considering the D700...

pnmd wrote in post #8619331
Is the viewfinder bigger on the D700?

I'll have to check tonight. Not sure if it's bigger for sure, but it's better w/o a question. It's relieved a bit more so you don't need to smash your face against the back quite to much. They also offer some kick ass eye piece accessories which make things nice (a magnifier that's highly recommended and a deep rubber eyecup I have already). If it's not bigger, it is easier to see side to side from further away from the body. Basically, the "viewport" size is much bigger which is what I notice right off the bat. The ability to add gridlines or turn the AF points not in use on/off is also very nice.

pnmd wrote in post #8619373
Anyone use the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 ($899)? It appears to be a good walkaround lens.

yeah, half the price of the nikkor, smaller, lighter, and AVAILABLE! I've been checking both out lately, but the nikkor is supposedly one of nikkon's best lenses (better than canon's L) and AFs ridiculously quick so I've been considering it.

Some of these issues with the 5D.. have me thinking about selling my 70-200 and making the jump to Nikkor!? But the new Nikkor 70-200 is $800 more! And the 24-70 which I wanted to pick up is $600 more...

I think I might have to sit on my $$ for a few months and see what happens.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8619428
yeah, half the price of the nikkor, smaller, lighter, and AVAILABLE! I've been checking both out lately, but the nikkor is supposedly one of nikkon's best lenses (better than canon's L) and AFs ridiculously quick so I've been considering it.

The Nikkor is nice, and its strength is from 35mm up to 70mm at wider fl it suffers from FC.

Its a excellent mid zoom, however the 14-24/2,8 wich you own is in another leauge, in the sense that nothing from any manufacturer can match it.

The Nikkor 24-70/2,8 might be slightly better then the Canon 24-70L but its outperformed by the Zeiss 24-70/2,8.

PNMD

As for a D700, if you want a body with excellent highiso performance, nice build, body and great AF, it really isnt much to think about. Neither Canon or Sony have anything to match.

Kindest

hotsecretary wrote in post #8619518
Some of these issues with the 5D.. have me thinking about selling my 70-200 and making the jump to Nikkor!? But the new Nikkor 70-200 is $800 more! And the 24-70 which I wanted to pick up is $600 more...

I think I might have to sit on my $$ for a few months and see what happens.

The 80-200 AF-S is the same lens as the 70-200 VR, just a little heavier, and without VR (but it has less light falloff). And it's also around $700 less expensive, used (I don't know where you're getting the prices from because the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is $1900 while the Nikkor is $2400 and that's the brand new one, not the old still good one). You can almost always find one on KEH for a good price.

The 24-70 is worth it But only you can make that decision.

If you switch don't consider the 80-200 AF-D (unless you're just using it for portraits). It's *usable* for sports but nothing spectacular. The only advantage is that it's a little smaller than the AF-S, and it can still be bought new for $1300. So it competes with the 70-200 2.8L.

hotsecretary wrote in post #8619518
Some of these issues with the 5D.. have me thinking about selling my 70-200 and making the jump to Nikkor!? But the new Nikkor 70-200 is $800 more! And the 24-70 which I wanted to pick up is $600 more...

fortunately for me, the D700 is/was $350 less than the 5Dii body and I consolidated my lenses going from 7 to either 4 or 5... It also helped that I buy sell and trade a lot here on the board, so some of my current lenses were sold for profits due to me trading for them and the recent price hikes.

but the ~$1800 24-70 sure makes sigma's option seem more appealing.

My prices are in Cdn

I switched to D700 because it seemed to offer what I loved in the 5D and 1D Mk II N in a single body and it took my modern Zeiss lenses with no fuss. Very happy with the change and don't see me needing to upgrade further for a long time. It just works.

MR do little wrote in post #8619548
The Nikkor is nice, and its strength is from 35mm up to 70mm at wider fl it suffers from FC.

FC? My acronyms must be rusty?

yeah, the 14-24mm is "in the mail" so I haven't had the pleasure of using a nikon 2.8 zoom just yet. I'm a wide whore, and have been loving my sigma 12-24mm for a while now and actually had one for the nikon over the past weekend. But then I decided if I'm going to give nikon a go, I might as well try their killer lenses. My biggest concern with the 14-24 is the weight and price while LOSING 12-13.9mm. But @ 2.8 I can probably use it inside. I've tried that with my 12-24mm but had to jack the ISOs to 6400 which I'd prefer not to.

