so can't compare.

Anyway, here are a couple of noise samples taken early evening, no indoor lights, curtains closed but filtered light coming through. First is 1600 ISO and second 200 ISO. 100% Crops. Best I can do as scared of the dark :p

http://www.buzzdns.com/1600.jpg

http://www.buzzdns.com/200.jpg

... and the actual shots whole frame, same order:

http://www.buzzdns.com/1600fr.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/200fr.jpg

[MaDProFF]

I must admit I think the D700 has thrown a lot of people, as it really is aimed at the 5d market, It is going to be hard for me to hang on until the new 5D, as I have wanted a FF for ages now, and quite happy having 2 bodies.
In my mind though I want a big MP body FF, I think that is where 5D won for so long, have been tempted a few times with the 1DS MK3, but forcing myself to wait.
If the new 5D does not deliver, Nikon D700/D3 will be hard to avoid with the UWA lenses.
Would Love to see a comparison of IQ between the 1D MK3 and D700 for bench mark reasons, and how it handles Exposure in extreme cases ie bright whites against shadows.
I am very happy with my 1D MK3 but I want a FF, and it has to be better than my 1D MK3 in the IQ department

[CyberDyneSystems]

That's ISO 1600?

Holy wow!

[asysin2leads]

Fantastic review. My partner at work is a Nikon shooter and we were discussing the new D700 the other night. My biggest hang up on switching is the lens price. Nikkor is pricier than Canon and like you said, they're missing the f/4 range. My brother-in-law has just bought some Canon gear, so he and I will be swapping lenses. Thanks for the reviews, Condyk. Now I have some practical reading on the subject.

[condyk]

That's ISO 1600?

Holy wow!

Yeah, it seems to do a better job than the 5D. It has some auto ISO feature I need to check out but I am mildly concerned it could be the start of point and shootin' with a £1800 camera :confused::rolleyes:

Fantastic review. My partner at work is a Nikon shooter and we were discussing the new D700 the other night. My biggest hang up on switching is the lens price. Nikkor is pricier than Canon and like you said, they're missing the f/4 range. My brother-in-law has just bought some Canon gear, so he and I will be swapping lenses. Thanks for the reviews, Condyk. Now I have some practical reading on the subject.

Cheers man ... it's gonna be interestin' to see how things pan out over the next 6-12 months lens wise. Their 24-120 VR is being touted as soon to be upgraded/replaced but that is currently variable aperture and not that well reviewed. But that is about the range they need to fill with f4.0 to give the D700 and D3 a 'kit lens', plus stick VR on their 300mm and drop in a nice 400mm VR 4.0. That would do me.

[radiohead]

Do you mean the 300/4? The 300/2.8 is VR (and stunning).

The auto-ISO is just excellent - set the minimum shutter speed along with the upper limit and it only kicks in when you need it. I don't use it for weddings as I prefer to control it, but for general use it's a bonus - I let mine float from 200-6400 with a minimum of 1/60s.

[condyk]

Do you mean the 300/4? The 300/2.8 is VR (and stunning).

The auto-ISO is just excellent - set the minimum shutter speed along with the upper limit and it only kicks in when you need it. I don't use it for weddings as I prefer to control it, but for general use it's a bonus - I let mine float from 200-6400 with a minimum of 1/60s.

So possibly one could apply auto-ISO and an individual shutter speed minimum to each lens via the memory options - say for conditions where light could be problematic or/and you need a quick 'get outta jail free' option? And then a configuration of say 200 or 400 ISO/AV for general use. Need to check the custom stuff out too :confused:

EDIT: Yeah, I meant the 4.0 ;-)

[radiohead]

No, it's not lens specific (that'd be good and as the body sees a lens for the AF adjustment surely do-able).

You can get the body set to exactly what you want - but at the same time, the wrong settings can affect things significantly.

[jdizzle]

Nice review Condyk. I've been wanting to go back to Nikon and give it a go with there wide angle lenses since I like to shoot landscapes. I do like there 14-24 UWA zoom but, the downside is that you can't use filters on them. Is there any other UWA lens from Nikon that I can use to screw on for my Lee Filter holder? Thanks!

[MaDProFF]

Do you mean the 300/4? The 300/2.8 is VR (and stunning).

The auto-ISO is just excellent - set the minimum shutter speed along with the upper limit and it only kicks in when you need it. I don't use it for weddings as I prefer to control it, but for general use it's a bonus - I let mine float from 200-6400 with a minimum of 1/60s.

That is the sort of same as the 1D MK3 up to 1600 though or maybe 3200, cannot remember, though maybe it be nice to set the min Aperture before it bumps the ISO
Infact in the real world I guess be nice to set Manual Speed and aperture and let it bump the ISO.

[condyk]

Nice review Condyk. I've been wanting to go back to Nikon and give it a go with there wide angle lenses since I like to shoot landscapes. I do like there 14-24 UWA zoom but, the downside is that you can't use filters on them. Is there any other UWA lens from Nikon that I can use to screw on for my Lee Filter holder? Thanks!

Not sure but I don't think so. i really wanted a prime but I had the same problem, or the 20mm did not review as strongly as I would have liked. The 17-35mm 2.8 looks the best option to me. I bought the 18-35mm while I waited to see what might happen on the prime front this year. I ain't a big widey shooter so not worth me spending on the 2.8 given other priorities.

[jdizzle]

I was just looking at the Nikon site and I did see the 17-35 2.8. I just wanted to make sure that it was compatible with there FF sensor. If I'm not mistaken, anything with DX is made for the 1.5x sensor. Kind of similar to EF-S for the 1.6x crop. I assume anything with IF or ED is for FF. So confused! LOL!

[condyk]

I was just looking at the Nikon site and I did see the 17-35 2.8. I just wanted to make sure that it was compatible with there FF sensor. If I'm not mistaken, anything with DX is made for the 1.5x sensor. Kind of similar to EF-S for the 1.6x crop. I assume anything with IF or ED is for FF. So confused! LOL!

It is confusing. I think part of the problem is pretty much every Nikon lens will fit every body, but some you lose AF or are crop lenses. The DX line is clearly demarcated and so anything with DX in the name I have ignored. They fit fine but only use the centre of the sensor so a big drop.

[radiohead]

That's right. The 17-35/2.8 is a good option, but even 24mm is wide on FF.

[MaDProFF]

Just a matter of interest, I noted on Digital Rev they are selling the D3 for £2400-00 UK based as well, so no shipping, did the D3 not tempt you Condyk?

[condyk]

Just a matter of interest, I noted on Digital Rev they are selling the D3 for £2400-00 UK based as well, so no shipping, did the D3 not tempt you Condyk?

Nah, I am not that attracted to the big bodies, be they Canon or Nikon. Seemed to me the key value in the D700 is that it shares many of the features and the IQ of the D3, in a less obtrusive, lighter body and at a reduced cost. The things that might attract someone else to the D3 do not add value to me. I'm a fit for purpose kinda guy. Long term I will probably go mainly Zeiss below 180mm and so I needed a high quality body to best support them.

[CannedHeat]

I do believe the D700 is a significant step forward from the 5D, ... but my early opinion is that overall the shots are just a little better, like an ultra-light veil has dropped off the sensor.


By this do you mean the D700 shots are just a little more crisper, sharper, vivid, and lively - as if (in comparison) the 5D images had a very slight film or mist?

[kevin_c]

Interesting review Dave. :-)
I know what you mean about the body just 'feeling right' - My Nikon F100 always felt just right in my hands, solid but not too heavy and everything in the right place, going over to Canon I had to get used to a different layout etc. thet to me just didn't feel right, but this all comes down to personal preferences and previous experiences.

Also as you have found out, any Canon user looking at a current Nikon LCD screen will think 'WOW!' - such clarity and so easy to read menus etc. I really think Canon are lacking in this dept. I know the LCD doesn't take pictures but sometimes it is useful.

Glad you seem happy with it and hope to see some (slightly) more interesting shots taken with that lovely Zeiss 50mm lens! :-)

[Johnny Cash CD though... :rolleyes: :lol: ]

[radiohead]

Having been busy with weddings the last week or so today was the first day to really get out with my D700 (I won't use it at a wedding until I know I can trust it):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2746425389_02aa046a9b_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2393/2747260736_21306a5e35_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2746426899_3879b70209_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2747261392_bc2e16b204_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2747260178_5e22834031_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2747262220_7296db4e23_o.jpg

All Nikkor 50/1.4

[condyk]

I
Glad you seem happy with it and hope to see some (slightly) more interesting shots taken with that lovely Zeiss 50mm lens! :-)

[Johnny Cash CD though... :rolleyes: :lol: ]

I took some on the Canon with an adaptor and posted in Urban somewhere, but it seems to have stepped up a gear on the Nikon. Will go out in the next day or two but the Zeiss is a fantastic tool. beautiful to use.

As for Johnny, dude you are so uncool :evil: That The National album is brilliant too.


All Nikkor 50/1.4

Lookin' good Radio' ;) ... and the kids are snot free which is unusual :rolleyes: ;)

[radiohead]

Thanks condy - looking forward to seeing what you do with that Zeiss.

[kevin_c]

I took some on the Canon with an adaptor and posted in Urban somewhere, but it seems to have stepped up a gear on the Nikon. Will go out in the next day or two but the Zeiss is a fantastic tool. beautiful to use.

As for Johnny, dude you are so uncool :evil: That The National album is brilliant too.



Lookin' good Radio' ;) ... and the kids are snot free which is unusual :rolleyes: ;)

I've found that with my old MF Nikkor primes, they just seem to excel on my F100 compared to using them with the adaptor on the 20D - maybe its just in my mind. :confused:

No problem with The National 'Boxer' album, just Johnny Cash! :p

[Permagrin]

I really appreciated this review. It seemed to me anyway to be one of the most credible as well as informative, out there. There are a lot of photo comparisons but I really felt like you covered well all the pluses and minuses for both systems (and not just photos themselves).

i have been toying with the idea of buying a 40D and using it with my 500 F4 IS L and than buying a D700 for all the shorter stuff like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. i don't like the idea of having 2 systems but i just can't stand the thought of paying $8k for the Nikon 500 VR.

I've thought about it too. It's so hard to go dual system (financially I mean). I'd love to have nikon for the wide end of things. And I'm liking what I'm seeing from their new cameras. The long end is just not an option though. Not in reality for me anyway.

[condyk]

I've found that with my old MF Nikkor primes, they just seem to excel on my F100 compared to using them with the adaptor on the 20D - maybe its just in my mind. :confused:


I'm thinking it could just be the better viewfinder and focus confirm, but it is actually hard to get a bad shot from it ;)

I really appreciated this review. It seemed to me anyway to be one of the most credible as well as informative, out there. There are a lot of photo comparisons but I really felt like you covered well all the pluses and minuses for both systems (and not just photos themselves).

I've thought about it too. It's so hard to go dual system (financially I mean). I'd love to have nikon for the wide end of things. And I'm liking what I'm seeing from their new cameras. The long end is just not an option though. Not in reality for me anyway.

Cheers ... I tried to write it from an amateur shooter perspective, assuming the image stuff and specification stuff would be taken care of elsewhere ;-)

On the gear then if you paid full retail new then you will face a loss in resale, but the D700 is cheaper than a SH mk III and the 300mm 2.8 VR is similar in price to the Canon, etc. But I would keep what you have; some of it's pretty much the Canon cream.

[jdizzle]

Those are some great photos Radio! I won't jump from Canon but, I will definitely get some Nikon gear soon. Thanks for posting those.

[condyk]

So I picked up the new Zeiss Distagon 25mm 2.8 to take care of my wide-angle with the D700, so I think I am now set. It's a 'controversial' lens so be interesting to figure out how to extract its unique characteristics, but it seems brilliant for landscape and super flare resistant, so be wonderful for Africa next month. It will also focus very close so should give me some very interesting desert succulent images - there are some amazing plants out there :-)

[kevin_c]

Looks like you have a very nice Nikon setup now Dave - Do you intend getting the longer focal lengths and waving goodbye to Canon? (for now! :-))The only thought I have is, you don't have a back-up body as such, you have two but with two different sets of lenses ???

I've just been looking HERE (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=287&P=Zeiss-SLR-Lenses) at all those lovely Zeiss lenses, and only a 20min drive for me... :lol:

[condyk]

Looks like you have a very nice Nikon setup now Dave - Do you intend getting the longer focal lengths and waving goodbye to Canon? (for now! :-))The only thought I have is, you don't have a back-up body as such, you have two but with two different sets of lenses ???

I've just been looking HERE (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=287&P=Zeiss-SLR-Lenses) at all those lovely Zeiss lenses, and only a 20min drive for me... :lol:

Yeah, the back up issue is a real one for Africa at the moment, as I am depending on the Mk II N and 400mm L at the long end and the Nikon below 200mm. If the Nikon goes then I will have a couple of adaptors for using the lenses on the Canon. If the Canon goes then I will have to beg a spare EOS body from one of the other lads.

Last year I was fine with a single body and it is a risk, but if it all goes T**s up then I will use my binockers. I enjoy just being there as much as the shooting.

Originally, I was just gonna get the Zeiss 50mm for the Canon as was frustrated by what was available, but one thing led to another and before I knew it logic kinda dictated that I have a completely new system.

I then assumed I would stay Canon at the long end but I have been so impressed with the Nikon stuff that I guess a SH 300mm 2.8 VR, 1.4x and D300's are also now looking likely by the end of the year. I was gonna get a 300mm 2.8 L IS for this trip anyway but then decided to stay with the 400mm in case work didn't pan out, but now I got a fat contract for another year no reason not to go the 300mm route.

There is a guy selling as brand new 35mm 2.0 and 85mm 1.4 Zeiss on eBay at the moment at brilliant prices. I was tempted to get the three but in the end sanity ruled and I just got the 25mm. Will be here tomorrow. Robert White is the UK distributor so if ya wanna play then that is the place to go ;-) The focus confirm on the D700 works brilliantly, but the chipped adaptors for Canon do too.

[mantra]

i'm bored too
i'm bored about the new 5d
i'm thinking to buy the 700 ,but i'm not almost sure
because maybe canon could take out something better


by the way ,is only the 700 to be better then the canon cameras
or for example a 300 is better too?

[mantra]

Having been busy with weddings the last week or so today was the first day to really get out with my D700 (I won't use it at a wedding until I know I can trust it):


All Nikkor 50/1.4

superb shots
but is the 700 available in europe?
but why are you here ? you are a nikon shooter

[John_B]

condyk,
A very nice review :) Is Nikon giving a check :lol:
I do wish your photos had Exif data....

Its times like this I wish Pekka would open this forum for all Digital users ;) :hint!:

[condyk]

i'm bored about the new 5d
i'm thinking to buy the 700 ,but i'm not almost sure
because maybe canon could take out something better
by the way ,is only the 700 to be better then the canon cameras
or for example a 300 is better too?

I really wanted to give best platfor for the Zeiss lenses and Nikon is it, or rather the D300 and up are it. I dunno if the D300 is better than the Canon competition as I haven't used it. The D700 is the camera the 5D mk II needs to be which is why I finally went that route. i think there are many factors that make something better than something else and we all weigh those factors a little differently.

superb shots
but is the 700 available in europe?
but why are you here ? you are a nikon shooter

D700 has been available in the Uk for a few weeks now.


I do wish your photos had Exif data... Its times like this I wish Pekka would open this forum for all Digital users ;) :hint!:

The exif gets stripped when I save for the web in CS2 ... I'm sure I can work out how to stop it but am too lazy. If they are test shots then they'll be f2.0 on the 50mm 2.0 and ... whatever else ;-)

[radiohead]

superb shots
but is the 700 available in europe?
but why are you here ? you are a nikon shooter


Thank you

Yes

I'm a photographer. My choice of brand isn't really relevant to anyone but me. I have shot Canon in the past and like to keep abreast of the industry as a whole.