If all goes well with that lens I'd bet I order a 24-70 as soon as I can find one in stock...

Field Curvature

14-24/2,8 is simply the best corrected UWA zoom there is period. You wont be dissapointed. Its is big, and its front element is huge, its however a pleasure to use.

Kindest

Gotcha, thanks.

kevinmcdade wrote in post #8614413
Can anyone comment on the D700 AF compared to a 1D series AF?

After using the D700/1D/1Ds simultaneously for two seasons, I wouldn't say the D700's AF smokes the 1-series. Not at all, at least in my experience. They both have their strengths.

The mark III series is killer on outer AF point accuracy in single shot AF mode. It is really, REALLY excellent!
Tracking with the Ring of Fire is really good too. It works well for me shooting racecars on the track or on a rally course.

The D700 seems to be better in single point servo focusing. Using the expanded 21-point centre tracking is also excellent for people walking around. I use it in weddings all the time. 21/51-point tracking doesn't seem to give any higher keeper rate than the 1-series ring of fire... at least for racecars. One does not seem better than the other.

Nikon's 3D tracking is really great for erratically moving objects... something I can't seem to do as well with on a mark III. So hyper dogs and stuff seem to be better suited to the Nikon.

But I don't seem to get as good of a keeper rate on single shot AF mode on the D700, no matter what lenses I use (or borrow). The mark III 1-series seems to dominate in that regard. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about the outer corner points, which are almost the only points I use on single shot AF modes. As a result, I keep the Nikon on AF-C (servo) mode all the time, as I seem to get better results that way.

And one thing I noticed, is that there seems to be a tiny bit of lag upon pressing the AF-ON button on my D700, compared to my 1D/1Ds. It's a little irritating, but I'm getting used to it. I thought it was because of my AF-D lenses, but I got the same lag borrowing my friends' AF-S 24-70 and 14-24. It's weird. I mean, when I press the AF-On button on my 1-series, it seems like it's already started focusing before I've even finished pushing the button down. On my D700, it feels like it won't start focusing until it's SURE the button is fully depressed. Probably not something you'd notice if you picked up a D700, but shooting them side by side for a couple seasons, you notice these tiny differences.

Another thing I really like about the 1-series is the option to use 9 selectable points. Choosing your AF point is NEVER more than one flick of the joystick away. The nikon 11-point system can require up to two presses to get your AF point selected. This is a HUGE drawback if you are shooting in a very dynamic and fast paced environment.

Basically, to me, it's a wash between the two. Both have their advantages, but neither have anything that would make me do a full "jump to the other side". All I really want is for canon to make a D700 equivalent. The 5D2 just isn't it.

Thanks Lloyd for the information!!!

I'm happy that I have two friends with D700's who don't mind swapping camera's with me every now and then. It would be a total headache for me to switch systems. Plus, I love my 1D3!!! I love it even more after checking prices on the Nikon lens equivalents to what I currently have!!! Hopefully the next 5D will be more like the D700.

foxesamu wrote in post #8619553
The 80-200 AF-S is the same lens as the 70-200 VR, just a little heavier, and without VR (but it has less light falloff). And it's also around $700 less expensive, used (I don't know where you're getting the prices from because the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is $1900 while the Nikkor is $2400 and that's the brand new one, not the old still good one). You can almost always find one on KEH for a good price.

The 24-70 is worth it But only you can make that decision.

If you switch don't consider the 80-200 AF-D (unless you're just using it for portraits). It's *usable* for sports but nothing spectacular. The only advantage is that it's a little smaller than the AF-S, and it can still be bought new for $1300. So it competes with the 70-200 2.8L.

My 70-200F/2.8VR was $1900.00 bucks. It`s not the new Version II. They`re not even available yet....They will cost $2400.00..

pnmd wrote in post #8615132
high praise for D700 and you own both. What about AF comparison in low light for typical still people shots?

Hmm - this is a closer run thing. To be honest neither are that good in very low light.

MR do little wrote in post #8619548
PNMD

As for a D700, if you want a body with excellent highiso performance, nice build, body and great AF, it really isnt much to think about. Neither Canon or Sony have anything to match.

Kindest

Paul, good to see you here. We usually meet up in the Elinchrom, I mean lighting forum. Which Nikon do you have?

Speaking of lighting, I like that the D700 flash can trigger Nikon speedlights. Does anyone know if Nikon's CLS is more accurate than Canon's ETTL speedlight system?

-Peter