[MaDProFF]

I read the Review as well in the Photography Monthly, that turned up today, got a pretty good, review, hmm, ok a very highly regarded review indeed :), the Canon 1000D did ok as well

[adam*]

I'm just hoping the 5Dmk2 is at least as good as the d700, then I won't have any motivation to change!

[mantra]

I'm just hoping the 5Dmk2 is at least as good as the d700, then I won't have any motivation to change!

what i don't like about canon in these last 2 years is that slack off, be reduced more on mega pixel

nikon loaded their camera of features

[jdizzle]

I don't think that review makes a difference to me. If the camera can take photos, shouldn't that matter mostly? I would only shoot it mostly on the wide side and some potrait. I don't think that should stop someone from buying this camera. Just my 2 cents.

[condyk]

what i don't like about canon in these last 2 years is that slack off, be reduced more on mega pixel

nikon loaded their camera of features

Canon have been very concerned about competition at the lower end of the market and I guess specifically about Sony. They have paid attention to consumer expectations. They are now getting hit in their weakest areas which is the advanced amateur who might go 40D/5D and that is why the 40D price has dropped like a stone - must be one of the heaviest depreciated cameras of the last 5 years. I paid nearly £800 for mine soon after release. A few months ago when I last looked I could buy new for less than £500!

I'm just hoping the 5Dmk2 is at least as good as the d700, then I won't have any motivation to change!

Agreed ... on IQ I imagine any differences will remain marginal and people can then choose according to their own preferred handling and weighing of relative benefits.

I don't think that review makes a difference to me. If the camera can take photos, shouldn't that matter mostly? I would only shoot it mostly on the wide side and some potrait. I don't think that should stop someone from buying this camera. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed ... but for me handling is one of the most important aspects of a body and if we don't like the handling our shooting will suffer: we'll do it less and get less decent results.

[MaDProFF]

So do you guys still feel the 1DS MK3 is still the ultimate DLSR IQ Wise, what about dynamic range? etc.

[Mediation]

hmm very nice. How is Nikon with primes?

Particularly focal lengths, price and build quality? I only like primes...

I too am starting to feel the pinch. Feel like a change. Just wish the D700 didn't have a pop up flash!

[condyk]

So do you guys still feel the 1DS MK3 is still the ultimate DLSR IQ Wise, what about dynamic range? etc.

I dunno ... never used it so can't comment. For the money it should be lots better ;)

hmm very nice. How is Nikon with primes?

Particularly focal lengths, price and build quality? I only like primes...

I too am starting to feel the pinch. Feel like a change. Just wish the D700 didn't have a pop up flash!

The build is good: I'd say Canon 85mm 1.8 standard, or at least on the consumer stuff. I only have the 180mm 2.8 which is kinda L equivalent in prime. Build is amazing, easily L standard+. Metal body, nice sliding hood, great wide open, smooth MF ring. Price of the shorter stuff seems similar, but as I mention in the 'impressions' the long glass is pricey. Selection is not as good either. The other two primes I have are Zeiss and they are way, way over the Nikon or Canon build. Solid chunks of metal and glass with beautiful finish and function. Just exceptional to use.

BTW, I dunno if ya realise but your flasher only pops up if you play with it ;) leave it alone and it stays tucked up out the way.

[Mediation]

Hmm I wonder if prime shooters selectively go with Nikon or Canon :p

I just feel that pop up flashes are so cheap! Might just be me. But I feel a DSLR is best without a pop-up. It seems like a waste of viewfinder space, and weakens the build on a dslr. hehe.

Well Condyk. You shocked me when I saw this thread. Because you are a strong poster here. And I remember seeing that avatar of yours. I know you have sent a strong wave into the canon users. I just feel that if I keep buying more canon primes. It will push me away from potentially shifting to nikon.

Yikes! I wish you had the Nikon 50mm :p and the nikon 85mm. I want to see how they perform.

[adam*]

I basically expect the 5Dmk2 to attempt to match the d700 feature for feature. Shame they didn't make it in a more rugged body.. which might still push me towards a 1dmk3.

[Mediation]

what do you mean by more "rugged".

Another annoying thing is that my father is a professional photographer and has used Nikon from the beginning. He brings home the D3+D700 brochure and slaps it in front of me (he shoots with a D70s, but has really nice glass). Came from his supplier. And the brochure is oh so tasty. But as someone said in this thread. About being bored of Canon.

Well I feel the same way. I know the performance is the same. But I no longer feel excited with Canon anymore. Plus my 1dsmk1 does not have a damn auto sensor cleaner when I turn the camera on. lol. I wish Canon made a "1dsmk0". Where by it was an affordable version of the 1dsmk3.

The only trade-off was lower frames per second. And a lower pixel count. But still enjoying the fruits of full frame. At the moment Canon do not have that sort of market. The 1dsmk3 is so expensive. The D3 is not as expensive and also has such strong noise control. The D-lighting is exceptional.

But then again... Whats the damn point!. GAAAAAHHH! I hate dslr's.

How would you describe the color and contrast compared to canon?? A lot cooler?, accurate?

[condyk]

I know you have sent a strong wave into the canon users. I just feel that if I keep buying more canon primes. It will push me away from potentially shifting to nikon.

Yikes! I wish you had the Nikon 50mm :p and the nikon 85mm. I want to see how they perform.

Not so sure ... the Canon die-hards are more likely hopin' I'll head off to Nikonians ;)

I do have the 35mm 2.0 and 85mm 1.8 Nikon. I see what I wrote above was not very clear. Sorry. I have shot both testing for OK only and both compete with the Canon versions I had and similar prices. I don't see any advantage in switchin' for them. When i do some proper shootin i will post.

[adam*]

When I say more rugged, I mean better build quality. As condy says, whilst its weather proof its not actually a stronger body - like the 1d's. Then again all my other cameras have taken abuse so it might not be a problem. Just with me wanting to get into photojournalism, it might be key for me. The price of a 2nd hand mk3 is about the same as a d700 so I might just go that way and swap my 17-40 for a 16-35.

[radiohead]

Yikes! I wish you had the Nikon 50mm :p and the nikon 85mm. I want to see how they perform.

The f1.4's - both are excellent.

[mantra]

I dunno ... never used it so can't comment. For the money it should be lots better ;)

BTW, I dunno if ya realise but your flasher only pops up if you play with it ;) leave it alone and it stays tucked up out the way.

sorry a question
how can the camera know when the af of you zeiss 50 is on focus?

[Mediation]

I just want to enjoy the fruits of full frame with all the whizz bang technology :p at a good price :)

Are Nikon primes made out of plastic or magnesium?

[condyk]

sorry a question
how can the camera know when the af of you zeiss 50 is on focus?

I dunno ... magic?

I just want to enjoy the fruits of full frame with all the whizz bang technology :p at a good price :)

Are Nikon primes made out of plastic or magnesium?

Some of mine are plastic, similar to the 85mm 1.8 and the other is metal.

[Mediation]

Well I have spoken to people and the advice I got was not to jump into anything. As in the past I have jumped into spending and trading of camera gear and it has not helped me.

So Ill just use the 1dsmk1 until it dies. THEN I will decide on what to do. Its tough though. Because ill continue on buying into the canon system :p

[_aravena]

played with one forever in Best Buy. I think the sales rep were getting made but I snidely remarked than anyone shopping in here is not about to buy this.

So yeah, messin' around with it. The viewfinder is...beyond odd. It's like on of those eye cup pieces and while somewhat comfortable it also felt odd. The body was awkwardly large. way bigger than a D300, almost like their D3x yet not. Felt like a body with half a grip so I couldn't imagine what grip on it would be like.

While comfortability isn't everything I know it's a lot. Perhaps I wold have gotten used to it but like other Nikon cameras, as much I as I've played with them I still can't adjust settings anywhere near as fast as I can on my 20D. I think screen size is playing too big a part in DSLR's now especially with LV available.

[condyk]

So Ill just use the 1dsmk1 until it dies. THEN I will decide on what to do. Its tough though. Because ill continue on buying into the canon system :p

The reason I spent time on depreciation and selling/buying gear was to show the swap over need not be too painful financially.

The body was awkwardly large. way bigger than a D300, almost like their D3x yet not. Felt like a body with half a grip so I couldn't imagine what grip on it would be like.

While comfortability isn't everything I know it's a lot. Perhaps I wold have gotten used to it but like other Nikon cameras, as much I as I've played with them I still can't adjust settings anywhere near as fast as I can on my 20D. I think screen size is playing too big a part in DSLR's now especially with LV available.

I notice no difference in size to the 5D or D300 to be honest but it has some of the mass of the 1D MK II N so that I like. Handling is important and for me it handles beautifully, for others wedded to another camera system then it will feel strange. It is also normal to expect to spend time getting used to anything different. It will take me the rest of the month to feel at home. I don't see that as unusual and nor do I assume the 5D/Mk II N approaches are implicitely better because of it. They aren't IMO or I probably would have not switched. You have to commit to something new. Playing is not really the way to go.

[_aravena]

^I worked in Ritz for 6 months with a D200 that never sold. I had the time...

[jr_senator]

Even if there were no additional expenses to convert, I would not do it. The hassle of selling, research, shopping and buying as well as learning a new system is something I don't care to go through. Especially when I'm satisfied with what I now have. I went Canon a few years ago primarily because of their (at the time) superior sensor. If I were starting out new with a system choice it, in all likelihood, would be Nikon. Their new cameras with their new sensors seem to do the job nicely. And, I have always liked Nikkor glass.

[condyk]

I think you made a wise choice Jr if you're happy with what you have. My choice was driven more by the decision to invest in Zeiss medium to long term and stick with that. It does perform better on the D700 IMO.

[mantra]

I dunno ... magic?



canon 5d and 1ds can do it with canon lens , i mean use the manual af, and the camera can detect when is in focus

[radiohead]

The Nikons do as well - bottom left of the VF shows arrows and a green dot in the middle when the focus is acquired.

The D60 has a little digital rangefinder mode, very cool.

[mantra]

The Nikons do as well - bottom left of the VF shows arrows and a green dot in the middle when the focus is acquired.

The D60 has a little digital rangefinder mode, very cool.

but i think tha canon xxD or xxxD , they don't
at last the 450 or 40D they don't do , but i'm not sure

[RIDEWYA]

I don't think I will ever go back to Nikon as long as they let Sony make their sensor, I don't ever plan to sharpen 2000 pics like I did on my D200 and D70 and D50. it is quite enough experience and frustration.

[condyk]

I don't think I will ever go back to Nikon as long as they let Sony make their sensor, I don't ever plan to sharpen 2000 pics like I did on my D200 and D70 and D50. it is quite enough experience and frustration.

Well ya gotta sharpen pictures in Canon format too ya know ... and if you don't want to do it manually then you can do it auto in either system.

[TheHoff]

Well ya gotta sharpen pictures in Canon format too ya know ... and if you don't want to do it manually then you can do it auto in either system.

Moving a slider and sync'ing RAWs is such a chore.

[mantra]

I don't think I will ever go back to Nikon as long as they let Sony make their sensor, I don't ever plan to sharpen 2000 pics like I did on my D200 and D70 and D50. it is quite enough experience and frustration.

well the new canon cameras are going out
after that we can do a compare between the 700 and the new 5d

[radiohead]

Well ya gotta sharpen pictures in Canon format too ya know ... and if you don't want to do it manually then you can do it auto in either system.

Yep - it takes me at least no time at all as I just have Lightroom 2 set to apply it on import.

[Permagrin]

okay maybe I'm being ignorant but what does the sensor have to do with sharpness? I thought it was the lenses?


I was at a camera store today that was doing a nikon show...got to see the D700 IRL. VERY Sweet viewfinder...I think it's a very viable option for someone who doesn't want to go with the D3. It fits in the hands very nicely w/o needing a grip. Heavier than the 5D though (seems to weigh similar to the M3 or a tad lighter). I can see what the draw is for sure. This camera is the first one I've seen Nikon come up with to compare with canon's 5D and frankly with the weather sealing and the AF, it tops it. (and I'm a big 5D fan) I just left saying "wow" :lol:

I was talking to the rep about the expense of the big telephotos and she didn't seem to think they'd be offering any alternatives (in the 400 range) any time soon.

[radiohead]

We're talking about applying USM to raw files.

[Permagrin]

We're talking about applying USM to raw files.

right, I got that...I was just referring to ridewya's comment about the sony sensor and his having to sharpen all those files...I just fail to understand what the sensor has to do with it. I have to sharpen my canon raw's too...but I didn't get the comment about the sony thing...doesn't really matter I guess. :lol:

[radiohead]

Ah - now there I agree with you. Made no sense to me either.

[jr_senator]

right, I got that...I was just referring to ridewya's comment about the sony sensor and his having to sharpen all those files...I just fail to understand what the sensor has to do with it. I have to sharpen my canon raw's too...but I didn't get the comment about the sony thing...doesn't really matter I guess. :lol:

If my understanding is correct the problem (if you wish to call it that) is not with the sensor per se, but the filter(s) that do some corrections before the sensor receives the data.

[radiohead]

AA filters - all DSLR's have them. Weaker ones give you better native sharpness per pixel but also moire issues. Stronger ones give a natively softer file but less/no moire. It's a trade off. Every DSLR I've owned (D70, D200, D2Hs, D2x, D300, D700, D3, 30D, 40D, 5D) has needed USM applied to raw files regardless.

[GMCPhotographics]

And the on-chip noise reduction softens things up a tad too. I think I read on a review site somewhere that the Nikon D3 has a weaker AA filter than a Canon 5D but produces slightly softer images than the 5D. It's not a huge difference, but it's noticable. It's a pity that the D3/D700 noise reduction can't be fully turned off. It would be nice to see just how much of an effect on sharpness it's having.
I dare say that the 5DII is launched, it'll use a simular tech as the D3 to lower noise and it'll suffer a simular consequence. The 5D can produce remarkably sharp RAW files. It runs rings around my 40D.

[radiohead]

Nooo - the D3 has a far stronger AA filter than the 5D, no question. I see less moire but need to apply a little more USM, so swings and roundabouts.

Some samples:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2763082666_1d5c449b0b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2739240416_7a8d2e5356_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2023/2738476375_4c3a07fc02_o.jpg

ISO1600:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2566611467_d04a015016_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2567434714_0558fb4a6e_o.jpg

[radiohead]

ISO2500:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2559650550_e995c1b04a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2534195403_9d2ef6ac39_o.jpg

ISO3200

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2529456182_79ca3d8de2_o.jpg

ISO4000

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2735767875_91c502ff44_o.jpg

Again, having used both the 5D and D3 extensively I see no real-world difference in a raw file with USM applied. Both can happily print 30" canvases with excellent detail retained.

[sgogula]

ISO2500:



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2534195403_9d2ef6ac39_o.jpg

ISO3200



ISO4000



Again, having used both the 5D and D3 extensively I see no real-world difference in a raw file with USM applied. Both can happily print 30" canvases with excellent detail retained.

I can only dream of taking such pictures!!!

[JeffreyG]

I was at a camera store today that was doing a nikon show...got to see the D700 IRL. VERY Sweet viewfinder...I think it's a very viable option for someone who doesn't want to go with the D3. It fits in the hands very nicely w/o needing a grip. Heavier than the 5D though (seems to weigh similar to the M3 or a tad lighter). I can see what the draw is for sure. This camera is the first one I've seen Nikon come up with to compare with canon's 5D and frankly with the weather sealing and the AF, it tops it. (and I'm a big 5D fan) I just left saying "wow" :lol:


God, that D700 is calling me. I really, really hope Canon releases a new '5D' on the 26th that is more than just a FF 40D or I'm going to be really tempted.

What holds me back?

Well, churning a ton of gear for sure, since the D700 really would not probably make me into a great photographer. It's a lot of buying a selling just to satisfy some gear lust.

The other problem is that Nikon does not have equal replacements for my most used lenses:

35L - My most used. Nikon has nothing like it.
24-105L - Nikon has no pro-quality f/4 lenses. Ditto the 17-40L.
And the Nikon equivalent to the 135L is not AF-S. Ugh.
And rumor is the 70-200/2.8 isn't worth having on FF as it was 'optimized' for 1.5X and they killed the corners.

I'd knock Nikon's 85/1.4 for lacking AF-S too but that it probably still smokes the 85L for focus speed.

[sadatk]

Nooo - the D3 has a far stronger AA filter than the 5D, no question. I see less moire but need to apply a little more USM, so swings and roundabouts.

Some samples:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2763082666_1d5c449b0b_o.jpg





ISO1600:




Wow, very nice.

[radiohead]

35L - My most used. Nikon has nothing like it.
24-105L - Nikon has no pro-quality f/4 lenses. Ditto the 17-40L.
And the Nikon equivalent to the 135L is not AF-S. Ugh.
And rumor is the 70-200/2.8 isn't worth having on FF as it was 'optimized' for 1.5X and they killed the corners.

I'd knock Nikon's 85/1.4 for lacking AF-S too but that it probably still smokes the 85L for focus speed.

35, 24-105 and 135 - agreed. They're holes that Nikon should fill.

The 70-200 is still excellent, just not if you're a landscaper using it at, erm, f2.8. It's got some bad press but is a stellar lens. That said I expect a replacement with the newer coatings to cement the 14-24/24-70/70-200 range, perhaps at Photokina (according to long time Nikon shooter Graham Watson).

The 85/1.4 does smoke the 85L, but only on the pro bodies with the really fast motors (D300, D700, D3, D2Hs, D2x). The 85L has a mass of glass to move though.

[Permagrin]

I was talking to the rep about the lack of F4 (or reasonably priced) super teles. She made an interesting comment "the people who switch to nikon know they are paying for quality...for now, there are also other brands that fill that niche as well as nikon's older lenses". That kind of put me off a bit...I think a 400 F5.6 (or F4) would be a nice lens to put in for the people who don't want to pay an arm and a leg for a tele.

[GMCPhotographics]

Great work Guy, I love seeing your work. A web sized 800x600(ish) post processed image will not show any AA filter issues or benefits. I'm not asking for any either ;-) becuase I firmly belive that there is little IQ difference between these cams, except for personal taste.
Although the D2/D700 gain a few stops over the 5D in high iso noise ability, a careful neat image pass levels the playing field. Likewise, with the sharpness difference.
There have only been a few weddings where I've really needed low light ability. I seem to get by fine with my f2.8/f2/1.2 glass. My absolute rule is taht my shutter speed doesn't drop below the focal length of the lens. I'm finding that my iso rarely needs to venture above 800 iso. Occasionally I hit 1250iso, but that's on very rare occasions.

[JeffreyG]

I was talking to the rep about the lack of F4 (or reasonably priced) super teles. She made an interesting comment "the people who switch to nikon know they are paying for quality...for now, there are also other brands that fill that niche as well as nikon's older lenses". That kind of put me off a bit...I think a 400 F5.6 (or F4) would be a nice lens to put in for the people who don't want to pay an arm and a leg for a tele.

It's not just cost, but weight. I think the 70-200/2.8 is just about as big and heavy as I like to deal with.

For me the telephoto end calls for 300/4, 400/5.6 or (dreaming) 500/5.6.

My best estimate is that a 500/5.6 should weigh about 1.7kg. That would be extremely handy. Telephotos that are 4 to 6 kg are simply more than I'm going to take places.

Nikon does have a nice 300/4 AF-S though, all they lack on the long end is the 400/5.6 and Canon needs to update theirs with IS anyway.

[sadatk]

I can't seem to find an equivalent to the 17-40 on the Nikon side, if I was to switch. :(

Full frame is my next stop and I've heard nothing but good things about fullframe + 17-40 combo.

17-35 2.8 is far and away from my budget.

[GMCPhotographics]

Here's a few 5D examples, again re-sized 800x600. I re-sized using Bicubic (not sharper).
The first image was shot at iso 3200 (I goofed with the iso dial...it happens every now and then!) and the second shot was run through neat image.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2768024003_d4e7540025_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2768870304_0d32b48021_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/2768870580_f0f3a9278b_o.jpg
This shot was Iso 1250 and is unsharpened. I don't seem to need to sharpen with my Canon 5D. I'm also finding that I rarely need to go higher than iso 1250 with f2.8 glass and iso 400 with f1.2. Maybe Wiltshire churches have bigger windows???

[GMCPhotographics]

These shots are hot off my press, so to speak, I shot them at a wedding yesterday. The first shot here was taken at f1.2, iso 400, 1/8000th sec (excessive, bit it was the DOF I wanted). My caclulations recon that i can shoot at EV 6 using this method @ 250th sec. Iso 3200 hits the same EV assuming 1/250th sec @ f2.8. So Iso noise level aren't too important with very fast glass.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2768080911_b94fd1dc5e_o.jpg

This second shot was f1.2 @ iso 3200 and no sharpening or noise reduction.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2768921550_dd031bb9b4_o.jpg

Here's an iso 1250, unsharpened, un-noise-filtered
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2768075765_6b6e6394ea_o.jpg

this shot is from a 135L and I just wanted to show an unsharpened 5D image:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2768077469_e303bfe3ec_o.jpg

Here's a Bokeh image for some colour:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2768077639_bab79c4835_o.jpg

Is noise an issue?

[jr_senator]

...having used both the 5D and D3 extensively I see no real-world difference in a raw file with USM applied. Both can happily print 30" canvases with excellent detail retained.

Did you at one time have Canon gear?

[GMCPhotographics]

The 85/1.4 does smoke the 85L, but only on the pro bodies with the really fast motors (D300, D700, D3, D2Hs, D2x). The 85L has a mass of glass to move though.

I'm sure you wrote that to rattle my cage, Guy......trying desperately...not to take the bait....;-)...must resist!

I'm assuming you're talking about AF speed here? Does it really matter if a lens is a bit sluggish? It's the images that count. The Nikon 135mm f2 DC is a stunning lens, in a simular vein as the Canon 135L. The 85L is slower than the 135L in it's AF, but it's still a very versatile lens. Likewise the Nikkon 85mm f1.4 D, has a very old AF system.

[jr_senator]

I was talking to the rep about the lack of F4 (or reasonably priced) super teles. She made an interesting comment "the people who switch to nikon know they are paying for quality...

Hmmmm, spoken like a true sales rep when the company they serve does not fill a certain need. I'm a retired sales rep that had over 30 years with a very major company (larger than Canon). Her reply begs the question, "Why the D40 with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens for well under $500?".

[radiohead]

Great work Guy, I love seeing your work. A web sized 800x600(ish) post processed image will not show any AA filter issues or benefits. I'm not asking for any either ;-) becuase I firmly belive that there is little IQ difference between these cams, except for personal taste.
Although the D2/D700 gain a few stops over the 5D in high iso noise ability, a careful neat image pass levels the playing field. Likewise, with the sharpness difference.
There have only been a few weddings where I've really needed low light ability. I seem to get by fine with my f2.8/f2/1.2 glass. My absolute rule is taht my shutter speed doesn't drop below the focal length of the lens. I'm finding that my iso rarely needs to venture above 800 iso. Occasionally I hit 1250iso, but that's on very rare occasions.

I've had a few recently where I've been at 2000+ from the word go (the HMS Warrior was shocking for light, even in August) and I was up at 4000 on occasion to get a decent shutter speed. I remember an October one last year with a 4.30pm ceremony and had to shoot at 3200 just to get 1/50s! That was such a dark room it wasn't true.

Did you at one time have Canon gear?

I did - I was Canon for almost 2 years. It's one reason why I'm happy to talk about both brands and why you'll rarely hear me slate Canon. I only talk about the kit I've used though (30D, 40D, 5D, 1635/17-40/24-70/24-105/70-200 2.8IS/35L/50 1.4/85L/135L and 580EX/EXII.

I'm sure you wrote that to rattle my cage, Guy......trying desperately...not to take the bait....;-)...must resist!

I'm assuming you're talking about AF speed here? Does it really matter if a lens is a bit sluggish? It's the images that count. The Nikon 135mm f2 DC is a stunning lens, in a simular vein as the Canon 135L. The 85L is slower than the 135L in it's AF, but it's still a very versatile lens. Likewise the Nikkon 85mm f1.4 D, has a very old AF system.

Not at all - stick the 85/1.4 on a slower body like the D80 and the motor struggles. I could do without the noise generated by the motor though regardless of body and would rather see an AF-S version. They just need to update their primes and not bring out another sodding 18-XXX consumer zoom!

Some nice work there - showing that at the end of the day it's the person behind the lens that matters the most.

Hmmmm, spoken like a true sales rep when the company they serve does not fill a certain need. I'm a retired sales rep that had over 30 years with a very major company (larger than Canon). Her reply begs the question, "Why the D40 with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens for well under $500?".

That sort of arrogance doesn't do Nikon any favours. I know countless Nikon shooters who would buy an f4 ranger in a heartbeat.

[kenyc]

Thanks for the great information Condyk and for this thread. Great stuff!

[mrclark321]

Hi Dave, congrats on getting the D700. I picked up one last week and now have a D300 D700 combo and it's great. The images out of the D700 are better than the D300 but it's no slouch either. As you have probably already discovered the ISO capabilities from the D700 are amazing and even though they are grainy, pics at ISO 25,600 are usable.
I currently have the 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 and the 300f/4. What I really miss from Canon is the 100-400IS. Again congrats on the D700.....Happy shooting.


Dan Bellyk

[RIDEWYA]

Well ya gotta sharpen pictures in Canon format too ya know ... and if you don't want to do it manually then you can do it auto in either system.

Not at all..all of my pics taken with 5D or 40D never has to be sharpen, I only do it through the camera setting which I also did for D200 with no luck.

[radiohead]

Not at all..all of my pics taken with 5D or 40D never has to be sharpen, I only do it through the camera setting which I also did for D200 with no luck.

So you're shooting JPG.

[condyk]

Thanks for the great information Condyk and for this thread. Great stuff!

Cheers Kenny ... took on its first proper trip on Sunday and enjoyed it. Did a whistle stop tour of the over-crowded Natural History Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum. I realised that I still need to read the manual and then tune it to fit exactly how I want it to work, but I was impressed with the output. Using manual focus with the two Zeiss lenses was very easy.

http://www.buzzdns.com/headvanda.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/NHM3.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/NHM7.jpg


I currently have the 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 and the 300f/4. What I really miss from Canon is the 100-400IS. Again congrats on the D700.....Happy shooting.

Cheers Dan ... I am more interested in a 400mm prime but would never go for the Nikon 2.8 version due to price and weight/handling. Will probably pick up the 300mm 2.8 and a 1.4x before the end of the year. Shame they don't have the equivalent to the Canon 5.6 L.

[MaDProFF]

I am sure some of you would be aware of this, but certainly I have had pictures taken with my 85L, and 135L even my 70-200 on occasions that I have not needed to sharpen, more so after the last Firmware update for my 1D MK3, though this was not for very big print outs, no doubt if I was going to print it at A3 I would have added some USM.
But Nikon doing a pretty good job so far, quite a few Canon users have switched to Nikon, for the wider uses, and if Canon 5D MK2 does not produce I think many more will switch as well.

[MaDProFF]

Lovely Shots, very smooth. Condyk, Remins me of my trip to Chichester Cathedral the other day.

I bet that 12-24 on a FF is an awesome lens :)

[jdizzle]

Nice shots Condyk! You are making me drool!! :)

[kenyc]

Nice shots Condyk! You are making me drool!! :)

+1 yes excellent work and conversions!

[radiohead]

+2 - lovely shots

[condyk]

Cheers lads ... the Zeiss glass really seems to have exceptional contrast, resolution and dynamic range. The wide angle, 25mm 2.8, seems excellent in terms of distortion and edge sharpness and the 50mm 2.0 is just all round amazing! Of course, both work fine on an EOS body with an adaptor, but the D700 seems to be better. I posted these samples mainly to show relative lack of 'nasty' noise in the shadows.

[MaDProFF]

I see they make a 135 f1.8, wonder how that compares to the Canon 135L?

[condyk]

Yeah, that is in Sony mount and pricey - twice the cost of the Canon, which is a very fine lens in its own right. Dunno if there is an adaptor for it. Would have to be pretty special to justify getting it IMO. Maybe it is. The Zeiss 100mm Macro-Planar is also amazing from what I have found out though not used it myself. When I get back from Africa I am gonna shake down my gear a little and may go that route as I think it will prove more useful on FF between the 50mm and 180mm I have already, rather than the Nikon 85mm 1.8 I have in there at the moment. That is also a very fine lens so I'll seeo how it works out.

[jr_senator]

... the Zeiss glass really seems to have exceptional contrast, resolution and dynamic range.

Sure does. If I save up my pennies maybe someday I could get a 35mm Zeiss. I think that would be nice for me to have. I'm impressed. Now, if only I could fit the Contax Zeiss lenses I have to my 1D3...hmmm/

[condyk]

Sure does. If I save up my pennies maybe someday I could get a 35mm Zeiss. I think that would be nice for me to have. I'm impressed. Now, if only I could fit the Contax Zeiss lenses I have to my 1D3...hmmm/

Cheers man ... I think the 35mm is a great choice. I have the Nikon 35mm and a week after I got it I spied a BNIB Zeiss at a big discount from a guy selling 3 different ones. I snapped up his 25mm, which is excellent, but couldn't justify the 35mm too. I kinda regret not getting it but need my cash for my Africa trip next week and then moving house when I get back :confused:

[TheHoff]

Nice set, CK. I'd love to see some 100% crops from the N/Z combo sometime.

[condyk]

Nice set, CK. I'd love to see some 100% crops from the N/Z combo sometime.

First shot of the manual cover on page one is a 100%er Hoffster - I just did WB on the RW as it as was taken indoors under crummy ceiling lights. Wide open 50mm 2.0 ZF, so the blur is DOF, but you knew that ;-)

[Quad]

Using manual focus with the two Zeiss lenses was very easy.


Why is manual focus easy? Does the camera have a good focus screen or is it the electronic confirmation that is easy, or what? Would a slower lens like a tilt/shift be just as easy?

[davidfig]

Cheers lads ... the Zeiss glass really seems to have exceptional contrast, resolution and dynamic range.

Isn't the Zeiss glass manual focus. I'll be interested when you get a few weddings under your belt with this thing. For me, I'm not sure there is enough that the D700 has over my 5D. Speed for sure, but there is more to a camera than that. Things can happen fast in a wedding and I need to be able to be one with my camera and trust it.

[jr_senator]

Why is manual focus easy?

With a large, bright viewfinder (such as my 1D3 or Dave's D700) and a focusing aid (micro prism, split image) it is.

[jr_senator]

...my Africa trip next week...

You are always going to Africa, lucky stiff.

[condyk]

Why is manual focus easy? Does the camera have a good focus screen or is it the electronic confirmation that is easy, or what? Would a slower lens like a tilt/shift be just as easy?

Great viewfinder and accurate diopter adjustment that stays as set plus easy focus confirm in viewfinder. Slower than AF of course but seems to get me a large number of keepers, at least focus wise! A lens slower than 5.6 might not do so well as will be darker. I dunno for sure.

Isn't the Zeiss glass manual focus. I'll be interested when you get a few weddings under your belt with this thing. For me, I'm not sure there is enough that the D700 has over my 5D. Speed for sure, but there is more to a camera than that. Things can happen fast in a wedding and I need to be able to be one with my camera and trust it.

Good for you ... keep the 5D as it is a great camera ;) I don't do weddings but maybe Radio' will chip in. The Zeiss lenses are MF.

With a large, bright viewfinder (such as my 1D3 or Dave's D700) and a focusing aid (micro prism, split image) it is.

What he said ... but the D700 has a little light that makes it very easy and I prefer it to the split screen approach.

You are always going to Africa, lucky stiff.

Yeah, well I work for it and would prefer to do such things before I finally become a stiff - too late then ;-)

[radiohead]

Isn't the Zeiss glass manual focus. I'll be interested when you get a few weddings under your belt with this thing. For me, I'm not sure there is enough that the D700 has over my 5D. Speed for sure, but there is more to a camera than that. Things can happen fast in a wedding and I need to be able to be one with my camera and trust it.

Flip the question then - what has the 5D got that the D700 can't do?

It's a faster body when you know your way around it. Think of it as a smaller D3 (and therefore with the speed of operation of a 1D series) and you're there. I used a 5D (a camera I love to bits btw) for a couple of days last month and it felt very, very old and slow in operation.

[Quad]

Isn't the Zeiss glass manual focus. I'll be interested when you get a few weddings under your belt with this thing. For me, I'm not sure there is enough that the D700 has over my 5D. Speed for sure, but there is more to a camera than that. Things can happen fast in a wedding and I need to be able to be one with my camera and trust it.

Flip the question then - what has the 5D got that the D700 can't do?



Sound like he is saying the 5D is a proven piece of kit and the D700 is not proven yet. So the 5D has that over the D700 which is important for lots of people, of course that does change once people get the chance to use the new kit for a while and develop a trust.

[Permagrin]

those are some amazingly clean B&W's. Did you do any NR on them or is that the native NR from the camera? Either way it does leave very clean looking images. Very nice images too.

[jr_senator]

I have a HP 7960 printer. It was known as that 'black and white' printer several years ago when I got it. It actually (with the #59 cartridge in place) has a wider selection of blacks than my Epson R2400. It does a great job of not overbearingly blotching the shadow areas of a print.

[radiohead]

Sound like he is saying the 5D is a proven piece of kit and the D700 is not proven yet. So the 5D has that over the D700 which is important for lots of people, of course that does change once people get the chance to use the new kit for a while and develop a trust.

OK, but personally I have to know a camera works for me. The history isn't that relevant.

The D700 being essentially a D3 should help.

[condyk]

Sound like he is saying the 5D is a proven piece of kit and the D700 is not proven yet. So the 5D has that over the D700 which is important for lots of people, of course that does change once people get the chance to use the new kit for a while and develop a trust.

I agree with Radio' ... I am normally the guy that waits a while, not because I am risk averse but more that I'm not dumb with my cash and like a hassle free life, i.e. buy low priced and don't buy crap that has to be returned. the D700 is basically proven in the D3 and proven in the D300 and proven as part of Nikon development roadmap and product releases the last 12 months or so. What risk is there really looked at sensibly? But even so if someone is happy with what they have then stick with it. I have a 1D mk II N and that is about as about as responsive and 'proven in battle' a body as Canon has made. I haven't picked it up since I got the D700.

those are some amazingly clean B&W's. Did you do any NR on them or is that the native NR from the camera? Either way it does leave very clean looking images. Very nice images too.

Zero NR and as far as I can tell I have zero in camera processing applied - I like to do everything in RAW if I can and I went through the menus and took out any in camera stuff. Minimal PP actually - BW conversion and 20, 1.0, 0 USM applied and then framed, same as I usually did with my L's and 5D. I wouldn't underestimate the contrast quality of the Zeiss glass though.

[re1ex]

http://gizmodo.com/5040111/nkon-d700-first-photos-yep-little-d3

oh man iso6400 and 3200 is so clean

[davidfig]

Flip the question then - what has the 5D got that the D700 can't do?


Why would I do that. I already own the 5D. If I sell it, then I have to sell all my lenses as well.

I guess the better question is does the system work fast for me. I don't have the money for a 5DMII never mind a D700 system. But when the time comes I do what to be informed. So this thread is good.

[GMCPhotographics]

Flip the question then - what has the 5D got that the D700 can't do?

It's a faster body when you know your way around it. Think of it as a smaller D3 (and therefore with the speed of operation of a 1D series) and you're there. I used a 5D (a camera I love to bits btw) for a couple of days last month and it felt very, very old and slow in operation.

Guy, my biggest gripe about the 5D for weddings is the lack of 5 FPS. If I'm trying to get a bouquet toss shot, I need at least 5 fpd to nail this. This is one example where the 5D just can't get the shots needed. I currently resort to my 40D, which is fine but I'd rather have a 5DII and a 5D instead :-)

Sure the Nikon D700 has an enviable AF system and weather sealing, but these have never stopped me from getting the shot. The 5D's AF needs a warm over and the 40D's is frankly very capable. But if a camera can't hit the frame rate...it can't get the shot.
Does Nikon offer a fine focus view finder screen? On the 5D it's uber-useful for accurate focus.

[davidfig]

oh man iso6400 and 3200 is so clean

Yes at the cost of sharpness.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm

[MaDProFF]

Yes at the cost of sharpness.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm

Think I would rather have a slight softer image clean, than a noisy sharper one

GMCPhotographics, be interesting to see if new 5D will have 5fps, 6 months ago I would have no way will it match the 1DS MK3 for fps, though they may make it 5fs, I still going to stick my neck out and say no it will be less than 5 FPS

That said, not sure why you would need 5fps to capture someone catching a bunch of flowers, anyhow all to his own

[radiohead]

Yes at the cost of sharpness.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm

Whoah there - don't use Rockwell as the arbiter of anything. He shoots JPG and they're simply default sharpness settings which are higher on Canon bodies than Nikon.

Believe me, there's nothing lacking in the sharpness department from the FX bodies.

ISO1600:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2566611467_d04a015016_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2567434714_0558fb4a6e_o.jpg

ISO2500:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2559650550_e995c1b04a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2534195403_9d2ef6ac39_o.jpg

ISO3200

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2529456182_79ca3d8de2_o.jpg

ISO4000

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2735767875_91c502ff44_o.jpg

Pretty sure they're all Nikkor 24-70mm and most wide or close to wide open. No flash on any.[/quote]



Does Nikon offer a fine focus view finder screen? On the 5D it's uber-useful for accurate focus.

They do indeed but I can't recall the name of it for the moment. They also do a useful magnifiying eyepiece to give 1.2x.

[jdizzle]

Om*G Radio! Looking at 4000 ISO is real pleasing to the eye! Ya got me sold! :)

[MaDProFF]

Yeah Great Shots, I just love that type of shooting, I might become a Wedding Crasher, just to take photos, hehe, wonder if you could get away with it :)

[re1ex]

great shots. the high iso performance is amazing.

You make me want a nikon :)

Have any examples at 12800?

[davidfig]

It would be good to hear from you (radiohead) after you have some serious time under your belt and you are comfortable with the new tool. When it becomes second nature, I mean.

[Quad]

OK, but personally I have to know a camera works for me.

Thant is what I mean by proven.

[radiohead]

It would be good to hear from you (radiohead) after you have some serious time under your belt and you are comfortable with the new tool. When it becomes second nature, I mean.

It already is to be honest David - I've been using Nikons for years and the D3's since January.

[Permagrin]

very nice shots Guy. I have to be honest, the reason I didn't go nikon in the first place was that I'm a big fan of B&W photography and while I don't mind artistic grain on occasion, I wasn't fond of all the nikon shots being grainy or overly NR.

Then when these new cameras came out everyone (in the canon camp) was saying that the nikons had way too much in camera NR. I didn't agree but I really hadn't seen much in the way of real life to categorically deny it. (I'm not a fan of stating something as fact when I don't know for sure.)

Clearly I'm going to have to unsubscribe from this thread (for temptation alone ;) ) because you guys have really disproved that.

[MaDProFF]

very nice shots Guy. I have to be honest, the reason I didn't go nikon in the first place was that I'm a big fan of B&W photography and while I don't mind artistic grain on occasion, I wasn't fond of all the nikon shots being grainy or overly NR.

Then when these new cameras came out everyone (in the canon camp) was saying that the nikons had way too much in camera NR. I didn't agree but I really hadn't seen much in the way of real life to categorically deny it. (I'm not a fan of stating something as fact when I don't know for sure.)

Clearly I'm going to have to unsubscribe from this thread (for temptation alone ;) ) because you guys have really disproved that.

I have seen that quote so often of late :),,,,,,,,, Whats a D700 Amongst Friends :p

[GMCPhotographics]

Nooo - the D3 has a far stronger AA filter than the 5D, no question. I see less moire but need to apply a little more USM, so swings and roundabouts.



No it doesn't and my original statement about the on chip NR software still stands. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the D3. I think it's a truely stunning machine, but RAW images from a 5D do not need any USM to sharpen. They are natively sharp.

The D3 and D700 use the same sensor and AA filter, this review site clearly shows that the D700's AA filter is weake than a Canon 5D's, but the Canon 5D produces sharper and more detailed RAW files.

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/nikon_d700_vs_canon_eos_5d/

According tho this site, the Canon 5D's files are sharper at 100 iso, the Nikon D700 looks uniformly soft all the way through it's iso range...which indicates the on chip NR software is working well. The Canon's files match the Nikon's soft look at iso 1600, but with more noise...naturally ;-)

Nice wedding pics BTW, always a treat to see your work Guy.

[condyk]

... this review site clearly shows that the D700's AA filter is weake than a Canon 5D's, but the Canon 5D produces sharper and more detailed RAW files.


Or this is what the review (using different lenses on each camera) actually says ...

The two cameras provide about the same amount of details, although the EOS 5D images seem to be more detailed. This comes from the stronger in-camera sharpening. When the images are converted from RAW files, the details are basically the same.

Which is slightly different.

[GMCPhotographics]

Or this is what the review (using different lenses on each camera) actually says ...

The two cameras provide about the same amount of details, although the EOS 5D images seem to be more detailed. This comes from the stronger in-camera sharpening. When the images are converted from RAW files, the details are basically the same.

Which is slightly different.

I'm not interested in the reviewer's words / conclusions. They are probably as biased as me ;-). Look at the images..they tell the story far better.

So are you saying that this is the difference between the Nikkor 50mm and Canon 50mm f1.8? Nikkor lenses produce more moire and less sharp?

I can quote a number of threads (DPR, FM etc) from D3 users who have found the same. Sure a little USM levels the field, but that's like me saying a little neat Image levels the iso performance too.

[radiohead]

Then we agree to disagree. I see no moire with D3/D700 shots where I know I would with a 5D. Simple as that. And I also always needed to apply a little USM to 5D files. It may be that I prefer a sharper look to you. There's an odd moire in the first D700 window shot yet the 5D shows stronger moire in the second. It appears that the first window shot shows more moire with the D700 on the white blinds, with the 5D suffering more on the dark ones. Look at the second shot of the building and see the moire present on the 5D that's not on the D700 or is far weaker in the Nikon shot. The D700 has a flatter overall tone curve than the 5D as well, so shots are less contrasty by default.

And having read that review I fail to see how it categorically supports your claims. I'm also baffled by the overall conclusion. How do these comments:

'The newer camera beats the older one, when it comes to noise level. Both chromatic and luminance noise of the Nikon D700 are lower than that of the Canon camera. In case of the EOS 5D it is a bit disappointing, that the luminance noise at ISO 50 is nothing better than at ISO 100. In case of chromatic noise the ISO 50 has some advantage over ISO 100, especially on dark areas.

In case of luminance noise, the advantage of the Nikon D700 over the EOS 5D is not significant, although if we have to call a winner, it would be the Nikon D700. The real difference is in chromatic noise. In the lower segment of the sensitivity range Nikon can have 1.5-2 stops advantages, and the advantage decreases to 2/3-1 stops at higher sensitivities.'

'- Canon's dynamic range is narrower at ISO 50, but it has more natural colors, and no color cast. Due to higher noise and stronger noise filtering dark areas show less details.

- The two cameras provide about the same amount of details, although the EOS 5D images seem to be more detailed. This comes from the stronger in-camera sharpening. When the images are converted from RAW files, the details are basically the same.

At higher sensitivities Nikon's dynamic range is better (Image 5)'

'Canon CMOS sensors are the measuring standard of the DSLR world. The good news is that the D700 and his brothers have grown up to this standard, and in some areas they can outperform the competitor.'

lead to this conclusion:

'Despite the unfair comparison, there are some important areas where even the Nikon D700 has a hard time: image quality. The EOS 5D gets behind only in chromatic noise. The smaller feature set and the resulting simplicity of the Canon camera can be an advantage in certain cases.'

?....

[Collin85]

Nice review condy. Hopefully this hasn't already been answered in the thread, but how does the viewfinder compare with the 5D? Thanks! :)

Also, just wondering why exactly you switched. Didn't feel like waiting for the 5D MkII, or just felt like a big change knowing the D700 is a winner?

[condyk]

... this review site clearly shows that the D700's AA filter is weake than a Canon 5D's, but the Canon 5D produces sharper and more detailed RAW files.

I'm not interested in the reviewer's words / conclusions. They are probably as biased as me ;-).

About sums it up. I'm thinking you've been reading too much what others write/experience rather than actually making a judgement based on first hand experience.

And having read that review I fail to see how it categorically supports your claims. I'm also baffled by the overall conclusion.

i would say that is about correct based on my reading of it.

Nice review condy. Hopefully this hasn't already been answered in the thread, but how does the viewfinder compare with the 5D? Thanks! :)

Also, just wondering why exactly you switched. Didn't feel like waiting for the 5D MkII, or just felt like a big change knowing the D700 is a winner?

I find it easier to MF with the Nikon but I wouldn't say it's VF was better or worse. both are good enough for the task IMO.

I changed because I wanted to use Zeiss lenses for my non-safari shooting and there can be issues of fit with a 5D due to the different mirror/shutter size. I didn't want to use them on the 1.3 crop either, even though they fit on the Mk II N with an adapter. As I have mentioned elsewhere, you never had to be a genius to know the D700 was a winner as soon as word of its spec hit the streets. It is the camera the 5D mk II needed to be and it has the Nikon ergonomics which I personally have always preferred: but as we've seen here others feel very different. We have a choice now anyway and it'll be interesting how Canon respond and what Nikon release lens-wise over the next few months.

[airfrogusmc]

Congrats and lets see a duck or two :lol::lol:
Seriously its great to see Nikon stepping up in such a big way. I love my 5Ds and don't plan on anything new for (body wise) a very long time unless Leica ever gets the M digital straightened out. But it sounds like you made a good choice for you and I'm glad its all working out. Now get there and get us a duck....

[airfrogusmc]

Whoah there - don't use Rockwell as the arbiter of anything. He shoots JPG and they're simply default sharpness settings which are higher on Canon bodies than Nikon.

Believe me, there's nothing lacking in the sharpness department from the FX bodies.

ISO1600:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2566611467_d04a015016_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2567434714_0558fb4a6e_o.jpg

ISO2500:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2559650550_e995c1b04a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2534195403_9d2ef6ac39_o.jpg

ISO3200

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2529456182_79ca3d8de2_o.jpg

ISO4000

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2735767875_91c502ff44_o.jpg

Pretty sure they're all Nikkor 24-70mm and most wide or close to wide open. No flash on any.





Great stuff I mean really good fantastic timing and seeing the light just amazing work. Gotta love not having to use flash when shooting these kinds of candids. Keep up the good work and again just amazing.